The URL can be used to link to this page

1995-05-11 SP OUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIÂt. MËETINGi , ::; . MAY 11, 1995 INDEX Hiland Park PUD modification 1 . Board Discussion 6. 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. ',1 ' -. '- --- QUEENSBURY PLANN!N~I"iBÖ~R9,,:jt1~~T1~G ..~':,:¡,¡;illdcV ¡"I.,.," SPECIAL MEETING ,""'!: j' I, ¡'I MAY 11, 1995 " , 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT , "I I ì ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY JAM~S OBERMAYER , ROGER RUEL" " . GEORGE STARK ¡,'" ," CRAIG MACEWAN TIMOTHY BREWER I' , 1'11 ,I ',/ , r PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI HILAND PARK PUD MR. PALING-We'll just open it for approval of the Hiland Park site plan. We have letter from Jim Martin, from the Evergreen Bank, and we have a request for modification for site plan for approval. Now it would be a long read if we read this into the minutes. I guess we'll just open the meeting and ask if there are any Staff Comments? MR. HARLICKER-No. I prepared a resolution for you. I believe the applicant will have a presentation. Essentially how Staff is viewing it is that of a modification, just the elimination of two office buildings from the parcel, that includes the Golf Course. MR. PALING-Okay, and you have, there is no problem with the proximity of the Tennis Courts to the boundary line? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. We didn't see any. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-That doesn't nonconforming about that? make it a, there's nothing MR. HARLICKER-No, because there weren't any setbacks set up when the PUD (lost word). MR. BREWER-So it, essentially, doesn't really create another lot. It just expands the other lot. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Anyone else? We have a resolution on this. MR. OBERMAYER-Maybe we could have the applicant just go through it a, little bit. RUSSELL THARPE MR. THARPE-Very briefly, because I think Mr. Dusek agreed, when we first spoke, that it's fairly, the request is fairly simple. What happened is Evergreen Bank, formerly known as First National, took title to everything through the foreclosure action. We tried to sell everything, and up 'til two weeks ago, we had three deals pending, two which would buy everything, and then one pending that just wanted the Golf Course and the Clubhouse, because that's all they do. They run golf courses. They don't sell real estate or develop real estate. For a variety of reasons, unknown to me, the Bank made a business - 1 - ......' ./ decision, probably because it was the best deal for the Bank, and they said, we'll sell the Golf Course, because we're not in the business of running golf courses. We're in the business of running a bank. So, sometimes I guess we have enough trouble doing that. They entered into the contract to sell the Golf Course. The problem is, the people aren't developing land. So they have no use for these two office buildings. One's a sales office and one's an office building, and in the original PUD approval, if I could, this is the original approval from your Staff's office, and I faxed a copy of it. This the parcel that was approved as a site plan approval, and these two buildings are shown right there. I visited the LA Group, Bill Sportco, who represented the Bank when they submitted this site plan approval, and I said, what was approved? And he said, those buildings as they are, because they were there at the time the Clubhouse was being built, the parking was being built, and everything was being built, and therefore we concentrated on that. So Mr. Dusek says, and I agree with him, that modification, basically, that this parcel now, with the sales office and the other office building, are going to be used with the rest of the land as we try and sell it. We own the lots in Masters Common North and South. We're selling them. We have a sale pending in a few weeks. We hope to sell some more. We hope to, possibly, have someone develop the rest of the land, but we will need, as we expand our efforts to get rid of everything, to sell everything, we will need these two buildings, and they will become a part of the rest of Cur efforts to get rid of the project. They're of no use to the Golf Course management. In the original plan, they were always labeled, and I think if I flip the page over here I can show you, right there, they were always labeled Sales Room, Office Building, and then everything else extended for the area, but these were always supposed to be for the Sales Room and the Office. That's what we're, going to use them for. We're not going to change the use. MR. RUEL-Does that include the Tennis Courts in the back or no? MR. THARPE-No. MR. RUEL-Just the two framed white buildings? MR. That's correct. That's all we're going to use. When the time comes that the land is sold, and someone wants to do something else with them, then they have to come back to you, and eventually someone will do something else with them, because when the land is sold, a sales room isn't necessary, but at the present time we do need it, and will remain a part of the major portion òf the PUD. MR. PALING-One will stay as a Sales Office. What will the other building, what will be done in that? MR. THARPE-Used for offices connected with the operation of the rest of the land. MR. PALING-Yes. No specific? MR. No. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-So the request then is to change this subdivision, to reduce it by that amount of the two buildings? MR. THARPE-The request would be to permit ownership of this section here, to be different than the rest. That's what Mr. Dusek's wordings were. He said you can't change the use of the buildings. You can't change the contour of the lay. You can't change the parking. You can't change anything, which is fine. We're not. We have a commitment that there will be no barriers. - 2 - -----' "-..- ,- This will remain open, just as it is right now. It will be identical to the way, it is now.. We have a '¢ommi tment to that effect,¡ I, "MR. SCHACHNER~That's not a subdivision issue. r, ,{. ' MR. THARPE-No.ì. ,; I ,,' , i I, . MR. SCHACHNER-Because it's a Planned. Unit DeveloÞment. I mean, I don't ,care, butdÐes it become a subdivision, issue because you're ,.now,subdividing ou,ta¡,portion of, the propert.y. to a different, fee owner.? Ii ,-:. MA'. ¡Mr ~ ,Dusek's opi nion was si nce ·tl':1e fee owner owns everythi ng else,,:. the rest of the area, that it's not a subd.ivision. It is a change of ownership,which, eventually, when'thé use changes, will ,have to come back to you. , , MR. SCHACHNER-I ,mean the GQlf Course. MR. THARPE-No. The Golf Course is :I)art of the PUD, right, Leon? Leon did the surveying for Bill. LEON STEVES' MR. STEVES-If I,may, the entire PUD package is made UP of several zoned areas, and Paul's opinion was· .that the zoned ,áreas themselves could be sold off ,separately, without a~y problem whatsoever or approvals from this 1B0aird, but he,d19. say that, in his opinion, that each of these separatá zoned areas:have to come back in for site plan review. So thatt he didn~t wðnt to'call them subdivisions, but Masters Common North, Masters, Common South,¡", went through site plan, ,rev iew approval", And, this would be going to site plan review process as we~l. 'for the division of this land that you and I are calling subdivision. " I j i, ,:, I MR. MACEWAN-Could it not be just considered, in the future, as a diff,erent phase to the PUD, instead of a "subdivis.ion"? MR. SCHACHNER-If you'~re looking. to ~, I mean, dt's ~ j¡mpression is that the PUD, which stands for Planned Unit Development, has al re,ady been enacted, was enacted many years ago, a~d a PUD is sort of, an alternative ¡ form of zoning,;i" It,'s taking a large amount of: land,i typi(!;ally(~ a large amount' of; land and sayi·ng, on this la rid, you ca'n use ,the fo.1lowi.ng alY"eas.,for the followi ng manners. I'm only answering the question, really, for'my own curiosity, in that my understanding flT'om,a very, brief discussion with the Town Attorney was that it was b.i..§. opinion that what the applicant needed was, in fact, what the applicant seeks, namely a modification to the previously issued site pla'n approval. I don't understand exactly why there's not a'subdivisiO'n issue here, if the entity that owns the Golf Course now, if the same entity currently owns the entire property, and that entity is selling a portion of the property to some other en~ity, it, to me, sounds like there's a potential subdivision issue, but. NICK CAIMANO, TOWN BOARD MR. CAIMANO-But following your logic, every time they sold a lot for a house, they'd have to come here for subdivision. MR. SCHACHNER-Y.es. I thought they had some i ni '!iial aþpr'oval ~.' MR. BREWER-But along the same line, though, Mark, they're a lot line, so then, does it become a subdivision if 'movi~g a lot line? moving they're MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I~m not sure moving a lot line is the right way to phrase it, in ~ mind. I don·'t think it is. The bottom .line is that, in mYiopinion, I mean, I was really just answering - 3 - "-----/ the question for my own edification. My understanding is that the applicant has accurately represented the Town Attorney's opinion on this, and, I mean, I think if that's his opinion, then that, you know, the Planned Unit Development is a zoning/Town Board issue~ and he's a Town Attorney, and that's the opinion he's issued. That's my understanding, and I don't have any problem with proceeding on that basis. I have my own sort of curiosity related questions about it, though. MR. THARPE-Since I quoted the Town Attorney, I copied him with everything. So he's aware of what my representations were in the correspondence. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and he has told me that that is. MR. BREWER-I don't have any problem just confused because Scott said a moving this lot line. So, to adjustment. with what you're doing. I'm little while ago that they're me, it's just a lot line MR. PALING-Well, it's a change of ownership and a lot line adjustment both. MR. BREWER-Every time you sell a lot it's a change of ownership. I mean, if the Bank owns this right now and they sell a lot, then it's a change of ownership. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and ¡ thought that the initial PUD approval included subdivision approval for all these numerous lots. Now I may be wrong about that, but that's what I thought. MR. BREWER-Yes. I thought what we were here for was just a lot line adjustment. So this part that you're changing ownership becomes part of the other lot. MR. To be used in conjunction with that land, as originally planned. MR. PALING-It doesn't become part of, it stays part of that. MR. BREWER-They changed the lot line. lot. This was in a different MR. PALING-It still, Evergreen Bank retains title to this and everything else that way, and this is all sold. MR. BREWER-This lot line was like this, and now they've made it like this. So now it becomes part of t.b..!..§. lot, and this is a lot by itself. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. ,BREWER--Soit is a 'lot line ¡adjustment. , ¡, ~' -, ", ''\ MR. PALING-Scott, did you talk to the Town Attorney? MR. HARLICKER-No. I ran it by Jim. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-I think the proposed resolution is an accurate statement of what ¡ understand the Town Attorney's position to be, mainly that what the applicant seeks here, I think the applicarrt, agrees with this, is a modification of a previous site plan approval. MR. PALING-And you end up with two PUDs. MR. SCHACHNER-No, no, no. - 4 - '-...-- ,-..