Loading...
1997-02-20 SP QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 1997 INDEX Site Plan No. 1-97 PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map Nos. 73-1-22.1, 22.3, 22.4, 22.5 22.6, 22.7, and portion of 21 Michael J. Vasiliou, Inc. Indian Ridge 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. ~ -.-" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY ROGER RUEL TIMOTHY BREWER DAVID WEST GEORGE STARK CRAIG MACEWAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, & PRATT, MARK SCHACHNER TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, WILLIAM LEVANDOWSKI STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 1-97 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE MICHAEL J. VASILIOU, INC. (CONTRACT VENDEE) INDIAN RIDGE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: SR-15/P.U.D. LOCATION: NORTH OF FARR LANE & FOX FARM ROAD, OFF OF AVIATION ROAD PROPOSAL IS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 111 SINGLE PAMILY LOTS; 9 MULTI-FAMILY (DUPLEX) LOTS; 1 LOT FOR SENIOR APARTMENTS (61 UNITS); 2 LIMITED COMMERCIAL-RESIDENTIAL LOTS. CROSS REFERENCE: PUD 1-96/Pl-96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/11/97 TAX MAP NOS. 73-1- 22.1, 22.3, 22.4, 22.5, 22.6, 22.7, 23 AND PORTION OF 21 LOT SIZE: SECTION: 179-58 MICHAEL O'CONNOR & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-We'd like to welcome you to a Special Meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. The purpose of this meeting is for the Planning Board to begin its consideration of the Preliminary Site Plan Review application submitted by Michael Vasiliou, Incorporated for a project known as Indian Ridge Planned Unit Development, or PUD, if you will. This is the Planning Board's first meeting to consider the Preliminary Site Plan Review application, and we mayor may not reach an actual decision. First, for the benefit of the public, let me tell you about the various official players in the process who are present at this meeting. We are seven Board members here who make various decisions or ~ill make various decisions about this application. Also here are our Town Planning Staff in the person of Jim Martin, our Director of our Town Planning Department, our legal counsel, Mark Schachner, the Planning Board's Engineering Consultant, Bill Levandowski in the last seat over here, and Maria Gagliardi, our Clerk. Mr. Martin is here to provide us with input from the Town Planning Staff, and Mr. Schachner provides us with legal advice, if necessary, to guide us through the legal process. Mr. Levandowski's role is to provide us with engineering review. Our Clerk makes sure that all elements are recorded on tape so they can properly appear in the minutes of this meeting. None of these individuals make the ultimate decision on any application. They are merely here to assist the Planning Board and to provide us with their professional advice. Unlike the vast majority of applications heard by this Planning Board, because this is a Planned Unit Development, this project has already been reviewed, and approved, by the Queensbury Town Board. Therefore, our review is limited, by law, to the Site Plan Review considerations set forth in applicable sections of New York State Town Law, as well as Queensbury Town Code. Regardless of any personal opinions about - 1 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) this project, we have an obligation to review it and make our decision in accordance with these provisions of law. In addition, State Environmental Quality Review Act, SEQRA if you will, review has already been conducted by the Town Board, as the SEQRA lead agency. We, this Board, has no authority to conduct any additional SEQRA review. This is an open public meeting and anyone is entitled to attend and participate. However, I, as Chairman, will preside over this meeting and make sure that it runs in an orderly fashion. Discussion at various times in the meeting may be limited to the members of the Planning Board only or the applicant' s representatives, but anyone who wishes to speak during the public hearing may do so and all will have an opportunity to be heard. Although anyone is free to say whatever they want, we encourage the limitation of comments to aspects of the project which fall within our authority and not to objections that you may have on matters beyond our legal control. Regardless of your opinion for or against the proj ect, we request that everyone be treated with respect and be allowed to speak their turn. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and lets all strive to conduct a fair and orderly meeting. For those who may not be aware, I'm just going to go down the order in which the meeting will be conducted. This is the way we conduct all Planning Board meetings, but just to let those who may not know, know. We start off with Jim Martin making Staff comments, after Staff having reviewed the application, followed by Bill Levandowski's Engineering comments, then the applicant takes the floor and they'll probably make a summary and hopefully answer Staff comments as well as engineering comments. Throughout the entire proceeding the Board will be making comments and questions of the applicants and of Staff. Then there will be a public hearing. Now there probably will be quite a few speakers. So that everyone can be heard, we're going to limit each speaker to five minutes, then when we've gone a complete round, if you didn't finish what you had to say, we'll ask you to come back up, so that we can hear everything that you had to say, but the first round of public speakers will be limited to five minutes each. Okay. There's a lot of detail. We've got a lot of ground to cover, so we'll start with Jim and Staff comments. MR. MARTIN-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 1-97 Preliminary Stage, Michael J. Vasiliou, Inc., Indian Ridge, Meeting Date: February 20, 1997 "The applicant is seeking preliminary site plan approval of a PUD on approximately 140 acres north of Aviation Road at the north end of Farr Lane. The project consists of 111 Single Family lots, 9 Duplex lots, 1 lot for Senior Housing (61 units), and a one acre commercial area. As a part of this application the applicant proposed the dedication of 61.49 acres of land to the Town of Queensbury for use as land conservation and park land. As a result of the action taken previously by the Town Board the underlying zoning over a portion of the project parcel has been changed to SR- 20 and MR-5. The preliminary site plan submitted is consistent with the project layout and design as reflected in the Master Plan dated June 28, 1996 and approved at sketch plan phase by the Town Board on August 19, 1996. The staff has reviewed the preliminary application in accordance with the criteria set forth in 179-58 entitled Site Plan Approval Process. This section sets forth criteria for site plan review which are unique to the PUD application process. The review of the application is governed by these criteria. Attention is called to Section 179-58 C(3) which states in regards to recommendations for revisions to the final site plan: 'Such recommendations shall be limited, however, to siting and dimensional details within general use areas and shall not significantly alter the sketch plan as it was approved in the zoning proceedings.' Therefore, staff notes are prepared in consideration of 179-58 A(1-5) and 179-58 B(l & 2). The "boiler - 2 - ~ -..../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) plate" items as listed in 179-58 A(1-3) are provided on the site plan. Item 179-58A(4), relating to soils information, has been provided earlier in the review process appears complete and adequately detailed and is also available to the Planning Board for review if desired. However, there was a remaining comment from the previous review phase that the number and location of soil borings were insufficient to adequately determine groundwater elevation and flow in the northern end of the project area. Staff recommends that additional soil boring be conducted in the north end of the site in proximity to the top of the slope. This additional boring should be conducted with the review of the final site plan application for Phase III. This will provide for an opportunity to confirm the data regarding groundwater gathered to date. Item 179- 58 A(5) is irrelevant as there is no homeowner's association proposed. In terms of 179-58 B the following staff comments are offered: 1. The proposed traffic circulation pattern appears adequate. 2. Pedestrian access should provide details regarding the foot path through the linear central park area, as well as, access, if any, to the conservation area. Additionally, details should be provided for the design and construction of the access to the school property. Staff would also recommend the installation of sidewalks throughout the development. This recommendation is prefaced on the understanding that maintenance and snow removal will be the responsibility of the individual lot owner. Additionally, there may be practical issues to work out regarding timing of installation and impact on the highway and utilities (i.e. water, electricity, gas and cable). If these issues can be resolved sidewalks would enhance the project's function and character. If sidewalks are provided a streetscape plan should be developed which provides landscaping or tree planting in the grass area between the sidewalk and the drainage swale. 3. Off street parking. Each lot should provide a 'turn around' area within the driveway. This was indicated on a previous conceptual plan entitled "Overall Drainage System Schematic" dated 4/15/96. The turn around area will improve safety in the public right-of-way as exiting cars will pullout forward on to the right-of-way rather than back out. 4. Lighting sYmbols appear to be indicated on the "Clearing and Landscaping Plan: It is not clear whether this lighting is part of an existing lighting district or will require formation of a new one. Details regarding appearance, candle power, and direction and extent of lighting of the light poles should be provided as lighting can impact the overall character of the project. A rendering of the entrance sign should be provided. Street signs will be required in accordance with Highway Department standards. 5. Staff compliments the overall design of the project. The location of the central park area is convenient to all dwellings and serves to provide separation among lots and will provide a feeling of openness. The access to the school is forward thinking and will provide direct physical access to the school and its numerous amenities. The design serves to protect the ecological importance of the wetland area to the north through buffering, cutting restrictions, positive drainage away from the wetland and deed covenants on the 52 acre parcel will serve to permanently protect the wetland. The housing mix will provide opportunities for a spectrum of the housing market. The clustered design provides for reduced infrastructure resulting in lower maintenance costs and less environmental impacts. The senior housing element provides 61 units for the most needs sector of the senior market. 6. The existing natural vegetation to remain in combination with planned landscaping appears to adequately screen the project from surrounding areas. 7. The central park area will provide area for open, unstructured recreation. Active recreation facilities are provided on the adjoining school grounds and are within walking distance utilizing the access points. 8. The detail sheet (D-2) indicates septic areas in the rear yard. This should be corrected to the front yard. The grading plan should include information from the previous design sheets entitled "Overall Drainage System Schematic" dated 4/15/96 and "Typical Site - 3 - --./ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) Section" dated 4/1/96. These provide information concerning septic system placement and lot grading. These concepts should be explained in greater detail on the "Grading and Drainage Plan" submitted. Staff concurs with the Rist Frost comments on this matter listed in the letter dated 2/13/97. 