Loading...
1995-10-30 SP '-- f" .~ '~' '" .'. : ¡ .( ,J .,' :~<, iî ; QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD SPECJ;~'r, tiQFT:J¡H,G: OCTOBER 30, 1995 INDEX ¡ íí i ; ~ ,\ MEETING .' 1..1\1 . :1. ¡ ¡Ii! J l/j!' ,'\ ' 1, ) ¡.fl. jt. J( :.l¡' ij , ~ Meeting Regarding SEQRA Lead Agency for John Br9G~(tiqqrj~ø~ ,~ 1. Post Marina THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE S4BJI;:CT :TQ.aOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE ' FO~LOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. , l :. ~:.~¡ r",: A "\ i¡ :} (~( ) ',-.". ¡ ~h 1(~!P,.~,h:( "!/Î "ri > 1:' " - --" -/ "- (Queensbury Planning Board meeting 10/30/95) ir:;i'! :':1(,;';: 'I" I' ;", ¡ ',I"',~I'; ;,', QUEENSBURY PLANNING SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 30, 1995 7:00 P.M. BOA~b'MËETING " 'f : MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY GEO~GE STARK ROGER RUEL TIMOTHY 'SREWËR JAMES OBERMAYER MEMBERS ABSENT CRAIG MACEWAN CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-JAMES MARTIN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. PALING-The purpose of tonight's meeting was to reconsider the letter that was read into the meeting last time, October 19th's letter from the Zoning Board of Appeals which requested that they be lead agent for the John Brock/Mooring Post Marina, and that they do the SEQRA. At that time, we said, no, we wanted to be lead agent, and I can remember what I said was I voted that way simply because I thought someone else would be better off making the decision than we are, because when this happens, it goes to DEC for decision, and since then I've had time to reconsider this, and I want to say exactly what I think, but I'd like, I have reconsidered, and I'd like to outline the alternatives involved in the thing, and then ask John Goralski to fill in what I might have left out, and I've asked Fred Carvin, and I think you all know Fred, Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals, to be here, to answer any questions that we might have for him in this regard. So what I'd like to do, if it's all right with everyone here, is to just state the alternatives as I see them. If we stick by our vote, then we'd have to go to the DEC, and it's their decision as to whether we or the Zoning Board of Appeals is the lead agent, and that could go either way, and then the process would begin, but there would be that delay. If we reverse ourselves, and say, okay, ZBA, you be the lead agent, then what would happen is that they would go ahead with the process that they've started already, and then if it passed, the variances passed, they would do the SEQRA with the public hearing, and then if it passes ZBA, it would come to us for site plan review. Now other things that can enter into this is that, tonight, we can review this, even have a mock SEQRA, if you will, and if we say, Zoning Board of Appeals, okay, we want you to be lead agent, but these are the cautions that we want you to exercise when you are running the SEQRA, be it a public hearing, and anything else specific that we might come up with as we go through that, then that becomes a recommendation. In the event that the recommendation made was not followed, then we as a Board, if we would decide, would then sue the Zoning Board of Appeals, take them to court, for that, and then this is not just an idle statement. This happens, and this is the recourse that we have, in the event something happened where we felt strongly, and the ZBA felt the opposite, and they were to proceed. Then we would resort to the court, and I think that defines what we would do if we said be lead agent, but we want you to exercise these cautions, but either way, this comes back to us for a regular site plan review, but the public hearing and SEQRA would have been held and we would hold a public hearing at our site plan review also, even though we were not lead agent for the SEQRA. So I think now, if everybody agrees, I'd like to call on John to - 1 - (Queensbury P lanni'ng Boa'rd meeti ng iió/3Ö/95),Vf " I,,, fill in these spaces and make it any comments you might have on it. MR. GORALSKI-¡'m not sure there's too mu.ch I Can fill ~,n, unless I can answ.r some questions. One thi~g ,ßob