-/ '- ,./ MR. PALING-Will you have any PUD when this is over? MR. SCHACHNER-You, sure, do. You, still ,have the Hiland Park Planned Unit 0evelopment. That's a;,g.lcDbal thing that ,you still ,have. You're not modifying the Planned Unit Development. What you're modifying is the site plan apP1"oval that wasissued as part of the PUD, and that's why I think Scott's ,statement in the proposed resolution ,is an accurate statement, and the title of the resolution is, For a Modification of the Approved Site Plan, and . that 's what it saysi n the body of, it, also, and I think that's consistent' with the Town Attorney's position, and consistent with the applicant's position. MR. PALING-Okay." Any other C0mments? . I"ll entertairta motion. MR. SCHACHNER-Now',' at some,;, point, I want to add some advice on the motion ,1 tsel f ~"but go' ahead.. MR. STARK-I already made the motion. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. During discussio~, I'm going to make a suggestion for modification. MR. PAL.ING-Allr ight. . Lets have a second~, ' MR. OBERMAYER-I will second it. MR. PALING-Okay.' ;-\I! " MR. SCHACHNER-O~ay. My suggestio~ is to cover two issues, procedural issues. Your Zoning Ordinance says that you have the right but not the obligation to have public hearings on site plan review, including modification, and, obviously, under the New York State Environmental Quality. Review Act, you have the obligation to make sure that any action you take does not have any. significant environmental impact,. What I 'would suggest is that you include, as part of the motion, if you feel',this way, that the proposed modification is not a material modification, and that, therefore~ you do not need to conduct a public.hearing, nor do you need to do any additional environmental review, beèause the Hi land Par k Planned Uni t Development was, ;already the subject of an Environmental Impact Statement when it was initially approved. That's my recommendation. MR. STARK-We'll add that into the motion~ significant. That there's no MR. SCHACHNER-No material modification, therefore, no need'for a public hearing, and that there are no environmental impacts, significantly different from those analyzed in the Hiland Park Environmental Impact Statement. MOTION TO APPROVE RESQLUTIONiOFTHE TOIIJN, OF QUEENSBURVPLANt'lING BOARD FOR MODIFICATION OF THE APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR HILAND PARK ~, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: As written, and that there's no material modification, therefore, no need for a public hea1"ing, and that there are no envi,ronme'ntal impacts, significantly different from those analyzed in the Hiland Park Environmental', ImpactStatément. Whereas, ,the' applicant" Evergreen ,Bank" is modification to a previously approved for Hiland Park PUD, and; seeking a site ,plan Whereas, the modification involves an alteration of a lot line to exclude two existing structures from a pa1"cel that is to include land·e'ncompassi ng the golf course and related structures, and; h_ 5 - Whereas, this modification is requested in order to facilitate the sale of the restaurant/club house and golf course complex and will result in no material changes to the approved site plan, and; Whereas, all previously approved conditions of the site plan and PUD will remain in place, and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, that the Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve the modification to the Hiland Park PUD site plan as shown on Sheet 52, Map of Survey made for Evergreen Bank, N.A. dated May 8, 1995. Duly adopted this 11th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOE S : NONE MR. PALING-Okay. We will now go to the second part of our meeting, and it has to do with a couple of the recent Planning Board meetings that we've had, and in those Planning Board meetings, I don't think that the impression that was given from some of the people that attended it, or the impression that we perhaps exchange with each other at those meetings was the best. In other words, we didn't look like a real harmonious group, if you will, and we got into, we had certain exchanges which didn't help us and, again, perhaps didn't help the overall picture, and the purpose, as I see it, of this meeting tonight, is to look back at maybe those two meetings, not so much for specific examples, I'm not interested in that, but to see what the basic problems were that we ran into, why they came about, and what we can do to solve them, because I think that you'll agree, if you'll recall, it got a little bit like a zoo, in a couple of those meetings. Now, lets face it. We're sort of volunteer type. We pretty much are volunteer types, and we're supposed to be working for the good of the Town of Queensbury, and we're supposed to project a good, positive professional image. Those meetings, I don't think, were our best foot forward, and I'd like to have an open discussion. We opened this meeting, it's a public hearing, the door stays open, and what I would suggest, if the Board concurs, is that the first part of this meeting be limited to discussion by the Planning Board members only. In other words, we're the only one's here who'll comment, for a while. I ask you to go along with that because 1 think it's our problem. We're supposed to be an autonomous Board. We're supposed to be able to take care of our own problems, and I think we should and can do it. So I'm suggesting, with ~ concurrence, that we limit the remarks to ourselves for the first part of the meeting, and then later on we'll sort of treat it like a public meeting, and invite any comments from anyone else that's in attendance. Is that okay with everybody? Okay. MR. SCHACHNER~Do you guys want me here, not here? I mean, it's your call. MR. PALING-I'm not going to tell yoU to going to tell anybody to stay or leave. stay or leave. I'm not The decision is yours. MR. RUEL-I have a question. Obviously, these meetings were not conducted properly, because I wasn't here. Okay. You're talking about these two disruptive meetings. MR. MACEWAN-What two meetings are you specifically talking about? MR. PALING-The last meeting that we had, the most recent one went - 6 - ',,-, -" -- ~.../ off fine. , , MR. STARK-You were,t')'t here' for one of them, Craig. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, the 25th. MR. PALING-The last one, 'there was no problem with that. I'm talking about, one of the meetings would have been when Great Escape was here. MR!~ STARK-As you know, ,you and I went' down to the meeti ng in Colonie, and down there the meeting was conducted, not like our meetings, but with total decorum. Nobody interrupted anybody. The ' Chairman was laid back.. He'd',say, you've got a comment, Tim. Tim would talk. Whether you agreed with his comment or not, he would talk, say his say, and that was the end of it, and then somebody else would say, okay, "y6u, go to the 'rlext guy. Nobody jumped in, interrupted anybody, and it was a nice way to run the meeting, ¡ thought. There was no inte~ruptionswhat$o~ver. MRS. LABOMBARD-At the end of the closing of their comments, the vote was taken and that was the end of it. MR. STARK-They asked for a motion,' and they took' the! motion'and voted on it and that wàs the end of it, and bang, but the doo~. MR. RUEL-I think that can disrupt 'the meeting, to have people interrupt while someone else is talking, and this has happened quite often. However, the last' meeting t was at' seemed:tr.o run perfectly. Whatever the pròblem was, 'was rectified. MRS. LABOMBARD'""'And you and I were gone the second, 'the first meeting inApTil~ 1 heard that one was. MR. RWEL -But interruptions, I ,thi nk, are rea:lly bad, a person shöuld have an opportunity to eMþres6c himself , fully and cómplete his thought, and many times I've seen at the meeting, especially if the person doesn't talk to loud, he gets interrupted in the middle of it and, boom, that'!) it, he's' out. He never gets a chance to get back in again, although I must admire the Chairman. Hetr ies . 'The old Chai rmaT1 ~ the new Chairman both try to êstablish, à routine where each perso'n has an opportunity to say $ometh~ng, but, still, it '~ets out of hand, occasionally~' and I think that's part of the problem. MR. STARK-Well, I'm probably guilty more than Most people for i nterrùpti ng . ' MR. RUEL-However, informal. the Colonie meeting, apparently, was' very , MR. PALING-It was informative, I'll tell you that.. CAROL PULVER, TOWN BOARD MRS. PULVER-Did they have a Planning BOard attorne~? MR. PALING-Yes." They have a Zoning Board attoYney'and a Planning Board attorney. MR. STARK-HeC8me half way throush the meeting, but that was fine. 'MR. PULVER-Did the ,Planning Board ask for his assistancé often during the meeting? MR. PALING-Not formally. He chimed in. He gave comments, but I don't think anyone turned to him, if I can recall, George,¡and asked for his, I don't think so. - 7 - ',-, MR. STARK-There's no recording, no microphones, no nothing. MR. PALING-The only recording was done by Jim Martin's counterpart, who recorded in longhand. He was writing as fast as he could, and we asked him about it later, and they said, well, we just pass the motion, and believe me, they modify no motions, then they add this guy's comment in later on, when they type the minutes, and they say, we go by the motion, what the Planner remembers, and anything that comes to our mind. MR. MACEWAN-Not a good way to keep track. MR. PALING-A lot can slip by. MR. STARK-They meet 50 weeks a year, and there's four Planning Board members that have been on the Board for more than 20 years. They have a lot of projects down there, and it gets handled beautifully, ¡ thought. I thought the meeting was well run. MR. MACEWAN-Does that seem to be the biggest consensus of you guys, is that the biggest problem we have on our Board is that people are talking out of turn? MR. RUEL-No. MR. MACEWAN-That's what I keep hearing here. MR. RUEL-Well that may be one thing. That's just one thing. MR. STARK-What's ~ opinion? MR. MACEWAN-I think the biggest problem ¡ have with the way I see our Board going is that we're not following things procedurally the right way. We're leading ourselves down the road for a lawsuit. That's what L see happening with our Board. When it comes time to review projects, either subdivision or site plan, a lot of things are overlooked. A lot of things aren't asked for of an app,licant. There seems to be, the way ¡ look at it, a kind of a preexisting situation that we must approve these things and approve them quickly and get them ,out the, door. I don't think we're taking a fair enough and long enough look at a lot of projects we've been looking at. MRS. LABOMBARD-Craig, is that our duty? MR. MACEWAN-It is. You're a Planning Board member. MRS. LABOMBARD-But what ~ saying is, things go through the Staff, who's hired and paid. MR. MACEWAN-Staff is there to supplement you, Cathy. It's your job as a Planning Board member, to make an informed decision. MRS. LABOM8ARD-But Jim Martin is the one that holds the Masters Degree in TownP la,nni ng from RPI, not Cathy LaBombard. What I am saying is, if somebody brings in an application, and it has been Qkayed by our Town Attorney, it has met the specs of the Town. MR. MACEWAN-Our Town Attorney doesn't even, nine out of ten times, lpok at an application in front of us. MR. RUEL-Why do we have an attorney? MR. MACEWAN-We have an attorney who serves our Planning Board to guide us in the legal issues that may come up in reviewing a project. MR. PALING-Lets have one rule, okay, no interruptions. Let whoever's talking say what they're going to say, then whoever wants the floor then come on in, but no, lets not get cross fire. - 8 - c....,../ ,"-c "- MRS. LABOMBARD-You've got to, then, still re-educate me~ and tell mä, then, why ~e have ä highly paid professional stàff in~this Town? I wouldn't thi nk we.. were the f i nalauthor''ity 'for what 'goes or!? t1X assumption was' that we ki nd of assist. We read the rules. We make suf~ that they'r~ being carried out. We're kind of like a helping type of hand. but we~rè not the oneá' to play God and say yes or no. Now that's the, maybe T'm wrong~ ·but that's the way I look at this. ¡ MR. STARK-Craig, if I may, I think you're referring to the fäct, and tell me if I'm wrong, that sometimes people