Loading...
1990-04-19 SP QUEENSBURY PLARHING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 19TH, 1990 INDEX Subdivision No. 1-1990 Queensbury Economic Dev. Corp. 1. Site Plan No. 16-90 Astro Valcours Inc. 6. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY PLARHING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 19TH, 1990 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT RICHARD ROBERTSs CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVERs SECRETARY NICHOLAS CAIMANO PETER CARTIER JAMES HAGAN MEMBERS ABSENT CONRAD KUPILLAS DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS TOWN ENGINEER-WAYNE GANNETT SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1990 TYPE: I LI-1A FINAL STAGE QUEENSBURY ECONOMIC DEV. CORP. QUEENSBURY TECHNICAL PARK OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SOUTH SIDE OF DIX AVEHUE, APPROX. 1,000 FT. WEST OF QUAKER ROAD AND DIX AVEHUE INTERSECTION FOR AN 8 LOT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 110-1-24.21 LOT SIZE: 32.3 ACRES JAMES LAPANNs QEDCs PRESENT; DICK MORSEs MORSE ENGINEERINGs PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. Yorks Senior Planner (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes by Wayne Gannetts Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Does that catch basin(referring to Engineer Report) make sense with anybody here? Is there any dialogue about this? MR. GANNETT-We've had some discussion with Morse Engineerings about that sand the solution that they've proposed is acceptable to uSs if you want to talk about it s Dick? MR. MORSE-Right s Dick Morse, Morse Engineering. We received Wayne's comments. Seeing that is a dedicated road to the Towns we discussed this withs or that the Town has already accepted the road. MR. ROBERTS-Wells that IS the existing road. MR. MORSE-Right. We have talked with Paul Naylor and we suggested, because we're going to be paving that island that is right in this way when we pull the pavings we'll shim this little depressions this small depressions and that should eliminate the little bird bath that I s in there right now and I think that I s satisfactory to everybody and I believe Paul told Lee and Lee said that she would testify to thats that he wass here she comes..that solution. MR. GANNETT-We have no problem with that s with an engineering standpoint s that I s an acceptable way of solving the problem. MR. ROBERTS-Lees we sent you on a mission and then started the meeting. Started with answering comments and question about a little depression in the road that n~eds to be addressed. Apparently s you have some updated information on that from Paul Naylor? MRS. YORK-Yess I do. Mr. Naylor has no problems with that solution to the problem. 1 MR. ROBERTS-Since thats agains is already a Town Roads probablys we can leave that in abeyances I would assumes as presently agreed to by the Town. Other commentss maybe are not that significant or we could just MR. MORSE-Yess I think one other comment was Progress Boulevard. We're proposing to put the words "Progress Boulevard Extension" on the drawing showing this right angle dog leg that goes offs which is the cul-de-sac. MR. ROBERTS-Is it just the name of the road we'r~ talking about here? MR. MORSE-Yess that is correct. MR. LAPANN-We addressed the comment. MR. MORSE-I believe that was it on the comments and the striping will be done after paving of the road. MR. ROBERTS-Lees do you have some comments? MRS. YORK-Wells I believe the Board received my comments. MR. ROBERTS-Yes s we have. changed your mind? I didn I t know whether you wanted to go over them or MRS. YORK-Actually, you have my comments and I don't have them. There were just three things that QEDC had to address. MR. ROBERTS-Your letter of April 17th? MRS. YORK-Right. MR. ROBERTS-L~t me read thems then. There were three outstanding planning concerns regarding the subdivision of the Preliminary Stage and appear to have been addressed. These were the turning lane on Progress Boulevard leading to Dix Avenues the bigger setback on the lot adjacent to the cul-d~-sac for future road improvements s if they become appropriate, and the traffic mitigation measures. It is my understanding that QEDC Board has approved a traffic solution for the Board to entertain. Maybe that leads us into that issue. JIM LAPANNs QEDC MR. LAPANN-Jim LaPann. I represent QEDC. At our last appearance heres at the Preliminary Stage s one of the concerns that was introduced was that s what would happen at the time of the ultimate buildout regarding the intersection of Progress Boulevard and Dix Avenue ands at that times the QEDC made an affirmative statement thats whatever the problems were at that time, that we would do what was necessary to mitigate that. It's my understanding that there was some concern that that was a fairly broad statem~nt and that there might be some question as to what was our fair share and what was going to be done and I'm not whether the Planning Board has seen our proposal. MR. ROBERTS-Yess we hav~. MR. LAPANN-But we have made a proposal