Loading...
1997-01-28 QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 28, 1997 INDEX site Plan No. 6-95 REQUEST FOR EXTENSION Mike Hayes & Rich Schermerhorn 1. Subdivision No. 10-1996 FINAL STAGE Richard Trzaska Tax Map No. 54-2-7.22 2. Site Plan No. 76-96 Berkshire Acquisition Corp. Tax Map No. 105-1-4.1 17. 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 1/28/97) QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 28, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY ROGER RUEL CRAIG MACEWAN TIMOTHY BREWER DAVID WEST MEMBERS ABSENT GEORGE STARK EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, & PRATT, MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 6-95 MIKE HAYES & RICH SCHERMERHORN REQUEST FOR EXTENSION MIKE HAYES & RICH SCHERMERHORN, PRESENT MR. PALING-There was question, last week, about this, about why it was being asked for, a little bit of concern because it was a repeat request. So would you identify yourselves? MR. HAYES-Yes. My name is Mike Hayes, known as Micky Hayes. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Rich Schermerhorn. MR. HAYES-Basically, we both own and operate local businesses, which most of you probably known. We've had some significant events come up in each of our businesses. We actually haven't had time to proceed with this project. That's why we haven't done it. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-Is there a limit on the number of extensions that can be granted? MR. PALING-Not that I know of. I don't think there is such a thing. Okay. Are there any other questions or comments? MR. MARTIN-This was first approved in, almost to the day, January 24, 1995. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Nothing has changed since that day. The site is still the same. MR. PALING-What is the likelihood that it'll be done in the coming, when will you start it, lets put it that way. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, we're talking about it now. We're anticipating possibly spring or summer right now. We're just waiting for some information to come back. Like Micky said, the only reason we haven't done anything is because I've been doing my own stuff and he's been doing his stuff. - 1 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) MR. PALING-And you need a full year? MR. SCHERMERHORN-That would probably be the best thing, I would think. MR. PALING-All right. If there are no other questions or comments. MR. RUEL-I'll make a motion. MOTION TO GRANT A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF SITE PLAN NO. 6-95 FOR RICH SCHERMERHORN & MIKE HAYES, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: To January 31, 1998. Duly adopted this 28th day of January, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1996 FINAL STAGE RICHARD TRZASKA OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE AN 8.212 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OP 4.1 ACRES EACH. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB. 4-1996 TAX MAP NO. 54-2-7.22 LOT SIZE: 8.212 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WALTER REHM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LABOMBARD-And there was a public hearing last week. MR. PALING-It's still open. It's open. MR. RUEL-Yes, you left it open. MR. PALING-Okay. The applicant's are here, and we now have a letter from Mr. Trzaska. Maybe the best thing to do would be to read this letter or to summarize it for the Board. will you identify yourselves, and lets start there. RICK TRZASKA MR. TRZASKA-I'm Rick Trzaska. MR. REHM-I'm Walter Rehm. I represent Mr. Trzaska. I'm sure Rick, the school teacher would be good at reading this, if you'd like to have him read it. MR. PALING-Whichever, your choice. MR. TRZASKA-"Dear Planning Board members: As you are aware, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for Final approval of subdivision of 8.212 plus or minus acres, owned by my wife, Marcia, and myself, Richard, located on the westerly side of Chestnut Ridge in the Town of Queensbury. The parcel in question is Lot Two, as shown on the Lowell Subdivision map which was approved by the Planning Board on June 25, 1996. We propose to divide the lot which we own into two lots, both of which are in complete conformance to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinances. The northerly most portion of the two lots is proposed to contain 4.249 acres with 195.11 feet of frontage on Chestnut Ridge Road. The southerly lot is proposed to contain 3.963 acres, with 170 feet of frontage on Chestnut Ridge Road. The land in question is located in a Suburban Residential One Acre zone which provides for a minimum lot size of one acre, and a minimum of 150 feet of - 2 - -- '- '-...-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) frontage on the highway. There are no private deed restrictions in the chain of our title, nor are there any contractual agreements which would prohibit the subdivision which we propose. The Planning Board granted preliminary approval of the subdivision on January 21, 1997, and at that time also made a determination that the project would have no significant environmental impact, as required under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. After a short discussion regarding Final approval, the matter was thereafter tabled for consideration at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board. Throughout this project, I have been guided by the Town Department of Community Development, and I appreciate the advice and counsel which was gi ven me by that Department. From the onset, it was my understanding that the subdivision of the lot which we own would be a relatively simple matter, since the Lowell subdivision had been approved a short time ago, and since the proposal conformed in all respects to the Town Zoning Ordinances. It was also my understanding that it would not be necessary for me to duplicate information that has already been submitted at previous review by the Town Planning Board, in connection with the Lowell subdivision application. While the Town of Queensbury's Subdivision Regulations include four pages of very specific information that is to be provided in the case of preliminary plats, it is my understanding that the information which I had submitted to the Board, was sufficient in light of the prior fairly detailed review and procedures which have been followed generally by the Planning Board in the past. I am also aware that certain matters are reviewed by the Town of Queensbury upon application for a building permit, which matters include compliance with sanitary sewage disposal regulations, grading, landscaping, clearing, etc. At the January 21st Planning Board meeting, I was asked to submit, in writing, a request for certain waivers and requirements of the Subdivision Regulations, and I did so. Please accept this letter as a more formal request for such waivers. They include, two foot contours. The plat which I submitted includes two foot contours for the easterly most 200 plus feet of the parcel in question, which is the area to be developed. I do not believe that contours for the balance of the property would provide a useful purpose. However, I would state that the Lowell Subdivision Map indicates that the slope of the remainder of the property is approximately 18 degrees downward. Contiguous property owners within 500 feet. That information will be placed on the Final plat prior to its being signed by the Planning Board Chairman. Sanitary sewers. Sanitary sewers are generally located on the plat and will be reviewed in detail upon application for a building permit. Stormwater drainage is generally in a northwesterly direction away from the road and toward the wetland, which are located at the rear of the property and was, I believe, reviewed in some detail upon approval of the Lowell Subdivision. Clearing and grading. I do not have specific plans for clearing and grading at this point. However, both will be submitted to the Town upon application for a building permit. The Final plat will also include the required designation of fire and school district boundaries, existing zoning districts, names of all subdivisions within the area, a statement of compliance with the Zoning Ordinances, and the signed signature plat. I would, at this time, be happy to include any additional reasonable relevant information which the Board may desire to include. Thank you very much for your cooperation throughout the entire review process." MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Jim, would you want to add anything to George Hilton's comments from the last meeting? MR. MARTIN-No. I would just say, I think there was, and I apologize to Mr. Trzaska. I think there was a little bit of a mix up at our end, as Staff, as what should have been conveyed to him at the outset, in terms of dealing with this waiver issue, and that was by no means a fault of his own. George is still somewhat new and I just think he failed to inform him of the written request for - 3 - ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) waiver, and I think that's been a lot of the cause for confusion. So I apologize for that, but other than that, much of his statement that he's made is correct. It is a conforming plan. In all honesty, I don't see any need in trying to site house locations in any great detail or specificity at this time. He's correct, he will be required to submit a site plan at the time of building permit, and that will give us detailed information as to the location of the house, it's compliance with setbacks, and also the location of the septic system. It could vary greatly on a lot of this size. It's got quite a building envelope there in which he could place a house, and I don't see any reason to get into detail as to house location. Other than that, I would consider these to be conforming, buildable lots. MR. PALING-And you're satisfied with the documentation the way it is now? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I mean, you know, if we were talking a huge subdivision with streets and drainage and that type of thing, that usually warrants a need for greater detail, but on a two lot subdivision like this, especially one that is a lot that was previously subdivided, the concerns are fewer for sure. MR. RUEL-Okay. I have a question for you, Jim. drawings. What is a planimetric? We have three MR. MARTIN-A planimetric is the one that shows the lot boundaries and houses of building locations. MR. RUEL-It's not shown here, is it? MR. MARTIN-Well, there's no houses. This is vacant as I understand it right now, and this planimetric map, as it's so called, from our Geographic Information System, that's based on aerial photography from 1986. MR. RUEL-The top view, right? MR. MARTIN-Right. So being probably '85 or '86, the flight was taken, it's obviously not up to date. MR. RUEL-And the contour lines on the first one are what? MR. MARTIN-That's USGS contouring. MR. RUEL-How far apart are they? MR. MARTIN-I think the scale on that's rather large. It's like a one to 24,000, I believe is the scale. So that's a good guide as to what the contours are, but I would go more by his two foot contouring that he's indicated, the first 100 feet or so off of Chestnut Ridge Road is a more specific indication of the slope. MR. RUEL-Yes, and the third one are the wetlands. Are these DEC flagged wetlands? MR. MARTIN-Well, these are, they are not DEC flagged wetlands. They are DEC wetlands that are taken off of, again, aerial photography. Based on that, DEC will determine a wetland boundary. If we were showing house sites that were in close proximity to that, I would have said it would be a good idea to go out and flag those and have them recorded on the survey map, according to the flagging, but I don' t see where you have house sites that are anywhere potentially near that. So it's really not useful information in this instance. MR. RUEL-Mr. Trzaska, approximately how many feet would the structure be from the wetlands? - 4 - .--' -- -..../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) MR. TRZASKA-Nine hundred feet. MR. RUEL-Nine hundred. MR. MARTIN-If we were in the 150 or 125 foot range, then I think it would be worthwhile to get the boundary line shown and the buffer area. MR. PALING-Okay. Any further questions on the part of the Board? MR. MACEWAN-Jim, with the previous subdivision, the Lowell Subdivision, when the drainage and stormwater management plans were done for that subdivision, because he's doubled the density by cutting this particular parcel in half, how do you feel that that would fit in with having more density on this piece of land? MR. MARTIN-Each lot is almost four acres in size and nearly 200 feet wide. Again, if we had four houses going on each lot, which is more in line with the permitted density under the zoning code. I would say there would be some concern or need for a new drainage report that would reflect that, but one single family dwelling on four acres, I know these are somewhat narrow and long, but even still, I don't see any need for a drainage report. MR. MACEWAN-You feel comfortable with that? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I feel comfortable. I mean, we're talking about an impervious area here that maybe will be, if a house is even 3,000 square feet on one floor, with associated driveway area, you're talking about a fraction of the lot being under impervious surface. So I don't see where a drainage report is really going to be an exercise in a financial cost for the applicant. It's not really going to tell us anything. MR. RUEL-Do you know anything about the soil in that area? MR. MARTIN-The soils are, I think, rather gravelly, cobbly. Drainage should not be a problem. I think, you know, we'll ask for percolation tests at the time of building permit in the area of the septic system, but I don't expect that we're going to see anything that's not within complying ranges. MR. PALING-Did you have anything to add to what has been said? MR. REHM-We have nothing further to add, no. MR. PALING-All right. Then I think we'll go to the public hearing. If you would give the table up for a little bit, please. If anyone would like to talk about this matter, would you please come up. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN TOM FORD MR. FORD-Good evening. I'm Tom Ford. I live at 223 Chestnut Ridge Road. I apologize if some of the comments here are irrelevant because I'm a week late. I wasn't aware of the meeting last week. So just cut me off if I'm going astray. All right. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. FORD-Because I've got some general observations and I've got some other concerns that I want to share. Without deed restrictions to prevent the subdivision of these eight acres lot on the former RYffikewicz property, this is an issue that the residents of Chestnut Ridge and this Board will undoubtedly revisit many times in the near future. Therefore, I ask that you be particularly mindful of the precedent setting nature of your - 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) decision. Other speculators will follow Dr. Trzaska. My concerns are as follows. How much of the shrubbery and trees will be cut, and what impact will this have on the animals and birds on the two properties? Another, what about the stormwater drainage? I know Jim just addressed this issue. My concern is not for the depth of the lot, which is, the two lots that's enormous. My concern is we don't know the size of the houses planned or the amount of driveway space turnaround or parking areas, and how that might impact the upper part of the lot and the potential for a stormwater runoff to the neighbor's property, rather than down the hill. How will the two houses of unknown sizes in close proximity impact the beauty of the view to the west that is enjoyed by those who drive, bike, jog, and walk on Chestnut Ridge Road? Finally, if you are satisfied with all compliance issues and wish to approve this plan, I would ask and request, recommend that you please do so with the contingency that there may not be any further subdivision of these properties in the future. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. Would anyone else care to come up? BOB NORTHGARD MR. NORTHGARD-My name is Bob Northgard, and I live at 111 Chestnut Ridge Road, which is three lots south of this property. Tom Ford hit on a lot of the same ideas the rest of us here feel about, and getting some assurances about the further use of the word "subdivision ". It's something we're all kind of looking down on, wondering what your feelings are, and one other thing that should be taken into consideration is the aquifer. Due to the fact that we won't have City water running out there too shortly, we have to rely on wells and aquifers are very important to those wells, and any time wells are drilled, it interferes with some of the aquifer's action. I know many of you who have wells are well aware of it, but some people don't, and it can interfere with other water supply. It happened across the street from me. An extension was done, due to no fault of his, but he's still having problems with water (lost words), and I just thought that was another thing to add to it. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. CYNDI SMITH MRS. SMITH-My name is CYndi Smith. I live at 132 Chestnut Ridge Road, and I would also like to talk about the aquifer water that we have come in, the ground water in the spring (lost words). Anything that happens on the Ridge is not graveled property. It's rock and there's clay, and the water changes direction frequently. One side of the Ridge may flood one year, and then the next year, it's completely dry while other people suffer with water. Runoff is a very major concern of mine because it's with (lost word) feet of a proposed subdivision. I would also like to know how you judge where these wetlands begin, and how you judge whether that is a Corps of Engineers wetland or not. I also don't know the exact boundary line to the property as it sits. I understand there's something called a site stopping, if there's any kind of obstruction close to the road. There's a (lost words) very close to the road, and I'd like to know how close that is to the proposed boundary line. MR. BREWER-I don't understand what she means by stopping distance? MRS. SMITH-There's a site stopping distance that (lost words) . MR. MARTIN-Site distance down the road. MRS. SMITH-Is there a Long Form SEQRA to be filled out before - 6 - .-' -- -./ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) building is allowed? MR. BREWER-SEQRA has already been done. MR. PALING-SEQRA has been done. MRS. SMITH-That's the Short Form. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-A building permit is an action that is not subject to SEQRA review. It's specifically exempt. MR. PALING-Well, and we ran a SEQRA last meeting, Short Form. MRS. SMITH-When is the Long Form required? MR. PALING-When it's deemed that there's serious environmental questions. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, don't forget, there are certain instances where a Long Form is required by law, and there are criteria set up in something called the SEQRA Regulations that define different types of actions, and there's a category of actions that requires the Long Form Environmental Assessment Form by law, and this proposed action does not fall within that list of those criteria. So the Board, last week I believe it was, elected to go forward with the SEQRA review of the proposed subdivision on what's called the Short EAF form, and that is within the criteria under the SEQRA regulations. . MRS. SMITH-Is there any other regulations that would preclude a Long Form being done or in-depth study looked at, just by the wetland, the amount of sumac that grows. MR. SCHACHNER-I can try to answer the question if you'd like, Bob. The answer is, in reference to things that require a Long Form, yes. There are a number of things that require a Long Environmental Assessment Form, but none of them were present or deemed to be present when the Board conducted it's SEQRA review last week. One SEQRA review is conducted and completed, which it was last week. As long as what's proposed remains within the scope of what was discussed, meaning a two lot subdivision, and construction of single family residences on the two lots, there is no further SEQRA review. MRS. SMITH-I guess the last thing I would like to say is, again, there is quite a bit more property on the road that is within this eight acres of subdivision. There's a major concern that this is the beginning of subdivision, and all of the neighbors would agree that we would like you to take into consideration the precedents that Mr. Ford mentioned. As to what happens this time is likely to happen again and again, and we would like you to take that into consideration, from an environmental impact, the character of the neighborhood that will definitely change. MR. BREWER-Excuse me, ma'am, what lot is yours on this map? I know it's tough to see. I'll have to bring it over. MR. PALING-She said the second lot south, I think. Okay. I'd like to go back to a couple, Jim, maybe you could repeat or elaborate on the wetland explanation, for the benefit of everybody. MR. MARTIN-Okay. There's two types of wetlands, so called. There's DEC wetlands, and then there's wetlands that are subject to Army Corps review. In this particular instance, this is part of a DEC wetland, as a wetland is over 12.4 acres in size. That is the threshold that determines whether or not a wetland area qualifies - 7 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) for DEC designation. This is part of a longer wetland area that's kind of linear in it's shape, and I think bisects this property, and what causes that to be a wetland is, and I'm not a wildlife biologist. These are just things that I've picked up over the years, that there has to be presence of certain hydrologic soils that will support certain types of plants, and a trained eye can tell where the limit of that is, and that's what determines the boundary. Now it can also be done from analysis of aerial photography. They can, again, a trained eye can pick up off of that where the wetland boundary is. Now, as I was saying earlier, if you have an instance where you're in some proximity to the edge of that wetland boundary, you're just working off a boundary that's determined by aerial photography, I would recommend you have it flagged, because that is not the most exact science, and it could vary by maybe 25 feet, as to where the boundary was, and it would be better to have it flagged, but in this instance where we have a wetland boundary 900 feet from the building area, I don't think it's worthy, in my opinion, just speaking for myself, I don't think it's worthwhile to go out there and have it flagged. The wetland boundary that we got off of aerial photography is recorded on the survey. It's a scaled survey so we can determine where the boundary is approximately. If the Board doesn't feel comfortable with that, you can certainly have it flagged and then recorded in a survey according to the flagging, but that's basically what determines a wetland. Now, Army Corps does the same thing, except they have a little bit different definition of a wetland that's in their Federal law, and Army Corps will come out only after you've done the delineation yourself. In the instance of an Army Corps process, it's the responsibility of the developer to come up with the delineation of the wetland, in other words, where the boundary exists, both on the site and on paper. You submit that to them. They review it and a field person will come up and check that boundary out to make sure they concur. You'll hear back from them in several weeks, and they'll tell you whether or not they'll accept your delineation or not. You may recall this from, the K- Mart was part of this. So that's the difference. In the case where you have a DEC wetland, in most instances, Army Corps will defer to their jurisdiction. So that's why there's not Army Corps involvement in this, because this is a DEC jurisdictional wetland. MR. PALING-From the wetlands and size and probable location of the house and number of feet we're talking, I'm comfortable with what you're saying, as long as the rest of the Board feels that way, too. MR. MARTIN-You can always have the option, DEC will flag it for free. There's always that option. Now the other thing I heard was a limit of clearing. That's something that the Board, I know you're aware of, has done in the past. If you want to have a limit of clearing line shown on the plat, that can be done and recorded and done to scale, and that can be enforced at the time building occurs. In terms of aquifers and the well, again, we don't have anything that really trips a cause for a greater concern here. With two dwelling units on eight acres, it just doesn't meet any thresholds. MR. MACEWAN-Going back to the limit of clearing, how would you propose setting up some type of established limit of clearing when he really doesn't have where he plans on putting them up? MR. BREWER-We could come this way from the wetlands. MR. MARTIN-You could give them some latitude. You could set the limit so he does have some latitude, and establish those limits, and if he runs into afield problem, at the time of actual building, he can re-approach the Board and request a modification to that and state the reasons why he needs it. - 8 - ..~ ',-, --' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) MR. MACEWAN-Give me an example of how you would do that, an approximation or something. MR. MARTIN-I would say it's much like a setback boundary for a zoning district. You would go so far off the property line and say this would be the limit of clearing, but you want to be sure to allow for enough room for a reasonably sized dwelling to occur, and you need the typical things, driveway, garage, the house itself and the septic area are usually your building requirements that require clearing and disturbance of the site. As long as you have a big enough area to accommodate that, you shouldn't have a problem. I can't say, he can't either until he really gets on site, and like I said, if you run into an issue where the limit as approved doesn't work for him, he can always come back and have you adjust it. MR. PALING-Okay. I'd like to revisit the, I got lost a little bit when we got into the discussion of boundary lines and the red barn, and the boundary lines of the property are established on the map I'm looking at, I assume. That's what they usually do, and maybe you could ask that question again, when you talk about wondering where the boundary lines were. MRS. SMITH-I bQlieve that any vehicle coming out of this piece of property must have a safe stopping distance from anything that is close to the road. MR. PALING-Okay. Now I understand what you're saying. Okay. Can you comment on that, Jim? MR. MARTIN-I'm pretty certain that there are considerations for that when we have a new street in a subdivision approaching. There has to be a clear vision zone, as it's called, and I know in the zoning code, from the corner, you have to have 35 feet back in each direction as a clear vision zone, but there may be additional requirements; That's what I'm going to look up, in terms of private driveways. MR. PALING-Okay. We'll put that aside and we'll come back to that. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. PALING-Now, is there anyone else that would like to come up for the first time? GAIL SOLOMON MRS. SOLOMON-I live at 238 Chestnut Ridge Road and my name is Gail Solomon, and I've lived there for 18 years, and I did have concerns about the wetlands, and I don't even know how to ask that question, but it was a concern of mine, and I would have to entrust that you know what you're doing. I guess a big concern of mine, though, is a change in character of the road. I have loved living there. I have loved the view. I have walked it and jogged it and skied it, and it will change, I think, very shortly, and I will regret that very much. I think we all feel very passionately about that farm, and I apologize to you, Mr. Trzaska, but I wish you weren't buying that and subdividing it. I hope that you'll do it with some taste, and I wish I could have bought that property and saved it, but we couldn't, and I hope you will consider any further subdivisions, that it will change the character of the road, and it will be sad for all of us. I think that we should preserve what we have. We should preserve our open space. We should preserve our wetlands for sure, and I hope that you're looking at that with a lot of consideration. MR. PALING-Thank you. back? Anyone else? Tom, did you want to come - 9 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) MR. FORD-On the issue of the designated wetland, I can't stipulate it, but I've never been in back of this subdivision, but I know back of my property, the designated wetland is, in fact, flagged. Just how far down Halfway Brook that flagging extends, I really don't know, but it is flagged along Chestnut Ridge Road. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. Would anyone else care to speak? MR. NORTHGARD-I just have a question. Bob Northgard again. The depth of the property, I'm scaling that to somewhere around 1,000 feet. Does that go all the way through to Ridge Road? MR. BREWER-No. MR. NORTHGARD-It doesn't? Well how far is it to Ridge Road? Just give me an idea. MR. BREWER-About another 1,000 feet, roughly, maybe 750. MR. NORTHGARD-Okay. Does the Halfway Brook enter onto this property? I know it runs through there. MR. MARTIN-I believe it does. MR. NORTHGARD-The tax map shows that it does. MR. BREWER-What was the question, does it go through there? MR. MARTIN-I think it's at the center of the wetland area. MR. BREWER-What map are you looking at, Jim? MR. MARTIN-Based on, I think the wetlands is that blue area. It's essentially following the course of the stream. MR. PALING-All right. Is there anyone else that would care to talk about this matter? MR. NORTHGARD-I asked the question, does this Brook run through the property, yes it does. Remember, that is down hill all the way from Chestnut Ridge Road down. MR. PALING-Yes, it would be. Okay. NANCY VONIC MS. VONIC-My name is Nancy Vonic. I own property at 56 Chestnut Ridge Road. I think that you all need to be extremely concerned about the change of the character of that area. I don't know if it was mentioned it would, by making additional dwellings, houses, homes, that it would increase traffic on that road. It is a narrow road. As long as I've lived in this area, 30 years, I have heard, repeatedly, people from Glens Falls who purposely enjoy the scenery of that road. We all know it's very historic (lost words). I think we need to be very concerned about changing the character by adding additional dwellings to that neighborhood. MR. PALING-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. If not, then the public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MACEWAN-Bob, before the applicants come back up again, this is directed, I guess, for Jim. There have been, some of the residents up there, the neighbors that are concerned about future development along Chestnut Ridge Road. Would you kind of maybe give them a - 10 - ..,..",..-- ~ -../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) quick overview of what the scenario is up there? I mean, what the zoning is up there. MR. MARTIN-Well, I'm finding these comments very interesting, especially since we're going through an update to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, because much of this area is zoned SR-1A, which allows housing density at a rate of one house for every acre. Here we have a plan that's approximately four times that, one house for every four acres. If that's the predominant feelings in the neighborhood, maybe we should be looking at, you know, in our next planning effort, an increase in the lot size through this area, but as it stands right now, we are looking at the one acre density requirement. In this particular instance, I think it's good that the lots are greater in size, you know, a wetland area and an associated floodplain zone runs through approximately a third of the lot, and it is a sloping lot to the wetland area. So I think these lots are probably, from an environmental standpoint, it's a good thing that they're larger than the minimum size, in this particular case for sure. MR. PALING-Jim, are you saying that, not for tonight, but for future consideration, to look at re-zoning? MR. MARTIN-Well, when the Town does, you know, after you have a Comprehensive Plan effort based on that, the logical next step is a Town wide re-zoning, and then in that vein, it might be a good idea for the Town, you know, if that's the predominant feeling of the neighborhood up there, to consider maybe a larger density requirement. MR. PALING-That would take time. MR. MARTIN-It does take time, yes. MR. MACEWAN-We could certainly take all these facts into consideration tonight. MR. PALING-But to a degree, but we can't re-zone it. MR. MACEWAN-No, no. I'm not talking about re-zoning. I'm not talking about re-zoning. My follow up question to that was, not counting the Lowell Subdivision, do you, offhand, remember last time we had some property in front of us up on Chestnut Ridge for something? MR. MARTIN-It's been a long time. As I understand it, the neighbors maybe know better. It was under the ownership of essentially one family or a group of people. The RYffikewicz's had a lot of it, as I know, and it was like, 90 acres or some huge amount of property, on both sides of the road. It's 200 plus. MR. MACEWAN-Within 10 years ago. MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's been held by them, like they say, for generations apparently, and we've not seen any sort of development proposal up there for some time. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a question for Mr. Ford, when you were setting your six or seven little concerns here. They weren't little as far as you're concerned, but on an approval with contingency of no further subdivisions, does that mean on this property that we're discussing or the adjacent properties, too? MR. FORD-What is before you, obviously, is this subdivision, and that would be the contingency I would suggest if you're going to approve this subdivision. MRS. LABOMBARD- In other words that it's now going into two, - 11 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) basically four acre lots. That those four acres can't go down any further? MR. FORD-That's correct. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's what you want. MR. RUEL-A question for Jim, during the time that we were going to modify the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, you had a series of meetings, neighborhood meetings, and that particular Neighborhood, do you recall whether there were any comments concerning the maintenance of open space or zoning? MR. MARTIN-Well, that was a general comment, I would say, Town wide, was maintenance of open space, but I didn't hear any, we were also looking for specific concerns with the existing zoning plan, if it was not appropriate. Like for example in this case, if the one acre is inappropriate, that's the context in which we need to hear that. In all honesty, I oversaw all those meetings that we had. We had eight of them throughout the Town, and I think the nearest one on this would have been either the one at the Bay Ridge Station One, on upper Ridge Road, or we had one at the South Queensbury Fire Station, and I don't recall any specific comments about the Chestnut Ridge area. We could check the notes. MR. RUEL-Yes, well, the reason I asked is that I'm on the Committee for the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and we did look at that Neighborhood, and there were no comments about that. These comments I hear tonight, they weren't heard then, and none of this was documented. It's unusual, because some of the other Neighborhoods were forceful. MR. MARTIN-What I can do is I can have a copy of these minutes made, of tonight, of this section of the meeting, have that forwarded on to the Land Use Committee who's overseeing that, and they can be made aware of the concerns. MR. RUEL-Yes, that's a good idea. You should do that more often when this comes up, because maybe these people weren't aware of the meeting. MR. MARTIN-In fairness to the public, that's what oftentimes brings out people to a meeting like this, where there is a specific proposal made. I don't blame people for not wanting to come to a hot meeting on some fire house in the middle of the summer time. MR. RUEL-Yes, well, now that I've heard this tonight, I'll take that into consideration at the next meeting. MR. MARTIN-Sure, and we will make copies of these minutes available. We'll make them available to the Land Use Committee so they're aware that there is a concern about the density in this area. MR. PALING-Okay, because it would be limited to this area because the other side of the story has application in other areas where people are coming to the Town and asking for the zoning to be changed, for instance, from three acre back to one acre, simply because they can't sell the lots. People don't build that many houses on three acre lots, and now they want to zone back to one acre, and it depends upon the area that you're in, and maybe this area is better suited for large acreage than some of the other areas which we have the opposite request for. Okay. Any other questions by the Board? Okay. I'll turn it over to the applicant. I think you wanted to address some things. MR. REHM-There are just several items which were brought up which, some of which are very good items. Speaking for Mr. Trzaska, and - 12 - ...-" "'-" '-" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) speaking for myself, as you know, I've done a fair amount of this, I understand the concerns of neighbors when a perceived change in the neighborhood is going to take place. You get used to a place being like it was, and whether it's your land or somebody else's land, that's just the way it is. I live in Diamond Point, and I've seen houses built along the lake in areas where I'm used to looking at the lake, and when that happens, if I probably had my choice, I'd prefer that it didn't happen, but I do have to realize that it's somebody else's land, and they have the right to use their land in a reasonable way, as long as it's in conformance with the Ordinance, and it isn't seriously detrimental to the environment. That's the type of system we live in, but there are several items that I'd like to state. One real good issue with any type of development is stormwater management, and we would have absolutely no problem with a condition, if the Board chooses to approve this, that all stormwater resulting from additional impervious layers, parking lots, driveways and houses, would be retained on site, and as far as the houses are concerned, probably disposed of through eaves drains, which is a fairly easy way to do it. MR. MARTIN-I was going to suggest that eaves trenches are, at the time of construction, they can be installed very easily. MR. REHM-That's very easy to do, and that's a very reasonable condition, and probably should be a condition in all approvals. As far as impact on the wetland. Some of this area up by the road is cleared, and then as you go down the hill, it becomes wooded. The map shows a 100 foot buffer from the wetlands, which is done to conform to the current Ordinances, and the current regulation regarding building close to wetlands. I talked to Rick while the others were speaking, and he said that he would have no problem whatsoever with this addition, to the effect that there would be no further clearing within three or four hundred feet of the wetland. That, of course, would effect this property, but there are a number of other properties in the Town of Queensbury that border on, essentially, the same wetland, and perhaps that should be looked at as other matters come before the Board, but the barn in question and the site distance, which is an issue with new driveways and things, particularly on State and County highways. The barn is about 300 feet from the location of where the house closest to the barn on this property will be located. It is a straight road, and that's sufficient (lost words). Jim said that DEC will flag the wetlands, and if DEC will flag the wetlands, we would be happy to have DEC flag the wetlands. It makes no difference, but in this case, reasonable people can look at this plan and realize that this plan is not going to have any effect on these wetlands, but if the Board would like to have them flag it, it's not a problem. We will probably, well, we'd have to wait until spring, obviously, that can be done. I can't let this go. The final thing I'd like to say is this, that what the Trzaska's want to do is they want to establish their home in this location, and they're not speculators, and I think it was perhaps going a little bit far referring to them as speculators, but in any event, they want to establish their home in this area. They have a lovely home now at Courthouse Estates. Rick, as you know, teaches at the Lake George School and is a respected member of the faculty and of the community, and this is not a situation where they have any intention of moving into this neighborhood and creating a huge and comprehensive subdivision that's going to substantially change the character of the area. A house on that Ridge is going to, to some degree, change the character of the area, and that just is a fact. There's not anything you can do about it, but this is a very reasonable plan. It's much more reasonable, he could have, frankly, come in with a more comprehensive subdivision, and that's not his plan, and I would hope the Board would keep that in mind. MR. PALING-Well, the questions raised, I think the only one you really haven't addressed on my list is further subdivision of the - 13 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) property that is there now. MR. REHM-There is no plan at this time, there is no plan to further subdivide the property. I told, when that was brought up, I said to Rick, I don't think you should agree to that. I think that, I mean, that's really a legislative issue. I, frankly, don't think, in light of the Zoning Ordinance, it's within the authority of the Planning Board to prohibit further subdivision of the property as a condition of approval, but I will tell you that as a practical matter, I don't know if further subdivision of the property is particularly possible. We've got a 150 foot frontage requirement. Now it would be possible, I think, to put a driveway down through the middle of those lots, further down on the hill, perhaps, and come to the Board and seek authority to subdivide the property with no frontage on a Town highway, which I think would require some variances. I don' t see that as a practical thing, but I mean there's enough lawyer in me to say to Rick, really, that's something that should be faced in the future. Any further subdivision would have to come before this Board, and probably also the Zoning Board, and I state to you, if you want to hear it from Rick, there are no plans, and no thought of further subdividing this property, because I think if it did, it would effect his home. MR. RUEL-Further subdivision you would have to go to Zoning Board anyway. MR. REHM-Yes. MR. RUEL-You wouldn't come here directly. MR. BREWER-Is the applicant going to maintain ownership of both lots? MR. REHM-Eventually, I think the applicant will probably sell one of the lots. Rick just said to either to his parents or someone else. Well, that, I mean, we don't want to make a representation to you that this second lot is going to stay in the family. MR. BREWER-No, I understand that. I have no question, but I guess my feeling is, if he has no problem with a three or four hundred foot restriction, and he's going to sell the other piece of property, what's the problem with not subdividing it? I guess that's my question. MR. PALING- It's kind of a backward question. You're saying as long as he respects the wetland distance. MR. BREWER-No. He said he has no problem with restricting any clearing of any sort three or four hundred feet from the wetland. Okay, and probably is going to sell the other lot, whether it's to his parents or whomever, it doesn't make any difference. So he's going to have a piece of land with a house on it. I don't see where there's a problem with a restriction of not subdividing it. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BREWER-It's just a point I'm trying to make. MR. PALING-Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I kind of disagree with the statement that Tim just made, as far as, he's already made a few concessions here that, you know, maybe Mr. Rehm has, you know, he doesn't want his client to relinquish everything, and the fact that in all practicality it's just something that makes, what might make the applicant feel that he still is holding on to a little something, even though in all practicality it will never materialize in the future. - 14 - -' '---- ,--,' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) MR. RUEL-Could you poll the Board and see if they want this property DEC flagged? MR. PALING-All right. I'll poll the Board. Do you want it flagged by the DEC? MR. BREWER-Would they just flag it on that piece of property or the whole thing? MR. PALING-Well, they flag the wetlands. I guess if they did it, they'd do more than that. I don't know. MR. MARTIN-No, they'd probably do just this property. The request comes from the owner. MR. PALING-But we're so far from it. MR. BREWER-I don't see a need for it, not if we're going to have some sort of restriction as to the clearing, no. MR. RUEL-No. MR. PALING-Okay. I don't see the need for flagging it, with the distances we're talking. Okay, just, Mark, I'll address it to you, that, in regard to this further subdivision, I'm not sure that we have that kind of latitude. MR. SCHACHNER-I think that we probably don't have the unilateral authority, or it's certainly questionable, but I think that if the applicant or, let me speak generically. If an applicant wants to offer, as a proposed condition of approval, that a deed restriction will be in place to prevent or to prohibit, rather, further subdivision, that's certainly an applicant's prerogative and a Board can adopt that offer as part of an approval. Unilaterally, I think the authority is questionable. MR. PALING-Yes, okay. I would think so, too. MR. RUEL-Yes, I wouldn't bring it up. MR. PALING-And, Jim, you're comfortable, now, with the stopping distance. MR. MARTIN-The only references I saw, I stated earlier, the 35 foot clear vision zone, and I think it's in the Sign Code as it relates to signage. The other thing I noticed is there's a 100 foot distance referred to for "T" intersections of streets, you know, new streets that are approaching an existing street. Those are the only references I see to a so called clear vision zone or site distance concern. MR. RUEL-Just one question. What would the distance be for curb cuts from those properties, on this road? MR. MARTIN-For driveways, residential driveways, it's one per lot, and whatever the resulting lot widths are. It's one per lot. I think in our commercial restrictions we have 150 feet between driveway curb cuts in commercial areas. Usually that's a function of the speed limit in the area, to some degree, and the slope of the road, the width of the road and so on. MR. RUEL-So it would probably meet it with 150 foot frontage, right, two lots? MR. MARTIN-Yes. The entire frontage here is over 300 feet, well over 300 feet. MR. RUEL-Yes. So that would be all right. - 15 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) MR. PALING-In my notes, I have it down to the possible conditions would be the distance, clearing distance of the wetlands, and stormwater management which the applicant has volunteered. MR. MARTIN-I have a question. Walter, would you agree to stipulate to that limit of clearing being in the deed as a deed restriction? MR. REHM-Sure. MR. PALING-On both lots. MR. MARTIN-As well as a notation on the plat. MR. REHM-One's as good as the other, yes. MR. MARTIN-Well, I don't know if I'd agree with you on that. My druthers would be to have it in the deed. MR. REHM-Yes. I don't have a problem with that. The value of having it on the map is the Town can enforce it. If you have it in the deed restriction, nobody enforces it. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but banks enforce those things as closing time, Walter. I'd like to see it in both, myself. MR. PALING-As a deed restriction and what? MR. MARTIN-And recorded on the final plat. MR. PALING-Deed restriction and on the final plat, right. MR. MACEWAN-I have a question for Jim. Jim, in the Subdivision Regs, 183-1, under the General Provisions, it gives a whole laundry list of things that ideally a subdivision is supposed to meet according to the regulations. Could you give me your interpretation on how this one Section would fit with this particular subdivision, and in part it reads that all the proposed lots shall be so laid out and of such size as to be in harmony with the development pattern of the neighboring properties. Give me your interpretation on that as far as it applies to this. MR. MARTIN-I don't think you have to be looking at this too much to say well maybe it's not in harmony with the areas to the north. I see the lot sizes basically adjoining this to the south, basically in the two acre range, give or take two and a half. I think in this case it's basically in compliance with that development pattern. MR. MACEWAN-I guess that's where I was kind of going with this thing. I mean, with your experience dealing with this sort of thing, how far do you drift out as to what's considered a neighboring parcel? MR. MARTIN-It really varies, I think, with the individual application. I think, certainly, and this is just my opinion, Chestnut Ridge is really the neighborhood here. That's what sets the character for this site. I wouldn't think, you know, certainly a property on Ridge Road or something like that would be a consideration. I would say a distance up and down Chestnut Ridge Road is where you'd look for the neighborhood or the harmony there, the character. I would say, in this case, given the fact that you do have relatively wide frontages, you might want to go several thousand feet in either direction to try and establish a character. MR. REHM-What I put up on the easel is a copy of the tax map for this area, and I have colored the lot in question in blue, and in - 16 - -' ,--",' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) both directions, both to the north and to the south, I've indicated in yellow lots that are smaller than the proposed lots, and what you can see is that the property has developed this way and this way. The closest lot is 365 feet, which is a 1.8 acre lot. Across the street is a 1.3 acre lot. Now that's within 300 feet or so of the property in question, but the other way is further. Here we have a 2. 6 acre lot. Here we have a 1.3 acre lot, and it continues. What has happened, and I think that probably because of the individual ownership of this land, all, most of this property was in one ownership until fairly recently, and had that not been the case, the entire area probably would have developed like this, and I think probably, and I can't say this for sure, but most of the people that are here tonight, that have voiced concerns, live on one or more of these lots which are probably smaller, in terms of acres, than the lots that are proposed. I don't think the size of the lot is the issue. I think what has happened is just that. This has been in one ownership for so many years people have gotten used to it, and I remember most of Queensbury when nobody lived here, but this is a fairly typical type of development where there's farm land. MR. PALING-Okay. Anything further? Okay. I think we're to the point where we can, the public hearing is closed. Everything is done. We can call for a motion on this. MR. RUEL-Yes. I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE PINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. -10-1996 RICHARD TRZASKA, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by David West: To subdivide an 8.212 acre parcel into two lots of 4.1 acres each, with the condition that limited clearance be indicated both as a deed restriction and also on the final plot plan, with a minimum of 400 feet from the wetland boundary. That any excess stormwater resulting from new construction be retained on site. Duly adopted this 28th day of January, 1997, by the following vote: MR. MACEWAN-Is that limit of clearing acceptable to you, there's no side yard setbacks or anything like that, we talked about earlier? MR. MARTIN - I think the primary concern is the impact of the wetland and the slope. Such a distance would help that. AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. MARTIN-Walter, you have 60 days for the filing, just to remind you. 