1994-07-19
QUEENSBURY Pl.,A,.N 1,tJ¡G ~QAR,D .M~ET ING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 19TH. 1994
INDEX
Site Plan No. 3Ø-93
AMG Industries 7.
Subdivision No. 9-1994
PRELIMINARY STAGE
Craig Seeley 9.
Subdivision No. 1Ø-1994
PRELIMINARY STAGE
Upper Glens Fal Is Development 14.
Corp.
Site Plan No. 35-92
MODIFICATION
Howard Carr 17.
Site Plan No. 22-94
Columbia Development Gr~up 3Ø.
ã~' J
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIÀLLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR O.N,.,TI;:IE FOLLOWING
MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID
MINUTES.
~ :--
. ,
.. ~
~ '
j \
__~__....L.--_.__~__._________
...........,..,,'
QUEENSBURY PlANfUMGBOÄRDME£,TI NG
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
,",UL Y 19TH. 1994
7:fIJfIJ P.M.
'--,
... ~.'.'
MEMBERS PRESENT
TIMOTHY BREWER. CHAIRMAN
GEORGE STARK. SECRETARY
CRAIG MACEWAN
ROGER RUEL
ROBERT PALING
JAMES OBËRMAYER
CATHERINE LABOMBARD
j ,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN
PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER
TOWN PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER
¡'TOWN E'MG I NEER-R n~T";'FROST. BILL MACNAMARA
; ,<
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
March 8th, 1994: NONE
March 31st, 1994: NONE
Apr i I 6th. 1994: NONE
Apr i I 19th. 1994: NONE
May 17th. 1994: NONE
May 24th, 1994: NONE
June 7th. 1994: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE ABOVE SET OF MINUTES. Introduced by Craig
MacEwan who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel:
Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 1994. by the fol lowing vote:
MR. MACEWAN-Yes on al I of them except 6/7's meeting.
AYES: Mr. Stark. Mr. Obermayer. Mrs. LaBombard. Mr. MacEwan.
Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling. Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
DISCUSSION ITEM:
LETTER - RICHARD BAKER
MR. BREWER-Jim. do you want to go over that with us. quick.
MR. MARTIN-All right. As you know, the Town's considering
real ignment of Weeks Road, or pursuing real ignment of Weeks Road,
so it aligns with Sweet Road, and it's the position of the Town
that a traffic signal is warranted at that new intersection. A
study of that has been done by Creighton, Manning Associates.
They have confirmed that desire, as a logical place to place a
signal. Wal-Mart, or the developer in this case, National
Realty, I should say, is concerned about the posslbi I ity of
losing the signal in front of the Ames store. where it was
approved with the site plan, and they've submitted evidence to
DOT that the two signal system, known as a coupler system. I
- 1 -
bel ¡eve. can be installed there. that will effectively do the
same thing. but allow signal izationat each location. DOT is
considering that. as the letter indicates. Thøy just wanted some
sort of conceptual approval from the Planning Board.at this time
of a two signal configuration. but as the letter also indicates.
this would have to come back before the Board f91': modifi.cation
and ultimate approval. for this type of a configuration.
MR. BREWER-So L guess we need a consensus of the Board that I
sign this letter?
MR. MARTIN-That's a brief expla~ation behind the issue.
MR. BREWER-How.does everybody f~el about it?
I
MR. STARK-I'm in favor of It. but you say it has.to come back at
the site plan modification end?
MR. MART I N-As a mod i f ¡cat i on.. yes.
MR. OBERMAYER-Why are they aSking .for a letter from us?
MR. MART I N-We I I. because. I've wr i tten a I etter to Mr. Baker and
al I those concerned. that I'm withholding approving the building
permit until this issue is resolved. and they are not accepting
of the lost of the signal in front of the Queen Diner. and our
pos i t ion is the signa lis certa i n I y warranted at Weeks Road. and
they need. if they're:going to pursue this further. or take it to
the powers that Qe. they need s.ome indication from the Town. at
least conpeptually. that this is something that the Board is
wi I I ing to back in a conceptual fashion.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. OBERMAYER-Jim. have we received any information from DOT
regarding that. on whether they were going to approve it or not?
MR. MARTIN-The only informatiqn I've received is from Creighton
Manning. and I also hav~ received a copy of the report prepared
by Transportation Concepts on behalf of Wal-Mart.
MR. RUEL-Who wi I I have the responsibi Ilty for maJntenance?
MR. MARTIN-It would be DOT.
MR. RUEL-Wi I I these signals be unsynchronized. to be consistent
with other signals Queensbury?
MR. MARTIN-To the extent possible. It might be possible to
coordinate it with the signal at Northway Plaza. I'm told.
because that's close enough. but after a certain distance. the
coordination falls off. I ike. obviously. this can't be
coordinated with signals to the north. at Exit 2Ø.because that's
too far away.
MR. RUEL-Yes. How f.r.apart are they. roughly?
MR. MARTIN-I forget what the I imitation on that distance is.
bel ieve it's approximately about a quarter of a mi Ie orahalf a
mi Ie. and then after that they begin to lose their effectiveness.
because there's so manY other th i ngs that c.an happen in between
turns and delays and so on.
MR. RUEL-Okay. Thanks.
MR. MARTIN-Mark. you had.
MR. SCHACHNER-It's not real ~y a comment. It's a question. It's
probab I y rea I I Y more for Jim. but he and I haven't had a chance
to discuss this in advance. .maybe it's a concern and a question.
- 2 -
--.
I guess my question is. why
Board. as opposed to actually
site plan as a modification.
site plan approval?
we're proposing to do this as a
issuing a resolution approving the
Have they asked us to modify our
MR. MARTIN-No.
MR. SCHACHNER-AI I right. I guess my only caution to the Board
is. we don't really have conceptual approval in the site plan
review mode. formally. as I recall. so my only caution to the
Board Is. I f we're go i ng to wr i te a I etter to an app I i cant say i ng
we conceptually agree with an approach. but pending formal
submission of an appl ication for modification. just make sure
that you're comfortable with the modification. because I would
not be thri I led if we then see it in a formal mode. and then we
say. wait a minute. we don't want two signals. It's a letter
that can be waived in our face both literally and figuratively.
I guess that's my point. and I'm not sure if. I mean. DOT doesn't
reQuire a letter from us. I assume. So it sounds to me I ike it's
something that the appl icant wishes to derive some further
comfort in proceeding with DOT. and in that vein. I don't have
any trouble with the Board doing it. if you want. just make sure
that you understand that. then it ~ come back as a formal
modification for site plan approval. and if we've conceptual Iv
approved it. then unless something very radically has changed. I
think we'd be bound to formal Iy appr~ve it as we I I.
MR. MARTIN-Well. I have no pride of authorship here. I mean. if
Mark would I ike to work with this. I was just going to suggest.
if it can be improved in any manner. I have no trouble with that.
MR. MACEWAN-I think the letter's clear. I mean. it doesn't state
that we're approvinQ their modification. It says we conceptually
agree with the approach they want to take.
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct.
MR. MACEWAN-If they want to make any modifications. it's going to
require them to come back in front of us for a formal resolution.
MR. SCHACHNER-It just strikes me as a bit of an unusual step for
the Board to take. that's al I.
MR. BREWER-They requested. they just want an impression as to how
we feel about this?
MR. MARTIN-Right. because he asked me
the Town is accepting of this. and
that authority to do that. and I
Planning Board is the one who has to
act by resolution.
to write the letter and say
I said. well. I don't have
said that the Board. the
do that. but they can only
MR. SCHACHNER-With an appl ication.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. right. or responding to a request for a
modification. and anything short of that. the best I could get.
maybe. I said. was some indication that the Board. at this time.
conceptually agrees. and unti I they have a formal modification in
front of them.
MR. BREWER-Did they propose this. or did DOT tel I them that they
think they should do this?
MR. MARTIN-It's really something that's evolved on its own. DOT
has not said they should do this. DOT's looking at it. We have
no formal opinion yet or stand from DOT. We hope to have that
within a couple of weeks. This is really something that evolved
with the coming of the Weeks Road real ignment. after the fact.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
I guess I want to know from everybody if they
- 3 -
want me to sign this or no~?
MR. MACEWAN-I have no problem with it. Go for it.
MR. MARTIN-I can strengthen the wordJng to reflect Mark's
comment.
MR. STARK-Tim. the only thing is. I ike Mark says. if we. write the
letter. and then they .come up for a site plan modification. then
we disagree with that.
MR. BR.EWER-We I I .
con c e,p t u a I I Y .
guess.
specifically. we ,should say.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Mark's added some language to add on to the
beginning of the second sentence in the second paragraph. The
new language would be.. that the Board is< not ,bo.und by this
encouragement. and formal approval of such a design wi I I require
a resolution from the Planning Board. and so on. So with that
addition.
MR. MACEWAN-That's fine.
MR. BREWER-That would be fine.
" .
MR. OBERMAYER~That's fine.
'--~
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. I'll ¡have Pam type in that addition. and Tim
can sign it tomorrow. then. if it's all right with the Board.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Do we need a resolution to that effect?
MR. OBERMAYER-Do we have to vote on it. that he signs it?
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes.
I think as a Board action. sure.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
need a motion from somebody.
MOTION TO APPROVE AUTHORIZATION OF SENDING THE LETTER TO RICHARD
BAKER AS WRITTEN AND AMENDED. BY THE.PLANNING . BOARD.ATTORNEY.
Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption. seconded
by Cat her i,ne LaBombard<:
Duly adopted this 19th day of July. 1994. by the fol lowing vote:
AYES: Mr. Obermayer. Mrs. LaBombard. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel.
Mr. Pal ing. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
RESOLUTIONS:
1. RESOLUTION TO ^CCEPT OR D~NY PROPOSED LAND,DEDICATION IN
OF ,RECREATION FEES FOR THE FOLLOWING SUBDIVISIONS: SUBDIV.
1993 - JAMES~IRARD SUBDIV. 4-1992 - GUIDO PASSARELLI -
BROOK SUBDIV. 15-1993 - AL CERRONE - CLENDON BROOK
LIEU
13-
BAY
MR. MARTIN-Just to updat.e the Board on. I can do all three of
these that you have. Girard. Pass~rel I i. anQ Cerrone. I think
Tim was there last night. as wel I. at the Town Board meeting. We
have. now. the recommendations from the Recreation Commission.
and as of last night the Town Board. and they are in agreement.
the Recreation Commission was in favor of accepting the Girard
parcel. as was the Town Board. unanimously. The Passarelli. the
recommendati.on was to deny. from the C()mmission.. as well as the
Town Board. unanimously. and in terms of the Cerro,ne piece. along
the Clendon Brook. the recommendation from the Recreation
Commission was to accept. as wel I as to accept from the Town
- 4 -
-
Board, and that was unanimous also, and the Staff's position is
concurrent with that, also.
MR. RUEL-I'm trying to relate the land evaluation, the site
visit, with the subdivisions.
MR. MARTIN-This Is from the Recreation Commission and that was in
response to a request from the Town Board, what are the types of
things that the Recreation Commission takes into account when
they look at a site, and those are the things that they look at,
actual visit to the site, an evaluation, proximity to the other
town properties and so on, and alternatives, meaning what would
be the cash to the Town, should the recreation fee be imposed.
MR. RUEL-Yes. What's this Potvin parcel'?
MR. MARTIN-Potvin is the Cerrone parcel.
subdivision.
Cerrone bought the
MR. RUEL-Okay. AI I right.
I'm trying to relate the two.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
time, Jim?
How does everybody feel? We' I I do one at a
MR. MARTIN-Yes. That would be the best way, and your language
should be to the effect of acceptance or denial.
MR. STARK-Make a motion to accept each one?
MR. BREWER-Yes. We have to do them individually, or deny,
whatever anybody wants to do.
MR. STARK-We I I, ~ In favor of accepting al I three. Do you want
to discuss it?
MR. BREWER-Sure.
MR. STARK-We I I,
like land.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I feel that we should go along with the
recdmmendations of the Town Board and the Recreation Department,
~ecause they have· gane on the land. They know what t~ey're
looking for, as far as usable, viable land for recreation, and if
they fee I that the second parce I here, the Ray Brook parce I, is
not going to be up to their standards, then they would rather
take the money instead, and I would like to comply with what they
have said, have suggested.
MR. OBERMAYER-How much mon~y do we receive, Jim, for Guido's
property?
MR. MART I N-We II, I n terms of the Passare I I I parce I, I th i nk the
Town Board had some insight on that one. They're suggestion was
to I imlt this to Phase I only, and then reconsider, If Mr.
Passarel I i would Ilke to offer other landß that are further back
in the subdivision. If you recall, there was a' dry spot In the
northeast corner of the subdivision, and maybe with a second or
third phase, oonslder that ~~ that time.
MR. BREWER-But is that property contiguous to this piece that
we're talking about tonight?
MR. MARTIN-No.
MR. BREWER-So then it has no bearing on it.
MR. MARTIN-No. It's part of the subdivision, remember.
part of the overal I subdivision.
It was
MR. BREWER-But we're specifically talking about this one piece.
- 5 -
If we get into Phase I I. for Rec
different piece. but forget about
that.
fees. then he can offer us a
this piece. They don't want
MR. MARTIN-That's what they're saying. yes. for phase I. So
they're saying to impose the fee for Phase I only. I think it
amounte<d to ,approx imat,~!Y,,3Ø some, lots_. qr maybe less. for the
residentiJaL, I think,;1:here were. what. J3 office ,Lots. and then
the ba.la,n<çe W~H\e resid.ent,ial. So impos.eth~¡fee for th,at Phase I
,on I y. j~nd t he,n. r,e-v i si t the matter< wit h t h.e ,second and t hi rd
Rha~e.. _.. .-'
I . .~ >,_
MR. BREWER-We should make clear to Mr. Passarel I i that if he does
offer us land. this is not to be part of it. in the future.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. if tha1;'s the Bqard's decision.
MR. STARK-I'm convinced.
MR. MACE~þ"N-1 agree with Cath.y.
MR. RUEL-Well, actually, I'm, not going to comment. because I'd
I ike to. abstain from v9tin9 on thison~, since I'm not in favor
of developers paying for recreation fees in Queensbury.
MR. PALING- agree with Cathy.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Would some~o.d.y care to make a motion?
MOTION TO ACCEPT, THE PARCEL FOR THE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1993
~AMES GIRARD, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its
adoption. seconded by George Stark:
Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 1994. by the fol lowing vote:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard. Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Pal ing.Mr. Stark.
Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Ruel
MR. BREWER-Okay. Next.,
,
MOTION TO DENY THE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1992 GUIDO PASSARELLI - BAY
BROOK. Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its
adoption. seconded by James Obermayer:
However. we wi I I
development.
just
restrict this to Phase
of the
Duly adopted this 19th day of July. 1994. by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. ,MacEwan. Mr. Paling. Mr. ,Stark, Mr. Obermayer.
Mrs. ~aBombard. Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Ruel
MR.BREWE:R-Okay.
MOTION TO ACCEPT THE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1993 AL
CLENDON BROOK, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who
i~s adoption. seconded by Craig MacEwan:
CERRONE
moved for
DUly adopted this 19th day of <July. 1994. by the fol lowing vote:
AYES: Mr. Pal ing. Mr. Stark. Mr. Obermayer. Mrs. LaBombard.
Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer
- 6 -
--
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Ruel
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 3Ø-93 TYPE: UNLISTED AMG INDUSTRIES OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: DIX AVENUE REQUEST IS
FOR MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE PLAN - CHANGE INCLUDE NEW SIGN
LOCATION; GREEN SPACE ON NORTH SIDE OF BUILDING HAS BEEN REPLACED
BY BLACKTOP. BEAUTIFICATION COMM. - 7/11/94 TAX MAP NO. 11Ø-1-
24.21 < LOT SIZE: 9.5 ACRES SECTION: 179-260
JIM FLEXON. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT
MR. BREWER-Do we have any notes at al I?
MR. HARLICKER-I think my only comment is that they're replacing.
they're not el iminating any trees. They're just relocating the
proposed. different areas of the site. but my only concern is
that. I'm not sure what the area's going to be used for. but if
It's going to be used for any sort of outdoor storage of
materials that it not be seen from the road. That's al I.
MR. BREWER-And the area we're talking about
that the area?
is inSect i on A. is
MR. OBERMAYER-Have you got a map you oan hang up?
MR. FLEXON- Yes. I do. I ' I I show you the 0 I done and the new one.
What you're looking at. the old site plan. is on the south side
of the bui Iding. not the north side.
MR. BREWER-Seotlon A. are we In Seotion A?
MR. FLEXON-Seotion A. yes.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. FLEXON-On the baok side of the. away from Dix Avenue and
behind the bui Iding. out of sight from the road and from anyone
else. along the 305 foot baok of that bui Iding. you' I I see green
area there. and there's parking incorporated in that green area.
When this. initially. when this plan was put together. way baok
in May of '93. that looked like it was probably a good idea.
Subsequent to that. in our business disoussions. we had deoided
that that ~ not a good idea for several reasons. One Is the
way our drain oomes off the roof there. unless we put some fanoy
drainage in there. It was going to wash that green area right
out. There's gutters. down spouts that oome down the baok of
that bui Iding. The other thing. the nature of our business. we
do loading out of those back bay doors and things. and it's not
suitable for us to have all that green space in there. and
thirdly. we do. our forecast says that within maybe 24 months. we
may even look to do some more building in that area. and request
some more bui Idings.
MR. BREWER-Okay. So bottom I ine. you're not losing any parking.
MR. FLEXON-Wel I. you' I I see on the old map
lost twelve parking spaoes. but it's sti II
of required parking spaoes of 80. for the
and so forth.
and the new map. we
within the guidel ines
number of employees.
MR. PALING-And those 12 are on the south side of the bui Iding?
MR. FLEXON-They're on the south side. yes.
MR. BREWER-So how many parking spaoes are you down to. now?
- 7 -
MR. FLEXON-We're down 12 from the original.
MR. BREWER-You're down to 11Ø, or you're down to 1ØØ, or 98?
MR. FLEXON-Wel I, we've rearranged the parking. and we're down 12.
but for the number of ~mployees and so forth that we have. we
require 8Ø. so we're sti II above that level.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. FLEXON-What we've done there is we've taken the shrubbery
that was sl~ted for that area and moved it around the property.
and actually sheltered the property a I ittle better by putting it
out around the perimeter.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. FLEXON-So. probably. there's another wrinkle in this. and
I'll throw that in. and that is that. last Tuesday. we went
before the Beautification Committee. and I have, another drawing
that I wi II give you here. We had to change our landscaper.
three, four, w,ek_s ago. ,for bU,~iness r~aspns..and,iwe WOIJ~t go into
that. We went to Gardenti me. and ~ardent j,me tqok a _,look at our
plan. and made some suggestions to us. and ,we I ike them. and we
submitted them to the Beautification Committee last Tuesday night
and they approved it. So. tha,t's really a separ,at,e issue from
the green space. The green space is gone. The parking area has
changed. but in addition to that. and the sign location. from the
original plan. has changed. but the actual landscaping is changed
and has been approved. and 1'1 I give you a copy of that. The
plantings are up about 2Ø percent. The planting types have
changed. so that we've got a lot more color than we had. We had
sort of a drab scenario. and Gardentime. "with their expertise.
has put together a plan that is going to give us color al I year.
in the fal I and the spring. Dogwoods and it's g~LQg tq be quite
nice. It's going to be beautiful all year round. So. if you
wan,t tha,t,<plant,~l'!g plan. I~_I.I give:;you.that..;
", . \ :..¡, .;~,
MR,. )B,RE~E:R-"Mavb~, we cou I.d j,\,Ist loo,k, at it. rea Iqu i ck. if you
don't mind.
,I
, ,
. . ~ ...
MR. FLEXON-What you've got on there is. I'm not an expert. and
that's why we have h,ired somebody whQ is,. but, you'll, see. i,nstead
of just some green plantings plopped around. we've got the same
number and concentrations of large flower beds. w.,i,1:t) plantings.
and they're staged so that you get an array of color. and. if
you'~ have been there. Gardentime did a good job of describing
how þeau,tiful [t w,as going to be. I wouldn~t want to try. I'm
not an expert in t hat area.
MR., BREWER-Okay.
Board?
Is there any questions from anybody on the
>~
MR. PALING-'(es. I don't see ,a difference between your old ,print
and the new pri nt. when it comes to Sect ion A. the, ,north, s ide of
the building, in regard to asphalt vers,us greenery. It's the
same.
MR. FLEXON-It's not the north side. This is the north side.
MR. PALING-Yes. right.
MR. FLEXON-This is the south side. We're talking ;abou.t the south
side.
MR. PALING-Okay.
I'm talking about the north sid~.
MR. FLEXON-We d ¡dn' t, change t he north side.
MR. PALING-Green space on the north side of the bui Iding has been
- 8 -
replaced by blacktop.
MR. FLEXON-That is wrong. That's the south side.
south side.
This IS the
MR. PALING-That's wrong. So what should this say7
MR. FLEXON-That should say south side.
MR. PALING-That should say south side. Okay. That 1'1 I buy.
MR. FLEXON-And this is Dix Avenue. and that's just this back area
here.
MR. PALING-I'm with you. You've got to change that word in your
letter. though.
MR. FLEXON-Okay.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion7
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 3Ø-93 AMG
INDUSTRIES. Introduc~d by Roger Ruel Who moved for its adoption.
seconded by Robert Paling:
Duly adopted this 19th day of July. 1994. by the fol lowing vote:
AYES: Mr. Obermayer. Mrs. LaBombard. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Pal lng,
Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan
NEW BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1994 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED CRAIG
SEELEY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: BIG BOOM
& TWIN CHANNELS ROAD SUBDIVISION OF A +/- 14.33 ACRE PARCEL INTO
2 LOTS OF +/- 7.157 ACRES EACH. TAX MAP NO. 135-2-2 LOT SIZE:
+/- 14.33 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS
CRAIG SEELEY. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 9-1994 Prel iminary Stage. Craig
Seeley. Meeting Date: July 19. 1994 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The
app I i cant is propos i ng to subd i v i de a 14.33 acre parce I Into 2
lots of 7.157 acres each. The property is zoned LI-1A and is
located on Big Boom Road. The property Is serviced by municipal
water. PROJECT ANALYSIS: 1. The property slopes away from the
road and has severe slopes and ravines towards the rear. 2.
Proposed access to lot 2 is very close to the intersection with
Twin Channels Road. 3. The two lots wi I' require on site septic
systems. 4. It appears that future development of the two lots
wi II be restricted to the area adjacent to the front yard
setback."
MR. HARLICKER-In order to direct future development of the site
to the front. along Twin Channels Road and Big Boom. and to
el iminate any negative impacts associated with truck traffic on a
residential street. that's East Branch. access to the lots could
be from Twin Channels and Big Boom Roads only.
MR. BREWER-Could be where7
MR. HARLICKER-Off of Twin Channels or "Big Boom.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody on the Board have any questions or
- 9 -
comments?
MR. SEELEY-What do you need to know?
MR. STARK-Are you going to be moving the business from Glenwood
over to this?
MR. SEELEY-That is my intent ion.
MR. STARK-AI I right. What are you going to do at Glenwood then?
Anything. or just resjden~ial?
MR. SEELEY-That's not my property.
say.
I'm really not (lost word) to
,
MR. PALING-You're not the owner of this property.
correct?
is that
MR. SEELEY-Which property?
MR. PALING-The property we're talking about.
MRr SEELEY-I'm the co~t~actee.at the time.
MR. PALING-You're not the owner. however?
."
MR. SEELEY-The owner of the property on Big Boom Road?
MR. PALING-Yes.
~ _.~\
MR. SEELEY- Yes.
MR. PALING-Okay. but the, print I ists. it aS,Margaret Baxter. I
think that ought to be clarified at least. but you're I lsted as
owner everywhere else.
MR. SEELEY-Yes. That is true. These maps were .done prior to the
closing.
MR. PALING-The print's dated June 29th.
MR. SEELEY-Yes. Well..I had to meet the dead I ine to. get them in
for subdivision.
MR. MARTIN-That would be a correction. though. for the final. if
you could.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Craig. when we went over to visit it. it looked
I ike it was really far away fr.om the river. and then when I look
at this little map here in the corner. this is a great little
map. by the way. I'm not that fami liar with that part of tO,wn in
there. and I just think it's a beautiful part of town. but it
looks. on here. it looks a lot closer to the river than when
you're actually there. on the property.
MR. SEELEY-The south eastern part of the property is probably. I
would guess.3ØØ f,e,e,\: from the river. and .thatwould be the
closest point. and then it goes away.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay.
. ,
MR. BREWER-Okay. .So after this subdivision. he' I I have
back for site plan review anyway. for whatever bui Iding
there.
to come
he puts
MRS. LABOMBARD-Right.
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
- 10 -
->
MR. RUEL-This appl ication is just to divide the land.
MR. BREWER-It's just to divide the land, There's no bui Iding on
it or anything I ike that. Okay.
MR. PALING-Do you pretty wel I agree with the Staff comments on
that, regarding access and so on, the four items they've made?
MR. SEELEY-Pretty much. Yes.
MR. BREWER-So when you come back with the final, you can change
the access.
MR. HARLICKER-Just maybe put a note on the plat saying access
wi I I be from Twin Channels or Big Boom Road, something I ike that.
MR. SEELEY-Yes. The access is going to be from Big Bay Road.
don't intend to go down onto Twin Channels.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. SEELEY-Or if it is, it' I I be a minimal amount. The Big Boom
is, actually Big Boom and Twin Channels, where they intersect,
you'll see on the map that it's almost a straight line.
MR. BREWER-Yes, it is. Okay. I'll open the publ ic hearing. Is
there anybody who wishes t6 comment on this proposal?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. DEMARS
MR. DEMARS-My name is Mr. DeMars, and I'm from Big Boom Road. My
question is, what would Craig be setting up, as far as a
business, after the subdivision, and why the subdivision?
MR. BREWER-Probably I would presume that his business that he
wants to put there doesn't take up that much room and he might
sell one of the lots. I'm just guessing. I don't know.
MR. DEMARS-We I I, does the subdivision give him the opportunity to
sel I the lot that's going to be by where he's going to put in his
business?
MR. BREWER-Yes.
MR. DEMARS-It wi I I?
MR. BREWER-Yes.
MR. DEMARS-What is that area zoned?
MR. HARLICKER-Light Industrial.
MR. BREWER-Light Industrial One Acre.
MR. DEMARS-What classification of business does he have?
MR. BREWER-There's no proposal for a business here right now,
sir. If he comes in for an appl ication to put a business on this
property, there wi I I be a site plan review, and neighbors wi I I be
notified, and there' I I be another publ ic hearing for that
business on this property. This, right now, is just a proposal
to divide the land. That's all it is right now.
MR. DEMARS-So the publ ic input really isn't really too much of
value to you in making this decision, as far as this subdivision?
MR. BREWER-Sure it is, if you have a concern, sure it is.
- 11 -
MR. DEMARS-Do you know the lay of the land7
MR. BREWER-Yes. we were there.
MR. DEMARS-And did you walk the lay of the land. the terrain. the
slopin9 effect of the land7
MRS.LABOMBARQ-Yes.
MR. BREWER,Yes.
MR. DEMARS-I think that the area sheds quite heavi Iy on the back
properties that abut to it. before the river area. and this is
why I quest i oned the d i vis i on of the who I e property. in that
large area. two separate areas. versus takjng the large area and
uti I izing the whole area for this project.
MR. OBERMAYER-Really. you have to visualize this without really
any bui Iding on it at all.
MR. DEMARS-We don't have the advantage that you have you. as far
as maps. etc. We're fami liair wit~ the area. do you know wh.at I'm
saying7 We've walked that area. We have cleaned the area. as a
matter of fact. we cle~n it. and the Town picks the rubbish up as
we clean it. all, the time. over there. but my question is. the
terra in be i ng th i s very,. sloP i ng t,erra in. i.s whether or not that
would be able to take the impact o~ a Li9ht Industrial type
business. I don't know what his business is"
MR. BREWER-It's a machine shop. His current business is a
machine shop right now. and on the map it does show a proposed
5.ØØØ square foot bui Iding on a 7 acre parcel.
MR. DEMARS-Okay. So the sign that we see on that property. did
that say. on that slg~. what the proposed7
MR. BREWER-It's a.proposed subdivision. He's just telling us
now. down the I ine. he's going to propose to put a 5.ØØØsquare
foot bui Iding on that piece of property. is basically what he's
tel I i n g us. I mea n. he doe s n ' t eve n h a ve< to tel Ius.
MR. D.EM,ARS- '-t",~f a lI~h,W i t h i,n t ~e ¡r.ea IIJI ,of Y()U ac,e:e,p1= i ~g it beca u se
it is Light Industrial.
MR. BREWER-Yes. sir,. and like I sa jd. there wi I I be st or.mwater
reports that wi II be done to assure us that nothing wi II happen.
and other "reports~
MR. DEMARS-I don't think it would have a negative. as far as that
particular type of light manufacturing because I don't think it
,has any by-products that would hinder anything. but I was worried
about the sloping of the land. It does drop off.
MR. BREWER-And that.
development. the slope.
think. also. would
restrict his
MR. DEMARS-Right.
MR. PALING-Mr. Seeley has been warned about that. in Item Number
One of the comments by ¡Staff. in the project ana~ysis. So he
knows we recognize. as a steep slope.
MRS. ,LABOMBARD-Mr. DeMars. you're welcqme to ha~e ~y map.
MR. DEMARS-I don't own land ,that's next t,o it. but
there's people here tonight that own ~and that abuts it.
that's one of their concerns.
I'm sure
I think
MR. OBERMA YER- I f anybody wou I d I i k e. if anybody' s from the
neighborhood. they can take mY map. for future reference.
- 12 -
.-
'-~_.
-
MR. BREWER-Okay.
comment?
Is there anybody else who would I ike to
STARLETT COOK
MS. COOK-I'm Starlett Cook. I own property adjacent to Mr.
Seeley's newly acquired property. Do you have notes or
something? Somehow. in the beginning. you said something about
access only from Twin Channels Road or Big Boom Road. and you
just made the comment about the notes or something. is there some
kind of notations that we can see what. that we could have a copy
of?
MR. HARLICKER-No. It was just a suggestion that when they come
in for final subdivision. on their plat they might note that
access from the two parcels wi I I be only from those two roads.
MS. COOK-Okay. Thank you.
EDWARD FISHER
MR. FISHER-Our main concern up in there Is the road coming In and
out. We have the DeSantis restaurant. We have a motel. a UPS.
and several trucking outfits In there. and the road leading in
and out of there is not handl ing the traffic that we have going
in and out of that area right now. I think do something more
about the road before they start stuffing more of those
businesses and homes In there. That road wi I I not handle what we
have now, and I expect most of the people that live in there wi I I
agree with that.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Would you just
the record.
identify yourself. please, for
MR. FISHER-Edward Fisher.
I've I ived up there al I my life.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Again. is there anybody else who would I ike to
comment?
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUT'ION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 9-1994. Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for
its adoption. seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
WHEREAS, there
appl ¡cation for:
is presently before
CRAIG SEELEY. and
the
Planning
Board
an
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed
project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the
State Environmental Qual ity Review Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The fol lowing 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 Qual ity Review Act and
the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the
app I ¡cant.
- 13 -
5. Having "co"nsidered and thoro<lJghty anat,yze.d .th~ :relevantareas
,of ~nvjronmental concern and having cQnsid~re~ the criteria
f()r det"erm in i ngwhet"her a proj.ec:t, has "a _ <~ i gn if i cant
environment,! .impact ,S the s~,e i~set ,forth in Section
617.11 of the Official Compi lation of Codes. Rules and
Regulations for the State of New York. this Board finds that
the action about to be undertaken by this Board wi I I have no
significant environmental effect and the Cha.irman of the
Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and
fi Ie as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or
a negative declaration that may be required by law.
