Loading...
1993-06-10 SP QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 10TH. 1993 INDEX SEQRA Review ZAREMBA Group. Inc. 1. SEQRA Review Mark McCollister 2. Site Plan No. 22-93 Lucas Wilson 5. Subdivision No. 21-1989 Crossroads Park 18. SEQRA Review American Equity Corp. 19. 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 PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 10TH. 1993 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER. CHAIRMAN CORINNE TARANA. SECRETARY ROGER RUEL GEORGE STARK CRAIG MACEWAN MEMBERS PRESENT EDWARD LAPOINT CAROL PULVER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. BREWER-I'll move American Equity to the end and get these other people out of the way. so they don't have to be here all night. Okay. So we can go ahead with the resolutions. MRS. TARANA-I have one set of minutes. Do you want to approve it tonight and get rid of it. or no? MR. BREWER-Okay. CORRECTION OF MINUTES April 22nd. 1993: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 22ND. 1993. Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 10th day of June. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint SEQRA REVIEW SEQRA REVIEW ZAREMBA GROUP. INC. - RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENT. MR. BREWER-Do we have to read this in. Scott? We probably should. MR. HARLICKER-You could. resolution. if you want. or you could just reference it in the In the past. you've read it in. MR. BREWER-Do you want to read it in. Corinne? MRS. TARANA-The resolution? MR. BREWER-Yes. RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO BE LEAD AGENT IN THE REVIEW OF Site Plan for the Zaremba Group. Inc. RESOLUTION NO. 9 of 1993 - 1 - -- -- INTRODUCED BY: Roqer Ruel WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Georqe Stark WHEREAS. Zaremba Group. Inc. has submitted an application for a site plan in connection with a project known as or described as construction of a 167.318 sq. ft. retail store. and WHEREAS. the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to commence a coordinated review process as provided under the DEC Regulations adopted in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED. that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that the action proposed by the applicant constitutes a Type I action under SEQRA. and BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED. that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby indicates its desire to be lead agent for purposes of the SEQRA Review process and hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies that: 1) an application has been made by the Zaremba Group. Inc. for a site plan; 2) a coordinated SEQRA Review is desired; 3) a lead agency for the purposes of SEQRA review must therefore be agreed to among the involved agencies wi thin 30 days; and 4) the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to be the lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review; and BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED. that when notifying the other involved agencies. the Executive Director shall also mail a letter of explanation. together with copies of this resolution. the application. and the EAF with Part I completed by the project sponsor. or where appropriate. the Draft EIS. Duly adopted this 10th day of June. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Stark. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Okay. The next one. SEQRA REVIEW: MARK MCCOLLISTER AREA VARIANCE 125-1993 RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND REVIEW OF THE LONG EAF. WALTER REHM. REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. PRESENT MRS. TARANA-Do you want me to read that whole thing? MR. BREWER-I think maybe you can reference it. We have to review the Long EAF. and we have notes from Scott. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 25-1993. Mark McCollister. Meeting Date: June 10. 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a 1.860 square foot single family house. The project is located on Seelye Road in Cleverdale. The project has 74 feet of frontage on Lake George and is located in the Lake George Critical Environmental Area. The applicant requires variances for lot size and side yard. The property is zoned WR-1A - 2 - --- --' and is only .62 acres in size and a side yard setback of 30 feet is required and 28.5 feet is proposed. Proiect Analysis: The Planning Staff reviewed Part 2 of the Long Environmental Assessment submitted with this project and offers the following comments: 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? The proposal will result in a physical change to the project site. The granting of the variances will allow for the construction of a single family house on a vacant piece of property. 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? There are no unique or unusual land forms found on the site. 3. Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? The proposal will not affect any protected water body. 4. Will proposed action affect any non- protected existing or new body of water? The proposal will not affect any non-protected water body. 5. Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater? The proposal will not affect surface or groundwater. 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff? The proposal will not affect drainage flow or surface water runoff. 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? The project should not impact air quality. 8. Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? The proposed action should not affect any non- threatened or non-endangered species. 10. Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? The project should not affect any agricultural land resources. 11. Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? The project should not impact any aesthetic resources. 12. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic. prehistoric or paleontological importance? The project should not have a negative impact on any site of historic. prehistoric. or paleontological importance. 13. Will proposed action affect quantity or quality of existing or future open space or recreational opportunities? The action should not have an adverse affect on open space or recreational opportunities. 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation system? The project should not effect the transportation system. 15. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel and energy? The proposal should not impact the community's energy or fuel supply. 16. Will there be objectionable noise. odors. or vibrations as a result of the proposed action? There should not be objectionable noise. odors or vibrations as a result of this project. 17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? The project should not affect public health or safety. 18. Will proposal affect the character of the existing community? The project should not have a negative impact on the character of the community. Recommendation: The project does not appear to have any significant adverse impacts on the environment; therefore. the staff can recommend a negative declaration on this project fór the purpose of SEQRA." MR. RUEL-What about the variance? MR. BREWER-He's got the variance. correct? MR. REHM-This is for the variance. the variance. This is the SEQRA review for MR. RUEL-This is for the variance? MR. REHM-Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. BREWER-You can just waive the reading. at the end. of the rest of the SEQRA. Well. lets just go through it. MRS. TARANA-"Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff?" MR. BREWER-No. Well. - 3 - --- --" MR. REHM-If I could say something. at this point. Under the Park Commission Reg's. we have to dispose of any addi tional runoff. subsurface. So there will be no additional runoff from this lot. There'll be eave drains around the building. as you have seen in the past. MR. BREWER-It will alter it. just slightly. MR. REHM-Okay. MR. BREWER-You can just waive the rest of the reading of the SEQRA. MRS. TARANA-Are there other agencies involved? DEC? MR. BREWER-No. MR. REHM-The County Planning Board. they found No County Impact last night. MR. BREWER-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 6-1993. Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption. seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS. there application for: is presently before the MARK MCCOLLISTER. and Planning Board an 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 is 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 State of New York. 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. Duly adopted this 10th day of June. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint - 4 - -- OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 22-93 TYPE: UNLISTED MR-5 LUCAS WILSON OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: EAST END OF WALKER LANE OFF BAY ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A 4-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING. TAX MAP NO. 60-7-14.1 LOT SIZE: 1.467 ACRES SECTION: 179-18 D (1) GARY HUGHES. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT MRS. TARANA-And the public hearing was left open. MR. BREWER-Okay. and we have comments from Rist-Frost. MR. HARLICKER-Rist-Frost. yes. We've got probably two letters from Rist-Frost. One initial letter. indicating his initial comments on the project. and then a follow-up letter that we received today. indicating that there's two outstanding engineering issues that the applicant is prepared to address tonight. Item One is regarding drywell details that should appear on the plan. and the second one is sewage disposal laterals. without pressure distribution. site seems to be sloped. one sixteenth to one thirty-second inch per foot. and that should be revised. So those are the two outstanding engineering comments. MR. HUGHES-What I've done on those is I've addressed this report and your report. I think I've answered all the questions. My name is Gary Hughes. and I'm a representative for Lucas Wilson's project. Project Coordinator. MR. BREWER-And you have addressed all these other concerns with Tom? MR. HUGHES-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-You might want to go through and kind of put the plan up and show the landscaping and stuff that you've done. MR. MACEWAN-Are you talking about the letter of June 1st? MR. BREWER-June 1st is done. MR. MACEWAN-Right. to the satisfaction of the Town? MR. HUGHES-Yes. MR. BREWER-He signed off with that letter. and then there's another letter of June 10. with two concerns on it. MR. HUGHES-The two drywells. MRS. TARANA-Did we get anything from the Beautification Committee? MR. HARLICKER-That was done last. MRS. TARANA-We tabled it. MR. HARLICKER-Right. The reason you tabled it was because of the engineering comments. MR. MACEWAN-And the Beautification Committee. MR. HARLICKER-And the Beautification Committee. MR. MACEWAN-It was supposed to be to them. and they were going to review it and get back to us. MR. HARLICKER-If I remember. I don't think they reviewed that. because it's residential. They usually review commercial stuff. MR. BREWER-Did you go to the Beautification Committee or not? - 5 - -- MR. HUGHES-No. I wasn't made aware of any need. MRS. TARANA-We ll. that was one of Scott's comments. remembe r. before about the? MR. HARLICKER-And what it was is they don't review residential. MRS. TARANA-Well. then. we review it. I guess? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. and he's made quite a few improvements on it. regarding landscaping. MR. HUGHES-I've made some adjustments in the plan. I tried to answer everybody's concerns. If I didn't. Mr. Wilson has made me. has allowed me to say that he's willing to work with the group. and whatever anybody wants. within reason. He has no problem with it. He's open to suggestions. What I've done is. basically. to answer the septic system. is that instead of having one 30 foot wide field. it's now two 15 foot wide fields with a separation in between. That was the basic concern on the absorption bed. and what I've done here is I've put Hemlock trees. put bushes. 10 foot. to form a buffer between these properties. I've put. across the back. a 12 foot on center. as a buffer from the back. and I believe there was a request for hedges around the parking lot. So I've got all this area blocked with hedges. and across the front here. and Scott said that he had recommended some go on the side. and they will go on the side. if that's what you would need. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. That's as opposed to. remember we talked about the possibility of. MR. HUGHES-Right. So basically what I'm doing with the parking is I'm encasing that with a hedge way. and evergreens around the two sides in the back. which. again. they're good evergreen. If you take a White Pine. the needles falloff. they get thin in the winter. If you take a Maple or a Hardwood. the leaves falloff and it's exposed. Either Hemlocks. which are a very hearty in this area. They grow in any kind of soil. They thicken up. If they're trimmed back. they get thicker. So. we should be able to keep a nice barrier here. for privacy from the properties. and down across. and this will be a level area in the front. roughly level in the front. just sloping about two feet from the front line up here. and it will come down to a drywell here for water. and a drywell here. and I've got. a proposal. that somebody would do some li ttle plantings in the front. and what we've done is put some flowering trees. like apple trees. across the front. 25 foot on center. and off the side here. So again. you should have a nice view here of the apple trees. flowering apple trees here. the buffer here. and hedging around the parking lot. So we've tried to address concerns. We want the bUilding to look very attractive. We're trying to do that. We're trying to be. we want to be a good neighbor. That's what Lucas has told me to extend to you people. that's what he wants to be. MR. BREWER-Maybe it would be beneficial for both of you if maybe you spoke with some of these neighbors and maybe got an idea of what. PATRICIA DECKER MRS. DECKER-Does Mr. Lucas recognize how against this. I would say I could get a petition and get everyone in the whole neighborhood sign it. Does he recognize this? And we have some. I think. really viable concerns. I'm a teacher. I have three children. I love children. I moved up there to get away from children. to get away from noise. to get away from traffic. and it seems to me that if this. and it's a beautiful place to live up there. It'll rent fast. I can see you maxing it out at 12 very soon. and so there's 24 cars all coming out in the morning. Children. where are the children going to play? Where on that piece of land are people - 6 - "..- going to have their children play? MR. BREWER-Excuse me. Miss. Could you just identify yourself for the record. please? MRS. DECKER-Yes. My name is Mrs. Decker. and I live on Dorlon Drive. You've got hedges for the people up there and the people in back. but I'm from the other side looking straight at you. MR. HUGHES-That's what we're saying. We're going to do that along this side. MARILYN COOK MRS. COOK-This is where the children will play on our property. Children are like water. They run until they find an open space. This will be the only open space. MRS. DECKER-We wanted you to see these pictures. so that you could see the impact on us. and I do have a wildlife biologist coming tomorrow. just a good friend of mine. to just look and say. is there anything endangered here? I mean. look hard and fast. I hope you can find a blue butterfly. and I'm serious. It's a bird sanctuary there. I mean. we have unbelievable birds up there. MRS. COOK-My name is Marilyn Cook. My husband and I have owned a place here since 1987. We plan to retire here. We love this community. but we are being victims of a bait and switch. MRS. DECKER-If I had known this was happening when I. you know. I saw that For Sale sign. and I have children in college. so I'm not into buying property. but I mean. I could have probably gotten everybody in DorIon. you know. the 60 of us that live there could have put up. I don't know how much the land went for. but if we put up $500 each. I bet we could have bought the land and had a garden. MR. MACEWAN-Mrs. Cook. what did you mean by you were victims of a bait and switch? MRS. COOK-Because we thought we were buying in a secluded. isolated area. and this is not what we're getting. MR. BREWER-I can sympathize with you. MRS. COOK-There's no place else for anyone to go. MRS. DECKER-There's no place for children to go. I mean. we're going to have bikes and skateboards. and renters. and I can tell you from the people that rent at Dorlon. they don't take care of their property like owners. I mean. does Mr. Wilson recognize this? Is he going to be up there. watching very frequently? MR. HUGHES-He's going to be living in one of the units. single person. He's a MR. MACEWAN-At the time you folks purchased your homes up there. was this land owned by the people that you purchased your homes from? MRS. DECKER-I don't think so. I don't know. MRS. COOK-It was owned by one of the residents. there was land there that Valenti didn't own. We had no idea MRS. DECKER-Yes. Mr. Valenti said to me. in your life time. you'll never see anything on that side. and I think he really meant it. too. MR. MACEWAN-But he didn't own the property. - 7 - -. MRS. DECKER-He did. Well. no. he owned right up to that triangle. MRS. COOK-Our senior citizens have to walk up Walker Lane to get their mail. around to the front of the Cooks residence. no sidewalks. MR. RUEL-Excuse me. Why do you think bars will be necessary on the windows? MRS. COOK-I've lived in apartments like that. I can see the trends that are happening in the community. I see different kinds of people in the community that have been there for the last 20 years. and I've put the television on. MRS. DECKER-Well. just now we leave doors open. I mean. I left my sliding glass doors open just now. I don't think I would feel as. because I know my neighbors. you know. they own. and they're going to stay around. MR. BREWER-So what's to say you wouldn't get to know these neighbors and trust them? MR. RUEL-You're jumping to conclusions. MRS. COOK-No. I'm looking into my crystal ball. MR. RUEL-Good people live in apartment buildings. MRS. COOK-Good people live everywhere. I've lived in apartments like that myself. and bad people live in elegant homes. MRS. DECKER-But there will be a traffic impact. truly. JOHN WILLIAMS MR. WILLIAMS-Could I ask a question? My name is John Williams. I live on. I was here before one time. but that's not the point. My is this. What would be the approximate assessed value of this piece of property. this one building you're putting in? Have you any idea? What I'm saying is. what would be the approximate assessed value of that. as compared to the assessed value of this other property we're talking about? Is it in the same ballpark? MR. BREWER-I honestly could not tell you that. sir. I have nothing to do with the assessments. I just don't know. MR. WILLIAMS-Yes. well. I'm posing the question. MR. BREWER-I don't think that the. and I understand all your concerns. and I don't think the man is trying to build a shabby house. By no means. I think. is he trying to do that. He's just trying to get some money back from his property. and I'm not sticking up for him. I'm just telling you what I get from this. to try to build an apartment building. which he's entitled to do. MR. RUEL-It's zoned for that. right? MR. BREWER-It is zoned for that. and if he's not doing anything against the law. this Board has no right to stop him. MRS. DECKER-We want him to know. and we want you to tell him that there are 60 families there. or single people, as I am. that are truly against this. and I'm telling you. we will complain about the slightest violation. I mean the slightest. We'll be calling the police. We'll be calling him. but we will complain. because we don't want the quality of our life changed. I spent $20.000 more for my townhouse for the view. I could have gotten one with a third bedroom for $20.000 less, but I bought it for the view. and I know I can't do anything about it if it's zoned for what it's zoned for. but I think this man needs to know that we will - 8 - '---,' complain. and we will. MR. RUEL-This communities. been there 50 moved in. is a constant problem. in Queensbury as well as other There are people that live in your area that have years. I'm sure they objected to the fact that YQg MRS. COOK-Exactly. MR. RUEL-And they thought they would have to put bars on their windows. MRS. COOK-Exactly. MR. RUEL-I mean. this goes on and on. MR. HUGHES-I don't think there's any home on that street that's 50 years old. MR. MACEWAN-Not to get into an argument in point. but there's certainly many homes on Country Club that had that view. coming across. Even well before the College was even put up. and I'm sure they all felt the same way then as these folks are now. MR. COOK MR. COOK-I'm Marilyn's husband, Mr. Cook. but it does seem that you could very easily project the fact that all three buildings are going to end up in there. that there's going to be a very dense land usage for what is essentially an isolated one and a half acres of land. and it seems to me that the density of that is indeed out of keeping with the community that's established there. It seems like a very opportunistic deal that's being pulled off here. and there will be three buildings. and there will be 13 families. as many as 50 people with as many 25 cars. and it just seems an inappropriate kind of thing. in terms of a long range planning. and an attitude toward the community. That's what this is all about. Sure. you can find an acre here and there. and plunk down three buildings and say. hey. we've stuffed in 50 more people. That doesn't seem appropriate to us. We paid good big bucks to have a spread out community in which there was sufficient space to not only play. but garages with adequate driveways to get cars off the streets. and to keep it from looking like a run down potential disaster. MR. RUEL-But. sir. when you bought. or people bought in that area. and that land was zoned for that purpose. MR. COOK-For 50 people to the acre? MR. BREWER-It's MR-5. MR. RUEL-It's zoned for it. yes. MR. BREWER-When were these homes built? MRS. COOK-'85. '86. MR. RUEL-And you bought there. I don't know if you knew it or not. but it was zoned for that. when you bought there. and if you had known that. possibly you wouldn't have bought there. MR. BREWER-'88 it came into effect. MR. COOK-Well. it just seems to us an inappropriate kind of activity to take place on an isolated one quarter acres of land. MR. BREWER-There is a homeowners association there? MRS. DECKER-Yes. - 9 - -- MR. BREWER-Is there a chance that your client would talk to these people and maybe join their homeowners association? MR. HUGHES-I don't think he'd object to that at all. MRS. COOK-These are the rules that we have to live by. MRS. DECKER-And I mean. they are really. they are strict. as strict as we can't put a red drape up in a front window. It has to be lined in white. MR. BREWER-Is that something you people would be willing to do is to talk to Mr. Wilson? Maybe you both can live in harmony. MRS. COOK-Mr. association. homeowner of welcome. Wilson would be more than welcome at any homeowners He could not be a member. because he's not a the Baybridge Townhomes. but he would be more than MR. BREWER-Could you expand your homeowners association? MR. DECKER-No. Well. that would take an act of God. Seriously. MR. BREWER-I'm just looking for solutions for you. that's all. MRS. COOK-I feel as sorry for the people living in that tight space as I do for us. When I said to my children. go out and play. there was a yard for them to play in. not a parking lot. MRS. DECKER-There would be nothing but a parking lot for these children to play on. MRS. COOK-They're not going to go out and sit on the bumpers of the cars. with their hands folded. MR. COOK-See. we're considering this an approval of not four units. We're considering this an approval for 13 units. (TAPE TURNED) MR. MACEWAN-What further modifications could he do. within reason. that would appease you people? MRS. COOK-How about garages? How about. you know. it's just too many people on too small a space. When you see how spread out we are. MR. MACEWAN-But the zoning calls for it. I mean. the zoning allows him to do it. MRS. COOK-I know. MR. MACEWAN-There's nothing this Board can do to stop him from doing that. MRS. DECKER-And I know as a renter. because I've rented in the past. you can't rent to people without children. and I love kids. I have three kids of my own. I teach them every day. but. MR. RUEL-You're actually looking for a change in The Master Plan calls for that type of zoning. owning that property are entitled to building. would have that many people. It's right across you, you said? the Master Plan. and the people structures that the street from HRS. DECKER-I'd look out at it. Instead of looking out at the Vermont Mountains. I will now look at these structures. and I'm just saying. where would people keep 12 garbage cans? You should see how the wind blows. and even just having them out in the morning. how they blow allover. I mean. they're going to have to - 10 - - .