don't have a two foot topography map. You're saying there's like seven ór eight things we have, and we've waived, you know, having everything, a completed package, say, and we waived that, and you want everything, tell me if I'm wrong, okay. That was one of your main complaints, I think. MR. MACEWAN-That's QäLt of my complaints, but I think you've kind of taken it out of context. I think if an applicant comes in front of our Board te~uestih9 a ~aiver, that should happen at either sketch plan or Preliminary, not a Final stage you start giving out waivers to certain things that they have not maybe needed to have because of the size of their develoþment the~'re doing, or the subdivision they're doing. I think that, procedurally, there's a lot of things that get oVe~ldo~ed, !not addressed, and I really don't, in a lot of cases, I don't think we've fairly looked at a lot of applications that dome in front of us. MR. OBERMAYER-I agree with that philosophy, to a certain extent, okay. I mean, you'cah't, you need to usé your own'mind 'a little bit', too, besides always '9oing by the book. ' You need to hâ\ìe a little bit of leeway for ¢ertain, for smaller applications. I mean, I'll give you a perfect example, and I was really upset ,with that one woman that we sent ba¢k from, up by Tuthill'Road, because she 'did not have the proper tòpographical map, okay, it wasn't at the right contour. So we delayed her, not that1 she could wait. She was quirte upset. Here's an applicant that went through, probably met with the Staff; the Staff didn't have,any issues at all withanythi~g she was doing, and we ju~t; you voted no because you, I don ~ t know what the problem was'. You just wanted a delay because she didn't have the contours. You were on some power trip. MR. MACEWAN-No. I wasn~t on any power trip. MR, OBERMAYER-You were. That's the way 'Ilfeej;. MR. MACEWAN-I mean, it wasn't just the fact that she was looking ,for rel ief from the contours, she didn't 'have 'a stormW'ðte~' management plan, she didn't have a clear cutting plan; arid she didn't have a drainage plan. Those things are required when she fills out her apþlication ¿t sketch plan. . We were at Final stage looki~g to approve that thing. She 'never once made a request to have any of these waivers. You guys rie~~raddressed an~ of that stuff. I brought it tip twice during the night, that we should be looking for these things, we should be asking for these things, and you guys are looking the other way saYing,we!dori~t, need it. It's not important enough. It may not have been ifuportant enough, but there's certain things that you've got to do. You've got to do it in a certain procession to get it don~ right; MR. STARK-Mr. Chairman, that's looking backwards.' lets look forward. We can'say to Scott, okay, Scott, when an apþlicant brings an application in, he can look at it and say, well, you don't have this, or you don't have that. You really don't need it. Why don't yoU try to request a waiver.' This wóuldeven help, if Scott, if I hand you an application that's not cómplete, don't you have an obligation to say to the appli6ant~ it's not - 9 - ~~ complete? To Mr. Chairman, it's up to ~, then, to pass this information on to the Planning Department, saying that you should review all the applicants. If they're not complete, tell the applicant they're not complete, as soon as you can, and say, you know, maybe you don't need a two foot topography, ask for a waiver of that. So now when we get it at Preliminary or sketch, we'll say, well, they asked for a waiver. They really don't need one. MR. BREWER-That's exactly right, George, and if the things like, all these things listed in this book, if anybody's ever read it, there's a list of things that are in there, and if they're not with the application, they shouldn't get on the agenda. So that shouldn't be our problem, but if an application ~get on the agenda, and they don't. have the things, and if we don't give them a waiver, then we're not doing ~ job. I would suggest that everybody takes this book and reads it, requirements for approval. Just because they go to Staff doesn't mean that everything is. there. Read that, Cathy, some time read it. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have read it. MR. BREWER-But yet, we're not applying it. If somebody comes in here, I get the impression, and other people get the impression that we should just, if they come in here and they fill their application out right, we should say, okay, go ahead, and that's not what we're here for. We're here to make a thorough review, and I'm not saying that we should deny anybody, but if it takes another week, then it takes another week. The world's not going to end, and I think that's what 'our impression is with applicants, because they come in here, if it takes another week, then so be it. Rome wasn't built in a day, and as long as it's thorough and it's complete, then we should approve it. I think if everybody looked at the annual report, we denied one project last year, one project out of, I don't know how many we had. I can't remember the numbers, out of 30 some meetings. MR. STARK-What annual report? MR. BREWER-The ,annual report that Jim Martin put together. MR. PALING~We didn't get copies of that. MR. STARK-I've never seen it. MR. BREWER-It's in his office. I got a copy of it. I mean, we denied two projects. There was one, we denied the farmers' market, whatever it was, up on 149, and the pig farm. Those are the only things we denied. MRS. LABOMBARD-The subdivision. MR. BREWER-What subdivision? MRS. LABOMBARD-Native Textiles. MR. BREWER-We didn't deny that. MR. MACEWAN-They withdrew the application. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's true. MR. BREWER-But we didn't deny it, but if you look at the things, Cathy, that Craig's talking about~ there's too many things to name, but if everybody read Page 17994, the purpose for us being here, then everybody wpuld be on the same playing field, and I don't think that's happening. I mean, just because somebody comes in with a subdivision, I think it's outrageous that somebody on this Board would ask me to change my vote. I was insulted that night, with the subdivision. - 10 - .........' '- "-'" MR. STARK-KaraBeames, up on Tuthill Road. ,,¡¡ MR. BREWER-Who the hell are you guys to ask me to change, ~y v6te. MR. OBERMAYER-No one asked you to. MR. BREWER-Tim, could you change your mind? That's not asking me to change my vote? MR. PALING-No. MR. BREWER-That was said. MR~ PALING-Well, it may have been said. That, to me, is not asiing you to chan~e your vote. Someone that might be trying to convince you go to another way, yes, bùt you still.' MR. : BREWER-Yes, but we shouldn't do th8t,Bob. here in front of the publio and ttý to change That's w)"ong. We shouldn't sit each other's mind. MR. PALING-Okay. Could I talk? MR. BREWER-Sure. MR. PALING-All right. I'm very glad this is on the table, because this is théNumber One point on my list I think we shóuld talk about, and] think it comes in two parts. Numbèr One, I think' there's a question in some people's minds that we dév'Îate, not only from the rules as written, but from traditional rules, if you will, we'~e always done it this way, and whethèr it's written or unwritten, we have to respect thóse, and we've"got to oonsider them when We think about something like this. I'd ask you to consider two things.' Number One, ~hen someone come. in, 1 ike that wOman did, I felt very sorry for' her. Is it pössible that we can say, òkay, ybu've got to ~eet these criteri.' before you get a CO, whatever it is, but you've got to meet them, go ahead, meet them, submit them to Staff, and do it. I'm not talking any specific one. I'm making the point that we should try to make allowances, and not have people cöming back, and if we can make it easy for them, without legal objecting, without Staff, or any of us objecti ng, we should do i t.Ndw here's'ithe sensitive point. I think everyone here has a legitimate point, but would you consider that maybe some time it's the way that it's said, or the interruption that's made, that might get us off in a~ argument, and then we're not séiing through to rea~on,that if we really let whoever's speaking-finish what they say, and our frie~ds down in Colonie were beautiful examples of that. We picked out one guy there who's pretty on the side nobod~ waä on, but yet he was never, ever interrupted by anybody, and then the conversation continued around the table 'from one toar\bther ,each stating their own point, and then finally voting, and if that doesn't work, then why not say, hey, loo~, we're géttl~g ~way from what we should. We're not doing right by the book, or we're not doing right by the established practice. Lets get together and have a workshop and talk it out amongst ourselves, because we're going wrong. We'll end up in legal 'or something. Lets talk about it. To do it in front of public hearing, to try to do it on the run, if you will, is tough. Then you get into cross fire. I think that, Number One, if we let everybody talk, uninterrupted, that we hear them better, and if we td~é ouréars not to say, I don't hear you, I don't care what you say, I think ~ou shduld listen to evetybody and give' the~ a chance andthen vote:' Then if the vote doesn't go your way, and you reallY think it's wrong, lets, hey, ~e can have a workshop. We can stay in the meeting that night. . Lets go back a~d re-hash this thing.' If that doesn't work, then you have to go to other measu+es, but those steps haven't been taken, and I think if we're going to be a harmonious Board, that we've got to look to conducting ourselves in that way. I don't care who it is or what their - 11 - ..-- ......... opinion is. I want to hear what that person has to say, whether it's the public, an applicant, a member of the Planning Board, Staff, legal, I want to hear what they say, and if somebody's interrupting them, I don't hear well when there's two and three people talking, and I think if we approached our, made our presentations, you know, complete, to the point, let the next guy talk, I think we'd have a better understanding, and perhaps, when you're polite in conversation, you don't build up resentment. MRS. LABOMBARD-I think your point is well taken, Bob. MR. PALING-Thank you. MR. RUEL-I certainly agree with everything you say. However, it seems like some people are indicating that our main function is to be a policing agency, in that we must check the þooks against everything that's being done, 100 percent. I would like anyone to answer, where is the planning element of the Planning Board? Where is our planning? What are we planning? Are we just policing what is written in that book against what the applicant brings in~ Or are we, in fact, trying to plan something for the community, or is all planning being done for us by Jim Martin and/or the Town Board? MR. PALING-No. I think we would take a very aggressive part in any application that's brought before us, to implement the procedures and the Town rules as they're written 'or as they're traditionally accepted, and we've got to do it for the good of Queensbury. We can't sit passively, we're not a rubber stamp organization that says, if you meet the rules, you're approved. I think we've got to use a little bit more analysis on it. MR. RUEL-But it's called a Planning Board, and I'd like to know, where is this planning element in the Planning Board. We don't even have, we don't even participate in the so called Master Plan. We dQn't participate in any of wh~t I consider to be major planning in this community. I read about it in the paper, but the Planning Board was not involved. MR. PALING-To participate in the Master Plan, to participate, and I don't think being on would e¡iminate you from that participation. that, and I was told I couldn't because I was you the I too would volunteer Planning Board volunteered for late. MR. RUEL-I volunteered. I wasn't even considered, but we don't even have a Master Plan that we follow. MR. PALING-Well, we have the Town plan and the regulations. MR. BREWER-You're saying we don't have a Master Plan. We certainly do have a Master Plan, and everybody on this Board should have a copy of it, and to get back to the rules and regulations, I'm not saying we have to be an enforcement office, but if we got, like the pig farm. If it's not, the use would be in harmony with the general purpose or intent of the Chapter. I mean, simple things that were. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. That's my question then. For just a few little, I don't want to say insignificant, because if they're written in the book, obviously they're significant enough to printed, but why, when I came back frQm Myrtle Beach, I still see the Beames thing on the agenda, and I'm like, My God, what are they doing? Are we nitpicking that much? MR. BREWER-No, Cathy. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. So, obviously, my answer, you gave me my a nswe1- . MR. BREWER-The thing is we have no right to deviate from this ¡- 12 - '- -..-' "--' --- book. We have no ri~ht to do that. MRS,' LABOMBARD-But can~t you interpret some things a little more loosely than others? MR. BREWER-It's black and white, Cathy. I mean, if you come in with an application, and it says you've got to have A, B~ C, D, and you come in with A, B, and D, you've got to have 'C or they shouldn't be here. MR. RUEL-Or you can have a waiver. MR. BREWER-Or you could have a waiver. The place for the waiver is i~ Preliminary. ' MR. RUEL-Before yòu get it, you mean? MR. BREWER-No. We can grant a waiver' at Preliminary, but the thi ng that also is troublesome, when we ask for a report" at Preliminary, I think it's crazy for us to'approve' it before we get the report. What the hell's the sense of getting the report? l'll give you a perfect example, a subdivision up in Cleverdale, the fellow that we wanted the drainage report, okay. MR. PALING-The guy, the little lot on the big lot? MR. BREWER-Right. Whether it was significant or not, we asked for a drainage report. We asked for a clèaring plan. We asked for one 'other item that he didn't ask for a waiver for. At that meeting, he said he would provide them to us. Somebody on this Board went ahead and said, okaY~ lets' approve Preliminary and we'll look at this at Final. I think, in ~ mind, the purpose of Pfeliminary is, if we ask for a repor~, lets get the report back a~d okay the report before we approve Preliminary. Isn't 'that the purpose of it? Maybe I.:m. nuts. I don't know. That's the way it's been happening for the last five years that ~ been a r ou nd her e .' , " , MR. RUEL-But you don't have to grant a final approval if he doesn't have the necessary paperwork. MR. BREWER-No. What I'm saying is, if you're asking an applicant to give you something to review, you sho~ldn't give him an approval before you review it. Should you? MR. RUEL-You're not giving him an approval. MR. BREWER-You certainly did. You màde a motion. MR .' RUEL-Not final. ' , a ' ' MR. BREWER-Not a final, but preliminary¡ and that's a requi~ement of Preliminary that we ask for. MR. RüEL-lt's in the book that way. MR. BREWER-Roger, I guess what I'm saying is, you're an applicant. I ask you to give me this. Okay. Go away. Come bàck. 'You've got' to come back next month anyway, or next week, whatever it is, okay. I ask you, give me that report so I can give you Preliminary approval. You walk away a~d we g1ve yoU an approval. You didn't giv~ me a report. So what the hell's the sense of asking for the report? Do you follow my line of thinking? MR. RUEL-Yes, but why are you requesting these items? MR. BREWER-Because we wanted to know where the water was going. Was it going to the wetlands or was it going across the street? - 13 - ,- MR. RUEL-Because Staff didn't request it? Is that it? MR. BREWER-It's not Staff's job to request it., It's our job. I think we rely too much on Staff, and I think Staff. MR. RUEL-Wait a minute. Preliminary? How can we request it prior to MR. BREWER~At Preliminary. We had a public hearing. The public came up and said, gee, I think this guy is very close to the wetlands. I think there's stormwater and the septic tank is going to go intp, the wetland. At a preliminary hearing, you say to the appliçant, okay, can you come back with a report and prove to us that that's not going to happen, to protect the wetlands, and, he says, yes, I can do that. I'll bring it back with me next month. MR.. RUEL-Okay. Supposing he does, and supposing it's acceptable, okay. MR. BREWER-Fine, then we grant the approval. MR. RUEL-Okay, and if it's not acceptable. MR. BREWER-You can't undo an approval, I don't think. Maybe you can. MR. RUEL-We can delay the final approval, can't we? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. approval,. You just don't vote yeah or nay on the final MR. BREWER-But the applicant comes back anyway. procedurally, the way I think we should <;10 it. just too loose in gran~ing approvals. So it's just, I think we're MR. STARK-I understand what Tim is saying. I also think, though, tha~, if a man is in for Preliminary, Mr. Yoµng, in this case, up there on the high point of ground in that subdivision, we asked for a few things. We gave him his Preliminary. I think we did, and then if he didn't answer those questions satisfactorily at Final, don't let h1~ get the Final. MR. RUEL-Right. That's what I say, too. MR. STARK-ptherwise it woµld have been extended out maybe, possibly another month or another two or three meetings, which is no big deal for this guy, but sometimes time is a critical thing. I don't see, as. long as we've got final control at Final, fine. MRS. LABOMBARD-When I hear you, that sounds great. Tim, Tim sounds great. When I hear MR. OBERMAYER-You're waffling, Cathy. MRS. LABOMBARD-I don't like to be a waffler, but that's where I think the, bottom line is. Maybe each case should be dealt with, but then yoU can't make up one rule to go for one person and one rule to go for another. MR. MACEWAN-Regarding that Marilyn Smith one on Tuthill, where I thought we might be, I thought the procedure was all wrong, what would have been the harm of postponing that one week, or Preliminary approval either, A" (lost word) giving her the waivers that she needed to have, that she should have requested, that she never did, or, B., asking for the infor~~tion that we should have asked for and reviewed it? MR. OBERMAYER-The only information that we were requesting, okay, as far as doing a stormwater management plan for ~ residential ,- 14 - --- -...-/ -...-/ house, is crazy, okay, that we are even requesting that. All right. That's my opinion. The only ended up giving her a waiver for the f¿llowing topography map was not at the proþer scale. something like thing that we wee k was' the MR. MACEWAN-And there were other things that were overlooked: If you look under Subdivision, there's a whole bunch of things that are required at Preliminary. At the very least, she should have asked or requested of the Board a waiver~ in th~'fbrm of a letter, just like Staff told us, that I want to get a waiver from this, this, this, and this. We should have acted upon it in a resolution. We didn't. She came in there and she tried to put the blame on Scott, sàyi ng that Scott said that it was o'kay that I do' thàt, and we've heard that before from appl icants, but you know, if you cut to the chase, and her position was,and this wasn't the applicant that was speak, it was the appli¢aht's agent. Her position was that she wanted this thing approved, and she wanted it approved then, there, and now, because if she came back one more week, and delayed one more week, it was cutting into her money she was making on the thing, and that's right in the minutes. So she wasn't concerned about., that things were done procedurally correct. She was worried about her pocketbook. That's not ~ problem. That's not OUt problem. 'that's not' the Board's problem. MR. OBERMAYER-That didn't bother me at all. The whole idea that bothered me was that we were delaying this woman another week for no reason at all. MA. MACEWAN-What would it have hurt? That's the qu~stion' I'm asking? What would it have hurt to have to wait one more"'week? MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. The apÞlica~t was sitting in the audience, and she made comments' afterwards, as she was,'walking out. She was po'd because we delayed it another ~eek. MR. MACEWAN-í'm sorry. Who's interests':are you serving here? Are you serving thé applicant's or are you serving the Town's? MR. OBERMAYER-I'm serving the Town's. MR. MACEWAN-What I'm trying to understand here, what is'the problem of making this lady wait one more week, when you've got things together in the way you're supposed to get them together? And his concern was that the lady was upset. I'm sorry that the lady was upset, but my job, si tti ng on that Plamli ng 'Board, is to look out f6r the Town's best interest, not the applicant's. ' MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. I would say one more thing, but remember, (lost word) is a member of the Town. MR. PALING-Now, listen, this is an example of what happens at a meeting. Craig, make your point com~lete. MR. MACEWAN-I did. MR. PALING-Wait a mi nute, and, , Jim, come on back.. and make your point complete, and then, C~'aig, if yoûwant 'the flóô-r again, take the son of a gun, for as long as you want, but no~e of you get into cross fire, and this is where we lose it. All of a sudden~bingbáng, bing bang, I can't follow that. Maybe! I'm the only one. Make your point. Now, if you're mad, like you're mad that he disagrees with you, that's too bað~ Now that's ~~rt of our problem, is bing bang, bing bang, bing bang, and the'audience is looki ng out there go! ng, gee, here we' go agai n. I thí nk that we've got to face up to something, that we have a chance to make our point, and maybe we 'have 'a second or a'third chance if we want, but then if the vote is against us, let it be, doggone it, and then, say, hey you assholes, I want tó méet with you after because that was' wrong. Now lets get together and tal k 'about us, - 15 - -,....,. and lets go back and cover that point, but you're trying to legislate, during the meeting, in front of the public. MR. OBERHAYER-I have been? MR. PALING-Sure you are, right here. You're trying to legislate him and he's ~rying to legislate you, and you're getting nowhere. MR. CAIMANO-Mr. Chairman, an outsider, you made a good point, Bob. Let me just throw this out for all of you. I think you're getting ,mad, because you're doing exactly what we all do as a Board., The reason there are seven of you is to get seven different opinions, and what is happening is, it seems to me anyway, ~nd ~obody argues ,more voraciously than I do, you're getting mad at yourselves for your points of view, instead of taking each p6int of view and distilling it down. What's the point, and ,you just said it, Sob, and I don't mean to take the storm away, bvt you're doing it right now. The reason there's seven of you is to get seven points bf view. I served on the Planning Board with Peter ¿artier and Jim ~artin. I mean, they blew me away. I didn't have'a God ,damn clue what they were saying sometimes, but I got my POiD~ of. view across. You were on that same Board, Tim. We got our points of view across, and we didn't get mad at each other because we had diverging points of view. MR. BREWER-$hould we have an opportunity to try and change the other person's point of view? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. If you don't mind, that's an interesting point. You and your entire family tried to get me to change my mind for seven months. I even~ually did. There's nothing, wrong with that. It's called lobbying, and that's, why you're all here. When I make my, when the roll comes açros~, Nick, and I make my vote, and whether anybody likes it or not, if somebody asks me to change my vote, pr~ come on, Tim, you can make ~he, difference, or, come on, Jim, you can make the difference, that's wrong. After I've voted, I would no more ask anybody on, this Board to change their vote, whether I agreed with them or disagreed with them. That's completely wrong. That's like going in the voting booth with somebody. It's wrong to do. MR. OBERMAYER-After your vote, you're absolutely right. I don't think it did occur. MR. PALING-I agree with you totally in that, if somebody is really trying to get you to change on that kind of a basis. MR. BREWER-! think the purpose of me chan~ing my vote was so that the applicantçould have approval to go, so that they're not delayed another week, and I think, you know, if anybody reads this book,t~ere's no such thing in there that says the approval has to þe given that night. It says you've got 45 days. Who gives a shit if somebody has to wait an extra week? I mean, you can't have to worry about, if you get them in there and get them out that night, that's great, but we don't have to be ,in a hurry, and I think everybody gets the impression that because the applicant comes in, he's got a lawyer and he's paying a lawyer, he's got to get approved that night. Well, I think we're shunning our responsibilities if we get,him in and get him out, and I'm not saying we shouldn't approve things. I'm saying that we sho~ld thoroughly review them. . I don't see that happening. MR.STARK-!'m far from being a prude, but we don't need any profanity in the meeting, on your part, and not on your part. MR. PALING-I agree. MR. STARK-Nobody curses mpre than! do outside, but in here, to project a professional attitude to the public, and, Tim, you're - 16 - '-.... -../ guilty of' this. You've said hell a few times, and, that's nitpicking, but, still, I mean, tó act more Þrof~ssional in the meeting. In here, fine, but I'm saying, at a public meeting, well, this is a public meeting, but at ä regular monthly meeting, we shouldn't use profanity. MR~ RUEL-Basedon Tim's comments, Ti~' seems to' place a considerable amount of importance on the fact that we're trying to e~pedite things and eliminate ti~e. Ireally~ !~M'spe~king for myself, I never'thought of that in terms of time, and trying to s~ve time for the applicant. I følt that I was achieving the same end that you're looking at. HowéV~r, my sequence in getting information was slightly di fferenttha'n yours " but ul timat.ely I would never grant final approval until all the elements have"been satisfied. Now that has nothing to do with time. If it' háþpens to shorten time, and we ~ccomplish the same end, what's the difference?' What is the difference, reall~? t only have 'one more comment. Thecômment that Craig made a moment ago" and I thoUght, maybe I mi.understood, but hetdid say that, as ~ member of the' 'Planning Bôard, it's my ol::!ligåtlon to the resiidents of Queensbury, not the apþlicant ,and T' think the 'applicant' is usually a resident of Queensbury. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have two comments to make, as long as w~'re'here to try to make us a little more amicable and be able to work through our agendas a little easier. Number One, as far as expediting things and'trying to rush things through/'Î 'think the climate that we live in sometimes is a factor in the way we perceive a lot of the things that come in. I mean, we don't have, you know, the ~uilding time is short. The growIng time is short. Everything is short. Sometimes that places a factor. Another thin~ is~ thi~ is to get 'off what we've been talking about, but ever'sinc:e, and I don"t k'nöw if I should bring;this up, but' it's been 'on my mind." Ever si nce the new elections, that's wh~n I found everything falling apart. I've bé~n on the Board' sl nce a year ago 'February, and"'I thought' everythi ng was ju~t smo¿th sailing, and then ~s soon as the hew elections came, :1 felt a' demarcation. . Maybe I'm perceivi ng thi ngs that arén't, that really don't exist. I hope I am, but th~t's what I think is happeni ng. MR. PALING-I think it did start prior to the final election. MR. MACEWAN-In what sense, can I ask? MRS. LABOMBARD-In the sense where, it's hard to explain; it without coming right out and hurting feelings, but I think many of us, and I'm not speaking for everybody, but I think some people felt that some people wanted a certain' office and they didn't get it and they were upset about it, and they didn't want anything to do with those pêople'that voted aga'Í nst the'm, a personal thing, . and'that'~ one of the things that i think was very (lost word), and all of a sudden 1 sðwthis downturn of the way we worked together during the meetings. MR. PALING- I thi nk you're p)'obabl y right, in the' ki nd of thi ng, and I think it did have a deterioration there, and that's really, I"m glad you brought it up, because that's why'we're here~is to discuss such things as what happened, why, itdóesn't matter ~hy, or what wi II we do' from here, but' that' deter 10)' at ion did' ta ke place. It's still there to quite'a degree, and we should be a harmonious Board. We should be able to have honest disagreements, absolute opposite, but still be able to smile and shake hands'and go' have a beer or a cuþ of cof~ee after'the thing is over, and I had that feeling, but I éan't, but I don't quite have that feeling. MR. ,RUEL-I was away for a month or so, and when I came back, I don't know if it has any bearing on anything, but all those with seniority on the Board were placed at great extremities from the - 17 - center. MR. PALING-No. (Lost word) with Scott, well. where do you want everybody seated? I said I want Cathy on one side, Jim on the other side, and you put them wherever you want to. That's the only thing I ever said. MR. RUEL-It's just an observation. MR. PALING-No, no. MR. BREWER-That is a good observation, because that's the way 1 came in to the meeting one night. You, George and Jim were here at the meeting, and you sat like a l¡ttle click in the middle of the table, and YOU'put me on one end. Craig on the other end, and Roger here.' I'm not saying who did it. MR. PALING-the only thing I would say~o you is I never placed a name plate anywhere. It was unintentional. Believe me. MR. BREWER-I don't care where I sit. I've sat at the end of the table. I've sat at the middle of the tab~e. That doesn·t phase me. MR. STARK-A comment. I wanted to sit next to Jim, so when I can't hear, he tells me what the people say, because sometimes I have trouble ~earing. I made the comment to! you that Cathy should be on one side, and Jim on the other because she's the Secretary and he's the Vice Chairman, or seconq Chairman, whatever you want to call it, okay, and not anybody else, but I did want to sit next to him so I could ask him, ~hat did he say, what did he say. MR. PALING-Are there any other areas like that you'd like to talk about or bring up? MR. BREWER-I'd still bring up the same areas. ¿aihy, you said you fel t an. uneasiness, when we had the election., I fel t an uneasiness, too. When you said ¡t to me at the meeting, but I thought we had this all arranged, and I said, what do yoU mean you had it all arranged, and you said, you weren't there. Then who the hell ~ there? MRS. LABOMBARD-I'm glad you brought that up. MR. BREWER-I knew nothing about it, and Bob called me up afterward and says, what happened? I mean. I don't care if I'm Chairman. I've been on the Board for five years. I was Chairman for thre~ years. Maybe I'll be Chairman ag~in. I don't care, but when Roger nominated me at the election, I got, no, an adamant, No Way, and then when Craig was nominated, No, No. I mean, it wa~ like a slap in the face to everybody. MRS. LABOMBARD~To answer your question, it was all based on the fact that the Town Board suggested that we go with a different Chairperson. MR. RUEL-Absolutely wrong. MRS. LABOMBARD-And then when we were out doing site visits, I'll be honest with you, I innocently thought that we were all going to go with it, and agree with it, and that yoU would take off for a year, and it was good to spread the leadership around, and everybody could b~come part of it. MR. BREWER-But one meeting before that, Cathy, everybody said, no, we don'~ want to take the Town Board's suggestion. MRS. LABOMBARD-I never said 'that. - 18 - ",--",' --.../ MR. RUEL-Yes, you did. Everybody did. MR. BREWER-All seven of us did. MR. RUEL-We were unanimous in saYing that the Town Board has no right to tell us to get rid of a Chairman, or 'change it.' MR. OBERMAYER-We were. MR. PALING-I think the only issue that the Town Board brought up was, should we rotate the Chairmanship or not. I think that's the only. ,i\ MR. OBERMAYER-I think we voted that we did not want the Town Board to dictate on how we voted; was my ~~dersta~ding. MRS. LABOMBARD-I think that's where the communication stopped, and I think that's a good point: MR. BREWER-That's not a problem if decides, and I thought that was the gave each other, and then all of a the vote was taken that night, that didn't have decided this. Maybe TURNED) , we change it. This Board interÞretati~n that 'everybody sudden, you said to me after we had decided this. Well we you four decided it. (TAPE 11 ! MRS. LABOMBARD-And I still 'nominated you to be Vice Chairman. MR. BREWER-It's immaterial. I doh't care abbut that. MRS. LABOMBARD-I realize that. MR. BREWER~I'm just sa~ing, the accusation was there. MR. OBERMAYER-Just to let YOU know, I didn't want you to be Chairman anymore. I mean, that's the truth, because you asked me th~ meeting before, what do You think about me beingdhai~~an, and I told you no. I mean, I was honest with you. I mean, there was no, you~nöw, fal~e preten~e there. MR. BREWER~That's a miscommunication. I don't care ,if I'm Chairman. I told you that at your house'~ arid right' in your livingroom, but I think the way things happened, it hit a nerve. MRS. LABOMBARD-It did. " MR. BREWER-That's life. I can't help it. It bothe'red' me. It bothered Roger. It bothered Craig, and you guys were' just blind to it. That's the impression that ¡got. That's mY opinion, whether you agree with it or disagree with it, that's fi~e. I'll still walk out' of here tonight and I WOn't have aný'p'ersonal feelings, but, I 'won't say that, :t will have personal feelings. MR. RUEL-I just want a reading on the feeling 6f man9'6fthe Town Board that suggested that perhaps you should'cha~ée thairmáhship on an annual basis, or whatever. Did that influence the selection of the? ,.,' MR. PALING-That's the only issue that the Town would have (lost word) because I don't think it had anything to do with who's elected, and I think it was a seven to zero vote, tnat we'll figure out our own elections. MR. RUEL-If the Town Board had not made that suggestion at all, do you feel everything would have transpired the same way? MR. PALING-Right. difference at all. I don't think it would ha0e made any MRS. LABOMBARD-I think you ought to poll the Board on that one. :- 19 - - MR. PALING-We have a question (lost word) we said, we want you to rotate the Chairmanship every year. That's the only thing we're talking about. MR. BREWER~If they'd have never said that, I think it would have made a difference. MR. RUEL-How could you say wha~ the Town Board said had no bearing on what transpired? MR. PALING-The Town Board didn't have any bearjng on what transpired. I'm saying the only statement I knew that they requested us to'act on was the ,rotation of the Chairmanship. I think it was maybe Betty Monahan that asked us :to do that, and we took a look at it, and said no, but then we went back to fighting, I guess you could say, and did whatever we (lost word). , : , . MRS. LABOMBARD-I'll be honest with you. When I heard that from the Town Board, I started thinking, well, maybe that's not a bad id~a, but if they hadn't said that, I really belIeve that, one year on the Board, I felt that Bob was, not here long enough to assume leadership, but that wouldn't mean that he wouldn't be able to do it in the future, and I was ready to put all my marbles in Tim's basket. MR. RUEL-And I felt the same way when I nominated Tim, because I felt that the newcomers really weren't here that long, that they could qualify for that position, and I ~gre~ with you that later on possibly it could happen, but I still think that the letter from the Town Board, or from Betty or whoever was definitely very instrumental in what happened, and for anyone to say it didn't have a bearing on it, it's difficult for me to understand. MR. PALING-I just thought that (lost word) either way, whether it was one year or whatever, if it rotated or not. MR. RUEL-I feel, that when you have somebody who's been on the Planning Board for five years, been Chairman for t~ree years, done a good job, it's kind of difficult to throw the person aside and say~ lets try a new one. You don't know what this guys like, but lets try him, and it may be better. I don't know, but it's a pretty difficult thing to do. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, Roger, I agree with you on that wholeheartedly, and, I mean, I'm just one person on the Board, one person in this Town, b4t I worked enough that I felt with Tim for a year that I wept to everybody that I could on that Town Board to make sure that Tim was reappointed again" I mean, he was the la~t person that I wanted to even leave this Board, because I feei that, he has the most knowledge. MR. RUEL-Why did you check with the Town Board? , , MRS. LABOMBARD-No. I didn't check w¡th them. What I did was lobbied for whatever influence I had, you know, whatever it was that much, it wasn't gojng to hurt. MR. BREWER-It's not the end of the world. Mario Çuomo's not the Governor aDymore. He'll live. I'll live. Five more years, but I still think, all of that aside, I think our, procedurally, we make an awful lot of mistakes, and I think, bottom line, that has to come down, to the leadership. Bob (lost word) leadership because, procedurally, if we don't go through the meeting properly, then I think it reflects on the whole rest of the Board, and I think that's happened. When we have a public hea,"ing, and maybe I'm nitpicking, but maybe I'm not. You have your public hearing. '(ou,do your SEQRA" You (lost word) without doing the SEQRA, and I'm not criticizing you. I'm just telling you. - 20 - '- --' '-.,.-' --..../ MR. RUEL-It'll'all come with time though. MR. BREWER-Exactly. It's not your fault because you 'haven't done it long enough. I mean, procedurally, things have to be done a certii n way to be proper, and that, 'a lot of times,' håsn't happened, and I'm sure I did it, too. I Just said, that's an impression we're getting. I'm saying that, procedurally, things have to be done' iri a certain'~ðY. You can't do a S~QRA, ~fter you get approval. You just can't do that. MR. RUEL~No. He knows that now. MR. éREWER-I mean, and then there's notices that could be given. We've'gOt to make suré the n¿tic~s are given. I'm just trying to help yoU. I don'i want yoU to take it as an insult. Those things have to bedöne,' and they haven't been happening.' I won't say everything's not been happening. MR. STARK-What TIm is saying, I thin~ the first ¿Ouple¡ of meetings yoU were nervous, in February~ You a~ked for amótion bèfore a SEQRA or something like that. Tim, you've done the same thi ng . MR. BREWER-I admitted that, George. MR. STARK-Because, Tim, don't say you dIdn't want to be Chairman or it doesn't bother you because you wanted to be Chairman more than life its¿lf. MR. BREWER-Don't say that. MR. STARK-It's my impression that this is your re'ason for Ii vi ng, to be on this Board, and to be Chairman. You wanted to be Chairman more than anything. MR. BREWER-I would have been Chairman again. George. mind that at all, but I'm saying it's not th~ end for Me not to be Chairman. MR. STARK· I want to sàY that you've made a couple of mistakes in the begi nni'ng that. you know, you've èalled for this. and' you didn't close the public hearing, or something like that.' That's not a big procedural mistake. If you went to these other meetings with us, you would see that ouf ~eetin~s are ruri"ten times better than these other meetings, in terms of p~ocedure, noiinterfu~ting and' everything, but p~ocedure. They don't do anything half as well as we do, and because Bob forgets to open a public hearing or ' close a public hearing, we're there to, you knOw, somebody's here to Say something,' Mr. Chairman, you'v~got to close the public hearing. Okay. The public heating's closed, then we go on to the SEQRA. It's not the end of the world. I wouldn't of 'the wòr ld I· MR. BREWER-I didn't say it was, George, but if you listen to what people said, and c:;Hdn't Just hear what:, you want to :hear, I said, I did it myself, and I said, Bob, it's'because you haven't done it, and that's exactly why, and I don't liVe to be Chairmin of this Board, George. You only hear what you want t9 hear. Maybe that's part of your problem. Maybe' that's part of Our prob'lem, not getting' along. You've got to hear What 100 don't want to hear, too. MR. OBËRMAYER-I think we ought' to just stop with the personal attacks. MR. PALING~No. 1 don't consider that a personal attack. I think it'~ a correct observation. I would like to comment onit. Tim, what you ~ay is correct, and here's what I've had since Day One, and if all I do is go by that, I wouldn't make any mistakes~ but, Number One, I am a little bit forgetful anyway, and I tak~what you say, I take it and laugh at it, but another thing that drove - 21 - -- -~ - me to distraction, and I think it was (lost word) excuse for some of the mist~kes I've made, side conversations. I'm looking at an applicant out,there who's talking, who~s trying to make a point to the Board, there's two guys yakking away, and he's looking at them, and we're trying to, hey, now that, I would get upset inside of me, and some of the cat fighting back and forth that we get into, or all of us get into. That would. I'm using that as an excuse for screwing up, okay. MR. BREWER-I'm not perfect, either. Nobody's perfect. MR. PA~JNG-As long as somebody gets it straight, we'r~ all right, þut I've seen too many of those mistakes, no question about it, but I think that one of the things, ~hen somebody (lost word) says" look, you ought to control, the meeti ng closer, I keep thinking abou~ that and thinking about that and thinking about it, a~d you ~now something, I think Col¿nie brought it out. If you're meeting with mature adults, as we should' be, very little control ~eeds to be executed, but if you've got cat fighting, if you've got side conversations, then you get into a different case, and then when it gets emotional, I can't contrpl it, and not too many people can control the meeting when you start to yell back and forih, and okay, lets get, we ought to get together and yell at each other in thisa~mosphere more, but when we're up there, at that m~eting, we ought to be professional people, which we all are, and we should conduct ourselves in that way, and I really think, obviously, Tim and Craig, you're more by the book, I think, than the rest of us are, and I think the thing that we've missed is, ~we should have li~tened to you guys closer and probably done some of the things th~t yoU said, but it got to be so argumentative that, have you ever been in a situation where you were about to agree with someone, and they've made such a poor argument, go so offensive, you said, no, I'm not going to agree, and I think there's a bit of that crept into it, where we should have taken ~qre advantage of the knowledge you've got. MR. RUEL-Itþink you should be careful and don't overemphasize detailed procedures, not that we shouldn't follow them, but lets concentrate on what the Planning Board is supposed to be doing. We aren't just a Planning Board to make sure that every single word in those books are followed exactly to the letter. I think that there are other things. that are mentioned in there, contributions that we should make to the Town ,of Queensbury. We should look out for certain areas, be concerned about the zoning, concerned about the people that live in the surrounding area, and that's one grjpe I have, that in the applications we get, we get an application for a lot or a subdivision that's just in the area, and· we don't get enough information from the surrounding area, you kn9w what I mean? For instance, so many times I've looked at something, and I really don't even know what the zoning is over here. I don't know if there's a lot of houses over here. I can't tell from.what the application has. If they could give us a little more information about the surrounding area, I think that would help_ I think there's major area that we should concentrate on and emphasize, and if we get carried away with detailed procedures, we could overlook these important elements of the Planning Board. MR~ PALING-We have a diyersity of opinion on this Board, and may it never, ever, ever in ou'" lives change. ~ tendency, when an applicant comes in, or even before an applicant comes in, I'd like to make Queensbury a business friendly place. I'd like to make it as easy as I can for the business man, when he comes in, to do whatever they want to do, provided it's within the rules. Now maybe I get carried away and overextend, because I bend a rule or something, and I would try to guard against that, but I will still retain the attitude that I will, any applicant up there, I want to be friendly to his application. Now if he wants to put up a farme,"'s market that makes absolutely no sense on Route 149, no, I'm sorry, sir, but that just can't be, but, - 22 - "-- --,' '........ .--/ basically, I'm going to retain t,heattitude that L.m. not here to oppose you, applic~nt, I 'want to make say~ Queensbury's a business friendly piace. You ought to 160k at it, and put your store or your factory there. MR. MACEWAN-I don't think we've ever look~d at any applicant other than that, h$ve we? MR. PALING-I think the impression some have gone away with, yes, has been that. MR. MACEWAN-I can only tell you, máybe, from rn:l. obsðrvatibns, being on the Board as long as I have. There are certain applicant's agents who regularly appear in front of our Boards, and there's a very small mino~ity, I might add, but when I see them in front' of our Board, reþreserlting their applicant, my defense mechånisms go' up, because' the first 'thi ng that goes through my mind is, I"m asking' myself, 'I'm not listening to what they're telling me. 'I'm looking for what they're not telling me about a project, and if you've investigated and a~ked enough questions, sooner or later it washes out to the surface that there are some things in there that rnaybe'need to be adjusted, maybe need to be looked at a little bit harder. As long as I've been on the Board, I don't think i've ever'takih an adversárial stance-toWard~ any applicant who's ever aþþearèd b¿fore us,e0er. MR. PALING-I'm gói ng to di ffe'r with you or)'thät. MR. MACEWAN-Give me an example. Lets talk about it. MR. PALING-I think Native Textiles. MR. MACEWAN-There's a classic example, because that' guy was in front of us, it was not what he was telling us,' it 'was what he wasn't telling us, and the reason why he w~ntéd that subdi~ision, if I recall correctly, is that they were buying the title, the mO'rtgage of the property. It was strictly for financial problems that he incurred himself by not crossin~his T's and dottirig his I's, and it was going to be put on QYL. shouldèr's to correct it. MR. PALING-If I remember about that, is he had this lot on the northwest side of it, and to me, no matt~r what he wanted to put there, he had to come in for site plan review, and'wè got into a long involved argument as to whether he could fill it in or whether he could put a (lost woYd) there, and in my mind, it didn't mean anything, because we w¿ren't even deciding that on that night, and Wé should hgve let it go.' When a man comes in for site plan réview~ and he wants to érect the Broóklyn Bridge over there, we say, no, but there is no need' in MY' mi nd to even address the subject that night. MR. MACEWAN-'-But theYe were a couple of things that pre-empted that. If I recall one of the conditions"of the .ite plan was they Were never going to develop that back parcel. Wasn't it? MR. PALING-Not the One I'm talking about. MR. MACEWAN-It had to do with access to that back parcel or something~ and he wanted to change that whole scen~rio around. Here he was in front of us, what, three weeks earlier, and said, I,agTee to those terms. I agfee to those conditions that you're setting forth in this resolution. Then he shows up three weeks later and says, nOW I want to change the stakes. MR. PALING-Could we not have just said to him, okay, you (lost word) any way yo~ want to for this piece of property, but just remember, now you may make that óther piece unu~able? MR. part BREWER-That's where I disagree with you also, Bob, because of the Subdivision Regulations says, and our a~torney said - 23 - --- ---.