and this is using a lot of the similar phrases that were used in the project involving the West Mountain and taken from the contract s essentially s between Queensbury sLake Luzerne s and th~ developers of the West Mountain project. I thinks certainly, the important issues that were covered in here are the fact that there would be a particular body that would do the monitorings that would be the Technical Advisory Committee of the Glens Falls Metropolitan Area Transportation Council and secondly s that the area that would be monitored would be any area that would reasonably be effected by the traffic from the park and thirds that the decision and recommendations of TAC would be final and binding on the parties and that if there were something that there was a dispute abouts thats if the parties agreeds we could put it to a study by an engineer at that time and that we are statings agains in our proposals that we would be responsible for our fair pro rata share of the cost of the improvements as they are shown to be from our actual traffic that's generated from our park and I hope that has addressed the concerns the Board has as to the fairly open-ended promise that we mades buts agains we affirm that we will take whatever steps are necessary over the life of the project until the time the project is fully completed. MR. ROBERTS-Does this seem a reasonable solution to the Board or do you want to read this in its entirety or discuss it further? 2 MR. CAIMANO-I think it needs to be part of the motion. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-Ohs yes. Does the Board have any other unanswered questions shere? Nows maybe we can get down to final approval. It's detail work and..kind of know where we're going. I don't know if that IS the case here or not. MR. CARTIER-I guess this is the time I want to address my concern. live been chewing on this for two weekss trying to come up with a solution there and I think I have. live come up with something I can live withs I guess it's a question of whether QEDC can live with it. I've been pushings and here I gos I'm blending the two heres agains and I donlt want tos but I donlt know how else to do this. I've been asking AVI to do some toxic testing. I'm not comfortable with what was done s a literature search and a visual inspection of the pond. Excuse me for reading this s but I want to make sure I've got this right. My concern has beens and continues to bes the day care center and the possibility of toxicss heavy metals s etc. in this area because of the proximity to Ceiba Geigy. What I'd like to suggest in the motion that's going to be made here tonight s if QEDC is willing to go along with thiss thats prior to submission of a site plan app lication for a day care center s QEDC will commit to conducting testing on the site of the day care center and testing for some heavy metals. Now I don't pretend to be a chemist s but I do know that heavy metals were used in the Ceiba Geigy operation and what 11m looking for is .. to consider testing on the site of the day care center...testing for a few heavy metals ands possiblys PCB's, I want to see that site clear and clean and sure that..If anybody's wondering where I'm coming from on thiss having lived in the area long enough to remember when Hercules and so on was there, I remember driving through that area and all the roof of the house were green with something that got into the air. I recall a fish and bait shop in that area where the guy lasted about 6 months because he couldn't keep bait alive from the air circulating..tanks and so on. I'm not sure of thats please understand me. I just want to be sure we have a clean site area. There is a possibility of things that settle out of the air. Beyond the environmental concerns, it would also serve to prevent QEDC from possibility of liabilitys if the tests were not done and later on down the road something showed up. MR. ROBERTS-Can we ask for a response from QEDC. Is this something that you haves ands obviouslYswe're just MR. HAGAN-May I add a comment on this, from personal experience? Has Valcour or s QEDC s this is s been approached by New York State or questioned by New York S ta te in regards to toxic was te s indus t rial toxic was te s eventually s they wi 11 be. I'm speaking from my experience at Sandy Hill. MR. ROBERTS-The answers for the records is a nos from shaking their heads. MR. HAGAN-Is nos okay. MR. LAPANN-Nos QEDC has never been approached by New York State any.. MR. HAGAN-I would suggest you be prepareds just living through the Sandy Hill experience. MR. LAPANN-Thank you. I can't say that the QEDC is willing to do testings on sites prior to any application for a child care site plan in our subdivisions but we would like to get, to narrow down s precisely s what tests. I understand that there are some considerable costs involved in testing and, if we could narrow downs preciselys what tests we were going to dos that would help us to MR. CARTIER-I'm not looking for 27 different tests. I think probablys because of the area we live ins we need a test for PCB's ands agains this is where I have a problem in my own head becauses as I said, I'm not a .. .chemists but I do know a number of heavy metals were used in that. I'm working, alsos off the fact that I know somebody who worked there for a number of years and I heard them describe the heavy metals in there. MR. ROBERTS-Are you talking leads Peter? MR. CARTIER-Lead is ones I thinks possibly, Cadmiums Arsenics that one I'm not sure about. MR. ROBERTS-That wouldnlt stay in the soils would its Arsenic? 