9. Flooding or ponding do not appear to present any problems given the soil conditions present and the drainage plan proposed. 10. See comment in item #6. 11. All elements of the zoning action taken by the Town Board appear to have been incorporated in this design. 12. Staff recommends that confirmation be provided regarding the architectural character of the homes. In 1995 the developer submitted a design manual illustrating the style of homes to be built. Staff recommends these designs be confirmed. 13. The plan continues to protect through avoidance the archaeologically sensitive areas along the ridge. Miscellaneous comments are as follows: DENSITY The 61 proposed Senior Housing units are proposed to be built in an MR-5 zone which allows for a density of one unit per 5,000 square feet. The construction of 61 units on a 7.1 acre parcel would conform to the density requirements of the MR-5 zone. The 9 duplex lots and 111 single family lots are proposed to be constructed on property zoned SR-20. This zone allows for one dwelling unit per 20,000 square feet of lot area. These lots will be clustered and will meet the density requirements of the SR-20 zone, with no single family lot being smaller than .40 acres in size. The density of the 111 single family lots minus all other land uses in this project will be one lot per .49 acres, just under one half acre, and is calculated as follows: Total Project Acreage: 140 Acres Senior Housing Lot: Commercial Lot: Nine Duplex Lots: parkland: Land Conservation: New Roads (9500 ft. x 50 ft. width): 7.10 acres 1.00 acres 4.88 acres 8.79 acres 52.70 acres 10.90 acres Total: 85.37 acres Total Project Acreage (140 acres) - roads and non single family land uses (85.37 acres) = acreage devoted solely to single family development (54.63). Single family land 54.63 acres \ 111 proposed single family homes = .49 acres per lot density. Town water service will be provided for this development. The Queensbury Water Department has indicated that there may be some difficulty in serving single family homes in this development. The proposal to build on site septic systems in the front yard of each home, combined with the location of driveways, may limit where water lines can be constructed. Further comment on this issue will be provided by Queensbury Water Department at the Planning Board meeting. On-site septic systems will be built on each lot for wastewater treatment. The septic systems will be located in the front yard of each single family home within this development. Homes built in the northern and northwestern portions of this project will have septic systems which will be separated from Rush Pond by a distance of approximately 300 feet. This application for preliminary plan approval of the Indian Ridge PUD meets the dimensional and density requirements which were established during the rezoning and PUD designation by the Town Board." MR. MARTIN-And as a follow up to the Water Department comment, I have a record of a phone conversation today with Tom Flaherty, the Water Superintendent, regarding the water line connections. The notation is, "I spoke with Tom and he indicated that he has resolved the conceptual approach for connection of water service to the individual dwellings and he will be writing a letter to that effect." - 4 - '~ ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) MR. PALING-Okay. Jim, how do you want to handle the Rist-Frost letters? Do you want to read those in, too? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I can read that in. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MARTIN-And I also have several letters from the public as well as a letter from Nace Engineering and then several additional things were handed to me tonight by members of the public, and I can read those in, but I would recommend holding on this until the public hearing. MR. PALING-Not the Nace letter, perhaps, but all of the others will go to the public hearing. MR. MARTIN-Right. Okay. You want the Rist-Frost letter next? MR. PALING-Yes, please. MR. MARTIN-Okay. This is a letter to myself regarding Site Plan No. 1-97, Indian Ridge PUD Preliminary, dated February 19, 1997. "Dear Mr. Martin: We have reviewed the information submitted with the above referenced application and have the following comments. 1. We have not reviewed the road and water plans as those areas are subject to approval of the Town Highway and Water Departments. 2. Storm Drainage System: a. The Stormwater Management Report, Drainage Methodology Section states that the drainage system design is based on a typical 350 ft. section of roadway, with the roadway area and the front halves of adjacent lots draining to that section of road and subsequently to the typical drywells. It states that the rear half of each lot, including the rear half of the house itself will drain to the rear and eventually filter into the ground. Since no grading plans or general grading instructions are included on the plans submitted, this assumption cannot be verified nor is there any àssurance that the lots will be so graded during construction. While the general drainage concept is acceptable, a detailed review of the system can't be performed until the grading is defined and drainage areas for the drywells are determined. b. Previous project data states that Lot 51 and Lots 70 to 86 will be graded to drain stormwater to the roadways by constructing swales from the rear of the lots to the roadways and sloping the front of the lots directly to the roadways. The applicant has stated that specific grading requirements, road elevations and finish floor elevations will be agreed during site plan review. Other than road elevations, no specific lot grading or floor elevations are proposed. c. The Town's subdivision design standards have specific lot grading criteria. Proposed grading, including the rear of the lots should be indicated to permit proper review and to assure construction at each lot conforms to the criteria and approved plan. d. Proposed drywells are not shown consistently on both plan and profile. 3. The proposed setbacks in general and rear "no building area" on the previously submitted typical site plans and site sections are not reflected in the current plans. 4. The sewage system design is subj ect to approval from the Department of Health. If they require each septic system to have a percolation test, that requirement should be included on the plans including what to do if the percolation rate falls outside of the listed ranges. 5. Because of the proximity of Lots 51 and 70 to 86 to the wetland area, we recommend that site specific erosion control plans be required for those lots. Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P. C. William J. Levandowski, P.E." And since I believe in response to that letter, we did receive a letter today from Nace Engineering addressing these concerns. MR. PALING-Yes. Would the applicant prefer to handle this letter yourself? - 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) MR. MARTIN-Yes, I think that may. MR. NACE-It makes no difference. MR. PALING-I think it would probably be better. We'll just let that go until you're up, and then take it from there. Okay. Then, do you have any other engineering information? MR. MARTIN-No. That's all I have. The balance of what I have is from the public tonight, and I'll hold that until the public hearing. MR. PALING-All right. Bill, do you have any other comment about any of that information at the present time? MR. LEVANDOWSKI-Not at this time. MR. PALING-All right. One other comment that I should have made is that if you can't hear us out there, please let us know. It's a case of how close we get to the mic. We'll ask the same of you when you come to the mic, that you pull up close to it so we can hear you, too. All right. MR. RUEL-I have a question for Jim. 29th, had requested three waivers. Jim, Nace Engineering, January Were these granted? MR. MARTIN-That's up to you. MR. PALING-Yes, well that's a good point, though. This should be read in. I can read this into the record if you'd like. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. PALING-This is a January 29th letter to the Queensbury Town Planning Department from Thomas Nace of Nace Engineering, subject Indian Ridge PUD, Preliminary Site Plan. "Enclosed are 10 copies of the preliminary site plans for the Indian Ridge PUD. The remainder of the site plan submission has already been delivered. Although the review of this project is officially a site plan review, we realize that the Town Subdivision Regulations will be generally applied. We request that the Planning Board consider granting waivers from these regulations as follows: Section A183- 23. I. (3) . (a) requires "T" intersections to be at a 90 degree angle. Due to the geometry of the existing road into Solomon Heights we are requesting that a 76 degree angle be permitted for Roads #1 & #3. This angle is well within the NYSDOT and AASHTO guidelines which allow angles as small as 70 degrees. Section A183-23.I. (4). Requires that dead-end streets be no longer than 1000 feet. In the completed subdivision the longest dead-end street will be 700 feet. However, due to the practicalities of phasing the construction, some of the phases will have temporarily dead ended streets longer than 1,000 feet. Therefore, we are requesting a waiver from this regulation being applied to the individual phases. Section A189- 9.B. (5). Requires dimensions on proposed lot lines be provided in the preliminary subdivision plans. All of the drawings submitted have been accurately drawn to scale and all setback lines, roads, etc. have been shown to conform to Town standards. However, actual lot line dimensions and bearings have not been shown. In order to minimize the chance for error we prefer to show these at final stage after all changes have been made to the geometry of the layout. Please let me know if you have any questions or require additional copies of the preliminary subdivision materials. Sincerely Thomas W. Nace, P.E." Okay. If that's all we have of this kind of information to read or talk into the record, then why don't we invite the applicant up and take over from here, and we'll pick up on any questions that don't get answered later, I guess. MR. RUEL-Before he starts. On these waivers, would the approval of - 6 - ~ ,--,' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) these waivers be part of the motion? MR. MARTIN-Well, that's a point of discussion Mark and I were just having. As 179-58 is the governing Section, I'm not even sure that the Subdivision Regulations apply. Although you commonly do refer to them as a guide with a PUD, I don't think they're controlling as they are with a subdivision. MR. PALING-But it can be a matter at the Board's discretion? We can vote on the request? MR. MARTIN-What I'm saying is, I don't even know if it requires a vote, in my opinion. They are used as guidelines, but this is not a subdivision. It's a PUD. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. PALING-Would you introduce yourselves, please, for the record. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, I'm Mike O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I represent the developers here. With me also at the table is Tom Nace from Nace Engineering and Matt Jones, who is also an attorney representing the development team. With us in the room we also have Jim Miller who is the Landscape Architect and Michael Vasiliou and Jim Vasiliou from Michael J. Vasiliou, Inc. , who is the builder/developer on this project. Basically, we will try to be brief. I think the Board is somewhat familiar with this project, to allow the public to have the opportunity to put their input into it. Basically, we have gone through the comments of Staff, and if you want, I would refer to those first. I don't believe that there is anything on the first page of comments that needs to be addressed or that I had a question on. I think at the top of the second page of the Staff comments is the first area that we would talk about, and that would be whether or not an additional soil boring might be necessary at the northeasterly corner of the site. This is a subject matter that I think was discussed when the project was before the Town Board, and to the satisfaction of the Town Board, it was not a necessity at that time. We do not know of the necessity for it, and in my brief comments with Mr. Martin, I think he concurred with me, although I don't mean to speak for him, as to it being a necessity, but it was something that he thought might be a reassurance of earlier findings of the Town Board. We would like to reserve our position on that, and either reserve it through this phase or as is suggested even here through the final approval of Phase III, and it may be an open issue or it may not be an open issue. As to the individually numbered paragraphs. MR. PALING-Lets stop, if you would. There were four test borings conducted in July of '95, and we have Lot Number 66, 12, 82, and 3, and I think this Board didn't feel comfortable with that, that they would be more comfortable with what you said in the northeast part of it, to do additional borings, and I don't know about everyone else, but I'd like to hear where you would propose those exactly, and I think I know when now, but where, how many and when. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. As I understand it, we actually did three borings, or we set up three test wells, is what we're speaking of, not necessarily borings. There were a number of borings that were done throughout a good portion of the site, but there were three wells that were actually drilled to establish the groundwater level. If you were talking about trying to do a fourth one, you would probably do it. MR. PALING-No, going by the sYmbols on the print I picked up four that had been done already, and that, evidentally, is in error. MR. NACE-Yes. Those were one phase of the test pits that had been - 7 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) done. There have been many soil sampling programs throughout the approval process on this parcel of land. MR. PALING-All right. What were the locations of the three borings that were done? Can you do it by lot number, because that's what I thought I was picking off the print. MR. NACE-I'm not sure I can do it by lot number. MR. PALING-Or whatever. MR. O'CONNOR-We had a map that showed it, as part of the Town Board presentation. MR. PALING-Yes. That's what I thought I was looking at here. MR. O'CONNOR-That is a map that shows on the development site, before the lots were superimposed over it, reference for area, you can have an idea. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. NACE-Okay. Basically, there was one boring up near Solomon Heights, okay. The water level at that boring was 420.3 feet, okay. This is USGS data. There was one back where it would be approximately on Lot Number 51, okay. That was boring number three. The water level in the test well was 427.6, approximately 7.3 feet higher. MR. MACEWAN-What was the first one, Tom? MR. NACE-The first one was 420.3, okay, and that was down on the proposed senior citizens parcel. Boring Number Three was on Lot 51 and the elevation was 427.6. Boring Number Two was over on what would be approximately Lot Number 106, and the water level was 420.6. The water level surveyed in the wetlands, at the edge of the wetland closest to the development, was 428.27. So as you can see, there is approximately an eight foot drop between the water surface in the wetland and the borings on the southeastern corner of the parcel. MR. RUEL-Yes. I remember at the last meeting you had pointed that out. However, the other corner, the corner we're talking about, there were no test borings there. MR. NACE-There were no test borings. There were soil, there's been soil test pits throughout the site, and that's, I think, what was confusing Bob. Some of the soil test pit numbers were on the plan still. MR. RUEL-My concern, at that time, was the underground water flow, and you had indicated that the test borings would give you an indication which way the water was going. MR. NACE-Yes, it does. Those, and when you look at an overall geologic map of the area, or overall topo map of the area, okay, it's obvious that Halfway Brook, which is down here to the south, and which, if anybody is familiar with it, is a spring fed brook, most of the water in that reservoir during the dry periods of the summer is a result of underground springs. That is significantly lower than this high plateau up here, and lower than the wetland, by, I believe it's 100 and some odd feet. MR. RUEL-Is there any reason why there wasn't a test boring in that open area there? MR. NACE-Yes. The reason was that we didn't want to have to come in here and clear a place to get a drill rig back in, okay. It was - 8 - ~ '-./ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) thought that we didn't want to do any disturbance of the existing trees. MR. RUEL-Isn't that near the school property? MR. NACE-School property goes up through here, yes. The old, lets see, the Little League fields are approximately here. MR. RUEL-But also to the right. MR. NACE-To the right, yes, it's school property. League fields stop approximately in here. The Little MR. RUEL-And isn't that school property open? MR. NACE - I'm not sure how much of it's open. I f you go back through the Little League fields, it's open back in through here. I'm not sure it's open over to the property line. MR. RUEL-I walked through the area, and I remember that it was quite open. MR. NACE-The Little League fields are in here, and it is north of the Little League fields. I don't know whether it is back in here, and there's a pretty big berm back in here. MR. BREWER-Isn't there a roadway, some sort of a roadway on top of the ridge? MR. NACE-I don't think it's travelable. MR. BREWER-I've walked on it, the whole length, and come out by the ball fields. If you went behind the school to the, I don't know what direction it is, but on the right bottom portion of your map there, I do believe it's open in the back by the fences. MR. NACE-That's back in here, Tim, and it's over significantly over here. MR. RUEL-A lot closer to the fence it's open. What I'm saying, it's all open area. I don't see why you can't get into that. MR. NACE-Well, there's been no information presented which would lead Y§ or in fact the Town Engineer to believe that the situation which occurs in here would be any different up in here. MR. RUEL-We don't know that. MR. NACE-Well, the soils around the site are pretty uniform, and there's, having done drill testing around this entire area of western Queensbury, Fred Dente, who is our soils person, plus Bill Levandowski, who's the Town's Engineer, didn't feel that this would be unrepresentative of what would be expected on the site. MR. PALING-However, if it was required to do it, you wouldn't necessarily have to do these in Phase I, or the early phases, even, I wouldn't think. MR. RUEL-It would be in Phase III. MR. PALING-Or IV. MR. RUEL-III or IV, yes. MR. MARTIN-Four is the most northerly phase. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I picked up on the page number that Jim Martin - 9 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) had. I think the correct phasing that you seem to be talking about is Phase IV. MR. PALING-Yes, I think so. MR. MARTIN-That's the most northerly end. I was thinking Phase III has that cul-de-sac to the most northerly, well, the cul-de-sac in Phase III, somewhere in the tip of that area, because I didn't want to be too limited, either, not going far enough to the east, either. That would be a good general location, but if you wanted to go right up to the most northerly tip in Phase IV, you could do that, too. MR. BREWER-Wouldn't it put a lot of minds at ease if they could get some sort of a rig in there to do it now? If, in fact, we went out there and found it accessible, the only reason I'm saying that is if we get to Phase IV, and you find there is a problem, is that going to change the configuration of any of these lots? It's just a thought. I mean, if it does. MR. NACE-Well, Tim, how would it change the configuration of the lots? MR. BREWER-I don't know, I'm just asking, Tom. MR. NACE-Well, it's 60 feet to groundwater, okay. Health Department Regulations permit septic systems within two feet of groundwater, okay. Our soils are all percing slower than one minute per inch. There's no reason to believe that even if groundwater were to be flowing the other direction that it would not be adequately treated in 60 feet of travel. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. PALING-Where would you propose to do the boring? Could you point out on the map where you would do this additional boring? MR. O'CONNOR-We haven't proposed to do it, and I really don't know if there is a justification for it. I don't know if your Engineer has something to comment on that. I think you're going back to part of the SEQRA process, which we've already gone through once, and that's my only real reservation in telling you up front this evening that this is something that we would readily undertake. I don't want to re-open. MR. MARTIN-Well, let me clarify an issue. I was not raising that need for an additional boring as an environmental issue. The criteria calls for the adequacy of stormwater and sanitary waste disposal facilities, and the design of those, and I've made that comment in that regard, and if there should be something that's inconsistent in the elevation of the water, then you would change the, ~ would suggest, you would change the design then accordingly. That's not made as an environmental based comment. It's made as a designed based comment. MR. PALING-And I'm going back, I believe I'm remembering correctly, to our initial meeting on this, when we had doubts about it and were looking to further borings on the northeast corner. MR. O'CONNOR-But that was a different review than you're undertaking this evening. You're undertaking a review tonight, after the Town Board has designated this a PUD, and approved this sketch plan and already completed the SEQRA. Now if Mr. Martin is saying that this would be in conjunction with the PUD review process and the provision in there that says that we provide you with adequate proof that we can handle stormwater and drainage, storm drainage, of course storm drainage and septic. Then he's approaching it a little different than I initially thought he was - 10 - "'--' -./ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) approaching it, but I would ask the Town Engineerin~ Consultant what is the ranges, perhaps, given what Mr. Nace has said, that your actual clearance for septic in this system, with this type percolation, is two feet to groundwater. I mean, I don't understand the engineering justification for the request. We're talking some place between 50 and 60 feet depth to groundwater, uniformly showed by the different tests that were made and what Mr. Dente also referred to as the fourth test which was the open water of the wetland. MR. PALING-Well, lets ask, Bill, would you like to make any comments on this, please? MR. LEVANDOWSKI-I think it's important to note that the elevation of the water surface and the wetland does not only occur at the one spot that it's so noted on the map. Any place that there is an open water surface all along the bottom of the bank also represents that same reading. So you do, in fact, have a water level determination in this area as well that is essentially, correct me if I'm wrong, is at the same elevation. So you can project a groundwater elevation from this area of the site, be an open water surface, to correlate with some of the other known observation wells that we have. So it's not as if we have no data at all in that corner. We do, in fact, have a water surface elevation that confirms the conclusion that have already been drawn. I agree with what Tom Nace indicated, that even if there was a slight anomaly in the water surface elevation at some point down here, I don't see right off hand how that would promote us to even consider a change in any of the systems that have been proposed either for storm drainage or for sewage disposal. MR. PALING-And you're saying the borings really aren't necessary then? MR. LEVANDOWSKI-They're certainly not necessary. More is always better, but it's certainly not a necessity in my opinion. MR. PALING-Okay. feel. Well, I'm just going to ask the Board how you MR. RUEL-Well, if they feel that the groundwater level is fine, there's no problem there, no soil problem, no drainage, no problems at all, then all you have to do is put in a test boring and you'll confirm it. It's as simple as that. Because if you don't put a test boring, then the question will always be open. MR. WEST-I agree. I think it's just an incremental step to install one additional boring, to answer his question once and for all. MR. BREWER-I agree, I think they should do it. MR. PALING-Okay. I think we've gone far enough. I think, then, we will require test borings in the northeast corner of the property. MR. 0' CONNOR-Would you, I'll pick up on what Mr. Martin has indicated, that he would like to see that the north end of Phase III, as opposed to Phase IV, I think presuming that that's the only area you really don't have something. MR. MARTIN-It's whatever you feel comfortable. MR. RUEL-Four, right near the top of the slope. MR. MARTIN-I was trying to pick like a generally located area. That's why when I said Phase III, like I just said, I was envisioning that the northerly most end of the cul-de-sac in Phase III. - 11 - >,-- ....~' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) MR. RUEL-Isn't that more in the center of the property, though? MR. MARTIN-That's what I was thinking, but that's up to you. MR. RUEL-I'd rather see it up in the corner there in Phase IV. MR. PALING-How about the lowest point back in the corner area? MR. BREWER-How about the most accessible point in that back corner, that you can get at to from the back side without having to clear? MR. WEST-Has a Hydrogeologist been consulted in regard to the location of the existing test borings? MR. 0' CONNOR-Fred Dente has that qualification. He was the engineering consultant who actually did the wells and did the analysis of the results of the wells. MR. WEST-Okay. He's a licensed or certified Hydrogeologist in the State of New York? MR. O'CONNOR-I do not know if he is a Hydrogeologist. He signs it as a P.E. MR. WEST-Okay. No, then he's not a licensed Hydrogeologist. MR. O'CONNOR-I do not know that as I sit here. MR. NACE-I'm not sure there is a license for a Hydrogeologist. Fred has practiced for probably 30 years as a Soils and Water Specialist, subsurface water specialist. MR. PALING-All right. Well, lets, then we're willing to settle on a point that I think, somewhere between Phases III and IV, that's accessible. Are we comfortable with that? MR. MACEWAN-When are you going to have this done? MR. PALING-Well, I would say at Phase III, we better have it done at the time Phase III is done, would be mY suggestion. MR. RUEL-I want to see Phase IV, and near the slope, the top of the slope. MR. PALING-You want it done at the top of the slope. MR. RUEL-Yes. I don't know what lot number that is. MR. PALING-Somewhere around here. MR. RUEL-81, 82, 83, from 80 to 84, somewhere around there. MR. PALING-Can you get in there? MR. RUEL-Where can you get in? MR. O'CONNOR-Right now? I don't know if we can tell you that. We can find, we can have somebody take a look at it and see what's available, I guess, is the best way to tell you. MR. PALING-All right. Then lets say the accessible point closest to Lot Number 82. Would you be willing to go along with that? MR. RUEL-Yes, that's good, and you'll get back to us on exactly where. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. - 12 - '-' --./ '----' '--' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) MR. RUEL-Prior to the final approval of Phase I. MR. O'CONNOR-As to where it'll be, but if you're talking about doing it when we do Phase III? MR. PALING-Right. MR. RUEL-Not now? MR. PALING-No, no. We're saying that they've got to have a boring, but it's going to be when they begin Phase III, and it will be as close to Lot 82 as they can get at that time. MR. MACEWAN-I need to understand why you want to wait until we get to Phase III? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. PALING-The accessibility is the only reason I can think of. If it's just as accessible now, do it now. MR. MARTIN-The reason why I said Phase III initially in the comment was because it was, there was a comment based in the design and the function of the drainage system and septic systems. They're obviously not going to be installed in that area until Phase III or IV, and you're not going to look at the final design of those components until those phases come to you for approval. That was the reason for the wait, and I also thought that if you do it in conjunction with a phase, then you can do the access in conjunction with the road installation, and you wouldn't have to worry about trying to get access now and worrying about vegetation disturbance and all that. We could do it when they grub for the road, we can do boring in the area of the road bed. MR. STARK-Why don't you just poll the Board? I don't think it's necessary. Why do we have Levandowski review this, and he says it's not necessary. You didn't even ask down here. MR. PALING-Well, okay, but I was going to agree with the three here, so that was four. So that's why I didn't continue. MR. STARK-I don't think it's necessary. MR. PALING-I'd like to see a boring, yes. I thought so before, and I feel that now. I didn't mean to ignore anybody, but there was four yeses. MR. STARK-In the interest of moving things along, why don't you poll the Board as to when it's necessary. MR. PALING-All right, then what we're looking at right now is that there would be a boring, when Phase III is started, and as close to Lot Number 82 as access would allow and this would be run by the Planning Staff at final approval. MR. RUEL-That would be at, what, Preliminary Stage? MR. PALING-No. There is no more Preliminary Stage. MR. MARTIN-Again, I want to jump in. Again, my comment was not intended for Staff approval. My comment was intended to have the boring done in advance of your final decision on Phase III. So you have that information going into that decision, and it's not a Staff decision. It would be a Board decision. MR. PALING-All right. approval of Phase III. Then we'll make it to be done prior to - 13 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Final approval? MR. PALING-Yes, prior to Phase III final approval. There will be a boring at the location that I stated Lot 82, as close as access will allow, prior to. MR. MACEWAN-Give me some what if examples. Suppose that we find that if they do a boring prior to final of Phase III, and it's not the answer we're all hoping it to be, it's something other than that, what happens? MR. PALING-It's a new ball game. MR. MACEWAN-A new ball game to what extent? MR. BREWER-In what sense, Craig? MR. MACEWAN-That is not adequate. MR. BREWER-That was my exact point. If they could get back in that area somewhere, some way now, well, I guess they would have to change the design if it wasn't adequate. MR. NACE-What is it that you're going to be defining as not adequate? MR. BREWER-I don't know. MR. MACEWAN-I don't know. know. I'm asking those questions. I don't MR. STARK-The water table would have to be less than two feet to not be adequate for a septic system. You think the water table is going to be above two feet? MR. BREWER-I'm not saying that, George. I'm just saying, from all the meetings we've had a lot of comment from the public, from their people that they've hired, whatever, from our own Staff, we've had concern about no boring. Why wasn't there a boring in that corner. We're just asking to have one. What's the big problem? MR. PALING-Okay. Lets assume that the boring is going to be, okay, go ahead. MR. O'CONNOR-Just part of the record, just so if somebody's new to this, they understand a little bit. When the issue came up, we met, or representatives of our group met with the Town Staff and the Town Engineer, and a plan was devised that would be representative and that they thought would be satisfactory to be representative of the entire site. That's what we did and that's what we reported to you on, or reported to the Town Board on. See, nobody, some of the people that have objected to the site do not want to give credit to the engineering significance of the open water of the wetland. That's a continuous boring, the entire length of that bank where you have open water. Engineering it's understood, but sentimentally or non objectively it's not understood and it's maybe a tough sell, I don't know, but when I ask the engineers what does it mean, they tell me what it means. We went through this once before, over on Glen Lake when we were doing a septic system and some of you Board members were there. We did a septic system for an expansion at the Docksider, and what was the significance of the lake level, as opposed to the water level, back on site, off shore? See, that's something that you're not giving credit for when you say you still have a doubt in your mind. That's like 1700 different borings being done. - 14 - .-/ '--' ) I '---" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) MR. PALING-Is this such a heavy expense item that it's that much of a burden to do a single boring? MR. O'CONNOR-I just wanted to make a statement for the record as to why we are where we are. It is an expense. I don't really have an estimate. It depends on how accessible the site is and everything else. We'd have to look at that. I understand what you're telling me. I'm just trying to make sure the record is clear as to why there were, the choices were made that were made. It wasn't an attempt to stay out of that area. We thought that we had a representative showing with what we submitted, and we still do. MR. NACE-I might also point out, Bob, that, as far as the design of the septic system and design of the infiltration facilities for the road drainage and for the stormwater drainage, that we do have test pits throughout the site that were dug by the back hoe, and those were dug to a depth which is normally considered sufficient for design criteria for those facilities, okay. So those were down deep enough. MR. PALING-You did one of those on Lot 82 that we're talking about. MR. NACE-That's correct. MR. PALING-In July of '95. MR. NACE-Okay, and there's several soils reports throughout the history of the project that span 10 or 15 years, and those were dug deep enough to tell us whether, at the bottom of one of our drYWells for storm drainage we would possibly run into a seasonal high groundwater table, that was not present. MR. MACEWAN-The worst case scenario, if it proved that there was a problem with groundwater back there, the worst case scenario we're looking at is the re-engineering of a couple of lots. MR. WEST-What if the boring indicates that the flow of groundwater is toward the wetland? Suppose you do a boring and you get 435, you get some mounding or something, right. Now you've got water flowing in both directions. You could have the incidence of groundwater flowing toward the wetland. MR. NACE-And we still have more than adequate separation. MR. PALING-Okay. I think we've really talked this one enough, and we've got a long way to go tonight. So now, what I had here last was that there would be a single boring prior to the final approval of Phase III, and this would be as close to Lot Number 82 as access would allow. I'll start at that end of the table. Is it okay with you, or do you want to do something different? MR. MACEWAN-I'm okay with having them do the test boring, but I'd rather have it done now. MR. STARK-I don't even think we need a test boring. MRS. LABOMBARD-It would probably give some closure to this at this point, to have it done now. As far as, I just, I'll throw a name out here, if you need a licensed, anybody's looking for a licensed professional Hydrogeologist, his name is John Munsey at C.T. Male, for all that's worth. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, could I ask a question? I'm a little concerned or confused, I think it might make sense, this is just a suggestion. It's up to you and the Board, but before we spend a lot of time polling the Board members about how you might word or what you might require at decision making time, it seems to me that our general practice and policy is to have that type of discussion - 15 - ,_/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) that you're having now after the public hearing. Public hearing may raise issues about this that you haven't heard about yet. MR. PALING-Okay. We can leave it open. MR. SCHACHNER-And I think that we're going to spend a lot of time now trying to resolve this issue, when I think the applicant's made his position clear. I think the Board understand's the applicant's position. I think we understand the applicant's position, and I think the Board's raising some very valid concerns, but you're probably not going to be able to wrap this up until after the public hearing anyway. MR. PALING-That's a very good suggestion. All right. We'll put this aside and we'll come back to it after the public hearing. All right. We've gotten to Point One. Lets go to Point Two. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. My reading of Staff comments, we're coming to the numerically numbered paragraph, One I don't believe requires comment. Two, can provide you with design for construction of the access to the school property. We have talked about that being 12 foot wide, at a minimum, having a locked gate access. We have some detail on that, and we can supply you with that. MR. PALING-All right. On that point, I would like to suggest that with Phase I, that some access be made to the school between Lots Two and Three, where there is common ground, around what will be the road, and then the entrance between Lots 103 and 102. There's going to be people moving into houses with children, I assume, and that will give them access to the school when Phase I is built. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Our understanding or our suggestion, maybe it's the same thing, would be to give a temporary easement along what would be the road bed, and to clear enough of the road bed so that it would be passible foot or bicycle access in the manner that we talked about, with the access that would terminate automatically when that road is dedicated for public highway purposes. MR. MARTIN-And the reason why I raised the comment about the trail system in the park, and I, it's up to the Board as to how structured or unstructured you want to make this. It was discussed during the conceptual stages of this proj ect . Were you looking for a blazed path, or just simply trail markers or a gravel path, I don't know. It's supposed to be kind of an unstructured open area. MR. PALING-It's got to be big enough for bicycles and kids to go back and forth to school is the way ~ visualize it, and it's got to be safe enough. It just can't be a narrow footpath. It's going to have to be like 12 foot wide, but it doesn't have to be paved. MR. O'CONNOR-I think Mr. Martin's talking about the central area that's shown as park land, not necessarily the bike path. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. WEST-You're talking about the temporary path to get to the school. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MARTIN-See, whatever path is developed now in the central park area, that will be, the configuration of that will be permanent, even at the early stage. So I think it's worthwhile to decide how, you know, what. form you want that path to take. Do you want to keep it rustic? MR. BREWER-I think just a cut path. - 16 - --" '---" -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) MR. PALING-One of those accesses has got to allow emergency vehicles, I believe. MR. MARTIN-We had talked about a more defined design, as Mike indicated, for the access way to the school property line into that nearest road there. That was going to be like a 12 foot wide, I think it was gravel? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Gravel with some bollards or something or locked gate, so vehicles couldn't pass. MR. PALING-At Lot 88 or which? MR. MARTIN-The access way between 103 and 102. That stretch there was supposed to be more of a defined built type of thing, and have some provision for emergency vehicle access if needed. MR. PALING-Okay. It could be however a temporary condition, just to start it going, as long as there's good, safe access. MR. MARTIN-That's up to you, whatever you feel comfortable, I just raise the issue. MR. RUEL-You talk about a gate. What kind of a gate can they put up there? MR. MARTIN-I would leave that up to them, the design. MR. O'CONNOR-The idea was that nobody wanted to promote this as secondary, ordinary access to the school. What we have done in another area where we have an access that's available for emergency vehicle, and this path way will be capable of having emergency vehicles on it. You put a locked gate there, that the emergency personnel can knock off, and then go through the opening. They do that, there's a trailer park, Homestead Trailer Park has their secondary access with a locked gate. MR. RUEL-Yes, it wouldn't stop motorcycles, though. MR. BREWER-It won't stop anything. They had one at Hudson Pointe and they took the whole gate. Honest to God. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, we've got to work at it, then, but we're trying to do something to accommodate everybody's desire. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, we'll leave that, also, again, until after the public hearing. MR. RUEL-Yes, just one question about the access to the school between 102 and 103. Will that eventually have a fence on each side of that, to shield it from those properties? And if so, what kind of a fence? MR. O'CONNOR-We have not included that in our designs. MR. RUEL-Don't you think you should have something? MR. O'CONNOR-It's going to be 50 feet wide, and we only intended, and I think in our narrative talked about clearing the area that would be used for actual access. The whole theme through this whole development has been try to keep as much of the green trees and what not as you can, as opposed to build artificial things or fences or whatever. MR. RUEL-But children do have a tendency to wander. - 17 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) MR. STARK-Roger, you don't think 50 feet's enough, I mean, with a path in the middle and foliage on each side? MR. RUEL-Well, I'm just asking what they're proposing. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We did not propose a fence, Mr. Ruel. The second part of the same paragraph, since the time of the Town approval, we talked about trying to accommodate sidewalks throughout the development, and we suggested that we would look at this and try and do it. We are finding that it is difficult to do and we are not sure if we can accommodate it at this point. Part of the concern has to do with the installation of them. Part of it has to do with the maintenance of them. The Town, apparently, doesn't have a sidewalk ordinance, and the logical place to put them would be to put them in the 50 foot right-of-way, as part of the road, which is normally done, but Paul Naylor has a reservation to do that. It hasn't been done any place else. You talk about the width of the road, you talk about the two drainage swales that you have on the side of the road, you talk about the areas that you need for the utilities. One side would probably be the water and the other side will be the electrical and those type facilities. What we thought was a good suggestion is becoming part of a nightmare to resolve, and it can be resolved, the developer is, if it can be resolved in a reasonable practical basis, we're willing to do it. We suggested it. We thought it would be a nicety to distinguish this community or this development from other developments, but we have not, in all honesty, worked that out. MR. RUEL-Who would pay for the sidewalk? MR. O'CONNOR-We would do it as part of our construction cost. MR. RUEL-Not the homeowner directly? MR. O'CONNOR-Indirectly, they would pay for it. There's nothing in this development that indirectly isn't going to be paid for by those that actually buy lots in there. MR. RUEL-And no curbs on the road? MR. O'CONNOR-The Town design doesn't permit you to do that. MR. NACE-It's the standard wing swale road. Well, that's the Town standard. There's no getting away from that. MR. RUEL- I have a question for Jim. You talked about turnaround on the dri veway which increases the paved area, and we're talking possibly. MR. PALING-Excuse me, could we stay on sidewalks. MR. RUEL - I'm bringing it together. All right. We're talking about sidewalks, the possibility of sidewalks. A turnaround is not a possibility. They actually propose to do it. The two combined paved areas, I want to know, does this have any adverse effects on the permeability of the particular lot? MR. MARTIN-Well, it's obviously an increase in impervious area, but in my opinion, I don't think it approaches a level that's a level of concern. I think, given the size of the lots, with the house sizes proposed, driveway sizes, garage sizes and even a sidewalk, you're probably looking at an impervious area of maybe 20% I would have to guess on the average, and that would be very conservative, I think. MR. NACE-To answer from a drainage standpoint, Roger, the turnaround area has been figured in all the drainage calculations. It has been included. The sidewalks are fairly narrow. - 18 - -" '''- "------" "-.../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) MR. MARTIN-Our most restrictive zone is the Waterfront Residential zone. That has an impervious area limitation of 35%. MR. RUEL-No problem? MR. MARTIN-In my opinion, no. MR. PALING-We're going to move ahead, leaving sidewalks behind, so to speak. MR. MACEWAN-Don't leave sidewalks yet. MR. WEST-I have a question. Can you explain how the existence of, how do sidewalks relate to maintenance and snow removal? I'm not sure I follow that. MR. MARTIN-Well, in the absence of a Town policy or law to require indi vidual maintenance by property owners, a maintenance requirement falls to the Town. So therefore snow removal and maintenance, if they get cracked or frost heaves or whatever would fall to the Town, in the absence of that, and that's not the policy right now to do that type of thing, for sidewalks. That's why in most cases they're not developed at all. Even in commercial areas. MR. WEST-Are there any other developments in Queensbury that have sidewalks, isn't there one off Potter Road? MR. MARTIN-They exist, yes, but in those cases it is the individual property owner's responsibility, I believe, except for along County roads. I know that one you're referring to on Potter is different. That is, they have some mechanism, I wasn't around then, but I think it is the individual property owners. The balance are the Town's responsibility, the ones that I've been aware of. MR. MACEWAN-So is it the Town's position not to encourage it, development of them? MR. MARTIN-I can't speak to that. I don't know. MR. O'CONNOR-The people we've talked to have not encouraged us, other than our conversations with Jim Martin. MR. MARTIN-You know naive Planners. MR. O'CONNOR-Town Board members and the Highway Superintendent has not encouraged us. MR. MACEWAN-And he doesn't want it, the maintenance aspect of it, namely the right-of-way? MR. O'CONNOR-I think that's a fair statement. We can, maybe we could have Paul here and we could talk about it more. MR. WEST-There would be no buffer between the road and the sidewalk? MR. NACE-There would have to be. There would have to be a snow storage area. You don't want to plow the road and plow all the snow back onto the sidewalks. So typically you place the sidewalk at the back end of the highway right-of-way, okay, so it abuts the individual properties, but then you start looking at, where do you put the water main, so that the water main's not under the sidewalk, but you have to dig the sidewalk up to maintain the water. The cable, gas and electric utilities have to then go back on the individual properties a couple of feet to get away from the sidewalk. There are a good many issues to be dealt with. MR. MARTIN-That's the points I raised about utilities. It gets a little tricky. - 19 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) MR. O'CONNOR-And I don't think we've even worked out yet even when you install them. This is not going to be spec building. We aren't going to go along and build ª street. This is going to be custom built on an individual order basis, do we install sidewalks for four lots or do we build the four houses and then come back and then do you dig up somebody's lawn or tell them you're going to dig up their lawn and put the sidewalks in, because that would be the appropriate time to do them, as opposed to have your construction equipment backing across and what not. It's something that we really haven't dealt with to a conclusion, but it looks like we have problems. I think, is your recommendation, Mr. Martin, a suggestion if we can? MR. MARTIN-Yes, that was :my point. If these logistics can be worked out, I think it would be a positive influence on the neighborhood, and like I said, contribute to the character of the project, but, you know, I fully recognize there's practical concerns here that could scuttle the whole idea. MR. PALING-Well, aren't we also saying that the sidewalks do sound like a fine idea, but they'd have to be totally on private property rather than any part of them on Town property? MR. MARTIN-That may be one solution. I don't know. MR. O'CONNOR-That's not your suggestion, is it? MR. MARTIN-No. The issue that comes there is that the private utilities are just off the right-of-way. As Tom indicate, that's the area in which the electrical is placed. MR. O'CONNOR-We give the utility company a 10 foot easement that adjoins the Town property line, Town right-of-way, and that's where they install the utilities. MR. MARTIN-I believe you're going to have gas in this instance also. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. PALING-Well, sidewalks are not a requirement. Am I safe in saying that you're going to look at this and see what you want to do? MR. O'CONNOR-We would like to do it if we can, but I'm just telling you up front, so far it hasn't been real productive. MR. PALING-All right. Okay. Okay on sidewalks for the moment? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Off-street parking, Number Three, we don't have a problem. That's part of our design. Number Four, apparently that's been straightened out. There was no lighting shown on the plans. MR. MARTIN-I saw symbols on, I think it was the landscaping plan, that appeared to be light poles. MR. NACE-I believe they're fire hydrants. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-They're short ones. MR. MARTIN-Is there lighting proposed within? MR. O'CONNOR-There is no lighting, formal lighting, proposed. So - 20 - --- '---- '--' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) we won't be asking the Town Board to do a lighting district. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-We will submit a rendering of this entrance sign, once we work out some details as to where we can place that, to everybody's satisfaction, which is Number Four. MR. PALING-When will you do that? That's got to be done prior to final phase, right? MR. MARTIN-Well, is there installation of a sign at the outset, or a temporary sign? MR. O'CONNOR-I think we might have, it depends on how we can work it out time wise. We'd be satisfied with a temporary one, and then come back with a permanent one at some other time, even. MR. PALING-Okay. When would you put the temporary one in? MR. O'CONNOR-Probably when we start construction. MR. MARTIN-The sign code governs that, but it was mentioned in the criteria of the PUD Ordinance. That's why I touched on it. MR. PALING-If they just submit the design to us, I think is all they need to do. MR. MARTIN-Well, as long as they have proper location. square foot is the size limit, in the sign code. Fifty MR. O'CONNOR-Five, I don't think, needs comment. Six, didn't need comment in my mind. Seven, I don't think, needed comment. Eight, Tom, maybe you'd want to address Eight. MR. NACE-Okay. The detail sheet will be corrected. That's just a standard detail for Health Department requirements for the guidelines for the septic systems, but there, as I addressed the engineering comments, the drainage schematics, grading and drainage plans standards for the lot development, I'll get into that, and we will correct that detail sheet, D-2, to show the septic systems in the front yard on that. MR. RUEL-So you will add an explanation of these items? MR. NACE-I will when we get to addressing the engineering comments, as they're sort of wrapped altogether. MR. O'CONNOR-The only other comment that I see that's numerically numbered, was 12, and we submitted typical designs of houses that we would construct. We can update those, and I can have those next time we meet. They are going to be typical. Again, we're building custom homes. It's not necessarily going to be cookie cutter, you buy one, two or three. We have setback requirements that are set forth within our proposal, and we will abide by those. We will probably have restrictive covenants, and abide by whatever we provide in there. MR. PALING-You'd do that with Phase I? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. We're going to do that with Phase I. MR. RUEL-You say these are custom built homes, based on your plans? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. RUEL-You have a series of plans that they can select from, is that it? It's not a true custom built home. - 21 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) MR. WEST-They're not designed by an architect. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, they have been at one time or another. MR. WEST-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-Typically, we have a place to begin, and if they want to change, they can change it. If they want to come in with a set of plans of their own, that we have not seen and that they had drawn or prepared, we would look at that and price that. Am I stating that correctly, Michael? MICHAEL VASILIOU MR. VASILIOU-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-We don't limit it to A, B, C, D, E. You don't choose out of six models. MR. RUEL-What about confirmation of the architectural character of the homes, regardless of whether they're different? I mean, some sort of an agreement on the architecture throughout the whole development, some confirmation of that? Isn't that what you'd be looking for? MR. BREWER-I don't think I want to get into that. control what somebody's house looks like? How can we MR. O'CONNOR-Nobody has talked to us about architecture in that sense, Mr. Ruel, at this point. MR. WEST-Is there a minimum square footage requirement? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, we will have one. MR. WEST-You don't know what that is? MR. VASILIOU-1450 feet. MR. 0'CONNOR-14S0 feet. MR. RUEL-In another words, if you had three or four colonial homes, and somebody wanted a real, way out contemporary, you would build it, next to these homes? MR. O'CONNOR-No, I don't think so. MR. RUEL-He's saying yes, behind you. MR. 0' CONNOR -Okay. Wouldn't you try and get them out of tha t neighborhood, Michael? I mean, you aren't going to? MR. VASILIOU-I'm Mike Vasiliou. I'm the fellow that's causing all this commotion. If somebody wanted a contemporary home, I don't know why I would be the judge of whether that home is right or wrong. I live next to a contemporary home, and on the other side of me there's a farm house. I don't see anything wrong with that. We have that kind of mix throughout the Town. MR. RUEL-I don't see anything wrong with it either, but I was just asking the question, to see whether you had some sort of a continuous feel throughout the development. It's a Planned Unit Development. I thought maybe that had a bearing on it. MR. WEST-Is there a typical price range for the typical house in this, that might be constructed in here? - 22 - ---- "-,,,' "-----' '--' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) . MR. VASILIOU-Our base cape, which is a 1450 foot house, starts about $110,000. We think that the houses will range from 1450 to 2000 feet, 2200 eventually. We think those houses would run, probably toward the end of the development, maybe $160,000, $170,000. As time goes on and inflation goes on, and as the development increases in nature, generally subdivisions start out and they tend to grow. I think if you're familiar with TYneswood, for instance, TYneswood started out with 1800, 2200 foot houses, and finished up with 27 and 2800 foot houses. Our goal is to meet the nature of what the Town is looking for and what the market looks for, and that seems to be, I think, Hudson Pointe finished about $144,000 on average, and I think that's the nature of what we would expect to be able to build, and meet the broadest spectrum of the market. MR. RUEL-Mike, will all the homes have attached garages? MR. VASILIOU-Two car, all two car. In the turnaround, by the way, that you spoke about, had to do with Betty Monahan did not want to have any cars backing out into the road. She wanted people to be able to drive straight out into the road. So every car or every garage will have the ability to pull straight out. MR. RUEL-Yes, the turn around. MR. VASILIOU-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-A side load garage or a front load garage with a turn around area. I think that was the comments that ~ would try to address. MR. PALING-On the last page, Jim, you confirmed that that has been addressed by the Water Department. We're okay there. MR. MARTIN-We'll be getting a letter to that effect, but apparently, and maybe Tom can elaborate on this, because I want not privy to the conversation. He spoke directly with Tom Flaherty today, and they worked out a sleeve arrangement for the water line to run under the driveway or something like that. Tom? MR. NACE-Okay. Tom Flaherty was concerned that their are smaller lots, whether the front lot width is only 100 feet, and the fact that we're putting septic systems up front. He wanted to make sure there was room to get the water line, the water service line, back into the house, without compromising the required setback to the leachfield or having to run it all the way up under the driveway. I faxed him a sketch which showed that it is possible, even on the narrowest lot, it does cross the driveway, and he asked that where we cross the driveway, we put a four inch PVC plastic sleeve in, so that if there were ever any problem with the main, the water service under that, it could be pulled out of the sleeve and re- fed. MR. RUEL-The minimum distance is, what, 10 feet between the water line and the septic? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. RUEL-Do you have to maintain? MR. NACE-Ten feet separation. That's correct. MR. RUEL-You'll have to run lines under the driveway occasionally? MR. NACE-They will have to cross under some of. the driveways, depending on the final driveway location. - 23 - .....--..... (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) MR. RUEL-They can do this even after the driveway's built, right? MR. NACE-Well, you could, but the water service typically on a new construction would be put in prior to the driveway. Tom also asked that the water line, where it runs parallel to the driveway, that we specify a five foot separation from the edge of pavement, and we will do that. MR. BREWER-Can you get a letter to that effect from Tom Flaherty? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. BREWER-Some sort of a note or whatever. MR. MARTIN-Yes. He said he would supply that. The conversation was late in the afternoon. He didn't have time to get a letter out. MR. NACE-That detail will appear on the final plans, also. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. NACE-Okay. Engineering comments. I guess the best way to address those is to simply read my response letter to Mr. Levandowski into the record. It says, "Dear Mr. Levandowski: In response to your comments/questions on the above referenced project I offer the following information: STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM: It is obviously impractical to produce site specific grading plans for each lot since the actual lot layout and house configuration will be determined by the individual buyers. However, I have prepared two typical grading plans and corresponding lists of specific grading criteria which can be applied to all of the lots to assure that the drainage concepts function properly. These grading plans and criteria are to be applied separately to different areas of the PUD. Typical plan "A" applies to lots #51 & #70 through #87. These lots are situated nearest to the Land Conservation Area. As previously stated the entire developed area of these lots will be graded to drain toward the proposed road and away from the wetlands. Since the rear drainage from these lots drains through grass swales and into the road drainage system, I have prepared a separate set of HydroCAD calculations to address this section of road. As the results show, the inclusion of the rear yard has only a small effect on the drainage system since these lots are wider than 100 feet and the rear yard includes a sizeable area of lawn with a low CN. The calculations show that the proposed system will be adequate for these lots adjacent to the Land Conservation Area. The drainage criteria detailed for these lots includes a minimum slope away from the house foundation and a swale around each side of the house to drain the rear yard. Minimum exterior grade elevations at the basement walls have been established based on the required grades at the house and in the drainage swales. This elevation is stated as a minimum height above the road centerline elevation. I have enclosed sketches showing how his number was derived. Typical plan "B" applies to all other lots. The plan was developed for a typical 100 foot wide lot. All of these lots have sufficient rear yards so that the small amount of drainage from the rear half of the house roof and the rear yards will be allowed to naturally infiltrate into the soil. This practice is prevalent throughout this portion of Queensbury due to the sandy soils and does not present any problems. Thè front half of the house roof, the front lawn and all of the driveway will drain toward the road as stated in the drainage report. The grading criteria developed for Typical Plan "B" also contained minimum grades for drainage and a minimum height above road grade. I have reviewed all drYWell locations to make sure that their placement agrees with the "typical" drainage criteria used in the drainage report. The enclosed red-lined plans show that I have made some minor adjustments to drYWell locations and have added a few drYWells. I - 24 - ',- -../ ',,--, --- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) have also marked up the road profiles to agree with the plans. Please review these red-lined plans and let me know of any comments you have. I will then have the final drafting done and supply a final set of drainage plans and profiles for your review. SETBACKS: As you pointed out there has been some confusion regarding setbacks and "no building/no cutting area". I have sorted these out and am providing you with a marked up plan showing the latest information. SEWAGE SYSTEM: Al though we have not received DOH final subdivision approval for this project they have reviewed all of the soils testing results and have issued a variance allowing more than 50 lots without a central sewage system. During their review of the soils and percolation tests they have not asked for percolation tests each lot. The only time I have been aware of DOH requiring individual percolation tests is on the Hudson Pointe PUD. On that project the initial percolation tests showed percolation rates faster than one minute in several areas. On the Indian Ridge PUD there were no percolation tests under one minute. Therefore, I do not believe that there is any need to require individual percolation testing. EROSION CONTROL: Since the nearest disturbance will be at least 55 feet from the top of the bank and at least 200 feet from the edge of the wetland boundary and given the sandy soils on this site, I do not believe there is any potential for the construction activities to cause erosion which could affect the wetlands. However, to satisfy all concerned I have added the requirement of a silt fence to be installed at the edge of the site disturbance for each of Lots 51 and 70 to 87. This requirement appears in the Typical Lot Grading Plan "A" and the associated Grading Criteria. Please call me if you have any further questions or comments. Sincerely, Thomas W. Nace, P.E." I would also add that on the sewage systems, we will do whatever DOH requires for percolation tests when they review the final subdivision plans. If they do require, for any reason, individual lot percolation tests, we will do them. MR. PALING-Okay. Bill, do you want to comment on anything so far? MR. LEVANDOWSKI-Tom stopped in and discussed his letter and sketches with me, about mid afternoon. In general, things seemed to be responsive to our comments, and I think when we get the chance to go through the details, we'll find them acceptable. However, I just have not had an opportunity to do that, and from my opinion, we seem to be headed in the right direction. MR. PALING-These are all attachments to the rest of this? MR. NACE-That is correct. I don't know if you want to read any of that into the record, that there's sketches for two different scenarios described in the letter, Type "A" and Type "B", and a set of building lot grading criteria for each, that establish how the lots have to be graded when they're constructed. These will be attached both to the final plans submitted for approval and also to the requirements at that time. MR. PALING-Okay, and you will be reviewing these in detail now, I mean, not tonight, yes, okay. So, okay, engineering comments. Okay. What's next on your agenda? MR. O'CONNOR-I think, at this point, we would step back from the mic, unless somebody has a specific question of us, at this point. MR. PALING-All right. Does anyone on Staff or on the Board have a question for anyone representing the applicant? MR. MARTIN-Do you want to start with the letters? MR. PALING-We will now open the public hea+ing, and I'll just - 25 - --- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) repeat. Please limit your remarks for now to five minutes, or we'll limit them to five, and then if you haven't had a chance to express yourself adequately, we'll get you in the second round. So the public hearing is open, and whoever wishes to come forward. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MARTIN-Bob, I want to put it on the record, I did hand out the hand outs that were given to me by members of the public to the individual Board members just now, all of it. MR. PALING-Thank you. We have them in front of us. identify yourself when you speak. Please DAVE WELSH MR. WELSH-Hi. I'm Dave Welsh. I'm Chairman of the Queensbury Citizens Advisory Committee for Environmental Affairs, and our Committee has discussed this project on several occasions. In many ways, we think there's some very pos it i ve things about it. We have a couple of concerns. I listened to the discussion regarding the wells, and the movement of the groundwater was a concern of our Committee from the very beginning. We have two comments. One being that the three wells were all pretty much on one end of the project, and the decision to put a fourth well in will help to answer that. The other concern is that the only data from those three wells were obtained in the driest month of the driest year in the past 25 years. We don't know whether that is the only measure of which way the groundwater flows. I've talked to Tom Nace. He tells me that the pipes are still in, and the one thing that we would ask is that the wells be remeasured in other seasons, and I would recommend that a measurement be done in April of this year, and another measurement be done probably in the fall of the year on the existing wells so that we can have existing data on which way the water flows. The other concern that the Committee has raised pertains to the last part of the discussion regarding the swales and the flow of ground water, particularly of the lots along the top of the Ridge. The design of the lots, as they're presented, does a very effect job of controlling that. Our concern is that 10 or 15 years down the road when those lots are owned by individual owners, who's responsibility is it to make sure that the swales are not removed and that the surface water doesn't start flowing the other way, at the landowner's discretion. Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. We're not going to probably attempt to answer the questions on the run, but we'll make note of them and then try to come back to you through the applicant or through engineering, or whatever. MICHAEL MOORE MR. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, I'm Michael Moore from the Albany firm of Ward, Summer & Moore. I'm here tonight on behalf of Citizens for Queensbury, and its members. I've been asked to speak here tonight by that group because Citizens for Queensbury is concerned for the continued quality of life in their neighborhoods in the northwest Queensbury section, if this Indian Ridge PUD proj ect is approved. Our contention is this. The property where Indian Ridge is proposed to be located should not be the site of a high density, residential development with individual septic systems, and quite frankly, ladies and gentlemen, it's also our belief, that it's not me who's saying that, it's not my clients who are saying that. It's the Town's government. It's you people who have said, in many years of comprehensive land use and open space planning. The PUD Ordinance that's at issue here tonight requires, Article VIII of your Zoning Ordinance, that PUD's must be in compliance with other portions of the Zoning Ordinance and with the Town's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. If you believe, as we do, - 26 - .,./ "-" -.-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) that this proposed project is not in compliance with those documents, I would respectfully assert that it's your duty and your obligation to say so, before any further approvals are given for this project. Let me talk for a little bit about these planning documents, if I may. The Town's 1989 Comprehensive Land Use Plan says the following about this site where Indian Ridge is proposed to be located, it is in an area sensitive to development, with high percolation, soil percolation rates, within aquifer recharge areas of the Town, and should be developed at lower densities for residential development until such time as water and sewer facilities are provided. That's a quote from Page 63 of the Town's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Comprehensive Plan also says that the soils where this proj ect is proposed to be located, that percolation rates of approximately 40 inches an hour. That's double the rate, double the rate, ladies and gentlemen, which the Comprehensive Land Use Plan also says the following, areas with percolation rates greater than 20 inches per hour provides very little cleansing properties for septic or chemical discharge, and that these soils have a low suitability rating. Developments within these areas require extensive re-design in order to accommodate construction. A rating of limited to unsuitable indicates that these areas should be investigated to determine whether they are feasible for any construction. That is a quote from Page Six of the Town' s Comprehensive Land Use Plan. My clients are wondering this evening, ladies and gentlemen, what has occurred which now makes this site suited for development, suited for high density residential development, and what, if any, major planning changes have occurred in this site since it was first conceived that now make it suitable for development, in seemingly flagrant contradiction of your Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Town Zoning Ordinance, the property was formerly zoned in a district called RR-3A, three acre zoning. The stated purposes of that zone, according to your Ordinance, are, in fact, a perfect description of what now exists on that piece of property. It says the following, the purpose of the Rural Residential zone is to enhance the natural open space and rural character of the Town of Queensbury by limiting development to sparse densities. The property is now zoned, among others MR-5, half acre lots, the purpose of which is to put development in what the Zoning