, . ~ j .
Duly adopted this 19th diyof July. 1994. by the fol lowing vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark. Mr. Obermayer. Mrs. LaBombard. Mr. MacEwan.
Mr. Ruel. Mr. Pal ing. Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
MR. ,BREWE.R-Okay. Would sqmebody care to introduce the mqtion we
have'?
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISIQN NO. 9-1994 . CRAIG
SEELEY. Introduced by Roger Ruel who mQved f,or its ad,option.
seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
As wr i tten. inc I ud i ng P I ann i ng Staff pro j ect. ana I ys i s notes dated
7 11 91 94. and the nee e s sa rye h a n g e i nth e ;m,a pas t 0 own EI r s hip.
Whereas. the Town Planning Department is in receipt of
Prel iminary subdivision appl ication. fi Ie # 9-1994. to subdivide
a 14.3 acre parce I into 2 lots of 7.157 acres each; and
Whereas, th~ above referenced preliminary subdivision
appl ication dated 6/29/f! 4 consistsqf the fol lowing:
1..
Sheet 1. Map of
7/7/94
lands of Margar~tBaxter. rev ¡sed
Whereas. a publ ic hearing was held on 7/19/94 concerning the
above subd i v is i on; and
Whereas. the proposed subdivision has been submitted to the
appropriate town departments and outside agencies for their
review and comment; and
Whereas. the requirements of the State Environmental Qual ity
Review Act have been considered; and
Whereas. the proposed subdivision is subject to the
following modification and terms prior to submission of the plat
in final ,form;
Therefore. Be It Resolved. as fol lows:
The Town Planning
hereby. ,move ~o approve
f i Ie # 9-1994.
~oard. after ,considering the above.
pre I i m i nary subd i vis i on of Cra i g, See I ey.
Duly adopted this 19,th day of July. 1994. by the fOllowing vote:
AYES: Mr. Obermayer. Mrs. LaBombard. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel.
Mr. Pal ing. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
SUBDIVISION NO. 1Ø-1994 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYP,E: UNLISTED
UPPER GLENS FALLS DEVELOPMENT CORP. OWNER: ROGER & BARBARA
BRASSEL ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: NOR,THEASTCORNEROF BAY ROAD
AND CRONIN ROAQ SUBDIVISI,ON OF A +/- 9.68 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO
- 14 -
'--.
LOTS - 1 LOT WILL BE 7.65 ACRES. THE OTHER WILL BE 2.03 ACRES AND
WILL BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 11.40Ø SQUARE FOOT OFFICE
BUILDING WITH FRONTAGE ON CRONIN ROAD. TAX MAP NO. 60-2-11 LOT
SIZE: +/- 9.68 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS
JON LAPPER AND JOHN GORALSKI. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 10-1994 Prel iminary Stage.
Upper Glens Fal Is Development Corp.. Meeting Date: July 19. 1994
"PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Appl icant proposes to subdivide a 9.68
acre parcel into two lots. One shall be 2.03 acres and the other
one wi I I encompass 7.65 acres. The appl icant proposes to bui Id a
11.680 square foot off ice bu i I ding on the sma I I er lot. There is
a single fami Iy rental home on the larger lot along Bay Road.
PROJECT ANALYSIS: The two lots are zoned HC-1A. and borders a
SFR-1A zone. This requires that a fifty foot buffer be placed
between proposed office bui Iding and SFR-1A zone. Access onto
this site would have to be from Cronin Road. and this access
should be placed in such a way so that it al igned with businesses
across the street to ensure safer traffic flow. Also the golf
course and Elks club access points should also be taken into
consideration. Site has access to Town water and sewer. and is
located near a fire hydrant. The water table on the site is
approximately eighteen Inches below the surface. There is a 1%
slope over the entire site. with some places on the site having
sl ightly higher slopes."
MR. BREWER-Okay. and we have a letter from Mike Shaw.
MR. MA R TIN - 0 k a y . '.' I n rev i e win g the a b 0 v e men t ion e d . i t may be
noted that this parcel is not within the Town's Quaker Road
Sanitary Sewer District. It is possible to service this parcel
from the sanitary mains on Cronin Road. The proper procedure for
a District Extension must be completed prior to any connections.
If there are ~ny questions on this. please catl me at my office."
MR. BREWER-Okay. and we do have someone for the appl icant.
MR. LAPPER-For the record. I'm Jon Lapper from Lemery & Reid. and
with me is John Goralski from Richard Jones. Our client. in this
case. is not Dr. Brassel and his wife. Our cl ient is Upper Glens
Fal Is Development Corp.. which is the contract vendee of the two
acre site. Howard Carr is the President. You all know Howard
Carr as the Manager of the Queensbury Plaza. We view this as a
very straightforward subdivision. in terms of impact. in terms of
location on the site. in the proper zone. and we'll be back to
talk about the site plan review for the office building after we
have subdivision approval.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
extension?
Do you have any problems with the sewer
MR. LAPPER-I've discussed that with Paul Dusek. and we're going
to apply to have this parcel added to the district. and we're
going to apply for contract access with the town. unti I such time
as it's added to the district.
MR. BREWER-Okay. At this time 1'1 I open the publ ic hearing. Is
there anyone from the publ ic that would wish to comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Brewer. there
to address. After Dr . Brasse I
is one othér point that I'd like
had some time to look over this
- 15 -
layout. he asked if we could change,
Road to 285 feet from 3ØØ feet. 286
acco~~odate the site plan we're
bui Iding. and it's a simple change on
the roadfronta~e on Cronin
feet. That can be done and
pr,'QPosi ng for, our off ice
the wes~erly lot line.
MR. BREWER-And you' I I change that for final. Okay.,
MR. MARTIN-Can access sti I I be accommodated with that shift?
MR. GORALSKI,-Yes. Acce,ss can.b~, acc,O;ß1,moda'teQ,..,and ,to a'ddr~,ss the
poi nt. J,here are no bus i nes~es ¡ çI i r,ect I.y ,0PPQ¡f;¡ i tet t}, is lqt., The
Elks Club is to the east. and the Harvest is, to the west. There
is one residential driveway that is opposite this lot. and we
wi 1 I have our access to the lot approximately across from that.
MR. LAPPER-This was an issue that Jim raised when we were meeting
with him on the review. in terms of whether to I ine up the
driveways.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Than~ you. Okay. This isa Short Form. Jim?
We've got a Long Form submitted.
MR. MACEWAN-It's a Short. right?
too.
I have a Long one in my packet.
MR. GORALSKI-We submitted a Long Form.
-"', \
It's an Unl isted action.
.,
:,MR. MACEW,AN-Okay.
'. , -.-J' .'
RESOLUTU>,N WHEN DETERMINATION OF ,NO SIGNIFJCANCEIS MADE
, ,
RESOlUT~ON NO., 1Ø-1994. Introduced by Çraig NlacEwa.n who moved for
its adqptiol;i. seconde,d by .Rob,ert Pal ing:"
WHEREAS. there
application for:
is presently before the Planning Board
UPPER GLENS FALLS DEVELOPMENT CORP.. and
an
WHEREAS. this Planning Board has determined that ,the proposed
project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the
State Environmental Qual ity Review Act.
, f "'~'
; f.,
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency BppeBrsto be involved.
2. The fol lowing agencies are involveØ:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in
the Department of E,nv i ronment,a I, Conservat ion Regu I at ions
implementing the State Environmental Qual ¡ty Review Act and
the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment F.orm has been completed by the
applicant.
5. Having conside~ed and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas
of environmental concern and having considered the cri~eria
for Øeterminin9 whether a project has a. significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section
617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes. RU,les and
Regulations for ~he $tate of New York. this Board ~inds that
,the action,.bout~o be un4ertaken by this Board wi I I have no
signi~icant environmental effect and the Chairman of the
Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and
fi Ie as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or
a negative declaration that may be required by law.
- 16 -
Duly adopted this 19th day of July. 1994. by the fol lowing vote:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Paling.
Mr. Stark. Mr. Obermayer. Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
MR. BREWER-We need a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 18-1994
UPPER GLENS FALLS DEVELOPMENT CORP.. Introduced by Roger Ruel who
moved for its adoption. seconded by Robert Pal ing:
To subdivide a 9.68 acre lot into two lots. one 7.65 acre and the
other 2.Ø3 acre. for an 11.4ØØ square foot bui Idlng. The sewer
requires a district extension request.
Duly adopted this 19th day of July. 1994. by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Paling. Mr. Stark.
Mr. Obermayer. Mrs. LaBombard. Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 35-92 TYPE I HOWARD CARR OWNER: ILENE FLAUM
ZONE: PC-1A LOCATION: QUEENSBURY PLAZA MODIFICATION OF
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN TO ADD A FREE STANDING RESTAURANT.
ADDITIONAL PARKING WHICH WILL RESULT IN A NET DECREASE OF 9.325
SQ. FT. OF GLA. REVIEW OF A COMPREHENSIVE FACADE PLAN FOR THE
PLAZA. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 5/9/94 6/6/94 7/11/94 WARREN
CO. PLANN I NG: 6/8/94 TAX MAP NO. 183-1-1 LOT SIZE: 13.67
ACRES SECTION: 179-22
JON LAPPE R. RE PRESENT I N'G APPL I CANT. PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 35-92 Modification. Howard Carr.
Meeting Date: July 19. 1994 "PROJECT ANALYSIS: Staff sti II has
concerns regarding traffic access. 1. It appears that traffic
making a right turn after entering the plaza wi I I be directed to
the wrong side of the drive by Red Lobster and into oncoming
traffic. 2. Internal traffic flow still appears to be
confusing. Traffic leaving Red Lobster wi I 1 either have to take
a circuitous route through the parking lot or else cut across the
right turn lane that directs traffic to Red Lobster."
MR. BREWER-Okay. We have some comments from Rlst-Frost.
MR. MACNAMARA-Our comments are primari Iy administrative in
nature. regarding previously approved site plans. Without
read i ng verbat 1m. I' I I summar i ze. These are changes address i ng a
previously approved site plan for the entire Plaza. The
previously approved site plans referenced the typical elements of
erosion control. stormwater management. construction notes.
detai Is. etc. We simply it should be referred to the approved
plans on these latest site plans. so they can be incorporated.
Secondly. there was an Issue about sto~mwater management.
regarding a proposed oi I and grease separator. which would have
been on the discharge of the stormwater system. Approximately a
year ago that was. essentially. negotiated. if you will. out of
the site plan. in terms of replacing the measures with some catch
basin sumps and traps. which are not real common. as far as catch
basins were agreed to. and they're going to be instal led in al I
the existing. as wel I as whatever new catch basins were going to
be installed. and we feel that they should be incorporated into
this latest site plan. as wel I. a detai I sheet. and essentially
acknowledging that that's going to be done. in place of the oi I
- 17 -
an<d grease s~.parator.. Nex t there's a proposed grease trap for
the Red Lobster Restaurant. T~ere wasn't any installation
det.ai Is regarding how it's gOing to be installed, or the sizing
de t a i Is,. and the r e ' sac 0 u pie 0 f d iff ere n t way s to s i z e g rea s e
traps, and I was curious .which method, if any, was used for the
sizing, and las1:JY,i:herewas., again, t 1is is a modifiaation to a
previously approved plan, addressing th. entire Plaza, and there
was a numb~r of landscaping, trees, shrubs, issues, that were not
shown here . t hat. were shown on the prev i ous p I an, and it wasn't
clear if they were to be contained in this proposal, or if they
were proposing to el iminate them, and we simply ask for
clarification. That's it.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Tim, this was referred
although it was a modification. It was
modific~tion and was referred on tq Warren
with the condition . that New York
Transportation review the traffic plan.
Mark Kennedy, and he had no problem with
on to Warren County,
thought to be a major
County. They approved
State Department of
I went over that with
it as proposed.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. RUEL-I have a question ~orengineering. In your
basins, you i~dicate petroleum residue. You get petroleum
catch basin?
catch
in a
MR. MACNAMARA-Well, gas related, yt;!s, certainly, with the number
of cars that can be parked, if anyone of the many has an oi I
leak, or something of that nature.
MR. RUE~-Soa4tomobiles in the parking lot.
MR. MACNAMARA-Cqrrect. .It was definitely geared toward vehicular
petroleum releases, not that there was, although there was
p~.viously some petr~l~um r~lated products on the site. That was
not the nature of our comment.
MR. BREWER-Are you satisfied, Roger1
MR. RUEL-Ye.s.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
Staff.
Would you care to address the commt;!nts by
MR. LAep~R- I ~ d I i~e t9. start out just mak i ng ,a few .pre I i m i nary
comments. What we did" initially, on.the site plan that was
submitted was that we only showed the changes fnom what had been
previously approved, .and that's why some of these items ,didn't
show up, ;.1 i ke the I al)dscap i ng on th~ rest of the P I,aza, because
that's part of the previously approved site plan, which we
weren't planning on changing. We have absolutely no problem
making those notes, and we will include alL,that in the final
plan for submission for signing. When we were here last time,
last month, to discuss this, members of the Board requested that
we look at the I andscapi ng a I qng G I en Street, .and if we coul d get
some mor.e. green. space closer to the front, and what we've
subsequently done, as part of. the mOdifi,cation now, is;that we're
proposing to move what was approved last time, with landscaping,
right in front of the door of the store, in front of the
sidewalk, simi lar to what's at the. Northway Plaza, and what we've
done instead is to propose to move the landscaping to islands
which we'.re going to create, along the edge of parking lot, and
most importantly along the edgeo~ Bank Street. Bank Street is
where First National is, which comes in,from the east, and runs
into (lost word) access road. What we're proposing is to create
planted islands which include substantial size trees, ,which wi II
create somewhat of a boulevard look, and which wi I I visually
focus people on where the street is, compared to, or where the
traffic corridor is, as compared to where the parking is. We
thought that that's something that this Board would I ike, and the
- 18 -
-
Beautification Committee was very pleased when we presented this
to them. I just want to point out that when we went for the site
plan modification a year ago. we did get a variance from the
Zoning Board because It's a preexisting paved parking lot. that
we didn't have to go in and retrofit it with islands. which would
be expensive and cumbersome. and we've now back off on that. even
though we do have the variance. and we're proposing to actually
cut more islands and do a lot of planting. which we think wi I I
make the site look a lot nicer from the road. John wi I I address
the engineering comments.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
JOHN GORALSKI
MR. GORALSKI-As Jon point~d out. most of the stuff that Bi I I's
talking about that was left off the plan was stuff that was
previously approved. and we wi I I add a note on the plan s~ating
that anything that is not specifically modified wi I I remain in
force from the original approval. specifically the landscaping
that is (lost word). As far as Scott's notes about traffic flow.
when we shifted the parking lot up. this is just simply an
oversight on my part. when we shifted the parking lot up. we
neglected to shift that driving lane. that turning lane. into the
eastern part of the parking lot. Right here. when we shifted
this up five feet. we neglected to shift this up five feet. also.
So that's what Scott's talking about. We' I I shift this up five
feet so that it's in I ine with the right hand traffiè.
MR. PALING-Okay. but are you sti I I going to have traffic coming
in here. in I ike this. and traffic coming out like that7
MR. GORALSKI-Yes. well. I can explain that. too.
MR. PALING-Okay. but wouldn't you rather come In and around like
that7
MR. GORALSKI-No. You don't want cars making U-Turns close to
your entrance. What you want your cars to do. and that's why
we' I I have signage here. There'l I be a sign here saying. No
Right Turn. So that the cars will come ¡nand get out of the
lane of traffic. That was one of the things Warren County was
concerned about were cars backing up in our entrance. So what
we'll do is have a No Right Turn sign here. so that cars wi II
come in and go straight. It'l I get the cars moving away from the
entrance way. so that we can get people off Route 9 and Into the
park i ng lot. and then com i ng out from in front of the bu i I ding.
there'll also be a No Left turning sign. so that all the traffic
wi I I be moving away from the entrance. so that there won't be any
congestion.
MRS. LABOMBARD-So this one has to have the yield sign. right
here.
MR. GORALSKI-They wi I I both have stop signs. They'l I both have
stop signs. This one wi II have a stop sign and a no left turn.
so that the cars wi I I come out and go away from the entrance. and
this one wi I I have a stop sign.
MR. OBERMAYER-And they' I I go which way7
MR. GORALSKI-Well. I mean. they can go any way they want. The
point is to get the away from the entrance of Route 9. so that we
don't have cars congested around the entrance of Route 9.
MR. OBERMAYER-Is this a roadway right here7
MR. GORALSKI-What this is. is called a stop bar.
stop sign there.
There' I I be a
- 19 -
MR.. O,~ER.MAYER.-Okay.,
MR.. GORALSKI7That was ~omething that I bel ieve was requested last
time. that .all.these four way i,ntersections have stops a,t them.
So what we've done. in order to improve this. not only did we
bring the green spac~ out into the parking lot. but I feel we've
also improved the circulation. because we've defined this as a
circulation pattern here. and by doing that. you' I I get cars
coming down here and coming back into this main ,circulation
pattern. so they're not crossing across lanes of traffic that you
see in a lot o~ big. open parking lots.
MR.S. LABOMBAR.D-So then ,to get out. you'd have to go al I the way
around.
MR.. GORALSKI-Ei~her al I the way around. ,or cut down one .of these
parking lanes to get back out. or go out Ba~k Street.
MR.S. LABqMBAR.D-But most people won't know. and they' I I have to
come back ,out on G I e,n.
MR.. GOR.ALSKI-The point being to get them away from the entrance
here. The car<s wi I' be distributed throl,lg,ho.utthLs parking lot.
When you come out. they' I I be coming down here. or coming around
and back out instead of congregating right in front of this
entrance area.
MR.. LAPPER.-One issue here. if t his seems to look a I i tt Ie
congested to you. There are compet i ng goa I shere. in, terms of
design. and what the Town has always wanted was to el iminate curb
cuts on Glen Street. So by putting 1;hi,s major intersection in
here. it dÇles me,an that the majority~of the traffic wi II use this
intersection. but this was sized to accommodate that. and in
order to el iminate congestion. what the County Planning Board.
wh i ch John exp I a i ned. the County P I ann i ngBoard a.sked us, to put
this, .stacking lane. so that if there are sjx ,or seven cars
waiting to get into R.ed Lobster. ,the cars going into the Plaza
can pass them. so that that's a safety issue. and then to include
this hard island here. so that there's no way ~hat anybody can do
anything funny. in terms of trying to cut across. This serve
,sort of like a ring road on a shopp Lng mall. and we th ink that
better defining it with. we've got the concrete curbs here. and
th,en theshrub.s here.
MR.S. LABOMBAR.D-Wi II you have Exit signs. ,or arro.ws1
MR.. PALING-You're going to have to have. in this area. This is
the only part. here. I don't like.
MR.. BR.EWER.-It's going tÇl be signed.
MR.. GOR.ALSKI-Yes. that's al I going to be .igned. so thatpeople
wi I I know where to go. One other thing that getting the traffic
to flow this way away from this. entrance_. I'm not saying. it,tlil.
but what it .!!l.!Y do is get more peo¡::¡1 e to use .Bank, $treet. get
more peop I e to go out LaFayette Street. instead of .com i n<g back
out onto Glen Street. and get them out of the 254/R.oute 9
intersection.
MR.S. LABOMBARD-W i I I peop I e know. when you come in h er.e,. wi I J they
know enough to come around here?
MR.. GORALSKI-This wi I I be signed. $0 t~~tpeoplewi I I come in and
be able to come around here. and you have tÇl remember. theY have
al I this parking here. also.
MR.S. LABOMBAR.D-Wel I .7Ø2 parking spaces. that's a lot.
MR.. GOR.ALSKI-R.ight.
- 20 -
...-..,:
MR. LAPPER-And from the drawing. the Red Lobster wi I I be noticed.
MR. GORALSKI-Yes. As you can see here. this is a colored
rendering of the General Mi I Is Restaurant. the Red Lobster.
MR. BREWER-I think.
choices.
last time. you said there was a couple of
MR. STARK-There was three choices.
MR. BREWER-Is that the choice they're going to use here. Jon?
MR. LAPPER-Red Lobster sent that up to us as their proto-type.
We expect that that's what it's going to look I ike. Our lease
agreement with them doesn't require that it look I ike that. They
sent that up from their design people. You can see it says Red
Lobster. It is possible that they wi I I change their mind and do
something differently. or modify it sl ightly. before they
actually bui Id it. but at this point. that's what they're tel ling
us. but we can't commit that it's going to look exactly like
that. We do I ike that. and we hope it does look I ike that.
MRS. LABOMBARD-But I mean it
architecturally opposite?
won't be
anything that's
MR. GORALSKI-No. architecturally. it wi II be simi lar.
wood siding. It wi II have.
It will be
HOWARD CARR
MR. CARR-Howard Carr. I don't want to make that commitment on
their behalf. okay. They have five different proto-types that
they use. Some of them uge wood siding. Some of them use the
drlvet type material. Some of them use the horizontal siding.
Some of them use the vertical siding. I don't want to go on the
record with us. okay. and say that it's definitely going to be
that. because we don't for sure yet.
MRS. LABOMBARD-But it wi I I be that color. basically?
MR. CARR-I don't know that. I can tell you. I've seen four new
proto-types. myself. One was a very I ight blue. One was this.
this is being built in Pittsfield. Massachusetts right now. but
the one in Pittsfield. for some reason. they have chosen a.
don't know what color to call it. a beige. They use a white. and
they use a combination white and blue combination. Those are the
four that ~ seen.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Is there any way that we could have any kind of a
persuasion to have them put in something like that? I mean.
could you tell them we love that. and put that in. I mean. Mrs.
LaBombard does. anyway.
MR. CARR-I' I I be more than happy to send a letter to them tel ling
them you I ike what they sent. We' I I make specific note about
that in the letter.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Thanks.
MR. OBERMAYER-I have a question. as far as stormwater goes. from
this site. It looks I ike you're going to increase the amount of
area that you're going to be capturing stormwater. and you're
going to be draining it over to the Niagara Mohawk Power
Corporation's lands.
MR. GORALSKI-What we're doing is actually decreasing the amount
of nonpermeable area than what was approved in the last site
plan. This modification wi I I actually cause a decrease in the
amount of stormwater that is produced. but we are.
- 21 -
MR. OBERMAYER-From the original site plan that was approved.
MR. GORALSKI-Right, that was approved. However, we are sizing
the pipes and drywel Is and what not to accommodate even mo~e.
MR. OBE~MAYER,-Well, ,this isn't going to a dry well, though. This
is just discharging to this fielding area7
MR. GORALSKI-Right.
they're qatch basins,
Eventually
I'm sorry.,
the water
a I I d. i s char g e s
to,
MR. OBERMAYER-They're catch basi,ns, not, dry wells.
MR. GORALSKI-Right. They're catch basins.
MR.OBERMAYER-Okay. Wt¡at ,I'm asking, is Niagaç,a Mohawk aware
that you're going to be increasing th~ stormwate~ to ,this area7
MR. LAPPER-The issue there is that's the natural grade of the
site, and it's always been that way. This has coma up within the
past, this site. Be,cause of the slope,s, t,h.e water CO,l11es ,not only
from our site, but from across Quaker Road, across the
intersection, from the other shopping centers up on Route 9, and
that's just the natural sheet drainage. That's how it's always
been, but Niagara Mohawk site, because it's permeable, vegetated,
it can handle thJ,s.
MR. OBERMA YÇ.R-W,hat ,I'm. ask i ng, is Niagara Mohawk ,aware
you're going to be discharging stormwater from .the site,
increasing the stormwater to that area7
that
and
MR. BREWER-It says on the Rist~Frost qomments, Number Three, Jim,
it's addressed.
MR. LAPPER-That's a matter of riparian rig~ts, the r~ght to drain
onto a lower land.
MR. MACNAMARA-Th,at very issue was brought up about. a year a,nd a
half ago. In fact, the question was" aSke,d by, the previous
reviewer, engineering wise, whether or not NiMo has knowledge,
and ~as granted permission if you wi II, and ttlat issue ,was taken
care of at that point in time. I can't produce a letter that
says that NiMo has acknowledged it, but at the time, that was an
¡ssl,le,and ,it was resolved, and the, s,ite plan WaS approved.
MR. LAPPER-N i agara Mohawk's fu 1..1 y <awar~ of th.e ope rat ion on t his
sit e . We act u a I I y, pre v i 0 u sly, be for ewe h 0 0 k, e d up tot h e Tow n
sewersystem,th.re was a Pa~kage plant, which we had to g.t an
easement from Niagara Mohawk tor our septic plans, and we know
that that was there. I think they're aware of how the site's
be i ng deve loped. , ¡
MR. OBERMAYE~-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-I had a couple of issues. I can, see it coming, and
just so we avoid the same scenario we had with the 01 ive Garden,
this is probably going to be a winter time occupan~y. Are we
going to r~n into a ,problem with schedul ing of landscaping7 I
want to know now.
MR. BREWER-I've got that noted right here, Mr. Martin.
MR. MARTIN-I don't
that type of stuff.
want to get into escrow agreements and al I
I want it al lout on the table right now.
MR. CARR-The landscaping that's around the Red Lobster, that's
within their area. So that'll be up to their contractor. We
don't have any involvement. with, that.
MR. MARTIN-Wel I,
didn~t have, any problem with 01 ive Garden
- 22 -
-<-
either. Howard.
I had a problem with the Plaza person.
MR. CARR-But at the same time. when you plant in November. aø
percent of it dies.
MR. MARTIN-Wel I. 01 ive Garden planted in November and December.
and none of it died.
MR. BREWER-We I I. I wi I I I et you guys k now that when we get to the
motion. that that wi I I be included. that al I conditions are met
before CO is issued. so that that doesn't happen. I think that
has been the practice of this Board in the last three or four
months. that we have been trying to do that. to protect us from
just that.
MR. MARTIN-And I don't see where. the balance of the landscaping
that's required here really has nothing to do with the bui Iding
construction. So that could commence immediately.
MR. LAPPER-I'd just I ike to go on record that this was the first
site in Town where anyone put up a cash escrow to cover the
landscaping.
MR. BREWER-It worked. too. didn't it?
MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. but that was the intent. and.
MR. MART I N-We II. I don't want to make the same mistake tw ice. is
all I'm saying.
MR. LAPPER-But in terms of mistake. the landscaping (lost word)
and you have the escrow account. So you are protected.
MR. OBERMAYER-Just to let you know. we're not
escrow on this one. We're just aSking that
wi I I be done before you get a CO.
asking for a cash
it's done. and it
MR. MARTIN-I want to see it done in a timely manner.
want to get into unforseen problems.
I don't
MR. LAPPER-You're subtle. but we understand what you're'getting
at.
MR. MARTIN-The other thing is. I remind you that the balance of
the landscaping plan is due. that was approved on the original
approva I. I understand. elements. I see. are go i ng in today. as
we speak. but I remind you that that wi I I be looked for. The
other thing I've been noticing. and I commend you on the job
you've done on the barrier on Quaker Road. but I went by there.
myself. and personally witnessed two cars going around your
barrier to the side. They were getting in there. and I think as
people see that the travel. they'll see the tire path worn in the
grass there. they're going to continue to skirt that. I think
extension of that barrier needs to be done off to the easterly
side. It's happening as a practical matter.
MR. LAPPER-I guess. in response to that. we blocked the road. and
now you're saying that people are driving on the grass.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. LAPPER-Wh i ch. 1 guess. says somet hi ng about t he draw of the
01 ive Garden. We'll look at that.
MR. CARR-How long do we make this thing. Jim? When do we know
when it's?
MR. MARTIN-When people stop driving through there.
MR. CARR-I mean. when we went up there with Dave Hatin. and Dave
- 23 -
and I and thø guy who bui It it specifically agreed 01) the size.
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
understand.
,
MR. CARR-I f we extend Its i x more feet.< and they keep dr I v i ng
over the grass. what do we do?
MR. BREWER-Isn't there. wh<ere tt,lat.,
right beside that?
isn't there a telephone pole
, ,
'.
MR. OBERMAYER-Wouldn't that be more of an enforcement issue. Jim.
with the?
MR. MARTIN-I don't want to get
things. because I, get stuck.
into these enforcement
issue
MR. OBERMAYER-I know. but it's the same thing as the parking on
that coffee shop. You can't make peo,ple par,k in the ,parking
space.
;' .'
MR. MARTIN-All I'm asking for is another bollard or something
like that. another post. One more post. Ibe I i eve. ·wi I I ,do it.
MR. BREWER-Not even tied together. just put a post in the ground?
MR. M~RTIN-Right. That's what I'm saying.
MR. BREWER.- In. th.e grass are,a.
MR. MARTIN-In the soil. or plant a tree there. Something. but
what I'm saying is. that blockade is not functioning.
MR. LAPPER-We'll either plant a tree or put a post in.
MR. MART I N-A I I right. That's a I I I want to hear.
MR. CARR-Jim. we agreed that we're going to.
del ivered some large boulders on the site?,
mean. if we
MR. MARTIN-That would work. just anything to keep the cars from.
because it's not functioning completely as it should.
MR. CARR-AI I right. We' I I have them there.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-That's all
had for this. for now.
MR. BREWER-The islands thai you do have in. there's no curbing
around them. or timbers or anything. Is there plans for timbers
or someth i ng around ,them?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. We had planned to put in a type of a rubber curb
that keeps a bed. industrial strength. not I ike what you have in
your bed at home. to keep the so i I in. Jim has requested that
instead of that. which we actually had ordered. that we put in
landscape ties.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. something. because we're getting cars driving
over the islands.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. We see that. and that wi I I go in immediately.
and we' I I put I and s cap e tie s i, n a I I t t1 e i sl and ~ .
MR. BREWER-Okay. So we can add that in there. ,La.ndscape ties.
Okay. Is there anything else from anybody on the Board?
MR. MACEWAN-Question for Staff and our Attorney. If we render an
approval for this tonight. can we stipulate the approval be the
building as shown as such in their rendition?
- 24 -
MR. SCHACHNER-I don't know what Staff's going to say. but I'm not
real comfortable with that. I mean. our Site Plan Regulations
don't really include architectural features at that level of
detai I. and I think the appl icant has expressly indicated that
they are in essence an agent. I don't know if that's the right
term. but for an entity that has made no promises. If the
appl icant wanted to stipulate to that voluntari Iy. that's one
thing. but if you're asking me. can we impose a condition that It
be that exact bui Iding. that color. that style and everything
else. I don't really see our direct authority to do that in our
Site Plan Regulations.
MR. MACEWAN-Okay.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Anybody else? 1'1 I open the publ Ie hearing.
Is there anyone here to comment on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. MACEWAN-Jon. before you mentioned that you were moving some
of the plantings and some of the greenery up closer to Glen
Street. and are there stl I I going to be plantings. foundation
plantings. around the bui Iding itself?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. MACEWAN-I mean. nothing.
MR. LAPPER-Right. The reason there is in terms of the amount of
green space that we have on the site. the site's pretty tight.
and in order to move it. to get it to be more visible. we'd have
to move it from where we had proposed it. I guess. just in terms
of the health of the plants. so that they won't be trampled by
people. we think that this makes some more sense. and the
boulevard with the trees. instead of putting in shrubs. we're now
going to be able to put in some nice large scale trees along Bank
Street. So we think that this is better. but the site can't
accommodate vegetation in both areas.
MR. BREWER-Nothing between the sidewalk and the bui Iding?
MR. LAPPER-If we do that. we won't have enough parking spaces.
That's the issue.
MR. MACEWAN-To me. it looks I ike your plan shows that there's
ample room in there now for foundation plantings.
MR. LAPPER-It's covered by (lost word).