had, asked 'me to look intò is the time frame involved if the ¢6mmissioner were to make a determination. The Commissioner ha~ 20 days from the receipt of the letter asking for him to determine leaq agenc;:yto'make that determinati.on. AssUming that, tonight, nothing changes, we would try to get that letter out tomorrow or some "formal proçess that we have to follow, but ass,umi ng that that were 'the case, it would be 20 days from whenever the Commissioner receives the letter. The only other thing i's, 'yOU talked abou't reviewing something tonight? MR. PALING-Well, what we talked about earlier was that we would write a letter to the ZBA saying these are our cautions, and I thought the manner in which we might do that would be to go through the SEQRA Long Form tonight, not as a SEQRA. I'll call it a mock SEQRA, and from ,~hat woul~ cometanyques,tions or comments we might have, on which we ~d båse our c6'mments, to the ZBA. MR. BREWER-There's a built in iime frame for comments anyway, right? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. BREWER-So I don't see a need for that tonight. MR. GORALSKI-It's \"lþ to you. You certainly, I have açopy of the LongEAF that you can review tonight if you'd like, but you might want to take some time, to study the plan, maybe do a site visit before you made any formal comments. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I agree. MR. RUEL-I gather~he purpos~ of meeting tonight is to perhaps change whatever we' did at the last meetin~. " MR. PALING-Either confir,m it or change it, ,yes. MR. RUEL-Okay. Now, at the last meeting I guess I was'the only one who voted no. MR. PALING-I voted in favor of us being, I voted no for here, but I only voted I said, for reasons of letting s.omebody else make the decision. MR. RUEL-Okay. I voted no against that because everyone else voted that the Planning Board should b~ leaq agent. Right? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay, and I voted, essentially, that the ZBA should be the lead agent. Now, I could relate to and sympathize with the plight of the applicant and it was mentioned by several members of the Board that some people thou~ht that th~ applicant got a raw deal, and the implication"to me, was that it seemed .that perhaps ZBA doing the SEQ~A, that it might;be a ~atter of judgement, and they might be hard on the applicant; agai n. This is the implication I got. Whereas, if the Plannin~ Board did it, then it"s a matter of judgeme'nt, I?exhaps the, Rlann'ing ,Board would be a lot more lenient, and go a lOt easl~ron the a~plicant and ma ke i t e~sier for him to get w~at hø, wants. , ' , MR. PALING-Are you saying that, becau~ß ~feel that WaY, or because somebody else said that? - 2 - ----' -/ "'-'- (Queensbury PlanniJ)g ,~oa,rç:l meet~ng ,10/30./,95) " I,' . ' ,) .1. ,¡, . 'T" .' j i,.' ¡ í J.!!'¡ ',' . MR. RUEL-No, I fee¡ that way. That's why I voted no. MR. PALING-You voted in favor of the ZBA being lead agency. ., ".1 ,: MR. RUEL-Yes. I votédithat the Planni ng Board should not be the lead agent . I wÁs' very 'surprised, ,because in the last couple of years most Board' members have obJêcted to handling' any ~pplication that,they didn't have information, backQroùnd, data, ~ite review, ,whatever. We have had no e~perience on this at all, and I know' , n'6t'h'i ng I abo'ut . it' èxcept wt1 at I reàd in the newspapers. Idldn't feèl 'that ~é wèri qualified at .ll~ and based on our past experien¿e~ thai we always 'said that for us to pass judgement or revie'w anything, we must have some information. We have no information o~ this. So what m~kes us experts, all of a sudden, on the SEQRA for an applicant that we have no ii nformation on? ~R. PALJNG-You don't felate to that comment. opposite. OkaY. Fine. You're the MR. OBERMAYER-MY opihioh is that really, the historical back ground of it is not ne6esèarily rélevant1in this case. We're going to receive drawings. We're going to base it on the recent submi~sions by the, I mean, what happened a year ago really isn't going to play into what we're evaluating at the present time. The applicant's going to submit, has probably already s~bmitted drawings, and we're going to review it on that merit and do the SEQRA on that. MR. RUEL-Wouldn't