3 MR. CARTIER-I donlt know. I would be comfortable if Lead and Cadmium and PCB's were tested for. If no Lead or no Cadmium showed up s I would be comfortable in assuming that nothing else was there. MR. CAIMANO-Waynes from a technical stand points do you have anything to add? MR. GANNETT-I don't pretend to be an expert on toxic wastes so as defining a list which would be inclusive enough without being all inclusive. I don't feel qualified to comment on that. I would point out thats if results turn out to turn somethings any site can be remediated, of course, corrective action can certainly be taken. At this point s I don I t consider myself qualified to recommend a list of 2 s 3 s or 5 elements that should be tested for. I could look into its if the Board wanted me to. MR. CARTIER-I want th~ QEDC to understands from mes that I hope and pray that nothing shows up there, but my concern is that we are absolutely sure that that's the case. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, so did we get a list that will suffice? MR. CAIMANO-Would you be willings Peters to go by a list Let's suppose they go and investigate and Dick Morse a typical list that's looked ats would you go for that? that QEDC comes up with? investigates and there's MR. CARTIER-Fine. MR. CAIMANO-Okays Jim, a typical lists you go for the typical list. MR. MORSE-These would be indicatorss anyway. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. MORSE-I means if we found something on this lists we, I thinks by ourselvess would go beyond that line. I thinks number one, that these are indicators of potential pollution. If we find Lead and Mercury s or Chromate or whatever the three or four PCB I s s they indicate a potential sites to look for coliforms in water. Coliformss don't hurt uSs but coliforms indicate something else. MR. ROBERTS-Right. MR. MORSE-Sos I think this list is certainly large enough to show that. .were airborne pollutants in the airs of Heavy Metal statuss that indicate other research might b~ done. I thinks alsos though that there are thresholds sets we're not talking about 0 thresholds shere, because there's natural background and levels s we want to tie ourselves tos likes EPA or DEC limits or whichever one is the most constraint. MR. CAIMANO-Obviouslys you'd bring the background limits and show it. MR. LAPANN-Just for clarifications the Heavy Metals that we would be looking fors prior to submission for a site plan for a child care center would be PCBlss Leads and Cadmium. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. LAPANN-We're in agreement then. MR. CAIMANO-Add chromates to it. chromates to thats will yous because of the pigmentations If you find somethings you're going to find something anyway. add MR. ROBERTS-Okays are there any other issues sticking in anybody I s craws here? Thens I believes as Lee has suggesteds w~ hav~ addressed most of the issues and should be ready for a motion for final approval. MR. CARTIER-The only I'm confused about is what the agreement was with regard to Item Number 1 on Waynels letter. MR. GANNETT-The applicant has agreed to, basicallys shim an area of pavement to correct a depressed area in the pavement that s presently s doesn't drains rather than install a catch basin. It has the same effect and if it's more cost effectives thatls fine. 4 MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1990 QUEENS BURY ECONOMIC DEV. CORP's Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: With the following stipulations: That the area of pavement described by Mr. Morse and Mr. Gannett be shimmed so that it does not drain and the shimming will replace proposed catch basins; that the turning lane be striped accordingly; that the unnamed street be named Progress Boulevard Extension; that the paper entitled "Proposal for Monitoring Program" be included in this motion as written and submitted by QEDC s as follows: "It is understood and agreed that s in order to identify needed off-site traffic improvements and determine the timing and cost responsibility for such improvements s an ongoing traffic monitoring program shall be established. The monitoring program shall be undertaken in conjunction with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of the Glens Falls Metropolitan Area Transportation Counsels to determine actual traffic patterns in volumes which develops so that the appropriate improvements can be implemented on a timely basis. For the purposes of this monitoring programs the TAC will include representatives of Warren County