Loading...
1992-04-29 SP -- -..-' ~EENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 29TH, 1992 INDEX Site Plan No. 55-91 OSCAP, LTD 1. Subdivision No. 11-1991 PRELIMINARY STAGE Sunset Hi n Farm 29. 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. \) /) ',,-, -...../' ~EENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 29TH, 1992 7:00 P.M. MEIllERS PRESENT JAMES MARTIN, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY PETER CARTIER TIMOTHY BREWER CORINNE TARANA EDWARD LAPOINT MEIllERS ABSEIT JAMES LAURICELLA SENIOR PLANNER-LEE A. YORK TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD IIJSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 55-91 TYPE I HC-lA OSCAP, LID OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE WEST OF INTERSECTION OF NYS RooTES 9 AND 149 ESTABLISH lVO BUILDINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF A RETAIL ooTLET CENTER, INCWDING RELOCATION AND EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING DEXTER SHOE ooTLET CENTER STORE. TOTAL GROSS IIJILDING AREA TO BE 68,000 SQ. FT. WITH TOTAL GROSS LEASABLE AREA TO BE 62,000 SQ. FT. (WARREN CooNTY PLANNING) TAX IMP NO. 34-1-10 LOT SIZE: 7.8 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 MARK SCHACHNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:00 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 55-91, OSCAP, LTD (Dexter Shoe), April 28, 1992, Meeting Date: April 29, 1992 "The focus of this application has been primarily on the traffic issues and impacts on Route 149 and 9. The Board is aware of the concerns and recommendations expressed by the Warren County Planning Board and the Warren County Traffic Safety Board. The DOT has also submitted information on the traffic analysis. The site issues should be reviewed as distinct from the traffic issues. The planning issues relate to the layout and design. The site has slopes of 15 percent or greater over 31 percent of the land area. The slopes are 10 to 15 percent over 60 percent of the remaining site. The applicant is maximizing the build-out of the area by building into the slope and creating terraced parking areas. They are considering a shared access way with the adjacent restaurant. Unless the access ways on to Route 9 at Frank's Pizzeria are closed off, the traffic issues on Route 9 win not be totany addressed since the study was predicated on an traffic exiting and entering at the light. The Dexter Shoe store itself win be moved to the northern portion of the site and the traffic will flow between the retail center and the shoe store. Advertising would be done at the front of the site. A detention basin is proposed at the eastern portion of the site. A request has been made to keep the parking area behind the drainage basin in greenspace. 1. The location, arrangement and size of the buildings are awkward basicany because the site is difficult to develop and the buildings are large. The staff has previously suggested that the Dexter log cabin be eliminated or the retail center reduced in size to allow a better internal traffic circulation pattern. Signage should be provided telling patrons which stores are in the rear of the facility to avoid driver confusion. The average patron of these outlets is a senior citizen who is not from the area. It is in the best interests of the community to provide identifiable access to the stores. 2. Vehicular access is confusing at the rear of the building. It is doubtful that patrons would utilize the very rear parking to any great extent, therefore, leaving it in green space seems reasonable. 3. Off street parking is confusing but has been developed in line with the grades of the property. Loading areas have been provided for. 4. Pedestrian access from the rear parking area should be discussed and accessways provided for. 5. The engineer has discussed stormwater drainage. 6. Water and sewer facilities will be addressed by the engineer. 7. Plantings and building elevations should be discussed. 8. Fire and emergency access was previously discussed. 9. Erosion control mechanisms should be provided for during and after construction." MR. MARTIN-An right. As you can see, we have two letters from DOT, one dated April 27th, and one dated April 2nd. Lee, could you take us through that April 27th letter? I just want to have that read into the record as being the most recent. MRS. YORK-Okay. The April 27th letter, "Dear Ms. York: On April 21, 1992, we received a revised conceptual site plan for the US 9/NY 149 intersection from Roger Creighton Associates. Our analysis of thi s new 1 '-- '-"" information indicates that no LOS reduction will take place if the eastbound through move is combined with the right turns." MR. CARTIER-Can I interrupt right there. Could somebody explain that to me? I don't know what they're talking about there. If the eastbound through move is combined with the right turns? MR. YARMOWICH-This is leaving Dexter. MR. CARTIER-Okay. We're not talking about the the highway? MR. YARMOWICH-Well, they're talking about the traffic light at the Dexter intersection with the highway. What the applicant had proposed, originally, this is what's referred to as a revised conceptual site plan. Originally, they'd proposed a right turn lane solely for right turn traffic leaving Dexter. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-In conjunction with that, there was a single lane used in combination for left turns and through traffic eastbound onto 149. The State has agreed that, basically what this letter says is the State agrees that the northbound right turn lane on Route 9 won't be necessary if they rearrange the intersection leaving Dexter. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank,you. "It will, therefore, not be necessary for the developer to provide a separate northbound right turn lane as previously stated. It will, however, be necessary for the developer to remove the white asphalt median in order to provide a formal northbound left turn slot in addition to the mitigation already proposed. Please contact David Zeller of this office at 474-6377 if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Joseph W. Kelly Regional Traffic Engineer" MR. MARTIN-Okay, and then you have, as background information, the April 2nd letter from the DOT. MR. CARTIER-I assume, though, from the April 27th letter, that April 2nd letter is no longer valid. MRS. YORK-Right. Anything that comes for the Board, I give to the Board. MR. CARTIER-I understand. MR. MARTIN-Okay, and then we have Tom's letter of April 28th. Will you take us through that, Tom? ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist Frost, Town Engineer, April 28, 1992 "We have reviewed the revised project date furnished to the Town by the applicant and dated March 6, 1992. We have also received the April 2, and April 21, 1992 letters from NYSDOT. We have the following engineering comments: 1. The top of the stormwater detention basin berm should be a minimum of 1 foot above the auxiliary spillway design water surface (AI83-27 F.2.i.). Grading Plans (dwg. S-3) and Details (dwg. S-6) should be revised accordingly. 2. Traffic issues relative to the Route 9/149 signal turning lanes have apparently been worked out to the satisfaction of NYSDOT. The Route 9/149 intersection lane modifications and area-wide traffic signal re-timing largely mitigates projected adverse traffic impacts. According to the RCA Traffic Study Addendum dated February 10, 1992, some additional delays will result when approaching certain area intersections due to additional traffic generated by this project. Mitigation beyond that agreed to between NYSDOT and the applicant is not feasible by a sole project sponsor, given the limited right-of-ways and extensive private property improvements in the area. In addition to the quantitative data generated by the project traffic studies the project can be subjectively weighed. To those intimately familiar with current traffic conditions and historical trends in the project area through regular observation and personal experiences, it is reasonable to conclude that additional project related traffic during most times should not cause noticeable problems or unacceptably deteriorate public safety. On the other hand, it is obvious that at some times, under certain conditions, the existing traffic system fails. Delays become extraordinary and motoring mishaps occur. These incidents will probably increase as traffic is added to the area. Comprehensive studies and planning efforts now underway by others intend to address area-wide problems with alternative solutions suitable for all users of this transportation system segment. Consideration of this project should be given, based in part, upon the as yet unmitigated traffic impacts and the prospects for area-wide transportation improvements. 3. The driveway entrance throat area geometry and congestion comments raised in the RFA February 24, 1992 letter have not been addressed." MR. MARTIN-Okay, and could you just refresh our memories as to what that might be. MR. YARMOWICH- The concern there was that the length of the entrance throat, in terms of departing vehicles and entering vehicles, might be such that the major parking bay, located in front of the new large proposed retail store could be blocked, either by a single tractor trailer waiting, or multiple passenger vehicles or other types of vehicles waiting to leave the site, the likelihood being that there might be more than two vehicles at that point, during any given signal cycle. 2 - MR. MARTIN-Okay. A11 right. We11, we fina11y have gotten va1uab1e information, since our 1ast meeting with this, and I be1ieve we were at the point of trying to undertake the SEQRA process, but as a Board, co11ective1y, we didn't fee1 comfortab1e doing that untn we had a better hand1e on the traffic situation. 1'm summarizing, here. So, we now have further information, especiany the two 1etters from DOT. We have our own engineer who's 100ked at a11 that materia1. So, I'd 1ike to get everybody's thoughts as to how we fee1 about the SEQRA process, or trying to take it on, given our new information that we have before us. Any thoughts? MR. LAPOINT-Tom's comment on the throat congestion, can you run that by me one more time? MR. YARMOWICH- The 1ength of the driveway throat, between the traffic 1ight and the major parking bay, which is on the 1eft as you're entering the site as proposed, wou1d be b10cked, if there were stacking of three or more passenger vehic1es or even perhaps a 1arge truck, tractor traner type vehic1e. It wou1d be 10ng enough so that you cou1dn't get into that parking area. MR. LAPOINT-If the cars on site were not far enough in? MR. YARMOWICH-We11, if they were stopped at the traffic 1ight, waiting to 1eave the site. Anybody entering that site, from any direction, northbound on 9, southbound on 9, or westbound on 149, wou1d not be ab1e to move into that parking 10t in the front. The reason the comment's pertinent is because the front parking 10ts are the ones of choice by most visitors to this kind of a faci1ity. MR. LAPOINT-So, this is more interna1 to the site itse1f? MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. You can maybe visua1ize it more in terms of 100king at some of the other deve10pments a10ng the road, which have a significant1y different arrangement or distance between the bui1ding and parking area entrances and movements in those parking areas from where they actua11y, or visitors wou1d actua11y 1eave the major highway. MR. LAPOINT-So, someone 1eaving the highway, if they wanted to make a 1eft to access that front parking 10t near B10ck cou1d either sit there, or their on1y option wou1d be to drive around back, correct? MR. YARMOWICH-Correct, and the potentia1 for sitting there waiting, and having other traffic stack up, cou1d 1ead to certain prob1ems with traffic patterns. The other concern about geometry in genera1, and that was stacking, was to make sure that vehic1es which may visit the site, inc1uding 1arge tractor traners and in particu1ar the unit trucks, the 1arge van type trucks which require the most room of an to turn. They require more room than tractor traners. There was some concern as to whether or not there was enough space to a110w those movements to occur. MR. LAPOINT-Thank you. MRS. YORK-We have had submitted one 1etter, too. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Do you want to read that into the record? MRS. YORK-Okay. This is from Char1es and E11en Kenny, to the Queensbury Town P1anning Board, "In addressing the Dexter Shoe property site p1an, we Char1es and E11en Kenny, owning the adjoining property to the north, wou1d 1ike to state our major concerns. One concern is the 1inkage or drive thru connection to the properties, which we have previous1y discussed with the Dexter. Another point which is a major concern is the 1each fie1d 10cation which borders our property 1ine. We present1y do not have town water and fee1 the 1each fie1d drainage 10cation cou1d adverse1y effect our water in the future. In attending the 1ast Board meeting, there was some discussion, by one of the Board members, about the possibHity of the Dexter project being moved further back from Rt. 9. It is our opinion that this wou1d benefit the project and a1so the "MH1ion Donar Ha1f Mi1e" strip. Thank you. Char1es & E11en Kenny" MR. LAPOINT-Is that we11 shown on here? No? MR. MARTIN-So, it was not identified anywhere? MR. SCHACHNER-We were unab1e to 10cate the wen, and therefore it's not identified on your p1ans. However, in response to that concern, it's our understanding, where we think the water supp1y is 10cated, that this is tota11y a non issue, that, in fact, we be1ieve, and I be1ieve the gent1eman may be here. He may be ab1e to confirm this, but it's our understanding that the water supp1y comes from across the Northway, and that the 10cation of this 1eachfie1d, re1evant to his water supp1y, if there's any migration of 1eachate, which of course we don't expect, obvious1y it wou1d be down gradient, and that his water supp1y is up gradient. So, it shou1dn't be a prob1em. CHARLES KENNY 3 ---- '-' MR. KENNY-My name is Charles Kenny. I'm the owner of the property. It is correct, right now, presently, the water is coming from across the Northway. My concern is in drilling the well, which at times, it costs money, and there's limits, anywhere along the property line in this leachfield limits, in drilling a well where I can get water, and if it does contaminate the well water, I mean, I hear water problems all the time, and for 100 feet, I think the septic system is 100 foot setback on just the house. So, for them to have a leachfield coming down that whole property line, if I drill a well anywhere down that property line, or have to drill a well, where I'm locating my future project, it's a concern. It excludes me from putting a well anywhere along that property line. MR. CARTIER-Do I understand you to say that your present water supply does not come from your own property? MR. KENNY-That is correct. When I bought the property, the water, which can't be used, doesn't have the Health Certificate. We don't live at the present resident right now. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, at the moment, you have no well on your property, serving you as a water supply? MR. KENNY-As of right now, I have no idea where I can get water, other than bringing it up from the Town. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-Well, what happens in a situation where, if he had a well, and it was on the property line, they wouldn't be able to put their leach field within so many feet of it, correct? Now, he doesn't have the well, so what's the problem with them putting their leachfield close to the property line, as long as it's on their property. It's not going to contaminate any water, which then means, when he goes to drill a well, he now has to keep it on his own property, away from the leachfield, as it will presently be in the ground. MR. MARTIN-Are there any special separation distances required for a well from a leachfield of this magnitude, beyond 100 feet? MR. YARMOWICH-No. They're the same, unless it were to be located in a down gradient area. You'd want to stay at least 150 feet away. MR. MARTIN-But the applicant has indicated that he's up gradient. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, it's conceivable that a well location in a down gradient location might be desirable by Mr. Kenny. If he were to maintain the required separation distances, it would conform to standards of 5NYCRR. MR. KENNY-All our property slopes down grade from this. As far as him putting a well on that property, it could contaminate. MRS. PULVER-Well, you wouldn't put a well that close to a septic field that was already in the ground, would you, knowing that it was there, knowing that you might possibly get contaminated water? . MR. KENNY-I only have 100 foot from my property line to the next property line. the building, if I have to drill three wells, my neighbor went down 300 feet, eliminates that whole line, as far as trying to get water. I can't use, and I between. So, in putting in to get water, this only have 100 foot MRS. PULVER-I'm very sympathetic to you with the water, but it's almost like we are now going to penalize these people and make them move their septic, because you might put in a well in the future, but if you don't in the future, then we have to ask these people to redesign their project. They're meeting all the Codes and the setback. I'm sympathetic to your problem. You have only so many feet to put your well, but you knew that when you bought your property. MR. KENNY-If I put a well in tomorrow, on my property where I could put it. MRS. PULVER-Well, if you already had the well in there, they would have to have their leachfield placed far enough away from your well so there would be no contamination, but you don't have a well there. So, it's hard for us to make them place their leachfield some place. MR. KENNY-Well, if a well goes in tomorrow. I can't use the other water. It's my concern. So, what you're saying is, I have to go do this now, and I will. If I have to put a well in, then the well is in. What you're telling me, I have to put the well in now, because. MRS. PULVER-No. I think what I'm saying is that you needed to have the well in before they came before the Board. MR. KENNY-Well, this isn't approved. It's my property. If I put in a well tomorrow, call up the well driller, that's my answer. You gave me the answer. That's what I have to do. It seems like, after the fact, I'm going to have a water problem. So, I have to do it now so then you can address it. 4 ------ -- MIKE INGERSALL MR. INGERSALL-Mike Ingersan from the LA Group. If I show you where the septic system is 10cated, and the topography, it'n c1ear1y show that anywhere within the area that we're 10cated, that wen wou1d be above our septic system, if you 100k at the gradient that's there, and we can c1ear1y meet, I mean, I can go through this wh01e thing, but we can c1ear1y meet a 100 foot separation, or 200 foot separation, 300 foot separation, unti1 it becomes down gradient. So, it's not, I guess what I'm saying is, if he drins the wen, he has 100 feet, or 110 feet to our septic system. He sti11 has room to dri11 a wen anywhere in there, and it doesn't confJict with any Codes. If you cou1d physicany get a dri11 rig up there, that wou1d surprise me more than anything. MR. CARTIER-We11, can you show me where, and maybe Mr. Kenny cou1d answer this, your piece of property is that you're ta1king about? I'm getting a 1itt1e confused, here. I assume, Mr. Kenny, your property's to the north of them, correct? MR. KENNY-Right. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what, I'd have to 100k at the p1ans. MR. LAPOINT-This is part of our previous package, correct? We on1y got the one drawing this time. MR. INGERSALL-I guess what we're saying is, if you 100k at our 10cation, the approximate grade in here is about 584, okay. The 584 contour comes onto his property in this 10cation. So, if we take 100 feet from the edge of our septic, that's 80 feet into his property, and he's sti11 above us. MR. KENNY-That's just 100 feet, now, right? We're just ta1king about, 100 feet is for a house, if I want to put in a wen on my one house, 100 feet is the minimum setback. We're ta1king about a big 1eachfie1d coming in for a big project, going down, and from this point, this is an my property Jine, and what we're saying is, if I have my wen here, I cou1d put in a wen there tomorrow. Now, if I had a wen there, you're going to ten me that's not going to have any effect, if I go down 300 feet on my water? As this waters drains, it's going to have no effect? MR. INGERSALL-If you go down 300 feet, I wou1d a1most guarantee you it wou1d never have an effect. MR. KENNY-I don't know how far I have to go to water. MR. INGERSALL-No, but I'm just saying that this gradient pitches this way, not onto your property. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but wait a minute. We're ta1king two separate things, here. We're taHing surface water and we're ta1king groundwater f10w. The groundwater f10w doesn't necessarHy fonow the surface gradient. MR. INGERSALL-That's true, and we11s are tota11y different at different depths, too. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but I don't think we can say that because the surface of his wen is up gradient from the septic system, that it's automatica11y going to f10w away from the we11. MR. INGERSALL-If we drew a 100 foot diameter around this, he'd stin have the strip of property here, and the wh01e rest of his property. I think you've got to 100k at the s10pes, here. MR. LAPOINT-If you did a quick pen mark to exc1ude where he cou1d put his we11 right now. MR. INGERSALL-Your property is 100 feet wide in the back? MR. KENNY-It's 100 feet wide. I don't know exact1y where, this here, it gets wider back here. It's L-shaped. MR. INGERSALL-It's 100 feet, here, but I think your property actuany goes back 1ike that. If we go 100 feet from the nearest point, okay, there to there, to there, okay, and then we've got 100 feet coming back in here. This is the zone, and anything beyond that is not in effect, and what I'm saying is, granted, we're four foot down in the ground, we're saying the 584 contour's the surface grade, if it migrates uphi11, fine, but the 284 contour comes out right here, and we're a11 be10w that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. INGERSALL-Okay. So, for it to get over this way, that's a surface grade. MR. LAPOINT-That has nothing to do with the argument. It's pure1y in two dimensions that you've got to be outside of 100 feet, correct? Okay. So, it has nothing to do with the third dimension, up or down. He's just struck an arch that, anywhere in there, you'd be exc1uded to put a wen on your property. That's what's going to happen. We have this situation an over Town, peop1e are c1ose. We've got to put things different p1aces, based on what's existing previous1y. 5 ,-. ..