Loading...
1996-01-23 SP QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JANU~Y, 23~ 1~i~, II" '! ,; J INDEX:" ':~: ¡! r ',"" '~:;ìt\ l. It·, . ;',,¡ Discussion on Site Plan No. 22-94 Columbia Development Group 1. I ',1! ;-~ :~! THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE ,FOllOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. '1" , ,I i ! ~,' ' , ::1"1 j'.,/ 1"'~¡ ¡ J, ;·'\r"'~~,..; ; ", I'"~ : ' ':11 ,,...:f'. I ' ( "1 " ; ¡., ./ r ¡ r"; . I! ¡ , ' ~j i' , ,I i' '- '---' -.,/ (Queensbury Pl'ânhin'g BÓayd M:èet'l'ng :1··1 1/23/96 ) QUEENSBURY PLANNING SOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 1996 7:00 P.M. : .\ L MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY ROGER RUEL TIMOTHY BREWER CRAIG MACEWAN CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-JOHN GORALSKI STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI DISCUSSION ON SITE PLAN NO. 22-94 COLUMBIA DEVELOPMENT COLUMBIA DEVELOPMENT GROUP NATIVE TEXTILES MR. PALING-We don't have an actual type written agenda, so I'll just say that this is a workshop discussion referring to the old site Plan No. 22-94, for Columbia Development, and I think you guys just want to chat about it. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. PALING-So if we can, I think I'll just turn the meeting over to you and tell us why you're here and all that sort of stuff. MR. LAPPER-Okay. I'd like to thank you for coming out on a night when you have no meeting scheduled. For the record, I'm Jon Lapper, from Lemery & Reid. I want to start off with the Area Manager and the Plant Manager of Native talking about the facility, about what they've done and how they're using it, and about the expansion, but in general, I just want to say that, when this was approved last time, there were certainly a whole lot of development issues that were contemplated, that there would perhaps be an expansion, and now, a year later, they're looking for an expansion. We came in without making a formal submission, because we came as close as we could to some of the thresholds, and were not able to meet them. We want to talk about it, get some input. What you see in front of you is not necessarily, it's not going to be the submission. We know that we're going to be making some changes, but we wanted to just talk to you, informally, before we made a formal submission, so you could see where we're coming from, what some of the site constraints were, the building constraints, and take it from there. I'd like to start off with Phil Cosella, the Area Manager, to just talk about the facility. PHIL COSELLA MR. CaSELLA-Hello. Fortunately for everybody concerned, my bad throat precludes me from saying very much tonight, and actually I don't really have a lot to say, because between John and Bill pakalovich, who is our Plant Manager at the site that we're going to be talking about, we'll be able to fill you in. Actually, my purpose of being here tonight is two fold. Number One is to thank those members of the Planning Board who were involved in the approval of the site for the treco manufacturing building. It's fulfilled all of our expectations. We've got a marvelous facility over there. We think we fit in with the area. We're certainly a very good environmental neighbor in the area. Just as a matter of reporting to you, our productivity, our efficiency and our quality production are as good as, or better, than they ever were in the Pennsylvania location. That, considering that we hired 100 new people in this area who didn't know a knitting - 1 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/23/96) machine from a Chevrolet when we hired tmem, our resourceful training programs and the hand~ul of experienced people that we were able to bring up from Dallas, Pennsylvania were certainly just the tonic for our company. As our President, Mr. Kovitski said, when we had our open house. one of the main purposes for bui lding the kni tti ng factory, in Queensbury was to ensure the jobs for the 450 ,people that have lived and worked in Glens Falls for a great many years on the Warren Street site. That was Step One, and- now~we~re co~ing back to you for Step Two of a very logical consolidation of operations. A warehouse next to the treco knitting business makes all the sen$e in the world, permits us to be as efficient as we can be, which, in turn, keeps us competitive in an extremely competitive business such as textiles is~ We need that edge, because we need to get more jobs.' We need to get mor e bus i ness . We need to. keep the 550 peop 1 e " now, who are employed in the Glens Falls, Warren County area ensure their jobs. So I want to than~ you for listening to us, a year and a half ago, and I want to thank you for your attention tonight, and we're prepared to answer any questions you might have. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. BILL PAKALOVICH MR. PAKALOVICH-My name, for the record, 'is Bill Pakalovich. I'm the Plant Manager. I was'one of the people that transferred from Dallas, .ran the plant in Dallas for about a dozen years. However, before that, had worked in Warren Street for about six years. So I ',111, familiar with Native Textiles, for all of 18 years today, as a matter of fact. I don't have a lot to add to what Phil said. He's right. It's been a raging success, the move of the",plant. and we are at Step Two, and we're here. We need about 70,000 square feet of warehouse space. The logical place to put it, and from our standpoint, the only place to put it, is contiguous to the building. The product that we make in this building will be transferred into this warehouse, through internal doors. It makes no sense to be located anywhere bu't next to the building. The only other thing I wanted to say' is that this is Native Textiles see~ing this building. Although Columbia builds the building, we'te the tenant, we're the employer, and we pay the lease fees, the rental rates. So it's Native seeking this addition. MR. LAPPER-I guess we should take a look at the proposal and talk about the issues that came up last time, and whatever the Board would like. MR. PALING-Okay. Just one thing before you go ahead, Jon. John Goralski. John, you 'confirmed that all of the provisions, some eight of them, in the original resolution, have been complied with. There is no problem there? MR. GORALSKI-To this point, the construction and the opera~ion that's taken place is in site plan review. that's taken place compliance with the MR. PALING-Do you have any other comment, at this point? MR. GORALSKI-Not at this point in time. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Okay. minutes of the approved, and compromises that issues that, of I, over the weekend, carefully went through the last meeting. which was lengthy when it was the issues that everybody raised and the were made, and I guess we want to raise a few course, the Board will raise, and the biggest - 2 - " '--" --' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/23/96 ) issue was the setback from the top of the bank and blue lupine. Those are what comes to mind to us. The Board had asked that the whole building be 75 feet from "the edge of tme ravine and that the roadway be 25 feet and for much of the site, we can comply with that, but because of the grade-of the ravine at the top the way it turns along the top of the ravine, trying to put a square building along the top, it's impossible to do that and to meet Native's needs to have a 75,000 square foot 'warehouse there. So that, in the corners especially were certainly less than 75 feet from the building, and I guess we'd like to discuss that, in terms of stabilization of the bank, and issues that, the impacts that you might think there would be as a result of that. We