Department of Public Works s Town of Queensbury s City of Glens Fa11ss New York State Department of Transportations Queensbury Economic Development Corporations Washington County Department of Public Works s and others as maybe appropriate. The monitoring program will be undertaken over the duration of the construction of the project and will incorporate areas of Warren and Washington Counties, and shall include such areas that would reasonably receive an impact from the traffic generated by the Queensbury Economic Development Corporation subdivision. The monitoring will be conducted in accordance with the standards and practices promulgated by the New York State Department of Transportation and the Warren County Department of Public Works. The determinations and recommendations made by TAC shall be final and binding on the partiess provid~ds howevers that any of the partiess whether or not such parties have the right to vote on the recommendations of TAC sha11s within fourteen (14) days of receipt of such recommendation in writings have the right to have any TAC determination or recommendation brought before a professional traffic engineer selected by the parties and specifically accepted by the Town of Queensburys for review and further determination or recommendations which further determination or recommendation shall be final and binding on the parties. The Queensbury Economic Development Corporation shall be responsible for its fair pro rata share of the cost of such traffic improvements as may be necessary to mitigate the traffic impacts that are identified when the evaluation is completed. A pro rata share shall be that percentage of a traffic impact that is directly related to traffic actually generated by the business located in the Queensbury Technical Park."; and thats prior to submission for a site plan approval for a day care center s QEDC will conduct tests on the site of the proposed day care center for PCB I S cadmium and lead and submit those results to the Planning Board and that it is a Light Industrial subdivision. Duly adopted this 19th day of Aprils 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagans Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pu1vers Mr. Caimanos Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupi11as MR. ROBERTS-Read your reference to the traffic.. thing again. clear what that was about. I'm not sure I'm MR. CARTIER-That is in reference to including this(Proposa1 For Monitoring Program) in the motion. MR. ROBERTS- I just wonder if you don I t want make reference to traffic in that motions somehow. That doesn't have a number on it or a date or a stamp. Small point. MR. CAIMANO-Why don't you just have Karla date it and initial its as being approved. FRED CHAMPAGNEs PRESIDENTs QEDC MR. CHAPAGNE-Fred Champagnes QEDC President. I I d just asks in as much as we do not have approval yets by the total of the Boards for Progress Boulevard Extensions ifs for some reasons it becomes another names is that going to be a problem for us? 5 MS. CORPUS-It's on your map. MR. ROBERTS-Ohs because your Board has not approved it? MR. CHAMPAGNE-Exactly. MR. ROBERTS-I don't think the name of a street would hang us up too badlys would it? MR. CHAMPAGNE-It's in the resolution. I just needed to clarify that. MR. ROBERTS-Yess Karla? MS. CORPUS-Mr. Champagnes wells it depends on whether you do it before you it's dedicated or after it's dedicateds obviously ands if you dedicate it with a certain name on it s then it would take a Town Board resolution to change the nam~ s but if it remains unnamed on the map s thens agains the choice would be yours s prior to public dedication. MR. CHAMPAGNE-It's not dedicated now. MS. CORPUS-Right, if itls nevers thens reallys there isn't much MR. CHAMPAGNE-There's no road there. MR. ROBERTS-I think the Planning Board maybe jumping the gun here, trying to name the roads that'ss probablys up to the Town Boards at dedications anyway. MS. CORPUS-Rights if it isn't nameds as long as itls not named on the map that's filed in the County Clerk's Offices then MR. CHAMPAGNE-Okay. SOs that's not a problems is that right? MR. ROBERTS-I don't think so. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 16-90 TYPE: I LI-1A ASTRO VALCOUR, INC. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE IN THE QUEENSBURY TECHNICAL PARK, SOUTH SIDE OF DIX AVENUE, APPROX. 1,600 FT. WEST OF THE QUAKER ROAD AND DIX AVENUE INTERSECTION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 60,000 SQ. FT. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING BUILDING TO PROVIDE PADDED MAILING ENVELOPES. TAX MAP NO. 110-1-24.21 LOT SIZE: 15.96 ACRES SECTION 4.020 N BOB MORRISs REPRESENTING AVIs PRESENT STAFF INPUT Lee A. Yorks Senior Planner (attach~d) ENGINEER REPORT Notes by Wayne Gannetts Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Okay and does the applicant care to make any additional commentss now and bring us up to date or respond to any of these comments? MR. MORRIS-Good evenings Mr. Chairman and Board. 