-. MR. INGERSALL-This is the septic system from the neighbors, and we're restricted from putting a wen on this end. MR. CARTIER-Okay. What's the HkeHhood of your putting a wen in those areas that are hocked, given the surface topography? MR. KENNY-Wen, I might be reading this wrong, but does this come down, the whole property, with a leachfield drainage type effect? MR. INGERSALL-No. This is a pumping up to here, to a leachfield, and grabbing down and out that way. MR. KENNY-And out which way? MR. CARTIER-Toward the parking lot. MR. INGERSALL-Towards the parking lot. These are stepped. This is the highest one. This is a step down. MR. KENNY-So, there's no drainage coming down this way? MR. INGERSALL-Surface drainage would flow, I can show you the drainage plan. It's right here. It flows across the top of our septic system. Surface drainage is going this way. This is a sealed system that pumps up to here. It's a pipe in the ground. MR. KENNY-I thought that this was a drainage. MR. LAPOINT-That's not a leachfield, no. MR. CARTIER-If that were, in fact, leachfield, you would have a major reason for being here. You're absolutely right, okay. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. You could go right along his property line, probably 60 feet from his house, or Dexter, and put a well in. MR. MARTIN-Where is the location of your house, Mr. Kenny? MR. KENNY-Down here. MR. MARTIN-Well, you're certainly not going to put a well, how many hundreds of. MR. KENNY-Here was my mistake in clarification, I thought there was a drainage easement, and it was coming right down the property. MR. MARTIN-No. That's an underground, buried, soHd pipe that's going to be used as a pumping Hne up to the field, and it's going to leach off into the parking lot. MR. KENNY-And I only had 100 feet, is what my point was, you know, I only have 100 feet. MR. MARTIN-Well, how large is your lot, in terms of acres? MR. KENNY-2.3. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I think we're beyond that. Now, I want to get back, in terms of addressing any issues that we have concerning the SEQRA review. Is there anything that pops out at anybody, or any questions remain unanswered, because I don't want to get into it and get tripped up. MR. LAPOINT-I'm just zipping back, to make sure we're thorough, here, to Lee's second paragraph about some of the slopes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's what I wanted to go through these Staff Comments. The one question that I had, that maybe I misunderstood a comment made in the readings, here, of the notes, is that the traffic study was done on the basis of a shared access with Frank's Pizzeria? MRS. YORK-No. What I was saying is that, my understanding is that they want to have an accessway through to Frank's Pizzeria. MR. MARTIN-Right. I remember that. MRS. YORK-Now, what I was saying, and I may need clarification on this, also. That's why I brought it up. If the Frank's Pizzeria does not close their entrance or exit, then the traffic comes into Dexter, goes through that front parking lot. It's filled up, goes through into Frank's, and reaHzes, I'm off the site. I've got to get back in there, decides it can't turn around or whatever, and then exits at Frank's. Now, unless Steve who owns Frank's is going to close off his access points, then that could negate some of the premise in the traffic report, because not all the traffic will be exiting and entering from the light. 6 - '''"'--' MR. MARTIN-Well, we have no information showing that he's going to, I can't imagine he would shut off his. MRS. YORK-Well, that's what I think we need to clarify, here, is that, in fact, going to happen or not. MR. INGERSALL-If I could clarify our point. We initially submitted these plans with no connection, at the Board's request, and the traffic report purposely takes into account the worst case scenario which is all the traffic coming out through the light. If traffic were to exit at that point, it would alleviate the congestion at the intersection. MR. MARTIN-I see. Okay. MR. LAPOINT-Your trip generate included the Pizzeria? MR. INGERSALL-No. MR. LAPOINT-No. MR. MARTIN-You have no formal, just an informal conversation with Frank's, regarding a. MR. INGERSALL-They have an agreement. MR. MARTIN-They do? MR. INGERSALL-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-What's it say, that you're going to have access into Frank's Pizzeria? Is that right? MR. MARTIN-And vice versa. MR. INGERSALL-Right now, Frank's has an easement. They share part of Dexter's property as it exists. MR. MARTIN-So, this was, I would imagine, done in light of our discussions of. MRS. YORK-I believe that the, as I understand it, agreement was made because the Board and the task force that was working on it were looking at options of getting. MR. MARTIN-Right, shared access between adjacent properties. MRS. YORK-Right, and I know it was in the best interest of good traffic movement up there that they did this. MR. MARTIN-I just wanted to make sure that it's there, and that it is, it is formally part of this site plan, then? I think that's a positive step, here. I didn't know that had been formalized. MR. CARTIER-It will join the southeast corner of OSCAP's land with the northeast corner of Fasulo's land. MR. MARTIN-As indicated here, you show what appears to be. MR. CARTIER-The driveway will have two travel lanes and will have a paved surface with a pedestrian walkway on the easterly side. The purpose of the driveway is to create a convenient connection for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic between the two properties. MR. MARTIN-All right. Does anybody have anything else? Now, looking beyond traffic, now. I don't want to just get tunnel vision, here, on this. Is there anything else that anybody can see that they want to address, in terms of the SEQRA? I, personally, defer to the experts in this case, for me, are DOT, and they have their view of it, and I'm not going to contest that. MRS. TARANA-Could we hear the sections of the SEQRA that refer to the traffic questions? MR. MARTIN-Do you want to go through those? MRS. TARANA-I would just like to hear those. MR. MARTIN-Ed, could you get out the Long Form SEQRA and lets just review those questions that relate to traffic, before we get into it formally. 7 "'--- ---' MR. LAPOINT-"Impact on Transportation. Win there be an effect to existing transportation systems?" And the examples, "Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods". MR. MARTIN-I would say, yes, but it's been mitigated by the applicant, according to the information we have. That's it? MR. LAPOINT-"Will the proposed action result in major traffic problems?" And the other one's an open other impact. MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right. That's all we have on that section. MR. KENNY-I'd just like to clarify. The linkage of drive thru connection to my property, I've talked to a couple of members from Dexter, is that not, I just want to know, does the Board hear on anything? You just went through Frank's Pizzeria. MR. CARTIER-You mean future development on your site, as to whether or not we're going to link those? MR. MARTIN-Yes, an access way from your site to this site? I don't know. It's between you, you two ten me. DAVE EADS MR. EADS-As a member of the task force who signed the task force agreement, which essentiany was to all the property owners there, that we agreed, conceptually, to link, without a plan from Charlie about what exactly he's going to do, or where he's going to do it, it's difficult for us to say, we'n link here. We have had discussions with him that says we're certainly open, wining and able. We have certain restrictions on the property, where we can go, but it is our desire and intent to link within the development. MR. MARTIN-So, conceptuany, at some future point, if it were possible, they would jointly entertain that possibility with you, is what they're saying. Although there's no formal plan, under this site plan, to do that, at a future time, they would consider it. MR. CARTIER-But as I look at this, the design of their property will, as presently offered to us, will allow that to occur in the future. MR. KENNY-Is there anything that I'm going to get in writing that says, what I'm trying to get at is, six months down the road, this project gets approved, and they say no. Is that a feasible possibility? MR. MARTIN-Wen, there's nothing that we can do. You, as adjacent property owners, that's something for you to pursue. MR. KENNY-Well, like Frank's, I'd want it in. MR. MARTIN-What I'm saying is, the owner of that property went to great lengths to, or I don't know what lengths, but they have a formal agreement that they they've both pursued, and what I'm saying is the ban is in your court, essentiany. It's nothing that we can require. If you want to undertake that type of thing with these owners, that's a private relationship. It's nothing, in terms of this site plan that we addressed. We can see in their site plan that they have before us, that they have a parking lot configuration that would lend to that happening in the future. MR. KENNY-Well, I'm just making a point. I paid a quarter of a million dollars for a piece of property that's going to become useless, useless after this gets approved, and my adjoining property, if I have no linkage. What you're going through at the light, and we're talking about the same, I'm the bordering property. It's not like I'm far away. Okay. So, if I don't have linkage, and what you're saying is that there's nothing this Board can do, if you approve this project, and they said no to me, they have me at their mercy. They could say. MR. LAPOINT-I have a quick question for you. Have you pursued this yourself? You've fonowed this up with them, to see if you could link in with them? MR. KENNY-Yes, I did. We had a meeting, and they told me it was fine. If it's fine, an I want to know is where it's going to come in. MR. MARTIN-Well, everything they've said to us, formally. MR. LAPOINT-Again, you may have to do some engineering on your side, independent of an of this, to link to them. I mean, how do you want your property developed. It looks to me like there's a potential to extend that driveway out through there, but we can't read your mind, what you want to do on your property in the future. It seems like there's a house right there. 8 -- '- MR. KENNY-They dug all the dirt out. I mean, I'm at the grade the property was at. Everybody's talking about grade, here. Now they're going to go in and do more construction, change grades, do what they're going to do, and I'm at their mercy. That's what I'm saying. MR. CARTIER-This Board is not the solution to that problem. The solution to that is between you and these guys, in terms of getting together and coming up with something that works for you. MR. MARTIN-But what I'm trying to say, even beyond that, is it seems to me like there is no problem. They've indicated a willingness to do so. You'd like to have it happen. I don't see that there's a problem. They've gone on formal record, here, saying that that's what they'd like to do. MR. KENNY-Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Does everybody feel comfortable, then, with going into the SEQRA? We have their copy of the Part I that they've filled out, if anybody wants to review that, briefly, prior to. MR. LAPOINT-That was in the previous submittal? MR. MARTIN-Yes, but Lee supplied us with another copy. I, personally, feel comfortable. MRS. TARANA-I want to say that I'm not comfortable with, the proposed action will result in major traffic problems. I feel it will, and I don't feel that they'll be mitigated by the project changes. MR. LAPOINT-Despite what DOT commented? MRS. PULVER-I guess we need some information on that or something, why you feel that way. MR. BREWER-That project, if they just walked out of here tonight and said they weren't going to do it, just point blank said they weren't going to do it, you'd still have the problems up there. I think with what DOT has said, and what they're going to do, I think it's not going to make that much of an impact. MRS. PULVER-It's not going to make it worse. It may even make it better, if everybody links up. MR. BREWER-That's just my own opinion. MRS. TARANA-Well, it's just .!!!l. own opinion that there's no reason to create more of a problem, until there are resolutions made to that entire traffic situation, as it stands there right now. MR. CARTIER-And I agree with you, and I think that given the fact that they have not yet gotten by Warren County Planning, is indicative of, I hope, the fact that that may be handled at the County level. I think the County's concerns are essentially the same as yours, and I think that's what's holding them up at County. MRS. YORK-What the County said is that they denied the project with no prejudice, because there is going to be a corridor study done on Route 9 and 149. I believe the minutes of the County indicate that they felt that an approval of the project at this time might limit some of the options available, before mitigation of the problems. MRS. TARANA-The corridor study will be done, when? MR. YARMOWICH-It's currently underway. MRS. YORK-It's currently underway. MR. YARMOWICH-The Warren County Department of Public Works is administering it. MR. MARTIN-With any projected completion date? MR. YARMOWICH-By the summer. MRS. YORK-Six months. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, the end of the summer, I guess, is when they targeted, they left the contract the end of February. MRS. YORK-So, that's what happened at the County, that they felt that the project should come back when the study was completed. MRS. TARANA-And I feel the same way. 9 _/ - MR. SCHACHNER-Mark Schachner. I just wanted to see if I cou1d perhaps cOlllTlent, for the benefit of Mrs. Tarana, with just one of aspect of the proposed traffic measures, and see if this makes Mrs. Tarana more comfortab1e with what we're proposing. I think the key concept, and I'm recognizing that you have not been on the Board for any previous reviews of this project, but that you obvious1y have some fami1iarity with the traffic in the area that we're speaking of. I think the key concept, from the g10ba1 perspective that you I re ta1king about, Mrs. Tarana, is that the mitigation measure that I s been proposed, everyone who's 100ked at them agrees, Number One, that they wi11 obvious1y aneviate, to some sman extent, whatever the prob1em is that's there, but more important1y, they are totany compatib1e with any reasonab1y anticipated proposed mitigation measures that any traffic study or any traffic agency wi11 come up with in the future. So that, obvious1y, you're not of the opinion that Dexter, either now or in the future, is the s01e source, or even a major source of whatever exists on the new corridor there. Your concern is a more g10ba1 perspective, having to do with the entire corridor, and I think it's important that you rea1ize, and you may not have been present, previous1y, to know that an the mitigation measures, which are sUbstantia1, have been reviewed not on1y with an eye toward mitigating any traffic aspect of this particu1ar proposa1, but a1so with a definite eye toward being compatib1e, not getting in the way of any mitigation measures that may be proposed by the State DOT, by the G1ens Fans Transportation Counci1, by any consortium of neighborhood users, by this P1anning Board, or anybody e1se. So that nothing that we're proposing wi11 stand in the way of future mitigation measures and in fact it wi11 faci1itate future mitigation measures. Again, I appreciate your big picture perspective, and I think you have to 100k at that comment, a1so, in a big picture perspective. We're going to he1p our situation, and from your perspective, big picture, more important1y, we're compatib1e with anything that anybody's going to propose in the future. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I think that's an important point to the traffic issue, and the other one I think is important, that we're not dropping the 1eve1 of service, here. That's been confirmed by DOT, and 1ike I said before, I 100k to them for that type of determination. I have no grounds to make that. MR. CARTIER-And, traditiona11y I think, nothing gets by this Board untn it's gotten by the Warren County P1anning Board. So, given the norma1 pattern of things, I wou1d assume it's not going to get past this Board unti1 Warren County has, in fact, approved this project. MRS. TARANA-Is it going back to Warren County? MRS. YORK-The Warren County P1anning Board can be overru1ed by a majority p1us one. MR. CARTIER-I understand that. That's a 1itt1e bit different, I think, here. Do you mean to ten me that this wi11 not be going back to Warren County P1anning? MRS. YORK-If this Board approves it, it wi11 not. MR. CARTIER-By a vote of five members. MR. SCHACHNER-We're certain1y not anticipating it going back to Warren County. Maybe I misunderstood, Mr. Cartier. I assumed you were referring more to the Warren County DPW. MR. CARTIER-No. I was assuming this was going to go back to Warren County P1anning. I have been corrected, apparent1y. I assume, then, it is not going back. So, it is now in our 1ap. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, but I think you shou1d be mindfu1 of the fact that you're concerns wi11 be 100ked at, I'm sure, by Warren County DPW. MR. MARTIN-And how does the overru1ing, what's the aspect of that, Lee, is it a majority p1us one? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-So, there's going to have to be five votes, here. MR. MARTIN-An right. Wen, getting back to the SEQRA, does everyone fee1 comfortab1e? You remain unchanged in your view of the traffic? MR. LAPOINT-I guess I'd just 1ike to make sure that we an understand that 1etter of the 27th, where Mr. Keny says, "Our ana1ysis of this new information indicates that no 1eve1 of service reduction wi11 take p1ace if the eastbound through move is combined with the right turns". So, as a resuH of this project, we wi11 have no 1eve1 of service reduction at that intersection. That's the DOT, correct? MR. YARMOWICH-That's, in fact, what they're saying. Leve1 of Service, does make a distinction. A 1eve1 of service puts you in a categorica1 standard, that is, you may have a two percent increment and it diminishes your 1eve1 of service by one e1ement. The traffic study does show that there are changes in de1ays, and there are changes in overa11 approach service 1eve1s. However, it is conc1uded by DOT, at that one intersection in particu1ar, there is no overan change in 1eve1 of service, and 10 ""--" -- you have to keep that in mind, the distinction, 1eve1 of service, gives you a genera1 category of service. That does mean that there can be impacts. It may be a point of view that the change of 1eve1 of service is what's considered significant. The DOT does, in fact, use that as their criteria because they do not permit any project sponsor to change the 1eve1 of service. Even if it's at 1eve1 of service B, and a private project comes in where 1eve1 of service C may be acceptab1e, from a pub1ic perception standpoint, DOT is sti11 going to make you maintain 1eve1 of service B. In this case, the 1eve1 of service C has been assigned existing and projected under background growth. The mitigation proposed maintains that 1eve1. That's not to say that there's necessari1y anymore. There may be 1ess de1ays, but in fact the same 1eve1 of service is preserved, okay. MR. LAPOINT-Thank you. MR. MARTIN-I guess we can undertake the SEQRA and see how it comes out. RESOWTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICAIT IS MADE RESOWTION NO. 55-91, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: MR. LAPOINT-"Impact on Transportation. Wi11 there be an effect to existing transportation systems?" MR. BREWER-Yes, because they're going to do something with the buses. MR. LAPOINT-But sma11 to moderate? No 1eve1 of service change. MR. CARTIER-Speaking for me, I wou1dn't agree that it's sma11 to moderate. MR. W\RTIN-I wou1d say, yes, but it's been mitigated. They've undertaken measures to mitigate the situation. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So, it wou1d be, Three, Can impact be mitigated by project change? MRS. TARANA-No. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Corinne's on record as no. MR. CARTIER-So am I. MR. LAPOINT-I guess our options are, and the question is, Wi11 there be an effect to existing transportation systems, that the impact wou1d be sma11 to moderate impact. My persona1 choice, based on Mr. Ke11y's 1etter of 27 Apri1 '92, because, again, as designed, it shows no reduction in the 1eve1 of service. So, my SEQRA interpretation, I wou1d say that wou1d be a sma11 to moderate impact, and we can go right down the 1ine. MR. BREWER-Sma11 to moderate. MR. CARTIER-I guess my prob1em is, I don't know a11 the answers yet. I don't know where this thing is, in spite of an of this stuff I've read, going through the Warren County P1anning stuff, to me, there sti11 is a number of questions. I just can't get beyond the idea that this is going to have an impact on that area, and it's not going to be a positive impact, and it makes it very difficu1t for me to buy the idea that this proposa1 is going to improve situations out there. I'm speaking for myse1f, here. I have a great dea1 of sympathy for the app1icants. I know that doesn't cut any ice with you, because you're at the end of the chain, here, but I have to 100k at this thing from a big picture perspective. MR. LAPOINT-So, that wou1d e1iminate, Number One, Number Two, and Number Three, and you'd be as a straight yes. As to the answer, Wi11 there be an effect to existing transportation systems, it wou1d just be yes, and none of One, Two, or Three? MR. MARTIN-What he's asking, it's not mitigated at a11? MR. LAPOINT-Correct. MR. CARTIER-I don't know. MR. LAPOINT-We'11 put you down as yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Yes, in terms of impact. MR. W\RTIN-Okay. Corinne? MRS. TARANA-I'm no, we11, I'd have to hear those questions. I don't know if I'm yes or no. 11 - --- MR. MARTIN-You mean yes, I think. MRS. TARANA-Yes. Okay. Like Pete, I don't know. I don't have all the answers. There's a lot of conflicting information. There's a study going on. I'm not doubting what Mark's saying, but I don't know that it's right, according to what's going to come out of this study, and until that study is done, and there are conclusions made from that, I don't feel as though I can, in good conscience, say that this is not going to have any impacts. MR. MARTIN-I don't want you to feel like I'm here trying to twist your arm and change your mind. I just want to give you an opportunity to state your views. MRS. TARANA-You' re not twisting my arm or changing my mind. Well, that's why I feel uncomfortable saying, no. Which way am I saying. MR. MARTIN-Read the questions for her again. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. The way this works is I read the question, and if you answer yes, then you have one of three alternatives, or one of your own alternatives, and I'll read the question, and I'll read, your answer is obviously, yes, there will be an impact, and then I'll give you one of three choices to pick, or fourth, your own, which I think Peter has done. Correct, Pete? MR. CARTIER-Essentially, yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay, and it is Impact on Transportation. Question Number 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems. You say yes. Now, you can say that, one, the effect is sman to moderate impact, which is where I'm at. You can say, Two, it is a potential large impact, I guess which is where Peter's at, or Three, can impact be mitigated by project change, and I think that one's more or less out, because we're not going to change anything for what's in front of us, at this point. MR. MARTIN-I don't know if that's the correct interpretation of that. MR. SCHACHNER-I have to agree with what I think Mr. Martin's thinking. The project has been changed, in significant mitigative measures. MR. MARTIN-I think the proper interpretation of that question in this scenario is, you have this large retail center being put on this site, and there's going to be traffic from that. Yes, there's a large impact. Now, in light of that, mitigation measures have been called for by the State, and the applicant has agreed to those. So, the impacts have been mitigated. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I would have to respectfully agree that that's appropriate. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I agree, also, with that. So, again, that could be yes or no to Item Number Three, Can impact be mitigated by project change. MRS. TARANA-And that's why I said, no. I think the traffic problems are more than just right there, and I think that this project will impact on traffic problems beyond this little. MRS. YORK-This might help you. It's their Environmental Assessment Form. MRS. PULVER-But aren't we supposed to just consider the traffic around this site, for this particular SEQRA? MR. MARTIN-The traffic resulting from this project. MRS. PULVER-Right, from this project only, not the whole road. MRS. TARANA-My point is that the traffic problem is more than right at that particular intersection, and I don't think that what they've done so far will mitigate the problems that are created further on Route 9 or 149. MR. YARMOWICH-Problems from this project, or problems that exist before? MRS. TARANA-Problems that existed before and will be increased by this project. MR. CARTIER-Look, suppose we took that approach with every single site plan that went on up there. Well, it's going to have a little bit of an impact, but it's not going to have much of a total impact. MRS. YORK-I think that's what already has happened up there. MR. CARTIER-That's my exact point. What we have been saying up there is, okay, there's going to be a little bit of an impact, but it's not going to have much of an effect. Well, now we are suffering 12 '-- c___ the consequences of those minor accumulations of traffic impacts, and unfortunately, these guys are, well, maybe Mr. Kenny's at the end of his chain now, but these guys are towards the end of this, and at some point we have to say, okay, enough is enough. We've got to get the traffic issues straighten up up there before any more expansion takes place, that's my personal opinion. I'm not asking anybody else on this Board to buy that. I'm talking about where I'm coming from. I'm not saying they can't have it. I'm saying things have got to get straightened out up there before any more expansion takes place. In other words, I agree with what Warren County Planning is saying, and if I read what they're saying, that's essentially the same things they're saying. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Chairman, I don't know that it's prudent or appropriate to get bogged down at this point. One reason is that, as I understand it, we're conducting our SEQRA Review, right now, of this project, and I think that many of Mrs. Tarana's and Mr. Cartier's comments speak to ultimate decision on this project, more than SEQRA Review. On SEQRA Review, they are of the opinion, evidently, that, I'm not sure. I think Mr. Cartier candidly said he's not sure what he would check off, other than yes. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. So, I think we have Mr. Cartier as a yes, and I don't know which of One, Two, Three, I would check off, and Mrs. Tarana, I think, has now been straightened around to definitely, I have to say you're not voting no, but you're saying, yes, there will be a traffic impact, and I think she's suggesting, perhaps I think she's suggesting, I'm not sure, that you don't think this traffic impact is being mitigated by what we're proposing, or, you think that the problems elsewhere on the Route 9 corridor are not going to be helped by what we're proposing, and, again, I guess I have two thoughts. One thought is, we polled the Board. I have to correct myself, we're almost done polling the Board, and I guess it seems to me that it would be appropriate to poll the Board and see where we're at, in terms of numbers, on this issue. Why don't we finish that. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, we have Ed and Tim as a no, and it can be mitigated. Peter is, I would say, yes, and potential large impact, Column Number Two. MR. CARTIER-Yes, I agree. MR. MARTIN-And Corinne is definitely in that category as well. Carol. MRS. PULVER-They're not no. They were yeses with, can be mitigated by project change, right? MR. LAPOINT-No. They were not yeses with that. MRS. PULVER-Okay. Well, now I'm confused. Okay. You were noes. Help me, here, if I'm wrong, but I'm supposed to look at the SEQRA as how this particular project relates to the traffic on the road that will result from the addition of this project. Okay. Not the whole road, they're not going to help the whole road. They're only going to help. MR. YARMOWICH-No. It's demonstrated by the traffic study that there are measurable impacts, due to trip generation studies, throughout the corridor, okay. MRS. PULVER-But this project isn't going to make it any worse. MR. YARMOWICH-In terms of level of service deterioration, no. MRS. PULVER-My answer's no. MR. YARMOWICH-There are going to be changes in delays, okay. Whether or not they are small to moderate, mitigated or unmitigated is something that really boils down to, you have to make the decision based on the information you've been given. I tried to point out in my report for you that, though DOT says, no level of service change, yes, there are measurable or definable impacts from study projections. MRS. YORK-A level of service is a range. It isn't just. MR. YARMOWICH-That acceptability is your determination, ultimately. MRS. PULVER-Right, well, see, l've lived in the Chicago area. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, Carol, you're saying, no, and impact can be mitigated by project change. You do this first, and then come to this conclusion. MR. LAPOINT-No. She's saying no, Number One, right? MRS. PULVER-I'm saying no, Number One. 13 '-- -..-/ MR. MARTIN-Okay. My vote wouJd be, or view on this, wouJd be that, as I stated earJier, with this mitigation, or this approach to the mitigation answer, here, is that there wiJJ be an impact as a resuJt of this Jarge retaiJ operation going on in here, but I beJieve, based on the expert that we have consistentJy reJied on, that the impacts win be mitigated by the actions undertaken by the appJicant. Now, the other thing I'd Jike to add to that is, I think that it's an important part for a PJanning Board to be consistent. MRS. PULVER-Wait a minute. That's what I wanted to do, and they said it was either a yes or a no. No. I want, yes, there wiJJ be an impact, but with what they have proposed to do, it wiJJ be mitigated, okay. MR. BREWER-There wiJJ be an impact, but it is smaJJ to moderate. MR. SCHACHNER-That's where you started off. MR. MARTIN-Let me finish what I was going to say. I think we owe it to the pubJic to be consistent in our reviews, and the time that I've been on the Board, anyhow, is that we have reHed on the determinations from the Department of Transportation, and I understand that this section of the Town is a particuJarJy heightened issue when it comes to traffic, but we've taken that view in the past, and to suddenJy singJe out this appJication, in Hght of those probJems up there, and deviate from that consistency is unfair, and that is why I am personany taking the view I am, and agreeing with DOT on this, as we have done in the past. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Martin, if I couJd just add to that, very briefJy. Mr. Cartier, I have to disagree, respectfuJJy, with one eJement of one comment you made, but onJy it's my opinion. You wouJd know better than I. It's my opinion that many, if not an of the previous projects that were approved and constructed in this corridor were not the subject of rigorous traffic anaJysis, traffic studies, and traffic mitigation measures, and my impression is, to what you've said, if I understood it correctJy, is that we've done this a bunch of times before, and I don't think that's true. I don't think that this PJanning Board or any other agency has taken the same hard Jook at the other existing projects, and that the mitigation, and imposed mitigation measures which have fanen short. That's not my impression. My impression is that there were not sophisticated traffic anaJysis done, that this type of rigorous scrutiny was not undertaken, and if you want to say it shouJd have been undertaken, I'm not going to stand here and disagree with you. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, what's your point? MR. SCHACHNER-That here we do have traffic anaJysis, JeveJ of service discussion, and things Jike that, and significant mitigation measures. MR. MARTIN-That's the key point. MR. SCHACHNER-I thought if we're throwing this into a category of, we've done this many times before and Jook what's happened, and what I'm saying is this is different. This is a new era, so to speak, in this corridor. One which we commend. We think you're taking an extremeJy hard Jook, an appropriateJy so, but I don't think it's fair, if I'm right on the facts here, and you wouJd know better than I, I don't think it's fair to Jump us into what's happened in the past. I think what's happened in the past has been, you haven't done this type of rigorous anaJysis and pJanning. MR. CARTIER-I agree. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and the onJy other point I wanted to make, very briefJy, is that I think Mrs. Tarana is saying there's confJicting information, and from our standpoint, I have to submit for the Board's consideration we cannot identify !!!l. contradictory or confJicting information whatsoever. You may not agree with some of the discussion or anaJysis by the New York State Department of Transportation, but we don't see any confJicting information in this record whatsoever. MR. MARTIN-Okay. WHEREAS, there is presentJy before the PJanning Board an appHcation for: OSCAP LTD, To establish two buildings for the purpose of a retan outlet center, including relocation and expansion of the existing Dexter Shoe Outlet Center Store. Total gross building area to be 68,000 sq. ft. with total gross leasable area to be 62,000 sq. ft., and WHEREAS, this PJanning Board has determined that the proposed project and PJanning Board action is subject to review under the State EnvironmentaJ QuaJity Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federaJ agency appears to be invoJved. 14 "--' ---' 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the official compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 29th day of April, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin NOES: Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Tarana ABSENT: Mr. Lauricella MR. MARTIN-I believe we have a negative declaration, as a result of a four to two vote. MR. CARTIER-Yes, right, because the override doesn't apply to the County. MR. MARTIN-Now, we have the actual site plan review issues to proceed with, and I believe we have some concerns from the Staff, as well as from the engineering letter, and possibly others that you've. MR. BREWER-Is this to go through this whole thing tonight and vote on this? MR. MARTIN-Well, what's the Board's feeling? Do you feel like you're in a position to? MR. LAPOINT-We need a five to four, right? MR. MARTIN-No. You need a five to two. MR. LAPOINT-A five to two. MR. MARTIN-As an override to the County. MR. BREWER-Or all six of us. MR. MARTIN-Yes. A minimum of five to two, I should say. MR. BREWER-I think you're talking tonight, or whatever. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I mean, I have no interest in continuing, for academic purposes. MR. MARTIN-Well, if there's some feeling here about not being able to proceed, I'd like to know what the basis is of that. Is there any reason why we can't proceed? MR. CARTIER-Well, there's some options to us. We can go ahead with the vote on this thing. Speaking for myself, my reading of this is we're looking at a four two vote again. Which means that it goes down the tubes because we don't have six members here. That's one option. We can table this thing until we have seven members here, and the applicant can just take his chances at that time. MR. MARTIN-Well, the reality of that is that we all know Peter is finished as of May 31st. MRS. PULVER-If they don't get back by then, and we don't get a new member, then we're still short, we would be short a member vote. MR. LAPOINT-We'd assume Jim would be back for another meeting. I mean, that would give us six. MR. MARTIN-I don't see why we shouldn't be able to get this done with. MRS. PULVER-Well, I guess my only feeling is if this gets tabled, I'd like to know what the concerns are, from the Board members, what expert testimony they would like this applicant to produce, what information or whatever, you know, at a future date. 15 "--" -.../ MR. SCHACHNER-With all due respect, correct me if 1'm wrong two dissenting, potentially dissenting members, I don't believe either potentially dissenting member has identified or can identify something that we could produce from an expert witness. I believe that they've expressed their concern about this corridor and that their position is that this project, in their opinion, is not going to go forward until a global corridor study of some sort is undertaken, and global mitigation measures are undertaken. Mr. Cartier, at least, seems to be agreeing with that. I'm not sure if Mrs. Tarana also agrees with that. Although I appreciate your sentiment, Mrs. Pulver, frankly, I don't have something in my back pocket that I can say, okay, we'll bring a traffic engineer with more Ph.d's and more degrees and more credentials than our last one. We've shot our wad on the traffic issue. The New York State Department of Transportation is comfortable with the data we have presented. Two of your members are not comfortable with the data that we've presented. I guess the options, it seems to me, again, speaking on my feet, as best I can, are we may consider, the applicant may consider asking for this application to be tabled, with the hope of having an additional member present at the next meeting to break what we might perceive as a stalemate. One issue on that, I'm not clear on the timing of Mr. Cartier's participation. This is not your last meeting? MR. CARTIER-No. My tenure will be done as of May 31. MR. SCHACHNER-The other thing we can do, I think in fairness to us, I think I would need a five minute recess to discuss this with the project team. The other thing we could do is we could consider asking you to refer us back to the County. Although that's not what we anticipated, if the County's negative recommendation is what, perhaps, puts this Board at loggerheads, we may consider requesting you to refer us back. I'm not sure. MR. CARTIER-That may be an appropriate option, because if the County signs off on this thing, I would be more than willing to go along with it. I just want to make sure the County concerns have been addressed. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm troubled by that, only in this respect Mr. Cartier. I understand you to be saying that the New York State Department of Transportation signs off, that doesn't carry the wait with you that the Warren County Planning carries, is that correct? MR. CARTIER-Correct. That's a fairly accurate statement. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Cartier, if you don't mind me asking, have you been to any Warren County Planning Board meetings? MR. CARTIER-I've been to none. MR. SCHACHNER-I would encourage you to attend some. MR. MARTIN-Well, the only thing I would offer you, in terms of your consideration of that option is that you were at Warren County Planning when this project was of a substantially different nature, and you also have your letters from DOT, now, that you didn't have before. I wasn't there. I don't know if you had a very militant response from them, but these are new pieces of information that certainly can't hurt you. MR. CARTIER-The only response I would make to that, in terms of whether or not I've been to any Warren County Planning Board meetings is, taking the comments that were made in reflection, as to what happens at Warren County Planning, when they do get involved, I pay very close attention, okay. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm not casting a negative aspersion on what they do. MR. CARTIER-I understand that. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm referring to the level of detail of examination. I don't think it's inappropriate. The County Planning Board has a different focus, in that it's a recommending agency. It's not a binding approval or denial agency. MR. CARTIER-But I'm the one who gets to decide how much weight I assign to various boards. The only other thing I might suggest that you might want to consider, and this Board can consider, is there may be some other site plan issues that you want to talk about tonight that can get addressed. MR. MARTIN-Well, yes, I definitely want to root those out so that we can get to a point at which there is maybe one singular issue outstanding or something like that, or at least minimize them as much as we can, so we don't get caught up in this three and four meeting business spread over several months. MR. SCHACHNER-In fairness, in order to respond, if you were to ask me about either the applicant's being will to ask you to table this matter, or the applicant asking you to refer this back to the County, I simply can't answer that question without time. MR. MARTIN-Right. We will give you your time for consultation. 16 '--' --- MR. SCHACHNER-And we're very interested in discussing any other site plan issues. MR. MARTIN-Putting that aside, then, lets move on to the other site plan review issues. I, personally, would like to see some comment given to Mr. Yarmowich's comment about the throat of the entryway, and also a consideration, although I know this is a monumental request, moving the retail center back off the road a little bit. I don't want to sit here and have this thing built and the old Quaker Plaza routine, you guys did that? I want to at least have a thorough review of this. How far is this building off the road, right now? MRS. YORK-110. MRS. PULVER-II0 feet off. MR. YARMOWICH-From the property line. MR. CARTIER-Lets take a break. MR. MARTIN-Has the applicant had sufficient time to consult? Okay. I believe we left off, we were trying to look into some of the site plan issues, and then we'll see where the ultimate decision, here, lies a little later on, as these may effect that as well. Okay. I just threw out for consideration, first and foremost, Tom's comment regarding the entry throat to the property, the length of it, as well as the location of the retail center building there, if it could be consideration given to pushing it back into the property. Remember, we looked at Quaker Plaza on paper like this and we said, this is all right, and then when it was built and it was there in reality, it seemed like an overwhelming structure a little close to the road. All right. So, starting the discussion off with that, is there anything else anybody would like to add to that or expand upon those or, we're looking at site plan considerations, here, now. Lee, do you have any idea what, on the average or an estimate on the average of what the buildings are off of the street there? MRS. YORK-How far are they? MR. MARTIN-Yes, in that corridor back off the street? MRS. YORK-They have to be 75, by Code. MR. MARTIN-Yes, I understand that. MR. YARMOWICH-Some of them are of a horse shape that lend themselves to different circumstances. MR. INGERSALL-Previously to the zoning amendment, there was a 50 foot setback in lieu of the 75 foot setback. If you look, actually, prior to that, most of the buildings are within 30 feet of the road. So, we're as far back as. MR. MARTIN-You're 110? MR. INGERSALL-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. How tall is this building going to be again, the front elevation? MR. INGERSALL-The roof slopes. There's, actually, two elevations. I think it's 35 feet. MR. MARTIN-The highest point? MR. BREWER-I think it said 40 in the. MR. INGERSALL-Well, we can measure. MR. CARTIER-Well, you're outside the blue line. MR. INGERSALL-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, 40 feet would apply. MR. MARTIN-Yes, could you put that up? Is that the front elevation there? MR. COOLY-It's difficult to say, because the highest point of the roof is setback from the face of the building. So, to get a real projection of the height of the building, you'd have to measure. MR. CARTIER-You have to measure from the lowest. MR. BREWER-Yes, so that's 40. 17 -- --./ MR. CARTIER-That's got to be from the 10west. or 1ess, you're a11 set. That's measured from the 10west, and if you're 40 feet MR. MARTIN-We11, I know they're within Code, but I'm just trying to get a perspective on the appearance of the bui1ding, given the 110 foot setback, and the 40 foot height, what's that going to 100k 1ike from the road. Is it going to be something that's in harmony. GARY MCCOOLA MR. MCCOOLA-My name is Gary McCo01a of Robert Joy and Associates. This site p1an is a schematic type one. It doesn't ref1ect changes that have been made. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. MCCOOLA-This, here, is the existing Dexter bui1ding, which is being moved from its present 10cation, approximate1y in the midd1e here over here, with this L-shape added to it. It win be raised up with a 10wer 1eve1 as the main entry 1eve1, and then the upper f100r, and an access in the back to the top 1eve1. This is the 1arger retai1 center, here. The 10wer 1eve1 is accessed a10ng the front side, and then as the driveway comes up toward the back, there's a wa1kway a10ng there, and then the upper 1eve1 stores are accessed from the back end of the bui1ding, here. MR. MARTIN-I see. Now, how far is the existing bui1ding off of the side of the road? MR. INGERSALL-75 feet. MR. MARTIN-So, we're actua11y 100king at this, both bu11dings being deeper than the existing one is now? MR. CARTIER-So, you're moving that north and back? MR. MARTIN-We11, the existing bui1ding is being moved north and back, but the new one wi11 be approximate1y where the existing one is now. So, we're going back approximate1y 45 feet further, or 35 feet. MR. BREWER-The shoe store, how far is that? If this is 110, how far is this, because this is c10ser to the road than this. MR. INGERSALL-85 to the entrance-way. MR. BREWER-So, you're 10 foot beyond the setback. Is there any way we can make the shoe store back even with this, make 1ike a radius right here, as this comes down 1ike that? Is that possib1e or not? MRS. PULVER-You'd probab1y start effecting the parking. MR. BREWER-What I'm thinking, though, Car01, is if he moves this back, it gives you, maybe, a 1itt1e more parking here, in front, and then if he were to tie into the Kennys, it just seems if they were a11 in a row, you wou1dn't have the. MRS. PULVER-We11, is that the on1y reason to move it back, is to tie into the Kennys? MR. BREWER-No, no. I'm asking because we asked about moving the bui1ding, this bui1ding back, minimum, if we cou1d ask him to move this bui1ding back even to this. MR. INGERSALL- The inherent difficu1ties with the site in this 10cation are that this is the steepest grade. We pushed it as far as we can, and if you move it back and you f0110w the setback 1ines, it'11 actua11y start to pinch in, which makes the separation not not happen. MR. MCCOOLA-We a1so have the 10ading dock for the Dexter bui1ding on this back side, here. If you start pushing that back, it raises a 1itt1e bit higher than f100r 1eve1. MR. INGERSALL-You'd rea11y have to move it back another 40 feet to gain another row of parking, if that's what your question was. MR. MARTIN-That wou1d effect your radiuses for the 10ading dock in the back. MR. BREWER-I see this 1ine goes back at an ang1e 1ike that. I see what you're saying, it's going to pinch this bui1ding or your throat, here. If that 1ine goes 1ike that, you're just pushing it back. MR. INGERSALL-Our discussions with Mr. Kenny have indicated a connection here is the most 10gica1 p1ace to do it. MR. LAPOINT-We're going to ta1k about that 1ater, as a separate issue. I've have a c1earer understanding of what he was speaking of. 18 -- '~~ MR. MARTIN-Well, I just wanted to throw that out as a point of discussion, if anybody wants to expand on it. MR. BREWER-I think if they push that back any further, though, Jim, it's going to look out of place, maybe, I don't know. MR. INGERSALL-It's really, actually further back from the road at this point. It's just the property lines. MR. MARTIN-I'm just concerned about this large looming structure all of a sudden appearing here and out of character with everything else. I know we're at site plan here, and the correction is limited, but if there is some reasonable thing that can be done, fine, and if not, then that's the way it is, but I just wanted to explore the question. MRS. PULVER-How do you mean out of character? MR. MARTIN-Well, I mean out of character in that, that's why I've been asking about building height and so on. If we're looking at a structure that's abnormally higher than what's there. It's going to be, like I said, this obtrusive structure rising out of the landscape. MR. MCCOOLA-As you can see, this lower level, the street level side here has a canopy along the whole front, and the mass of the entire building of the second floor has been setback from that, more substantially at this intersection here, and we have a tower element separating that. The idea was to really break up the roof so it doesn't look like a long monotonous building with a series of gables and also so it's not a big block sitting on the site. MR. INGERSALL-Right, and the fact that it's tucked into the hill further reduces that impact. MR. MCCOOLA-So, as you get onto the back side, it's a one story building. MR. MARTIN-Right. I see. MR. INGERSALL-Really, from the front, you're perceiving a story and a half to two at the most. You don't really see the whole roof line at grade. MR. MARTIN-I know there's some fairly large structures along there now. I can't keep all those Centers straight, but the one that's near the Montcalm Restaurant is fairly large, I know. MRS. PULVER-I'd say it's probably only about 75 feet back from the road, too. MR. MARTIN-And the hotel along there is two stories, the Days Inn. All right. Well, I just had those questions. I feel more comfortable with the design. Does anybody else have anything? MR. CARTIER-Yes, a couple of things, handicapped parking and access, is that built in somewhere? don't see handicapped. I couldn't find it on. MR. MARTIN-He had it there on the. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Do you have handicapped parking shown? Do you have a handicapped access? MR. INGERSALL-Several of them. MR. CARTIER-Okay. The only other question is, do you anticipate a restaurant? MR. INGERSALL-No. MR. CARTIER-I'm just asking, because the reason I raise the question is, if we're talking about a restaurant, that has an impact on parking. MR. INGERSALL-And actually the septic system isn't designed to take grease or anything like that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-So, you're looking at strictly a retail complex here, retail goods and so on. MR. CARTIER-And I guess the only other comment I have is, assuming this thing's going to come back before this Board, it may be appropriate to get this issue of connection with the property to the north settled so that that can show up on a site plan. MR. MARTIN-My other question was, I want to make an assumption, here, about an approval time from the planning process. If you were to say you had an approval of June 1. What is the approximate date that the doors would open, so to speak? 19 , . I ........- ~. MR. INGERSALL-I think that's important to discuss, because we're rea11y ta1king about one year from. MR. MARTIN-Right. That's why I asked, because if we're 100king at a traffic study being done in 1ate August, ear1y September, and then any measures imp1emented as a resu1t of that maybe fo11owing in the spring, we cou1d have. MR. YARMOWICH-It wou1d take a minimum of three years for major changes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-They'11 come a10ng with time. A11 these traffic studies are based on projected, after things have had coup1e of years of background growth, anyway. So, what you're 100king at is a worst case scenario, without these improvements and so forth, but don't expect DOT to catch up with anything within a year or two, three years, five years. MR. INGERSALL-Worst case scenarios are projected 10 years down the road. MR. YARMOWICH-Whatever. MR. INGERSALL-That's what we've been ta1king about a11 a10ng. MR. MARTIN-Right. I understand that. MR. INGERSALL-When these stores open, the 1eve1 of service, things we've been ta1king about, don't app1y untH the growth that's projected down the road. So, we're rea11y, immediate1y, when this is bui1t, the intersection, there's going to be 1ess traffic for a period of time, unti1 the growth comes into p1ay, because if you 100k at the numbers in the chart. MR. YARMOWICH-There won't be 1ess traffic. It may f10w a 1itt1e better. MR. CARTIER-But based on what we 1earned about traffic f10w 1ast night, the more traffic we have, the faster it'11 move. MR. INGERSALL-We are prepared to address the growth, if that's a major topic. MR. LAPOINT-Wen, I'll have a major topic, I need two minutes for the connection to the north, I'm just going to need two minutes to do that. Okay. Now, Mr. Kenny said he asked if you cou1d design a connection west of the Dexter Out1et. MR. INGERSALL-Within this area? Whereabouts? He asked in severa1 p1aces. MR. KENNY-Right in here. MR. INGERSALL-Yes, we can. MR. LAPOINT-You can do that? You can add that in to 1ink that property in? I 1ike it. He's got two cuts in 134 feet now. That's a horseshoe in off Route 9. His point is that with the southbound traffic backed up, nobody's going to be ab1e to make 1eft turns into his horseshoe across stacked traffic heading south, correct? MR. INGERSALL-The traffic 1ane diminishes before it gets to a turn 1ane, if that's what you're speaking of. MR. LAPOINT-Not your turn 1ane. He's 100king at somebody going northbound, 100king at stacked traffic, so they can't get in to make a 1eft hand turn. MR. MARTIN-Coming back from Lake George they can't cross that. MR. LAPOINT-Correct. MR. BREWER-Without going to Lake George. MR. LAPOINT-Going to Lake George. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but he's ta1king about the stacked traffic coming. MR. BREWER-Coming south. MR. LAPOINT-Exact1y, and the idea of 1inking that property is in the concept of what we did with Frank's and here, and if we cou1d show that, even as a proposed, or 1eave a 1eeway in there. 20 i --..L-- --- MR. INGERSALL-If we indicate a 50 foot proposed future development easement within this area, is that sati sfactory? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I mean, here we're doing exactly what we intend to do in linking these things internally. MR. INGERSALL-It's very difficult to say exactly that's going to work. Conceptually, we have no plans to on, we have no guarantee that he will be given any. MR. LAPOINT-No. Again, he'd have to come for site plan with where he picks up that road, and all you can do is leave that 50 foot there. MR. SCHACHNER-Just to, hopefully, close that issue, that's the best we can do, as the applicant. MR. MARTIN-I understand that. MR. SCHACHNER-I just want the record to be clear that Dexter approached Mr. Kenny, previously, and in fact, thought we had some sort of an agreement, in principle, that given that we don't know exactly what his development will be, if any. That's the best we can do. MR. MARTIN-All right. I think there's a number of complicated issues, here, and it's finally worked itself out. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. It's a communication problem, I think, initially. MR. MARTIN-All right. I guess, could you get into Tom's comment about the length of the accessway? MR. INGERSALL-The accessway, I think it's important to note, if we back tracked to the existing entrance which we are utilizing, and signaling, okay, we're reconfiguring that. Currently, we don't have a stacking, okay. So, the situation we're talking about, I think it's important to say that we are improving the access to Dexter, as it is. Just for your information, we went and measured several of the facilities throughout the Town, within that strip, and just, if I could read these off, Basketville has a 30 foot minimum, French Mountain, 43 foot, the Lake George Outlet Center, 30 foot, and 39 foot on one side, Dunhams, 20 foot, Quaker Road plaza, 18 feet. We have 45 feet, which exceeds all of these. MR. YARMOWICH-Do they have parking lots right there, in front of them? MR. INGERSALL-Yes. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. I wasn't aware that there were those kind of circumstances. MR. INGERSALL-So, we have 45 foot to the end of our island, and actually, before you get into the driveway, it really approaches almost 55 feet. That's just to start off. In addition to that, we asked our Traffic Consultants to run some numbers. Since we just got this afternoon, we're working on it, but, in a nutshell, because we have the two lanes in and out, which actually we're going to reconfigure. I think it's important to see this large scale map which we've prepared. This is what we re-submitted to DOT. There's also another issue, here, which I think Dexter would like to bring up. When we went down to meet with DOT, they were under the impression that this crosswalk had already been solved. This Board approved, in 1988, an expansion to Dunhams, when they were mandated to do this crosswalk thing. Dexter is now going to do this for Dunhams. Anyway, what we've done, and what we were asked by DOT to do is to show this at a larger scale, to show the alignments, and that's why the traffic signals that are there will be relocated and will include traffic. The turning lane here, the crosswalk. The stop line will come back behind the stop, crosswalk. This'll be re-striped. This'll be pushed back, and the turning lane is shown here. So, the general flow is greatly improved. Now, what happens is, just so the Town knows, the State would rather not have an island here, but the Town recommendation, specifications for dividing entrances, mandate it. So, we're caught in a little bit of a, but we know width. What we're going to do is, it's shown at 20 feet. We're going to make this 24. So, we have two lanes coming in, and two lanes going out, and what, not being a traffic engineer, but I can explain, I hope, the numbers that are given to me. The maximum volumes for one lane of traffic coming through this in a peak hour is 212 vehicles, okay, that's through here. If you divide the 45 second cycles of the light and the turning capacity coming into the site, that allows 2.65 cars per 45 seconds coming in, okay, and I have to back up, because it's very confusing to me too. With the two lanes that we have, each lane allows 1.3 to stack up per 45 seconds. So, if you add up all the numbers, it would take three cycles for the light to go through, before there would actually be any backing up in here, because they're also exiting. So, the bottleneck that's happening isn't, it's really only in the instance of an accident that it's going to happen, and at a very peak flow. The traffic deliveries that Dexter has are limited, purposely, to non peak hours, and they can explain that. MR. MARTIN-I was going to ask that, about their delivery times. MR. INGERSALL-But in addition, what we're going to propose, and our Traffic Engineers have shown it, and we'll submit this on another drawing, is additional signage that indicates no stopping within this area. Traffic has to go through or turn. We're going to have stop lines, here, that don't allow you 21 ~ --- to, it's really stopping is what we're doing, except for the entrance. So, we're doing the best we can, in light of the site configuration, and we have to go at grade fairly quickly. So, I guess it's not ideal, but it's much better than anything in the area. MR. MARTIN-I think that drawing, that might have been appropriate to show even earlier in our discussions here. MR. INGERSALL-When you look at it on a bigger scale, it helps things a lot. MR. LAPOINT-Is that part of our site plan package? MR. INGERSALL-We just submitted what we sent to DOT. We can make that a detail, as part of the. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. We just have the one drawing, here. I was just curious if that was part of the package that I have at home? MRS. YORK-No, it is not. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I just try to keep straight what I'm seeing. MR. MARTIN-Tom, you've seen this, though, right? MR. YARMOWICH-No. Just now is the first time I've looked at it, but it does lend a lot of definition and answers the concerns, with regard to the truck turning geometry. MR. INGERSALL-We shaved back the silo to accommodate the rear of the parking. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. It's much more accommodating for traffic, and it provides a lot less potential for conflict of someone trying to make a left and a right, and both entering at the same time. It leaves a little more space. MR. INGERSALL-And really what would happen, when these cars back up, we'd still have the room to get by them. MR. MARTIN-Are you going to stripe that entry-way as a two lane? MR. INGERSALL-Yes. That's one of the recommendations, that there be a solid double stripe indicated. MR. EADS-Dave Eads with Dexter Shoe. On the task force study, we originally recommended that the State give us several options for crosswalks in this section of the Million Dollar Half Mile. The State came back and said, no way, and when we met with the State down on review for this, this the only crosswalk that is going to be allowed by the State on that Million Dollar Half Mile. All the merchants specifically recommended. We had three or four locations that we recommended, and the State came back and said, no way. They give a false illusion of safety. So, this is the only one that had been approved, and we were surprised to see in their files that the Board had approved this before the Dunham being involved. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, that's a lot different than what we've seen so far. Is there anything else anybody's got from a site plan? MR. LAPOINT-Start going through the engineering stuff one at a time. The top of the berm should be no problem, right, adding a foot to the berm? MR. INGERSALL-No problem with that. MR. LAPOINT-No problem with that. Number Two, the first paragraph's okay. The second's okay. Third's okay. Fourth, no problem, and Number Three, the throat area, does this help, as you just said, the detail helps explain. MR. YARMOWICH- The new detail provides for a lot more flexibility and vehicle passage in that area, should it become congested, and it does demonstrate that there's adequate geometry to get the delivery sized vehicles and so forth in there. I think, on the basis of that perhaps being part of your approval, it would be acceptable from an engineering standpoint. MR. MARTIN-Depending on how this ends, here, you may have opportunity to see this in a formal submission, or at least have time for further review, without catching you right here on the. MR. YARMOWICH-If you'd care to have me do that, I'd be happy. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Now, some type of Code within the Town stipulates an island in that entrance-way, because if it's bad planning, bad engineering, lets get rid of it. Is it a good idea to have a block out there in the middle of this thing? 22 I , ............ - MR. YARMOWICH-Because of the vehicle speeds and the entry of vehicles from different directions. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Well, DOT doesn't like it. I mean, DOT does not like them, right? That's what I heard from the applicant. MR. INGERSALL-In this instance, it was an informal conversation that they said it wouldn't bother them if that went away. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. The applicant likes the island? Okay. If it's a good idea, and you want it, fine. MR. MARTIN-Well, yes, if they like it, but if we can arrive at an island that's narrower, that seems to make sense as well. MR. YARMOWICH-Let me compare this to, like, could you imagine the entrance to the Aviation Mall, okay, at the traffic light near the Friendly's, without an island, okay, and what kind of an image would that project, as far as having multiple lanes of traffic at that intersection, entering at relatively high speed traffic. It has its merits. It has some problems associated with it, too. MRS. PULVER-But there's no problem making it narrower. MR. YARMOWICH-You have to make it distinguishable. Again, it goes back to, you've got to make it so drivers recognize its purpose and react to it correctly. MR. INGERSALL-We have a 10 foot island and a 20 foot lane. What I'd like to do is make this 24 foot lane and a 6 foot island. MR. MARTIN-That seems to me to be the key, here, is the width of these lanes, allowing for as much ease of ingress into the site as we can get. MR. YARMOWICH-I agree. MR. LAPOINT-We're talking a six foot wide standard height. MR. INGERSALL-Correct. MR. BREWER-Planted or landscaped? MR. INGERSALL-Well, we'll have to look at it. It'll either be planted, or it'll be similar to the Shop N' Save entrance. MR. CARTIER-Something so it's obviously noticeable. MR. INGERSALL-Yes. If you drive over it, you'll know. MR. LAPOINT-Well, the trucks will drive over it anyway. They're going to hit that every time, anyway, coming in there. MRS. PULVER-I guess I'm thinking about something eye level, there. It's easy to drive over something, but if there's a five foot tree, you're less apt to go over it. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, you don't want anything higher than window height of a passenger vehicle, so that it won't obstruct view. MRS. PULVER-I mean, eye level when you're in the car. MR. YARMOWICH-Even below that. You don't want, you want it so that you can physically see part of the vehicle. If you're just looking at glass, you never see the vehicle. You want it low enough so that you can see vehicles. MR. MARTIN-I think there's a consensus here of a six foot we're all in agreement. All right, so the Engineering even the last one appears to have some improvement there. there that stands out for anybody? island, and if you would prefer that as well, Comments, we've addressed many of them, and In terms of Lee's comments, is there anything MR. BREWER-Just before we get away from it, they suggested that deliveries are going to come in at off peak times. MR. MARTIN-Yes, I wanted to hear about that also. JIM SHAW 23 --.L-- ~ MR. SHAW-Jim Shaw, Dexter Shoe. We can incorporate into the lease agreement with the tenants for the Center that deliveries occur whatever time is convenient according to what the traffic analysis says off peak time, say between 8 a.m. and noon, or after 5 p.m., and that's not a problem. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, you would have no problems with limitations of that type? MR. SHAW-No, not at all. MR. MARTIN-Okay. DAVE KENNY MR. KENNY-I think if they made limitations to that, an awful lot of deliveries are made by UPS, which I didn't know. Probably 80 percent of the tenants are going to get UPS, small trucks. Limitations of deliveries, limitations of tractor trailers and not limitations of night deliveries. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Does anybody see anything in Lee's comments that need further explanation? MR. CARTIER-At some point, you'd be appearing before the Beautification Committee I assume. Have you already done that? MR. INGERSALL-We received approval. MR. BREWER-It says also, Jim, the pedestrian access from the rear parking area should be discussed, and access ways provided for, Comment Four from Lee. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Yes, could you go through your pedestrian access from the rear parking area? MR. INGERSALL-Yes. I think, actually, we could show you on the model. What's proposed is a connection, I assume we're speaking from this area down to the lower area? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. INGERSALL-What there is, from the back, there's a covered canopy, and along the side of the building there's a covered walkway that comes all the way around into this plaza, here. MR. MARTIN-Is there any access directly through the rear of the building? MR. INGERSALL-You mean through the building? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. INGERSALL-No. MR. CARTIER-People are going to have to come out of one store, go around to the front, and go in another store? MR. INGERSALL-Correct. MR. BREWER-And the reason for that being? MR. INGERSALL-Stairs, elevators, handicapped visibility. MRS. PULVER-If the stores ran front to back, right, they would have to man both the front and the back of the store, and there'd be a whole other lot of complicated things, having a retail business that has a front and a back. MR. INGERSALL-You'd be creating a public space, here, service access. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I see, a lot of your deliveries and things are occurring through the rear? MR. INGERSALL-Actually, all the deliveries come into this loading dock, and there's a service corridor below, for these. MR. MCCOOLA-And the deliveries are indoors, in the front of this building. MR. MARTIN-How many parking spaces are in front, and how many are in the rear? MR. INGERSALL-Okay. We've got 71 in the front and the remaining are in the back. So, we have proposed 341 cars. MR. MARTIN-So, you've got 270 in the rear, and 71 in the front. 24 I -.J..... __ MR. INGERSALL-But, again, we're not constructing, you know, a portion of those. We've got 62 spots. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Now, what is the distance someone's going to have to walk from those that you are constructing in the rear, if someone was to, lets say this is Christmas time and you've got to park in the back, at the furthest available spot, what's the distance they're going to have to traverse to get to the front of the building? MR. INGERSALL-If someone parks back here? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. INGERSALL-To which store? MR. MARTIN-To anywhere in the front? MR. INGERSALL-Four hundred and forty feet, which is a little more than a football field. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. EADS-However, every retailer at Christmas time has their employees park at the back of the lot and save the front space for the customers. MR. MCCOOLA-We've also included, from these upper tiers, we have a stairway that's striped out in the middle, and then there's a stairway in this ramp that we've included, here. MR. BREWER-There is one stairway from? MR. MCCOOLA-There's two. There's one in then middle from the upper tier down, and there's also one down here. MR. BREWER-Okay. Just, the thing that I'm thinking of is somebody, well, they do it in the malls. What difference does it make, really. If they park there, and they've got to walk down here. MR. INGERSALL-The natural pattern would be directed at the buildings down at the end. MR. CARTIER-You're going to have terraced parking, here. So, you're going to have parking on upper levels. Are you going to have wheel stops or curbs? MR. INGERSALL-Yes. MR. BREWER-I think we talked about that before and they said they were going to have something, curbs or something. They're going to have to. MR. INGERSALL-On the lower level, we don't need it. There's a guide rail along the top, and there's curbs on the aisles. MR. CARTIER-But at the heads of the parking slots, at the top of the terrace. MR. INGERSALL-There's a guide rail. MR. MARTIN-What he's saying, so a car can't roll off the terrace. MR. INGERSALL-Actually, we had curbs there, but then with the drainage, the guide rail, we thought it was a better idea. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-You, as retailers, know better than I about the willingness of a potential customer to walk 440 feet to somebody's store. I know there's average acceptable distances and things like that, I'm sure. I was just making sure. Does anybody have anything else? MR. LAPOINT-I've got it boiled down to five items, so far. MR. MARTIN-All right. Well, I think before we get into that, we come to an actual vote, I think we have to get back to this issue of what the applicant's willing to do with the disposition of this, what the result of your discussion was. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, we had a couple of questions come from our discussion, but I guess one was, again, I don't mean to pick on Mrs. Tarana, but she knows I'm not picking on her. You have not had the benefit of our previous presentations. Would it be instrumental and helpful to you to know more of the details of our involvement with the task force and what Dexter has done to get the ball rolling, to get some 25 i ! ~' mitigation measures in place, and if it wouldn't be helpful to you, or it's not instrumental, we won't waste your time with it, but I know that you have not been on the Board when these things have been previously discussed. Dexter is not just some hypothetical dream that may come forward some time in the future in the Town of Queensbury because of mitigation on the Route 9 corridor area. Dexter is a real applicant, obviously, with a fine reputation, and has invested a considerable amount of time, effort, and expense, not only in it's project, per se, but in traffic mitigation studies, in helping form this task force, in being a key, lead member of this task force, in trying to come up with some recommendations for the Board. I don't know if you're aware of all this. If you're not, we can tell you about it in detail. MRS. TARANA-Let me just tell you, I have read every piece of material that I have been handed, in all honesty. MR. SCHACHNER-Even going back in time. MRS. TARANA-I've read this. I've read this. I've watched Channel 8. I have these things that go back to when you first came. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I wasn't aware of that. MRS. TARANA-I'm just telling you. Can I say something else, Mark. I was on the Warren County Planning Board. You know my stand has been consistent. This stand is consistent with what it was there. I visualized major problems when this whole corridor started. I voiced those problems then. I'm still voicing them now. I think if these men are involved in this task force, it's wonderful. I commend them. I have nothing against the project, per se, the plan and all that, but I think at some point this Town has got to stop and say, we've got to take a stand and do something about this problem. They're doing this right now, and I applaud that. I don I t want to vote for a project until I hear what they come up with. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I mean, you don't mean what they've come up with so far, I assume? MRS. TARANA-No. I want all the facts in before I go any further with any more of this project. MR. SCHACHNER-And by "they", you don't just mean Dexter? MRS. TARANA-Anybody. MR. SCHACHNER-No, no. I didn't mean that. I'm sorry. I meant, when you say you don't want to vote for the project until you know what "they" come up with? MRS. TARANA-The task force. I would like to here what the task force has to say about the whole thing. MR. MARTIN-So, I pose the question again. MR. SCHACHNER-I guess the applicant feels it's in rather a difficult spot, in view of how long we've been at it, and in fairness to the Board, I don't think the delay's in our fault or your fault. I think most of the waiting has been on the State agency that's been involved. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-It would be nice, as always, if all seven members could have been present. We regret that, obviously, all seven members are not present. Under the circumstances, I'm not sure it's productive to do anything other than table the application, and the applicant is prepared to ask the Board to do that. MR. MARTIN-You mentioned earlier about us having you go back to the Warren County Planning Board. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I don't think it's worth doing. I don't think it's appropriate, and I don't think it's to the courtesy of Mrs. York and Mrs. Tarana. I've had a chance to review the minutes of the County Planning Board meeting. I also, gentlemen and ladies, was not present at that time. I didn't represent Dexter at that time, but I just don't think it's productive. I think it's a waste of time and effort and I think all we're asking to do is from you all, as Town Planning Board, is to table this matter until your next meeting. There's not more information, we don't believe that we can produce more information to you or anybody else. I mean, we just prefer to be tabled, and we'll come back to your next meeting, and we'll hope that all seven members are present, and we'n hope for a vote at that meeting, one way or another. MR. MARTIN-We don't know of any reason why there's not going to be a full Board at the May 19th meeting. MR. LAPOINT-Before you ask for a tabling, could I summarize the five things you've got to take care of? Okay. You've got to show the 50 foot access to the Charles Kenny property to the west. MR. SCHACHNER-And that's obviously conceptual. 26 I I --..l- -- MR. LAPOINT-Conceptual. Modified to a six foot wide island. Some type of delivery arrangement for tractor trailer trucks, add the necessary height to the stormwater detention basin, and in the next plan, have that driveway detail in the package, and for Rist-Frost to review that, relative to Comment Number Three of their letter dated April 28th. MR. CARTIER-Any deadline submission problems, here, for May? MRS. YORK-No. That's okay. MR. SCHACHNER-That stuff is relatively minor. MR. MARTIN-I just want to give a date, just to have it set. MRS. YORK-Right. You can have this done by next Monday. MR. INGERSALL-Monday. How many copies? MRS. YORK-Fourteen. MR. MARTIN-Monday, 2 p.m. is our standard. MRS. PULVER-I have one question, Mark. After this task force comes in with a proposal or something for this, and that's a State road, correct, in front of it? With the present fiscal problems that the State has, I'm wondering, they can come up with all kinds of ways to mitigate this, but the State doesn't have any money. So, what's it going to prove? MRS. YORK-Well, there is a study through Warren County. Warren County may have to fund some things. MR. LAPOINT-Well, they're going to spend $73,000 studying instead of putting $73,000 towards a fix, and we're going to have some more paper, and that'll be all nice and good, and we'll spend, five years from now, probably $140,000 to re-study it, instead of putting that money towards the road, and then we'll re-study that after that. MR. CARTIER-Well, the argument could be made, too, that has been made in the past, is that that project pays a lot of taxes into the County, and maybe County funds can be appropriated to do some work on the State road. MRS. PULVER-I don't know. I think the County's got almost as many problems going as the State does now, money wise. MR. MARTIN-Well, I just want to say this in closing, I hope, in all earnest, as anybody knows, I scrutinize the projects as much as anybody, but in that light, though, I also like to be fair, and I want to be able to move this project to disposition next time. I mean, there's a lot been invested here, both time wise, monetarily, on both parties here, and I want to make sure that you come to grips with this between now and May and we move this on, is what I'm saying. MRS. PULVER-And the only thing I would like to say is that I'd like everyone to realize that this task force can come up with a wonderful plan to solve all the traffic problems up there, but if there's no money, nothing will be done. In five years, maybe, if money becomes available, like, you're right, Ed. They'll want to study it again, because now we're five years into it and something else has happened. MR. BREWER-And we don't have any idea when the task force is going to be done. MRS. PULVER-No. So, again, it's wonderful to have all these studies, and it's wonderful to have all this information, but if the end result is not going to change anything, you need to weight that, too. That has certain point value to it. This has certain point value, too, in that there's a lot of money that's going to go into that building, come into this community, jobs. MR. MARTIN-I don't want to get into arm twisting, here, among Board members. MRS. PULVER-I don't either, but we need to consider that on every single solitary project that we have. MR. MARTIN-We have dissenting votes, and everybody's entitled to that, but the only thing I will offer for further consideration is that I can't imagine the task force, when it is done, will come up with any ideas that are so innovative or so out of the vein of what is already being proposed here as mitigation measures for this project, and if we were to fully implement the recommendations of the task force in the immediate area of this property, I don't think there would be anything above and beyond what we're seeing, here. So, that's my personal view. I think there are a number of things that could be done, like the right hand turn lane in front of the Municipal Center accessing the Northway, and possibly a larger ramp out on the Northway itself, accessing this area of Route 9, but those are all big picture things, and in terms of what can be done in the immediate area of this project, I think we're seeing the whole shooting match, here, but, again, I could be wrong. That's my personal view, and I just offer that for further consideration. 27 -- - MR. BREWER-Do the minutes of this meeting go to the task force? MRS. YORK-What I can do is have the minutes of this meeting go to Warren County Traffic Bureau. I assume what you're talking about, the task force is the individuals within that traffic corridor. However, I think some people are misunderstanding that what we're talking about is a Warren County Traffic Study, funded through Warren County with State funds. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. EADS-There is a difference in semantics when you speak about what you're talking about. When you talk about, task force, there has been a study by the merchants that has been submitted, for which some work has already been done and some work has already been approved on. Some of the projects that we're working on, like the crosswalk that you see before you, the only one allowable. They changed the sign in front of the Montcalm, so it points a little bit in a different direction, and we're working on some of the others. We do have to ten you, based on some of the newspaper articles and based on what some of you have said, in our proposal, we did propose what you're talking about, Gurney Lane. In the newspaper article that you read, someone came back and shot that down, as unnecessary, and you, as a Board, have got to fight with us on that Gurney Lane proposal, because it's extremely important. The merchants have gotten together and have made a proposal. We are continuing to work on the different aspects of this proposa1. Within what we can do, we're doing it. Within the proposal that we have proposed to you, we have built in every single proposal that was in this merchants task force, everything that was suggested, everything that was written in, from a crosswalk, from an adjoining parking walk, from pedestrian access, all of that. We tried to engineer it into the project, and many of the other merchants on that strip are waiting to see what happens. MRS. YORK-If I could I just interject. I did have a meeting with Fred Austin and the DOT people and Dan Kane, and a number of other individuals, and talked about some of the things that Mr. Eads and the rest of the task force people have been talking about, and as a result of that meeting, it is stipulated in the traffic study that's going to be done that the professional that is doing it has got to work with the task force, and the task force recommendations have got to be looked at and considered as part of the entire study. MR. MARTIN-So, in other words, that document we have is to be incorporated as much as possible. MRS. YORK-Yes. They will be working with the task force, and I see that as a very positive thing, and there are some very creative traffic ideas coming out of this, things that are certainly beyond the scope of what I ever thought might be possible there. MR. CARTIER-The only other thing that occurs to me, that Mr. Lauricella needs to be brought up to speed and that he should have the minutes of this evening's meeting, prior to next month, just so that he has a copy. MR. MARTIN-An right. Wen, what I want to emphasize is, if we're going to delay, here, essentiany another three weeks, I want to make sure that it's for good reason. I don I t want to get down to a situation here where we're just at loggerheads again. If that's possible, I just want to emphasize that. MR. LAPOINT-We've got five hard issues that they have to resolve, and if there's a sixth, we'n get that. That's important to get that out now, so we know exactly what they have to come back with. MR. MARTIN-All right. So, if we have the applicant's agreement to table. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, sir, you do. I'm assuming that the public hearing also has been closed or should be closed. MR. MARTIN-I was of the assumption that it was closed in December. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. That's what I thought, too. MRS. PULVER-December 19th. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Yes, you have our consent. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, I will accept a motion to table with the applicant's consent. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 55-91 OSCAP LTD, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: Tabled with the applicant's consent. 28 , i , -...J..- - Duly adopted this 29th day of April, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Lauricella MR. MARTIN-Application is tabled the May meeting. (9:23 p.m.) I\./J-IIAV SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1991 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE I lIR-lA SUNSET HILL FARM ClߌR: PAUL ICltOX. III TO SUBDIVIDE 25 ACRES lITO 10 LOTS TO BE DEVELOPED BY INDIVIDUAL LOT PURCHASERS. DRILLED WELLS AND ON-SITE IfASllEWATER WILL BE CONSTRUCTED FOR WATER AND SEIlER SERVICES. LOTS WILL BE ACCESSED BY PRIVATELY (lINED AND MAIITAINED DRIVEWAYS. LOT 1 CONTAINS THE (lINER'S RESIDENCE AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE (liNER. TAX MAP NO. 7-1-16.1 LOT SIZE: 25 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MARK SCHACHNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (9:23 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 11-1991, Sunset Hin Farm, April 28th, 1992, Meeting Date: April 29th, 1992 "The applicant has responded to the Board's concerns by creating an access-way from Knox Road to four units and another which accesses two lots. The remaining lots have singular driveways. The Planning Board may waive certain requirements of the subdivision regulations, however, Section 179-70 of the Zoning Ordinance (Frontage on Public Streets) states: "Every principal building shan be built upon a lot with frontage upon a public street improved to meet the standards of the Town of Queensbury. A. The required road frontage for one (1) principal building shan be forty (40) feet, and such frontage shall provide actual physical access to and from the lot to be built upon, for the purposes of fire trucks and/or ambulances. B. Where private roads are proposed or where multiple principal buildings are proposed for (1) lot, such as garden apartments or an office park, the minimum frontage on a public road for such use shan be the width of the right-of-way for a public conector street. Such development shan provide actual physical access to and from each principal building to be built upon the property, for the purpose of ingress and egress to each principal building by emergency vehicles, such as fire trucks and ambulances." The Staff has mentioned that mutual driveways might require a variance. The plan shows 40 feet for the lots on Knox, however, "actual physical access" is not provided for from that area for an lots. The Planning Staff has briefly discussed this with the Zoning Administrator and requested that the Board and applicant be given something in writing by 4/28." I didn't get anything in writing from Mrs. Crayford. So, since I did not, I felt it was unfair to the Board and the applicant to leave them out in the cold. "The Planning Staff discussed this issue with Paul Dusek, Town Attorney, and he believes that "Actual physical access" from a Town road has to be provided." It is my understanding at this point that Mrs. Crayford may have discussed this with the Chairman. MR. MARTIN-Yes. She told me the same thing, that she was going to provide the Board with a written explanation by our meeting, as to her determination. MRS. YORK-The last time I asked her, which was yesterday when I was writing the notes, at 3:30, she just sent me back a note that said, no time to do this. So, at any rate. "The Staff also received a can from Jim Hotaling, a representative of the Adirondack Park Agency. They had received the subdivision plans from the Planning Office on February 18. Mr. Hotaling indicated that they were just getting an opportunity to review them and it appeared that the Agency might be asserting jurisdiction in areas where wetlands were indicated. APA personnel would be visiting the site to determine their area of involvement. The APA would be issuing a separate permit in this case. The development issues have been discussed numerous times over the last few months and the Board is very much aware of them. The applicant's cover letter addresses the issues brought up at the public hearing. The engineer will address the drainage and septic issues. The Board has received letters from the LGPC discussing stormwater runoff issues." Would you like me to? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. YORK-Okay. This is from Michael P. White, Executive Director, Lake George Park Commission, 22 April 1992 "Dear Mr. Cartier, The referenced project was discussed during the public cOl1ll1ent portion of the Commission's April 22, 1992 meeting. Specific concerns regarding stormwater management for the project were expressed. It was noted that the Commission may be an "involved agency" pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617. As such the COl1ll1ission may have to make findings relative to the environmental impacts of the proposed action. We note that during the Town's sketch plan review of this project, the preliminary plans were reviewed by Commission staff and cOl1ll1ents were prepared. Please refer to the attached letter from Tom Wardell of this office. We would urge the Planning Board to apply the statutory standards of Article 43 of the Environmental Conservation Law - which requires that there be zero increase in annual volume of stormwater runoff and zero increase in pollution. We believe that this is best achieved if the project is designed to conform with the standards set forth in 6 NYCRR 646-4 Stormwater Management. Very truly yours, Michael P. White, Executive Director" Would you like me, also, to read cOl1ll1ents from Mr. Wardell? 29 '-'-' --- MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. YORK-"Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment on the above referenced sketch p1an. We submit herewith, the following comments: 1. Because the Town of Queensbury has entered into an agreement with the Lake George Park Commission for the Administration and Enforcement of our Wastewater regu1ations, the Town wi11 be issuing any wastewater treatment system permits for any of the dwe11ings in this subdivision. Therefore, we have no comment concerning wastewater at this time. 2. A1though the Town of Queensbury has not yet adopted a Stormwater P1an and Program as required by the Lake George Park Commission's Stormwater regu1ations, it is very 1ike1y that such p1an and program wi11 be in p1ace prior to any construction in this subdivision. Because of this, we suggest you require the subdivision p1ans to address stormwater by designing each 10t as well as any infrastructure to be in conformance with the Commission's Stormwater regu1ations. Re1ated to this, we see an extensive (excessive?) amount of impervious areas created by each dwelling having its own driveway. A better s01ution might be to create one common roadway with shorter drives to each house. 