the ZBA do the same thing? MR. OBERMAYER~The ZBA, it~s my understanding, zeros in more on the Zoning ,OrdinanCe. You' go down, you look at all the lists of items on the SEQRA form~ and they réallY don't pertain a lot to the zoning, the variances that are re~uired for this project. MR. RUEL-The review of SEQRA is not a matter of judgemerit. It's facts. It Qoesn't matter who does it. It's a fact. I don't care who does it. Whèt difference does it 'make? MR. OBERMAYER-It's very opinionated, and we all have our opinions regarding that, okay, on the SËQRA. It~è a matter of inte~pretation, in my opinion. MR. RUEL-Well, if it's moderate or severe, you have to justify it. MR.' BREWER-And I disagreê wi th the statement about whether the ZBA was tough on the applicant or not tough on the applicant. I don't think that has any bearing on this case. MR. RUEL-That was 'm'entioned a't the meeting. I'm only repeating it. MR. BREWER-And I stated at the last meeting, that has nothing to do with any application.' M'R. ,RUEL-!t was still mentioned. MR. SREWER-I think the ~ist of what we said at the meeting was~ the Pla.nning Board, historically. does typically mO'îe SEQRAs than the It:3A:,MàYbeweshould be 18àd agent." Maybe we shouldn't. I think the w'ay'we felt was we should be because of that fact and that maybè a neLltra.1 þarty that has had nothing to do with it, being the Zoning Board or the Town Board, whoever, maybe we would be more fair to both;sides, whether it be the applicant or the people opposing it, and that's the way L felt. I think that, like Jim'sald, if we gét the application and we go up and look at - 3 - --,- , .') " . .,. ,",' (Queensbury Planni ng Board meeti n9 10/áó/95)':!~ it, review it, with none of the past history, maybe we would do a better job. That's the way ~ feel~ It's hard, and I'm not say i ng that the' Zoning Board or any', Board would put their personal opinion on any project. I dori6t say that they would ever do that, but me, I know that, in the past, we~ve had projects that have dragged on and dragged on and dragged on, ,and you've always got that¡ n the baCk of your, mind,. That "s just ~ opinion. Ma)'Þ:e thatcouldplay, int9 it, maybe,lt wouldn~t. I don't know, but I think us being mor,e neutral and not. having had the last year of all the complaInt's from both sides, maybe we would do a bëtter job. That's just ~ oPj. nion. ' r ".t MRS. LABOM,BARD,-I don't ,really feel, at this time, that I have enough background to make a de6ision ~nwhere I want to go. It's hard for me to believe that the past events aren't relèvant. I mean, it would be difficult for me to see how they're nót ~oing to come into playas we go forward on this. MR. PALING-Okay. Then let me tell you wha~ I think, I've tried to stay away from what I thought in doing t~is, but I think that if we get involved in this, I think not only are we gQing to have to go to school to learn the baèkground of it, but' people wh6 are presented both sides of this are going to feel we need to be brought up' ,to date~an~ theY'~e,~oi~g to 90 back to Day One and bring us through all th1S detal.l, Wh1Ch the ZBA ha,sbeen through, to br i ng us UP to date, to ma ke us quai i fy to do this ~ ' "{he ZBA is not a stfariger to SEQRÄs. The~ have run many SEQRAs every yea~, and I thought at first that w~ could acqelerata'th~ process by voting against this, but t don't see, all I see now is that we're going to delay this because of the process we must go through. Then there's going to be our own education on our own part, like site,visits and so on, and then ,I be~ieve.that both sides are going to say, back to Day One, and lets educate the Board, because they don't know anything, and I would much rather see the lBA, and you're using the term nneutraln~ 'I think they're neut~al, too. We. I hop~. are neutral. I hope they're neutral, too, but I think, they have the autho~ity to act ¿n'it. There's no question about that. They have the experience to do it. They do,SEQRAs,and they, have the ,background in this, one, especially all the detail that's been'looked into over the past year, and they also have counsel, and we don't. We can obtain counsel, but then we've got to educate the lawyer. too. Our counsel is unavailable