don't think it would be a problem to do 'it as proposed. MR. PALING-Well, téll us the distances you're' talking about now, that is for the setback. MR. LAPPER-It's,on your map, and I think, .the site engineer, Dan ,Hirschberg, is here, and he could address the specific.distances. DAN HIRSCHBERG MR. HIRSCHBERG-Yes. My name's Dan Hirschberg. I'm a principle in the firm Hirschberg and Hirschberg, and we're here representing Native Textiles with regard to this pröject. We are, at a couple of locations, as close as 38 feet from the building to the top of the ravine. We're as close as 38 feet to the top of the ravine at a couple of locations, primarily due to the shape of this ravine. If you take that top contour line as the edge of the ravine, which is essenti~lly either the 384 contour, which comes· like this, or a 382, -contour, which goes beyond there, we are as close as 38 feet, at this location right here is the tightest point to that ravine. We have attempted to work out, Number One, a circulatior1 pattern for trucks coming in and out. The fire access strip which goes 'around the building here would continue and becòme part of the access dr:iveway at this pOint here. Trucks cou1d come in, do a turn, come baok in he~e, then pullout and go back out again, on the same driveway. We didn't think it was worthwhile to circumnavigate the building. Number One, it creates some turning radius problems at some of these locations, and also makes a problem with regard to access to this strip here. The existing fire access road, which was approved previously, is a strip of 15 foot worth of gravel pavement that was put on this side of the building, starting 22 feet off the building, at this location. So it's 22 plus a 15 foot strip, and the building is located 50 foot off the property line which is the minimum that was required. We think that this access road as well as the construction of the building can be accomplished, Number One, with regard to any impact with regard to slope stabilization and erosion or sedimentation activities on that ravine. First of all, let me just talk briefly about the grading. We don't have a finished grading plan, yet. That would be coming shortly, but the 386 eIevðtion is the floor elevation of this building. In order to get a loading dock height, the ground outside has to be four feet lower, so that the grade of this driveway or roadway or these pads out here would be an approximate elevation of 382. That is just about the grade at the top of the ravine, so that, essentially, you will prevent any fill or cuts, significant fills or cuts along the eÖge of this ravine. Also from the standpoint of drainage, we can leave higher ground between us and the edge of this driveway, cant the driveway back toward the building, put drainage facilities along this edge, and run it to a new stormwater detention basin, probably in this area here, or immediately near our existing retention basin, because we would like to connect those with what's called a balancing pipe between them, so that any overflow from one can go to the other, or vice versa, so we can take full advantage of this for the purpose of stormwater management, but - 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/23/96) we think that, from a technical standpoint, with regard to slope stabilization, erosion and sedimentation, stqrmwater management, all this can be accomplished in a safe:manner, and preserve the integrity of that ravine. We carefully tried to form that driveway to miss those areas that were considered critical with regard to stabilization and the ravine. We had original plans, and I'm not certain as to how the Board would feel about this, but this little stick. bump out of that ravine is really just a, it's not the natural line of that ravine. This was an erosion pattern that occurred, who knows how many years ago, but this is essentially not, the natural line, of the ravine is actually a line that cuts right across that little projection~ The question is, would we propose to fill that in, to get a little more clearance. We determined that we would like to preserve it. It presents no problem to us to do that~ with regard to the traffic pattern to provide adequate capability to get by that area. MR. LAPPER-That's one of the issues that we want to discuss, and if the Board felt that that was something that we should do, we'll do it. MR. RUEL-I have a question. Had yOU considered making the proposed warehouse the full length of the existing building, and making it narrow in order to increase the setback of the ravine. MR. PAKALOVICH-That doesn't work for our product flow. We've got schematics, if you will, of the racking that will be inside this warehouse and this dimensions that are needed for those rackings. There's only four copies, so if you'd be so kind as to share them. MR. RUEL-In other words, you need the width indicated there? MR. PAKALOVIcH-Yes, we need the width. MR. RUEL-But you don't have the width the whole length of the building? MR. PAKALOVICH-No, and that's because, if print, the front part of that building movement in and out of goods is going storage is is where we need the width. you'll notice on that is where most of the to happen, where the MR. RUEL-It's at the rear? MR. PAKALOVICH-That's correct. MR. RUEL-Yes, and these are fixed racks, the length? MR. PAKALOVICH-Yes. What we have is the racks in the farthest back part of the building, there's an order picker that runs down those aisles, and the aisle space is the most critical part, because the order picker has to fit in there. The guy rides up, in that area are boxes stored, I would say they're two foot by two foot by three foot, perhaps, and they'll pick, 12, 13 boxes and then return and load them on a truck, and the same thing going in. They'll take in and locate 12 or 13 boxes. MR. RUEL-So you have loading and unloading at both ends. MR. PAKALOVICH-We have loading and unloading at both ends, but the primary unloading is done at the far end. Okay. MR. RUEL-At the end of these long racks? MR. PAKALOVICH-At the end of the long racks, that's correct. MR. RUEL-I see. - 4 - '- '--.- -./ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting '1/23/96 ) MR. PALING-John, let me clarify something. On the contour map here, it looks as if, when you look into this, you'd see quite a dT!oP in that land. I wish I had wal ked back there today. I didn't. It looks flatter, to me, than this drawing is. Where do you run the, where do you consider the top of the ravine to be? MR. GORALSKI-I would say, as Mr. Hirschberg said, that the 384 contour is kind of a big flat area, but where the 384 contour is, the western side of that ,384 contour, and then the 382 cóntour is what I'm considering the top of the bank there. MR. PALING-All right. Then that runs right into the roadway. The 384 mark runs into the roadway. MR. GORALSKI-Yes; 384'is actually, there's a big flat area on the west side of the bu i Idi ng," is at the 384 e'le\ilat ion, on the west side of the existing building, and that's, I assume~ where they're planning on putting the building. 382, if you went along the entire edge of the ravine, you would say 382. MR. RUEL-That's the entire one, yes. that's only a short distance. 