Loading...
2008.01.17(Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 17, 2008 INDEX Site Plan No. 48-2007 Schermerhorn Residential Holdings, L.P. 1. Tax Map No. 288-1-63, 64 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. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 17, 2008 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS SEGULJIC DONALD SIPP STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD KREBS, ALTERNATE PAUL SCHONEWOLF, ALTERNATE GIS ADMINISTRATOR-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-The first and only item on the agenda is Site Plan No. 48-2007. SITE PLAN NO. 48-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, L.P. AGENT(S) B P S R; JAMES MILLER, MILLER ASSOC. ZONING PO LOCATION SE CORNER OF GURNEY LANE & WEST MT. RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 85,340 +/- SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING. OFFICE USES IN PO ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE PZ 6-03, SP 72-05, AV 2-06, AV 59-07 WARREN CO. PLANNING 9/12/07 CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA RUSH POND CEA LOT SIZE 0.90 & 16.12 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288-1-63, 64 SECTION 179- 4-020, 179-9-020 JON LAPPER, TOM NACE & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-On the table is a sign-in sheet. If members of the public wish to address the Board, we will pass that around, and I would ask that you legibly print your name on the sign-in sheet, and then when we get to the public hearing portion of the meeting, I can then call people up to make comment. So if you do intend to make comments to the Board, please make sure you put your name down on the sign-in sheet that will be passed around. I would also like to welcome new Counsel to the Planning Board, actually old/new Counsel, Mr. Schachner. MRS. STEFFAN-We’re very glad to have you back. MR. HUNSINGER-And in a few minutes I’ll introduce our new alternates as well. THOMAS FORD MR. FORD-Welcome back. MR. HUNSINGER-Before I turn the floor over to the applicant, Mr. Ford. MR. FORD-Thank you. Good evening. I have a strong desire to participate in the deliberations regarding this application. However, as you may know, I’m a real estate agent, and recently became involved in a real estate transaction that involves members of the Schermerhorn family. While I do not believe that this would be a conflict of interest, as the transaction does not involve nor impact the current Schermerhorn application, some could argue or attempt to use this to discredit the review of this application by this Board. I know my own personal integrity would prevent me from being swayed by this view, and by this new relationship. However, I must deal with the perception of impropriety. I will not place myself, this Board, the applicant or the Town of Queensbury in a position where this perception could possibly cloud the process. Based on this, I believe that I must reluctantly recuse myself from further review of this particular application. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. I would ask that our alternates, Mr. Krebs and Mr. Schonewolf, if they would like to come up and join the Board. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Chairman, point of order. I’d like to address the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-When we get to the public hearing, you can make a comment. MR. SALVADOR-Point of order. I would like to address the Board at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-We can wait until the public hearing. MR. SALVADOR-I’d like to do it before these two gentlemen. MR. HUNSINGER-I understand. When the public hearing is open, you can comment. Thank you. The floor is yours, gentlemen. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. For the record, Jon Lapper and Rich Schermerhorn. I’d like to start by asking George to read the recommendation of the County Planning Board, which we just received. MR. SCHACHNER-Do you want him to? It’s up to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you just summarize what it says? MR. LAPPER-It’s a pretty short paragraph. MR. HILTON-I’ll just read the last. Under County Planning Board Recommendation, it says “Approve. The Warren County Planning Board recommends approval recognizing the project is a positive county impact as a favorable economic development by retaining employment for the area, provides for a future bike path, is constructing an oversized sewer line that can accommodate future needs i.e. the Municipal Center, is a positive impact on the immediate traffic area increasing the level of service by installing a traffic light (southbound I-87 exit 20 off ramp) and turn lanes (Gurney Lane and the southbound I-87 exit 20 off ramp, and is a positive project as it exceeds and meets the guidelines and requirements of the Town for landscaping, buffer, lighting, stormwater and green space.” Signed Richard Merrill, Warren County Planning Board, dated 1/17/08. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. We were obviously pleased to receive that, but not surprised. Since, when we were here last, we were asked to supply some additional information and address issues and, in response to that, we have a transmittal letter that was dated th January 4 from the project engineer, Nace Engineering, which included Tom’s letter addressing stormwater, wildlife, and visibility, and then we have what can only be considered a very positive signoff letter from DEC, Bill Lupo on the stormwater pollution prevention plan, the revised stormwater narrative that Tom provided, that included a few changes that DEC requested, photographs addressing wildlife and visibility of the site, and a Creighton-Manning letter that addresses the traffic questions that were asked last time that sort of, in layman’s terms, explains the methodology for the traffic study and why we have the positive recommendations on traffic. I know that you’ve all read that, and then next we have the Community Development Department Staff Notes, which I think does a very good job, for SEQRA purposes, of summarizing the potential impact issues and all of the review criteria and the positive signoffs that we got on everything. It included Department of Transportation, Department of Environmental Conservation, Historic Preservation, and Endangered Species. We recognize that, for whatever reason, this has become somewhat of an emotional issue with a bunch of neighbors that feel threatened by having this lot developed, but it’s been our position all along that certainly as we’ve submitted this and as the project has changed, even for the better at the request of the Planning Board, and to attempt to mollify the neighbors, even though I don’t think that’s possible. The highlights here are the 64.9% green space when 30% is required, the eight acres of buffer, the fact that, visually, this project is very well shielded, the fact that, for traffic, we’re right next to the Northway. For character of the neighborhood, we’re right next to the Municipal Center annex, and we have virtually no residents that live right there, and the people that travel by the property would really only see it from the front entrance on West Mountain Road. We’ve gone out of our way, more than, really, any other project that I’ve been involved in in this Town, to get the outside agency reviews and even approvals before we got to this point. So, just because we have this level of neighborhood opposition, so that we think that the record is absolutely complete, in terms of the SEQRA review, and the mitigation. The substantial mitigation here is traffic. A rare case where the applicant is required, or is willing to, improve a 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) situation which he didn’t create by improving the level of service from what exists right now, and stormwater, which we’re a great distance from Rush Pond and certainly from Glen Lake, but we moved everything, the drainage basin’s outside of the CEA, so that the stormwater management facilities, or everything drains out of the CEA, and infiltrates outside of the CEA, and the CEA is 500 feet, and it’s not even 500 feet from Rush Pond. It’s from a contour line that’s somewhat arbitrary, really, over 100 feet from Rush Pond. So this is, we’re a great distance. We’ve gone beyond what the regulations require. Rich’s point that he made to this Board previously was, you know, tell me what the rules are and I’m here to play by the rules. We think that, objectively, what he has done has more than been playing by the rules, and DEC’s letter, which says that he exceeds the DEC regulations, is proof of that. I think, in terms of the opponents, and I’m not going to call them neighbors because really most people live a mile or a mile and a half away. It just appears from everything we read that their goal is to just have this site not developed, and if you accept the site that the site is zoned for an office building, and it’s going to be developed, this is really the type of development that the neighbors should embrace, because it’s not like medical offices that have traffic all day long with patients. An office that, it’s a quiet use. It’s very well buffered, and it’s significantly less than what you could accommodate on that site. With respect to the parking issue, which really shouldn’t even be an issue, because with the parking that we’re asking for, obviously, if we’re at 65% green space, we’re certainly not overdeveloping the site, and just the unique standards in Queensbury for parking relating to square footage of the building, all we would have to do is add a third story to the building, and a third story plus 2500 square feet to the footprint, and there wouldn’t be any issue with the parking. It’s not that we’re creating too much parking. It’s certainly not that we’re creating too much traffic, because we’ve got the traffic studies that have been reviewed by DOT, DPW, and A/GFTC, which verify that. All we’re doing is building more parking than would otherwise be allowed for this size building, but that’s something that the Town, the Zoning Board and the Planning Board, have been involved in in the last three projects that we did here, the Tribune site, the Adirondack Cardiologist, and Angio Dynamics, and in fact their percentages were larger than this. So there’s obviously something wrong with the parking standards, and in fact Councilman Strough’s gone on the record at the PORC Committee saying that, and we’ve got that that documented. So we’re not asking for anything beyond one space for each employee. Beyond that, we have a really important tenant, really important employer in the community. These are 500 very clean jobs. They don’t pollute. They bring a lot of money into the economy. There’s 130 families in Queensbury that work there, 499 in the greater community, and this is, first of all, the parking variance is required because anywhere they go they’d need one space per employee, but if it turns out that, if this is not approved or if this is delayed, at the end of the day, I’m confident that Rich will be able to build a building on this site, but if Travelers is gone or, if as a result, they downsize and move half the jobs out of town or whatever they’re forced to do, it’ll be a real shame for the community, because these are really important jobs at a point in time where any other town in America would love to have a Travelers facility in their town, and obviously the economy is getting a little difficult nationally. So this is a really important employer. Beyond that, when they started looking for a site, you know, they came to Rich, we’ve said this before, because they looked at all of the sites in the Town which are, where you can have this type of use. So all they were doing was trying to find a site that could accommodate their use, and large companies often like to be next to an interstate highway. It’s very good when people are coming from out of town to visit, some visibility, although this site doesn’t really have much visibility, but it results in having very little traffic in the residential neighborhoods because the cars are coming from Route 9 or from the Northway right onto this site and right off this site, and we’ve explained, and our traffic engineers have explained, that they come over a number of hours and they leave over a number of hours. So, you know, and the traffic light will take care of the additional cars. So we think that we’ve done everything right. We’re sorry that we’ve been unable to persuade the neighbors that this is a good use, but certainly we believe that this is a legal use and that we’ve done everything that we’re required to do under the Code, and all we’re asking is for you to treat this as any other project, even though we’ve got a room full of unhappy people. We’re just trying to prove that we’re playing by the rules. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-I have a couple of follow up questions, and perhaps I should start with, if I may, with some of the answers in your Enhanced Long Environmental Assessment Form. I just wondered if you could clarify some of the answers, some of your responses. We’ll start at the beginning under A, Site Description, going down to Number 10. Do hunting, fishing, or shell-fishing opportunities presently exist on the project area, and you had indicated no. I think we had some subjective information that there’s small game and other animal activity there that perhaps could be used for small game hunting. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. LAPPER-Rich has not permitted small game hunting on the site. So, I mean, in terms of whether there’s small animals. Jim Miller pointed out that it’s too close to the Northway to discharge firearms. MR. MILLER-There’s regulations as to how close you can discharge firearms to the roads. Because we’re bounded on three sides by roads, you couldn’t discharge a firearm, per se. MR. TRAVER-So that eliminates any hunting possibilities. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Going down to Number 13, is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area, and you had indicated no. RICH SCHERMERHORN MR. SCHERMERHORN-I think I know where you’re going with that. On occasion I guess sledders have been sliding there. I certainly haven’t granted any permission for the sliding, but I did see a picture, Mr. Linke with people on the property. So I think that’s the only general use. MR. LAPPER-That would be a no because Rich is not giving anyone permission to do that. That would be trespassing. MR. TRAVER-Is the property posted? MR. SCHERMERHORN-There were some Posted signs, but honestly, I haven’t kept up with it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Let’s see. Going down to, under B, project description, Number Five, will any mature forest or other locally important vegetation be removed by the project, and you had indicated no. MR. LAPPER-That’s mature forest of over 100 years old. So our answer is no. MR. TRAVER-Do we have any information on the age of the trees that are going to be removed? MR. NACE-We have not had a forester look at it, obviously, but most of the trees there are in the 12 to 14, 18 inch variety. It’s obviously been logged some time in the past 100 years. MR. HUNSINGER-You do have information in your archeological study that says that most of the trees are 25 to 30 years in age, and then you cite a report, I don’t know this Kushler, if I pronounce that right, the natural vegetation would have been a northern hardwood forest with maple, birch, beech, spruce and hemlock rather than pine. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. So that’s the answer. It’s pine because it’s secondary growth. MR. TRAVER-Let’s see. Going on to Number Twenty also under that same section. Will the project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels. Well, I don’t think there’s any noise going on there now. So I’m wondering if. MR. LAPPER-Well, that’s not true because you’ve got the Northway. What our noise study said is that this is actually going to help block, the building will help block the noise from the Northway. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-This is certainly not a big noise producer, indoor office. MR. TRAVER-Well, the question really wasn’t how much noise. It was, I’m sorry, let me find it again. MR. LAPPER-Well, the answer is that, then, that the Northway is a large noise producer. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. TRAVER-Will the project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise level. So I’m assuming that any noise, any increase in noise, is going to exceed the ambient noise level. MR. LAPPER-And that’s not true, because, again, that’s in the noise study, which is included, but the Northway is far greater than this site. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could just hold on for a second. Did everyone get a chance to sign the list? MRS. STEFFAN-That’s who would like to speak at the public hearing. That’s what the list is for. MR. TRAVER-Let’s see. Moving on to the Section C, zoning and planning, all the way down to Number Eight. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within one quarter of a mile, and you indicate that, yes, that it is. MR. LAPPER-Yes. That’s a clearer answer, because the Municipal Center Annex and the West Mount Health Facility are across the street. MR. TRAVER-Are they within a quarter of a mile? MR. LAPPER-Yes. They’re adjacent to the property line on the other side of Gurney Lane. MR. TRAVER-Let’s see. In moving on to the engineering report that we just received, the letter you referred to on January 4. In our discussion the last time you were here, in addition to the pollutants that you refer to in your stormwater report, I know I had raised the question of automotive chemicals. It’s in the minutes. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-With reference to typical automobiles leaking fluids, oil, transmission fluid and so on, and I had requested information about what typically is given off by I think I used the term the typical American automobile. MR. LAPPER-Our report that we got back from DEC, the stormwater pollution prevention plan, covers not only construction but also post construction, and in that report he addressed all pollutants and said that we exceed all DEC requirements, but I also did ask Tom to be prepared to address that issue tonight. So let me give the mic to Tom. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. SCHERMERHORN-And I went one further after you asked that question. New York State, with the annual inspections that are required now in automobiles, it is a requirement that if you go in with a vehicle that’s leaking oil onto the ground, that is a failed inspection. So I think there is some, it’s not like it used to be. MR. LAPPER-Let’s let Tom address that. MR. NACE-Okay. I did research, quite a bit of research. In fact I have a box full of. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could just identify yourself for the record. MR. NACE-Tom Nace, Nace Engineering, for the record. There are quite a few studies that look at the pollutants and stormwater runoff, particularly from road surfaces, parking lots. One of the important factors there I found was that what comes off parking lots is generally about half of the concentration of the pollutants that come off the roads. Typically those pollutants are some metals from break linings, some rubber products from tires. Oil and grease is very, very minimal. The studies really don’t measure oil and grease per say. They measure some of the constituents in oil and grease that are objectionable. All of those they found, in the studies that I read, was that able to find, and some of them were fairly extensive, say that that material is removed in the upper soil layers very effectively, okay. The one thing that’s not removed, as we’ve discussed before, are the chlorides, but the metals from the break linings, the rubber products, and the constituents in oils, are removed very well in the first couple of feet of soil. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. TRAVER-Yes. I saw in your most recent letter, it talks about cadmium, chromium, if I can remember my periodic table here, copper, lead and zinc. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-However, in the stormwater management, and again, I have not seen specific reports on the amount of fluid that would be leaked by 500, over 500 automobiles in a typical parking lot, but it’s certainly been a matter of my experience that a typical parking lot does have grease spots on it, in areas where cars have parked. MR. NACE-If you stop and think about that, Rich is really right. In recent years, the newer cars, you see almost none of that. Look in your own driveway and you have other people visiting you I’m sure. It’s very rare that I see any oil spots on my driveway, and the same for parking lots. MR. TRAVER-I understand, someone uncovering a serious leak in their vehicle, obviously it’s a mechanical problem that needs to be taken care of and it would not be approved for driving, but even if you’re talking about a few drops, when you’re talking about over 500 automobiles, you know, in the space of a year, that can add up to gallons of these fluids that can end up in the wastewater system, and when you talk about your construction phase, in your plan it says all petroleum products or other waste contaminants which are water soluble or could be dispersed and transported by stormwater shall be stored in covered containers and be regularly removed from the site and properly and legally disposed of. MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. TRAVER-So, that’s great, but what happens after the construction phase and we’re now into having these 500 and some automobiles parking there, and, yes, the vast majority of them are, I’m sure, going to be in great shape, but what about the ones that aren’t? What about even the few drops that add up over time and are going to be, as you say, removed in the first few feet of soil. Granted maybe perhaps some of that could be oxidized from, you know, ultraviolet radiation or whatever, but it’s going to be accumulating on the site, is it not? MR. NACE-But the quantities we’re talking about are so small, and the area of infiltration area in the soil area is relatively large compared to the very, very small quantities you’re talking about. Again, the studies that I looked at didn’t have quantities of oil. They had quantities of the various constituents in the oil, and most all the studies showed that that was fairly effectively removed by the soil, and these were long term studies that were looking at groundwater infiltration. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I would be interested in seeing that information. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Mr. Traver, another thing I just want to add is the one advantage I have is being the owner of the building. I maintain all these parking lots. I plow them, we sealcoat them, line stripe them and all that, and I can tell you that, one of the inspections we do on my office buildings and my apartment complexes is we look for those sort of things. If we see dripping oil, it’s not just oil. If it’s a leaking gas tank, we’ve had that before, it’ll eat through the blacktop. Immediately we notify the people that it’s a violation. The advantage we have on this particular office building is these are office employees that will be there on a regular basis, versus a Wal-Mart or Hannaford where you have everyone and anybody coming in and out, but at least there when we’re policing these properties, which we do on a daily basis, and we bring digital cameras with us, and we’re constantly citing violations. Some people think we’re too strict, but it does, proper management will prevent what you’re talking about, because if you see a grease spot, now, granted, the next day they might park in a different position, but if we start seeing significant amounts of oil, well, it’s pretty easy to start looking around, the next day we search around at who’s dripping oil, because usually if they’re leaking that much you’re going to detect it, and it just takes maybe an hour, maybe it takes a few minutes, but we will find them. So we do have that advantage in this case. MR. TRAVER-I can appreciate that, and I know that it is a concern because it does damage the blacktop and it can be expensive to repair. My concern is, though, after you have found the leaked fluid, the point is that it’s still there on the site. That’s what we need to be concerned about, because of the proximity to the waters and so forth. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, typically, like I said, early detection is the best thing for it, which we do, and you clean it up. You dry it up, you wipe it up, and just by sealcoating 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) the parking lot helps quite a bit with the oil. Gasoline is the one thing that’s very difficult because it eats through the blacktop, but again, with the annual inspections, I mean, I’m not going to say there’s not going to be late model cars out there, but typically we don’t see, well, if I was to add up my apartment units, and I have two parking spaces, two and a half per unit. I have over probably 2400 parking spots in my parking lots, and it’s very rare that we find damage from these automobiles. MR. TRAVER-Okay. One of the chemicals that we, or one of the pollutants that we need to be concerned about, in proximity to the waterways, is phosphorus because of the trophication of the lakes and so on, and I saw, of course I don’t have it right in front of me, that the stormwater system was going to be removing 40% of the phosphorus, and I guess I’m concerned about the 60%. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I guess whatever Tom was to present, or myself, or Jon, it wouldn’t make any difference, but, I mean, DEC, Bill Lupo, did take all this into consideration. Dave Wick from Soil and Water. I don’t know how extensive the Town Engineer, but I mean, we rely on the engineers that do the signoffs for these. So I don’t know what more I could do in that Department. MR. TRAVER-I don’t, either. MR. MILLER-One of the major sources of phosphorus comes from fertilizers, and typically on a site like this, especially where we’re having, around the perimeter, buffer area, the seeding that would be done there would typically be a perennial rye grass. It would be mowed, but it probably wouldn’t be a highly maintained grass. So the only areas that would receive periodic fertilization would be maybe some of the islands or the areas around the building. So it’s not a site that’s going to generate a lot of fertilizer use. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you make sure you identified yourself for the record. MR. MILLER-Jim Miller, Landscape Architect. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-So you’re saying the total amount of phosphorus we’re dealing with is not that great. So 60% of that is still, is not going to be significant. MR. MILLER-Well, the other thing, too, is fertilizers, you know, have gotten tremendously better than they used to. Almost all fertilizers now are time released fertilizers that are applied and dissolve very gradually. The problems in the past have always been more rapidly dissolving fertilizers that are put down. You get a heavy storm. So you get a rush of runoff that would be laden with phosphorus and nitrogen, and that’s really not the case anymore. Almost everything is now is a slow release. It’s designed to be put down and last for a couple of months, and then be absorbed by the plants. MR. SCHERMERHORN-And again, I’m the one that has to manage the properties and we certainly, we try and limit the amount of fertilizers that we do put down, because I have to pay for them, but I also want happy tenants in my buildings, but one of the things that we have started using, and it is a little more costly, is organic fertilizers. I have a home that’s around a body of water and we do use organic fertilizer. I’d have no problem conditioning this application where it had to be organic fertilizers. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We talked about the chloride earlier. MR. KREBS-Can I make a comment? In the natural sense, I happen to be the EPA Chairman for the Citizens Advisory Committee when we were looking at putting a sewer in for Warren County. We did a study on Lake George, and the greatest phosphorus, there’s already more nitrogen in all the waters around here than you’re ever going to need to have algae blooms, phosphorus is the controlling factor, and when we studied the lake, areas that we thought were going to be major problems, Cleverdale, Rockhurst, we had no problem, and the EPA brought a boat in and they went around and they tested all the waters. Where we found the greatest concentrations of phosphorus being added to the lake were in the natural places like Sandy Bay, Warner Bay. At the end of those Bays, there is a significant amount of swamp land which rots wood, which gives off phosphorus. So, actually, if you left the property with nothing on it, you might end up with more phosphorous in Rush Pond from the natural decaying materials than you are if you have an office complex there. MR. TRAVER-That’s an interesting observation. Thank you. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. SEGULJIC-I’d be interested in seeing that study. MR. KREBS-Well, you can go to the County, or call the EPA. The study was done during that sewer project. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any other questions? I’m sorry. MR. TRAVER-I was just going to follow up on the chlorides from the ice and snow th removal. Tom’s letter of January 4, it says the dilution of chlorides which occurs, I’m sorry, going back one paragraph. I believe the only stormwater quality issue is chlorides resulting from snow and ice removal and then, in the next paragraph, the dilution of chlorides which occurs as the infiltrated stormwater travels to reach either of these aquatic resources, referring to the pond and the lake and so on, results in very, very low concentrations of chlorides measured at either Rush Pond or Glen Lake. So, the report basically says that very little of the chlorides, very little of the salt, is reaching Rush Pond or Glen Lake, but isn’t it true that really any chloride going into Rush Pond or Glen Lake? MR. NACE-Well, it’s, okay. You left out the first part. The critical issue is the concentration of chlorides at the aquatic resource, in this case Glen Lake, Rush Pond. Okay. It’s not the total quantity. It’s the concentration in the water, okay, and my point was that by the time any water or any runoff or infiltration water from our stormwater on our site reaches Rush Pond, 15 or 1800 feet away, or Glen Lake, 6,000 feet away, it is diluted to the point where the concentration is very low. It’s not that the total amount of salt that reaches there is low. It’s that the concentration is very low, and concentration in the water is the critical issue. Also, in addressing salt, there have been many studies that have tried to deal with salt and what to do with it. The critical issue is the concentration, as I said, and reducing the amount you use on the site with management techniques, and we proposed, or I came across, I think it was the Minnesota Department of Environmental whatever it is, in Minnesota, published a very comprehensive manual for commercial operators or people responsible for snow and ice removal, that deals with how to limit and greatly reduce the amount of salt that’s needed in order to keep surfaces safe, and we’ve said that we will follow that manual. MR. TRAVER-So basically you’re saying that it’s a low concentration. What is the ideal concentration? MR. NACE-I don’t know the actual numbers. I could find those out for you, but I don’t have them at my fingertips. Sure. MR. TRAVER-Yes. If you could get information on what the desired chloride concentration is going into say a freshwater pond or a freshwater lake. That would be good to have, too. MR. NACE-Sure. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. That’s all I had for the moment. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? Mr. Sipp? MR. SIPP-Yes, I have a couple. In your reply about the adjacent Rush Pond Critical Environmental Area, you have designed a sediment distilling basin with a bottom constructed of modified soil. Now what’s above it basically is sand. Am I correct? MR. NACE-What’s above it? You mean what’s underneath it? MR. SIPP-What is, what’s natural in this? MR. NACE-The existing soil materials there are a medium sand, okay, and we’re proposing to use a layer above that that the water will have to soak through first, which is a modified soil. It’s the same thing we do with septic systems, where the percolation rate may be too rapid to meet the regulations. So that we provide a finer material to allow the water to filter through and it provides a better filter media. MR. SIPP-Is it, what is this material, silt or clay? MR. NACE-No. It’s often what we use with septic systems, it’s what we call red dirt. It’s a finer sand that has fines and a little bit of silt in it that it percs better and it provides better filter. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. SIPP-Yes, but this says at the bottom of the pit. MR. NACE-Well, it’s the bottom of the existing pit, which is going to be the top layer of our infiltration basin. MR. SIPP-All right. Is this enough to screen out antifreeze? Antifreeze is a special kind of solution that is very dangerous. It is very highly poisonous. MR. NACE-To animals, yes. MR. SIPP-And it is not absorbed by the sandy material. Is it absorbed by a silt or a clay possibly? MR. NACE-I don’t know the answer to that offhand. I’d have to research that and find out. That was not one of the, when I did the research on stormwater runoff from paved and parking areas, that was not one of the priority pollutants that anybody was looking at. MR. SIPP-Well, it becomes critical because it’s sweet tasting, and animals tend to lick the soil in which this is in, and it takes a teaspoon to kill a dog. I’m not saying that it’s all going to be on the surface, but it is highly poisonous. MR. NACE-But again, that would have to come from a, probably a one time, somebody’s radiator leaks or water pump blows. That’s not a very common occurrence anymore. MR. SIPP-And now you’ve also installed eight dry wells around the perimeter of the infiltration basin, and they will handle a 100 year storm possibility? MR. NACE-Yes, they will, with the bottom of the basin frozen. MR. SIPP-Is there any possibility, as is stated in that letter from the lawyer for the, that any of this will reach the groundwater, any of these pollutants will reach the groundwater? MR. NACE-We’ve said that definitely the chlorides will. There’s no question about that, and the other ones, there may be some very, very small portion of the concentrations that reach groundwater. The filter, the sand media does a good job of filtering, but I can’t guarantee you that 101% of everything is going to be removed in the sand. It’s generally rated as good. MR. SIPP-Well, usually within 10 feet, if the soil is of a type that will probably filter within 10 feet biological bacteria will breakdown most of the hydrocarbons and materials, but they won’t breakdown antifreeze. MR. NACE-Well, the antifreeze is, like I said, it’s not one of the pollutants that was analyzed in the studies that I looked at, so I can’t tell you 100% that it will be filtered out, but I would doubt that it’s a very likely occurrence, but the concentration of pollution, or any of the pollutants that I looked at that would actually reach groundwater is extremely low. MR. LAPPER-I think what’s being lost in this discussion is the fact that Rich is proposing to put the sewer system in to go under the Northway with the sewer to go to the Glens Falls Treatment Plant, in terms of what would be the liquid contaminants that you’d most be concerned about, and the fact that we’re talking about stormwater and we have the reviewing agency signing off on the stormwater measures, that is much less significant than the septic, and I think that’s something that you’re not focusing on. MR. SIPP-All right. Now I have a question about traffic. From my calculations, you are putting 174 cars in the Gurney Lane corridor at entrance and exit times. MR. LAPPER-In the peak hour. MR. SIPP-Peak hour. Right. Now, the peak hour. MR. LAPPER-That’s roughly three cars a minute. MR. SIPP-The peak hour has never been defined. Is it four o’clock, four thirty? MR. LAPPER-It is defined. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. SIPP-Well, it’s defined as four to five or three to four, or what? MR. LAPPER-Ken will look that up. That is defined, but I think what’s lost in the traffic discussion is this, that these people that work at this facility are allowed to use the public roads, as are we all. The question is, is this additional traffic going to create a level of service delay that’s going to require some mitigation? And the only mitigation, the only area where traffic mitigation is required was over the bridge. So three cars a minute, is that additional traffic, yes, but there are going to be gaps, and people are going to be coming right around the corner. It’s all in the traffic study. It’s not a significant issue. MR. SIPP-Well, it depends upon when and how this peak hour or this peak period. If everybody leaves at four o’clock, that’s going to put 174 cars in this corridor across the Northway bridge. MR. LAPPER-Don, I have to tell you that I think it was disturbing in the last meeting when you said on the record that you don’t believe DOT. This has been reviewed. It’s been prepared by traffic engineers, reviewed by traffic engineers, and signed off by traffic engineers, and you, as a layman, are questioning the traffic report. MR. SIPP-Well, I will, as a layman, question them. I’ll refer to that, and I intended to read it but I won’t. You poke a little fun at me in saying that of course if we had the bikers and Americade and the record day of attendance at The Great Escape and all of these things that could happen all rolled into one, that undoubtedly there would be a problem with the traffic. I don’t mind that. The only thing I said was the thunderstorm at three thirty to four o’clock. I did not include those other items. Now, I may be a layman, and probably will be classified as that, but I have sat in Planning Board sessions for about 15 years before I came onto this Board, and have had some contact with traffic engineers since then. I have never, in that time, heard of a traffic study paid for by the applicant that ever said that the applicant was going to increase or cause problems with his project. Never has there been a positive statement saying that the traffic produced by this particular project caused problems. Now, it’s pretty obvious that if you’re paying for the study, the study is going to work that way. All right. I am a layman, Jon, but I still say, and you can go back over all these traffic studies over the years, that none of them ever have shown that the applicant’s project was going to create problems. MR. LAPPER-I’m certainly not poking fun at you, Don. There are two answers to what you just said. One is that you’re coming up with a scenario for rain and Great Escape on the worst afternoon in the middle of the summer, and my answer to that is that you don’t design Aviation Road for the last weekend before Christmas because you would have overcapacity. If you designed everything for the worst possible day, everything would be blacktop, would be six lane roads, and that’s not how it works, and that’s not what you want. So that there may be a day when people are going to have to wait an extra 15 seconds to turn the corner, because they’re measured in delays, and whatever it is, people are going to have to wait an extra time, but will the road fail, no. The other side of this is that, yes, Rich Schermerhorn hired a well respected traffic engineering firm, Creighton-Manning, to do the study, but that study was reviewed by three separate outside agencies, at the local level, A/GFTC, at the County level, Warren County DPW, and at the State level, State DOT. They came back, after the first round, and said, hey, we read your report, we need more. We want you to go look at these additional intersections. We want you to consider these factors. We submitted these revisions, then there were meetings. There were additional revisions, and finally, we didn’t just get a signoff. We had to work for it, answer their questions and satisfy them, and then come up with, or agree to do the mitigation which they required. So there’s a methodology for how you analyze traffic, and it was certainly reviewed by outside agencies that are neutral and unbiased. MR. HUNSINGER-If we could just get back to the question. I believe Mr. Sipp asked the question what the peak hour was. Do we have an answer for that? KEN WERSTED MR. WERSTED-Ken Wersted, Creighton-Manning Engineering. I looked up the peak hour, and in the afternoon, the traffic intersections around there, it’s basically from four o’clock to five o’clock. MR. SIPP-And the total amount, then, on the Gurney Lane, total number of cars, is in the 800 for that particular hour, the total number of cars passing through that area is 800? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. WERSTED-I could look it up, but that number sounds approximately right, in terms of order of magnitude. MR. SIPP-And we’re going to add another 170 some odd to that. MR. WERSTED-Approximately, correct. MR. SIPP-Okay. MR. WERSTED-And, just to go along with that, the peak hour of the actual site, when people are going to come in and out, is going to be between four thirty and five thirty. So, the separation of the two peak hours is slightly different. Also, in addition to that, you know, there are certainly some intersections that this project isn’t going to have an impact on, but we aren’t saying that this project, as a whole, isn’t going to have an impact. We’ve noted that it is, and we are mitigating that impact, you know, with improvements that we’re proposing. So while, you know, the studies may, there may be some studies where the traffic doesn’t affect any of the intersections, this particular project doesn’t affect some of them. It does affect others, and there’s mitigation proposed for those. MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Wersted, while you’re here, can you, I just have a couple of questions. I need some education, or some clarity. The project estimate is for 248 new vehicle trips in the AM peak hour, and 259 new vehicle trips in the PM peak hour. Now, I’m trying to correlate that with the 537 parking spaces. So if the lot’s full, you know, if you’ve got the two shifts that are there simultaneously, I want to know how you arrive at that number, since I think it’s like 46% of the total sample, you know, population. MR. WERSTED-Yes. We looked at the distribution of employees coming into the site, in terms of when their start times are. Some people have to start work at 6:30 in the morning. That number grows, in terms of more people coming into the site. A bulk of the employees come into the site around, between eight and nine o’clock in the morning, and then after nine o’clock you’ve got some employees coming in at nine, nine-thirty, ten o’clock, all the way up to 11:30. MRS. STEFFAN-Is that census data that you gathered from their HR Department? MR. WERSTED-Correct. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. WERSTED-And then similar in the afternoon, in terms of people leaving earlier in the afternoon, people leaving during the peak time of, you know, four thirty to five thirty, and then some people staying as late as six o’clock or eight o’clock, and to relate that to the setting that we’re in now, some of the members of the audience and the Planning Board may have arrived here at six o’clock tonight. While the majority of everyone probably arrived here within the first 15 minutes before the meeting, and then, you know, probably a few more people arrived later on, but if you were to look at everyone arriving to this meeting, earlier in the evening you had a few, it started to build up until you reached seven o’clock and then you had most of the people coming in and then a few people coming in after seven. So that same type of distribution happens with the project in the morning and the afternoon. MRS. STEFFAN-I just was curious. I couldn’t figure it out. So thank you for the explanation. MR. WERSTED-You’re welcome. MRS. STEFFAN-A couple of other things. There’s Section H, Chapter Two, it says the existing traffic conditions, and then the conclusion. The following observations are evident from the traffic count data, and then there’s three bullet points, and I just, I’m not really understanding it, so I would like some explanation. The two way traffic volume adjacent to the project site on West Mountain Road is approximately 320 vehicles during the AM peak hour and approximately 450 vehicles during the PM peak hour. Now, is that Travelers traffic plus local traffic, or is that the local traffic? MR. WERSTED-That’s just the local traffic. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So that’s local traffic. The heavy vehicle percentages on Route 9 and Gurney Lane approaches typically range from one percent to eight percent for both peak hours. I don’t know what the one percent to eight percent relates to. MR. WERSTED-Some of the movements, if you were to look at the distribution of passenger cars and heavy trucks, heavy vehicles. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, like tractor trailers. MR. WERSTED-Tractor trailers, school buses, you know, a variety of the larger vehicles, you know, dump trucks and so forth. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. WERSTED-If you were to say, pick a movement that is northbound right turn into the Warren County, that movement may have only had one or two trucks. So the percentage is very low, in terms of the traffic pulling in there. You might have another movement, say, southbound on Route 9 turning right to go across the bridges at Gurney Lane and then turn left to go south on the Northway, you might have a higher distribution of trucks which results in the eight percent value. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. WERSTED-So if you were to look at all the volume on those approaches and take a distribution of how many were trucks, how many of them were passenger cars, you come up with those distribution numbers. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. That makes sense to me. MR. WERSTED-And the cases where similar, and the range was similar between the AM and the PM peak hours. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and so the heavy vehicle percentages on West Mountain Road typically range from one percent to two percent during peak hours. So I’m assuming that West Mountain, you usually don’t see too many tractor trailers, but you do see a lot of dump trucks. MR. WERSTED-On West Mountain Road? MRS. STEFFAN-On West Mountain Road. So that’s probably what that means. MR. WERSTED-I could look up the actual volumes. We have that included in the traffic counts. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. I wrote this note but I don’t know where I got it from. Including traffic volumes on West Mountain Road and Gurney Lane, 51% morning peak hour, 39% in the afternoon peak hour on each two lane road. I think that was talking about West Mountain Road and Gurney Lane. So I’m assuming those numbers were current traffic. I don’t have a reference. So that’s my fault. I don’t know what I’m referencing. I guess one of the concerns that I have, because I live in that area. So I guess I’m a little more experienced than some other folks, but one of the things that I don’t think the traffic study took into account are just folks trying to get in and out of their driveway during some of the peak hour times, and West Mountain is a, it’s a single family residence that’s in a rural area, and, you know, you do have folks that are coming in and out. It’s 50 miles an hour. Folks usually exceed the speed limit. So that’s an issue. I know certainly it’s an issue for some of the folks who live in that area, and some of the other things, you know, being on the Planning Board for all these years, the cumulative impacts of traffic are really hard to project, and I know that in any area of Town, you know, the Planning Board talks about the cumulative impacts of traffic, but I don’t know if there’s really a measure. I know that you’ve got percentages, and you’ve looked at growth, and those kinds of things, but, you know, I also looked at some of the growth on, like the Goggins Road subdivision that’s been approved at the other end of, you know, Gurney Lane turns into Goggins Road and there’s a development, a large subdivision that’s been approved there, and so that’s going to be adding to some of the current numbers, and so I just, I have some concerns. I understand there’s science behind it, but I’m trying to balance some of my experience and the commonsense of what I’ve seen in the area with the science that you’ve provided. So it’s just difficult to get your hands around, for a layman. I’m not a scientist. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. WERSTED-Certainly, I mean, you could have, you know, development 15 miles away, generate traffic, and there might be some car that drives from there all the way through, you know, a particular intersection, and it’s hard to say, you know, that development that far away, you know, how much of that is really going to come through here. Typically it’s a pretty small number, but to try and account for that, we do look at the background growth of volumes in the area, and if we know that there’s a project right next door, that we know, you know, is going to generate some traffic, then we can get our hands on it because we, it’s an enemy that’s right there, we know it, but there’s this stuff that happens, you know, in other towns, and, you know, miles and miles away, and we use that background growth rate to help account for that, and if you were to look at the before and after volumes, you know, from this particular section of road, and look it a few years later, a few years later and so forth, those are the trends that we look at to come up with those historical volumes, and DOT obviously records all that information because they use it in their planning initiatives when they’re looking at, you know, if we need to widen Route 9, how many lanes are we going to need. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. WERSTED-So that information we use to help try and quantify those things that you know that are out there but they’re hard to put your arms around. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, it’s like in the Glens Falls Transportation study I think it was, where it talked about the widening of the shoulders on West Mountain, and it’s a future upgrade to the road that’s not done yet, and it’s one of those things that’s outstanding. We know about it. MR. WERSTED-And part of it is, you know, when you have those initiatives out there that’s kind of keeping on top of them and saying, you know, if we’re going to come through and re-pave this road, can we put on an extra foot or two to implement that initiative that was put out there, maybe, you know, five or six, seven years ago, and it may have fallen off of the radar so to speak, but if it’s there, and people are cognizant of it, then it can get put in there. I think that kind of goes along, partially, with the pedestrian bike trail that’s envisioned to go from Gurney Lane down to Rush Pond and eventually down to the Aviation Road schools. So, no, there isn’t any specific plan there, there is a combination being made, you know, as part of the project to help facilitate that when it does become a reality. MRS. STEFFAN-And I think that’s the kind of things that we just have to anticipate, as we anticipate the project developing and going forward, we need to look at some of those issues. I know that, and I’m trying to do due diligence, looking at the proposal as it exists, but also thinking about the future, and, you know, I was looking at traffic and I read all the information, but we’re looking at a project with a current tenant, and, you know, we don’t know whether that’ll always be the tenant. We don’t know whether Mr. Schermerhorn will always be the owner, and, you know, the operation could go from a two shift operation to a three shift operation, but it’s really hard to account for those things. You have to, obviously, that’s part of the Planning Board’s responsibility to look at those scenarios as they play out, but you can only account for so much in some of these projections. MR. KREBS-Gretchen, I remember Ken, at another meeting, I think you talked about where the people who work in the existing Travelers organization live, and it could be very possible that part of the traffic count that you have today is some of the people who live north of there coming off and getting off Route 20, and going down, I mean Exit 20, and going down to Travelers. They might not want to go on Aviation Mall because of the heavier traffic there, in the morning. So part of those 174, 248, whatever the number is, people, could already be Travelers people traveling through that situation. MRS. STEFFAN-No, there’s no perfect science. It’s by zip code, and so you never know what route someone is going to take. You can’t always project that. There is no exact science. MR. KREBS-That’s right. MR. WERSTED-I’m sorry. Part of that information that we looked at, you know, is what town, you know, what areas are they coming from and then what routes are they going to take. We didn’t, you know, being that the volumes and the people are coming from a number of towns, I think we had over 41 towns that these people live in, you know, to trace, you know, each of their routes to get through here and then to say, okay, I’ve got five people through this section of road, we’ve already counted them in the traffic, let’s 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) deduct them, and take a credit for it, and then let’s add them in because the office is moving, you know, it gets laborious. So we didn’t even bother trying to discount those existing trips that are going through there, but while not all the trips, not all the existing traffic is going through these intersections, there, you know, is going to be some small percentage. MRS. STEFFAN-And it’s also hard to account for the seasonal fluctuations. You never know with the tourist season, I mean, and the data identifies that, it goes up and down. I have a question. Does anyone have any other questions related to traffic? Because I have a question on the sewer, and I don’t want to jump if someone’s got. MR. SEGULJIC-I have a few questions, observations, and clarifications. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So you did the traffic study in November, if I recall correctly, and then you upped it by 40% to account for a seasonal fluctuation, I believe? MR. WERSTED-Close. When we originally came in and did the traffic studies for the residential project, about two years now, you know, we had to get on the Planning Board agenda and so forth. So rather than wait six months, eight months to the summer, we looked at the traffic counts that were out there under winter conditions, and it was January when we counted those original traffic volumes, and what we did is we said it’s January. It’s not the summer. So we need to factor those volumes up. So we looked at seasonal adjustment factors in the area, and we said, okay, to get from January to August, we have to increase these volumes by 40%. So we increased the volumes by 40% to be representative of summer conditions, and at that time, Great Escape hadn’t opened up their new ring road yet, and it was the winter, and Great Escape wasn’t open. So we said, okay, let’s look at Great Escape, how much traffic are they going to put through there, add that on top of there, and say, okay, this is a summer in August, and that’s what we had used for the original residential project. Now, that obviously didn’t get approved. When it came back as the office over this past summer, we said, well, we have summer, you know, it’s summer right now. So let’s go out and count some of these intersections and get an actual summer count from that, and so we went out there and did that, and we found that, in August. th MR. HUNSINGER-August 13, actually. MR. WERSTED-I believe so. So Great Escape had its ring road open. They were there. It was obviously summer, and some of the intersections during the peak hours, I think the AM peak hour at Route 9, our previous estimate was consistent with what we recorded in August, and then in the afternoon, our actual August counts were slightly less than our previous factored estimate, and previously we had overestimated, and then at the southbound off ramp, I believe the actual August counts were lower both during the AM and the PM than what we had originally estimated, or what we originally counted in January and factored up to be summer. MR. SEGULJIC-And in August, you did those on a Wednesday and Thursday, if I recall. MR. WERSTED-I believe so, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then you got the letter from Warren County and the Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council? MR. WERSTED-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And they followed DOT protocols, correct procedures. MR. WERSTED-Warren County and. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, you know, looking at the project, they followed DOT procedures, I assume? MR. WERSTED-I’m not understanding the question. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, when Warren County looks at projects, do they follow what DOT does also? MR. WERSTED-I believe so, the same type of standard kind of methodologies. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. SEGULJIC-They have set standards, then. MR. WERSTED-Yes. I mean, they also, you know, DOT, Warren County, A/GFTC, they’ve all copied each other on their correspondence. They’re all kind of talking to each other, so to speak. So the issue is raised by one but reviewed by another and they all have come to a consensus. MR. SEGULJIC-Is it one of the DOT procedures that you don’t look at, you only look at the year the building opened. You don’t look at any increases? MR. WERSTED-Correct. One of the issues that they’re concerned about is, you know, let’s say a business comes in there and they open a store and, you know, that’s what they’re generating and that’s what their impacts are and so forth. What they don’t want to look into is, well, you know, what if this, you know, what if Wal-Mart winds up doing, I don’t know, a million dollars worth of business and the next year they do two million dollars worth of business. It’s hard to account for that. At this project site, we looked at what the, you know, new employees were going to, you know, the existing employees moving over in there, and we didn’t specifically call out what, if they do expand, because, obviously that’s a caution as to whether they will, you know, in terms of adding employees and so forth. What we did, as a follow up, because it was an issue raised by the Town and Warren County and so forth, was that we did test that and say, well, if we’ve got, you know, this is the existing number of employees going in there now, you know, what’s the 30 or 40 employees going to do if they do expand, and they do have, you know, more people going in there. So we tested that, and it’s basically the same result. It requires the same mitigation as we are already proposing. So, in that respect, it’s included. MR. SEGULJIC-So, for argument’s sake, you are not really including any increase in traffic, other than, I believe, like less than 10%, because right now there’s going to be 535 employees or so. MR. WERSTED-No, that’s their maximum in terms of adding employees and so forth. They have enough spaces for 537. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, Mr. Lapper said one space per employee. MR. LAPPER-But right now they have fewer than that. MR. SEGULJIC-So when you did the traffic study, because I get confused. In one spot you indicate 455 employees. So you only did the 455 employees. MR. WERSTED-We looked at 455 employees. MR. SEGULJIC-But there’s a potential for 500 and some odd. You didn’t account for 500 employees, then. MR. WERSTED-Well, we looked at 455 employees, and then if they do increase, up to, you know, 537, then that’s been accounted for. That’s been looked at. MR. HUNSINGER-So the traffic study was done assuming 535 employees? MR. WERSTED-The traffic study was done based on the 455, and then when the issue came of up, well, what if they expand to one space per employee, you know, 537 employees, what does that do? So we looked at that as a test and said, well, what if, you know, we have all 537 employees coming into this site, will it change the results, will it change the level of service, does it mean they have to put in four more traffic signals, more lanes and so forth? And the answer is that the mitigation that’s being proposed now will accommodate those additional employees if the office grows to that amount. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Sorry, Tom. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, your October 25, 2007 letter indicates 455 employees. Nowhere in here do I ever see 535 employees. MR. WERSTED-Say that again? MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t see anywhere in any traffic report that it talks about 535 employees. I only see 455. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. WERSTED-Correct. We have that information. MR. SEGULJIC-That has not been presented to the Board? MR. WERSTED-I don’t believe so. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I think it’s something we need to look at. MR. WERSTED-Yes, we have that information. MR. SEGULJIC-Has anyone else reviewed it? Has our engineer reviewed that? MR. WERSTED-I don’t believe so. MR. SEGULJIC-So, right now Travelers is projecting 435 employees? MR. WERSTED-I don’t think that they’re projecting that. What I understand is that had. MR. SEGULJIC-When they open the building, how many employees are going to move there? MR. WERSTED-450, 455. MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s what the original study was done on, that we were provided? MR. WERSTED-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-However, the building is being designed for an increase in employees of over 25%? MR. LAPPER-Whatever that percentage comes out to, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And earlier you just indicated that you looked at 30 additional employees. So I’m confused about all the numbers. MR. WERSTED-Well, the 450 is based on, you know, from this original traffic study. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. MR. WERSTED-And we know that the Travelers wants to expand up to 537. So we looked at that and said, okay, well, what’s going to happen if that occurs, and the results are, you know, there’s going to be more people coming in and out, but the mitigation and the improvements are all the same. MR. SEGULJIC-But that hasn’t been shared with anybody? MR. WERSTED-Correct. We’re presenting it, you know, because you asked the question. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. I’m also, clarify for me also, because when I look at these traffic reports, I see a lot of F’s, and I see F’s with improvements. So, I guess what you’re saying is currently the intersections are an F. We’re going to make these traffic improvements, go through this expenditure and maintain an F? MR. WERSTED-That was the original, if you’re looking at the original traffic study, that’s the original case, and back in October or September we had noted that the improvement of the traffic signal would mitigate the project’s impacts, but it wasn’t going to bring the F up to an E or a D. It would basically go from an F- to an F+. MR. SEGULJIC-With the improvements. MR. WERSTED-With the improvements. MR. SEGULJIC-With 455 employees. MR. WERSTED-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Because you have not submitted to us 500 employees yet. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. LAPPER-That’s not the end of the story. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s what I have here. MR. WERSTED-So that’s the original traffic impact study. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. WERSTED-Now, as we went through the process, we explained that that improvement would mitigate the project. MR. SEGULJIC-To an F. MR. WERSTED-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-To a F+ from an F -. MR. WERSTED-It would improve the delays from, I think we talked about 1,000 seconds, down to, you know, 600 seconds. It’s mitigating the project. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, just define for me what 600 seconds means. MR. WERSTED-In terms of delays. MR. SEGULJIC-Ten minute delay, ten minute delay from someone queuing at a light? MR. WERSTED-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-They’d be queued there for 10 minutes. Well, there was a 1,000 in there and there was a 600. MR. WERSTED-Yes, the mitigation was from 1,000 seconds of delay, down to 162 seconds of delay. MR. SEGULJIC-Now that 1,000 seconds represents what? MR. WERSTED-That would be with the project but without any improvements. MR. SEGULJIC-Right now it’s 1,000 seconds. Okay. What is it right now, without the project, and without the improvements? MR. WERSTED-An F with 650 seconds. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So it’s 650. Now we’re going to just have the project with no improvements. MR. WERSTED-Eleven hundred seconds. MR. SEGULJIC-Eleven hundred seconds, and then the project with the improvements. MR. WERSTED-With the originally proposed improvement, of just the traffic signal, it would be 162 seconds. MR. SEGULJIC-But that doesn’t include 550 employees. MR. LAPPER-But that doesn’t include the turn lanes. MR. WERSTED-Now that mitigated the impact of the project, that improvement, because we’re going from 1,000, 1100 down to 162, which is better than existing. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Correct. MR. WERSTED-Now, it’s still an F. So when we went through the process, the comment response process with DOT, they said, well, that’s not good enough. We need more improvement there to make it a better benefit to the community, and they said, let’s put in a southbound right turn lane. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. WERSTED-So that right turn lane was installed. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, is that from West Mountain Road on Gurney Lane down the Exit? MR. WERSTED-From the Northway ramp southbound onto Gurney Lane. MR. LAPPER-When you’re coming from Lake George and getting off at Exit 20. MR. SEGULJIC-Turning on to Gurney Lane, then, get off Exit 20, so you put a right hand turn. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So that right hand turn lane is going to go on the Exit ramp? MR. WERSTED-Correct. So if we went from that F of 160 seconds of delay with just the traffic signal, once you put in the right turn lane, then the intersection, that approach goes down to a D of 40 seconds. So that was the additional mitigation that DOT said we want to have that in to provide an even more benefit to, you know, drivers going through that intersection. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-I got confused by the questions that Mr. Seguljic just asked you about how the traffic study was conducted, and so I opened it up to it, because nowhere in here did I remember any discussion about the number of projected employees in the building, and so please correct me if I’m misleading you or confusing the public. The engineering study was based on the construction of an 85,340 square foot building using the Institute for Transportation Engineer’s guide for similar uses. It wasn’t made on a projected, it wasn’t conducted on a projected 444 cars or 535 cars a day, but based on the size of the building. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, excuse me, Mr. Chairman, if you look at the Creighton-Manning letter, dated October 25, 2007, Page Two of Four, the daily trip generation of the office was estimated using trip generation seven edition published by Institute of Traffic Engineers. The potential tenant of the proposed building currently has approximate 455 employees. MR. WERSTED-You’re in the main traffic study? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. WERSTED-If you go to Page Eight. MR. HUNSINGER-Which is the page I’m on, yes. MR. WERSTED-Under Section B, Trip Generation, it talks about the Institute of, ITE’s, Trip Generation and says based on Land Use Code 720, a general office building of this size would generate 165 vehicle trips during the morning and 174 vehicle trips during the afternoon. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. WERSTED-We go on later to say, in the following sentence, however, tenant specific information regarding the current amount of employees and their estimated work hours has been provided. According to this information, the overall trips exceeding those using estimated using the ITE data. Therefore the site specific trip generation estimate was used in this analysis because it offers a conservative estimate and represents use of the building, based on the potential tenant, and then if you turn the page to Number Nine, Table 3.2, we have that estimate for the 248 and the 259 vehicles coming in and out during the morning and the afternoon. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. LAPPER-For the peak hour rather than the total number of employees. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I was, yes, that’s why I got confused, yes. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MRS. STEFFAN-And that’s where my question came from, because on the page before, I was trying to correlate parking spaces to those numbers to get an understanding. MR. HUNSINGER-And they don’t match. MRS. STEFFAN-Exactly. Well, that’s why I was trying to make a correlation and I couldn’t figure out how it could happen, but even the difference between 455 employees and 537, it’s like 25,000 trips a year, something like that. MR. LAPPER-But not all at the same time. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, but it’s just over the course of a month or a year. Actually I just did that because I thought of it during the last meeting, and we could easily, with that number of parking spaces, that capacity, we could anticipate 300,000 trips a year, between going to work, coming home from work, that’s if everyone drove. Of course we talked about public transportation, but if everybody drove, everybody drove home, and then some folks went out to lunch over the course of the year, it could be 300,000 trips. MR. LAPPER-Gretchen, we were all thinking about that because you mentioned that last time, I think you used the number 250,000, and, you know, and if you do the math, you know, that’s the case, but in any road, if Quaker Road is 22,000 cars a day, I mean, if you multiply it by 365, it’s going to come out to a big number, but the way that this gets done is by peak hour, and whether or not traffic mitigation devices have to be installed to handle that peak hour. So, I mean, it does sound daunting if you multiply it out for how many cars, but they’re not all there at the same time. That’s over a year. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and that’s one of the reasons I said that there’s a difference between science and commonsense and experience. I mean, you try and weigh and consider how do I fathom this, you know, how do I live with this. I can look at the data, but as a layman, you know, who lives and drives in Town, how do I, what’s my experience going to be? MR. LAPPER-And part of the answer is it’s going to be quicker to get off the Northway, and if it turns out, if it was the case where, at the intersection of West Mountain and Gurney Lane, there was a need for a traffic light, then the traffic agencies would have required it, and Rich would have paid for it, but it wasn’t required, so, in terms of level of service, in terms of maintaining that level of service, and that’s the analysis, like every other project. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments from members of the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Anything else on traffic? I have a question on the sewer. I just need another definition. What does out of district use mean? MR. LAPPER-There’s two ways, in Queensbury, that you can, you can do a district extension, or you can just be a contract user, and it’s, procedurally, it’s just simpler. When you only have one site, to sign a contract, rather than to do, because if you extend the district, you have to file a map plan and report, and the Town Board has to pass on the sewer district extends. If you’re adjacent to, nearby to a sewer line, you can be a contract user, and we’ve looked into that with Mike Shaw, and that’s just the easiest way to get permission to bore under the Northway from DOT and to hook this up as a contract user. It just means that there’ll be a contract for sewage capacity and for how much flow is going into the system and it’ll be paid for based upon volume. It’s just a way to pay for the sewer use. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So, would anybody be able to use the sewer, you know, if you somebody else decides to build close to you? MR. LAPPER-No. If they County wanted it, they would have to apply, if the County wanted to use it, they would either have to apply to make it into a sewer district at their expense, in the future, but this is being designed for Rich’s use, and so the contract user is just for this. MR. SCHERMERHORN-But I’ve said on the record several times, it’s being designed for, in case the County, for future use, wants to use it. It is being sized appropriate. It’s already sized appropriate, and I’ve said it several meetings that it will be available to the County, but they’d have to form the district themselves, but everything is sized and 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) actually we’ve left laterals on the plans that would allow them to, you know, they have to come across the road, but it will be there for them. MRS. STEFFAN-Hypothetically, if somebody wanted to develop property down West Mountain Road, is there the possibility for them to hook into that? MR. LAPPER-Let’s let Tom answer that. MR. NACE-I would doubt it very much, okay. This is across the Northway. You would have to, it’s lower. If you’re going down West Mountain Road, there’s a low point. The pump station that’s being proposed is up right at the intersection of the Northway and Gurney Lane. So it’s much higher. It would be fairly complicated to do anything south on West Mountain Road. You’d have to re-pump. You’d have to have another pump station on down wherever you were serving. I just, you know, I mean, and most of that’s zoned residentially on down West Mountain Road. So it would be unusual to have a residential use down there that would require, based on the soils that are there and the cost. MRS. STEFFAN-One of the reasons I’m asking is during the Ordinance Review Committee meeting, somebody came and they did, they talked about a proposal, it hasn’t been submitted to the Town, but for a 30 unit townhouse Planned Unit Development there. MR. NACE-It would probably be difficult to make the economics work. They’d have to buy into Rich’s line across the Northway and his pump station, because they would be using it. You might have to upgrade that pump station for the additional use, plus build their own pump station. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and the reason I’m asking the question is very specific, and it supports the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, is that, you know, we all know that development follows infrastructure, and if the sewer runs under the Northway to that side of Town, which the Comprehensive Land Use Plan has defined as rural, Single Family Residence, not supposed to be commercial development or anything, and the infrastructure is there, I have great concerns that there will be other folks trying to get, you know, either changes in zoning or to try to develop areas that should not be developed. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’ll be the owner of the sewer line, under a contract user agreement, which is very common. I’d be happy to condition that I won’t sell it, other than to the County. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. SIPP-Is it necessary to approach the Federal government on? MR. LAPPER-No, DOT is responsible for that, for the Northway. MR. SIPP-Well, I know when they tried, on northbound Exit 20, to go across Route 9 into the County property, the Federal government said no, because they own, theoretically, the. MR. LAPPER-Northbound Exit. MR. SIPP-Exit 20, which comes out between the entrance to the County building and the miracle half mile there. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I think you’re talking about the 24 inch water main they put in? MR. SIPP-No, I’m talking about putting a road in there when they were thinking about putting a tourist information center on County property, opening up a curb cut. MR. LAPPER-That’s a new entrance onto the Northway. Is that what you’re saying? MR. SIPP-No. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, New York State Department of State of Transportation, we already have, the Health Department has already reviewed it. There is stuff in the file as far as the sewer goes. We just did, you know, we don’t need Federal approval, but we need the State approval, which we’ve already been conceptually said yes, but we 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) had to have Health Department sign off, but Health Department wouldn’t sign off until they had the SHPO letter, which we’ve provided. MR. SIPP-I thought anything having to do with Northway property was a Federal. MR. LAPPER-There are some things that DOT has to go to the Federal government on. If you were going to add an exit ramp, you would have to do that, but we’ve already been to DOT about this, and they have, they manage this. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I have one other question, and that deals with our friend the blue Karner butterfly, just a clarification, if only I can find the letters. Because you had the letter from Kathy O’Brien originally. She talked about, she had some reference in there about the sandpit. Here they are. MR. LAPPER-Rich could explain it. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, Rich, could you explain that to me. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. Just to summarize, and I’m not sure, Tom, if you were on the Planning Board. It was about two years ago when I did the Pine Ridge development over on Sherman Avenue, which I had sold to Thomas Farone out of Saratoga, or maybe four years ago. She did the initial study of the Karner blue over there, and what she had asked for is to mitigate, to make a better situation, would I agree to do some clearing on this development, and to make parcels of land forever wild over by the power lines, where there’s been all kinds of sitings of the Karner blue and where they wanted to protect them. So that’s all been done. It’s in the letter there, and she’s satisfied with it. She asked for extra work, which I agreed to and I paid for, did all the clearing for. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then my confusion is at the end of her September 10, 2007 letter, she says my meaning in the statement where she talks about the only caveat I would add is that if there were to be a considerable change in the site. Do you know what I’m referring to? She goes on, my meaning in the statement was to reserve the right to update my evaluation of the site if it were to be later proposed for development. I’m confused, because it looks like she’s referring back to the sandpit. MR. LAPPER-What she’s saying about the sandpit is she looked at the sandpit. She gave a signoff. She said you’ve already done what you had to do over at Sherman. You did extra clearing on Sherman. We’re all set, but she left it open saying that if something changes in the future, you know, just being careful, she said if something changes in the future, we may have to go back and look at the sandpit, and then, since that was open- ended and we didn’t want to submit that to you open-ended, Rich went back to her and said, could you clarify that, and she said, yes, 10 years later or something we’d have to, you know, some significant period of time, maybe something would change. MR. SEGULJIC-Is she saying, then, if you were to develop the site in 10 years those species would? MR. LAPPER-No, she said she’d want to go look again in 10 years, if nothing happened in 10 years, she’d want to check. MR. SEGULJIC-Because the blue lupine and all that could potentially grow there. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-And now they’re not there. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-So she’s saying 10 years down the road she’d want to look at it. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. It was confusing. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. If I wasn’t going to develop this site, she would want the right to come back at a later date. That’s why I didn’t want it to be open-ended. I had her. MR. SEGULJIC-So my evaluation for the site if it were later proposed for development. Well now it’s proposed for development. She’s saying down the road in 10 years, because there’s nothing there now. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-But potentially down the road there will be. MR. LAPPER-It’s sand. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Just the drawings that have been submitted for the sewer extension. It appears that there’s, from the aerial that was provided, it appears that there’s very few trees. There will have to be some pine trees taken out for the pumping station. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. Let me, first of all, it was two years ago that they put a 24 inch water main underneath the Northway, and we’re going to do the same technique and we’re actually separated by the by I think it’s eight feet. We’re directional boring. There’ll be no disturbance of trees. Where the pump station goes, maybe there could be a tree or two in that location, but if that is to be touched or damaged, it will be replaced, but I think, because I don’t have the plan in front of me, but I’m almost positive there’s nothing in the way of where the pump station would go. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. It appeared to be minimal, because the question I had was that obviously there were the balloons flown and the building would not be able to be viewed from any location, but the number of trees that appears to be taken out would still shelter the building from the Northway, from Gurney Lane, but the other question, and we’ll have to deal with this going forward, is the proposed bike path, and I think it’s in the plan, and you’re accommodating the Town, but folks need to understand that there’s going to have to be trees that are taken out in order to accommodate that bike path. MR. LAPPER-That’ll be the Town’s decision as to where it goes, and we’re just saying it’s available. MRS. STEFFAN-Absolutely, but it’s something that we have to think about, because it may not screen. MR. LAPPER-There could be trees, evergreens planted along bike path if somebody wanted to do that at the time. MRS. STEFFAN-We’d have to make sure that that was part of the plan or a condition. MR. SIPP-One other thing. Is there a night cleaning crew that will be working here at night? MR. SCHERMERHORN-I would probably say more than likely, on the interior, when the employees weren’t working. There would be no reason for them to come in at midnight if their last shifts are eight o’clock. MR. SIPP-Then this building, then, would have lights on. Would these lights be visible from the Northway? MR. LAPPER-We talked about, we could have the lights dim at night. I think we did that on the Tribune, agreed that a certain time they would go. MR. SIPP-No, the lights, interior lights. If the cleaning crew is working there from seven to ten, or whatever, the lights would be on. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I would assume if they are cleaning they wouldn’t turn on the whole building. They would probably do it in sections, and to say that you wouldn’t see some. I mean, I know it’s buffered real well. MR. LAPPER-Tom just pointed out that it would be very heavily filtered because of the trees, too. It wouldn’t be like looking in somebody’s window from the Northway. MR. SIPP-So when you read the crest between 19 and 20, and start downhill, you would not have any visible light spilling? MR. LAPPER-We can’t say that there won’t be an visible light, but if there’s any light, it would be very filtered. I mean, it gets dark at 4:30 in Siberia where we live, some part of the year. MR. HUNSINGER-At what point would the exterior lights be turned off? MR. LAPPER-We’d agree to anything reasonable. I mean, if they’re done at eight o’clock at night, you know, you just want something dim for security after that. I think at Tribune it was twelve midnight is what you wanted, if I recall. MR. SIPP-The exterior lighting. MR. LAPPER-It would be dimmed to a low level just for security purposes, as a site plan issue, but we’re certainly willing to agree to that as a condition. MR. SEGULJIC-One of my biggest concerns about this project is that, as Mr. Sipp was just talking about there, that crest between 19 and 20, and you get to the top of that. I’ve got to believe, to date, you’ve submitted photographs, and you submitted the renderings of the cross sections, but I still haven’t seen anything, I believe I asked for this last time, that’s going to show me where it’s going to get cut out. Because I’ve got to believe, when you’re cresting that hill, you’re going to be able to see this building, and it’s going to be in sharp contrast to what’s there now. In addition, when you talk about the gateway to the Adirondacks, that’s really the gateway. That’s when you leave the development, and we’ve had, in a number of times, we’ve attempted to have buffering, it never seems to work out. MR. LAPPER-Well, I know you said that at the last meeting and you talked about the Pine Street project, or somebody mentioned something about The Great Escape. MR. SEGULJIC-Probably asked for information in comparison to the Adirondack Dome, which we didn’t get. MR. LAPPER-This buffer is very significant. I mean, we’ve got eight acres around here that’s not being touched, and, I mean, is the building going to be absolutely invisible? No, but this is buffered better than anything I can think of, in terms of taking a 17 and a half acre site and only touching 10 acres of it. So we can’t sit here and say it’s not going to be visible, but it’s got huge buffers that far exceed the Queensbury requirements for buffers, far exceed. MR. SEGULJIC-I still don’t really have a feel for what it’s going to look like. MR. LAPPER-Well, Tom, could you address that? MR. NACE-As far a visibility from the Northway on that crest that you’re talking about, it’s just as you start over the hill there, and start, just before you start down, on the Northway northbound is where the one point of greatest visibility toward the north is. The issue there, as far as the actual building being visible, the site, as we’ve shown you with the balloons, the trees around the site and the buffer are taller than the building, okay, and the fact is if you look at the site line on here, the viewpoint on that crest, northbound on I- 87, is lower than the elevation of the building site. So you’re looking up. So the opening in here, to be able to see something within this cleared opening of this site that has to be done for the building and the parking, the clearing there, to be able to see that, you have to be able to look down into it. You can’t look up because the trees in the foreground are taller than the building. So if you’re looking level at the site or up at the site, you’d see those trees, and they buffer the building, and that is the case here. You’re looking, if you look at this cross section, you’re looking up to get any sight line that would hit the top of the building, and the trees are taller than that site line, the trees in the buffer. Even though there’s a clearing here, you see the trees and you don’t see the clearing because 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) you’re looking up at it, you’re not looking down into it. You’ve got to be able to look down into it to make that clearing visible. MR. SEGULJIC-But when you’re making that crest, you’re going to be potentially above it? MR. NACE-No, you aren’t. That’s what this section shows, and this is taken from actual elevations. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, when I’m looking at Photograph Three and Four. MR. NACE-When you’re looking at those photographs, what you’re seeing on those photographs are the trees here, okay, in the foreground. You’re not seeing, because the site is actually, there’s a fairly level portion of the site, and you’re looking up at the site. You’re not seeing, what you’re seeing is the trees in here. You’re not seeing into the middle of the site where it’s fairly level, the ground is leveled off in there. You’re seeing this hillside before you get to the site, okay. I mean, it’s commonsense. If I want to buffer this projector, and I’ve got a clearing all the way around this projector, if I put trees out here that are as high as or higher than the projector, and I come over here and try to see through those trees or see down into this site, I can’t see into it unless my eyesight is higher than the trees on the edge that are buffering the site. MR. SEGULJIC-But what I’m not getting is you’re going to cut out a number of trees, and that impact is not given on Photograph Three or Four. That’s what I want to see is what that impact’s going to look like. I mean, you floated balloons in there. MR. NACE-Well, that’s why we drew these sections, to illustrate that. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that’s not giving me a good impression, because I believe the Open Space Plan says to buffer the Northway, you know, minimize any visual impacts on it, and that’s one of my concerns, and I can understand what you’re saying, but what I see portrayed here isn’t giving me a comfort level. MR. NACE-Well, I don’t know any better way of explaining it to you than what I just did. I mean, the photographs show what’s there now, okay, and what I’m saying is that because of the trees on the perimeter of the site being higher than the building, and the site being level and the fact that you’re looking up toward the site, not down into it, you’re not going to see that clearing, okay. So if I were to illustrate that in one of those photographs, it would be no different than what you’re looking at in the photograph. MR. SEGULJIC-Part of my problem is that we’ve tried to do that in the past, and it hasn’t worked out. MR. MILLER-Tom, I think the point is most of those trees you’re seeing are off our site. Those lower trees are, the top of the hill is where our site is, and the trees that you’re looking at are off site where there’s a slope coming up from the Rush Pond area up to our site, which is up at the crest. So our site is actually on the top of the groups of trees you’re looking at. Most of those, all those trees are off the site. MR. SEGULJIC-When you’re looking at Photograph Three? MR. LAPPER-Yes, they’re south of the site in the Rush Pond area. MR. SEGULJIC-So then why would you have flown a balloon there? You have an arrow pointing right in it. MR. NACE-Okay. Let me look at the photograph with you. Okay. The site is on this level, you’re coming up from Rush Pond here, okay, to where that arrow is, and then the site levels off, and what you’re seeing back here is not the site. What you’re seeing back here are the trees behind West Mount Infirmary. Okay. You’re not seeing the site because it’s in that level plateau in this area right here at the bottom of the arrow. I don’t know any better way of explaining it. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m following you now. I had the same questions, though. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I’d have to see a plan view of it, and then coupled with the cut coming across, so that I can put the two together. Right now I don’t. MR. LAPPER-Tom, you’re saying, if you took that out, you wouldn’t see it on the photo. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. NACE-That’s correct, this photo. MR. SEGULJIC-So what you’re saying is that you won’t see this building, then. MR. NACE-From that perspective, you won’t see the building. MR. SEGULJIC-You won’t see the building. MR. NACE-From that perspective. MR. SEGULJIC-We’ve tried that a number of times, and it always doesn’t work that way. MR. SIPP-One last question. If things come to fruition here, is it possible for you to construct a parking lot which would service the bike trail, if and when it crosses this property? MR. LAPPER-What we thought is that the best place for that would be, there’s County land on the corner. You wouldn’t access it from the corner for traffic safety, but there’s land that the County has at the corner of West Mountain and Gurney Lane that’s cleared now, where they pile snow up, that would be a good place for a bike path. I mean, the reason why we don’t want to do it on this site is because we don’t want to take anymore trees down, but there’s a cleared area right at that corner. MR. SIPP-If you did it right on the Gurney Lane side, the bike trail would be coming up on the west side of the property, or east side of the property. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Mr. Sipp, when the time comes, anything of that nature, to work with the Town, I’d be more than happy to. MR. SIPP-Fine. MR. SCHERMERHORN-And if I just might state for the record, I know there may have been some projects where you felt that the Planning Board has been burned in the past by developers or applicants, but I just want to point out for the record that I think most of the Planning Board members that are here tonight have seen my projects, and they have been completed according to the way they were approved, and I’ve never had any violations. So I’m sure you’ve had some that have been bad, but the people that I’ve used, and Tom Nace, for 20 years, he’s never steered me wrong, and I’ve never had reason to doubt his word. So anything he says I’ve got to believe. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, actually, and there was a project that we approved, I think it was on Haviland Road, that I think after it was approved, I think you sold it to another developer. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I had several projects on Haviland. I had five commercial lots, which I retained. I just sold, previously, two of them, because they’re commercial lots, but the housing development which I’m building, that’s mine, but the townhouse development, I did decide to sell to Amedore Homes, the only reason being is I have quite a few projects going in the Town of Queensbury and Kingsbury, and their forte is the town homes with the associations involved and stuff. MRS. STEFFAN-But that’s, the reason, before, when I talked about due diligence and looking forward, and I know we’re looking at this proposal for a current tenant, and I mentioned this is a two shift operation, but it was just that situation, and you’re not the only one. There’ve been other situations where we’ll approve a project, and then the project gets sold to someone else, and then the intent of the project that we approve changes a little bit. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, but just remember that that project was very specific. It was in the PUD. The project couldn’t be changed in any way. The building elevations that are built, that are presented out there now is exactly what was presented. Landscape design, everything that was approved by this Board, has been followed. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s a nice project. Don’t get me wrong, but it’s just, ownership does change, and so. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. It’s very rare that I sell the real estate that I have. I’m never going to say that I wouldn’t sell it. I mean, that’s the business I’m in, but my intentions are to maintain most of the stuff, and I’ll be honest, one of the reasons I sold it is they were buildings that were for sale, and I like to build things, office buildings, apartment complexes, things that I own and manage. MR. HUNSINGER-Are you at liberty to say how long the perspective lease is with the proposed tenant? MR. SCHERMERHORN-It’s a long term lease. I’ve got to be careful what I say, but let’s put it this way, it’s longer than 10 years, less than 30. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHERMERHORN-And their track record, they’ve been here 21 years. So I hope they stay another 21. MRS. STEFFAN-And I guess, while we’re having our public comment, I know that there’s a great deal of, Jon used the words I think emotion, and a couple of other things, yes, emotion. There is a lot of emotion on both sides of this particular project, and rightfully so. We don’t often get this many folks who come to Planning Board meetings, and it’s only when a project is near and dear to someone’s heart do we get this kind of a turnout, and, you know, I think that it’s important, certainly to do a really good job weighing, considering the information that you guys have provided and, you know, all of your agents have done a really good job with providing us with a good document to review, and some of the drama that we have seen over the last couple of months has been related to the potential job loss with Travelers leaving the area, and I guess, you know, I’ve heard it many times and I’ve read it in the media, and I guess I just wanted to make a statement because I think that, you know, we’re evaluating the site plan, but are we concerned about economic development and making sure that jobs stay in the area? I can only speak for myself. Yes. I’m a member of the Economic Development, and the Chamber of Commerce and those kinds of things, but there was no public outcry when the City of Glens Falls decided that they didn’t want this project, and so I think that it’s important to weigh and consider the project based on the merits of it going in the Town of Queensbury, and not be concerned or get into the issues of, they’re going to leave the area if we don’t approve this particular project. I think that that’s an unfair way to evaluate the project, and I’m not accusing you guys of doing it, but it’s just, it’s information that we keep hearing from folks, whether it’s public hearing, whether it’s from you, or whether it’s media. We keep getting that information, and that’s really unfair to the Planning Board, because we have to weigh and consider the application based on the information that’s provided to us. So I guess I just wanted to make a statement about that particular issue. MR. HUNSINGER-If I could just elaborate, we’re actually charged and required to review the project on its own merits, which, you know, it’s almost, I hate to say irrelevant who the tenant would be, but in some ways it was almost easier when the tenant wasn’t known. MR. LAPPER-Our job is to convince you that we’ve done this right for the project. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MRS. STEFFAN-And I also have to commend you on putting this book together. Because we had so much information on this particular project, and it was much easier to review the site plan with all this information in one place with, you know, sections so that we could look at each one of the areas of traffic and Critical Environmental Areas. It was a nice job. MR. LAPPER-Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Any final questions or comments from the Board? Okay. Before I open the public hearing, there is a signup sheet. I believe it’s on the back table. If you didn’t already signup, please put your name down on the signup sheet. It’s primary so that I can call you up, as your turn comes up to speak to the Board. The purpose of the public hearing, of course, is for the public to comment on the project. The purpose of it is primarily for the Planning Board to get additional information that may not be readily available, either from the applicant or from the engineers and consultants that have provided comments on the project. This Board has already heard in excess of three hours of public testimony. The Zoning Board has already heard in excess of five hours 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) of public testimony, if I’m not mistaken. Therefore, I would ask that anyone wishing to address the Board this evening limit their comments to five minutes, and to the extent possible, try to speak to any new information that you may have heard this evening, or at the last meeting. We do have an extensive list of your concerns and comments. Many of them have been addressed by the applicant. So, there’s no need to reiterate, you know, the comments that have already been heard and received by this Board. I would also ask that you try to focus any comments on the project and specifically, rather than make general statements about development, or other issues in the Town of Queensbury. With that, I will open the public hearing, and the first person to address the Board is Richard Linke. When you come up, I would ask everyone to state their name for the record. We do tape literal minutes of each meeting. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN RICHARD LINKE MR. LINKE-Good evening. My name’s Richard Linke, and I did prepare a booklet that I rd submitted on January 3. I was given assurance that you folks would all get it long before the meeting. I see that you just got it this evening. I’m very sorry that that happened, because in here, it’s a summary, 90 pages, a summary of significant negative impact. So I’m begging you to please take care and read this because there is a lot of good information, a summary of what everybody’s been saying for months now. So please read it. Now, Mr., the lawyer there, asked that this be treated as any other project, and I was just kind of thinking, in terms of zoning and planning, that if I wanted to put in a hog farm somewhere, I wouldn’t be able to because of negative impact, or an adult bookstore, negative impact, auto junkyard, negative impact, a culvert too small, negative impact. So we have here, in this project, an ample amount of negative impact, and a lot of it’s been talked about before. I have four points I’d like to make tonight that I consider to be fairly new. These pages that I’m going to be showing you are in your booklets, if you’d like to refer to them. This thing about the buffer zone, I sent my son into the woods with a big yellow sign. I stood on West Mountain Road. This is in your booklets, and I’ll get this to you. He’s in here. This yellow sign is in the woods, 243 feet and you can see him clearly. I’m standing on the side of West Mountain Road. In the wintertime, if you go down there, please do. You can see the Northway ramp from West Mountain Road. So all of the talk about buffer and no cut zone is hogwash. Forty feet of immature trees is not going to be a proper buffer. It’s going to happen again, and all I ask is go down there yourself. Now, the idea of road salt, and maybe the Town Engineer, somebody ought to validate this figure, but what I’ve come up with is 20,000 tons, 20 tons, I can’t remember now which it is, but it doesn’t matter. If you don’t believe, go ask somebody who does know. I’m not an engineer. Let’s call it 20 tons of rock salt over the next 10 years. If you go and do any research, or your engineers do any research, and this is a page that’s in your booklet, and it’s from an expert, and experts agree that best management practices cannot prevent salt CL, from entering groundwater. This is a scientific fact. It’s why, when you go to Massachusetts, and along the highway, you see low salt zones. These holding ponds and treatment that Schermerhorn says is not going to prevent 20 tons or 20 hundred thousand tons, whatever it is, it’s all going to go right through that sand. It is not filtered by any of this. Go have somebody please do some legitimate research. Now, one of the reasons I’m so concerned about the salt is, and I’ve put up a diagram that’s in your book. It shows 11 active springs, and artesian systems on Gurney Lane in that whole valley. This whole hillside is incredibly active, going right under the sand of Schermerhorn’s property, right down to Rush Pond, and if you’d like to go down there in the summer, which I have, or in the winter, which I have, when the ice is clear, you can see the springs boiling up with sand. It’s something that I showed my kids. It’s something that a lot of people know about. This is a very active aquifer. Have your experts, please, do a study. Another unbelievable thing is we have Queensbury’s premier recreation site, the Gurney Lane pool, two lane road, and here this project is going to clog, put 1300 more vehicles each and every day on a two lane highway, which is your only access to your premier recreational site. In addition to that traffic on that two lane road, no sidewalks. You’re certainly not going to get any bicycles across that bridge. Look at some of the photographic proof in the booklet that I gave you. It shows you it’s impossible for a truck and a car and a bicyclist to get across there at any one time. One more second. If you’d like to look at the cover of that report, it shows you clearly the impact of the scope and the scale of this project. It is the blueprint superimposed over a map, and I think it very clearly indicates the inappropriate, one more comment and then I’ll go. When we hear that there are only a few houses in this area and why would anybody care? Who’s going to see it? We’re all going to see it, and the reason that there are only a few houses there is that it’s Rural Residential and this is out of character. Thank you. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Mr. Buck, and then after him would be Mr. Salvador. LOU BUCK MR. BUCK-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. BUCK-My name is Lou Buck. My family and I reside at 251 Gurney Lane. As briefly and concisely as I can, I’d like to comment that the office building being proposed for the West Mountain Corridor is not in accord with the intent of the Town Zoning. Article Three, Zoning Maps and Zoning Districts, describes the Professional Office District with such phrases as compatibility with residential uses, a transition zone protecting a residential zone from more intensive commercial uses, providing convenient professional services to residential neighborhoods, demonstrating compatibility with adjoining uses, minimizing any negative impact on adjoining uses. This proposal for an 85,000 square foot office building with parking for over 500 vehicles is not transitional. It does not protect this residential neighborhood, does not provide convenient professional services to this residential neighborhood, does not minimize negative impacts on adjoining land uses, and does not demonstrate compatibility with adjoining uses and will negatively impact adjoining land uses. The scale and scope of this project has serious implications for traffic at Exit 20, as well as the West Mountain corridor, and potentially jeopardizes the Critical Environmental Area of Rush Pond. In the long term interests of Queensbury, I respectfully encourage the Planning Board to issue a Positive Declaration, so that an objective, fair and detailed SEQRA review can be conducted in order to provide an independent, comprehensive, and unbiased analysis of the impact this project would have both on traffic and the environment. The last point I want to make and stress is that opposition to this project in no way reflects any issue with economic development or with the intended occupant of the proposed office building. Those of us who are expressing our opposition value Travelers Insurance Company’s presence in this community, and we very much want the company to remain in this area. However, we feel that for the reasons stated above, this is not the appropriate location for a project of this magnitude. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Mr. Salvador, and then Butch Rehm. Good evening. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I’m a resident in North Queensbury at 37 Alexy Lane. I would like to read a short statement I have here concerning the issue of a point of order that I brought up before if I could. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Sure. th MR. SALVADOR-As recently as January 14, the Town Board, in a four to one vote, appointed two alternates to this Board. This is in the face of the fact that this Board, this Planning Board, has always been able to muster a four member quorum from the seven member regular Board. Also, prior to taking office, Councilman Montesi and Metivier sent a message, loud and clear, as to their position on this project. The November 29, 2007 issue of the Chronicle highlighted newly elected Queensbury Councilmen receptive to Travelers project. Anthony Metivier and Ron Montesi, newly elected as Queensbury’s Ward One and Ward Two Councilmen respectively, indicated they look with favor on Richard Schermerhorn’s office building proposed off Gurney Lane at Northway Exit No. 20, when asked about it by the Chronicle. Is it likely that these newly elected Councilmen have supported the appointment of alternates with views differing from their own? Before either or both of these alternate members are allowed to sit in judgment of the significance of environmental impacts on this project, before you tonight, I would like assurance that these alternate members have completed the filing of their oath of office, have totally familiarized themselves with the record before the Board, and are not in any way, in any situation, in which regard for one duty leads to the disregard of another, another words, a conflict of interest. Also, one of the two candidates, obviously preordained by the Town Supervisor, should be barred from sitting in review of the Schermerhorn Travelers commercial office building. On December 12, 2007, Mr. Krebs testified before the ZBA on the Schermerhorn Travelers Area Variance hearing, indicating a pre-appointment bias with regard to the project. Quote, from Page 13 of the hearing record, Hello, my name is Don Krebs and I have one question, and that is, do we really want to use a John Salvador letter as a point to start? I have been on the Planning Board in this Town for five and a half years. I just spent a year on the Planning Ordinance Review Committee, and I will tell you that John has been at every meeting 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) and comes with unsubstantiated information at the end of the meeting. I’m sure you have seen that at your Board, the Planning Board has seen that. I cannot recall ever being challenged by this Board for having come forth with unsubstantiated information. Later on during the same meetings, Mr. Krebs expressed his bias. I don’t see how this office building is necessarily going to be out of character with the area. MR. KREBS-Complete the sentence, John. Complete what I said. Don’t misquote me. That’s what you do. MR. SALVADOR-I didn’t misquote you. MR. KREBS-Yes, I said it’s in character with the neighborhood because there’s the Warren County office complex. They’re putting a new 66,000 square foot building, just across the Northway from this building, and they’re planning to build another 55,000 square foot building on Gurney Lane. Now that’s why I said that. th MR. SALVADOR-Okay. May I continue? Finally, during the ZBA hearing on the 12 of December, Mr. Krebs was observed conducting himself in a manner which necessitated censure by the Chairman of the ZBA, Mr. Abbate, in the form of a forewarning, quote, excuse me, if that happens again, I’m going to have to ask you to recuse yourself. I won’t tolerate that. Do you understand? Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I am asking you to satisfy yourself that each of these two alternates have been seated in accordance with due process, including not having been unduly influenced, do not carry a predetermined bias, and are thoroughly familiar with the applicant’s submissions as they relate to the SEQRA Statutes, the SEQRA Regulations and all public comment presented to this Board. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. You have 17 seconds left. MR. SALVADOR-I’d like a little latitude here. I have information some of you have never, never been presented to you by this Board. There are inaccuracies in the submissions that the applicant has made. MR. HUNSINGER-I would like to give everyone else in the audience the opportunity to speak first, and then if time allows, then I will allow you to come back. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Very good. I thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Mark, did you have a comment? MR. SCHACHNER-Only that if you’re imposing a five minute limitation, you have to uniformly across the board on everybody. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Mr. Rehm, and then the next speaker would be John Davis. Thank you. Good evening. BUTCH REHM MR. REHM-Butch Rehm, I live on Bell Mountain Road, adjacent to Gurney Lane. I’ve listened to this and been a part of it from the beginning, and I’m wondering whether or not something has been lost in the war or disagreement or whatever. For two and a half years, I was the Director of the Workforce Development for Saratoga, Warren, and Washington Counties. I worked, in particular, with Warren County, with Len Fosbrook from the Economic Development agency. I even worked with Gretchen for a while. I care a lot about businesses in all three counties, but in particular in Warren County where I reside. I think it’s important that you keep in mind something that Gretchen started, Lou Buck already added to, that those of us that live in the Gurney Lane/West Mountain area have nothing against Travelers. This is not an issue about Travelers. My own personal perspective, having worked to develop training programs for employees and keep businesses in this area, I would be really upset if Travelers disappeared and went someplace else. The issue is not keeping Travelers. It’s not providing employment for those people. I think, I can’t speak for everybody in our group, but I think they all feel the same way. It’s not an issue with Travelers. It’s an issue with the inappropriateness of Travelers in that size and that business in this area. I’ve listened, tonight, to two major issues that were brought up, environmental and traffic. Prior to my work on the Workforce Investment Board, I spent 20 years at Adirondack Community College teaching science, biology, chemistry and the like. I listened to the questions from you people to Mr. Schermerhorn and his attorney and his representatives about the environment. I would like to add that you people may be laypeople, but in my personal 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) estimation, I think I have a lot more credibility with your comments and your concerns and your sincerity than any paid experts that may be involved in this. I listened to the answers that were given about environmental issues in particular, and as a former science faculty member at the College, I was awestruck at the answers. There was nothing but anecdotal pieces of personal information. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you, if this is the basis upon which you render a decision, heaven help us where we are going to end up. The things that were stated by Mr. Schermerhorn and his group defy the imagination in terms of inaccuracy and, you know, I’m not going to elaborate on that. I just think you need to find out that real answers. What’s going to happen in 10 or 15 or 20 years if one of the gems of this Town of Queensbury, Glen Lake, suffers the result of you taking their word for this environmental statements about salt. I have this vision of Mr. Schermerhorn’s employees wandering around the parking lot with paper towels mopping up sort of antifreeze and oil messes and that’s going to be the answer to the environmental issues, the impact that this is going to have? Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Mr. Davis and then Tanya Bruno. Good evening JOHN DAVIS MR. DAVIS-Good evening. My name’s John Davis. I reside on Gurney Lane. My family’s resided there for over 30 years. I’ve worked in the environmental field for 28 years with the DEC. I don’t profess to be an expert on SEQRA, but obviously I had considerable exposure over the years with that agency. I also served on the Queensbury Environmental Committee when it existed, back in the mid 90’s. I think there’s some points that need to be brought to the Board’s attention that haven’t really been put on the record yet. One thing happened, an event happened 20 years ago today, 10 days short of 20 years ago today that was very critical to the Town, and it was passage of Resolution No. 45. Resolution No. 45 designated Rush Pond and adjoining lands as a critical area, and I have a certified copy of this resolution here, and I’d like to make that an official part of the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. When you get up to leave, you can give it to Staff. Thank you. MR. DAVIS-And I’d like to just, you know, read some excerpts from this. I don’t want to, in the interest of time, spend a lot of time reading some of the whereas’, but I think what we’ve done is lost track of what the underlying issue was relative to establishment of the Critical Environmental Area. I mean, there’s a lot of talk about, you know, runoff and we’re talking about ethylene glycol and oil and gasoline and all that type of thing, but let’s face it, it’s, the parking lot is still part of a Critical Environmental Area, and I think if the people that passed this, and I kind of say that with tongue and cheek, because I’ll tell you who the AYES and NOES were at the end of this presentation, but Betty Monahan was one of the AYES, and, you know, she has been speaking, I know, before this group several times before, but anyway, I think it’s, there’s too much emphasis placed on the runoff and not enough on the underlying environmental considerations. So let me just say some of the resolves. It was resolved that based upon the testimony heard at the aforesaid public hearings and upon the personal inspection and investigation of its individual members the Town Board finds as follows: 1. Rush Pond is a unique pond and wet land area of undisturbed natural beauty. Okay. let’s think of this. Undisturbed natural beauty. Now we have a portion of the parking lot in this Critical Environmental Area. I mean, was that something that the Town Board had in mind when they designated this as a Critical Environmental Area and was passed on to the Commissioner of DEC and adopted? I don’t think so. Rush Pond serves as the head waters of Glen Lake which is a prized residential and area for the residents of the Town of Queensbury. A lot has been said about that issue. 3. Rush Pond and the area hereinabove described have remained open and undeveloped and could be adversely affected by any change in use or intensity of use. Do you think that this is a change in the intensity of use of this Critical Environmental Area, this proposal to have a portion of the parking lot within it, 537 cars and an 85,000 square foot office building. I don’t think th so. So back on January 27 of 1987, these people, I think, acted in the best interest of the Town, and I’d just like to go on to say it was duly adopted by the following vote. AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, and Fran Walter NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE. So think about it for a while. I think we’re talking about quality of life is a big issue here. We talk about meeting all the objective issues relative to SEQRA and that type of thing, but having lived on Gurney Lane for 30 years, there was very little traffic when we first moved there, you know, car, you’d almost never run into a car when you were driving from, we live up near the top of the hill, drive all the way down, never run into anyone. There’s probably four, five, six cars every time you go up and down Gurney Lane now. Traffic’s increased tremendously. When you keep mentioning Gurney Lane, Gurney Lane, Gurney Lane, we’re not talking about, 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) completely, the intersections and congestion that is going to be exacerbated by this project down, you know, between West Mountain Road and the Northway. The residents that are really concerned are people like us that live up there. I’d like to see this, I haven’t seen the distribution of employees for the insurance company, but I can imagine that probably 50% of them would use Gurney Lane to get out of there in the summertime, because since the outlet stores went in, the 85 outlet stores, traffic has increased tremendously. So almost everyone that lives in Luzerne, Lake George and that area in the summertime comes up and down Gurney Lane, especially in the evening when they go up and the area is blocked north of where Gurney Lane enters Route 9. MR. HUNSINGER-Your time’s up. MR. DAVIS-Okay. My time’s up. I won’t speak about it anymore, but I think you need to really delve into what is in SEQRA and what deliberations you have to take relative to making a Positive Declaration versus a Negative Declaration on this project. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Tanya Bruno, and following would be Gail Butto TANYA BRUNO MRS. BRUNO-And John is a licensed engineer, I’d like to add. He’s a neighbor. My name is Tanya Bruno. As I always do, I start out with mentioning that I am a member of the Planning Board. However, before Mr. Schermerhorn’s first project came to the Board over a year ago now, I had already spoken to that project as a member of the public. I then became a Board member. I chose, ethically, to not sit on the Board recuse myself after that, and even when I had mentioned it to the Counsel at that time, it was told to me that they were going to suggest the same thing. I think it’s appropriate that we all remain professional. This next thing that I’m going to say was not a planned comment, but I think I will bring it up. I really don’t want to hear Mr. Lapper say again that every development that has been brought to this piece of property has been turned down. I researched this. There was one originally proposal that would have caused a re-zoning prior to the PO, where someone wanted to come in and build some houses, and at the time, we did not have our land, sorry, I’m exhausted tonight, land conservancy zoning, and that’s what it would have required, because it had more density, whereas the protected lands were more protected. Three people from the neighborhood came and asked questions at that meeting, and then Mr. Strough came and expressed his concerns about the pollution coming off the highway. By no means did anyone, Mr. Strough perhaps a little bit because that’s something that’s near and dear to his heart, but none of the neighbors by any means came. I didn’t even know about it, actually, until afterwards. I think if I had known, I think it would have been, you know, knowing what we know now, in terms of offices and really maxing all that out, that it would have gone, you know, could have gone further. In other words, the neighbors of Gurney Lane wouldn’t mind seeing something that is appropriate to our neighborhood. George, I gave you a disk, but anyway, I would like to welcome you to my neighborhood, historically referred to as Hunting Hill or School District 16, and it is considered a neighborhood because we all know each other, even though it’s miles apart. Let me tell you, they’ve looked out for my kids. It is important for any town to remember its past. There is a reason we hold on to our history. It defines who we are currently, and if we listen carefully, it can lead us into the future. SEQRA asks, in Question Number Twelve, will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric, or paleontological importance. The answer to this is yes. One of the examples that the form lists to clarify Question Twelve is, is the proposed action occurring wholly or partially or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of Historic Places? Again, this is an example. So we cannot exclude local history, even if the sites have not been registered with the site. Taking into account local history is not an opinion that only I or the neighbors hold as important. This evening, Marilyn VanDyke is at a meeting in Malta being educated on the new certified Local Government Law, a new five year plan, through the State Historic Preservation Office, SHPO. This proves her seriousness about collating and protecting Queensbury’s past. She just met with Supervisor Stec about this yesterday. Hunting Hill, a once famous runway for deer and resort for other game. It is the hill immediately back of the Gurney and Robinson place. It is now cultivated nearly, if not quite to its summit, History of Queensbury. A.W. Holden, MD, 1873. Which is why you find the stone walls going all up through there because it was farmland. Gurney Lane Cemetery, as photographed two years ago by my daughter, because of its haunting beauty, not because of this proposal, dates back to 1838 and is still active. At the beginning of an inventory taken by Queensbury Town Historian Charles Eisenhart in 1987, the author states, Gurney Lane Cemetery is located on the south side of Gurney Lane about two tenths of a mile west of Route 9, at the Warren 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) County Municipal Center. If you peruse this inventory, you notice that some of the names of the deceased are names that we now recognize in the local street signs, Buckbee and Gurney. The Gurney Lane Schoolhouse is still directly across from the property. From it’s front lawn you can see the corner of Mr. Schermerhorn’s property and the infamous intersection there. A quote from John Austin’s the Old School Districts, History of Queensbury Union Free School, a school was located in this neighborhood as early as 1801 and the most recent schoolhouse was on Gurney Lane opposite the Cemetery. It was numbered as District 16 from 1864 until the consolidation in 1948. MR. HUNSINGER-Your time’s up. The one thing that Counsel said is if we’re going to have a rule, we have to enforce it equally for all speakers. So I apologize, but, thank you. MRS. BRUNO-All right. Well, I do have a copy for everyone. So you’ll have the pictures and you can finish reading what I wrote. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Mrs. Butto and following that would be Samuel Butto. Good evening. GAIL BUTTO MRS. BUTTO-Good evening. My name is Gail Butto and I live on Gurney Lane. MR. HUNSINGER-Sorry to mispronounce your name. MRS. BUTTO-That’s all right. This 500 employee commercial office proposal has not comprehensively addressed the following concerns using maximum impacts and worst case scenario’s regarding traffic. The Town needs to secure an independent review and analysis of the following potential traffic impacts which should be identified, characterized, and assessed. First and foremost, the traffic numbers used in the traffic analysis should reflect maximum impacts and worst case situations. The current figures are not reflective of what could happen. Also in many cases, the applicant’s report is skewed to favor the applicant. For example, the report will use an average rather than show real time, real impact statistics. I must advocate that the Town needs a comprehensive, independent analysis by traffic professionals who will represent the community’s interests when reviewing and analyzing traffic impacts. To be realistic, it should be completed in summer months. Two, commercial office traffic is characterized by heavy morning, noon and evening traffic bursts, unlike the low and even traffic flow behaviors of professional services. Compatibility with the adjacent residential and rural uses must be seriously considered. Three, the current and future traffic carrying capacity of this area and all areas potentially impacted must be investigated. It is a logical expectation that over 500 additional vehicles, driven by employees to the commercial office building proposed by the applicant, will exceed the traffic carrying capacity of the area, since the current configuration is already overstrained. The applicant has only supplied the number of employees expected by the initial installation of the commercial insurance group, and as pointed out, there may be future occupants of this building that do not travel in shifts or a certainly larger workforce. The applicant has only supplied the number of employees. He has not yet supplied a projected number of support vehicles that will undoubtedly be regularly servicing this site. We must assume there will be employees of the owner of the building as well. His landscapers, plows, snow removal, dump trucks, garbage trucks, janitorial crew vans, and maintenance crew vehicles. The tenants themselves will also generate ancillary traffic, US Postal trucks, office supply, UPS delivery vans, cafeteria supply trucks, vending machine suppliers and lunch delivery cars to name only a few. Four, we must consider the County and Town’s efforts to stimulate and expand the local tourism season and to create additional events like the Americade. We must take into account the predicted expansion of The Great Escape, which will certainly double the current traffic flow to that destination, and the re- development of both the Lake George RV Park and The Glen Drive-In. It is only reasonable to expect those future increases in traffic will impact the level of service in this area. Five, Route 9 is presently so congested at peak times that it already causes traffic flow behavior changes. If this proposal further erodes this area’s traffic carrying capacity, surely driving behaviors and patterns will be altered and impact secondary routes. If commercial office workers find it difficult to use 20 for either inbound or outbound, what secondary routes will be sought? Surely they will be Gurney Lane or West Mountain Road used as a bypass. Six, the area’s road configuration servicing West Mountain Road, Gurney Lane, Old West Mountain Road, West Mount Health Facility, County Annexes, two Northway ramps, the Municipal Center and the Million Dollar Half Mile as it currently exists is problematic. A traffic light at the intersection of the southbound Northway ramp and Gurney Lane would not realistically mitigate the 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) problems, especially when other problems linked to this intersection have not yet been addressed. Seven, to make the analysis comprehensive, perhaps the current Aviation Road corridor study should be included and updated. Eight, if Exit 20 has traffic circulation issues, we must considered how Exit’s 19 and 21 will be impacted as well. Will Exit 20’s reputation for gross congestion encourage visitors and tourists to avoid it completely? To conclude, a study must project how this proposal will impact the intersections of the following: Gurney Lane, West Mountain Road, Old West Mountain Road, Sara-Jen Drive, Bonner Drive, Mountain View Lane, and Aviation Road. Our community has empowered you to prevent needless or inappropriate development as a way of preserving the natural beauty of our Town’s environment, and of protecting the safety of all travelers, including the residents of our established neighborhoods from encroaching commercialism. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Mr. Butto followed by Bob Fallman, and those of you who are speaking, in case you haven’t figured out, when you do hear the beep, that means your five minutes are up. Thank you. SAM BUTTO MR. BUTTO-My name is Sam Butto. I live on Gurney Lane as well. I came with a prepared statement, but I did want to make mention and applaud Mr. Ford for his gesture of recusing himself at this point in time. I think that was the honorable thing to do, and his actions left me with the feeling that his concern is for a clear appearance of fairness to take place here tonight. I might also add that I read the Post Star this morning and heard or read what he had to say about another project where he was saying that, I’ll try to quote, that you, the Planning Board, are the last line of defense for the environment. I think that’s a very salient issue here. I think you all know it, and I think that this project pleads for a comprehensive environmental review, absolutely comprehensive, not just something willy nilly. I also want to say that, in keeping with Mr. Ford’s gesture, that with respect to Mr. Krebs, and Mr. Krebs, you were at a previous Board meeting, and you did speak, before you became a member of this Planning Board, you did speak on behalf of the Schermerhorn project, and expressed your approval for it, more or less. As Mrs. Bruno did, recusing herself, I would ask that you do the same thing in this particular case since, all evening long, you have not asked one salient question of the applicant, but have, when you spoke, testified on their behalf. So, I bring that to you. With respect to this project, this is not in accord with the best economic and community planning practices. As I said, I have a handout I’ll give you all at the end. An 83,340 square foot building with 500 employees should be located in an area that have configurations designed for significant traffic, sewer and water infrastructure, and there’s a need for economic stimulus or revitalization, and that will be compatible with surrounding land uses and will not negatively impact adjacent land uses, be in accord with the best interest of the employees, and the potential for further growth. Because they will spur further economic development, commercial offices should be located in areas that need and are capable of further economic expansion. This area is not. Those areas should offer the infrastructure able to service a commercial office. In additional to municipal sewer services, commercial offices need multi-lane arteries designed to service heavy traffic flows. Commercial offices need to locate in an area where the large buildings and vast parking areas should not only be compatible with the adjoining uses, but encourage adjoining commercial growth. This is certainly not the case here. Commercial offices staffed with several hundred employees should be located in or surrounded by commercial amenities, like break time, walkable, easy access to cafes, restaurants, mailboxes, etc., a synergistic economic arrangement that is good for the commercial office worker and good for the community. Equally important, commercial offices which tend to be of limited aesthetic appeal and are not where the residential uses or environmental sensitive areas is likely. This side of Exit 20 is the only remaining area in the Town adjacent to an exit which has not been the subject to intense, mostly commercial development. Priorities mentioned in our community land use plans are to protect and maintain the community’s rural character and the visual quality, protect open and green spaces, and protect environmentally sensitive areas. The Town of Queensbury lure and accommodate business, like commercial offices. We currently have a variety of locations in our community that would provide suitable homes for such. One example is the CNA building, which was already mentioned as a possible alternate site. On the other hand, businesses will not be happy if poor community planning allows for limited and troublesome ingress and egress to their site, and that, if community planning does not provide for easy access to workers and amenities. As mentioned above, commercial offices with several hundred employees, are best located, if locations offer a year round and easy accessibility. Certainly the eight to five employees would benefit if serviced by food, exercise and other nearby walkable amenities. A commercial office and its employees may find this site to be less than satisfactory because of it’s 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) locales awkward traffic flow configurations, inherent traffic congestion, and inadequacy of walkable easy access employee amenities like the cafes, restaurants, mailboxes and so forth. One additional comment I’d like to make is that we’ve talked here about the salt that’s going to be treated by some catch basins or whatever. I’ll let it go. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Mr. Falllman and next would be Betty Monahan. BOB FALLMAN MR. FALLMAN-Good evening. Bob Fallman, Gurney Lane. I’d like to make a comment about the traffic situation at the proposed site. At the last ZBA meeting, a comparison was made between this proposed complex and the State Farm Insurance complex at Exit 12. As this is likely to be brought up again tonight, I would like to comment. The bridge over the Northway at Exit 12 was three lanes. It was replaced with a four lane bridge. The bridge at Gurney Lane is a 50 year old, very narrow bridge with only two lanes. There’s not even room for a sidewalk. There is no known replacement schedule. Exit 12 is a typical Interstate interchange. It has on off lanes for both the northbound and southbound lanes. Exit 20, Gurney Lane, is not typical. It has an on off ramp for the southbound side, but both northbound on off ramps are on Route 9. Two, and eventually three traffic lights will have to be negotiated to reach the proposed site. Sixteen point one million dollars was spent to replace the three lane bridge with a four lane bridge, install five traffic circles and widen exit ramps three lanes in order to mitigate the traffic problems at the State Farm site. The Gurney Lane proposal is going to mitigate all the traffic problems with one traffic light. This Board is charged with making sure that new development, projects, proposals and so forth do not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood, community, etc. This includes ensuring the safety of the people already there, as well as the 550 people that are supposed to work at this complex. How are you going to do that when traffic congestion is going to isolate the area during the summer months? Emergency services trying to access this area would be severely hampered in arriving in a timely manner. Traffic congestion is already at a standstill here during the summer months. Five hundred and fifty more cars, up to four times per day, are not going to improve the situation. I’ve got one more comment. It was regarding about where people lived and how they were going to access this site. Gurney Lane is a winding mountain road with a dangerous “S” curve at the entrance to the Town park. It is less than 22 feet wide. It is a road by use. It is used by walkers from the West Mount facility during their breaks and by bicyclists in the afternoon and evening hours. It was never meant to be a thoroughfare. However, if this proposal is accepted, anyone working at this complex who lives north of it will use this road to avoid the three traffic lights and congestion when trying to access the northbound lanes of the Northway. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Mrs. Monahan and then Mike Wild. Good evening. BETTY MONAHAN MRS. MONAHAN-Betty Monahan, Sunnyside, and I want to say right off the bat, even living at Sunnyside, I’m one of those guilty of using Gurney Lane as a bypass road to get away from the traffic on Route 9. First as a question. On the plans it talks about the setback in the front from West Mountain Road and Gurney Lane Road. I’m assuming those setbacks are to the building, not to the parking lots involved. MR. HUNSINGER-They’re required to list the setback to the building. That’s correct. MRS. MONAHAN-Okay. Do we know the setbacks to the parking lots? MR. HUNSINGER-They are on the plan. MRS. MONAHAN-Okay. So I’ve got to scale those off. Okay. Then, looking at the PUD, or, excuse me, the SEQRA, it says does the project contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? The answer is no, and it says according to DEC. I don’t know if that DEC was site specific or if it overlooked a big area, and I say that because when we went in, site specific, to Solomon Heights and Hudson Pointe, we did find those type of species there. It says does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community. The answer is no. Gurney Lane and West Mountain Roads are listed as scenic highways. They’re also listed in the Open Space Vision Plan as scenic highways. It says will project use herbicides or pesticides. The answer is no. So is it going to be a condition, if this is approved, that any people that come in there and take care of the grounds won’t use herbicides and pesticides? It says, is the proposed action consistent with the 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) recommended uses and adopted local use plans. It said, yes. It did not cite any sections. So I could not be sure of that one way or another. I didn’t find anything, and of course, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan we have right now has been approved for Section A. Section B I understand is yet to be completed and approved. However, the previous Comprehensive Land Use Plan said, for this neighborhood, recommendation, rezone the areas described to allow for a wider scope of uses, similar to those in the current Suburban Residential zones, which includes duplex, professional office with residence, churches, daycare center, etc., in addition to the allowed use of Single Family Dwelling, and then in bold letters, this recommendation does not include commercial use, which would not be compatible with existing land uses in the area. There’s also a question that says, is this project over an aquifer, which they also answered no. I’m wondering now, with Professor Linke’s telling you about all the springs, that that is still a valid answer, something that really needs to be researched. I’m a little concerned also that the variance is being asked for for the parking in the CEA. If there’s 17 acres in this project, why do we need to take an acre in the Critical Environmental Area? And I want to refer to, in the Draft Comprehensive Land Use Plan, where it says variances should be rare. A variance is a way to provide relief from one or more requirements in limited circumstances on particular pieces of land, and it goes on to Area Variances. Will the Area Variance produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or be a detriment to nearby properties, and I want to point out to you that that Rush Pond area, Glen Lake watershed, which also includes the Halfway Brook watershed. We’re talking about Dream Lake. We’re talking about Sunnyside. We’re talking about the Halfway Brook. That also empties into Lake Champlain in the Town of Fort Ann, which puts it under the Great Lakes basin, which is a Federal water jurisdiction. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, but your time is up. MRS. MONAHAN-Can I just finish this about the Area Variance? Just three more things. Can the benefit sought by the applicant sought by the applicant be achieved by some method other than pursuing the Area Variance? Again, as I said, there’s 17 acres. Why do they need to go into the Critical Environmental Area? Is the variance substantial? Will the proposed variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the surrounding neighborhood or district. MR. HUNSINGER-Mrs. Monahan, I’m sorry, but your time’s up. Thank you. Mr. Wild, and following Mr. Wild is Virginia Etu. Good evening. MIKE WILD th MR. WILD-Good evening. My name is Mike Wild. I am approaching the 24 anniversary of when we first moved to this great community, and although I’m not a native, I’ve seen a lot of changes, some good, some bad, and one of the things I wanted to say about addressing this Board is wow, you guys are volunteers, and you have to deal with this. That’s commendable, and you have to make some tough decisions, and the first thing that I would really like to say is I have no real interest in this project. I don’t live near it. I don’t have an economic tie to it, but I do look at the long term viability of the community, and I implore you to make a decision quickly. Don’t delay. The economy is bad, nationally, State wide. We happen to be doing quite well here, but I’m sure there’s many, many economic development agencies, industrial development agencies, that would love to create an incentive package that would cover the relocation expense of this organization, and please keep that in mind. You have a decision to make. There’s great impact to this community from an environmental, a traffic, an inconvenience, a property value, whatever you may have to say, but there’s also a potential huge economic impact and it must be considered in my view. Another statement that I’d like to make is about the zoning. I have developed some property in the area, I’m not currently doing it now, but I have been on that side. Was also a member of the PORC Committee where I helped in the creation of the new Master Plan and some of the zoning that has, that will be hopefully in effect for the new Master Plan. There’s a thought, and at least in my mind some confusion, where we would allow an industry or a situation like this to occur in the Town. It’s not commercial, because commercial is really retail. So when I hear people talking about commercial, I don’t know if that’s necessarily true. I think retail more represents commercial zones, as it’s defined in the Code. So this is a Professional Office, and in the Master Plan, it talks not only preserving these neighborhoods, but it also talks about preserving professional jobs in the community, and attracting professional jobs in the community, and we have to create a balance, somehow, with your decision. So this is no Light Industrial type of application. If it was, it would be too large to fit in the current Light Industrial zone. So the place it can really only go is Professional Office. So as the developer, and, you know, you want to move forward, you want to know what can I do with my property, and I’m very big on property rights, 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) landowner rights. They have to know somewhere, somewhere along the line, what they can and can’t do with their property, and if it’s zoned a specific way, they should be able to do that within reason, and in my vision about what Professional Office says, this is viable for this area, because it’s zoned that way. The third point that I’d like to make, and I’d welcome comment from the Board, is the process that I envisioned tonight. When I was involved with the PORC Committee, one of my big concerns was to try to create a situation that developers could understand what the rules were so they could move forward and come to this Board with reasonable plans and expect to get reasonable questions back and they could move forward. I’m sure that these people don’t want to pull something over on somebody just to pull something over. They just want to move forward with their project. It’s business. What I saw tonight was a lot of questions in regards to the information that was submitted by professional engineers, by Department of Transportation, by Department of Environmental Conservation. The experts, and we’re questioning the experts, and I’m wondering, and I’m a layman also. Is it so much that the questions that you asked were to clarify or were to base your position that you didn’t like this project? Actually to be honest, I was confused. I was confused on the questions. I didn’t feel that there were justified, because there were experts that do business in this Town, and if they come here and present their professional opinions, they can’t do business here anymore if they’re pulling something over on this Board. Now I’m wondering how often did they come and mislead this Board? And if it is, maybe I can still get involved with the PORC Committee and make some changes to the way that things are done, so that these engineers can’t come here and work anymore, or we force the Department of Transportation to really look at these things closely because I heard a lot of questions that I didn’t think were justified. MR. HUNSINGER-Your time’s up. MR. WILD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. KREBS-May I ask you a question while you’re here? Since you and I were on the PORC Committee, did you receive a letter from Craig Brown identifying, multiple times, that John Salvador made a comment at a meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. This isn’t. I’m sorry. MR. WILD-I’m sorry. I couldn’t comment. I can’t remember, so I couldn’t comment on that. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Mrs. Etu, and then Paul Derby. VIRGINIA ETU MRS. ETU-Virginia Etu. I actually have a question first. At the opening tonight, it appears the applicant has done a Long Form EIS, is that? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s correct. MR. SCHACHNER-Not a Long Form EIS. MR. HUNSINGER-A Long Form SEQRA. MR. SCHACHNER-EIS stands for Environmental Impact Statement. The applicant has done a Long Form Environmental Assessment Form. Those are two different things. MRS. ETU-My question, is there a Full EIS that’s been done on this? MR. SCHACHNER-The answer is no. The main purpose of tonight’s exercise and the exercise that the Planning Board is involved in, under SEQRA review, is to make a determination as to whether or not there will be required a Full Environmental Impact Statement. MRS. ETU-Okay. Then I just wish to make this comment, and it’s purely my opinion, but I think that’s what public comment’s about. It’s my opinion that a project that creates this much public comment, this much comment from the Planning Board, from the Zoning Board, it’s my opinion that that’s enough to warrant a Full EIS. I mean, this project has had a number of meetings, public hearings, and I would really hope that, based on the 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) public comments and the comments that are brought forth on the issues regarding this project that this Board would fully look for a Full EIS on this project. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Paul Derby. Following Mr. Derby is Mr. Strough. Good evening. PAUL DERBY MR. DERBY-Good evening. Paul Derby, President of the Glen Lake Protective Association. I am here this evening representing the Association and our 300 plus members. This project is without a doubt within an environmentally sensitive area. In fact, it’s partially within a Critical Environmental Area, and all of it is contiguous to that Critical Environmental Area, and it is all within Glen Lake watershed. It is a very large project. It clearly has the potential to cause environmental harm to the Critical Environmental Area, to the watershed, to Rush Pond, to the wetlands, to the streams and ultimately to Glen Lake. Therefore the Glen Lake Protective Association asks, again, that this Board issue a Positive Declaration for SEQRA to require a Full Generic Environmental Impact Statement and a potential build out study from independent contractors, as this Board did a few years ago with The Great Escape, a similar project, similar in size within a Critical Environmental Area in Glen Lake, and that it has worked. If not, we ask the Board that you state in writing to the public why you didn’t require that, and that’s all I have to say. I just want to hand out two pages from the Glen Lake Management Watershed Plan. It has sketches of our watershed, and it shows where those streams are, where the Critical Environmental Area is, and it’s right smack dab in the middle of our watershed, and we’re very concerned about this project. So please do the Full Environmental Impact Statement. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Mr. Strough, and following Mr. Strough is Lorraine Stein. Good evening. JOHN STROUGH MR. STROUGH-Good evening. John Strough. I’ve talked to local politicians. I’ve talked to local planners, and, you know, just about everybody agrees this is not the best location. The best location, okay, then you can divide it up into primary, secondary, probably Exit 18, near that area, where you’re trying to, because this has the possibility of great economic development. You’ve got 537, and with the potential for growing. Not here. I mean, they’re kind of stuck, and we do want Travelers to be able to grow, but they’re not going to be able to grow here, and we do want them to be able to help grow other businesses that surround them. As Mr. Butto pointed out, it can foster economic development around there, if you locate it in the right place. Now, Mr. Wild, and I did work with him on the PORC Committee, a lot of respect for him, nice guy, but locating it here is short-sighted. Locating it elsewhere has a lot more economic impact for the Town, a lot more sustainability, located elsewhere. Like I said, you’ve got Downtown Glens Falls, a good location. Secondary locations might be on the corner of Blind Rock Road and Bay Road, or Valenti’s property, or so forth. I mean, as you went down the list, you could probably come up with 10 or 15 locations. This would probably be way down on the list as to what would be best for the community at large. This proposal is almost like the king wants to build his castle in the valley, just not the right location. Okay. Take a look at the issues that the community has brought forward, those of flora and fauna, and I think it was Mr. Davies pointed out this is one of the last preserves that allows local animals to access Rush Pond. Development has just about taken up almost everywhere else. Sewer capacity. I think that the people who are already along Route 9, as part of the Route 9 sewer, and have already bought in, have first dibs. You’ve got the RV park. Very likely that’ll be sold and developed, probably big time. You’ve got Glen Drive-In. I’ll be sorry to see it go. The Great Escape wants to double what it’s doing now in the near future. Does that sewer line have the capacity to do all that? Well, we should analyze that, you know, and the Million Dollar Mile, those people might want to do some growth. So we should take a look at, first, the people that have bought in and are paying for that Route 9 sewer. We shouldn’t allow outsiders to use up capacity if it’s not there. Maybe it is there, but I think when we do the EIS, we should do a supplemental EIS on sewer. Traffic. Why is it there has been no independent traffic study to protect the community’s interest, that addresses traffic counts, at recognized problem times, worst case events, such as July and August, the Americade, etc. New York State and the Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council signoffs focused on the applicant’s traffic study. They focused on the applicant’s remediation proposals. They focused on the immediate area. They did not tailor their address to secondary impacts. They did not tailor their address to what might happen to traffic (lost words) to live. She and her dog had to jump in the snow bank as two cars went by. Very, very narrow, but as you and I know, and people 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) that live in the area know, that is the cut off, and July and August, when Travelers Insurance employees are stuck there because they’re not going north and they’re not going to Route 9, they’re going to go down West Mountain Road, cut down Mountain View Lane, cut down Aviation Road. See, no one has taken a look at the secondary impacts, how traffic behavior is going to change when you do have loading going up on Route 9. We need to do an independent study, a study that represents the community. MR. HUNSINGER-Your time’s up, Mr. Strough. MR. STROUGH-And you can read the rest. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Following Lorraine Stein is, and I’m sorry I can’t read the first name, Franklin from 1232 West Mountain Road. Good evening. LORRAINE STEIN MS. STEIN-Hi. Good evening. Lorraine Stein, 86 Ash Drive. My two concerns coming here this evening were traffic and the environment. Obviously I live on Glen Lake so I have a concern about that, and I also drive a lot and get off Exit 20 almost every day since I work down in Albany. So, my concerns are there, and I’m going to keep it brief. Because like you had mentioned, Chris, that there’s a lot of comments already been made, but Mrs. Butto had addressed I think very well the traffic concerns I had. I also would be concerned about actually what impact it would have on Glen Lake Road. Because that also, too, is a cut off for a lot of people. Based on the information that has been submitted by the applicant and obviously residents, etc., the people of this community, and the comments here, and at the other meetings, I believe that the Town should require a Full Environmental Impact Statement. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Following Mrs. Franklin would be Dennis Franklin. Good evening. KATHY FRANKLIN MRS. FRANKLIN-Hi. I’m Kathy Franklin. I live at 1232 West Mountain Road. I’m just going to read, because there’s not much time in five minutes. Queensbury is a great place to live. It has both a solid economy and great natural beauty. To keep body and soul together, we have to value and develop both resources. Some areas, such as Route 9, Quaker Road, Bay Road, are suited to commercial interests, and you can pick apart the word commercial, but it means lots of impact, lots of sales, lots of retail, lots of income, lots of outgo. Roads and parking accommodate commercial and retail traffic and the existing businesses draw consumers in. It’s symbiotic. It satisfies our shopping needs and it helps build our economic base. Now our area of the Town, which includes this parcel at Gurney Lane and West Mountain, has other unique and valuable gifts to offer this community, and it’s been recognized in all the Town planning that’s gone on for 20 years, that includes the Town of Queensbury’s Open Space Vision Plan, 1998 Town of Queensbury Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the 2007 Town of Queensbury Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and the Glen Lake Watershed Management Plan. They’ve all considered these assets and they ask us to remember and value and preserve them, and I’m just going to excerpt some from all of those, these are all direct quotes from those plans. Queensbury has a quiet side, which is a significant part of the Town character. Queensbury’s natural setting is one of the most attractive features for both residents and visitors. Natural systems are important to air quality, surface and groundwater quality, providing habitat for plant and animal species and recreational opportunities, along with being a visual amenity. It will be increasingly important to remember this in coming years when the more readily developed sites are used up and more environmentally sensitive areas become the focal point for proposed development. I wonder what they were thinking about. Open spaces are an important part of the history, culture and character of the Town. Having open space resources makes our existing neighborhoods more valuable. Wildlife and natural areas enrich our everyday lives. These woodlands, wetlands, fields and forests are homes to deer, rabbit, wild turkey and chickadee, turtles, salamander, butterfly and honeybee, and thousands of species in between. These natural areas keep the waters clean by acting as bio filters. They clean out our area by absorbing pollutants and they offer us a place to hike, fish, and enjoy the outdoors. Six, Rush Pond is considered important to flood and stormwater controls, and as fish and wildlife habitat. Seven, the scenic roads range in scale from Adirondack Northway to Gurney Lane. Each has its own character that contributes to this Town’s sense of place. It is only proper that these essentially elements, the forested edge of the Northway, for example, be recognized and protected. All too many communities south of Queensbury are losing or have lost that unique character, that 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) sense of place. Number Eight, Gurney Lane and West Mountain Roads are identified as being considered most scenic. There’s a lot more in those things. So these are just some of them. Our zoning and our site plan reviews must follow the spirit of our Comprehensive Land Use Plan, reflecting the values and the priorities that are enshrined therein. That not only makes sense, it is law. New York State Town Law Article 16, Section 272 A Paragraph 11, All Town land use regulations must be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan adopted pursuant to this Section. That’s not an option. That’s the law. Zoning follows Comprehensive Land Use. Our economic well being depends on our preserving this natural inheritance. Our economic well being depends on us preserving our natural habitat. It’s beauty is what we have to offer those who travel here and it makes our every day life very rich. This project is not an appropriate use of the parcel. It is not in keeping with the area’s environmental sensitivities, nor with it’s Rural Residential nature. It is not the low impact use that was envisioned and presented to us as the neighbors who were there to talk about a 14 hour residential development, some four years ago, when the Town re-zoned this. It’s not a good use of this community’s assets, and just by the by, it’s not a good idea to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Mr. Franklin, and following him is Bill Helmer. DENNIS FRANKLIN MR. FRANKLIN-Dennis Franklin, West Mountain Road. There’s a lot of things I’d like to speak about. One real quickly is I agree with some thought that bringing the sewer across the Northway is just a Trojan horse of sprawl. There is no reason for this project to have sanitary sewer. It’s going to generate nothing more than 20 homes. The soil there can take that load. Now when they talk about expense, the expense of drilling that across the road and maintaining it and creating a separate corporation to take care of something that a very small septic system could handle, and we’re not talking about a septic system with laundry detergent and car wash and harsh chemicals. We’re talking about people that drink coffee, wash their hands and use the toilet. There’s no reason for that to go over there, but I’d like to go on to stormwater. There’s many, many questions raised by this system. One thing, and I hope you have a chance to look at this, is what happens during the seven months of the year when the ground is frozen, covered with snow, and all that salt piles up and we have a spring runoff, when the bile infiltration in the bottom of those pits, those seepage pits, is frozen, and it goes directly into the recharge basins that are at the very edge of the Critical Environmental Area, and it goes directly into the ground, and to say that the salt is meaningless because, you know, we use salt on the roads, you know, because we salt our roads does not say a project can do it also, but when it goes down into the stream which is directly below this project, right near that recharge and retention basin, there’s no need even for that retention on this site. If all that snow, which I keep asking, where is it going. It can’t be just dumped on the lawn and allowed to evade any kind of treatment at all. When it melts, when it melts, when the ground is frozen, and all the litter, all the chromium, all the oil, the motor oil, one quart of motor oil will pollute 250,000 gallons of water, and one quart of oil in a six acre parcel lot is a drop in the bucket. If you think cars don’t leak, go in front of any Stewarts store and look at the erosion on that parking lot, and in fact coating parking lots provides even more pollution, because that coating wears off, much more readily than the asphalt wears away. We have no way to capture the grit that’s accumulated during the summer, that gets ground up to dust, gets plowed up with the snow, gets washed down into the stream and further silts it in. This engineering is bear minimum. It’s not even, in my estimation it doesn’t meet best engineering practices, which are described as State of the Art. This is kind of like a cess pool treatment for the stormwater. I hope we’ll look into this further and get our own individual evaluation of it. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Mr. Helmer and following him is Jane McIntosh. BILL HELMER MR. HELMER-My name is Bill Helmer. I’m an attorney with the firm of Green & Siphter. We are general counsel to Northway Plaza Associates. I want to commend the Board on the obvious care and attention they’ve put into this. It’s a lot of work, and you’re doing your job. I want to mention one small point briefly, and that is the last time the Area Variance was before the Zoning Board of Appeals, it was represented that the number of bodies working at the project, the new building, was 490 to 500. That’s not 455, that’s not 537, and the reason I bring that up is an Environmental Impact Statement is among other things a tool. It’s a place where there’s one consistent comprehensive database. It’s a baseline. All the discrepancies are reconciled. It’s one place you can always go for 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) the answers, and if, in the materials that you have before you on your desk or in the record here, of what’s been offered by the public, you find an indication of significant impact, it’s not only a very useful tool, it’s a mandatory tool, and with that, I commend you and urge you to continue to do your job. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. After Jane McIntosh is David Bruno. JANE MC INTOSH MRS. MC INTOSH-Good evening. Jane McIntosh. I live on Gurney Lane. I actually own the former Gurney Lane Schoolhouse that Tanya Bruno showed a picture of, and although she didn’t mention it, I don’t know if she was going in this direction, perhaps you know that the West Mount Health facility was originally build as a tuberculosis sanitarium, and it’s interesting that Mr. Krebs refers to, I think you referred to that as a commercial development as well as the, on the opposite side of the Northway. Am I wrong on that? MR. KREBS-Yes, it does. The Health and Human Service building that the County wanted to build was too large to put on the campus. So they split the building. They reduced the building to a 66,000 square foot. MRS. MC INTOSH-No. I’m referring to when you characterized the neighborhood. MR. KREBS-They are planning, Warren County is planning to build, on Gurney Lane, a 55,000 square foot building. MRS. MC INTOSH-That’s not what I’m referring to. I’m referring to when you characterized the neighborhood and said that this project was in keeping with the current Warren County facilities. MR. KREBS-Well, Warren County facilities are a major office building. MRS. MC INTOSH-Well, it’s interesting that the Warren County, the Health Center, the health complex was not originally a major office building, and I would say it still is not. It was built as a tuberculosis sanitarium, and there are still people who live there and it was built there because of the restful quality of the neighborhood, the forested area of the region, and that property, as well as the schoolhouse, the cemetery, I maintain that they continue to really describe the character of the neighborhood. I take real exception with Mr. Lapper’s comment earlier that, and he says this every meeting that it’s such an emotional issue, and yet he fuels the flame of emotion when he claims that he’s the one who’s going to determine the size and the extent of the neighborhood, and who are neighbors and who aren’t neighbors to this project. So, that’s my first comment, but this is what I had prepared to say. Through site plan review you have the authority to weigh in on the extremeness of the parking area, and as you do, please consider the following. Because Zoning Code specifies one space per 300 feet of leased space, not built space, it’s possible that even fewer than 268 spaces can be allowed for this project. A final determination cannot truly be made without viewing a floor plan for the building. We know the gross footage, we don’t know the leased footage of the project. If the use of Mr. Schermerhorn’s proposed building were to provide professional services to neighboring residential areas as Town Code requires, the building would not need parking for more than 280 some cars. This is because clientele going to and from the professional offices would not be staying longer than an appointment which is typical with a doctor, lawyer, accountant, realtor, dentist, architect, financial advisor, or even an independent insurance agent, a visit which typically takes about an hour. If this site truly held professional offices, cars would come and go at a regular and modest rate, served perfectly well by 280 some parking spaces. This flow of people and cars would have little negative impact on surrounding residential neighborhoods and infrastructure. This fact alone, that Town Code requires and limits this project to 285 or fewer parking spaces tells me not only that the use is not for Professional Offices, but that the proposed project is out of scale. Site plan review is not about whether jobs will be kept or lost as you know. It is about how the project fits with a piece of land and fits with the Town’s determination of how that land should be used as expressed in the zoning statutes. This piece of land is zoned for Professional Offices. The proposed building is allowed roughly 280 parking spaces. If the project met these requirements, stormwater would be reduced, traffic would be less, and most if not all of the impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding land would be smaller. The argument over this project is more about good planning and responsible growth than about the desire of a few wealthy neighbors, as the applicant has suggested in the press. We who question Mr. Schermerhorn’s plans have legitimate concerns about overdevelopment in a part of 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) Town which has not seen this kind of large scale construction before and which does not have the roads, services, and other features in place to handle it. We have legitimate concerns about water quality and we have legitimate concerns about what this project will mean to our neighborhood in the future. If this project is built, it will be there for years to come, and will change that part of Queensbury forever. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, but your time is up. Thank you. Mr. Bruno, and following Mr. Bruno is Joseph McGuiness. Good evening. DAVID BRUNO MR. BRUNO-David Bruno. Two quick points. Tractor trailer trips, I don’t know if the study identified how many tractor trailer trips come across that bridge in a given time period, but I can guarantee you that three tractor trailers on that bridge plugs it up like a cork in a bottle, and the light is not going to improve that. They don’t start and stop on a dime, and if you had an independent study, you might ask that question, what are the tractor trailer trips. It’s a main thoroughfare. Sewer capacity downstream. I talked to Mr. Shaw myself about a month and a half ago. Sewer capacity downstream from this project cannot be given away by the Town. So you’re going to have to do a study to investigate whether they’re hooked up or not, what the sewer capacity of that section of the district is and see if this, if the capacity will satisfy Mr. Schermerhorn’s needs, because the Town cannot give away capacity, whether it’s used or unused, at this present time. A prepared statement. As in medicine, even after we have done all we can for our patient, which I work in medicine, sometimes they do not make it. Similarly, during any planning project, although a developer might feel that he has improved his proposal and exhausted his options to change the project, the proposal should not automatically qualify for approval, just because he has made changes. Sometimes the plan does not make it. The answer is no. Mr. Schermerhorn has stated on the record has stated on the record that there are few homes in close proximity to the proposed site. This is an important fact, although the fact is in direct opposition to the developer’s intent in pointing it out. His reasoning implies that the development isn’t close enough to the majority of the homes to bother the residents. However, there is a low density in this neighborhood, precisely because it is zoned Rural Residential One, Three, and Five acres. Although the developer’s property is zoned PO, the intent for zoning this particular parcel was to encourage transitional usage between the highway and the neighborhood, not buildings on the other side of the highway over in the Municipal Center, which have no bearing on this. So this would in turn preserve the rural characteristics, along with having minimal impact on the infrastructure. Why should the taxpayers be burdened with the increased cost of maintenance and upgrade to the infrastructure that will inevitably follow soon after the project is complete? Why should the residents be burdened with loss of property value when they originally invested in this desirable area specifically for its rural character? Why should the Town’s people be denied a potential last area of recreation and open beauty. As quoted from the adopted Open Space Vision for the Town of Queensbury, development of a scenic roads program as defined by the community is strongly encouraged, and what would that mean? Again quoting, a scenic road offers beautiful views of the countryside in a relatively unspoiled manner. Where might these views be found? Again, quoting from the Open Space Vision, this scenic roads range in scale from the Adirondack Northway to Gurney Lane, right in this corner. If there is anymore doubt what the will of the people is regarding these last areas of rural character, the Open Space planner stated that, and again I quote, based on the survey results preserving the region’s rural character was listed as the top priority of these residents, while protection of endangered species and wildlife habitats ranked second, one and two. Speaking directly to SEQRA, this project presents significant adverse impact on the environment. There will be removal or destruction of a large quantity of mature growth forest, 50 years or older. This will cause substantial interference with the movement of resident wildlife, from bobcat and beaver, to deer and fischer cat, along with destruction of their native habitat. There is also the potential for substantial adverse impact on as of yet uninvestigated threatened or endangered species. Also, this loss of natural barrier from the Northway will negatively impact the people of the surrounding neighborhood. It is also fair to say that there will be at least two or more changes to the environment, which is also found in there, which, taken separately, may not constitute significant environmental impact, but when pooled, will result in a substantial adverse impact on the environment. Many of these individual changes have already been eloquently stated by residents of Gurney Lane. In respect to the larger EAF, there will be many areas that will be answered yes, the project has the potential for a large impact, but, no, the project cannot be mitigated by any amount of design or engineering changes. Some of these are, one, the project is obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns. Two, the 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) proposed action will subsequently effect non-threatened and interfere with resident wildlife species. Three. MR. HUNSINGER-Time’s up. MR. BRUNO-And you can read the rest. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Mr. McGuiness. Following Mr. McGuiness is Ron Montesi. JOE MC GUINESS MR. MC GUINESS-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. MC GUINESS-Thank you for your time. My name is Joe McGuiness. I live in Lehland Estates. I’ve been there for a number of years now, and I apologize up front for my notes. I really didn’t plan on speaking here today. I’ve worked for the State for 21 years. Not only with the Highway, we had the traffic. So I know how all the lights work and how they don’t work, and how they can malfunction. I just want to talk about some of the questions that were brought up earlier from the Board. One was about New York State inspections. They happen once a year. If something happens to your car, the day you pull it out, you can have an oil leak, an antifreeze leak, for 364 days. They might be small, but they can leak until the next time the car goes in. So it doesn’t matter how well they inspect your car, you can still have a problem. About the groundwater, how much more groundwater is going to be going into Rush Pond from a 100 year storm? I don’t know if that was ever approached. I mean, you’re blacktopping a huge area. That water has got to go someplace. It no longer goes in the ground at a slow amount. MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll have the applicant answer that question for you. MR. MC GUINESS-Okay. The traffic study. The traffic study was done by an independent source. What was their credentials? I’m not really quite sure, but I saw a bunch of kids or teenagers or at least young adults that were sitting in lawn chairs at the ramp with a counter. Was that the study? I’m really not sure. So, I mean, I think you should have your own professional independent study where somebody is there constantly. There’s a lot of things that can happen in a parking lot. A radiator hose can blow. You can lose your oil seal. It’s not just drips and leaks. It could be an accident from two cars colliding. They talked about garbage trucks coming up there. I’ve seen a lot of wastewater coming out of a garbage truck. Those things should be especially looked at. These are sediment traps that they’re going to be using, I believe it was five, and they’ve got to also have the ability to suck them out annually. They have to be cleaned and maintained. I don’t know if they have any plan on that. MR. HUNSINGER-They have provided a maintenance plan as part of the stormwater pollution prevention plan. MR. MC GUINESS-The traffic studies that were done, were they just at the intersection of 20 and 9? Because the traffic should have been done at 9 and 149, where the traffic backs up over a mile, all right. It goes towards Washington County and the traffic is backed up immensely. It’s backed up on Exit 20. They have a force off loop on Exit 20 that makes the light turn green for the ramp, which backs it up even more. Any kind of traffic coming into that Route 9 is going to just bottle it right up even more than what it is today. I have a lot of concerns about that. They were talking about putting in a turning lane on Exit 20. Is that coming from Gurney Lane south? Is that the direct? MR. HUNSINGER-From the Exit 20 off ramp. MR. MC GUINESS-Off ramp. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, off ramp and on ramp. MR. MC GUINESS-Okay. The noise. They had a study on the noise. Well, there’s no noise there now, and the trees are there blocking the Northway noise. They’re going to clear the trees, and there’s going to be an opening. It’s going to increase the noise. Yes, the building’s going to block some of the noise, but it is not going to block all of the noise that is being blocked now. There is an impossibility of that happening. I can’t see that happening, and as far as sight distance, pine trees have very limited growth on the 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) bottom. They die from the bottom and you can see right under the trees, and if you can’t see them from the main part of the Northway, you’re definitely going to see them from the ramp, and a lot of our traffic is vacationing people coming up here. Excuse me. Thank you very much for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Montesi and following him is Dan Stec. RON MONTESI MR. MONTESI-Good evening, Board members. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. MONTESI-Thank you for being here and doing this. It’s an arduous task, I’m sure, and I appreciate the fact that on this Board there’s a mixture of environmental concerns and business concerns and hopefully the right decision will be made. My position, when asked, I said I was in favor of this project, knowing full well that I was elected to the Town Board and I didn’t have to make the decision that you make. My personal feeling was, as a businessman, I thought it was good for my Town. Address just a couple of clarifications. When you talked about the Federal government having some jurisdiction on the Northway as an Interstate. What happened there, when I was on the County, we wanted to put a tourist center in, and also an entrance to the new jail, or public service building. The Northway or the Interstate buys those exit ramps. They buy the easements so that a McDonalds or a Burger King can’t go at that exact exit ramp. So they keep that driveway cut closed. That’s the reason why they couldn’t put that driveway cut in there. As to the sewer project, I’m sure that Mr. Schermerhorn went before Mike Shaw, gave him some figures as to what the capacity of that building will be, and the tie-in to the Route 9 line. We spent a good deal of time putting that line up to the County Center. Prior to that, the County was going to spend $500,000 to put a septic system in, and we said, you know, maybe we can make your building deadline along with the sewer line. So we were able to get it up there. Subsequently, I’m not sure any of the store have tied in. I do know that George Stark and his new motel has tied in with water and sewer. So is there capacity? Obviously Mr. Schermerhorn wouldn’t be asking, wouldn’t be saying he’s going to put it in without that assurity, and lastly, when Betty Monahan, Steve Borgos, George Kurosaka, and myself were on the Town Board in 1987, we felt a real concern for the, if you will, the bowl around Rush Pond, and in our inability to have GPS and all of that, what George Kurosaka and I did was go out and we took the elevation, the ridgeline if you will, around Rush Pond, and I think it was 550 feet, and we said this is the area that we want to protect. We don’t want to see houses on that ridgeline or anything built that goes into Rush Pond. So those were the justifications. Thank you for listening to me. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Mr. Stec? MR. MONTESI-I don’t think Dan is here. MR. HUNSINGER-Dan’s not here? Is there anyone else in the audience that didn’t sign this sheet that would like to address the Board? Okay. I will leave the public hearing open for the time being. Were there any other additional public comments that were received, George, that have not been read into the record? MR. HILTON-We do have a letter from Mr. Salvador, which touches on the sewer service and the plans to create an out of district, to become an out of district user and just comments and concerns based on that from Mr. Salvador. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That was provided to Board members. Correct? MR. HILTON-It appears to have been, these copies are meant for you. I will hand them out. It’s been provided to the Town Board and the ZBA as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Salvador has asked to address the Board again. What’s the feeling of the Board? Mr. Salvador, you have five minutes. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. MR. SALVADOR-Many of the comments I have here have already been suggested or talked about. So I’ll try to skip through this if I can. Because of residential neighborhoods surrounding the Professional Office zoning district, where the applicant is proposing a commercial office building, is not within an existing sewer district, the applicant is proposing, as a mitigating measure, to piggyback on the Route 9 Sewer District as an out of district contract user, rather than provide, as Mr. Franklin suggested, an on-site advanced treatment facility. Instead, raw sewage generated from the proposed commercial office building is meant to discharge into the Route 9 Sewer District, itself an extension of the Quaker Road Sewer District. Untreated wastewater from the Queensbury Sewer District Number One, which we refer to as the Quaker Road Sewer District, flows directly into the Glens Falls City combined sewer stormwater collection system. Most of this combined flow is processed for treatment in the Glens Falls Sewage Treatment Plant before treated effluent is discharged, in accordance with the provisions of a DEC issued SPDES Permit, to the Hudson River. During periods of unusual storm events, the combined flow, containing raw sewage from the Town of Queensbury, must be shunted directly to the Hudson River. In this regard, the applicant has erroneously stated in Question Number 12 of Project Description, that the project will not involve any sewage discharges to a surface body of water. As in the foregoing, if this project is allowed to connect to the Route 9 Sewer District, as proposed, the sewage generated will discharge to the Hudson River. As Queensbury increases its sewage flow to such a combined sewer system, the concentration of raw sewage increases, thus aggravating an already environmentally unsound situation, that is direct discharge of sewage to the Hudson River. Granted that under such conditions the wastewater is highly diluted, but men and women of sciences understand that even a mouse peeing in the ocean makes a difference. For this reason, it has been suggested that the Glens Falls, the City of Glens Falls be considered an involved agency. Therefore, the answers to Question Number Twelve should be amended to read yes in the Project Sponsor’s project information sheet. This is what went to the involved agencies and where you describe the project. Now the DEC, there’s no flag going up for the DEC that you’re making a direct discharge to a surface body of water, and that does affect their SPDES Permit. So that should be corrected, and the DEC should be on notice that that’s what we’re doing. Should read yes, the answers to Twelve A should read sewage, and construction stormwater is also a direct discharge which is going to need a SPDES Permit and that’s not talked about anywhere. So there are additional permits required. I have here an outline where they’ve seriously understated the amount of wastewater and that sort of thing, but we can skip over that. What we really need, and Mr. Strough pointed to this, that there are users on the Route 9 sewer corridor that stand in line before Mr. Schermerhorn, and we really don’t know how much, what their build out is going to be. For instance, we have district, we have properties that are in the district which have not reached their ultimate build out capacity. The Warren County center is talking about tying in. MR. HUNSINGER-Your time is up, Mr. Salvador. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. MONTESI-Could I make one last comment? MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to allow it? MR. SCHACHNER-You have to, you let Mr. Salvador. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we have to. Thank you. MR. MONTESI-I’m Ron Montesi, 6 Cobblestone Drive. I really take exception to Mr. Salvador’s comments. We just knocked the hell out of a sewer treatment plant. In the four years that I worked for DEC, we have never had a flag put up where they had to direct discharge into the Hudson River. That’s a serious violation. We’ve had all kinds of problems in the City when a pipe broke and it filled up the canal, but never has the sewer treatment plant. So if you’re going to take his information, then you better go down and see how many times we’ve had a direct discharge into the River, and that really is something that we shouldn’t be knocking our fellow City treatment plant, because our treatment plant, because our future is based on the ability for us to use that treatment plant in the future. So our growth in our commercial areas is based on how effective that plant is. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. SEGULJIC-Is Glens Falls a combined sewage system? MR. MONTESI-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Combined sewer? MR. MONTESI-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s potential, then, I guess. MR. MONTESI-Yes, but if we haven’t had a flag and we haven’t had a report in four years from DEC, what would you say? They’re doing a pretty good job of it. Now a lot of the combined sewer goes right into the canal. Is that a problem? It might be. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Okay. We’ll conclude the public hearing for this evening. Notice I was careful not to say that we are closing it. Any comments, responses to the depth and breadth of the public hearing? I did have one question that was raised by a gentleman. I know the answer. I didn’t want to answer it. I didn’t think that was appropriate, and that was how much groundwater will go into Rush Pond? MR. LAPPER-Everything’s being infiltrated on site, is the answer. All the stormwater is being infiltrated on site into the ground. Nothing is going into Rush Pond. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHERMERHORN-That’s addressed with Mr. Lupo’s letter, and it also discusses the 100 year floods. MR. LAPPER-Yes, that the basins handle the 100 year storm. I guess we’ll try to be mercifully brief at this point. The issues are what we started off with. Stormwater is a lot of what we heard tonight. Our position is that, you know, we understand that we have neighbors that are upset and unhappy, but our job is to go to the reviewing agencies, the independent reviewing agencies. We’ve got DEC saying there will be no impact on Rush Pond or Glen Lake, and Warren County Soil and Water said the same thing, and we have the signoff from DOT on the traffic, and that’s how the rules work, and the Town Engineer. Lou Buck was talking, again, about the use issue, and I’m sure you know that the Zoning Board ruled on the use issue that an office is a permitted use in the office zone. That was argued for hours, and they ruled on that, and that’s done. Mr. Linke submitted to you that 90 page, whatever he characterized it as, and it’s probably, I mean, I know you’re all educated on this. Some of this stuff was just disappointing propaganda. He superimposed the old, the first site plan, which had the drainage basin in the CEA, which is certainly not the case now, so his cover sheet has the drainage basin in the CEA. The point about the small amount of parking that’s in the CEA, we keep saying it. The neighbors are not paying attention, but the stormwater, everything travels off of that to be treated outside of the CEA, and the CEA is 500 feet wide, and doesn’t go to Rush Pond, but there’s no impact on the CEA. So we’ve got pictures of New Jersey. We’ve got pictures of the Wal-Mart parking lot that has 1400 cars compared to our 500 cars. The Wal-Mart parking lot doesn’t have the landscaping that we more than comply with the Town requirements for trees. We’ve got a picture of Chinese factory workers in pink outfits in one of these photos. I mean, you know, this is intended to get everybody upset, but it’s not representative of what we have here. Our position clearly is that if the site is going to be developed, and unless the Town wants to buy it as open space, that this is a very good development, because it leaves a lot of it as open space. When we talk about Gurney Lane and West Mountain Road, the trees are going to stay the way they are on Gurney Lane and West Mountain Road except for the driveway here. So when you drive down Gurney Lane and West Mountain Road, it’s going to stay almost the same. When you go by Franklin’s house, there’s this big hill, which is on the south side of this property. That whole area doesn’t get touched. So the residences on that side aren’t going to be looking at this. That hill’s going to stay the same. Tanya talked about the Cemetery, and somebody else talked about the infirmary, and I know you know that we have a SHPO signoff on this. So we had an archeological report done. It was submitted to SHPO and we have their approval. Betty talked about parking in the CEA. I already mentioned that, and Ms. McIntosh talked about that she feels there would be, it could be built with the parking under the Code if it was done for medical, and my obvious answer to that is Adirondack Cardiology, which needed a larger variance than this because medical facilities have staff that’s there all day, plus patients that come in and overlap while they’re waiting for a doctor, so that certainly wasn’t the case. That was a case of a 20,000, if I recall, square foot medical office that needed a larger variance than we’re 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) talking about here, and, you know, just in terms of what Salvador said, there’s no discharge into the Hudson River. The discharge goes into the sewer system and goes into the Glens Falls Treatment Plant which has permits from DEC, that’s not something that we have to get involved in, how they treat their sewage, that’s their permit. We ask you to just treat this like any other project where we’ve gone the distance more than any other project, and we have the signoffs and we’ve made the compromises and this is certainly a lot less dense and less intensive than what could be done on this 17 acre site, which is next to the Northway, between the Northway and West Mountain Road, and I just want to leave you with one thought, before you do your SEQRA review. This is a quote from a famous case that I’m sure your Counsel is aware of, Northshore Steakhouse v. Board of Appeals of Village of Thompson, and this is a Court of Appeals case. The inclusion of the permitted use in the Ordinance is tantamount to a legislative finding that the permitted use is in harmony with the general zoning plan and will not adversely effect the neighborhood, and the point is that, yes, there’s Rural Residential across the street. There’s Rural Residential up the mountain, but right here we have a Professional Office that’s next to the Northway entrance ramp and next to the County facilities. So what we’re doing here to make this work with the residences is by having all those trees as a buffer and by putting this building in as a cocoon, and that’s the compromise, so that mostly the neighbors are going to see the trees the way they are now. The traffic’s going to go from this facility right onto Route 9 primarily and the Northway. If somebody wants to go to lunch and they doesn’t want to go to the restaurants in the outlets, they’ll get on the Northway and go to Exit 19, and somebody mentioned all those other intersections, and I know you know that all of that stuff was studied in the supplement reports, Mountain View Lane and Bonner Drive and everything else, and if it turned out that another traffic light or road widening or turning lane was needed, Rich would be doing it, but we’re agreeing to do everything that was asked. So we’re certainly concerned if Travelers leaves Town that would be a real bad thing. If some of the jobs leave Town, that would be a bad thing, too. They came here to look for a site that was permitted for their use and that’s why we’re here because it’s permitted for their use. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions or comments from members of the Board based on the testimony heard this evening? MR. SEGULJIC-Can we just talk about the sewer for a minute? Have you talked to Mike Shaw about that? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. Mike Shaw has been talked to, because in order to do a design build plan, before it could go to DEC, Randy Galusha, for review, it also had to be looked at by Mike Shaw before it was submitted. We already have comments back from DEC, from Randy Galusha, and we were waiting for the SHPO letter, which we already received, and our next step is to get this approval and just apply. It’s a contract user. There’s no issues with capacity. That’s been brought up, but the capacity is there. MR. SEGULJIC-So there’s no issue with capacity? MR. SCHERMERHORN-There’s no issues, and, you know, I just want to bring this up. I would be more than happy if it was going to be a septic system, but this was brought up at several of my past meetings where the people said this has got to be sewered. This project has got to be sewered. I’m going to spend a lot of money to bring the sewer over, which I understand, but it was very clear to me at the last Planning Board meetings that I had that this wasn’t going to work without having municipal sewer over there. So to go back now I think some of the people are backpedaling because they thought that that project or that property should be sewered. I mean, a septic is not a problem. I’m not opposed to that either. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. How is the building heated, natural gas, oil, propane? MR. SCHERMERHORN-There’s natural gas available. There’s sizeable water lines there. MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s going to be natural gas. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So no fuel oil stored on site. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Natural gas. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. SEGULJIC-All right. How about the size of the boiler? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I didn’t bring the mechanical specs with me, but there’s several, they’re rooftop units. MR. SEGULJIC-So are they going to be small individual boilers or one larger one? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, they’re outside roof. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, one of the questions in SEQRA says greater than 10 million BTU’s therefore you need an air permit. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’m sure we could do a quick calc. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that’s one of the questions that we have to answer. MR. HUNSINGER-Where is that, Tom, which question? MR. SEGULJIC-It’s under Air. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s Question Seven in Part II of the Long EAF. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Tom’s saying that it’s not even close to that. This is just double the size of what Rich did on Bay Road for the Hospital. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, 10 million BTU’s, that’s gigantic. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’m not a professional, but there’s no way we’re going to be even close to that figure. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the feeling of the Board? MR. TRAVER-We need to get the follow up information on the parking lot information. MR. LAPPER-What follow up information? MR. TRAVER-The conversation that Tom and I had regarding the chlorides, the concentrations in the stormwater and what were considered acceptable concentrations, also the information that he had a hard time finding regarding the average amounts per vehicle of petroleum products, antifreeze. MR. LAPPER-I guess our position is that we have the DEC signoff letter on the stormwater system. Those are not questions that you asked of Wal-Mart when they did twice the size in that parking lot or any other parking lot. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, but they weren’t in a CEA. MR. LAPPER-We’re not, either. MR. SEGULJIC-You are in a CEA. Your parking lot is in the CEA. MR. LAPPER-We’re not in a CEA. No, you weren’t paying attention. The parking lot drains outside of the CEA. MR. SEGULJIC-Your parking lot is in a CEA. One of the questions under SEQRA, is the project in a CEA. MR. LAPPER-But there’s no impact on the CEA because the water goes underground from the CEA, outside of the CEA, into the drainage system and it infiltrates. It comes out of the CEA. It’s controlled. MR. SEGULJIC-The project’s in a CEA. MR. LAPPER-But there’s no impact on the CEA. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. SEGULJIC-None? MR. LAPPER-The water is infiltrated on site outside of the CEA. MR. SEGULJIC-No impact whatsoever? MR. LAPPER-We have letters from DEC that say no impact on the CEA. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me, the letter from Nace Engineering with regard to chlorides states that low concentrations of chlorides could expect to be measured. It doesn’t say what the concentrations are, and it doesn’t say what the ideal concentration should be. MR. LAPPER-How could that be calculated? It depends on how much snow you get in a winter and how much salt you use. MR. TRAVER-I think that probably that information could be obtained, based on contractors that take care of parking lots, so many square feet. They typically, they have a budget for the amount of. MR. LAPPER-Well, to me that just seems like an excuse to delay this and to force Travelers out of town. MR. TRAVER-Well, much of this information, with all due respect, Jon, if you look in the minutes of the last meeting, I did specifically ask for the information regarding the typical American automobile and what leakage would be expected, and in the notes, I have them here if you’d like them read back. MR. LAPPER-Well, I guess I would ask that I hope that the rest of the Board is not looking for what comes, what’s typically coming off of a car, because we had, the DEC reviewed this and said that we’ve complied with their requirements for stormwater. MR. SCHERMERHORN-There’s been three environmental agencies, the Town Engineer, that’s hired by the Town of Queensbury’s, reviewed this project. Dave Wick, from Soil and Water, which is highly respected in this industry, has reviewed this and signed off on it. Bill Lupo, another highly respected individual, has signed off on this project. Mr. Traver, I could bet that if I came back with that information, you’d ask for something else the next time. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, let’s not speculate. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, okay. MR. HUNSINGER-We have one member that’s asked for additional information. How does the rest of the Board feel? MR. SEGULJIC-I think it would make sense, given the fact that it’s in a CEA, and the fact that I believe the DEC and all the engineers just look at the quantity of groundwater, the quantity of stormwater, not the quality. There’s a big difference. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I’m sorry, but I need to take, Dave Wick’s letter said that all accepted stormwater quality and quantity standards will be met or exceeded. I’m just saying he did take into consideration the quality and you said that they don’t. I’m just saying that he did, and he states that in his letter. MRS. STEFFAN-One of the questions on SEQRA. Proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences, or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. MR. LAPPER-What was the first part of that question? MRS. STEFFAN-Proposed action, this is Question 16, Will the proposed action affect the community sources of fuel or energy supply. Will the proposed action require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences, or to serve a major commercial or industrial use? MR. LAPPER-No, the gas and electricity are already there, on site. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, and we’ve already even sized the water because of the sprinkler system within the building. We had to check on that, too. So all utilities are in place. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-With the exception of the sewer. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Except for the sewer. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-The one really big issue I’m going to have getting over is the visual impact, and it goes back to the question, when you go to potential large impact, it says proposed land uses or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land uses. MR. LAPPER-And our answer is no, and your answer is yes. So we disagree. MR. SEGULJIC-So if it’s yes, we go to Potential Large Impact. MR. HUNSINGER-Which question are you on, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-Eleven. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s Question Eleven on Part II. MR. SEGULJIC-Proposed land uses or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. MR. LAPPER-Well, what’s the resource you’re talking about? MR. SEGULJIC-The view shed. MR. LAPPER-And our answer is you’re going to be looking at trees from the Northway and you’re going to be looking at trees from Gurney Lane and West Mountain Road. MR. SEGULJIC-I can appreciate what you’re saying, but I haven’t been given enough information to make me satisfied with that. MR. LAPPER-Well, our position is that you have been given enough information. MR. SEGULJIC-We had testimony of someone standing in the woods with a yellow sign and they said it was 250 feet away. MR. LAPPER-We have no idea where that was taken, if that was taken on the south side of the property, but we have a lot of photos. MR. SEGULJIC-I believe they said it was from West Mountain Road. MR. LAPPER-Right, but West Mountain Road runs along 1,000 feet of the property. MR. NACE-Our first visual analysis stated, point blank, that from West Mountain Road you would see, looking directly towards the site, you would see the entrance to the building. You would see the building. MR. LAPPER-That’s the one location where you’d see the building. MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. LAPPER-Along West Mountain Road, but on the rest of it, this is hidden more than any other building I can think of in Queensbury. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s been said to us before, and it doesn’t always work out. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Again, Tom, I always want to satisfy you and every Board member, but I’m not another project that occurred. I mean, everything that we’ve brought forward through the 21 years I’ve been doing business, we have succeeded with 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) the success level that you’ve placed in front of me. We’ve followed the rules. I have no reason to doubt Mr. Nace that there’s anything wrong with the visual, other than, I suppose if I built models or something, but I really feel that I’ve never gone to this extent in my 21 years, and like I’ve told you before, I’m happy to do that. At this point in time, and again, I get the feeling that the audience, certainly they care about Travelers, but they don’t care about them at this location. This applicant will move on after tonight, if this doesn’t go through. It’s fine. I just want to say, I’m willing to accept that, but it’s, the project will still move forward. MR. LAPPER-We’ll have to find another tenant. MR. SCHERMERHORN-The project will still move and I’ll probably still supply you stuff, but I really think I’ve been more than fair, more than reasonable. We’ve met, I don’t know how many times on this project. This is our fourth meeting, and we’ve really discussed these issues over and over and over. I just don’t know. MR. HUNSINGER-What other outstanding questions do Board members have on the Assessment Form? MR. SIPP-I have one more. It was brought out tonight that there are springs on this property. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Again, now, we a have a lot of people in the audience that have brought new information to us, but all I can provide is the information that I’ve paid for, and I’ve had to hire consultants. We had boring tests. Now, that’s all in your packets. We’ve had boring tests done on the property where it was stated, I think at our last meeting where we went down, I think it was deep at 62 or 82 feet sticks in my head, and there’s no evidence of that, 52 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-You also had 197 shovel tests. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-That went down, most of them in exceed of 50 inches without any water. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Absolutely. We’ve done all kinds of tests, and it used to be, the property, my understanding, it used to be a sand and gravel pit, which tells me that it’s got some, I know it’s got good materials because we’ve done tests, but I’m not aware of any springs on the property, and we are, the elevations, if you look at where the base of not even, where my property ends to the south, it’s very low. Now, are there springs down there? I don’t know, but they’re not on my property. I’m not aware of any on my property. MR. SIPP-In doing your test borings, did you hit the, any water at all? MR. LAPPER-Fifty two feet. MR. NACE-No, 52 feet and it was still dry. MR. SIPP-So the water table is below whatever. MR. NACE-Some where’s at 52 feet, at the existing location of the proposed building. MR. SCHERMERHORN-And, as a matter of fact, just for the record, the information of the borings was supplied to Dave Wick when he did the thorough investigation, because like I said, I’ve listened to every comment throughout all these meetings, and I’ve made sure that I’ve dotted every I and crossed every T on this application. MR. SIPP-Could you, how long is this report on, to Dave Wick? MR. SCHERMERHORN-The stormwater management? I probably have a copy if you want me to read it. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I quoted it on my notes. MR. LAPPER-Dave’s letter, is that what you’re asking about? MR. SIPP-No, not his letter. Your report to him on the. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. LAPPER-We submitted the stormwater report to him, Tom’s report, the same one that you have. MR. SIPP-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-The same one that went to DEC. st MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, Dave Wick’s letter was dated November 21. It’s the last two pages of Tab B. So it’s right before Tab C, and the quote that I read is at the top of the last page, where he says, it is my opinion that all accepted stormwater quality and quantity standards will be met or exceeded. As such, I do not believe that this development, as proposed, will have any measurable impact on any surrounding water body, surface or subsurface. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? MR. HUNSINGER-We concluded the public hearing, ma’am. Dan, you stepped out of the room. Mark, are you familiar with the case that Mr. Lapper mentioned about neighborhood compatibility. MR. SCHACHNER-I believe so. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you comment on that? MR. SCHACHNER-Not especially. I mean that’s a, as I recall, and I haven’t looked at the case in some time, it’s a case about a special use permit situation, not a site plan review, although I could be wrong about that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-But it doesn’t matter. The general principal of law is an accurate principal of law, that there’s a presumption of compatibility when something’s an allowed use. That doesn’t mean anybody’s bound to approve. That doesn’t mean anybody’s bound to deny. It doesn’t really, in my opinion, have any impact on your decision making. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. SCHACHNER-The only thing it would have an impact on is to the extent that, for example, some of the commentors from the audience did make reference to the notion that this should not, that this type of use should not be allowed at this location. That case is one of many, many cases that stands for the proposition that if it’s a use that’s allowed under current zoning, then it can’t be denied on the basis of it not being an acceptable or permissible use. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you. MR. SCHACHNER-Gretchen, you look puzzled. Did that not make sense, what I said, or did it? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it doesn’t make sense in that, since I’ve been on the Planning Board, I thought that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan was one of the tools that we use in conjunction with the zoning. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MRS. STEFFAN-The zoning, obviously, is the law of the Town. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MRS. STEFFAN-But the Comprehensive Land Use Plan provides interpretation of the zoning. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s true. MRS. STEFFAN-So that the Planning Board has the latitude to look at both. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. SCHACHNER-That’s absolutely true. Maybe I wasn’t clear, and if I wasn’t, I apologize, but the principal of law is that neither a Planning Board nor any other Board, can deny a use on the basis that it’s simply not appropriate, period, end, if it’s an allowed use under the zoning law. That doesn’t mean you can’t deny a particular application. You, as a Board, can’t take the position that we’re not going to allow any professional office use at this location, for example, because that’s an allowed use. That’s a legislative determination that for better or for worse our Town Board has made, and in fact in this particular instance, it’s a legislative determination, the interpretation of which has already been subject to review and challenge, and the Zoning Board of Appeals has upheld his Zoning Administrator determination saying, yes, this is an allowed use at this location. The fact that this is an allowed use at this location does not take out the discretion that this Board has to then apply the site plan review principals to that allowed use, or we wouldn’t all be here. So the principal of law that that case and many other cases stand for is that neither this Board nor any other Board could deny the use on the basis that we don’t think this use fits that site, because there’s been a legislative determination that a professional office use can fit that site. That doesn’t mean you have to approve this application. You’re applying your site plan review criteria, and the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, as is your right and in fact your obligation. MRS. STEFFAN-And the reason I’m thinking about this is because the Zoning Code identifies a professional office, encompasses areas where professional offices are encouraged. These are located along arterials adjoining residential areas where compatibility with residential uses is important. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MRS. STEFFAN-So when the zoning, I understand the Zoning Board made a determination that professional office was an allowed use, but the definition of professional office was what was in question at that particular hearing. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I wasn’t there, but I’m pretty sure that, maybe a slight refinement of what you just said, what was at issue was not the definition, but the definition as applied to this proposed use, and remember that, although this Board has many, many powers and many, many authorities, one that you do not have is to issue your own interpretations of provisions of the Zoning Code. That’s a prerogative of the Zoning Officer, in the first instance, and the Zoning Board of Appeals if someone who’s aggrieved appeals a determination of the Zoning Officer to the ZBA. That has all occurred, and, to put it in technical, legal jargon, that ship has sailed. The determination that this type of use is an allowed use in this zone and at this location. That doesn’t obligate this Board to approve this particular use as proposed, but you can’t lawfully deny this particular use on the basis that you don’t think this type of use should be allowed at this location. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I understand what you’re saying, but we can still use the criteria of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan in looking at this from a big picture point of view. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, that’s one of the criteria for your site plan review. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the reason I’m asking that question is because when we go through SEQRA, and you get to the point, there are a couple of questions here that speak specifically to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and so it gets into grey area. As we go through that, if the Board members identify that it’s a potentially large impact that can’t be mitigated, then we’ve got an issue. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s possible. MRS. STEFFAN-So that’s why I’m asking that question. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-A procedural question. If we close the public hearing, how many days do we have to complete SEQRA? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, it’s not so much SEQRA that’s the concern. The public hearing, correct me if I’m wrong, the public hearing started before I reassumed my seat here, but I believe that the public hearing that you’re conducting is actually the public hearing on Site Plan Review? SEQRA review is part and parcel of your Site Plan Review, but is a separate obligation. If you close the public hearing, you have actually 62 days from the date of close of the public hearing to render a decision on the Site Plan Review, unless you require an Environmental Impact Statement, which would then open that up further. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-So I guess, as a practical matter, I’m going to say 62 days. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I guess, just thinking out loud, so the Board knows where I’m coming from, I guess my inclination, at this point, is to close the public hearing. I didn’t do it yet, but I’m just saying, thinking out loud, because I really don’t see any new information coming out on this project, other than, you know, possible clarifications that some individual members have requested or said they would desire. I certainly don’t feel pressured by anyone to move the project forward, but I think it’s our obligation to try to conclude the process. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, just getting back to another question, if I could, and that deals with traffic. We’ve heard tonight that there’s going to be two other buildings going in this area. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Not on my property. MR. SEGULJIC-But in the area. MR. LAPPER-No, the County is moving one of the buildings across the road, and they’ve said in the future they may build another building to replace the one. MR. SEGULJIC-Is that going to be new people in the area, or are they moving them from the Municipal building over there? MR. LAPPER-It would be a net loss of people, because they’re building a 60,000 square foot building across the street, and they said that they may, in the future, some time, build a 50,000. MR. SEGULJIC-So are they going to lay people off? MR. LAPPER-No, they’re moving them back to the Municipal Center, across the Northway, but they will then have a site available to build another building in the future. MR. SEGULJIC-So this new building that we’re discussing is going over where the County Municipal building is currently, is that what you’re saying? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And they’re going to take the people from West Mount and move them over there? MR. LAPPER-It’s not West Mount, it’s the Municipal Center Annex. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Municipal Center Annex and move them. MR. LAPPER-Over across the Northway to the Municipal Center. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And then they may build another building to replace the existing building. MR. SEGULJIC-Now another concern. When we look at SEQRA, we’re supposed to look at the maximum potential, correct? MR. SCHACHNER-You’re supposed to review the potential environmental impacts of the project as proposed. MR. SEGULJIC-Just the project that’s proposed. MR. SCHACHNER-I said the project as proposed. MR. SEGULJIC-As proposed. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. SCHACHNER-Right, including mitigation, in other words, the project as proposed, including whatever mitigation measures are proposed. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So, for example, if they were to build another 20,000 square feet and add another 400 people there, that’s not for now? MR. SCHACHNER-They the applicant, or someone else? MR. SEGULJIC-They, whoever, in two years comes back. MR. SCHACHNER-Absent some specter of that happening, I mean, they could build a billion square feet and they could pave over every square inch. I’m not sure if I’m following the question. MR. SEGULJIC-Should we take that into consideration now, the maximum potential of this site? MR. SCHACHNER-Short answer, no. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. We just look at what’s before us at this time? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, if this was a phased project. I don’t want to mislead you about other projects that you’ve asked, or others have asked similar questions about. If there was a multi-phase project, for example, you’re clearly, under SEQRA, supposed to not just look at the first phase but all phases of a multi-phase project, but if I understand this correctly, this is not a phased project. This is the project that’s proposed, and that’s what you’re reviewing the potential environmental impacts of. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Another clarification. Are we required to close the public hearing in order to move through, forward with SEQRA? MR. SCHACHNER-No, you’re not. MR. HUNSINGER-So we can do SEQRA without closing the public hearing? MR. SCHACHNER-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I don’t know if we’ve ever done that. MR. SCHACHNER-Not to my knowledge. MRS. STEFFAN-If you want to go through SEQRA, we can go through SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-Other than the couple of outstanding questions from Mr. Seguljic and Mr. Traver, are other members ready to start the SEQRA process? Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Chairman, I would like the alternates to recuse themselves from the SEQRA process, based on some of the public comment that came out this evening. I think that that would, in my opinion, would be wise. I want to put that on the table. MR. SCHACHNER-Did you say alternates, plural, or alternate? MRS. STEFFAN-Alternates. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. That’s a bit of an unusual request coming from a Planning Board member. It’s basically the law and it says it’s up to the alternates to decide whether they have sufficient familiarity with the matter at hand. Well, I’m not sure what the request is based on, but if the request is based on familiarity with the matter at hand, there is no legal requirement that each of the alternates, or that any alternate have been present and seated as a Board member for each of the previous meetings at which the project was discussed. However, in order to participate, I would certainly urge the alternates to only participate if you’ve had ample opportunity to review the voluminous record that’s been created from this proceeding, including tonight but not limited to 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) tonight, and if an alternate does not feel he or she, I think we’re he in this case, if an alternate, if either alternate or both alternates don’t feel that you’ve had opportunity to familiarize yourself with the record that’s been developed on this application thus far, then it would be perfectly appropriate for you not to participate in any decision making this evening, but that decision is really up to the individual alternate and not to the Board or any other members of the Board. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. The reason I made that statement is because of some of the public comment this evening, and also because the alternates were only appointed this week, and have, to my knowledge, very little experience with this process, and so that is the reason why I made that comment. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Mr. Chairman, I did say, at the beginning of this evening, that because I just picked up the material today and I haven’t had a chance to review all of it, that I would recuse myself from a vote this evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. I just would add, I certainly don’t want either of the new members to feel pressured into the decision that they don’t feel comfortable with. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-We’re ready. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater (a 15% rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. MR. HUNSINGER-It might be easier for those people that said yes to jump down to the item that they checked. Would that expedite this? And the item that I checked was construction will continue for more than one year, and the applicant has said it would be 18 months construction. MR. LAPPER-No, eight months. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Allow a year. MR. HUNSINGER-Your information said 18. MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s wrong. It’s going to be less than a year. MR. HUNSINGER-Less than a year? Okay. Mr. Traver, which item did you say yes for? MR. TRAVER-Well, obviously there’s a physical change to the project site. I think that that change, you know, is mitigated. I’m not saying that it’s not something that can be mitigated, but you can’t answer that it’s not going to result in a physical change. So that, I consider that question essentially to be yes all the time, anytime there’s any construction. MR. SEGULJIC-Would you say other impacts and say removal of vegetation and (lost word) site, small to moderate. MR. SCHACHNER-So, am I hearing on Question One, an answer, yes, and under other impacts, vegetation removal, characterized in magnitude as small to moderate? Is that what I heard? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. SIPP-Creation of new or impervious surfaces. MR. SCHACHNER-Don’t tell me. It’s a Board decision. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will there be an affect to any unique or unusual landforms found on the site? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-Again, I would say yes. We know that we have, other impacts, we know that we have chemicals, some of which are unspecified or unknown, in terms of quantity, that are going to be released into the CEA, and from there continue through the aquifer and into protected waters. The problem that we have is we don’t know how large the impact is because we have not yet seen the information regarding the specifics. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the reason why I said no is because when you look at the examples, the site does not contain a protected body of water. They’re not dredging over 100 cubic yards of material from a channel of a protected stream. They’re not extending distribution facilities through a protected water body, and they’re not in designated freshwater or tidal wetland. The concerns that you address I think fall more under Item Five, which is groundwater quality or quantity, but the project itself is not adjacent or directly impacts a designated protected body of water. MR. TRAVER-I’m not sure that we know the answer to that. MR. SEGULJIC-Doesn’t this, I’ve got to ask Counsel. Isn’t this question more directed towards the wetlands. This isn’t towards the CEA. Because CEA’s are under 6NYCRR, and this is 15, 24, 25. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, you’re getting a little confused. 6NYCRR is regulations, not Statutes, but the Articles 15, 24, and 25 are Statute, the Environmental Conservation Law. MR. SEGULJIC-But this is the Statute, okay. MR. SCHACHNER-All the regulations of the Environmental Conservation Law, all of them, 100%, are in Title Six of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations, 6NYCRR. MR. SEGULJIC-So this does include CEA’s. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, that’s a different question. There’s a separate question about, later on. This would be Question. MR. SEGULJIC-Fourteen, I believe. MR. SCHACHNER-Somewhere in that neighborhood. Correct, Question 14 is specific to potential impact on Critical Environmental Areas. That’s not to suggest that if there is a Critical Environmental Area which is a protected body of water, there could be overlap between the two questions. That happens sometimes in SEQRA review, but, Tom, in answer to your question, I think more directly, this does not focus specifically on Critical Environmental Areas. Question 14 does. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I could go along with a small to moderate impact. I mean, the only impact is runoff, that could possibly affect the protected body of water. MR. TRAVER-And address the other issues, the unknown issues, later on. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Excuse me. I’m sorry to interrupt. Who’s keeping track of all the answers? Is it just in the minutes on the tape? MR. HUNSINGER-Gretchen is, too. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. SCHACHNER-And Gretchen is? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Gretchen’s faster than I am. So if you don’t mind, I’m sorry to slow things up. What I’m hearing then, is, on Question Three, you’re answering yes, and it’s under other impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-There’s an impact, which is what impact? MRS. STEFFAN-Chemicals, unknown chemicals released into the aquifer into protected waters. Small to moderate. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Question Four. Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-I hear one answer. MR. KREBS-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or or quantity? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Now this one I kind of have a question on Counsel. The first question, the first example is, proposed action will require a discharge permit. Is a stormwater prevent plan permit considered a discharge permit or are they referring more to a SPDES Permit? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, this was done before the general stormwater prevent program went into effect. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. MR. SCHACHNER-So the intent, when these questions were created, was referenced basically to a SPDES Permit, or a NPDES Permit, which is a national version of a SPDES Permit. MR. HUNSINGER-Would a stormwater pollution prevention plan permit be included in that? MR. SCHACHNER-There’s never been a case challenging that, or raising that issue, because that program is much newer than the question. I think the shortest answer is probably, yes, it does require that permit. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-So that’s not an irresponsible way to look at it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-I have a slightly different question on an item further down. Where it says proposed action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. Now, there’s nothing on the Site Plan that I saw, certainly, that showed a tank greater, you know, a single tank greater than 1,100 gallons storing petroleum. However, we have 547 vehicles. If we, hopefully gas prices will go down and people will 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) come to work with a full gas tank. Say they have 20 gallons of gasoline, you’re talking over 10,000 gallons of fuel. MR. SCHACHNER-You can’t take that approach lawfully. You’re saying take each car and then multiply it by the number of cars and say that therefore totally they’ll be storing more than 1100 gallons? I don’t think you can legally take that position. MR. KREBS-That was the intent of the question at all. MR. SCHACHNER-No, I agree, and I’m sorry to bog you down on this, and if I’m the weak link, I apologize, but back on Question Three, generally if you answer yes, you’re supposed to identify what the protected water body is, and if you did so, I missed that. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s Rush Pond. We didn’t say, but that’s what it is. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-And also Glen Lake. MR. HUNSINGER-And also Glen Lake. MR. TRAVER-So I guess I can’t count the 1641 gallons of antifreeze that would be estimated to be on site. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and I think that’s why Tom asked that question of the applicant earlier about the storage of petroleum products. Were there any other impacts on Five that people checked? MR. SCHACHNER-So, on Five, I thought I heard a yes, but then I didn’t hear any. MRS. STEFFAN-Proposed action will require a discharge permit. We put SPDES. MR. SCHACHNER-And then did you characterize the magnitude of that impact? MRS. STEFFAN-Small to moderate impact. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Question Six. Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And what I wrote, I don’t want to speak for the whole Board, but I said it impacts it in a positive way because the applicant is directing all stormwater runoff towards stormwater containment and treatment areas. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s going to impact in a positive way? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, we hear his a lot, I mean, it’s a native site. So currently there are no stormwater management in place. MR. SEGULJIC-There is none. It’s not required. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. MR. SEGULJIC-(Lost words) worked on that for millions of years, and I think they sorted it out in that time. I don’t think we can say positive. How can we go in? MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, we can still say that the impact is small to moderate. MR. SEGULJIC-We can say that, but I’m not comfortable with saying it has a positive impact. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll buy that. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s definitely not a positive impact. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. SCHACHNER-So what’s the Board’s answer on Question Six? MR. HUNSINGER-We said yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Stormwater runoff to containment and treatment areas, and it’s a small to moderate impact. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Question Seven. Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-Yes. If you get 1,000 cars per day and the air pollution, nitrous oxide. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s 1,000 trips in any given hour, Don. MRS. STEFFAN-In an hour. MR. SCHACHNER-So what’s the answer? MRS. STEFFAN-I’m hearing no. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m hearing no. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Question Eight. Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-I said, yes, in that the DEC report indicated that, were there not to be development here, there would be an increase in food supply for the Karner blue. Although that has been, the impact has been mitigated because he has made arrangements to provide alternate sites for the lupine. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m comfortable with that. MR. TRAVER-The other component is that there is, further down, removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. We all know, even when we were out there to look at the property ourselves, that it’s a significant path. There were tracks all over the place for wildlife. We’ve had statements from folks earlier that many of the other accesses to the Rush Pond area have been limited by development, and therefore this removal of wildlife habitat does have an impact. MR. HUNSINGER-How would you classify it, then? Small to moderate? I mean, they’re not totally removing the ability for animals to traverse the site. MR. TRAVER-Right. They did provide an easement, if you will, an animal easement. Yes, I would say small to moderate. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So that Eight is yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-And then removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat, small to moderate. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MRS. STEFFAN-And then the other issue is just other impacts, Karner blue food source, affected by removal of food, small to moderate, but it’s been mitigated. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-I said no. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And the first two, I think they’re potential large impacts. MRS. STEFFAN-Will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think they’re potentially large. Why would you say they’re potentially large? MR. SEGULJIC-Because it’ll be changed forever. That’s your gateway to the Adirondacks. Our Comprehensive Land Use Plan says to maintain those buffers, to maintain the scenic vista. It’s been recognized as an important scenic. They haven’t provided enough information to satisfy me that they’re going to. MR. HUNSINGER-But what aesthetic resources are being impacted? MR. SEGULJIC-That view shed. MR. HUNSINGER-From where and for whom? MR. SEGULJIC-From the crest of 87 when you come over that hill. That whole area down there, to the east of the interchange, west of the interchange. MR. HUNSINGER-And how do you classify it as being a potentially large impact? MR. SEGULJIC-Once again, it’s entirely treed now. All of a sudden you’re going to have a building there and at night you’re going to have lights. It’s completely changing the area. MR. HUNSINGER-I disagree. MR. TRAVER-I also had the third section checked, project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. We’re going to be eliminating a section of an uninterrupted tree canopy, permanently. MRS. STEFFAN-Any other comments, right now? There’s another form that could be used, Appendix B. MR. HUNSINGER-Could we get copies of that? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I have copies. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Did you bring copies, George? The Visual Impact Analysis. Gretchen brought copies. MRS. STEFFAN-Do you guys need copies? MR. SCHACHNER-If you’ve got them. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. This form may be used to provide additional information relating to Question 11 of Part II of the Full EAF. Number One on Visibility, Would the project be visible from a parcel of land which is dedicated to and available to the public for use, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or man-made scenic qualities, and if you’re going to answer yes to that, you have to identify the distance between the project and the resource. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think so. I mean, Gurney Lane is nearby, but it’s not visible from Gurney Lane, the Gurney Lane Recreation Area. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. We’ll leave that. An overlook or parcel of land dedicated to public observation, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or man-made scenic qualities. I don’t see that. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-A site or structure listed on the national or State registers of historic places. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-We have a SHPO signoff. State parks? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-State forest preserve. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-National Wildlife refuge or State game refuge? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-National natural landmarks and other outstanding natural features? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-National Park Service lands? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-River designated as State, wild, scenic or recreational/ MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Any transportation corridor of high exposure such as the Interstate system or Amtrak? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Yes. 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and that is within a quarter mile. A government fully established or designated interstate or inter-county foot trail or one formally proposed for the establishment or designation. Now the inter-county foot trail, would that be the proposed Rush Pond bike path? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. TRAVER-It is inter-county. MR. KREBS-That’s not inter-county. MR. TRAVER-It goes into Washington County. MRS. STEFFAN-I need an answer, guys. MR. HUNSINGER-I think we said yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and within a quarter mile. A site, area, lake, reservoir or highway designated as scenic? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we need to be careful here. It asks for highway. The road is designated as scenic, but it’s not a highway, 87, I was thinking of Gurney Lane. Okay. Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Gurney Lane’s not a highway, but 87 is. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, actually 87 isn’t until further north, though. It’s from Lake George north. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, this is related to view shed, the questions that were in it. Tom and Steve said that they were potentially large impacts. This is to clarify. Okay. Where are we going, a site, area, lake or reservoir or highway designated as scenic. So is this yes or no? Do you check it or don’t you check it? MR. SEGULJIC-The only thing I would say is an area might be Rush Pond. I don’t know if we’ll be able to see it from Rush Pond. MR. SCHACHNER-Is Rush Pond designated as scenic? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess that’s true. You’re correct. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s a CEA, but it’s not, I’m just asking, but not that I’m aware of. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. A municipal park or designated open space? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Now, Rush Pond is designated as an open space, isn’t it? Because it’s in a Critical Environmental Area. That’s part of State Environmental. It’s identified there, but it’s also part of the Town. MR. HUNSINGER-You won’t be able to see it from Rush Pond. MR. SEGULJIC-We don’t have any documentation of that fact. MRS. STEFFAN-You’re right, it’s not visible from. Okay. Would the project be visible from a County road? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. A State road? MR. SIPP-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. From a local road? 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Are you bypassing the distances? MRS. STEFFAN-Zero to a quarter of a mile. MR. HUNSINGER-Zero to a quarter of a mile. So we’ve got County road, State road and Local road checked. Correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. Number Two, is the visibility of the project seasonal, screened by summer foliage but visible during other seasons? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Once again, I don’t know, I think portions of it would be visible all year. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean they themselves said that you’d be able to see a portion of it at least. MR. KREBS-But the question is, is the visibility of the project seasonal, and the answer is no. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Are any of the resources checked in Question One used by the public during the time of year for which the project is visible? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I think the answer is yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s yes. MRS. STEFFAN-That would be yes, okay. Flip it over. Description of Existing Visual Environment. Number Four, from each item checked in Question One, check those which generally describe the surrounding environment. MR. HUNSINGER-Transportation corridor. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Mark, we’ve never used this form before. So this means that we need to go through the checklist on Question Four for the impacts that we’ve identified. MR. SCHACHNER-For the Northway, for whatever interstate or inter county foot trail you were suggesting. I’m not aware of one, but that’s your call, not mine, for whatever County road you’re identifying, for whatever State road you’re identifying, and for whatever local road you’re identifying. MRS. STEFFAN-Hold on. MR. TRAVER-Well, it’s essentially undeveloped, right? MR. SEGULJIC-And forested. MR. TRAVER-Within a quarter mile, and it is forested. Is not agricultural. It certainly is suburban residential. It’s not industrial, not commercial, not urban. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. I don’t think it’s suburban residential. I think it’s rural. MR. TRAVER-You’re right. I’m sorry. MR. SEGULJIC-But rural is not there. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. This isn’t how it’s zoned. It’s how it’s being utilized. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. TRAVER-Yes, no, that was my, I read suburban and I was thinking rural. River, lake, pond. MRS. STEFFAN-So I’m not sure where we are here. MR. TRAVER-The first two. MRS. STEFFAN-Essentially undeveloped. MR. TRAVER-Right, and forested, and then no agricultural, no suburban residential, no industrial, no commercial, no urban. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what land use do you consider the County Municipal Center? It doesn’t offer a question for a governmental or municipal. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-There is an other. MR. HUNSINGER-So other we can list County Municipal Center. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-And also the County Annex, and West Mount nursing home. MRS. STEFFAN-And that’s within a quarter mile. MR. HUNSINGER-And they’re all within a quarter mile. MRS. STEFFAN-So, Mark, I’m having some issues here, because you and I talked about for each one of the items in Question One we needed to go through the criteria. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. The reason, see where it says under other, see where it says note, add attachments as needed? What some lead agencies do is create a separate piece of paper with columns for each of them. Now, I don’t know, as you know, I would never tell you how to make your decisions. If the answers are the same for each of the resources, you don’t need to separate it out that way. MR. HUNSINGER-I think they are. Does everyone agree? MR. SCHACHNER-I’m sort of guessing that that’s where you’re, that’s the consensus. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-In which case, I don’t think you need to create separate columns. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-It sounded to me like you were all answering those questions kind of with all of those resources in mind, not any one particular one, and that’s perfectly appropriate if that’s the case. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So essentially undeveloped we’ve checked a quarter mile. MR. HUNSINGER-A quarter mile. Forested a quarter mile. MRS. STEFFAN-Forested a quarter mile. Agricultural does not apply. Correct? MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MRS. STEFFAN-Suburban residential. MR. HUNSINGER-Suburban residential, no. Industrial, no. Commercial is within a mile. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, that’s the outlets. Urban, no. River, lake, pond. MR. SEGULJIC-Within a quarter mile. MR. HUNSINGER-I thought it was three-tenths of a mile. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. SEGULJIC-I’m not sure. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what Mr. Linke said in his presentation. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we go with a mile. Cliffs, overlooks. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Designated open space? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that goes back to the CEA considered designated open space? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Flat? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and then we have hilly. MR. HUNSINGER-Hilly is within a quarter mile. Mountains within, the mountains within a mile. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, mountains within a mile. West Mountain. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s more than a mile away, isn’t it? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it’s a ridge, it’s not just a mountain it’s a ridgeline. MR. HUNSINGER-But it’s more than a mile away, to the top. MRS. STEFFAN-Where I live is eight-tenths of a mile from the Northway. MR. HUNSINGER-What are we saying about the mountains? Are they within a mile or no? MR. SEGULJIC-I’d say they were within a mile. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and so the Municipal Center is within a quarter of a mile. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Question Five, are there visually similar projects within a half a mile? MR. HUNSINGER-I’d say yes. MRS. STEFFAN-The office building, the Municipal Center. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Within one mile? MR. HUNSINGER-Certainly. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, you don’t have to go through all the rest of them. Once you pick whatever’s the closest, you can just check that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, you can do the rest if you want, but that’s not the intent. 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. HUNSINGER-All right. MRS. STEFFAN-Thanks anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-You saved us some time. MRS. STEFFAN-Number Six, the annual number of viewers likely to observe the proposed project is? MR. SEGULJIC-Three million. What 10,000 people a day, I don’t know, 20,000? MR. TRAVER-It’s certainly a very large number. MR. SEGULJIC-You’ve got 10,000 cars that drive the Northway there a day. MR. SCHACHNER-Be careful, you can’t say 10,000 times 365 on that basis. Some of those people are the same people going up and down. MR. KREBS-Right, and some people aren’t going to look at it. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s a tougher call, but what I’m saying is, though, is only that if I see, it’s not how many times you see it, it’s how many view it. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, how many people visit Lake George in a year? MR. SCHACHNER-It’s a big number, but whatever the number is, I’m just saying, I don’t think you can just say here’s the number that travel the Northway times 365. That’s all I’m saying. MR. HUNSINGER-Would people be comfortable saying over a million? MR. TRAVER-It’s certainly that. MR. SEGULJIC-Certainly that. MRS. STEFFAN-Number Seven, the situation or activity in which the viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is: MR. HUNSINGER-Daily, travel to and from work. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I have commuting, traveling, or tourism. I’m not sure which. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, involved in recreational activity. That would be holidays, weekends, and seasonal. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I would say the first three daily. MR. HUNSINGER-At a residence. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Travel to and from work daily. Involved in recreational activities. MR. HUNSINGER-Daily. MRS. STEFFAN-Routine travel by residents, daily. At a residence, viewers are engaged while viewing, well, there aren’t any people directly across from the building. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-So that I don’t think that that applies. At a worksite. MR. SEGULJIC-Wouldn’t that be the people across the street at the Warren County building? MRS. STEFFAN-The DOT. I think the DOT would be the only people that might see the building, but that would be a stretch. MR. SEGULJIC-Not the people at the Warren County Annex building? 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Annex building or West Mount. MR. SEGULJIC-So I would have to say at work daily, for the Annex. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, are there any other activities? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s mostly a travel corridor issue. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. We go back to Question 11, and now we’ve got will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? And we’ve identified yes. Proposed land uses or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to the current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Potentially large. That’s what I have checked, based on the comment. We’ve got to get some agreement here. MR. SEGULJIC-Potentially large. MR. HUNSINGER-I just don’t see it as being potentially large. I mean, when you look at the view shed. I mean, the pictures that were taken for the visual impact or the pictures that were presented by the commentors, when you look at the entire view shed and you have one dock within that view shed, I don’t see how you can claim that that’s a large impact. MR. SEGULJIC-They show, they took pictures of balloons in the middle of trees. They did not the cut out. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not talking about balloons. I’m talking about pictures of the entire view shed, and if you take the, even if you took the whole project site out of that view shed, it’s still just a tiny dock from the pictures that were presented. MR. SEGULJIC-At night it’s going to be a tiny dot when it’s lit up? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, obviously as you get closer, it might be larger, but in terms of the overall impact. MR. SEGULJIC-As you come over that ridge, that whole gateway to the Adirondacks is gone forever. That whole area is going to be cut out. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s not like it’s a native forest. I mean, it’s a second generation forest. MR. SEGULJIC-It is a view shed that is very valuable. People come to the Adirondacks. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a second generation forest. It doesn’t mean that it can’t be replaced. MR. SEGULJIC-When you take down the building you’ll be able to replace it. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m just not buying that it’s gone forever. I mean, I just don’t see it as being a large impact. MRS. STEFFAN-Don, where are you? MR. KREBS-I do not think it has that impact. In fact, the corridor, if you look at the corridor today, when you drive up the Northway, you can see The Great Escape. You can see The Great Escape parking lot. Farther up you can see the back side of Montcalm. I don’t see a significant difference here. In fact, this has been much better protected with trees than a lot of previous developments. MR. SEGULJIC-And that was the problem. We had hoped Great Escape would be more buffered, and we had hoped the Mohican hotel would be more buffered, but I have learned it doesn’t work. MR. SIPP-It doesn’t work. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we can’t punish this applicant because of the sins of the past applicants. That’s all I’m going to say. 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. SEGULJIC-Our Open Space Plan identifies to preserve the corridors. If we hack up that whole area, the tourists won’t be coming here anymore. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. How about proposed land uses or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource? I had Tom as a potentially large impact. Chris? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the comment is visible to users of aesthetic resources. So I’m saying it’s not going to have an impact to the users of aesthetic resources. MR. SEGULJIC-People who come up the Northway to vacation here come for the view sheds. MR. HUNSINGER-I understand that. I totally understand that, but it’s users of aesthetic resources. It’s not Travelers. MR. SEGULJIC-They’re driving up the Northway. It’s the scenic highway. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, we’re going to agree to disagree, Tom. I’m sorry. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Steve, where are you? MR. TRAVER-I agree with Tom. I think it’s a large impact. MR. KREBS-I’d say it’s small. MR. SEGULJIC-If they, as I had requested, had provided other information, maybe it could have been satisfied, but they chose not to. MRS. STEFFAN-Where are you on this, on the second question, proposed land uses? MR. SIPP-I would say it’s potentially large. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Project components that will result in the elimination of or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Mark, what do we do with that question now? MR. SCHACHNER-Is it correct that you’ve answered Question Number 11 yes and identified the first two bullet items as potentially large impacts? MRS. STEFFAN-Correct. MR. SCHACHNER-Then you do two things. One you should do now, one you’ll have to do later. The thing you should do now is, in terms of those two bullet items that you’ve identified as potentially large impacts, indicate by at least a majority whether you feel that the impact could be mitigated by project change. MR. SEGULJIC-Project change. MR. HUNSINGER-Plant more trees, in other words. MR. TRAVER-Reduce the size. MR. SEGULJIC-Reduce the size of the building. MR. TRAVER-It can’t be eliminated, but the potential certainly is there to be mitigated. 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. SCHACHNER-Not eliminated, mitigated. Can the impact be mitigated by project change? MR. HUNSINGER-I think it’s an obvious yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and in which case you should identify what the project change would be that would mitigate it. Did I hear somebody say plant trees or additional screening or something? Or did I not hear that? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I said, plant additional trees. MR. TRAVER-A change in the scope and therefore a reduction in the loss of the aesthetic resource, a reduction in the impact by a reduction in scope would be an obvious example, I guess. MR. SCHACHNER-And the thing you’ll have to do, but I suggest you do it later, not now, whether you do it tonight or later yet, is by identifying potentially large impacts, you then have to, some Board members I know are familiar with this, you’ll have to proceed to Part III to evaluate the importance of those impacts you’ve identified as potentially large, but I generally recommend not doing that until you’re done and we know what other impacts, if any, you’ve identified as potentially large. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. On the proposed land uses or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. We’ve identified that it has a potential large impact. Can it the impact be mitigated by the project change? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-How? MR. HUNSINGER-The same thing, removal of less trees, plant additional plantings, reduction in the size of the project. Any others? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Now we can go on to 12. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Question Twelve. Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-I say no. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Number Thirteen. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-The major reduction of an open space important to the community. MR. HUNSINGER-How do you define major? What is defined as major? 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. SCHACHNER-A tougher question, from my standpoint, is what open space, I mean, open space important to the community, that generally means open space on which there’s community access. I didn’t hear any of that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, this is private property. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s what I heard. I mean, I heard there’s some recreational use that’s unauthorized. This is not supposed to address unauthorized open space use. MR. HUNSINGER-So I think then the answer would be no. MRS. STEFFAN-Then the answer’s no. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14(g)? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And it’s Rush Pond, which is a tributary to Glen Lake. MRS. STEFFAN-Any other input? MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry. What was that? MR. HUNSINGER-The environmental characteristic is it’s Rush Pond and it’s a tributary to Glen Lake, and in the designation of the CEA, it said that it was a unique, undisturbed natural beauty. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-And the examples, the proposed action will locate within the CEA. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Small to moderate impact? MR. HUNSINGER-Small to moderate. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. TRAVER-I think it’s potentially large because we don’t fully know the impact. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, you’ve paving over portion of it, but their stormwater controls would be to mitigate it. So I think potentially large and yes under three. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, wait, then you might be misunderstanding that. That mitigation is already proposed, right? MR. SEGULJIC-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Then you’re misapplying that concept. What you’re supposed to be reviewing is the project as proposed, including any mitigation measures that are already proposed as part of the project. So that you don’t, you shouldn’t be saying, if this is what you’re saying, I’m not criticizing you, but if I’m understanding what you were saying, Tom, you were saying yes, absent that mitigation, there would be potentially large, but they’re mitigating it with their stormwater controls. So therefore it’s small to moderate. If that’s what you’re saying, then it’s small to moderate. MR. SEGULJIC-So since this is already proposed, okay, so we don’t have to do a project change. 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. SCHACHNER-Right. Project change means, like you answered the questions on the aesthetics, different than the project as proposed with whatever mitigation, is part and parcel of the proposal. MR. SEGULJIC-Gotcha. MR. HUNSINGER-So small to moderate impact. MR. SEGULJIC-Small to moderate. MR. SIPP-Small to moderate. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Proposed action result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource. No? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Proposed action will result in a reduction in the quality of the resource? It’s private property. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Proposed action will impact the use, function or enjoyment of the resource? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s private property. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So under Fourteen was there one check with small to moderate? MR. HUNSINGER-One check, yes, just the top one. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, the proposed action will locate within the CEA. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Right. MRS. STEFFAN-Question Fifteen. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Small to moderate, potential large impact? MR. HUNSINGER-Small to moderate. MR. TRAVER-Potentially large. MR. KREBS-Small to moderate. MR. HUNSINGER-How can you say potentially large when all the engineering says that the traffic after the project will be better than it is now. MR. TRAVER-I think that the increase in the numbers of vehicles on the road has a potential large impact, in that if there is an emergency of some kind, I’m not necessarily talking about the length of time people have to wait at a stoplight. I’m talking about the transportation system itself is going to be, is going to have potentially a large impact in sheer numbers. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I don’t follow you. It doesn’t follow from the engineering reports that have been received and reviewed and signed off on. 71 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. TRAVER-Well, for example, if it takes me five minutes to drive from here down to Quaker Road, okay, and there’s nobody else on the road, and if there’s, if it’s bumper to bumper, but everybody’s traveling at the same speed as I am, it may take me, I may not have any greater wait time to get to Quaker Road, but if there is an accident, if there is, the road that I’m on is going to have a large impact because it is going to be at capacity, at or above capacity, even though my wait time at a stop sign or traffic light may not be my total time to go to work or do whatever, might not be changed at all, but the potential is there for a large impact in the event of an accident or an emergency situation, simply because of the sheer number of vehicles, and the extra capacity that’s being utilized on the road that was not before. Maybe I’m, am I not perceiving that in a logical way? MR. SIPP-The more vehicles you put on the road, the higher potential for accidents. MR. TRAVER-Even though the improvements may not significantly, or may even improve the time it takes for somebody to go through an intersection or something, nevertheless, you’re increasing the load on everything, and that has the potential for being a large impact. MR. KREBS-Who said anything about time? It talks about patterns, alteration of present patterns. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it talks about patterns and traffic problems. MR. SEGULJIC-There’s always other. MR. KREBS-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-So, Steve, you were talking to other, not to the first question, or you were talking to the first question? MR. SIPP-Under other impacts. MR. TRAVER-Well, I guess my thought was in that, again, your pattern of movement has changed in that you now are moving within a transportation system that is at or above capacity, because of the increase in. MR. KREBS-But, Steve, I’d like to know where you’re coming up with that conclusion. I read what DOT said, what our engineer said, and they didn’t say that. I mean, maybe I didn’t read it right. MRS. STEFFAN-Steve, you’re talking about an emergency situation. Don, do you have any input on this one? MR. SIPP-Other impacts, increased air pollution. MR. SCHACHNER-Actually, air pollution is a separate question. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, that’s different, Don. This is, will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? We’ve identified yes, but the first example, alteration of present patterns of movement of people and or goods. MR. HUNSINGER-I just don’t see it being a potentially large impact. I mean, I certainly agree that there’s an impact that’s small to moderate. The additional traffic, as a percentage of the existing traffic, is not significant enough for it to be potentially large. I mean, an emergency situation is going to be a large impact no matter what. Regardless of the project. The project itself isn’t going to create the emergency impact. MR. TRAVER-No, it’s creating an effect to the existing transportation system. I mean, you can’t deny that. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I’m not denying that. I’m just saying I don’t see this as being a potentially large impact. MRS. STEFFAN-Tom Seguljic, where are you? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m still, just give me a minute. My whole problem is we’ve gotten boxed in by the engineers. So unless we ask for an independent review, I don’t see where we can go. 72 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. HUNSINGER-I’m going to beg that question for a second. When you say an independent review, what did you mean by that? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, maybe I’m incorrect, but our Town Engineer, the only comment I saw from him was make sure you put the light on the plan. I could be incorrect. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there were several comment letter on traffic from him. That was concluding comment letter, but the original comment letters, he had multiple questions about traffic. MR. SEGULJIC-I forgot that, but traffic always, we have intersections with F’s, and we have a two lane bridge there, and I’m no traffic engineer, but they talk about these average rates. They didn’t do it on a Friday, but you’re correct. We have these letters saying it’s all fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we have letters saying that obviously there’ll be additional traffic on these local roads and at this location, but a lot of it will be mitigated through the signalization and through the dedicated turning lanes. MR. SEGULJIC-But the other problem is you’re going to be changing the nature of that whole road, West Mountain Road, and that people like to bike along. There was talk about building a bike path along that road. I have a feeling no one’s going to want to bike along that road anymore. It’s a recreation, our premier recreation center is right across the street. We want to encourage people to walk to areas. I’ve got to believe that’s in our Comprehensive Plan. We are violating all those rules. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying. All I’m asking is, at what point do you say, this is a large impact? Is it a percentage increase? Is it a gut feeling? Because what I’m sensing is that people say, well, it’s a large impact, without quantifying or qualifying why they’re saying it’s a large impact. I agree with everything you’ve said. MR. TRAVER-Well, and it also says potential large impact. It doesn’t say that it’s a large impact or it’s always a large impact. It’s saying does this effect the system, not the individual driver, but the system itself. Is there a potential that this is going to have a large impact? And I think we have to say that certainly the potentially is there that this can have a large impact. I can think of a number of scenarios that, regardless of, again, the flow, not looking at the flow, but rather looking at the capacity of the transportation system, which is what this question was addressing, is what’s the impact on the system, not the driver of the vehicle, as I understand it, and, you know, on a given day is it going to be a large impact? Probably not. Is there a potential for a large impact? Definitely. That’s what we’re saying, is there a potential for a large impact, and I think that, again, having, the example that I gave, and maybe it’s not a good one, but driving down an empty road in five minutes versus driving down a road that’s bumper to bumper in five minutes, or, even if it’s not bumper to bumper, but a large increase in the volume, even if it is signaled or mitigated by traffic signs such that my inconvenience in wanting to go from Point A to Point B is not substantially changed, or even improved. We still have to consider that the existing transportation system is going to have a potential of a large impact, the sheer numbers of vehicles. MR. SIPP-Would going over to use Gurney Lane to go north rather than Route 9, come under alteration of present patterns, or the use of West Mountain Road to go south, instead of the use of the Northway? MR. TRAVER-And the traffic study that we’ve seen indicates that the system, with some modification, can accommodate it, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a potential for a large impact. They’re two different things. MR. SIPP-It’s already been mentioned, the use of Gurney Lane to go north to Lake George rather than go through three traffic signals or more to go north on Route 9. MR. TRAVER-That’s my opinion. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I’m afraid I just don’t agree. The analysis looks at an additional one to two cars per minute, and I just don’t see that as being a major impact. MR. SEGULJIC-I agree, you know, the concern we have is we have all the independent, well, government bodies saying it’s going to work. Let’s hope it does. MRS. STEFFAN-Can these potentially large impacts be mitigated by project changes? 73 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. SCHACHNER-So, do I understand the Board has identified some as potentially large, and which ones, the first bullet item? MRS. STEFFAN-The first two. MR. SCHACHNER-The first two. MRS. STEFFAN-Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods, and the proposed action will result in major traffic problems. These are related to emergency vehicle situations. MR. TRAVER-No, excuse me. I did not feel that the proposed action would result in major traffic problems. I’m sorry if I misspoke. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s okay. There were a couple of conversations going on at the same time. MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s only the first one. MR. TRAVER-Only the first, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods, and this is directly related to the emergency vehicle situation? MR. TRAVER-Well, there’s a variety of situations where. We’re talking about potential, not specific impacts. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. TRAVER-We’re talking about emergency situations, bad weather. We talked about, I think, holiday and special events and so on. I mean, those are times when this is, it’s going to have an impact on the transportation system. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. TRAVER-But as to the traffic problems, I think that they’ve done as good a job as they can reasonably be expected to do to mitigate those. MRS. STEFFAN-So that you’re saying that that’s a small to moderate impact that can be mitigated? MR. TRAVER-The traffic problems? MRS. STEFFAN-The result in major traffic problems. MR. TRAVER-Correct. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Chris, you’re small to moderate that can be mitigated on that one? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I’m okay with that. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m sorry. Before you go further, I’m not following. I apologize that I’m the only one. I thought it had been mitigated. I thought the members that are saying small to moderate are saying it has been mitigated, is that not right, by the proposed traffic mitigation? Am I misunderstanding something? I’m not hearing that this, right now, on the second bullet item, proposed action will result in major traffic problems, am I hearing that’s a potentially large that can be mitigated by project change, in which case I haven’t heard what the project change is, or is it a small to moderate? MR. TRAVER-Small to moderate. MR. SIPP-Small to moderate. MR. TRAVER-Just speaking for myself. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s the one we were just talking about. 74 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. So that’s a small to moderate. MRS. STEFFAN-It was the first one that was potentially large. MR. SCHACHNER-And that’s the one that can be mitigated. MR. TRAVER-No, I don’t think it can be mitigated. MRS. STEFFAN-That cannot be mitigated. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-And then the second one can. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. The second one doesn’t matter. You don’t have to go to mitigation if you’ve identified it as small to moderate. MRS. STEFFAN-Correct, but I just wanted to make sure everybody was there. Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. I’ve got, Steve, you’re saying small to moderate. MR. TRAVER-Small to moderate. MRS. STEFFAN-Chris is saying small to moderate. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MRS. STEFFAN-Don, you’re saying small to moderate. MR. KREBS-Small to moderate. MRS. STEFFAN-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-Small to moderate. MRS. STEFFAN-And Don Sipp? MR. SIPP-Small to moderate. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So everybody’s on that one. Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. KREBS-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. What, Steve? MR. TRAVER-Let’s see, third one down. Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding the ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and I think that’s a potentially large impact. There was discussion at some point in the procedure about what’s going to be happening outside our door tonight at, you know, in the middle of the night with snow removal, heavy snow removal equipment operating in the middle of the night. That kind of thing is not going on now, except for the main roads that are being plowed. This is going to be stationary noise for snow removal for some period of time to remove snow from the parking area. That goes along with the project. 75 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MRS. STEFFAN-And it can’t be mitigated because it needs to be done. Is that what you’re saying? MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Chris, where are you on that? MR. HUNSINGER-We’d have to say that about every project we ever review, then. MR. SEGULJIC-I would say no. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I’d say no. MR. SEGULJIC-I think what they’re looking at, if there’s anything unusual. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think they’re looking at like industrial operating noise that’s outside the envelope of the building. MR. TRAVER-Well, in a way, having heavy equipment removing snow is an industrial use, because in a way, the parking lot is an industry. I mean, you’re bringing all of these people. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, but then to say it can’t be mitigated. It can certainly be mitigated by controlling the hours of operation. MR. TRAVER-Well, but in a case of snow removal, you can’t really control when it’s going to snow. MR. HUNSINGER-But you can control when you remove it. I mean, you can say, you know, I mean, we’ve done it with lots of other commercial developments and said, you know, snow removal has to occur during the hours of whatever, you know, or operations have to occur between the hours of whatever. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I’ll give you that, if there was a restriction on it. MR. HUNSINGER-But I think we’re just really stretching on that. Like I said, we’d be saying that about every project we ever review, and we’ve never checked noise, ambient noise levels, for snow removal. MRS. STEFFAN-So we did have somebody say yes, but it’s small to moderate. Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m sorry, what’s Seventeen? MRS. STEFFAN-Seventeen is yes, and under the proposed action will produce noise, it’s a small to moderate that can be mitigated. MR. SCHACHNER-Which bullet item? MRS. STEFFAN-Three. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and you said small to moderate and then what did you say? MRS. STEFFAN-it’s small to moderate so we don’t have to mitigate. Sorry. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Number Eighteen. Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Now everybody’s no on that? MR. TRAVER-Correct. 76 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m hearing the audience upset about that one. Proposed action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset condition, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. Proposed action may result in the burial of “hazardous wastes” in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquefied or natural gas or other flammable liquids. Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. And that’s a no. Number Nineteen. Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I said no, but. How many yeses do we have, two? MR. SIPP-Two. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Small to moderate or potentially large? Officially adopted plans or goals. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s zoned Professional Office. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s Professional zoning. That’s the Comprehensive Land Use. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I would say no. MR. SIPP-Open Space. MRS. STEFFAN-Open Space Vision Plan. Affordable housing, any of the things that are adopted by the Town. MR. SIPP-Comprehensive Land Use Plan. MR. SCHACHNER-Any officially adopted plans or goals. MR. HUNSINGER-Officially adopted. MR. SEGULJIC-But we took care of visual impacts otherwise, correct, on the other question. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, that’s true, but I’m not following the context of why you’re saying that. MR. SEGULJIC-So that doesn’t apply. Because that comes under another. MR. SCHACHNER-What’s that that doesn’t apply? Sorry, Tom. 77 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. SEGULJIC-You said the officially adopted plans, visual impacts under open space. MR. SCHACHNER-I didn’t say anything about visual impacts. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I misunderstood you. MR. SCHACHNER-Sorry. I didn’t say anything about it. MR. HUNSINGER-So what did people say? MR. SEGULJIC-I’d say no. MR. KREBS-I’d say no. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the impact on the growth and character of the community. MR. HUNSINGER-We had a yes turn no. MRS. STEFFAN-So, proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. MR. SIPP-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Don Sipp said yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you qualify your comment, Don? MR. SIPP-Open Space, Comprehensive Land Use Plan, buffer between projects and the Northway. MRS. STEFFAN-Anyone else in agreement with Don? Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-I’d say no. MRS. STEFFAN-The other Don said no. Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I said no. MRS. STEFFAN-And, Steve, you said? MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. MR. HUNSINGER-That is yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Small to moderate, potentially large? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I said small to moderate, based on the amount of the project site that will be developed and the amount that will remain as open space. MRS. STEFFAN-Anyone else? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m in agreement. MR. TRAVER-I would say small to moderate. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) MR. HUNSINGER-No. 78 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. TRAVER-Well, I would say yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, aren’t we just transferring them over there? MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Well, the community services, I mean, speaking as a former volunteer fireman, for example, I mean, the community is going to need to develop plans to respond. I mean, it’s not a huge impact, but to say that there’s no impact. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll go with that. Yes. Small to moderate. The fire department has to take into consideration. Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Proposed action will set an important precedent for future projects. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Did I hear no? MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Proposed action will create or eliminate employment. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Did you have one small to moderate or two under there? MRS. STEFFAN-We had three actually. We had proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. MR. SCHACHNER-As small to moderate? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Another one. MR. SCHACHNER-Density, right. Got density. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and then development will create demand for additional community services. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, all three of those. MRS. STEFFAN-Twenty. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-And are we listing the public comment that we’ve received. What do we want to put in there? MR. HUNSINGER-What do we do from there? It’s just yes or no? 79 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. SCHACHNER-You don’t have to list anything. The beauty of Question Twenty is you don’t have to characterize the magnitude. You don’t have to list anything. In this particular example, I think it would be irresponsible to answer anything than yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-So we have. MR. SCHACHNER-I believe you’ve checked off three potentially large impacts. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I was going to say. MR. SCHACHNER-Two of them in Question. MR. HUNSINGER-Eleven. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. Impact on aesthetic resources, the first two bullet items, and one in Question Fifteen, on the first bullet item, and that means that the Board has to move to Part III, which unfortunately, if Part II didn’t seem so simple and straightforward, Part II has the benefit of being essentially a checklist. Part III is not a checklist at all but is actually a part that requires preparation of a narrative substantive discussion of the importance of the impacts. There are bullet items that will guide you through that evaluation. There are seven of them as I recall. Yes, there are seven bullet items, and there are instructions, and the next step is to evaluate the importance of the impacts, and that’s just the three impacts that you’ve identified as potentially large, not all the ones you’ve identified as small to moderate. MR. SEGULJIC-So we have to write narratives for each of them. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. The idea for each of them is to briefly describe the impact, describe how it could be mitigated or reduced to small to moderate by some project, decide if it’s reasonable to conclude that it’s important, and the bullet items I referenced, the seven bullet items, are to help you answer the question of whether it’s important, but again, this is not a checklist, and you’ve identified three potentially large impacts, although in only two categories. In other words, two of your potentially large impacts were in the same category which is aesthetic resources, or impact on aesthetic resources. MR. HUNSINGER-We have to evaluate the importance of the impacts first. MR. SEGULJIC-The question is do we have to do this now? MR. SCHACHNER-No. I believe you were only asked, are you obligated to conduct a complete SEQRA review tonight, the answer is that you’re not under any legal obligation to complete SEQRA review tonight. You can, but you’re not obligated to legally. MR. SEGULJIC-Because this has been draining. MRS. STEFFAN-Do I make a motion to table this for a future date, to complete the SEQRA Part III? MR. TRAVER-The second component here, is that something that we would do as a workshop, are we doing an open meeting, or? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess you’d have to qualify workshop. I mean, could we assign a committee of the Board to draft the responses for Part III? MR. SCHACHNER-To prepare draft responses, you could do that. MR. SEGULJIC-And how long do we have? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I don’t think you’ve closed your public hearing on this application. MR. HUNSINGER-We have not. MR. SCHACHNER-So there is no current statutory time clock running on this. 80 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. SEGULJIC-So essentially we have to prepare these statements, and as a Board vote on it then? MR. SCHACHNER-Essentially, right. There’s not necessarily a formal vote required on the particulars of it, but again, just like your answers to Part II, majority rules. At least four of you have to ultimately conclude whether any of those three potentially large impacts are, quote unquote, important or not, and the use of that word, unfortunately that’s the word the law gives us, important, will ultimately lead to, again, by at least four votes of the Board, something you do need to vote on ultimately, which is whether there needs to be an Environmental Impact Statement for the project or not. If you decide, after completing Part III, that any of the potentially large impacts are important, then you have to issue a SEQRA Positive Declaration and require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement on whatever issue you identified as large and important. If at least four of you decide that none of the three potentially large impacts identified rise to the level of importance, then you can issue a SEQRA Negative Declaration and not require an Environmental Impact Statement, and that’s got to be done by a majority vote of the Board. MR. SEGULJIC-So we could draft, someone could draft this and then come back and then the Board would discuss it and craft it from there. MR. SCHACHNER-That could work. That’s one appropriate way to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not sure that I heard at least four members say that each of those three were potentially large impacts. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, that’s vital. MR. HUNSINGER-There was disagreement, I think, on some of them. MR. SCHACHNER-I know I had trouble keeping up, but that’s vital. MR. HUNSINGER-So I think maybe before we proceed to Part III, we make sure that, you know, there are four people that feel that each of these items is a potentially large impact. MR. SCHACHNER-Certainly. MR. HUNSINGER-So why don’t we take them one at a time. The first one is under Item Eleven, Impact on Aesthetic Resources. Proposed land uses or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. That was one that was checked potentially large impact. I guess I’d ask for voice vote who agrees with that. I’ll start with Steve on this one. Did you feel that was a potentially large impact? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-I’m reading the question. I was going through this as an exercise, and I actually wrote over my responses. So give me a minute, please. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I did, too. I’m just talking about the first one at this point, the proposed land uses. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Proposed land uses or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. I’ll vote yes on that, potentially large. MR. HUNSINGER-Don? MR. KREBS-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. SIPP-Yes. 81 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. And I say no. We do have four votes. MRS. STEFFAN-So, we do have four there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The next one. Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. KREBS-And I think you need to point out that it says significantly. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-No, I’m no on that one. MR. HUNSINGER-Don? MR. KREBS-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Don? MR. SIPP-You’re looking at? MR. KREBS-Looking at Eleven, Number Three. MR. SIPP-All right. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And I say no. So we only have three. MRS. STEFFAN-We have three on that one. MR. SCHACHNER-What is it, three, three, in other words, on that issue? MR. HUNSINGER-Three, three. MR. SCHACHNER-Then that’s not enough to decide the issue. So that’s left open. I take it that three are saying small to moderate, three are saying potentially large, is that correct? MR. HUNSINGER-That would be correct. MR. SCHACHNER-Then you can’t answer that question, and there’s no default. You need to have four members decide whether it’s a small to moderate or potentially large, or no impact at all, but you need to have four. MRS. STEFFAN-So that means the first one needs to be addressed, but the other one does not. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, the other one needs to be addressed, we’re just not in a position yet to know whether it’s deemed small to moderate or potentially large, absent a seventh member participating, but, correct. Since four of you, if I understood it correctly, four of you have identified the first one as a potentially large impact, it will need to be addressed in Part III. MRS. STEFFAN-Correct. MR. SCHACHNER-And again, keeping in mind that these are both under aesthetic resources, I mean, to my way of thinking, that makes it a little less important whether you do or don’t reach consensus of four on the second use, because either way, the first one, aesthetic resource impact, is being addressed as a potentially large impact. MRS. STEFFAN-In that category. 82 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. SCHACHNER-I hope that helps the Board, but. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and then the other one, will there be an effect on existing transportation systems, and the issue that we had was alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. MR. HUNSINGER-Steve, I hate to pick on you first all the time, but that was the one you championed. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I would say, yes, large impact. MR. HUNSINGER-Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-I had a question mark. I would say yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Large impact? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Don? MR. KREBS-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have four votes there, four to two. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So, back to form three then. MRS. STEFFAN-Now what do we do? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t see that happening tonight. Do we want the four people? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, do we want to set up a special meeting next month, and we can craft these in the meantime? MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the pleasure? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it’s not happening tonight. I’m cooked. MR. SIPP-Mark, why isn’t air quality under that? MR. SCHACHNER-Because it’s under Question, there’s a very specific question about it, and you actually all answered it no. It’s Question Seven, Impact on Air Will proposed action affect air quality, and you, all across the board, said no. MR. SIPP-No, I didn’t say no. MR. SCHACHNER-I apologize. I thought everyone said no. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I thought we said no. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s what I heard, and that’s what Gretchen heard. MRS. STEFFAN-Where are we? MR. HUNSINGER-Item Seven. Who raised something? MR. SCHACHNER-Don asked why I had indicated that air quality was not part of Question Eighteen, health and safety, right, Don? MR. SIPP-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-And my answer was because impact on air quality is its own question unto itself, namely Question Seven, and that the Board, I thought, had 83 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) unanimously answered it no, but even it if wasn’t unanimous, and Don says that it wasn’t, that I misheard, but I’m pretty sure there’s at least four of you that said no to that, if not in fact, five of you said no. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct, and, Don, to clarify, you’re just transferring. You’re not creating new ones, new car emissions. I believe it’s a fallacy. MR. SIPP-You’re putting more cars into that area, therefore you’re putting more air pollution into that area. The traffic pattern, as it says in whatever number. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, Don, one of the criteria for that is the proposed action will induce a 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. So that’s the threshold that the State identifies. MR. SIPP-Any given hour. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Hour, a thousand cars an hour. MR. SIPP-That’s when you’re putting in 174 more new vehicles, when they leave. MRS. STEFFAN-Those are only peak times. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Mr. Chairman, point of information. Is the public hearing still open? MR. HUNSINGER-We concluded the public hearing, but I did leave it open. You misunderstood. We concluded the public hearing for this evening, but we did leave it open so that we can take additional public comment. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I just wanted to comment on the application. It’s just that I wanted to mention that the Department of Environmental Conservation is working on a policy statement or guidance document about carbon footprints in the context of SEQRA review. Supposedly it’s coming out in the next month or so. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-So, I think you’ve got to look at it in light of that. I think you’re out there, 1,000 cars, this project is not going to add 1,000 cars in any given hour, in context of that. MR. SIPP-Then why doesn’t it go back in, under, it affects air quality. MR. SEGULJIC-So I would propose we set up a meeting for next month. In the meantime, craft these statements and set up a special meeting, I guess. Much as I would not like to. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry, I didn’t hear that. MR. HUNSINGER-Tom suggested we set up a special meeting next month. MR. TRAVER-To address these two issues. MR. HUNSINGER-Three. MR. KREBS-Three issues. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, two plus. MR. SCHACHNER-Two or three. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry, and the one that’s unanswered, to clarify the one that’s unanswered, right. Okay. That seems reasonable. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, how long do you think it’ll take to get through this? I’ve never been through this particular process. 84 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I don’t think it’ll take a significant amount of time, but at 12:30 at night. MR. SEGULJIC-No. I don’t want to do it now, and I appreciate Gretchen dragging us through that process. I don’t want to do it now. I mean, could we do it and tack it on to our first meeting next month? MR. KREBS-Well, here’s a suggestion. If everybody at home would write down some of their thoughts on these three processes, come with that information already written down to the meeting, we ought to be able to resolve that in a much shorter time than if we try and create everything from base zero when we get to the meeting. MR. TRAVER-Mr. Chairman, if I may make a suggestion with regards to Eleven, and I’ll call it A, with regard to Aesthetic Resources, although there were four of us who did feel it was significant, I think Tom was a bit of a lead on that issue, and in turn, with regards to Fifteen, and again I’ll call it A, Impact on Transportation Systems, which we had four people agree that it was significant, but I think I was the one who sort of proposed that. So, I would certainly be willing to begin the process of working on a draft, and bring that to the meeting that you’re talking about, and certainly anyone else can note their thoughts, but I mean, I would be willing to prepare a document that we can obviously, you know, amend and look at, in making, try and clarify my position on Fifteen A, and perhaps Tom might be willing to do the same with regards to the Aesthetic Resources. MR. SEGULJIC-I would agree with that. MR. SCHACHNER-And if you do that, I’m going to urge you to follow the guidelines in the form for Part III. MR. TRAVER-Sure. That way we would be walking into the meeting, to this next meeting, with a kind of a framework to work with, and perhaps with regards to the one that was unanswered, and I’m sorry, which one was that? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s on Aesthetic Resources, Number Eleven, Item Eleven, Page Sixteen. MR. TRAVER-And that was Number, the second bulleted? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, the second bullet. MR. TRAVER-Perhaps each of us could, at the same time, take that bulleted item and draft a discussion point, if you will, or make, put together a paper that argues for their position regarding either significant or non significant impact, and we could have that as a starting point for our discussion, so hopefully we could resolve that at the next meeting. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, correct me if I’m wrong, Counsel, but you had indicated they’re both under Impacts on Aesthetic Resources. So they’re similar. So it’s not necessary that we address the third one, which we were not able to resolve tonight? MR. SCHACHNER-I said it was less important because they’re both under the same overall thing about Aesthetic Resources. What I would suggest is, since you’ve identified the first bullet item, I’m guessing, and correct me if I’m wrong, Board, because I don’t tell you what to decide. I just try to guide you through the process, I’m guessing that the concerns of those three who felt that the second bullet item is a potentially large impact under Aesthetic Resources, would be similar or identical to the concerns that the four of you felt that the first bullet item was a potentially large impact. So what I would suggest for the sake of efficiency is, if Tom’s going to be writing about aesthetic resources bullet item one, why don’t you write about them both. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Now, if we write these statements, Mr. Chairman, is this something we can get Counsel’s review of before we come to the meeting, and get them out to everybody before we come to the meeting? 85 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-I would say send it through Staff. Should we send it to you, George? MR. HILTON-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-You would be the Staff person on this project, right? MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then ideally we get this out to everybody before the meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-I may end up suggesting you send it directly to Counsel, but we can talk about that some other time. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So we’ll send it directly to Counsel, then. MR. SCHACHNER-Sure, that’s fine. MR. SEGULJIC-And then when it’s prepared, we’ll send it to Staff to distribute to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-You’re saying our draft for Section Three, send it to Counsel? MR. SCHACHNER-I believe that’s what I’m hearing, and that’s what I suggested, and I think that’s what I’m hearing. It’s up the Board. It’s entirely up to the Board. MR. TRAVER-No, that’s fine. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So then when are we going to discuss this? Is this something you think we can cover at that next regularly scheduled meeting, or should we set up a special meeting? MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the only, the other question that I would ask the Board is, and I guess it relates mostly to your comments, Tom, about aesthetic resources and visual impact, you know, you basically said if you had additional information you may have answered the question differently. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-So would additional information from the applicant be useful in our deliberation on this item? MR. SEGULJIC-Not just a picture from there with an arrow pointing to where a balloon is in the middle of the forest, I want to see it. Maybe it’s got to be computer generated, but what’s that going to look like? I would want a plan view of this. You see all the cut out, and then a cross cut from the other areas. MR. HUNSINGER-Similar to what they’ve provided? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m not a visual expert, but what they’re showing, my problem is we have seen these presentations before, and they don’t work. We’ve asked this for several projects, and it does not screen out the visual impacts. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think the applicant actually mentioned something about a model. I don’t know if that was. MR. LAPPER-The model’s not going to help, because it’s a question of where you are on the Northway and whether you’re above it or below it. MR. TRAVER-Is there, and this is maybe a technical question for Staff, but might there be even computer software out there that might be used to present, you know, I guess a model of what this might look like and allow it to be looked at from different perspectives? 86 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. HILTON-Yes. There are software programs out there that can, based on topography, vegetation, determine view shed from any distance. You can go out, one, two, three, four, five miles, you know, whatever, as long as you have the data to go into the program. There are programs where you can take a schematic of the building and drop it in to a site, into a 3-D, or visual analysis. I’m not here to suggest which one or, you know, I guess which one they would choose, but to my knowledge there are programs out there that do that kind of thing. How expensive it is, how much is involved, things of that nature, I don’t know, but, like I said, to my knowledge, it exists. MR. LAPPER-I guess we think that what we’ve done is legally sufficient, but we’ll certainly look into whether it makes sense to do something else. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So, should I spend my time crafting a statement? MR. LAPPER-Well, that kind of stuff, computer work, takes a few weeks, I mean, it probably could take a month to get it done, but we’ll look into it and we’ll let Staff know. So I guess you should craft what you’re crafting, and if we can come up with something before that time, we will. MR. TRAVER-With regards to the meeting, I’m wondering, it sounds as though we may want to have Counsel present. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-And for that reason I’m wondering if maybe we shouldn’t have a special meeting, so that, you know, we could address this issue, and that would be the only item on the agenda. MRS. STEFFAN-Do we have to notice this meeting? thst MR. HUNSINGER-No. Do we set a date in two weeks, the 29? 31? We don’t know when the room’s available. The problem is we don’t know when the room would be th available, other than a normal meeting night, which is not until February 19. th MR. SCHACHNER-That’s what I thought. As far as February 19 goes, Counsel will be making a presentation at the New York State Association of Towns meeting and is not available. MR. HUNSINGER-I might not be available that night, either. MR. SCHACHNER-Actually, Counsel might be back in the nick of time, about five minutes earlier. MR. HUNSINGER-I know before when we tabled this project, we tabled it to a, you know, it was kind of open-ended on the date to be tabled to. MR. HILTON-Is that what you’d like to do? MR. HUNSINGER-Well. MR. SCHACHNER-It just means if you re-do the public hearing, then you have to notify public of a resumed hearing date, if you, if, in fact, it’s a resumed hearing date. Remember that, conclusion of your SEQRA review does not have to be part of a public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Public meeting, but not public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and, I mean, my intention is to not open the public hearing until th we get to Site Plan Review. So if we said February 12, not knowing if the room’s available, and if the room’s not available, we change it? What kind of problems does th that create? Are you available the 12? MR. SCHACHNER-Probably not. MR. HUNSINGER-Probably not. 87 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) thth MR. SCHACHNER-The 11, are you talking a regular seven o’clock time on the 12, or th some other time? I mean, I can do earlier on the 12. MR. HUNSINGER-It could be another time. thth MR. SCHACHNER-I could do earlier on the 12, and I could do any time on the 11. A lot more flexibility the previous week, if the Board’s interested in that. In fact, I could do any night the previous week. MR. HUNSINGER-I think there was an issue with getting the room, though, that week, th the week of February 4. th MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t know anything about the room. Any night the week of the 4, th Monday the 11, a tougher time that second week. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Or earlier, again, earlier is almost always okay. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Chris, just a question. If I come back with a rendering, and it works for Mr. Seguljic and everyone on the Board, I heard four noes on the traffic, when I’ve already had State sign off and County. Again, where do I go? I’ve heard independent studies from the public. Where do I go with that? So no matter what I do, if you like the rendering, I’ve already heard four noes to the traffic, and I already have the State agency signoffs, and you’ve already checked it off as, so I just, I hate to keep wasting the public’s time, my time, your time. This is a difficult one, I think. I mean, because what we’re all saying here is, or, not all, but what we’re saying is the DOT letter, Warren County, Jeff Tennison and Aaron Frankenfeld, they’re no good. They don’t believe it, and that Creighton-Manning, a highly respected traffic engineering outfit, that does work for the State, does work for all our counties, locally, what we’re saying here tonight is that these guys are not professionals. That’s what we’re saying, any way you look at it, because none of us want to believe. These people can snicker all they want, but if they’re all so smart, how come they’re not independent engineers? They all say this, that and the other thing, but give me some answers where to go. I’ve asked this before, and I’m not being sarcastic. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I’m not taking it that way. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I just, the State, I can’t go above the State. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-The issue that came up, in that discussion, was predominantly about emergency services, and I don’t believe that there has been a letter or a statement or a plan identifying the emergency services scenario. There has been some public comment on that particular issue, but on the Fire Marshal. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, again, as you know, this is our fourth meeting, and I’ve addressed, each and every meeting, everything that’s been requested of me. Now, I can assure you, if I go to the fire department and the special services, and we have addressed that. As a matter of fact, we did it when we had the multi-family project, too, even though this is different. I can assure you there won’t be an issue with that, because the fire department we did notify, because the building is sprinklered and monitored for fire. I certainly can come back with that letter, but again, I still think that the consensus that I’m getting here is, it’s not going to fly with the traffic. I keep hearing, I have a feeling, if I come with a letter from the fire departments and the local ambulatory or whoever we call in West Glens Falls Firehouse or whoever, I just get the feeling that it’s still not going to work for the traffic. I’d like to know where to go, because, again, we’re saying no. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, I understand your frustration. MR. SCHERMERHORN-We’re saying no to the officials that are the ones responsible. We’re not. You’re not, these people aren’t. I certainly, I don’t even know these people that signed off on these projects, but give me the guidance. I’m willing to do it. I’ve spent countless hours, as much as everyone else has. I’ve spent a tremendous amount money, and I’ll spend more, but please give me the answers. I’m looking for the direction from this Planning Board, because already it’s been stated, over and over and over, that 88 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) it doesn’t matter what the State says, what Warren County says. I just don’t know the options. A rendering’s the least of my concerns, but I can tell you, I don’t know what to do with the traffic. I mean, do we really feel that legally, and again, I’m not bullying, I’ve never been that way. I’m not sarcastic. If you notice, I don’t make fun of the public. They like to make fun of me. That’s okay, but legally, are we doing the right thing here, too, with the traffic? MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I would just ask members of the Board that were on that side of this item if they can provide any comments to the applicant. Is there something that you’re looking for specifically or something that would give you comfort that you don’t currently have? MRS. STEFFAN-I’m on the fence, personally, because I’m weighing and considering the information that was presented by the public tonight. I went through the documents that you’ve presented, and, yes, you have a signoff. One of the things I said a few hours ago was that, you know, you weigh and consider the scientific information, but then there’s experience and commonsense that goes along with it, and I understand we have licensed folks who have signed off on it, but based on some of the emergency scenarios that were laid out tonight. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Okay. This is new tonight, and I’m happy to address those. Again, I can assure you we’re not going to have a problem with fire trucks and emergency situations. I’m 100% confident that’s not going to be an issue, but the traffic, again, do you want me to go out to another traffic agency? I’m willing to pay. If the public wants to go out and pick a respectable traffic consultant to review the traffic consultant of the State work, or the Board, I’m happy to do that. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s the one thing I would say. I’d like to see an independent review of all this information. MR. SCHERMERHORN-But, again, am I the first applicant in the history of the Town of Queensbury to go through this? And it seems like I’m being punished when I’ve complied, for years, with your process. MR. HUNSINGER-Now it’s my turn to not sound sarcastic, but that’s what we have the Town Engineer for. I mean, he is supposed to be the independent expert that the Town is paying, and that we’re relying upon to give us that feedback. MR. SCHERMERHORN-And if I may, because things come to mind. Don’t forget the multi-family project. Now, a different project, but C.T. Male was a different Town Engineer. Signed off on the project twice, reviewed the traffic, signed off on it. Now that was a different engineering firm. Now, granted, the traffic was a whole lot less with the multi-family, but the facts are, even from the very get go, we’ve had three, four, now, Town Engineering signoff letters every time I’ve been in front of this Board. I’ve had signoffs every single time, and I, still, we’re talking another month. Again, I’m happy to do this, I’ve said it over and over, but I don’t know where to go. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we want another engineer to look at it? MR. SEGULJIC-We only get the chance to do this once. It’s a big project. If it doesn’t work right, it’s going to be a big issue, a huge issue. MR. SCHERMERHORN-But again, is that up for us to decide? God forbid, if this project doesn’t work, but, you know, the State of New York, Mark Kennedy, my understanding is he’s Region One, he’s head of Region One, Aaron Frankenfeld, these individuals have been at their positions for a very long time. They’re the ones that are putting their signatures on these signoffs. I mean, again, they’re the professionals. They’re the last stop that I know of. MR. TRAVER-I think if we let the process go forward, and we’ve identified that there is the potential for large impact. I think if we let the process go forward, we attempt to identify what those impacts might be, discuss them and see what might be done to mitigate them. Then we might be able to make a suggestion as to what, if anything, is appropriate to do, but right now all that’s happened is we’ve said, in going through this, and again, I’m not speaking for everyone, obviously, but, in going through this, we’ve seen that there’s reasonable belief that there could be significant large impact with regards to the traffic system. So, I think the procedure says, okay, if that’s the case, you need to be more specific. You need to lay out exactly what do you see is the impact. Now we need. 89 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. SCHERMERHORN-And that’s my question. How much more specific can I be with the traffic, though? MR. TRAVER-And that’s the process that we’re now going to be doing. We’re going to write it out, talk about it, and if we find that, in fact, you know, there’s steps that can be taken, then we may have recommendations, whether it be, you know, other specific information, you know, I don’t know the answer to that. All that’s happened tonight is that we’ve identified that clearly there is potential here for large impact on the transportation system, and we need to look into that further. That’s my understanding of what our responsibility is, and I think we just need to move forward and do that, and I understand it’s frustrating that, you know, you have obviously provided us with a great deal of information, and I appreciate it. MR. SCHERMERHORN-The one thing, I have time, as long as my health holds up, I have time, and I can assure everyone in this room tonight, I will be back month after month. If it takes me two years, I will be back, but what’s disappointing, the state of our economy, not just, just look at nationally, look at the news. We are jeopardizing a possible, now everyone will say, they’ll move Downtown. Well, you know what, read the Chronicle, the statements that were made by their public relations people. I’m not threatening. I don’t want to lose these people. They rent from me. They do a lot of business in this community, and again, we’re forgetting that there’s not one zone that will allow these people in the Town of Queensbury right now. There’s not one zone. Because the parking won’t allow for it, and I have the other site at Exit 18 under contract now. The problem is I’d have to go through the traffic. I’d have to do the whole due diligence. There’s no way I can be ready. Now, I hope Travelers stays, I really do, but I can tell you, after this meeting tonight, when I walk out that door, they’re making alternative plans, and that’s okay, because I’ll have another tenant some day, because I’ll keep researching, but I certainly hope that this outweighs, it’s just, I think it’s going to be a sad day when things change, and hopefully they won’t, but Travelers has identified, they reiterated in the Chronicle, I actually brought the article highlighted, that that was their chosen location because of proximity to where it was on the Northway. Everyone’s out here planning their project for them saying, they want cafes, they want this. Well, don’t you think Travelers Insurance, a Fortune 500 company, knows what they want? I mean, they chose this site. They’re excited to go there. They want to go there, but they have obligations and they’re going to move on, and certainly I’m up here pitching you just trying to certainly to work with them, but my intentions have never been to not provide you with what you need, but I think if you’ll recall at the last meeting, I basically was pleading with you, please, if there’s any more I can do with traffic, tell me. Unless I, I’ve gone to every agency I can. I’ve done every procedure. I’ve done everything and more that applications in the past have had to go through. I would ask if maybe, would you consider reconsidering the, looking at the traffic? Again, legally I’ve done everything correct. I mean, there’s nothing that says that at Site Plan Review, that we couldn’t get your addressed, you’re going to have another shot at me, to address the emergency situation with the fire trucks and stuff. I mean, do we honestly all think that we’re going to have a problem with emergency vehicles? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess I’m going to make a comment about that. One of the things that we have been coached, over and over by Counsel, is that if we think we have Site Plan issues that relate to SEQRA, to not conclude with a Neg Dec until we’re comfortable. I think that all of us involved in this project have done the community an incredible disservice in not moving it forward sooner and quicker, and it’s unconscionable to me that projects can take six months and more to be reviewed in the Town of Queensbury, and you heard me say it at the PORC Committee meetings. So it’s nothing new, and it’s part of the reason why I agreed to come back on the Board this year, is to hopefully fix some of the things in the process that are broken, and it’s unfortunate that this project has been impacted by bad procedures, and bad policies of the Town, and I’ll leave it at that. I think about the only thing that we can do at this point is table this project to a date. I think we’re going to basically end up picking a date sort of arbitrarily and hoping that we can find a room. thnd MR. LAPPER-Could you avoid the school vacation week, the 18 to the 22? th MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to suggest either Tuesday the 5 or Tuesday the th 12. MR. LAPPER-The sooner the better. th MR. HUNSINGER-Counsel said you were available any night the week of the 4? 90 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) thth MR. SCHACHNER-The week of the 4. So Tuesday the 5 is totally fine. th MR. HUNSINGER-So Tuesday the 5. th MR. SCHACHNER-Tuesday the 12 is a night that week, that’s not so good, like I said, unless you did it earlier. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. th MR. SEGULJIC-Tuesday the 5, I think, is primary day. MR. HUNSINGER-That means this room is being used for voting. MR. LAPPER-No, there’s no voting in here. It’s the firehouse. MR. HILTON-There’s the Thursday of that week. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I’d like to pick a date and then leave the resolution open so that if that date’s not available, we’d find an alternate date. Does anyone have a problem with th Tuesday the 5? MR. SEGULJIC-Actually Thursday would be better for me. MR. TRAVER-No. Six o’clock, seven o’clock? th MR. HUNSINGER-I’d have a problem at six o’clock on the 5. MR. TRAVER-Seven o’clock? MRS. STEFFAN-Gee, I’ve got a Planning Board on the, we should just quit our jobs and do this full time. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I will make a motion to table Site Plan No. 48-2007 to February th 5, and if the room is unavailable on that date, that another meeting night of that week. The meeting would start at seven. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Chris, just for the record, again, I still haven’t heard a response to where to go with the traffic. Could someone please, just so I know where to go after this. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, you certainly heard the issue about emergency services, that being. MR. HILTON-If you wouldn’t mind, I just want to be pretty clear here as to what you’re looking for and what is going to happen, as far as Part III being filled out. The last I heard, you guys were going to do that. Is that still the case? Are you looking for more information on view shed or any other issue? MR. HUNSINGER-Good comment. Thank you. It’s being tabled to identify, for the Board to work on Part III of the Evaluation of the Importance of Impacts. Mr. Seguljic will draft the response for Item 11, Impact on Aesthetic Resources, and forward that to Counsel, and Mr. Traver would draft the response for Item Fifteen, Impact on Transportation, and deliver that to Counsel for comment and distribution to the Board in advance of the meeting. The applicant is welcome to submit additional information. MR. TRAVER-What about the aesthetic, aesthetic resources? Are we going to hold on that until the? MR. HUNSINGER-No, no, no. That’s Item Number Eleven. st MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry. I didn’t hear that part. February 1, if you want to submit any additional information. You can just distribute it with Staff Notes, George. Although that doesn’t give Staff time to comment on it. MR. HILTON-Especially if it’s a technical document. We may need to have our engineer look at it. 91 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/17/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think it’s going to be, you know, Tom’s looking for some information on view shed. I mean, it’s going to be a graph. He could almost bring it the night of the meeting and review it with us. MR. HILTON-That’s your call. MR. SCHERMERHORN-You’ll allow me to bring it to the meeting if we run out of time? MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll re-phrase my motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 48-2007 SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, L.P., Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: Tabled to February 5, 2008 [if the room is unavailable on that date to another evening that week], it’s being tabled pending the submission and completion of draft responses on Part 3 Evaluation of the Importance of Impact of the SEQR evaluation. Tom Seguljic will prepare a draft response for Item 11, Impact on Aesthetic Resources and Stephen Traver will prepare a response for Item 15 Impact on Transportation. Those drafts will be forwarded to Counsel and then to staff and then ultimately to Board members in advance of the meeting. The applicant is welcome to submit additional information such as a visual impact analysis and/or transportation related comments. For any written response, it should be received by the Town by February 1, 2008 so that it can be sent out with Staff notes in the Board package. th Duly adopted this 17 day of January 2008 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-For the benefit of the record, we did conclude the public hearing, but I did leave the public hearing open. The intent is to provide the public will additional opportunity to comment, if and when the Planning Board moves to Site Plan Review. I will entertain a motion to adjourn, if there’s no further business. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 17, 2008, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: th Duly adopted this 17 day of January, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 92