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 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. BEAUTIPICATION 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 - 17 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Now I was thinking to open up tonight's application that it might be good to read the recent letters that we've received from Jon Lapper and Jeannette Collamer, and Joanna Brunso. Jon, would you want to do your letter, and perhaps the one from Jeannette Collamer, please, or she can do it herself, too. MR. LAPPER-For the record, my name is Jon Lapper, to represent the applicant. With me tonight is Tim Trainer from Berkshire, Norbert Hausner who's the project architect who has appeared before this Board on the first Queensbury site, and on this one, and the Archeologist, Jeannette Collamer, who was retained at the request of the Board and who has done the field work and will continue to do the field work as we discussed, is here tonight to make a presentation, and summarize what she did, what she found and what she proposes to do, once the project's underway. MR. PALING-We won't need her letter, then, I don't think. MR. LAPPER-That's probably the case, but what I was attempting to do with illY letter was just to set forth that there were two conditions, I know that not all the members of the Board were here at the December 19th meeting. I do have a copy of the resolution, and it was tabled because of the two issues that the Board had requested additional work. One was that we submitted a traffic study, but we didn't have the response from Joanna Brunso, which we now have, and the second was that you had requested an archeological study. Since then we've met with, Jim Martin set up a meeting with the Town Historian and some of the other concerned citizens who appeared here, and with the Chairman of your Board, and Jeannette the Archeologist, and Tim and I were there, and we sat down and went through what the protocol would be for the on site testing, the field work, and now we're back to, because we have Joanna Brunso's letter, response to the traffic, and we have the results of the field work. So my letter set forth where we were. I sent a letter to Bob Paling. "Dear Bob: Enclosed herewith please find a letter from Jeannette Collamer of Collamer & Associates, Inc. Archaeological Services & Historic Research to Robert Kuhn, NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation. The letter confirms that the thirty-three shovel tests have been excavated and that the results indicated that no artifacts or evidence of human remains were found. Jeannette will be present at the January 28th Planning Board meeting to present her results in more detail and to discuss the protocol for archeological observation during site excavation. I have also received the review letter from Joanna Brunso which indicates that she concurs with our traffic report. We look forward to presenting this proj ect to the Planning Board next Tuesday. Very truly yours, Jonathan C. Lapper" MR. PALING-Jim, do you have any comment before we proceed, either the case of Joanna Brunso's letter or? MR. MARTIN-I think Joanna Brunso's letter is pretty self explanatory. Just an update on the interconnection issue. There has been some new personnel at Shop N' Save. The previous Store Manager, Greg Gorski, has now gone on, I think, to a more regional position. There is a new Store Manager there. I think Fred Champagne has been in contact with that individual. Also, we have made written contact to another person within the real estate office at Hannaford, and we're hopeful that will bear some fruit. I don't have a copy of the letter that Fred sent him, but basically we attached him a copy of this plan highlighting the areas that we'd like to shut off and highlighting the areas we'd like to open up to that loop road, and we're hopeful that will meet with some success, but we don't know yet. It's too early to tell. - 18 - '- '--' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) MR. PALING-Has the question been put to them as to what the public reaction is going to be? If it goes without allowing the accesses we want, isn't the public going to ask, hey, how come we can't have a road there, wouldn't it be nice, wouldn' tit be convenient? Aren't they afraid of the feedback from that kind of? MR. MARTIN-I think we're going to have an opportunity to pose those types of questions, but apparently we're dealing with an individual that's new to this issue. So we've got to start from Ground Zero again, but they'll have that. We sent that out, I think, Monday <;>r Tuesday, that letter with the attached plan. They should have ~t by tomorrow or the next day. So as soon as we get, we're going to place a call to them and see what their impressions are. MR. PALING-I can appreciate their original position, but I think now if it's going to be, that they ought to back off or they're going to end up being heavily criticized for not allowing it. MR. MARTIN-Well, we're going to make a good faith effort, at this point in the planning process, to get that done. MR. PALING-How about reading Joanna Brunso's letter into the record, all right, then we can complete that part of it. MR. MARTIN-This is written to the members of the Planning Board, "The staff of the Glens Falls Transportation Council have reviewed the traffic impact study completed by Passero Associates, P.C. for the proposed CVS pharmacy and retail center. We feel that the trip generation rates used were acceptable. The additional traffic from the development seems to have little effect on the intersections in the surrounding area. We feel that the offer to relocate the existing curb cuts to the Shop N' Save loop road, when and if the opportunity becomes available, is extremely favorable as a condition of approval. This would greatly improve the flow of traffic within the development by allowing vehicles better access to Quaker Road. Access to Quaker Road through the Shop N' Save driveway offers a protected left turn, and will reduce the number of left turns onto Bay Road from the development. This will help to improve capacity within the corridors. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed development. Sincerely, Joanna M. Brunso, Staff Director" MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Any other comments or questions on the traffic or transportation or Joanna Brunso's letter? MR. LAPPER-We have a couple of comments about traffic. We want to reiterate for the members the Board that weren't here at the last meeting, what she alluded to in her letter, that we have offered and we expect to offer as a condition of the approval that when and if, at any time in the future, Hannaford/Shop N' Save agrees to allow the internal connection, and of course the plan is done to show without the internal connection, but it's on the plan, on the final plan, showing the connection, that Berkshire will make that connection and will pay to realign curbs and pavement and the whole thing to accommodate that, and also, the entrances which would most likely originally be built, unless they (lost words), originally be built onto Bay and Quaker would be eliminated and those would be grassed and pavement, curbing would be added and those would be seeded and landscaped in the character of the rest of the landscaping. So that's as a condition of this. We're hopeful that some day, or soon, that will happen. It's more of an expense, but that's not an issue. This would be better. Even to build it one way and having to change it, that would be nicer for this project. At the same time, because Berkshire has eliminated the left turn out onto Quaker Road, which was the real traffic issue, since we don' t have the access to the traffic light at the signalized intersection, we think that the plan works fine the way it is, and that was confirmed with this letter. So we think that the traffic - 19 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) issue (lost words) . MR. RUEL-This road belongs to Shop N' Save? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. RUEL-And CVS and your tenants will have businesses that compete with what Shop N' Save has? MR. MARTIN-Well, we know, for example, the CVS will compete with the pharmacy at the Shop N' Save. You can't deny that. MR. RUEL-Yes. A reason why, maybe, they wouldn't want to give up the road. MR. MACEWAN-Roger, where were you the last several weeks? MR. RUEL-Away. MR. LAPPER-With respect to the other issues, the archeological, Jeannette Collamer is here, and we would like her to make a presentation and explain what she did. Before she starts, just to refresh your memory what we were talking about, what we were asked to do, she did field tests, shovel tests on the site. What we proposed, what we're asking for by way of approval is that, after she discusses this with you and answers questions, she will submit her Phase 1A study, which is a summary of the history of the project, which you've already received much of that data from the Town Historian. What we propose, though, is that we've only done half of the IB, the field test, we've done the half that we've discussed. Before we get started on the proj ect, we have eliminated a lot of the risk of finding anything there, and you had asked us to do that, and that has been accomplished, but at the same time, because you don't know what you might find when you do further excavation, we are proposing, and we are expecting as a condition, is that during the period which will probably be a three week period where the excavation, the site excavation takes place, Jeannette and her staff will be on site every day during that period and will be observing the excavation. In the event that something happens, all work will stop in that area, and she'll go through that protocol with you. At the end of that Phase, while we're building, before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued, we will submit the full 1B study which will discuss in detail the results of the tests that have taken place to date, which we'll discuss tonight, and which will discuss the results of the observations and discuss anything that may be found at that point, during the construction. MR. MARTIN-So that'll be a full accounting of what observations were made during the construction, during excavation and disturbance. MR. LAPPER-With that, I'll turn it over to Jeannette. MR. BREWER-Just one question to Jim. Isn't a study normally done before construction? MR. MARTIN-Well, I think that's what she's done at this point. That's what the shovel test was, and I think what you're thinking about in the Hudson pointe. They did the shovel test and there were items found in the shovel test. That's why they went on to actual digs. MR. BREWER-So apparently nothing was found. MR. MARTIN-When you and I were out there that day, we saw the actual digs going on. - 20 - --- - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) JEANNETTE COLLAMER MRS. COLLAMER-My name is Jeannette Collamer, and I'm the archeologist retained to address cultural resources during the preliminary parts of construction and during the different phases of grading. Usually are reports are defined, called a lA, research, and there's a 1B field investigations. Basically, (lost words) haven't received a response from all the State agencies yet. We expect to complete that report by February 15th. We've started the initial field investigations which consisted of a shovel test. We will be doing a monitoring during the initial grading for construction, when they take down the existing structure and (lost words) . MR. MARTIN-Now the monitoring. Is that going to be just a random visit to the site by one of your staff people. for a 15 minute period, or do you actually, if the bulldozer starts at 6 a.m., your person is there at 6 a.m. and they don't quit until 5 p.m. You're there all eleven hours? MRS. COLLAMER-Exactly. Yes. There's usually two to three people because we control the rate and the extent of the grading and the bulldozer. So if he hits something that we have to look at, then we stop, and we clean it up and photograph it, we document it, and if it's nothing, we go on. That's generally the procedure. MR. MARTIN-And you've done this in the past? MRS. COLLAMER-Yes. I've been doing this for 20 years. MR. MACEWAN-For whatever reason, if you are not there for any particular reason that day, nothing is done until someone from your office is there? MRS. COLLAMER-Absolutely. We would have a team there. If I wasn't there, then we would have someone. MR. MACEWAN-I mean, say some of your team members were held up in traffic or inclement weather or something like that, no further excavation would take place until a representative from your company was there? MRS. COLLAMER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-We're only talking about a period of three weeks. We'd be doing the footings, the excavation for the footings, because there's no basement, eliminating what's there now, doing the footings, and then grading. MR. MARTIN-I have a suggestion. I think we talked about this. I can't remember if it was at the last Planning Board meeting or during our meeting in the conference room we had that day. I think it would be a good idea that we have a pre-construction conference, prior to the building permit being issued, with either yourself or a representative of your firm, and the actual excavation contractor there, because I know it's one thing to sit in these meetings with attorneys and Planning Board members and talk about these things, but it's the guy who's fanny's in the bulldozer who I want to talk to. MR. BREWER-Boy, it's happened many, many times. MR. MARTIN-Because that's the guy that says, well, I didn't know that. MR. MACEWAN-We've had that happen to us in the past, haven't we? MR. BREWER-Yes, we sure have. - 21 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) TIM TRAYNOR MR. TRAYNOR-My name is Tim Traynor, Director of Construction for Berkshire, and that was actually during our little planning session that we had, the meeting that we had a couple of weeks ago. That is a very good idea. We always try to start our (lost word) out with, we call them pre-pad meetings. In this particular case, we would certainly like Jim and whoever you would like to invite to that meeting. MR. MARTIN-Well, John Goralski would be the guy, because he's the guy that's out in the field, and I'd like to coordinate it with him. MR. TRAYNOR-Fine. So that would be pre-requisite and to address specifically Craig's question about who is going to be on site. There will be no construction, that's part of this. MR. MARTIN-That's the exact type of thing I'd like to discuss. Monday through Wednesday, we will be working on the site from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. Thursday through Friday we'll be there 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. We'll get the exact schedules down. MR. TRAYNOR-We would actually submit a construction schedule that' s going to delineate this, because I have to work very closely with Jeannette and her staff so that she can be properly represented out on the site. So when we finally award this contract to our general contractor, that pre-pad meeting and the subsequent scheduling would all be part of that presentation that they, and then of course we just could not proceed unless those people were present. So I think we'll have that pretty well delineated. We also feel very strongly, very much as this Board does, that we want this to go off with out any incident or problem, and in the event there is one, we want to be prepared how to handle that, very forthright. MR. PALING-Okay. MRS. COLLAMER-The other thing I wanted to explain-is that we're not specifically going out and trying to delineate the limits of this existing cemetery. We will be monitoring and testing, but we're not going to use remote testing to delineate the extent of the cemetery. So that the existing roadways that are there won't be taken up to look for graves. MR. LAPPER-That's just the one Bay Road intersection, Bay Road entrance to that. That is a grandfathered situation. (Lost words) what Jeannette is explaining is that's not going to be removed because they won't be disturbing that area. MR. MARTIN-Yes, and that's consistent with protocol, that if it is the original grave, that's the best thing you can do is leave it there. I agree with that. MRS. COLLAMER-I could read to you the letter I wrote to Dr. Kuhn, who's the State Archeologist, on completion of the initial shovel test. It says "Dear Dr. Kuhn: Pursuant to our telephone conversation of January 17, 1997, I am confirming my understanding of the extent of the Stage 1B investigation to be conducted in the above referenced project area. As you will recall, this project abuts the site of the Quaker Cemetery, and could potentially contain associated graves. At this