382 across. If you select is really the just 384, major one MR. GORALSKI-I would say that's correct. MR. lAPPER-In terms of the top of the ravine abutting a roadway, when we had our pre-meeting, to sit down and look at this, Native was able to makes' slight modification, based upon the different widths between the different sections, 1 guess'the different steel poles that support the roof, and we can shave another seven feet off the width of the building from that second jut out. MR. PAKALOVICH-On that print that you have you see, I think it's 40 feet, 41 feet, 42 feet, 42 feet, 42 feet, perhaps, whàt I just handed out. We can go to 40, 40, 40, 40. MR. PALING-In other words, you're going to move this long wall east seven feet? MR. PAKALOVICH-We can go seven feet more, yes. discovered that this eVèning. We just MR. RUEL-This wall here? MR. PAKALOVICH-That's correct. MR. RUEL-Down seven, which increases the setback by, where would the setback be now? MR. PALING-And that brings yOU to 45. MRS. LABOMBARD-Forty-five, thirty-eight foot setback. MR. PAKALOVICH-Right. MR. RUEL-Forty-five, you say? MR. PALING-Well, at the most critical point, going back to the other explanation, if that's 38 feet across there, and you add 7, you get 45. MR. RUEL-Okay, and the other critical one is the other corner, right? MR. PAKALOVICH-That's correct. MR. HIRSCHBERG-This corner right here. This corner would not - 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/23/96) change location, if we knocked the seven feet off here, but at thís location here would go from 38 feet, from that 382 contour, to 45 feet, at this point. MR. PAKALOVICH-And the front of that bui¡ding, the line ,that cannot change, the reason for that is it lines up with a column line that's already in the existing building, and creates a central wall, if you will. MR. RUEL-And unless you backed it up, by the other columns. MR. PAKALOVICH-Well, it would need special trusses and those sorts of things. MR. RUEL-And this area is all wooded now, is it? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-So the clearing, you'd have to clear that area? MR. PAKALOVICH-Yes. MR. RUEL-And· you would limit the clearing to just a few feet beyond the access road, initially? MR. LAPPER-For the building itself, the Board determined that as little should be cleared, last time, as was necessary to that building. More clearing will be necessary for the ~arehouse, but that should be limIted to the same, as little as possible. MR. RUEL-Yes, you'd have the same space. MR. LAPPER-We also happens to have a landscaping pla~, but we will also be planting along the top of the ravine as well, but that's, as part of the landscaping plan which we haven't prepa,"ed at this point. We expect. that the Board's going to want to see plans along the top of the ravine. MR. RUEL-Toprevent erosion mostly? MR. LAP PER-A visual barrier, and to prevent erosion. MR. GORALSKI-If I could kind of jump in. You asked me, before, if I had,. anythi ng ,to say, now I do. When this w?s or igi na II y reviewed, I was not here. I was not involved in the review. It sounds to me like this issue of the 75 foot setback from the ravine was something, it's obviously not in the Ordinance. It's something that came up as a result of the review for some reason, and now, seeking their addition, they're asking to encroach on that 75 foot setback. I think the logical step would be first to establish what the purpose of that 75 foot setback was, and then, secondly, determine if there's another way to accomplish the same goal. MR. BREWER-I think the purpose of it was, þecause, before they even did any construction, the erosion that occurred on that bank was occurring without any conatructio~~at all, just from the elimination of the trees and what not, and stormwater. MR. GORALSKI-Like I said, I wasn't there before. So what I need to know is, I really. MR. BREWER-The erosion, basically, John. What had happened is. MR. GORALSKI-I know there was some issue about cutting trees before approval. MR. BREWER-That wasn't our issue. That was a different Board. - 6 - ''''--'" '-- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/23/96 ) MR. GORALSKI-So the erosion was taking place, whether or not there was a dèvelöpment here or not? MR. BREWER-No. MR. MACEWAN-No. The erosion was a direct result of clear cutting the property. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. That's my question. MR. BREWER-That was the biggie right there. MR. GORALSKI-All right. Okay. MR. BREWER-So we, I think as I recall, I felt strongly about it, that it should be more than 75 feet, and that's what we ended up compromising as a Board, and as the developer, and the limit of clearing was, I think the developer brought that in, didn't they? MR. PALING-What do you mean, "brought it inU? MR. BREWER-Well, I mean, they put it on their map. We asked them for some sort of a suggested area where they wouldn't clear, and we decided on this line here, if I'm wrong or right? MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. BREWER-We decided prevent any further steep bank. This is the meetings. that this would be the limit of clearing to erosion on the bank, because it~s a real what we came up with as a result of all of MR. RUEL-But how existing building? does that 75 fit into this, the old, There was a lot of space there, right? the MR. BREWER-Well, r think because they, we did warehouse, and I thi~k that's the number we came up it? discuss the wit h, 'wa s n ' t MR. MACEWAN-There was discussions about a proposed future expansion of planting, and to further protect that embankment and that ravine, we had tossed around the number of 100 feet, I think it was, and we ultimately came half way or a quarter of the way, and we ended up with 75 feet, and that WåS our efforts to protect that bank where the lupine is, and the habitat down in there. MR. GORALSKI-I'm just trying to make everything clear here. So the reason for the setback was to protect the ravine, the bank, from erosion, and alsö to protect the sensitive habitat, which was the lupine, Karner blue butterfly. MR. MACEWAN-That's correct. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. PALING-Not so much to protect it, John, as it was to maybe even increase the flower, because there are no, there were no butterflies ever found there by anybody. MR. MACEWAN-But, in all fairness, when the survey was taken, it was already after the breeding season when they, potentially, wouldn't be there. MR. GORALSKr~Okay; My second question, then, would bè, to the developer, if they have some options, and to the Planning Board if they would be receptive to some options. If those are the issues, are there other ways to address those issues, and maintain a 45 foot setback instead of a 75 foot setback? - 7 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/23/96) MR. RUEL-Are there some recommended ways of preventing erosion? MR. GORALSKI-Well, certainly, there are ways to prevent erosion, with regard to planting of more vegetation, different types of construction sequencing so that, you know, there's permanent erosion control put into place before construction, things like that, and, you know, that would be something that the engineers would come UP with, but there's no point in them even looking for those options if the Board's not going to be receptive to it. MR. RUEL-No, but if we know possible, wouldn't that give setbacks are concerned? what the opt¡ons are, and they're us a little leeway, as far as the MR. GORALSKI~Absolutely. MR. BREWER-I think, didn't we go through that a year and a half ago? MR. RUEL-I don't think so. I don't remember us ever going to details about erosion control to eliminate the 75 or the lOO? MR. PALING-I didn't think we set it at 75. We didn~t have to do anything like that, but, no, if we had this same discussion then we'd be talking about erosion control, and we talked about it, mostly in other areas, rather than in this particular spot. MR. MACEWAN-Especially over in the area on the other side of the retention pond. That's where we had real serious problems. There were trees that had been knocked over that had been knocked over into the ravine, and there was serious erosion going on there, and we enacted those measures to put those up