Loading...
1998-11-17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/17/98) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1998 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY LARRY RINGER TIMOTHY BREWER GEORGE STARK ROBERT VOLLARO ROBERT PALING PLANNER -LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL -MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT, MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: GARVEY KIA SITE PLAN NO. 54-98 TYPE: UNLISTED OWNER: GARVEY VOLKSWAGON, INC. ZONE: LI-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES AUTOMOBILE SALES AND SERVICE. THE PROPERTY RECEIVED A USE VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR AUTO BODY REPAIR AND DESIGN. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR THE ADDITION OF THE AUTOMOBILE SALES AND SERVICE AND TO CREATE A SECOND ENTRANCE TO THE SITE. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 1349, UV 72-1998 AV 73-1998 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/14/98 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-1.30 LOT SIZE: 1.377 ACRES SECTION: 179-26, 179-23 MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to request to table that, until, I guess we can table it until the first meeting of February. How’s that? MRS. MOORE-Or sooner. MR. MAC EWAN-Or sooner, if the Town Board entertains the petition change, zone change sooner than that. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 54-98 GARVEY KIA , Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: Tabled until the first meeting of February, or sooner if the Town Board entertains the petition for change of zone sooner than that. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You’re all set. CORRECTION OF MINUTES September 22, 1998: None September 24, 1998: None October 20, 1998: None 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/17/98) MOTION TO APPROVE THE ABOVE MINUTES , Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1997 MODIFICATION TYPE: UNLISTED SURREY FIELDS OWNER: MICHAELS GROUP ZONE: SFR-1A/RR-3A LOCATION: BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY AN EXISTING SUBDIVISION TO REDUCE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS BY ONE (1), TO INCREASE THE WIDTH OF SOME OF THE REMAINING LOTS. MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION IS SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 17-1997 TAX MAP NO. 48-3-31, 39.1, 43, 44 LOT SIZE: 84.55 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 5-1997 - Modification, Surrey Fields, Meeting Date: November 17, 1998 “Description of Project The applicant proposes to modify an existing subdivision project. Staff Notes The proposal will decrease the number of lots by one. The proposal purpose is to adjust the size of the lot to accommodate the building position. The proposal does not appear to impact travel or drainage pattern within the subdivision. Staff has no additional comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Miller, the floor is yours. MR. MILLER-Okay. Good evening. My name is Jim Miller, Landscape Architect representing The Michaels Group. The reason we’re here this evening is, as you know, Surrey Fields project was a project, single family houses on small lots. All the maintenance is done by the Homeowners Association, geared toward retired people. It’s one of the first projects like this that The Michaels Group has undertaken that wasn’t a townhouse, but single family, and the intent was to provide a range of lot sizes to accommodate a range of houses that they would propose, and what they’re finding in their marketing is that of the homes that they offer, the ones that are the most popular and the most in demand are the larger of the homes, and with that, and to accommodate the market place, they’ve taken a look at the plan, and the area where the lots were the tightest were on the inside of the curbs where, because of the pie shape of the lots, near the rear of the lots, that the spaces were fairly tight for fitting the houses that are being requested. So in taking a look at it, what they’d like to do is modify this section in two ways. First, on Lot Six, they would like to add an additional 12 feet on the east side, which would come out of the Homeowners Association green space which comes through here now. It was originally designed figuring there was going to be a deeper drainage swale through here, and in fact it’s much more gentle. So we would accommodate, we’d widen Lot Six by picking up 12 feet, and then between Lots Seven to Eleven, Lot Eleven would be eliminated, and the difference would be equally divided among those lots. So what we’d do is modify the size of the five lots, primarily by reducing the development by one lot. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems simple and straight forward. Do you have anything else to add? MR. MILLER-I don’t think so. MR. PALING-Will these new lots and the houses on them accommodate a side entry to the garage? MR. MILLER-No. MR. PALING-They won’t? MR. MILLER-No. I don’t believe so, Bob. I think, you know, because of the width of the lots. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/17/98) MR. PALING-You’re doing it only to accommodate the house, not to accommodate the (lost words). MR. MILLER-What’s happening is the tightness was in the back of the lots, because of the pie shape. So what was happening was that the homes that are selling are, they’re offering different add ons and bay windows, and those type of things, larger family rooms, and those types of things, and those are popular, and that’s what’s raising the concern. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have any additional notes, comments from Staff? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-There isn’t a public hearing scheduled, but we’ll entertain anyone who wants to address this project. Okay. Does someone want to put a motion up? MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SURREY FIELDS SUBDIVISION NO. 5- 1997 , Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: Modification to a previously approved subdivision for Surrey Fields, reducing the number of lots by one, the number that was proposed before, 43, this proposal will take the development down to 42 lots, eliminating Lot 11. As per Drawing M-1 dated 10/27/98. The Planning Board has determined that there is no significant change in the subdivision modification and further finds that there is no significant change to the original SEQRA findings. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Jim. MR. MILLER-Okay. Thanks. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 59-98 TYPE: II TRIUMPH AUTO GLASS OWNER: KATIE DIANE MAILLE ZONE: CR-15 LOCATION: 19 NEWCOMB STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO OPERATE AN AUTO GLASS REPLACEMENT FACILITY. THE RETAIL BUSINESS WILL PROVIDE INSTALLATION ON-SITE AND ON MOBILE HOME BASIS. RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS IN CR-15 ZONE ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/12/98 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 11/9/98 TAX MAP NO. 130-2-12 LOT SIZE: 0.38 ACRES SECTION: 179-24 NORMAN BATES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 59-98, Triumph Auto Glass, Meeting Date: November 17, 1998 “Description of Project The applicant proposes to utilize an existing building to operate an auto glass replacement/repair business. Site Plan review is required for a new use in CR-15 zone. Staff Notes The applicant met with Staff prior to submission to discuss access, parking and landscaping. Staff would suggest that the Board limit the access to Newcomb Street, and request a time frame for planting completion. The applicant has complied with the site plan review requirements and has addressed Staff’s concerns about traffic and landscaping. Staff has no additional comments.” MRS. MOORE-For the County, there was No County Impact, and would you like me to read the Beautification Committee resolution in? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/17/98) MRS. MOORE-Beautification Committee Resolution, Site Plan No 59-98 Triumph Auto Glass “No one appeared before Committee. Faxed memo dated 11/9/98 from Norman Bates to Laura Moore review for proposed landscape improvements 1) Because Committee did not receive notification of applicant’s request prior to meeting, no member was able to inspect site. Committee therefore asks Board to have applicant return for site plan review in April 1999 and ask applicant to consider additional screening for adjacent home sites.” MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. BATES-My name is Norman Bates, and I represent Triumph Auto Glass. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about your project. MR. BATES-Our intentions here are to occupy the building located on 19 Newcomb Street, to provide a retail auto glass installation facility. The majority of our installations will be mobile. We go to the site. We do very little in-house service. Although we do provide it at a site located now in Kingsbury. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. BATES-Basically what we’re doing here is we’re trying to reduce our rent by re-locating. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you can tell us about the project? MR. BATES-No. MR. MAC EWAN-I noticed that Staff had made a comment on here that they wanted access only off Newcomb Street. Were you looking at access coming from Richardson as well? MR. BATES-No, those were not our intentions. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and as far as landscaping, do you have a formal landscaping plan that you had put together for this project? MR. BATES-Not formal. MR. BREWER-Just one question. What are the “K’s” located right in the center of the building? MR. BATES-I believe those are the existing lighting. MR. BREWER-They’re lights? MR. BATES-That’s correct. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. BATES-I think I indicated the “K” as to the, how it was listed on the checklist, and I believe that’s where that fell in. MR. BREWER-All right. You’re open, what, Monday through Saturday? MR. BATES-Yes, Monday through Friday, eight to five, Saturday eight to noon. MR. BREWER-And you’re going to plant hemlocks along both of the? MR. BATES-Yes. I thought that would, right now there’s some overgrown trees and what not in there, and I thought that would dress it up for the immediate neighbors. MR. BREWER-How many vehicles are you going to have there? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/17/98) MR. BATES-Right now, we have four mobile vehicles. Three of them aren’t there during the day. MR. BREWER-So you’re just going to park your vehicles there at night, or whenever? MR. BATES-The vehicles aren’t there but maybe an hour every morning. They load up and they go home from their site at the end of the day. MR. BREWER-So there’s not going to be a storage of any cars there? MR. BATES-Not at all. MR. BREWER-Just your own vehicles? MR. BATES-That’s it. MR. BREWER-Okay. That’s all I have. MR. VOLLARO-The property to the north of you, Charles and Martha Godfrey and Jack and Marie Crandall, are these residentials? MR. BATES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-All right. In the CR-15 zone, it says a 50 foot buffer shall be required when adjoining residential and industrial zones, and I don’t see the buffer on the drawing. MRS. MOORE-That’s different zones, not within the zone itself. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s if an SFR-1 zone joined up to a Light Industrial zone, then you have to have the 50 foot buffer. A case in point would be Seeley’s machine shop to the south there’s a 50 foot buffer to the adjoining residential area. MR. VOLLARO-Adjoining residential and industrial zones. So these people are not in a residential zone, Marcia Godfrey and Crandall? MRS. MOORE-They’re in the CR-15 zone. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think it’s good they’re using this place. MR. PALING-My question is for Staff. The Beautification Committee refers to having a site plan review in April of ’99. Why a request like that? MRS. MOORE-Because they were not able to investigate the site prior to the meeting. MR. PALING-And what’s the gap between now and April? MRS. MOORE-Because you can’t put in winter plantings. MR. PALING-We wouldn’t delay a whole site plan review for that. You’d have to have maybe a condition in it, but I don’t think you can delay the site plan review. MRS. MOORE-You can condition it. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that what they were suggesting? MRS. MOORE-They were suggesting the applicant be able to come back in April of 1999, for landscaping. MR. MAC EWAN-For landscaping plans. MR. PALING-They say for site plan, but I think they mean landscaping plans. MRS. MOORE-They mean landscaping. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/17/98) MR. PALING-And that’s the only way we could take it, too. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled tonight. Does anyone want to come up and address this application? They’re welcome to, please come up and identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DON DANIELS MR. DANIELS-I’m Don Daniels. I live in Queensbury, and I own the property surrounding this property. MR. MAC EWAN-We see where it is, located on the south side. MR. BREWER-He owns the other two lots where they’re marked “Viele”? MR. DANIELS-I’ve owned the Northway Diner property for about 30 years, and seven years ago, I bought the property right on the corner at Richardson and Main and the house that is behind it. The garage, which has its main entrance on Newcomb Street, which I know you’ve already mentioned, would be the main entrance to this glass shop, and someone had asked the question if there would be any type of entrance through Richardson Street. There is no automatic entrance through Richardson Street. I’m not sure if somebody was mistaken that there was some kind of an entrance there. The Burns News Room, the past several years that was renting the garage, over the years that they were there, they were, on a regular basis, parking vehicles on my property, in back of the house, and many times I would have to go out and ask them to move their vehicles. They were parked on my septic tank, on my drywells. Their excess cars would park in the parking area behind the Diner. The drivers of the large transport trucks would leave them there all day, or as long as they were gone with the large trucks, and the people in the Diner were always appealing to me, could I please ask them to move their vehicles when they’d be busy at lunch time or for breakfast, and the same thing would occur with the Rent-To-Own store, which is right on the corner, and people in the house would be doing the same thing. We always sort of had a problem with who’s going to be responsible for plowing the snow, and where is it going to be? Obviously, my people plow their snow and they have to put it some place. So, over the years we had these various problems that would crop up and I would have to be an intermediary to try to solve things. Fortunately, John French, who was the manager of the garage for Burns was a very good friend of mine for many years, and Joe Maille has been for many years. So I was always kind of in the middle here, juggling all these various duties as a landlord and a friend. Last year, a large truck that empties a dumpster for Burns backed a little farther out of my driveway behind the Rent-To- Own store and crushed my septic tank in. Now I’m at the point where we’re probably going to have to go to some kind of litigation because they didn’t have any insurance. They carry their own personal insurance. They had no insurance company, and they’ve just repeatedly told me to take them to court to get it fixed, but the day after it happened, they took their dumpster and moved it around the Newcomb Street side so that they wouldn’t have to traverse my property anymore. My initial reason to come here was to let the Board know that I have no objection to the Triumph Glass. I think it’s a good use for the property, and my concerns are just to relay a variety of circumstances that have occurred over the years, and that I lost a septic tank, and I’m still trying to get it paid for by the trash company who is of course now gone, and disavows any knowledge, even though at the time that they crushed the tank in, the BFI trucking company were the ones that called me and told me, and a dozen different witnesses saw their truck crush in the tank, but that’s neither here nor there, because I have to deal with them. There is no automatic entrance from Richardson Street into the back of this garage property. There is a nice driveway that he has to gain access. I did, this summer, put a few strips of fencing across the back side of the Diner property, and told the lady that operates that not to put her cars on the other side of the fence, so that she’s not going to be screaming at me, and the people from the house, who occasionally would put cars behind the house, I told them that’s where their limit is, and not to go past there, and not to let their kids play beyond the fence, because that’s Mr. Maille’s property, and I don’t want them in there. So I’ve tried, but I’ve left a large gaping opening in there. If there were to be a fire or some kind of an emergency, obviously, the fire trucks would have much easier access, so I have not closed that off, and I don’t have any plans to close it off. So if there’s an occasion where somebody was to come in the back, nobody’s going to be screaming about it, but I just wanted to make my thoughts known to the Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Daniels. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/17/98) MR. DANIELS-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? We’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-I have a question. Mr. Bates, do you plan on having a dumpster outside? MR. BATES-No. We have other locations where it’s been a concern to the people in the neighborhood. So what we’ve done is we reduced our containers, which we’re destroying office trash and expended windshields in a four yard dumpster, and we leave that inside our building. MR. STARK-So that would be inside this building? MR. BATES-Exactly, and we do that now in our building on 1082 Dix Avenue, and the front end loader comes in, backs it out and dumps it out, but that is a concern, trash blowing around. MR. STARK-Well, you heard Mr. Daniels’ concern about the snow. MR. BATES-Absolutely. MR. STARK-Have you talked to Mr. Daniels? MR. BATES-No, not until just now. MR. STARK-Okay. I mean, you’re not going to have half the traffic Burns has, or had. MR. BATES-I don’t even know who Burns was. MR. STARK-Whatever the news agency was. MR. BATES-Our traffic is going to be minimal. Walking business is very, we promote mobile business. MR. STARK-Okay. MR. BATES-And the snow removal, in other locations, we’ve had the same concerns, and we’ve removed snow in the past, instead of pushing it up on someone else’s property. MR. RINGER-You won’t be using Richardson Street, coming on to your property? MR. BATES-We have no intentions, no. MR. BREWER-The majority of their business is all, like he said, mobile. MR. VOLLARO-I had a question for Staff, on the note to Board members, on Maille’s do not own Parcels Two and Three. That was in connection with the previous person’s comments. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess the only outstanding issue is having some sort of formal landscaping plan. I certainly wouldn’t have a problem giving an approval to move in, approval of the site plan, stipulated that we get a landscaping plan put together. Normally, we have something formal that we have means of tracking it when the Code Enforcement Officer makes his field visit, to make sure that everything is done in compliance with the site plan approval. MR. BATES-Well, the reason there were no formal plans is I just found out Friday the meeting was Monday. So there was little time to put it together. MR. MAC EWAN-What would Staff like to see? MRS. MOORE-I think he’s submitted on his plot plan, on his drawings, the locations. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that enough to go by? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/17/98) MRS. MOORE-If the numbers are supposed to decrease from that, then we should be notified again of that, but I think he’s indicated that he’s going to plant hemlocks. He indicated what height they were and everything. So, I didn’t have a concern. MR. MAC EWAN-He did? Okay. You’re talking about a total of 18 plantings, 4 foot apart? MR. BATES-And if we need to bring them closer, we could. It’s not a formal, by any means. I just wanted to provide you our intentions. MR. BREWER-How about a date when they’re to be put in. th MR. STARK-May 30? MR. BREWER-That’s fine. MR. STARK-April’s a little early. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Does that letter have a date on it? MR. VOLLARO-November 9, 1998. MR. MAC EWAN-If someone wants to put a motion up, we’ll entertain it. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 59-98 TRIUMPH AUTO GLASS , Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: With the following stipulation: That landscaping will be completed by May 30, 1999, a total of 18 Hemlocks, four foot planted centers. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 1998, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Do you want to put a stipulation on the amount of plantings? MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t we just tie it in to his letter. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a November 9, 1998 letter where he stipulates what he’s going to do. MRS. MOORE-However, it doesn’t indicate the amount, in the letter. On the plot plan, it does. On his letter, he doesn’t state a number. MR. MAC EWAN-A total of 18. MR. RINGER-Eighteen is what the plot plan shows. MR. MAC EWAN-He spells out in there Hemlocks, right? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Four foot planted centers. MR. BATES-If I can add, the drawing is just a rough. I just drew them in there. MR. BREWER-Well, it just indicates that you’re going to put that quantity there. MR. BATES-Right. Okay. AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/17/98) MR. BATES-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 60-98 TYPE: II TUFFLITE FLORAL PRODUCTS OWNER: ROBERT CURTIS ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 10 SOUTH WESTERN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO OPERATE A LIGHT MANUFACTURING BUSINESS. THE BUSINESS WILL PROCESS PRECUT STYROFOAM PIECES BY PAINTING AND RE-PACKING THE ITEMS. ALL USES IN LI-1A ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/12/98 TAX MAP NO. 117.-10-5 LOT SIZE: 20,670 SQUARE FEET SECTION: 179-26 DAWN SWEET, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 60-98, Tufflite Floral Products, Meeting Date: November 17, 1998 “Description of Project Applicant proposes to utilize an existing building for a light manufacturing business. Staff Notes The applicant was notified, the operation of manufacturing business in the Light Industrial Zone requires site plan review. The applicant met with Staff prior to submission to discuss issues of parking, access and business use. The applicant has complied with site plan review requirements. This project conforms with the Light Industrial uses and the purposes of the zone. Staff has no additional comments.” MRS. MOORE-The County approved the project. MR. MAC EWAN-No other notes? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Would you identify yourself for the record, please. MS. SWEET-I’m Dawn Sweet. I’m General Manager of Tufflite Floral Products Corporation. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Could you tell us a little bit about your site operations over there and what you’re all about? MS. SWEET-Yes. We basically take pre-cut shapes of Styrofoam for the floral, for the wholesale floral industry. We have a company in New York City, and they do the cutting of the raw material, and it’s all Styrofoam, and it comes up in a truck, in a box, and we take it out of the box and we dip it in latex paint, green, and we hang it up to dry, and we re-box it and send it right back out. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just curious. Why ship it all the way up from New York City and turn around and ship it back? MS. SWEET-They don’t have any room to do it there. It’s a new portion of their operation. We actually bought out another company that was pre-existing, in Ballston Spa, NY. We bought their part of the operation, and so we had to get it up and running for the Christmas season, in a hurry, and so we rented from Bob Curtis. MR. MAC EWAN-Being a wholesale operation, I’m assuming you don’t have a lot of walk-in customers coming onto Western Avenue? MS. SWEET-No, strictly wholesale. MR. MAC EWAN-How many employees do you have over there? MS. SWEET-Five, sometimes six. We have one part time. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else that you can add? It’s pretty simple and straight forward, isn’t it? MS. SWEET-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s not seasonal, though? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/17/98) MS. SWEET-No, it’s not seasonal. However, it’s temporary. It’s a temporary place for us. We know that, because we’ll out grow it. MR. BREWER-You’ll out grow it? MS. SWEET-Absolutely. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Really? MR. BREWER-Wow! MS. SWEET-Yes. So we’re going to buy a building somewhere. We’re looking at a couple now. MR. MAC EWAN-Good for you. MR. PALING-What about waste generated by your painting and all? MS. SWEET-There is absolutely no waste. We recycle, re-use everything. It’s a latex based paint and Passano makes the paint for us, and it comes in five gallon buckets, well, it did. We now order it in 55 gallon drums, but we add water to that, 50% water, and then they dip it. When they’re finished with that, the paint dipper puts it back into the five gallon pail. They squeegee everything, which runs down a little trough which again goes in a five gallon pail. They rinse the table down. That goes into the five gallon pail, and that’s what they mix their paint with the next day. MR. PALING-Essentially, you have no waste. MS. SWEET-Zero. Nothing. MR. VOLLARO-You don’t plan to store anything in the storage building out back, that 1800 square foot building back of the main building? MS. SWEET-Well, right now we have a few boxes because the back building leaked, but Bob’s taking care of that. No, we’re not going to store anything. Everything is going right back out. MR. BREWER-How long do you anticipate being there? MS. SWEET-It’s hard to say. Hopefully through the winter anyway. Hopefully. MR. STARK-What kind of truck brings it up from the City, an 18-wheeler? MS. SWEET-Yes, a 45 footer. MR. MAC EWAN-How often does the truck come up? MS. SWEET-Once a week we switch. MR. MAC EWAN-Now, does it come in off the Western Avenue side or on the back street? MS. SWEET-I don’t know. The guy does it at three o’clock in the morning, to be honest with you. It’s parked there when we get there. I don’t know. He has a key to the gate and he brings it in, and then he’s just switching is all he’s doing. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? MS. SWEET-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We have a public hearing on this application. Does anyone want to come up and address this, they’re more than welcome to. Please come up and identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/17/98) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We can entertain a motion, if someone wants to put one up. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 60-98 TUFFLITE FLORAL PRODUCTS , Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MS. SWEET-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 61-98 TYPE: UNLISTED LAMPLIGHTER HOMES OWNER: GARY HIGLEY ZONE: LC-1A LOCATION: QUAKER ROAD LOT BETWEEN SPORTS PAGE AND KEY BANK. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO LOCATE A MODEL MODULAR HOME ON A PARCEL AND TO OPERATE AN OFFICE FROM THE BUILDING TO SELL MODULAR HOMES. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR AN OFFICE BUILDING USE IN THE HC-1A ZONE. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/12/98 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 11/9/98 TAX MAP NO.: 105-1-38.2 LOT SIZE: 1.26 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 61-98, Lamplighter Homes, Meeting Date: November 17, 1998 “Description of Project Applicant proposes to place a model modular home on a lot to use as display. Staff Notes The applicant met with Staff prior to submission to discuss access, traffic circulation, and site development. The proposed project is an allowed use as an office building. However, due to the timing of the project, utility connections are not feasible. The building may be operational as a display unit temporarily until utility connections can be made. The building will be required to connect to utilities to receive a certificate of occupancy for the Building Department. Please refer to letter from Staff 11/12/98 for further explanation. The applicant is willing to comply with the conditions proposed. The project will have a shared driveway with the building on the adjacent lot. There appears to be adequate parking and circulation for both structures on the two lots. Staff recommends permanent landscaping measures be installed so as to achieve conformity with the adjacent properties landscaping. Staff has no additional comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-You have a letter from Warren County, Department of Public Works, from Lisa Penistan. MRS. MOORE-Yes. Do you want me to read that in? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. MOORE-It says “Dear Laura: Upon the review for Lamplighter Homes, Warren County was pleased with the addition of the exclusive right turn lane exiting the site onto Quaker Road but has a concern for vehicles attempting a left turn at this driveway. Due to the fact that this driveway is pre-existing we can only offer our suggestions. The driveway exiting onto Quaker Road is located at the taper for the left turn lane traveling to Glenwood Avenue. Because of the taper vehicles exiting to the left are subject to additional conflicts with movements from vehicles attempting to utilize the left turn lane. The amount of storage space for vehicles exiting the driveway is restricted as the median tapers for the left turn lane. The lack of storage space could potentially cause vehicles to remain within the travel lane while waiting for a gap to enter or cross into the west bound traffic flow. Warren County feels that it would be safer if vehicles wishing to travel west on Quaker Road were forced to use the exit on Glenwood Avenue allowing use of the traffic light for safety. This could be accomplished by offering a one lane entrance and one lane right only exit onto Quaker Road along with proper no left turn signage. Thank you for allowing 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/17/98) us to review and comment on the Lamplighter Homes site plan. Sincerely yours, Lisa A. Penistan Engineering Technician WARREN COUNTY DPW” MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-Warren County Planning Board approved the project. Do you want me to read these comments that were delivered today? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Okay. This is a telephone conversation, Lamplighter Homes. “We discussed the letter of 11/12/98 in regards to the Site Plan. The applicant has indicated that the Beautification Committee would like some temporary landscaping installed until spring. The Beautification Committee recommended the applicant return in the spring to discuss permanent landscaping. This condition was acceptable to the applicant. However, I did request some information on the landscaping. The applicant indicated that this information would be provided with other information on Monday 11/16/98. The applicant expressed concern over providing stormwater management information. I suggested contacting Warren County Soil and Water to provide assistance. The applicant indicated understanding of the letter in regards to the display usage only.” And the next letter of comment indicates that they’re going to request a waiver of such. Note of Record about Lamplighter Homes about Lamplighter Homes. “The applicant has addressed the information requested of 11/12/98. The Site Development Data and Setback Information has been updated to address the parcel the model will be located on. They have submitted scaled drawings for the purpose of review. Other Notes: The lighting will be spotlights as noted on the plan. There will be no garbage facilities located on the parcel, facilities are located on the adjoining parcel. Parking for customer and employees is shared with the adjoining parcel. A drawing of another model is supplied to demonstrate the building appearance. The applicant will be requesting a waiver from the stormwater management requirement of the application. There (The Board should review the information appears to be no foreseeable drainage problems. supplied to determine if the waiver should be granted) The applicant has indicated that office space will be rented from the adjoining building on Higley’s property.” That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. AUFFREDOU-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members. My name is Martin Auffredou. I’m an attorney with the law firm of Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes in Glens Falls. I’m here tonight representing Lamplighter Homes. Also here with me on my left is Mr. Floyd Brown and Mr. Scott Ringer, each of Lamplighter Homes. Let me briefly describe to you what we have in mind. A lot of this is somewhat repetitive, as the Staff has very adequately and accurately described the project. This, we feel, is sort of a basic, simple project to review for purposes of your Code and your review process. It’s an exciting and vitally important project for us. What we plan to do is put a modular, model home display unit on the property which is owned by Higley. The property is about an acre and a third, maybe a little shy of an acre and a third. We have a 52 by 27 modular unit that we’re going to use for display purposes only. As Staff pointed out, our office space will be lease space in the current Higley building on the adjacent lot, and that’s where we’ll be talking and visiting with our customers. Our customers will come see us there, and then they’ll be escorted over to the model unit to see the unit. This is something that is a try for us. We don’t know how this is going to work, but we think because of the location, the traffic that’s going to be passing by and does pass by, we think this is a good location for what we have to do. Modular home sales, by the way, comprise some 50% of all homes. Modular manufactured sales comprise some 50% of all homes in the United States. So we feel that this is a good location for us. As you know this company, you’ve probably seen this company down in Moreau. That’s where their primary headquarters is. It’s a well run operation. It’s going to be a well run operation here. We have introduced a landscape plan, and we’re sticking to that. That’s a landscape plan that we’ve obtained. It was provided by Toad Flax Nursery. I believe yesterday we talked to them and they were able to provide that for us. While this is a landscape plan which we think is going to work, it probably won’t effectuated for some time, given the time of the year, but remember, we want this to look nice. If this property, this building doesn’t look nice, it doesn’t do us any good. So we have to have a good landscape