MR. MACEWAN-Are you talking this area here?
MR. GORALSKI-No.
hère.
I'm sorry. We thought you were talking over
MR. BREWER-No. no.
MR. MACEWAN-The bui Iding itself.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Foundation plantings around the bui Iding.
MR. LAPPER-That's going to stay the way it was approved.
MR. MACEWAN-Okay.
- 25 -
MR. GORALSKI-The foundation plantings around Red Lobster, you' I I
see there's 32 different varieties of plants.
MR. MACEWAN-That's what I was getting at.
that you're moving everything.
I was understanding
MR. GORALSKI-No. I'm sorry. Around Red Lobster, they wi II have
the most extensive landsc~ping plan you've probably ever se~n in
this Town. They, have 32 different varieties of trees and shrubs.
The trees of four and a half cat iper. They are very mature
trees. All of the shrubbery is very mature. It's going to be
very extensive planting around Red Lobster.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-Tim, conferred with Mark. He recommended that given
the nature of this proposal, you go through the Short Form they
submitted for the$EQRA.
MR. BREWER~For a Type I Action, for an Unllsted1
MR. MARTIN-No, that's a hold over from the original, the whole
Plaza.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 35-92, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel:
WHEREAS, there
application for:
is present Iy before the P la.nn I ng
HOWARD CARR, MODIFICATION, and
Board
an
WHEREAS, th i s P I ann Lng Board has determ i ned that the proposed
project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the
State Env i ronm~,nta I Qua Ii ty Rev i ew Act,
NOW, THER~FORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The fçll,lowing agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed act i on cons i dered by th i s Board is un listed in
the Department of Environmental,Conservation Regulations
implementing the State Environmental Qual ity Review Act and
the regulations o.f the, Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been ,completed by the
app I i cant.
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
env i ronmenta J i mp¡:¡.ct as the same is set . forth inSect ion
617.11 of the ,O,fficial Comp!lation o.f Codes, Rule.s and
Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that
the act ion about to be undertaken by th i,s Board wi II have no
significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the
Planning Board i.s ,hereby authorized to execute and sign and
fl Ie as may b~ necessary a statement of non-significance or
a negative declaration that may be required by law.
Du~y adopted this 19th day of July, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan,
- 26 -
-
Mr. Rue I. Mr. Pa ling. Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
MR. BREWER-AI I right. Before we make a motion. Jim. do we have
to discuss the facade. before we grant them approval?
MR. MARTIN-I don't know that the facade plan is a concern with
this bui Idlng. It's a stand alone bui Iding. My primary concern
with the facade plan is over the balance of the existing Plaza.
MR. BREWER-Okay. I think last month when we were in. and we
talked about it. think we tabled it. and we were going to talk
about it at some other time. Maybe now's not the appropriate
time. Should we set up another meeting to do that?
MR. MARTIN-That's up to the Board. but I have a. from a Staff
point of view. we have a concern as to what's happen there with
the facade. It seems to be rather disjointed. and it's within
the purview of this Board to address coordinated facade plans for
shopping centers.
MR. BREWER-Would the appl icant be acceptable to that. another
meeting. at another time?
MR. GORALSKI-Sure.
MR. BREWER-You don't have any drawings of it with you?
MR. STARK-Do you have anything with you now?
MR. OBERMAYER-Do have any drawings?
MR. LAPPER-I do have a drawing of the facade. Let me just
explain. It Is disjointed now because we've got an antiquated
looking Plaza. and we're trying to modernize it. What you see.
where Bruegger's Bagels is going to go. and the same as the
Staples. that drivet facade. that theme is going to be done
through the remainder of the Plaza. but it wi II be done as the
stores are leased out. We're negotiating. now. for some nice
size leases. and we're hopeful that that wi I I happen sooner
rather than later. We want it to all look modern and nice. and
that's the plan. and we've retained an architect to design it.
and I've got the drawing which I can show you. The only issue
for us is that we're committing to what it's going to look like.
architecturally. We're not committing to what color it's
ultimately going to be. because that's up to the tenants.
MR. BREWER-Is that part of the concern you had. Jim. the color?
MR. MARTIN-Wel I. to be quite honest. yes.
MR. PALING-I think there's really two concerns we've had. One is
color. getting too garish. and the other is exposure of
mechanical equipment that's visible from the street. We'd like
to see that kind of thing hidden. but beyond that. I don't think
we've put any real hard specs on anything.
MR. RUEL-You mentioned a moment
architectural review board. and.
standpoint. what can we say about
and the color of it?
ago that we don't have an
therefore. from an Ordinance
the facade. the design of it
MR. MARTIN-I think he's sUbstantially correct about. you can
speak to architectural features. In that they have a certain
uniformity or continuity. I don't know that. from that
standpoint. you can get into the color that much. but I think
we're seeing red panels on one store front. for example. that's
in excess of 13ØØ square feet. I just don't see where that's
going to pick up with.
- 27 -
MR. BREWER-Is that çonsidered a sign. I
that. but I. don't know what the outcome of
really don't. I'm not trying to be funny.
~hink you went through
that decision was. I
MR. MARTIN-There really was no decision. The Zoning Board
arrived ~t an agreement with an aggrieved party. My
determination was ,that was al I a sign. but I am bound by the
agreement that the Zoning Board arrived at. which is a gray strip
,around the sign tha~ establ iShes a sign border.
MR. BREWER-So does it stay the same size?
,makes that part 9f the sign.
Then. to me. that
MR. MARTIN-Once a gray border's put on. then that distinguishes
the sign.
MR. BREWER-Then that has to meet a conformance. as far as si,ze?
M~. MARTIN-Yes. The sign lettering is in conformance. then. but
I viewed the enti re r~d.,
MR. BREWER-I understand what you're saying. but I ,guess if they
have to border it with a gray out I ine. then. inside that border
would be 1he sign. Outside the borde~ the color ~f the building.
not the color of the sign.
MR. MARTIN-ExBCtly.
MR. BREWER-:-So. then it would¡be, in conformance. So ,if the
bui Idingwas all the same. then he could stick that. if it was a
mad e , s i g n . I i k e this piece of pa per .t hen he could put it 0 1'1 the
bui Iding. Right1
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. LAPP~R-Mr. Chairman. for the record. our position is. that. it
rea I I Y ,goes a I ong wi t h what Mark SC,hachnersa i d. that most of
these issues are architecturBI iss~es. and there's no
architectural review in the Town. With that said. because of
the good relationship we have with ,the Planning Staff. and we
know that they're concerns for the good of. what the Center wi I I
look like from the travel ,corridor. we volunteered to do a facade
pl.n sO that everyone would know that we're trying to modernize
it and make it look better. but we don't feel that we should have
our feet held in the fire., in terms of ar,chitectural review. in
t,erms of what color the buLI,dingwil,lbe. We were satisfied with
the compromise of the Zoning Board. in respect to the sign. and
for a II we know. a II the rest of the bu i Id i ngs may be wh i te.
MR. RUEL-You mentioned a moment ago. if I'm correct. that you
have to wait for the tenant to move in to find out what type of
sign. whether it's a logo or color. wh~tever? Must you wait for
the tenant to lease the place prior to making some
determination?
MR. LAP PER-We I I. there's two parts to that. We wait for the
tenant. to some extent. although we'll be finishing the bui Iding.
,.¡;or re.f.iI'lJshing the, b,4i.1ding in sta.ges. So, i.f that ,it .we .get a
tenant a,little farther down. in terms of the architectu,ral. in
terms of putting up that new facade. In tE ,rms of th,e colors.
it's more of a question of what you want your Plaza to look like.
and unlike the Northway~ Plaza. which is al.1 green and white. but
j s pr i mar i I Y empty. in terms of commerc i a I space. reta i I space.
OUr theory is that we'd I ike it to be a I ittle more vibrant.
which is just a question of what it looks I ike. It's more a
matter of personal taste. So we're not demanding that the
tenants keep it wh i te or off wh ite ,and then have a different
colored sign. We're 1'lex.ible.and what tenants want. but we're
hoping that. in ,terms of a theme. it'sall going to look I ike a
market place. that wi I I look attractive. We think that the
- 28 -
-'
architectural typing of
bui Idings or the color of
know.
it. even though the color
the facade may be different.
of the
we don't
MR. RUEL-Would you be wi I I ing to accept a set of standards that
we could put together that would enable you to make a
determination prior to a tenant moving in?
MR. LAPPER-I guess we feel that would be unfair because other
commercial areas in town.
MR. OBERMAYER-Why would we do that? Why would we give them a set
of standards? We don't require that of anybody else.
MR. BREWER-I think if they had their own set of standards. if a
tenant wants to move in there. and he's aware of those standards.
then he'll move In. If he doesn't. then he won't.
MR. RUEL-Listen. what we're doing right now hasn't been imposed
to anybody else. either. Craig asked. a moment ago. about the
color of the Red Lobster. and the Attorney said. no. you can't do
it. because that's not part of the Ordinance. Wel I. what we're
talking about right now Is not part of the Ordinance either. but
he's wi I I ing to go ahead and see what can be done to remove
garish and bright. super bright areas. you know.
MR. LAPPER-We don't want to be treated differently than anyone
else in town. but in terms of goodwi II. I think that we'd I ike to
go on record. and I think that people in town and newspapers have
acknowledged that what we've done to the Plaza so far. in the
last couple of years. has been a vast improvement. taking what
used to be the old A & P and really turning it around. with the
landscaping and what we've proposed for the other side of the
Plaza now. with Red Lobster. and the significant landscaping up
in front on Glen Street is going to make a maior difference. We
think everybody I ikes it. and I guess we're asking you to trust
us. that it's in 2...Y...!:.. Interest to make it look good and' It wi II.
but I think Howard Carr's the (lost word).
MR. RUEL-Bear in mind it's been my experience that when you have
a group of stores and each one is trying to out do the other. as
far as brightness of the sign. or the color. etc.. if each one
has a very bright. garish sign. then none of them stand out~
MR. BREWER-I think we're beating something to death. here. If
we're going to talk about it. lets talk about it in a workshop
where we can get together informally and just talk about it.
okay. Is that f i nee
MR. RUEL-AI I right.
Fine.
MR. BREWER-Would you agree with that?
MR. LAPPER-Absolutely.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Then we need a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO
CARR. Introduced by Roger Ruel
seconded by James Obermayer:
SITE PLAN NO.
who moved for
35-92 HOWARD
Its adoption.
For the previously approved site plan to add a freestanding
restaurant. additional parking which wi II result in a net
decrease 9.325 square feet of GLA. with engineering comments to
be met. as indicated in Rist-Frost's letter. dated 7/18/94. and
improve existing barrier on Quaker Road by instal I ing another
post to prevent cars from us i ng grassy area. and the i nsta II at i on
of landscaped ties around the planted islands. and no CO wi I I be
issued unt i I a II I andscap i ng and other cond i t ions are met.
- 29 -
Duly adopted this 19th day of July. 1994. by the following vote:
MR. MARTIN~Just to clarify. the Board. when they say no CO.
they're saying. no temporary. no permanents.
MR. BREWER-No CO.
MR. LAPPER-Could I ask one question before you vote on this? If
you' I , no.t,ice. on th~ Bank Street lot. we've got that marked for
a parking ',ot. and what the Board pr~viously agreed was that.
MR. BREWER-That you leave it as it is.
MR. LAPPER-Yes~
MR. BREWER-And that was.
left in.
think. a previous condition that we
MR., OBERMAYER-That's fine.
AYES: Mr. Obermayer. Mrs. LaBombard. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel.
Mr. Pal jng. M~. Stark., Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
SITE PLAN ,NO. 22-~4 TYPE I COLUMBIA DEVELOPME~T GROUP OWNER:
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONE: LI-1A LOCATIPN: CAREY RD.. OFF
CORINTH RD. CONSTRUCTION OF A NE' MANUFACTURI~G FACILITY FOR
NATIVE TEXTILES. B.UILDING TO BE A PRE~ENGINEEREDSINGLESTORY
BUILDING 116.4ØØ SQ. FT. IN SIZE. SEQRA: 7/19/94
,BEAUT I F I CAT ION C,OMM. - 6/6/94 TAX MAP NO. 146-1-6 LOT SIZE:
+1- 34 ACRES
JOE NICOLLA. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT
MR. BREWER-Okay. I think the first thing we should address is
the seven or eight things that we had last month at the meeting.
Has everything been addressed on them?
MR. MARTIN-Scott prQvided a memo to the B~,rd. for those eight
issues.
MR. HARLICKER-Basically. the parcel has been researched. and Pam
did up a I ittle i~form,tion sheet on the history of the parcel.
A copy of the I~tter from the Adirondack ~ountain Club dated
1/26/76 has been prov j ded. _ The app I i Car:'lt has supp lied a map
out I in i /1g, the areas c I eared and a map, ¡dent i fy i ng areas where
patches lupine we~e found. Planting plan. a planting remediation
p Ian has been prov i ded by the app I. i cant. The app I i cant is
currently working ,with the Nature Conservancy on a plan to
protect and foster the growth of the Blue Lupine. A Phase 1B
archeological survey is bejngdone. ande~osion control measures
have ~.en put in place. Those were the seven, issues that were
brought up at the last meeting..
MR. BREWER,I guess. what's, the outcome of any of these issues?
The history of the parcel. has there been any conditions set on
it from way back when. or whatever?
" ,
MR. MARTIN-We never fO\Jnd anything in any ,preViOus resolutions of
any Board.
MR. BREWER-And the letter from Adirondac~ Mountain Club. Should
we read that into the record. or not?,
MR. MART I N-Th i s is a Sign if ¡cant Hab i tat Repo!:'t., I be I ¡eve.
right? I can read that in. nName of area: Camp Jadamada and
Town of Queensbury Location of area: About 1 m i Ie West 01' Glens
Falls. N.Y. on the Hudso.n River a) ,Di.stanceand direction from
known location (e.g.. none-half mi Ie, northwest of, Center'townn):
- 3Ø -
-'
b) County and town: County of Warren, Town of Queensbury
Approximate size, if known: 1ØØ ac. by 6Ø ac. Tn. of Queensbury
4. Reason for considering significant: Adjacent to the Hudson
River and is a Fresh Water wetland. Migratory geese and other
water fowl uti I ize the area. There is an abundance of bird and
plant I ife not found in the surrounding area. A natural bog area
with many kinds of flowering and water plants are found.
(Cranberry, Cardinal flower, Jack-in-the-pulpit, and orchid
specie) Geologically the area has numerous gorges and spring
activity flowing into the Hudson River. Clendon Bk. has
brook trout and is quite scenic. The property is presently in
danger of being exploited. The area is abundant with Woodcock,
Pheasant, Deer, Rabbit and many sma I I rodents. Historically the
area was a site for log storage when the lumber was floated down
the Hudson River. Log booms are sti I I visible along the shore.
5. Other information about area (e.g~ vegetation, water
chemistry, soi Is, ownership, vulnerabi I ity, recommended action),
if known: The Jadamada Camp is presently owned by a Mrs. John
Beale of Glens Fal Is. The town of Queensbury owns a 6Ø acre lot
adjacent to it and proposes to purchase the land to develop a
Town Park with swimming, bal I-fields, picnic areas, etc. We
consider the area too fragi Ie to withstand this heavy use. 6.
More information on this area Is avai lable from the fol lowing
source(s): D.E.C. Warrensburg N.Y. Town of Queensbury offices,
Bay Rd., Glens Fal Is, N.Y." Date of Report: December 1975
Submitted by: Gary E. Klee 12 Centennial Dr. Giens Fal Is, N.Y.
128Ø1 Affi I iatlon: Glens Fal Is Ch~pter -- ADK Mt. Club" And he
suppl red a map with that showing the area' of Camp Jadamada and
the area owned bV the Town of Queensbury, which appears to be
this site. Attached, àlso, with that, from Eric Fried,
Supervising Wi Idl ife Biologist, Wi Idl ife Resources Center in
Delmar, "Dear Gary Klee: This is to acknowledge receipt of your
significant habitats report for Camp Jadamada and Town of
Queensbury, Warren County. Your report has been added to our
Warren County fi Ie. Thanks very much." And that's dated January
27, 1976.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-We have Rlst-Frost notes, also.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. MACNAMARA-The first note is regarding the stormwater notes
that were carry overs from the last meeting. Essentially, there
were some issues about 5Ø year stormwater flows through some of
their pipes and hydraul ic calculations. They submitted those to
show that at the time what they had proposed was adequate, and
they also relocated one of their catch basins, which el iminated
the need for an additional manhole, which was suggested at the
time. That was as of July 7th. More recent notes are regarding
the sanitary disposal system, and these are fol low up notes to
some more general comments that were made, as of June 9th and
June 23rd. Those comments had been sent along to the DEC, who
was also to review this for a SPDES permit, and I understand, as
of today, they've yet to review it on a technical basis. It has
to do with the regulatory division deeming the appl ication
complete. So they haven't fully reviewed this from a technical
standpoint yet, and I did forward these comments on to them as
wel I, for their review. I had general comments and specific
comments, but because there's a good chance that the actual
proposal may change, I'm just going to brief over the specifics
and just go to the general. Basically, they propose an
absorption system known as a Mound System which is not
encouraged, except under certain pretty specific site conditions,
usually bad site conditions, such as slow permeable soi Is, high
bedrock or high water table, none of which exist. The design
manual that should be used for this indicates a system known as a
Fi I I System may be more appropriate. It basically, you dig out
the bad soi I and you import good soi I that's suitable for septic
- 31 -
treatment., that soi I extends two feet below the bottom of the
trenches, but the bjggest benefit of a FjJ I versus a Mound System
has to do with the fact that Mound Systems are e<levated, and in
this case, the elevation was going to be anywhere from four to
six feet above the surroundin<g grades, which is taller than I am,
basically, the six foot number, and was going to be over an area
of about 25Ø feet by 11Ø feet, which is a pretty~ubst.ntial
area. What. the Fi I I System does is it brings it back down to
grade, so that whatever runoff issues are associat~4 with the
Mound ~nd that. extra six foot of grade, which at th~ time was
fairly close to the ravine, go away. The other issue t.hat. was of
concern wa~,the prox i m i ty to the rav i ne of the proposed sept i c
system, and depend i ng on if. you're look i ng at the si,t,e p I an, or
if you went out to the site, which I did at the request of the
Planning Board, it was within 25 feet, in some, , Palfts .of the
ravine, which, in this particular circumstance. was deemed to be
too close. Depending on which st.andard you use, .and <whether you
call it a Fi II System or absorption trench. you could go
anywhere, .the other factor that really wasn't clear, initially,
was, there's a stream in the bottom of the ravine whiCh sets some
different standards for the septic field. To make a long story
~hort, essentially, we would recommend that that septic system.
Number One, not be a Mound, but a .Fi II. and even as a Fi II
System, to be brought back closer to about 1ØØ feet, was our
recommendatio~, from the top of that raVine. and;what that does
is, .Number One, i,t keeps the septic effluent. r.ight,. certainly,
farther away f~om ever horizontally travel I ing anywhere towards
the ravine edge. but more importantJy, when you're doing the
excavation, it keeps.all the equipme.nt away from the ravine,
which is very sandy and very highly erodible, and to highl ight
that point, right now. whether it's due to activities that have
recently occurred or previous. there is erosion alreadY occurring
in the immediate area of,wher~ the septic tank was proposed, and
that erosion would certainly be, could certainly be aggravated by
activities tooclos. to the edge .of the ravi.ne. So we're
suggesting that the system be moved back. as wel I as down, and
the specific comments.. I'll spare you all th,e detai Is, but they
essentially had todo with slopes of some piping, size ,of some
pump stations, pretty much boi lerplate ~hings of that nature.
That's all I have.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. and we have a letter from! Dave Hat.in. "This
letter is to advise you that the Native Texti les Bui Iding is
required to be moved to maintain fifty {50> foot area arou~d the
bui Iding along with an access road for fire fighting purposes
which is a requirement of the N~w York State Uniform Building
Code. I am not sure how this ,wi I I affect their overal I site
plan." And you also ha~e the letter from the .Nature Conse~vancy
that came in today.
MR. BREWER-Do you want to read that in?
MR. MARTIN-Sure. Tim Brewer, Regarding Native Texti les "Dear
Mr. Brewer: Thank you ,for your tour of the Native Text.i le;~ site
on July 14th. Both Mike Pickering and I were very impressed with
the qual ity of nat.ural commu.nities an,q Karner blue but.terfly
habitat found there and wi.th the potential of this site to be a
significant environmental resource for the Town of Queensbury.
As you know. the .Nature Conservancy is working to protect the
federally endangered butterflY throug~out its range. Significant
habitat stj II remains in the Albany Pi.ne <Bush, Saratoga sand
plains, and in the. Town .of Ql eensbury. The: remaining scattered
populations are most threatened by ha~itat destruction and
fragmentat i,on· caused by deve I opment. The fate of the butterf I y
in New York rests on our. ability to protect <sufficient and
contiguous habitat. The Native Textiles ,site contains a great
deal of lupine and other nectar species. especially along the top
of the ravine and in places where the soi I has been disturbed.
- 32 -
-
Since we saw an abundance of seedl ings sprouting along the trai I.
lupine and other native species are likely to prosper after site
clearing and proper management. And since the site is located
within a region of the Town where butterfl ies sti I I occur.
population of the site by butterfl jes is possible.
Representatives of the NYS Department of Environmental
Conservation observed butterflies at the Corinth Road power line
site earl ier this year. As the Town proceeds through a new
comprehensive planning process. butterfly habitat should be
mapped and provisions made to protect and enhance these areas.
The Nature Conservancy would be happy to assist you in this
regard. Regarding the Native Texti les site. I make the following
recommendations: 1. The site should not be d.veloped beyond the
scope of the current proposal. The Nature Conservancy would
welcom~the opportunity to provide guidance to the Town regarding
the development of the remainder of the site into an
environmental resource area to accommodate enhanced butterfly
habitat and publ ic use. 2. All future site work should be
carefully monitored with respect to habitat enhancement.
Traditional landscaping should be avoided altogether. Site
clearing for bui Iding and s~ptic systems can enhance habitat if
done carefully. Cleared areas should be planted with native
species and the area kept free of woody vegetation through annual
cutting in the late fal I. This type of site work is usually
coordinated through a management agreement with the
owner/developer. detai Is and costs of which wi I I need to be
defined if the Town wishes to structure such an arrangement at
this property. As you review this project. please keep in mind
that The Nature Conservancy is taking the fol lowing steps to
preserve the endangered Karner blue butterfly: purchasing land.
developing native plant seed banks and nurseries so that
appropriate landscaping materials are more readi Iy avai lable;
providing assistance to local governments on habitat conservation
planning; providing scientific expertise to state and federal
conservation initiatives; coordinating population monitoring
throughout New York; annually monitoring or actively managing
sites where we have accepted responsibi I ities for habitat
preservation. Mitigation fees from development projects. state
and local government funding. and membership donations 211 I
contribute to these efforts. The Nature Conservancy can accept
direct ecological management responsibi I ities for specific sites
depending on the potential for conservation success and the
extent of funding avai lable to do so. The Native Texti les
development project presents a unique opportunity for the Town to
contribute to Karner blue butterfly preservation. The project
has significant impact on potential habitat which can be
mitigated by a contribution to the larger efforts outl inedabove
to protect the severely endangered species. Again. I want to
thank you. and the other members of the Town Board who
accompanied us to the site for your consideration of endangered
species protection in Queensbury. As you have the only
popu I at i on of butterf lies in Warren County. we are p I eased to
learn of your wi I I ingness to protect the unique natural heritage
of Queensbury. Sincerely. Alane Bal I Assistant Director"
MR. BREWER-Okay.
Thank you. Mr. Nicolla.
MR. NICOlLA-1 bel ieve that we've responded to the seven points
that were addressed to us previously. specifically. items three.
'four. six and seven. We have Ed Curtin here who is the
archeologist that was talked to us. sugg~sted by this Board that
we hire to do the archeological study. Mr. Curtin reviewed the
site and did a Phase 1A Archeological study. which suggested that
he do a Phase 1B. and Mr. Curtin's here tonight to discuss that.
but. basically. he went through the entire proposal as outl ¡ned.
and he found two pieces of chirt. which are down in this area.
and. Mr. Curtin. if you would discuss what those items were. and
what your recommendations are.
ED CURTIN
- 33 -
MR. CURTIN-Just briefly, we surveyed the footpr,int of everything
that was going to be, that's proposed, and we did that by running
transects, as we had done in Queensbury previously, on another
project, ,the long way, and these transects had test pits that
were spaced 1Ø meters apart, along three transects to. cover the
b u i I din g, the p,a r kin g I. 0 t, and the pro po s e, d r e ten t i q n bas i n and
this propose~ Town ,road, all the way to the end, and just a minor
correction, .we found chirt artifacts~ flakes from chipping the
stone artifacts, ,in several test pits, on what we call, Line C
downher~" and on Line B, which is pretty, much, right down the
middle, but ,when we ,put that information together, this wi II be
detailed i nm y report, it s I,J g g est e d that there's an archeological
site in this area that might converge with one 90rner or ,one side
of the retention basin! It,'s an area, that',s approximately 1ØØ
feet, probably more, going this w,y off the property.
MR. BREWER-So does it go right across the road?
MR. C4RTIN-lt goes right across the road, and, again~ from about
here to about here, and out to about this area. We think it may
have a curving,boundary in this area. We also surveyed a I ¡ne
through here. What I understand is that it may be possible, by
ad jus tin g po sit ion s 0 f the s e ,f a c i lit i e s .
MR. NI.COLLA-I don't mean to interrupt him,
Rist-Frost's comments ,today, and talking
talkin~ with DEC, the reason DEC h,sn't,
from them.
but in going through
with a few people and
and we have a letter
MR. BREWER-I guess I want to know, is that the end of your
conversation with us~
MR. CURTIN-I bel ieve so.
MR. NICOLLA-Well, it really gets to the adjustments of what we're
ta I king ,about here with the sewer and water, sept Lc.,
MR. BREWER-Okay. We I I, he gave us a speech, and I just, does
that mean that there',~ no further study that needs :to.be done, or
there is or there isn't? I guess I'd let him finish.
MR. CURTIN-Okay. My Stage 1B field work is done, and 1'1 I be
working on the report over the next week or so. You should see
it soon. My r~commendation is, very standard. We don't know the
s i g n i ,f i ca n ceo f the , fin d , be c a use nor m a I I Y s i g n i f i can c e i s
assessed with. a Stage 2 Survey that would space testing close
together.an~ dig more. If the bounda~y that I, can define can be
avoided, ,if the site qan be avoided by a project change, then I
would recommend nO,further archeological work.
MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess what I'm saying to you is, the site
that youpoi,nt ou.t ,on the map, at a fu1¡uretime, if the Town ever
decides to do anything, they're going to put a road over the top
of that.
MR. CURTIN-Yes~
Stage 2 Survey.
wou¡ld th i nk that the Town WQU Id need to do a
MR. BREWER-Or maybe he thinks that they're going to put a road
over the top of it.
MR. CURT I N-At any rate, I'm not
or the rest of the proposa lis.
in this, area. The significance
would be.
sure what the nature of th,e road
There is an archeological site
is not assessed, and so that
MR. BREWER-That wo~ld be assessed in your report?
MR. CURTIN-No.
report.
I won't assess the significance of this in this
- 34 -
-'
MR. OBERMAYER-Can you describe exactly what it is that you found
there. in a little more detail. in layman's terms kind of?
MR. CURTIN-Yes. We found fragments of stone that are classified
is chirt. It's a like fl into FI int can be a synonym. sometimes.
for that~ It's been chipped from larger pieces. It fractures
I ike glass. In fact. It fractures fl into and if you were to
shoot a beebee gun at a window. and It would make a cone like
impact. that's the principal for control I ing the fracture of the
fl Int. Physicists know that. and without being physicists.
ancient peoples knew that. The Indians who I ived in this area
made their stone tools by control ling the fracture of the stone.
When they would chip stone to make an arrow head or a knife or a
scraper for taking fat off hides. they would use that principal
and it would leave behind these trai I ings. this debris from
creating it. What the debris does is it forms patches in the
ground in the places where they worked. or in places where they
cleaned up and disposed of their waste. So when you find
repeated occurrences of chi rp plates. it suggests that there was
ancient activity In that area. and that it's a hint that there's
an archeological site there. It's sufficient to identify the
archeological site. What we don't know is how old the
archeological site is. other than that it's probably some time
before 16ØØ. It could go back much earl ier. as other sites that
we talked about befor~. some do. and others don't. There could
be other types of things In the ground. but there may not be.
such as fire pits. or house (lost word). You saw some evidence
of that at Hudson Pointe. with that sort of thing. Wè don't know
if that occurs at this site or not. So what I'm talking about.
in terms of what I tis and what I t means. is that t here are
indications of ancient human activity here. We can identify it
as an archeological site. We don't know if it's as significant
as the ones that we found at Hudson Pointe earl ier. and it would
take a simi lar level of study to identify that.
MR. MACEWAN-Refrøsh our memories. What level of studies did you
use with Hudson Pointe?
MR. CURTIN-We went through a Stage 2 Survey.
MR. MACEWAN-Stage 2.
MR. CURTIN-Yes. Stage 1ASurvey is a background study; Stage 1B
is an actual field Investigation. that is a search to see if
there are archeologloal sites there. and a Stage 2 Survey goes to
the places where the archeological sites have been identified and
collects more information to see if it's a significant site. The
information that comes back is fairly redundant and doesn't
provide a lot of information that would indicate that that
archeological site is not significant. Two of the sites at
Hudson Pointe turned out to be I ike that. We went there. We
could only recover a few more flakes of chirp. and couldn't offer
much hope of interpreting the behavior that went on. any more
than the people (lost word).
MR. OBERMAYER-How many flakes of chirp did you uncover?
MR. CURTIN-In this study?
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes.
MR. CURTIN-We were out there yesterday. so I haven't counted
them. Our test pit that had the largest number had seven. and
there were other test pits that had one. and a couple that had
two or three.
MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. but the area that thèY have out I ined there
would not effect any future survey that you might want to do?
MR. CURTIN-In this area. Wel I. that's what Joe was getting to.
- 35 -
Joe wants to talk about SDme of the changes.
MR. OBERMAYER-Kind of leading int01
, <
MR. C~RTIN-Right.
MR. N I COLLA-The rea I issue is. in response to some comments that
were made. regarding. how close we were to the edge 01 the bank.
and this. there is a spring that's down in here. and ,runs down
here. down to the Hudson River. which is sti I I quite some ways
away. but in talking with DEC. DEC's comments are we have to stay
a minimum of .25 feet away from the top of the bank. tl1at we have
to stay a minimum of 1ØØ feet away from a water forest. which is
down in here. What we did. in looking at. finding these
archeological pieces down in here. this, chirt, and with the
recommendatjon of RLst-Frøst, why don't you move ,the septic field
away from the embankment, etc.. what we decided to do is we could
accommodat~ moving th, septic field away from the top of the
embankment. and we could also miss this archeological.
,potentially significant area, by just fl ip f.lopping these two
things. If we put the, and I'll fl ip t 1is up. for a second. but
if we put the retention basin where the septic field was and the
septic field where ,the rete,ntion bas, in was. we just miss all of
these things. That's really what we've done.
MR. BREWER-So the retention basin is now. how far from the bank?
MR. N I COLLA-Sevent,y-f i ve feet. and it: snow. and t h, is creat es
less impact. or load. on the top of the bank because now it's
recharging down. at a lower elevation than the top of the
emban kme,nt.
MR. BREWER-How deep is the retention basin?
MR. NICOLLA-The retention basin is six feet deep.
MR. MACEWAN-Is there,room there to move that retention basin even
farther away from the bank?