3. We current1y have an app11cation pending before the Commission for an additiona1 wharf proposed to be 10cated on the northeastern most portion of the property. Action on that app1ication has been suspended pending receipt of additiona1 information regarding possib1e marina use of the current facnities. A copy of our 1etter dated Ju1y 16, 1991 to Mr. Knox is attached. No response to that 1etter has been received to date. 4. We wou1d further point out that there appears to be an omission on the p1ans as submitted regarding the existence of an additiona1 area of 1akefrontage on the southeastern most portion of the parce1. Commission staff visited the site ear1ier this year and have noted an existing E-shaped wharf on that 1akefrontage. Will there be deeded 1ake access or boat s1ips inc1uded in the offering of the proposed 10ts? If so, more specifics on that issue shou1d be provided. P1ease give me a call if you have any questions. Sincere1y, J. Thomas Wardell, P.E. Director of Engineering" MR. LAPOINT-That was sent to you in October, Lee? MRS. YORK-Yes. You did receive a copy of this. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. We had this before, then? MRS. YORK-Yes, you did. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Tom, you have some further comments? ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, Apri1 28, 1992 "We have reviewed the revised subdivision drawings and supporting data ref1ecting a common driveway accessing 10ts 5, 8, 9 and 10. The a1ternative driveway p1an e1iminates grading across steep s10pe areas and reduces minimum c1earing requirements. It shou1d be estab1ished how responsibi1ity wi11 be assigned for initia1 driveway construction, stormwater management system construction and continuous future maintenance for common driveways. Our overall pre1iminary review opinion stated in a 1etter dated Apri1 1, 1992 remains app1icab1e to this a1ternative. Our conc1usions remains that subdivision deve10pment, based on appropriate technica1 s01utions fitting residentia1 use as proposed, have been satisfactori1y demonstrated as suitab1e for this project. In addition to the specific RFA engineering comments dated Apri1 1, 1992 and the previous L.A. Group response 1etters dated March 20 and March 24, 1992, we note that: 1) Lot 3 deve10pment will require a wet1ands permit for the deve10pment within 100 feet of the wet1and (94-5). 2) Forty feet minimum frontage on pub1ic roads is required by zoning (179-70). 3) It is appropriate to continue technica1 review to assure that engineering re1ated comments are fully addressed." MR. MARTIN-Okay. We have someone here from the app1icant, to bring us up to date. MR. SCHACHNER-For your records, -I'm Mark Schachner on behaH of the app1icant. Basically, in response to the 1engthy discussion at the 1ast meeting, I think the way we ended it was we wou1d exp10re the idea of a private road that wou1d provide access for the northern most four 10ts. We exp10red that option. In some respects, it wasn't our first choice or our favorite option, but we be1ieve we've refJected a sensitivity to a concern that the Board has expressed, as we11 as those that the pub1ic expressed, and we have, in fact, submitted the s1ight1y revised p1an for your consideration. I'm sure you've a11 seen it a1ready, previous1y, and it does, in fact, have a private road that provides a means of access, ingress and egress, to the northern most four 10ts. I do want to set the record straight, so to speak, on one important issue, and that is that I met direct1y with Mrs. Crayford, severa1 weeks ago, to discuss the pub1ic road frontage issue. She did determine, or interpret, that the P1anning Board has the authority to waive the provision that requires that the actua1 40 feet of pubHc road frontage be the actua1 means of ingress and egress for emergency vehic1es. I don't know if, again, I'm not aware of whether she, evident1y, she did not put that down in writing. I have to confess that I did not specifically request that she put that down in writing. I assumed that if the issue came up and the Board or the Staff wanted it, at that 1eve1 of forma1ity, that she wou1d do so. I can say that, if the Board is interested, I can take the Board through my ana1ysis. It's not very 10ng or compHcated, but it's sort of ru1e. I can take the Board through my ana1ysis of why I beHeve that's the correct interpretation, but I fee1 compelled to definite1y tell you that that was her definite interpretation. I beHeve, without knowing, I be1ieve that Mr. Dusek was not presented with this p1an or any of the detai1s about the proposa1, but was presented with the idea that we're discussing. 30 -...i.-- -...-' MRS. YORK-Right. Basically, we had a telephone conversation regarding it. He did not have the plans in front of him, and I just basically said that I needed some information for the Board, what was his feeling on this. MR. MARTIN-So, in other words, to meet that requirement, that is why we see that rather odd configuration to Lot 8, where it comes down that little 50 foot. MR. SCHACHNER-That's correct, but I'm prepared to propose for the Planning Board's consideration tonight, that's what we call in our mind the only remaining, to at least some of you, potentially troublesome flag, and I'm prepared to recommend for your consideration that we will simply knock that off, and instead of making that part of Lot 8, push that right out to the north and make that part of Lot 10 or Lot 5, because Lot 8, obviously, does have access off of its own driveways onto the private road that comes down and accesses 5, 8, 9, and 10. MRS. TARANA-Could you say that again. I was looking through my numbers. What did you say about the road, again? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, Mrs. Tarana, it wasn't so much the road I was focusing on, but this remaining narrow parcel of what's currently Lot 8, and what I was saying was that, based on our understanding, the Planning Board can waive, the reason, as I believe Mr. Martin pointed out, that this remained on what we submitted to you was in case anybody was going to say, yes, you need to have this 40 foot of public road frontage. It's our belief that at least some of the Planning Board members find that there really isn't a need or a desire for this, I will concede rather oddly shaped flag portion of the lot. So, what we're proposing is that we simply include this portion into Lot 10, or 5, we don't really care, but we were proposing 10, and then eliminate the remaining flag, and then the end of what I said was that the reason being that Lot 8, the ingress and egress as required by Subsection B of Section 179-70, which Mrs. York has been good enough to put on your front page, there, is served by the private road that begins down on Lot 5, off of Knox Road, and comes in and is providing access for 5, 8, 9, and 10. MR. CARTIER-I'm a little confused, procedurally, here. We're not talking about waiving, this is part of the Zoning Ordinance. We cannot waive that. We can only waive things within the Subdivision Regs. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. CARTIER-So, we can't waive that. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, we're not requesting that you waive any portion of the Zoning Ordinance. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Good, because we can't do that. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. CARTIER-I like what I'm here, but on what legal basis are we getting rid of that strip? MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. The legal basis is. MR. CARTIER-B? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, you don't need to get there yet. First, I would start at Section 183-24. MR. MARTIN-Could you give us a page number, Mark, at the bottom? MR. SCHACHNER-If you've got the same book that I do, it's 18348, and I'm in the Subdivision Regulations, the top half, B, "All lots shown". MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, C is the subdivision requirement for the 40 foot minimum frontage on a public road. Clearly, I think that there's no dispute that the Planning Board has the ability to waive that provision because it's in the Subdivision Regulations. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. BREWER-Yes, but it says in B that, "shall at least comply with the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance as to area dimensions for the zone", all right. I should have read further. MR. MARTIN-I think what that means is when there's lots already in existence. When they're in subdivision, they're creating lots. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and that has to do with areas, and dimensions, and setbacks. MR. BREWER-Right. I stopped reading and I shouldn't have. 31 "-'-' --- MR. MARTIN-The obvious question, here, is, to me, is there going to be any legal document or whatever, through the deed or the purchase or whatever, that is going to allow for common maintenance or upkeep, what have you, to allow this continued access by emergency vehicles and fire trucks and so on? MR. SCHACHNER-That is not only the obvious question, but I would submit a very appropriate one, and the answer is yes, and what we would propose is that the intricate details of that be ironed out between Preliminary approval and Final approval, and you can condition Preliminary approval on that, if you like. We will actually provide you, at Final approval stage, with the actually language, if you wish, of the deed, of discussions of the maintenance obligations and responsibilities. MR. MARTIN-Say no more. I, personally, feel, finally, we have a design, here, that is. MR. CARTIER-Well, I guess my question is, who builds the private road? Does Mr. Knox? Let me give you a what if. Suppose I want to buy Lot 9, and it's the first lot sold. MRS. PULVER-I think each person would be responsible for their own driveway, or a portion of it. MR. CARTIER-How do I get there? MR. SCHACHNER-That's a family lot, you may recall. That's one that's not going to be for sale. MR. BREWER-Say he wants to buy 10? MR. CARTIER-Suppose I want to buy 1O? Understand where I'm coming from with the question is, how do I get access to that lot if the road's not there? MR. SCHACHNER-Again, a very good question, and I think what, and I think we're going to have to include that in what we submit at Final time, but I think our response is any of a number of things. Obviously, depending on how you market them, you could sell them in a certain order and avoid that problem, but if in fact you do it that way, then one of the things that we can do, and we'd consider, is have requirements that say, okay, that owner is going to have to pay a certain amount for the construction of a road, that that will then be back charged in the future, to the subsequent lot owners, if they take over other lots, but, again, I think it's a fair, appropriate question. MR. MARTIN-So, he's, like, reimbursed? MR. SCHACHNER-Essentially, but I don't know that it's, I think that's a detail that is not so much a planning detail as an administration detail which we will have to work out further level, between the Preliminary and Final approval. MRS. PULVER-I have a question to the applicant. I mean, is the applicant happy with this particular plan? I mean, I find this to be the worst of all the ones that we've seen, but you've taken away odd shaped lots. You have done that. That's what the Board asked you to do. MR. MARTIN-No, no. Now, Carol, that's not been the only issue, here. We have, now, finally, a chance for this driveway weaving through the trees type concept, and we have eliminated nearly 50 percent of the tree clearing by getting rid of this driveway cutting across this slope, and those are based on the calculations provided by the applicant. MR. SCHACHNER-I can tell you that the answer to the questions, if you're interested. I don't know that it's relevant. MRS. PULVER-Yes, I'm interested. MR. SCHACHNER-The applicant is extraordinarily frustrated with the path and course that have been taken, and is not happy with some of the twists and turns, no pun intended, but the applicant is obviously willing to proceed on this basis, and that's why we're here. MRS. TARANA-Mark, when you said that Number 9 was a family owned, you weren't suggesting that that's not going to be developed? MR. SCHACHNER-You mean if there would be a house put on it, the answer is presumably, yes, in the future, and, again, we went through this months ago. Three of these ten lots are going to be retained by Mr. Knox to give to his children, and that's one of them. MR. BREWER-The land owner would have to put power in here if they're not having a Town road. MR. MARTIN-The way I look at this is that the driveways weren't going to be much, the expense of cutting that driveway across that slope was going to be the owner's expense anyhow. 32 -...1...-. --- MR. BREWER-I understand that, but I'm just curious. It has nothing to do with approving it or denying it, but on a typical subdivision, when we approve a subdivision, the owner would put power and water or whatever in, and then get the money back from that on the lots, where if he's having a private road, it's up to the owner, pretty much. I'm just curious. On a typical subdivision where there's a road, maybe not such as this, the owner would provide power and water to the lots, and then however he wanted to regain that money he spent, with this type of a road, you won't have to put anything in, is that correct? It's up to the individual owner? MR. SCHACHNER-That's, basically, correct. It doesn't have to take shape that way, but that's certainly. MR. BREWER-No. Just as a typical subdivision, somebody would put a road in, and they would put the power and the water in. MR. SCHACHNER-Keeping in mind that here we're talking about power going individuaHy to the lots, individual water supply, individual septic, and all that. So, yes, I agree with that. MR. BREWER-But a subdivision with a Town road in it would have to have the water and the power before the Town would accept the road, correct, or not? MR. SCHACHNER-Right, but we're not contemplating Town septic. MR. BREWER-Right. I understand that. I'm just trying to get it straight in my mind. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, I think you're right. MRS. YORK-You are going to provide a utility easement with your roadway easements for the property? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, physically with it, you're saying, in the Town, yes. MR. CARTIER-Whi1e this contemplation is going on, can I ask you a question about, this goes back to a long time ago, with regard to this marina issue that has come up. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, the answer, and if I'm not mistaken Mr. Cartier is asking about something that I think we all recognize is not part of this application, but has been referenced in the Lake George Park Commission's previous letters, and I think I reported to you previously that Mr. Knox had authorized myself and my firm to resolve the situation, and in fact we've prepared the application that's referred to there as not ever having been responded to or prepared or submitted or anything else. We have, in fact, prepared an application which either has been or is about to be submitted to the Park Corrmission. MR. BREWER-So, that they'll have no lake rights, or they will? MR. SCHACHNER-No. That's why it's not really part of this, but Mr. Cartier had this concern. MR. CARTIER-Yes, it's in reference to previous activity in the property. MR. MARTIN-Well, what's everyone's opinion? Ed, you've been silent. MR. LAPOINT-The technicality of waiving the 40 foot frontage requirement, is that just as simple as putting that in the motion and referring to 183-24, Layout Lots B, or would I refer back to 179-70? MR. CARTIER-You can't waive 179-70, that's part of the Zoning Ordinance. MR. LAPOINT-Okay, then it is 183-24 B, correct? MR. SCHACHNER-Isn't it C? MR. LAPOINT-C. How do we do that, if we were to do that, in the motion? MR. CARTIER-Just grant the waiver, in the motion. MR. LAPOINT-Okay, I mean, they haven't applied for the waiver, because they've shown the lot line, but we would suggest that they would move on, eliminating that odd 50 foot strip, based on a waiver for C, correct? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-That's my only question. MR. CARTIER-I can answer the question you're referring to. The comment about flag lots is not in the Master Plan. I misspoke. However, it is referenced in the role of the planning commission. So, I cited the wrong source. That, however, does not mean I assign any less weight to it because it was not in that source. 33 ~ --- MRS. PULVER-Well, my only concern about it was how does the Town of Queensbury handle it, and it is handled through our Zoning Ordinance, by having a 40 foot, having a lot that borders on a road with 40 foot frontage. That's how we handle flag shaped lots, so that if they cut off the leg, the other property is basically landlocked, it doesn't have any frontage on roads, and therefore cannot be developed, and that was my concern was, how is the Town of Queensbury handling flag shaped lots, and that's what it is, by the Zoning Ordinance requiring, having to have 40 feet of frontage on a major road. I, personally, am against waiving the 40 foot frontage for this particular plan. I think it's much better for the lot owners to have frontage on a Town road than have to, this is going to be a very complicated thing with this driveway, and there's lQ lots. MR. MARTIN-But the 40 foot of frontage as shown, the reason behind the 40 foot of frontage requirement is that the access-way is then supposed to proceed through that 40 foot of frontage. However, given the way that this is configured, and they're doing it as they acknowledge, just to meet the requirement, is essentially going perpendicular to the road and straight up the slope, and there's no way in God's heaven that you're going to get a driveway up that alleyway there. It has no practical purpose for enhancing access to that lot. It is just a paper, depicted on the paper to meet the requi rement. I believe that if we're going to work under the concept of no public access-way to this subdivision, which has long been dismissed, I guess, then that this shared driveway, this shared private road is going to be less onerous on the houses it serves than the plan we saw before, maintaining that steep slope, and not to mention the environmental impacts of that swath that'll have to be cut up through there to accommodate it. I think this is a better plan. MR. CARTIER-The distinction has been made that this is not a driveway, it's a private road, and I think we have to be very clear, at distinction. MR. MARTIN-It has been stated by the applicant that he accepts the limitations of all these things that are going to, these legal mechanisms that'll have to be undertaken to provide for this, and he's willing to take the risk of the marketability, which is not our concern. This is, essentially, a center access road that's private, that we've been, I've been pushing for since the beginning. MR. CARTIER-I wish we had an attorney here tonight, because I still have a procedural problem, here. I understand we're talking about waiving Item C in the Subdivision Regs, okay, which essentially, to my way of reading, is also waiving 179-70 in the Zoning Regs. My dilemma, I'm on Page 18044.3 and 5, okay, maybe I'm answering my own question, here. MR. BREWER-It's not a problem if we don't waive that, if they just leave that there. MR. LAPOINT-It's foolish, though. MR. BREWER-It's foolish to not waive it, because that piece of land is useless, really. I mean, there's nothing they can do with it. So, if we don't want to waive it, leave the piece of land there. Then we don't have to worry about it. I mean, they're never going to do anything with it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I have no argument with that. I'd like to see this gotten rid of, too. I agree with that. I'm just trying to, this is a procedural question. I'm thinking on my feet. MR. BREWER-Legally, if we're worried about it, we could just leave it there. Could we do that? Could we leave it there, for Preliminary, and then ask our attorney, and then we could make a lot line adjustment if we want to get rid of it, at Final. MR. CARTIER-What I'm trying to do here is, somebody help me out. I'm looking at Page 18045, Item B, "Where private roads are proposed or where multiple principal buildings are proposed for one (1) lot, such as garden apartments or an office park, the minimum frontage on a public road for such use shall be the width of the right-of-way for a public collector street." Is that referring to where this private road meets Knox Road? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. That's correct. MR. CARTIER-"Such development shall provide actual physical access to and from each principal building". So, in other words, the private road where it comes into Knox Road is taking care of Item B. We're not waiving that. Okay. I understand now. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-The other thing I would say, in that regard, is if, "shall provide actual physical access to and from each principal building to be built upon the property, for the purpose of ingress and egress to each principal building by emergency vehicles, such as fire trucks and ambulances". I think that provision is better accommodated by this design than it was by that sloping driveway, with a lot of problems just due to the slope of it and, again, it's still shared. I mean, this is leach coming in from the flat and going across the flat portion of the property, where the slope is the best, and it relieves a lot of concerns that have been expressed by the public about runoff and tree clearing. We haven't done the SEQRA on this, yet, have we? MR. CARTIER-No. 34 ""-' --- MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Chairman, I'm going to object very strenuous1y to any further pub1ic comment at this time. We've been through this an awfu1 10t of times, and each meeting the pub1ic has the benefit of reviewing what we've submitted, obvious1y, weeks in advance to you aH, and each meeting we get innudated, as do you, with surprise information from members of the pub1ic, with no benefit of advanced warning, no benefit of, and I'm not saying that we're entit1ed to that, if it wou1d make things go a 1itt1e bit more smooth1y. The pub1ic hearing has been c10sed, and I'm going to stand on procedure and I'm going to forma11y object very strenuous1y to any further pub1ic comment, and I think you shou1d ru1e on my objection. Obvious1y, it's a meaning1ess objection if you 1et somebody just buHy you into 1etting them speak. MR. CARTIER-WeH, I wiH throw a comment in here, Mr. Schachner. We've never cut off the app1icant from discussing things, and I think it's kind of inappropriate to cut off the pub1ic, too. We are sti11 at Pre1iminary. I don't ever reca11 a case where we've c10sed the pub1ic hearings prior to c10se of Pre1iminary. MR. SCHACHNER-We11, you have c10sed this pub1ic hearing, Number One. Number Two, I know for sure I've been in front of this Board on severa1 occasions, where a pub1ic hearing has been c10sed prior to comp1etion of the process and an actua1 vote, and yes, you're right that the app1icant is anowed to continue to speak, but it's my understanding the procedure of this and every sing1e other P1anning Board that I've ever appeared before or represented, that the app1icant, as the party with the vested interest does not on1y get to comment during a pub1ic hearing. The app1icant gets to present the project and to interact with the Board, obvious1y, far more frequent1y and often, and to a further degree, than members of the pub1ic who are every bit entit1ed to their opinions, but they've been expressed time and time again, and you did dose the pub1ic hearings. Otherwise, there wou1d be no meaning to opening of a pub1ic hearing and c10sing of a pub1ic hearing. C1ear1y, those statements have meaning. MR. LAPOINT-I've got a question. Did we c10se this, as procedure at the end of Sketch P1an, or by mistake or? MR. MARTIN-No. We opened it, according to the procedure. We opened it during Pre1iminary. We c10sed it during Pre1iminary, at which we're sti11 at. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, after numerous sessions of pub1ic hearing. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, but that was Apri1 1st. MR. MARTIN-Whatever the 1ast meeting was was when we c10sed it. I know that. MRS. PULVER-We had pub1ic hearing on February 25th, and March 17th, and Apri1. MR. MARTIN-We c10sed it at the Apri1 meeting. MRS. PULVER-So, we have had numerous pub1ic hearings. MR. CARTIER-But we are, in fact, 100king at a revised p1an that has not been subject to pub1ic hearing. MRS. PULVER-We11, then, we shou1d have advertised it. MR. CARTIER-You don't have to re-advertise. MRS. PULVER-We11, then, I don't think it's fair for somebody who's here tonight to make a comment when maybe there are more comments that wou1d 1ike to be made, and everyone shou1d hear them together. MR. SCHACHNER-You can't have it both ways, with an due respect, Mr. Cartier. The on1y way you can take that position is if you ca11ed this so different, that it's a new app1ication and started at Square One, and I certain1y do not be1ieve that's the case, as a matter of practica1ity, as a matter of fact, or as a matter of 1aw. MR. MARTIN-AH right. The pressure is obvious1y on me as the Chairman, but, in fairness to the Board, I am not going to act on this as a sing1e individua1. I don't think that's appropriate. We've had a chance to hear the app1icant's objection. We know that we have pub1ic comment that wishes to be made. I wiH not sit here and speak for this Board on something that appears to be rather important. So, I wi11 poH the Board on their position, as to whether we re-open the pub1ic hearing for tonight to receive the comments. MRS. PULVER-We11, I object, because it wasn't advertised and if you're going to open it to the pub1ic, you need to advertise it and open it to an the pub1 ic that's here, and it's not part of our procedure to, it's not good procedure to 1et the pub1ic comment when pub1ic hearing has been c10sed. So, I'm on the record as that. MR. MARTIN-Okay. We have Car01's fee1ing. Corinne? 35 .....L-- ---- MRS. TARANA-I would agree. I would sort of like to hear the comments because it's changed a little bit, but it seems to me, if you've got a procedure set up, you open, you close, you can't, just on whimsy at a meeting decide you're going to open a public meeting again. I concur with Carol. MR. MARTIN-Okay. We have two against. MR. LAPOINT-I say, the hell with procedure. I want to hear what's going on, myself. I'm more interested in listening, again. I throw out procedures left and right for applicants. I'm going to throw out procedures left and right for public hearing, and I would like to hear what they have to say. MR. CARTIER-Before you get into a trap, here, are you looking for a majority of four, or this is just a straw poll, are you looking for just a simple majority, or what? MR. MARTIN-A simple majority. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-I'm setting up the procedures, here, for doing this. It's a straw poll to make me feel better. Tim? MR. BREWER-Procedurally, I suppose we're not supposed to, but I'd like to hear it and get it over with, and get on with this thing. I don't want to hash it out until 11 o'clock tonight or 11:30, but I want to hear it and get it over with, vote on it. MR. MARTIN-All right. So, you're in favor of hearing from the public. That's two to two. Peter? MR. CARTIER-You've heard from me already, I guess. MR. MARTIN-You want to open it? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Three to two. I could be the potential tie vote. MRS. PULVER-Well, we know what Roberts Rules say. What does it say in our procedures? MRS. YORK-It says you open the public hearing and close the public hearing. MRS. PULVER-Is that what it says? I've got it right here. You open it and you close it. Okay. These are Rules and Procedures, Town of Queensbury Planning Board. MR. MARTIN-I will say this. I believe that this is a public body serving the public at large, and I also, I honestly have a lot of faith in this Board, the specific individuals that are on the Board, and I feel that they will make the best decision, given what the applicant has said and what the public has said, and I just feel uncomfortable muffling the public, in spite of whatever the procedure says. We're here to serve the public. That's the whole reason why we're here. So, I will re-open to hear the comment at this one particular meeting. MR. SCHACHNER-And please note my objection on tape. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Please come forward and state your name. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED CAROL COLLINS DR. COLLINS-Hi. My name is Dr. Carol Collins. I've prepared a letter concerning what I consider a revision of the application. "On the subject of the statements made at the Preliminary hearings on April 1st, by Dean Long of the L.A. Group, I have the following comments and concerns. First, I wanted to reiterate, there are three major aspects of stormwater runoff that are of concern to all environments, and of particular concern to the Critical Environmental Area in which this project is located. They are volume, the rate of flow water that is delivered by a rain event, because it can cause erosion, and the pollution carried by the rain event that is generated by the buildings and associated roadways. The pollutants of greatest interest and concern are phosphorus and nitrogen, because both of these nutrients are known to limit the growth of algae in Lake George. In his remarks at the hearing, Mr. Long stated". MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. Did you say they limit the growth of algae in Lake George? DR. COLLINS-Yes, based upon how much phosphorus there is, that's how much they can grow to that particular level. Given more phosphorus, they grow more. MR. CARTIER-Okay. 36 '-I..-- --- DR. COLLINS-That is also the case with the nitrogen, which during the summer months becomes a limiting nutrient. "In his remarks at the hearing, Mr. Long stated that removal of the forest would be beneficial because grass was better than a forest in the removal of nitrogen. I was surprised to hear Mr. Long make these remarks since I have never seen any evidence to support these statements. In fact, the findings of the National Urban Runoff Study in Lake George and around the nation have found that forested watersheds were most efficient in stormwater control and nitrogen removal. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Now, pardon me again. Mr. Long was representing on behalf of the applicant last time, right? DR. COLLINS-Right. MR. MARTIN-And Mr. Long's comments were made in light of the previous design, based on the previous design. DR. COLLINS-Correct. MR. MARTIN-Okay. DR. COLLINS-"To confirm this, I contacted Thomas Shuler of the Department of Environmental Protection, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, who authored the important book on stormwater control, that most people use today. He stated that, as you would expect, forests were more efficient in removing nitrogen. He also stated that nitrogen removal by any stormwater management practice could not be expected to exceed 35 percent. They also recommended no development on steep slopes. If there are to be any development, tree cutting and grading should be limited to an absolute minimum. The minimum should be limited to the footprint of the building with a 10 to 15 foot buffer according to prior guidelines. He also recommended strict adherence to the regional sediment erosion control regulations. Mr. Long stated that phosphorus removal by infiltration systems removed 60 to 80 percent of the phosphorus. In fact, we can expect no more than 65 percent removal of phosphorus using the best management strategies. On the matter of wetlands, I would like to bring to your attention the statement made by Mr. Long during the hearings. Mr. Long stated that wetlands are excellent purifiers and can deal with additional impacts. When asked by Mr. Cartier if the MacElroy wetland would be impacted by the project, he did not directly answer the question, but may have indirectly stated that there would be no impact on the wetland." It wasn't clear in his answer if he actually said there would be no impact, but I think he said that. "I conferred with Thomas Shuler on this wetland issue, since this project may be contributing a significant volume to the wetland and an increase of pollutants. He said that they are not allowing existing wetland to be used as part of stormwater runoff controls, since wetlands do not have the ability to handle additional impacts. In what is called the stormwater influenced wetland, there is a change in the hydroperiod. The groundwater dominated system becomes a surface system. The results are often a decline in species diversity, an increase in invasive plants, an increase in water quality degradation and the buildup of sediment. Therefore, the use of an existing wetland, as a retention pond, is not a sound management technique. On the subject of the Class A Marina that may be associated with this project, will this be reviewed as part of this project? The land and water use implications of a marina go hand in hand. Therefore, it would be very important to see all information concerning this marina, and be reviewed as part of this project. In summary, it should be clear that the preliminary information necessary to review this project is in some cases erroneous or incomplete. I would find it impossible to review this project, given these problems. I recommend that an adequate analysis of the impact of this project on the significant wetland be completed. I would also encourage the applicant to use accepted wetland knowledge and to document all sources of information. Review of the application for a Class A Marina is an integral part of this project. I've compiled a list of questions that I would recommend that the Board ask of the applicant, based on the design submitted. These questions are as follows: One, will there be any water quality impact on the MacElroy wetland? Please describe analytical techniques. Two, what is the nutrient removal capacity of infiltrators? I cite the infiltrators because with this new plan, I understand there's going to be 415 infiltrators used as their stormwater management technique. So, again, what is the nutrient removal capacity of infiltrators? I have not been able to find this information. If the infiltrators are not 100 percent effective in nutrient relllÒval, will the wetland be used as part of the stormwater management district? Four, would it be possible to cite studies where existing wetlands are able to handle additional impacts? Five, how do you explain, and I'm asking this of the applicant, the inconsistency in representing some jurisdictional off site wetland and not representing the MacElroy wetland on the project map? Six, if the infiltrators are not 100 percent effective, what are the potential impacts to the deep water marshes of Lake George? Seven, where are the infiltrators to be located? Eight, will there be pretreatment devices for the infiltrators? Nine, are the infiltrators considered to be surface or subsurface devices? Ten, what is the recommended maximum slope for the contributing slopes to the infiltrators? Eleven, have you determined if the post development flow rate would be no greater than the pre development flow rate for the 100 year storm? At such time as the project may be given Preliminary approval, I respectfully submit the following recommendations. That at the time of the development of each parcel, the current wastewater and stormwater regulations be used during the development of that parcel. Two, that clearing and grading be kept to an absolute minimum, especially on steep slopes. Three, that maintenance funds should be clearly vested and funds should be reserved for both routine and non routine maintenance tasks. I'd like to thank you for your considerations in this project review. and I encourage all of the members of the Board to continue with your efforts to make this a reasonable project. I'd be happy to answer any questions. 37 --- ----- MR. LAPOINT-That's an Environmental Protection Agency guy? Is that who that was? MRS. PULVER-Mr. Shuler? DR. COLLINS-Metropolitan Council of the Government. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-I do have a question, and a lot of it hinges, what is it that you find to be an unusual or disproportionate nutrient loading source in this development scenario? There's a lot of correct relationships being drawn, but I just want to ask you, what is the nutrient loadings that you would think, that really need to be addressed here, sources and magnitude, in terms of what's reany going to be changing, in proportion to what's there now? Do you have an idea? DR. COLLINS-I'm interested in the nutrient loading of nitrogen and phosphorus generated from the lots where the water is going to go into a wetland. MR. YARMOWICH-What are those sources, in particular? DR. COLLINS-The wastewater has high levels of nitrogen. MR. YARMOWICH-That's already in the ground. DR. COLLINS-Stormwater, as well, has the high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, but what is the initial source of that nitrogen and phosphorus that's contained in stormwater? Where does it come from? DR. COLLINS-It comes from the actual creation of an impermeable surface. MR. YARMOWICH-Wait a minute, now. You're not just going to create chemical substances by that. DR. COLLINS-No. Let me finish. The buildings and roadways are placed upon the land. They create an impermeable surface which reduces the capacity of the soil to remove natural and unnatural, man-made sources of phosphorus and nitrogen. They include the actual driving of cars on roadways. The actual building materials used in building buildings are all sources of generating the pollutants that I'm talking about. MR. YARMOWICH-You're going to tell me that common construction materials from residential construction include nitrogen and phosphorus sources? Everything that's being said here about the philosophy of stormwater management and the functional relationships is a very important quantifiable problem. I would be at a loss to help this Board understand what would be the correct quantities to deal with, unless I knew that there were sources that could be attributed to these kind of developments. The stormwater management programs yet to be dealt with by this Town include mostly what's in the stormwater plans for Lake George Park Commission. I think this Board has dealt with that in a lot of different ways with lakefront development, and I guess I want to point it out, because I don't think you're breaking new ground here, and I don't want it to sound as though you are. I think, to be very direct, the primary sources of nutrient loading problems from residential development have to do with the application of chemical amendments, okay. I don't believe, from my understanding and information of these natural systems, that you're going to see a change in nutrient loadings as a result of replacing trees with gravel, because the gravel won't contribute nitrogen and it won't contribute phosphorus. If there's uncontrolled discharges of wastewater or other biological by-products, whether they be dogs and other human related activities. You will see some changes, and I think really what we're talking about is the problems that will occur as a result of matter that comes from dog waste and human waste, the potential for pieces of garbage being scattered around. I don't think that it would be fair for this Board to think of this project any differently than other areas of Assembly Point where a simple restriction was asked of the applicant and willingly granted that there be no use of fertilizers and things like that. Now, I'm not trying to diminish the fact that there is impacts from these uses, and in the absence of using fertilizers, that there isn't any impact, because there is. The problem, and it's pretty much shown throughout nationwide studies, that the number one nutrient impact in this Country is agricultural runoff, and what is the focus of that? It's reducing the use of nutrients in agricultural amendments. I think if this Board can apply some sound principals in this matter, they can probably dismiss much of a very technical problem and still come to a solution that meets the intent of stormwater management program requirements of the Lake George Park Commission and what this Board has done in the past, and I don't meant to slight what you're saying, but you're not talking about quantifiable amounts. MR. LAPOINT-I've got to hear this point where this extra ponution is going to come from. I've got to hear that. DR. COLLINS-Let me explain to you what we're talking about. approximately 45 percent, and I don't have the numbers right deposition is laden upon the ground, it is deposited on the an impermeable surface, you're no longer able to capture an transported. As part of the atmospheric deposition, here, of the phosphorus in atmospheric ground when it rains. You're creating absorb that phosphorus before it gets 38 ~ ~ MR. YARMOWICH-It will be transported to a stormwater management device. DR. COLLINS-Right, which can only remove 65 percent of the phosphorus, okay. That's the best technique available. What I was talking about is that roadways generate a large quantity of other pollutants, including phosphorus, which is a component of any of the oils and gases that are deposited on the ground. MR. YARMOWICH-You say they generate a large quantity. Please quantify. DR. COLLINS-Including the other toxins, which are also part, the oils, the gases, and the other toxins are also a part of the stormwater, the things that you want to achieve in stormwater management. MR. MARTIN-So, to summarize, what you're basically saying is that it's going to fall on the road instead of where that road was before as being a permeable surface that's now impermeable. It runs off and into the wetland. DR. COLLINS-Exactly. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I've had enough. I went out on a limb, here, and I don't want an abuse of the privilege, so to speak. Lets go on to the next comment. Thank you. MR. SCHACHNER-I'd 1 ike to respond, very briefly, to those comments. Okay. I've got four responses. Response Number One, Mr. Long is not here tonight, and the reason Mr. Long is not here tonight to discuss this is because the public hearing was formally closed. Number Two, Rist-Frost, your Town Consulting Engineer, has obviously looked at this a number of times and has again reported, again in writing, that we've met the concerns. Number Three, we're not going to answer the questions that the member of the public has just posed. We're not going to answer them tonight, and we're not going to answer them at the next meeting. Number Four, and most importantly, the premise under which you allowed this liberty of an additional comment from the public was, and the premise that the commenter started with was, well, it's a different plan, so I'm entitled to comment. Not one single word of that entire letter of comments relates in any way, form, shape, or manner to any change that has occurred from the plan that was here last time, to the plan that's here now. None of it. Those are mY four comments. DR. COLLINS-The 415 infiltrators is a significant change from his first plan, because if you know how infiltrators work, and you can speak to this, infiltrators are a totally different type of design for stormwater management. Now what you're doing is sending the water down foot, they're about six feet in length, and you might want to even explain these type of devices to the Board. They're six feet long. They're about three feet wide, and because of the way that they're designed, they collect a certain volume of water and then release it. Because of the shallow nature of them, you're transporting the water, primarily, laterally. Now, when I asked the questions about the subsurface and the surface, whether they're considered a subsurface or a surface type of infiltrator, is because there's very important design guidelines associated with that, and perhaps the engineers would recognize those. On a surface type device, you cannot put them on a slope of more than five percent. On a subsurface type of device, you can't put them on a slope of more than 15 percent. So, these are very important, and that's not just the slope of where the device is located, but the actual contributing slopes to those devices are very important. So, these are not nonsensical questions. They're very important design strategy questions. MR. LAPOINT-If the water goes into the ground shallow when it rains, and we're infiltrating it shallow into the ground when it rains, there's a big net environmental impact? DR. COLLINS-I do not know the nutrient removal capacity of infiltrators. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. It's 65 percent of what would happen if it trickled. DR. COLLINS-Well, that's for the infiltration basins and infiltration trenches. This is a totally different type of device. I don't know the answer to it. The Department of Environmental Conservation didn't know either. MR. YARMOWICH- That's correct. This Board has accepted, in the past, the best management strategies and practices which have been successfully answering the questions which you must answer in relation to this application, including Critical Environmental Areas. MR. MARTIN-Well, the way I view this is, there can only be so much done. I don't dispute anything that Dr. Collins has said, but I think there's only so much that can be done in the context of this review, and we're making our best effort, and as you indicated, we've done so in the past. MRS. PULVER-I had a couple of questions for Dr. Collins, and one is, did Mr. Shuler make a site visit? DR. COLLINS-No.. I contacted him. MRS. PULVER-And did you send him the plan or anything, so he could have seen the slopes and the grading and? 39 .........