for thls, and that is another r~~son, in my mind. because Mark can't be involved with this, þeinQ our regular attorney, ~nd there's a~otherthing, hurdle that we've got to go through, and this i's ' going to 'make, to me~ extend a painfully long process even more so. So what I want to do is reverse what I said last week, and say, let the ZBÄ'do it, ~nder, lets say, the eye of ourselves, and I want to appoint two people, after we have our meeting to deci~e any comments we pass to them, to attend the meetings that are involved, and if we feel any recommendations we made are not followed or we feel strongly enough, then we will go back and meet and consider a suit. Hopefully that would never come, but I think, they can do the right kind of job, and it won't delay the process, as it would if we got involved. ' MR. BREWER-John, if the ZBA said, okay, Planning Board. MR. PA~ING-Excuse me, Tim. Let m~ just, make ihis announcement. This is a meeting open to the public, but there is no questions or answers to come from the public. We have asked, Fred Carvin is the only one that can answer question~ tonight. ' MR. BREWER-Well, this is a legal question. , I MR. PALING-Okay, then I'm sorry, but this is the way that it's been set up. - 4 - '-' '-,- '-.../ (Queensbury Planni D9B,oard meeting l '. I"~ ), :.j! 10/30/95) ,_ , , ; I'! I, MR. GORALSKI-I'll take a shot. MR. BREt¡¡ER-If the ZBA said, okay, Plan'ning Board, go ahead and do the SEORA, do we have to go throUgh that process with the . Cbmmissioner? MR: GORALSKI~If the ZOhing Beard of Appeals repealed their motion, .or rescindéd their motion, and a9reed t9 the Planning Boa'rd being .the le'ad agent, I would assume it woùld be ~ basically the ~ay I read through ihe SEQRA Handbook, it says, if it's not decided ~ithin the 30 day peri~d, then the Commissioner would have to make a dete'rm1nation. MR. BRE'WER-We did thè same thi ng with the Town Board a few years ago, and I dIsagree with what you said about bringing a lawyer up to speed, Bob. I don't think that, when he tore those buildings down there~ I know all about that, not all about it, but I know some about it. When he tore those buildings down, what does that have to do with him putting new buildings up? That has nothing to do with ~hat SEOR~. MR. STARK-On the same footprint~ he can put th~m up. , ",.' MR. BREWER-I'don't know anything about that, but I'm jus~ saying, he has a project that'~ cóming before whatever Board to do the SEÇ 'RA on, and that pertains to the buildingè he's putting up, not whá~ he ever toOk down,~ot whàt ¡he wants to p~t up, whàt he is going to put up ~" and'i f he submits that, then 'that's what you have to do the SEQRA on. So I don't think yöu have to go through the whele history .of a year and a half of his arguing and the nei~hbof's arguing. I " ,MR. èT~RK-That doesh't have anything to do with it. .' , MR. BREWER"-'Iagreé with YOU, George. I think it's crazy to think that we have td go and '~ducate ourselves. I'm saying~ if it pertains t.o those buildings he's putting 'up, yes, I agree with it'. MR. S'tARK-I'f he ~s stayi ng wi thi n the foótprl nt, I don't see where he needs a variance. MR. BREWER-I'm not going to argue that with you. MR. PALING-Tim, we're getting a little off the point. My point was that Mark Schachner cannot be Our attorney for this particuiar application. Some attorney' wouÎd be appointed, and that att6fney would have to do some ~tudYin~. MR. BREWER-I d.on't doubt that he would have to do some. MR. PALING-And this is just anothér thing to me that is going to cause a delay in this process. MR. O~ERMAYER-Well, no matter what, i~'s not going to be part of any of the, site plan review or anythin~. So we lose them no mat, ter what. MR. RUEL~You mentioned about delays, but John did mention that if it's resolved within the 30 day period, you don't have that delay that yoÙ mentioned. If it can be resolved, if we can get ZBA to say, okay, Planning Board, you do it, 'then you d.on~t have the delay that' you mentioned about extended to 30 days, the Commissioner, or whate~er. You don't have that. MR. PALING-Well, I think we can ask Fred Carvin to comment on that. Fred, do you want to? - 5 - --. ---- (Queensbury Planni ngaoard mê'éti1Ígl0J:~Ö/9'5)'" I "u I"~ FRED CARVIN MR. CARVIN-Yes. I want to th?n,k YOU fQr inviting Jij,e to"the meeti~g. I'd like to just state that ~~e Zoning áoèrd ~ould appreciate letting us have the lead agency status on this. You've touched upon a number of the elements already ,tonight, I think that, Number One, we have to act on a variance, and I think many of the SEQRA items will have a bearing on the variance. So, in,other words, weare the agenèy involved that has,t'o make the major~~ecisi¿n.' 