immediately, the hay bales. MR. BREWER-What sends a light up to me is, if they're way back here, and I don't think that you saw this map, Craig, but, I mean, you saw it then. If they're way back here, a year and a half ago, with no construction, and they took the trees out wherever they did, and we had substantial erosion, what the heck's going to happen when they get within 35 or 40 feet of that thing? I mean, that thing's going to fall right in. 1 don't care what you do. I mean, they did no construction whatsoever, a year and a half ago, and they're 200 feet away from it, and the banks are falling down. MR. MACEWAN-Well, what happened a year and a half ago, and correct me if I'm wrong, that was partially the mistake of the outfit you guyS contracted with to take the trees down. They went way beyond what they were supposed to. Is that not right? MR. BREW~R-That's just my point though, Craig. They're going to be to that point. MR. MACEWAN-Well, hopefully, a lesson was learned the last time around, and we'll be, as a Town and as an applicant, be able to keep tighter reins on it, if that's something to go that way. MR. LAPPER-If I could just respond, from the applicant's perspectiye. We're coming in here and part of the reason we wanted a workshop, is that we recognize that what we're asking for is different than what you said last time you wanted tQ see, and I think that what John is suggesting is very logical, and we understand that the issues are stabilization and the, ~ won't call it a habitat, but the lupine, because darn butterflies, and we're prepared to do anything reasonable that will make the Board comfortable in terms of engineering this for the stabilization of the bank, so that you, the Planning Department, and the Town Engineer look at with our engineer and determine is reasonable to - 8 - "-' --..I (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting "1/23/96 ) make sure that these issues are addressed, and that any impacts are mitigated or just avoided. We don't want to have erosion, and we know that there's lupine there. MR. BREWER-Has there been any consideration to Þutting the warehouse on the other side of the building, with the purchase of that property, possibly? MR. LAPPER-This is the property line. additional property? You mean purchasing MR. BREWER-That was tossed out to Jbe Nicola a year ago or whatever. MR. PALING-Does anyone have any concerns beyond erosion in this? That is the center piece of our discussion. It's got to stay there, but I wonder if there are any other concerns that anyone has? The 50 foot setback for the safety travel of theemergéncy vehicles, how do we define that? Can that accept this kind of a thing? MR. GORALSKI-That's defined believe the plan, as closely requirement. under the Building Code, and 1 as I've looked at it, meets that , MR. PALING-Okay. Even though this is 45 feet, there is room enough for emergency vehicles, and that's not a problem. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-Is there any more room to move that building in, even a couple of feet more? Instead of seven foot, come in ten foot? MR. PAKALOVICH-It becomes very difficult. We haven't looked at it to say. I'm sure it's not impossible, but it would be very hard on the operation. We tried to design it as efficiently as we could, and that's why, it's as close to square as can be. Obviously, that's the most efficient operation you could have would be a square building for a warehouse. MR. RUEL-This addition, this warehouse addition, is not something new. This is something that you knew would have to transpire right from the beginning, right? MR. LAPPER-Well, they hoped that it would transpire, if the business justified it, but that's why, in terms of the ~eview last time, it was suggèsted that this may be something that would happen. Nobody knew that. MR. PAKALOVICH-When you heard about it the lást time, it was a concept, and it was in the square foot range, and you might have even heard a number like 80,000 square feet. We've now pared that down. Actually, what we're looking at i~ 69,600 sqUare feet. MR. PALING-That's after you take the seven feet off? MR. PAKALOVICH-That's correct. So, you know, we've alreadY t~ken advantage of some of the efficiencies of having a brand new building with the'proper ceiling height, and allowing us to put the racking in the way, the most efficient way that we see it fitting, versus the 80,000 square feet that 'we're now using. MR. RUEL-Question. The building is at 386, isn't it, roughly? MR. HIRSCHBERG-The floor elevation is 386. - 9 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/23/96) MR. RUEL-Yes, and the top of the ravine that we're talking about is 382. We're talking about f04r feet difference? MR. HIRSCHBERG-Yes, but the four foot loading doçk height means that the roadway around the outside will be at about 384. MR. RUEL-Yes, but what I'm thinking of now, as far as erosion is concerned, there's only a four foot drop in, what, two hundred feet? MR. HIRSCHBERG-From the standpoint of erosion, 1 would say the critical element is to prevent stormwater generated either naturally off the ground, or from the new building, to find its way to the top of the $lope and go down it. From an erosion standpoint, that's the critical element. We think that this particular plan works that way becauseþ if you can visualize that this elevation is 382 with the edge of this roadway, approximately, you have a 384 contour here. That allows almost for a natural berm to ex¡st between the edge of this roadway and the top of that ravine. MR. RUEL-Two feet. MR. HIRSCHBERG-Yes, but a two foot berm, stormwater very rarely runs more than two feet deep. Most stormwater's running six inches deep in the gutter, except when you have a river. We don't have, essentially our capability is to control it through a series of catch basins along the edge here. As a matter of fact, as I said before, we propose to use the inside edge of this roadway for our drainage system, actually cant the roadway from the top of the slope back toward the building. So essentially we can keep all the storm drainage away from the top of that slope, and I think that there certainly are methods. During cODstruction, as, most people will tell you that during construction is the key time with regard to setting up erosion patterns, and I think that it's clear that, unfortunately, when the clearing was done, that wasn't paid attention to, but off the get go, I'm sure that, this time around, we've learned a lesson regarding being certain that before any tree is cleared or anything is done, the erosion control pattern is set up, a series of silt fences and hay bales, perhaps even going in by hand and doing some of the work with small equipment to actually make this berm,. this earthen berm which gives you added protection, and do that all in advance of the first time we cut trees, or the first time we do any clearing or any 9:radiT)g of this area right here. I think, from a technical standpoint, and, yes, we would have to present plans and details of how we intend to do it. We think that it can be handled. When I said, originally, from a standpoint of erosion and sediment controls, we think that we can certainly accomplish that, and I think that that can be done reasonably effectively, and more effectively by being very careful with this process. MR. MAPEWAN~From an engineering would have to cut trees right order to build that building þuilding? MR. HIRSCHBERG-Have to cut the trees to here, and my guess is, probably ·two feet clear of the edge of the roadway, maybe even threeifeet to allow us to, as I say, berm up a little bit outside so that we don't allow the drainage from the roadway to go to the top'of the slopes. So the çlearing line, if