~ > this to us, and that's why we agreed and diq what we did, is they have to provide means of access. So in order to provide means of access, they have to show us how they're going to get across there, and when all of us went out there, and he told us it was eight feet deep, and we went out there, and it was fifteen feet deep or forty feet deep, we said th¡s ~uy is a bunqh of baloney, and we all said that, and I don't think anybody disagrees with that statement. So, to say, okay, why should we create something that we never approve? Why should we create a situation, that's like creating (lost word). We are creating it, because if you create that lot, then you're creating the problem, Bob. If you don't create it, you don't create a problem. MR. PALING-Well, if it is created, whoever creates it, and they know very well what they're getting themselves into, then let them go ahead and hang themselves. MR. BREWER-Then that's like saying, okay, lets let this guy have the farmer's market up there on 149. MR. RUEL-It doesn't mean that. MR. PALING-You were not being asked for approval. MR. BREWER;We most certainly were. If you gave him a final approval, then that's granting that, creating a monster. MR. PALING-The condition, as I understood it, that whatever he wanted to do on that piece of land, he would have to come back for site plan review. MR. BREWER-That's not a, condition. That'8 just, part of what the law is. I mean, if we created that, Bob, we would have created the scenario where we created a lot with no acce$S to it, and our attorney said, no, you guys can't do that. If somebody came up and sued us, they'd beat us, because we're not allowed to do that. We ended up denying it. MR. STARK-Bob, can we move along? MR. PALING-I agree. We're getting off qn a tangent. MR. RUEL-I was going to mention that we do have a tendency on the board, though, and (lost word) over a period of time, of reading in site review elements on a subdivision, and some of them are discussed at length, and'it's certainly up to the Chairman to squelch th¡$ ,immediately, because (lost worq) it doesn't contribute anything to the subdivision. MR. PALING-Say that again? MR. RUEL-During a subdivision application, there's a tendency on the part of members of the Board of bringing up factors that are site plan review elements, solely, and when we have a subdivision application, we should concentrate on the subdivision application, period. We can think about what might happen in the future. That's one thing, but it's not part of the discussion and it's not part of the application. MR. OBERMAYER-I think that's a very good point, Roger. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. BREWER-But might I add, actually, it is part of the subdivision. MR. OBERMAYER-Maybe it's the way we come across. It does seem like some of the Board members are not business friendly, and I stand on Bob's side of this, and I am for. b4sinesscoming in. I work for a business. I mean, we go through so many regulatory - 24 - '"--,, ........, ~- -- requirements it's unbelievable (lost word). The applicant also, that's why I sit here. I want to eliminate some of the bureaucracy associated with the application. If I can shorten it one wee~, that's great, I think. ' , MR. MACEWAN-The problem that you're going to have when you do something like that, is the first time you eliminate the bureaucracy for ~ applicant, but you don't do it for that applicant, you're g¿ing to have yourself a court, on an Article 78. MR. RUEL-But every application is different. MR. OBERMAYER-Every application i§. different. MR. RUEL-Some are very simple. Some do not require. MR. MACEWAN....Then not saying that fall under the subdivision. at the very least you give thém a waiver. I'm the guy who's got a two lot subdivision should same criteria as the guy doing a four lot MR. RUEL-wOkay, but you see, the way things are WI i tten up ,it's written up like we're buying a battleship, and actually all we want is a canoe, and that's the way things are wr~tien; So, you know, you'vé got to think in terms of the specifications for the battleship, hey, they don't apply to this canoe, lets. eliminate a lot of this stuff~ MR. MACEWAN-I agree with you (lost word) when I've been on the Board, there's been many instances where we've reviewed an application and have granted waivers, man~ occasions. MR. RUEL-I get a feeling many times that we ~ive certain apþlications a hard time. It's just my feeling. MR. PALING-Certain applicants that we give a hard time to. MR. RUEL-Applicants, yes. Maybe it's the' area that it'iin, maybe it's. the kind of business. they're in, maybe it's the kind of building they're putting up. I don't know ~hat, but I just get the feeling, oh boy, that's. MR. PALING-Which one do you think we were the toughest on? I think we were toughest on the people with" all the drawings. I look back to that farmer's market on 149, and that little sketch thing. If Leon Steves came in with that, we Wouldn't bother with it. MR. RUEL-I blame the Planning Staff for that. They shouldn't allow something like that to come through. That's what these people are paid for to lòok at. MR. MACEWAN-Let me respond to that. In all faírness to Staff, we went through that thing for, how manyrneetings did we meet with that applicant? I'll bet you four meeting~, five meetings, and every time those two applicants came in front of us, they changed their game plan. They had no idea what they were doing. So if they came in here to Staff and said, here's what we're going to do. Here's our maps. Staff said, that looks pretty good. It looks. like the application's in order. We'll put you on the agenda. They come down and s.it in front of us, well, I don't know, we might have a tattoo parlor. I'm not really sure, but, you know, we might have (lost word). . MR. RUEL-Even if they didn't know what they want, the people looking at the sketch would know that. MR. MACEWAN-The point was, though, when they sat down in front of us, they may have told Staff one thing. By the time they got in - 25 - ---- ~ front of us, they kept changing their idea. their idea while we were talking to them. They kept changing MR. RUEL-But the same. sketch was presented to the Planning Staff as was presented to us, wasn't it? MR. MACEWAN-But, the point I'm making, Roger, is they're changing their mind, from the time they made that sketch. ' MR. RUEL-Changing their mind has nothing to do with it. I'm talking about the acceptance of the quality of the sketch. MR. PALING-Okay. I'd just like to know if anybody else ,they'd like to say about what's going on? together? Can we be more compatible? has anything Can we work MR. OBERMAYER-I think different opinions are very good. MR. BREWER-Can the public make any comments? MR. PALING-Okay. I did have a summary here, that point. Has everyone had their say now? to the public? but I think it is Can we open it up MR. BREWER-Can I make one more comment? I don.'t think we can walk away here tonigh~ and think that we're 90ing to be living in a perfect world. I mean, things are not going to be perfect when we walk out of here. So I don't want anybody to get the expectation that everything is going to be perfect when we walk out of here, because if it was perfect, we wouldn't have to be here. I don't thinK we should strive for perfection. You can strive for it, but I don't think you're ever going to get there, Roger. Even the Town Board is not perfect, Roger. Do you believe that? MR. OBERMAYER-I don't think any of us are always going to agree on everythi ng. I mean, I'm goi ng to have my opinion, and Craig's going to have his. Tim's going to have his, and we're not always going to agree. MR. RUEL-We should get together with Jim Martin and company, occasionally, to get ,a good feel as to exactly what they want the Planning Board to do from an overall standpoint, a master plan standpoint. MR. PALING-I don't think we should do that. Number One, we're an autonomous, municipal Board, but I do think that there are matters of regulatio~ which we coul~ sit and discuss. MR. RUEL-I've only lived here five years. I still don't know Queensbury. It would help if someone who really knows the area and really knows what is trying to be accomplished for the Town of Queensbury, maybe to talk about certain areas, like you have a half a dozen different villages in this Town, and they all seem to be different. There must be some sort of an overall plan for the community. MR. BREWER-It's called,a Comprehensive Plan, that we all had a copy of. MR. RUEL-It doesn't say anything. I have it. MR. CAIMANO-I guess I'll go by what I said. I hope you never stop arguing. That's why you have different points of view. I'm sorry to hear the personal (lost word) but that you have to put aside yourself. It's up to each individual. I will make a comment about the Town Board. There was a comment that we wanted not just the Planning Board, but the Planning Board, Zoning Board, all of our Boards to rotate Chairman, because we thought, we had heard of this kind of stuff. We thought that might help, - 26 - ',,--, '--' ,., ''''''vi' but it's really a moot point, because with the Planning Board, the Town Board appoints anyway. You vote, but thè Town Board appoints. Remember the Carol Pulver situation where she got voted in, but, put that aside. You're working for the Town. You all do a great job. You're all here for a reason. Procedural things. Two quick things. As long as you're paying an attorney, don't worry about the Article 78. Let him worry about":the Article 78. Do your job and let him worry. You shouldn't have to sit there and be a judge and jury. You're paying Mark Schachner a pretty penny. Let him worry about it. MR. MACEWAN-Nick, I've never sat there and been a judge and jury. MR. CAIMANO-No, no, no. You've said threè times tonight, you're worried about something, you $aid, we're going to get a lawsuit. Too bad. He'll tell you if you're getting in deep trouble. Don't worry about that. The other thin~ is the last paragraph of this resolution, and this is what really bothers me. It bothered me then. It bothers me now. It says here that you move to approve, deny or approve with conditions, and I'll tell you, the minutes, minutes of meetIng after meeting after meeting, and there are, there'll be times when you'll hear nothing from a Board member, for pages and pages and pages, and he or she votes no. I think that that gives the Town, it gives the Town a bad image. If you're going to vote no, and you have a solid reaion, then, if you do it, you stand up there and you ar~ue. You 'may be wrong, in my eyes, you may be right. It doesn't make any difference. You need to tell somebody what you're doing. You're not there, we're not there, just to be the judge and jury. We're there for a reason, and if you're going to deny, tell the applicant why you're denying it. I think sometimes we tell them no and don't tell them why, because it really isn't ground in anything. It's réally personal, and while all of us brin90ur personal things, we have to bring our personal things. That's just words in a book. We bring our personal things into it, when there's no basis at all, when you haven't read the book, haven't thought about it from the law standpoint, and just have a thing about this particular thing. I get in trouble with it, with traffic, I'm still on the Board, traffic going up the hill on Aviation Road. I didn't want to see that traffic up there, but in the final analysis, you have to say yes or no basedupon what's in the book. You're going to give 'reason to it, but for Christ sake, don't sit there, time and time and time, minutes. hours, and then vote no, or yes, for that matter, that's basically no, without telling the applicant what it's ground in, because that's where you get in trouble.; I think that's where you get in trouble. 