'It's not the APA. It's not Lak~ Ge6rge. It's not the Planning, as far as the site plan is concerned. Nothing on this project moves forward without a variance, and I think I want to strongly emph~siie that. I think that there's many elements in the SEQRAthat we have to address dLtT 1 ng that process, pr imar i 1 y the impact 0'11 the community. 'We have been very c16sel~ associated with this projeG~ now for well over a year, almost a yeai and a half. I've lo~i track of ihe time. I also want to state emphatically for the record that our Board is looking at this from a non prejudicial standpoint. I think we are looki n'g at this as a clean, slate issue . We br i n9 no prejudice forward or anything else. I also feel very étrongly that the Zoning éoard should be the lead agency in this. tt is true that' we could back away, , but I thi nk that by the' Planni ng Board, taking lead agéncy'status, I think you"re going 'to, Number One, , delay this process for . a considerable amount of time, I think three, four weeks probably is a minimum, if nothing else. I also feel very strongly that I don't thi nk the Zoni ng S,oard will back away from this. I think we really want le~d agency, and I think we need lead agency status on this to make this thing " ,,' , " flow very smoothly. We have started the wheels turning as of October the 19th. We have notified all the agencies. As I understand it, we have received confirmation back f~om Lake George, that Lake George has agreed to, the Zoning ,bei ng"lead agency. I also understand we'háve verb~l confirmation fro~ APA that they feel confident that we should be lead agency, ànd I don't want to put any words in anybody's mouth. This is what I'm bei ng told. ' " , MR. GORALSKI-The only thi ng I ca,n tell you is that, speaking to J lm Hotali ng, he did not thi nk that they had jur isdic,tion, and assumi ng that that goes through their wbole proce,ss a'nd' 'they do not ha,ve jur isdiction, the'n they would agree to 'the 'ZBA bei ng lead agency. Now, they have not received anythiT19 from the Planning Board. MR. CARVIN-The fact of the matter still is'that we have until about the middle of November before it becomes an a,utornatic situation. We are on a time schedule, tentatively to hear the appl ication the 29th of November. We would, welcome a,ny input from the Planning. I mean, if you want to have a couple of people sit in, or act as consultants, I'd see absolutely no challenge to that, but other than that" I think that I would respectfully request that the Planning B¿ard back away from the lead agency status on this, and I think we can, move this whole thing through the pr~cess a lot smoother. ' MR. STARK-A lot of people up there would like him to·,; ,get a full Environmental Impact Statem~nt. Do you ever require this in any of your SEQRAs?, Have you ever asked for that? MR. CARVIN-Not to my knowledge. MR. STARK-Suppose that came up, as a,hypothetical situation, up there? Do you think you'd be requiri'ng it? MR. CARVIN-I would, off hand, say probably not. I think that this is a pre-existing nonconforming use out there, and I t~ink you really have to address the issue to the expansion. In other - 6 - --- ~^ ,-' --" (Queensbury Planniry^~~oa,rçj meet+I1~'i' ,10/39/99,) words, what is the expansion really representing as far as environmental impact? MR. B'REWË,R-But thèy ¡ truthfully can't answer that until they do the SEQRA. MR. STARK-Öbviously. MR. RUEL-Would you' elaborate ón the relationship between the effect of val" ianc~s¡ to the SEQRA? You mentioned that that has an impac't . MR. CARVIN-Well, I. think the impact comes from the public hearing, that ,we have the full set of'Þ'1ans. We're going over it, and I reall'y think that we would be in the best position to