MR. N.I COLLA-There's rea! I y not. because there ¡ is ami n i mum
distance set by DEC that you ~ave to have the stormwater
retentlo,n ba~in a.nd the septi.c field a minimum,of 1ØØ feet. apart.
So now we're complying by this area in here. keeping away from
t his. o,u r s e p tic fie I d. 0 u r r e ten t i on a Iè ~a. . i n t he top 0 f the
slope. and there's really no requirement, here. by DEC. I mean.
DECrea I I Y doesn't have one. other than to say that you want to
stay a IJ1 in i mum of 29 ,feet away.
MR. OBERMAYER-W I II that be o.ut lined in yo,ur SPDES perm,it?
MR. NICOLLA-This is. we're probably about 15Ø feet away from the
top of the embankment with our septic field. and it wi I I be part
of the SPQES permit.
MR. RUEL-Does the retention basin have an overflow?
MR. N I CQLLA-No . it does not. Because of t he type of. mater i a I.
th i s is just percc;>l.l¡\t ion ,stra ~ght down.
MR. RUEL-There would be no need for, an Qverflow?
MR. N I COLLA-No. sir.
MR. MACEWAN-And you say that retention basin is 75 feet off the
bank? Is that what you were saying~
MR. NICOLLA-Yes. sir.
MR. RUEL-Off the top of the ravine. from the top 4f the ravine?
- 36 -
'-" ~
MR. NICOLLA-Again. we just prepared these today. in response to
comments that were made to us today. saying. potentially. you
wanted to stay a I ittle bit farther away.
MR. HARLICKER-Is it possible to el iminate that retention basin
entirely. and just deal with it on an infi Itratlon basis?
MR. NfCOLLA-There's reai Iy not.
quan~ity of water that.
mean. there's a sufficient
MR. HARLICKER-Or maybe you could reduce the size of it somewhat.
do a mixture of both. I mean. that way you wouldn't have to be
quite so close.
MR. MACEWAN-Your current site whe~e you're going to put the
septic system. how far is that from the archeological site?
MR. NiCOLLA-The current. where we going to put these?
MR. MACEWAN-Where
say. not current.
you're going to. propose changing it.
but propose changing it?
I should
MR. NICOLLA-We're probably. 2Ø.3Ø feet away.
MR. MACEWAN-Thirty feet.
closest test pit.
He's saying 3Ø feet away from the
MR. BREWER-Is that something that was found?
MR. NICOLLA-It's a I ittle bit further away from the closest test
pit (lost word) found. but it's about 3Ø feet away from t~e (lost
word) something was found.
MR. BREWER-Is this something that Rist-Frost is going to have to
rev i ew. B i I I?
MR. MACNAMARA-First of all. I'm saying this right here.
obviously. they didn't have very much time. and this is.
obviously. a lot of work's been done in a short period of time to
even get to this point. but I think with a fairly short review I
can probably see that nothing has changed. size wise. and I just
counted the laterals and the length. it looks the same.
MR. N I COLLA-And what we wou Id ask for. if we cou I d. we can get a
conditional approval. 1f that so suited the Board. based upon
Rist-Frost's final review of the project. and of cours&. make
sure that we continue to meet the stormwater calculations. and
obviously we need to get a SPDES permit. per Rist-Frost's review.
but DEC. again. won't review our SPDES permit untl I we have a
SEQRA determination.
MR. BREWER-Does t hat a I low us to do the SEQRA. though. if we
don't have sufficient comments. or do we need comments to do it
properly. as far as the septic being reviewed?
MR. DUSEK-Well. I think the question is whether or not your
engineer can provide you with sufficient information on this
septic system. as to the impact on groundwater. the impact on
surface flows. the soi Is. just based on what he's got here. I
think you need that Information in order to make your SEQRA
determination. and I guess I have to look to. not to toss the
bal lover to the engineer. but I think you have to look to him to
see whether or not he's prepared to comment on that.
MR. MACNAMARA-Well. to that end. a number of what I call the
specific comments that. I did not read each and everyone of them
earl ier. because quite honestly there was a number 'of them. had a
lot to do with not just the location and the type of system. but
also the method of dosage of the effluent to the. they had
proposed. essent i a I I y. a grav i ty dos i ng system. and because of
- 37 -
the size and the type of system they are go i ng to use, it ,needs
to be a pressure distribution. I can see they've picked up on
some Qf. those changes, but Icerta in I y can't say that everyone
of the comments that I've made. I'm gO<i,ng to look at right here
and say, yes, they've addressed it.
MR. BREWER-Okay~ So then you think you're going to need time to
review this, maybe,a week. a day?
" ~ -' , ,.
MR. OBERMAYER-Why couldn't we jus1; make ,his comments¡ par·t of the
resolution, then?
MR. BREWER-Because you have to do a SEQRA first.
'i
MR. STARK-:Tim, why dop't you pol I tile Board to see who's
comfortable with ~he en~ineering comm~nt~ the way theY are?
MR. BREWER-That's
comments because
ago.
what I'm trying to do, George. He has made no
h.e just saw it for ~he first time 15 minutes
MR. STARK-And he commented that they were comparable to what's
existing, only they were fl ip flopped. The laterals were the
same feet. The drainage basin WaS the same size, square footage
wise, and everything. Whatmgre do you need?
MR. OBERMAYER-The permeabi I ity of the soi I,
would b~ any .different.
wouldn't think,
MR, MACNAMARA-We I I, see, those are ~he issues that.
MR. BREWER-But he also suggested that it shouldn't be a Mound
System, also.
MR. NICOLLA-But that's really, I mean, when we get into the SPDES
permit with DEC, DEÇ1, and I know wh,at DEC told you today, and as
I tol,d you today, D~C,also 1;old us those same comments, and then
when we ~iscussed wi~hthem what we .ere doing on the phone. and
I ,had you on the phone, when we were talking ~o the gentleman
from DEC, what he <said t,O u~ was this. .that appl Ic~tion can be
, use d , i s use d, for, t his t Y P e 0 f s Y s t em. I d i c;f n ' t u. n d e r s tan d w hat
you were saying. Mound System, they don't cal ~ it a Mound
System. I agree with you, when you say Mound System to DEC. they
go, wel I, that's not what we want. When we explained to him what
we were doing, he said, we don't cal I that a Mound System~ We
call that a.E....LU System. I mean. we're talking semantics. and,
really, we sti I I have to get the permit. It's incumbent upon us
to go get a SPDES permit, and we're happy to. have our ,and if
DEC, just like Bi II says, says that's, not what we want, we have
to go to a differept type of system ~o accommodate them within
that (lost word)~ which, we can do. I me.n. we ,Can accommodate
either system, either waY,9n that size area. . ¡
MR. MACNAMARA-It's
approve everything
conversation with,
today?
important
that's
was it
to remember that the DEC has to
here, and, whether, see, I had a
Randy Galusha that you ~poke with
MR. NICOLLA-Yes.
MR . MACNAMARA-That bas i,ca I I Y sa i d that, no, they w<er.en' t goi ng to
buy into this Mound Sy~tem, and semantics being what they are,
whether you call ,it raised fill, a m,ound, or a straight fill
system, the fact is, is, what they~re showing there il a mound
system. because they're going from grade and working their way
up. They haven't not gotten into the original grade whatsoever.
It's important 'that you get into the original grading and
somewhat blend the material and get some kind of a smooth
transition. I don't see that that's done here, but that's not a
m a j 0 r poi nt . T hat,' sad eta i Ion an 0 the r she e t t h at w 0 u I d be a
- 38 -
--
trench deta i I.
MR. BREWER-So then you have enough information so that we can go
ahead and feel secure with it?
MR. MACNAMARA-We I I. the things that we don't have. that I didn't
see tOday that were addressed were the permeabi I ity rates. I
think you were showing a one to five minute rate. whereas if you
look to the DEC's Design Manual. Fi I I Systems talk about ten to
thirty minute per Inch soi I when you have rapid permeable soi Is.
MR. NICOLLA-But. again. al I of this could be definitely met.
MR. MACNAMARA-We I I. if you
is going to go up quite a
five minute. your gal Ions
more than if you use a ten
go to ten to thirty minutes. your size
bit. becaUse I t hi nk i fyou use one to
per day per square foot are certainly
to thirty minute rate.
MR. NICOLLA....Well. obviously.
accommodate that.
(lost w~rd) we would have to
MR. MACNAMARA-Right.
MR. BREWER-So I guess. then. if it has to go uP. and you have to
make it bigger. how do you accommodate it? That's what I'm
getting at.
MR. NICOLLA-You put in one I ine. what you would do. and what
we're not hearing. here. is this. is that what's happened here is
in this footprint. we can accommodate this. This is grading.
coming up.
MR. MACNAMARA-Let me ask you this. Why don't you guys go down?
What's the goal with going up?
MR. NICOLLA-We very wel I may go down. and I don't want to argue
that point. My point is that within this area. if we had to add
a I ine. two I ine. coul~ it be accommodated within this footprint.
and the answer is. certainly. because that's really all we're
talking about is one I ine or two I ines. If you're right. that we
have to go to a less permeab I e so i I. in terms of minutes. ten to
thirty minutes.
MR. MACEWAN-We I I. that's what the strict DEC Manual says for
fill .
MR. NICOLLA-I understand that. and we have to meet those strict
regulations. and wi II. be really. that's. you know. we both had a
conversation with the gentleman from DEC today who said two
different th i ngs to us. and I rea II y th i nk it's incumbent upon
that gentleman to make the determination. along with ~
comments. to issue our SPDES permit. but I mean. we can meet al I
of the requirements within this footprint. clearly.
MR. MACNAMARA-Certainly. because they're already showing a 5Ø
percent expansion area for future. that may get eaten up in their
initial system. but.
MR. BREWER-You say they ~ meet it. or?
MR. MACNAMARA-Well. when you say they'can meeti1:. there's a
number of issues here that. quite honestl'y. are stl II open. but
they're not insurmountable. as far as show stoppers are
concerned. They're details that will go towards getting final
approva I.
MR. BREWER-Is it okay to go ahead. that's all I'm saying. yes or
no?
MR. MACNAMARA-We I I. al I
can tell you is that there's a
- 39 -
coo r din at e d rev i e w . i f you wan t t 0 c a I. lit t hat. go Lng 0 n . The
DEC has yet to ~ven do tþeir technical review yet. but we've done
an extensive review. giv~n <a I I of oU~ comme~ta to them. and they
need to issue a SPDES permit. At th~s point. what I ~m saying is
that the issues that are sti I I open are not such that we cannot
work them out. as ther~ are a lot'i.of ot.her .site plans were there
are some small issues that are open. Granted. tnere's a number
of sma I I issues here. but they're not insurmountable. The
important th i ng is to remember that there st i II. has: to .be a SPDES
permit issued.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. NICOLLA-Right. We have a document from DEC which says that
they wi II not issue the SPDES permit unti I a SEQRA. theywon't
even review it and give us a complete appl ication unti I SEQRA
determination is made.
MR. BREWER-That's
no. is ,jt okay
information? :.
what I was trying
to ,go ahe~d and
to get at..8 simp Ie yes or
do the SEQRA. without the
MR. STARK~W~'ve done that numerous times.
. <
MR. OBERMAYER-I think so. too.
I'
MR. BREWER-Explain to me what you're talking about. George? What
have we done?
MR. . .STARK-We di dn' t have a II tn,e i nformati on. and yet the
app I i cant .cou I d.
MR. BR~WER-Give me an example?
MR. STARK-I can't think of an example off hand. but please bear
with me for a second. Tim.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. STARK-The a~pl icant sai4 they coUld work it out before the
final building permi.t is Issued and so on ljind so forth. and we've
gone ahead and done the SEQRA and ,"gi ven t,he approva I or den i a I.
or whatever. This has happened numerous times.
MR. BREWER-I don't recal I any. ßeorge. I don't recal I not having
al I the engineering done before we ever did SEQRA.
MR. STARK-No. no.
MR. BREWER-I don't want to argue with you. but give me an
ex amp Ie,.,
'-j'
MR. STARK-Jim. ~an you h~lp me out on this? Have. we .ver done a
SEQRA without getting al I the ,engjneering. ~very single
engineering.
MR. BREWER-Not every single. I mean. they've changed E!verything
around. and I said is it okay to go ahead and do the SEQRA
without t,he engineering. You sai.<;I.we've done it b.efore. You
give me an example.
MR. OBERMAYER-Our Town Eng i neer tl1at we h i.re, and. pay a sa lary to
has recommended that we do a SEQRA.
MR. MACNAMARA-Not really a sa.lary.but that's a.llright.
MR. BREWER-Fine.
l'm~Just making a statement. Jim.
MR. OBERMAYER-And I'mtel I ingyou .what the Town,Engineerhas told
us.
- 4Ø -
'-
--
MR. BREWER-He said It was okay, but George
it before without the information, and
example. I haven~t heard an example yet.
the point, but that's what I'm saying.
says that we've done
I said, give me an
I don't want to argue
MR. OBERMAYER-Wel I, why don't we pol I the Board to see whether we
want to continue.
MR. BREWER-Fine.
MR. MACEWAN-We I I, we're not going to jump into the SEQRA right
now. are we7 I want to hear the rest of his presentation before
we go any farther with SEQRA.
MR. OBERMAYER-Okay.
MR. NICOLLA-With that, we did do the rest of the studies that
were required. We had Matt Steves go out and survey the areas.
I n these areas there were t'rees that were knocked down. We
showed a proposed replanting plan. but I think that if you look
at the letter that was written by Alane so articulately, I don't
think that, and I don't want to speak for Alane, but they're not
looking to have those areas replanted. Am I correct in saying
that, Alane, or if they're replanted, you want (lost word).
MR. BREWER-Alane, could you come up to the microphone, please.
ALANE BALL
MS. BALL-We didn't walk the entire site on our visit. so I didn't
particularly take a look at every area that trees had been
removed, so I think that to take a site, to plant it, I mentioned
in my letter, would need to be resolved once the applicant has
determined his plan for sure and we know where they're going to
put the (lost word).
MR. RUEL-Dldn't you indicate in your letter that it could be
replanted with the same type of vegetation that's there now7
MS. BALL-If you're looking to Increase the habitat for the Karner
blue butterfly and to bring back the native species and
watercress that were there7
MR. RUEL-I wasn't talking about that.
replacing what has been cutdown.
I'm talking about
MS. BALL-I don't know how to do that. That's not my bai I iwick.
MR. RUEL-N07 Okay.
MR. NICOLLA-The other issue was the Karner blue butterfly issue,
or the blue lupine issue, and I think it was noted that there was
no blue lupine or Karner blue butterfly seen when you were out
there, and that the blue lupine that's there, we're wi I I ing to
maintain the blue lupine that is presently there. With that,
again. if there's any questions from the Board, of something that
we didn't address.
MR. MACEWAN-What insurances are you going to take. or do you
propose to take, to protect that plant7
MR. NICOLLA-I think I'd like to work with the Staff, to see their
recommendations.
MR. MACEWAN-Do you have any thoughts7
MR. NICOLLA-Honestly, don't. I think there wi II be, I can see
from a couple of different things, that we could put a fence
around it. you know, a si It fence around it.
- 41 -
MR. MACEWAN-It would be a pretty significant fence.
lot of it down there.
There's a
MR. NICOLLA-I think you'd look at patches.
MR. OBERMAYER-I think the concern that 1 have is more erosion
control along the rayj:ne. The .ravine .l...§. start,ing ,.to erode
because of where ,i t' s be.en c/ut. !s there any plans to put in any
erosion cQntrol.
MR. NICOLLA-We'd be wi I I ing to put an erosion control mat
anywhere that,. you know, tþere is a plac:e right down in here
where there has been erosion that has started, and I guess our
propo&al would be, ~s part of what we do, as part of our site
work, we'd have no prøblem going in and puttipg an ,erosion
control mat, putting some vegetation out there to make sure that
that's held.
MR. MACEWAN-Along
asked them to put
last meeting, and
that, what is the
that topic, a
up ,t heel"'os, ion
we asked them
State standard7
quest i on for Staff. When we
control measures there, ,at the
to use the State standard for
MR. MART I N-State standards. get í nt.o cross sect,i on deta i I on
proper placement of ~j It fencing or hay bales. In this case,
they installed the si It fencing, and from what I saw, it was
properly installed. meaning that the lower flap of the si It fence
is folded under thesoi I and it's staked at certain intervals.
That appea~ed to be don~. The problem was. ,some of that was
bus,ted down, I think. by, I don't,kno¡w who, but ¡,t appeared to be
busted up. They did s~cure it properly, but it was busted after
the fact, and they re-visited the si~e, and. my, understanding was
they were go i ng to fix .the ~reas where it was bU,sted..
MR. NICOLLA-We did re-fix it again on Monday. but having walked
out there since Mo~day, ,peci~ical Iy today, it's down again.
There's not a lot we can do about,.i,t',s kids,o,n bikes. ! mean,
and to say th,at it,'s anything different, I mean, that's where all
those trai Is, the blue lupine are growing, come f~om. There have
been kids back there for years riding motorcycles and trai I
bikes, etc. There's nothing that we ca~ re~1 Iy do to stop that.
MR. RUEL-We I I, what you have there. i,~ on I y temporary. You expect
t hat won't" be necessary after you have ,t he prQper ,cont ro I s7
MR. NICQLLA-After we, ,get proper con,trols, 5i It.fencing, permanent
s i It fenc i og shoU 1 d not ,be necess,ary, .w i,l I not be necessary.
MR. BREWER-Only during construction, right7
MR. NICOLLA-For the, well, the,re is erosion that's happened and,
a g a in, it' sin t his are a. and it' sri g h t.d 0 w n i n he r, e .
MR. RUEL-Yes, I saw it.
MR. NICOLLA-And
It is in a sandy
that were made,
ravine. I mean,
we have to take measures to stab i I i ze that bank.
soi I, and I don't disag~~e with al I the comments
of moving this back 5Ø or 75 feet away from that
you have a very stable pl~ce ther~ now.
MR. MACEWAN-Where exactly wi I I your prqpe~ty I ine extend t07
MR. BREWER-It goes beyond the ravine, doesn't it1
MR. NICOLLA-Yes.
MR. MACEWAN-How far beyqnd7
MR. NIC/OLLA-It's 643 feet,s,o I'm going to.guess that t,his is 3ØØ
feet, so it's probably another 3ØØ feet on the other side.
- 42 -
"-
MR. MACEWAN-We I I up on the other side of the ravine.
MR. NICOLLA-Sure.
MR. RUEL-You don't go to the Hudson. do you?
MR. NICOLLA-No. We'ré wel I off the Hudson. This Is al I owned by
the Town right now. The Town owns another piece of property that
is probably. and I'm guessing. because I don't know exactly. but
it's probably another six. seven hundred feet from the Hudson.
MR. RUEL-Do you have any wetlands on your property?
MR. NICOLLA-No. sir. We do have a smal I spring that
right about where my finger is. and then turns into
that flows more substantially down off of our site.
emanates
something
MR. RUEL- I t hi nk it goes to C I endon Brook. doesn't i t1
MR. BREWER-It goes to the river eventually.
MR. NICOLLA-It does go to the river eventually.
MR. BREWER-I~ goes to the wetlands and then to the river.
where it is. Roger. right here. There's their property
There's the spring he's talkIng about.
Here's
line.
MR. MACEWAN-We I I. one of the concerns that ~ have Is the
fragi leness of that bluff. I mean. that was consideration that
we 'to o<k w hen H u d son Pol n t e was go I n g t h r 0 ugh it' S' pro c e s s .
Knowing that what you're going to want to do with that retention
basin there. even though it's going to be 75 feet off that bluff.
and just the construction stages of building that retention
basin. you're going to. certainly. be a lot closer than 75 feet
to that bluff. and moving equipment around there and fi I land so
on and so forth. If we could come up with some sort of real good
means to ensure that there's not going to be any further erosion
of that slope. or damage to any of those plants In there. I'm
certainly open to I istento it.
MR. MACNAMARA-And one more adder to that Is that. granted you're
showing 75. 80 feet. depending on what scale you use. but you're
sti II. the way .L.:.m. readi'ng this. this is stili a Mound or Raised
FI I I System. and' tome it's a Mound System. because I don't see
any notation where you're getting into the original grade. So
you're bui Iding up. You're sti I I up four to six feet above grade
right here. and if you look at the grading. it goes to 380.378
right into the bank. So the runoff I ssues are st I I I there.
They're the same runoff issues that's associated with the Mound
System. having an impermeable or more impermeable there. So the
runoff issues that are running off the bank and running down to
the ravine are exactly the same. I don't see that part of it
changed.
MR. NICOLLA-We'll put a F I I I System in.
MR. BREWER-You' I I put a F I I I System In.
MR. N I COLLA-We'll put a F I I I System in.
MR. MACNAMARA-And that would answer a II that.
DANIEL HERSHBERG
MR. HERSHBERG-Now with respect to the retention basin. we can
definitely make sure that no construction of it wi I I go beyond
the excavation I ine which you see in there. Because this Is
excavated rather than bui It in. we can make ,sure that all the
equipment wi I I (lost word) on the up hi I I side of the retention
basin.
- 43 -
MR. MACEWAN-Is there maybe another design that can be. ,than that
kind of configuration. something that could get us even farther
away from the edge ~f that bluff?
MR. HERSHBERG-We tried fol lowing the bluff.
MR. BREWER-Why couldn't you elongate that. I ike this?
MR. MACEWAN-That's w~at I'm ~sking,
MR. BREWER-But then you're sti I I going to be the same distance
here to here.
MR. MACEWAN-Not necessari Iy. unless you came something I ike this.
st i I I stay 1 øø feet off that.
MR. HERSHBERG-I can point out the one possibi I ity.. If we do go.
I ike Joe is saying. we'll go with the Fi II System. there's a good
chance that we', II need I ess of a II of t hat area. Whatever area
we can save. in other words. we'll hold this I ine here. and then
we' I I try to conserve as much as we. oarr. because ~~ere's mandates
where you have to have minimum 1ØØ feet in here. If we can
achieve that. we wi I I be more than glad to do it.
MR. MACEWAN-Maybe another idea for a retention basin would be
simi lar to the idea that you have for the Fi I I Syst~m or the
Mound System as it is now. something that's more elongated and
maybe runs ,kind of an east/west kind of a.layout.
MR. BREWER-North/south.
1. ¡
MR. HERSHBERG-Well. the problem. all of this area is surrounded
by the edge of that ravine.
MR. NICOLLA-See. you're bound by this.
maybe 1ØØ foot.
So if you start taking
MR. MACEWAN-I'm thinking something maybe along the I ines like
that. going that k,nd of direction.
MR. N I COLLA-What, ends up happen i ng. see t his distance. . you ;don' t
have enough room to get anything that's o~erable between those
two things.
MR. BREWER-What ab~ut this way?
MR. NICOLLA-You're less distance here.
MR. BREWER-Th i s goes back in. though. is what I'm say i ng.
MR. NICOLLA-Not really.
point out.
hear"you. but this is. the farthest
MR. MARTIN-What is the style of pipe that connects from the catch
basins along. is that a sol id pipe?
MR. HERSHBERG-Yes. but we wi I I definitely use the en~ire length
of the pipe to disperse water.
MR. MARTIN-Well. I was going to. say. is there any benefit to a
perforated pipe. and then that would reduce the size of your.
MR. HERSHBERG~Absolutely.
MR. NICOLLA-.Absolutely. That ~ouLd decrease the size of it. and
we would be wi,l I ing to do that.
MR. MACNAMARA-The other things you could use are these things
ca II ed i nf i I trators. t.hat' s a brand name of dev i ce. Yoµ cou I d
make catch basins. drywel I structures.
- 44 -
.-
MR. NICOLLA-Absolutely.
MR. HERSHBERG-Whatever surface area that (lost word) through the
pipe.
MR. MACNAMARA-Would be credited towards the size of that basin.
Right.
MR. MART I N-Because these so I I s are' so fast.
the 50. 100 year storm.
Outside of probably
MR. HERSHBERG-I did the percolation test myself. It wasn't
possible to keep up with it. I just kept on pouring water. It
was. in many cases. seven seconds.
MR. MARTIN-I mean. that's a two foot pipe. If you perforated the
whole distance of that. and we've got to be.
MR. BREWER-You wi I I never make it to the retention basin.
MR. HERSHBERG-W.' I. we hOpé so.
MR. MARTIN-Wel I. you have to calculate it on a certain size
storm.
MR. NICOLLA-Only during a big storm.
MR. BREWER-Would that be able to keep us 100 foot away from the
ravine?
MR. HERSHBERG-I couldn't say that unti I we actually are able to
define the size.
MR. NICOLLA-It may get us more towards 90. 85 to 90.
MR. HERSHBERG-We' I I def i n i te I y do everyt hi ng we can to pu I lit
away from there.
MR. NICOLLA-And we have no issue with that. really. 'mean.
think that we'd I ike to work with Rist-Frost. and get their
thoughts, and wé'd be more than happy. as a condition of our
approval. to work with them. and come up with the best solution
to this issue.
MR. BREWER-Okay. What else? Okay. One other thing. I know
there's been conversation. and there always has been, about the
warehouse. Lets take a look at that. what that wi I I do. If you
want to put the warehouse on. how close does that get you to the
ravine.
MR. N ICOLLA-We I I. it depends. There's somet hi ng that I heard
tonight for the first time. which is 50 feet around the bui Iding
for a fire code?
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. NICOLLA-Clear. unobstructed area?
MR. MARTIN-Right. That was cal led in to your architect today.
Dave Hatin told him that today.
MR. NICOLLA-Okay. What ends up happening is that. if this
dimension here is increased by ten feet, this gets ten feet
closer, the dimension off the bui Iding now is roughly 280 feet.
It would g6 down to 190 feet. The bui Iding itself is 120 feet.
So you're down to. it's actually 160 feet. We can make it 120.
So if you had 200 plus 130 feet. you'd be 70 feet.
MR. BREWER-So that ki I Is al I the effort to keep you 100 feet away
from the bank. What if we made a stipulation in the motion that.
- 45 -
no deve lopment with i n 1 øø feet of the .rav i ne?
MR. NICOLLA-What you're really doing is you're absolutely ki I ling
the potential for.
MR. BREWER-Why couldn't you acquire the property in the front?
MR. NICOLLA~I don't<know if I can.
MR. BREWER-It's for sale.
MR. NICOLLA-Everything's for sale. for a price. The problem is
that we hav~ a comp~ny that is a for profit .business .that's
br i ng i ng jobs here. an,d if. we. can accommodate the.ffl. I'd be more
than happy to accommodate them. and I'm meeting with the
gentleman that owns the property at 7:15. but not ~nly I.can't
force him to sell it. but if it's a reasonable price. I'd. be more
than happy to buy it. and I am. I mean. he knows where I'm
coming from. but.u.nfortunately. he wouldn't meet ,wi.th me. He
canceled th.e meeting unti Itomqrr.ow morning. unt.i I he saw what
this Board did tonight. 80 where does that lead you. of what
price.
,
MR. BREWER-That's almost not fair.
MR. NICOLLA-That's business.
MR. BREWER-Maybe we should
decision then. I mean.
played.
have a meeting Thursday and make our
that's ~he, games that we're getting
MR. NICOLLA-Tim. I'm not trying to play with you.
MR. BREWER-No. I understand that.
MR. NICOLLA-I'm doing what I can do. as being responsible. I'm
wi II ing. if I can purchase this proper,ty. I'm. wi 1 ing to move the
damn thing as far away from this ravine as I can.
MR. BREWER- I guess.
coming from.
I told you on the phone today. where ~
MR. NICOLLA-I understand that.
MR. BREWER-And I think if another project is held to a standard.
I th i nk th i s Board shou I d be cons i stent in h.o Id i ng everybody to
the same standards. and I think we have the same situation that
we had at Hudson Pointe. The stan~ard there was 15Ø feet. Now
it's 1ØØ feet here and then it's going to go down to 7Ø or 6Ø. I
don't think it's right.
MR. NICOLLA-But I think that we're t~lking apples and oranges.
MR. BREWER-I don't think so. I think you're talking about steep
ravines that are sand. completely sand. There's a stream down at
the bottom of ~ ravine.
MR. NICOLLA-Back in here. not over in here.
MR. BREWER-But where's the water going to go. Joe?
flc;>w down.. and then it's going to go this way.
It's going to
MR. N I COLLA-We I I. we can
concerns. I mean. we can
stipulate it.
take care of al I the stormwater
accommo~ate making sure. and you can
MR. BREWER-I heard that for two and a half years about Hudson
Pointe. The issue is. it was done. a precedent was set. and I
don't think we should hold you to .any less of a standard. I
mean. the property in front of you is for sale. You got a hel I
- 46 -
'~
of a deal on this piece of property.
just tel I ing you how I feel.
It's not a secret.
I'm
MR. NICOLLA-But those things are passed along.
MR. BREWER-I understand. I'm just tell ingyou what .L:Jn. going to
ask for. George. I' I make a motion. and If you don't want to
vote for It. then don't. okay. I'm just telling you I don't
think. we had a meeting two weeks ago about consistency with this
Board and I don't think that we shouldn't be consistent. and I
t hi nk everybody agreed at t hat meet i ng. That's a I I I'm say i ng.
MR. STARK-Wel I. maybe Hudson Pointe shouldn't have been held to
15Ø. I mean. where did that come from?
MR. BREWER-We didn't do that. The Town Board did. okay. and we
went along with it.
MR. OBERMAYER-But there's really not any environmental
stipulations on why we have to be a certain distance away.
MR. BREWER-Because of the erosion from the bank. Jim. and it goes
down to a stream. and it goes to the same exact wetlands. and it
goes to the same exact river. That's what the issue is. and I
think. you're not looking at that.
MR. MACEWAN-And that bank is covered wi th lupine.
MR. STARK-We I I. Tim. po II the Boàrd.
MR. BREWER-Po I I the Board for what. George'?
MR. STARK-We I I. to see if that's a concern of the Board or not.
MR. BREWER-It's not a concern to you?
MR. STARK-No. not at al I.
MR. OBERMAYER-What was the distance that you say you can hold?
MRS. LABOMBARD-See.
thing.
don't know if we're talking about the same
MR. BREWER-Old you walk down the ravines there. George?
MR. STARK- stood on top of it.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Old you walk on the ones at Hudson Pointe?
MR. STARK-No.
MR. BREWER-Okay. So then how can you compare It.
been there?
if you haven't
MRS. LABOMBARD-We I I. Hudson Polnte was for so many homes and
peoples and fami I ies and septic systems.
MR. BREWER-Eight houses on the Pointe. Cathy. eight houses. or
nine houses.
MR. BREWER-This is 116.ØØØ square feet. and they're going to add
another 1ØØ.ØØØ square feet.
MR. STARK-Of warehouse space.
MR. BREWER-Which has more of an impact?
runoff off?
Is there going to be
MR. OBERMAYER-What's the zoning ove~ there?
- 47 -
MR. BREWER-Waterfront Residential Three acre, and the Town re-
zoned it.
MR. OBERMAYER-This is zoned Light Industrial.
MR. BREWER-Right, but does that necessari Iymean that it s.hould
be right there on the edge of the bank, Jim? That's what I'm
saying.
MR. NICOLLA-Again, I don't think it's on the edge of the bank,
and I~~~'t want to become argumentative.
MR. BREWER-Wel I, that's wha~'s happening, and I'm sQrry for it,
but.
MR. NICOLLA-John's right. There's two issues that really go
forward. The first is that I think we're beyond the scope of
th,is meeting, which tS,for approva.1 of this bui Iding. The first
,thing is ,that if we oome back in t,he fU,ture for any future
bU,i Iding, we have to meet the requirements ,of Rist~Frost, and we
,have to come through storm~ater calculations.