'Then the fingers~etpointed, he do~sn't like me. It may not be true, but you don't give people, you ~ive people a bad impression. That's my only thing. MR. BREWER-I think the 'Board has strived to, if we are going to say no, we state a reason why we'r~ saying no. MR. CAIMANO-If it's a strong argument, 'the individual ought to stand up, he or she, if you feèl that strongly about it, by God, you ought to stand up and say, hey, look it, like youidid. Talk about that Native Textiles. Look, it says in here, subdivision Regulations, you have to have an entrance; You guys can' vote whatever you want, I'm going to vote no, because the book says you have to have an entrance and an exit, and if you don't, then it's in violation. Now you can draw any lines you want, but that's what the book says, and that's why I'm voting no. MR. PALING-And if the presentation were ended at that point, and then passed around the table, I think we have made our (lost word) . MR. BREWER-Again, Bob, you can't be perfèct. I mean, there's seven different people. How can we, you can't be black and white. I mean, there's got to be some gray area. We can't - 27 - --' always agree and say, this is how we're going to do it and that's the way it is. MR. PALING-I'm the last one who would call for perfection. However, I think we can operate a lot better than we have been, and when the verbal interchange gets thrown back and forth and back and forth, and'maybe a third one enters, believe me, no one's listening anymore, and if we make our point, listen to the others, then maybe remake the point, and if you can't get enough to go along with you, okay, you vote no, and when I vote no, I say why. I vote yes, I don't worry about it. MR. MACEWAN-I think we all do. MR. PALING-I agree wit~ that. To get back to my point, nobody's asking for perfection, but I think that we ,were too far from it in the conduct that we all have had at the meetings. That we have gotten emotional, and w~' have made one hell of a poor impression on many of the applicants, and it's the thing, we're all going to have to restrain òurselves, and say, whoever, I think that's the wrongest thing I ever heard. Well so be it. Then state your case. Let the vote take place. Then if there's still .this other fact in your mind, then I think you should say to the Board, lets get together, because we're making a mistake, or at least go that route. Then we might have to drag someone else in to help, MR. CAIMANO-Can I say two more words, Bob, on behalf of the Town Board? Thank you. You're doing a good Job. MR. PALING-Okay. I'd like to pass it around for one more comment from everybody, then I'd like to kind of close it up. Start anywhere we want. MR. STARK-What about the table placement? You and I talked about that, and I don't know whether Craig or Roger or even Jimmy got into that, moving the wings in more, and moving the applicant up closer, so we can have more of a round table, and, you know, rather than ~ave them back 20 feet. There's no need for them to be back 20 feet. MR. PALING-I'd like to, try it and see what everybody thinks. MR. STARK-Existing tables now, okay, and here's the applicant, okay, and everybody sits here, and the applicant's here, and the people are out here, okay. ,We should not have any concern for the people out here, until the public hearing, and then they can come up to the tabl~, okay. Down, there, there's not one person in Colonie that can hear these people talk, and they don't care. They don't have microphones. They don't have name plates, nothing. They invite the applicant up, and here's the way they have their tables, now I'm not saying go to this extreme. They have a table here. They have a table here. They have a table here. The applicants are out here, and there's a big table in the middle. Okay. Say you're sitting here, Tim. The applicant comes up. He stands in front of the table, puts his papers on the thing, and talks to the Chairman who's here and, blah, blah, blah, like that. The thairman says, okay, open I'll open it for a public hearing, close the public hearing. They don't care about whether people can hear out here. We don't do that. I would like t9 move the tables maybe about like this, but move them in, yOU know, so you over here, so somebody over here can see you, and move this table up maybe a little closer. Try it. I mean, there's nothing that says it has to be winged out like that. MR. BREWER-I ~gree with what you're saying. I don't think it should be straight across. I think maybe pitched in, but I don't think we should, neglect the people that are in the audience. - 28 - '-' ..--' -... /",/ ....... MR. STARK~We're not neglecting them. MR. BREWER-We have microphones. If the applicant, maybe, were closer, I think what we're not doing is, you have an easel there. The applicant should come up, put his plan up. We should tal~ to the applicant, thén open the publi~ heàring. I don't think we should get boxed in. I think maybe tip them a little bit, but not boxed in, and I thi nk we ~hould caré about the peoþle in' the audience, because that's why they're there~ because they want to hear what's going on. MR. STARK-Well, that's a point. I agree with what you're saying. MR. PALING-That was sort of my comment to George. I'd like to try this, to see how it works, and the only comment ¡'had was that the placement of the easel, I don't know where to put that sucker because if the applicant's talking'to the Plannin~ Board, the public can't see' 'it. If he turns it to the public, as they did one night, we Can't see it. I'd like to just tr~ this. MR. BREWER-Boxed in like a square? MR. PALING-No, no. George is not saying that. Listen, George is being polite to our friends in Colonie. They did not say, we'll open the public hearing now. There were applicants in front of the Chairman. So he couldn't even see the audien¿e, and the way he did it was, anybody out there want to say anythin~? That's the way he did it. MR. STARK-Then they had a motion. MR. OBERMAYER-You can't box it in too far, because the Planning Staff is sitting over there, too. MR. BREWER~Exactly. MR. STARK-Move it in a little bit, so we can see each other. MR.OBERMAYER-Bob, when you say that we can't, I,mean, when you say we're not going to be bickering back and forth, I' mean, that's all part, not bickering, okay, but, you know, I'm entitled to my opinion. If I don't like Tim's opinion, why can-t I ~ay I don't like Tim's opinion? MR. PALING-You can say that you don't like Tim's oplnlon, but I'm asking you to wait until YÓU get the floor, then say you don't like Tim's opinion. What I'm asking for ail, mysélf included, is don't talk over him when he's saying something, and then Roger gets upset and he jumps in, too. Forget 'the communication, you just lost it. MR. OBERMAYER-I don't mean to be targeting you every time, either, Tim. MR. PALING-Well, this is where my notes (lost word) the meeting. MR. MACEWAN-Can I make my final comment? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-I think the crux of oùr problem here is the inexperience in the leadership that has brought Us here tonight. You guys have got to learn to start reviewing these books and followi ng these books. If yOU ')-e not goi ng' to follow the books, put the proper steps in place to get away from them, but you've got to follow the zoning and Subdivision Regulations. That's what they're there for. The problem that ~e hav~ that has brought us to this point is the inexperience in the leadership, by not understanding and following the book fully. Not all of us know it fully. That's why we have Staff to help us. We have - 29 - - legal people to help us. That's why you have senior members on this Board to help us. I think that's the biggest problem we've got. MR. PALING-Well, I think it's more than that. The first item that I have written down, two weeks ago, was written rules and customary practices, that I think especially, you and Tim being the senior members, have not liked it when we haven't known all, or gotten away from the rules, and I think, in my personal opinion, after listening to everyone tonight, is that we all better give a little. Maybe we better read a little more, and that kind of thing, that's fine. I try to read that stuff, believe me I do, before every meeting, especially where it directly involves the applicant, but I think you guys ought to consider a little bit that there are such things as waivers, you know better than we do, and I think that gets into the next point. Both sides of this have got to think out their positions, and maybe become a little more lenient. I'm talking both sides of that opinion, and I think a lot of the problem comes from the fact that we haven't listened fully to the other guy. There are so many interruptions that go on, and it's hard for me to control an applicant's interruption if I can't even control my own Board's interruptions, and control's a funny thing. It's something that mature people exercise themselves. Listen to other's opinions, and then when it's time for you to speak, make your point. There may come a time when you're boiling mad, but you've spoken lets say four times and tried to make the same point. Sack off. Vote whichever way you want to vote, and then say, like I've said so many times tonight, lets get together and talk about it. We're going wrong. We did wrong tonight. Lets get together and talk about it, and I would like to see us become more harmonious, than go back to similar to what we were before, and I hope everyone's had a chance to exercise their feelings. MR. BREWER-I just think if a decision comes down to yes or no, you should be able to justify the yes as well as you should be able to justify the no. Not just say, why not, because if the Ordinance says we should do something then, by God, we've got to do it, and or got to change it, and if we don't like what's in there, then we've got to, all together, (lost word) to the Town and say, hey, that shouldn't be there, and here's why, and if it is there, then we have to do it, and I'm not saying you have to nit pick, every T crossed and every I dotted. There has to be waivers and (lost word), but if it says, you have to have a 10 foot setback, then by God, you can't say, okay, now he's okay. You don't have any right to do that. I'm saying if a guy brings a plan in, and the setback says he's got to be 25 feet. He brings the plan in and it's 12 feet, you've got to say, hey, fella, you've got to change that, but if it looks okay, then you can't just say yes. MR. STARK-If he's asking for a waiver of that condition, he has to go to the ZBA. MR. BREWER-He can't ask for a waiver of that. certain things. I'm just saying MR. RUEL-I think you have a very viable Board. I'm glad to be a member, and I think a session like we had tonight is a step in the right direction, and I think if, a month or two from now, we feel that we need to meet again, our glorious Chairman will bring us back together and resolve more problems, but I really feel we're going in the right direction. MR. PALING-And you might, if you going astray, you ought to just, I'm say, hey, I thought we agreed to this (lost word) or you think I did. somebody would come up and tell me comments. see somebody, individually, talking one on one now, just or that. Maybe I think you I would appreciate it if that. I appreciate those - 30 - -- '-..../ On motion meeting was adjourned RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 31 - --