look at that particÚTar situation very closely, in other words, to get the publi'c iflPut and go through the process simultaneously with the variance, and again, I'm not saying that we can't do it Planning Board, ,but ce'rtainly you will look at certain aspects, and then we may look at other certain aspects, and I think that the problem could arise if the Planning Board looked at it from one perspective and we look at it f~om another, that we have òngoing litigation with"th, Mooring Póst~andI'm not quite sure how that· might impact some 'long term impl ications there, but in answer to your ~uestion, I think it's- the public input, and having'all the documents and evidence. MR. RUEL-Usually substanti<,ü. MR. CARVIN....Yes. MR. PALING-In this case. MR. STARK-Does this have anything to do with what we were talking about earlier? MR. PALING-No. MR. RUEL-Tim, a moment ago you mentioned that one of the reasons you felt the Planning Board would be better qualifie'd, perhaps, al~houghboth ZBA and Planning Board currently are neutral, is that Ù,\'ê ZBA concent'(âtes more' in zoni ng, and we concentrate. , where { in' more technical aspect:::. of the SEQRA? What did you mean , by that? ' MR. BREWER-I didn't say it. Jim did. MR. OBERMAYER-! did. From an engineering standpoint. MR. RUEL-What do you mean by that? Doesn't the ZBA look at the SEQRA the way we, do? " MR. OBERMAYER~I don't know. 'MR. RUEL-Wêll~ no, you said concentrated on zoning. that they didn't, that they MR. OBERMAYER-Because that's really whère their expertise is is granting or not ~ranting variances for setbacks, okay, away from the water versus property lines. Normally they don't get into the site planning of a project. MR. RUEL-We would have site planning after, site review after, regardless of who does the SEQRA. MR. STARK-What's he going in front of the Zoning Board for? MR. GORALSKI-A Use Variance, for expansion of a nonconforming - 7 - --- (Queensbury Plannl~~ ~oar~ m~eting' ió;~o/~%j use. MR. STARK-He wants to make larger buildings than wbat,we~e there originally, and he rieeds a variance for that bec~use it was a nonconforming use. MR. GORALSKI-Correct. , ~í ' MR. STARK-Then he would come to us for the site plan. MR. RUEL-Site Plan review. MR. OBERMAYER-He'd have to get his variance, normally, then he'd come to us for the SEQRA. MR. STARK-Well, no, I mean, if he doesn't get the ~ariance, that's the end ,of it then. MR. GORALSKI-That's cor'rect. MR. STARK-He,just needs the one, variance? MR. GORALSKI-I believe h~ needi an Area Varian6e, too. :" 'd. I ki' ,!r-¡j~j'T ^}t,. ¡Î ¡ ,';\:¡f"':' '!Í"'¡ , '!,'_-':J:.'~_,. ',it', "11 ,-"! _(.'ì ,_ t1R't1ÖBtqRI1Â.:Y:ER~þoes:;he ~et' iàl,l 't,h~S~,',Vðr ~~,rqes,~t:}~riS,~' have to go bac'k? !"l ~:¡ J. > ,(. ,0r¡~1!qQe~ he . I . ,(I " , MR. BREWER-Each one is a separate applicàtion, isn't it? MR. CARVIN-If it's a Use and an Area, it would be thè Use first, and then the Area, because without the Use, the Area becomes pretty much moot, and we would hear both issues, separately, but most of the dialogue would be that evening~ ' , MR. STARK-Did you meet wi th anybody up there, or get, input from any of the neighbors at all from this new design? MR. GORALSKI-They had a meeting, prior to him submitting his most recent appl ication. The, p Ianni ng Department,. although we, had somebody there, weren~t re~lly involved~ and I don't know whether or not he specificalll addressed the is~ues that came up at that meeting then.' I guess that's, a matter of opinion really, but ther~ was a meeting up'ln,Cleverdal~. MR. RUEL-AII these questions lead me to believe we don~t know a hell of a lot about this applicant. MR. STARK-¡ don't' know what he',s doing. didn't see any plans Yet. MR. ÖBERMAYER-I mean, but whà~ .do X~u know about other applicants? Do you know years prior 'to w~at ~h~y'v~ done? , 'í I have no idea. I MR. RUEL-We l.Isually,have a lot of background informatiQn whenever we review an applicátion. MR. GORALSKI-Certainly, I think í 'said th¡~ before you came in George. If this Planning Board becomes the lead agent, or even if they don't become the lead agent, we would giva ~ou,since you're an involved agency, all the docume~tai10ri you would require to make comments on the SEQRA review, if the Zoning Board was the lead agency, or to actually conduct the SEQRA review if you're the lead agency. So the fact that you don't have all the documentation sitting in frQnt of you tonight doesn't mean you're not g6ingto have everything you nee~ to make á decision one way or another. " MR. STARK-In order to expedite this for the applicant, and'cause - 8 - '- -- '---' (Queensbury Planning Board meeting . , '): .