- ~ DR. COLLINS-I simply stated to him what Dean Long stated to him, he was stating that grasses are better in moving nitrogen than a forest or wooded system, and I want to get confirmation from him as to whether this is correct. As a matter of fact, I talked to a Dr. Charles Bolen about this, from the Rensselear Poly technical Institute, and I spoke with a number of people because it was all foreign to me, and none of them could confirm that Dean was correct in this particular source. It just brought the question, a number of items. MR. YARMOWICH-Let me point out, Carol, that any turfed areas within these project limits, according to what's shown in clearing restrictions, which I suspect this Board is going to want also add to this plan, would result in runoff from these maybe less capable nitrogen barriers, such as grass, going through extensive forest systems in any event. I think you can deemphasize that, because most of the runoff that leaves the grass is going to go through hundreds of feet of wooded areas before it ever intercepts any surface water, in any event. So, I think what we're getting down to is worrying about infinitesimally small system activity that I don't think, engineering wise, or scientifically wise we can quantify with a reasonable amount of certainty to make a bit of a difference in your decision, and I encourage you to get off of that subject. MR. SCHACHNER-I have a fifth point. It's very short, and that is only that it seems extremely ironic to the applicant's project team that our understanding of the principal objection raised by the very same member of the public who has just commented, at the last meeting, was in fact the proposed, at that time, driveway and access and construction through this barriers which we have gone to such great lengths to remove. MR. MARTIN-Right. That is recognized, at least by this Board member. MR. YARMOWICH-Let me also tell one thing to this Board, and they may put some light on it, and how the applicant's comments are taken. They're taken with a particular slant toward MacElroy wetlands, and my understanding of their relationship to where this driveway is proposed to discharge would have an entirely different meaning. This particular driveway discharge location, if in fact all flow were to follow ditch lines, would not even be in that drainage. So, there may be merit to some of the scientific aspects of the discussion, but I think that there's now a physical difference in how drainage would occur, as a result of this plan. MR. CARTIER-Where does it discharge to, then? MR. YARMOWICH- To the south, as opposed to, to the north. It comes off of the road on the south side of the ridge of Knox Road, and it would actually move in a little different direction. DAVE WI LLENBROCK MR. WILLENBROCK-Dave Wi1lenbrock of the L.A. Group. The way that the drainage breaks here, the crest of the hill is to the north of this driveway. So, anything that comes down this driveway is going to go to the south side of the driveway, instead of coming to the north towards the MacElroy wetland. MR. CARTIER-Down the road? MR. WILLENBROCK-It will be going south. MR. CARTIER-Along the road? MR. WILLENBROCK-Yes. DR. COLLINS-Where does the runoff from these particular building sites and septics runoff, then? The reason why I'm bringing this up is because this wetland is not mapped, and the reason why a lot of people were surprised to hear that there was a wetland there. MR. MARTIN-Well, we've been there on site visits. DR. COLLINS-Well, there are other agencies that are totally unaware of this. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Yes, we have one other member of the public who'd like to comment, and then we can move on. Two others? DENNIS MACELROY MR. MACELROY-My name is Dennis MacElroy. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. I'll be brief. The revised engineering report provides detailed analysis of the stormwater runoff for the proposed development, the result being a statement that 415 infiltrators would be required to provide 14180 feet of storage, if they were used solely. We're then left without the design information detailing what these devices are and what their configuration will be and how much additional clearing will be required to install them in their required location. With a project in which a visual impact is a critical review concern, 40 -...-" -......- information regarding this additional clearing must be considered. I question whether the Planning Board can make a SEQRA decision without this complete information. The applicant's statement of revised area for the total land clearing seems to leave out the stormwater management areas. I would request that the Planning Board have this information prior to making any SEQRA determination. I would also suggest that the Planning Board require a note on the plan which indicates that the stormwater management system at least comply with the applicable stormwater standards at the time of highest development. These representative proposed designs should not be grandfathered for future approvals. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please keep in mind that while the project has received fairly extensive technical review to date, the issue of visual impact reaches center stage as you address the SEQRA issues. Please give this issue the diligent consideration it deserves. I'd just point out, we have looked at the technical issues, the black and white issues. You're working toward conditions and what not that will be placed on the project in time for final approval, related to stormwater maintenance, those types of things, but the visual impact is a little harder to define, and I guess I wonder, the question is, do you have that information to feel comfortable to make that judgement, as far as your SEQRA determination. The removal of the one driveway will significantly decrease the amount of area in that project. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. Somebody finally said it. MR. MACELROY-What isn't addressed, though, is how much more area that is based on, whatever the stormwater management would be. The septic systems are shown as to what they can be, what kind of area will be, but the stormwater systems aren't really addressed, and I just think that that should be addressed. MR. YARMOWICH-If they want to use infiltrators, how about we get them from under the driveways, something like that. I think we can address it at this time, unless you see any real reason why we can't. MR. MACELROY-I just want to make the point that the Board is comfortable with that level of information, to make that SEQRA determination. That's your judgement and your decision. It's visual impact is part of it that really hasn't been addressed. Thanks. MR. CARTIER-The point of putting the infiltrators under the driveway would be to reduce, even further, any clearing? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, like they did at Aviation Mall and some of the other commercial site parking lots. MR. CARTIER-Okay. JE FF ANTHONY MR. ANTHONY-Jeff Anthony, L.A. Group. Just like Tom has said the proper place to put these under the drives, on the edges of the driveways, and in the existing cleared areas for the driveways. That's where they're going. MR. MARTIN-That's where you have them in your plan? MR. ANTHONY-True. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. MR. SCHACHNER-And I would just ask that the Secretary be directed to note, before each of the three speakers in the public comments, my objection. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. LINCOLN CATHETERS MR. CATHETERS-I'm Lincoln Catheters, the Vice President of LGA, and I have a very brief comment here regarding, basically, whether or not the full scope of this project is being reviewed. Lot Number One is a large lakeshore lot. That's the lot on the right of the diagram up there. It's to be retained by the applicant. It's the Lake George Association's understanding that there may currently be a marina operation going on there, on that particular lot. If, in fact, there is a marina operation being conducted, or is being contemplated at this site, or on any other parcel associated with this project, it's extremely important that the impact from the operation be addressed now, with the review of this project under SEQRA. It is LGA's understanding that the Park Commission expects to receive an application for a marina for a lot in this subdivision any day now, and I think there was a reference to that in the letter that was read earlier in this discussion here. Under SEQRA, this needs to be addressed now, and impacts such as dock rights for those lots discussed, as well as operating a commercial business in a strictly residential area. As I understand it, Assembly Point, now, is a residential area which does not allow commercial operations. LGA would ask that SEQRA determination be deferred until such time as the appl icants submit the proper application to the Park Commission and discuss all its impacts. Thank you. 41 - "'-'-' MR. MARTIN-Thank you. MR. BREWER-We have discussed dock rights on that. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and I guess I would assume that all the Board members know that there is not any commercial that is proposed to any of this property at all. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. MRS. YORK-I have one comment. If the Board feels that they have the ability to waive the requirement for 40 feet on a Town road, you might want to consider having this private roadway come over to the access points to Lots 7 and 6, and have all of those lots coming off of one roadway, and that would even further lessen the permeable area and cutting, rather than having the two driveways within 60 feet of each other. I don't know how you feel about waiving that requirement, but if you feel you can, then you may want to consider that. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Well, first of all, is there any other public comment? Okay. There being none, I will close the public hearing again. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MARTIN-Okay. How do we feel about the SEQRA process on this? Does everybody feel comfortable with undertaking it? MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Lot 3 within 100 feet of the wetlands development. Can you address Rist-Frost Comment Number One? MR. YARMOWICH-What that means simply is that there's a 35 foot buffer requirement in the Wetlands Ordinance for the Town of Queensbury. You can't do anything within 35 feet unless you get a variance. You £!!!. develop within 100 feet if you get a permit from this Board, and at that time at which that lot gets developed, a permit may be required. MR. LAPOINT-At the time that you would intend to do that, you're going to intend to develop within 100 feet of the wetland? MR. SCHACHNER-If we do, my understanding is, under the, I think it's not part of the Subdivision Regulations, but it's a separate Wetlands? MR. YARMOWICH-Freshwater Wetlands Ordinance. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, that the Town has enacted, that that owner would have to come before the Planning Board. MR. LAPOINT-Okay, because by approving that configuration, that's dictating that that happens. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, that particular configuration can't be done without a Freshwater Wetlands Permit being issued. It may be appropriate to have that noted on the plat, if you feel it's a significant constraint on this particular lot. MR. LAPOINT-I'm going to do that. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I didn't mean to go by Lee's comment, there, about the changing of the. MRS. YORK-It's understood. MR. BREWER-How does the applicant feel about that? MR. SCHACHNER-I believe Mrs. York phrased her thought as, the Board may wish to consider, and the applicant won't consider it. More accurately, the applicant has considered it, and won't do it. The applicant feel s that the appl icant has exerted an undo amount of effort to bend over backwards to try and accommodate the various feelings of not only the various members of the Planning Board, but the public as well, and as kind of Mrs. Pulver was hinting at earlier, to some degree, to a substantial degree, the applicant is not going forward with the project as the applicant really initially desired, but that's life. However, the applicant is not willing to further complicate the matter by increasing the number of common users of the access road to greater than four. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Would that not, however, if you shared that private road among six lots instead of four, do something, economically, for that, in terms of spreading the cost of that private road over six rather than four, but that doesn't cut any ice. 42 ...........- --- MR. SCHACHNER-It might. There are other factors that it wou1d further comp1icate. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Okay. We can't say that we didn't try. How does everybody fee1 about undertaking the Environmenta1 Assessment based on the design we have before us? Does everyone fee1 we have enough information? MRS. TARANA-Cou1d we review the Impact on Growth of both the character and community or neighborhood, just to be sure? MR. MARTIN-Sure. What question is that, the very 1ast one? MRS. PULVER-Impact on neighborhood. MR. MARTIN-It's the very 1ast one, Ed. MR. LAPOINT-The impact on growth and character of community or neighborhood. It 100ks 1ike we're going to a big jump in decreased density over the existing neighborhood. If you 100k right across the street, we've got six structures, e1even curb cuts. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. We're going from no houses to some houses. That's not a reduction. MR. LAPOINT-It's impact on growth and character of community or neighborhood. Wi11 proposed action effect the character of the existing community. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-So, what we're doing is we've got a fair1y high density across the street, and we're going to do a much 10wer density in the midd1e, and this is, I think, a11 over Assemb1y Point. This'11 be the 10west density use in Assemb1y Point. MRS. TARANA-Except that the density across the street is on1y summer time. MR. LAPOINT-No. There's peop1e that 1ive there year round. MRS. TARANA-I thought they t01d us the 1ast time that there were on1y three year round residences? One is way over here, and I think two are out here. MR. MARTIN-Have you ever seen that, the Tax Map of Assemb1y Point, that shows the 10t configuration? MRS. TARANA-I don't think so, but I stand corrected. Aren't there just three year round residences? MRS. PULVER-We11, maybe if you're ta1king across the street, on Knox Road, but Assemb1y Point most of them, I mean, I can think of six, seven peop1e I know there that are permanent residents. MRS. TARANA-On the other side? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MRS. TARANA-I guess I'm ta1king about Knox Road. MRS. PULVER-And we're ta1king about the wh01e neighborhood. MR. MARTIN-My persona1 opinion is that it's out of character with the existing neighborhood, in that there's 1ess density. MR. LAPOINT-An improvement. MR. MARTIN-We're ta1king about 1arge 10ts, here, of at 1east an acre in size. I don't know that that, and it exceeds the zoning for the site, in terms of the number of units that wou1d be a11owed, and it exceeds the 10t size a1most in every case, in probab1y nine out of the ten cases. MR. LAPOINT-If you were to wipe the s1ate c1ean, you'd design c10ser to this than what exists there now. MR. MARTIN-Again, a 10t of my concern, both environmenta11y, aesthetica11y, and from p1anning principa1 has been removed with this center private road access. Does anybody e1se want to expand on that with the community and character? Okay. Ed, do you want to take us through the SEQRA? RESOWTION WHEN DETERMINATIOI OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE 43 ~ -' RESOUJTION NO. 11-1991, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before this Planning Board an application for: SUNSET HILL FARM. To subdivide 25 acres into 10 lots to be developed by individual lot purchasers. Dr111ed .ells and on-site .astewater .111 be constnacted for water and sØller services. Lots w111 be accessed by privately owned and _intainecl drivewQS. Lot 1 contains the OIIIIner's residence and w111 be retained by the OIIIIner, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 29th day of April, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin NOES: Mr. Cartier ABSENT: Mr. Lauricella MR. MARTIN-Okay. I think we probably have a pretty hefty list of stipulations, here, I would imagine, going on to Final. First and foremost in my mind would be the legal requirements associated with the private road, making sure of the maintenance of that and the installation. Secondly, would be a limitation on the clearing associated with installation of the roads, the houses, and the septic systems. MR. LAPOINT-And we're going to, I think, need some more detail on the drywell locations, the infiltrators. No fertilizer. MR. MARTIN-No fertilizer or pesticides to be used. MR. CATHETERS-You said no commercial development, also. MR. LAPOINT-No commercial development. MRS. PULVER-That's handled by the Ordinance. MR. BREWER-Yes. MRS. PULVER-There is no commercial development allowed up there MR. MARTIN-Well, you can say it. It's a reiteration. MRS. PULVER-Yes. You can say it anyway. MR. LAPOINT-The 40 foot strip, I need help with words on that, when it comes that time. That we waive A83-24C, the requirement for a 40 feet to each lot. I might as well do this. MR. MARTIN-No. I would say specifically to Lot 8. I think that would cover it. 44 -......- - MR. SCHACHNER-Could I ask a question. A gentleman from the audience shouts, no commercial development. So, the Board says, yes, lets throw that in, too. I have a problem with that, and here's my problem with it. I have a big, big procedural problem with it, which I would like to again be noted. My problem with it is, I certainly don't know, and I don't really care, what the gentleman means when he says, commercial development. I may have one thing in mind when I hear those words. He may have something else in mind when he hears those words. You may have something else in mind all together. I know, for example, that the Lake George Park Commission has regulations that say that if Mr. Cartier own's a house on Lake George with a space for four boats on his dock slip and he was to rent those four spaces to four individuals, Mrs. Tarana, myself, Mr. Martin, and Mrs. Pulver, the Lake George Park Commission calls that a marina. In a day to day, sort of layperson sense, a marina, to me is some place you go to get boat service or repair or buy gasoline, but the Lake George Park Commission has their regulations, more power to them. I'm not really comfortable with the proposed condition of no commercial development. The applicant doesn't anticipate anything being commercially developed on this property in any way, shape, form, or manner, but as Mrs. Pul ver mentions, that's covered by the Zoni ng Ordi nance, and I don't think a shout from the audience should lead to that type of approval condition. MR. LAPOINT-That would have to be site plan and all that good stuff anyway. MRS. PULVER-And require a variance or require re-zoning. MR. LAPOINT-And then the Lake George Park Commission would be involved, also? MR. BREWER-And there'd be a public hearing about it. MR. MARTIN-As an explanation to the procedural issue. That falls squarely on my shoulders. I've got a human limitation, here, of I'm kind of drained, and I apologize to the app1icant for allowing that type of informal shout from the audience. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION .0. 11-1991 SUNSET HILL FARM, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: To subdivide 25 acres into 10 lots to be developed by individual lot purchasers. Drilled wells and on-site wastewater will be constructed for water and sewer services. Lots will be accessed by privately owned and maintained driveways. Lot 1 contains the owner's residence and will be retained by the owner, at Preliminary Stage, with the following stipulations: One, that the final plan show a lot line adjustment between Lots 10 and 5, to eliminate the right-of-way access to Lot 8, based on this Board's waiver of A83-24C, the necessity to provide for 40 feet of frontage on a public road. Two, that the applicant show additional detail on the infiltration galleries, their construction and design depth, and to the extent possible, locate them within the limits of clearing necessary for the roads. That in the final plan it will be stipulated that no fertilizers or pesticides will be used on each individual site. That, as they're already shown, there will be an extent of clearing for each individual lot to be shown. That clearing shall be kept to a 10 to 15 foot buffer consistent with fire regulations, a maximum of 15 feet. A selective clearing plan shall be described to develop filtered views, shall be developed and provided with the final application, and that the applicant go back and review the record and correspondence to address any previous technical issues discussed and developed at our numerous previous meetings. That, for Lot Number Three, there will be a stipulation that a Wetlands Permit will be obtained prior to development within 100 feet of the wetlands, if necessary. Duly adopted this 29th day of April, 1992, by the following vote: MR. YARMOWICH-How are you going to address the screening issue, the visual screening through selective tree cutting? MR. LAPOINT-Yes, well, I've asked for the extent of clearing for each individual lot. MR. YARMOWICH-I think it was something along the lines of a selective tree cutting restriction. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Jeff, you have that wording. MR. ANTHONY-Yes. We agreed to develop a selective clearing program for any development, and I think we had talked about that last meeting, or the meeting before that, between Preliminary and Final, to develop some written words to provide you with a technique that would be applied to these sites. I would make one other suggestion. When we responded to all your comments, after the last couple of meetings, we did write some detailed letters where we did concur with many of the comments and say that we would make changes and make certain adjustments to the drawings and all kinds of things, and as those may apply to this new plan, I think that you may just reference that in, we are prepared to go back to all those letters we wrote with you and find out what we should be doing to solve all the questions that we've been asked, and I think that's all a matter of record, and we're standing behind that record and we're willing to do that. 45 ""-I-- -.../ Duly adopted this 29th day of April, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin NOES: Mr. Cartier ABSENT: Mr. Lauricella (11:11 p.m.) On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Martin, Chairman 46