you want to draw a clearing iine, my gMess is, if you want to take the edge of that pavement and draw a line three feet off it, essentially, you've gQt a clearing line, because we don't have to do much grading there. It's not like we have to cut five feet or ten feet. We're just about on grade. perspective, do you feel that you to that edge of that ravine in and that access road around the - 10 - '--' ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/23/96) MR. RUEL-You have a flat roof. Where does that water go? MR. HIRSCHBERG-Actually, it~s not a flat roof. It'sa shed roof. It's a shed roof that goes this way and into a series of drains that will come right along here. This roof sheds this way. MR. RUEL-None of that roof water will be going on the ravine side, then? MR. HIRSCHBERG-Well, yes it does. This roof sheds this way. It comes down and goes into a series of catch basins along here, and this one would go this way, would shed this way, toward the ravine, but would go into a series of catch basins along the top of that ravine, and that's why I said, essentially, what we would do is we'd cant the roadway. If this is the edge of the ravine, cant the roadway back toward the building, so your building wall is here, and essentially not allow anything to come off that building and find it's way to the top. MR. RUEL-Okay. Now, the width of the building at that point is roughly 150 feet or whatever. MR. HIRSCHBERG-At this point here, it's 150. MR. RUEL-Yes. Okay. So before the building is up, there's 150 feet of ground allowing water to run down over that 150 feet: It drops down about three or four feet, right? That water now is heading toward the ravine, which would possibly cause erosion if it's not all caught up in the vegetation. Now putting the building there prevents that amount of water. MR. HIRSCHBERG-That's correct, because we're going to control the runoff from that, ãs opposed to the natural runoff. MR. RUEL-So, naturally, the way I see it, this helps to prevent erosion. MR. HIRSCHBERG-Our assumption is, Number One, we're going to have zero runoff from our new site over that slope. If, now, there's some runoff, we're going to actually improve it, but I want to caution you, regarding the type of soil in this area, it's so porous that off natural ground you get very little runoff, except when you get a winter time rain on frozen ground. Obviously, what happenèd last weekend was one of the worst conditions with regard to this sort of site. You had a frozen ground here~ The rain hit this ground here and actually found it's way to the top of the slope and probably natural erosion would have had this. I just want to point out that, 1 hate to give a Geology lesson, but there's a Geology lesson to be given here, is that nature, through time, tries to level all grounds. Essentially, it tries to take soils at tops of hills and deposit it at the bottom of hills, and that happens over geologic time, over thousands of years. That's exactly what happens. So, essentially, the propensity of this slope is to essentially try to flatten itself. When it reaches an angle of repose, it becomes stable, but still, when you're talking over geologic time, it's trying to build up the bottom of it, and then flatten the top of it. They'll eventually end up with a flat plain. That's essentially what happens with weather patterns, with wind and rain erosion. That's what tends to happen. Now because y6u're talking over geologic time, dU1-ing the time that it's leased, the 15 years, you don't expect much of that to happen, so these gentlemen are safe with regard to this, and slopes are going to be stabilized. We don't think that presents any stabilization problem with regard to this building, but de facto, most slopes do tend to move over time, and we don't think that this presents a significant problem with regard to the stability of the building, but we will try to stabilize this area here with new vegetation, - 11 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/23/96) as was mentioned, and that's an important element. MR. LAPPER-We would submit that as a stabilization plan for the Town Engineer to take a look at, and the Planning Department. MR. RUEL-We will have one? I was just going to ask that. MR. LAPPER-Yes. ,MR. RUEL-You would have an engineering study or ~omething showing us that what you're doing will not increase and possibly will decrease erosion, etc. MR. LAPPER-We'll absolutely address that. MR. PALING-We'll have to make it a requirement, that this would be. MR. RUEL-I think it should be a requirement, in view of the 75 foot setback down to. 30 some odd feet. MR.. LAPPER-We anticipated that you'd want that, and we think that that's appropriate. In addition to the geology, I just want to make a point~ certainly from reviewing the minutes of a year and a half ago, it was in there in response to what Craig had said before about what, happened before the development. There was evidence that, because this was used by ATV's and motorcycles before the facility was there, that there was a lot, and with the sandy soils, that there was a lot of erosion over the bank, because people riding motorized vehicles, and that's stopped, because they're there, and because they closed off that access, and that's a net positive, in terms of erosion, and in terms of, you know, the unfortunate clearing that got too close, there was no evidence that, in the back side, that that, even a couple of those trees did go over, that that caused the erosion, or that the erosion was there ahead of time. MR. MACEWAN-I remember when ~ walked the site that there was direct resu~ts of recent erosion from the clearing that took place, in a couple of places, over behind that retention pond. I walked down qver that bank, and there was fresh stuff. I mean, we just had had a series of rains prior to that, and that was directly a result of what happened there. MR. LAPPER-My recollection is that, as a result of that, with the concern that the basin was moved away from the ravine to address that. MR. MACEWAN-It was. MR. RUEL-John, are the loading platforms considered part of the building for setback requirements? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, and I believe they're internal loading docks. MR. HIRSCHBERG-Yes. These loading docks, these are just the slabs. These are concrete slabs, and for your guidance, these are three, 20 foot panels, so fhat the face of a 55 foot tractor trailer is almost out to the edge of those concrete panels when they're parked there. That's Just for scale, to give you an idea how large those trucks would be when they pulled in. That's just to the limits of the concrete approach slabs here, to your loading dock. MR. RUEL-You do have other sheets to indicate contours and side view of the building adjacent to the ravine, and all that stuff? MR. HIRSCHBERG-We would anticipate that we would come up with an - 12 - " '-' -...