- ; 10/39/95) i j ¡ '! him the least amount of whatever he's gone through for the last two years, I'd be willing to let the ZBA handle the SEQRA. MR. PALING...;.Allright. Well, lets go around the Board. you say, Roger? What do MR. RUEL-I voted that way the last time. way again. So I'd vote the same , I MR. BREWER-No comment. MR. OBERMAYER-I guess I don't really care. I can go either way. I'll go with the Board. MRS. LABOMBARD-I feel the way George does. I think that this should be expedited. MR. PALING-Then what I'd like to suggest is that we go through two motions, and then if it goes that we're letting ZBA go ahead, then I'd like to have a separate discussion as to what the Board wants to do, in so far as any kind of representation at the meetings or any overseeing review, but I think first we need a motion to rescind the previous motion that we made. MOTION TO RESCIND THE PR~VIOUS,MOTION TO HAVE THE PLANN~NG BOARD e~COMELEAD AGENT INSTEAD OF THE ZBA FOR THE JOHN BROCK' MOORING POST MARINA, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved'for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 30th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR$. LABOMBARD-Before you make a motion, may I ask a question? Why did the applicant want the Town Planning Board to be the lead àgent? All of a sudden we're saying we want theZBA to be the lead agent because we want to make things less cumbersome for, and less burdensome for the applicani, but in reality the applicant wants us to do it? MR. PALING-I have heard three versions Oh that 'now, Cathy, 6ne of which you're referring to,. I don't know which is right, and I'm not going to try to find out tonight, but some time later on, I would like to find out. I'm not just talking about from the meeting. Out of the meeting I got one impression. Then since the m~etingI got two ó~her atories. So I don't know. I throw them all away and come back to the discussion at the table here. MR. BREWER-I got the impression that we would be more neutral. MR. RUEL-I got the impression that we would be a lot easier, as a matteY of judgement on the SEQRA, instead of the ZBA. MRS. LABOMBARD-Can I ask Fred Carvin what hst heard? MR. CARVIN~l:can only tell you what we sat through the following evening, is that Mr. Brock was at our meeting and was very annoyed at the possible delay, and even though the delay comes from the Planning Board, not from us. We were on thé fast track, and he shows' up the following night and says, gee whiz, the Town doesn't, pretty much, and I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth, doesn't know what they're doing again. I don't want to - 9 - (Queensbury Planning Board meeting 10/30/95) indicate that then~j might be one' end playi tlg 'off another; end here, but si tti ng at that meeti ng, I was extr'emely surpr ised that he was at our meeting crying foul. MR. PALING-Okay. Roger; you were going to make a motion. MOTION TO'" ALLOW THE,' ZONING BOARD' OF . APPEALS TO BE THE i LEAD AGENT IN THE ,SEQRA,REVIEW IN LIEU OF THE Pt..ANNING"BOARD!. FOR JOHN BROCK. MOORING · POST MARINA , I,ntroduced by Roger Ruel 'who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Star k: 'II' , ' Duly adopted I this· 30th day of October, 199'5, by thet' followi ng vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer~Mr. Obermayer. Mrs. LaBombard, M~. St~rk, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE AB$ENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. PALING-Now, for the Board's pleasure, if you will, we can exercise advice, however you want to put it, to the Zoning Board of Appeals in rega'rd to their' SEQRA review. Does anybody want to volunteer to attend their meetings, or do you want to b¥ing up specific cautions now, that we should ask the ZBA to look for? MR. BREWER-Like you