time, a total of 33 shovel tests have been excavated within the project area. Although no prehistoric, significant historic artifacts, nor evidence of human remains were identified, these tests confirm that levels of fill have been deposited over intact strata. The tests also indicate that some of the original ground surface has been encapsulated. However, disturbance was noted adjacent to the sanitary sewer lines and existing structures. At present, much of the project area is - 22 - "---' ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) paved, and I am aware that the site plan approval ,will requir~ t~at the driveway will be repaved, without remov~ng the ex~st~ng asphalt. Therefore, any graves which could potentially be located beneath these roadways will not be identified nor disturbed. Although the Stage 1B investigation will also include monitoring during the grading and excavation, it will not locate graves in areas which will not be excavated for the proposed construction, nor establish the limits of the cemetery. It is my understanding that OPRHP does not require the existing roadways to be removed to examine the subsoils for human remains, the use of remote sensing, nor the excavation of trenches to sample this area. If I am incorrect in my understanding, please contact me immediately at (518) 426-9624. Thank you again for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Jeannette Collamer, President" I spoke with him several times regarding other projects, and he hasn't mentioned any concern regarding this particular site. MR. PALING-One question. talking about there? The term "intact strata ", what are we MRS. COLLAMER-Soils that haven't been leveled and soil that hasn't been disturbed. It's levels of soil that are intact, and you can tell by the stratification of the soils that hasn't been disturbed. MR. PALING-You've actually seen that? MRS. COLLAMER-Yes, when we do the tests. MR. PALING-I thought you were talking about something you didn't see, but you've seen it. Okay. MR. MARTIN-Jon explained to me on the phone, after he got your results, that you, in fact, went a considerable distance further in your shovel tests because you ran into so much, what was termed to be like a new layer of soil. Is that correct? MRS. COLLAMER-Yes. There were areas of fill on top. MRS. LABOMBARD-Jeannette, should I infer from the fact that, maybe Bob has asked the same thing, I'm not so sure I understand, that after you said that you did not find any artifacts or human remains from your 33 shovel tests, that those tests confirm that levels of fill have been deposited. Now, does that imply that maybe there's something in there that you didn't get a hold of? MRS. COLLAMER-It says that in some areas there's like some gravel. MRS. LABOMBARD- I understand that, but it says, the tests also indicate that some of the original ground surface has been encapsulated. In other words, could I infer that, because of the construction that has been done, and the manipulation of that area over the past, that maybe things had been disturbed in past construction projects, whether it be the original building of the Doyle's store or maybe putting in the utilities and sewers of the road? MR. LAPPER-Are there areas of disturbance, is that your question? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. LAPPER-You're asking what the significance of that disturbance is, right? MRS. LABOMBARD-I guess so. MR. LAPPER-There's something that could have been there, but it's been removed. - 23 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. LAPPER-But in any case, when they went now, it makes it a less historically or archaeologically significant site, because there's fill. MRS. LABOMBARD-Thanks. MR. RUEL-I have a question. Jeannette, upon discovering, lets say human remains, you stop excavation. What is the next step? What action do you take then? MRS. COLLAMER-Basically, if we found what we call human remains, our first initial step would be to cover it over so it wouldn't be in view of the public. We would notify the attorney who would notify the State Police, and we'd have to examine them to determine the date, whether they're Native American or European, whether they're early Historic or Modern, and that would determine whether they're excavated by the archaeologists or by the Health Department. The early Historic or Pre-Historic ones would be removed by the archeologist and documented, whereas if it was more modern, then the Health Department would. MR. RUEL-So this would take some time? MRS. COLLAMER-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Would you do carbon dating on them, I mean, like to determine how old they are? Do you go into that? MRS. COLLAMER-Probably not, because based on remains that are associated with (lost words) usually date them. MRS. LABOMBARD-I see. MR. MARTIN-Is this something that could be committed to writing, the protocol? MRS. COLLAMER-Certainly. The procedure that we will follow? Yes. Right now, the State is revising their burial requirements, but the procedure that we generally follow I would write down. MR. LAPPER-What we would ask, and we would hope that when we get done, and Norbert has a presentation to just discuss a couple of minor changes to the site plan, what we're hoping is that we can have a conditional approval, and that that approval will require that Jeannette will submit, before February 15th, which is well before we've started the work for lA, which is the summary of the historical data, and at that time, we will submit to the Planning Department the protocol for what will happen, in terms of the monitoring, and what will happen if something is found on the site, and as a condition, we would also have this pre-excavation meeting with the excavator, and whoever else. MR. PALING-Now that protocol is all based on New York State law, is it not? It would be a State regulation that you would base your writing on? Yes, okay. MR. WEST-How deep did shovel tests go? MRS. COLLAMER-About 50 centimeters, 55. MR. WEST-What's that in feet? MRS. COLLAMER-A couple of feet. MR. WEST-So if you went a couple of feet, and that couple of feet was fill, you may not have even gotten down to the original native - 24 - ~ '-' .~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) soil. MRS. COLLAMER-Right. Plus the archaeologists will be on site when they're grading. You can only go so deep with a shovel. MR. WEST-Okay. I just raised the point. MR. MACEWAN-You will also be looking out for things other than human remains as well, correct? MRS. COLLAMER-Yes. MR. WEST-Lets hope you don't find Cromagnon Man in there, or whatever. MR. MACEWAN-A question for you. The old Doyle's, does that have a cellar in it, a basement? MR. TRAYNOR-A small portion of it does. MR. MACEWAN-And what will you guys do? Will you fill that? MR. TRAYNOR-Remove all the concrete footings and the foundations and then fill it, and the way we would work that, because of its proximi ty to the cemetery is we'd pull those pieces into the building. So we'd put our machine in the cellar, basically, and drag those pieces toward the interior of the existing cellar. MR. MACEWAN-So you'd be down at least four feet, then. MR. TRAYNOR-I've never been in to the cellar itself. So I don't know how far down that goes. It may be deeper than that. MR. MACEWAN-Well, if you're going to get some footings, we're at least looking four foot. MR. MARTIN-Even as a slab on grade, they'll be required to put footings four feet for this building. MR. TRAYNOR-The basement might be deeper than that. MR. LAPPER-The interesting thing is that the part of the building that has the foundation is the part that's closest to the cemetery. So that's already been excavated. MR. MARTIN-Tim, given what you're doing out there, with the building and the drainage, what is probably going to be the furthest, how deep will you go with, between those two items? MR. TRAYNOR-There's a small, if you look at the existing topo and you look at what the new grading plan is, at the most, it looks like the most cut, with the exception of the drainage area, over the majority of the site, the most extreme cut is about a foot and a half. So the site is pretty well balanced already, and if I remember, the majority of those cuts are up in the area where the building actually is going to go. There is a small amount of filling that goes in here, and remember we have this section of pavement here which is effectively a 50 foot buff~r off the edge of the cemetery now, which you'll just get an overlay. So we won't be disturbing this at all. All of our utilities will stay outside of that zone. Out in the very front area here where I think Jeannette did conduct some shovel tests, where they're going to have that little detention pond, that's the deepest incursion into the ground, and that'll be approximately five feet. Footings and then the foundations will be over excavated to depth of about four or five feet, actually about five feet, and again, we're going to try to hit, obviously, that virgin soil, the stable soil. - 25 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) NORBERT HAUSNER MR. HAUSNER-This plan is a demolition plan. If you look at this outline here, you can see that's the existing nursery buildings, and those fall roughly here on the plan. So our new construction is as far away from the cemetery proper as it possibly can be. So, any demolition that occurs in that area would be really, frankly, very easy and just peeling away the concrete that's there and loading up and getting it off the site. MR. TRAYNOR-These buildings, the barns and such, those are pretty much post and beam. MR. HAUSNER-Yes. foundations. They're very, they're probably not even on MR. MARTIN-While he's mentioning the barns, we had one barn expert right to the site, and he said that given the treatment of those buildings and they've been so butchered over the years that there's really not anything left intact worth saving, in terms of the historic nature of the building. It was previously thought that one or two of them might have been worth while saving, but apparently that's not the case. MR. TRAYNOR-Are there any other questions for our archeologist or about the procedures? I think we're going to cover it pretty thoroughly and stay very closely in touch with Code Enforcement and Planning Staff and with Jeannette and her crew. We're pretty well covered. I think the suggestions that were made back in December and concerns that were raised, I believe that our plan now addresses those adequately. MR. MARTIN-What would be your time frame for construction? MR. TRAYNOR-Well, we were just talking about thaG tonight. If the winter lighten's up on us a little bit, with an approval this evening, I'll go into the balance of the design of the facility itself, as far as the construction documents, it would take us about five weeks to have those completed, which would put us around the first part of March, and then we would go out, bid, that takes usually a couple of weeks to do the bid with the GEC. So we'd be looking somewhere around the first part of April to begin this project, which by then the frost should be coming out of the ground and that actually would be the event that would dictate. We would have some demolition that we would take place right around that time, and then jump right into construction. We'd look for approximately a 12 to 14 week schedule. Then depending on how this goes and the excavation, if we run into some issues that we have to address, obviously that'll slow us down. MR. MARTIN-So where would your excavation, the three week period for her group to be there would be? MR. TRAYNOR-The first part of May. MR. MARTIN-Mid April to the first part of May. MR. TRAYNOR-Right, by the time you get buildings cleared out of there. Obviously, they would be there during the removal of the footings and foundations, up in this section. We'd have to have them there for that, to keep an eye on what's going on. We'll have Norbert just kind of walk through the project real quickly. MR. HAUSNER-There has been some minor revisions since our last meeting here, and I'll highlight them and I'll take any questions that you might have. We submitted the site plans that you have in front of you today. What basically happened since our last meeting was, the more involved we get in it and our engineers get involved - 26 - --- -..../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) in this project, the more hidden things we're finding here, and there is a sewer easement that travels down this side of the building, and we basically, in some conversations with utility people, have moved the building, this side of the building, toward Bay Road, while not moving this side of the building at all. So we've actually reduced the square footage of this building slightly, which I think is not just a small item. I think it's fairly notable developer issue here. They've taken a little cut in the square footage in order to keep the green space coefficient. So we're actually building more green now on this site than we had originally presented to you folks, in order for us to stay out of that rather intense sewer easement that travels down the side of the site. That's pretty much the only thing the site plan has done to change. There's obviously much more detail in here. I've brought sets, seven sheets of which indicating all kinds of details and things of that nature. MR. PALING-A question, please. That would be the ring road. Does that have any effect on that future access? MR. HAUSNER-No. What basically happened last time was the drive through canopy columns were within the actual easement, not near the pipe but within the easement. So the utility people indicated that they would just as soon have us out of there, and we've accommodated them. No real problem. We've also done a little bit, a little detail here just to kind of clarify the developer's position and I think what we're trying to do here is to deal with some of the historical emotions and precedents that surround this cemetery area and that monument that's in the center of it. This plan that I'm showing you here is basically a blow up, if you will, of this corner, which basically says green space on your site plan. You can see the little granite monument in the center. The granite monument is here. The scale is much larger. Here's the entrance road from Bay and the parking lot configuration. This little dark line right here represents the corner of the building. What we mentioned at our last get together was that we would, we were thinking there that we would provide a contemplation area, and in that area we would have, we're showing a little sketch here, a rough timber structure, trellis type of effect, some heavy timbers, eight by eight timbers, crossed by some three by tens, and then some two by eights over the top of them, and then some two by twos over the top of them. So basically it's not a shelter in the sense that it would provide you any cover if you will, but it's just a spot where we were planning on planting some wisterias and things of that nature below it, to get a little corner and put a couple of benches in there. The surface is 16 feet square of pavers, concrete colored pavers, interlocking pavers, set on a gravel base. The existing 32 inch Ash tree, which is basically right on the foundation of the current building, we'd do our best to save that. I'm sure we'll be able to. We'll actually be quite relieved when it gets rid of this building that's next to the side of it, and that'll provide some nice shade. So we're planning some potentillas and some other small shrubberies on these two sides, leaving this front exposure open to the green area, which is basically a field with one stone in the center of it. We've taken, from the previous screen wall here, per the Zoning Ordinance which really says buffer the cemetery. So based on the comments that we've heard, and our efforts to try to work with everyone, we've taken that same quantity of conifer type of trees and clustered them in these locations, so that they make a nice little path to walk around, and kind of buffering the shelter, so it gives it a little bit, somewhat privacy, while it's not shielding it from vision. So there's a little plan of it. There's a little section of it. You'll have it in all your packages. The last thing I want to tell you a little bit about is, we talked before about what the outside of the building was going to look like. We haven't changed any of the color concepts. We talked about that last time. What did end up happening was CVS requested us to take their entry - 27 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) feature and actually move it from this location to that location, and I have a plan back there that I can put up for you that shows exactly how that happens. It's really basically a flip flop. If I would have drawn it the other way, they'd have made me move it the way it is. The end of the building that faces Bay still is identical to what it was before. What happens from the left to right here basically is that there's about a 10 foot swatch of building that's gone now since we kept this plain exactly where it was and moved this in. So we obviously can't fool with CVS. So that dimension would stay the same, and the retail strip store basically were decreased. So before the entrance was here, and now it's on the corner. They want to be basically near the dri ve through road. They're hoping that everything goes forward as far as access to the site goes and that we gain access, obviously, to the loop road, which would put the identification point right there at the corner. So it works well for them. Frankly, it's exactly the same masses, it's just flipped over in the front. MR. MARTIN-Is their signage lit lettering or is it? MR. HAUSNER-Their signage is channel letters lit, yes, and they would be coming before you for all those approvals. MR. MARTIN-A sign permit. MR. HAUSNER-Exactly. MRS. LABOMBARD-Norbert, right to the left of the CVS, that part of the building, right to the right of that, it has no windows. MR. HAUSNER-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-Does the other plan have windows? MR. HAUSNER-No, it didn't. It was actually this exactly flipped. I think I have it right here. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. I see, it had the door, yes. In other words, now you've got the approved structure right at the corner? MR. HAUSNER-Yes. In all honesty, pure bookend matching pieces. It's a little better this way, but this wouldn't mean anything to you, but this is exactly 180 degrees from what CVS has ever done. They've never put the entrance and their drive through on the same side of the building before. So I did what I thought was right and basically it didn't work. So that's why we're changing it here, and I mean, mass wise, from a building perspective, it does put these two roofs on either end, and on the side. So it makes logical sense. MR. LAPPER-Would you show the back. I don't know if you submitted that the last time. MRS. LABOMBARD-You did. MR. HAUSNER-Yes, we did. MRS. LABOMBARD-You went all the way around. Did you decide what color brick you're going to use yet, or is it a dark red, a beige, a pink? MR. HAUSNER-You'll be seeing it in about three days. It's going to be down the street. MRS. LABOMBARD-Was it the one with the fleck in it? MR. HAUSNER-Yes. It's all brick in the back, soldier courses, still, as the front has, and now I think actually, if you look at - 28 - --- --- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) what happens to the side elevation on the west side over here, because that mass wall, mass roof is on the end of the building, it now turns the corners, which will give you a little bit better projection of the coining and all the detail that the entrance has. So it's actually a more expensive building to build, and it gives it more glass on the corner as well. So it's actually a better corner elevation. MR. MARTIN-Just as a message to carry back, tell them not to get used to the idea of two CVS signs on either side of that building. Not without a variance. MR. HAUSNER-I tell them that every day. You're absolutely right. MR. RUEL-After completion of this structure, how many CVS's will there be in Queensbury? MR. PALING-Two on every corner. MR. RUEL-I don't know, three, four? MR. HAUSNER-I don't think there are any others planned at this point. It's hush, hush. I don't know. MRS. LABOMBARD-Are they going to keep the one up there at north? MR. TRAYNOR-Well, a lot of it's going to have to do with how well both stores perform together. There's enough distance to justify leaving both of them (lost words). CVS, of course I'm sure you've noticed, just recently, I think in the Wall Street Journal on Monday and it was picked up in the New York Times, they're in the process of acquiring Revco, which is a rather large chain and actually quite popular in the Hudson River Valley. As a result what they'll do is many of those stores is also bring them out (lost words) with a lot of rehab and a lot of renovation. So they have to kind of re-think their market strategy as they go forward, and that's quite an assimilation. MR. RUEL-A lot of sick people around here. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, 1'11 tell you, seven years ago, one of my lower math classes beat out 100 schools in the stock market game because we bought CVS stock. MR. HAUSNER-Buy it now. Now's the time to buy it. MR. RUEL-You should be complimented for that drive in facility. Young mothers with children in the car really appreciate that. It's a hell of a job to park, take the kids out of the car, bring them in and then put them back in those seats. It's great. That's a great idea. MR. TRAYNOR-The first time they unveiled that, I was at that destination, which actually was the first store in (lost word) Massachusetts, north of Rhode Island, and at the.presentation that was the exact reason why they were responding to, many of the customers. It's difficult to take a small child in, late in the evening or even around supper time, if they're not feeling well in the first place. MR. RUEL-Especially when they're sick. great idea. You're right. That's a MR. WEST-Provided your prescription is ready when you go to pick it up. MR. TRAYNOR-The way this works, actually, is you can drop off a prescription, and then leave. They won't allow the cars to sit - 29 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) there and idle and wait for it. The pharmacist would either direct you to a parking lot, or you could come back, or your doctor could call in ahead of time. MR. HAUSNER-Right. Real low volumes, too. MR. TRAYNOR-Approximately 1,000 scripts a week. These are statistics that we've heard from the Company, as they've opened these. A store that would do 1,000 scripts a week would do somewhere between 100 and 150 scripts would be picked up at the window, so we're talking about two to three an hour or something like that during the peak times. They find it to be mostly used later in the evening, from seven to nine. MR. BREWER- I noticed that the other night, not to mention any competition or anything, but over through, I had to go over to Hudson Falls. On my way back, the new Fay's over there has got the same thing. MR. HAUSNER-That's the "F" word. You can't use that here. MR. MACEWAN-Jim, this pre-construction meeting that you want, would it be actual either back hoe driver or bulldozer driver or whatever? MR. MARTIN-I want the guy that's got the jeans on and the work boots. That's what I want. MR. MACEWAN-Is this going to be part of any conâition that we're going to, for approval? MR. MARTIN-I would ask for that. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. RUEL-Hey, Craig, where have you been the last three weeks? MR. MACEWAN-I've been here. That's why I asked the question. MR. PALING-It's probably a question that's been asked before, and I'll be asked where I've been the last few weeks, but will this, the parking lot layout, conform to the new dimensions proposed in the long range plan? I forget the exact dimensions. In other words, we don't want a squashed parking lot like we have in our two. MR. MARTIN-Well, what ~ would recommend, and I can't remember if I ran this by Tim or not, is that the striping to show the depth of the space be reduced from 20 feet to 18, and that widens your drive aisle out to 24 feet. MR. PALING-It's what's in the Comprehensive Plan. MR. MARTIN-The main thing is that we accommodate the 60 foot dimension from the head of one space across the drive aisle to the head of the other. If we have an 18 foot striping, what we've come to find, this is a Wal-Mart thing so it's got to be right, because they study these things to the Nth degree. MR. PALING-They did a good job. MR. MARTIN-They've come to find that the cars pull into the spaces further when they do this, but the main thing, the benefit that ~ get out of it is you get a 24 foot drive aisle. MR. TRAYNOR-Actually, we'll just direct our engineer to make that change. - 30 - ~ -..../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) MR. PALING-Okay, and that the curbing either be concrete or granite. In other words, no wood, no asphalt. MR. TRAYNOR-It'll be concrete. MR. PALING-Good. Fine. Now, we have a public hearing on this. If it's open, we'll leave it open, and does anyone care to talk about this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Now, any further comments or questions by the Board, Jim? Okay. MR. BREWER-Are we going to make a motion tonight? MR. PALING-Well, why not? resolution? Why should we not proceed with the MR. RUEL-Well, we have open items here. MR. BREWER-Yes. We've got all these changes. Just a point that we've got all these changes. He's got plans over there for us to look at. The construction can't start, or isn't going to start until maybe May, or March, I mean, or April. The archeological report will be done in February. MR. BREWER-Should we look at this stuff before we just go approve it? MR. PALING-Let me ask one question. agencies would be coming. You said report from State MRS. COLLAMER-Well, I've written to the State agencies to request information regarding State and National Registry of structures for any concerns that they might have for cultural resources within a mile of your project area, and I haven't received a response yet. MR. PALING-Okay. That could be a condition also. I think we're looking at a conditioned resolution, is what I'm seeing. MR. LAPPER-We're hopeful to receive a conditioned resolution, for the reason that, I think perhaps Tim wasn't here last time. The contemplation area is the main change and that was something that Norbert had brought last time on a separate piece of paper. So the only change was to now attach it to our plans, but that was not something that was new, and the fact that the building shrunk by six to ten feet in width is just something that makes it a better site, because there's a little more green space calculation, and that's the only thing from last time, and on the archeological, since Jeannette didn't find anything, all she's going to be doing is writing up what's in the letter here. The 1A we would propose to get to the Planning Staff and have it conditioned by February 15th is just a summary of the history that Marilyn VanDyke had prepared last time about the Quakers. It will include information about what's within a one mile radius of the site, but that's nothing that would effect the site. That will just be a comprehensive historical. MR. MACEWAN-She was also going to prepare a protocol for this site, as to how it was going to be monitored, to Staff's satisfaction. MR. PALING-By February 15th, yes. - 31 - ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) MR. LAPPER-That would be by the 15th, yes. MRS. COLLAMER-That's part of the recommendation. It's customary. MR. PALING-I've got seven conditions. Let me just read them off. We'll just state again that the internal connection to the ring road would be made, if it was made available, that the other two accesses would be closed off at the developer's expense. There are no left turns on Quaker Road on any plan. That there would be a pre-construction meeting. That the protocol would be submitted before February 15th, for approval by Staff, and that the parking lot layout be in conformance with the long range plan, and that the curbing be only concrete or granite. That may be redundant because you've got it there anyway, and then I will cross off the one, the report from the State agencies. Those are the six exceptions that I have for it, unless there's any. MR. RUEL-Well, you have an open item, relocation of existing curb cuts, but that's not a condition. MR. MACEWAN-That was the first thing he said. MR. PALING-That's the first thing I talked about, yes. MR. MARTIN-If I could expand on that one on the curb cut. I would suggest that the deed to this parcel include the ~o foot easements as indicated on the site plan. MR. PALING-That's the new one, the west side of the property you're talking about? MR. MARTIN-Well, there's one on the west side and there's one on the south side. MR. PALING-Okay. Easement west and south? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Are you satisfied with carrying the burden of having the protocol meet with your satisfaction? MR. MARTIN-I think she certainly knows what she's doing, and I'll pass what she submits to us by Marilyn. That's who I'm going to lean on, from a Staff's point of view, to get her concurrence, but I'm sure what she's going to prepare is going to be fine. MR. MACEWAN-And also organizing this pre-construction meeting? MR. MARTIN-Yes, we do that all the time on subdivisions. It's a little bit out of the ordinary we're doing it for site plans, but I don't see a problem with that. MR. MACEWAN-I would ask that if anything does not meet your approval for any of this, would you give us feedback? MR. MARTIN-Yes. As a matter of fact, we'll keep you posted, the Staff persons here will give you regular updates as to how this is proceeding, whether there's a problem or not. We'll keep you up to date. MR. PALING-Okay. Does anyone else want to add anything. I've got the 40 foot easements. MR. MARTIN-You have a SEQRA form to take up yet. MR. PALING-Okay. We've got to do a SEQRA. What was submitted? MR. MARTIN-They have submitted a Long Form. - 32 - "--" -./ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) MR. PALING-All right. Then we've got to do a Long Form. MR. MARTIN-For some reason, the copy that was submitted, we didn't have a blank Part II. Somebody had, that happens on occasion. I'd like to have a blank one. MR. PALING-Okay. We'll do the SEQRA. MR. MARTIN-And then the other thing is I think you submitted the old Long Form, the one that doesn't have the Critical Environmental Area thing on it. MR. BREWER-Here's one here, Jim, that they've filled out. MR. MARTIN-Yes, that's what I mean. I have that, but it doesn't have the Critical Environmental Area question on it, which is not relevant to this, but nonetheless. MRS. LABOMBARD-9/95, is that the new one? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Well, what we can do is we can pull the responses off the minutes, I think, because then Bob has to sign it anyhow, if you could come in tomorrow to sign it. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MARTIN-I'll do it in a different color. Then when we get to the CEA question, just let me know what order that comes in. MR. PALING-All right. So we can go ahead. version of the Long Form here. We've got the new MR. MARTIN-Yes, we have it right here, too. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BREWER-Jim, I've got a blank one here. Why don't we use that. MR. MARTIN-Do you? That would be excellent. Okay. Is everybody ready? "Impact on Land Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?" MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Going through the bullets, "Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater?" No. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. MARTIN- "Construction on land where depth to water table is less than three feet?" MR. PALING-No. MR. MARTIN-No. "Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles?" MR. PALING-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. MARTIN-IIConstruction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface?" I don' t think. MR. BREWER-They've got every single one of them marked "Small to - 33 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) moderate impact". MR. MARTIN- "Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage." MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. MARTIN-"Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year." MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. MARTIN-"Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill." MR. PALING-No. MR. MARTIN-"Construction in a designated floodway". MR. PALING-No. MR. MARTIN-"Other impacts". You could say, disturbance in proximity to a historic cemetery. MR. PALING-But that's only potential. MR. MARTIN-Small to moderate. MR. PALING-Yes, small, well, or zero. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Why don't you just say that a bigger dwelling is being put on the site than what exists there already, or a bigger structure. I mean, what's the physical change to the project site? MR. PALING-I think he's on other impacts. MRS. LABOMBARD-I know that. That's what I'm saying. MR. BREWER-Demolition of existing buildings, Cathy. MRS. LABOMBARD-But the project site already has a building that's there. So what we're doing is putting one in lieu of that one. MR. BREWER-It's a physical change to the site, though. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's right. That's what I'm saying. So what is the impact here, adding a larger structure. MR. MARTIN-You could just say, under "Other impacts" disturbance is minor or. MR. MACEWAN-Small to moderate impact. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So you just want to say related disturbances, small to moderate, under "Other Impacts"? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right. Okay. Two "Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual landforms found on the site?" - 34 - '~ - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. RUEL-No. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Three "Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?" MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. MARTIN-Four "Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water?" MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. MARTIN-"Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?" MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. RUEL-No. MR. MARTIN-Six. "Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff?" MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. First bullet "Change flood water flows. II I don't think so. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. MARTIN-"Proposed action may cause substantial erosion." MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. MARTIN-No. "Proposed action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns." MR. PALING-No. MR. MARTIN-No. "Proposed action will allow development in a designated floodway." MR. PALING-No. MR. MARTIN-No, and any "Other Impacts"? MR. MACEWAN-Go back to that one, it's "Incompatible with existing drainage patterns." It would be, but it would be a marked improvement. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's right. MR. MARTIN-You could make that notation under "Other Impacts". Drainage will actually be an improvement, drainage change. Do you want to say that? MR. PALING-Sure. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I'll say drainage patterns will be improved. MR. MACEWAN-There you go. MR. MARTIN-Okay. "Impact on Air Will proposed action affect air quality?" MRS. LABOMBARD-No. - 35 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) MR. MARTIN-No. "Impact on Plants and Animals Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?" MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. RUEL-No. MR. MARTIN-"Will proposed action substantially affect non- threatened or non-endangered species?" MR. PALING-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. MARTIN-II Impact on Agricultural Land Resources proposed action affect agricultural land resources?" will the MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. RUEL-No. MR. MARTIN - "Impact on Aesthetic Resources Wil~ proposed action affect aesthetic resources?" MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. RUEL-No. MR. MARTIN - "Impact on Historical and Archaeological Resources Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance?" MR. BREWER-Don't know. MR. MACEWAN-There's a possibility it could, and it could significantly. The key to the whole thing is that it could. MR. BREWER-That's right. We don't know. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, read the rest of the things there. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Reading the bullets "Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. II MR. PALING-That's no. MRS. LABOMBARD-It is contiguous. MR. MARTIN-But it's not listed. MRS. LABOMBARD-It's not listed? MR. MARTIN-No. I think they've made application for such, but it's not. MR. BREWER-Is it in the process of being listed? MR. MARTIN-I think MarilYn mentioned to me that they were going to make the application for it. MR. BREWER-Can we find that out? MR. MACEWAN-And, Tim, I think it's one of those things where you could be on the waiting list for a long time. MR. MARTIN-"Any impact to an archeological site or fossil bed - 36 - '-' -- ~ '--' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) located within the project site. II MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. WEST-Potentially, yes. MR. PALING-Yes. That's possible. We could say yes, but then we'd have to qualify it by talking about the study that'll be, or the monitoring that will be taking place. MR. MARTIN-Well, how about "Small to Moderate", and mitigated by project change, the third column. MR. MACEWAN-Would it matter what the impact is? MR. BREWER-That's right. We have no idea whether it will or it won't. MRS. LABOMBARD-How about, look at the next bullet. MR. MACEWAN-Wait a minute. Maybe we're just pushing the panic button here, because no matter what the impact is, because of State Regulations and Guidelines, you're going to mitigate the whole thing anyway. MR. MARTIN-Well, you have an in place protocol. MR. MACEWAN-Right. MR. MARTIN-You might want to consider Small to Moderate and the project change has been, you have a written protocol to be followed. MR. RUEL-That's good. MR. PALING-And that can be under "Other Impacts", in the notes, or wherever. MR. MARTIN-No. I think you can put that right in the. MR. RUEL-Second one. MR. PALING-You mean just add it to? MR. MARTIN-I think it may be more appropriate in the third bullet, "Proposed action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory." I don't know that this is on the Site Inventory. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, if it's not listed. MR. PALING-Sensitive for Archaeological sites. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-I guess it would seem to me most appropriate, unless we know that this is on the New York State, it's not listed, I believe, and as far as we know, if anyone knows differently please tell me, this is also not designated as sensitive on the New York State Site Inventory. Is that correct? So it would seem to me that the appropriate thing to do would be looking at the well know other impacts box and putting something like, Construction will occur on and in the immediate vicinity of a site of significant local historical value. That would be the potential impact. Then the question is, evaluating that impact as either small to moderate or potentially large, and discussing whether it can be mitigated, and I think what I've heard is some discussion about, regardless of its magnitude, that's something for the Board to decide, that there - 37 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) are mitigation measures that have been discussed that would mitigate any potential impacts. MR. PALING-And we could put that right in the same paragraph, I would think. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, you certainly can. MR. MARTIN-Right next to "Other Impacts". MR. MACEWAN-Well said. MR. MARTIN-What was that phrase, Mark, you used, for "Other Impacts"? MR. SCHACHNER-I said construction will occur on and in immediate vicinity of site of significant local historical value. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Is that acceptable, under "Other Impacts". We have yes to Number 12. Is that correct? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. PALING-Well, you're going to add one more sentence to that, aren't you? MR. SCHACHNER-He's going to add a bunch to that, once you talk about mitigation. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So yes to Number 12, first of all, okay, and then under "Other Impacts" I've got, so far, "Construction will occur on and in immediate vicinity of site of significant local historical value. Now, how would you gauge that, small to moderate or potentially large? First of all. MR. PALING-I'd say small to moderate, based upon the history of this site, I would think it's small to moderate, yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-I agree. MR. MARTIN-Okay, and now this mitigation business. want to say for mitigation? What do you MR. WEST-Appropriate protocol will be followed? MR. PALING-Well, the entire excavation is being monitored by archaeological experts, according to protocol. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Entire construction project. MR. MACEWAN-If you stopped and looked at it from the worst case scenario, no matter what, if it was Indian remains, they would be exhumed and re-buried some place else by Indian nation that would oversee it. If it was Early American, they would be taken care of either by the Health Department or if it was Shaker remains, which you really probably couldn't tell, it would be interred, back at the Shaker Cemetery, and if they were modern remains, they'd be taken care of by the State Department of Health and then interred, some place else. That's the worst case scenario, right? At any time any remains would be found, they'd be re-Iocated from the construction site. MR. PALING-Protocol would be followed. MR. MACEWAN-Right. Even if it wasn't her protocol, it's according to State. - 38 - ~ -- '~ --.,./ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) MR. MARTIN-Well, Mark's developing some language. MR. SCHACHNER-Again, just for the Board's consideration, entire excavation project will be conducted under the direct on-site supervision of a qualified archaeological consultant from the New York State approved list and proper protocol will be followed in the event of any archaeological discoveries. MR. PALING-Great. MR. MARTIN-Does that sound acceptable to everybody? MR. MACEWAN-Very good. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So just to go over it one last time "Other Impacts" Construction will occur on and in immediate vicinity of site of site of significant local historical value. You indicated, you evaluated that to be a small to moderate impact, and under the mitigation I indicated yes, and that reads as follows: entire excavation project will be conducted under the direct on-site supervision of a qualified archaeological consultant from the New York State approved list and proper protocol will be followed in the event of any archaeological discoveries. Okay? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. MARTIN-II Impact on Open Space and Recreation Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities?" MR. RUEL-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. MARTIN-14. "Impact on Critical Environmental Areas Will proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6NYCRR 617.14(g)?" MR. RUEL-No. MR. MARTIN-Okay. "Impact on Transportation effect to existing transportation systems?" will there be an MR. RUEL-No. MR. MARTIN - "Impact on Energy Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply?" MR. PALING-No. MR. RUEL-No. MR. MARTIN-Okay. 17. "Will there be an objectionable odors, noise or vibrations as a result of the proposed action?" MR. PALING-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. RUEL-No. MR. MARTIN-"Impact on Public Health Will proposed action affect public health and safety?" MRS. LABOMBARD-No. - 39 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) MR. MARTIN-IIImpact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community?" MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. RUEL-No. MR. MARTIN-"Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. RUEL-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. RUEL-Isn't there another part to it? MR. PALING-No. That's it. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's it. MR. MARTIN-You just need a determination of significance. Don't you still have your form resolution you do? MR. PALING-What are you looking for now? MR. MARTIN-I'm just going to fill out the cover sheet. MR. SCHACHNER-You just need to make your determination of significance, negative declaration or positive declaration. MR. MARTIN-You know the resolution you make after you get done with SEQRA? You do a resolution, neg dec or pos dec. You do it a million times. MR. PALING-Is it the same as at the end of the Short Form and Long Form the same? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-I always waive this part of the reading. We waive that part. MR. RUEL-How about determination of significance? We've had some significance on here. MR. PALING-But there's some verbiage that goes with that. MRS. LABOMBARD-After I read the Short Form, I waive the rest of that stuff of the determination of significance. Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts. That's what I read. MR. MARTIN-It's the form resolution we have for acting on, they even had it when ~ was on the Board. MR. RUEL-Well, we haven't used it in a long time. MR. SCHACHNER-You use it every single meeting, literally every single meeting. Every single time you've done a SEQRA negative declaration, as recently as last week you did it. MRS. LABOMBARD-I wasn't here. - 40 - .,/ ~ ----- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) MR. BREWER-It doesn't make any difference whether you were here or not, Cathy. Whomever reads the SEQRA, there's a form at the end of the SEQRA that's always read every week, or every month. MR. PALING-Well, this is the SEQRA we've been using to read for months, and it's not on here. MR. MARTIN-It's the assessment form. You get to the end. You resolve that there is a negative or positive. MR. SCHACHNER-There's a phrase in it that says, and we waive the rest of the reading. MR. RUEL-It's type written. It's a type written letter. It's not printed like this. MR. PALING-We have not been using that. MR. RUEL-We haven't been using it, but we should have. MRS. LABOMBARD-I haven't heard that term Neg Dec in so long. MR. RUEL-It's a type written copy, single page. MRS. LABOMBARD-I remember using it two years ago. MR. RUEL-Make up a resolution right now. MR. SCHACHNER-All you really have to do is look at, if you have your Long Form Part II, I'm sorry, if you have your Long Form, the first page of it, in a big box, where it says "Determination of Significance" MR. PALING-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Then if you look at, you could read the Upon Review, and you could pick Letter A, if that's where you're headed. I mean, you have to pick between A, B, and C. Don't pick B. I'm sorry, you could have a conditioned Negative Declaration. MR. RUEL-That's not what you're talking about. MR. MARTIN-I know, but that'll work in the interim. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. You can read from Upon Review, and then you have to pick one box, A, B, or C, and you can read what's in that box, and if you don't understand or know what the consequences of the three boxes are, tell me or ask me, and I'll be glad to explain it. MR. PALING-I think we can do it with A. MRS. LABOMBARD- "The project will not result in any large and important impacts and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore, a negative declaration will be prepared." That's what A says. MR. RUEL-That's good. MR. PALING-We could get a second on that, right? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I would add the "Upon Review" part, if you're making a resolution. MR. MACEWAN-You need to say, "Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, and any other supporting information, and - 41 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, this Board reasonably determines that the project will not result in any large and important impacts and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore this Board determines a negative declaration. II MR. WEST-Cathy, when we do SEQRA's, nobody reads those words. MR. MACEWAN-We don't have that particular one. There is one that is type written. MR. SCHACHNER-You do have a form that you do every single week. MR. WEST-I understand that. MR. SCHACHNER-And you're correct, Dave, that it doesn't have those exact words. MR. LABOMBARD-Did you make that a motion? MR. MACEWAN-Yes, I did. MR. RUEL-He just did. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. Then I'll second it. UPON REVIEW OF THE INFORMATION RECORDED ON THIS EAF AND ANY OTHER SUPPORTING INFORMATION, AND CONSIDERING BOTH THE MAGNITUDE AND IMPORTANCE OP EACH IMPACT, THIS BOARD REASONABLY DETERMINES THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY LARGE AND IMPORTANT IMPACTS AND THEREFORE, IS ONE WHICH WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIPICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, THEREFORE THIS BOARD DETERMINES A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Duly adopted this 28th day of January, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Rue I , Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. Brewer ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. PALING-All right. I'd like to make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 76- 9 6 BERKSHIRE ACQUISITION CORP. , Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: With the following conditions: That both of the current accesses would be eliminated if allowance can be made to use the ring road, at which time two new accesses will be allowed, and the cost of the change over will be borne by the applicant. This includes curb cuts, curbing, and the like. Number Two, no left turns out onto Quaker Road from the site allowed under any conditions. Number Three, that there will be a pre-construction meeting involving those who are going to be directly involved with the excavation of this site. Number Four, that Collamer and Associates, Inc. will submit a "protocol II in writing before February 15, 1997 to the Planning Staff. That the parking lot layout be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Next, that curbing be either concrete or granite. Next, that there is now a 40 foot easement on the west and south boundaries of this property. That the Phase 1B of the Archeological Analysis will be completed before a CO will be issued, and that the Planning Staff will keep the Planning Board apprised of any changes to the proposed resolution. - 42 - -,' ------- '-...../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) Duly adopted this 28th day of January, 1997, by the following vote: MR. PALING-That there is now a 40 foot easement on the west and south boundaries of this property. MR. RUEL-I have a question there. What's this Comprehensive Plan? MR. PALING-The long range plan, the new long range plan. MR. MACEWAN-What do you need that in there for? MR. BREWER-It's not adopted yet is it, Bob? MR. PALING-Because it's a new thing. MR. BREWER-But is it adopted? MR. MACEWAN-It's on the plan. MR. PALING-It's on the plan. MR. MACEWAN-They can't touch it, so what do you need it on there as a condition for? MR. PALING-Okay. I don't know. It's a new thing. If it's on the plan, that doesn't have to be on there. I don't care. Okay, and we've done SEQRA. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. Brewer ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. I've got a couple of items. First of all, the dates for February, on 2/10, we are invited by David Welsh to a meeting of the Environmental Advisory Committee. They'd like the Planning people to be there, so that they can be apprised of the abilities and different capabilities that this group has, in hopes that in the future we'll either utilize them or take advantage of some of the knowledge they can impart to us. MR. MARTIN-I will be in attendance at that meeting, also. MR. BREWER-Where is it? MRS. LABOMBARD-Where is the meeting? MR. MARTIN-I think in the Supervisor's Conference Room, actually. MR. PALING-It'll be at seven o'clock on Monday, February 10th. MR. RUEL-Where? MR. PALING-I guess the Conference Room, what Jim said. MR. BREWER-Can you make sure we get a note on that? MR. PALING-All right, get a note on that. Okay. All right. So that's Monday, February 10th. The next item is Saturday, February 15th, site visits, nine o'clock. I will not be there for that, and I'll get a hold of George so he'll get the van. Next thing is February 18th, our regular Planning Board meeting, seven o'clock, and the February 20th, Indian Ridge. MR. MACEWAN-Indian Ridge, I asked for it last meeting. I want, in our packets, I want a copy of our recommendation that we made to the Town Board for that project. - 43 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) MR. PALING-That was requested before. MR. MACEWAN-A copy of the minutes for that meeting. MRS. LABOMBARD-Now where is that meeting, here at seven? MR. PALING-Here. MRS. LABOMBARD-I thought we didn't have anything to do with it? I thought that was going into a civil case? MR. BREWER-It is, but they still have the right to apply. MR. SCHACHNER-It's in litigation, but that doesn't preclude the applicant from going forward seeking site plan review. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. I thought that everything had to be done by December 19th. MR. PALING-That was just to go to court, which they did. MR. MARTIN-I would just remind you to thoroughly review the Zoning Code as it relates to site plan review for PUD's. MR. SCHACHNER-Which is a specific section, not just a general, and we talked about that last week, also. MR. PALING-Just to be sure, give the section. We want to do 179- 58, probably is the major one, but what are the other ones that you are telling us to review? MR. SCHACHNER-I think that is the one, actually. MR. MARTIN-Just the one, but you want to review that, because this is not your usual site plan, and the thing I'm going to build right into my Staff Notes as an example, like traffic for example. There's a good chance you're going to hear about traffic on Aviation Road. The focus of this review is the project. If you have a traffic concern over an intersection design within the project, that's one thing, but if you're hearing concerns about congestion on Aviation Road, that's outside the purview of your review at this point. MR. BREWER-Are you going to be doing Staff Notes for this project? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'm writing them myself. MR. BREWER-You'll be here that night? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I will be here that night. MR. PALING-Somebody has got to impart and summarize this to the public. Do you want to do it? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I don't have a problem. MR. PALING-In other words, we've got to set the stage so that we don't get off on a tangent. MR. MARTIN-I'll do that in my Staff Notes. They will be read into the record. MR. PALING-All right, and that'll be the vehicle we use. Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-And, Bob, the section you cited is the correct section. 179-58 is your specific function in site plan review within the PUD Ordinance, and unlike in regular site plan review, there is a preliminary site plan approval stage and a final site - 44 - -~ ./ -./ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) plan approval stage. MR. PALING-Did you say unlike? Unlike what? MR. SCHACHNER-Unlike regular site plan reviews that you do, which don't have a preliminary and a final, for example, you just did one, a site plan approval, that doesn't have a preliminary and a final, just site plan. MR. PALING-But this one does. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. That's the distinction I'm pointing out. MR. PALING-So what is the meeting about then, preliminary site plan approval? MR. SCHACHNER-Preliminary site plan review. MR. PALING-And I would suggest that we do not do a Final on the same night for this one. MR. MARTIN-Well, that's up to the Board. MR. BREWER-I'm sure there's going to be conversation asking us to do it. MR. MARTIN-Remember two additional things. There is no SEQRA. The SEQRA is done MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. MARTIN-And we do preliminary on the entire project, preliminary site plan approval on the entire project, all 140 acres of the project area. Final is on Phase I only, and every subsequent phase thereafter they come back to you for final approval. MR. PALING-So there's only one preliminary, which is for the whole subdivision. MR. MARTIN-Yes, and then final is on Phase I only. MR. MACEWAN-My guess is that they'll probably, not reviewing anything about it, my guess is that they probably won't have a preliminary approval that night anyway. MR. MARTIN-That's up to the completeness of the application and what issues come up. MRS. LABOMBARD-What about as far as the Town Board did not take our recommendation? MR. PALING-They did take our recommendation. MRS. LABOMBARD-They did not. MR. RUEL-Yes, they did. MR. PALING-Yes, they did. MR. RUEL-Of course they did. MR. BREWER-They took our recommendation. They didn't implement it, but they took it. MRS. LABOMBARD-They didn't implement it. They read it, but they didn't go with it. MR. RUEL-Sure they did. - 45 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) MRS. LABOMBARD-They didn't. They accepted the plan, I think we better get all of this straight. I have been under the impression the Town Board accepted the plan as initially proposed by Vasiliou to us. MR. MARTIN-That's not correct. MR. MACEWAN-Correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding is that when an application goes to the Town Board for a re-zoning for a Planned Unit Development, the applicant has to show that the Planned Unit can work, with demonstrating a conceptual plan. When the Town Board re-zones that and makes the approval for a Planned Unit Development, they are approving based on conceptual idea. They are not putting their endorsement to that plan, per see MR. PALING-No. I think we're all forgetting something. MR. MACEWAN-Am I right on that or am I wrong on that? MR. PALING-Well, we had this before us. This was the one, Jim, if you'll remember, this was the one that we had the fight about the public hearing, and how extensive it was, and we went ahead and made an approval with lets call it a very limited, a set up public hearing, and we said no more. MR. SCHACHNER-Call it very limited. MR. PALING-Yes, very, very limited. We said after that meeting, no more, because had we had the advantage of a full public hearing, we perhaps would have rendered a totally different. MR. MARTIN-Well, that's true and it's not true. In my opinion, the public sentiment about this project grew, and it grew very fast very late in the process. There's a lot of perception out there that this was rammed through in about four weeks. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's just that the people who became, or a lot of the people who became so vehemently opposed to it did so in the last four weeks of review. The review actually took almost a year and a half. So, I can't help the fact that some people just became aware of this project in July, and therefore got the impression that the Town dealt with this in four weeks. That's not true. MR. PALING-Well, no, I think we're losing the subject here. MR. MARTIN-In response to your question, Craig, I think the Town Board was fairly specific on the layout of this project, and I think if you're going to look at, I think I know what you're leading to, if you're looking at taking lots out of this thing, that's going to kick it back to the Town Board. MR. BREWER-What about moving lots? MR. MACEWAN-No. I wasn't looking at that. I guess I was trying to answer her question, but maybe I was misunderstood. I thought when you come in, you ask for zoning requests, especially for a Planned Unit Development, you had to demonstrate, conceptually, that you had a plan that could work. MR. SCHACHNER-I think that's generally true. MR. MARTIN-That's generally true. MR. MACEWAN-And when a legislative body grants the re-zoning request, they're granting it based on the demonstration that you have a plan that could work, but they're not necessarily approving the plan, per se, that you used to make the demonstration with. - 46 - -' '--' ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) MR. SCHACHNER-Generically that might be true, but in the PUD context, that's not really true. A PUD is a very specific type of re-zoning. MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's more specific than the usual re-zoning. However, the elements of what you're saying are correct in that, say drainage for example. They did not look at a drainage plan. They did not look at drainage calculations, about a storm event and how the water was going to infiltrate, and what size of a drYWell do you need. That they did not look at. That's what YOU do at this point. MR. BREWER-So in other words if we want more testing done, we tell them we want more testing done, it's done. MR. MARTIN-If there's something there that warrants it, if there's indication that there's not enough information then, yes, you have that opportunity to ask for more information. MR. MACEWAN-Will Bill Levandowski be here? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Absolutely? MR. MARTIN-Absolutely. He'll be here, I'll be here and Bill Levandowski will be here. MR. PALING-Could we get a copy of your summary well in advance? MR. MARTIN-Not that there's not a million other places I'd rather be, but I'll be here. MR. PALING-Can we get a copy of your summary well in advance, so we can comment to you, there's a time for us to comment to you and for us to really understand that? MR. MARTIN-Yes. Like for example, Rist-Frost has looked at that grading plan and the drainage plan in concept and said, conceptually, it is good. Now we're going to see if the numbers bear that out. If the numbers bear that out, then I think you're going to be in a pretty tough position to say, we want more information, but if the numbers don't bear that out, then you're in a good position to ask for more information. MRS. LABOMBARD-When's a good time, during the day, to call you? MR. MARTIN-Early morning, the earlier the better. MRS. LABOMBARD-At work? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Like, what time? MR. MARTIN-Eight or eight thirty. After that I tend to get all over the place. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. Well, that's not good for me because I'm in class during those times. MR. MARTIN-But I'll tell you, you cannot go on this project by reading what you've read in editorials or what you've heard over probably direct phone calls that have been made to your homes. Do not go on that, believe me. MR. PALING-How about what Don Coyote says. - 47 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) MR. MARTIN-Do not go on that. If you want to come in and look through the files and see the information that's there and review the facts, that's what I would recommend. There's a box and a half of it. MRS. LABOMBARD-What about the proj ect' s, the applicant's facts versus the people that are against its facts. MR. MARTIN-And I would caution you, make sure that you're hearing facts, not a motion, not perception, but fact. MRS. LABOMBARD-But how do you know that when they say, we got this figure, I mean, how do we know that theirs is documented? Of course the applicant's facts have been documented by professional engineering studies, etc. MR. SCHACHNER-Ask. MR. BREWER-So ask them for documents to the same effect. MR. SCHACHNER-Precisely, and ask your Staff. If it's an engineering issue, ask the applicant how they back up their facts. Ask the commentor how he or she backs up his facts. Ask your engineering consultant what he makes of those factual assertions, if it's an engineering issue. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. Now before I leave, I should call you. I don't want to take everybody's time, but that other last thing on this traffic issue. They're going to beat that to death. MR. MARTIN-Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. They say traffic on Aviation Road. It is a fact in the traffic study, the level of service on Aviation Road is indicated as Level of Service A and does not deteriorate. The wording gets twisted around in some of the editorials I read that the level of service drops from D to E. That is true on the approach on Farr Lane to Aviation Road, but the Level of Service on Aviation Road, the local arterial in this case, does not drop. It remains at a Level of Service A, and that is what the Town Board, in my opinion, passed on when they addressed the impact on traffic. That weighed in their consideration. MR. PALING-All right. I agree with what you're saying, but that's not in our jurisdiction in so far as this is concerned. MR. MARTIN-In my opinion, this is not part of your review. MR. PALING-That's right. Okay. Now, when you look at this proj ect and you see like an intersection of one of the streets has a funny alignment or something like that, or is at an improper radius, that's part of your review. MRS. LABOMBARD-But Jim, that's in your opinion, that's not part of our review. What if somebody out there says, in their opinion, it is part of our review? MR. MARTIN-My opinion is based on what I read in the Regulations. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. MR. PALING-And what the Town ruled on, the Town Board. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. PALING-Because they moved on that already. MRS. LABOMBARD- I know. - 48 - '--- - ',- -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, in the context of SEQRA review. Don't forget that SEQRA review has already been done on this project by the Town Board, as lead agency, with the concurrence of this Board, that the Town Board be the lead agency. MR. MARTIN-I do not want to see the site plan review on this project turn into a popularity contest. MR. SCHACHNER-Nor should any other one, obviously. MR. MARTIN-But especially because this is fraught with emotion and perception, and the perceptions, I don't believe, are factually based. MR. MACEWAN-Why would it be a popularity contest? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Well, you're going to have a room full of people here that are going to certainly be in the majority opinion against it, and you've got to stay on the facts, and what I'm saying is don't cave to. MR. RUEL-Well, what do you do, just ignore these people? MR. PALING-For the most part, anyone that wants to speak should be allowed to speak. If they're way off, we'll have to ask them to come back in. MR. SCHACHNER-Roger, nobody's saying to ignore anybody, just weigh the facts. MR. MARTIN-That's all I'm saying. MR. PALING-There'll be a lot of superfluous information we're just going to have to flush out, but you can't tell people to go away. MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely not. MR. MARTIN-No. I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm just saying, stay on the facts. MRS. LABOMBARD-What does the litigation, what kind of ramifications does that have with anything that we're doing? MR. BREWER-Nothing to us. MRS. LABOMBARD-Or what does anything we're doing have to do with the litigation? MR. SCHACHNER-What was the first part? I missed the first part. I'm sorry. MRS. LABOMBARD-The litigation, the fact that they've taken this to a civil court, right? MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. What kind of ramifications or bearings does that have on what our decision is or vice versa? MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. The first part, if the, the type of action that's been commenced is what's called an Article 78 proceeding against the Town Board, seeking to nullify approval of the Planned Unit Development. If that litigation is successful, then the impact it will have on this Board is that this Board won't have any site plan review to look at because the PUD will have been nullified. That's the first part of your question. The second - 49 - -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/97) part of your question, the short answer is none, meaning nothing that this Board is doing currently or in the review of the preliminary site plan has any impact on that Article 78 proceeding. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Are we having another meeting on the 25th, also? MR. PALING-Yes. Well, I don't know if there's activity. If there's activity, there will be one. MR. MARTIN-The deadline's tomorrow. We'll know better, but I think we've got like five applications so far. MRS. LABOMBARD-So we can knock those off on the 18th. MR. PALING-Well, it doesn't usually work out that way though. We always find somebody. MRS. LABOMBARD-Will there be anything else on the 20th besides Indian Ridge? MR. MARTIN-No. MR. PALING-No. That's a special meeting. MRS. LABOMBARD-I probably won't make it on the 25th. Let me get through the 20th first. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 50 -