MR. BREWER-Is that not planning, though, Joe?
going to d~ It, why not talk about it now?
If you know you're
MR. NICOLLA-We don't know that we're going to do it.
don't, and I think that we've been up front with you
with you, that.
I mean, we
and honest
MR. BREWER-You didn't show me the exact configurati.onof it.
MR. NICOLLA-Of a potential.
MR. BREWEa-A potential building.
MR. NICOLLA-Pqtential, we don't know.
MR. RUEL-It's not part of this appl ic.tion.
MR. NICOLLA-That's right. It's not part of this appl ication.
Second,ly, I think that the persQI') that's,getting caught here is
Native Textiles, and Nati,ve is really being, they went into this
with the idea that, in <the future, they could potentially expand,
that this property, that if it's zoned correctly and there's no
requirements off of this ravine and this slope and that it would
be the developer's or my responsibi I ity. if there is any
stabi I ization here that is necessary, that we stabi I ize this to
everyone's satisfaction. That we don't know if we could come
down here. That's a crap shoot, maybe yes and maybe no. Sitting
here tonight, I don't know, and it's not part of the application.
MR. RUEL-But
feet from the
in the
ravine,
app I i cat i on ,we cou I d
for future bui Iding.
limit you to
so many
MR. BREWER-Th.at a part of. the, app I i cat ion.
MR. RUEL-That would be part of the appl ication.
MR. BREWER-Clearly, that's what I'm saying.
MR. RUEL-So, it's the same thing" isn't it?
MR. NICOLLA-I guess what I'm saying is this, that would that
severely hamper Native Texti Ie's a.bi I ity, on this site, for its
future expansion? The warehouse has very little.
MR. OBERMAYER-Why couldn't we evaluate that on the second phase
when they.do come in?
MR. MACEWAN-There's no guarantee there's going to be,a second
- 48 -
--
~--'
phase.
MR. OBERMAYER-Well, if that's true, then why are we putting
stipulations on the site plan?
MR. BREWER-Because we just sat here for a half, three quarters of
an hour asking them to move this retention basin away from the
bank, okay, to a certain amount of feet. We don't know what that
footage is.
MR. BREWER-Right. It's going to be 9Ø
that. He said that. Joe said that.
I'm just trying to compare projects.
come In for a second phase, then it
It's 1 øø feet, wi I lit?
or 1ØØ, roughly. We know
Their engineer said that.
If they're no~ going to
won't bother them whether
MR. NICOLLA-I guess all I'm saying is this, here'sDEC's
standards. It's 1ØØ water, to surface water, and it's a minimum
separation distance, and this is for septic tanks, absorption
fields, seepage fields, sewer I Ine,which are a lot more unstable
than a warehouse bui Iding, and for the top of the embankment,
steep slope, they want 25 feet. That's a minimum standard.
MR. MACEWAN-That's a minimum standard, but in al I fairness,
that's also not taking into consideration that there's lupine al I
over the bank.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Not al lover.
It's in certain spots.
MR. MACNAMARA-We I I, that's right. That minimum standard, Joe,
does not mean that you can have 25 feet every time. That's why
there's SPDES appl ications, and that's why there's reviews.
MR. NICOLLA-And I'm not saying' that, but a minimum standard, and
what we're saying is we can get most likely 75 feet or 6Ø feet, a
number like that, and 75 feet, I mean, that's, we're talking
about a building, not a sewer line or a septic field, which has a
lot more potentially impact than a foundation.
MR. OBERMAYER-It's going to have to be a minimum
anyway, because you're going to have to have your5Ø
access on that side of the bui Iding, plus, the road
b~ a oertain distance away from the ravine. So, no
it's going to be 75 feet.
of 75 feet
foot roadway
will have to
matter what,
MR. NICOLLA-We agree.
MR. RUEL-We I I, is the roadway part of it?
MR. OBERMAYER-A Sø foot roadway is required around the bu i I ding.
MR. RUEL-Right. Fifty feet, is it?
MR. OBERMAYER-Fifty foot. So you're not going to bui Id a road
right on a ravine. That's going to be a certain distance away.
MR. STARK-It has to be 25 feet away.
MR. BREWER-That's a DEC standard.
MR. MACNAMARA-DEC doesn't get Into roads and ravines, not their
SPDES permit.
MR. NICOLLA-No, those are absorption fields, and It's just to
give you some kind of criteria, idea of what DEC is looking for
for absorpt ion fie I ds. I mean, roadways, I mean, you can see.
MR. BREWER-So, is ita big prob I em, 25 feet between the road and
the top of the ravine, wooded? I mean, is that a big problem to
you guys?
- 49 -
MR. STARK-No.
MR. BREWER-So thent,hat keeps it 1 øø f,eet, right?
MR. OBERMAYER-Seventy~five.
MR. STARK-Seventy-five~
MR. OBERMAYER-Fifty for the road,twenty-five tor the separation
from the road to the.
MR. NICOLLA-We agree with that, I mean, I agree with that. I'd
do that, twenty-five feet of wooded area.
MR. OBERMAYER-I mean, that's a compromise.
MR. BREWER-Not from 15Ø it isn't. I said that was
standard was on the bluffs down the river was 15~.
1ØØ here. and you guys are saying 75. Who's side are
Town's or theirs, not meaning anything, youknow.what
what the
I'm saying
you on, the
I mean.
MR. OBERMAYER-I'm on the Town's side. That's why I'm here.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a questio~.
these plans obey al I DEC setbacks,
Right now, ,do these plans,
rules, regulations, etc.
MR. OBERMAYER-They have to.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. Okay. So ,these plans aren't breaking any
law. ,Secondly. the wetla~d. that we're worried about, that any
of this stormwater or whatever could. erode into, are those
designated wetland.? Have ~hey been identified on record?
MR. NICOLLA-On ou~ site there are no wetlands.·
"
MR. BREWER-Not on ~ site, no, but the adjacent property.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay, thewetlanda that we know on the adjacent
property, have they ~een deaignated by ~he DEe as?
MR. NICOLLA-I mean, eventually, this does go in,to designated
wetlands, and then eventually it goes into the Hudson River,
which eventually goes into the Atlantic Ocean, but, I mean. it's
really not germane. I mean, the way that this retention basin
works is th is goes through sand and then perco I atesout. I . mean,
this water wi I I be cleaner than drink water by the time that this
ever gets to ground water.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. Now, the main concern is erosion.
MR. OBERMAYER-That's stormwater, that's not sewer.
MR. N I COLLA-That ',s not sewage .
MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay, Joe, if the main concern right now, and this
is the Board, if the main concern right. now, as I hear it, is
erosion of the ravine, what can be done to prevent that erosion,
or to mitigate it?
MR. NICOLLA-In areas that are open, I mean, we can put snow fence
around here, which we'd be wi II ing to do, for construction
purposes, so we can get near the tops of the emb~nkments. The
embankment right here, and I'll be the first to tell you, that it
i s e rod i n g r i, g h t . .th,. r e , I , mea n , i tis, and the r e ~ s a co u pie of
ways of controll jng that. I mean, the easiest, sImplest way of
control I ing that is erosion control mat, and.you plan.t it.
MRS. LABOMBARD-And that wouLd work?
MR. NICOLLA-Absolutely.
- 5" -
---
MRS. LABOMBARD-We I I. can that be a condition1
MR. NICOLLA-Absolutely. We have to do that anyway. I mean. I'll
be fair to you. We're going to go through that anyway. because
we're not going to al low that to continue. Our fear Is that
we've been on property that we've been mal igned for. for being
on. and other than going out and doing specifically what I was
told to go do. I was very hesitant to go back and do anything
else. and, as Mr. Dusek can say. that I was cal I ing on the phone.
MR. RUEL-If this is such a simple solution. why wasn't it done at
Hudson Pointe1
MR. BREWER-I don't know.
MR. RUEL-Who set the 15Ø at Hudson Pointe1
MR. BREWER-The Town Board.
MR. RUEL-The Town Board.
MR. BREWER-Because of the sensitivity of the banks.
MR. RUEL-Wel I. this is a very sensitive area. also.
MR. BREWER-Right. That's what I'm trying to say. Roger.
MR. NICOLLA-Well. I think it's apples and oranges. and I want to
say that that area was on the Hudson River. I mean. if you
looked at the bluff, at where Hudson Pointe was. and at this
ravine. I mean. they are two topographically different features.
I mean. they are just. it's apples and oranges. and what we're
talking about here is you have the Hudson River right at Hudson
Pointe. The Hudson River's quite a ways away from here. I mean.
you can go out on that site and stand on the ravine. You're not
going to see anywhere near the Hudson River.
MR. RUEL-Yes.
ravine. and I
I went to the bottom of the. the other side of the
could see the Hudson River.
MR. NICOLLA-Down in here1
MR. RUEL-Yes.
MR. NICOLLA-Down in here. absolutely. on the Town's property.
MR. RUEL-So it is close.
MR. N I COLLA-We I I. It's close.
MR. RUEL-Wel I. you said I couldn't see it. you know.
MR. NICOLLA-Wel I. from where we're talking about. up in here.
you're a good half a mi Ie.
MR. RUEL-No.
can't see it there. no.
MR. BREWER-Not a half a mi Ie.
MR. NICOLLA-It's a long ways.
MR. BREWER-Okay. AI I right. Anything else1
MR. PALING-Well. they've got. I think. about five oonditions that
they're going to have to meet. if we're going to go ahead with
this project. and the most sensitive one is the one we just
talked about. and I think if they can manage that setback.
without any erosion and with the protection of the Karner blue
butterfly. and the lupine. then we should go along with some kind
of a compromise in the regard. but I would I ike to see us not
- 51 -
talk about the warehQuse at all tonight, but stick tÐ this. and go
and make sure they understand what the five,conditiqns are, that
they have to meet, and we migh~ add some, after the public
hearing, and I'd I ike ,to put it off finally unti IWe hear what's
going on the,re, but I agree ~ith C~therine, that I t,hink we might
have to do .something in regard ,to the setback, and.~ know t~e 15Ø
.feet at Hudson Po i nte, but that, isn't a sacred number.
MR. BREWER~Rignt.
MR. PALING~I think we can come up. with ar~asonable number, but
they're going ,to have to ma,ntain that 'and when they do i,t, and
on that basis, I think we ought to move ahead.
MR. BREWER-By no means did I say stick at 15Ø feet,
impression that I'm giving. I'm not saying that.
that we.
if that',s the
I'm saying
MR. PALING-That land and the butterfly and the flower has got to
be protected,nQ question about it, but there's different ways of
d,o i ng it.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay, Bob, you just
that they have to meet. They I~ft
ago, and we gave them seven or eight
did meet. Now we're go~ng to send
more?
said, five more conditions
a month ago, almost a month
conditions that I think they
them away tonight with five
MR. PALING-No, no. This would not send them away.
MR. BREWER-No, cqnditions of, a mot ,i on.. to approve, ,or w~atever.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Conditions, you mean, a II right, o k.a y .
MR. PAL I NG-These,wou Id be" the, five I, have listed were covered
mostly here ,with engineering, and they can all be made
COlldit i ona I, but i twou I dn' t stop go i ng ahead" as far as.L:..m.
.concerned.
MR. RUEL-Approva I pred i,cated on these five items.
MRS. LABOMBARD-All right.
MR. OBERMAYER-How does everybody else feel about it?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Could we, I would, like to hav~ those five<items
really enumerated.
MR. PALING-DoYQU ,want me to list ~hem nÐw, or wai~ 'ti I after
the pubI ic hearing?
MRS. LABOMBARD-We I I, after the pubI ic hea~ing.
MR. PALING-Because.there may be more.,
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Roger? Anything from you?
MR,. RUEL-WeII, think all of this is very unfortunate, and
the appl icant. i,s trying to ,bui Id som,ethi,ng in a
en vir 0 n men t a I Iy s ens i t i ve are a, and t hat's not < h, i s f a u It.
only thing that V(as his fau I t .was cutting çlown a few.m~re
than he should have.
that
very
The
trees
MR,. BREWE~-Right, an~ that's nothing to do with us.
MR. RUEL-Right.No,w, I know it's hindsight, but d want this for
the record. I w,ould I.ike to fault the Town Board, tt.¡e Town Board
for being a little tOQ,hasty in making a ,determination to give
- 52 -
'-
--
away some land in a very sensitive area, and it seems to me that
the Town Board is doing planning for us. I would I ike to see the
Town Board, in the future, when they have something I ike this,
present tt to us and discuss it with us, since we have the
responsibi I ity for both planning and for environmental
assessment, and the whole thing's very unfortunate, and it's
making it difficult for everyone, but I would I ike to see a
situation like this not occur again, and I think the Town Board
better take a look at other lands in the community. I think we
have a lot of good land, a lot of sensitive land, a lot of so
cal led green acres, and lets ear mark these things, and lets keep
them that way~ Lets not get into another situation I ike this.
T hat's a I I I h a v e' to say.
MR. BREWER-Thank you. Craig?
MR. MACEWAN-I would just I ike to hear some real good ideas and
plans of what we can do to protect that lupine on that bank. I'd
I ike to hear from either Alane or from you of some real good,
hard plans that you have in mind with doing, fencing it, you
know, I mean, it's all kind of being tossed out in the air,
ideas. I want to hear somet hi ng concrete.
MR. NICOLLA-I have to acquiesce to Alane.
MR. MARTIN-Well. I think the thing that's threatening it the most
now, and if this doesn't go through, and wi I I continue to do so,
and even if this does, it wi II continue to do so, is the
intermittent use this site's getting, in terms of those trai Is
that are running through there. They're going through. That's
contributing to the erosion, and it's, obviously, they're not
being done with any concern for the plant species around there.
I'll defer to Alane, but I'd like to see, it would be !ID!
suggestion, some protection along that, the top of the ravine,
and shut off those trai Is, meaning, fencing, chain I ink fencing
or something to that effect, to just keep people out of this
site, because I think there's a potential that these motorcycle
people are going to be in there, or whoever's in those trai Is,
even after the plant's bui It, if it's approved. I think we've
got to keep the people out of those areas, at al I costs.
MR. RUEL-Yes. I don't think the appl icant would want the
motorcyclists on his property anyway.
MR. MARTIN-No. I don't think Native Texti les wants people riding
motorcycles alongside their parking lot, or alongside' their
warehouse.
MR. BREWER-Do you have any suggestions, Alane, other than in your
letter, or you really haven't had time to develop a plan?
MS. BALL-What you have to real ize is that the plant, the lupine
plant, is of very I ittle significance if there aren't butterfl ies
there to use it, and to ask the developer to go to some
extraordinary lengths to protect plants, without encouraging
Karner blue habitats, Karner blues to I ive there, is not a good
idea. It's a useless expense to the developer, and it's with the
best intentions of the Board to try to do something right for
that species there. I think that the best ecological management
of land takes place on nature preserves, and that it's
inordinantly expensive to ask a developer to go through a process
of de vel 0 pin g their part ic u I a r plans fort he t· r site when, In the
long run, we've already seen at this site, because there's a hard
time control I ing it. There's use of this site by kids, and
people, and there's erosion, and there's lots of things going on.
So it's a very difficult proposition to monlt~r a ~abitat like
this. I think that what you have here is the permanent removal
of a g rea t de a I 0 f h a bit at for the K a r n e r' b I u e but t e r fly. I tis
the Town Board's responslbi Ilty. You're absolutely right that it
was a wrong designation of an Industrial site, and this is
- 53 -
probably one of the most extraordinary ecological sites in Warren
Co~nty. I would ,suggest that perhaps the compromise that would
best occur here is that some funding from this project go toward
good Karner b<lue work. which I tried to oUi~l,ine in my letter. and
what ,I a.lso w<an,t t,o continue ,to do with the Town. as you go
through your comprehensive planning process. so that this doesn't
take place at every site. so that as you go. when you see random
industrial zones. there's no barriers there. They're removed.
The,re's ,no ho I d, up. We don't have tQ wa it \,Int iI. thebutterf lies
fly in to go figure out if it's there. That's the kind of thing.
We've done a lot of work this year to locate al I existing
populations. It's not going to be that big of a dea,1 for us to
go through and say. here are the areas that rea I I Y need to be
protected. and ~ere' s how to, manage t,hem proper I y. So what .L:..Q.
'ike to .avoid, is ~ lot of detai led Karner bl~e management plans
for this site. It's a very di'fficult., i,t's a very difficult
proposition. What you're having here ,is a loss of habitat which
should be compensated for elsewhere. and that's my professional
opinion. I also thing. you've got a real ,nice environmental area
that could be developed for a publ ic use.
MR. PALING-There's one thing I'd I ike you to clarify. You're
saying. you're intimating. at least that's the impressiQn I'm
getting. that this development is causing a backward movement in
regard to the lupine flower. I don't think that's right. because
you also said that when you open an area up. it promotes the
flqwer.and,if it's left closed in by lots of trees. it doesn't
flourish.
MS. BALL-You're right. You're absolutely right. but what I hear
going back and forth at the meetings is your con~ern. you ~ave a
number of concerns that are other than the butterfly. One is
erosi.on and wetland~ protection. and to protect wetlands. the
developer suggested a control mat. Is that some sort of
vegetation7
MR. HERSHBERG.-Wel I. what it is. it.' s a very spars,el y woven
material that you would lay on top of the surface. and then fi II
it with a certain amount of topsoi I. and then you seed it. and
w;hat that does. . it ,prevents the new vegetat ion ,from ¡s,liding down.
and this is a pla~tic material which the plants wi I I just grow
into it. and that provides the anchoring to the surface. and you
start a little h,igher. YoudQn't star,t right on the soi I. So it
has some anchoring.
MS. BALL-,W,ell. the material t,hat, they would plant. imported top
so i I. i ~a not:! nat i ve. is grass I ~wn stuff. r i ght7
MR. HERSHBERG-We' re go i ng to stock pile as mu<ch to.p so i I from the
site as we need to.
~ .~
MS. BALL-But 1;l:Iat top so i lis ~and. .and ,no,'~h i ng rea,l Iy ro,oty is
go i ng to .st~y ,t here.
MR. HERSHBERG-Whatever we have there. that's al I we.
MS. BALL-Well. anyway. this i.s the kinti of thing I mean. It's
going to take a lot to work on that. ~nd I'm one. employee from
the Nature Conservancy to save the Karner blue butterfly in New
York State. I'm it. So I'm trying to figure out where I can
best put my resources to do th.is. and it's a ,very endangered
thing. and. frankly. to go through the detai led process that it
would take to doeco I og i ca I management of a site like this.. and
to ask the developer to do that I think is unfair to both of us.
MR. BREWi;.R-So what you're saying is we ,should just
it is and f~rget about it7
leave it like
MS. BALL-No. I'm not saying that you should leave it I ike it is.
I'm just saying that wegan provide some assistance. I ike I said
- 54 -
'----
-----'
in the letter. Talk to Jim. if they want me to work with the
Planning Staff<about that. there are some general guidelines.
MR. MARTIN-It strfkes me as you say right in your letter ~hat the
butterfly has been 'sighted at the Corinth Road power corridor.
MS. BALL-Right.
MR. MARTIN-Which
site7
is not more than. what. a half a mi Ie from this
MS. BALL-Right.
MR. MARTIN-So it stirlkes me that if we can foster a significant
growth; of the lupiine plant in this area. that there is a high
posslbll ity. from my layman's point of 'view of these types of
things. that that butterfly population has the chance to expand
a long these rav I nes. and maybe into th i s rav I ne. I f we foster
enough growth of that plant here.
MS. BALL-That's potentially correct. but what I'm trying to.
MR. MARTIN- think that's a risk I'd ike to take.
MS. BALL-Okay.
MR. MACEWAN-We I I. that's what I kind of was getting at. What
come first. the lupine or the butterfly7 If the lupine comes
first. then the butterfly finds it and habitats there. correct7
MS. BALL-Right.
MR. MACEWAN-So if you just let it go the way it is.
the banks erode they are. you're not going to have
there.
and you let
any lupine
MS. BALL-I'm not so sure. because the lupine seeds' sprout in bare
soi I.
MR. MACEWAN-But if It's eroded away. there's not goIng to be any
bare soi I theré ifor the lupine to sprout In.
MR. MARTIN-I saw lupine pl~nts
literally.
In motorcycle tire tracks.
MS. BALL-Yes. It wi lire-sprout after a slgnificðnt disturbance
I ike this site development. So I think we can accommodate. but
the thing is. we do have to look at who owns the land in between
the Corinth Road and the power line.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. but I'm saying. in the interest of an overal I
comprehensive plan for this area that you speak to. that thè Town
looks at this entire area. this is the first in a bufldlng block.
and maybe through efforts the Town can make in the future. in
this entire area. the power corridor. Hudson Polnt~ and al I that.
the green way of Hudson River as a whole. we can begin to foster
these type of things. but anything I ike this comes into play in
an incremental. step by step fash'lon. and somebody's got to take
the f i'rst step.
MR. RUEL-Great. Everybody agrees.
MR. BREWER-I don't know what we agrèed to.
we're going to do.
don't know what
MR. PALING-I think what we're saying is that maintain the land.
have a management program that wi I I foster the growth of the
lupine flower. and then let nature take it's course.
MR. BREWER-So I 'guess what I'm wondering is. who's going to
- 55 -
develop that ~Ian?
MR. NICOLL<A-What I wou.ld I ike<. to suggest is why don't we work
with Alane. and Jim? We all.can sit here tonight. but think
what Alane has said. and I don't want to,put wO,rids . in her mouth.
she can't do it here tonight. and she's not prepared to 40 it.
She would Uk/e to work on. it with .,Jim. and I would $,4Y p,a¡rt of
the condition for Certificate of Occupancy be that we submit a
plan that is acceptable to the Planning Board.
MR. RUEL-Is that one of your conditions?
MR. PALING-Yes. That's one of ,the.co,nditions.
MR. NICOL~A-That's al I right with me.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. I'm going to
great extent. because I'm going
what conditions are present in
other plants down there. just
other. orange?
consult with Alane on that to a
to depend on her for tel I ing me
order to foster the. and we saw
not the lupine. What was the
MS. BALL-The butterfly also requir~s. during the second brood.
which is out now. the lupine is no longer flQwering. so it needs
other plants to feed on. and there are a great variety of plants
there. So it's a good qual ity habitat. and there's ~utterfly
<lost word) speciesavai lable.
MR. MARTIN-And I
e~forts with the
mentioned in your
heard you a I so say ,that yqU' ref through your
Nature Con.servancy. bu i I d i ngseed ball.ks. you
letter.
MS. BALL-Bight.
MR. MARTIN-I mean. if we can aCC,ess some of. these ,seed. banks and
mayþe plant.
MS. BALL-But th,ey don't exist right now because we don't. have the
funding for them.
i'
MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Wel I. wt;len you 2.2.. get the funding. then.
MR. BREW~R-l!. they do. Let them work, that out.
MS. BALL-Right. Everyone could help. What continually happens
is that Planning Boards agree with us. and ask the developer to
plant native species. They, say. ,o,kay. this is approved if, you
plant native species. There's nowhere to buy native species.
..... x-"
MR. BREWER-You've got them right there.
MR. OBERMAYER-They'l I spread. right?
..
MS. BALL-No. You need to do something.,
MR.
Jim
and
BREW~~~Okay. How about .we do
and cQmeup with a plan that's
then we'll put it in place.
this. You work with Joe and
,a~ceptable to y~u,and to them.
.<
MS. BALL-Okay.
MR. BREWER-'And we can make that as a condition. alJ;d I, think Mr.
Nicol la concurred that he woul~ do that.
.
MR. NICOLLA-As a condition of Certificate of OCQupancy.
MR. BREWER- Yes.
MR. MACEWAN-Without getting a ,CO. '
- 56 -
--
-.-"'"
MR. MARTIN-What I see here. quite frank. with the ravine. is a
chance for a win/win situation here. It's obviously property
that the developers are not interested in. for obviouè reasons.
but I think your trained eye can see that there's a great
eco I og I ca I resource that ex ists on the banks of that rav I net and
maybe we can foster some positive attitude here about presence of
the lupine and other plants and like I said. maybe over time the
butterfly habitat can expand.
MR. BREWER-Okay. So you' I I work with them and come up with a
plan that's acceptable to al I parties?
MS. BALL-Yes.
Is that under time?
MR. BREWER-I'm sure they'l I be happy to do it as fast as they
can. because It' I I be a cond i t i on of occupancy.
MS. BALL....Okay.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a couple of things to say. First of al I.
in regard to Roger's comment ear Ii er. I just don't want to I eave
with the fact that maYbe the Board should be chastised. and I'm
not 'kissing up either. I don't want that on the record. but I
think that the Town Board acted in the best interest of the
people of this Town. and I ike somebody just said. that they
weren't aware that this was a fragi Ie area. and I just don't want
to. I don't want what Roger said Is Roger's opin~ons. ahd I don't
wa~~ to be pa~t of those opinions. and I also think it should be
on the record that. we've said this before. that the Col'umbia
Development Group has compl led to al I of our requests. and
they've apologized. and they're making restitution for cutting
more than they were supposed to cut. and I think that they are.
m'Y personal opinion. and I don't know if I'm that good Of a judge
of character. but I think Joe has acted in very good faith. and
Alane. one thing for you I know that came up in the past. some of
the money that. whatever. it better stay in the Town. I mean. if
the Karner blue butterfly has habitats elsewhere. such as the
Town of Wi Iton. that's totally. as far as ~ concerned. out of
the questioh. Any kind of remuneration that we get or that you
get. or whatever. that has to go toward the environmental aspect.
make sure. I mean. I don't think that there would even be any
issue that it would have to be done in the Town of Queensbury.
and that's al I I would I ike to say. Thank you.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
I'll open it up for the publ ic. I guess.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
ROLAND AKINS
MR. AKINS-Roland Akins. I I ive on the Corinth Road. for the last
50 years. He mentioned a half a mile to the river. I was In it
the other day. and I paced it off. It's within four to five
hundred feet to the wetland. I consider the wetland the river.
It is Town land. I think we should set an example. the Town.
There's been mistakes made. admitted to. It's been zoned wrong.
I think there's members of the Town Board. I've heard comments.
that would really I ike to back off (lost word). It's left up to
this Board. It's on their hands. I think they should take a
good look at it. We worked for two or three years to protect
Hudson Pointe. Trying to get a plan that was reasonable.
Niagara Mohawk. the Michaels Group sacrificed probably mi I I ions
of do II ars to protect some env i I"onment. Now. it's up to th i s
Board. and I think before you vote on anything you should make
sure you know what you're voting on. Go into the area. not just
the this parcel of land. but the other parcel of land that the
Town owns. wh i ch it's go i ng to effect. I n one respect. I fee I
this is more sensitive than Hudson Polnte. At Hudson Pointe. the
- 57 -
runoff ,goes i 1"1 t 0 the I" i vel" . It's been sa i d by past Town ,60 a I" d s ,
well, tomorrow it will be in Albany. Well, it won't be on this
p a I" c e I.. Any I" uno ff, any po I 1.1,.1 t ion ' s g Q i 1"1 g to I a y i, ,1"1 t hat
wetland. I'm for jobs in Queensbury. I think ,we ,need them, but
I think there's other alternatives. I'm not for sacrificing
environment for jobs. I'm sure ,this, outfj,t can make other
arrangements. They've also said tonight they were thinking of
talking to Carey., Why shouldn't,we just table it u.ntll they do
make a, have.a meeting? Why vQte on tt)is,tonigt)t, and if they
can buy X numb~r of ,acres from Carey, the Town cou.ld give them a
few acres in the back there :t;q he I,p th~"i I" dev,e I,opment, as Long as
they stick to the standards that have been se~,with Hudson
Pointe, as 15Ø fee,t from the bank~ ,I don~t thin.k Lt's fair to
anybody. to go any I.ess than a 90mplete,EIS on this. The Town
Board, the residents of Queensbury, Niagara Mohawk, in
partic~lar. they sacrificed a IQt. You guys should, the people
that ~aven't looked into this area, that should go into it. I
have no, idea. I t hi nk some of you have been in t her.e, but you
say you've been into this ravine.
ì
MR. STARK-I've .been onto this parcel.
MR. AKI.NS-That parçel. To go in.tothe rav!ne, it:s an ~ntirely
different situati.on. I mean, I just thLnkthat no ,matter what
ENCON set backs" t ~ey sa i d t he same t h Lng at I;tudson Po i nt e, but
the Town ove¡;-rl,.l,led. I. mean, we want ,some:thing be.tte<r than that.
DEC would say one thing one week an~ another thing the next week
on Hudson Po i.nte. We bat.t led that f()r two years, but ,we got a
good plan. .Now just to have a company come in and, he mentioned
at ttl,e las1; meeting if they can't .make i,t .90 in six months
they' 1'" gol.ng to pul lout. To b~ threatened I ike that and
sac I" if ice 0 U I" en v i I" 0 1"1 men t , , I don ' t t h ink i sri, g h t . I t h ink
you're a verY"C¡ompetent Board, and you shou I d look a,t i.t tw ice.
.MR. BREWER~Thank you. Anybody else?
EMILY AKINS
MRS. AKINS-Emi Iy Akins, Route 4, Corinth Road. I'm talking to
you regarding the proposed site plan for the Native Texti les off
Corinth Road, and my opinion, as we I I as numerous others, this
site is far too fragi Ie and sensitive to al Iowan approval to be
made wit hout a.f 1,.1 I I en v i ro,nmenta I !l1Ip~ct. st udy be i ng compl eted.
The site is situ.at.ed aLong a steep bluff of a large ,ravine which
runs to the ~Udson River. This par~icular ravin. hosts two very
important ~oo septic, one being a potential large habitat of the
blue Karner butterfly, .the s.eco.nd be.ing a, significant spring that
empt i es < into, the extens i ve wet I and, the same wet I and that was
saved, with the help of many people, is now threatened again.
,Many of the same concerns that were raised for Hudson Pointe need
to be addr~ss,d for this project , as we I I. As activity increases
along the top of t~e bluff, erosion wi II threaten their
ex istençe. Wt;len a rete,nt i on bas i n and a :'arge s,ept i c system are
p,ut in place along sandy banks, the sen~itive ,wetlands run the
risk of being pol Iute~ and eventually .destroyed~ W~thout proper
research and t.he stl,ldy, the large potential. habitat for blue
Karner,ooulddisappear. Much concerned effo~t,and work was put
into the HUd,on Pointe prgject in order to save the wetlands of
the Hudson River for future generations. The same needs to be
d,one for this project as ,well. It. is not that I am against
promot i ng interest in jobs in Queensbury, ,t;>ut at the expense of
destroying our environment. With caref~Jplans and a ful lEIS
and the help of the Open Space Institute, industry can be here,
and a clean River, too. Thank you.
MR. MACEWAN-Thank you.
MR. BREWER-Anyone else?
STERL I.NG AK INS
- 58 -
--'~
MR. STERLING AKINS-I'm Just gOing to leave some pictures ~p here
for everybody to look at whi Ie I'm talking. Those' pictures were
taken within 1SØ feet of their back property I ine, on the creek
and then beyond 'the creek there.
MR. BREWER-Would you just Identify yourself, for the record?