-/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/23/96) erosion control plan, strictly devoted to the idea of construction time erosion control and permanent erosion cont~ol. MR. RUEL-Specific to this area? MR. HIRSCHBERG-Specific. (lost words) and erosion control plan that addresses all areas of this site that would be possibly effected. We'd also come up with a finished grading plan that shows the finished grades versus the existing grades. We would show, essentially, an we can, as part of our finished grading plan, also show sectional views, showing sections through 'this area to show how it sits related. MR. RUEL-In the critical areas especially. MR. HIRSCHBERG-Yes. My guess is that our normal submission has a lot of those items in it. We're also talking about pr6viding you with a landscaped plan, including a landscape plan of those areas where lupine grows now, and how to handle those areas, to be certain that we're going to protect them, and also indicate è~eas where we could provide for potential areas to increase the lupine. Lupine tends to grow, if you disturb the soil, but we don't want to disturb the soil right at the top of this ravine. So we'd have to provide some areas in there that lupine grows, essentially, when you mow the area, and you entirely clear it, lupine tends to seed itself, if you have it overgrown with trees. So, in the areas where the trees are, lupiné tends to get 'shaded out. It grows better in the sm~ll openings within the trees. So we would try to provide you with a plan that addresses all these issues with regard to landscaping, landscaping and the lupine development areas would also be (lost word). MR. RUEL-Lupine eventually dies out, doesn't it? MR. HIRSCHBERG-Lupine tends, if you've been around a lupine, seeds itself, sometime in late July. The seed pods actually dry out, and they shoot out. They actually shoot out. The seeds actually shoot out, and they quite often lay dormant for a number of years in the sand, and then they, for some miraculouš reason, they decide that that year they're going to bloom, and then they bloom. We've found sites that we though lupine had been entirely extraopated, all of a sudden comes back' when the conditions allow, and as a matter of fact, in the Albany Pine Brush Preserve area, which is here where a whole bunch of research is being done, they found in the areas where there was no lupine, when they burned the overburdened soil, and a couple of years later, lupine reseeded itself. It was obviously seeds that had lain dormant for many many years, because this was in the middle of the forest area where lupine doesn't exist, but yes, like all plants, it does tend to die out, especially when it becomes overgrown with other parts of shrubs or trees. MR. RUEL-In this letter I read there's an archeological site. Where is that? MR. HIRSCHBERG-When you say there's an archeological site, the findings were essentially chirt flakes, corre¢t me if I'm wrong, but they were chirt flakes from previous indian use. The chirt flakes come about when somebody, in historic times, essentially, took a piece of flint and sharpened the stone, sharpened against an arrowhead or a knife or an axe, and these little flakes are developed, and that's what they found in here. They found c~irt flakes. We don't consider it an archeological site, but I think that was located over in this area here? MR. BREWER-Over by the road, yes. MR. PALING-That's right. - 13 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/23/96) MR. RUEL-You're quite a distance from it anyway. MR. HIRSCHBERG-Yes. Our new development doesn't affect that at all, and we think that an adequate job was done of addressing that issue in the first go around. We're not going to do any change~ with regard to this particular area. MR. MACEWAN-Roger, that particular area, I think the guy'S first name was Kurt, and he's the Archeologist for the State. He found some test pits over there where the proposed road is supposed to be going, if they extended the Town road. That if they were going to do that, it should go to a 5t~ge Two field investigation would further warrant if it was an area that needed protecting, and that's as far as it went. MR. BREWER~As far as the protection of the lupine in the bank or whatever, didn't we have Nature Conservancy come up with a plan, and the developer worked with them? So why don't we just refer to that plan, whosever going to do the engineering, so at least you know what the guidelines were when we did that before. MR. RUEL-There's no permeability problem here, right? MR. GORALSKI-No. MR. PALING-That's all been done. That should have been submitted to the Planning office. MR. BREWER-Right, but we should incorporate it into this. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-And enhance it, if possible. MR. MACEWAN-Correct me if I'm wrong, but that one little jog that he's talking about up there, on the ravine itself, wasn't that an area where there was lupine in there? MR. HIRSCHBERG-Yes. Our lupine map shows that there's lupine over the top of this area in here. 50 that's another reason why we made an effort to avoid it, but 1 point out the fact that lupine seeds, first of all, natural lupine seeds are hard to come by. You can't go to a seed store and buy natural lupine seeds. So that it's tough to come by, but we believe that, if, in fact, we encounter some lupine, we might make an attempt to transplant them with a big tree spade, which is essentially the only way to do it. You can't really transplant them by hand or with a back hoe or anything else. You really need like a 72 inch tree spade would come and pick up a big section of dirt with the lupine plants in them, and we transplant them with exactly the same sum angle immediately adjoining with exactly the same groundwater conditions, which are zero. There's actually, this soil's so porous, there's actually no groundwater ~n this soil at all. So, essentially, you can reproduce that, and we can transplant, and we think that the lupine issue, we can actually develop some of these areas where (lost words) to enhance the quality of lupine that can grow. MR. MACEWAN-What kind of approval process would you need to be able to do that? MR. HIRSCHBERG-I don't think that there's a habitat issue here, because Karner blue butterfly have never been documented on this particular site. MR. LAPPER-That's right. MR. MACEWAN-But isn't the plant protected? - 14 - "- '-- --/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/23/96) MR. LAPPER-No. MR. HIRSCHBERG-No. MR. BREWER-The habitat is, but not the plant. MR. LAPPER-It would be to your satisfaction just to show you what we propose. MR. GORALSKI-And I would think that if something like that was proposed, that we would seek consultation from either the Nature Conservancy or DEC, some expert, so that you folks would be comfortable with what their plan was. MR. PALING-Now we had them here before, John, and we had quite detailed explanation of what was there. They were out on the site. Two different people were out on the site. We were on the site. What's new? MR. GORALSKI~Well, 1 think what's new, from what I heard, is that the original 75 foot setback was part of ~ plan to protect that habitat, and if you're going to eliminate a portion of that 75 foot setback, you should have some way of addressing that loss of prot,ection. MR. PALING-Well, I think that we're talking an erosion issue, I feel. MR. BREWER-Both, Bob. MR. RUEL-Yes, both. MR. LAPPER-Part of the lupine is already in the would seek to most likely re-plant blue lupine because that's not going to be disturbed. ravine, and we in the ravine, MR. BREWER-How can you re-plant it, Jon? Your engineer just got done saying you can't re-plant it. MR. LAPPER-No, by moving it. Transplanting it. MR. PALING-Where would you get it? MR. LAPPER-If there's any in the area at the top of the bank where there would be disturbance. MR. PALING-You would take it and move it. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. RUEL-Give it a new home. MR. LAPPER-Right, but a lot of it's in the ravine to begin with, and that would never be disturbed. MR. RUEL-So, now, do I understand that all the existing plans, reports that were prepared for this original document will now be modified to reflect this addition? MR. GORALSKI-Well, I think what we'd have to do is consult with those plans. MR. RUEL-Shouldn't they be modified, though, to reflect this? MR. GORALSKI-Right. If there is, if it's determined eliminating a portion of that 75 foot buffer zone, whatever called. that it's - 15 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/23/96) MR. RUEL-That's a separate plan. That's a, separate repQrt. I would consider that to be a new, separate report. MR. GORALSKI~MY understanding is the 75 foot buffer zone had two purposes. One was to prevent erosion of the ravine, and the other was to protect the lupine habitat. MR. MACEWAN-That's correct. MR. RUEL-So now how do you propose to do the same thing without the 75 feet? MR. GORALSKI-Exactly. MR. RUEL-Okay. So that's a separate document? MR. GORALSKI-Right. I would say yes. MR. RUEL-I think the gentlemen agreed that they would have this. MR. COSELLA-Can 1 offer my recollection where 75 feet came from? It's been a year and a haLf ago, and I'm not an engineer, but the discussions on that very hot August night when my wife and I sat here for four and a half hours while I was getting a civics lesson. As I seem tQ recall, we were talking extensively about the Hudson Pointe project, at which there was a 150 foot offset, and I think it was a collective opinion that we weren't talking about the same kind of a project here, that the~e was not a residential situation to be recognized and dealt with, and I think 75 became like a compromise, because 150 was not necessary. I don't think it was scientific, but I may be wrong. MR. BREWER-It wasn't scientific. Exactly what yOU said, that was the setback on that particular devel6pment, and I happened to pick that number because of the same type of bluffs that are there are here, and that's how we came up with 75 feet. We compromised. MR. RUEL-Well, that's past history anyway. We're talking about a whole new approach here, right, because of the proximity to the ravine~ and th~ fact that you will have a report indicating that you can control this, yoU will take proper measures, even though you're a lot closer thaD 75 feet. MR. LAPPER-We're prepared to address the stabilization issue, and we're also going to address the lupine issue. MR. RUEL-Correct. That's correct. Okay, but that other reports that had been documented for back in August, I think, should be modified, reflect what we have now. I was mentioning this original one if need be, to MR. GORALSKI-If need by. I think what should be done is the developer should revie~ a~l of those reports~ We'll certainly review all of those reports, and if something changes that makes those reports, you know. MR. RUEL-All right. the whole document. To make it easier, you don't have to re-do You just have to amend it. MR. PALING-I think we're getting a little ahead of ourselves. Just let me summarize, or ramble, here for a minute if I can. We've said there are two issues, the lupine situation, and the control of erosion, but within that, there's quite a few branches that we're going to be looking to you for. One is a very aggressive erosion control plan~ and we will be looking at the design of the building to see how the water runs off the building, how you catch it, how you disperse it, and so on. That - 16 - "- '-' -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/23/96) you're looking to cut along that roadway, on the west side, for the most part, of two to three feet to the tree line, and that'll have to get special attention in there, and believe me, you better take out some kind of insurance or something, because I don't care who it is or what contract, if he comes in therewith a big, wide 100 foot blade, and wipes out a bunch of trees, we're going to have a heck of a problem, which is what happened before, and everybody, and that was nobody's fault. Well, it was somebody's fault. Please do somethi ng to ensure that, notHi ng like that happens. Then this will also include a grading plan, a landscaping plan, and planting to go along with it, and wê'll look for this to be very aggressive, and provable in a technical standpoint, that there will be no erosion of the area left after the construction is done, and during construction. MR. RUEL-During construction, also. MR. PALING-Yes, during construction. MR. GORALSKI-I would recommend that a significant amouri~ of "the erosion control plan be put in place before anything else gets done on that site, anything gets cut, any bulldozer goes in there, anything, and that since now you do have someone in my position to go out and inspect those things, that th6se things all be in, in place, and all be inspected prior to one tree being cut, prior to any building permit being issued, prior to any other work being done on that site. MR. PALING-I agree. Well, what kind of timing are you loo~ih9 at with the construction? MR. PAKALOVICH-Obviously, the critical window here is ordering the building, okay. We would hope to start construction some time in April, for occupancy in early fall to late fall. MR. PALING-So we'll have to see you again soon. MR. PAKALOVICH-Yes. MR. LAPPER-We'll submit for next month. MR. PAKALOVICH-As I've said, the big part of it is getting the building ordered, and getting on the manufacturing schedule and plant that makes the building and steel. It's about a three month window to get that manufactured. MR. PALING-Okay, and anything tonight but There's no approval tonight. you realize this is not, we haven't done talk about it and give you our feelings. of anything coming out of this meeting MR. PAKALOVICH-That's correct. MR. LAPPER-We're not trying to push this throu~h. We're here to talk about it. We'll come back and if it takes a couple more meetings, whatever. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. LAPPER-I'd also like to just address Bob's comment. What happened last time was unfortunate, with the cutting, and that was a subcontractor of the developer, Columbia. That was an embarrassment to Columbia. It was certainlYdån emban"assment to Native. It shouldn't have happened, but you're dealing with professional people here, and they're going to make extra sure, this time, that there's nothing that goes wrong. It shouldn't have happened last time. It won't happen this time, and you have John on staff now. - 17 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/23/96) MR. PALING-He can go right out his back door and see what they're cutting, too. MR. LAPPER-That's right. MR. PAKALOVICH-We're there now. be anythinQ done there, you happening. We occupy the site. There won't know, that we're not aware of MR. PALING-Yes. Now, are there any other questions? This looks like it's a doable project on the basic agreement or basic understanding we have tonight. Does anyone want to make any other comments? MR. MACEWAN-It just seems like the two topics that seem to be everyone's concern is the erosion problem and the protection of that ravine from the standpoint of the lupine in there. If we can take any measurements that we need to take to make sure that those two things are protected, I'd be very receptive to seeing if we couldn't Qet somethinQ going. MR. PALING-Along those lines, if it's necessary, and with that schedule, tOQet somebody from the environmental group in, that better be started pretty quick, too. MR. BREWER-Well, they've got the documents that they drew up, or whatever. MR. GORALSKI-I mean, that's where you start from. You have those documents. I have not read those documents. I don't know what they say. If those documents are simply an inventory describing the habitat, then the developer has to come up with ways to protect that habitat. If those documents have specific recommendations for protecting. the habitat, then they should either be complied with or amended. MR. BREWER-I think, if Y9U talk to Jim, recommendations that she gave either Jim whatever, which way to QO. I think there was or the developer or MR. GORALSKI-Okay. Those should be looked at, and if those are not being complied with. MR. MACEWAN~You'ie talking about the protection