said, '1 thin~ we should get a set of drawings and, typically, every month we ~~,to Lake George for one reason or another, and if we go, lets take a tun up 'there and look at it. We can still dis¢úss it. ¡When dòesthe time kick in a~far as our comment is concerned? MR. GORALSKI-You can make your' comments to the Zoning Board of Appeals unti,l the public hearing is' closed. MR. CARVIN-Our public hearing, I ' believe, will 'be tentati~ely scheduled the 29th of November. MR. BREWER-We have plenty of time. can all discuss any comments we writing and send them to the ZBA. At our last meeting, maybe we might, have, and put them in MR. GORALSKI-We have include that in'your Long'EAF. a Sitê Plan'¥eview appliéâtion. I will pacKets for this month, the plans and the MR. STARK-Why is first, so if he second. he on their second meeting instead passes the first, then he cah be on of their ours the MR. GORALSKI-He's'on their third meeting. MR. STARK-Hé'~ Ón their thirdJ Okay. MR. CARVIN-The pyimàry reason for that is because of the 30 day limitation, because we sent our letter the 19th, and APA has 30 days, which puts it to November the 19th, which meant that the next meeti ng would be November the 22nd, which is the;' day be:fore Thanksgiving, preferable, but not possible. So, therefore, the ear 1 iest we could schedulei t would be the following Wednèsda:ÿ. MR. PALING-On the 29th, just let me, so we're all clear, will you do the SEQRA then, would you plan to do the SEQRA then?, MR. CARVIN-The SEQRA first. MR. PALING-Okay. The SEQRA first. So you would plan, so they - 10 - '-.. -...../ ~- ~ (Queensbury Planning Board meeting 10/30/95) would be doing the SEQRA then, and we should be meeting before then for any comments. MR. GORALSKI-You have meetings on the 21st and the 28th. Would you like to have this as an agenda item on one of those meetings? ,,;,NIR.' 1,P.é4I~¡A8~a d5.~!J:8·$:ioT1i:.' i te.m:. ,LEd::" me iasLk, ,<1": questi,on: about ::¡(tha,t:~ ¡if ,i~' haV~v¡!~t),i$ a$~ a discussion, item, . doeS! the Boa.rd,want to .k~~p it, just to discuss wit.hint,ihe',:Boarditse1f ,a''rrdnot have any public comment? MR. BREWER-I would say, yes. Then we can put our own comments. They won't be anybody else's. MR. pALING~I agreø with you. I'd like not to have a public hearing when we're just talking about it.: Now, the meeting is open to the public, but it is not open to public comment. MR. BREWER-If we get it the 21st, and we could discuss it amongst ourselves, put our comments down on paper, and then the following meeting have a letter put together to accept and send it to the ZBA. MR. PALING-Okay. right? Yes. Does how does that sound to everybody, all MR. RUEL-I feel since we apparently agreed that the ZBA would . have lead agency status, I don't see the need have any representation or make any comments or review sißce I believe that they have the capability to do it, never done this in,the pas,t., iI don't know why all of a have to check up. would be, for us to anything, and we've sudden we MR. PALING-We're involved agency, and Mr. Carvin has invited us. He's said he would appreciate if we would make comment. MR. OBERMAYER-It. might actually speed thi ngs up. MR. BREWER-We should at least take a look at it. MR. STARK-We'd look at that dur i ng our si te visits? MR. PALING-Yes. I'd like to put it on the site visit plan, and have the plans before,hand and then go on the site visit, and then we can have OUf meeting and make. any comments we want, and does anyone want to volunteer? I'm going to go to the meeting. Does anybody want to volunteer to go with me? MR. ,BREWER-I'll go. MR. PALING-Okay. Tim and I will be there. Anyone else who wants to, fine, but you and I will be the official designees, or whatever you might want to call ourselves, and we'll be at the meeting. We will provide any comment We have before the meeting. We won't show up to make comment. We'll show up to observe. Okay. All right. Are there any other comments from the Board or from Fred Tegarding this matter? MR. CARVIN-I just want to say thank you very much. MR. PALING-Well, thank you for coming, Fred. We appreciate it. All right. Then I think we'll adjourn the meeting. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 11 -