Loading...
1996-12-19 QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 19, 1996 INDEX Subdivision No. 9-1996 FINAL STAGE Marguerite Eldridge Tax Map No. 83-1-12.1 1. Subdivision No. 7-1996 FINAL STAGE Barbara Barber Tax Map No. 48-3-49.54 2 . Freshwater Wetlands Permit No. FW2-96 George Boivin/Christopher Marchand 3. Tax Map No. 44-2-4 Cont' d on Pg. 76. Site Plan No. 69-96 Jim Kislowski 3. Tax Map No. 147-1-1.1, 1.2 North Country Cycle Auto Sales Site Plan No. 73-96 Richard P. Schermerhorn, Jr. Tax Map No. 48-3-34.1 13. Site Plan No. 75-96 Premier Parks, Inc. Tax Map No. 36-2-3.1 18. Site Plan No. 76-96 Berkshire Acquisition Corp. Tax Map No. 105-1-4.1 25. 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 12/19/96) QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 19, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY GEORGE STARK CRAIG MACEWAN DAVID WEST MEMBERS ABSENT TIMOTHY BREWER ROGER RUEL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-JOHN GORALSKI PLANNING BOARD COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT, MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1996 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED MARGUERITE ELDRIDGE OWNER: SAME ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: CORNER OF AVIATION ROAD AND BENNETT ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.4 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF .422 ACRES AND .937 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 67-1996 TAX MAP NO. 83-1-12.1 LOT SIZE: 1.4 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 9-1996 Final Stage, Marguerite Eldridge, Meeting Date: December 19, 1996 "I'The applicant is seeking approval to subdivide a 1.4 acre piece of property into two lots. The resulting lots will be .937 acres and .422 acres in size. A variance has been granted by the ZBA for the creation of two nonconforming lots at this location. The applicant is seeking a waiver of the sketch plan requirement for this subdivision. A home currently exists on the portion of this property that will become the .922 acre lot. Staff foresees no negative impacts associated with this request, and recommends approval of Subdivision No. 9-1996." MR. GORALSKI-And we have a letter signed by Mr. Eldridge requesting the "waivers from Sketch Plan, contours, owners and parcels within 500 feet, proposed utilities, construction details, clearing plan, grading plan, drainage report and statement of intent. This request is made based on the fact that there is currently no construction proposed as a result of this subdivision approval. At the time that Lot One is developed, the developer will be required to conform with all applicable local and state codes." MR. PALING-Didn't we do that last time? MR. GORALSKI-Well, you discussed it last time, but we didn't have the signed letter. Now we have a signed letter. MR. PALING-Okay. This, we had a public hearing. We had a SEQRA. So we don't need any of those tonight. Any questions or comments by the Board? We can then go right to a motion, remembering John's letter that's there. Okay. - 1 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1996 MARGUERITE ELDRIDGE, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by David West: The only condition that the requested waivers be granted also, in a letter dated December 19, 1996. Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. West, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel MR. PALING-Okay. The next item which was taken off and back on again is for Subdivision No. 7-1996 for Barbara Barber. SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1996 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED BARBARA BARBER OWNER: SAME ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: NW CORNER OF BAY ROAD AND MAID MARION WAY PROPOSAL IS FOR A 4 LOT SUBDIVISION. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 106-1996 TAX MAP NO. 48-3-49.54 LOT SIZE: 5.40 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIV. REGULATIONS MR. PALING-John, we're going to need your help on this. It is kind of a strange twist, so we'll let you explain it to us. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. There's a memo here from George Hilton. liOn Tuesday December 17, 1996 the Planning Board approved the Preliminary and Final Phase Subdivision No. 7-1996 submitted by Barbara Barber. It has come to the Planning Staff's attention that the required notification of property owner's within 500 feet of this proj ect was. done incorrectly. Some of the property owners within 500 feet of this project did not receive a notice from the applicant. Therefore the Planning Board should rescind their prior motions for approval so that the proper notice can be sent out to surrounding property owners. After this is done, the application will be reheard for approval during the month of January." MR. PALING-So we don't need anyone here tonight from the applicant, because all we're going to do is rescind our previous motion. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. My only question is, is this the one that, on Tuesday we did both Preliminary and Final? MR. PALING-Yes. That's right. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. So those should both be rescinded. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-And, no, you don't need anybody here from the applicant. MR. PALING-Right. Okay. MR. STARK-Two separate rescinding? MR. SCHACHNER-It doesn't matter, as long as your motion'mentions both the Preliminary approval and the Final approval. MR. STARK-Okay. MOTION TO RESCIND BOTH THE PRELIMINARY AND THE FINAL STAGE APPROVALS FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1996 FOR BARBARA BARBER, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: - 2 - --' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) And the reason is the property owners within 500 feet, not all of them were properly notified. Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel NEW BUSINESS: FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT FW2-96 GEORGE BOIVIN/CHRISTOPHER MARCHAND OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, DEC LOCATION: DINEEN ROAD WETLAND AFFECTED: GF-21 PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A 3 BEDROOM HOUSE WITH ON-SITE WELL AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM. PROJECT IS A REGULATED ACTIVITY WITHIN A DEC DESIGNATED WETLAND. PER SECTION 94-6 A PERMIT HAS TO BE OBTAINED TO CONDUCT A REGULATED ACTIVITY WITHIN A WETLAND. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 111-1996 TAX MAP NO. 44-2- 4 LOT SIZE: 2.08 ACRES SECTION: 94-6 MR. PALING-Okay. John, have you got some information on this one for us? MR. GORALSKI-I was hoping that the applicant would be here by now. They were waiting for their DEC permit, and my understanding is that they have not received their DEC permit. They did receive the required variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals, but to my knowledge, they have not received their DEC variances yet. MR. MACEWAN-Why don't we hold off on this a little while on the agenda. MR. PALING-All right. Lets put it aside, can we, and then, and then if necessary later on we'll table it. Okay. Moving right along. SITE PLAN NO. 69-96 TYPE II JIM KISLOWSKI NORTH COUNTRY CYCLE AUTO SALES OWNER: JACK LEBOWITZ ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: LI-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SELL AFTER MARKET BIKE PARTS, INSTALL PARTS ON BIKES, USED PARTS, MAIL ORDER. ALSO TO SELL A FEW CARS A YEAR. ALL LAND USES IN LI ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD CROSS REFERENCE: UV 94-1996 BEAUTIFICATION COMM. : 10/7/96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/9/96 TAX MAP NO. 147-1-1.1, 1.2 LOT SIZE: 1.74 +/- ACRES SECTION: 179-26 MARK LEVACK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 69-96, Jim Kislowski, Meeting Date: December 19, 1996 "The applicant proposes the operation of a commercial business in a Light Industrial zone. The business will sell after market bike parts, used parts, and conduct mail order sales. The applicant also plans the installation of parts on site, as well as the sale of a limited number of cars each year. The applica.nt is currently seeking a Use Variance from the ZBA to operate this commercial use in an industrial zone. The ZBA should reach a decision prior to Thursday's Planning Board meeting", which the applicant received last night. "The Planning Board may wish to consider a stipulation that the applicant construct a fence along the rear property line. A fence would help protect single family neighborhoods to the south from noise associated with test rides of vehicles. A fence would also prevent vehicles from leaving the site when conducting test rides." - 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) MR. PALING-Okay. stated that there part of the, I'm from Staff, too. I'd like to note that within the variance it's will be no car sales on the property, and that's saying that because it was part of this letter Okay. Would you identify yourselves, please? JAMES KISLOWSKI MR. KISLOWSKI-Yes, James Kislowski MR. LEVACK-Mark Levack. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. John, do you have any further? MR. GORALSKI-No. Why don't you go ahead. I'm just going to read through the variance motion and see what conditions they have. MR. PALING-Yes. this, and, yes, from the Board? I know I picked that one thing out because of if you would, please. Any questions or comments MR. MACEWAN-I guess the only comment or question I would have is maybe it needs to be clarified is this part in here in the variance approval that's saying something, secondly, the applicant is on notice that if anyone of his customers, it's an automatic retraction to this variance if anyone of his customers uses the Niagara Mohawk right-of-way. Does that mean they're going to take their motorcycles, ATV's and take a short cut to your facility? Is that what they mean by this, is that what they meant by this? MR. KISLOWSKI-Yes, yes, they did. MR. MACEWAN -Okay. MR. LEVACK-There's been a problem up there, in the past, with people riding motorcycles up and down the power line, and the neighbors particularly are sensitive to that, that Jim's use isn't going to perpetu~te that or increase it or certainly encourage it. In fact, he's already called the Warren County Sheriff's on one person that was riding on the trails, and he hasn't even opened his doors yet. MR. PALING-Okay. While John is doing that, hearing on this matter. Why don' t we open. comment you'd like to make before we do? there's a public Do you have any MR. LEVACK-I'd like to just say that we apologize for the very sketchy nature of our presentation materials, but we just got our Use Variance last night, there are six structures on the property right now. Jim is only going to be occupying this front structure that's highlighted. He's not going to be increasing the size of the buildings. He's not going to be increasing the size of the parking lot. He's going to use the existing parking that's there in front and he's going to be doing all repair of vehicles in the shop in the rear. There's been a recommendation this evening by Staff to put up a fence on the back of the property line. There's no money in this deal to put a fence up on this property, and I think that Jim is very sensitive to the neighbors. There's a huge buffer zone of trees to the west of the building. There's a building directly behind the structure that he's going to be occupying. There's a building directly to the east of the structure that he's going to be occupying. He does all his repairs indoors, and I don't see that there's a noise issue here at all. MR. STARK-What's in the building behind his structure? MR. LEVACK-I think a painter is occupying the building part time. MR. WEST-Is there adequate parking now in front? How many spaces - 4 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) is there parking for? MR. KISLOWSKI-I think roughly like 20. MR. LEVACK-There' s all sorts of overflow parking or collateral parking over in this area, but Jim has an arrangement with the landlord that he's to stay as concentrated in this area, and not to just sprawl allover the lot, because there are different structures, but I'd like to point out that the site won't be altered in any way, and we feel that any noise issues that may exist could be certainly addressed by keeping his operation indoors, therefore eliminating the need to put up any fence, because it's really, we feel, an unnecessary item. He's just leasing the building for two years. MR. PALING-Does he normally start these vehicles in the process of repair? MR. KISLOWSKI-Sometimes it's entitled to starting them up, but I'm a New York State Motorcycle Inspection station. So the bikes have to have adequate mufflers and everything on them. MR. MACEWAN-And all of that would take place inside, correct? MR. KISLOWSKI-Right, correct. MR. STARK-Some motorcycle repair shops or car repair shops, there's frames outside, tires outside, batteries outside. You're going to have a dumpster, obviously, behind the place? MR. KISLOWSKI-Yes. The first meeting that I went to, the Queensbury Beautification meeting, told me that if I'm going to have a dumpster, it's going to be in between the two buildings behind my building. So it won't be seen by the road or anything. MR. STARK-No debris is going to be stored outside or anything? MR. KISLOWSKI-No. It wouldn't be probably there the next day if I left anything outside. MR. PALING-Okay. We'll wait on John. Lets open the public hearing on the Jim Kislowski matter. Is there anyone here that would care to speak pro or con in this regard? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ROLAND AKINS , MR. AKINS-Roland and Emily Akins on the Corinth Road. I'd like to explain where my property is adjacent to this property. I'm to the west and I'm to the south. There's no buffer on the Light Industrial zone. My property is residential. MR. PALING-Now where is your property? MR. AKINS-Here's the Cycle Shop. My property is to the west and to the south. MR. PALING-Okay. What is on your property? MR. AKINS-My house is over here, but this is all residential. This is zoned residential. There's supposed to be a 50 foot buffer between residential and light industrial. It's pre-existing, a buffer is not there right now. At one time it was zoned the same, and the Town split it. MR. PALING-Okay. Now you're not the next lot. Did you say you're down a little bit? - 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) MR. AKINS-The house is down, but I plan on doing something with this piece of property. It's residential right now. MR. PALING-It's zoned residential. Okay. MR. AKINS-Now there isn't 20 feet between this building and my property, and I was going to ask for a fence down this side. I mean, the Zoning Board last night, they granted this variance, in strong opposition of all the neighbors, and I don't think I'm asking for too much to have a fence, six foot fence down that side of the property to protect us a little bit. MRS. LABOMBARD-Like a stockade fence. MR. AKINS-A stockade fence. EMILY AKINS MRS. AKINS-Something that'll look nice. MRS. LABOMBARD-Would you rather have trees or a fence? What would you rather have? MR. AKINS-I don't think it's our responsibility. MRS. AKINS-It's not our responsibility, really, to put this buffer in for the Town. MRS. LABOMBARD-No, no, no. I'm saying if you had your choice, would you rather take a fence or would you rather have trees, like arborvitaes or white pines? MR. AKINS-You're not going to have room for trees in there. MRS. AKINS-You're not going to have room for a tree. MRS. LABOMBARD-Twenty feet. MR. AKINS-Fifteen or twenty feet is all you've got in there. - MRS. LABOMBARD-Now white pines or arborvitaes or something like that? MR. AKINS-I don't think they're going to stay in there. I think the only way to protect our land is by having a six foot stockade fence down that line of the property, the back line. MR. PALING-With a fence. MRS. LABOMBARD-Now, if you wanted to build on your property, you have to give how much feet before you? MR. AKINS-We've got 600 feet frontage. MRS. LABOMBARD-I know, but I mean you couldn't construct a dwelling for how much of a setback you have to leave to the property line, if you put a dwelling on that place, on that property of yours. MR. AKINS-Twenty feet, I guess. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. What is it, total 30 on both sides? You've got 20 feet, and you've got 600 feet across. MR. AKINS-I'm talking of developing this land. MRS. LABOMBARD-I see. MR. GORALSKI-The zone line runs down the property line. There's a - 6 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) 50 foot buffer required on both sides of that. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right, but they only have 20 feet, but it was existing conditions. MR. PALING-But if this gentleman were to do it, he'd have to have a 50 foot buffer. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. AKINS-In other words, you're having a 100 foot buffer. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct, that's what's required. As you said, you can't do that here because these are pre-existing buildings. MRS. AKINS-We have been jerked around by the Town of Queensbury so much, first we're light industrial, then we're highway commercial, then we're this, and then we're residential. I mean, what are they going to do next? We don't know what's going on. MR. AKINS-This was changed about four or five years ago. MR. PALING-Your zoning or the one we're talking about? MR. AKINS-The zoning was changed, that was changed from residential to light industrial. It was first road front residential, it went to residential, and then road front commercial. MRS. AKINS-They take the line and they split it right down, our line. MR. WEST-What was the use of that building prior to its proposed usage? MRS. AKINS-There was a kitchen, floor coverings. MRS. LABOMBARD-When Cattone had the building. MR. MACEWAN-All those back out buildings were used for cabinet making. The building that Mr. Kislowski occupies was a retail, carpet linoleum store. MRS. LABOMBARD-Wasn't that Pro Craft, a long time ago? MR. MACEWAN-No. MR. WEST-That was zoned light industrial at that time? MR. MACEWAN-I don't think it was originally. I could be wrong on that. MR. GORALSKI-No. I don't believe it was zoned light industrial when the cabinet people first went in there. MRS. AKINS-It was highway commercial, wasn't it? MR. MACEWAN-Did you attend the meeting last night, John? MR. GORALSKI-No. MR. PALING-Okay? MR. AKINS-There's a couple of other things. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. AKINS-I don't know whether you people are aware of it right now, he's violating the Town Code. He has until Monday to get the - 7 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) unlicensed vehicles out of there, the way I understand it. So I don't know what we're going to end up with there. MRS. LABOMBARD-What do you mean unlicensed vehicles? vehicles just sitting around on the property? MR. AKINS-He's got unlicensed vehicles on the property more than he should have. He's got MR. STARK-Motorcycles or cars? MR. AKINS-Cars. MR. GORALSKI-I can shed some light on that also. I went out there, I believe it was last Friday, and there were three unregistered vehicles on the property. You're only allowed to have two unregistered vehicles on your property. Mr. Kislowski was notified and I went out there today and there are only two unregistered vehicles on the property now, and you're allowed to have two. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay, and you said you had two more things? That was just one more thing. Do you have another thing? MR. AKINS-That's about it, I guess. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Who else would like to talk about this? Okay. If there is no one else, then the public hearing is, I'm going to leave it open for a minute. John, lets have your comments first. MR. GORALSKI-Just that there were a few conditions that the Zoning Board placed on their approval. Two that are really significant to this proceeding are that no car sales take place on the property, and then they limited the hours of operation to eight to six, Monday through Friday, excluding Thursday. Thursday would be eight a.m. to nine p.m. Saturday would be eight to two, and no retail sales or repair on Sunday. There was also one more that you should know. They would limit the number of vehicles outside to five, be it motorcycles, four wheelers, snowmobiles, whatever vehicles are for sale in front. MR. MACEWAN-What is "whatever"? MR. PALING-All right. If there's no one else that cares to comment on this from the public, then I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Do you want to come back up? MR. STARK-As far as what John was talking about, the three vehicles, now it's down to two, were they cars that were going to be potentially retailed off? MR. KISLOWSKI-No. One is the plow truck that my landlord told me that I have to take care of the lot, plow the lot and plow his area. MR. STARK-That's not registered? MR. KISLOWSKI-Well, I have dealer plates, so when I need to put them on the road, and I have an old Camaro, , 67_Camaro, but it's all in running condition that's parked in front of there, but I can move that. MR. PALING-Okay. Do you have any comment on both the public comment as well as John's. - 8 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) MR. KISLOWSKI-Well, I'd just like to say that I'd like to be a good neighbor and work anything out that the neighbors do have a problem with, and it just doesn't seem that they want to cooperate with me on this project, and as far as the fence goes, between the property that Mr. Akins has and my property, there is probably a quarter of a mile of woods in between the building and his home there. MR. MACEWAN-What Mr. Akins is telling you, should he choose to develop that land, which is residential one acre, what he's looking for is a 50 foot buffer on your side, which isn't feasible, and the fact that he shouldn't have to put up with a 50 foot buffer on his side, although that's what the zoning says he has to do. So what he's looking for is a compromise for you to maybe put up something on your side, because that is all residential in there, and if he chooses to develop it, there could be potential for homes right in there. That would be a lot closer than a quarter of a mile from his residence. MR. LEVACK-Craig, I would suggest maybe that the 50 foot plus the 20 feet is 70 feet of buffer between there and the back door of his business, to me seems adequate and wouldn't necessitate a fence. This is a lease. He's not buying the building. He's just going to be there for a short time. There's no money in this deal to put up that fence. We'd ask for any cooperation that you could have on giving us leeway on that. Mr. Kislowski' s business has been restricted in this deal. His hours, his ability to display products in front of the building. I feel that he has had some restrictions, even so much so to the extent that if there's a documented incident where one of his customers rides a motorcycle up that power line, they're going to revoke his Use Variance. So I feel that he has compromised in many areas and aspects of putting this deal. He's just trying to do a small little 2500 square foot shop so he can be in business. It's been three months now, because we didn't have a quorum. We'd like to ask that we proceed without the fence. MR. MACEWAN-The last line says limiting it to five vehicles, motorcycles, four wheels, snowmobiles or whatever. What is the whatever? MR. KISLOWSKI-That would be like water craft or something like that. MRS. LABOMBARD-Like a jet ski? MR. KISLOWSKI-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-But not any sizeable boats? MR. KISLOWSKI-No. I don't sell boats, just water craft. MR. STARK-What's the lease? MR. KISLOWSKI-Two years, and as soon as my two year lease is up, the Use Variance will be dropped for that property. MR. LEVACK-As well we still have a provision in his lease that enables the owner to sell the building and give him 90 days notice after six months. So, technically, this could be a nine month lease, and again, to impose a fence on this deal, in addition to all the other restrictions that have been placed on this. MR. STARK-Bob, in lieu of the two year lease, it would be different if he was buying the place, but he's not buying the place. I don't think that's unreasonable. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. I agree with George. - 9 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) MR. MACEWAN-So at the end of two years, if you elected to stay there, you'd have to come back in and apply for another variance? MR. KISLOWSKI-No, I wouldn't have to, but if I chose to leave that premises, that would be it. Whoever went in there would have to reapply for a Use Variance. MR. PALING-The variance goes with the land? MR. KISLOWSKI-It's terminated with my lease. MR. PALING-As a condition of the variance. Normally, any change goes with the property. MR. LEVACK-We agreed to have it run with the term of the tenant. MR. PALING-I guess the only problem I'm struggling with on this is that we say temporary, but a lot of times temporary turns into permanent because it just works out to be the right thing to do. MR. KISLOWSKI-Well, Mr. Lebowitz wants $495,000 for that particular piece of property, and to be honest with you, it's very short term for me. MR. PALING-Would you be willing to say that you'll be out of there by a certain date? MR. LEVACK-I don't think that he should have to say that he's out of there by a certain date. If it turns out that the building hasn't sold, his two year lease is up, two years comes and goes and he says, hey, this is great. I'm doing business here and I want to stay here for another two years or five years, you know, but I think I'd like to go back to the comment that Jim made earlier that he wants to be a good neighbor, and if putting up a fence there, two years down the road, was a necessity, I think at that point in time he could probably take a look at it and say, well, maybe we'll be open to this then, but I mean, he's just struggling, trying to get in business, trying to get his company going here in the Town of Queensbury and it's not been easy. It's been three months of nothing but setbacks and the money isn't there in this deal right now. Who's to say in the future? MR. STARK-Who works there, you and who else? MR. KISLOWSKI-I'·ll be working there by myself and then one other person will be working there. MRS. LABOMBARD-I, personally, feel a fence will look terrible down there. MR. LEVACK-I don't think from an aesthetic or a planning standpoint that perpendicular stockade fences on travel corridors benefit anybody. MRS. LABOMBARD-I don't, either. MR. LEVACK- I think that natural buffering, and there currently exists a very dense forest vegetation in that area. There's 70 feet between there and the next proposed house. That's a pretty substantial buffer, but, you know, I think if Jim is a nuisance to his neighbors, and there really is a necessity for additional buffering or fencing or something like that, I would propose that we cross that bridge when we get to it. I don't know that anybody's demonstrated that there's going to be a noise problem here or a visual. He's keeping everything indoors. Nothing has changed. I just think it's unnecessary. Certainly, at this time, there's been no real reason or fact given why it should be there. - 10 - -- '- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) MR. PALING-If this land were sold or if it were the nature of the business was changed, they had to put buildings up. They'd have to come in for a site plan review, and could we then enforce the 50 foot buffer? If they change the building, we can enforce the 50 foot buffer. MR. GORALSKI-If those buildings are removed, then they would lose their pre-existing, nonconforming rights, and then they would have to comply with the buffer requirements or get a variance from the Zoning Board. MR. PALING-Okay. Do you have anything further to add at the moment? Okay. Now this is Type II. So we don't need a SEQRA on this one. Okay. MR. STARK-Bob, ask Mark. Should we word anything in the motion about the ZBA's variance approval? MR. PALING-I think that's existing. It's there. There's nothing we can do. MR. STARK-We don' t have to make mention of any of the ZBA's conditions? MR. GORALSKI-Well, no. Their conditions stand on their own. MR. PALING-Yes. That's independent of us. Now, it mentions Beautification Committee and Warren County Planning. MR. KISLOWSKI-I've been to both of those Boards, and they've also passed on it. MR. GORALSKI-They've both approved. MR. PALING-They've both approved. MR. GORALSKI-Warren County Planning Board said No County Impact, and the Beautification Committee, they've described his portion of the site. MR. PALING-I'm surprised they're even involved in this one. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. The only landscaping on the site is a flower box. He put in two pines. He cleaned up the remaining shrubs already in the flower box, he explained where the trash containers were located, location of used autos, dimensions of the flower box are approximately four feet wide, approximately 36 feet long, it says here. Motion made by Mrs. Carpenter to remaining sensitive to maintaining a neat and well maintained site. In addition, adhere to the Town Sign Ordinance. No use of flags or banners on used cars. Seconded by Paul Lorenz, approved as submitted. MR. PALING-Okay, and you're in compliance with the Beautification Committee? MR. KISLOWSKI-Yes. I even put some plants and stuff around the building, also they asked me to do. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-I have one outstanding issue. It's minor, but it's something that needs to be addressed. When the Board tabled this last time, you said that it needed to be re-advertised and that the applicant would have to pay another $25 fee. That hasn't been done yet. I has been re-advertised, but the $25 fee hasn't been paid. MR. KISLOWSKI-I can take care of that right now. - 11 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) MR. LEVACK-We can take care of that tonight. I thought that was taken care of. MR. PALING-All right. Why don't you proceed with that and we'll proceed with our stuff up here. MR. GORALSKI-What I would do is make your motion conditioned on. MR. PALING-Conditioned on paYment in full. MR. AKINS-Did you close the public hearing? MR. PALING-It was closed, yes, but we're kind of loose on that. If you want to make further comment, go ahead. MR. AKINS-If you're thinking of throwing out this fence, could you restrict the west side of his building to no activity, and that 20 foot buffer? MRS. LABOMBARD-In other words, you mean if somebody wants to take their motorcycle for a ride? MR. AKINS-Well, right now he's parking cars out in there. There's cars been parked in there, and I'm just afraid of motorcycles running through there. MR. PALING-All right. We'll consider that. Okay. Would you care to comment on this last request. Now the public hearing is re- closed, and we're done. MR. KISLOWSKI -Okay. To Mr. Akins' comment, along side of the building there is an accessway to the back door. That's in the shop. There's a door that's directly behind the building. On the other side, there's a five foot loading dock like when the cabinet place was there, that tractor trailers and stuff used to back up to that. So there's no other access to the back door, other than going on the side of that building, because there's a four foot concrete, I think that's called a loading dock, that's right behind my building. So there's no way of getting up that five foot. MR. PALING-Well, could you limit it, then, to access? MR. KISLOWSKI-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. You're willing that it be limited to access? MR. KISLOWSKI-Right, no activity. I won't be working on anything over there, if that's what you're asking. MR. PALING-The motion can cover that. Okay. Thank you. The only thing we're talking about is that the west side of the building will be limited to access only. MR. KISLOWSKI-You really can't park anything there in the winter time anyway because the roof is right there, and the snow would come off and damage anything that, if I left it there. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-And what are you going to do with the two vehicles that you currently have, the snow plow vehicle and the (lost word) . MR. KISLOWSKI-The snow plow vehicle, I'm going to ask my landlord, Mr. Lebowitz, if I can, he has a small carport on the other side. I'm going to ask him if I can put that under there, and I'm going to put it inside for the winter time. MR. MACEWAN-No storing of any cars or trucks out front? - 12 - "--- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) MR. KISLOWSKI-Not out front. I have one big cube van that we use for vending when we go to motorcycle trade shows, the malls for jet ski shows and stuff, but, you know, that's just to move our equipment around with, and that will be out back where nobody can see that. MRS. LABOMBARD-But then that, in the spring will be, we're back to three, the Camaro, that. MR. KISLOWSKI-No, that won't be there like that. MR. MACEWAN-Maybe just the way to do it is limit the front of the building to customer parking only. MR. KISLOWSKI-Okay. That would be fine with me. MRS. LABOMBARD-And by law you can only keep two unregistered vehicles out anyway. MR. GORALSKI-Right. I was just going to say that. You can't allow him to keep more than two unregistered vehicles. MR. KISLOWSKI-Right. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 69-96 JIM KISLOWSKI NORTH COUNTRY CYCLE AUTO SALES, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption George Stark: With the restriction that there would be no activity to the west side of the building, other than access for loading, etc., no any kind of business activity there except for access in and out, the front activity just be allowed for parking for customers, no other parking of any other vehicles. As far as the $25 goes, this is all pending until he pays up. Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel MR. LEVACK-Thank you. MR. KISLOWSKI-Thank you very much. MR. PALING-Thank you. Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 73-96 TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD P. SCHERMERHORN, JR. CROSS ROADS PARK, PHASE II OWNER: SAME ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: LOT 10, HUNTER BROOK RD. PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT AN 8 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND SITE WORK. ALL LAND USES IN MR- 5 ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 36-96 WARREN CO. PLANNING 12/11/96 TAX MAP NO. 48-3-34.1 LOT SIZE: 2.29 ACRES SECTION: 179-18 RICH SCHERMERHORN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 73-96, Richard P. Schermerhorn, Jr., Meeting Date: December 19, 1996 liThe applicant is proposing the construction of an 8 unit apartment building along with - 13 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) associated parking and site work. The property is located on Hunter Brook Lane and is zoned MR-S (Multi Family Residential). The new 4,422 sqÜare foot building will be built on a lot with a previously approved apartment building. Density, setback permeability and parking requirements will meet the requirements of the MR-S district. Staff recommends that the landscape plan which has been submitted for this project be updated to include tree plantings on the east and west side of the new building. New plantings would provide visual screening and would serve as a noise buffer from activities in other apartment buildings to the east and west. The submitted landscaping plan and any amendments must be updated in order to conform to the planting requirements listed in Section 179-66 of the Zoning Ordinance. Those requirements are as follows: - Major trees: Three and one half inches in caliper Evergreen trees: Four to Six feet in height - Shrubs: Two to Three feet in height or spread - Minor or flowering trees: Two and one half inches in caliper" MR. GORALSKI-Warren County said "No County Impact", and that's it. MR. STARK-Okay. Rich, do you want to comment on any of those Staff Notes? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Rich Schermerhorn, for the record. I don't know. I thought the landscaping was adequate, but if you want me to add a few trees, I don't have a problem with that. I don't believe the east side needs any because there's only 50 feet between the buildings, and if you look at the landscape plan, I do have to have a place to push snow because these parking lots are quite large, and as far as the west side goes, that's placed maybe 30 feet off the property line. There are some on the ends there, and there will be another building, you know, 30 feet off that property line. So we've got to take into consideration the parking lot that's going to be fairly close to the other one, but a few trees I don't have a problem with. Other than that, I'll leave it up to you guys. MR. STARK-John, when you say the Staff recommends new plantings on the east and west, how many are you talking? MR. GORALSKI-I would say similar to what was approved previously. What we're trying to avoid is the look of a barracks out there. You want to break it up, have some kind of visual break between these buildings. MR. STARK-Give me a number. MR. GORALSKI-I'm not sure what there is between. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, keep in mind, the first building was to break off that commercial look to the multi family look. MR. GORALSKI-On what would be the west side of that first building, there's probably, what, five trees, something like that. MR. STARK-You'd be happy with five trees? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, you know, evergreens, four to six foot in height. To be honest with you, I don't remember what this, on the first plan. MR. STARK-Rich, do you know, how many are on the west side of the first building? MR. SCHERMERHORN-The west first building that I did? there was three maples and upper front corner. side of the first building, the very I believe there was five, let me see, there was like five pine trees, in the - 14 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) MR. STARK-A total of eight. MR. SCHERMERHORN-A total of eight. I don't mind adding some. It's just, like I said, I've just got to keep that one part open, because you've got to have a place to put snow, because if you look on the plan, the dumpster enclosures between the two buildings on the east side, and that doesn't leave a lot of room for snow, and it piles up quick when you start pushing off these parking lots. MR. MACEWAN-Where are you talking about piling the snow, between the two buildings? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, no. Well, yes, you've got to push it east and west, and just leave it more or less between my property lines right there. MR. MACEWAN-Not that green island area there? MR. SCHERMERHORN-If you're looking straight down at the plan, right in the middle of the building, it says existing-trash enclosure. That would be one section that we'd push some snow, and then of course on the, most of it would probably go to the west end, where I purposely left that open without trees to put snow. I mean, there are several maple trees along the road. We're going to keep that consistent with the whole proj ect . There's three in front of, well, actually, four in front of every building. MR. MACEWAN-The areas you're talking about, John, between the two buildings? MR. GORALSKI-If you look between the two buildings, you see on the landscape plan between where it says, well, between the two drywells. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. That's where you're talking about? MR. GORALSKI-Right, in there. MR. MACEWAN-You're not going to push snow back that far. MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, not in between the buildings there, no, but that's where I don't think we need them. There's quite a few in there now. Like I say, just pick a number. I don't, you know, if you want five more trees or something, fine. It's just, I'd like it to be more or less left to me where I can place them, just because I don't want them in the way. I know, because I've got several apartments, and they get in the way quick when you start pushing snow. MR. MACEWAN-What was Staff looking for? You'd be comfortable with five? MR. GORALSKI-Well, I think if you took, on either side of that building, you added five white pines of, say, four to six feet in height, and I can work out with Rich in the field exactly where to locate these. MR. MACEWAN-You're looking for five between the existing building and the east side of Phase II buildings, and you're looking for five on the west side of Phase II? MR. GORALSKI-The west side of Phase II, too. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I'll agree to five. Ten is too many. MR. STARK-No, no, no. other. He means five on one side, five on the - 15 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, well, the west side is where I believe we need them. I don't want to put them between, there's only 50 feet between the buildings now, and there's two large, well, there's large maple and quite a few plantings there now which, I could space them out, too. They're awfully close to the building. MR. MACEWAN-There's nothing between the buildings, unless this isn't accurate. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, you've got, I don't know all the abbreviations for the bushes, but there's, are you on landscape page, Page 3 of 3? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. MACEWAN-I'm looking at (lost words) right foundation. I'm looking at that 50 foot wide talking about between the two buildings. up around the open area he's MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, go with 10, I don't care. MR. MACEWAN-There you go, sold. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Whatever. The placement has got to be somewhat reasonable. MR. GORALSKI-I'm always reasonable, Rich. MR. MACEWAN-Even on the area where you're going to pile snow. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, fine. MR. MACEWAN-What else? MR. GORALSKI-I think that was it. MR. STARK-Okay. Dave, do you have anything? Cathy? Craig? Okay. Lets open the public hearing. Does anybody wish to speak for or against this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-Lets go to a SEQRA. This is a Short Form, right? MR. SCHACHNER-It can be, if that's what you've submitted. MR. GORALSKI-That's what was submitted, and it's an Unlisted Action. So you can. . RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 73-96, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the Planning RICHARD P. SCHERMERHORN, JR., and 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: - 16 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. S. 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 19th day of December, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Ruel MR. STARK-We need a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 73-96 RICHARD P. SCHERMERHORN, JR., Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: With the following condition, that an additional planting of 10 White Pines, five to six feet high, be planted, five between the existing building and Phase II building and five to the west of the Phase II building, the planting location to be determined by the Code Enforcement Officer and the applicant. Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Ruel MR. STARK-Just as an aside, when do you think you're coming in for the other? MR. SCHERMERHORN-April. MR. STARK-Just wondering. MRS. LABOMBARD-What about those people from earlier? MR. PALING-Boivin, right? Is anyone here representing the Boivin application? MR. GORALSKI-I spoke to them probably a month ago and explained to - 17 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) them that the Board wasn't going to act without a DEC permit in hand. So they may have just assumed they shouldn't show up because of that. MR. PALING-I don't think he's going to show up now. MR. GORALSKI-Probably not. MR. PALING-Well, lets do something with it, so we don't forget it. Now we can just table it. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, lets wait until the end. Who knows. Maybe something drastic happened. MR. PALING-You want to wait? All right. Great Escape. Lets go, then, to the SITE PLAN NO. 75-96 TYPE: UNLISTED PREMIER PARKS, INC. D/B/A THE GREAT ESCAPE ZONE: RC-15 LOCATION: GREAT ESCAPE FUN PARK PROPOSAL IS FOR ONE ADDITIONAL PARK RIDE CALLED THE BOOMERANG. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 12/11/96 TAX MAP NO. 36-2-3.1 LOT SIZE: .68 ACRES SECTION: 179-21 JOHN LEMERY & JOHN COLLINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 75-96, Premier Parks, Inc. D/B/A The Great Escape Fun Park, Meeting Date: December 19, 1996 "The applicant is proposing the addition of one new ride at the Great Escape Park on Route 9. The new ride, which will be called the Boomerang, will be located at the southwest portion of the park along Route 9. The ride is proposed to be 125 feet high with the highest part being approximately 300 feet from the Route 9 property line and about 170 feet from the south property line. The entire ride will meet the 75 foot required setback from Route 9. In order to construct this ride, three rides in this location will be removed or relocated. Any relocation of a ride that will require new construction in the park which was not previously approved will require site plan approval. The applicant should clarify relocation plans with the Planning Board. The construction of this ride will require the removal of an area of impervious concrete. a new series of smaller concrete pads will then be built in this area in order to support the proposed ride. The result will be less concrete surface on this site and an increase in the amount of green area from 63% and 77% on this particular portion of the overall site. The applicant has indicated to staff that additional information on the possible visual impact of this ride will be given at the Planning Board meeting. In addition, the applicant should clarify the location of this ride and provide a better representation on the site plan. An updated site plan should also indicate where the adjacent rail and track will be moved. In order to properly assess what impact this addition will have on surrounding properties, plans for sidewalk lighting and lighting attached to the.ride should be indicated by the applicant. In addition, the applicant should clarify the hours of this attraction. The applicant must also update the attached planting schedule to indicate total quantities of plants to be used. All trees and shrubs must conform to the size requirements listed in Section 179-66 of the Zoning Ordinance. Those requirements are as follows: -Major trees: Three and one half inches in caliper Evergreen trees: Four to Six feet in height -Shrubs: Two to Three feet in height or spread -Minor or flowering trees: Two and one half inches in caliper Because there is not an existing parking schedule for this use listed in the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Board must determine whether or not adequate parking exists to accommodate this expansion." - 18 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) MR. PALING-Okay. Any other comments, John, on this? MR. GORALSKI-Not that I know of. When you get to public comment, I'll check and see if there's any public comment. MR. PALING-Okay. up here? No? record. Good. Any questions or comments for the moment Would you identify yourselves, please, for the MR. LEMERY-My name is John Lemery, Counsel to the Great Escape. I have with me Jeff Anthony of the LA Group, consultant to the Great Escape, and John Collins, the new General Manager of the Great Escape, and we'd be please to answer these questions and comments that you have. MR. PALING-Yes. I think you should kind of summarize and update us and answer if you would, please. MR. LEMERY-Sure. Well, the application is for a new attraction called the Boomerang to go on a site at the southwest corner of the Park. The attraction you see from Route 9 right now, is most prevalent is the carousel, which is there at that area. There's a ride called Danny the Dragon, and it's been there for years and years and years. This ride will replace three of the four rides that are currently there. It will replace Danny the Dragon, the Thunderbolt, and the Flying Jumbo which will either be relocated at some future date or taken out of the Park and located somewhere else. The carousel will probably be remaining at the Park. It will be moved to another location. That's not yet determined where that could end up, and we recognize that if, in fact, at some point one or more of these attractions requires a site plan approval, that the Great Escape would be back before the Planning Board. The other rides are really portable rides. The building that surrounds the carousel now would not be repeated, not put up where they're planning to put the carousel. The ride is located 75 feet from the right-of-way to conform to the corridor right-of-way there that exists at that part of Route 9. At the top of the ride, it's approximately 125 feet. The highest point of the ride has been located 350 feet back from the edge of the Route 9 right-of-way. It's on a very level, flat area. The railroad that traverses the area will be relocated so as to not cause a problem with the ride. The dwelling shows the configuration of the ride, the track of the ride, probably 18 inches on each side of those lines would be the actual ride. There isn't any lighting that is going to be added for purposes of this attraction. We don't know what we can do to improve the site plan. Jeff spoke with the Planning Staff today regarding that and he can address that. This ride will replace, as we said, a concrete area which will be removed and grassed over, so the concrete pad where the carousel is located now will be removed and the entire in field there surrounding the ride will be grass. MR. PALING-How many people per ride or per car, or how do you, how will it be? MR. LEMERY-I'll refer that to John Collins. MR. COLLINS-There's 28. MR. PALING-Twenty-eight, and is it one car? MR. COLLINS-No. It's seven cars of four. MR. PALING-You shoot one, then followed by another and so forth? MR. COLLINS-No. It's one train. There's one train on the track, for obvious reasons. MR. PALING-Okay. - 19 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) MR. MACEWAN-How long does the ride last? MR. COLLINS-Including lift hills, which there's, you know, going back, and then on the second one, it's about 130 seconds. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, well you told us that Saturday when we were there. MR. COLLINS-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STARK-John, do you have the balloon? MR. LEMERY-Yes, we asked the LA Group to go out and site a three foot balloon at the location where the highest point of the ride is, and Jeff can address that. We have some photographs taken from around the area to show you what would be visual. JEFF ANTHONY MR. ANTHONY-I guess the best thing to do is bring this right up close to the Planning Board. We, on December 9, I believe, floated a balloon to 125 feet in height, which is a few feet higher than what this ride will actually really be, and we took several pictures of it from the different vantage points. Photograph Number One is taken from the Adirondack Northway and the Northbound lane, and you can see that we've highlighted the balloon with that little bull's eye right there. The balloon, the center of that circle is 125 feet, and that's where the ride's highest point would be located. Photograph Two is from the north looking south on Route 9, and you can see the Steamin' Demon in the foreground over here, and then the ride would be behind that right in that area. It's interesting to note that the ride will not peak over the existing tree line. So it'll be contained beneath the tree line in that view shed. The third photograph is fairly close in, right at the corner of Round Pond Road and Route 9, and it's looking north on Route 9, and you can see that the highest point is kind of tucked into the tree line at that point. MR. STARK-I have a question. Coming north on Route 9, and I'm up by the dentist's office, up by the top of the hill, would you be able to see it? MR. ANTHONY-Probably not. We've taken these at the limits of where you'd be able to see the ride from. The fourth photograph is directly across the street from the ride on Route 9, kind of where the ice cream store is, and that kind of, those facilities, and you can see the highest point in photo four right there. MRS. LABOMBARD-That was very helpful. MR. ANTHONY-I can clarify a couple of these other points in the Planning Staff's letter if you'd like. The Planning Staff indicated that the site plan should be improved to show the location of this ride. Well, we use the manufacturer's layout of our site plan looking down as our guide, and these gray areas right here represent the foundations and footings for the ride. These lines here indicate the center line of the structure which the ride will rail on. It's kind of in the character of the Steamin' Demon. It's the same kind of structure, a steel tubular structure which the ride will ride on, and so there's nothing to really draw. If we were to expand this and make it look bigger, we'd draw a fine line either side of that, just a teeny bit away, to show the thickness of the tube, and this area right over in here is the loading platform where people will go to to get on to the ride, and then in this plan, obviously, we've shown landscaping and the walks and other amenities to get up to the building. So there's really - 20 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) hardly anything else to show in this site plan looking downward, and I talked to George Hilton about this today, and he thought that if this was adequate for you, it would be adequate for him. MR. STARK-The concrete rail, with the track's built into it, now that stays? You see where you have the little pen mark, right here? MR. ANTHONY-Those are existing. MR. STARK-Yes, I know, but they're going to stay. MR. ANTHONY-They'll stay. The relocation that was asked about, the update on the site plan to show the relocated rail and track, the question was perceived because they thought that-we were going to move this closer to the property line or move the whole thing. That's not the case. That's what George mentioned to me today. What's happening is this ride goes over the top of. MR. COLLINS-The concrete, that Danny the Dragon that you're seeing, is that the question? MR. ANTHONY-The railroad. The train track is this one right here. MRS. LABOMBARD-Is that staying? MR. ANTHONY-The train track is staying, right, John? MR. COLLINS-The train track is getting, on the east most portion of the ride would be relocated around the tip of the ride so it doesn't pass underneath. MR. ANTHONY-Right, and that's indicated right here. This is the existing, that's the existing rail, and the rail is being moved over here, and so that's on the site plan. MRS. LABOMBARD-Now I understand. MR. ANTHONY-And the question about changing the plant sizes, we will. Two of the plant sizes were smaller than supposed to be. The Amerlanky are specified as 67 feet height as a clump. You don't specify it by diameter when you're specifying a clump. So that was adequate. The crab apple we had as one and three quarters at two. You requested two and a half. We'll change that to two and a half when we submit final plans. The euanimos meets your size requirements, and the juniper is, we specified at eighteen to twenty four, and you requested it to be twenty-four to thirty-six. We'll change that to twenty-four to thirty-six, and so those changes I discussed with George today and we'll make those when we submit final drawings for filing. MR. STARK-The hours of operation the same as the Park? MR. COLLINS-Yes. The gates do open up a half hour earlier than the rides, though. So if the Park opens at nine, which it historically has, nine-thirty was when the ride would open. MR. PALING-Any other questions or what not? Parking. The area's increasing in population, and so is the Country and all of that. I know that adding one ride doesn't, proportionately, increase the parking, but it is, I think, getting to be a little bit crowded up there and whether we would call you on it tonight or later, I think one of these times we're going to be asking you for additional parking as you make the park more attractive, and I wonder what your comments now, with this going in and the existing parking, do you have a fall away plan for future parking at some time in the future, whether it be right now or not? - 21 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) MR. LEMERY-Well, at this point, we don't see any increase in the parking as a result of the addition of this ride and the taking out of some other rides. So far, historically, there have only been three or four days when parking has been a problem, the lots have been filled, and they've, the Great Escape has put the excess cars on the, at the north portion of the Park, just south of the Trading Post Restaurant there, and added some cars at the Bavarian Palace, put people over there and brought them around to the entrance, and that has, historically, only happened two or three times a year. MR. PALING-So you do have that plan, though? You do have that that's available to you know, to go to the Bavarian Palace or across the street? MR. LEMERY-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. LEMERY-And to make it clear, there's no parking on that wetland, that 100 foot buffer. So there's never a point where that's used. They're taking down the road to the north end of the site or they're taken around to the Bavarian Palace and then they're brought over by transportation, so that nobody's walking on Round Pond Road or trying to come around on Route 9. Now, if the Park, first of all, it's limited by its geographic, you know, the site itself is limited, so there are only so many more attractions that can go on that site. However, obviously if there comes a point where parking becomes a problem, they understand they have to look for additional parking areas at some point in the area, but at least historically that hasn't been a problem. MR. MACEWAN-Has there ever been an occasion where you've had to turn people away? MR. LEMERY-Well, I can't answer that. I don't know if John can. I think if Charlie Wood were here, he might be able to answer it, but I don't know the answer to that. MR. COLLINS-I don't know the answer to that. MR. PALING-There will be a public hearing opened in a little bit for anyone that wishes to comment. So we'll take it in order. PHIL MANZ MR. MANZ-I work for the Great Escape. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, join them at the table, if you wish. MR. MANZ-My name is Phil Manz. I'm the Operations Manager up there, and in charge of parking. We have never, over the 21 years that I've worked at the Park, have ever turned anyone away. I also want to comment, I know the parking better than John. We still have at least 100 to, probably 150 spots that we've never used. There's an upper level out in the northern parking lot where you see that large, grassy field, and we've never gone up higher on the upper plains, which is level up there also. We are also able to park more people out there where that sand pit area is at this point, too, because they've been taking sand out of there. So I feel, right now, I have between 150, maybe as much as 200 extra parking spots that we've never even used, and even this last year, we had our biggest day, we didn' t fill up all the parking available. We were about 60 parking spots from doing that, and as the day gets later, there's always a rotation of people that came in for their second day passes that are leaving by noon or one o'clock, and that usually opens up parking by two o'clock, one o'clock-ish out in our main parking lots also. - 22 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) MR. PALING-Okay. All right. John, George asked about hours of operation. What was your concern there? MR. GORALSKI-They said that the hours of operation were the hours that the Park is open, which is nine to six or nine to seven right now. Is that correct? MR. COLLINS-That's what they are, correct. MR. GORALSKI-We were just concerned about any disturbance to the adjoining properties, you know, from lights or noise or something like that. It doesn't sound like there's any change from what exists there now. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STARK-Mr. Collins, in the past, Charlie would be open two or three times a year in the evening, on a limited basis, a few number of rides. Are you going to continue that practice? MR. COLLINS-I really haven't sat down and talked with Charlie on those dates. The October Fest is still scheduled, which is in September, and the other occasions, I'm not sure which ones you're talking about. MR. MANZ-There's four cast member parties held at night for our cast members, and they were until 10 o'clock at night. MR. STARK-Are you going to continue those? MR. COLLINS-We haven't discussed those yet. MR. LEMERY-And the Gala, the Premier, we'll be hosting the Gala every year for the Double H. So that's a time when the Park is open to the guests for a period of time in the evening, late evening. MR. PALING-All right. impart a the moment? Do you have anything further you want to MR. LEMERY-We have nothing further, unless you have any further questions. MR. PALING-No. What I'll do now, if not, we'll go to the public hearing. We'll open the public hearing on the Premier Parks application. Is there anyone that cares to talk about this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Now, this is an Unlisted. Now can we go with the Short Form on this? MR. GORALSKI-You can use the Short Form if you'd like, or else the applicant also submitted a Long Form. MR. PALING-I don't see the impact that needs a Long Form. I think a Short Form. Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-That's up to the Board, except that if they submitted a Long Form, I mean, you can't do one that they didn't submit. MR. PALING-Well, they submitted both. MR. SCHACHNER-Then it's up to the Board. - 23 - ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) MRS. LABOMBARD-If they submitted both, then we'll do the Short Form. Did they submit both? MR. GORALSKI-They submitted both. MR. PALING-Yes. They submitted the Short Form first. MR. SCHACHNER-Then it's up to the Board to use whichever one you think is most appropriate. MR. PALING-Lets go with the Short Form. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 75-96, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the Planning Board an PREMIER PARKS, INC. D/B/A THE GREAT ESCAPE, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. S. 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 19th day of December, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel MR. PALING-Okay. I think we can go right to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 75-96 PREMIER PARKS, INC. D/B/A THE GREAT ESCAPE, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its - 24 - -'~ '-../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: For one additional ride called the Boomerang. Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 76-96 TYPE: UNLISTED BERKSHIRE ACQUISITION CORP. OWNER: DOYLE'S GIFT AND HOME FASHIONS, INC. ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF QUAKER ROAD AND BAY ROAD PROPOSAL IS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A 25,125 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL CENTER. ALL LAND USES IN HC ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. BEAUTIFICATION COMM: 12/9/96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 12/11/96 TAX MAP NO. 105-1-4.1 LOT SIZE: 3.12 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. We have a couple of situations here that make this a little bit different, I think, in that we have archeological and historical comments as well as engineering comments, and the engineering, there's kind of a fist full here. I was going to ask if you had any comments about these to tell us about. MR. LAPPER-Yes. We would like to go through them one at a time, slowly. For the record, my name is Jon Lapper. I'm here on behalf of Berkshire Acquisition Corp. From Berkshire is Chris Peznola and Tim Trainer, and the Project Architect is Norbert Hausner, who's been here before, and John Caruso from Passero Associates, the Project Engineer, and we've all appeared before this Board when we did the first development on the other side of Town and last month as well. I guess what we envisioned is that, is taking the time to go slowly through all the issues. A lot of the engineering comments we've responded to and made changes to the plan in light of those comments, and I guess we'd like to get the technical issues out of the way first and then address the archeological issues, if that's okay with this Board. MR. PALING-It's okay with me, if that's going to put it in the right order. I'm not sure, because of a delay that I'm not, I don' t think the technical issues can cause a delay, but the archeological/historical perhaps could, is what I'm thinking about, and maybe I don't even have to worry about that. MR. LAPPER-Well, we'd like to get everything out on the record and go through the issues and try and eliminate as many issues as we can. MR. PALING-All right. Well, lets go back to John, then, and start that way and we'll come back and take it from there. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 76-96, Berkshire Acquisition Corp., Meeting Date: December 19, 1996 "The applicant proposes the development of a 25,125 square foot commercial shopping center at the southwest corner of Quaker Road and Bay Road. The property which is located to the east of Shop N Save supermarket is zoned - 25 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) HC-1A, Highway Commercial One Acre. The property is located at an important and historic place in the Town of Queensbury. This site, which is located next to a town owned cemetery, was once the location of the Quaker Meeting House. Regrading and construction of this site may have an effect on historic artifacts which may exist in and around this site. Further comment on possible historic and archeological impacts will be provided by the Town Historian. On December 11, 1996, staff met with the developer for CVS and discussed design alternatives for this site in light of the historic character of this area of Queensbury. One such option which was discussed was locating the new building closer to Quaker Road similar to what currently exists at this location. An architectural style which would complement the existing building, saving existing large vegetation, and location of the parking behind the building were all discussed by staff as ways to maintain the character that presently exists at this location. Another alternative that was discussed was allowing the site to be developed as proposed with the inclusion of landscaping to help preserve the historic character of this area. Sidewalks, benches and additional plantings would be used on this site in order to protect the rural town center character of this site. If the Planning Board feels that this option is viable, staff recommends that the landscaping plan be updated to show berming and increased tree planting along Quaker and Bay Road. Street trees should be planted at a rate of one per 30 lineal feet along these roads. Parking lot islands should also include one tree per island. Crab apple and other small ornamental trees can be used on those islands that contain traffic lights. Additional landscaping and berming will help screen the parking lot from adjacent streets. Additional berming and planting could also be included along the south property line in order to help screen dumpster and delivery areas of this site. Any landscaping used at this location must conform to the size and quantity requirements of Section 179-66 of the Zoning Ordinance. Those regulations specifically call for one tree per every twent.y parking spaces. If landscaping in terms of quantity and size is not provided per the code a variance will be required. The required size of trees and plantings is as follows: - Major trees: three and one half inches in caliper - Evergreen trees: four to six feet in height - Shrubs: two to three feet in height or spread - Minor or flowering trees: two and one half inches in caliper Staff recommends that the proposed detention pond along Quaker Road be removed. Stormwater management on site can be handled by using drywells and other infiltration methods instead of allowing ponding as indicated on page 2 of the overall site plan. In the past, the Planning Board has had concerns about allowing ponding as a form of stormwater management. Safety concerns along with the collection of debris and garbage are some reasons staff believes infiltration of stormwater should be done on this site instead of what is proposed. Removal of this pond area would allow the applicant to construct a berm and increase street tree planting as was previously mentioned in these Staff Comments. The Planning Board should address Rist Frost comments prior to taking action on this site plan. The applicant is proposing vehicular access from two curb cuts, one on Quaker Road and one on Bay Road. Staff believes the use of the proposed curb cuts, which would be located next to two entrances to Shop N Save supermarket, would create major traffic problems in and around this site. Staff recommends that this site plan be revised to indicate vehicular access via the Shop N Save loop road. This connection of the two parking lots is required by Section 179-66.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and would help eliminate potentially hazardous driving conditions in this area. The amount of traffic that this site plan will generate will create hazardous conditions for vehicles wishing to leave the site on either Bay Road or Quaker Road. Per a telephone conversation held on Monday, December 16th between Jim Martin and Greg Gorski, the general manager of the Shop N Save store, the official position of Shop N Save is not to allow the interconnection. The Town efforts - 26 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) to establish the interconnection, short of condemnation, have not been successful. Staff feels very strongly that this stipulation for connection must be included in any approval of this plan. Staff cannot fully support this site plan if interconnection and access via the Shop & Save loop road is not provided. In consideration of Shop N Save's position and the comments made by the GFTC staff it is the planning staff's position that a traffic study be made in accordance with the parameters outlined in the letter from Joanna Brunso dated 12/12/96. This study should include alternative design measures for access to the public right- of -way. In summary staff is taking the following positions enumerated below: 1. Traffic. Traffic should be studied in accordance with the GFTC recommendation. The County DPW should be involved in the traffic review as the project will access on one or both of the county roads (Bay Road and Quaker Road). The applicant should contact Shop N Save to discuss interconnection as direct negotiation between the two parties may be more successful. 2. Historical/Archeological. This particular site encompasses a burial ground and meeting place of unique historical significance. It is the staff's position to endorse the recommendations of the Town Historical and State Office of Historic Preservation. Disturbance around the cemetery perimeter will require care as the exact locations of burial sites is unknown and in fact may be in the area to be disturbed. Three (3) of the four (4) out buildings to the south of the existing Doyle's building are 130 years old. An attempt should be made to save these historic structures. The smallest shed should be moved to the cemetery site and could be used as a utility shed to the parcel. Alternative uses for the remaining two buildings include but are not limited to disassembly and reassembly at one of the Town parks. 3. Cemetery A specific plan for landscaping and accessing the cemetery should be developed. The plan should compliment and relate to the overall site plan for the project. A "park-like" setting for the cemetery is envisioned, one that is respectful to the his~oric significance of the site. 4. Overall redevelopment plan. Initially, the staff opinion was that the building should be positioned close to the road. However, under that scenario, the rear of the building would face the street with the front facing the interior of the site to the south. Therefore, staff is not opposed to the building position as illustrated on the plan. However, care should be taken to adequately landscape the site and to retain the historic character of this unique site. As a final general comment staff feels the final site plan should maintain the historic character of this site and enhance the quality of this intersection as one of the focal points within the Town. S. Drainage The approach to drainage should be based on infiltration. However, disturbance of the soil to install drainage, in whatever form it takes, should be mindful of potential disturbance of historic or cemetery artifacts." MR. GORALSKI-Okay. We have several letters here. MR. PALING-Are they of public hearing nature? MR. GORALSKI-No. They're from people like the Glens Falls Transportation Council, and then there's a letter here, or there's Rist-Frost comments. There's a letter from MarilYn VanDyke, the Town Historian. However, Marilyn's here. So she can address those. MR. PALING-Right. others. Lets do Rist-Frost, John, and then go to the MR. GORALSKI-Okay. I think the best thing, by the way, Beautification Committee approved the site plan, and the Warren County Planning Board also approved. The Warren County Planning Board approved, "With the conditions that the Applicant makes a serious and good faith effort to eliminate the curb cuts on Quaker - 27 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) and Bay Roads, the signage must conform to the Queensbury Sign Ordinance and if curb cut on Quaker Road is allowed to remain, that there be no left turns onto Quaker Road." Okay, and then as far as Rist Frost is concerned, they had an original letter of December 13th, and then a follow up letter of December 18th, which probably just go to December 18th letter, since I think a lot of the engineering comments were addressed. "We have reviewed Passero Associates, P. C. ' s letter to us dated December 16, 1996 with attached soils report, 50-year storm drainage calculations, and other supplemental information. This information was submitted in response to our comment letter dated December 13, 1996. The responses regarding Comments 1, 2, 3, and 5, and comments from Planning Department Staff, Town Water and Sewer Department and Warren County Department of Public Works, should enable the Planning Board to adequately consider those items. Revised drawings indicate that 17 of the future parking spaces are proposed for the area now designated as a berm. Regarding our Comment 4: a. Soils investigation and consultant reports were submitted which demonstrate that the site has limited capability for on-site infiltration. b. Applicant has stated that the drawing discrepancies have been corrected. c. Applicant has stated that the construction details have been revised. d. Applicant has revised the hydraulic computations for the 50-year storm and stated that the site subsurface conditions are not suitable for the use of more subsurface storage/infiltration devices in lieu of a pond. He also states that a pond was utilized on the adjacent site presumably because of similar subsurface conditions. Based on these considerations we concur that the system proposed is a reasonable technical approach subj ect to County approval of the use of their drainage facilities. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. William J. Levandowski, P.E" MR. PALING-John, go back to Paragraph A, "Soils investigation..." What are we supposed to? MR. GORALSKI-Right. that. Basically the concluding paragraph explains MR. PALING-Does it take care of that A? MR. GORALSKI-Rist-Frost concurs with Passero Associates that they feel that this is, the proposed method of stormwater management is the preferred method. MR. PALING-All right, and then do you want to read the one from the transportation group? MR. GORALSKI-Sure. Okay. This is a letter from The Glens Falls Urban Area Transportation Council. "Dear Jim: Thank you for passing along the information about the CVS Pharmacy and other retail space that is proposed for the southwest corner of Quaker Road and Bay Roads. Quaker Road is one of the major corridors serving the Glens Falls Urbanized Area. It has been designed for limited access to adjacent parcels in order to move traffic efficiently through this area and carries over 23,000 vehicles per day. The visual exposure of the businesses given to this traffic makes this an attractive development site. It would be unfortunate if uncontrolled access from this road causes excessive congestion on Quaker Road. We have no other facilities in the Glens Falls area nor do we have the funds to build them. We are concerned about the access to this proposed development. The traffic signal at the Shop & Save Driveway is unfortunately close to the signal at Quaker and Bay Roads. We feel that there is not sufficient space for driveways between the two signals. We agree with your November 26, 1996 letter to Michael Brescha of Hannaford Brothers that the joint use of the Shop & Save driveways would provide the most efficient, safest, and least congestive access to the proposed development. We have run some preliminary trip generation based on - 28 - '- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) the sketch that you sent. These are attached. These numbers are high enough to warrant asking the developer to provide you with a traffic impact statement based upon the combination of the CVS Pharmacy, the additional maximum proposed development, and the Shop & Save Supermarket. Furthermore, any future development proposed for that area within 1/4 of a mile should also be asked for a traffic impact statement that would include the cumulative impact of the existing development as well as the proposed development. We would be glad to review these calculations when you receive them. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed development. Sincerely, Joanna Brunso Staff Director" I spoke to Joanna Brunso today. She did receive some traffic information from the applicant. However, she said she did not have time to review it. MR. PALING-Okay. So it's in DOT hands. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. If you want to stick with traffic, we have a letter from Warren County DPW. It's addressed to Jim Martin. "As you know, the County was extremely cooperative with Hannaford Brothers during their project with traffic signals (now maintained at no expense to them), dual entrances, etc. The Town Planning Board's concept of j oint use of their entrances would be most appropriate. The elimination of the corner lots entrances would be of a benefit to everyone. Please keep us informed of your progress. Very truly yours, Fred Austin, P. E. Superintendent DPW" And I think that's all I have. MR. PALING-Okay. I think at this point we can turn it back to the applicant, let them comment, and we'll come in to the rest of the stuff later. Is that okay? MR. LAPPER-Yes, and we appreciate that. I guess I would suggest that we start and have Norbert discuss the changes to the application, the changes to the site plan and the architectural changes that we made, after the comments from this Board at the workshop meeting. Okay. John Caruso will speak first about the site changes. We had a meeting that Jim Martin and John Goralski set up with a number of different people, including the Chairman of the Planning Board, to talk about site design and other pertinent issues, and as a result of that meeting and as a result of the Planning Board workshop meeting, we made a lot of changes. So John will start off talking about that. JOHN CARUSO MR. CARUSO-Good evening. I'm John Caruso. I'm the engineer on the project. Some of the site revisions that have been done as a result of the meeting between John and yourselves at the workshop is that the additional berming that's been requested has been added along the Quaker Road side. This was added in back of the detention pond area here. Also, we've increased a planted berm here or treed berm here, and an additional tree berm here. MR. LAPPER-Those two were added at the request of the Town Historian. To buffer the cemetery parcel, we added those. MR. CARUSO-They're probably not shown on the original set of plans that you have. This is a modification that we've added these tree plantings here, here, and this berm is all new in here. MR. PALING-Now the detention pond depth has not changed? MR. CARUSO-Right. The pond I s about three feet deep. This pond, by the way, is different than the pond that you see right here at Shop N' Save. This is going to be a grassed pond. It drains. It has a consistent slope through the pond all the way out so that it does drain dry. Okay. I've been before your Board before and I know - 29 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) that you like the infiltrators. The problem that we had with this is that there's a very high water table here, and I can't make the water go into the ground if it doesn't want to, and we found that out as a result of doing our geological study. We hired a Geotechnical Engineer, and as a result of doing the soil borings in here, we found that it's sand and silt six feet deep in the ground. We also found that the water table rises within a half a foot of the surface. So putting an infiltrator system in simply won't work at certain times of the year. MR. STARK-The trees that you're buffering the cemetery, how Ihigh are they? MR. CARUSO-They're a minimum of four to six feet. They're White Spruce, five to six feet minimum. MR. STARK-And they're a result of this meeting you had with everybody, that this had to be buffered and so on? MR. CARUSO-Yes. MR. STARK-Excuse me for a moment. John, why does this have to be buffered when, for years, the cemetery was there, nobody knew it was there, and it wasn't buffered then? Why does this have to be buffered now? MR. GORALSKI-We knew the cemetery was there. There's been ongoing. MR. STARK-You might have known it was there, but probably 90% of the people in Queensbury didn't know it was there. MR. PALING-Well, I think, also, that we might be using the wrong term when we're saying "buffered". I would look at it more as enhancing the appearance and the location of the cemetery and calling it to the attention of the public. I think it's more that purpose than it is to shield it. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. The point we were trying to bring out, and like I said, I just got this plan, so I haven't really studied it, is that the style of the existing building on the site, the barns and everything, basically was in keeping with the historic significance of that corner. Whether or not you or anyone else knew specifically what the historic significance of that corner was I'm not sure, but it is the last remaining parcel of the original Queensbury settlement. MR. CARUSO-Mr. Stark, there's been, since we were asked to show this, we've also been asked to see if we can do some additional enhancement in the buffer that we're providing, and I didn't get into that, because I didn't go around the site yet. I wanted to talk about how we did address the landscaping, but Norbert's been asked to do some embellishments over top of what I'd already proposed, and I want to let him speak about this issue, because I think the best of both worlds are being achieved here and then we can get on with this issue. NORBERT HAUSNER MR. HAUSNER-Can you guys see this little red dot? The top plan is basically an enlargement of John's plan, this dotted line that's right in here. That's the current line of the existing building. So that's the property line, and right about there, right there is where the monument is right now, okay. So the word buffer, I think mentioned in the Ordinance suggested that we keep 50 feet away from the cemetery and buffer it. What John's done in his plan, the landscape plan, is to, I think, to clarify, to buffer that from the existing development, to basically shield it, if you will. These are evergreen trees as proposed at this point, basically as a - 30 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) reaction to kind of our interpretation of verbiage. The thing on the bottom down here, our plan on the bottom, in the center here is the monument. It's still the same property line. That's the edge of the pond right there, and this is basically what we're suggesting at this point, if the intention is not to screen the cemetery but to basically bring it to your attention, if you didn't know it was there before, as respect for the history that it carries, obviously, we're suggesting at this point that we're required by Ordinance to keep this setback requirement. Currently, on the top side of this plan, you're going to notice that that dotted line right there is the actual line of the existing asphalt as it exists today. You could park a car right where that dot is. In our plan and John's plan here, we're moving that asphalt line considerably farther away from that, at that point of concern. This tree right there, is an existing tree that's right on the side of the building. It's actually right where that dot is, about 14 inches away from the side of the foundation. The plan here is to keep that tree, shown on John's plan here. It's right there in his foundation plan, and the crown of the tree is huge. It's about this big, and that's the pine tree that has some quite interesting characteristics to it. It's a pretty neat looking tree, actually, and the monument's right in that spot. We're saying at this point if the Board feels it's pertinent, we'd like to see this cemetery area kind of embellished. So there's many ways of accomplishing that. There's been some recommendations or suggestions that some of the existing construction on site, some of the sheds, for example, be relocated for their historical significance. We've looked at that. We've taken photo studies of·them and kind of tried to be as sensitive as possible to those concerns and really don't find any historical significance in those structures of that size. So what we're saying is that we want to, first of all, acknowledge the fact that this monument exists there and the history behind the cemetery, etc., etc., and possibly play up the focal point as the monument itself and the cemetery itself, and do what we can to, we're calling it a contemplation area here, but basically we're saying a brick paver area with a couple of benches and maybe a trellis of some kind that can be landscaped. It's a very passive recreational application. We don't think it's going to be like the major stopping point on the Northway or anything, but we think that, basically that, you know, for local significance, there certainly is a great deal of history here. That little trellis structure will be transparent. It's not a covered thing. It's just an open trellis, because again, we don't really see this thing being patronized, if you will, in inclement weather, which we have tonight. So a trellis of some kind, you know, heavy timber trellis, with wisteria or something that's flowering, growing over the top of it, a couple of park benches on it, and really we're taking the attitude, at this point, that we're not even going to connect that to the asphalt. We want it to be a gardeny type of effect, so that, again, this whole area is just a landscaped, basically a lawn with a monument in the center. MR. MACEWAN-Have you guys given any kind of thought to that little kind of area that you're talking about with the trellis and the benches, maybe coming up with some sort of park sign or something. MR. HAUSNER-Absolutely. It's a very good idea. CHRIS PEZNOLA MR. PEZNOLA-I think one of the things that we were thinking about, with the help of the Town Historian, would be to have maybe two or three separate plaques like you see at the zoo or in a park that describe some specific part of the history, and to create, we're not going to try and create any kind of a theme park here, but to give a little bit of history in three different areas within that contemplation area, whatever you want to call it, to just give a little more information than is currently there. Because I, - 31 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) personally, have stopped