MR. STERLING AKINS-Sterling' A~ins, corinth Road. That creek Is
about four feet wide, that you can see running down through
there. In some places, you can't hardly Jump across it, and,
years ago, when we got the injunction against the Town so that
they couldn't use this for a landfi I I, this val ley, ENCON did a
survey there and found that there was trout in the stream, and
that was their point against (lost word). At the same time,
Hudson River Val ley Commission surveyed the area and they decided
that there shouldn't be any landfi II ever in the area, and I
don't know they ever put any other restrictions against the
property at the time, but as you can see from those things there,
those pictures, that it's really a sensitive pr6perty. I don't
think that the Planning Board should do anything without a ful I
EIS on this property, the same as Hudson Pointe had :to do, and
for your information, that 15Ø feet that everybody's talking
a b 0 u the r e ton i g h tis the ba c k I i n eon the lot s . Any b u I I din g s
that would be bui It on those lots would be probably another 2Ø to
3Ø feet inside of that. So, actually, the 1SØ feet is a little
bit, compared to What it actual Iyls protected up there. I agree
with the people 'that this is a little farther away from the
River. but It's a lot closer to that ravine than what the Hudson
Pointe is. Someof the ~itlgatlon here tonight on the septic
system I think has Improved it a lot from what it was before, but
I'm concerned, later on, if they want to do any other bui Iding
here, that you're going to overload that system, and the Town, if
Native Texti Ie ever decided to put their m~in plant up there,
with their (lost word) system and so on, I don't know what they'd
do. They'd have to, they would have to have a sewage system in
there. Thank you.
MR. BREWER-Thank you.
speak?
Is there anyone else who would care to
JACK CUSHING
MR. CUSHING-Good evening. My name is Jack Cushing. am a
reSident of the Town of Queensbury, and I'm on a number of Boards
In the Town of Queensbury. I'm speaking, tonight, as a very
private Citizen. I'm extremely pleased, tonight, with the plans
that the' Native Texti Ie engineers have given us. They have
answered the Board's questions fully, where they can, and they
have been very, very flexi~le,and they ~ave been wi I I ing to work
with the Board, and they are not sacrificing environment for
jobs, and 1'1 I bet my bottom dol tar that when they get through,
this area wi I I be In better shape immediately and In the future
than if that land lay dormant with kids and adults walking,
cl imbing, riding bikes, and with the three and two wheel vehicles
going over it .., the time, setting camp fires and destroying the
vegetation, unsupervised. Lastly, I think we are doing a great
disservice to Native Texti les if this continues. They're going
to say, forget it, and who is going to beat a loss at this,
we're going to lose. No additional jobs. No tax revenues, no
add it i ona I sa I es for I oca I enterpr i ses, n'o planned deve I opment.
Lets pass this appl ¡cation tonight before we are left holding
nothing. Thank you.
MR. BREWER-Thank you.
Is there anyone else?
JOHN LEMERY
MR. LEMERY-H i . My name is John Lemer'Y.
Texti les. Native Texti les, as a company
intended to locate a plant on a piece
I'm counsel to Native
in the area, has never
of I and that wasn't
- 59 -
acceptab I e or envÍcron,menta I I Y so sens It i ve that it wo;u I dr)' t for
the facility. and did.not intend to involve ,the Town .in a
controversy or problem that divided its citi,zens. That is not
Nat i ve Text i Ie's approach to its < ì corporate ex I stence. I t has
been a long t,lme employer in Glens Fa<ll.s. 11; used to.be th~ H &
F Finch Company. and has employed people for a long time.
operates a dy~ pi ant down there. has met, ,and exceeded., a I I of
DEC's require~ents and standard~ and would not do anything that
wou I.d cause Its reputat i on to suf"('e,r In 1:¡he Town of Queen$bury.
I w 0 u I d I i k e 1: 0 . i n any kin d 0 f sit u a, t 1,0 n I i k e t his. you so r t 0 f
have to ba,l ance the compet i n.g I nter.ests. :and. whenth i s site was
f ! r s t 0 b s e r V. e d . I'. d I i key 0 u to k e e pin m i n d t hat the who 1< e Car e y
Industrial Park Is the same kind of land. Now. the Carey
Industrial Park Is zoned Light Indus.trial,. The ro.ad,s have been
put in. and,,1;he Carey family and I,nterests have. that land for
sale for development. It is the exact same land. I've walked all
over it. personally, and I went ,wl~h ,y;im Martin.w<hen we. first
learned about this site. and walked all over ' the, site. Including
down in the ravine and the area. So I speak with personal
knowledge. It's the same land. The plec~ of land ~hat ispwned
by the Lebowitz family. directly to the north of this. that
borders on C,or i n1; h Road. is a l.so zoned 1.,1 ght, I nd,ust r I a I. The
Town land beh i nd it i.szoned L i gh,t Indlþstr I a I. The on l.y issue
here is this,ravlne, as I understa,nd It. apd,there is no ,intent.
on the part o,f, Natl,ve. or Its devel,op~r. ,to Elnaroach int,o. that
r, a v I n e 0 r get I n tot he., r av ,i n e i n a n y¡ way. ,i, \IV e h a vet 0 , rei yon DE C
standards. We have to rely,on the standBrds that ar~ put forth
by the EPA and DEC. to meet the septic and ,other reç:p,¡irements.
Unfortunately, the Town isn't ,sewered. If, the T9wn iF:! that area
were sewered, we wouldn't be having this dis~ussion. Some day,
hopefully. it'll get sewered. the,re'll be_ a district, and we
won't have, to deal. with these I:<ind~ Qf issues. One thing I want
you to unders.tand Is that as soon as t.hebuilçtlng,is built. and
the bui Idlng Is turne;d over to ;Na1;ive'i that it's Native's
responsibility. not Columbia's. It~.s Native's q~$ponsit;lility to
maintain the site. It's Native's responslbi I ity to maintain the
buildings. the land. and to meet the requirements that you set
her~., Nat.ive is th,e. corporate employe<r that ¡will bear that
responsibl I ity. So to the extent that you know about Native
Texti les and Its corporate history. to the extent that this wi I I
be owned by Nat i ve. you have Nat I ve' s r.eputat Ion and
creditworthiness and responsibi I ity behind this site. I don't
agree with"the< Nature Conservancy, peo,ple that thi,s is a hugely
environmental I y sens it i ve area. It. i senv ironment a, I, I Y .sens i t i ve.
in terms of the ravine and the lupine, but as I understand it,
lupine grows where there is vacant land. Tim Brewer is correct.
a Iso. He,. t a I k s a b 0 u t w h e the r 0 r not, at so m e pol (\ t . "N a t i ve w 0 u I d
I ike to possibly , put a war,ehouse on ..the, site. The answer is.
maybe yes. We can ' t speak: to that today. Þecause we have no
author i t.y to go aheiad an.d get It started". ,but, at some pol nt that
may happen. If it does. it has to, be .I,ocated next .to the
manufactur i ng p,1 ant in or,der tQ be,l ~tfect i.ve,. The, . who I e
ratiOl')ale for mc;>vi,ng Native Texti Ift$ frc;>mll Its D~llas.
Pennsylvania plant ~p GI~ns,Fal Is was t~ avoid contlQ~al material
hand I ing ~nd moving it's products_back and ~prth up the highways
250 mi les. and so it's the hope of Native. and when Native
approac~ed the QEDC a,nd the Town BO,ard, it, wa~ with the
underst~ndlng that the Parcel ,wQuld be large ,nough to
accommodate the possibil ity of a warehouse. That's the most
ben i gn use. ,A warehouse is a warehouse., There are ,very few
people in it. It doesn't inV91ve any indu.trial ~se. and by the
way, there'.s no ef~lu~nt here. by Native. Other th~n the
emp, I oyees human use .p:f, <the tQ I I etsys1;em . there,' s no e,f,f I uent.
What goes ,out in the dumpster's Is a II ta~en 1;0 th~ ¡bt rn p I ant. or
recyc I ed. Tl:1ere' s no eff I uent of any kind. ,There's no processed
water of any kind that ,is used. So the only thing.,th.at goes out
of the mill. goes out in a waste management or spr i nger '. tr:uo,k. and
goes e i thert.o a I andf i I I ,or to the, .trash plant 01", whereve.r. So
there is no ¡,ssue there, either. with respect to ,the site. In
sum and substance. Native would intend to be a good neighbor. If
- 6" -
"'-,-
----."
you impose a 15Øf oot buffer here, on t'heedge of this ravine,
you wi II impose a condition on Native which poses an extremely
great hardship. The 75 feet that has been discussed by Joe
Nicol la would be what Native would ask you to deal with. Native
assures you that if there is a 5Ø 'foot w I de area for a road or
for fire vehicles, and if there's a 25 foot area betwØen that and
the ravine, nothing wil I go in there. Native wi I I protect it.
Native wi I I see, in fact, that it's better pro'tected than It is
now. When Jim Mar~in and I walked the site, we found an abandon
car and a bunch of junk'down that ravine. That wi I I not be the
case with Native Texti les. The spring, I recognize the issues
connected with that. That's not anywhere near this site, and so.
MR. BREWER-It's on your property, Isn't it, John, the spring?
How can you say It's not anywhere near the spring?
MR. LEMERY-I don't bel ieve it's anywhere near the site where the
buildings are located, Tim.
MR. BREWER-It's at the bottom of the ravine.
MR. LEMERY-The very southern end of the site, nowhere near where
there would be an:y human use or human habitation, in term's of the
bu i Id i ngs, and Nat I ve 'wou I d respect that and protect it. So
Native, speaking for Native, we agree with your conditions. We
would Intend to abide by them, and make sure that they're carried
out, once Native 90~S into occupancy, which Isat the completion
of the bui Idlng: The only thing ~ aSking on behalf of Native
Is that you consider very carefully 'the 75 feet, because If you
Impose any more, we don't think we could fit the warehouse in
there, If, In fact, at some later date, It's possible to put the
warehouse. Iwl I t tell you this, there's no plan, ever, to
relocate the dye house from Glens Fal Is out there. That is not
in Native's plans, th~t would never be done, and that's not
Nat ive' s ,I ntent. So you don't have to worry about that. Thank
you.
MR. BREWER-Th~nk you.
speak?
Is there anyone else who would care to
PLINEY TUCKER
MR. TUCKER-PI Iney Tucker, Division Road, Queensbury. I asked Jim
Mart into get some' Informat Ion. Did you find out anyth I ng more
about what we were 'ta Ik I ng about?
MR. MARTIN-No. I talked to the Regulatory Affairs person In
Albany about the potential existence of any other violations by
Columbia land or any clvi I fines or anything like that. They
keep a running record of flnes'$25,ØØØor more that are levied,
and they were not on that I ist. I placed some cal Is to other
agencies to try and get some more information, but the Ðal Is were
not returned in time for tonight's meØtlng, but I did talk to the
one i nd I v idua I, I th ink it' sGeorge Damsk In, in the Regu I atory
Affairs Division of DEC, and that's what he indicated to me.
MR. TUCKER-I have been, I guess, Involved with this thing from
<the get go. I don't think, at any time, anyone criticized Native
Texti les for what's been going on on this property. Now,
Columbia Development Group Is the people that are going to
develop this property. Development Group. It seems like they
should know about the environmental rules and regulations. It
appears they came In here and circumvented al I the rules and
regulations, circumvented this Board right here, with their
actions. Now, they've apologized. They've said they were wrong.
They've agreed to make restitution for the trees they've cut.
They don't agree with what the Town says they've got to pay, but
they've agreed to make restitution. Now, tonight, again, they're
asking you to setd I fferent standards for t'hem . Me, personal I y,
they've got to come a long ways before they get special
- 61 -
treatment, because they certainly didn't come in h~re and treat
us the ,way ~ should have been treated. I, agree with the
agencies. I bel ieve, that you .should do an Environmental Impact
Statement on <th is. I be I i eve that the standards that were set
for Hudson Pointe should apply here and to any other pi~ce of
property along the ijudsonRiver. Yo~ onc~ set a standard, and if
you Uve to, t h~t< standard, and t re.at. everybody the . same, you
don't have any problems~. Thank you.
MR. BREWER-Thank you.,
comment?
I s there anyone e I:s.e who wou Id care to
DON KRUGER
MR. KRUGER-My name i.s Don Kruger, and I'm a resident , of the Town
of Queensbury, and I've a I so had t he e~Per i ence . of ' davel op i ng
land. At the time I did it, most of you folks Were !lot on the
Planning Board. I'd just like 1;0 express, from a deve!,oper's
point of view, the frustration that someone can go through, by
the time they buy land, pay land pl.anners, surveyors, engineers,
had the Town (lost word) to ,fi:ght you, and ~II the steeple chase
that you have tQ go through to get your approvals., Now,
apparent I<y, this has a 1.1 been . done: on .th i s I an<;l,.1 Now we're
ho I ding someþody back who wants ..to do someth i \1g pos it i ve. They
want to bui Id<,something that wi II brjD.g employment,i.nto the Town,
wi II be an asset" wi II be a tax ratable, wi II improve ,pur Town.
Yes, there are .environmental conçerns. From a, Aeveloper's
standpoint, I had a ravine. I had a creek. No,,;,ldidn''t._ have
Karner, .but I did have lady s I.i pper ,. and Jack i 1'1 th~ ,p,ul p its, and
I had a neighbor who~when she got done with her six hours and
fifteen. minutes of teach i n,g sChoo,I, devoteQ herse I f to mak i ng
sure that I went crazy protecting it. What destroyed them were
motorcycles. . Every effo.rt I made to ,stop anyone's ,chi;ldren from
running through my land and destroying those flow.ers, that
vegetation, was met with pure frustrati,on. I got zero, ht':)l,p from
the Town of Qu~ensbury i.n any way, shape, ,or form. They wou Id
not back me up with any legislation, noise regulations, anything.
When I went to the chi Idren's parents, I met with total
frustration, was greeted with, whatever. The pol ice were less
than helpful. I guess I finally outgrew the kids that did that.
So I don't have them anymore, but I also don't have the flowers
that were involved. It was frustrati~~. incred¡b~e ,amQµnt of
money and energy was expended. I did everything I could to
protect the lands, and I'm sure that Columbia Development wi I I
also do the same. Most of you folks don't know Joe Nicol la
except for the I ittle time that you've seen him here at these
meet i ngs. I. h.ave known the man for te.n years. I.'ve. done
business with him in the hundreds of thousands of dol lars, some
of it simply on a handshake. The man has I ived up to absolutely
ever word he's ever said that he would do and more, to the point
of, if he was employed by somebody who wanted to beat you up,
dollar wise, that the man stood up, at the point of changing his
emp I oyment . ,He used to work for pyram i d Comp.any., Yes .he had
ideological differences with them. Most of you have dealt with
Pyramid. I have, very unsuccessfully. Every deal that I did
with Mr. Nicol.la, he kept absolutely .ever word that he said he
would do and more,and I ~hink that if you go aLong with him.
you' I I. see t h a ~ hew i I I I i Ve 1,1 p to his ' word wit h you, and a s a
land developer,. I'd just like to say, (lost ,word) how it feels
from the oth~r side. when you put your money and your ef10rt out
and t 0 be met wit h f r 1,1 s t rat ion., and,. I'd I i key 01,1 t 0. t a k e a I 00 k
atthQse two points. Than~ you.
MR. BREWER-Thank you.
1st her e a I') y 0.1'1 eel s e?
MR. DEMARS
MR. DEMARS-My name
Queensbury. I guess
this evening. First,
is Mr. DeMars. and I I ive in the Town of
I have to com~ at you at a different angle
I have to commend you on your abi I ity to
- 62 -
>0_'
withstand the heat from both sides. I have to commend Mr. Martin
for his going to be, hopefully, establ ishing different
committees, to be set up In the Town and these committees wi I I
research a lot of this so that we don't go through this anymore.
I have ~o commend Mr. Brewer, because he's á one man, oneþerson,
one vote person. He feels that he's dOing right with what he's
doing, as wel I as the rest of the Board members. The way 1'1 I
come at you now is from the tax standpoint. What we have is a
dumming down practice for the tax payers, and my questions would
be, why? Why should the tax payers of the Town of Queensbury be
dummed down? Hopefully, some of these committees wi I I take care
of this problem that we've got. By dumming down I mean by the
corporate world. Corporate America comes upon a smal I town,
smal I like Queensbury, and lays out a format, we promise you
this, we promise you that. We' I I promise you the world, just
g~ve us your land. In this particular case, this particular
company is fore I gn owned. It's fore gn owned, and if you've ever
read a book "America - Who Really Pays the Taxes", you' I I find
out who really Is going to pay the t~xes on everything that is
acquired within this area. In the first place, they aren't
b u í I dIn g it. It' st he t a x payers that are building it. The tax
payers in New York State. They have gotten more incentives to
come into ~his area and bui Id than any organization I'vé< ever
seen. I ' ve never 'agreed with Mr. PI i nèy Tucker, but on some
issues, in this particular case, I guess I'll have to. I have to
commend the Board of the Town of Queensbury on the work that
they've done, as far as attracting outside entitles into the
area, and meeting employment, etc.. bùt I think, really, on this
part i cu;1 ar s i tuat ion, I th i nk it's the tax payers that are
paying. When you give an organization, a Fortune 5ØØ, a Fortune
4ØØ, i.e. this companYi a tax incéntive to pay $15ØØ a year for
~en years, somewhere along the I ine, it's the tax payers within
this Town that's getting hur~. The only thing that I can say,
lets not do it again. If this gets approved, lets learn from our
mistakes. I'm sure they'll learn from theirs. I would just like
to go on record that I would recommend a total EIS on this
project, just I ike the other ones. Thank you.
MR. BREWER-Thank you.
comment?
Is there anyone else who'd c~re to
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. BREWER-What do we do? Do we want to go through thø SEQRA?
Do we want to talk about our conditions that we want to set?
MR. RUEL-Do you stil I have the same five co~ditions?
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. RUEL-Do you want to go through them.
MR. BREWER-And if anybody's got anything to add or take away,
we' I I.
MR. PALING-Yes. AI I right. The five conditionS I have listed
are, first of all, that they wi II dodge, for lack of a better
word, the archeological problem, that they wi I I go around It and
won't Interfere with It. We wi II assume that that's done.
Second, I'm going to call engineering specifications. There's
quite a number òf them. There's just too many to list, but
they're going to have to work with Jim Martin and Rist-Frost to
resolve the septic specification problems that there are, and
come up with a plan acceptable to Jim and his group.
MR. BREWER-For the retention basin or for the septic, or for
both?
MR. PALtNG-AI I of < the Items In the Rist-Frost report.
- 63 -
MR. BRE~ER~And ~hey are going to fl ip flop them. and they are
going to go to 8,. not a raised system.. a, Fi II System.
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-So that's the first basic 1¡hing. the Board is
accepting of the fl ip flopping of the retention basin and the
septic sy~tem as a fun~amental.
MR. N I COLLA-And the septic system asa F i I I Syst e,m.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
, ,
MR. PALING-A~ lorrg as, but Rist~Frost.
blessJng. If Rist-Frost blesses it.
pr,obab I y go a I,ong with ,i t.
I ass u me. w i I I
then Ilt"'ink.
put ~t he i r
we .,wou I d
MR. MACNAMARA-That was our in i t. i a.1 ,recomJ11endat i 01;1 before we
sought the fl ip f oP. wa~ a Fi II System wj,th-8, 1~Ø foot from the
top of the ravine to the edge of the septic taper.
MR. PALING-Okay. and then, the thirdt/;ling has ,to do ~ith
Karner butterfly and the lupine plant. and that is that
be a plan documented and approved by August 16th,
co r.r e c t, ion, if, any n ~ e d ed, i nth e m a i n ten a n c e to bene fit
flower and the butterfly if it appears.
the blue
there'll
for the
both the
MR. BREWER-Is that plenty of time. Alane?
, .
MR. PALING-You said 3Ø days, so I made that August 16th.
MR. BREWER-Why don't we make it to the end of August. just make
it easier?
MR. NI COLLA-The end of August or right aft~r:' Lal:),or. Oay?
MR. BREWER-The end of August.
·1
MR. MACEWAN-August 31.
MR. BREWER-The last day of August.
1;/
MR. PALING-August 31st. Item Number Four is that there also be
an erosioncontroJ plan submitted ~o that no ,matter where the
setbacks end,. that there is protection a.cross the. around the
entire perimet~r of the property so that no erosion wi I I occur.
MR. NICOLLA-That wi I I also be reviewed and accepted by Rist-
Frost.
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR.., 0 B ERMA Y E R -, S P e c i f i c a I I Y a r 0 u n d t: her a v i n e , rig h t. Bob?
MR. PALING-Yes, very specifically around the area of the ravine.
MR. BREWER-And when would you want that in place?
MR. PALING-Do you want to make it the same
Is that a?
date as August 31st?
j/: :
MR.OBERMAyçR-1 wO.uld think he c041d put that to,gether pretty
fast. Couldn't 11e,?
i (
MR. BREWER- would think faster than that~
MR. NICOLLA-I would say that we should be able.to have that in
place August 1st.
MR. PA~ING-August 1st.
- 64 -
MR. MACNAMARA-Are you talking about temporary stormwater erosion
control measures Or a permanent set up for the site?
MR. MARTIN-We're talking about permanent. right?
MR. PALING-Yes. I'm talking permanent. not temporary.
MR. MACNAMARA-Okay. So it's more than just s i It fenc i ng and hay
bale terracing. I just want to make sure that I understood what
you guys were talking about.
MR. NICOLLA-I just want to be clear. mean. what you're
concerned about specifically right now is the area that's eroding
right here. because in the plans for this project. In this
manufacturing facfl ity. the only real potential that exists here
in this new plan is really right here. and any other a~~as that
were potentially disturbed when we were out cutting trees. So I
think that's the area that we'd address now. If we ever did
anything in the' futur-e. we'd address it when we got closer to the
ravine.
MR. PALING-Well the area along the raVine is sti II the most
sensitive that we're talking about. yes.
MR. NICOLLA-And this area right here is the area that's the most
sensitive right now.
MR. BREWER-Where it started to erode. right now. is where you're
talking.
MR. MACNAMARA-And that could be covered by having some
stipulation that any distance associated with any type of
development. if you wi II. then undergoes this erosion control
plan for the ravine. and if there's nothing there. then it
doesn't apply. but When there is something there. it would apply.
MR. MARTIN-Something that immediately comes to mind is a planted
berm.
MR. OBERMAYER-Right.
MR. BREWER-Yes. al I right. How big of a berm. though?
MR. MAONAMARA-That's the kind of thing
this evening. but there's still the
excavating and doing earth moving at the
there's certainly things to think about.
we wouldn't be solving
same concerns about
top of the slope. So
MR. BREWER-And you' I I work that out with them?
MR. NICOLLA-Yes.
MR. BREWER-You can work that 'out by August 1st. about the berm.
specifically just that one item.
MR. MACNAMARA-Are we going to work out what?
MR. NICOLLA-The berm and the erosion control.
MR. MARTIN-The permanent erosion control plan.
MR. MACNAMARA-Right. which a berm could be one asp~ót of it. but
I wouldn't say we want to commit and say they have to put a berm
up tonight. because after further inspection. it may not be quite
exactly the best alternative.
MR. BREWER-Okay. What's five?
MR. PALING-Okay. Five has to do with setbacks. and this may be
the most difficult of al I to define. but just to get it up for
- 65 -
discussion. I .would say that you have.
setbaQk of 75 feet. and justify anything
have to come back before this Board and.
anything under 75 feet.
tQ deal with a _inimum
under that. and it would
nq one else to g~ .fter
MR. .BREWER- I disagree.
MR. PALING-Well. it's up for discussion. That's the fifth. then.
MR. BREWER- would say 1ØØ feet minimum.
MR. PALING-Can they come in and req~est e ~eviation from that?
MR. BREWER-They can come in and ask anything. but that's not to
say that they'll get it.
MR. RUEL-This includes the road?
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. BREWER-One hundred foot from the top of the ravi~e.
MR. RUEL-Is th i s a ,paved road?
. ,
MR. BREWER-I'm talking 1ØØ foot from the top of the raVin,e.. no
development.
MR. RUEL-To the road?
MR. NICOLLA-If I can identify the 75 feet that we're talking
about.. The way that I understQod it,is .thisis 2.5 f.eet. then
there's a.pa~edroad. or sQmething. or I.ndscaped area.5Øfeet.
and then you have the bu i I ding.
MR. BREwER-The thing that bothers me sq much about
come in with a plan. You drew a lil1e. all th,e way
I imit of cutting and it's clearly 16Ø to 175 feet.
a.sk i ng us to go .75 feet? I thi nk that's absurd.
t his. is you
arQund the
Now you're
.,f
MR., NICOLLA- 'm not aSking that. :Tim.
MR. BREWER-Yes. you are asking it. I think
Board to even entertain i~ when you come
shows a I imit of cutting.
it's crazy for this
in with e· pla~ that
. .
MR. NICOLLA-What I suggested was that we don't even look at it as
part of t.h i s.app I i cat i Qn.
MR, BREWER-Right.. You've got a 'imi,t of c.l.earing on your .plan.
SO le1;saccept your plan. o~ay.
MR. OBERMAYER-As is. no stipulations.
MR. NICOLLA-As is.
MR. BREWER~The stipulation is on there.
himself.
Hedrew it on there
MR. RUEL-Accorqin~ t.o the plan.
MR. NICOLLA,But if come in for a future appl ¡cation. what
you're trying to say is that.
MR. BREWER-I'm saylng 1ØØ feet.
feet.
That's clearly ~ than 1ØØ
, ,
MR. NICOLLA-I agree. but. again. ,lets be consistent. If we say
that this is the plan. and there's no stipulations on this plan.
and we're trying to say. in your words. do proper planning. and
you want to put a stipulation on it. what I think you've heard
- 66 -
and suggested tonight is'that we use 75 feet. 'not 1ØØ feet.
because we canadcommodate what Native plans are with 75 feet.
We cannot accommodate them with 1ØØ f$et.
MR. BREWER-Without possibly purchasing property. and you don't
know that. because you're going to meet with him tomorrow.
MR. NICOLLA-That's exactly right. and I don't mean to try to give
you crazy answers. but that's the real ity. It's at 7:15 at the
Packhorse if anybody wants ,to come.
MR. DEMARS-How do 'you determine the top of the ravine. You
should have that flat to start with.
MR. NICOLLA-I think the top of the ravine Is.
MR. PALING-Where the contour lines are. yes.
MR. MACNAMARA-It can be determined.
MR. BREWER-It can be determined.
MR. OBERMAYER-Why can't we just vote on thIs. and then decide and
put the stipulation. if there is one. on the next phase of the
pr'o j ect?
MR. BREWER-Why can't we do it now?
MR. PALING-Let me ask one more question.
MR. BREWER~He came up with four other is$ues that everybody
agreed to. Why can't we set'a number and agr.è on that?
MR. PALING-Let me just ask one question. if I might. Can you
meet a 1ØØfoot setback. except for the area we're talking about
now. where the 75 feet is?
MR. NICOLLA-This area here. the problem would
right here. for the warehouse faci I ity.
problem. We can meet it back here. We can
We can't meet it from that stretch of area.
become. fðran area
I mean. that's the
meet It over here.
MR. 'RUEL~Hdw much of an area is that?
MR. PALING-You're saying you can't meet 75 feet. right?
MR. NICOLLA-I can meet 75.
cannot meet 1ØØ feet back.
MR. PALING-All ri'ght. Then let me re-phrase the question. The
area we're talking about. we've got defined. We know where you
need 75 feet. Can you do 1ØØ foot around the perimeter of the
property everywhere else?
MR. NICOLLA-Yes. and we could probably do it.
MR. MACNAMARA-I t hi nk you cou I d. If y.oU put trenches In and
d rywe I Is.
MR. NICOLLA-Yes.
I mean. with the perc type 'and everything else.
MR. MARTIN-You've probably got a 25Ø foot section. Bob.
MR. NICOLLA-(Iost word) stormwater here. but for this area. we
can't get 1ØØ feet back from the bui Iding. and lets be' clear
again. that it's 1ØØ feet to the bui Idlng. not to a roadway.
Because what I heard before was 25 feet of woods. then there's 5Ø
feet of road and then the 'building.
MR. BREWER-I 'msaying 1ØØ foot to the building.
- 67 -
MR. N I COLLA-Understood. So, I mean, everywhere except for t his
area, and, Jim, what is that area? How many I inear feet?
"
MR. MARTIN-Roughly about 25Ø around that bend that is closest to
the bu i I ding.
MR. ,.NICOLLA-And it'~ this bend here.. Otherthan.that area right
there, sure. We can meet it over here. We can meet it here.
We'l I meet it around the retention basin.
'~.,
MR. MACEWAN-And how close qidyou feet you would be in that area
there?
MR. NICOLLA-Seventy-five feet.
MR. MAC~WAN-Seventy-five feet?
MR. NICOLLA-Yes, sir.
MR.. OBERMAYER~What size square "foot add i t ion wou I d you enterta i n
in the future, if you're proposing to do it?
MR. NICOLLA-The proposal is for 85.ØØØ square foot.
MR. OBERMAYER-Eighty-five thousand?
MR. NICOLLA-Yes, sir.
1.
MR. OBERMAYER-What's the dimens,iq,ns .on that? Do y.ouknow, off
hand? Eighty-five by one thousand?
MR. NICOLLA-,It's more like, i,t, would be 1t?Ø by 5ØØ, a< numb.er like
that, 16Ø by 52Ø, but what we would do is elongate it. That 16Ø
b~ 525 would be if it was a square, and whatwo~ld ~nd up
happening is that this was 16Ø feet, that dimension of the
building is 553. This, would be 1.56, feet by, q53. What we would
do is elo. '}g~1;e ..this and chop 1;þat o1:f, anq this dimension
becomes, instead of 156 fee1; this way., it. bec.ames to 118 feet.
MR. BREWER-There's a way to d.o it. He's ta I king aboutbuyi ng 3Ø
feet, or whatever, from Carey in the front, and if he shifts
everything, if they do purchase that, then you can move it, and
you keep the dimensions.
MR. NICOLLA-That dimension right there would be 7ðfeet, to the
bu i I ding.
MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. You were going to do this anyway.
MR. NICOLLA-Wel I, we weren't going to do that.
MR. OBERMAYER-Okay.
I see. Soy 0 u h av e too f f set < i .t .
MR. NICOLLA-And we .offset i1;..< and we've gotten Nat ive to agree to
offset it, but if you take this down anything narrower than this,
they can't get material.
MR. OBERMAYER-Right.
I can see th.a.t.
MR. BREWER-And, Joe, you,.said .if this happens. here, and you'll
know that tomorrow, then you can shift everything and then meet
that back there.
MR. NICOLLA-Right, but I don't know that yet, that's .the p~oblem.
MR. BREWER-:I understand that.
'., i ¡
MR. NICOLLA-But, again,
something that we don't
what I'm getting at.
I think we're trying to set something on
even know is going to happen, and that's
It's just area right here that we're
- 68 -
,-'
talking about.
MRS. LABOMBARD-That wouldn't be meeting the 1ØØ feet.
MR. NICOLLA-That area right in there.
MR. BREWER-I sti I I say 1ØØ feet.
can't help It.
I'm sorry I'm stuck. but I
MRS. LABOMBARD-But it's not the whole building .that's not going
to do It. It's just that little piece.
MR. NICOLLA-That's correct.
It's just that smal I portion.
MR. OBERMAYER-Look what they plan on doing.
chopping the corner of the bui Idlng out.
construction practice. That's going to cost a
just to accommodate the 75 feet there.
mean. they plan on
I mean. common
lot more money
MR~ NICOLLA-A lot more money. and that is not an insignificant
amount of money.
MR. BREWER-But you don't know If you're going to do it.
MR. NICOLLA-No. but this whole discussion is based on.
MR. BREWER-I say 1ØØ.
MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Lets;vote. What do you say. George?
MRS. LABOMBARD-But. wait a minute. if you keep a condition of 75
feet. then you'-ve 9..Q.1. to go Vto<jth that plan 'down the line.
MR. NICOLLA-And that's okay with me. and I'm wi I I ing to commit to
you that I f you say to us. 75 feet. Nat i ve Text i I es has agreed
that that stl II me~ts the manUfact~rer. or their warehoUSln~ and
dfstributlon. in terms of distribution requirements. and we're
wi I ling to absorb that ·add i t I óna I cost.