11m Bob Morriss one of the attorney I s repres~nting Astro Valcour in the purchase of this property from the QEDC. Just to clarify a point that Lee made in her comments. We want to focus on the fact that we're only asking for one buildings although the drawing did show a possibility of a second building that probably will be a second buildings sometime s we're only asking for the site p Ian review for this first building and parking for that building. The Company is planning to expand h~re. It's moving it's headquarters to the Glens Falls/Queensbury area and wills presumablys be expanding into the 16 acre parks but right now there arenlt planss any definite planss for a second building. MR. ROBERTS-I guess the dotted lines(referring to drawing) indicate that. MR. CHAMPAGNE-Okays I don't know if there are any other questions you wanted from us. We have the engineers heres which is the same engineering firm that was used by QEDC, Morse Engineering. We have Mike Carr whols a project engineer from AVI and we're at your disposal to answer any questions you might have in regard to site plan. 6 MR. ROBERTS-This is a public hearing. I'll open that now and ask if there's anybody in the audience who cares to comment on the project? I'll leave it open for awhi1es I guess s while we s perhaps s go through SEQRAs unless there's some other more pertinent questions you'd like to start with or shall we raise them during the SEQRA Review? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CAIMANO-Let me ask Wayne a question. There I s a minutes of a meeting of the Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification. In those minutes it sayss Nick Scarte11is of Morse Engineerings discussed drainage plans and committee expressed concern for safety of youngster that might be in j~opardy to the depth of..take care of flash storm. Do you have any comments on that? Welve discussed it befores I believe. Hels concerned the water might be too deep in the drainage way that goes by the property. MR. GANNETT-Wells that's an issue that could happen in many retention areas around Town. By the very nature of retention areass they temporarily fill up with water and then that water is dissipated over a long period of time. In my personal opinions I donlt see that risk being any greater on this site plan than many other site plans in Towns possibly 1esss because it's in a Light Industrial area. Not likely to be frequented by chi1drens compared to some other residential areas. MR. ROBERTS-Isn I t there already some existing situations there where the waters I supposes could be dangerouss high water times presently. There are substantial drainage courses that go through this. MR. CAIMANO-But somebody's going to construct somethings sOs I supposes somebody could construct somethings like a fence of some kind to prevent people from getting in theres even if that fences so to speaks was some kind of a bush.. type nature and you couldn't get to that. MR. CARTIER-I would also assume thats if and when a site plan comes to us for a day care center s we're going to be talking about fencing around the day care center. MR. ROBERTS-Fence them ins where there was no stream. will require the long form. yes. We did that befores on the other side of towns How say yous shall we attack the SEQRA? Thiss I guesss MS. CORPUS-It's a long form, Mr. Chairman. MR. ROBERTS-I was just going to says there have been timess in the pasts when the applicant's filled these out or even Staff has filled them out. Apparent1ys this times nobody's filled it out. MR. CARTIER- (Referring to long EAF "Will proposed action effect any non-protected existing or new body of water") One of the issues that came up a long time agos what is the drainage way actually... was there any discussions about putting in a filter system? MR. ROBERTS-I think we did discuss thats where as the pond was a settling basing before and that stills with the new drainage ways therels still going to be several potential settling basins s one between the existing Progress Boulevard s another one farther down as it makes its turns another one as it goes through the culvert under that stub street s whatever the nam~ of that street is and these can all be construeds I thinks I IV~ heard the engineers says as possible settling basins that will replace what the pond has done in the past. MR. MORSE-That is correct. MR. ROBERTS-Maybe we should ask our consulting engineer. pursue that? Peter s do you want to MR. CARTIER-The pond is active as a settling basin and a filtering system is going to be gones but what's going to act as a settling basin? MR. CAIMANO-This.. is going to act as a s~ttling basins right? filter. That I 11 be the MR. ROBERTS-Several of the constrictions in that... you've got culverts that go back out. 7 MR. GANNETT-Mr. Chairmans the drainage way to the east of the new warehouses the applicant has provided storage volume in thats for runoffs in addition tos as I recalls the outlet culvert underneath the roadway is not set at the bottoms so therels a certain amount of water storage in theres at all times. MR. ROBERTS-That was my understanding. MR. GANNETT-Sos that's fulfillings essentiallys the same purpose as the pond that is being replaced. MR. CAIMANO-(Referring to objectionable odorss noise No solvents? long EAF "Noise and Odor or vibrations as a result Impacts" "Will of the proposed there be action") MR. MORRIS-No solvents. MR. CAIMANO-No glues. MR. MORRIS-There will be glues. MR. CAIMANO-Will there be? MR. MORRIS-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-But noise is pretty much confined inside the structure. MR. MORRIS-That's correct. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 16-90s Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoptions seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREASs there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: Construction of a 60,000 sq. ft. Light Industrial manufacturing building to provide padded mailing envelopes by ASTRO VALCOUR, INC. in the Queensbury Technical Parks and WHEREASs this Planning Board has determin~d that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Acts NOWs THEREFOREs 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 Codess Rules and Regulations for the State of New Yorks 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 r~quired by law. 8 Duly adopted this 19th day of Aprils 1990s by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagans Mr. Cartiers Mrs. Pulvers Mr. Caimanos Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas MR. ROBERTS-Lees are we sure about no other involved agencies? MRS. YORK-Yess the SEQRA process was started when they made their original submission to my Department s although the Board never saw it. At that point in times in Februarys I noticed all involved agencies and interested parties and there are no comments from them or concernss other than the DOT traffic concerns which have been addressed. MR. ROBERTS-Does anyones thens care to make a motion as to the site plan? MR. CAIMANO-Illl do it. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 16-90 ASTRO VALCOUR, INC.s Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoptions seconded by James Hagan: For construct ion of a 60,000 sq. ft. Light Industrial manufacturing building to provide padded mailing envelopes owned by Astro Valcour s Inc. in the Queensbury Technical Park and the final plan should be submitted with only one building to the end and that the Beautification Committee I s recommendations be incorporated. This is a positive impact on recycling in this area. Duly adopted this 19th day of Aprils 1990s by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagans Mr. Cartiers Mrs. Pulvers Mr. Caimanos Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas MR. ROBERTS-What were the Beautification Committe~ I s recommendations? We didn 't go into those in depth. Are they requiring something we haven't talked about s here? MR. CAIMANO-Did you see these? MIKE CARRs AVI MR. CARR-Yess I saw them. MR. CAIMANO-Any problems? MR. CARR-No s problems. We had no problem what so ever with the B~autification Committeels recommendations. MS. CORPUS-We have one more piece of business. It was brought to my attention thats at the March 27th meeting of the Planning Boards regarding Site Plan No. l4-90s the SEQRA part of the roller coasters there was actually a motion made granting a negative declaration to the roller coaster. Subsequently s there was a positive declaration issued. After reviewing the records I noticed there are two motions on the record. It I S up to the Boards tonight s to decide to rescind one and to discuss among yourselves and make the decision as to which one the Board feels it should rescind. MR. CAIMANO-Karlas did you read the minutes? We actually voted on it? MS. CORPUS-I have the written transcription of the minutes in front of me. Nows 1'm not saying they're perfectly correct s but this is what I was given and it says there is a negative declaration motion. MR. CARTIER-There is a motion and we voted on it? MS. CORPUS-Yes s with no s everybody said yes. Nobody disagreed and it is the roller coaster. Again, 11m going on this transcription of the record. my op~n~on, I thought it was left open with two issues left opens the noise the public controversys buts agains live got something that controverts that. with In and 9 MR. CAIMANO- I know we did a negat i ve dec on the s although we didn I t have to on the gravel pits did wes because that was an existing deal. MOTION TO RESCIND RESOLUTION NO. 14-90 ATTRACTIONS LAND, INC. (ROLLER COASTER) AS A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON MARCH 27THs Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoptions seconded by Peter Cartier: Because subsequent evidence has shown that there may be a positive effect on the environment caused by noise. Duly adopted this 19th day of Aprils 1990s by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartiers Mrs. Pulvers Mr. Caimanos Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas On motions meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTEDs Richard Robertss Chairman 10