there and read what's on the plaque and the monument, and it doesn' t gi ve you, you know, we could do something a little bit more. MR. HAUSNER-Yes, it really doesn't, and we don't think that the traffic impact will be anywhere near, on this park as big as the Boomerang will be, either. I think one of the things I really want to bring to your attention is that all these plans are really effectively showing an increased setback, if you will, from the current, imaginary boundary line established about 30 some years ago, to create this S/10th of an acre parcel called the cemetery. So, this thing has been kind of determined through many, many, I mean if you read this Historian's comments, there's a great deal of history, obviously, about making sure that we keep this particular creation there and honor it, obviously. So we think that the most relevant way of doing that is to just keep it a little passive. Down play the structure, if you will, I mean, I shouldn't say this, but we don't want it to become a kid's hang out either, you know. We want it to be very transparent, and architecturally interesting and nice landscaping, and obviously keep the existing vegetation by doing that. I'm real surprised how this tree's managed to live that close to the foundation for this thing. MR. STARK-John, in your Staff Notes you made mention of the fact, the little shed in the back on the furtherly east side could be used for a utility shed. Were you thinking of a utility shed for the CVS for keeping your mowers in or something, or a utility shed for the cemetery? MR. GORALSKI-Originally, we thought it could be used for some type of an interpretive building or something like that for the cemetery. However, yesterday I was out there with a gentleman who restores barns for a living, and it was his opinion that that small shed was not a vintage building and that he also felt that the feasibility of actually moving the other buildings was actually very low, because the buildings have been, although the barns may be of vintage material, they are not original in that roots have been taken off, rafters have been changed, you know, (lost words) and beams have been changed. MR. STARK-Are you going to level them? MR. LAPPER-No. We've offered them to the Town, after our meeting with Jim, if somebody wants them. MR. PEZNOLA-Actually, I got a call from a private individual who mentioned that she might want one, and we're happy to give it to whoever wants it, whether it's the Town or an individual. MR. STARK-Whoever shows up and takes it. MR. PEZNOLA-First come, first serve. MR. LAPPER-Well, we will offer it to the Town first, if somebody wants it, but we were very pleased that John was able to get somebody in so quickly to do an analysis, and we just heard today for the first time as you did that there may not be a lot of historical integrity to the buildings because parts have been changed. So perhaps they're not so historically valuable, but they're available to be relocated. There was discussion of moving one to the Hovey Pond Park and, you know, we support that, and they're available. MR. PALING-Probably a smaller one if it goes to Hovey Pond, I guess. I wouldn't want a big one out there, I don't think. MR. GORALSKI-Well, the big one is actually, there's actually three sections to it. The front twelve feet was put on, what I would say - 32 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) would be considered fairly recently, say maybe the farthest back that the gentleman I had there yesterday said was no earlier than say the 1940's. So that, obviously, doesn't relate to historic significance of this site. Then the middle section of the large barn he said probably was the original barn that was there, although it may not have originally been built there. It may have been moved to that spot. However, the rafters in that building did not appear to be the original rafters from the barn. Then, as you go back again, there's a third section. There's a twelve foot section, then a three bay section then another three bay section. That back three bay section, the bottom post and beam section is different from the other three bay section. However, it does look as if it's vintage 1860, and then the gambrel roof that was put on, it would be a later period. He said possibly turn of the century. So it's kind of a hodge podge of different barn architecture. MR. MACEWAN-So this is a barn that's really gone through, through its history and through its lifespan and through a lot of major renovations in it. MR. HAUSNER-Absolutely. MR. MACEWAN-How does that, in this guy's opinion, work out to the historical significance or the value of the barn itself? MR. GORALSKI-His opinion was that these are, there are sections of those barns that were vintage 1860 or so and have historic significance as far as barns go. He said, however, that due to the condition of them and the fact that they've been taken apart and put back together in different sections, it would be a major undertaking to disassemble and reassemble any portion of them, and that it would take a lot of, they would have to get a lot of additional materials, go out and find new posts, new pearlings, new rafters, things like that. MR. MACEWAN-Not only are you looking at great expensive man hours to do it, but to find the authentic materials to replace what has to be replaced? MR. GORALSKI-Right. It would be very expensive. MR. MACEWAN-The cost would outweigh the historical value? MR. GORALSKI-Well, you know what he told me when he left? He said there are a lot of nice barns in Queensbury, and you could probably find a lot nicer one to move to a Town park. MR. PALING-Well, I think that we can leave that part of it to the point that if the Town wants, they're going to approach the applicant, but if they don't, then the applicant will be disposing of them as they see fit. MR. PEZNOLA-Yes, and it is more than likely that a lot of the materials will go to some place other than just to a dump somewhere. MR. HAUSNER-Right. The historical value of that building, because it's many generations of renovations may be in parts. I mean, the beams, in some cases, may end up in somebody's living room, and therefore carryon the history of that barn. Parts are parts, you know. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Okay. How about back to the site plan. MR. GORALSKI - I discussion, we think, if I could, you know, when we had our talked about basically building on the historic - 33 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) significance of the cemetery and the site, and creating some type of a park like setting. So maybe more people in the future will realize what the significance of this site is, and I think they've achieved that on that bottom plan there. MR. PALING-Yes, it looks very good. MR. LAPPER-Thanks. MR. HAUSNER-And I'd just like to further one thing. You notice how these pines, which are, there's more of them than what John put here. We are more liberal in our stamping methodologies, but the clusters are what we think would be much more effective as groupings of trees, so that you get that transparency and you can see through that, both from a retail perspective, for the tenants here, obviously, because I don't think that it's anybody's intent to hide these buildings that we're building. We just want to soften them, so that they kind of melt into the environment. So the groupings are done for a purpose, so that, basically, this'll be a park setting, as opposed to a buffer, which occurs here. We'd like to see this happen down here. MR. LAPPER-And we're offering that as an amendment to the plan, in response to what's been asked. So that would just be on the final plan. MR. STARK-Do you want to get to the traffic? TIM TRAINER MR. TRAINER-I'm going to get to that. So we're all set with this? We're not opposed to the Board, if you wish, to set that as a condition of the revision. We plan to do it anyway, but to ensure. That would be fine. I'll just go around the site real quick, and then we'll get into, because I think the biggest issue that I want to discuss with you is the traffic engineering, and what we've evaluated on that. First of all, you know that we plan to utilize the existing entrances. We plan, also, to light the entire perimeter of the site with freestanding anodized light poles. They're very architecturally pleasing. They've been set back to illuminate the parking lot with up to three foot candles, which is, you're probably looking at about 40 to 50 foot candles in here now, but the lighting is very adequate. There is a complete loop access around, so that there is emergency and fire and tractor trailer delivery and dumpster pick up access. The dumpsters and compactors are located behind the building. They are also screened in enclosures, and there was a comment in the Staff's letter, I don't know if it was o~erlooked, but there is 12 white spruce that have been proposed to screen that as requested. So not only are they in their own enclosure, but they're also screened here, and I'd like to point out that it's not shown on our plan, but this whole Shop N' Save green space is all landscaped. So we really would be enhancing that along as we go. The utilities service the site, the sewer, water and drainage has already been addressed through the Town Engineer's report and his comments. There is water for the site. We're going to be bringing a six inch water line in. We're going to be putting a fire hydrant in front of the building for fire protection, and the building's going to be constructed of such materials that it does not need to be sprinklered. However, there is adequate size of water service being brought in, but if they need to sprinkle, they can. We have a letter from the Town of Queensbury Water Department, from Tom Flaherty. IIWe have reviewed the utility plans relating to the water services. If the construction is carried out in accordance with the plans dated November 1996 such installation meets with the approval of the water department. II So we do have the Water Department's approval. We have the Town Engineer's approval, and with respect to the sanitary sewer, there is a sanitary sewer on site. We have - 34 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) proposed a connection to that. Mike Shaw, who's the Deputy Director, wrote us a letter on the 19th indicating, "Thank you for addressing my comments on your plan for sanitary sewer comments." That's in your packet that I've seen. "I find that all my comments have been addressed satisfactorily. If I can be of any further assistance, please call. So we have sewer approval, sewer, water, drainage by the Town Engineer. We feel that some of the comments that came out of the meetings that Jon Lapper has had with the Staff, that we've addressed the landscaping issue on the quantity that was asked for and spacing. We've also done the landscaping to the materials that they were looking for, the deciduous type trees being planted along the perimeter to match the other type deciduous, and also sticking some deciduous trees in the islands around the perimeter. I believe at the workshop, was it the workshop you were at, that the discussion to provide additional parking areas but not construct them? That's also shown on your site plan, where that was left as grass, but there is room to install the additional parking. MR. PALING-John, the dimensions of the parking spaces, are they in conformance with the new long range plan measurements? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. PALING-They are, and I think we already discussed that it would either be concrete or granite where any curbing is involved. MR. GORALSKI-Right. We discussed that. MR. PEZNOLA-We have all concrete. MR. GORALSKI-I have just a question on the spaces that are closest to the road, where you're now putting the berm and the plantings. What would you propose would happen should it become necessary to add those parking spaces? MR. PEZNOLA-Well, yes, we could move the berm forward, or we could move the berm forward now and leave it more open. MR. GORALSKI-I mean, I'd just as soon have the berm up along the parking now, but I just want to be sure that if those parking spaces become necessary, that that berm is going to be reconstructed, you know, so that it's still screening the parking spaces. MR. MACEWAN-Moved, basically? MR. GORALSKI-Right. It would be moved closer to Quaker Road. MR. LAPPER-We could stipulate that, or that could be conditioned. MR. MACEWAN-If they had to put those additional parking spaces in, at a future date, would they have to come back in for site plan approval? MR. GORALSKI-No. MR. MACEWAN-That's something you would just do as Staff? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. MACEWAN-Should we make that part of any recommendation, that that berm would remain? MR. LAPPER-It would be relocated. MR. GORALSKI-It would be relocated so that you would still have the same berm buffering the parking spaces. - 35 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) MR. MACEWAN-Would we have to put that in the motion, or would that go without saying? MR. GORALSKI-I would recommend that you put that in the motion. MR. HAUSNER-I just wanted to say that in the event the parking demands have increased from what's currently asphalt, that probably would be done in phases, and the first one that would happen would be this where it wouldn't conflict with the berm itself. So, you're going to grab, I don't know how many spaces are there, John? MR. CARUSO-Nine. MR. HAUSNER-There's going to be nine spaces, automatically, so if it ever happened, it would be down the road. MR. TRAINER-Okay. I'd like to address access in the traffic engineering report that we've done. The plan shows an alternate access location here and here, in alignment with the thoroughfare on this project. There is no doubt that that is a preferential traffic flow pattern, and, you know, we would like to see this also have the ability to use these alternate locations. However, the reality is that we don't have permission to do that. We don't own the land. We can't just tie in, otherwise we would. We know it's an issue, just like everything else that we've made go away on this by meeting with people and trying to work this out. That's also been set into motion, but we just haven't been given the approval by these people to tie in. What we've tried to indicate on the plan is that there is an alternative, and that we are willing to agree that if we are further successful on getting them to allow us to tie in to the loop road that they own, that we will remove the curb cuts that are there now. Now what that means to us is that we'll have to soft cut the pavement straight across, remove the pavement in this area all the way to the shoulder, and plant grass there. There's an expense involved. There's also an expense involved for us to excavate, construct these new entrances, and put curbing in, because we plan to curb them to protect them. Otherwise, these areas start to break down from people's wheels missing. That expense is something that we're willing to guarantee, in the approval, just as we can guarantee to move this. MR. LAPPER-That would be something that you could stipulate as a condition, that even if we can't get the approval at this point, that if in a year or two years, if the Town or the County are able to get that, that we would do the work and spend the money. MR. PALING-Right. MR. PEZNOLA-Yes, and the last time I was here I tried to get this point across, and I think I did, but it's worth mentioning again. It's important that we not, that there not be the possibility that this were conditioned upon the new curb, the circulation with the Hannaford project, because if that is the case, then we lose any kind of leverage that we might have had with them. If the project is approved, then it's a different set of issues that they're dealing with. They know the project's going to be built. It's an issue of, you know, is it better for both projects, but if they know that they have the hammer over keeping this project from being built, then we're dealing without any sort of leverage. MR. TRAINER-And unfortunately, that's the recommendation from Staff. Although they've given us some good input, they say that they can't support the project in what we plan to do unless the Board forces us to do that, and that's exactly what Chris is saying. We lose all dealing. MR. LAPPER-We have no legal right to do that, for one thing, but more importantly, we think that the project, we know that the - 36 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) project will work with the existing Doyle's curb cuts, and that's what we want to talk about. MR. TRAINER-Okay. We've talked about the alternate access points which is a preference to us, and that we will be willing to eliminate the asphalt in these areas and continue this full 75 to 50 foot grass strip through here if we're allowed to do that. What we did, from Day One when we started to evaluate this project, is we went out and we drove the curb cuts. We saw how they operated during some of the busy times. We immediately realized that this was close to this intersection. We also realized that when cars are stacked up here, this left turn movement out of this curb cut, which is allowable now, is difficult. So in our dealings with Warren County, talking about potential curb cuts and traffic incidents, we, right away, recommended that we weren't going to allow a left turn and what we said that we would do is install a restrictive island here, which only allowed right turns out, and I believe that's shown on the current plan, though it is, it's shown now. It's shown now on this plan here. So what we're currently planning to do is to construct an island here that will not allow left turn vehicles out in this area. That will remove, totally, the conflict with the stacking lane here. You will be allowed to come this way and turn in. You'll also be allowed to do right turns in, but you won't be able to go out left, but you will be able to go out right. Furthermore, this existing intersection remains unobstructed. MR. MACEWAN-Say that part again? You're allowing turns left bound? MR. PEZNOLA-Right in, right out, and left in. MR. TRAINER-Right. To exit the site, a right turn is only allowed. MR. PALING-Okay. You can't left turn into it from Quaker? MR. TRAINER-Yes, you can. So it's left turn exit restricted only. MR. GORALSKI-The only thing you cannot do is make a left turn out. MR. TRAINER-Right. You can't make a left turn out of here. MR. PALING-You can't make a left turn out. MR. TRAINER-Yes, because you're going to plug the whole thing up. You're going to be waiting for this left turn to queue out. If you want to go straight, you're going to cross over into traffic with the guy who's trying to turn left in here. It's a conflict traffic movement. It doesn't work. We recognized it fr~m Day One, and if you look at any of the comments from Warren County regarding this plan, nowhere do they ask us to restrict this, because we offered it up when we first started dealing with it. We knew that it didn't work. MR. MACEWAN-Then the west bound turn coming in, you're going to utilize that existing turning lane from Shop N' Save's Plaza? MR. LAPPER-That's right. MR. MACEWAN-The west bound turning in will utilize the Shop N' Save's existing turn lane. MR. TRAINER-Right, which anyone in that lane is already committed to turning left, okay. So, it does work out good for us. Now, what really works out good for us if we're allowed to come in here, because then we have two feeders to one coordinated signal light, and that's ideal, but in lieu of that, this is an alternate design. We evaluated the traffic out here in the a.m. peak hour and the p.m. peak hour. We determined that the p.m. peak hour in this - 37 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) intersection had much higher volumes than the morning. So, instead of evaluating very low development traffic, if you'll see in there, I saw they ran some trip generation numbers for you, you'll find that there's not a lot of traffic generated from these things at 7:30 in the morning. Most of the retail stores don't open until 10. So you really want to look at the p.m. peak hour when people are driving by the CVS, when they're coming to the retail store, and the p.m. peak hour is where you will find the worst case scenario. I will tell you that it is very unfair to a developer to do a traffic study at this time of the year, because we come into something, a phenomenon called "Seasonal Variation". Traffic volumes on the road this time of year can be up to 25% higher than what they normally are. The traffic that we evaluated on this road, when we took and generated the traffic from this, we added it on top of that existing traffic that we counted just a few days ago. We did not deduct the seasonal variation, which we are allowed to do, and there is a number that shows you how to go in and if you count 500 cars here an hour, and you know you're up 25%, you do a 25% deduction, and the new car volume is 375, and that's something that you'd see on a normal time. We didn't do that. We didn't take that credit that was allowed to us. The other credit that we were allowed to us in our traffic study was that of the traffic that's generated to the site, some of the traffic is already on the road. You may be coming home and turn in and get yourself something and then continue going back. That's called a pass by credit. You're already on the road. You're not someone who went out on the road to come here, although that does exist. We didn't take that credit either, and in doing so, we evaluated the traffic that's generated from this site on top of all those sort of conservative numbers, and ran an intersection capacity analysis, here, here, and here, to show you how, under the projected operation, what the level of service you would expect here. We also ran one on the existing operation of the intersection, so you could compare the before and after results. That's what you'll see as a summary in your packet. Your document isn't as thick as mine, because I have the full one, but you'll see on the second page, there's a list of attachments that were sent to the regional engineers who I wanted to review this. The people that were requesting the traffic study did receive it. Does everybody have this? Because I've brought some extra copies for you. What I did for the Board's review and the reviewer's review of this was to put it all in a quick summary, what the project was, what we did, what credits we didn't take, and that we're really looking at a worst case scenario here, and you can see that the first letter that you see under Level of Service, would be existing. The second letter you can see is the proposed. So right side by side you have the comparison. Does everybody have a copy to see that? Did you find yours? Okay. So you can see right side by side what the existing level of service is and what the proposed level of service is, after we add all the different traffic to this. MR. PALING-I'm sorry. I've got existing here. MR. TRAINER-The first page, the heading above says "Existing , 96/Future" . MR. PALING-And the second column is the future. MR. TRAINER-The first letter that you see is the existing, the second letter is the proposed, okay. This is the level of service per lane. MR. PALING-You're not changing anything. MR. TRAINER-And the per lane, if I could show you with my finger, per lane is per each lane. This is the level of service of how each car's lane works. Then they give you a little broader scope. - 38 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) Here's the level of service on each approach to the intersection. Then they give you even more broader scope, the level of service of the entire intersection, when evaluated all the ones before. MR. PALING-And nothing changes? MR. TRAINER-Exactly. MR. MACEWAN-Were your entire calculations submitted to Staff? MR. GORALSKI-Those were submitted to Staff today. We have not had time to review them. MR. PALING-No, and we sure haven't, either. MR. GORALSKI-And the Glens Falls Transportation Council has not had time to review those. MR. LAPPER-That was only requested of us a few days ago. I mean, otherwise, it would have been in earlier. MR. MARTIN-There's nothing meant by that. I'm just saying that time has not been, like for example, what are the, it says the ITE Trip Generation manual was used, but what chapter out of that manual was used and what considerations were used? I mean, there's shopping centers of many and varying different types within that manual that a person like Joanna has the expertise to review. If you will recall, especially some of the senior members of the Board,. we got caught in a little problem with Red Lobster. The trip generation numbers vary greatly with how you classify it. So, you know, there's a lot of detail behind these numbers that needs to be given. MR. STARK-You're showing us this. I haven't the slightest idea what it means. Plain and simple. Now, Jim, Joanna Brunso called for this, okay, she called for a traffic study (lost words) for the Wal-Mart. Never had a problem with Wal-Mart. You've never seen any traffic up there backed up for this or that. She wanted a traffic study for up there. She wanted a traffic study for this, and I can't see, you know, Craig just said, well, we want Joanna Brunso to study this. Is she holding an ax over our head again about withholding money for' any future projects if we don't acquiesce to what she recommends, or what? What she's done in the past. MR. MARTIN-No. I don't think that's the case at all. I just think we have some opportunity there for some, you know, expert review and we should access it, and I will say, George, when she has reviewed things in the past, changes have been made to plans, and that's why things do work well. There were a lot of changes made to the Super K project, for example, that took two meetings with the County Planning Staff during the day that this Board was not privy to, but you had the results of those meetings, and there are a lot of nuances that can be made to transportation planning that can mean a great deal. MR. STARK-Okay. Again, if she was to be here tonight, say she had a chance to review this, what changes could she make? MR. MARTIN-I don't know. I'm not a traffic engineer. MR. MACEWAN-I don't think it's a fair question to ask. Give her a chance to review it. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, if we could just take a step back from all the empirical numbers at this point, the interesting situation here is that we've got an existing pre-developed site with existing curb cuts, and Quaker Road, as we all know, was just expanded two or - 39 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) three years ago to five lanes, left turn lanes. We've got five lanes at the corner of Bay. I mean, this is one of the most modernized intersection we have in Town. So in terms of what we're doing here, we're talking about the difference between what Doyle's peak hour and what this would be at peak hour, but we have an existing situation. The curb cut, with people making left turns, which we're already talking about restricting has already been existing at Doyle's has been there for all these years. When the Shop N' Save was put in and the traffic light was put in 100 feet away or whatever it is, that was all approved and that's been that way. Shop N' Save's been there for probably nine years, eight years. There hasn't been a problem, and Quaker Road's just been upgraded, updated. MR. WEST-We didn't do any restrictions on Aldi's when they came in for their site plan review. MR. GORALSKI-I think the thing that you have to realize here is the reason that, well, the reason that we feel that these road cuts have a potential to be hazardous, and I think the reason that GFTC felt that way is because you're significantly changing the use that's taking place on the property. You're going from a garden center that had a marginal amount of traffic coming in and out of it, to a convenient/pharmacy/retail center that's going to have a lot more traffic' coming in and out of there, and with the proximity to the intersections, I think it warrants a close look. MR. MACEWAN - I don' t think we ought to be jumping the gun here either. I mean, if this is all part of the process, I don't think we're in a position, I'm speaking for myself here, to give an approval to this project tonight. I mean, you've got to let the system work and let everything go through it's course. I mean, if we sent all this information over to Rist-Frost and had them go through everything, that your stormwater was adequate, why not send it to the professionals in traffic and make sure they feel okay about it. I mean, there's no guarantee we have to take whatever recommendations she should pass along anyway, but you've got to let it go through it's course and let them take a look at it. MR. PALING-All right. Well, lets move on. We'll come back to it. It's a point I think we've all got valid thoughts on, but lets move ahead. MR. WEST-Are we done with traffic? I just wanted to ask Staff the question, what's going on with Hannaford Brothers and the other roads? Is there any new developments there? MR. MARTIN-We made the best attempt we could, and the answer from Hannaford to us was flat out, no. MR. WEST-Okay. MR. MARTIN-I've asked Tim Trainer. I don't know what the status of his inquiries are, but he's been, from the outset, most cooperative. He has some contacts that he uses all the time, and he was going to see what those bore out, and I don't know what the update on that is, if anything, but we have been told flat out, no, and I'll go on the record as I'm not very appreciative of the method in which we were treated. MR. LAPPER-By Hannaford? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-I would like to go on the record and say I'm extremely disappointed, and I would hope that they would want to be a good business neighbor, and to go to this course, I'm very disappointed in their response. - 40 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) MR. MARTIN-Well, I think the tone of the letter from the County and the superintendent there was, the Town and the County went to great lengths to accommodate their needs when they were coming to Town. MR. MACEWAN-Absolutely. I think a message should be sent to these folks, should they ever want to come in for additional site plan activity over there, that we would be looking to have this interconnect made. MR. GORALSKI-It would be required by the Zoning Ordinance if they ever came in for another site plan approval. MR. MARTIN-That's why, before we leave that interconnection issue, I would say at a minimum, if this does not ever bear out, we should have, built into the deed for this property, an easement at these locations that will accommodate this interconnection, should we ever get that future opportunity, whether it be 10 years away. MR. PALING-That'll be done. Is there any other comments you want to add? MR. PEZNOLA-Actually, Tim and I have been working together in trying to communicate with Hannaford Brothers. These are competing uses. They have a pharmacy. This is a new pharmacy. They have not returned any phone calls that we've made, and my understanding, or what I would surmise is that they would have, they would like to see this project not go forward, in that it is in their best interest to be uncooperative, in that that may have an impact on whether the project is approved, and I think that's their stand, is if they say no, maybe there's a chance that the Board would either deny it or the Board would say it's okay if you can get the curb cut and then they know they've got the leverage. MR. PALING-All right. MR. TRAINER-I'd like to just spend five more minutes on talking about the traffic, and then we'll move on. The full blown traffic analysis was submitted to the people who had requested it. Jim, we just gave you a copy of the summary, so as not to bore you with all of the technical data. However, we did include on the second page and summary of all the inclusions that went with this, which did include the trip generation, and inside the trip generation calculations, it addressed all that you brought up a minute ago, of not being there. So, it is addressed, and you'll also be happy to find that it matches the recommended trip generation computation that they gave in there. They used a computer generated one. We used the ITE book reference itself, but I think John was talking a minute ago. What we found in the results of our traffic study was no great revelation. It was something the County has determined years ago, when they decided to upgrade this. When the County decides to upgrade the road and do more traffic improvements in there, they do a study. They take any piece of land along here that's not developed and they assume that it's developed. They generate all sorts of traffic, and they try to look out, 10 and 20 years into the future, of what are the traffic requirements going to be on this road, and in doing so, they allow the number of lanes they need to satisfy that, and the signal light and signal timings and all that good stuff to give future capacity. So I'm not surprised that when we come along and we take and add our developed traffic on to the existing road and find that we're getting levels of service Band C, which is excellent, because it's just like a grade, marks in grade school as A through F. If you get a level of service A, it's excellent, and F is failure. Well, we're getting levels of service Band C at the worst time, with all those worst conditions that I talked about earlier. What that means is, the County's plan and their proposed improvements that they did three years ago are working, and they're supposed to work because they've already accounted for it. So what I've done is I've proved that - 41 - ~~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) their previous work is working, and there's more capacity for improvement, and that's why they say in their letter, in the future, you should continue to check with a traffic study other developments that go on and how it effects other intersections in the area, so that they find a certain saturation point some time when their capacity needs to be improved again, okay, and that's all I'll have to say there. The ultimate findings of our study have proved what the County has already done. MR. PALING-Okay. George, go ahead. MR. STARK-John and Jim, if what they say is true, and they did the traffic study on a few days notice and so on, and everything, Joanna Brunso looks at this, what do you think she's going to say when she receives this traffic study and studies it? MR. GORALSKI-I have no idea what she's going to say. She may say that you shouldn't have any left turns out on Bay Road. She may say you may, I'm not sure what she's going to say. I'm not a traffic engineer. MR. PALING-What kind of time frame do you think we're looking at, then, to hear from her? MR. GORALSKI-She called me at four o'clock this afternoon when she got back to her office and first saw it. She said that she would be in tomorrow morning between eight and twelve. She'd be willing to talk to mysel~ or Jim or the consultants here and try to get it all ironed out, and she felt that she could probably do it tomorrow. MR. PALING-We could probably do something pending the results of the meeting, too. MR. GORALSKI-I don't see how you could. MR. PALING-Well, we've got a long way to go on this tonight. So lets just. MR. PEZNOLA-So let me move on. As far as site goes, I guess I've talked about all the screening and things that we've done. Why don't we move on to the building. MR. LAPPER-I just have one final traffic comment. I was noticing last week when I was up at the Mobil station, up at the corner of Aviation and Route 9, that there's a sign that says "No Left Turn" out, but it's not, the curbing that John has done here is completely different. It will force people to go right. MR. TRAINER-We've done this before, and it very much works. There's just no way you can do it. It's a curb about this high. I'm going to turn it over to Norbert who will talk about some of the building changes that were done. MR. HAUSNER-Okay. We met before you folks a while back and showed you an elevation that we had, we're projecting to use here on this site, based on the CVS prototype, which basically we're doing on the Queensbury, we call it Queensbury One site. It's under construction right now and very pleasing to the eye, because it's all below ground at this point. Basically what we're doing here is we've tried to implement some of the comments and concerns that came back from Staff and also from you folks during the meeting last week. We got some comments in graphic form back from the Staff, and we've kind of looked them over and scrutinized them. I guess you could say we've taken a position on them, at this point, and we've gone back into our drawings, and I don't know if you have the old ones here, but it's really kind of irrelevant at this point. What I want to show you here is what I think we're doing - 42 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) here to try to bring this building into even more of a residential character than the CVS has to begin with as a prototype. This is a blow up, right here, of this end of the building. What we've done to try to increase the pedestrian scale of the multi tenant portion of this building is to divide it up with these pilasters. What you're looking at on the elevation that you're seeing here where it's Jo Jo's Harleys, and you've got to just take these with a grain of salt, some of these names. It gets boring in an architectural office. We have these pilasters which are basically between these tenant separations, and what we've done is taken the extrusions of the windows. Now, normally, it's a wood frame building here, but normally in a retail application you're used to seeing an anodized bronze type of window. The CVS application uses an enameled, white window. This is a piece of enameled white, pure white, aluminum. It's anodized all the way through, so it doesn't scratch off. It's hard to render in a sketch that's hard to render in a sketch that's this size, but what we're using is that same enameled finish all the way down the building. I'll pass these pictures down. This is a building similar that we did on Long Island, and it has some of these same elements on it. You'll notice the coining on the top of the building here in some of those shots when you see it. You'll also notice these five (lost word) panels that are underneath the building. That building was just opened about two weeks ago or something like that. So anyway, we've taken the historical character, if you will, of the divided light window that you see on the corner of the current building that's there and brought that into our plan, with using a divided light plan over here. Some people refer to them as French style windows. I'm not really sure why, but basically these are muntins that are on the inside panes of the glass, they kind of will give you the illusion of a true divided light. All the extrusions will be that white aluminum. The same dental band runs the full length of the building. The CVS itself has a small mansard down here on the end here that'll continue all the way down the building. Now, again, the protrusion from the window plane to the edge of the sign plane is roughly two feet here. The pilaster, so it's not a walk through canopy. It's not a covered type of application. It's basically, if you look at the end of the drawing, you can see where Timster's Toys here sticks out about the size of a pilaster. So it's really nothing that you can walk under. Quite different, frankly, than the CVS entrance, which does pop out from the building, okay. So it adds a position of prominence on the site that CVS itself does. As you walk down that same soldier brick technique that you can see in those little photos that I showed you are used along the under side of the window plane. We think that brick is, frankly, one of the most expensive materials that you can use on an application like this, and you probably won't find too many of these retail applications with them, material selection as lavish as this is. We've gone through what we think to be considerable pains to put some divided entablatures above the top of the windows to give you an idea, a little bit more residential, a bit more frosting, if you will, give it a little colonial feeling to it, without trying to be something that it isn't. It's still a retail location. We're just trying to give it elements, if you will, of scale to give you a more pedestrian feel to it. We've taken that same CVS entablature here where the hip roof works, and turned all the corners with it, because now, as you see, on the site plan, the CVS piece that's here because that's where the prototype shows that we've put a smaller little brother of that tower over here in the corner and one as well over here on this side, and that's what you can see. This is the end elevation that faces the other side street, and you can see that the cost of those things are quite considerable to the developer, but very important to make this building turn on all sides. We don't, I mean, we're kind of somewhat speculating that this would be the maximum exposure of tenants in the building. So what you're seeing here is the most signs that you could ever see under any application, but you're also seeing, as suggested here, is that the signage band is - 43 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) white, and the signs themselves are illuminated red. So there is a consistency. So they're not large, small, all different sizes. They're just kind of a conscientious effort to organize those signs. The other drawing that you see in your package is the rear view. One thing this developer does is take that same coining technique and the facade treatments that are on the front of the building and bring them all the way around the back, too, so the backs of the buildings don't really look anywhere near as bad as some other buildings do. You can see here the coining still is taking place here. The soldier courses are taking place, the mansard roof on the efface on this area, even the back doors are not flush metal doors. They're six panel doors, so that, those are service doors and they have still a good look to them. On this side over here, CVS does allow you to use an awning over the drive through, as their prototype, but because this building has such a considerable position of prominence and we hope that the loop road will be utilized here, we're going to use their modified drive through, which is using that dental scheme on the building, and the brick piers and things of that nature going all the way around it. We think we're going in the right direction. We hope you agree to it. We're going to be proud of it if you allow us to build it. I'm open to any questions. You saw the pictures. Those are some brick colors. Those are, if you want to touch them, that's what they feel like. CVS does have a type of brick which they demand. The pictures that you've seen there are of that Babylon site in Long Island. That's a brick that we kind of, through negotiations with that municipality, they liked a different style of brick, and we were able to talk CVS into modifying it into the other one. That's a blended brick, they call it. It's a variegated look, but that's the brick that CVS likes to use. So that's the brick that we're suggesting at this point. The other brick is, it's hard to see when you 10Qk at one brick on the sample. MR. PALING-That looks different. That looks more subdued than this, but that's a picture of this? MR. HAUSNER-That brick right there, that brick is the brick that's on the sample, but you're seeing one brick, and a blended pattern has, probably 80% of that brick that's on there, and that has some whites thrown in and some blacks thrown in. It's supposed to look kind of distressed, if you will, with all different colors. The Babylon photos that we showed you were of a homogeneous brick color, one solid pattern, which is, brought some other brick colored samples here. So obviously there's a lot of different options suggested. CVS brick is the one you're seeing in that one last shot I showed you there. I think that's about it, for me. MR. STARK-What do you call the shingle pattern on the top? MR. HAUSNER-The shingle pattern? It's architectural shingles, kind of an aggravated shingle, so it's supposed to look like slate. MR. STARK-That's what you call it, an aggravated shingle? MR. HAUSNER-Yes. It's a double, you might be able to see it better in this shot. It's an architectural shingle. It basically is done in different tiers, a normal three in one shingle lays flat and it's kind of icy (lost words). These shingles, what I mean by aggravated is they have some depth to them, so they're a little bit more three dimensional like a slate roof might be. That's the intent there. MR. STARK-How high is the cupola on the CVS? MR. HAUSNER-The top of this very peak here, 34 feet, 33 feet, something like that. We're going to get a balloon over there. MR. PEZNOLA-You can't see any of the (lost word) units. You can't - 44 - '-- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) see any of the mechanical units on this building from street level. They're all hidden by the mansard roof. MR. PALING-Okay. Now, John, all the engineering comments have been addressed. We've talked about traffic. We've talked about appearance. Okay. I think all of the technical things have been addressed. MR. MACEWAN-Just one question. Are you satisfied with the position on that detention pond, the mechanics of the working? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. Based on Rist Frost's comments, yes. MR. PALING-Yes. Now, can we move into the other areas of archeology and historic, unless anyone else has any other comments, or Staff? Is this okay with you folks, we do that? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Do you want to comment on it first? MR. LAPPER-Yes. To start with, the history that we were provided with, by the Town Historian, Marilyn, was very interesting, and one thing that we learned was that the issue of delineation of the cemetery parcel was at issue in 1960 when the Doyle's were sued by the Quaker Friends, and that litigation was settled with the delineation of the present boundary of the cemetery. So in terms of the issue of disturbing the cemetery itself. It is most likely that what they agreed on then and has remained was the proper delineation. The building, the Doyle's building right now, is far closer to the cemetery than what we would be doing. That tree that we were talking about that's right next to the foundation, we would be removing that building and filling that in with dirt and grass to maintain that 50 foot buffer. So in terms of respecting the cemetery parcel itself, all of our building is going to take place on the other side of the site, farther from wher~ the Doyle's have already constructed. We're also not talking about an undeveloped site here. We're talking about a fully developed site with a series of buildings and the parking lot, which is all very close to that cemetery parcel. That's a big distinction from when you're going in with a site that has not been previously excavated. In one of the letters from Marilyn, right here, the December 16th letter, before John Caruso was aware that there was an archeological/historical issue to be discussed, he went in and had soil borings done so that he could determine for the stormwater design, and I've got a map which will show you, which shows nine test holes that were done on the site, and these nine test holes didn't indicate anything, any kind of fragments, anything other than soil. They are in the area not where the Doyle's building is, obviously, which has already been excavated, but in the back along Bay Road and the back where we would be excavating for this building. MR. TRAINER-This is a map of the Geotechnical Engineering study, and inside it is a map of where the borings were that he conducted, down to six feet. Some are down to 15 feet. MR. MACEWAN-Diameter? MR. TRAINER-The auger, I think it explains it in there. I'm not quite sure what size auger. MR. WEST-Did you bring a rig in to do it? MR. TRAINER-Yes. MR. WEST-About three or four inches, three inches? - 45 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) MR. TRAINER-Yes, probably. MR. WEST-These borings indicate ground water at a depth of about five feet. You said the table comes up as high as? MR. LAPPER-As one foot. MR. TRAINER-Within a half a foot of the surface, and down as deep as six feet. MR. WEST-That's quite a fluctuation. MR. LAPPER-The letter of December 16th from MarilYn VanDyke recommended that we retain an archeologist to come up with a plan, in the event that any artifacts were uncovered during construction, and we would propose that we would undertake that as a condition of the approval, that we would come up with a plan from an archeologist that would be subject to the Planning Staff's approval. MR. PALING-Okay. December 19th. Now, you're saying December 16th. I have a MR. LAPPER-Well, there's two. December 16th had the recommendation that I'm responding to. MR. PALING-Okay. I wonder if we could, could we hear from Marilyn first on this issue? MR. LAPPER-Sure. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. We'll open the public hearing on this matter, to be official on it. Go ahead. I don't think we've had a chance to read your letter. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARILYN VANDYKE MRS. VANDYKE-The earlier letter was filed in the earlier part of the week, but there was a letter that was also filed today. The first letter was prepared by myself and the Chair of our Historian's Advisory Committee, which is a new Committee in the Town and that's headed by Eleanor Oudekerk, who's also, and I'm Marilyn VanDyke, the Town Historian. I think this is a very good time and a nice opportunity for us to take a look at the historical aspect of this site, before we get on into the actual development and the approval for it because we really need to understand what happened here and why it is different than probably any other place in the entire Town. When the Town of Queensbury was first established under the Queensbury patent in 1762, and then later subsequently the following year surveyed, the Town was divided up into a series of lots and there was a Town plot that was designed in the plan that is slightly north and to the east of what is now currently called the cemetery, and in this area, which is now the cemetery, was Lot No. 49, and Lot No. 49 was five acres in size. The current cemetery, marked Delineation, is approximately five tenths of an acre. So we have to ask ourselves what happened in terms of the definition of "a Cemetery" and the property of the earlier period. Nehemiah Merritt projected his deed to the Wing family for the purpose of establishing a cemetery and a meeting house and school. The word "Meeting House" in the Quaker verbiage, means a church. So there was to be a church and a school and the single building doubled for both purposes, and it was subsequently built somewhere on this site. We do not know the exact location. We do know that the building was 20 feet by 30 feet, and that it had windows that were in the upper portion of it and it was most likely a log structure. Over time, it apparently went into disuse - 46 - '''---'- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) and disappeared and newer church buildings were built in the community. Around 1767, about five years into the s~ttle~ent of the community, it was determined that they needed a bur1al s1te and most likely the first deaths began to occur among the settlers, and so this piece of land was begun as a cemetery, although the actual deeding of the lot did not take place until 1786, 20 years later, and part of the reason for that has to do with some internal religious struggle that was going on here at the time, but Mr. Merritt, apparently, always wanted to provide this land, and he subsequently did do that. The Quakers buried the settlers in the lot, in the cemetery lot, chronologically in the order that they died, so that there were not what we think of as a traditional family burials in this site, and so we do not know whether they occur in a north/south or an east/west direction or exactly in what portion of this original five acres they might be found. There have been some rumors that we have not been able to completely document that at certain periods of time bones have been unearthed, either when the Quaker Road was being developed or when Mr. and Mrs. Doyle possibly put in some of the roads on their properties. We have not been able to substantiate that bones have ever been actually unearthed, but that because of the siting of the cemetery and the uncertainty of exactly where it is, we cannot be sure that we would not, that there might not potentially be a potential for the unearthing either of these artifacts or of materials related to the original meeting house and school structure. So I think we have a unique archeological situation to look at, with the possibility of having an archeological study done on this site, prior to any development that would enhance our knowledge of the area at this time, and perhaps give us additional information that we have never had about this history of this particular location. It is also not very far away from the intersection of Route 9 and Glenwood Avenue where we had the Fort Garrison and also the Military Road that came down through there. So there might be some other additional finds within the confines of this particular property. So I think we need to look at that possibility of an archeological study. There's also the possibility that, and I know that the developers would be, are very interested in this. They've already spoken to me about the fact that if they were in the process of developing their property and they came upon something, then they are required by law to immediately cease and desist their work, so that, because under the Public Health Law, you cannot disturb a grave site, and at that point, the developer would have to secure a court order and the bones would have to be properly reburied in an approved site, and it's our feeling that in the event that that did occur, that we would want those remains to be placed in the currently existing defined cemetery lot. Also, this cemetery, as somebody said on the Board, some people do not know that this is a cemetery because they drive back and forth in the midst of traffic day by day, and it's just this nice beautiful grass square and there's some type of something in the middle of it that looks like a large stone, and if you go to read the stone, you find out that it was placed there by the Wing Family Association to honor Abraham and Edward Wing for the establishment of the Town itself. So it's the family's attempt to do that. They also, when they erected this stone, which incidentally has been on that site since 1911, so it's not a new monument at all. It's been there a very long time. They also, at the same time, erected a wrought iron fence, which was subsequently encroached upon by Mr. Doyle who removed at a midnight requisition, I guess, and then it was later returned to the Town Highway Department, and has been used in other cemeteries around the community. So that there was a strong interest in preserving this site as early as 1911, and I think it's an absolutely amazing fact that this one single piece of land remains as the last undeveloped piece of the original settlement of our community, and I think that's the reason that we should be particularly careful with how we enhance it and how we leave it for posterity and for an appreciation of what our early heritage was. - 47 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) MR. PALING- I have a question for you. This land has been unused or vacated now for quite some time. Did you make any effort to have an archeological study done in the period that no one's been occupying the land? MRS. VANDYKE-Are you talking about this cemetery plot? MR. PALING-Anywhere on the Doyle land. MRS. VANDYKE-On the Doyle lands themselves. Well, I think that probably this has to do with when things happen. For instance, the Bibby's transferred the property to the Doyle's in 1959, which I think was pre-Planning. MR. PALING-No. My question is, it's been some number of months with no activity there. MRS. VANDYKE-You mean right now? MR. PALING-Right now. In the past year, did you make an effort to have a study done, or have an archeological dig or whatever done? MRS. VANDYKE-I have not done that, no, and I only heard about this development within the last 30 days. MR. PALING-Yes, well, now the development is upon us, but there was opportunity prior to this, when there was no development, that it could have been done. MR. GORALSKI-Typically what happens is, in the case of this particular site, there were other people who were looking at the site who were proposing to re-use the existing buildings. There would be no reason to do an archeological study to be sure that we were protecting any burial sites if there weren't going to be any excavation on the site. The reason for doing any type of archeological study was to be sure that you were not going to be disturbing any bodies that were buried on the site. MR. PALING-Well,' that is, however, an unknown, but it seemed to me it represented a great opportunity, with time on your hands, that this could have been done, and then no matter which way it went. MR. MARTIN-I think the point is it's premature, potentially unwarranted, until you know what the use of the site's going to be. As John indicated, there was some talk of a user, it's not secret to the local people, there was going to be a brew pub. They were proposing to use the existing buildings, and therefore an archeological survey would have been done for no need and expense incurred for no need, because, with archeological finds, my limited experience is, the best thing to do is leave them alone, because they're historically significant, to some extent, due to their location. MR. PALING-Well, they are going to try, if I understand, to go a little bit beyond just a limited survey to find out what the whole area might contain. MR. MARTIN-Well, because now we're talking, with this project, relatively massive amounts of disturbance, for drainage, footings, a building that's roughly twice the footprint in size of the existing building. MR. PALING-I'll concede footings, Jim. I don't think there's going to be too much beyond that. MR. LAPPER-We're actually not going to be doing a lot of excavation. - 48 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) MR. MARTIN-All I'm saying, Bob, is I want it on the rec~rd ~hat Staff is supporting an archeological st~dy be done of th~s s7te, because it is not going to be, I'm not go~ng to be held respons~ble should some bones be turned up, that the proper thing was not done, because we're going to be in a world of mess, should that happen. I'll be very frank about it. MR. PALING-Okay. You're being frank, I'll be frank. There's an opportunity that's been missed here when this could have been done. MR. MARTIN-Well, the fact is it's been missed. We're faced, now, with a project before us, and a proposal for a significant disturbance of this site and the potential for unearthing of human bodies, and I want to make, this is not this removed thing like often happens with archeological findings, we're talking about flint stones and things like that. We're talking about Abraham Wing, potentially, and I'm not going to have it on my watch that he's dug up. MR. PALING-Well, all right. I'll say again, Jim, that you seem very serious and compassionate about it. MR. MARTIN-I am very serious. MR. PALING-You had an opportunity, months ago, to start this going. MR. MARTIN-There's no motivation for me to do that, Bob. MRS. VANDYKE-You don't really begin an archeological study unless there's some highly scientific reason or in the case of development in looking at the site and learning all that you can about it at the time that that is going on, and that's the reason that you institute it. Also, the test borings that were done were done for soil purposes, and those were not really archeological types of testing. So there's a different approach that is used by the archeological team, and also they at the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation has told me that they have an ethical responsibility, in the case of such findings as might be located here, to do a complete biological and anthropological study of the site. MR. PALING-Of the whole site. MR. STARK-Mrs. VanDyke, I have a question for you. So it's your, to encapsulate what you're saying, you don't want any development done here until a complete archeological study is done. Is that correct? MRS. VANDYKE-I think that's indicated at the present time, as near as I can determine from all of the discussions I've had. MR. STARK-So that's your's, and the historical society? MRS. VANDYKE- It's not the historical society. I'm the Town Historian. I'm the appointed government historian. MRS. LABOMBARD-Was that a yes? MR. MARTIN-I think that's a yes, and Staff fully endorses that position. MRS. VANDYKE-Yes. That is correct, yes. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, what we're saying is not totally different than what the Town Historian is saying. We're going to be doing, proposed if we're approved, to do some excavation on the site. We're not putting in, obviously, a basement. This is a slab, so that we would have to dig for footings in the location of the - 49 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) building. The building, of course, is on the side close to where the Shop N' Save excavation for their parking lot took place. We'll be doing some grading of the site, but it's a fairly flat site. There's going to be some grading, and there will be soil disturbance. What we're proposing is that we retain an archeologist before we drag a blade across the site and disturb any soil, and we come up with a protocol, so that if, during the construction, during the excavation, any artifacts or bones are uncovered, there would be a protocol that all work in that area would stop, and the protocol would be something that would be worked out with the Town Planning Department, with this retained archeologist, what would happen. Obviously, there would be a difference if it.was human remains, versus if it were artifacts, in terms of complying with other State law, which of course we'd have to comply with, but we're not proposing that we go in, before the site is purchased, and dig up the whole site right now, and do diggings every 25 feet, I mean, because the developer can't afford that, but beyond that, they don't own the site and can't exercise their option to purchase it until this is approved, but more than that, this site, as I started with, has already been excavated. This site, it's not a pristine site. There have already been excavations, and we're removing and filling this in. We'll be farther away from the cemetery than what the Doyle's project is. We're trying to be respectful of this. I'd also like to ask MarilYn what she thinks of our design for the contemplation area. MR. PALING-Okay. You've got two questions, I think, headed your way. One is, how do you like their plan, whereby they employ the archeologist. You have two questions your way. I guess you know them. MRS. VANDYKE-Well, in the two letters that I wrote to the Planning Board, in the first letter we talked about an on site, over sight committee to do surveillance work while the actual development was in progress. That was in the earlier part of the week. Later on this week, talking with people in Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, and in the Department of Environmental Conservation, I received two other pieces of advice that it might be more desirable to begin to look at the site originally before anything happens, because if you don't do that, and then you begin the development work and you do come upon a find, then there's immediate halt. There's down time, there's a lot of lost time, and there are many examples of developers who have been held up for extensive periods of time. So it's really better to go ahead first and do that. That's the advice that X have. MR. PALING-All right. So you're saying to one of the questions, really, no, and what kind of, then what kind of time frame are YOU talking if you did it the way YOU suggest? MRS. VANDYKE-I can't tell you how long it would take the archeologist to do the work. They would have to come in and give us an overview of that in the beginning stages, depending upon who was employed to do it, how long it would take to do that, but I think that we do have an opportunity, here, to, at this point in time, to learn all that we can about this historic site, and glean all the available information at this point. MR. PALING-See, Jim, this is different than digging. What she's saying now is different than what I'm hearing you say. It's totally different. MR. MARTIN-I understand what she's saying, and we went through something like this with Hudson Pointe. I understand what needs to be done. There's a Phase I and a Phase II, initially. If anything turns up in Phase I, you proceed on to Phase II, which is actual digging at the site to locate these areas. If what MarilYn has said holds to be true, if you do find one body, then you - 50 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) potentially do have a chance to find them in a row, and depending on how far that row extends, you know, only some very curbed, careful research on site could determine that. MR. PALING-Well, the same thing would be accomplished if they ran into this digging under the guiding eye of an archeologist that they would hire. If they ran into it, then they would go through the same route. MR. MACEWAN-Are you suggesting the archeologist would be at the work site every day? MR. PALING-I'm not exactly sure. MR. TRAINER-The protocol is set up no differently than what they're saying. If something was found, you'd call in immediately, as we're required to, the archeologist, and he sets in to motion this protocol, which is, lets say a body was found. The body is to be exhumed, properly moved, carried, identified with the Town, where will it be placed on. This is just an example, but where it would be placed in the existing cemetery, and all this is ironed out before the event even occurs. I think this Board should know, does anyone know what an archeological phase II study is? Because there's no sense in doing a Phase I study. There's already reason for us to believe that a Phase II is required. She's already requesting it. A Phase II Archeological study is where they go in and they grid the site and they excavate it. MRS. VANDYKE-That's correct. MR. TRAINER-Okay. We're talking about going in and saying, on a 50 foot grid, on a three acre parcel, every 50 feet in a square, like polka dots, excavating that property. Not only is that disturbing it, but I can tell you that if you were the owner of it and you were trying to sell it, how would you feel about giving someone the ability to go in and just destroy the site and dig maybe some 300 test holes in that? MRS. VANDYKE-Well, archaeologists don't destroy a site. They put it all back when they finish. MR. MACEWAN-This particular site's the most historically signif icant site in the entire Town of Queensbury. That's the thing we've got to remember and not lose sight of. A thought that I'm having, and I don't know anywhere's near what the cost is or what it's even all about and how in-depth it would be. In archeology today, there's a new form of scanning radar, I guess you would call it. MRS. VANDYKE-That's correct. MR. MACEWAN-It's a sled based thing. You don't dig up the ground. You drag it across the top of the ground, through the scanning capabilities. It could determine the limits of this cemetery, which would save you guys the time and money. It would save the Town a lot of time, save yOU a lot of time. See what it costs. (lost word) you know if it's staked out, that five tenths of an acre, that that's the existing Quaker Cemetery, and you use something like that that doesn't cost a lot of money, scan that site, 50 feet, 100 feet to the west and north of that, and determine there's nothing else there, you know you've pretty much hit the perimeter of your cemetery, and then you start your excavating and start your site prep, and then if you hit something in that far corner, that northwest corner, then you stop your construction, stop all building development. It seems like a win/win situation. MR. PALING-I'm sorry. I think you wanted to make a comment, - 51 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) Marilyn. MRS. VANDYKE-No, just to say that there is the sophisticated equipment that can be utilized today that enhances the ability to do this. Also I think that we may want to bring, early on, a representative from the Parks and Recreation and Historic Preservation to talk to us about some aspects of this, so that we are as well versed in the how to of it as we can possibly be. MR. PALING-Okay. George, you had a question. MR. STARK-Mrs. VanDyke, you were talking about the old Military Road and Garrison Road and everything. When Hannaford Brothers built the Shop N' Save, was any concern expressed at that time? Because they put in one heck of a lot of footings over that way there. Did they find anything? MRS. VANDYKE-You're talking to me before I was the Historian. I can't answer your question. Maybe somebody else can. MR. MARTIN-I was not here. MR. STARK-That's closer to the Garrison Road and the old Military Road than this location here. MR. LAPPER-How about the Quaker Road which was just widened three years ago. MR. STARK-I mean, where was this concern when Quaker Road was widened, and everything. For you to say to Mr. Regan, you know, well, your property, unless it's sold, and it's the Town's, the Staff's position, too, that unless your property is sold, existing, that you're going to use it just the way it is, no excavation no nothing, you know, that kind of limits his economic recovery from his property. That's unfair to him. Now, you're saying to these developers, well, before, you don't own the property and we don't even know if you can build there, but why don't you shell out all kinds of money for these tests and for the archeological things and everything like this. I think that's unfair to them. MRS. VANDYKE-There's a lot of precedent for this. MR. MARTIN-George, you are a Planning Board. By that very definition, you are trying to foresee potential areas of concern and impact and address those now prior to the event occurring. This is an instance where I think we have a chance to do that. I would much rather know now, by an archaeologic find, finding these bodies, then the tread of a bulldozer, and also, I'm not the member of a lead agent Board who's going to have to go through the SEQRA analysis and answer the archeological question. You're going to do that. MR. MACEWAN-You have to remember, too, our Master Plan says that we have to look for these things and protect them wherever necessary. MRS. VANDYKE-That's correct, and this is very much in the public interest because of what it is. MR. LAPPER-But the cemetery parcel is a completely separate parcel that was determined in 1961 after a court case between the Quakers and the Doyle's, and there's a separate parcel, subdivision line, and we're buyirig the parcel next to it, and we're staying 50 feet away from that line. MRS. VANDYKE-But you're talking about an old colonial cemetery, and by the very nature of what it is, it's indeterminant. MR. PALING-Okay. We have a public hearing going on, and it' s - 52 - (Queensbury Plann~ng Board Meeting 12/19/96) getting a little out of control. So would you please, just sort of address the Chair again if you'd like to talk. George, go ahead. MR. STARK-Jim, you made the comment a few moments before that on your watch you're not going to dig up Abraham Wing, potentially. I mean, it seems to me that you're more concerned what would happen if this went ahead and something happened that y-ou would be held personally responsible. Nobody's going to hold you personally responsible for this. I don't know why you're afraid of something like that. You made the comment that you were. Could you expand upon that? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I will expand upon it, George. I think that is a man of tremendously huge historic significance, and if I'm in a position, and it is part of my responsibility to avoid that, I'm going to take every step possible to do so. I'm being irresponsible if I don't. MR. PALING-It seems as if we're looking at two alternatives. MR. MARTIN-It's not a question of what's personally going to be damaging to my reputation, as you're implying. It's a matter of what's, it's my function, it's what I do. MR. PALING-Jim, I think we're looking at two possibilities here, one of which will disturb Abraham Wing or any other remains unless it's known. One is a complete excavation of the site. The other is it's a thing that goes as the digging and all takes place under an archeological supervision, they're going to find if there are any bones touched. Either way you go, you're going to find them and you won't, nobody's responsible for doing wrong. If they find bones of any kind, then they stop and take the proper procedure. In one case, you were saying go over the whole site, before anything happens. In the other case you're saying, do it as you're developing the site. MR. GORALSKI-You're right. There is one discrimination between those two things. One is by doing an archeological study. You're not disturbing whatever remains are there. By doing an excavation for a footing or drywell or whatever, you will be disturbing the remains that are there. MR. PALING-Well, I understand what you're saying there, but I still think that it's tough on an applicant when they come in, the property's been laying there for months, and you could have made the same plea, prior to tonight, not laying it on us, and it would have been done. MR. MARTIN-Bob, investigations. into motion. I had no reason to make these kind of It's only when the site plan process puts all this MR. PALING-It doesn't make sense to me. MR. STARK-Why don't you just poll the Board rigþt now as to the plan, whether we need a full archeological study before hand or should we wait and that'll put the thing to bed right now. MR. PALING-All right. Well, we're in a public hearing. Cathy, you have a comment? And then this gentleman is next. MRS. LABOMBARD-I just want to make sure I have the area correct. Definitely it's not the area that is not owned by the Doyle's, and we're talking that this company isn' t going to touch anything within a 50 foot buffer of that boundary. MR. LAPPER-That's not exactly the case, because the building right now, the Doyle's building that we all look at on Quaker Road is - 53 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) within the 50 feet. So they've already disturbed that, excavated that and put in their building. We're going to be removing the foundation. Nobert can show you where. MR. HAUSNER-Here's the current (lost word) cemetery. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. So nothing inside there would even be under excavation or any archeological study because we know it's that. That's not even the land in question. So now we're going to move 50 feet out that you said. MR. HAUSNER-Which is here. The buffer line is here. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right, and keep going down. MR. TRAINER-There is absolutely no new construction of buildings anywhere near that 50 foot buffer line. What they're doing as part of this project is to remove a building which is now about 25 feet from that property line. It's already been excavated and has footings in place. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. Well, see, that's mY question. Is this the, I mean, all of a sudden now we're approaching the 21st Century and people are so tuned in to so much, the environment, history, it's just a sign of the times that we're into things, our society. What happened, back when the Doyle's put that building up, and they put in footers, why wasn't there some kind of a study done then so we could have some kinds of things to go by now? So, what I'm trying to say is, there is a building there. The dirt has been unearthed so many years ago when Doyle's building was built. I remember when that happened, and we don't know what's under there, Isn't that too bad, because the Doyle's, who are life long residents of this community, because they were the Doyle's, now I'm making an implication here, they were just allowed to go and do their thing, but now we've got people coming in from the outside, and now it's the late 90's, and the whole mindset is different in society. Now we've got to go through the third degree here, and I understand what's going on, but to me it seems like what is good for the goose should be good for the gander. Thirty years ago that building was put up. MR. MACEWAN-I don't think that's a fair statement to make. You have to understand what people's concept of planning and development was 45, 50 years ago versus what people's concept of planning and development is today. MRS. LABOMBARD-But I'm talking history. MR. MACEWAN-But the most important factor I think we need to remember here is that somewhere along the line, through the deed of the property over these last 125, 150 years, or even maybe longer than that, there was five acres. At one point in her presentation it was said it was deeded to become the Quaker Meeting area and Cemetery. Somewhere along the line, four and a half acres disappeared. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. MACEWAN-Where did it disappear to, and are there things sitting on that four and a half acres that was originally intended to be part of the Quaker Cemetery? MR. LAPPER-But this has already been excavated. MR. PALING-Okay.- Wait a minute. Gentlemen, I'm sorry. We're in the middle of a public hearing. Please, I'm going to ask you gentlemen, would you leave the table for a moment, and I think this gentleman behind you is next. We're in a public hearing, and we're - 54 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) getting a little out of control. So lets bring it back, and you're welcome to come back, too. Go ahead, sir. BOB EDDY MR. EDDY-Well, my name is Bob Eddy. I'm descended from the first settlers of the Town of Queensbury on both sides. Not just one side, but both sides. I am descended from Edward Wing Jr., which is mentioned here tonight, brother to Abraham Wing, and for all I know, those people are buried there, and I don't like it to be disturbed. There's no reason for disturbing them. I think that the whole thing was mishandled back many years ago. One thing that I would approve, though, if they leave the building that stands there just as it is, perhaps put an addition on to the north and to the south, if they find this suitable, archaeologically and so forth, that I would agree to forget the whole thing, but I just don't think that it should be done, and as I say, I'm not sure how many of my ancestors are there. Up in the Ridge Road cemetery are burial grounds, as we Quaker's called it, is all of my ancestors since 1801 are buried there. It seems that my great, great, great grandfather fell from the roof of the new meeting house that they're building up on Ridge Road, on January 23, 1801, and so we know that very likely this burial ground was not used after 1801, but what happened between 1763, when my family came here, and 1801? So I'm certain that they're there. I think that we should have, require, I don't know why the Town should have to pay for it, a complete archeological survey on the premises, but as I say again, I would be willing to forget the whole thing if they leave the building as it is, and add to it with like style and materials, and then let the thing right as it is. Otherwise, now if they touch that building, we should have an archeological survey, complete archeological survey. MR. PALING-When the Doyle building was being built, was there any kind of a program then to analyze the site? MR. EDDY-I wasn't here at the time. The company transferred me out of town, out to Buffalo, and then transferred me down to Connecticut. I finished those assignments and then was able to get back here. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. EDDY-And I have a complete, I have, right with me tonight, Dr. Holden's book on Queensbury. It was written in 1874, and they described the building, but they didn't describe the site or what was there. I'm going to insist that this be archaeologically surveyed if they touch that land at all. MR. PALING-Thank you. Anyone else care to speak? MARK REGAN MR. REGAN-I'm Mark Regan, representing Doyle's, and I do know that it was about eight years ago that the Town put a sewer project on our property, 14 feet deep, which surrounded the entire property to the south and to the west side, and there was no architectural survey done at that time. MR. PALING-When was this? MR. REGAN-This was within the last 10 years, when they dug for the sewer, on our property. Within that five acre site that they're talking about, they've widened Quaker Road. They've widened Bay Road. There's been no architectural survey, study done. There has been no discovery of bones. Apparently Mrs. VanDyke has found some rumors. The fence that Mrs. VanDyke refers to as a Midnight Special was removed during the day, and was being brought down to - 55 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) the Bay Road cemetery, where it had already been determined, since it was in disrepair, the parts were going to be used at the Bay Road cemetery. That is not a rumor. There is excavations for the Bibby house, which presently there's nothing right there. That was taken down in the early 70's. That's on Bay Road. That portion was excavated, and also the portion for the Doyle's property has been excavated. In addition, when we connected to the sewer , because we did have to connect considerably several hundred feet to the sewer connection that was dug. That was over 200 feet we had to dig that, and that, again, did have to go down about 14 feet. We had to pump considerably to expense, and so far in none of those instances have we discovered any bones. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Other artifacts? MR. REGAN-Nothing. The water table, because of the problems, is so high I'm not sure what would still be there at this point. That is a basement, which a sump pump runs constantly. The foundation's cracked at this point because of the water problems. MR. STARK-I was going to ask Mr. Regan that, when this sewer was dug by the Town, what depth was that dug to, down below the water table? MR. REGAN-We had to go to the level of the water table. We had to go down 14 feet to connect. It was a fairly expensive project. MR. STARK-And you were right there when this was being dug? MR. REGAN-Yes, I was. MR. STARK-And you didn't see anything? MR. REGAN-No, nothing. MR. STARK-And that's kind of around the perimeter of your property, more or less. MR. REGAN-It is entirely on the border of our property. The Town did nothing at that time. I believe Mr. Eddy, Mr. Martin, and Mrs. VanDyke were all here at that point. MR. MARTIN-No, that's not correct. I was not here then. MR. PALING-All right. Does anyone else care to speak? Yes, please come up. RICHARD MERRILL MR. MERRILL-My name is Richard Merrill, and among other things I'm an amateur archeologist. I have participated in professional digs at Fort William Henry, and it has been filmed nationally on the Discovery Channel. I believe it's on this week. I think what you have to recognize is that the attitude toward archeology has changed dramatically within the past few years. There's a great heightened sensitivity to it and an awareness, and the techniques are much different now than they were 10, 20 years ago. Also, it takes a very trained eye to detect these artifacts or to detect a grade mold, I think that's the concern we have tonight, is trained professionals on site to observe and to detect these things. It's not an easy job. I'm not surprised at all. If you were putting in a sewer, you would probably not find a thing, but it does take a trained eye. I think we have to recognize the sensitivity of the Town to this site. For long term citizens, I think people recognize that is the center of Town. That is the Wing cemetery. It is Wing. I've reviewed the records with MarilYn VanDyke, and I find it very hard to convince myself that that boundary is a definitive boundary. I think it's a boundary by convenience, and - 56 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) if you go back to the original reference of five acres, and somewhere along the line it was determined that it might be that small, half acre plot. I think there's a good chance that there's something there, and I think we do need to take precaution, or the citizens of this Town will rise up. I mean, I can imagine the outcry from the community if something is discovered there and not properly handled, and I think it can be done, but it does take a professional. I think it does take a professional survey, and the question has come up, why hasn't it been done before, and I think the question comes up, who pays for it? Why should the Town pay for private developers to survey their property so that it' s saleable. That property has a severe liability with it. It's adjacent to a cemetery, and not all property is guaranteed in value. That has a liability associated with it, and I'd invite you to go through, in detail, the historic records that Marilyn has put together, and I think in there you will have some doubt as to the preciseness of that boundary. It is not a precise boundary. Thank you. MR. WEST-Dick, what do you see as the viability of going in there and with something like, you know, ground penetrating radar? MR. MERRILL-I'm familiar with it, and I know we've considered it, but the cost is extremely high. It's more than, I'm not sure what the cost is, but it is a very expensive proposition. It's available. MR. WEST-Is it accurate? Is it reliable? Can it detect bones? MR. MERRILL-Yes. So it's certainly a viable thing, but I'm not sure what the cost is. It exceeded any budget we had for what we were doing at the Fort William Henry, because that was a no budget deal. MR. PALING-Would you be satisfied with this site going ahead, I might not be using the exact terms, but with an archeologist employed to watch for anything that might be unearthed? MR. MERRILL- I think that's essential, because you do need the trained eye. MRS. LABOMBARD-Do you think that would be sufficient, in lieu of doing a complete, total preliminary? I mean, my question is, if you do a preliminary study, where's the, like you said, where's the boundary? You could be going out from the original square way to the other end. MR. MERRILL-I think you need to survey the part that'll be disturbed. That's the point. You wouldn't survey the entire place, but you'd survey the place that would be disturbed. MRS. LABOMBARD-Do you feel that it would be sufficient? You're a person of, you know, proficiency on this, to do it as you go along? MR. MERRILL- I think I'd defer that and ask for recommendations from the State of New York. I'd ask for recommendations from the State of New York. There are State officials on that that could better answer that question. MRS. LABOMBARD-So, in other words that is an option, instead of having it all done on the onset, before anything is even bought or sold? MR. MERRILL-I'd hesitate to say that. I'm not that expert on it, no, but I don't think the Town can stand the bad publicity that'll come from this, and it will come. Believe me, it will come. MRS. LABOMBARD-It will, definitely. - 57 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) MR. MERRILL-So it's a sensitive area. It has a severe liability associated with that property, and I'm speaking now as Chairman of the Land Use Planning Committee. That is a very key piece of J?roperty, in terms of the future shape of the Bay area, and I think ~t needs to be treated properly, too. MRS. LABOMBARD-But you know, when you talk about the confines of that boundary, it's so ironic that monster road is like right there. MR. MERRILL-Right, but the sensitivity to this has changed. Ten years ago, we wouldn't be having this discussion. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's what I'm saying. You're right. The sensitivity on all types of issues in society has changed. Not just archeology. I don't want to get into all the other social issues that has changed, and everybody wants their piece of it. Everybody wants to make sure their heard. MR. MACEWAN-But Cathy, it's no different here than anywhere else in the State. . MRS. LABOMBARD-I know that, and I'm just saying, it's so ironic to think that that monster road is right on the other side and nothing was done then. MR. MACEWAN-Earlier this past spring it was, down in I think it was Waterford where the DPW was putting in a new water line. They were putting in a new water line and they found some Mohican Indians, I think it was, remains. So it put a stop to that whole thing. MR. WEST-And they were building a skyscraper in New York City and they came upon artifacts, and it stopped. MR. MERRILL-Well, closer to home, you've 99t the situation in Albany, with the building there. MRS. LABOMBARD-They found them, and they had trained eye. MR. MERRILL-But they didn't know it was there before hand, but I think it's something we have to be sensitive to here, and take into account. So thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Who else would like to talk? Anyone else? Mrs. VanDyke, I want to make sure that you're satisfied that you've had your, would you care to make any other comments before we close the public hearing? MRS. VANDYKE-No. I think that I've provided the background, historical background, plus the two possible recommended approaches, but I do think, as we have been discussing this, that. MR. PALING-Just elaborate, if you will, on the two approaches. MRS. VANDYKE-Well, we have the two approaches, one is that we have a complete archeological review that is done from Day One, and that we get all of our sensitive information gleaned from that review and that we know exactly what all of this land and property holds or does not hold. The other one is that we might proceed and that an oversight committee looks at the work as it was going on with the help of an archeologist, and that if something is located, that then the property terminations are made at that point. The better archeological approach is the first approach, and that is really what I would like to see considered at this point in time. MR. WEST-But what about a ground penetrating survey where you don't have to dig up the whole site? - 58 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) MRS. VANDYKE-Well, that could be one of the types of archeological surveys that is done, that you do use radar equipment or more sophisticated sensing devices to do that with, and I think that, you know, we have a really good opportunity, now, to approach this in this fashion. MR. WEST-How about in just the areas that will be disturbed, versus site wide? MRS. VANDYKE-In that second approach, if you just, you're digging up something, where you're digging up something, you are disturbing it. When you are archaeologically studying it, you don't disturb it, because you approach it in such a way that it remains undisturbed. It's like when an archeologist is literally using a paint brush to brush away something that turns out to be the structural remains of say some building. That's different from starting to excavate a piece of land and digging and scooping something up, which totally disturbs it. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Now, is there anyone else that cares to speak from the public on this? MR. STARK-Does any of the historical people here, back in the 1700's or 1800's, when you were being buried, would you be buried in an area that had a high water table, or how deep did you tend to bury people at that point, or like that? I mean, you know, I'm just wondering if you had any input? You know what I'm thinking, because you know what a high water table along the whole Quaker Road is, and if I was burying someone and I hit water, I don't think I'd go any deeper to bury them. MR. MERRILL-Well, illY experience is with burials in 1757, '56, '57, at Fort William. We have excavated skeletons from there, and they were quite shallow. MR. STARK-What's shallow? MR. MERRILL-Basically, they went down until they hit hard pan, but I don't think there was any set depth. The thing to keep in mind here is there's been a tremendous amount of fill in here, over the years. It was used as a farm and so forth. So one of the things an archeological survey would do is determine where the 17th or 18th Century ground level is, and then you'd have to consider what the depth is from there. They may have been very shallow, but there may be three foot of fill on top. I don't know, but it's an unknown, and I think that's why you do need a preliminary survey to find out. MR. STARK-Where the racquet club is now and Qu~ker Village, and this pre-dates. MR. MERRILL-That's on the other side. MR. STARK-I know, but this pre-dates the road, okay, when I say road, Quaker Road. Was that used as farm land back then, or maybe Mr. Eddy can enlighten me about that? MR. MERRILL-Yes, but going back to the cemetery, that was very clearly defined as being south of Halfway. It's clearly south of Halfway Brook, east of Bay. Right there, five acres, I'm sorry, west of Bay, but it's clearly defined. MR. STARK-So you're saying this, what we've defined as a cemetery right now would be the most northerlyeastern corner of that possibly five acre site? MR. MERRILL-Yes, but we don't know what the topology is today relative to what it was back then. It's certainly been fill, a lot - S9 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) of change in it. So, depth, who knows. MR. STARK-Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that cares to talk? Does anyone else have any questions for the public hearing type things? Okay. If not, we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Now I think we ought to offer the applicant a chance to comment on any of the questions that have been raised, or what not. MR. PEZNOLA-I'd like to start just by saying I think if this opportunity to determine whether there exists some historical significance to the balance of this parcel is ever going to be pursued, it's more than likely going to be in connection with the development of the site, because I don't think the Town is about to commission an archeological dig here. Having said that, I think that the only way that that could occur in connection with the development of the site would be for it to be either part of the development process, as we discussed having potentially an archeologist be a part of the excavation, but I think that in order for that even to work, some very easily understood protocols would have to be put in place so that any developer venturing in to this would not run the risk that if they did find something, there weren't a pre-defined system and method to handle it, and whether that's relocating bones or that's, you know, finding some place to store whatever non human remains are found, I think that what I'm trying to get at is that this is either going to remain an unused parcel, and the Doyle's will forever be faced with the prospect that it can't be developed because there's potentially some archeological significance, or the opportunity could be used right now with the potential development in front of the Board, and a system that sort of works for anyone that would be developing, a practical solution, as well as the practical application of an archeologist during the excavation process. To me, seems like the only logical way to definitively determine if there is historical, archeological significance to the balance of this parcel, to the parcel that is not previously defined as a cemetery. MR. MACEWAN-How would you go about doing that? MR. PEZNOLA-I think what was described was that during the excavation process, which for a site this size might be three weeks to a month, that there would be a full time archeologist present during the digging, and if remains were found or other historical significant artifacts were found, that there would be a pre- determined and pre-approved method of handling it, and not sort of like we're just going to stop. MR. PALING-Yes, you've got to have a plan. MR. PEZNOLA-Yes, I mean, I would want there to be a plan. Okay. The plan is, okay, we've found human remains, for instance. MR. PALING-Okay. You've found something. Now what do you do? MR. PEZNOLA-Well, you say that the pre-approved method is, with the archeologist's approval. MR. GORALSKI-If there are human remains, there are State laws that govern what happens after that. MR. TRAINER-We're making an effort to do something about it I guess is the point here. MR. PEZNOLA-I'm not making light of this. I'm trying to find the - 60 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) solution. MR. PALING-We all are. MR. GORALSKI-I just want you to be aware that if human remains are found, regardless of when, there are State laws that govern what happens. MR. PALING-Okay. What the applicant is saying, there should be a protocol and they're absolutely right. Now this would involve, evidentaíly, the State, and what else? Say there is a human bone found there. Now what should be done? We bring the State in, sure, but now what else should be done at this point? MR. GORALSKI-Well, I think you need an archeologist to tell you that. MR. PALING-Well, no. You've got one right on site. He's standing right there. He's looking at the bones. MR. SCHACHNER-Generally speaking, the way these issues are handled, and I'm speaking generically now, but I've been involved in many, many projects that have involved these sorts of issues, and somebody mentioned this earlier, but it was so long ago that I don't remember, and I apologize for that. It may have been Jim that mentioned it, but generally the way these things are handled, when there's something that's this potentially sensitive archaeologically, but obviously people are not certain in advance just how sensitive it is, and where exactly remains are and where exactly remains are not, but you have a reasonable basis to believe that there may be remains somewhere, the way these things are generally handled is through what's called a Phase I Historical Archeological Survey. A Phase I Historical Archeological Survey is a non intrusive investigation, meaning it does not involve on-site digging and things like that. It's more or less a literature search and a review of cultural resource records and things like that. I haven't spoken yet, but I'm going to speak my peace here, okay, if that's okay with the Board? MR. PALING-The floor is yours. MR. SCHACHNER-Thank you. If, in some instances, people are confident enough that the cultural resource survey and the non intrusive investigation will indicate the likelihood of significant or potentially significant archeological resources that they jump right ahead to the next level of archeological survey, which is sometimes called field reconnaissance, in the archeological field. That involves any type of on-site actual investigation, ranging from the type of grid that the applicant pretty accurately described, and usually shallow, as Marilyn described, sort of very careful, conducted by archeology types, a shallow investigation on- site that does involve actual disturbance. I've witnessed some of these things, and I do not agree with a statement made by the applicant earlier that that ruins the site or devastates the site or destroys the site or anything like that, because I have witnessed this on a number of occasions. The other thing that's a very recent or fairly recent advent, are these higher tech, non intrusive but on-site testings like the ones we've heard described, and those are also used as part of this next level of archeological resources survey. Eyerything I've said to you in this little speech of mine is totally generic, has nothing to do with this site, this applicant, or I have next to no independent knowledge of this particular situation, but that's the way these things are typically handled, and there are a series of State Statutes that govern these situation, including the New York State Historic Preservation Law and certain sections of the New York State Public Health Law. There's a New York State agency called the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, what - 61 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) I call OPRHP, that tends to oversee these sorts of things, and in less lawyer-like terms, if archeological remains of human beings are discovered in the context of the on-site development disturbance, as opposed to the archeological, careful investigation on-site, in non lawyer-like terms, all hell breaks loose, and it's not a pretty picture. I've been involved in cases like that as well. From the legal standpoint, you know, it's up to the Planning Board how you want to proceed here. I have a very serious concern, from the legal standpoint, about how or whether you'll be able to fulfill your SEQRA review responsibilities, based on everything I've heard here tonight, without getting more archeological information. That's your call, and as you know, I don't inject anything into your policy decisions, but I do have a legal concern about that. I also have to give the applicant credit, because I think the applicant has indicated a certain recognition of the sensitivity of this issue and has certainly made certain overtures toward a goal of gaining some additional archeological information, like having a qualified archeologist on site and things like that, and I don't mean to be so long winded, but I think that's the best way I can answe~ the question that was asked. MR. PALING-Very good. No, I'm glad you did, because that's helping me. We have a tough problem here. MR. WEST-Why didn't you say that a half an hour ago? MR. SCHACHNER-Nobody asked. MR. MARTIN-I said it, but I was a little too blunt, I think. MR. PALING-Yes. That brings up the possibility, if I understand you correctly, that there could be the archeologist employed, no, their first could be the Phase I, or whatever you call, Level I or whatever, down through books and research. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Can I interrupt for a second? I apologize for doing that. I think that I heard somebody from the applicant's area indicate earlier that they felt that a Phase I Archeological study, or study's not a good term, but investigation, would probably not be appropriate in this instance, because the Phase I does not yield to a bottom line conclusion. All the Phase I does is say, I shouldn't say that. The Phase I can lead to the bottom line conclusion of, we see no potential significant historic archeological impact here, and therefore nothing further is necessary, but the Phase I never leads to the other flip side determination of, there are definitely the following remains present. All it leads to is, we think there's enough reasonable basis for potential archeological impact here, to proceed to a Phase I I. I certainly don' t care, but I think I heard the applicant say, and I would invite the applicant to correct me if I'm wrong, that they acknowledge that any Phase I survey here is going to reach the conclusion that a Phase II is necessary. MR. PEZNOLA-I completely agree. We are passed Phase I. We are at Phase II. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. So if that's true, I would certainly submit to the Board, and again, and I would welcome the applicant's input on this, that it would be counterproductive, I don't think the applicant has actually done, formally, a Phase I, correct? MR. PEZNOLA-No, we have not. MR. SCHACHNER-And what I'm saying is I think it would be a waste of everybody's time involved to actually make the applicant do a Phase I Cultural Resources Survey. If the applicant wants to do that, if the Board wants to do that, there's nothing legally to µrevent you from doing thatJ but I think it would be a waste of time. So I - 62 - .-- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) think if the applicant concurs, and I think I hear the applicant saying is does. MR. PEZNOLA-We concur. MR. SCHACHNER-I would jump right ahead of that. Don't waste your time talking about the Phase I survey. MR. PALING-And when you say Phase II, now straighten me out here and make sure I understand you clearly. Phase II can go one of two ways? MR. SCHACHNER-A Phase II survey. MR. PALING-Is in process, while it's digging of an archeologist? MR. WEST-No. MR. SCHACHNER-The Phase II survey involves engaging a licensed, qualified archeologist, and by that I mean somebody, there's a State list of accepted historical/archeological consultants. As a practical matter, generally speaking in this area, there are only three in the Capital District that generally get involved in these things, but there's a list of a bunch of them, and a Phase II Historical Archeological Resources Survey involves engaging one of these licensed, qualified historical archeological consultants and having them conduct an on-site, Phase II historical archeological resources investigation. How they conduct that, meaning whether they take the little shovels and do the grid, which as I said earlier, the applicant did relatively accurately describe, or they take one of the new higher tech devices and go over the area in a non intrusive manner, I can't, any of those are typically accepted by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. The way these things generally proceed is an applicant will get a proposal from either one or more such qualified archaeologists, and they will then decide what they feel is the most appropriate way to proceed, taking cost, time and everything else into consideration, and that Phase II Archeological Resources investigation is what's used by a SEQRA Lead Agency to be able to make the determination on SEQRA as to whether anything further needs to be done, and to help you do that, two things will occur. One thing is that the applicant's archeologist will make a recommendation. The applicant's archeologist will either recommend this site is so holy that no development can occur here, or they'll say, our Phase II reveals next to nothing here and there's no problem with development occurring here, or there's a bunch of things in between that often happens where the archeologist will say our Phase II reveals that here are the potentially sensitive areas. Here are the areas that are not so potentially sensitive, and as the applicant also described earlier, here is protocol that we recommend be followed. Maybe that protocol will involve a full time licensed archeologist on site, maybe it won't. The second thing that will happen when that study is done is that OPRHP itself will make a recommendation. The State agency, somebody, I don't remember who earlier on, said you can ask the State. Mr. Merrill, is that his name, said, when you asked him a question, he said, you can ask the State. That's quite true. The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation will gladly review a Phase II or environmental, archeological survey and make a recommendation as to what should or shouldn't happen, whether the site can be developed or not. For what it's worth, in many instances, I would say most instances, OPRHP does feel that development can occur, but subject to some very specific conditions. MR. PALING-Okay. Now, what you've said, Mark, there excludes the one where the archeologist works with them as they're digging. That's excluded in your dissertation. - 63 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) MR. SCHACHNER-Not exactly. In fairness to the applicant, that is sometimes the punch line result after the Phase II is done. In fact that is often the punchline result after the Phase II is done, but first the Phase II is done. MR. PALING-Okay. So you're saying that's got to proceed that kind of a thing. MR. MARTIN-The last time something like that was done, that, all of what Mark described, I witnessed it, saw the test holes, was done for the Hudson Pointe development. It went through a Phase II process. They dug little four by six plots. They're very meticulous people when they go in and do these things. They excavate out all the soil. They have little sifters. They sift through it and they restore everything to its original condition when they're done, and they identified five areas in that site. We sent out the Phase II survey to the Office of Historic Preservation, as Mark indicated. They wrote us a letter back saying, here is, we've reviewed it. We concur with the archeologist's recommendations which were to simply avoid the sites in that case, and that's what we did. They're identified on a map, for the purposes of knowing that they're there, but in terms of, if you go out on the site, they're not demarked or anything like that. It's just better that they are left undisturbed, and that's exactly what Mark just described happened with Hudson Pointe. MR. MACEWAN-I think it's important to add that Hudson pointe, that whole scenario came up not because there was anything definitive there, but because there was potential. MR. MARTIN-They did go through the Phase I in Hudson pointe. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, they did, and that's what lead them to it, because they said because of the bluffs, there was a potential that it could have been inhabited by early Americans, and that's what brought them to the Phase II and doing the test pits. I think the difference we have with this particular site is the fact that we have a known entity on the site. We know that there's a Quaker Cemetery. The question is, how big is the cemetery? It's not like we were going out on Hudson pointe and looking for what they call the Stone Chintz or something like that, or flint, and that' s really all they found out there. MR. MARTIN-There were some tools. MR. MACEWAN-There wasn't anything of significance. MR. SCHACHNER-Chintz is more found in Lake George Village. MR. PALING-Now does Staff have anymore input for us? Okay. Do you want to comment now? Okay. MR. TRAINER-I've been involved with Phase II Archeological studies before, and one of the phenomenons of them is that sometimes after they go through their site and grid it, and you are looking for, ultimately, by the way, all this is being done so that you have enough confidence to check the SEQRA form yes or no for impact. Is that all understood? I mean, the reason that we're doing this is so that you can address the SEQRA issue. MR. MACEWAN-Not in mY mind. MR. TRAINER-That's why we are addressing this, because it's part of the SEQRA process. MR. MACEWAN-In my mind it's part of the process of ensuring that that cemetery is going to remain intact. - 64 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) MR. TRAINER-But in terms of us being an applicant and doing all the right things, it's a procedure of the SEQRA process, and that's why we're all talking about this, archeological finding. MR. MACEWAN-You're making much, much less of it than what it is. MR. TRAINER-Well, the point I'm making is that I've gone through the Phase I and the Phase II, and after the archeologist has gone through the entire site, his conclusion that you're looking for from us, that says there's nothing there, wounds up he said, well, we did study the site, and all these areas. We didn't find anything, but that doesn't mean that between the holes that we didn't study that we won' t find anything in the future. So, again, it wasn't, there wasn't closure on what you're looking for in order to make your determination. If this Board is comfortable with the fact that we are going to set into motion a protocol that will allow Staff to have input and your historical division have input on, on what we would do in the event, and have the archeologist on site, that's reasonably accepted to us. MR. PEZNOLA-Yes, but you should also know that along, not only is there a building 25 feet from that property line, but on the south property line there's a six inch gas main and a water line that are run in to that site, and they are right on that property line, and I invite all of you to go drive out to the site and look at it, because Niagara Mohawk and all the Water Department has identified across the whole site with markers and where the sanitary sewers are, all these locations of underground buried utilities. Even the electric you can see coming out of the little shed that we were talking about, and they criss cross and run across this entire site, and they are prevalent right now, because we were on site today, and they were put there so that the surveyors could pick it up, and if you look on our utility plans, they show all these markings, and you'll see that this is a spaghett~ nest here. MR. HAUSNER-Well, and the reality is, naturally, all we can deal with. First of all, everybody here at this table is sensitive to exactly the fact that if there's something there, we wouldn't want to disturb it. The fact is that through the years there has never been a definitive find of any bones on the site. Speculation which the Historian even indicates is not warranted or substantiated in any way, but there's guys that are sitting out here that watch excavation. There's utility companies. There's foundations in the ground. If it was a pristine orchard or a field or a farm land of some kind where there hadn't been any development, that would be one story. We should definitely do some things, but the facts are, pure legitimate facts here, are that this site has been criss crossed with excavation for the past 100 years, and never has there ever been a documented case of anything found. That's a fact. That's all we can really deal with, and then we can respond to that sensitively to say, we need an archeologist. There's two of them that we discovered this evening in Albany that can help us to scrutinize this site and our careful removal of the existing buildings, and our excavation of the footings which are located as far as humanly possible away from the known cemetery site, prior to excavation. So it's not a matter for the Staff to get us aggravated and think that somebody out here's trying to do something like malicious or something in that direction. We are sensitive to that. We want to have the archeologist involved. We want to go through the proper procedure. MR. TRAINER-I mean, the design intent really does pull ourselves away from it. I mean, right now there's pavement out there that we plan to pull back and put lawn there. We plant to create a 50 foot buffer there that doesn't exist. So the potential for us to get in there and disturb and find something is even being reduced. I mean, we addressed that right up front. - 65 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) MR. HAUSNER-And all we can do is react to the facts. The facts are, through the past history, there has never been a discovered bone or artifact on that site, and it has been explored. MR. PALING-Now, Jim, we can't go on forever, and I asked if there were any more comments from Staff. Now, one more time, do you guys have any comments? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think a weighing has to be done here by the Board. I mean, what is the risk here. I mean, first of all, I guess I don't understand why there's this overwhelming fear of a delay here for one month or a couple of months to do significant work, you know, the right thing here. A weighing has to be done on your part, is the advantage of getting this done right away an overriding consideration over having correct, up front information about what exists here? Because, you know, there's going to be disturbance in the area of this building. Even if it's on slab, there's got to be a four foot frost wall dug for the footing. There's drywells on this site. It's not going to be just, just don't focus on these areas where you're tearing up pavement and re- seeding. There's going to be some fairly significant excavations made here, and I think you should weigh, is it better to know up front now, against the risk of potentially finding after the fact. MRS. LABOMBARD-Jim, can I ask you a question? What is more fiscally viable, to dig now, have the archeologist come in and test now where the developers are planning to dig, or to keep an archeological, and then once that is done, is that the end of the archeological issue? MR. MARTIN-It depends on what the Phase II result is, but it likely could be it asks for one to be on site. MR. SCHACHNER-Or it may not. MR. MARTIN-Or it may not. Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-Ail right. So in other words, that right there will tell you whether or not you need to employ the archeologist throughout the next three months? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-That's generally part of a conclusion on a Phase II, and the conclusion could be there's no need for that. You don't know until somebody does it. MR. PALING-Would anybody hazard a guess for time and expense to do a Phase II? MR. MARTIN-I forget on Hudson pointe. MR. SCHACHNER-It varies. MR. PALING-Does anybody at all have a rough guess what that would be? MR. PEZNOLA-Can it be done in the winter? Can it be done on soil frost conditions? It can? MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a question, again, for the Town. Again, you know, it's an expensive proposition here. However, the results that are going to be, if there are any finds, in other words, that would enhance the knowledge of the Historical Department in the Town. Isn't there any way where, I mean, the Town is going to benefit from this in the long run, they're going to find out whether or not there actually is something in there or whether there isn't. So why can't the Town have a little, couldn't the - 66 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) Town put in a little, few bucks here? MR. MARTIN-You'd have to ask the budgetary authority on that one, and that would be the Town Board. MR. PALING-No, I think that's a very good question. MRS. LABOMBARD-I think there's some merit to that. MR. PALING-I think, Jim, that's got a lot of merit, because lets say this application were denied, are we just going to sit, now, and wait for the next applicant to come in and put them through the ringer again, or can we do something constructive to avoid it? MRS. LABOMBARD-And the way that corner looks, that building is going to deteriorate. MR. MARTIN-In my estimation, the constructive thing to do is have the Phase II done and get this issue past you for this property, whether it be for this project or the next one down the road. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, this is just a point of procedure, but I don't think, legally, I'm not comfortable with holding Mrs. VanDyke, considering her just a member of the public. She is, after all, the Town Historian. So I think that if she has a position. MR. PALING-All right. Then she's part of Staff. MR. SCHACHNER-That's what I'm saying. So, I think if she has something to add, it would seem to me it's appropriate. MR. PALING-We've cut off very few people at all, if ever, Mark. All right. Go ahead, Mrs. VanDyke. What else would you like to say. MRS. LABOMBARD-I think it had something to do with the Town contributing some percentage of the cost of some kind of an archeological study, because they would end- up being the, benefitting from this. MRS. VANDYKE-First of all, the Department of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation advised me that when they do the study the learnings not only benefit the local area but the entire history of the entire State, so they have a much broader perspective about that. The Town would not be able to fund a project that involves a private developer doing it, just like I am unable to do work for the developer, but I can do work for the Town. MRS. LABOMBARD-But the thing is we're not saying that the Town would fund the entire cost, but I mean, isn't this something that could, is there anything in the laws that says that this couldn't be brought up to the Town Board? MRS. VANDYKE-You'll have to ask the lawyer. MR. MACEWAN-I've got to tell you, I've got a real problem with that, and my real problem with that is why didn't we say that with Hudson Pointe? Why wouldn't we say that for Native Textiles? Why didn't we say that for Curtis Lumber for the (lost words)? I could go on and on and on. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay, but like what Bob said. Right now we've got a building that is deteriorating, that is going to eventually become an eyesore in the very near, and closer in the near future than we would want, and we've got some really nice developers here that can do something about that, and we let these guys go down the pike, you know, what are we going to do with the next people that come in? - 67 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) MR. MACEWAN-Mr. Merrill put it really well, is that that property has an inherited liability to it. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, you're right, it does. coming from. I know where you're MR. PALING-I think we're to the point where we should have a within the Board discussion, okay. MR. LAPPER-Could I have one more comment? MR. PALING-Yes, you may. MR. LAPPER-Everything that's been said by Mark and the Board and the Staff recently would be absolutely applicable if we were talking about a site that was not previously developed, and the one thing I think that mitigates toward what the developer has offered here, which is fairly extensive, to just reiterate, to have an archeologist on staff on site during the whole excavation process, is that we have a site that's been extensively pre-excavated. All the buildings, the foundation of the building, the main building which takes up a lot of the site, and then all these utility lines, that is what's different here than any other site that Hudson Pointe, which is out in the woods, we've got a site that was extensively excavated, and if we're offering to retain an archeologist to be there and to have a protocol that we work out before there's a shovel in the ground, I think that that not only covers SEQRA, which is a minimal threshold, but it properly addresses the archeological issue. You're talking about a developer here that's willing to put soldier courses of brick on the back of a plaza. I mean, there's nobody else that's come to Town to do that. We're not talking about somebody that's trying to cheap out. We've got a responsible developer that's building a whole series of CVS and shopping centers allover the northeast. They're not sitting here saying that they're going to ignore this. They want to deal with it responsibly, but they don't want it to stop their project, and to be honest, I mean, if we're talking about something that can't be done right now, where it's going to take an extensive period of time to explore, chances are the project's not going to happen, and it will be, either the Doyle's people or the next guy that comes along in a year or two to deal with this, but we've got a developer that's not only responsible but is willing to spend the money to hire an archeologist and to do this and to work out a protocol before hand. MR. MACEWAN-But what you're implying, too, is that, the sense I just got out of that statement was that if we don't approve this thing, these guys are going to walk on down the road and go some place else, and the property's going to be left high and dry, Mr. Regan's going to be left without property to sell. We aren't going to have a CVS there, and we're going to be the bad guys because we didn't act on this like that. I have a real problem with that. I hear that, I don't know how many times I've heard that over the years sitting on this Board, that the pressure gets put on this Board because we aren't going to act and crumble to the developer's wishes so that they can get going and get a back hoe in the ground and start building right away. It's always the same. MR. LAPPER-It's not pressure. It's just the economic realities. MR. MACEWAN-That's certainly the sense you put into it. MR. LAPPER-It's just the economic realities of this deal, this transaction moving forward, and they're willing to spend the money. MR. MACEWAN-So what you're saying, that this Board should crumble to your economic well being and forego the history of this Town. - 68 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) MR. LAPPER-No. I think that what we're proposing really is sensitive to the archeology. It's just happening at the same time that the excavation is taking place, rather than excavating once for the archeology and excavating again for the building. That's all. MR. MACEWAN-I'm all in favor of having this project going in the most expeditious way, but I'm also in favor of preserving what we have there and finding the absolute right way of doing it. MR. LAPPER-Again, if this was a pristine site, if this was just an undeveloped site, there would be no question that there should be borings and that there should be an archeological dig done ahead of time. MR. MACEWAN-But in all fairness here, you can't, I mean, the comment was made earlier about how no one ever saw any bones lifted up before. No one saw any artifacts, and all the development's gone on on this site over 45, 50 years has been done. I, personally, I disagree. I wouldn't take a whole heck of a lot of stock in a back hoe operator pulling up a big bucket, what do they pull up, one, two, three yards out of a bucket loader at a time, and if they saw a bone sitting in there, how many guys wouldn't know if that was a human bone or an animal bone. MR. TRAINER-But if you had an archeologist on site, you'd catch it. MR. LAPPER-I think the point is, Craig, not that, I totally agree with you about the guy driving the truck, but the point is that that soil is gone already, that this site is not intact. MR. MACEWAN-There are plenty of other soil that is there that is intact. MR. TRAINER-I don't want this to go on forever, ~ut I think that the important distinction that we're trying to make is that a Phase II is going to yield, in our opinion no more conclusively than what we already have, and is likely to yield that it's advisable that an archeologist be put on the project. We're sort of just jumping ahead and saying, listening, I'm not even willing to, if we did the Phase II and it said you could do whatever you want, we don't believe there's anything there. MR. WEST-But what's going to happen to your project if you hit something that you didn't know was there? You didn't do a Phase II and you and you hit something. Now what do you do? Now you're delayed. MR. TRAINER-No, the protocol kicks in. We'll know exactly what to do. MR. WEST-Does New York State law accept a protocol, if they have a pre-established protocol that they follow if they hit something? MR. SCHACHNER-There's not a specific, pre-established protocol that's endorsed by New York State law. New York State law doesn't get down to that level of detail. New York State law mandates this type of discussion, and that potential impacts on historical, archeological resources be examined, but the whole sort of long winded statement that I made earlier about the process in which that's implemented is not specific statutory law, because it doesn't get to that level of detail. MR. TRAINER-So we have the flexibility to work out something with you, that's right. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, if Jim I think is telling me that your question is what happens if they hit something. - 69 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) MR. WEST-Yes, if they hit something. MR. S~HACHN~R-Okay. The ans~er there is a, whole series of things are k1cked 1n, and those are 1n'law, depend1ng upon what it is they hit. The most serious is generally considered human remains. MR. PALING-And that's the State laws. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. WEST-So they'd end up doing a Phase II anyway, probably. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, no, you pretty much fly right by your Phase II, to be honest, and you'd be into a much more severe situation, where you'd have an immediate cessation of work. You'd have immediate field investigations by a licensed archeologist, as well as OPRHP people, and you'd have, I phrased it earlier in some phrase about it's not, I guess I said all hell breaks loose. Yes, you'd figure way beyond a Phase II. MR. WEST-Don't you think the risk of that happening is worth the due diligence of an up front Phase II work? Even if it's not invasive ground penetrating radar or something like that? MR. PEZNOLA-Right now, the problem is I don't think it's ever going to be conclusive, I really don't. MR. MACEWAN-Are you under a time frame to have this store developed, an opening for CVS? MR. PEZNOLA-We're not under any time pressure. MR. MACEWAN-Then what's the problem? MR. PEZNOLA-The problem is doing a Phase II isn't going to give us anymore information than we have now. MR. MACEWAN-I don't feel comfortable with them not getting it and doing SEQRA review. I'll tell you that right now. MR. WEST-How do you know that? What are you basing that on? MR. PEZNOLA-Well, from what everybody's told me tonight, there is the possibility of there being human remains somewhere else on the site. If the Phase II does either the imaging or we dig holes, what if we missed where it is, and then we're digging and we do find it? MR. SCHACHNER-I guess I'm a little troubled at the last statement by the applicant, only because if everything the applicant contends about the site is true, especially that every single part of it, and I don't mean every single square inch, but that every part of it has been previously disturbed, then there's some likelihood that a Phase II will actually have a very favorable result to the applicant. So I guess I'm having, I have a little trouble with the applicant's notion, having participated in numerous Phase II archeological studies, I don't mean I've conducted them. I mean I've observed them, I guess I'm a little troubled by the notion that the applicant's saying, no, it won't give us anYmore information. MR. PALING-But he doesn't know that. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, no, nobody knows it, but I'm sort of playing devil's advocate and saying, if what the applicant says is true, that in fact the Phase II may give them a whole lot more information, and it may be extremely helpful to their position, and as the applicant says, it may mean that they don't need to have a - 70 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) licensed archeologist on site. MR. WEST-But what if they do that and then they still hit something? Hell still breaks loose? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, but Number One, of course the likelihood is dramatically reduced of that happening, dramatically in my opinion. Number Two, if that occurs, I have no concern about personal liability whatsoever, but if that occurs, this Board, as SEQRA Lead Agency, has certainly fulfilled it's legal requirements of taking a hard look at the potential environmental impacts and diligently and responsibly addressing those issues. Nothing, I mean certainly the applicant's right, neither a Phase II nor having a team of licensed archaeologists is an absolute guarantee that we won't unearth CroMagnon man on this site, but it obviously reduces the likelihood substantially. MR. PALING-Okay, now I think we're getting a bit repetitive. I think we're at that point where we can close it off. We're going to have an inter Board discussion here, okay. We are asking that no one else volunteer information, but we do reserve the right to ask you questions. However, before this begins, I'm going to take a one minute break. What we're going to do now is we're going to poll the Board, if you will. We'll each individually express what it is, how we feel about the whole project, and then a vote or whatever is necessary after that is what we'll do. We've got a long way to go yet before that. So I'll just start, Dave, why don't we start with you. MR. WEST-I'm not going to say it allover again, but based on the points that I just made, and the risk associated-with going ahead and digging and finding something and all hell breaking loose, I am going to recommend that a Phase II study be done before a shovel is put to the ground. That's my position. MR. PALING-Okay. Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, originally I was inclined to go along with Norbert where the fact that all this digging is taking place over the years, and nothing's been found. Nothing's been found that we know about. I mean, how do we know that some guy running a bulldozer didn't come across something and just, lackadaisically let it go? So maybe to be real careful about things, we better go through the Phase II. MR. PALING-George? MR. STARK-As you know, okay, we're going to have to put it off because a couple of us want to listen to Joanna Brunso's results of her interpretation of the traffic study, plus the fact that more than a couple of the people on the Board want to go ahead with a Phase II Archeological, I would personally be in favor of going ahead and having an archeological person on site, but apparently that's not the way we're headed. So the way we're headed is to put it off until the archeological study is done. That will surely give Joanna Brunso a chance to interpret her results, or our results to her, and it's going to be put off for a month or two. I don't know how long it'll take to do a, Mark, do you know how long it'll take to do a Phase II? MR. SCHACHNER-The record of ones I've been involved in I believe is six days, on the short end, and about a year and a half on the long end. MR. STARK-Okay. Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Craig? - 71 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) MR. MACEWAN-Based on all the information and everything we've heard and everything we've discussed, I'm real inclined to want to go with a Phase II study. I think it would be very wise of us to do so, for a lot of reasons. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, I have a little trouble with the Phase II study. I think I agree more with the way that George looked at it, but I agree that there has, I want to hear from Department of Transportation also, and I wonder if now we could find a way to expedite this process. Of course the applicant's got to agree with whatever we're doing here, or there will be no process. What I'm getting at is we've got a factor of time. We've got a factor of money here, involving Phase II, and can we get someone to tell us, give us a quote or, we can't bear the expense. The applicant's going to have to bear it. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Bob, for what it's worth, I don't really think we're entitled to, I think that, we're not entitled to pry into that province of that information with the applicant and his consultant. I don't really think that's. MR. PALING-You mean we should go ahead with SEQRA at this point? MR. SCHACHNER-What I'm saying is you, unless I misunderstood, you were asking about the costs of the archeological investigation? MR. PALING-I'm only trying to find out if the applicant's willing to go ahead with it. That's all I'm asking. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I must have misunderstood your question. MR. PALING-No. I'm only wondering if they will go ahead with it. MRS. LABOMBARD-Bob, we were just polling the Board. We wanted to know how you felt. MR. PALING-All right. Well, there's three to two, Phase II. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, but we still don't know how YOU feel. MR. PALING-I just told you. I agree with George. It's a three to two vote. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, but wait a minute. MR. WEST-George was Phase II. MRS. LABOMBARD-George was Phase II. MR. PALING-All right. Then it's four to one. MR. STARK-It's not going to go ahead tonight. So, everybody else wants a Phase II, the other people want a Phase II, fine. The applicant's going to have to realize that, that we're going to need a Phase II before it comes back in to us again, and that'll give Brunso a chance to look at here thing and put the appraisal on that, and then we can find out from Mr. Lapper how soon he can anticipate a Phase II being done and so on, assuming a Phase II comes back in with a positive result, positive in the sense that they didn't find anything, that we can get back on the Board and get them going again. So why don't you ask Mr. Lapper. MR. PALING-Okay. So I'll ask now for the comment. MR. LAPPER-I guess what Å would ask would be whether it would be possible for this Board to consider this an approved proj ect conditioned upon the approval of the traffic study, and conditioned upon a Phase II that is acceptable to the Town. - 72 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) MR. WEST-I don't feel comfortable hanging my hat on that. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have no problem with that. MR. TRAINER-Because if the Phase II doesn't come back, then there's no approval. MR. PEZNOLA-See, and my problem is, I keep putting more money into this project before I even know if it's going to be approved. I mean, I want to do this project, but. MR. STARK-I can say, from mY standpoint, I think from Cathy's and Bob's also, that the Phase II comes back negative, and the traffic study, I don't really anticipate a problem with that, there'll be an approval. You know, as far as you dumping more money in, say it's $25, $30,000, whatever it is for a Phase II Archeological study, it's too bad. MR. PEZNOLA-Well, it's too bad if it tells me that I can't do the project, but it's really too bad if I also don't even have an approval. MR. PALING-Okay. Mark on that one. I could go along with that, but I've got to ask We'd go through SEQRA to do this. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, you would have to. Obviously, ydu can't issue a decision on an application without conducting ÿour SEQRA review. There is, I don't know if this is what the applicant's getting at or not, but there is something called a conditioned negative declaration, but in order to have a conditioned negative declaration, you still have to have a full slate of environmental information on which to base your review. I'm still troubled. I mean, for example, if I'm understanding the applicant's proposal correctly, the Board might entertain a motion to approve the project, subject to completion of traffic review and a Phase II archeological study. The Phase II archeological study could, in theory, could result in saying, we found CroMagnon man here. We found the missing link. We can't build on this project. Now we have a conditioned negative declaration under SEQRA that's totally inappropriate, that would never withstand a legal challenge in a million years, and you have an approval that doesn't authorize an applicant to build a project. MR. LAPPER-There's a small distinction, because we wouldn't be asking for that. That wouldn't be right. We would be asking for an approval contingent on a Phase II that shows that we can go ahead and build, that there is. MR. PALING-They wouldn't do anything until Phase II is complete, is my understanding. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. I appreciate Mr. Lapper's comment, but I don't understand how you would have enough information, this is ultimately up to you, but from the legal perspective, it would seem to me that you're lacking significant information on which to base at least your SEQRA determination, and also, just to make sure that everyone understands this is not strictly a SEQRA issue, the site plan review criteria of our Town Zoning Ordinance include a specific finding that there'll be no undue adverse impact on historic and cultural resources and archeological resources. So again, it's a little inconsistent, in my experience, it would be somewhat inconsistent for a lead agency to say, we need a Phase II archeological report, but in the mean time, we'll complete our SEQRA review. MR. PALING-Well, we go through the SEQRA and when we come to that point, Mark, we say that it is conditional upon the completion of Phase II. - 73 - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) MR. SCHACHNER-What I'm saying is that I find that legally inconsistent. It's up to you as a Board. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Well, you're the lawyer. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, the SEQRA determination is not up to me. It's up to you, as the lead agency, but what I'm saying is a certain level of information is necessary, in order to make those SEQRA determinations, and I would be uncomfortable, let me put it this way, I would be uncomfortable defending you in a legal proceeding if you were attacked on the basis of making these decisions on the two issues that seem to remain outstanding in at least some Board member's minds, meaning traffic and archeological, with the level of information you currently have. MR. MARTIN-And just as a timing comment, I don't know what's really gained here. As soon as the survey work is done, you're going to be in a position to act. I don't understand what the problem is here with this overriding need for the approval tonight. I mean, this Board's been very accommodating. As soon as that information is available, we can have a meeting and you can take your appropriate action. MR. PALING-I don't understand your point, Mark, but I'll go along with it. MR. SCHACHNER-I'll take another stab at it, if you want. MR. PALING-Well, no, because we do many things here. You'll submit your final print to Staff for approval. You'll do all kind of things pending. MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely, and we do many conditional approvals, but you always have a minimum threshold amount of information on which to make your SEQRA determination, and when you do those conditional approvals, at least in mY experience, you are asking for the inclusion of specific information that has already come to light on the final print, for example, or in the final plan or in the final planting plan or whatever. Here, we're really shooting at a vacuum. You're asking for something to be done, but we don' t really know what, because you don't have the base level of information. That's the distinction I'm trying to make. MR. MACEWAN-In the past, when we've done conditional approvals, we've been beyond the SEQRA stage. We aren't beyond that at this point. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, I'm not going to fight it because we have an alternative that's just as good, because if we have all the information, we can call a special meeting and act on it. MR. SCHACHNER-You certainly have the authority to do that at any time, no question. MR. STARK-John, we're swimming uphill here, you know. The handwriting's on the wall. Why don't you agree to, you know, table the application. You can do what you want, table the application, get the Phase II, whenever you're ready, by that time, Brunso will probably be done, within a week or so I would think. We can always schedule a special meeting and do that, but it appears like we're not going any place tonight. John, you want conditional this, conditional that. It's not going to happen tonight, I guess. So why don't you just agree to table until you can get the Phase II done, and that I have no idea how long it's going to take, and the only person that's really hurt by this is Regan because he's trying to sell the property. MR. LAPPER-At the very least, I want you to go away tonight - 74 - \-- ~' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) understanding that it is not our position that we're trying to blow off the archeological. We're trying to do it as efficiently and quickly as possible. MR. WEST-Understood. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. PALING-Yes, no question about that. MR. STARK-Do you agree to table? MR. PEZNOLA-I don't think we have a choice. Do you want to get a reading from the Board, if you go through all this that you're going to get an approval? MR. LAPPER-I think we heard that. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, the Board is legally prohibited from making any advanced commitments, but the Board members, I think, have expressed certain views, and I think your Counsel understands those views. MR. LAPPER-We would ask that it be tabled. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Thanks for the time. MR. STARK-You will notify us when you're ready? MR. PEZNOLA-Yes. We have no idea how long it will take. MR. PALING-All right. Now I have one, okay that's all covered in the, that the cemetery is one item, the berm is another item, alternative access is a traffic thing. That's traffic. Okay. It comes down to the archeological, the berm, and the traffic study. Those are the three. MR. LAPPER-The berm's in, we've shown it. MR. PALING-Okay. We can consider the berm settled? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I think so, and I think the Board was receptive to the landscaping that was shown, the bottom of the thing, right? MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. I'll take the berm off as being part of it. All right. We're going to table this item, and we usually set a date when we table it. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 76-96 BERKSHIRE ACQUISITION CORP., Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by David West: Until the traffic study and Phase II archeological studies are completed. At that time the Board will have a meeting at the earliest possible time. Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 1996, by the following vote: MR. PALING-The public has got to be notified. through the process again I assume, or can we? We've got to go We don't have to. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, it's a public meeting. MR. MARTIN-It's a public meeting. - 75 - J (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) MR. PALING-There'll be a public meeting. So let the people here be on notice, there'll be a public meeting, but there'll be no public notice. Okay, but you're welcome to come and you're welcome to input. We want to hear from you. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, I'm confused. There will be public notice. MR. PALING-There will be public notice? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, there's public notice of all of your meetings. MR. MARTIN-But not the mailings. MR. PALING-No public mailings MR. LAPPER-You mean no public hearing. MR. PALING-No public hearing. MR. LAPPER-But there will be notice. MR. GORALSKI-We'll publish it in the paper. MR. PALING-It'll be published, but no mailing. MR. GORALSKI-Right. The public hearing is closed. MR. PALING-Yes, there'll be a public meeting. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, absolutely. MR. PALING-All right. AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel MR. PALING-Okay. Now we have one more item of business, and this is for. MR. GORALSKI-Marchand we haven't done yet. MR. PALING-Well, I'm going back to Boivin. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, Marchand and Boivin. MR. PALING-Yes, right, Boivin. MR. GORALSKI-I would recommend you table it. MR. PALING-All right, until we hear from them? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. All right. MOTION TO TABLE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. FW2 - 9 6 GEORGE BOIVIN/CHRISTOPHER MARCHAND, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by David West: That this matter be tabled until we hear from the applicant. Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. West, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE - 76 - l " -" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/96) ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel MR. PALING-All right, are we finished? MR. GORALSKI-That's all ~ have. MR. PALING-All right. That's all I have. There may be a special meeting, otherwise, the meetings are the regular, the 18th is the site visits on Saturday, and then the 21st and 28th are the regular meetings. Okay. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 77 -