of the lupine there, when Elaine was talkinQ about that? MR. ,BREWER-Elaine Ball. MR. MACEWAN~There was discussion about even things as simple as puttinQ a snow fence around the areas, but I can't recall whether any firm plan ever materialized out of that. MR. BREWER-I think they were to come up with some kind of a plan and submit it. ~ don't know if they ever did or not. MR. PALING-Let me read Item Number ihree of the resolution, of the motion, "that there will be a plan to encourage the growth of the lupine plant, and the eventual arrival of the Karner blue butterfly. This plan will include possible re-planting of the over-cut areas that were defined in the ~pplicant's map. This plan will be submitted to the Town Planning Office for approval by August 31." So we do have that. MR. BREWER-So you must have a plan. If you don't, then they're not in compliance. MR. MACEWAN-This recommendation, but recommendation, though. this resolution, that I shouldn't say specific item riQht - 18 - '" "'-" --' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/23/96) there is very vague. MR. PALING-Okay. I just don't want you to come back and we get hung up on something you're not prepared for. MR. GORALSKI-Well, I would recommend that what you do is look into that. I will certainly look into see~ng if a plan was submitted. If a plan ~n't submitted, what I recommend you do is come up with a specific plan that you can submit, and; as I said before, since I'm here doing inspections now, I'll make sure that that plan is complied with. MR. MACEWAN-Bob, can I offer a suggestion? Why don't you go right down the Board and let everyone have an opportunity to express what their concerns are, so maybe we cßn get it right out in the open right now. MR. PALING-Go ahead. We'll start with you. MR. MACEWAN-I think the things that are coming out in ~ mind are, Number One, protecting that ravine, a plan for the lupine and protecting that or re-establishing that. I'm interested in a cross section of that Farr Road back there, and how water is going to drain, not toward the ravine, but back away from the catch basin, with a stormwater management plan. I think that's J:!'!.Y. biggest concerns I have, to prove that it can work. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. Cathy, how about you? MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I concur with Craig. Twq things crossed my mind as you were talking, and then when you addressed them, I said, well, I guess they wouldn't have been too crazy a suggestion, because I'm not an engineer, but 'òne of 'them was, when you said you would cant the road toward the building, and I thought, I could never ask them to do that, but then, but you guys are the engineers. You're the designers. You can figure something out, in today's day and age, and the other thing was to actually take some kind of a dirt mover and pick those lupiri~ up and move them elsewhere. However, Bob's bringing our attention to this here, on the motion to approve the original site plan does say that there has to be this plan in there, and that could be a hang up, if we don't come up with it. MR, LAPPER-There was a plan. Rich just reminded me that there was a detailed plan that basically talked abovt planting natural species, not seeding with grass, planting pi~e trees to create the same environment that was originally there, and so that was a formal plan that was submitted that John will find when he goes into the file, and that was complied with. They're going to come back out this spring, just to see the status and how it's all developed and how it's taken, but we will update that 'plan, in terms of applying it to this area of the property, as part of our submittal. MRS. LABOMBARD-It sounds good, Jon, and another thing is, as far as LJ:n. concerned, as long as there is no erosion on the ravine, then 'the setback factor, and we can get the vehicles, utility vehicles, emergency vehicles, around the building, I mean, if you can do it with 35 feet, fine, if you can prov¿ to us you have a viable plan that's not going to fai~. That's ~'concerns. MR. PALING-If we've got them at 45, lets stay with that. MRS. LABOMBARD-I agree. MR. LAPPER-It's 45, minimum. MR. PALING-Roger? - 19 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/23/96) MR. RUEL-Well, I feel comfortable with all the items that have been çovered tonight, and the responses to it, and the applicant has indicated over and over again that he will supply various documents to take care of the items that we were concerned about, erosion and ecological runoff water, etc., and I think if he reviews all the existing documents and modifies them, if need be, and generate the new documents we asked for, I don't see any problems right now until the next session. MR. PALING-Tim? MR. BREWER-Pretty much the same thing. The landscaping plan is a biggie, because they're going to be taking so much out away from the bank. The groundwater, runoff, not necessarily the groundwater, but the runoff, control of that, erosion is a biggie, and the landscaping. I just see a lot being taken out of there, and I just don't know how it's going to be stabilized, but lets see. MR. PALING-I think we've all said about the same thing. Craig added the road cross section, perhaps, to the list, that I'm sure can be done. MR. RUEL-The applicant indicated he would do that, he would have sections along the building with the road and the catch basins and everything else, just as you requested. MR. MACEWAN-That's fine. Maybe a footnote to this whole thing, I think when we originally were talking, the last time around, about a warehouse facility being put on this site, it was primarily being talked about being put on the other side of the ravine, with a bridge and everything else. I think that's what got everybody's guard up, right off the bat. MR. RUEL-Yes, smart move. MR. GORALSKI-Something that I discussed with Jim today, and I think bears mentioning, is that the Native Textiles Corporation came in here talking about saving jobs in town and creating new jobs in town, and in an era where we're losing an awful lot of jobs in the area, they have done exactly what they said they were going to do when they did the first phase of this project. MR. RUEL-Here here. MR. PALING-When I drove in off of Carey Road onto your street, and I came around, I saw that parking lot and there's the automobiles with people in there that are working at good steady jobs, I felt good about this whole thing, and I think we've got to do whatever we can to make Queensbury this kind of place. We can't give the whole Town away, but there's usually a way you can find to get the job done. MR. PAKALOVICH-Just to add to that, I Just want to say one thing, that Native Textiles, as you're all aware, has been in this community for a long time, probably longer than most of us are alive. Our aim is to be a good neighbor. If we need to mitigate erosion problems and mitigate lupine problems, we will do that. We're in this for the long haul. We're in this for the sake of the company and the sake of those 500 and some odd jobs, and it's important to us that this project works. MR. RUEL-How old did you say the company was? MR. PAKALOVICH-That building, believe it or not, was part of H. & F. Binch Company in 1898. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. - 20 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/23/96) MR. LAPPER-Thank you. ---.../ MR. PALING-Site visits the 17th. The meetings are on the 20th and the 27th, and it appears that we will have two meetings. I'm gOing to ask that the elections be held as the last item on the 20th. MRS. LABOMBARD-Will George be back? MR. PALING-Yes, he will be back. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 21 -