MR. BREWER-Seventy-five feet for that particular piece. you're
saying?
MR. NICOLLA-That's correct.
MR. BREWER-And the rest would 'be 1ØØ?
MR. NICOLLA-That's correct.
MR. OBERMAYER-Actually. the rest would probably be more than 1ØØ.
it looks like.
MR. NICOLLA-That's correct.
MR. PALING-We're talklng 25Ø feet at 75 feet.
MR. RUEL-Yes.
MR. BREWER-And how many feet at 1ØØ or more?
MR. PALING-The balance of the perimeter. everything.
MR. NICOLLA-The balance.
MR. RUEL-Yes.
MR. TUCKER-Mr. Cha i rman. the wareho'use. if they go for a
warehouse. they have to come back in front of this Board?
MR. BREWER-Correct.
- 69 -
MR. TUCKER-To approve the whole chi bang ag~in?
MR. BREWER-That's correct.
MR. TUCKER-So it's high I Y i rre levant. ,what, you're ta I king ,about.
MR. OBERMAYER..,.We II. on I:y that we'ire 1:11 ink i ngof putting a
stipulation in from the ravine.
MR. BREWER-About the. shape of the,bui Iding< or t.he setback?
MRS. LABOMBARD":,, The ,setback is rea Ily not i rre levant..,
MR. BREWER..,.to me Jt ~s.
".
MR. TUCKER-,J~II YOll're bui Iding is this"building tonigh,t.
I .",
MR. BREWER-Okay. but they haven't bui It anything on Hudson
Pointe. and there's a restrict, ion ,th.at they have to be 15Ø feet
off the bluff. So what the hel I did you do that for?
MR. TUCKER-I don't think I did.
MR. BREWER-I think you were part of that Boar,d. All r.ight. The
publ ic hearing's over. We're going to discuss it and do what
we're. going tG do.
MR. MARTIN-Wel I.
planning.
wou I d po i nt ," out. that ~,s why we ca ,I I
it
MR. BREWER-Exactly.
MR. OBERMAYER-Are you happy with th~ 75 feet?
MR. E}REWER-I'm happy with 1Øf?J. I tolQ, you.
MR. OBERMAYER-I say 75. What do you $ay. George?
MR. STARK-Seye~ty~five. said.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Cathy?
MRS. LABOMBARD-I can go with the 75 feet for that cut out.
because I think they're compromising. too.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. MACEWAN-I'd go with the 75. and the reason being .that. with
Hudson Pointe. there was a known entity of houses that were
definitely going in ther.,e. There were lots ,that were, definitely
going to be sold. This is something that's not even part of our
discussion tonight. and there's ,even a possibi I i,ty :tjh,at it may
not even be bui It. and if it is. they have to be back here in
front o,f us.. anq we,., .have, a I I the. .strength In the wor,l.d to keep
them to what we want them to.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Rog~r?
MR. RUEL- ' I I ~ake it easy.
1'1 I dupl icate what he said.
MR. BREWER-Bob?
MR. PALING-I' I I go with the 75 feet for the 25Ø foot distance.
The rest is a minimum of 1ØØ feet.
MR. BREWER-Democracy. Okay. Do we want to do the SEQRA?
MR. MACEWAN-Is that all the conditions?
MR. PALING-Ves. unle.s anyone else wants to add to Lt.
- 7fIJ -
'-
MR. RUEL-What about the road?
Is that a condition?
MR. OBERMAYER-The Sø foot wide road?
MR. RUEL-The SØfoot road.
MR. NICOLLA-I think what we'd like to dd i. if. the Bui Iding
Department has made a determination.
MR. MACEWAN-They would heed that for a CO~
MR. NICOLLA-Right. What type of bull-ding classlfi'catlon we are.
without seeing the plans. because they have not accepted our
building plans until the site plan" Is approved. the distance
required to function. of what type of New York state Code
Bui Iding Classification we are. So I think once the Building
Inspector has had an opportunity to see what Code we are. versus.
MR. RUEL-What was that letter we received?
MR. NICOLLA-He's classified as a Class C.
MR. MARTIN-I have to assume he's already done that and he's made
a determination.
MR. RUEL-It's been done. We have a letter to that effect.
MR. NICOLLA-I understand that.
MR. BREWER-Should we make that 4Ø feet?
MR. NICOLLA-I guess what I'm saying is what I would I ike is once
the Bui Iding Inspector has seen our plans. We were~' ~ifferent
classification than what he's classified us as. We think we're a
Type B construction. These guys say a Typ~ C construction. With
a Type C construction we need Sø feet. With a Type B
construction you need'40 feet.
MR. BREWER-I think he's made his determination. and I think we
should stick by it.
MR. RUEL-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-I have no indication tha~ that would be any different.
MR. BREWER-Okay. He's made his determination.
MR. NICOLLA-Okay.
MR. BREWER-So it'l I be 5Ø foot around the.
MR. OBERMAYER-Fifty foot around the building.
MR. MARTIN-Is t;Hat going to be maintained as a gravel road a I I
the way around?
MR. NICOLLA-I believe. as minimum. a gravel road.
MR. MACNAMARA-We I I. they already have a road. typic~1 sections
shown that's gravel sub-base with a grass overlayment that does
the win/win type of thing. It lets trucks drive over it. but it
gives you green space. and it gives you some stormwater control
and things of that nature.
MR. BREWER-But it'll be sø feet now. instead of whatever it was
on the plan?
MR. MACNAMARA-Whatever the building code wanted.
MR. MA R TIN - W e I I. the c I ear a n c e i s S ø fee t. 'T her 0 a d way s t r u c t u r e
- 71 -
itself,is.
MR. MACNAMARA-It's less than that. The only part where there was
pavement or concrete. if you remember. was around the catch
basins which take al I the runoff from the roof.
MR. BREWER-So Number ,Six would be 5Ø foot open. how did.he word
it?
MR. MACEWA~~Accessarea.
,
MR. RUEL-Maintain 5Ø feet area around perimeter of the QUi Iding.
with an access road for fire-fighting purposes.
MR. MACEWAN-Are we ready to do the SEQRA?
I '
MR. BREWER-I guess we're ready.
MR. MACEWAN- "W i I I the proposed act ion resu I t in aphy,sic,a I change
to the project site?"
'F;
MR. BREWER-Yes.
MR. MACEWAN-Sma I I to moderate. Potentially Large. or can be
mitigated? Wel I. any construction on slopes of 15 percent or
gr,eater.constru,ction. ~n land wheret,h<e dep~h of water table is
less than three feet. construction of a paved parking area for
1.ØØØ or more vehicles. construction of land where bedrock is
ex po sed. con s t rue t ion w i I I con tin u e for m 0 r e ,t ha", ' aye a r .
excavation for mining purposes. construction or expansion of a
sanitary landf.i II. . ,and construct i;QI'\ in a des i<gnatedf I oOdw,ay. or
Other.
MR. RUEL-Well. it's none of those.
MR. BREWER-WeJl. I would say "Other". ,~he. c,I.~,ariQg of. how many
,acres, 14 a,cres out of a 3Ø aC,re parce I. That's a phys i ca I
cha",ge to ,the site. I've got to say.
,
MR. MAC.¡;:WAN-And it can be m i t i gated" correct?
MR. BREWER-How can they mitigate it?
MR. MART I N-We I I. first of a I I. what are you gaug ing,t,he impact to
be. then? If you're saying construction?
MR. BREWER-I'm just saying that would be an impact.
MR. MACEWAN-What kind of an impact?
MR. MARTIN,-That's just an "O~l)er" imp,act.
MR. BREWER-That's an "Other" impact.
it's Smal I to Moderate.
guess we can say that
MR. MARTIN-AI I right. Other impacts are?
MR. BREWER-I would say it's the clearing of"for the building.
the clearing of 14 acres out of a 3Ø acre parcel.
j
MR. MART IN-Okay. ,Can I say. c I ear jng of ac.reag,e f,or bu i I ding and
parking?
MR. B,REWER-Yes. "I would say it's a small;, I don'tkno,w. It's a
Potential Large Impact. but it can be mitigated. with the
stormwater system and whatnot. Do you think that's appropriate.
or not?
MR. MACEWAN-I do.
I agree,w~th.you.
- 72 -
--
MR. MARTIN-So it's Potential Large. and can be mitigated by
Project Change?
MR. MACEWAN-Yes.
MR. BREWER-And I think we made some changes tonight that reflect
that. with the (lost word) for the septic ~ystem.
MR. MACEWAN-The retention basin. yes. the berm. Okay. Number
Two. "Wi II there be an effect to any un ique or unusua I I and' forms
found on the site? (i.e. cliffs. dunes. geological formations.
etc. ) It? No.
MR. RUEL-No.
MR. MACEWAN-"Wi I I the proposed action affect any water body
designated as protected?" No.
MR. OBERMAYER-No.
MR. MACEWAN-"Wi I I the proposed
existing or new body of water?"
action affect
No.
any non-protected
MR. PAll NG-No.
MR. MACEWAN-"Wil I proposed action af~ect surf~ce or gro~ndwater
quality or quantity?"
MR. BREWER-Yes.
MR: MACEWAN-Sma I I to modera~e. or Potentially Large?
MR. MARTIN-We I I. do you want to read through the examples?
MR. MACEWAN-Proposed action would require a discharge permit.
proposed aotion reqùires use of a source of water that does not
hav~ approval to se~ve proposed project action? No. Proposed
action requires a water supply from wel Is With greatèr than 45
gal Ions per minute? No. Construction or operation causing any
contamination of a water .uþply system? No. Prop6sed action
wi I I adversely effect groundwater? Yes.
MR. BREWER-I would say. yes. and that could be a Potentially
Large impact.
MR. MACEWAN-Potentially Large. but they can mitigate it.
MR. MARTIN-And you said. yes on the first one. the discharge
permit. right?
MR. BREWER-I guess we're asking you. do they need a discharge
permit?
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. MACNAMARA-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-That's the $PDES;
MR. BREWER-SPDES. al I
Potential Large impact.
design.
right. so. yes. and that could be a
and it can be mitigated by th~ system
MR. MARTIN-AI I right.
Okay.
just wanted to k now What you're s'ay i ng.
MR. MACEWAN-And no on al I the others. unti I we get down to.
MR. BREWER-Wi I I adversely affect groundwater.
- 73 -
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
got that one. Okay.
I'm with you.
MR.. MAC~WAN~Oka,y. L iqU ip aff I uent .W i.l1 be cqnveyedoff site to
faci I itje~ whAch presently do not exist, or have inadequate
capacity. that' sn.o. Proposed act i onwou I d I,Ise, .water in excess
of 2Ø.ØØØ gal Ions per day. That I don't know.
jr ,.
MR.I:f,ERSHB,ERG.,..T~irty-i'ive hundred ,g,al.lons. at the most.
MR. MACNAMARA-Yes.
permit.
It's got to be in t~e same. as. the discharge
MR. BREWER-So. no.
MR. MAC'EWAN-Proposed act ion wi I I like I y 'cause s i I tat i on or other
discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there
wi I I be an obvious visual contrast to ,natural cqnditions?
MR. RUEL-No.
MR. MACEWAN-No.
MR. BREWER-Wait a minute. now.
go down the bank. but they
m i t i gat i ng it.
I f th~ r.unoff
can mitigate
could potentially
it. and they are
MR. MACEWAN-R i ght. Pr:-oposed A,c,t ion w i.1 I reql,l i re the storage of
petroleum or chemical products greater than 1.1ØØ gal Ions? No.
The proposed action wi I I al low residential uses in areas without
water and/or sewer services. No. The proposed action locates
commerc i a.1 and/ or i ndustr La I use.s. wh i ch may requi re new or
expansion of existing waste treatment andfo~ sto~age faci I ities.
No. Any other impacts?
MR. OBERMAYER-No.
.' ,
MR. MACE~AN-,Nq1 Number Six. "jW i I I the.. <prop.o¡sed, act i on a Iter
drainage flow or patterns. or surface wate~ runoff?"
MR. BR,E.WE.R,-Yes,.
MR.M~C~WAN-Okay. ,Examples would ,be. proposed action would
change flood water flows.
MR. BREWER-No.
It may cause substantial erosion.
1·'1 ,
MR. MACEWAN-Yes. Proposed actionm~y cause substantial erosion.
Potentially Large. but they're mitigating it. Proposed action is
incompatible wjth existing Ørainage pat~erns?
MR. RUEL-No.
MR. BREWER-Yes.
MR. MACEWAN-I disagree with you on that.
MR. MARTIN-Say Sma I I to Moderate?
MR. BREW~R-The existing drainage patterns that are there now.
they're not going to be changed?
MR. RUEL-No.
MR. M~ÇEWAN~I don't think so.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. MACEWAN-Proposed
designated floodway?
action
No.
wi II
a II ow
development
in
a
- 74 -
MR. RUEL-No.
MR. BREWER-Watt a m t nute. Reoharge system wi II
sto~mwater. They've marked that. Can be mltigated~
wrote that themselveS. So we'll leave it In?
oontaln
and they
MR. MARTIN-The only thing I have oheoked so far is. proposed
aot i on may 'oause substant i a I eros i on. You sa id Pòtent i a I I y
Large. and oan be m i t i gated by pro j eot ohange. That's a I I I've
indicated in the examples 80 far.
MR. RUEL-What form do you have. the applicant's?
MR. MACEWAN-I have my own standard copy. Did the appl icant fl I I
out the SEQRA form?
MR. BREWER-They sure did.
MR. MACEWAN-You're not supposed to.
MR. BREWER-But they did.
MR. MACEWAN-Just for the record.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. MACEWAN-Ok ay. "W I I I t'he proposed act i on affect a I r qua I i ty?"
MR. RUEL-No.
MR. MACEWAN-No. "W'i II the proposed aot i on affect any threatened
or endangered specjes?"
MR. BREWER-Don't know that.
MR. MACEWAN-I'd say. no. it won't. because they're going to take
al I extreme measures to protect that. not only'with some sort of
fencing for the lupine.
MR. PALING-There is no endangered species on the prope~tv.
MR. BREWER-We don't know whether there is or there isn't.
MR. PAL I NG-We II. it' 8 never been found.
MR. BREWER-It's never been looked for. You looked for it? That
one day that 'you were there. r i'ght?
MR. NICOLLA-Rick Fatima. from the LA Group looked for ¡,t.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. MACEWAN-So the answer to
act ion substant i a I I y affect
species?"
that is. no. "Wi \I t'he proposed
non-threatened or non-endangered
MR. RUEL-I don't know what that Is.
MR. MARTIN-Well. that's everything else. Roger. t'hat's' native to
the site.
MR. STARK-No.
MR. MACEWAN-No. "Wi I I the proposed action 'affèot agricultural
land resources?"
MR. RUEL-No.
MR. MACEWAN-"WI I I
resources?"
the
proposed
action !affeot aesthetic
- 75 -
MR. RUEL-Yes.
,MR. MACEWA~~~pwJ
"
MR. RUEL-We I I. it cQanges the wJ)O I e area.
MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Proposed
obviously different from or
surrounding land use patterns,
Sma I I .tom.oderate, Potent ¡a 1.ly
land uses or project components
in sharp contrast t_,Q current
whether man made or natural? Yes.
Lar,ge?
MR. RUEL-Smal I to Moderate.
. ,
MR. MACEWAN-Can the impact be mitigated?
MR. RUEL-No, ,not r~ally.:
, <
MR. BREWER-How can it be?
MR. RUEL-Tearthe. þui Iding down, put th~ trees back.
MR.. MARTIN-You're ,p,utting Sma I to Moderate on .that?
MR. MACE~AN-They said Potentially Large.
, '
MR. RUEL-I didn't say that.
MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Who's sayJ.ng .Smal I to Moderate?
MR. RUEL- did.
MR. PALING-Me.
MR. BREWER-They're saying, what, now?
MR.MACE~AN-Sm~1 I to MQderate impact.
'.'
MR. RUEL-The first one, under Eleven.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I'd say Potentially Large.
MR. MARTIN-Wel I, what have you got for surrounding land use
patterns? ~ou've got the vacant land in tþe Car~y Industrial
Park. You've got Northern Distributing. You've got residential.
MR. BREWER-Northern Distributing is out to the end of the road.
It's within, I mean, I don't kno~ I.f they're property borders
this property or not.
MR. MART IN- I tbQrders the Car.ey Park, I know.
,
MR. BREWER-AI I right. So that's the only commercial thing that's
really there, right now.
MR. RUEL-You stand in the center of that prope~ty"all, you see is
woods.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
I agree with you, Roger.
MR. MARTIN-So you're saying Sma I I to Moderate, as a pon&ensµ~?
MR. RUEL-Yes, Small t.o Moderate,~
MR. MACEWAN-Can it be mitigated?
MR. RUEL-No.
MR. MACEWAN-Does ,everybody ,e I,se fee.1 that w,ay?
MR. BREWER-You don't need to mitigate a Smal I to Moderate impact.
- 76 -
-.
MR. RUEL-No. you don't have to.
MR. MACEWAN-AI I right. Proposed land uses orprojeot
visible to users of aesthetic resources which wi I I be
or significantly réduoe the~~ enjoyment of the
qual ities of that resource?"
components
el iminated
aesthetic
MR. RUEL-No.
MR. MACEWAN-Project components that wi" result in the
el imination or significant screening of scenic views known to be
Important to the area?
MR. RUEL-No.
MR. BREWER-No. You just said that it changes ¡:t so significantly
that you can't mitigate It. but you're saying here that it
doesn't make any difference if you do it.
MR. RUEl-Wait a minute. They're talking about el iml<natlon or
significant screening of views. What views? What can you see
from there? You can't"sèe a thing but tr'ees. So. it's 'okay.
MR. BREWER-So that isn't a view? What ido you congider a view?
AI I right. I'm not going to argue the point.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. So for Number Eleven I've
general question. Wi I I proposed aotion
resources. and then the first bul let item
Smal I to Moderate. and that's it?
got yes to the
affect' aesthetic
there is indicated
MR. MACEWAN-Yes. That's correot.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MR. MACEWAN-"Wi I I proposed ðction impact any 'site or struoture of
historio. prehistorio or paleontologioal importanoe?"
MR. RUEL-No.
MR. MARTIN-The oonsensus is no?
MR. MACEWAN-I guess so;' Are you guys with me thfough this SEQRA?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. we are.
MR. MARTIN-So the oonsensas is. no. on this?
MR. MACEWAN-That's correct. "Wi I I the proposed aotion affect the
quantity or qual ity of existing or futUre oþen spaces or
recreational opportunities?"
MR. RUEL-No.
MR. BREWER-No.
MR. MACEWAN-"Wi I I there be an effect to existing transportation
systems?"
MR. BREWER-No.
MR. MACEWAN-"Wi I I proposed action affect the community's souroes
of fuel or energy supply?"
MR. RUEL-No.
MR. BREWER-Wait a minute.
Is it going to effect more
of any form?
How much energy are they going to use?
than five peroent increase in t;he use
- 77 -
MR. STARK-No.
1';
MR. MACEWAN-No.
MR. BREWER-We I I, I guess what I'm ask i ng is, you guys sa i d, yes.
Who fi I led it out?
MR. N LC,OLLA- I. don't k n,ow who f i I Led it, .out, but" it's, not goi ng to
increase more than fiv~ percent.<
MR. BREWER-We II, mayb,e not,spec.i f iC~,11 Y 'thatquest.i on , but,
proposed action wi I I require the creation or extension of an
energy transmission or supplysys1:em 'to serve more than5Øsingle
or two fami Iy residences, or to serve a major commercial or
i ndustr i a tus,e?
MR. MACEWAN-The first bul let, that's referring to a five percent
increase, as a whole, to al I energy uses?
,MR. BREWER-I unde,rstand that, and th,e answer to tl)at i,s no, but,
Craig, right here, tþeYhave answered th!mselves, is there going
to have,to bean amount of power br~u9ht to that, ~nd they're
saying ye~.
, '
MR. RUEL-They're wroog. ¡,
MR. BREWER-How are they going to make the thing run, Roger, if
they don't have power to it?
MR. OBERM.AYER-Yes, but they're not going to use five percent of
the total municipal ity.
MR. MACEWAN-That's right.
MR. BREWER-No" ..Jim, ,read this.
exc I usi veof tta~t. " '
Pie a,s e I"" e,a d t his.
That's
. , .
MRr., MARTIN-I think yoI¡' might want to co.nsj,der the secondl;)ullet,
maybe a Smal I to Moderate, because they are runoing a
transmi,ssion I ine. They are going to be install ing energy
tran~,m i ss i on 1;Q tl:l,~ site. '!, .
MR. ,RUEL-Does it have to be underground?
MR. ty1ARTIN-:-No.
MR. RUEL-It has to be for residential.
MR. MARTIN-What ar~lw, doing with that?
~ ¡ v' \
MR. MACEWAN-Sma I I to Moderate, just I ike you said.
I '\ .
MR. M~RTIN~Smal I to Moderate, and yes, okay.
. . , " ~ J
MR. MACEWAN-Yes. "W i II there be. obj ect i onab Ie odors þ, ,no ise or
vibration as a result of proposed action?"
MR. RUEL-No.
MR. MACEWAN-"Wi I I the p~oposed action ~ffect publ io, health and
safety?"
MR. OBERMAYER-No.
MR. MACEWAN-No. . "Wi II the proPQs:~d action affect the character
of the existing community?"
MR. OBERMAYER-No.
MR. RUEL-No.
- 78 -
---
MR. MACEWAN-No. "Is
controversy related to
t here or 1st here like 1 y to be pub 1 i c
potent i a I adverse env i ronmenta I impacts?"
MR. RUEL-Yes.
MR. MACEWAN-No.
MR. BREWER-Thére's no controversy?
no controversy to the environmental
H~~ dan you say that tftere's
impacts?
MR. MACEWAN-Øec~use they're al I being mitigated.
MR. RUEL-Because'it says l.! there.
MR. BREWER-Is there or is there I ikely to be pUbl ic controversy
related, and the answer is yes.
MR. RUEL-Absolutely.
MR. MART 1 N- Yes on th<at one. A I I right. You have to read Part 3
now. "Part 3 must be prepared if one or more Impact(s) is
considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be
mitigated." And as .!!!.)l record indicates, we have indicated
Potentially Large impact on the clearing of acreage for bui Iding
and improvements, proposed action requires a discharge ~ermit,
and proposed action wi I I adversely affect ground water.
MR. RUEL-Are those al I Large impacts?
MR. MART I N"""Yes. Proposed act I on may causesubstant I;al eros i on,
and that was it.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR.MARTIN-A~d sl~ce We've done that, we've got to discuss the
fol lowing, for each impact identified In Cotumn 2 of Part 2: "1.
Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe (if appl ¡cable) how
the Impact could be mitigated or reduced toa smarlto mo'derate
impàct by project change(s). 3. Based on the information
available. decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this
impact is important. To answer the question of importance,
consider: The probabi I ity of the impact occurring, The duration
of the impact, Its irreverslbi I ity, inclUding permanentl'y lost
resources of value, Whether the impact can or wi II be controlled,
The regional consequences of the impact, Its potential dive~gence
from local needs and goals, Whether known objections to the
project relate to this impact"
MR. MACEWAN-AI I right. Lets go back to the first one, ~hen, the
first one that you said was Potentially Large.
MR. MARTIN-And that was, clearing of acreage for building and
improvements. Okay. The brièf description of that Would be the
clearing for the bui Iding, the retention pond, and the septic
system, and the parkl~g area, and the access road ~round the
bui Iding itself.
MR. MACEWAN-Right.
MR. 'RUEL-Now We have to explain how It dould be mitigated or
reduced.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. MACEWAN-By those changes, those engi neer ing cha'nges that
they're going to do to the site.
MR. RUEL-Yes.
MR. MACEWAN-That mitigates it.
- 79 -
-
MR. BREWER-How can it mitigate it? It's not going to. I mean.
it's going to happen. and it's never going to be undone.
.,
MR. MACEWAN-We I I. t,he poten,t i,a I I ar,ge j mpact Ls don~ by c I ear i ng
the site.
MR. BREWER-Right.
. . ,
MR. MA,CEWAN-What they're ,doing to ~1 Elviate the impact of
clearing the site is1=,o put th,e .o,th~r measurEils into effect by not
only doing the berm on the bluffs.
MR. MARTIN-To shrink the size of the retention pond.
MR. MACEWAN-Yes. they're doing a retention and they're doing the
septic system. So that mitigates it.
MR. RUEL-Do we have to I ist each one of these. Jim?
MR. MARTIN-Has there been any discussion about remediation of the
clearing done ,to date?
MR. BREWER-Has there been any discussion of it right now.
tqnight? NO.G I've got that dQwn here.
MR. MART I N- know., Joe. you i,nd i cated some: rep I ant i ng on the
plan. Is t~at ,omething that could, be,done?
MR. N'~OLLA-Sure.
MR. MARTIN-That would be a way of reducing the impact.
MR. MACEWAN-Didn't he already have a landscaping plan?
MR. BREWER-They had a plan. but I've got it down as a Number
Seven to our .condit"ons. that the replanting plan be adequate. we
don't have any spec i €IS of what you'r,e go i ng, <,to p I.ant or. anyt hi ng.
do we? You say you' I I do it. and I'm not doubting that you wi I I.
but.
MR. N I COLLA,-.What we're ta I k l<ng about is Pine trees.
MR. I B.REWER- P i,ne trees.
I ~ .
MR. NICOLLA-White pine.
. . i. ¡¡
MR. BREWER-There's White pine out there. There's oa~.
MR. MARTIN-Red pine.
MR. BREWER-There's Red pine. There's popu . There's eV.eryth i ng
out there.
MR. NICOLLA-The majority of what is aut,there is pine.
MR. RUEL,-Pine.
MR. MARTIN-White ar;t:d Red Pine is, ,what I .s"w. .mostly.
MR. NICOLLA-Agreed.
" I
MR. BREWER~Whatever. <HQW are we going ~Q come up with a
suff i c i ent number? A II of the areas on the map that they gave
us. that they c,ut çU.tsiqe th.e line. shoul<;t, be vegetated?
MR. NICOLLA-Wel I.. part of that'$ gOing ~to change. now. The
rea,son I say .;that. I w.ant to I::!e c I ear about it. th i s .becomes. is
4Ø feet. and becomes 5Ø feet. This comes over 1Ø feet.
MR. MARTIN-Well. why don't we.. we seta d i mens i on of 75 feet as
- aø -
a.
MR. BREWER-That's for future development. Jim. That's not
anything to do with this right now. so they tel I me.
MR. MARTIN-AI I right.
MR. BREWER-They've got a I imit of clearing on there right now. I
want 'that clear. that 75 foot number Is for future development.
It has nothing to do with the plan as presented. Correct?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Correct.
MR. BREWER-So they have to stay in the confines of this plan
right now.
MR. MARTIN-AI I right. Could we then propose. maybe. a rate of
planting. say so many trees per square footage of area cleared.
trying to arrive at a ratio.
MR. NICOLLA-As part of our erosion control plan. why don't we
come up with a planting plan by this August 1st deadl ine.
MR. BREWER-Okay. I also'thlnk that what we talked about when we
were on the site last week. Jim. is you've got to get another map
that shows 'a II the site's where' a II the trees are down. I don't
think. when we saw you out there. didn't we dis6uss that?
MR. NICOLLA-Yes. we did. and I think we tried to id~n~ify those
on this plan.
MR. OBERMAYER-The yel low and the pink.
MR. BREWER-Yes. but that map was already done.
MR. MARTIN-No. When he met us at the site. we showed him
specific a~eas where there's.
MR. NICOLLA-And we went back out. with the surveyor. and we
walked the site again today. maybe it was yesterday. and what has
happened. In the areas that we saw. they weren'tneces'sari Iy
cleared. but the skidders pushed the trees over. so the smaller
diameter trees. and laid them down that wa-y.and they picked the
root structure and everything right up.
MR. MARTIN-Some of the root structures are within. like. 3Ø feet
of the top of the bank.
MR. NICOLLA-What I think we have to go through and pul I those out
and replant where the trees were taken out. but not replant where
they were just pushed over Into.
MR. MARTIN-Wel I.
to address this.
footage of area
at an acceptable
no. what ~ was thinking would be. the best way
Is a ratio of planting. you know, given a square
that's cleared. and shouldn't have been. arrive
number of trees to be replanted in that area.
MR. BREWER-Okay. and I think Alane Bal I~ad so~ething to comment
on the plantings?
MS. BALL-Yes. I see these two components. conditions. I didn't
know that there ~ a condit ion on the pi antingof 'trees.
MR. MARTIN-Well. that's what we're talking abo~t right now.
MS. BALL-This is the fIrst time I~ve heard It talked about.
tonight. and it would be contradictory. probably. to what the
Nature Conservancy.
MR. MARTIN-We I I. the reason why I say this is. 1. thought. and
- 81 -
-
based on, ,what ,'ve s~en at t.he site,: th~rEt appears, anyhow, . that
there. was I ittlepresenceo,f I,upine ,in the interior of the site,
,back f romt he, , rav i ne, and ,t hose are tne, areas we're ta I king
about. .50 !"don't think. we are in cÇlntradiction, .,because the
Nature Conservancy pl.n would focus qn the ravine and those open
slopes that exist there.
MS. BALL-No, it, wouldn't.
It would focl,ls."on the entire sit,e.
. .
MF,L MARTIN-On the en1;iresita.
MS. BALL-Sure, and t.he I upi ne i sn ',t in the inter i or of the site
because it's been shaded out by the trees.
,
MR~ MARTIN-:-Right, and you want ,to allow 8 condition that'll
introduce, it to ~hEt i nt~r i or of the ,s i te?
MS. BALL-Sure.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MR. BREWER-All ]ight. So, why don't We let, her work with, the.m and
work o~ .that plan, so that it's al I dove tai led together.
. .
MR. MARTIN-All right. . So we'r·e n.9t talking abQut S¡DY tree
replanting, then, for that reason.
" t,
: i
MR. RUEL-I had asked here, earl ier, about what to do about the
missing tre,s, and she said she had no1;hi.ng to do wi~h it.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Well, let< them work that plan out.,
Lets go on.
All right.
MR. MACEWAN-,Wh~t was t,he next Potent i a I I Y Large impact you had
Qver there? We got tha~.one out of t.he~way, correct? ,
,
MR. MARTI~-Yes, but, I want to make sure that we fully address
Part 3 for each ins1;ance.; Okay. So w~'ve just described how the
impact coul<d be miti.gated, ,and that's through crea1;ion of a
situation that Wi I I all,ow for the lupine plant to grow into those
areas.
MR. MACE~AN-Riì9ht, through a .cons,ervation plan, plus the other
measures they're taking.
MR. MARTI,N-:-A.I¡I, righ;t. okay. I'm g,etting this on the record.
Okay. .Based.qnthe i,nformation available, is it reasonable to
conclude that this ,impa¡ct is importQ,n,t? And you .have the v,arious
things .to consjder, 1he prqbabi I ity of the impact occurring.
It's highly probable that the site's going to be clea.red for the
bui Iding, and all those various things. The duration of the
impact is, the clearing wi I I take a c,rtain amount of time, Its
i rrevers i b i I i ty, i nc I ud i ng permanent I y lost resources of va I ue.
W~at's permanently lost are the trees. Whether the impact 9an or
wi II be controlled. I think with, nOW, the stringent I imits of
clearing, it'll be controlled from this point forward. The
regional consequen~es of the impact.
MR. BREWER- ,d.on't think .there is ,any regional consequence.