-....../ chain them down. and where are the kids going to ride their bikes? I mean. obviously up and down. there's no sidewalks. up and down the road. STEVE PINCHUK MR. PINCHUK-Let me just playa what if game. If the person who owns that property that you're agreeing to protect her view there. the single owner there with the sweeping driveway. if you were to get discouraged with what you see. then my conjecture is that you might say. hey, I don't need this, and sell off your two or three acres. and the Town Board would then say. we have no responsibility. other than to make sure that it doesn't violate any of our basic rules here. to allow another builder to come in and put another series of densely packed apartment buildings there. I mean. that's what the extrapolation of this slippery slope is. MRS. COOK-And before you know it. you're living in Levitt Town. and you can walk from one community to the next on the rooftops without your feet touching the ground. I mean. it happens. MR. BREWER-I know. I can tell you a true story. It happened to me. I live in a community where there's 40 houses, and there's 200 acres of land that's vacant. and I thought it would never be developed. but they're going to develop it. and that's life. I have to live with it. MR. PINCHUK-But is it life to put what I call high dense rentals in an area which is obviously single homeowners. MR. HACEWAN-Just strictly from a multifamily zoning over there. zoning standpoint. it's MR. PINCHUK-I understand what the zoning is. but it's not conducive to this type of density. Believe me. They're sticking homes between a single family residence. which I own. and another single family residence from Country Club Road. and you're just crowding these people in there. At least I'd like to see where the next two buildings are going to go. Gary. I mean. they're in my back yard. MR. HUGHES-They probably are. MR. PINCHUK-That dumpster's in my back yard. I'm going to sit by my pool and smell garbage. It's opportunistic. is what it is. Because the acreage is there. Excuse me. My name's Steve Pinchuk. by the way. I own the single family residence. probably one of the only ones up there. That property is too narrow. That's going to be right in my back yard. I'm going to sit by my pool and look out at a tenement. and a dumpster. and a parking lot. MR. COOK-And bright lights. and noise. MR. PINCHUK-You know. I spent $75.000 two years ago. to stop someone else from developing the same thing in front of my house. This is ridiculous. Here's my property. MRS. DECKER-I think that Mr. Wilson really ought to be here. and he ought to know how we feel. It seems like you're the fall man. You've got to take the brunt of our anger. MR. PINCHUK-You've got a piece of property that's not even 99 feet. It's 99.16 feet wide. HRS. DECKER-I mean. it's such a narrow place for those cars to come through. MR. RUEL-How about 100. 100 feet? MR. PINCHUK-Exactly. Well, not quite. There's how we're sitting. just about. Here's the piece of property. Here's my home. Here's - 11 - "-"'" my pool. a dumpster here. and the only place to put any more homes is in here. MR. RUEL-But you knew this property was here, and you knew that some day somebody would build here. MR. PINCHUK-I cannot believe that this Town Board would allow that to happen. MR. RUEL-Did you know what the zoning was on this? You should have done something earlier. and gotten together, and made some modifications to the Master Plan. That's the time to do it. MR. PINCHUK-Okay. the modification to the Master Plan they made now. MR. RUEL-They're working on it now. but every couple of years they work on it. and they have a committee. and it's open. and you can make a comment. and you should have said something about that. a long time ago. HR. PINCHUK-Okay. My error. There is. this is Walker Lane through here. There is a right-of-way that comes up through here. goes up here. and to my knowledge. when I bought the property. it is my error. I thought this same right-of-way carried across to the Walker property out here. MR. RUEL-You thought it went down this way? MR. PINCHUK-Yes. I did. This piece is so narrow. if you sit in my back yard. or sat by my pool. and you looked out. there's a fence line here and there's a fence line here. MR. RUEL-Am I second guessing. when you looked at this. you said, it's 100 feet. no one will ever build there? MR. PINCHUK-Exactly. MRS. COOK-Yes. MR. RUEL-It's too long and narrow. right? MR. PINCHUK-Very. MR. RUEL-But you could have checked to find out what the zoning was. MR. PINCHUK-Well. I paid an attorney to do that. That's nobody's fault here. MR. RUEL-See. it is zoned that way. you know. and the man has a right to do this. MR. PINCHUK-I understand. This piece of property. to put the type of building they want to put up. parking. more dumpsters. everything else. and look where my pool sits. MR. RUEL-You're going to have to put shrubbery around that pool. MR. PINCHUK-Why do I have to put shrubbery around it? MR. COOK-How do you stop the smell and the noise. and the contamination? MR. PINCHUK-Yes. how do you stop that? Cars pulling in. Lights on at night in the parking lot. MR. WILLIAMS-I wanted to ask a question before, and I'd still like to ask it. Is this a zoning or is this a planning commission? - 12 - '- MR. BREWER-This is a Planning Board. MR. WILLIAMS-All right. Does the planning have to do with the zoning? I can understand that. HR. BREWER-We have to adhere to the zoning laws. MR. WILLIAMS-Right. That I understand. Aren't you planning to make the thing compatible. Isn't it planning to be compatible with everything else? MR. BREWER-It certainly is. MR. WILLIAMS-Not necessarily. you've got two Boards. If it didn't need your Board. the zoning would take care of it. but this is out of the hands of zoning. This is planning now. MR. BREWER-That's right. MR. WILLIAMS-This is planning. MR. PINCHUK-This is definitely going to effect the value of my property. MRS. DECKER-No two ways about it. MR. BREWER-So what should we do? can't build there? Should we say to him that he MRS. DECKER-What do we do? Do we hire an attorney to try to fight this? MR. PINCHUK-I think we should. MRS. COOK-Well. I couldn't put much in. but I could put something in. MR. BREWER-Well. that's not for us to decide. MR. COOK-Can I say one other thing? When she just. for another matter. read down the list of the check list. and got to the aesthetic kind of considerations. it seems to me that this would be disqualified on almost everyone of those aesthetic kind of considerations that she read off. It just interrupts the quality of life. It does all kinds of things. in terms of a neighborhood. It's an inappropriate use of the land. even though it may be legal and within the zoning. MRS. DECKER-Yes. it is an inappropriate use of the land. There's no two ways about it. I could get everybody's signature. everybody in Baybridge. I could almost guarantee it. I could get everyone to sign a petition to say that we're against it. each and everyone of us. MR. STARK-Does the Board have to know where the other two homes may go. locations? MR. BREWER-We can ask it. yes. and I think we asked that question last week at the meeting. and this fellow doesn't have any particular idea where or if he's going to build them. MR. HUGHES-We're asking the Planning Board right now just to this here. That's all we're asking for. MRS. DECKER-Just now. HR. COOK-But that's a slippery slope. MRS. DECKER-Yes. - 13 - -- MR. PINCHUK-I definitely have a problem with the location of that dumpster and the parking lot. MR. BREWER-Is there another place that we could ask him to move it? MR. PINCHUK-I mean. if anyone of you folks lived in this home of mine. you would not appreciate this. MR. BREWER-I understand that. I really do. MR. PINCHUK-And this property does not compensate this type of development. MRS. DECKER-And I guess you've had the soil samples done, right. I mean. as far as drainage? Because where I am. the drainage is horrendously awful. MR. HUGHES-We have to provide two drywells on the property. and we've had the stormwater management done and reviewed by Rist- Frost. MR. MACEWAN-How would Mr. Wilson be to the idea of putting up garages for that? MRS. DECKER-Where would he fit them? MR. MACEWAN-Out of the question? MR. HUGHES-I could ask him. MR. BREWER-Well. I mean. what can we do? I understand your si tuation. but you have to understand our situation. too. The man's got an application in. It's provided for in the z~ning. and we can just stop him because you people don't want him to build a house there. MRS. DECKER-How about if there were endangered bird species that are there? MR. BREWER-Then that would probably stop him. MRS. DECKER-Okay. Well. then I have a biologist. he's an amateur biologist. He's a professor of Biology at ACC. but he is going to come and he's going to look over the property. flora. fauna. things like that. MR. PINCHUK-Is that always cast in stone? I mean. because it's so many square feet of property. you can put so many buildings on it. because it's an MR-5? That's ridiculous. MR. BREWER-I agree with you. MR. RUEL-Yes. and this is why they're working on the Master Plan now. MR. HARLICKER-This is what we're presented with. is this single building. MR. PINCHUK-Yes. but you know that's not the end of this. and I know it. and Gary knows it. and everybody else knows it. MR. RUEL-But this is Phase I. right? Phases? There's a couple of other MR. BREWER-Is it possible Mr. Wilson would talk with these people and we could table this until Tuesday? MR. HUGHES-Absolutely. MR. BREWER-It's Thursday today, four days. Five days. - 14 - -- MRS. TARANA-Or table it until they do talk and let them come back to us. MR. BREWER-How does the Board feel about that? MRS. TARANA-I would like to see something like that resolved. because this is what X see as a problem. I know where these people are coming from. but I also know that we have no basis for telling this man he can't do this. We can modify it. and maybe it would be better if they could get together and modify it. because here's what I can see happening. and I think back to our other problem with neighbors. that we just went through how many meetings with. I picture these people moving into this rented place. and really getting a lot of harassment from the people in Baybridge. MRS. DECKER-They might. They might. HRS. TARANA-I know they might. You're saying that they probably will if they leave a bicycle out. MRS. DECKER-Because if they do one thing. then we would be furious. MRS. TARANA-Absolutely. and that's not fair to the people moving in to an apartment building. because they don't know about any of this. So I think that this has got to be resolved before we act on it. I think they've got to get together somehow. because. and I'll tell you people quite honestly. we have no basis for denying this man. So you have to get together with him and see if you can work something out. I don't know what it's going to be. but if you want a decision tonight. we really cannot deny him what he's asking for. MR. PINCHUK-Well. I think. as a Board. it's your responsibility to know where the other two buildings are going to be put. MR. MACEWAN-There's no issue of other two buildings. MRS. TARANA-But even if he tells us it's going to go right along that strip. that's still not a reason to deny him. We have to act within the Zoning Ordinance. and the Zoning Ordinance allows it. MR. MACEWAN-And we can't ask him what may be in his plans two years. two months. twenty years down the road. because that's not what the application is. that's in front of us. MR. WILLIAHS-Could I ask a question again. which really wasn't answered to my satisfaction. Does this application go to the zoning first. or does it go to the planning first? MRS. TARANA-It will never go to zoning because he's not asking for a variance. It would only go to zoning if. for some reason. according to the Zoning Ordinance, this little booklet we have. if that did not meet. if this project did not meet those criteria. it would have to go to zoning for a variance. but it meets all the criteria of the zoning. So it comes to planning only. MR. WILLIAMS-So. in other words. you are. in effect. the zoning committee. too? MRS. DECKER-No. no. It's zoned for multiple dwellings already. HR. WILLIAMS-But you check to see whether it's zoned properly. right? MR. BREWER-That's right. MR. WILLIAMS-So you are. in effect. you do. MR. RUEL-From that standpoint. yes. but we don't modify the zone. MRS. TARANA-The Zoning Director checks that. - 15 - - MR. WILLIAMS-I understand. but you. in effect determine whether. HR. RUEL-Make sure that it meets the requirements of that particular zone. MR. WILLIAMS-Right. committee? Okay. So you are then the zoning/planning MR. RUEL-Not really. MRS. TARANA-That's determined by the Zoning Administrator. MR. BREWER-The Zoning Administrator looks at this application when it comes in. and goes down a checklist. and if it meets the criteria for that zone. okay. it goes to the Planning Board. If it doesn't. it goes to the Zoning Board for a variance. Then it comes to the Planning Board. MR. WILLIAMS-Okay. So the zoning man has already looked at it? MR. RUEL-Right. and it does meet all the requirements of that zone. MR. WILLIAMS-All requirements. right. but he has not looked at from our standpoint. I get it. MRS. TARANA-He's looked at it. too. from your point of view. MR. PINCHUK-How about the possibility of devaluation of our property? MRS. TARANA-There's nothing that we can do. MR. COOK-I'd like to raise the question about that. because this is an aesthetic thing. and it's going to decrease the value of all adjacent property. MRS. TARANA-For this project. we didn't have to do that kind of a SEQRA review. We just had to do a Short Form. HR. BREWER-Okay. Is there any other comment from the public. before I close the public hearing? MRS. COOK-Just that I want to thank you. MRS. DECKER-Yes. Thank you for your time. MR. MACEWAN-I'd leave it open. MR. BREWER-All right. I'm going to ask him again. Do you think it's a possibility Mr. Wilson would talk to these people and table this until Tuesday? MR. HUGHES-Yes. I don't think he will. I can call him tonight. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there someone that would represent you people. or. all of you people. that would talk to Hr. Wilson before Tuesday morning. or before Tuesday night? We're doing something for you. so you have to work with us. MRS. DECKER-But it's hard for us to speak for the Board. MR. BREWER-Well. why couldn't some of the neighbors go and talk to him? Yourself. people that are effected. You're effected. MRS. DECKER-Our houses are most effected. He's on this side. and I'm on this side. and I'm there. HR. MACEWAN-This is a golden opportunity for you neighbors up there to get your ideas across. - 16 - - MRS. DECKER-Why by Tuesday? MR. BREWER-Our meeting is Tuesday night. We're going to resolve this Tuesday night. We have a meeting Tuesday night. If we table this. I want to resolve it Tuesday night. If they come to an agreement and say. Tuesday's not enough time. and come back Tuesday night and say. can you wait another week. fine. I don't have a problem with that. but he's been here. as an applicant. for a month. and he has a right to be approved or denied. and I think we should do it. MR. HUGHES-We've got. and. again. I just want to address the concerns. and I really agree that it's important to everybody to try to be good neighbors. and if there's a problem. to address it. and I'm not upset or mad about it. I'm just representing the client and trying to convey his views to you. MRS. DECKER-But as you say. I guess there's a lot of logistics between now and Tuesday. There's going to be a lot of people at this meeting. If we advertise it. and where are we going to have it. things like that. MR. HUGHES-Well. what I've come here to do is. again. I've come here to ask for approval of this. and I've tried to, for everybody's best interest. tried to do that. and tried to make the rest of his concerns. and I don't think Lucas Wilson would have a problem talking with you people. MR. BREWER-Maybe he'll change his mind. maybe he won't. That's not for us to say. MR. HUGHES-He wants to build a building. He's got an investment. He's bought the property. paid for it. He's a hardworking person. There's nothing wrong with that. He's paid for it out of his own pocket. The property. the real estate agent sold it to him. saying it was an MR-5. which it was. and that he could build apartments on it. and that's what he's doing. He's a young person. He's got an agreement with the bank. at this point. because he has. to secure the financing. He's got money out for permits. There's a lot of permits. DEC permits. He's got my fees. He's got the engineering fees. He's going to get a bill from Rist-Frost. He's going to get a bill from. that he's paid me. He's going to get a bill from two other engineers. He's got a lot of money out right now that he has no recourse on. It's just sitting out there. It's not doing anything for him. Again. I can see your concerns. and that's not your problem. He's made an investment. and every time that this gets put off. MRS. TARANA-I would like to suggest that the applicant. that he determine when he wants to come back to us. since this is his application. after you talk to Mr. Lucas. We don't know if he's got something going. and he can't talk to these people by Tuesday. and since you are the applicant. I think when you talk with him. if you could call either Tim or the Planning Department. MR. BREWER-We don't have a problem putting you back on the agenda Tuesday night. or a week from Tuesday. Whatever's best for you. MR. HUGHES-He's going to want to approach things as fast as possible. because he's chomping at the bit now. MR. BREWER-Okay. Then we'll say the 15th. MRS. TARANA-If he can do it Tuesday, fine. If he can't. you'll let us know what he wants to do. MR. HUGHES-Okay. I would say. definitely. the 15th. and if that's a problem. I can call. MRS. TARANA-We have another meeting the 22nd. - 17 - ~ ~ MR. BREWER-The 15th and the 22nd. So. we'll tentatively table it until the 15th. MR. HUGHES-Okay. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 22-93 LUCAS WILSON. Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption. seconded by Corinne Tarana: Pending the resolving of the situation between the neighbors and the applicant. Duly adopted this 10th day of June. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Stark. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-All right. Lets move on. Is somebody here from Crossroads? Okay. We've got to do Crossroads Park. SUBDIVISION NO. 21-1989 CROSSROADS PARK FURTHER CLARIFICATION OF RESOLUTION RELATING TO SUBDIVISION 21-1989 DATED MAY 18. 1993. MRS. TARANA-This is an old resolution. I don't have anything from Crossroads. This is a clarification. MR. BREWER-Corinne. this is the motion that we have to make on that. Crossroads. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. Why is that back again? What's wrong? MR. BREWER-It's a further clarification. if you read that letter. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. as a result of a meeting that they had. MR. MACEWAN-Who's "they"? MR. HARLICKER-Jim. the applicants. John Goralski, Rist-Frost. the people who were involved in the modification. The original motion was regarding the pooling. and it's a little more involved than just fixing of the pooling problems. MRS. TARANA-Do you want me to read you the old motion? MR. MACEWAN-No. I've got the old one here. MRS. TARANA-AIl right. and the new one says. Revised Resolution For Crossroads Park Subdivision Grading And Drainage Phase I. The Board hereby moves to approve the amended grading and drainage plan for Phase I of Subdivision No. 21-1989 Crossroads Park. Said amended plan includes modification of the drainage swale along the north side of Blind Rock Road and the installation of a perforated drainage pipe through the center of the site as shown on the grading and drainage plan SP-1. submitted by Richard E. Jones. date 4/28/93 and last revised 5/13/93. This approval i~ subject to the following stipulations: that construction begin as soon as possible. but no later than 30 days from 5/18/93. and be completed by July 15th. 1993. MR. STARK-Do you agree with this. Scott? MR. HARLICKER-I wrote it. MRS. TARANA-So it's just making it more specific. is what it is? - 18 - MR. HARLICKER-Yes. and I just incorporated the dates from the last meeting into that. MRS. TARANA-Do we need a motion? MR. BREWER-No. That would be the motion. MR. RUEL-That's the motion. I'd second it. REVISED RESOLUTION FOR CROSSROADS PARK SUBDIVISION GRADING AND DRAINAGE PHASE I. Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: The Board hereby moves to approve the amended grading and drainage plan for Phase I of Subdivision No. 21-1989 Crossroads Park. Said amended plan includes modification of the drainage swale along the north side of Blind Rock Road and the installation of a perforated drainage pipe through the center of the site as shown on the grading and drainage plan SP-1. submitted by Richard E. Jones. date 4/28/93 and last revised 5/13/93. This approval is subject to the following stipulations: that construction begin as soon as possible. but no later than 30 days from 5/18/93. and be completed by July 15th. 1993. Duly adopted this 10th day of June. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Pulver DISCUSSION ONLY: SEQRA REVIEW: AMERICAN EQUITY CORP. - USE VARIANCE 127-1993 AND AREA VARIANCE. MARK SCHACHNER. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT MRS. TARANA-Are we just doing a SEQRA? HR. HARLICKER-This is just a discussion for tonight. Not SEQRA. MR. RUEL-Discussion only. MRS. TARANA-I thought it was on for, SEQRA for the purposes of re- zoning? MR. HARLICKER-Use and Area Variances. They aren't going for a re- zoning. They opted for the other way of dOing it. HR. SCHACHNER-No. This is the American Equity project. There's two different approaches that two different applicants have taken. You all might know. from previous projects. that I personally think that the more appropriate thing to do. if you have a project that the zoning doesn't necessarily fit properly. and if you have grounds for a variance. you should seek a variance. so you don't need a broad. sweeping re-zoning. and that's one of the reasons that American Equity sought a variance on the property. So there's actually two variances that were sought. Altogether. there were four applications that we've either made or we're going to make. two of them have been made. and they're complete. Two of them have been made. but they're really not complete. The two that have been made are both to the Zoning Board of Appeals. They're for the use variance. because it's obviously a commercial. but the way the Zoning Ordinance. it's at site plan now. The way the zoning works. if you want me to put this up. however you want to do it. that's fine. The zone line goes right through the property. The zone line is 500 feet off of Quaker Road. The back part of the property. meaning furthest from Quaker Road. is zoned Light - 19 - Industrial. The front part. meaning the 500 feet within Quaker. is zoned Highway Commercial. Highway Commercial is fine for the proposed use. Light Industrial is not. (TAPE TURNED) MR. RUEL-At this point. I'd like to ask. the variance is was for that portion right there. right. and not for re-zoning the whole thing? MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely true. MR. RUEL-Just that? Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-There is no re-zoning component of this application or this project whatsoever. The other variance is a very. very tiny permeability variance. The permeabi Ii ty requirement is 30 percent. We've got a different site plan which we can show you. which we colored in green what would remain permeable, and it looks like it's going to be about 27 percent. So we missed by about three percent. a very minor permeability variance. and that. obviously those are Zoning Board matters. but you should be aware of those two applications. The two applications that will be made. hopefully by the end of. if things proceed the way we anticipate. they will be made by the end of this month. So they'll be on your July agenda. are for subdivision and for site plan review. The subdivision is because this entire property. which I believe consists of. according to the survey and the subdivision map. the entire property. MR. HARLICKER-This over here. triangle? You sure it's not just like this. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. My. commercial subdivision lot is approximately 37 and a half acres. I use athletic terms here. because it's easiest for me. This looks a home plate to me. so home plate is about. a little 32 and a half acres. and there's what we can an out parcel down here. which is an acre and a half. That leaves this flag shaped or pennant shaped triangular piece. which we have nothing to do with. We're not proposing. we don't have an option for it. We're not buying it. and that's probably about five acres. but our project consists of putting these retail uses of about 190.000 square feet and about 37 and a half thousand square feet on this 32.43 acre parcel. The subdivision will be. in essence. three lots. one is this flag shaped or pennant shaped triangle that's left over. that we have no plans for at this time. nor do we have any control over it. for that matter. The 32.43 home plate on which the commercial use. or commercial retail uses are proposed. and this 1.4 acre out parcel that fronts right on Quaker Road. MR. BREWER-How can you subdivide something you don't own? MR. SCHACHNER-We have the authority of the owner. We have agent authority and we have contract options and all that. but we're not proposing to develop this at all. MR. HARLICKER-And you're saying that's going to be sold off. once it's subdivided from the rest of it? It's not going to be tied in with any future development out there? MR. SCHACHNER-My understanding. and this is by no means cast in stone, but that this is a likely place for some sort of fast food restaurant or something like that. That seems to be what it lends itself best to. My sense. for what it's worth. is that these would be leased by different entities. but as to whether it would be actually sold off or not, I don't know. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Those are the four applications. As I say. the two Zoning Board ones are in already. The Zoning Board hasn't made - 20 - it's determinations yet. because you all are the lead agency for purposes of SEQRA review. which is pretty much where we're at now. The Planning Staff. and although I say the Planning Staff. but principally Scott. has been involved in reviewing what we've submi t ted. We've submitted a Long Form EAF with our variance applications to the Zoning Board. By the way, you are now officially the lead agency. The Zoning Board signed off on that. I think the other involved agencies have as well. Our time has run to do that. and Scott has done. frankly. a very thorough. very detailed review of our plans and our EAF and has been instrumental and very helpful in focusing us on what issues. from the planning staff's standpoint. he wanted us to focus on. He's done that mostly through creation of the usual set of Staff Notes. which I assume you have, and I assume you've read them. and what I propose to do. but you guys are the bosses. not me, what I thought I would do is very quickly. sort of in the big picture sense. run through our responses to the points that Scott wanted to clarify. with the expectation that there are some that you would be more concerned about than others. and we can sort of hone in on those. Does that sound like a good way to proceed. or would you rather just jump in. on the ones you're most concerned with? Whichever you prefer. MR. RUEL-This is a discussion. What are we discussing? MR. BREWER-We're discussing the SEQRA. MRS. TARANA-We're not doing the SEQRA tonight. MR. BREWER-We're not doing it tonight. MR. HARLICKER-It's on the agenda for next Tuesday. the formal SEQRA Review. MRS. TARANA-Could I ask just one question? One question at the moment. This is not all the Earl Town project that we're looking at? MR. SCHACHNER-When you say Earl Town project. do you mean Earl Town property? I mean. there's a thousand acres of Earl Town property. MRS. TARANA-That's right. What I'm wondering is. what happens to that? Where does that stand? How do you fall into this? You bought off a chunk of the Earl Town property? MR. SCHACHNER-We have an option on only 34 and a half acres. JIM WELLER MR. WELLER-Mark. maybe I can clear that up. from a community standpoint. It's my understanding that this is a separate Earl Town. MR. BREWER-Could you just identify yourself for the record? MR. WELLER-I'm Jim Weller. and project. There's the Earl Town. which was the development that had separate parcel of Earl Town land. was approved prior to that. I'm working with Mark on this which was the wetlands project all the difficulty. is an entire This was part of the PUD. which MR. SCHACHNER-You don't mean the PUD. You mean the subdivision. DON AYLES MR. AYLES-Subdivision. I'm Don Ayles with Earl Town. This is not part of the PUD. This is an outside parcel. MR. SCHACHNER-The easiest way to put this in historical context. the short two or three word answer. Corinne. is this is not part of the PUD. I mean. whatever Earl Town's doing with its approximately - 21 - 997 +/- acres. we have nothing to do with it. okay. That project was a pro j ect of large magnitude. Maybe Earl Town's going to proceed with that. maybe they're not. Don Ayles of Earl Town happens to be here. because Earl Town still does own this property that ~ have option for. but this project. and my client. the people ~ represent. have nothing to do with the PUD, and have 1 it tle to do with Earl Town. except that that's who we have an option from. MRS. TARANA-But I thought this access road was put in for the PUD? MR. SCHACHNER-You mean the service road. or Quaker Road Boulevard? HRS. TARANA-The service road. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I think. MRS. TARANA-I mean. I thought that was all part of that Earl Town project. I don't ever recall it being two separate. HR. SCHACHNER-To be honest. my impression. for what it's worth, is that this property was within the line surrounding the PUD. MRS. TARANA-And that's why they put the service road in. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. So I guess I. I don't mean to disagree with you. but that's my understanding. MR. AYLES-The overall study. yes. but as the specific PUD being. and my interpretation of that is the developed area where the proposed golf course and residential sections and so forth and proposed commercial up front were going to go. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. That's why I'm answering the question like this. That PUD. which I had nothing to do with. but as I recall it involved several golf courses. several hotels. several restaurants. and a very significant number of residential units as well. okay. MRS. TARANA-And a commercial area. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. and a commercial area. and my understanding. and I'm quite sure of this. and we've reviewed all the PUD documents. is there was no 190.000 square foot retail proposed on this site as part of the PUD. Nothing that we're proposing was part of the PUD. MR. AYLES-That's correct. MR. BREWER-As far as the PUD. there was nothing proposed there. in the PUD. Is that what you're saying? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I mean. there might have been something proposed. but it wasn't this. MR. BREWER-Right. MRS. TARANA-I th~ught that whole. one big piece of property. the whole thing. MR. SCHACHNER-The whole entire thousand acres. MRS. TARANA-The whole thing went through the process. or was in the process. HR. SCHACHNER-I think that's probably true. MRS. TARANA-And one of it got approved. MR. SCHACHNER-I think some of it did get approved, actually. - 22 - MR. WELLER-This was a separate application. in my memory. in the Town of Queensbury. This was a separate application that got approved way before the application. HR. SCHACHNER-You're talking about the commercial subdivision. Right. Okay. Let me throw a wrinkle on this, and. again. I'm not sure how important any of this is. but. MRS. TARANA-Well. I think it's important if this is still one project. MR. SCHACHNER-It's not. You can't think of it that way. We have nothing to do with the PUD. literally. MR. BREWER-It's a subdivision. MR. SCHACHNER-Exactly. HRS. TARANA-I guess what I'm trying to make sure. in my own head. is the Earl Town property is now being sold off. a chunk of it's being sold off. Can they. without approval of that entire property. sell off a piece of that and develop it? MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. It's a subdivision. MRS. TARANA-Did it ever get approved to be a subdivision. that whole big piece of property? MR. SCHACHNER-We're about to apply for it as a subdivision. as a three lot subdivision. MR. HARLICKER-They will be applying for subdivision. MR. SCHACHNER-But lets back up a step. MRS. TARANA-But then are you segmenting SEQRA when you do this kind of thing? MR. SCHACHNER-Wait a minute. There's a mistake here. You're referring to that Earl Town property as one big lot? That's not how it is. Right now. as we sit here today. this already is one property lot of 37.55 acres. MRS. TARANA-So was some of the Earl Town property sold off. so that it's not the same entity that it was in the beginning. MR. SCHACHNER-This was that. before the PUD. and these lots were a part of a commercial subdivision that this Board approved in 1986 or 1987. We have the file here. if you're interested. Okay. So. again. even though. and you have to appreciate. I wasn't responsible for any of Earl Town's PUD work, and even though. as I read the documents. it appears that. physically. the line encompassed this area. even before the PUD. these lots were approved for commercial subdivision and this lot. which we're talking about. was created already. So I think you have to divorce yourself right away from the PUD. and we have nothing to do with it whatsoever. We have an option to purchase a very small portion of what was then the PUD property. MRS. TARANA-Does this have to now go to DEC and everything? MR. AYLES-There's no wetlands in the area. MR. SCHACHNER-No. There's no wetlands. There's no DEC issue. There's no environmental issue in our judgement. I say no environmental issue. Scott has asked us a number of questions. which we felt were appropriate to ask in the context of SEQRA Review. but this is not ecologically sensitive property. There are no wetlands on the property. There are no threatened endangered species on the property. - 23 - MR. HARLICKER-The wetlands are back in the back. this way. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. HARLICKER-This is currently being used as. the guy's farming it. MR. BREWER-Yes. We drove out there. yesterday. MR. SCHACHNER-So you have to. you know. it's just a separate entity. MRS. TARANA-Okay. I just didn't realize that Earl Town project... MR. RUEL-Would it make a difference? MRS. TARANA-Yes. it would make a difference. if this were still the Earl Town project. MR. SCHACHNER-It isn't. MRS. TARANA-As it had been originally proposed. and apparently is not the same thing. MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely not. If you guys want to. I mean. again. if there are other questions. we'll field them. or. you want to talk about this? Okay. All right. You. I assume. know that. I believe on Monday night. a different applicant. who has made application to the Town Board for rezoning got the rezoning granted. That applicant is the Zaremba Group for whom I think you have asserted lead agency status over the Town Board. who's already been lead agency status. but that's a different debate that we don't need to get involved in. You know. or at least Tim knows. I don't know if everybody knows. that K-Mart. which is our preferred tenant. submitted a letter to the Town Board. which in essence says that the other site. which is at the corner of Quaker and Dix. not very far at all from our site. has been submitted and considered by K-Mart. I'm sorry. it says. has the full support of the K-Mart corporation, is what it actually says. We certainly don't deny this letter. Our understanding is K-Mart is basically looking at two sites. They're looking at the site at the corner of Quaker and Dix. They're also looking at our site. We are of the firm opinion that from the environmental standpoint and the community standpoint. as well as. we think. from K-Mart's standpoint. but you all shouldn't be so concerned with K-Mart's standpoint. You should be more concerned with the environmental and the community. we think this is a far superior site. In fact. our client. Benchmark Group. American Equity Corp.. was previously the proposed developer of what's now the Zaremba site at the intersection of Quaker and Dix. put a lot of time and money and effort into that site. into developing that site for K-Mart. and left that site because we feel. or they feel very strongly that that site is not appropriate for this type of development. but I'm not here to fight that fight. You guys will get into that when you review the Zaremba application. but what I will say is. we're not wasting our time or your time by proceeding. because. Number One. K-Mart has specifically told us. yes. we're a viable site. go forward. and we may come to your site. secondly. there are other prospective tenants. even if K-Mart is not our. MR. BREWER-That's what I was leading up to. HR. SCHACHNER-Yes. There are other prospective clients. but I don't want to mislead anybody. They're still our preferred tenant. and we still believe K-Mart will come here. MR. RUEL-How many other proposed sites were there? MR. SCHACHNER-I haven't the faintest idea. - 24 - MR. RUEL-This letter indicates several. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I have no idea. Just to make it crystal clear. we don't represent K-Mart. any more than we represent Earl Town. We don't represent either of those entities. We represent the Benchmark Group, American Equity Corporation. which is the proposed developer. and that's who has the option on the property. So I have had. for example Roger. I have had no direct contact with any K-Mart representative at all. Our client has. but I haven't. MR. BREWER-Your client has other tenants in mind. if K-Mart does not go there? MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely. Correct. MR. BREWER-Any idea what type? Strictly retail. or? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. as I understand. it's strictly retail. same type of use. HR. RUEL-Is there a problem with the sewer connection on this property? HR. SCHACHNER-Not that we're aware of. We've checked into it. and we've spoken with the City about. for wastewater treatment capaci ty. and our information is that there's not a problem. specifically. and I can address that more specifically. MR. STARK-Where would you hook in. Hark? MR. SCHACHNER-I think it would be the same place as the carwash. you know the Quaker Road Carwash across the street? We'd be hooking into the same exact point. MR. WELLER-Right. Going down Dix Avenue. and connecting in at. MR. RUEL-Warren Electric across the street. then? MR. WELLER-Warren Electric across the street I don't think has any sewer. There's no municipal sewer in front of the site. The idea is to run a force main down Dix Avenue and connect in to the City of Glens Falls system. approximately where the City line crosses Dix Avenue. which is near the Technical Park. MR. RUEL-Down Dix? HR. WELLER-Down Dix. There's a brand new sewer that runs right down through the Technical Park. through the Glens Falls Technical Park. and that's the location that the Carwash tied into a few years ago. MR. STARK-You would have to have a pump system from your place? MR. WELLER-We'd have to have a pump station at our place. and a force main to the City of Glens Falls. MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess what I'd like to do is. can we go right down these. it would just make it easier for me. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. That's what I thought. Now. by these. do you mean the June 10th notes. or do you mean our submission? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. and then we can go through and say how you responded to each note. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Do we need you guys or Scott or somebody to go through. from Scott's perspective. or has everybody read these. and I could just address them? I could characterize and address it if you want. That would be the fastest. It's up to you. Should I take a stab at that? - 25 - ~ MR. BREWER-Sure. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. So what I'm looking at is the Planning Staff Notes dated June 10th. Okay. So. basically. the first question or concern raised. essentially. is clarification of the lot size. and the mystery here. or the confusion here is the subdivision map that's on file in the County Clerk's Office shows this lot. the existing lot. to be 37.55 acres. Our data. This is a minor discrepancy. but there is a discrepancy. Our data is showing that this is 32.93. That the out parcel's 1.5. and frankly that this triangle is actually. we're coming up with a larger number than 37.55. Our believe is that when C.T. Male did the survey for the subdivision. which is on file at the County Clerk's Office. they included in acreage the road. and the right-of-way. and we're not including that. and we think that's why the number. do I have that backwards? MR. RUEL-Yes. HR. SCHACHNER-I have that backwards. They didn't include it. the right-of-way. that's correct. So their number is lower than our total number. which does include it. It's a minor discrepancy. What we're not of any dispute about is that the property that property that we're concerned with is 32.93 acres. The easy way to clarify this is at the end of this month. we'll be submitting a subdivision. .which will include a survey. which will obviously nail this down one way or the other. The next question is. what is the depth to water table. and according to the Town and County Resource Maps. it's greater than. it's probably a little bit greater than six feet. MR. RUEL-Where are you reading? MR. SCHACHNER-Right here. Section A. Depth to Water, Table. MR. WELLER-In excess of six feet. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. over six feet. Thanks. Jim. The next issue. the issue is wetlands. The way it's phrased. from Planning Staff, we thought was actually a little harsh. to be honest. Initially. Planning Staff was suggesting that we actually needed to get a letter from either the architect. MR. HARLICKER-What I was concerned about is this area in here. that is a wetland. I don't know if it's flagged or not. but it's got standing water up to your knees. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. So. development of this site. much resolved that. in any event. we're not proposing any So. my understanding is we've pretty MR. HARLICKER-But then I was looking at this. What about. you will be constructing within 100 feet of that? MR. SCHACHNER-That's not my understanding. We're not within 100 feet of any designated wetlands at all. or even any Army Corp jurisdictional wetlands. I just don't think they come that close to that. We can show you. and we have here right now to show you. if you want. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I've got that. a copy of the map. MR. SCHACHNER-We've got at least two maps. We've got the County Freshwater Wetlands Maps. and we also have the wetlands map that was submitted as part of the PUD, and the other thing is that when the Planning Board approved this commercial subdivision. which included this area. and we can show you this. We have these documents here. The then Planning Board checked off indicating there were no wetlands. - 26 - -- MR. RUEL-No wetlands. Okay. HR. HARLICKER-So we scooped up all this stuff before we had a chance to look at them. MR. RUEL-Are there any buildings there? MR. SCHACHNER-Not that I'm aware of. So we assume that that puts the wetlands issue to rest. MR. BREWER-Is that sufficient for you? HR. SCHACHNER-Let me just add to that. since you're hesitating. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-From my standpoint. it's totally out of the question. unreasonable. to require any applicant. I'm speaking generically now, to affirmatively come up with a letter from the United States Army Corp of Engineers. because to get an affirmative letter from the Army Corp of Engineers. you've got to get somebody from the New York City District Office to be willing to come up here and do a site inspection. I worked with the Army Corp on a regular basis to get them to come up here and do a site inspection. They feel they need to get their passport stamped because they're going to a foreign country. and I can tell you. from my judgement. if there is some reasonable basis to believe that there were jurisdictional wetlands on our si te. maybe we'd be more flexible on this. but there's no reasonable basis to believe there are jurisdictional wetlands on this site. and I can tell you that my advise to our client is to resist any requirement of formally getting a letter. It's not that much easier from DEC. to tell you the truth. They've got. their feeling is. if there are designated wetlands or jurisdictional. and people have a reasonable basis for thinking that. we'll come out and we'll make you go through a permit process. but we don't have a reasonable basis for knowing that. People have walked the site and not found wetlands. and we're going to resist that requirement. if it is. in fact. a requirement. MR. BREWER-We have a map right here right now. we can look at? MR. HARLICKER-There's a more accurate one here. This is from. it was done as part of the Earl Town project. Their project is right. this is the boundary right here. My concern is this chunk here off to the right. That. and you can stand on the edge of the road and look. and you can see the cattails and the standing water. MR. SCHACHNER-And if somebody proposes development on that. including us. if we propose development on that. that's the type of request that I wouldn't have a problem with. MR. BREWER-Yes. That is going to be a separate piece of property from this? MR. HARLICKER-It's not part of their development proposal. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. and if for any reason at some time somebody does propose. including us. propose development in that. then I think the request is a reasonable one. MR. BREWER-Okay. That satisfies me. MR. MACEWAN-I've got some reservations. I don't know how intent that is. as far as jurisdictional wetlands. but that whole other side of that parcel where they're talking about doing it. about half of that parking lot size is all under water. MR. HARLICKER-Are you talking about over here? HR. MACEWAN-Yes. It's all under water. I've been there three times. All the way back to the end of the pavement of that access - 27 - -- road is all wetland. just before you get into that corn field. pretty much that whole parking lot. MR. WELLER-There's a couple of culverts that come under the road here from the Mazda dealership. and there's a definable flow of water that comes through there after a rainstorm. and continues to run. but it doesn't look like a wetland to me. I've walked down through there. MR. SCHACHNER-Well. and more importantly. again. I'm not sure I'm following. but these two maps that we're referring to. one is the wetlands study done by C.T. Male for the PUD. and this shows the black. the shaded area is the wetlands. and this pink is our home plate. Okay. Big gap. The second map is the current. right now. Warren County Freshwater Wetlands map. You guys know the symbol for the wetlands. MR. MACEWAN-But those that you're referring to are DEC flagged wetlands. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about jurisdictional wetlands. which is different. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Well. DEC. MR. HARLICKER-DEC won't deal with them unless it's greater than 12 acres. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. MACEWAN-It falls into the same scenario as it did for the Zaremba Group across the road. They were dealing with something that was about two acres in size. This. I think. is a little bit more than two acres in size. MR. SCHACHNER-Who takes care of that? MR. MACEWAN-That's the Army Corp of Engineers. MR. SCHACHNER-They can. if they were jurisdictional. We really don't think they're jurisdictional. I don't know how else to address it. other than to say that it doesn't seem like we agree that the types of vegetation there. and the types of soils. hydric soils. or non hydric soils. Again. our experience is that the cattail type vegetation. the typical marshy wetland type vegetation is in this direction. as Scott was indicating earlier. and we've been on the site. and that's our empirical observation. If you go out there. I'm sure if you go out there. especially if it is after a hard rain. which I think. if you guys went there yesterday. it must have been. MR. MACEWAN-Well. I've been there on two other occasions. too. I drive by that particular parcel on a frequent basis. and I'm always seeing standing water in there. MR. SCHACHNER-On this side of Quaker Ridge Boulevard? MR. RUEL-You saw water in there? MR. MACEWAN-That's my opinion. I mean. I've been there. and I've seen it. MR. WELLER-You're likely to see water in there and in a lot of other places after some heavy rain storms. but there's a clear drainage path right out of there. MR. HARLICKER-I was going to say. if there's an existing drainage flow through here. how is this. once you pave this allover. how is that going to impact that? What's going to happen to that? MR. WELLER-That flow has got to be maintained. That's part of the site plan application. That flow has got to be maintained. - 28 - - MR. RUEL-What's the topography on that? Is that fairly flat. that property. or how much of a slope is there? MR. WELLER-I'd say it's fairly flat in the front. It's lower than the road. It's depressed below the road. MR. RUEL-It is? Will it remain that way? MR. WELLER-I believe in the site plan it's going to be filled up somewhat. to provide a parking area. MR. RUEL-It's going to be pretty even with the road. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. STARK-Mark. as we came out of the road yesterday. and you looked to your left. which is looking east. okay, before we come out onto Quaker. the land appears to be anywhere from four to six feet below the level of the road. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. it's definitely lower. MR. STARK-Okay. What would be your plan? I mean. are you going to fill that up somewhat? I mean. still allow for drainage there. or? HR. SCHACHNER-My understanding. Jim. you tell me if this is right. is there will be some fill for the parking area. but that that drainageway will be maintained. MR. WELLER-This whole site. the Mazda dealership and this whole si te. drains. this is Quaker Road here. right from here and it continues to run northeast. but it's the only section of Quaker Road that doesn't get drained along Quaker Road. It actually gets drained up toward the airport. and that's the way the Mazda dealership is drained now. That's the way the site is drained now. and that's the way it will continue to be drained after it's developed. That's the current site plan for the site. MR. STARK-Are you going to need quite a bit of fill in there? MR. WELLER-Well. probably two to three feet. Yes. there's going to be fill placed in there. Well. it's still going to be four feet. about. below Quaker Road. It's probably two to three feet. I'm guessing. off Quaker Road. MR. BREWER-Two to three feet of fill. and you'll still be four feet below Quaker Road? MR. WELLER-Well, Quaker Road is at, I'm sorry. I thought Quaker Road was around 330. So it will be about even with Quaker Road. So there'll be four to six feet of fill in there. MR. STARK-Mark. you made a comment that you thought this was a far superior site than the Zaremba Group. Why do you feel that? MR. SCHACHNER-We can give you a short answer. or we can give you a long answer. MR. STARK-Just your own personal opinion. MR. SCHACHNER-Again. our client tried to develop that property for K-Mart. They ran into very significant difficulties that I guess I'm going to frame in probably three ways. in no particular order. One has more to do with. frankly. their perspective and K-Mart's perspective than what I think your perspective is. and that's the constructability issue. It's my understanding that there's a very significant high bedrock outcropping type feature on the property. and that the way their site plan is working. and. Jim. correct me if I'm wrong. they're going to have. they're proposing a building that rests in the front on rock. and in the back they've got a - 29 - '- whole lot of fill they've got to bring in. and our client's judgement was that that presented a very significant constructability problem. both in terms of stability and in terms of just the costs of construction. The second issue is. as I understand it. relates to stormwater runoff. Our understanding is that basically what they're proposing. and what they were proposing when we were on the site. was. had two problems with it. in terms of stormwater runoff. One was it didn't seem to work. because what they're proposing is really trying to take the stormwater off. against Mother Nature. Is that fair? I mean. they're going in the wrong direction. MR. WELLER-Changing the direction of flow of the stormwater. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. Secondly. when our client was on that site. it appeared that they were going to have to. ultimately. discharge stormwater. significant amount, into the Feeder Canal. and the Department of Transportation wasn't very fond of that idea. and our client wasn't very fond of that idea. and didn't think that others would be very fond of that idea either. and in fact. our client received. back then. a letter from DOT. discouraging them from proceeding with that for that reason. I guess the next reason is there's a very substantial hit on the Quaker/Dix intersection if you develop that site for the development that's proposed. We've done a traffic study that we've submitted to you. a very detailed. very thorough, very comprehensive traffic study that shows that our site can handle the proposed traffic. It's not a beautiful traffic situation. in that Quaker already has significant traffic on it. and there's already need to Quaker Road to its full five lane width, and our traffic study. I think. supports the idea that it should be widened. but we've also proposed very significant traffic mitigation measures. which are essentially signalization at this intersection. and right turn and left turn lanes into both of our entrances, and those are significant mitigation measures that we're proposing on this site that will alleviate any potential traffic problems. or certainly mitigate. is a better word. potential traffic problems. Quaker and Dix. you obviously already have a signal. You already have existing traffic. and our client's feeling is that they're not going to be able to mitigate the additional traffic at that intersection if they develop that property. That's sort of a thumbnail sketch of the reasons. that I'm aware of. for our belief. MR. RUEL-Can you explain this east Quaker Service Road? Does that run parallel with Quaker? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. It exists. MR. RUEL-And why doesn't it continue right straight through there? It would alleviate traffic. MR. SCHACHNER-Well. I guess I'm going to say two things. One is. to be honest. we're not sure how useful East Quaker Service Road's going to be. MR. RUEL-These are very useful in many areas. MR. SCHACHNER-They are. although. MR. RUEL-I know back in New Jersey. on Route 17. they placed a couple of these there . it saved a lot of traffic problems and accidents. People get off up there. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I guess the shortest answer is. and the most direct answer is. I don't know why it doesn't continue. except that. notice that Quaker/Ridge Boulevard doesn't continue. obviously. all the way through the property either. I don't know much about the history of those roads. MR. RUEL-I understand that. It's not going anywhere. but to have - 30 - -- a service road. to me. seems like it would be advantageous. from a traffic standpoint. MR. MACEWAN-That road is already in existence, Roger. MR. SCHACHNER-You realize that. right? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-This is already in existence. and we don't disagree with you. You're asking why it doesn't extend. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-And I don't know why it doesn't extend. MR. RUEL-I was just thinking that this could be part of the traffic study. Someone to look into that. and. MR. SCHACHNER-This is Larry Levine. our Traffic Consultant. LARRY LEVINE MR. LEVINE-I looked at that. The best thing you can do with the service road is to give it away. It's too close to Quaker Road. and I talked with Roger Gebo about this. too. MR. RUEL-How many feet? MR. LEVINE-This is one inch equals one hundred. So maybe it's 40 feet. MR. RUEL-The width of the road itself? MR. SCHACHNER-No. The distance from Quaker. MR. LEVINE-The distance from the service road to Quaker Road is only 40 feet. Now. it takes a tractor trailer. MR. RUEL-Forty feet. you say? MR. LEVINE-That's all it is. MR. SCHACHNER-Instead of getting into a big debate about stuff that we don't really know why it didn't extend. our position is the following. The existence of the East Quaker Service Road will be of some help to somewhat. to additionally mitigate some of the traffic. but in fairness, it's also our position. or our. what we've determined is that this Quaker Service Road is awfully close to Quaker Road. and. frankly. it's not as valuable as it would appear. because some large truck traffic is not going to be using that service road. MR. LEVINE-The biggest reason is that. anybody using that to get on to Quaker Road. okay. comes into an intersection such as this. They have to get to Quaker Road some way. and what's going to happen is. there's only room to stack two or three cars, between Quaker Road and this intersection. MR. SCHACHNER-Because of the small width in this area. MR. RUEL-Wasn't this put here originally with the idea that people could go in and out of? MR. SCHACHNER-I would presume so. MR. RUEL-And couldn't the same thing apply over here? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. but what they're doing is. and our suggestion, too. is restrict or eliminate that access there. and funnel - 31 - -- ---' everything out this way. MR. SCHACHNER-Did you say we're doing that? MR. HARLICKER-No. It was something that we had talked about. MR. STARK-In talking to Bob LaPann. he originally was put there so they could sell one acre. you put a little store there. that. Plenty of roadway. said the service road off lots. little dinky. You put this. you put MR. RUEL-Yes. that's what I said. it's just to gain access. MR. STARK-For this. though. it's no good. MR. BREWER-No. because what you're doing is. if you extend that. you're driving it right into the parking lot. It's part of the parking lot now. MR. RUEL-You have answered my question. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Okay. Can we get back to this list? MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. Okay. The next thing is just mentions the acreage. the project site. again. which we've discussed. The next thing talks about the generation of 10.899 vehicular trips. documentation supporting this answer is needed. We have provided you with. as I said a very thorough comprehensive detailed traffic study which I have very loosely summarized. as implicating that the site is appropriate for this type of development. in the context of the commercial nature of Quaker Road. We've identified what I'm going to call five significant traffic mitigation measures. You can number them differently if you want. but I'm saying five. because we're talking about a signal. obviously at the applicant's expense. as well as right turn and left turn lanes at both of the proposed entrances. So I'm calling it five. right turn. left turn; right turn. left turn; signal. five. and again. I want to be candid about that. The traffic study certainly also supports the idea that existing traffic on Quaker Road would warrant widening of Quaker Road to its full size lane width. and we think that that makes sense from the Town's standpoint. regardless of whether this project goes forward. Zaremba project goes forward. or anyone's project goes forward. Then we get into Part II. Project Impacts and Their Magnitudes. and we flip over onto Page 2. The top concern has to do with where blasting will occur. and I believe we supplied you with a map that should so indicate. which I do not have. I sent you the only one. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. Blasting. The blasting's going to occur. primarily. right where the K-Mart store's going to be located. MR. HACEWAN-Or perspective commercial endeavor. MR. SCHACHNER-Or perspective commercial endeavor. Thank you. Yes. MR. STARK-I have a question for Mr. Weller. What is the depth to the bedrock. where the store would be built. Mr. Weller? MR. WELLER-I don't have that report in front of me. MR. STARK-Just roughly. MR. WELLER-The grade in the back of this property. where the store is. continues to go uphill. and the rock also goes uphill. and it needs to be leveled in order to get the store in. so that the rock is basically. the deeper rock. MR. BREWER-Are you taking the fill from the back and putting it in the front. Jim? - 32 - - MR. WELLER-Yes. I would think so. MR. RUEL-It says two to twelve feet. MR. STARK-There's nothing really around there for the blasting to effect. MR. SCHACHNER-No. and that's response. which reminds me. responses. as well? pretty much what do they all have we said copies in of our our MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm sort of summarizing. I should have said this in the beginning. but I'm sort of summarizing what is in essence our letter. dated June 4th. that you guys have. MRS. TARANA-Who are you. Mark? Are you Benchmark? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Benchmark/American Equity. MRS. TARANA-Okay. So this is your response to Mark's project. MR. SCHACHNER-Is that dated June 4th? MRS. TARANA-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. correct. and what I'm doing. really, is just summarizing that letter. princ ipall y. The next item again. is what's the depth to water table. It's a little over six feet. six feet and above. Then they move on to the discussion of the parking lot and the permeability. MR. RUEL-Three percent. MR. SCHACHNER-That's correct. and just so you know. our site plan shows actually a little bit in excess more parking spaces than are required by the Town Ordinance. but the proposed tenant definitely wants those extra parking spaces. One of the ideas that was discussed with Planning Staff was also showing parking spaces that are slightly larger than the Town requirement. but again. to be honest. from our perspective. for a development of this magnitude. and this much parking. we feel it's appropriate to have the spacing be a little bit larger. We feel that the permeability variance request is very minor. Obviously. that's up to the ZBA. ultimately. MR. BREWER-Do you have the dividers for every hundred parking spaces? MR. HARLICKER-That was something that. I spoke to Dave Fedak. too. MR. SCHACHNER-Recently. it must be. because I just heard about that today. I don't know the answer to that. MR. HARLICKER-Each 150 spaces has to be divided by a parking divider. MR. SCHACHNER-Do you know if we meet that? I don't. MR. HARLICKER-No. you don't. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. BREWER-That would be a requirement of the variance. or can we waive that? MR. SCHACHNER-I think that's a site plan. MR. HARLICKER-That's a zoning code, so you can't really waive it. - 33 - MR. SCHACHNER-That is a zoning code? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-I thought so. because Wal-Mart had to do the same thing. didn't they? That was one of their variances. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. These dividers divided into 168. So essentially what they will have to do is. MR. RUEL-To eliminate that request of three percent. would you lose a lot of parking area? MR. SCHACHNER-Well. we'd lose some. and again. I'm being candid. as I was with the ZBA when they initially reviewed this. and the ZBA said. look. if you're that close. there must be a way you could get that three percent. and the answer is. there are ways we could get that three percent. but again. it's an Area Variance. The standard is the benefit to the applicant versus detriment to the community. Our feeling is that because we have a competent stormwater management plan. because we don't have an environmentally sensitive site. because we're accomplishing the necessary stormwater runoff detention retention. that three percent is okay. MR. RUEL-It's a better selling point for you. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. and it's a tenant. and I'll be candid. it's a tenant driven concern. For what it's worth. this is the colorized version. so to speak. of what's being presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals to show the permeability. the permeable areas. MR. STARK-Mark. are you going to be asking for a variance to eliminate the dividers. to put so many parking spots? MR. SCHACHNER-Well. I guess basically that issue has arisen recently. We weren't aware that the plan didn't meet with that. We may have to do that. MR. HARLICKER-The other thing you can do is. in a sense, divvy up the spots. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. we can reconfigure the parking slightly. I'm not sure if we will or not. MR. STARK-I know myself. it makes for a very bad problem. when you've got all these dividers in there. MR. BREWER-Yes. but you think of 150 parking spaces. MR. STARK-I'm looking at Queensbury Plaza in the winter. trying to plow around those. where O'Tooles is. MR. BREWER-O'Tooles? Well. that's terrible. HR. STARK-I know. and they've got dividers there. and that's a joke. MR. BREWER-The whole thing is a joke. the whole parking lot. MR. RUEL-Is this open 24 hours? MR. HARLICKER-If it's a K-Mart it will be. MR. SCHACHNER-I've never been to a K-Mart in my life. MR. HARLICKER-I was told it was going to be open 24 hours. MR. SCHACHNER-Lets say yes to that one. MR. RUEL-Okay. It's got plenty of lighting there. right? - 34 - MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-I think the next paragraph we get into. I believe. it refers to Impact on Water. and we've pretty much talked about that. right? Some of these. there is some redundancy here. but in fairness to Scott. that's because of the EAF is somewhat redundant. and you go through Part I and then through Part II. The next issue was whether we were over or in an aquifer recharge area. I'm now sort of just below the middle of the page on Page Two. and the Town and County Resource Maps say that this is not over an aquifer recharge area. MR. WELLER-I went through it with Arlyne last week. and we both agreed that it wasn't. We brought the map right in here on the table. MR. HARLICKER-I thought it was. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean. I can tell you that. whether there is or there isn't. if the stormwater management system is a competent stormwater management system. it shouldn't be a problem. but I'm curious to know myself. MR. STARK-If the bedrock is that close to the surface. how can it be over an aquifer recharge area? MR. WELLER-Good question, because we don't have any records of encountering any water... .rock. MR. STARK-Scott. what are you saying. it is over an aquifer recharge area? MR. HARLICKER- I think it is. Maybe I'm reading the map wrong. Here's Quaker. Here's the power line easement. right? So you're saying it's right in here. right? So that's the wetlands. Yes. you're right on it. MR. WELLER-This is the intersection here. and there's two buildings right here. I can't identify that as a power line easement. MR. RUEL-This is a power line here, isn't it? No. What is that? MR. WELLER-That's Dix Avenue. right there. and that's the intersection. and there's two buildings right in here. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. That's what I was going by. was a power line. Okay. I thought that MR. WELLER-I didn't pick that up as a power line easement. MR. RUEL-So we're not going to recharge. No recharging. MR. SCHACHNER-Next. the next item basically asks about the stormwater management. or the stormwater runoff. We can discuss that. or Jim can discuss that in more detail if you like, but basically we're proposing a stormwater management system that does assure that post development runoff will not be at a greater..than predevelopment runoff. MR. WELLER-We're going to detain it on site and release it into the natural course that it's now going to. MR. BREWER-Don't they show a pond or something over in the corner? MR. WELLER-Yes. a pond in the corner which will. this will discharge to the northeast. This is the natural flow of it right now. It's also got to pick up the two culverts. MR. BREWER-How is it going to pick that up? - 35 - MR. WELLER-It will have to be rerouted to the property line. or that drainage has got to be picked up. It's not currently shown on the plan. but it's got to be. It's got to be on the site plan. to maintain the drainage. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. The next item. Staff asks for erosion control information. and we've basically provided it. in that same June 4th letter. another letter. what I would call more or less standard offers of typical erosion control devices. which I didn't say anything unusual in that. The next actually three comments are. under Impact on Air. at the bottom of Page Two. under Impact on Transportation. at the top of Page Three. and under Noise and Odor Impacts. the second one on Page Three. all three of those really are traffic. All three of those are really traffic. Some of it is construction related. MR. HARLICKER-Some of it is construction related. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. good point. and basically again. the traffic study indicated. I won't repeat myself too much. the traffic study indicates that the site. with the mitigation measures. can handle it. As far as dirt and construction related debris. Scott's right. the top comment does have to do with construction. mitigation of construction impacts. and again. I think we've provided. in that June 4th letter. relatively standard response to that. and after we get by the traffic. this is sort of at the end. but it's very important. really the last subject of comment. or concern. is relative to the utilities. how sewer and water hook ups will work and all that. and we've investigated. and we have done what Scott asked me to do. which is contact the appropriate officials to make sure that there is capacity. MR. HARLICKER-Can you get something in writing to us to that effect. what you've stated? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I imagine we could. although again. I don't know. I doubt if we could do it by Tuesday or not. I'm not comfortable promising you that by Tuesday night. but I am comfortable saying that. in the whole series of other applications. the applicant's representation that these contacts have been made has been sufficient. I would hope that that would suffice here. too. The letter. I believe. refers to them in detail. It tells you when Mr. Weller contacted them and who he contacted. It's not just a wishy washy statement on our part. This is on Page Five of the letter. Mr. Weller contacted both of the relevant officials on May 18th. and received favorable responses. It also mentions. by the way. which I don't believe I mentioned. but is important. that Mr. Weller. and Mr. Levine our Traffic Consultant. met with the Warren County DPW Staff. specifically Roger Gebo. Fred Austin's. I believe, Assistant Superintendent. and had, again. a favorable meeting. in terms of the traffic study. or the traffic discussion. if you will. as well as entrance egress and ingress from the site. That's sort of at the end of our six page letter response. and that also. I believe. brings us to the end of the Staff Comments. and again. I feel I should emphasize. I assume that everyone understands this, but just in case there is an confusion about this. the Staff Comments are dated today. because today is the date of the meeting. and Scott knew that today was the date of the meeting. but the Staff Comments were in fact prepared at the end of May. This was very helpful to us. the applicant. because that. we were able to address the Staff Comments. and I just want to make sure that everyone's comfortable with the fact that we have submitted a letter dated June 4th that actually does respond to these comments. So when. at the end of the comments. you know. some of the comments. obviously. or we hope all of the comments have been adequately addressed. At the end. when Staff says. they don't have sufficient information. now we submit you do have sufficient information. and certainly we would agree you have a whole lot more information. - 36 - - MR. RUEL-This leads nowhere? Where's the next road. too far away? MR. SCHACHNER-Real far. MR. HARLICKER-The other side of the airport. up here some place. That was going to lead into the Earl Town project is where that road is going to lead. MR. WELLER-You can actually meander through there. and drive over through there. We did. the other day. MRS. TARANA-I've been through that property probably four times. and I went with Oliver Laakso on a little golf cart. and I swore I would never. ever do that again. It was horrendous. as we bumped up and down. MR. BREWER-So we are formally going to do this SEQRA Tuesday. MR. SCHACHNER-Tuesday night. That would be our hope. Just so you all know the timetable. obviously. it's on your agenda for the SEQRA Review. and the Zoning Board of Appeals. we're on their agenda for Wednesday the 23rd. They can't take their formal action until you all have obviously done your SEQRA determination. We feel that we've responded to what we felt were very thorough and appropriate questions from the Staff. We certainly think that there's appropriate documentation. We feel that a SEQRA determination of non-significance. or a negative declaration would be appropriate. We are optimistic about the Zoning Board of Appeals variance proceeding. although on the permeability variance. again. in fairness. I know a ZBA member or two that are going to say. look. if you can make it. make it. Although. again. we think it's. MR. RUEL-So the Zoning Board is waiting for? MR. SCHACHNER-You're SEQRA determination. MR. RUEL-When we do the SEQRA. are we to make certain assumptions that the Zoning Board will. in fact. pass certain things. or it won't have any effect on it? We can't do that? MR. BREWER-We should have no. MR. RUEL-It shouldn't have? How about the permeability? MR. SCHACHNER-I would submit that. it's either going to be. the maximum variance we're asking for for permeability is three percent. I think your SEQRA determination should be whatever your SEQRA determination is going to be. regardless of whether we get a three percent variance or not. I agree that you should not make that assumption. MR. RUEL-Well, we can't condition the SEQRA on the Zoning Board approval. MR. MACEWAN-You can't condition it on what might be. You have to condition it on what is. MR. BREWER-We have an application in front of us. and that's what we have to do it on. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. and again. in fairness. the application certainly indicates parking that will be arguably at three percent less permeable than the requirement. So you should base your SEQRA determination on that. but that doesn't cast anything. that doesn't bind it. I agree with your response. MR. BREWER-Has the Beautification Committee thought about looking at this yet? - 37 - -- MR. SCHACHNER-I doubt it. MR. HARLICKER-Not yet. not at this stage. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. I was going to say. my experience has been. they wouldn't do that yet. MR. MACEWAN-The SEQRA we're going to be doing is strictly for the subdivision. The whole project? MR. HARLICKER-One shot. MR. RUEL-The whole thing. MR. SCHACHNER-It should be. SEQRA mandates that the entire action be considered for SEQRA Review. HR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. HARLICKER-You didn't really touch on it too much. but the aesthetics of the plan. They've got a. I don't know if this is a final landscaping plan or not. MRS. TARANA-Has thought been given to putting that bUilding closer to Quaker Road. parking? MR. HARLICKER-Parking behind it? MR. SCHACHNER-I don't know the answer to that question. That's funny. because a lot of people in planning don't like to see the buildings real close to the road. MRS. TARANA-I would think it would be advantageous to have the building close. MR. SCHACHNER-Well. why don't we do this. I mean. that strikes me as a very appropriate site plan consideration. and I'll certainly discuss that with the client. It wouldn't have any environmental impact. MRS. TARANA-No. MR. SCHACHNER-But it's an appropriate site plan consideration. I'll certainly discuss that. MRS. TARANA-Unless moving the building would effect. MR. SCHACHNER-We're not going to move it. if it has a negative effect environmentally. but I'll certainly discuss that. MRS. TARANA-Yes. I mean. as we drive around the Town. it just looks so ugly. It's all parking lots. I mean. I would rather some of these buildings are beautiful that have been built. You really can't see them because they're stuck behind cars. MR. HARLICKER-Maybe you could touch on. it seems to me one of the maj or concerns is.. that's one of the big concerns... and other possible realignments for traffic access to the point. MR. SCHACHNER-Lets go back to the first one, if we could. about Corinne's question. Okay. and Larry Levine can address this in more detail if you like. but what he's saying to me right now, and I think it makes sense. is that once you start doing that. (TAPE TURNED) I see where aesthetically breaking it up might look better. but for traffic flows to work. you really have to have. you should have it in one block area. Is that a fair way to say it? MR. LEVINE-It's tougher to layout. and from a safety standpoint and a circulation standpoint. try and bring people in.. .the rear of the parking area. so that not everybody's going from the building. If - 38 - -- you have the building in the middle. all the roads are going to wrap around the building. and you have a site distance problem around the building corners and so forth. It's more difficult. I mean, it can be done. but it's more difficult. The other thing is. when people are riding along Quaker Road. they only identify with what they see. in terms of the parking area. If you see a small parking area. you identify it with a smaller bUilding. so to speak. You can't see where you're going. People won't go to the rear of the building. basically. unless they have to. MR. HARLICKER-If you put the parking back there. they have to. MR. LEVINE-Well. they'd have to. in an overflow situation. MR. MACEWAN-But I don't think you were talking about splitting the parking lot. She's talking about putting the entire parking lot. MR. LEVINE-The whole thing in back? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. just flipping it. MRS. TARANA-Because you do have the road coming back here. MR. SCHACHNER-And. again. it's interesting. because my experience. not really here. but elsewhere. is that a lot of people don't want the building right out in front. from the planning standpoint I mean. but as I said. MRS. TARANA-No. I wouldn't want to see it sitting on Quaker Road. but. MR. RUEL-Do you know what happens if you put the building there? People ride by and say. I can't go in there. There's no parking. HR. MACEWAN-I seriously doubt a store that size. people are going to say. I'm not going in there. There's no parking. MR. RUEL-Well. I don't know if there's parking. I can't see the parking lot. Here I can see it. I can see there's plenty of places to park. MR. BREWER-But again. they may say there's too many cars there. too. MR. RUEL-Well. that's all right. then. They don't need the business, MRS. TARANA-Let me just compare it to something. Think of anyone of the shopping centers. like Aviation Mall. and what that looks like. Pretend ACC is a shopping center. and tell me what that looks like. Is that better or worse? MR. BREWER-Better. to me. MR. MACEWAN-Much. MRS. TARANA-And you're telling me that people wouldn't know enough to look in the back. or wherever the parking is? MR. SCHACHNER-I mean. my commitment. I'm willing to commit to. is. we seem to agree that that's not an environmental SEQRA Review concern. but it's a site plan concern. MRS. TARANA-I assume, at this point. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. and we'll discuss it. By the time. when we're in site plan review. which we hope wi 11 be next month. we'll discuss that in more detail. MR. RUEL-There may be no blasting necessary either. - 39 - -- MR. BREWER-I'm sure they've looked it allover. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean. I know they've looked at a lot of different options. but I don't have them here with me. I did not complete. by the way. in terms of timeframe of our applications. I don't think I completed our scenario. but I did discuss the Zoning Board of Appeals schedule. and then what we would do. again. if this goes favorably. is complete our site plan review and subdivision applications. .this month and then be on your July agendas. we would presume. MR. HARLICKER-I don't know. You'd have subdivision on one meeting. final the next. That's how we did it with Wal-Mart. So you'd probably want to be consistent with that. MR. BREWER-We'd do Preliminary and then Final. and then. HR. SCHACHNER-No site plan review until final subdivision? MR. HARLICKER-Final. yes. MR. BREWER-Because they wanted to do Preliminary. Final. and then site plan the next week. and we said no. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. and one time Jim was talking about the possibility of concurrent review. Whatever the policy is. it is. MR. BREWER-It just puts too many things. MR. SCHACHNER-We're not fighting it. is. Whatever the policy is. it MR. BREWER-There's a reason for everything. anybody? Any other concerns, MR. HARLICKER-I guess this is a site plan issue. but access in and out of here. They've got the service road. We've got the access road, put in there to utilize. I'd like to see the traffic funneled somehow over to here. and have this. maybe have this a right turn in only or right turn out. something like that. MR. BREWER-Do you know the difference between this and the? MR. HARLICKER-What was it. 16 feet? MR. LEVINE-I can address that. The way this works. Dix Avenue has a signal. obviously. that's 1300 feet from here. then you go a mile or two to Ridge. but what's happening. this is 600 feet from here. and this, dead center. which is nice. from a traffic standpoint between signals. and you'll see in my traffic study. if you just look at the numbers of cars on Quaker Road. and anybody coming out of the side road. and any driveway in that area. this is two lanes. right now. a tough time getting out because cars coming from Ridge Road. they spread out over a mile distance. There's no platooning. They're not close together or anything after a mile. They're all spread out. There's no break in the traffic to get out. By putting this signal here, and having the signal at Dix. what will happen is this signal and that will break up the traffic in this section. and because of the location of this. in the middle. you're going to end up with gaps right here. that you wouldn't normally see. and even though a traditional capacity analysis, just looking at numbers for a driveway going out onto the road. say this is an F, a Level of Service F. there's not going to be, there's going to be available gaps here. and lots of them. Every time the cars are stopped going east bound on Quaker. there's going to be lots of opportunities to get out of here. because they only have to cross the west bound lane. MR. BREWER-Would we be creating what we have over by the Shop N' Save though? When they put that light in there. where you're - 40 - -..-' turning in to the Shop N' Save on Quaker Road. There's been more accidents there than there has been. I'm not saying you are. I'm asking if you would be. MR. LEVINE-How many of you have seen the recent Corridor Study? There's a Corridor Study done by Transportation Concepts. just of 254. Quaker Road. and basically what they came up with. I think. was what everybody knew. The signals are not coordinated. MR. RUEL-Yes. they need to be synchronized. MR. LEVINE-And your 30 percent. you're losing 30 percent capacity just because. every time someone comes up a side road there. any road. and side road on Quaker Road. it trips a signal. The side road gets priority over the main line. MR. RUEL-And it shouldn't. MR. LEVINE-If you see something. if you're in a pack of 15 cars approaching the signal. and you see one car coming off a side road. Ridge Road. you've got a red light. because he gets the priority. He hits the trip and. boom. that's the way the signals are working now. They don't have to work that way. They all have the new controllers in them. So. from what I understand from Roger Gebo. they are trying to implement some new programming into those signals now. MR. BREWER-From what I understand. though, the Town owns the signal. as of a week or two ago. the Town owns the signals at. they were. but they're now Town. Lafayette. I think LaFayette and Glenwood. I think the Town owns those now. They were County. MR. LEVINE-The Glenwood and microprocessor controls. and they the main line. They're working signal that was 50 years ago. they're not using it. the LaFayette are all the are not using any programming for as a very cheap semi actuated They have all this stuff. but MR. RUEL-If they synchronize their signals. which I certainly would like to see. that will not break up the traffic. as you mentioned. as much. MR. LEVINE-Right. not as much. but these are very close together. which. now usually you're talking a half a mile between signals. MR. RUEL-You need good solid brakes to get in and out of these areas. MR. BREWER-What you're saying is. you won't create another? MR. LEVINE-We don't have to have this entrance. but I'm just suggesting that it be there. because it'll work for the amount of traffic you have there. When it's difficult to get out of this site. people are going to use the signal. obviously. if they can. Most people are going to be coming in and out. MR. HARLICKER-The problem. you turn this into a fast food place. and people aren't going to see it. They're going to see the entrance up here. and they're going to want to pull in here. MR. LEVINE-Yes. talking about. coordinated. and and. I had again. looked it's at that. depending and on how many we're whether they're MR. HARLICKER-When they're pulling out. they aren't going to want to go through here. They're going to want to pullout through here. MR. BREWER-Well, I just didn't, something happening at Quaker and Dix. because everyone of us here know that if you come down Dix and - 41 - '- want to go left onto Quaker. it's almost impossible. So I believe that they'll probably end up dOing something there. MR. LEVINE-There aren't a lot of turns turning left. MR. BREWER-Only because you can't. MR. LEVINE-The other alternative is to prohibit them. There's not that many that you really need it. and there's other ways to get to Quaker off of Dix. better ways than that. and that's in that Corridor Study. if you look at their traffic counts. very. very few cars. We're talking maybe one every minute or two coming out of there. turning left. very few. during peak hours. and I sat out there and watched it. and maybe that's the reason. but I have this feeling that there are other ways to go. that are better. MR. BREWER-Yes. through the Carwash. MR. LEVINE-Whatever. MR. RUEL-That's the way everybody goes. MR. BREWER-People are going to go the easiest way. It's a pain right in the but to go up there at that light and take a left. MR. RUEL-That's a short cut anyway. MR. LEVINE-Yes. but that's. I'd like to see that there just because, during 23 out of 24 hours of the day. that's going to work well. The one hour that it doesn't work that great. the people are going to use the signal. Number One, and I think there'll be enough breaks. because you're going to have to have traffic timing. The timing through there is going to be in one direction or the other. MR. RUEL-I hope so. MR. LEVINE-Well. that's true of the whole of Quaker Road. you know. MR. SCHACHNER-That seems awful important. from my perspective. It seems like it's not managed all that well. to be honest. MR. LEVINE-It's not managed at all. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. and I don't understand why. MR. LEVINE-It isn't, literally. it's not. MR. RUEL-Like he said. anybody that comes from a side road. that's it. you've got it. MR. LEVINE-They said in the report. you know. you're talking 30 percent improvement in capacity. just by timing the signals. MR. RUEL-It'll reduce accidents. MR. LEVINE-Sure. You're talking incredible rear end accidents on Quaker Road. MR. BREWER-That's what I'm talking about. Shop N' Save. bang. it's like somebody flipped a switch. and there's accidents there all the time. MR. LEVINE-That's because it's not coordinated to the other signals. MRS. TARANA-It's not just the light. It's that little lane. which is not supposed to be a turning lane. that everybody. you're stopped waiting for the light. you go to make a right. and somebody runs right into you because they're in that other lane. - 42 - MR. RUEL-What's that center lane for? MRS. TARANA-It says. not a turning lane. MR. RUEL-Well. I get right in the middle of it. MRS. TARANA-You're not supposed to be in that lane to take a right. MR. RUEL-That lane in the middle with the bars there? You can't ride on that? MRS. TARANA-The lane on the right. MR. RUEL-On the right. the shoulder. I'm talking about the middle. MRS. TARANA-On the right. it says not to make a turn from there and everybody piles up there and makes their turn from there. MR. MACEWAN-Some other time. MR. LEVINE-I can't say. right now. that it's going to work. or it isn't going to work. MR. HARLICKER-Another issue. too. that might be. kind of ties in with. you've got a 1400 plus space parking lot here. and nothing across the front to buffer this from the road. That's going to be an impact. MR. LEVINE-What do you mean. bUffering? MR. RUEL-Well. all you've got is this and this. MR. LEVINE-Trees? Okay. I'm a traffic engineer. MR. HARLICKER-I wasn't addressing it to you. I'm just throwing it out on the table. MR. LEVINE-You could put trees all through here without bothering me. as long as the site distance isn't bothered. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. and that's the kind of thing you're getting at. MR. LEVINE-I've got no problem with that. MR. HARLICKER-They're going to be driving down the road. and. like my concern with Wal-Mart. this massive parking lot. MR. BREWER-That goes right back to Corinne's. MRS. TARANA-If you put the building up here. you have all your traffic coming in here. You'd direct it. and then go right out. MR. SCHACHNER-When you start drawing those curbs. you start worrying about safety. MRS. TARANA-I wouldn't be any different than this right here. because if you have them coming in and going in here. and coming out, it would just put this here. and this here. and you're having benefits. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. and we've agreed. we'il. MR. LEVINE-There's certain advantages and disadvantages to that. because you would have more road for people to stack on. if you have a really busy. unusually busy day. That's the problem with the service road is that even if you. what you're saying about the little sites. even if you add the three little sites. the three little dinky sites. you've got one big site. and three little dinky sites. you're going to get more than two cars waiting to get out. - 43 - -- or they wouldn't be business. So. that's why I'm saying. if this could be turned into parking lot. and shifted back here. here. whatever. in some ways I agree with you. This. I don't like people going right in front of the building. It should go back here or whatever. anyway. MR. SCHACHNER-Well. I think, you know. we'll agree to look into that at the site plan review. MR. MACEWAN-Well. you still have to come in front of us for Sketch. right? MR. BREWER-No. This is. MR. HARLICKER-Not for subdivision. We don't have a Sketch. not for site plan. MR. BREWER-No. He's talking about the subdivision of this land. MR. SCHACHNER-Here's how ~ would envision it. at least. I think the Sketch Plan is optional, correct me if I'm wrong. and we would consider this type of discussion to be a Sketch Plan discussion. The Sketch Plan is sort of an informal discussion of the subdivision. MR. BREWER-If this was a subdivision of. MR. SCHACHNER-About 50 lots. MR. BREWER-Fifty lots. then Sketch is necessary. If there's two lots or three lots. this type of a thing that we're doing. and I thought that's what the purpose of this meeting was. to go through the SEQRA and then informally discuss what our concerns were with this. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. and just keep in mind. the Sketch Plan concept relates to subdivision. and from the subdivision standpoint. this is a very minor subdivision. From the site plan standpoint. this is not a minor. From the site plan review standpoint. these are the kinds of comments that we expect and that we have to deal with during your site plan review. and they're fair game. but not from the subdivision standpoint. I don't see that as an issue. MR. BREWER-I think. Craig. to answer your question. I think there's a minimum number of lots for Sketch. some criteria that Jim came up with. whether it be four lots or. MR. RUEL-I thought it was three? MR. BREWER-Three or four. I'm not sure of the number. MR. SCHACHNER-Either way. I think it's optional. isn't it? MR. BREWER-I think it's optional in the Ordinance. but. MR. SCHACHNER-As a matter of fact. because if you have a major subdivision. it makes a lot of sense. MR. MACEWAN-I've never seen Sketch Plan as an option. MR. BREWER-In the Ordinance. it is optional. and I think. in the past. Jim has said that anything less than four lots. I think. doesn't require Sketch. I'm pretty sure that's how we've done it. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. it's optional. but all uses. the applicant. before you do this. you should do this. you should do this. you should do that. and I've drafted subdivision regulations. zoning ordinances. everywhere else. then these are things you shall do. you must do. etc.. etc.. shall usually being the legal word. and this is the applicant. before filing an application. even. the - 44 - applicant should meet with the Town Planning Board to discuss his intentions. You know. it's an informal Sketch Plan process, which we're kind of doing. but again. this is in the subdivision reg's. So it relates to the subdivision. and from our standpoint. the subdivision doesn't have anything really wild and exciting about it to warrant particular scrutiny. but the site plan. it's a big project. You guys. you have to look at it closely for the site plan. MR. RUEL-Loading and unloading back here. trucks? MR. SCHACHNER-I would assume. Do you know? MR. WELLER-That's the plan. yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. RUEL-So, would they be using any of the roads? There are no special roads for them. right? MR. LEVINE-Well. that's an interesting. they would have to come in there. because they couldn't make this turn. or else they'd have to go down there. , MR. HARLICKER-But then they're still going to have the same problem coming out. MR. LEVINE-Yes. they're going to have to. MR. HARLICKER-They're going to have to...the parking for that. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Good point. MR. HARLICKER-Getting back to. lets say. questions regarding the drainage. stormwater runoff and that sort of thing. Myself. I'm not comfortable saying it's not going to have an impact. I'm not an engineer. I don't have the qualifications to look at something 1 ike that. This is the information that has been provided to Staff, as of this date. So this is what I've had to review. I would not feel comfortable indicating that the drainage and stormwater would not have an impact. just because, I'm not doubting your word on it, but I don't have the qualifications. and it hasn't been referred yet to the Town Engineer. Rist-Frost. for their review either. That's Staff's position on that. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. Then I guess I'm going to have to be a little aggressive about that. If the Planning Staff's not qualified to evaluate that. and it not comfortable making a recommendation. then I think we have to insist on some input from the Town Engineer. and we have to insist on it by Tuesday night. MR. BREWER-Why wouldn't it have been asked to go over there? MR. HARLICKER-Well. we just got this stuff. this stuff here. MR. SCHACHNER-Last Friday. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. we got the response on the seventh. and we got the follow-up maps. I think Monday or Tuesday. late Monday. so we had a chance to look at it Tuesday. So there really hasn't been a whole lot of time to get this together. A lot of this stuff. MR. BREWER-Do you have a stormwater plan. the drainage and everything? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. The drainage analysis. I think. was submitted before then. but maybe not. No. I think the drainage analysis was submitted Friday. last Friday. MR. HARLICKER-Was it? Yes. - 45 - --../ MR. BREWER-Do we have time to get this to Tom Yarmowich? MR. HARLICKER-I can. we can give him a call tomorrow and say. hey. can you check this out in the next couple of days. and just give us an initial. not a detai led analysis. but in concept would this work. MR. BREWER-So we can do the SEQRA. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Exactly. and then you would still have the opportunity. at site plan. for a detailed fine tuning if you will. We will also make our consultants available to Rist-Frost. if there's a need for dialogue. We don't have any trouble with that. MR. WELLER-Yes. I can meet with Tom. if you want me to. MR. HARLICKER-That would be great. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I think that's a good idea. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. WELLER-Because there isn't enough information now for Tom to do a detailed analysis. It just isn't complete. MR. SCHACHNER-Kind of a conceptual. this approach is okay type thing. That's appropriate. MR. HARLICKER-I think that would suffice. MR. BREWER-And then when we get into site plan. it will be more detailed. MR. HARLICKER-Then he'll look at it in more detail. MR. BREWER-We're doing the SEQRA for the subdivision? MR. SCHACHNER-You're doing the SEQRA for the entire project. MR. MACEWAN-The entire project. MR. SCHACHNER-Because SEQRA Law says that's how it should be done. The Town doesn't always do things that way. to be honest. in my opinion. but that's how you should do it. MR. MACEWAN-I don't think I'm of the opinion to have Rist-Frost just do a cursory. conceptual nod of approval or input. I think I'd rather see the full report. MR. SCHACHNER-The only problem I have wit~ that is. I don't think it's fair to the applicant. in that. and frankly. I don't think it's fair to the Town Engineer. because they're supposed to do a detailed analysis of all site plan considerations at the time of site plan review. We're not at site plan review yet. If we were here for site plan. I don't think that's really fair to the applicant or the Town Engineer. to be honest. I mean. we're here for a SEQRA Review. If we don't get the Use Variance. there's no need for us to present that kind of detailed information. and there's no need for the Town Engineer to go through that type of detailed analysis. MR. HARLICKER-That's the quandry. every applicant says. well. why should we have to go through all of this. MR. SCHACHNER-And we've given a lot of. MR. HARLICKER-If Tom comes back and says. well, we need it for need it for a thorough SEQRA Review. back and forth. back and forth. - 46 - -/ MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. and in my experience, and I think we're going to stay with this position. we've given a heck of a lot of detail. We don't think it's an inordinant amount. We think that the requests of the Planning Staff have been reasonable. If stormwater runoff is something that the Staff does not feel qualified to evaluate, then we're comfortable with it being referred to the Town Engineer for the purposes of his input to SEQRA Review. but he's going to spend a lot more time during the site plan stage dOing a detailed review. and we're going to spend a lot more time during the site plan stage responding to his detailed review. and we don't yet have the zoning we need to proceed with this project. and we're not at that stage yet. I think that's premature. and I don't think that's fair to the applicant. MR. MACEWAN-I think that also the position that this Board is frequently put in is that we're rushed to make a decision on something without having all the facts in front of us. and I don't think that's fair to us. either. MR. SCHACHNER-I don't think we're doing that. We submitted this. I mean. we're not pushing this, we're not ramroding this through. This application was initially submitted actually several months ago. The Area Variance application. I've got it right here. I can tell you when it was submitted. MR. MACEWAN-If this was submitted months ago. why wasn't the detailed information submitted to these guys so they can get them to the Town Attorney. months ago. regarding stormwater. or to the Town Engineer. Sorry. MR. SCHACHNER-They had not made the requests until fairly recently. The requests are reasonable. We've supplied what I think even Staff agreed are reasonable. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. The initial review for the SEQRA stuff took place. I think it was dated the 19th of May. MR. MACEWAN-But see, that's where we fall into the trap. is that the SEQRA Review is going to be for the whole thing. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm saying. I guess. this is new to me. that any member of any Board would want to not do SEQRA Review for the entire project. I'm sitting here saying that New York State Law. and this is not what the Town has always done. to be honest. not your Board. but a different Board. MR. HARLICKER-It's the Town, it's the position that. in certain situations. segmentation. MR. SCHACHNER-Evidently. that's the Town's feeling. MR. BREWER-It's interesting you say that. because Paul Dusek said the other night. it's perfectly legal to segment it. DEC prefers you not to. but it's perfectly legal to. MR. SCHACHNER-Well. he and I actually had a talk about that. probably the same day that you had that meeting at night. There is a common misunderstanding. and the misunderstanding is that people that have not closely reviewed the SEQRA Regulations think that segmentation is flat out prohibited. and if Paul said that it's not flat out prohibited, Paul was 100 percent correct. I don't really think it matters. I'm not sure why you're saying what DEC thinks about it. DEC doesn't govern SEQRA Review. They're just another agency. 1 ike your agency. but the SEQRA Regulations certainly indicate. and I have them right here. if anybody wants me. I'll read the relevant section. that it's extremely frowned upon. and I'm not comfortable suggesting. and I'm not even comfortable going along with the suggestion that there be any segmented SEQRA Review - 47 - of this. I think that the SEQRA Review should be of the entire project. That's what New York State Law says, I think I will. I'll pullout the Regulations and I'll tell you what they say. MR. RUEL-What's the alternative? MR. SCHACHNER-Well. the alternative is that you do a SEQRA Review just of the subdivision or just of the. MR. RUEL-And then what. you come back later? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. and I don't think that's appropriate. and I will try to. MR. RUEL-What would the difference be. between the first time and the second time? MR. BREWER-I'm not saying we should do it either way. I'm just saying that. Craig is saying that we don't have enough information. MR. RUEL-Will you have more information the other way? MR. BREWER-If they get their variance. yes. information. We'll have more MR. RUEL-Well. are we. I asked that question before. assume that they will have the variance? Are we to MR. BREWER-How can we assume whether they will or they won't? MR. RUEL-Well. we can't. MR. SCHACHNER-In a way. you're not really making an assumption about the variance. but in your SEQRA Review. obviously your SEQRA Review is of the project as proposed. MR. RUEL-Without the variance. MR. SCHACHNER-Not exactly. MR. BREWER-We have to assume. I guess. then that they are going to get the variance. MR. SCHACHNER-That's what I'm saying. SEQRA Review. you're supposed to review the entire action. and the definition in the Regulations says. MR. RUEL-I thought we weren't going to ever do anything where we'd have to make an assumption on someone else doing something in the future? MR. SCHACHNER-I think you're talking about in your motions of approval of site plans and subdivisions. We're just talking about the Environmental Quality Review step. What the SEQRA Regulations say. specifically. is two things. Number One. actions commonly consist of a set of acti vi ties or steps. The entire set of activities or steps shall be considered the action. All of them. okay. They then say. and these are the SEQRA Regulations. MR. RUEL-It doesn't say it has to be done at one time. though. MR. SCHACHNER-Well. I'm not there yet. MR. RUEL-I'm sorry. Continue. MR. SCHACHNER-Considering only a part of segment of an action is contrary to the intent of SEQRA. Now. I don't want to mislead anybody. Paul Dusek's right. That is not a flat out prohibition. That doesn't mean you can't do it. but it's contrary to the intent. There's case law in New York that so indicates. and I guess I've - 48 - ...- never. this is the very first time I can ever remember dealing with a situation where any municipal agency felt they wanted to segment. I've been on the other side. where I've been trying to convince them to segment for a certain reason, but we don't think it's appropriate. We think your SEQRA Review should be of the entire project. The project's going to consist of four applications. a Use Variance. to allow commercial use on the back portion of the property. Area Variance to vary perhaps up to three percent from permeability. subdivision of the 37.55 acres into three lots. and site plan review of the project as proposed. All we're saying is your SEQRA Review should be of the entire project. and those are the four sets of activities that it consists of. We're also saying that we think we've given you a very substantial amount of information that's adequate for SEQRA Review. We concede that we've not given you enough detailed information for your ultimate review of the subdivision and the site plan. but it's a step by step process. I don't believe this Town. or very many other towns. want to do all that in one fell swoop. In other words, the SEQRA Review, the subdivision. the site plan. all in one meeting. or even in one month. You're not indicating you're willing to do that. We're not pushing you to do that. If we were trying to push this as fast as possible. I could bang on the table saying. we're entitled to a SEQRA determination tonight. and that Tuesday night we want our subdivision review. and that on the 22nd we want our site plan review. and I'm not doing anything like that. MR. RUEL-And we'd tell you we couldn't do it. MR. SCHACHNER-You could do that. but we're not pushing for that. but I don't think it's fair to suggest that. to the Town Engineer or to the applicant. that we have to go the whole nine yards and get into the fine, the detailed site plan review considerations, just to make your SEQRA determination. MR. RUEL-Craig. you seem to feel that you don't have all the information necessary for a good SEQRA? MR. MACEWAN-I don't think I have as much information as I would like. MRS. TARANA-It says here if the lead agency finds that it does not have sufficient information to make this determination. they may request that the applicant provide it. MR. WELLER-Isn't it fair to say that we approval if we make a significant impact stormwater? We won't even get the approval. won't get site plan on the discharge of MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. of course we won't. but. MRS. TARANA-You're not saying segment it. MR. MACEWAN-No. I didn't say to segment it. MR. SCHACHNER-But the level of detail that you're asking for is the full site plan review level of detail. MR. BREWER-Would you be satisfied with the blessing of Tom Yarmowich that that system will work. to do SEQRA? MR. MACEWAN-I think the issue was. it was a cursory acknowledgement in a letter that I don't think I would feel comfortable with. I think I would rather have him give something a little bit more in- depth of a report, than just saying. yes, it looks good to me. Do you know what I'm saying? He's usually been more detailed than what you are suggesting that you do. MR. BREWER-I think Tom's pretty thorough. If he feels that he. in my opinion. if you submit this to him. and it's not complete. he's going to tell you it's not complete. and he can't make a - 49 - ---- determination. I think if. what they submit him. if he feels that it will work. he'll tell you that it'll work. and I would go with that. and I'm not trying to sway you either way. and I think if they submit him. and he says. MR. MACEWAN-Well, I think the situation here. what it kind of boils down to. is that your concern was not getting a response back from Rist-Frost by Tuesday. and if we didn't get it by Tuesday. what's the problem of postponing it for a week? MR. STARK-Then it would be too late for the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. SCHACHNER-No, no. Actually. There's a possibility there. No more than a week. MR. HACEWAN-The problem I'm going to have with this. Mark. is that we'll get an Engineering Report back Tuesday. and there's none of us on the Board that are going to have an opportunity to look at it on Tuesday. prior to making a judgement Tuesday night. We've seen that come down before. This Board has not made a motion on something because we haven't had the information in our hands to review it. That's been my position since I've been on the Board. If I don't have the information to look at it. I'm going to abstain. because I'm not going to vote on it. because I can't feel that I can make a good judgement on it. based on the lack of information. MR. SCHACHNER-Well. how about if we say this. How about if we make the referral tomorrow morning. we see what we get out of Rist- Frost. we stay on the agenda. I certainly want to stay on the agenda for Tuesday night. Maybe we get something very detailed from Tom Yarmowich that you get at the last minute. that you don't feel comfortable with. going forward on Tuesday night. Maybe you get something on Monday that is either readily understandable and you're comfortable with it. or even if it's in detail and you're comfortable with it. and we can go forward Tuesday night. lets see what we get from him. but I'm not rejecting. I guess what I'm saying is I'm not rejecting that suggestion. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. That's where I'm coming from. MR. AYLES-Can I ask one question? later. if that wasn't the case? What would you do, go a week MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. MACEWAN-If it really boiled down to it. I'm sure that Tim would arrange to have a special meeting for you. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm not sure that's necessary. To give credence to your suggestion. the answer to your question. Don. is we would go. there's a Planning Board meeting on the 22nd anyway. MR. BREWER-I'd rather do it the 21st. to be honest with you. because, if it comes to that. because the 22nd is going to be a giant meeting. I'm saying. if push comes to shove. I'd rather go the 21st than the 22nd. because the 22nd is going to be a. MR. MACEWAN-We can certainly make arrangements to accommodate. MR. SCHACHNER-That's up to you all. but what I'm saying is. lets see what we get from Tom. and we'll see where we go. MR. BREWER-That's fine. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Am I safe in saying that is the only unresolved issue for SEQRA purposes. would be the stormwater runoff? That's what - 50 - -../ I'm getting. MR. MACEWAN-I think I also those wetlands over there. significance of being under Engineers. and what process want some more information regarding as far as the jurisdiction to the the jurisdiction of the Army Corp of we have to take for that. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. What my response, I can tell you. is going to be. is I'll supply you with a multiple page definition of what's federally jurisdictional Army Corp Wetlands. that's going to talk in very great detail about hydric soils and types of vegetation, and we're going to tell you that we've looked at the site. and although you may see water there. and again. the term wetland is very confusing. although you may see water there after certain rain events. you don't have those hydric soils. and you don't have that type of vegetation. I mean. and the definition itself. MR. MACEWAN-I'll rely on our Staff to give us that information. along with the report from Rist-Frost. if you feel it's significant. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-My understanding is. you're comfortable with what we said about wetlands. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. like I said earlier. my concern is over here. I walked over here. and I followed the drainage ditch that was along there. and there's standing water going in. I didn't walk back in here. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean. based on that statement by Staff. I'd like to keep this that stormwater is our remaining issue. That the Staff feels comfortable with our assertion about wetlands. and I have done pretty much what you have done. which is walk the drainage way. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I don't know. What we could do. possibly, is take a. go through this briefly. Part II. and if anybody has anything that you'd like them to address. I think now's the time to do it. MR. SCHACHNER-That's fine with us. MR. BREWER-Real quick. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MRS. TARANA-The only thing is. I think we don't want to make the mistake of giving the impression that that's it. because that came back to haunt us in the past. when an attorney came before us and said. well. last time you said. blah. blah. blah. Well. it may be on rereading or rethinking. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I'm not interpreting us to be actually filling out Part II. MRS. TARANA-You may not. but that happened to us before. when it was taken as. MR. MACEWAN-Carte Blanche. MRS. TARANA-Yes. and we did the same thing. MR. WELLER-Did you read the response that came to Staff. on the stormwater? There is a response that was written. MR. SCHACHNER-That's not that long. let you read that? Should we take a minute and - 51 - '- MR. MACEWAN-No. MR. BREWER-Do we know what the slopes are yet? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. We have a lot of this information on the EAF. MR. HARLICKER-We have the slope at zero to ten percent. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. BREWER-Corinne. do you want to go right down through and read all these? MRS. TARANA-I don't have a copy. MR. BREWER-I've got a copy. "Will proposed action result in a Physical Change to the Project Site?" Yes. We know that. Where are we going to. do you think we want to check this? MRS. TARANA-No. I don't think we want to check any of these. MR. HARLICKER-We don't have to get that far into detail right now. MR. BREWER-Well. I mean. if there's anything. potential large, why shouldn't we? MR. HARLICKER-Okay. percent. The slopes, I indicated that, zero to ten MR. BREWER-So that's not going to be really a large issue. MR. HARLICKER-Slope won't. MR. SCHACHNER-Slope shouldn't be any issue. MR. BREWER-Is bedrock exposed? No. MR. HARLICKER-Or generally within three feet. They've got it two to ten. I don't know how it balances out across the site. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. So on Number One, does anybody see any potentially large impact? I'm hearing a bunch of small to moderates. MR. RUEL-How come we're doing that now? MR. BREWER-We're not. MR. SCHACHNER-We're not. MR. BREWER-We're just going through it to see if there's any other concerns that we have. MR. SCHACHNER-Exactly. Okay. Two. we're not aware of any unique or unusual landforms. Three. we are certainly. actually. that there are not effected water bodies designated as protected. The same wi th non-protected existing or new bodies of water. Surface or groundwater quality or quantity. again. with the stormwater management plan. we're not aware of any impact. We don't have a water supply of the wells. I mean. municipal services kind of helps there. So. I'm not aware of any that would be checked off in Number Five. MR. BREWER-How much water are you going to be using there? MR. SCHACHNER-Eight thousand gallons per day. but again. it's coming out of the municipal system. We've committed. I think. to not altering the drainage flow or patterns. MR. HARLICKER-What about. what are you going to do in dealing with all the runoff from the parking? That's going to have a lot of - 52 - ---,' salt and crud. and left over stuff from vehicle drippings. and that sort of stuff. How are you going to deal with that? MR. WELLER-Well. there's going to have to be a plan put together to probably. a skimming type plan. it's going to have to be handled in that pond. I would presume that's what he's going to develop. because now you're looking for removal of pollutants. MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. BREWER-How big is that pond going to be. I'm just curious? MR. WELLER-I don't know. MR. HARLICKER-If I remember right. I think it was 2.4 something volume acres. or something. was the way that was referred to. as far as area square footage. MRS. TARANA-This is a new pond? MR. HARLICKER-There's a detention area back here. MR. BREWER-Is it retention or detention? It says detention on the plan. MR. WELLER-Yes. It's a detention. Well. if you call a detention pond one that holds water and releases it at a controlled rate. we call that detention. It holds it and percolates it into the ground. That's mY definition. MRS. TARANA-Now that body of water is a new body of water? MR. BREWER-If it doesn't rain. there's going to be no water. MR. SCHACHNER-Exactly. So where does that put us. down to Six? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. and Six. I think what we've indicated is in the stormwater management plan. we will not be altering the drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff. MR. BREWER-How can it not change the flow? MR. MACEWAN-It has to. change the flow to with the new.. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. So that's changing the pattern. MR. MACEWAN-Changing the pattern and the flow. MR. BREWER-.. .alter the drainage flow or pattern. MR. WELLER-It won't change it when it leaves the site. MR. BREWER-It won't change the destination. but it will change the pattern of flow. MR. WELLER-Across the site. MR. HARLICKER-From Point A to Point B. MR. SCHACHNER-I would say then it is fair to call that a yes. on the changing the pattern. We're not aware of any air quality impact. Let me back off on that. what's our maximum peak hour vehicle trip? Do you off hand? MR. HARLICKER-I think it was like 1300. MR. SCHACHNER-In the peak hour? - 53 - MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-So there might be a small to moderate in there. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. That may well be a yes. then, from our perspective. I mean. we think that you may want to check that yes. and go small to moderate. This is. if the action will produce 1.000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. Okay. Good. So. I would say yes. I'm hearing from you guys. small to moderate. Eight. we're not aware of...there's not any threatened or endangered species, or any impact on plants or animals. Is that fair? No substantial effect on non-threatened or non-endangered species. MR. BREWER-It's not going to remove any forest. MR. HARLICKER-Well. the Ag question. he faxed us a response today. and I think it was in one of the bunches of handouts to you. Maybe. Don. you can address that issue. about the farmer. the corn. how that works? MR. SCHACHNER-Are you familiar with the issue? MR. AYLES-I don't know. what I told him. What did David fax you today? Probably MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. AYLES-It's a letter. I believe it's saying. and I haven't seen it. so I don't know. All right. but this gentleman has farmed these. grown corn on this land for quite a while. I guess. Each year he comes to us and asks us if he could grow corn the next year. and we just say yes. because he has been doing it for a long period of time. There is other acreage out there he can go to. if he so desires. There is no monetary cost to us. given to us from him. He keeps some of the brushes in some of the areas cut down with his push.... and he consequently grows corn, and that's it. MR. HARLICKER-So we're saying. in here. he'd have to answer yes. as to proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land. MR. BREWER-Yes. but if there's other acreage. MR. HARLICKER-That would be what you would say the mi tigati ve measure would be. is there's other acreage that the guy could farm. MR. SCHACHNER-That seems appropriate. MR. AYLES-I. frankly. don't know how many acres he farms. I know he grows corn out there. That's all I know. and how much he does. I don't know. how many acres. MR. HARLICKER-Pretty much everything north of that drainage ditch. would be his farm land. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. response. I mean. I think that's an appropriate MR. HARLICKER-The aesthetics. we get back to landscaping. MR. BREWER-What about. would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land? I mean. they're going to have to excavate in the back and compact in the front. if they're going to put anything on it. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. but it's no longer agricultural land. It's being taken out of agriculture. because I take that to read that - 54 - -./ they'll be traveling over agricultural. and they're doing something that way. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. TARANA-Then following what you proposed action will disrupt or agricultural land management systems, measures. Would that apply there? just said. the one on the prevent installation of or create a need for such MR. SCHACHNER-I would look at that the same way. That's if there's existing agricultural land that needs those management systems. would this action get in the way of that. and if there's existing agricultural land in the back 900 and whatever acres. this won't effect. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. He's farming. .there's an access road back over, the easement back over that. That's all farmed. too. back in there, and that's not really impacted by this. MRS. TARANA-It won't cause the field to drain poorly? That doesn't effect anything? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. It's not going to be a farm field anymore. MRS. TARANA-None of it will? MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. RUEL-Where's the corn? MR. HARLICKER-Well. this whole area here. from here all the way down to about here is all. and then there's an access road back to the easement. All this area back in here is also farmed. but that's not really germane to this project. MR. SCHACHNER-Now you were about to jump into aesthetic resources and talk about the aesthetics of the landscaping. and I have to say. the way I've always interpreted it. the EAF. it's more or less referring to existing aesthetic resources. and the examples are things like. whether you're different from or in sharp contrast to surrounding. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. significant. or even blocking mountain views. MR. SCHACHNER-Well. that's at the end of examples. The earlier examples are how you fit in with. essentially, how you fit in with the surrounding land use patterns. MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-And I mean. from our perspective. this fits in very well in that it's a very commercial area on the corridor. MR. HARLICKER-But then he also has the ever present other impacts at the bottom. that this would fit under. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. and I guess we don't see an impact on aesthetic resources. ,Your concern. as I understand it. is the aesthetics of the site plan. MR. HARLICKER-Well. driving by and looking at this massive parking lot. without. you know. you're talking how many acres is this? That's got to be 15 acres that's going to be parking. This whole site here is 30. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. but Corinne's expressing well what I'm saying. which is. there are not aesthetic resources out there that this project is having a negative impact on. - 55 - "- ---' MR. HARLICKER-Well. it's having an impact on the people that are driving by. They look out their window and all of a sudden they see nothing but parking lot. MR. SCHACHNER-Well. I won't make a big fuss about it. We're not filling this out right now. I won't make a big fuss about it. but I don't... MR. HARLICKER-Right. That's what the discussion is here for. MR. BREWER-The next one is no impact. MR. SCHACHNER-Agreed. The same with 13. I assume. MRS. TARANA-Did we do 12? MR. BREWER-Didn't we do 12? MR. HARLICKER-Archeological Resources. MR. BREWER-Historic and Archeological Resources. MR. RUEL-You won't know until you start blasting. MR. BREWER-And then you won't know. MR. RUEL-You'll never know. MR. MACEWAN-Small to moderate fragments. MR. RUEL-Fragments or bones. MRS. TARANA-I assume we know that there are no archeological sites there? Is that what we're saying? MR. BREWER-We don't know. really. MR. MACEWAN-You're to assume that there are not. according to the determination I have. New York State flags. MRS. TARANA-No. It says. New York State flag inventory. It seems like somebody should have a site inventory. We'll just look and see if it's on it. MR. MACEWAN-They do. in the Town of Queensbury. It is based on professional. shot in the dark. I'm saying. there are basically. correct me if I'm wrong. about three sites wi thin the Town of Queensbury that are potentially large archeological. historical sites. MR. BREWER-I can name one. MR. MACEWAN-The other ones are up along the northern fringes of the Town. Cleverdale. up that way. and the other spot was. there was a third spot in the Town of Queensbury. MRS. TARANA-Okay. So those are three. those are designated areas. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. That is based on their expertise, where the likelihood to find archeological or historical artifacts. MRS. TARANA-And that says designated. So we know that that's a no. MR. BREWER-Okay. We went to Open Space and Recreation. and we said no. MRS. TARANA-You said no to that? MR. BREWER-Yes. - 56 - ---" MRS. TARANA-But couldn't that be a future recreational opportunity? It's possible. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, but so could any place. generally. MRS. TARANA-A major reduction of an open space important to the community? MR. BREWER-No. I don't see it as that. MR. SCHACHNER-I sure don't see that. HR. BREWER-There would be an effect to existing transportation systems. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. BREWER-I'll agree with that. MR. SCHACHNER-Same here. MR. BREWER-That could be a potential large impact. I think. MRS. TARANA-I think so. too. MR. SCHACHNER-In which case. that's an important one to detail. MR. BREWER-And they have mitigation for that. MR. SCHACHNER-I think that's a fair response. MR. BREWER-Somewhat. but we have to determine whether it's mitigation. Okay. MRS. TARANA-What is the percentage of increase in the energy? MR. BREWER-I would say five percent. greater than five percent of the community. MR. SCHACHNER-Whatever it is. it can't be five percent. MR. RUEL-That's one hell of a lot. MR. SCHACHNER-It can't be five percent. MR. RUEL-Less than one percent. That's for sure. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. objectionable odors. proposed action?" Noise and Odor Impacts. noise. or vibration as a "Will there result of be the MR. RUEL-Would you have a restaurant? It depends on the cooking. I guess. MR. SCHACHNER-And I don't think we're blasting anywhere near any sensitive receptors. MRS. TARANA-What's CWI? Is that a school? MR. MACEWAN-Community Workshop. MRS. TARANA-I think it's just administrative offices in there. MR. MACEWAN-No. There's some sort of training over there. as well. I don't know what it is. but. MR. BREWER-Well. we could find that out. Could we ask you to find that out? Community Workshop. right there on the corner. - 57 - '--'- MR. HARLICKER-That's the one down on Dix. right? MR. MACEWAN-Before Quaker Farms. MRS. TARANA-It's before Quaker Farms. MR. HARLICKER-I know you were saying that that traffic light is 1300 feet from the Dix intersection. right? So if that Workshop is north. MR. BREWER-And I think also. whether it's 15 or 1800 feet makes a difference. too. MR. SCHACHNER-Why don't we try and find out. We'll tell you about how far. and we'll see what the use is. unless anybody knows. MRS. TARANA-I believe they just put a trainee in there. but it used to be all administration. MR. SCHACHNER-We'll find out. MR. BREWER-Okay. So we can just leave a big question mark on that. because we don't know. MR. SCHACHNER-Next to the one about 1500 feet of a hospital or school? MR. BREWER-Right. Okay. Impact on Public Health "Will proposed action effect public health and safety?" I would say not. "Will proposed action effect the character of the existing community?" MR. SCHACHNER-We submit it's really very consistent with surrounding uses. You've got your Mazda car dealership. Carwash. all your other commercial uses. the your MR. BREWER-Now are we going to have a public hearing of some sort on this? MR. HARLICKER-You'd have one, not so much on Tuesday. but. MR. BREWER-Why wouldn't we have comment from the public? MR. HARLICKER-You probably could. if somebody from the audience would like to comment on it. You could probably say. all right. come up and say something. MR. RUEL-When is the official one? MR. HARLICKER-You'd have one for site plan and one at Preliminary of the subdivision. MR. BREWER-But I think it's important. if somebody comes up and says something that's going to effect the SEQRA. before we do it, not after we do it. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anything else? (TAPE TURNED) MR. SCHACHNER-... for the short term. really is to look into the Community Workshop issue. We'll try to get you some more information about how the parking lot runoff will be dealt with. We'll see if we can shed any light on the aesthetics on the front of the prop~rty. meaning tree planting or whatever on the front side of the property. I answered how much fill. and that's really it from my standpoint. I hope. but I'm open to suggestions for the SEQRA Review. Then during site plan. we'll get into some more detailed discussion about different configurations of the site. MR. HARLICKER-Did you mention. or maybe I missed it. about the - 58 - drainage? MR. SCHACHNER-I didn't mention stormwater. only because I'm not saying we're going to do much more with that. I was sort of leaving that. that you're going to refer that to Rist-Frost. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. How did you want to work this? MR. WELLER-Well. I think, because of the state of the application. that I'd better meet with him. and maybe with you. also. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. I wouldn't have a problem. MR. WELLER-Because he might. will he actually want to write a report? There's still some language in one of these responses that was submitted that I think most of the Planning Board people haven't had a chance to look at yet. MR. SCHACHNER-Why don't we just grab that. It's not that long. This is to be in our June 4th letter, and would specifically be. at the top of Page Three. Jim. am I right? MR. WELLER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-So. it's not that lengthy. it says. "Stormwater will be collected and retained on site. The detention pond will have a discharge control device such that the release rate will not exceed the discharge rate prior to development. The developed project will not change any of the existing drainage patterns. Additional details will be provided and worked out with the Town Engineer during the site plan review process." And we're back to what we were debating before. and we don't. I mean. I think the idea's a perfectly fine idea. I think the applicant can meet with the Town Engineer. and I think we'll see what the Town Engineer thinks of it. HR. HARLICKER-How do you guys feel about that? MR. RUEL-Fine. MRS. TARANA-Better. MR. BREWER-We're going to still send it to Tom Yarmowich? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I'll give him a call tomorrow. MR. BREWER-One other thing that I would like to mention. maybe at .site plan. is if there is another tenant in mind. maybe you could share that with us. MR. SCHACHNER-At site plan review? MR. BREWER-At site plan. Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. and. again. I can't promise that. because it's not up to me. but I'll. MR. BREWER-No. but I something's going to go it. and something else that. just don't want to have an idea that there. and then all of a sudden we approve goes there. I'm not saying you're doing MR. SCHACHNER-If I can give you that information. I will. MR. BREWER-You did say you had other tenants. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. - 59 - MR. BREWER-That's all I've got. Anybody else? MRS. TARANA-I have one question. Did everybody read this Sign Ordinance thing? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. BREWER-I just got it yesterday. MR. RUEL-I sent a letter. three pages. to Jim Martin. MRS. TARANA-I was hoping to go to the Town Board tonight. because I wanted to address that. but I had a number of things that I found. little piddlies. but I had a question. and maybe you can answer it. Scott. MR. HARLICKER-I wasn't involved in that a whole lot. no. MRS. TARANA-Okay. My reading of it is not. I mean. I can't figure out for sure if the Town Planning Board is being removed from all approval of signs. MR. RUEL-Yes. you're out of it. according to that. MRS. TARANA-That's what I thought. MR. RUEL-Yes. guy. It's just the Building Inspector. He's the only MRS. TARANA-That's what I thought. Did you read that same thing? MR. RUEL-No. I recommended to Jim. of course. they don't have a· design review board. but that's the way we used to. that's what we had a design review board. for signs. but if you just leave it up to the Building Inspector. I don't think it's good enough. MRS. TARANA-So you already talked to Jim about this? MR. RUEL-I got a letter. MRS. TARANA-We should have gone up to the Town Board. MR. HARLICKER-They were going to discuss the Water Plant. water issues. also. So knowing that. they might still very well be up there. MRS. TARANA-Well. I don't know how anybody else feels. but my feeling is that for the site plan. we've always looked at the placement of signs. not necessarily the writing on the signs. MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. BREWER-When was the last application we looked at a sign? MRS. TARANA-Not looking at a sign. but when we look at a site review. MR. BREWER-We used to look at signs. We haven't done it for a long time now. I think the last sign we looked at was the Bungee Boyz on West Mountain Road. that's the last one I can recall. MR. RUEL-According to this new Ordinance. you don't get involved in looking at the sign. MRS. TARANA-But they all go to the County Planning Board. don't anymore? They MR. BREWER-I don't think so. MR. RUEL-I think the Planning Board still has the responsibility - 60 - '-- --- for the placement of the sign, but according to the new Ordinance. we don't really have anything to say about the sign. MR. BREWER-I don't think it should be the Planning Board. Well. maybe it should be the Planning Board. but maybe the Beautification Committee. MR. RUEL-Someone else besides just the Building Inspector. MRS. TARANA-Well. maybe. as far as the sign itself. and how it's built..but I think the placement of the sign on the site. what if they want to stick it in the middle of a parking lot? MR. RUEL-The Ordinance stipulates where it shall be placed. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-And I think that you're going to run argument. because when Jim was the Chairman. he Planning Board shouldn't even look at signs. up against an fel t that the MR. RUEL-That's right. In most cases. in most towns. they don't. MR. BREWER-I'm just telling you how he felt on the Board. MR. MACEWAN-We've had. I can't think of exact instances. but we've had two or three occasions since I've been on the Board that we've gotten involved with a project and sign location. aesthetics. MR. RUEL-Location. yes. but for the size of the sign. type of lighting, etc.. that's all in the Ordinance. MRS. TARANA-Yes. and we've never gotten into that part of it. MR. RUEL-No. but I don't believe a Building Inspector is going to check everything that's in that Ordinance either. As a matter of fact. it's not even written in English. Some lawyer wrote. I'd like to translate it. so somebody could understand it. MR. BREWER-I agree with you. but I think Jim Martin. I remember going on site visits and looking at placements for signs. and I agreed with him that the things we looked at. at that point. it was ridiculous that we go look at it. for some of the signs. Now. some of them we should look at. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. It's kind of similar to review of docks. As long as they meet the criteria that are set forth in the Zoning Code. what sort of other issues are there to address? MR. RUEL-And you can't do anything about it. and this brings up something. if you don't mind me butting in here. but there was a gentleman here tonight who kept aSking a question. his name was John. the old guy over here. and he got confused between zoning and planning. and then it was pretty clear in his mind what the Zoning Board does. but then when he hit on the Planning Board. he says. don't you people plan? And I'm saying to myself. we don't plan. What the hell do we do? We don't plan. Now. come on. we're not a Planning Board. What are we planning? MRS. TARANA-I think the perfect place to start planning is with this project. I think the way they've got it lined up. there's just this typical old parking lot. and a building in back of it. MR. STARK-You can't do it, though. Corinne. I was just going to show you why. See. you made reference to ACC. Okay. ACC doesn't have 18 wheel service trucks coming in. unloading merchandise every day. If you were to put the building in the front. okay. we're at the front of the building. Is it facing Quaker or is it facing the parking lot? - 61 - ~" MRS. TARANA-Facing Quaker. MR. STARK-It's facing Quaker. Where do they unload the trucks to stock? In the back where the people are coming in. right? MRS. TARANA-Probably. but maybe you could have them in a certain area. MR. MACEWAN-There's certainly building designs that you can come up with. MRS. TARANA-There's got to be something else. MR. STARK-Like the Cape Cod Mall. where they have parking all the way around it. and they have certain areas where the 18 wheelers back in. and you can't really see them from the. but they're still going through the parking lot. They're still backing up from the parking lot into those areas. MRS. TARANA-It just seems to me there's got to be something more creative than this. I mean. even in the Million Dollar Half Mile. that's even more creative than what we've got. MR. BREWER-They've got a mammoth store. Corinne. a mammoth store. MR. STARK-You're talking about 18 wheelers coming in there left and right. MR. RUEL-Well. to get back to my question. as far as planning. The planning. as Corinne stated. is the type of stuff we were looking at tonight. That's the only planning. but it's so frustrating. So many times we get involved in this zoning bit. where people object to the zoning adjacent to where they live. and they look at us like. what's the matter with you guys? Are you powerless? You can't do anything? MR. BREWER-These people tonight. MR. RUEL-Right. and we can't do anything. Okay. We're a Planning Board that can't do anything when it comes to that. MR. BREWER-Why don't we have a workshop on planning. then? MR. RUEL-There's no planning. The planning has been done for us with the Master Plan. We have no control over it. That's it. MR. BREWER-No. In a sense we can plan. as to. we can't allow something horrendous to go somewhere. and keep it in character of the neighborhood. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. Well. no. I think you have basis to deny the project here. MRS. TARANA-And something that could happen. Roger. with this is you could say. it's going to two apartment buildings with garages. and instead of putting in two more apartment houses. they're going to be putting in a recreation area for the kids. MR. RUEL-I know. but legally. he can do it. right? MR. BREWER-No. We have a right to do that. MR. RUEL-We could stop him? MR. BREWER-Sure we could. MR. RUEL-If we don't like the looks of the building. can we make him change it? MR. BREWER-I don't think the appearance of the building. - 62 - -/ MR. RUEL-We can't do that. All right. MRS. TARANA-But you can do other things. You can not allow him to put up three buildings. MR. HARLICKER-The Section here. it relates to aesthetics and compatibility. 179-38, are the requirements for approval. MR. RUEL-It's ashame that we have to dig into a book to find out what we're supposed to be doing. MR. BREWER-Article V. it'll tell you a lot of reasons you can deny a project. It's not in character with the neighborhood. MR. BREWER-The only thing that irritates me about those people. they're so damn high and mighty that they don't want some guy to come in. MR. RUEL-They said the people moving into the apartment are bad people. They're going to have to put bars on the windows. Did you see the picture where they said they had to put bars on the windows? MR. BREWER-Yes. Who are those people shouldn't be able to build a house there. to say that this guy That's ridiculous. MR. STARK-Look at Valenti's townhouses. I mean. are they all good people. or all bad people? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-They're prejudging people that aren't even in there. Just because they live there. and this guy is all ticked off because he's got a pool in his back yard. MR. RUEL-What's this $70.000 he spent to keep another guy out of there? Did you hear that? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. RUEL-I'll tell you. I was getting kind of PO'd. MR. STARK-I would have taken the $70.000 and bought the land. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MRS. TARANA-Well. that's what they're all saying they should have done. but imagine the problem if we approve the project the way it is. Those people are going to have the police called on any family that moves in there. MR. RUEL-Yes. They're going to drive them crazy. MR. BREWER-Just because they're all elderly people. older people. They're in their 50's and 60's. They don't want somebody else to move there with children. Well. I'm sorry. MR. MACEWAN-Are we done with that topic for a second? Going back to. it goes to site visits. and the importance of everyone going on them. Now. one time I happened to mention. after a meeting. to Carol. about I thought I had read it somewhere in our criteria that you shouldn't vote on anything in front of us. if you hadn't made the site visit. and she defied me right there to say, show it to me in print. Well. I really couldn't find anything in print that. per set said that. However. there was writing in there that alluded to it. that you were to make a site visit. Not to pick on you particularly. but you're the only one here tonight who didn't go visit that site. and I found five things that you had questions about. - 63 - MR. RUEL-Which site are you talking about? MR. MACEWAN-Right down here for American Equity. on Quaker Road. There was five things you asked them tonight that. had you been to the site. you wouldn't have had to ask them the question. MR. RUEL-I ~ there. MR. MACEWAN-Then why would you ask them what the topography was like down there. and why did you ask them if there were any buildings down there. and what did you ask them about the service road for? Why did you ask what's out there behind that point. and what's going to be on the site plan? MR. RUEL-I couldn't tell the service road. I go down that road all the time. and I look there. MR. MACEWAN-Well. Roger. if you'd have been there. you would have known what the topography was like. MR. RUEL-Not really. MR. MACEWAN-What do you mean not really? MR. RUEL-Well, I don't know how far down it went or anything. MR. MACEWAN-Because you didn't go. and that's my opinion. I mean. we're ~o make site visits for a reason. and that's so we can fully understand the project before we make any kind of a determination on it. That's what I'm of the understanding we're all about, and when you don't make a site visit. you're not helping yourself out, and you're not helping us out. MRS. TARANA-I agree with you. and I don't think it's just Roger. I think we know who goes and who doesn't go. MR. MACEWAN-No. I'm not picking on him in particular. but he's the only one here tonight. Carol's another one. She's a classic example of it. and Ed. He never goes on a site visit. He's not been on one site visit since I've been on this Board. MR. BREWER-You should say. maybe. that he doesn't go on site visits with us. Maybe he goes. I'm not saying he doesn't go. MR. MACEWAN-With us. right. MR. RUEL-Scott. do YOU go on site reviews? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-It is important. talking about. It is important to see what you're MR. RUEL-Well. I went on a lot of them. and I really didn't think they were that important. MR. MACEWAN-How could you not think they were that important? MR. BREWER-They are, because sometimes we discuss things that pertain to them. MR. RUEL-Because if you have the plan here. and it has all the information on it. MR. MACEWAN-I'll give you a perfect case in point. that's coming up in front of us next week. There's a guy up in Pilot Knob who wants to replace a damaged dock with a new crib dock. We looked at that dock yesterday. and it's all repaired. It's not damaged at all. Now you wouldn't have known that unless you made a site visit. - 64 - -..../ MR. STARK-Unless he claims it's damaged underneath or something that we can't see. MR. BREWER-Yes. but. MR. MACEWAN-Why would he have gone to the extent of repairing it? MR. BREWER-Why would he have gone to the expense of putting all the new boards in the top? MR. STARK-I don't think there's anything wrong with the dock that's there. MR. MACEWAN-No. MR. BREWER-No. MR. MACEWAN-That's why it's important. Roger. to go on site visits. MR. RUEL-Well. I don't know. I don't think it's up to you to determine how important it is for me. MR. MACEWAN-I'm not saying that it's up to me to determine anything. I'm just voicing my opinion. which I'm totally entitled to. MR. RUEL-You're entitled to it. If you think it's important. keep going. MR. MACEWAN-I think it's very important. I think it's important for all of us. It lends credibility to our Board. MR. RUEL-I'll try to go as often as I can. but I can't make it. All right. MR. MACEWAN-I'm just rendering my opinion. MRS. TARANA-If we did them Saturday morning. is that a better time? MR. MACEWAN-Corinne. we keeping going through this. We set out. the last time. to accommodate people, and they didn't even show. They didn't show. On the subject of him. and what we discussed yesterday in the car. about slowing the process down a little bit. not letting ourselves be pushed. he tried pushing us on four things tonight. Mark did. to try to push us to the decision process tonight. MR. BREWER-Yes. I thought about that. when you asked about the. MR. HARLICKER-My whole problem with this project is. a lot of this stuff we just got this week. Those notes. I got them the seventh. The agricultural studies. I just got them tonight. MR. BREWER-Then who the hell deemed the application complete? MR. HARLICKER-It came in under the variance. So for the variance. it was complete. My problem with this is different levels of information that are going to be needed for the variances and site plans. MR. MACEWAN-I'll tell you. anyboqy who comes in front of this Board representing an applicant. obviously. is going to have the applicant's best interests at hand. They don't care about us, and one of the things that is really sticking out in my mind about this whole thing is that we're willing to do a SEQRA. blanketing the whole project. Well. what if. when we get site plan. Corinne's idea is the best idea. and we say. flip that whole thing around? How does that effect everything else that we've done in SEQRA? SO now you've got to go back and do SEQRA allover again. because it could potentially change a lot of things. specifically. stormwater - 65 - ~- -- and traffic. MR. HARLICKER-I don't know so much about traffic. HR. MACEWAN-It is if you push them to take that access road out of there. that one access road. that they're adamant about keeping. that I am not in favor of having there. period. MR. HARLICKER-Which one. the access to the east? MR. MACEWAN-The one that's going to be next to the proposed fast food place. MR. HARLICKER-I'm in agreement with that. MR. BREWER-You know who that fast food chain might be. I bet? MRS. TARANA-What? MR. BREWER-I'll bet you it'll be McDonalds. MR. MACEWAN-Probably more like a Denny's. MRS. TARANA-I bet the retail store will be Ames. MR. STARK-The do need a service road to get to the back of the building. to unload the truck. MR. MACEWAN-Personally. I'm not comfortable with his position on that wetlands down there. Whether it's a flagged or not flagged wetlands. I think it's a wetlands. I've driven my car. twice. down there. and walked down over that bank. and that is wet. whether you're in there in the middle of July. or you're in there after a rainy day. MR. STARK-When we went up the macadam road. to the east of us. towards Hudson Falls. there's cattails down there. That indicates a high moisture area. I would think. MR. MACEWAN-Keep in mind the other thing that he said. and he backed off on it when we put the pressure to him. He said he was insistent on having that Rist-Frost report for Tuesday night's agenda. Once we pushed him on it. he backed right down on it. and that's the position we have to take. We can't be in a position where these guys come in here and tell us what to do. MR. STARK-It doesn't really hurt them. because the Zoning Board of Appeals is a week from Wednesday. and we still have a meeting Monday or Tuesday. MR. MACEWAN-Right. I think what it is. it's another example of these guys just pushing stuff right through us and right by real quick. bang. bang. bang. and before yòu know it. a year from now. we're going to be riding down the other end of Quaker Road. and saying. gee. it's just another Blockbuster Video plaza. We didn't want that. MR. BREWER-We stuck to our guns. and we have to do it. MR. MACEWAN-That's what I'm saying. we did good. MRS. TARANA-I thought it was much better tonight. MR. MACEWAN-And we have to take that position. can be rolled over easy. I don't think we MR. HARLICKER-Maybe this is a format that we should try to adopt on these major projects. Don't just let them come into the hearing cold. Set up a workshop session like this. - 66 - '- ,- MR. STARK-Who's Weller? I mean. what's his position here? Is he their consultant? MR. BREWER-He's their engineer. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. He was brought on just recently. MRS. TARANA-I think that's a good idea. because then it gives us things to think about. before the actual meeting. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Well. lets do that. Lets do that as policy. Do we have to do anything to set a policy like that? MR. HARLICKER-I don't think so. It's just. when somebody comes in with a major project. you can just say. just ask them to come in. and Jim and I talked about this a little bit. is kind of structuring the actual Planning Board meetings a little bit different. Projects that there aren't really any significant problems associated with. or on the surface. at first look. don't appear to have significant problems. Maybe after you discuss it further, you'll. well. maybe there's engineering problems. MRS. TARANA-And you know what else is nice, from just a physical point of view? This sort of situation. or that kind of thing. the workshop. being around a table looking at things. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. When you get at an actual Planning Board position. it's an adversarial situation. MR. MACEWAN-Another point to ponder is. and I was off line when I said it tonight. about the Sketch Plan avenue. and he sat there and said. well. you know. it's just a sharing of ideas. and it's an informal conversation. an exchange of ideas. and I can remember just the opposite. Mike O'Connor said to us one night. regarding the Vasiliou development. is it not the intention of this Board that when you talk to us at Sketch Plan. that there was the opinion that you gave us the stamp of approval. and now you're changing your attitude. and that's just the position he painted for us. and that's why I wanted it clear that. MRS. TARANA-One of the criteria of the Sketch Plan is that they submit a fee. right? It says in the book. MR. HARLICKER-I don't think there is a fee for Sketch Plan. MRS. TARANA-It says so. because I had in the back of mY head. until they paid that fee. they haven't gone through Sketch. MR. MACEWAN-And another thing. what's the chances of getting that revised. instead of saying. should. to shall. that wording in there for Preliminary and Sketch Plan. MR. HARLICKER-I'm not sure what the procedure is for revising the Subdivision Reg's. what procedure you have to go through. MR. BREWER-Probably through Jim. MRS. TARANA-Application fee shall accompany the Sketch Plan. MR. HARLICKER-See. I don't think there's a fee on a fee scale. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Timothy Brewer. Chairman - 67 - .