plan. We have to make this attractive to our customers. The house itself is not going to be on a foundation. It’s going to be on foundation blocks, but that’s temporary. So if we leave, if this doesn’t work for us and we leave, we’re not leaving anything behind. There’s not going to be any foundation to leave behind. Stormwater management I wanted to talk about briefly. We are requesting a waiver. As I understand the Code, we can have up to 30% of an area here, which is, I guess impermeable. I think I have that right. What we have is a total of 16.8% of impermeable space. That includes the current parking 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/17/98) area. The house itself, for purposes of this lot, is only a 3% addition of impermeable surface. Maybe if you’ve passed by the lot, you’ve seen it. It’s basically an open field, vacant lot. I don’t believe there’s going to be any issues for purposes of stormwater management, and again, because there’s so much of a permeable area that’s going to be left. We don’t see it as a big issue, and we are requesting a waiver. The lighting, Staff talked about that, and as indicated on our plan, we’re going to have two sets of lights out front. They’re going to be flood lights, basically one on each front corner. Each unit, if you will, will have two lights, two floodlights, I guess 150 watts each. The front of the house will also have what you would typically see on any house in a residential area, and that’s ornamental lights near the front door, as indicated on that plan that we’ve given you. We’ll have similar lights on the rear of the house, one on the slider and one on the back entrance. Parking, we obviously feel that there’s adequate parking here. Parking is established. We’re not creating any new parking areas. Ingress and egress to the property will be obtained through the Higley property, the Higley lot where the sports page and the rock climbing place is, into the modular unit there. No new curb cuts along Quaker Road. We’ve got about 172 feet of frontage there, ingress and egress, as is currently utilized in the property. I understand that Warren County has a concern about traffic. That seems, to us, to be a pre-existing concern, and I think any issues with respect to ingress and egress, left hand turns and what not, are going to have to be addressed with Mr. Higley, as the property owner. We think if we have four cars there at any one time, we’re doing great. If we have four cars there, if we’re creating that kind of traffic, it’s a success for us. The vast majority of the time there will probably be no cars there. One or two cars is good for us, four cars maximum. So we don’t see this as creating a lot of traffic. What we’re trying to create is a visible site for our product, and someone who’s interested can come by and take a look. So I don’t think that we’re creating any traffic problems or new traffic patterns along Quaker Road that this Board should be concerned about. We meet all applicable setbacks. It’s a Highway Commercial One Acre Zone. This is a use that’s allowed in that zone, approved by the County, recommend approval by the County. We had a good review by the Beautification Committee. We’ve got some pictures of the lights. We’ve got some pictures of the stone foundation, if you’d like to see those. We’ve submitted our landscaping plan. We hope you all have a copy of that, and we’re here tonight to talk about the project and to, of course, answer any questions that you have. MR. MAC EWAN-Martin, could you just go over, one more time, your lighting, your exterior lighting? So I understand it. MR. AUFFREDOU-Sure. Standard floodlights. This is what each of the units is going to look like out front. MR. MAC EWAN-So they’re going to be actually illuminating the building, not on the building illuminating out? MR. AUFFREDOU-Right. They’re going to be facing (lost words) on the building. They’re not going to be facing out toward the road. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And where are you putting them, in the front and in the back or all over? I see it. MR. AUFFREDOU-This is what the lights on the front of the building are going to look like, and similar to the back, one along the slider and one along the back entrance. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now you said right now you’re not putting a cellar or anything? MR. AUFFREDOU-No, we’re not. We have no intention of doing that. MR. MAC EWAN-I just wanted to be squared away on the lights. I thought, I did misunderstand you. I thought they were going to be on the building shining toward the road, and I didn’t want to see that. I wanted to see it go in the opposite direction. MR. AUFFREDOU-No, just like in our plan, they’re going to be on the ground, high enough to get away and up from the snow cover, and shining on the building itself. MR. MAC EWAN-Your landscaping plan, do you have numbers and quantities submitted to Staff? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/17/98) MR. AUFFREDOU-Now we do. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is it going to look like the picture, basically here in the front? MR. AUFFREDOU-I wish. That’s really very well done. I don’t know if it’s going to look like that. It’s going to look like, as depicted here, do you have a copy of our landscaping plan? MR. MAC EWAN-No, this is the only one. I just got this from Staff. You can pass that down. Make sure it gets back to Staff. MR. AUFFREDOU-I have some extra copies. Remember, while we want it to look nice, we don’t want to overdo it, because again, we don’t know if this is going to work. So we’d have some concerns there about overdoing the landscaping, and we think the landscaping plan that we’ve submitted is certainly adequate. We have a total of 36 trees and bushes. MR. MAC EWAN-One of the concerns that came up during our site visits was on this piece of paper here, was reference made to using a port-a-john with a stockade fence. MR. AUFFREDOU-We’re not going to do that. Our office space, again as I’ve indicated, Mr. Chairman, is going to be in the Higley building. He’s kind enough to give us some space there. We have a good arrangement there. That’s where we’re going to be operating, and that’s where our customers are going to be, and that’s where our sales staff is going to be. If the customers need a bathroom, if our sales staff needs a bathroom, it’s in the Higley building. MR. BREWER-So that’s eliminated off the plan? MR. AUFFREDOU-That’s eliminated off the plan, and you can put that right on a condition, if you’d like. MR. VOLLARO-That’s permanent? In other words, you’re going to operate that way permanently? I see a note here in some of the Staff notes that says the building may be operational as a display unit temporarily until utility connections. Do you plan to do utility connections? MR. AUFFREDOU-If we do, we’re going to have electricity. We have to have electricity to light the building up, and to have lights inside, for viewing purposes, but as far as running water and sewer, only if we plan to be there permanently, and we understand we’d have to come back for a further review process if that’s the case. MR. VOLLARO-How does the Certificate of Occupancy play against that? MRS. MOORE-There is no Certificate of Occupancy for the display unit. We can issue a building permit. When I talked to Dave Hatin, we discussed that. He didn’t seem to have a problem with that. MR. BREWER-It’s just like a model home in a subdivision, right? MRS. MOORE-It’s a model home, yes. MR. BREWER-The same thing. MR. STARK-Do you ever plan on changing the model home, leave this one in for a year, take that one out, put another one in? FLOYD BROWN MR. BROWN-I would say in time, yes. We try to turn the homes over within a couple year period of time. Number One, some of the colors, some of the different architect inside changes, and of course we like to sell from, you know, each unit. So probably every couple of years, yes. MR. STARK-How are you going to resolve that with the landscaping? Leave landscaping off one side or something and just back it out or? MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes. We can, in that situation, we’ll probably have to end up taking it from the gable end, and removing some of the shrubbery on that side, and then, again, they get slid onto 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/17/98) or jacked up and we slide some flatbeds under each half and then, you know, roll them out of there. So, you would disturb some landscaping at one end of the gable or the other. MR. PALING-I just have one question. I’d like to get an idea of the profile of the building. Is it a rectangular box versus one of these that you submitted? It’s going to have a pitched roof? MR. AUFFREDOU-We have pictures which hopefully will answer your question. MR. PALING-I was hoping it would not, and it isn’t a rectangular box. It’s got a roof and everything. MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes. Those are not pictures of that unit. MR. PALING-But you will have a pitched roof, more like that one, more like the one we’ve got here. MR. BROWN-Exactly like this one with the lighter colored stone in the front section but basically that’s the home, as far as the rest of the outside goes. MR. PALING-Okay. That’s the only question I had. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So this is going to be 26 by 52? MR. BROWN-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, this picture isn’t the same one that’s here. MR. BROWN-It’s not, correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But the one that’s going up is like the one here, is that what you said? MR. BROWN-Correct. What we’re trying to do, the home that you see there is set up down in Pennsylvania by the manufacturer who builds the modular home. The only difference between, a major difference between the two is that has a shed porch on it, where ours is going to have the gable, and we’re going to have the white stone front, versus that darker stone that you have in your hand right there, but I guess what we’re trying to do is say this is the type of house. It’s a ranch. It will be very similar to that, other than the front porch design itself. We also have some inside shots, if somebody was interested to see the round wall, in this case going into the family room, (lost word) ceiling type of effect in the dining room. The elliptical archway going into the other end of the dining room itself. So it’s very, it’s unique and those are the reasons, again, as we stated, we try to turn these homes over ever couple of years because, again, there’s some new features that come into existence. MR. STARK-Are you still going to keep your sales office down there in South Glens Falls? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-So it’s not like a scenario where you’re going to be turning over these homes on this site every three months or so. MR. BROWN-It’s going to cost us about $10,000 to $12,000, just to put that home in there, what we call marriage it together, finish the interior, as far as the wall board and that type of thing, carpets and the whole picture itself. So it’s very expensive, and that’s why we only, you know, in modular homes, try to turn them over every couple of years. MR. VOLLARO-Under our Zoning Law, the 179-7, the definition of a modular home, it’s short so I’ll read it to you. It says, “Any building comprised of two or more sections, with or without their own chassis, capable of being transported to their building site and permanently joined into an integral unit which is indistinguishable in appearance from a conventionally built home, including but not limited to a sloped roof and a permanent foundation”. I think you said when you were presenting this that this foundation would be temporary. Is that correct? MR. BROWN-Yes. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/17/98) MRS. MOORE-Bob, I have a comment for that. I spoke to Dave Hatin about that issue, and he said because it’s temporary in usage and it’s being used as display, that as long as they demonstrated that it was, there was like supporting enough as a foundation, that it would be an issue between the Building Department and them, and I understand what your comment is, and that’s why I brought it up to him about, how do we review the project in that aspect, and he said, as long as they can support that this type of foundation that they’re going to use underneath is of strength, then it was all between them. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you see, the modular home is differentiated from the mobile home. It says a transient unit, and that’s why they’re specifying a permanent foundation. So this home has a degree of permanency. MR. MAC EWAN-They are if it’s going to be occupied, but this isn’t going to be occupied. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I think the distinction that you have to keep in mind is the context in which those regulations are written is the notion that these are some type of single family residence, either a mobile home or a modular, and that people will be residing in them on a long term basis. This proposed use is actually a commercial use, not a residential use. It’s a commercial use that involves what I guess I’ll call a would be residential unit, but it’s only a would be residential unit. MR. VOLLARO-You’re doing a great job in crafting that, Mark, I’ve got to tell you. My problem is with the words here. I think we’re trying to resolve a problem. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, let me put it a different way. The proposed use of this property is not modular home. The proposed use of this property is, in my opinion, the proposed use of this property is commercial sales, I guess, would be the best way to. MR. BREWER-Display, exactly. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, display is a better term, commercial display and sales, and I think that that’s the important thing to keep in mind. In fact, I’m not sure that residing in a modular home is even an allowed use in this zone. It probably is not. MRS. MOORE-No, it’s not. MR. SCHACHNER-So, it wouldn’t even be allowed. A “modular home” used as a modular home would not even be an allowed use in this zone. You couldn’t even reside in a modular home in this area without getting a Use Variance. The proposed use is commercial display and sales of goods or items that happen to be modular homes. That’s what the items are, but the use of the property is not as a modular home. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe if you could look at it from a different perspective, would it make sense for them to put a permanent foundation under this thing in order to sell it when they know that no one’s going to, you know, reside in it? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m not questioning what they’re doing. I’m questioning the words that are in here. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob’s looking at the labeling exercise. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s a little confusing, because it is a modular home, but I don’t know, for me what works at least, I don’t know if this helps the Board at all, but for me what works is thinking of what is the proposed use, and the proposed use of the property is not as a modular home. MR. BREWER-It’s displaying a piece of merchandise that they happen to sell. MR. VOLLARO-I understand. I got that concept pretty quick. I understand what you’re saying. It’s just I’m trying to resolve the words, and if we can get by the words in here, and say that, you know, they really aren’t applicable to this application, if I can use that, then I guess we can make that a part of the condition, that this will not be occupied as a residential home. MR. MAC EWAN-For commercial use only. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/17/98) MR. BREWER-It can’t be anyway. It’s not an allowed use. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, it’s not going to have utilities to it either. So that’s another thing. We have a public hearing scheduled. Does anybody want to come up and address this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 61-98 , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: LAMPLIGHTER HOMES , and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put up a motion? MR. BREWER-Before we make a motion, the landscaping is going to be done when, are we going to set a date on that? st MR. MAC EWAN-Do it like we did the last one, by May 31. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/17/98) st MR. BREWER-May 31. MR. MAC EWAN-Is Staff satisfied with the planting schedule? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. BROWN-Yes. The Beautification board that met with us said that what they would want, at the time we didn’t have the plan for the landscaping, but they wanted to re-meet with us in April to come up with what we anticipated was this plan here, so that we could plant actual plants, in fact, for May. So their requirement was to meet again in April to review these plans, and again, we want to get vegetation out there prior to that, so that, again, I feel type of situation. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll be so bold as to say it’s not necessary for you to go back there. Your plans were submitted to us, and it comes under this Board’s approval. The Beautification Committee is only a recommendation to this Board. We’re satisfied with what we’ve seen. So it’s not necessary to go back. MR. BROWN-We appreciate that. Thank you. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 61-98 LAMPLIGHTER HOMES , Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: The only condition being that the landscaping plan submitted be completed by May 31, 1999. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. AUFFREDOU-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. MR. AUFFREDOU-Just a final comment. I think it needs to be said, time and again, that when you have a good staff , an accommodating staff. Mrs. Moore worked very closely with my clients and very closely with me the last couple of days, and she did a wonderful job helping us through this project, and I just wanted to note that. MR. MAC EWAN-So noted, one Atta Girl! PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE NO. P4-98 TYPE: UNLISTED TOWN OF QUEENSBURY OWNER: JAMES 7 WILLIAM BARRETT, G & M LAND DEVELOPMENT INC., SEAN PETER MARC GARVEY, GEORGE HAGERTY, GERALD & ROGER HEULETT, NEMER MARTIN VOLKSWAGON CORP., GERALD & CYNTHIA NUDI, SE REALTY CO., LLC ZONE: LI-1A/PC-1A LOCATION: DIX AVENUE AND QUAKER ROAD TOWN PROPOSES TO REZONE SEVERAL PARCELS FROM LI-1A/PC-1A TO HC-1A. PETITION FOR REZONES ARE REFERRED TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/12/98 TAX MAP NO.: 110-1-1.23, 110-1-1.25, 110-1-1.32, 110-1-1.26, 110-1-1.30, 110-1-1.24, 110-1-1.21, 110-1-1.31, 110-1- 1.28, 110-1-1.29, 110-1-2.7 LOT SIZE: 30.54 ACRES SECTION: 179-94 MR. MAC EWAN-Is the Town Board going to do SEQRA? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, you don’t even have the option. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s written on here, so I just wanted to double check. It just says Type Unlisted. I just wanted to know if we were going to do it. MR. SCHACHNER-No, the Town Board is the only agency with the legal authority to do it. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/17/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. No problem. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Petition for Zone Change No. P4-98, Town of Queensbury, Meeting Date: November 17, 1998 “Description of Project The Town of Queensbury is proposing a zoning change from LI-1A/PC-1A to HC-1A for an area between Dix Avenue and Quaker Road. Staff Notes Currently, many of the businesses are non-conforming to the zone, if a business wants to expand it is required to apply to the ZBA for approval. Many of the businesses that are located in this area are consistent with HC-1A zoning. The zone change will make the current uses conforming. This area has almost reached its build out capacity. There are no anticipated traffic or environmental impacts with the current uses or zone change. Staff’s memo to the Planning Board addresses the concerns of a zone change in this area. Staff would suggest the Planning Board recommend the rezoning of this area from LI-1A/PC-1A to HC-1A.” MRS. MOORE-And the County approved the application. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to read my memo to the Planning Board? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Any letters or anything like that you may have received? What need is being met by the MRS. MOORE-Yes. I’ll go through my memo dated 10/26/98, “ proposed change in zone or new zone: The proposed zone change from Light Industrial One Acre (LI-1A) to Highway Commercial One Acre (HC-1A) zone would meet the need of the uses What existing zones, if any, can meet the stated currently existing and anticipated in the future. need?How is The zone HC-1A allows for the commercial establishments that exist in this area. the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones? The zone change occurs in an area bordered by HC-1A, therefore the zone change would increase the conformity of the other Quaker Road/Dix What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone. Avenue Businesses. The proposed zone change area is located near light industrial and commercial business structures. How will the proposed zone affect public facilities? The proposed zone change will not affect any public facilities because there are only a few parcels that have not been developed yet or add public facilities. The existing businesses are either using public facilities or operating private Why is the current zoning classification not appropriate for the facilities such as septic. property in question? The current zone is inappropriate because there has not been an interest in Light Industrial in this area. The applications for use variances in this area has indicated that this What are the environmental impacts area may be more suitable for Highway Commercial uses. of the proposed zone change? There will be no foreseeable environmental impacts since the area How is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of is limited to further development. the Comprehensive Plan? The proposed zone change addresses the proposed 1998 Comprehensive plan for this area as Neighborhood 10. HC-1A zoning is more restrictive in the setbacks and parking requirements, but allows the same size structures as LI-1A and more versatile How are the wider interests of the Community being served by this proposal? uses. The wider interests of the Community are being served by providing another commercial avenue for proposed development.” Do you want me to read the public comments or wait until the public hearing? MR. MAC EWAN-Wait until the public hearing. Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Lets open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to come up and address this proposed zone change? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SEAN GARVEY 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/17/98) MR. GARVEY-Good evening. My name is Sean Garvey. Excuse my voice. I lost it this morning. I had a prepared statement, but Laura said it much better than I ever could have, and more comprehensively. The only thing I’d like to add is that my name’s Sean Garvey. I’m one of the owners of the property called Garvey KIA and PSM Auto Body. Out of the 10 property owners that are being affected by this proposal, I have letters from nine of them supporting it, as I am one that’s also supporting it. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? GEORGE HAGERTY MR. HAGERTY-My name is George Hagerty. I have a business on 287 Dix Avenue, next to Warren Electric, and I sent a fax in, saying that I was in favor of it. You’re in receipt of the fax? I have extra copies. MRS. MOORE-If I could have an extra copy, I’d appreciate it. MR. HAGERTY-Sure. I sent a copy to Bonnie Lapham, but anyhow, I am in favor of it. The listing that you sent showed the 10 or so parcels. It lists us as nonconforming when in fact I believe we are conforming. It might be that my predecessor, which was Mannis Glass, maybe they were nonconforming, but I run a light manufacturing business, to manufacture paper testing instruments. That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? Letter time. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I’ll start with Car Essentials, “Dear Town of Queensbury Planning Board: I am in support of the rezoning of the Quaker Road Corridor from light industrial to highway commercial. Thank you. Sincerely, Mike Mango” From J. Allen Furniture “Town of Queensbury Planning Board: I am in favor to rezone Quaker Road Corridor from Light Industrial to Highway Commercial. Orest Boychuk” This one’s from S.E. Realty Company “To Whom It May Concern: I am writing this letter in order to permit, on my behalf, the Town of Queensbury to be allowed to re-zone that part of Queensbury, which is presently zoned for “Light Industrial” to “Highway Commercial”. Therefore, I am agreeing with the approval for The Town of Queensbury to re-zone the corridor property. With this re-zoning, my property will be valued higher in case of future real estate dealings, and worth more than it would be if it were to stay at “Light Industrial”. Thank you for taking the re-zoning into consideration. Sincerely, Michael H. Seale S.E. Realty Co., LLC 708 Quaker Road Queensbury, NY 12804” Warren Electric Supply “Dear Planning Board Members: I am writing to you today to show my support of the re-zoning of parts of Quaker Road and Dix Avenue from “Light Industrial” to “Highway Commercial.” I believe the re- zoning will be more appropriate for those parcels in relation to the surrounding properties. This would be more in the character of the neighboring properties such as; gas stations, fast foods, a department store, food store, car wash, nursery, etc. Sincerely, Gerard P. Nudi, President” This is from Nemer Chrysler Plymouth Dodge “Dear Town of Queensbury Planning Board: I am in support of the rezoning of the Quaker Road Corridor from light industrial to highway commercial. Sincerely, Bob Nemer” That’s all I have, and I believe Sean has some more. MR. GARVEY-Should I read it? MR. MAC EWAN-If you just want to give them to Laura. We can ask her to read them. She’s got a better voice at this point. MRS. MOORE-Okay. This is from Hertz “Dear Mr. Round: Please be advised that Barrett is highly in favor of rezoning our property (110-1-1.23) from LI-1A to HC-1A. by doing so, we will be in compliance with our current use of the property. Very truly yours, William M. Barrett” This was read, but I’ll read this again, into the record. It’s from Little & O’Connor “Dear Chris: Would you please consider this letter a request from the applicant for a tabling of both of the above referenced variance applications.” And that’s Use Variance No. 72-1998 and Area Variance No. 73-1998 “It is our understanding that the Town is in the process of re-zoning the subject property, with other adjoining properties, to highway/commercial 1A. If such a change in zoning were accomplished, the need for the use variance would be eliminated. Further, it is my belief that having the zoning board consider the area variance while the rezoning has not received a final determination, would cloud the issues of the Area Variance. Please be advised that the applicant is fully in favor of the re-zoning of the subject property, and the area properties to highway/commercial 1A. Please keep us advised of the status of the re-zoning project, and put us on the mailing list, if you would, on behalf, and as agents for Peter, Sean & Mark Garvey. We 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/17/98) would be happy to participate in the public hearing process once same has been set. Very truly yours, LITTLE & O’CONNOR by: Michael J. O’Connor” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-No other letters? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No other comments. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to make a recommendation? MOTION TO MAKE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD FOR THE PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE AS COVERED IN SUBMITTAL P4-98 TOWN OF QUEENSBURY , Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We did our part. MR. PALING-I’d like us to pass on a positive comment to the County Planning Board for their new format and the detail contained therein, as compared to what’s been submitted to us for the last five years. MR. MAC EWAN-I will rousingly second that. MRS. MOORE-Okay. ANY FURTHER BUSINESS THAT MAY COME BEFORE THE BOARD MR. MAC EWAN-Did you want to address our Board, Mr. Salvador. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I’d like to speak to you about the Site Plan nd approval No. 51-98 that you folks approved on the 22 of September. MR. BREWER-Which would be? MR. SALVADOR-Well, it says here William Mason. I think it’s more properly entitled the Takundewide Homeowners Association, whatever it is. In any case, your motion to approve that site plan states, and it was introduced by Mrs. LaBombard and seconded by Tim Brewer, “At Takundewide, with just a note, that special care be taken when the septic system goes in so that there’s no additional taxing on the waterfront, that the septic system conform to the current Town Code and the Department of Health.” I read that, I did not attend that meeting, but I did read this minutes shortly after they were published, and I wrote a letter to Chris Round, and I asked, you know, what was the intent of this Board with regard to the participation of the Health Department in this project? I haven’t gotten an answer yet from Chris. I’ve had some telephone conversations with him, but a formal answer is yet to be had, and so I’m here tonight to ask you folks what was your intention, what was your thinking? What were you relying on the Department of Health for, in this regard, because I don’t think anything is being done. A building permit has been issued. The project is well along, and I just don’t know. MR. BREWER-I’ll speak to that. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/17/98) MR. SCHACHNER-Could I say something as your Counsel, first? MR. BREWER-Sure. MR. SCHACHNER-As your Counsel, part of my job is to make sure that the things you do comply with the law and also keep you out of trouble, to whatever extent I can. I have no idea, you know, obviously, you’re not obligated to entertain discussion, other than relating to specific applications that are pending before you. It’s very nice that, typically we do that, at the end of a meeting if somebody does want to ask us questions or make comments. I just want to say, I haven’t the faintest idea where Mr. Salvador is coming from on this, nor is it necessarily any of my business, but Mr. Salvador is an individual who is prone to litigate against the Town of Queensbury, as well as other municipal bodies in this area, and you, as a Planning Board you make decisions based on applications and on records that are before you at the time you make decisions, and your decisions rise or fall based on the record that’s before you when you make those decisions. My comments should be viewed, I guess, as a caution that I would be disappointed, and I think it would be remiss in performing my duties if I did not say to you before you answer an open-ended question like this, that your decisions are based on what you make, on the facts and the application materials that were presented to you at the time of the application, and to the extent that you then some, approximately two months later, are asked to justify decisions by somebody who’s not an applicant nor, as I understand it, a party to the proceeding, I’m just concerned that we go too far afield into what was or was not in your minds at that time, and that I see somewhere down the road some legal claim against the Planning Board, that would concern me. MR. MAC EWAN-Point taken. MR. SALVADOR-Again, I can only ask you, as a citizen of the Town of Queensbury, from that particular neighborhood, where we have serious wastewater management problems, serious problems, what was your thought process? Why did you inject that phrase in your resolution? rd This is the letter I wrote to Chris Round, on October 3, shortly after that hearing. I have it here. In any case. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you just like to read that letter, so the whole Board’s aware of the letter? st MR. SALVADOR-Yes. “Since my letter of October 1, I have had a chance to read the minutes nd of the Planning Board meeting of September 22 concerning the Takundewide application for renovation. I note that the approval is predicated on the fact that the septic system was to conform to current Town Code and the Health Department. What exactly is the Planning Board saying with this proviso? What if the Department of Health turns out to be non-jurisdictional in this matter or worse yet cannot approve this intended upgrade of the septic system?” I haven’t got an answer to that yet. MR. MAC EWAN-You had a copy of all of our minutes for that meeting. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Then the answer should be in there. MR. SALVADOR-I’m just asking you, what did you expect the applicant to do before they got a building permit? That’s all. What were you expecting when you put that in there? They got a building permit. I don’t know if they met all the conditions. MR. SCHACHNER-Again, I just wanted to point out to the Board, you’re not under any obligation to answer those questions. I just want to make sure that’s clear. You can if you want. MR. BREWER-I think our concern was that great care was taken to the shoreline and the septic, and I can’t remember the exact conversation, but I know that was a big concern of ours, and we wanted extreme care taken with the septic system because of the closeness to the lake and the problems that you describe in your earlier statement, and I think that was our priority, to protect the lake. MR. SALVADOR-The record does show that there were two neighbors, at least two neighbors who came and spoke, and their concerns were centered around wastewater management. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/17/98) MR. BREWER-And I think ours were, too. MR. SALVADOR-Okay, and I can tell you this. At the previous Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, Mr. Mason stated, when asked the direct question, the direct question from a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals, what is the present septic system, and he said it’s a cess pool with a grease trap. Now I’ll tell you something, a cess pool is in a perpetual state of failure, and it is a violation of this Town’s Sanitary Ordinance. It’s a perpetual state of failure. MR. BREWER-So if you had such a big problem with it, John, why did you wait until two months after the approval to come and tell us about it? MR. SALVADOR-I wrote this letter. MR. BREWER-I understand that, but why didn’t you come to the Planning Board meeting and state your problem? MR. SALVADOR-I was hoping the process would, you know, I was in communication with Chris Round. I called him on the telephone. I think I talked with Craig, didn’t I? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but you talked to me about something different, seasonal water permit. MR. SALVADOR-Well, septic system was the reason for my call. MR. BREWER-I understand your concern, but I just think that, if you had a concern, you should have come when we had the meeting, or sent us a letter or something. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, in addition, if I could add something, if Mr. Salvador’s contention is true, he could certainly make this point to the Code Enforcement Office, and they can look into it. MR. SALVADOR-I have. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, the Planning Board, you know, best case, from his standpoint, or worst case from Takundewide’s standpoint, scenario, this Board, of course, does not have the enforcement authority, but there are bodies within the Town that do, and if his contention is correct, he could certainly lodge that complaint with the Code Enforcement people and I imagine they would look into it. MR. MAC EWAN-Have you talked to Building and Codes about it? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-And what have they told you? MR. SALVADOR-No answer. I read you my letter. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Mr. Salvador, when this was brought up in front of us, the word “cess pool in constant state of failure” was never brought up, but we’re not part of the Building Department. What I’m saying is, if that had been brought up and that was an issue, we certainly would have addressed it. You know as well as we do, and I don’t want to talk too much here, but we have to make our decisions based on the information that is in front of us and based upon our visit to the site. MR. SALVADOR-I can’t expect anymore. I understand. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And we didn’t dig up the turf and go underground and see a cess pool in constant state of failure, and nobody told us about that. MR. SALVADOR-I said that that statement was made the night before your meeting, and it was made at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, and I was present at that meeting. I did not realize you were meeting the next night, or I would have been at your meeting, and I understand that you can only weigh the evidence before you. MRS. LABOMBARD-And we also have to have some trust in our Code officials, that they’re not going to let anything get by us like that. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/17/98) MR. SALVADOR-I understand that also. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So then it’s not really our issue, and I think we should end this conversation. MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me. You folks put into your resolution the words, the Department of Health. MRS. LABOMBARD-We thought maybe that might have been a little redundant, but we wanted to, like Tim said, we wanted to make sure, on behalf of the residents and people that are concerned citizens, like you, and that’s the end, I think that’s the end of it. I think we should go home. MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think that we shouldn’t discuss this any further we’re going to get ourselves in a trap. MR. STARK-I’ve got a question for Mark. MR. MAC EWAN-I will do this for you. I will ask Laura, put together a copy of the ZBA minutes for me tomorrow. I’ll pick them up, if you would, just regarding that application, and I will also call Building and Codes tomorrow and ask them, regarding this septic system that you claim that’s a failure up there, and I’ll personally ask them to take a look at it. MR. BREWER-Is that your concern, John, that it’s in a state of failure right now, or there’s going to be a problem with it? MR. SALVADOR-You know what a cess pool is. You know what it is. MR. BREWER-It’s a perpetual state of failure. MR. SALVADOR-Exactly. It’s discharging sewage to groundwater. That’s failure. MR. BREWER-I understand that, but I’m asking you what we did, is there a problem with it? We told him he had to put in a septic system that was up to Code. Is that why you’re here tonight, because it’s not being done? MR. SALVADOR-That I don’t know. I’m just asking, you put Department of Health. What were you seeking? Was that a backstop? MR. BREWER-I can’t speak for Cathy, but I’ve know Cathy long enough, and I think it was maybe a little bit of insurance, that it was done properly. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Are you getting what you paid for, is all my concern. MR. BREWER-I think we are. MR. SALVADOR-You think you are? Okay. All right. MR. BREWER-I mean, we can’t go check on every single thing that’s being done in the Town. MR. SALVADOR-I don’t expect you to, but there’s a proviso in this Site Plan approval, okay, and how is it discharged? That’s all I’m asking. How is it discharged? MR. MAC EWAN-I will personally look into it for you tomorrow. MR. VOLLARO-Before you go, John, I’d like to make a statement here. Something that’s bothering me and I’ll make it anyway. I took it upon myself to go up to that particular site, just because I was personally interested in what was going on, and as a citizen, and out from underneath the Planning Board umbrella, and when I went there, I didn’t find a house. I sat here on this Board, and listened to Mr. Mason tell me about the modification of the second floor, two bedrooms and a bath, razing their house, putting a foundation under the house, setting it back down again. That was the proposal that was in front of us. Gentlemen, I’m telling you, the house isn’t there. It’s gone. It’s total gone, and what is there in it’s place is a newly poured foundation. I have no idea whether that foundation is on the same footprint as the old house or not. I don’t 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/17/98) know. Now, I suppose I have to rely on the Building and Codes Department to insure that fact, but I was astounded when I went there, as a Planning Board member, to see that what I had agreed to wasn’t what was done at all. It bothered me big time. It still does. MR. BREWER-As well it should, and it bothers me now that you say that. I had no idea of that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I didn’t either. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what went on there. MR. BREWER-Then maybe we should get some answers. MRS. MOORE-I’ll prepare something for you. MR. BREWER-No, have the guy that approves it prepare it. MRS. MOORE-I’ll talk with Dave and Craig and Chris, and put something together. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thank you. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Before we go on, lets stay on Lake George for a minute. Call me tomorrow morning, and I’ll do this on behalf of the Board, set up a time for me to come up and sit down with both Craig and Dave and discuss this. MR. BREWER-Why don’t we all discuss it, Craig? We all made the decision to make an approval. MR. MAC EWAN-The first thing we can do, lets have them both here next Tuesday night, first item on the agenda. MR. BREWER-If this happened, with a whole house, how much other stuff happened? MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Somebody had something. MR. STARK-Yes, I had a question for Mark. Mark, can you bring us up to date on Indian Ridge? Is there anything, other than what I read in the paper? MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. I doubt that what I’m going to say is much different than what you read in the paper, although the first article that came out right after the court decision contained one extremely serious mistake in it that you may or may not have picked up on, but the second sentence of that article said, the developer can now begin construction. Clearly, that was not true, and I know that you all knew that, but I was personally very annoyed with the Post Star about that, and I’ve actually talked to them about that, and you may have noticed that in today’s article it said in about four different places, they can’t begin construction yet, and I think that’s the result of our discussion, but the answer, George, to your question is that you’ll recall that in 1996, the Town Board, as SEQRA Lead Agency, after a tremendous amount of deliberation and proceedings, ended up making a SEQRA Negative Declaration, after reviewing a Long Form EAF and Parts I, II, and even a Part III. That was a determination that was basically challenged by the citizens group, the Citizens for Queensbury. In the Supreme Court they won, so that the Town Board’s SEQRA determination was overturned, but that was at Supreme Court level. The Town didn’t participate in any appeal, but the applicant, Ferrone, Vasiliou, I guess those are the applicants, they appealed the Supreme Court decision to the Appellate Division, and the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court, and went back and upheld what the Town Board did as SEQRA Lead Agency. So basically what that means is that the approval that the Town Board issued in August of ’96, which were the re-zoning, the PUD approval, and there was a third approval, the Negative Declaration, are now validated, if you will. Now that doesn’t mean, obviously, that the project is done with the approval process or that building can start. What that means is that the applicant has a couple of options. If the applicant wants, it could come back here and revive its application before you all. If you remember, there was a site plan review application that you started to review, that was then put on hold by the applicant. If the applicant wants, it could come back and revive that application and you would then be duty bound to continue your site plan review of that 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/17/98) application, and what the applicant’s representatives have stated is that, rather than doing that, at least off the bat, they want to see if they can somehow forge some kind of compromise with the Citizens for Queensbury, and see if there’s some re-design of the project. They might come up with a project that is agreeable to the Citizens group, and basically they’re hoping to avoid future litigation, because, obviously, the deal is not a done deal yet, because there’s still site plan approval and some other approvals as well that are needed. So what was discussed at the Town Board meeting last night, the applicant’s main representative, who’s a Saratoga lawyer named Matt Jones, and a member of the Concerned Citizens, or Citizens for Queensbury, Mark Hoffman, both appeared at the Town Board meeting last night, and they agreed that those two groups, the developers and the Citizens for Queensbury, would meet somehow in some sort of informal setting, would meet and see if they could come up with some sort of compromise, either in its entirety, as to a whole new plan, or at least compromise on certain points, and then return to the Town Board in some fashion and tell the Town Board where their efforts of compromise have lead, and I think, you know, where this goes, who the heck knows. I mean, if they can really come up with something that the Citizens group can live with, then maybe we’ll see a substantially revised application in front of the Town Board and then the Planning Board. If they can’t, the applicant may just revive the previous application with this Board, for your site plan review. MR. MAC EWAN-So then the PUD agreement that was signed by the Town Board? MR. SCHACHNER-No PUD agreement was ever signed. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, then the PUD zone change that was approved by the Town Board in 1996. MR. SCHACHNER-Is now valid as we sit here today. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s no documents left unsigned, then? MR. SCHACHNER-No, there are documents left unsigned. You may be confusing the zone change, the PUD agreement is separate from the zone change. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Without the PUD agreement being signed, can they still come back to this Board and start the process of review? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. They could come back to this Board and start the process. One of the reasons the PUD agreement was not signed was because it was envisioned that the Site Plan review might result in conditions that should be incorporated into the PUD agreement. That’s exactly one of the main reasons that it wasn’t signed. MR. MAC EWAN-So if the PUD agreement is never signed, they can’t start actual construction? MR. SCHACHNER-Never, ever signed? No, if it’s never ever signed, that’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Mark, Dr. Hoffman said last night that he would hope that we would rescind. I think he said that. MR. SCHACHNER-Not the Planning Board. MR. VOLLARO-No, no. MR. SCHACHNER-When you say “we”, I’m hearing the Planning Board. MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry. He was talking to the Town Board who occupied this space last night. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-And he was asking the Town Board if they would rescind that PUD, so he didn’t have this hanging over his head during the negotiations. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s exactly correct. MR. VOLLARO-So the Town Board would have to rescind that. Is that correct? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/17/98) MR. SCHACHNER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s correct that that’s what he asked for, yes. It’s all correct. I don’t know if the Town Board’s going to do that. They can’t do that in one fell swoop in five minutes. They have quite a proceeding to go through to do that, but, yes, Bob, that’s correct, and the way Mr. Hoffman described it, that could work. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. STARK-No, that’s all. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You had something you wanted to add? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, I do, and it’s something we can talk about more next week if you’d like. Laura tells me that, it relates to The Great Escape application, and Laura’s telling me that she either thinks or knows that it’s not going to be heard next week, because their variances will be heard in December. They’re continually updating their plans. So we haven’t had a final plan submitted for variance. MR. PALING-Is it a height variation that? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, my point that I’d like to raise, and I’m going to do this in a memorandum to you all and to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and make the Town Board and the Planning Staff, of course, aware of it also, Chris Round and I have already spoken about this. Here’s the point that I’d like to bring before both Boards, and I will be doing this in a memo, but I’ll give you a preview. The Great Escape announces, sends out a bunch of information announcing, we’re going to have a new ride next year, and this is what the new ride’s going to be. The Glens Falls Post Star, in its infinite wisdom, prints a gigantic article that says, “Great New Ride for Next Year at The Great Escape”, and goes into great detail about what the new ride is going to be. My opinion, as your Counsel, and if you don’t agree with me, then we don’t have to do anything like what I’m suggesting, but my opinion as Counsel to this Board as well as the Zoning Board of Appeals and other Boards, is that that’s an inappropriate way for the applicant and the newspaper to go about doing their business, because I think it puts an undue amount of pressure on this Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals, and any other Board that has discretionary approval authority over this type of application. I don’t think it’s appropriate, and this has nothing to do with The Great Escape, and nothing to do with whatever the new ride that’s proposed is. I don’t think it’s appropriate for any applicant, nor does it have anything to do with the Town of Queensbury or this Planning Board, I don’t think it’s appropriate for any applicant that needs a discretionary approval from anybody to issue information that states this is a done deal, it’s happening, this is what we’re going to do next year. I think it’s inappropriate for Joe Smith and Mary Jones to say, we’re building a new factory next week. MR. BREWER-Or Pyramid Mall, or anyone of them. MR. SCHACHNER-Whatever, that’s right, and frankly, the Pyramid Mall thing, although there were reporting errors in it, I don’t think Pyramid has done what The Great Escape has done. I think Pyramid has said we are proposing to do this, this, this and this. We would like to do this, this, this and this. That’s not what The Great Escape has done and that’s not what they do. They announce this as, here is the ride that we are offering next year at The Great Escape. They did the same thing with their hours of operation. If you recall, they put out brochures with their new hours of operation, before you even had a chance to review it. My opinion, as Counsel to not only this Board but a whole bunch of other boards, is that’s an inappropriate way to go about doing business, because it puts an undue and unfair amount of pressure on a reviewing board, and again, I have no idea what the new ride is and I think you all know me well enough to know that I certainly couldn’t care less, but what if some applicant, you know, what if some applicant did this tonight, applicant for, lets pick on the modular home people. What if they had already sent out a bunch of literature stating, you know, that this is what’s going to happen? Or a better example. What if the woman who was here with the proposed hair cutting thing, the thing you denied, okay, she could reasonably, you know the one I’m talking about, last month? She could reasonably have assumed that she wouldn’t have any problem, modest haircutting establishment, four, five six, whatever it was, eight cars a day. She could have sent out a bunch of literature and all that, and I don’t think you would have thought that was appropriate, and in fact, you had some very 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/17/98) significant concerns about that application that lead you to deny it. That could be true of any application. In order for you and any other Board to do your job in a fair and reasonable manner, I think you need to start with an even playing field, and a clean slate, and my opinion as Counsel is that when an applicant sends out a whole bunch of information stating, here’s what we’re going to be doing next year or next week, or next month or whatever, it’s not that different than somebody going and building something without even coming here for your approval first. I don’t think it’s appropriate, and I think that it’s a repetitive pattern from this particular applicant, and I think our friendly neighborhood newspaper does not help the matter at all by running gigantic ads that says, this is what’s going to happen. My suggestion and what my memorandum will recommend to this Board and to the Zoning Board of Appeals is that a letter be issued, a joint letter from the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals to The Great Escape and to the Glens Falls Post Star, indicating that we don’t think this is appropriate, that if The Great Escape wants to announce its proposals, and if the Post Star wants to report on these things as proposals, that’s totally appropriate. That’s totally fine. That’s totally reasonable, and it’s totally fair game, but they have to be fair and accurate and state, this is what we are proposing, we need these approvals, and we’re going to try to get them. MR. BREWER-That’s fine with me. MR. SCHACHNER-And you don’t have to do any of this, but that’s what my memorandum’s going to recommend. MR. BREWER-I mean, that’s predicting that they’re going to get any automatic approval, and that’s not right. MR. RINGER-Yes, but I don’t see where we can go around telling them what to do. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, you don’t have to do this, but that’s what I recommend. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not like we’re telling them what to do. I understand what Mark is saying. Because it does, it kind of puts us in a precarious situation that we feel like if we don’t approve it, that, you know, everyone thinks poorly of us because everyone’s under the perception that it’s already coming. MR. RINGER-I don’t think we necessarily make decisions on what people think of us. We make decisions on what we’ve got in front of us, not on what we read in the paper, or we should be anyway. If we’re making decisions on what we see in the paper or what people think of us, then we’re probably not doing a very good job. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I certainly agree with that, no question. MR. BREWER-I don’t think we are. MR. SCHACHNER-Where I’m coming from is I just think it puts an undue amount of pressure on a reviewing body, whatever the reviewing body is. That’s just my opinion, and that’s my recommendation. I will be making that recommendation to both Boards in a memorandum, and, you know, like any other recommendation, you can do it or not do it. MR. PALING-Mark, I agree with your basic premise, but I don’t agree that, I don’t feel one bit of pressure from an article like that to do anything but what I’m supposed to do. MR. SCHACHNER-Good. I’m very pleased to hear that. MR. PALING-I would think that that letter would come from you rather than from the joint Boards. That, to me, is kind of an awkward way and also a way of putting pressure on us. MR. SCHACHNER-The letter coming from me is totally meaningless, in my opinion. I’m happy to do it, if that’s the Board’s preference, if the two Boards or either Board wants me to do that, I’m happy to write that letter. As you can see, I wouldn’t have much trouble getting it on paper. MR. PALING-Why would a letter from an attorney, addressed to both parties, be meaningless? MR. SCHACHNER-Because I think that, I can tell you that my opinion is that at the very least the applicant would say, it doesn’t matter what the lawyer thinks. If the Board doesn’t mind, then we don’t care. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/17/98) MR. BREWER-Right. The Board is who makes the decision. MR. PALING-Well, as I say, I agree with the basic premise, but I don’t feel any pressure whatsoever. MR. BREWER-I agree with that, too. I don’t feel any pressure either. MR. PALING-I don’t care what they put in the paper or what I hear from. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s terrific. I’m thrilled to hear that, and of course you all have more seniority that almost all the members of the Zoning Board, and I know that both Boards are sometimes subject to public pressure, and I’m certainly mindful of what Larry says and what Bob is saying, that, hey, we don’t care what we read. We don’t care what we hear. We don’t care about pressure. We don’t feel the pressure, but that’s my opinion, as I said, you don’t have to do it. MR. PALING-Could the letter be written without the reference to pressure or a different approach to it? The rest of it is fine. MR. SCHACHNER-Sure it could. MR. PALING-And I would sign that letter. MR. BREWER-I think it leads to the presumption that it will automatically be approved, and that’s not what the procedure is about. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right, it does. MR. PALING-It’s the public that’s getting deceived in this case, not this Board. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, right, absolutely. Yes, you could certainly write it in a way that doesn’t refer to the pressure but uses the concept that, you know, this would seem to create a presumption that something either has already been approved or is automatically going to be approved when, in fact, there are certain regulatory criteria to meet. That’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-I like that spin of it. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, that’s a real good idea. Anyway, that’s what the memorandum’s going to talk about and recommend to both Boards and you don’t have to decide tonight or even next week, but it’s something to think about. MR. BREWER-I think it’s appropriate. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s a good point. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? I’ll move for an adjournment. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 29