MR. MARTIN-Th" re,gion,ç:onsequence,mayqe positive, ¡nthat if we
can get the lupine planttQ< prosper, we may have a regional
habitat.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. ty\AR-r: I N-:- I ts potent i a I. d i ver.gence ."from I oca I needs andgoa Is.
I think. by virtue of the. fact that this is zoned Light Industrial
land, the Town indiç:ated that this was a place for industrial
growth to occur. So from that standpoint, it is in compl iance,
- 82 -
~'"
but it would bea go'alof the Town to, and through the mitigation
proposed,we ~re aohieving ~he goal of having proteotion of the
lupine plant. Wh'ether known objeotlons to the projeot relate to
t his imp a 0 t . C e r t< a I n I y that's t r u è . 'S 0 I t h Ink It' s I" è as 0 nab I e
to oonolude that the Impaot's important, but It's been adequately
mitigated.
MR. BREWER-What does, I guess what I ~m' ask I ng Is, w'hen we go
through these, based on the information available, it says to
deo I de If it Is reasonab I e to oonc I ude that the impact is
Important. Wel I, certainly it's Important, or we wouldn't have
marked it. So whére do we go from he~e?
MR. NICOLLA-Can I answer that? think what, if you look on the
front page of the EAF form, I thInk that the determination of
signlficanoe that you have to make Is 'elther'A., B., or C., and
if you're going toward a negative declaration, It's A that you
have to look at, and make that determination for eaoh of the
Impacts, and that's that the project wi I I not result In any large
or important impaots, for eaoh one, and, therefore, is one whioh
wi I I not have significant impacts on the environment, and as you
read througheaoh' one of these and make that determination, after
you go through each one of ~he steps that Jim makes, then you
have the abi Ilty to have a negative declaration. Other than
that, you get into different types of adtlons.
MR. MACEWAN-Paul, would you care to oomment on this?
MR. DUSEK-Ithl'nk that's a fall" statement, an anàlysis of the way
the SEQRA process works, that I just heard there, and I think
that's the whole goal of this form, Is to get YO'u to a point
where you can decide whether or not you need an environmental
impact statement. Maybe to help you further, the way you
determ I ne whether or not you <need an env i ronmenta I 'j mpaot
statement I~ you've got to determIne whether 'any particular
impaot Is significant, slgnlfioant so muoh so that It's got to be
studied, and that you've got 'to have further Info'rmatlon before
you march ahead. If you feel that Ît~$ not sl'gnificant, or
sma I I, as Joe indloated, then, obvlousty, you're marohlng awav
from an envlronmentaf impact statemént, and the question then
becomes, also, you oan have checked a large to moderate impact,
but then you can also determine whether or not that large to
moderate Impact ¡oan bereduoed, ins I ze or' in s'Oope, based on
mitigation measures.
MR. MARTIN-Well,t 'I guess, so, what you're sayln'g is, after going
through what we just 'went through with that first one, after al I
that, do we oonslder that, after ml~lg~tion, to be a sma I I to
moderate Impact, or is! It important enough to . be I eft at a
potent i a I I Y large i mpaot.
MR. STARK-Small to moderate.
MR. BREWER-So, bas I ca I I y, what we're do ing Is gol 'ng back and
we're ~olng to ohange our answer~ithen?
MR . DUSEK-No, no. You don't ch'ange youra'nswer. Yòu cont i nue
the evaluation through the Part 3, here. See, I think what
happened 1 s, when you, you know, the' 'f i rstt'h I ng you do I s you
give an answer. The second thing you do is determine whether or
not it oan be mitigated. The'thlrd thing you do is then
de tel" m i n e , bas ed 0 n t he m i t I gat ion, w hat i s the e f f e c t, and w hen
you determine the effect.
MR. BREWER-So after it's mitigated, then it's.
MR. DUSEK-Then It bec'omes I ess Important, I f 'you 'th'lnk, or you
could say,well, that's still not goodenough, and it's still
some~hln9 that's got~o be studied further.
- 83 -
MR. RUEL-Where in Part ~. does it I~ad you to A. B. andC7
MR. BREWER-It ~oesn't.
It just end.s.
,.
MR. DUS,EK- Youk now..~hat it '. is. you~;ave to understand t hat the
form is a tool to help you get to the point of determining
whether or not you have a positive declaration. The form is not
a form. you know. it, doesn't ,I~ad you dO,wna pa,th to a definitive
answer. You have to. basically. have an understanding of SEQRA
yourse If. and then use the form to he I p you get to,. ,the right
answer. and I think that's what you're trying to do. You're into
Part. 3 right, now. and. like. whe.n you're determ:inil19 w.hether
someth i ng,'. s go i,ng to be so sign If i cant as to. requ i re an
environmental Impact~ that's w~y they're asking yo~ quest¡,ons of
regional importance. of the divergence from local needs. All
these things would go to show YO\.ltha,t. for Instance. just to
give you an example. if you had an impact that was very I ikely to
occur. that.)~as a h\.lge: impact. th~'t. was going, to last forever.
that wasirre~ersible. ~hat was<jQoing to· effect the entire
region. al I right. that was also going to. that was being
objected to by the publ ic. and that was away f(.o:m the Town Zoning
p I an. you've got to go for an env i ronmenta I impact statement.
MR. RUEL-AII right. Anyone of these items. if deemed to be
important. leads us ,to A. B.. andÇ. R i gl)t71 '
MR. BREWER-Correct.
MR. DUSEK"7,1 d,on.'t k,now. for sure,. if
a b 0 U. t Þ y A.. ; B .. and, C .
know w,h,at yo,U' re ta I king
Lj
MR. MACEWAN-I th i nk he ,sat i sf i ed !!l!...;w I th his answ~r.
"
MR. MART I N- I. 9\.1eSS ~he bot,~om I in,;, quest ion is. has that first
one been mitigated to tt)epojnt where.you cons.ider,_it t<;> be,small
to moderate. or it's important enough to go on ,toa,n EIS.
) ,
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. RUEL,-I f. u,nder 1 te~, 3_ w,e .~nsW,er any <;>1: tllese as be i ng
important. then we must,go to A.. ~.. and C. ,;
r ! I :
MR. DUSE,K-No. ~ just s~w what t~.y're ~eferrjn9 to as A.. B..
and,C. A.., B....and ,C. Is just simp,ly aselectiÇln 9f cho.ices that
you're ultimately going to make. wh~n you're al I said and done.
with the process.
.. \¡
MR. RUEL-Only the ones that are important.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. DUSEK-The A.. B.. and C. choices that are on the front of the
document., that's the overal' analysLs. when you'real I said and
done with all of theevaluati.ons. .,You're going to fi.nally make a
judgement call as to whether this project is. whl:tt it ,is. it
says. after you review EAF. Parts 1. 2. and 3. which is what
you're doing. you're going to then consider the magnituØ~ and
importance of each impact. and you're going to determine one of
these things. You'r,e eithe,r goln~L1;osay. One. th,at t\1.e project
itself. you know. the whole project. wi II not result in ª-flY.. large
and Important impact. and. therefore. there's ~o significant
impact. and. therefore. you don't need an EIS. That's ~
choice. The second choi.ce may be :I!? although the project "could
have a significant effect on the environment. there wi I I not be a
significant effect because of mitigation. okay. and. therefore. a
conditional negative declaration wi I I be prepared . and ,~s Jim
just beat me to the punch. here. that one is really not a choice
. in. t.h i s case.. ,because 1:11- ts., is what they ca I la type. I Act i.on. and
a conditional negative declaration is only avai ~<a,ble, to y.ou ;in an
Unl isted Action. The second choice. or C. choice. is that the
- 84 -
'',..,
projeot wl., result Ino~e or more I~rge impacta. that may have a
significant impact on the environment, and. therefore. you're
issuing a positive declaration. which in tUrn triggers an EIS.
So these A.. B.. C. choices everybody's talking about. those are
what you're goin'g to get 'to when you're all said and done with
Part 3.
MR. MARTIN-And realily you only 'have A. and C. avai lable to you.
MR. DUSEK-Right.
MR. N I COLLA-But I t hi nk t'he eva I uat ion' comes down to. do' any of
these impacts Have a< significant adverse impact on the
environment. to get you to the' next step.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Ca~we move o~.
MR. MART I N-Ok'ay .So wha't' s
first Potential Large i~pact1
the cono I'us ion f'or Pa rt 3 on the
Is it important enough to warrant?
MR. MACEWAN""No.
MR. BREWER-No.
MR. MARTIN-Is that- a consensus of the' Board?
MR. MACEWAN-Yes.
MR. MA'RTIN-Okay. The second one that- we have checked here is.
action requires a discharge permit. Okay. Lets go back through
Part 3 again. Briefly describe the impact. Here I guess it
would be the impact of thè septic on thè land. and on the ground.
ground water. Describe how the impact could be mitigated or
reduced to a small or'mod'erate impadt by project changes. We".
we 'have ap~oposal. now. to ~o from' a mound system 'to a fi I I
system. correct?
MR. NICOLLA-Correct.
MR~ MARTIN-Based on the Information avai I~~I~. decide if it is
reasonable to conc1ude that this impact is important. Ägain.
taking you through what Paul said. review the bullets there. the
probábi I ity'of' the impact occurring. l"t's going to occur.
althòu~h at a reduCed rate. given the fi I I system confi~urátion.
The durat Ion of the 'Impact.
MR. BREWER-Wi I I be forever.
MR. MARTIN-Forever.
MR. BREWER-As long as they're there.
MR. MART N- t' s irrever's i b i I i ty. i nc I ud i ng permanent Iy lost
resourc'es of value. 'don't know t'hatthe're's any lost resources
with that.
MR. B'REWER-No.
MR'. 'MART I'N-Whether t he impact can be cont ro I led.
MR. 'BREWER-Yes.
MR.' MARTIN-It can be controlled.
impact?
The reg i 6na I conSequence 'of the
,-,
"
i) .
MR. BREWER-No.
j ',\,;'
MR. 'MART IN-There's' none.
needs and goa Is. '
It's potential divergence from local
- 85 -
MR. BREWER-None.
MR. MA,RTIN-W,l1ether objections tq the
impact. I ihink there've been few.
think. would addr~ss those.
project
rea II y.
r:e late to th i s
The changes.
MR. RUEL-Yes.
, ,
" ;"J. \ i
MR., MART I f\!-$o. aga in. is the,re an iI1!Rort~<ntenoug,h ,i mpact <there
,to w~rrant an env i ronmenta I impact stat~ment?
; ¡-
MR. RUEL-No.,
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Moving along. the second one in that same
c~tegory. the proposed action wi] I adyerselY,affect grQundwater.
Po,tent i a I Large i ITIpact. and .ag.a in. I t hi nk .,We,w~re t h ink i ng of
t he potent i a I impact of, t he I eachat e f rQm t ~e $ewage syst,e<m. as
wel I as the stormwater.
l'
MR. OBERMAYER-Is that going to be large. though? Is that going
to be a large impact?
MR. BREWER-It very we II could be.
MR. MACEWAN-It could be. 116.ØØØ square foot bui Iding.
stormwater. yes. it could be large.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Wel I. describe how the impact could be
m i< t i gated or reduced to ,a sma I I or moderat;,e impact by pro j ect
changes. We' r,e talk i ng.abqut" agreed uponçhange$ for perforated
pipe. and we're going to look into the idea of inf,i Itrati,on ,units
in the catch basins. prior to getting to the retention pond. so
we have, a I i k,e J y reduced size of retent i on pond he,re.< Based on
information avai lable. decide if it is, reasonabl,e to conclude
it's important. Again. the probabi I ity of impact occurring. I
think it's going to occur with each rainstor:I11.!,,; o,r storm event.
Duration of the impact. probably intermittent. during the times
of the storm and short I y the r:' e aft e r. a I') d throughout" t h es e wag e
uSeI' right. It's irreversibi I ity., i.nclut;iing, permanently lost
resour,ces of value. Again. Idon'tkn,OW whether there'~an:y.
- .,
MR. MAC,EWAN-No.
MR. MAR~IN-Whether the impact can be contrGI led.
MR. RUEl.-Yes.
,
MR. MART IN-Yes. by the eng i neer.i og, m i t i gat ion.
consequence of the impact7
The regional
MR. PALING-None.
: ,.
MR. MARTIN-None.
goals7
It's potent i a I d ¡vergence fr,om ,I,oca I .needs and
MR. RUEL-Non,e.
MR. MARTIN-Whether known objections to the project relate to this
impact.
MR. RUE,L-No.
MR. MARTIN-Again. I
permit. the discharge
can be addressed.
think it
permit.
was on the level
There were few. but
of the SPDES
I think they
MR. PALING-That's fine.
MR. MARTIN-So. again. does the importance of this impact lead you
to be I i eve that it req u i res an anv ironment a I impact statement7
- 86 -
'''.....-
MR. MACEWAN-No.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. I think we had one more. j'ust 'o'ne mor'e. and
th i s is under the category.' Wi II proposed act ion a Iter dra i nage
flow or patterns or surface water runoff. ~nd þrop6sed action may
cause substant i a I eros ion. Potent i a II y large impact. Go i ng
through. Briefly describe the impact. we're talking about
potential erosion along the bank of the ravine. Describe how the
impact' cou I d be m i't Igated or 'reduced to a sma I I or moderate
impact by pro j ect ' changes. We have the app I i cant agree ¡ ng to
permanent erosion control measures. something that has been
discussed as a permanent berm. setbacks. imposition o'f 'a setback
requirement for the top of the berm.
MR. BREWER-I think that. that's not part of i't. Jim. That's for
fut'ure development. I th i nk the setback that they haVedu't I ned
on their plan Indicates they'l I be further.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MR. BREWER-I think the 75 foot number was.
MR. MARTIN-All
clearing.
right. then I Wi I I say the proposed limit of
MR. MACEWAN-But they also wer~ going to put a permanent berm in
that one section where the erosion had taken place.
MR. N I COLLA- I'm more than happy to put in 'a berm. but I' t hi nk you
may want to request the Town Engineer to evaluate whether a berm
is necessary.
MR. MARTIN-I just use that asan example. plus other possible
engineering solutions.
MR. BREWE~~Okay.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Based on the information avai lable. decide if
it is reasonable to conolude that the impact is important. the
probabi I ity of the Impact occurrin'g. Again. I think with each
storm event. and in the spring of the year. the duration of the
impact. probably during the storm events. shortly thereafter. and
during periods of snow melt. Its irreversibi Ilty. Including
permanently lost resources of value. It doe~ have' the potential
to be repaired. if it were to occur. Lost resources would likely
be vegetation on the ravine. and sediment into the stream. Okay.
Whether the impact can be control led. I think it can be with the
mitigation proposed. The regional consequence of the impact.
MR. OBERMAVER-None.
MR. MARTIN-Its potential divergence from local needs and goals.
Again.'1 think the mitigation is in keeping with the local ~eeds
and goals. Whether known objections to the project rela~e to
this impact. and I think we did hear some objections. but. again.
I think the mitigation is trying to address those.
MR. PAL I NG- V·es.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. So the final
importance of this impact to the
impact statement's required?
question. again.
extent that an
is. is the
environmental
MR. 'MACEWAN-No.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. That addresses al I of Part 3.
MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Is everybody satisfied with that?
MR. RUEL-I didn't hear any objections.
- 87 -
---
MR. M~CEWAN-Okay.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE ;18, MADE
RESOLUT ION NO. 22-94. I n~ roducedby Cra i g MacEw,an who moved for
its adoption. seconded by R~ger Ruel:
WHEREAS. there
appllcationtpr:
is present I y bef or;'e; t he P,I~nl:\ j ng
CQLUMBIADEVELOPMENT GROUP. and
Board
an
WHEREAS. thi s PI ann i ng Boa.rd has <determ ined that the proposed
project $n,d Planl.1ing Board action is subject to .review under the
State Env¡~onmental Qual ity Review Act.
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The fol lowing agencies are involved:
DEC
-
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is a Type I in
the Department of Environmental Conserva~ion Regulations
implementing the State Environmental Qual ity Review Act and
the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Env i ronmenta I Assessment Form has been comp leted by the
app I i cant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas
of environl11enta',concern and þ.av,ing considered .the criteria
for determining whether ap~oject has a signi~icant
env i ronmenta I impact as the same is set forth inSect i on
617.11 of the Official Compilation ofCoc:Les. Rules and
Regulations for the State of New York. this Board finds that
the action about to be undertaken by this Board Wi I I have no
significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the
Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and
fi Ie as .may be..ne,cessary a statemen1: of non--significance or
a negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 19th day of July. 1994. by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark. Mr. Obermayer. Mrs. LaBombard. Mr. MacEwan.
Mr. Rue,l. Mr. Paling
NOES: Mr. Brewer
MR. BREWER-qQ we,have a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 22-94 COLUMBIA DEVELOPMENT
GROUP. Introduced by Robert Pal ing who moved for its adoption.
seconded by Boger Ruel:
With the fol lowing modifications: Number One. the appl ic~nt wi I I
avoid the archeological site by not bui Iding roads or buildings
within 3Ø feet of ,the a.rcheologic~1 site. as de·fined in Mr.
Curtin's report. to be issued by August 31st. 1994. Number Two.
that t h~ eng i neer i ng spec i 1'i cat ions. as set ¡d9wn..by.R i st - Frost.
will complied with by the applicant. Any deviation or
disagreement . ,regard i ng t he.seengi n.eer ing speçs w i ~ I be brought
back before the P I ann i ng Board. Number Three. ,tha1= ~here wi II be
a plan to encourage the growth of the lupine plant and the
,eventual arrival of tt),e Karner Blue Butterfly.. <This.plan wi II
i nc lude poss. i b I e rep I ant i ng "of ,t he ove,rcut areas that have been
defined on the appl icant's map. This plan wi II be; submitted to
the Town Planning Office for approval by August 31st. 1994. This
w I II be deve loped in concert 'II i.th Town< P,I ann Lng 'St<af,f and the
- 88 -
~
Nature Conservancy. Number Four. there wi I I be an erosion
control plan submitted to Rist-Frost by August 1st. 1994. It
wi II ,:be impleméfnted by the appl icant',ø days'äfter' the'âp1proval
by Rist-Frost. If any materials unavai lable are required. that a
grace per I'od 'WI I I be a I lowed. att he d ¡ scr-et i on of :t he' >Fa'n n i ng
Department. Number Five. the ~éveJoper is to be held to the
I imit of clearing as shown on the plat submitted. However.
future development wi I require siteþlanreview by this 'Board.
and will beheld tó a setback'ofHfØ Jf'eet from the toþòf the
ravine. and 75 feet along a 25Ø foot strip due west of the
bui Iding. Number Six. the ac<cessway wi II be 5Ø' foot wide. and
this wi II run entirely around 'the bui Idings. Number Seven. that
the appl icant submit a complete set of' plans by August 1st. with
al I said changes referenced in Items One through Six. and al I
revisions as noted on the plat dated 7/19/94. and subJect to any
requirements of DEC. with the SPDES permit.
Duly adopted this 19th day of July. 1994. by the fol lowing vote:
MR. PALING-That they wi I I avoid the archeological site with their
bui Iding or roads.
MR. MACEWAN-Infrastructure.
MR. PALING-Infrastructure.
MR. BREWER-And how far are we going to stay away from that?
MR. PAL ;NG-We d i dn' tspec i fy.
MR. BREWER-Well. is there a number that we should use?
MR.NICOLLA-We I. the number on the map would be about 3Ø feet.
That's how far the fac i I i ty ( lost word).
MR. BREWER-Okay. So we can indicate 3Ø feet away.
MR. MARTIN-And' could
depicted by Mr. Curtin.
sug'gest. the archeo log i ca'l site as
MR. 'MACEWAN-Just add to it. as out lined in hia report.
MR. PALING-Did you not define that tonight?
MR. MACEWAN-Ves. but a formal report's in the making.
MR. PALING-Now. is there going to be any disagreement with what
you're report wi I I say and what you've said tonight?
MR. CURTIN-No.
verification. but
I think our location map would be
in substance it won'tbé'different.
subject to
'MR. PAL I NG-A'l J''.,. i ght.
MR. OBERMAVER-Why don't you just leave the dlm~nsion ~ff of it
and say. at the archeological location. around it. something like
that.
MR. PALING-Wel I. we've agreed on 3Ø feet.
MR. BREWER-Thirty feet is the nllmber'thát they'll stay away from.
MR. MACEWAN-Thirty feet. and you're also pinning it down to exact
locatibn as outl ined in his report to be submitted.
MR . PAL ING- Ves . All right. There 'vi i I I be an erosion control
plan submitted to the Town Planning Staff for approval by August
1 st. 1994.
MR. BREWER-No.
Erosion control measures wi I I be in place by
- 89 -
August 1st, I thought we said~
MR. MACEWAN-That's correct.
,
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. BREWER-I thought you said you'd put erosion control measures
in place by August 1st? ,,'
MR. NICOLLA-No.
wi tho
think what we said is we were going to work
MR. MACEWAN-No. You made it very clear you were going to put
them in place by August 1st.
MR. BREWER-You said you would put them In place by August 1st.
MR. MACNAMARA-We I I, that means they would have to get a Permanent
plan together, submit it for our review and approval, and then
actually implement it by Augus,\: 1st.,
MRS. LABOMBARD-R ig~t. I tOQk It dow.n, eros I on cont rol p I an
submitted, reviewed and accepted by August 1st.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, but that isn't installation, though.
MRS. LABOMBARD-That's what we had said.
MR. MART I N- I t hi nk thet.emporary cQnt ro I,s t hat are t here now are
sufficient unti I we get that permanent plan approved and in
place.
MR. BREWER- I,f t,hey' r,e in. place.
. ,.
MR. NICOLLA-My, fear:- is t.hat, there's noway, I'm going tc;>get an
er:-os ion contro p I an tn ,to.R i st-Frost, have them apprQve it and
adopt i, t by ¡A~.gusJ 1 s1;. Th.at' s just not g.o i ng .to happen.,
, ¡
MR. PALING-Would you have the ~ by August 1st?
MR. NICOLLA-I wi II have the plan into Rist-Frost bV Augu,s;t; 1,st.
MR. MARTI.~~Whydon't w.e say this.,.,
1st and accepted by Rist-Frost by
completely with the CO.
The,p I a.n subm i t.t.edby August
August 1st, a~d implemented
MR. MAGNAMARA-Well, i.f they ,suþmit it by August .1st, an.d we. have
some concerns, he can't automatically turn those concerns around,
the same day, and submit it.
MR. BREWER-No.
how Ic;>ng is. it
prob lem Is .th,e,re
from growing.
I understand that, but what happens, by CO, Jim,
gOi,ng to 1;ake him 1;0 :bui Id the bµi Iding? The
now. We need somøthing to proteçt that .~noblem
MR. MACEWAN-It's going to,get worse during co.nstruc,t¡Î,on.
MR. MARTI,N-The ,si It fence is tt\ere,.l' ow.
~ J _ j
MR. MACEWAN-But it's not adequate.
,
MR. MACNAMARA-No. They've already committed on their drawing
right there that, saya,they'regoing to mainta~n erosio~ and
sedi ment ,cont ro I p~,r; t he GUide J i I}es, man ua I, arlC~ i 'f t.hey ,t)aven' t
got one, I'd sugges't youg.eton~,) because you' r.e1 comm i t.ted to
doing it right there.
MR. NICOLLA-If the issue is specifically the area over by where
the septic f,ield was pr:10posed, which is where the ,eros<ion is
occurring, if you've walked out there, that's where,lit Is, what
- 90 -
,,.,-.-
",",",
we wi I I do is as soon as we are the owners
go fix that immediately. We' I I submit a
that's accepted by Rist-Frost. we' I I go do
permanent erosion control measures wi I I be
of the property. we' I I
plan. and as soon as
t hat. The rest of the
part of that. as CO.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-So the plans to be submitted by A~gust 1.t. to Rist-
Frost. and implemented by the CO.
MR. BREWER-Wel,. sti II. then that. I mean. the problem could be.
the one area should be taken care of right away.
MR. NICOLLA-Except for that one area; and we' I I go take care of
that one area within 1Ø days after acceptance by Rist-Frost.
MR. STARK-That's not 1Ø days from August 1st.
a week to'accept it.
It might take them
MR. OBERMAYER-So we' I I just say. from the approval of Rist-Frost.
MR. PALING-An erosion
Frost by August 1st.
1 øt h. 1994.
contrdlplan wi I I be submttted to
1994. It wi I I be I mp I emented by
Rist-
August
MR. OBERMAYER-Ten days after the approval of Rist-Frost.
MR. PALING-AI I right. It wi I I be implemented by the appl icant by
1Ø day. after the approval by Rlst-Fr~s~.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. MACNAMARA-Lets say. for insta~ce. they propose to put some
type of a new vegetative cover over there. They may have to
order some material. I mean. lets sa~nfor Instance. this
plasttc type of a procedure is o'ne'ofthese issues. I'd say they
wouldn't be able to order It. recei've it and Install it within 1Ø
days. I th i nk they need to get the whee I s mov i ng.
MR. MACEWAN-As a foot note to that. you'd want to add. immediate
temporary measures 'w I II be taken.
MR. 'BREWER-They're obligated. right n'ow. to malntàin the erosion
that': s there now.
MR. PALING-If any materials unavai lable are required. that a
grace period will' be allowed. at the discretion of ,the Planning
Depar'tment.
MR. MACNAMARA-Sure. for ordering. receiving. installation.
MR~ PALING-Okay. All right. Item Number Five is setbacks. That
the setback around the þerlmeter of the property wi 1'1 be 1ØØ
feet.
MR. OBERMAYER-No. that's not what we.
MR. N I COLLA-Not t he per ¡'meter of t he 'property.
ravine. the perimeter of the ravine.
just along the
MR. MACNAMARA-That's the issue. is the ravine.
¡J
MR. PALING-Right. All right.' That the setbacks will be a
minlmum of 1ØØ'feet along the entire length of the raVine. except
for an approximate2SØfoot strip.
MR. MARTIN-Due west of the proposed building location.
MR~' PAL ING-A I I
location.
right.
Due west of the proposed building
- 91 -
-...-.-- "'" ---..----
MF\. BREWER-That's s,o noted as fij,ture dev<elopment. be<caus,e t,h;ey're
s t i ,I I go i n g to be hell d tot. h est and a r çi ,0 f, t h ~ i r. no ¡\ 0.1 ear i, n g I i n e .
correct7 . ,
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. BREWER-So ,that.shou I d be < noted. Can you, tell me what you
said. Bob7 Future development. it shall ,be I imited too.. I think
it should say.
MR. PALING-Okay. but just let me clarify. say... a,gai,n. what you
want to say about future development7
MR. BREWER-Future development should be I imited to that 75 foot.
and 1ØØ foot m~"k. They ha~. a ~imit of clearing on that map now
th8,t is substantial!V more tha" tt[\a't.That is for:". I t.hink.
that's the provision for future development of that ~ite.
MR. PAL I NG-A Ilr i gh'Ç. Item < Number Five . w,i I I , becom,e.. minimum
setbacks along the entire perimeter of the rayine wi 1.1 be 1ØØ
feet. except for an approximate 25Ø foot strip on the west side
of the ,bui !.ding. ,Thisare,a ,(25Ø foot strip) l,s f,orfuture
development only.
MR. BREWER¡-No. That who.le1ØØfoo1;li'le and,75 foot ,line you're
talking about is for future development. Let me explain it to
you. If they put the, 75 foot 8,r:H;Lthe, 1ØØ ,fo«;>t I.i:ne in. ,okay.
fro m the r a v ! n e . T ~,a t ~ s for f u t u red e v ~ lop men t.·, The y . a Ire ad y
have a line r,ight tlereo. 1;he I imitof clearj.ng. and they should be
held to that right nqw. pnti I. t~is is fo~ ,future. so that
that' I I always be preserved. okaY. ,00 youfoJ.low me7
MR. PAL lNG-We I I. then you're saying the 1ØØ foot appl ies to the
whole thlng7
MR. BREWER-No.< I f1; /ley cOm~ i.n an,c;i, t h.ey ..want ,t,o; agd "10,n to t his
warehouse. he showed a conf igurat Lon ,that it, 9.9,ylc;J¡ , be,. that it
would be 75 feet from here. and everywhere else it would be a
minimum of 1ØØ. so that doesn't apply right now. because they're
not here w.iththat. ..
w \ ' " ~ I '
MR. PALING-Well. that's.o..nl.y for future d,evelopmant..
,
MR. BREWER-That's for future development.
'J
"I
MR. PAL lNG-That' swhat I. Sa, i d. .
..
MR. BRE~~R-But ¡Y.ou.. on Iy sa Lei I t.hat. 2ØØ foot $t rip. t h,at. means the
whole.thing.
MR. RUEL-No. That's just this.
MR. PAL I NG-A I I right. The area for f ut ure, , dev~.1 opment wi I I be
defined as what7
MR. BREWER-One hundred feet from the top of th~ ravine. except
for that 2ØØ foot strip. not iust for the 2ØØ foot strip. is what
you said.
MR. MARTIN-Why don't we tackle it this way. might I sl.lggest some
language. Number Five. the developer is held to the I imit of
clearing as shown on the plat subm,i t1;e<;1.<; Ho~ever .f,uture
development wi I I require site plan review by this Board. and wi I I
be held to a setback of 1ØØ feet from the top of the ravine. and
75 feet along a 25Ø foot strip due west of the bui Iding.
"
MR. OBERMAYER-Sounds good.
MR. BREWER-Perfect.
- 92 -
-
.1If'/
MR.NICOLLA-Jim. the only"pad that you have to give tio that Is
that.. whenyou"ve added 10 feet to the'road, that's going to kick
the I imit of clearing 10 feet to the west.
MR. BREWER-We I I, I fit's moved. It's moved.
MR. NICOLLA-Because the setback off the property
eastern edge increases from 40 feet to 50 feet.
( lost word).
Irne on the
That puts the
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. MACEWAN-So noted. that's not a problem.
MR. PALING-All "right. Item Number 'Six is that the access road
wi II be 50 foot wide and this will 'run around the perimeter of
thebui Idings.
MR. BREWER-No, not the road'¡should be 50 foot wide, access should
be 50 foot 'wide.
MR. PAL I:NG-Th,e accessway <'W I I I be 50 foot wide. and th i s will run
entirely around the buildings.
MR . PAL I N<G-Correot.
I"thlnk we've got the 'whole thing. now.
MR. DUSEK-May I make ju.t one suggestl6~7 I listened to
everything. Thè o~lythlng that I found that wa$ missing was any
kind of a refei"'ence to a particular map or' drawing. You should
have something that you're going to rely on. When you're
resolution I'eads off ,you shou I d I be referr I ng to a part rcu I ar
drawi ng.
1 ;\
MR. MARTIN-You oan use today's revision date.
MR. "B'REWER-'Does 'tttat O'lea'r'lyshow< everything that we Ju'st talked
abou~ on't~erð; Paul7We wi I I get 4 *ap to indicate everything
on there.
MR. MARTIN-Could I propose. then. as a seven'thoondition~ that
the applicant submit a oomplete set of plans, by August 1st. with
all said changes referen6ed in I'tems One through Six. and' ai I
revisions as noted on the plat dated 7/19/94.
MR. CURTIN-Would it be possible to add, subject to whatever
comments or requ I rements by DEC, because we're bound by 'that.
MR. MARTIN-Right. I don't have any' problem with that, and
subject to any requirements of DEC. with the SPDESpe'r'mlt.'
MR. OBERMAYER-Good.
MR. MACEWAN-So noted.
AYES: Mr. Stark. Mr. Obermayer. Mrs. LaBombard. Mr. MacEwan,
Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling'
NOES: Mr. Brewer
On motion mèètlng was adJourned.
RESPECTPULLY SUBMITTED.
Timothy Brewer. Chairman
- 93 -