Ordinance calls high density areas, located near commercial services and subject to intense development pressure. That's a 180 degree flip, based upon what? We don't know. MR. PALING-Mr. Moore, I have to interrupt you, sir, for two reasons. One is your five minutes are up, and were you here at the beginning of the meeting? MR. MOORE-Yes, I was, Mr. paling. MR. PALING-Then I think you're, you know, you're kind of deviating from where we have authority. MR. MOORE-I understand that. MR. PALING-But the floor is yours, but I'm going to have to cut you on five and invite you to come back when we've gone through everyone. MR. MOORE-Could I conclude my remarks with one brief discussion? MR. PALING-All right. MR. MOORE-Thank you very much. There was some discussion earlier this evening, members of the Board, about groundwater resources, sewage systems. I would say to you the skepticism that I heard from certain members of the Board about what you know about soil conditions at that site is entirely justified. You don't know enough, and again, that's not me saying that. That's not my - 27 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) clients saying that. It's the State Health Department that says that. This variance that the applicant referred to earlier specifically says that before any lot in that subdivision can be sold, there's got to be tests of groundwater and soil conditions on that site to determine if it's suitable. They don't know. MR. PALING-Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were going to take so long. I'll ask you to come back. MR. MOORE-Thank you, sir. MR. PALING-Thank you. At this point many members of the public replied - "I yield my five minutes" . MR. SCHACHNER-I think the easiest thing to do, for the sake of an orderly public hearing, is to let anyone who wishes to speak, speak for five minutes. In my experience in these things, it gets very complicated if people start doing what I call donations of time. As I understand the ground rules that you've established, everyone will be able to speak as long as they want, eventually. MR. PALING-That's right. MR. SCHACHNER-But I think you should stick with the ground rules. MR. PALING-Good, thank you, and that's what we'll do. invited back, Mr. Moore, but let us finish Round One. You're MR. MOORE-Thank you, sir. MR. PALING-Who would like to speak next? MARK HOFFMAN MR. HOFFMAN-My name's Mark Hoffman. I'm the President of Citizens for Queensbury, a public interest citizens group. I'm trying to determine what to put in my five minutes. Let me just introduce this by saying that I came to some of the original meetings of the Planning Board. At that time, we were told, well, this is a very limited scope of our review here. We're just trying to make sure that papers are in order, and you'll have your chance to go to the Town Board. We went to the public hearings at the Town Board, where there was a dramatic outpouring of opposition to this proj ect, with detailed criticisms. At the end of all of that, when the Town Board passed, illegally, their three resolutions related to SEQRA, re-zoning and PUD, I was told at the very end by Mr. Champagne, well, you can go back to the Planning Board, and they can cut this thing up any way that they want. So here I am. I'm back. I think the time has come for us to stop passing the buck. Lets not say, we'll deal with this when we get to the final site plan, because I'll tell you, when you get to the final site plan, if there's something that comes up at that point, Mr. O'Connor is going to come back here and say, well, you should have brought it up in the Preliminary, or you should have brought it up back in SEQRA, or you should have brought it up here. This is our, you know, I think we should look at this, it's a Preliminary Site Plan. It's our chance to look at the overall scope of this project. Lets take a good hard look at it and decide, this is a Planned Unit Development. We're talking about a whole thing here, not little bits and pieces. This is not a standard subdivision. This is a Planned Unit Development. Lets not make little bits and pieces, and, well, we'll drill a well when we get to Stage Four, and we'll worry about that later. Lets worry about it now. You'll just have to interrupt me when I get to five minutes. Now, a number of points were made in terms of trying to narrow the scope of this meeting. At this point, I will limit my discussions specifically - 28 - -" '--- '-/' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) to Chapter 179 Section 58B, which I believe is well within the scope of your discussion, but I will comment that I think there's adequate explanation in this zoning book for why we should open this up to more broader considerations. 179-58B states, of the Code of the Town of Queensbury states IIReview of Preliminary Site Plans shall include but is not limited toll, not limited to, lithe adequacy of vehicular traffic access and circulation. II There could no question that the adequacy of traffic access will be unacceptable with the currently planned density. The developer's own traffic study clearly indicates a declining Level of Service to Level of Service E, very long traffic delays for Dixon Road northbound and Farr Lane southbound, during the a.m. peak and dropped from B to D for Farr Lane southbound during peak hours. Now Farr Lane is the access, entrance and exit access, for this project. There you have it, okay. So we've got to look at that traffic issue because that's the access to this proj ect. Now that's the developer's traffic study, and we've discussed that previously. Lets look at the Town's traffic study, Harza Northeast, commissioned by the Town, an engineering firm with expertise in traffic analysis, drop in Level of Service to Level of Service F, meaning extreme delays, for Dixon Road northbound p.m. and Farr Lane southbound, by 2001, as a result of Indian Ridge. Neither the hypothetical widening of Aviation Road nor re-aligning the intersection produced acceptable Levels of Service in that analysis which was presented to the Town prior to their determinations on August 19th. There is only a combination of major road construction and traffic signalization which allowed adequate traffic flow, and we're talking about not only Aviation Road and the Dixon area. We're talking about Farr Lane which is the access to this development. Lets not look at this intersection in a vacuum. The developer's traffic study indicates stable mediocre levels of service at the Aviation/Potter/Fox Farm intersection. That's the other access to this PUD. Presumably the reasons why the Levels of Service will remain the same is because it's going to be limited to entrance and not exit. I'll just finish that one comment and then I'll yield. There's no guarantee that that is going to be continued. The proposed PUD agreement simply states that that's the plan, but the Town Board can change that at any time. If you've got 190 units of people who are living in this new Indian Ridge who don't want to sit in front of a red traffic light at Farr Lane, they're going to change that one way designation, and then that traffic study is out the window. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Hoffman. You can come back, if you wish. Who's next? HAROLD SHAMUS MR. SHAMUS-For the record, my name is Harold Shamus. I live at 40 Fox Hollow Lane, and if I had felt that this Board or any other Board in the Town was listening to what I had to say, then I wouldn't have been compelled to make a contribution to hire Mr. Moore. I've hired Mr. Moore to get the point across, as best it can be, so we understand what we're talking about and what we need, and what I feel very strongly about is that I would like Mr. Moore to come up and explain and continue his dissertation, so you understand what ~, as an individual, and others here are trying to get across to the Board. He can do it concisely. He can do it eloquently, and he can do it. unfragmented, so I would appreciate that if right now, if I can ask Mr. Moore who I paid to represent me, to represent me. MR. PALING-We are going to go by the established rules, and Mr. Moore will be invited back to speak his piece, but he's not going to be invited back until others, until we've finished Round One. MR. SHAMUS-Well, as Mr. Vasiliou has hired council to deal for him, we have done the same thing here. - 29 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) MR. PALING-Sir, those are the ground rules. MR. SHAMUS-Well, it could be changed, okay. You can change those ground rules if you want. MR. PALING-Well, they're not going to be changed this evening. MR. SHAMUS-Well, I think that's an injustice to the community to the residents of this community. We're talking about a Planned Uni t Development. What happened to the planned development of this Town? If I wanted to move to Conarcy or Sheepheads Bay, BrooklYn, I would have moved there, and so would anybody else if they'd wanted to, and I think you have an obligation to the residents of this Town who have spent their hard earned money, have calculated, this is the place they want to live, based upon what prior Boards and what the plan was originally for this town to be, with sparse, density, that you have to take that into account, and I think that you have an obligation to take that into account, and I'll repeat, if I wanted to move to Conarcy, that's what that should be called, Sheepshead Bay, BrooklYn. We're not looking for the density, nobody is objecting to any kind of development except for the amount of density that's here, and I think that you should be listening very carefully to that, and I think you should be listening to the residents of this community. MR. PALING-Thank you. STEVE PIDGEON MR. PIDGEON-I promise I'll be less than the five minutes. My name is Steve Pidgeon, and I am a practicing Geologist, and I just want to shed some light on the discussion on the wells and the logistics of getting a drill rig in there. First of all, the minimum number of groundwater monitoring wells, some of you may not know this, to evaluate the groundwater flow, is three. Luckily there was a fourth point, and they did make the correct point, that there is a surface water body there, which allows a fourth point, a convenient fourth point. Usually when you have such a large surface body, the groundwater would be flowing toward that surface body, so the situation that was found by these three wells was somewhat unusual, not necessarily unbelievable or anything like that, but it was a little bit unusual, based on looking at the surface water body in the vicinity and the topography of the site. That in itself probably should have led some people to suggest that there should have been more wells put in to confirm this data. In addition, it should have also led some people to ask the question, why don't we re-check the data, i.e. the survey data and the water table data that was measured, especially since the wells are still there. It's very inexpensive to go down there with your water level meter, pop it in and check the levels. None of that was done. We're based all this on, from what ~ know, one collected set of data that has not been checked in the field. From what ~ can tell, it's gone through many iterations of different people on paper, but I don't know if anybody's gone out there and re-checked the data. The point about checking seasonal variations is also very important. In closing, the drill rig access is not really an issue. I do that in my line of work, and we've put drill rigs in a lot worse places. There's a lot of roads in through there. There's also drill rigs that operate on a bombadeer, a track rig that can go almost anywhere. So the accessibility is not an issue. Maybe it's just the inexperience of the people involved, but that is not an issue. It could be done now. In fact, it would be better to do it now because the ground is frozen, not that there's usually a serious mud issue with the sand, but you could do it with the ground issue and disturb the ground even less. So I would suggest that any wells that be proposed, be seriously looked at by competent Hydrogeologists or Geologists and also that they be done all in one shot, and that they be done now, because the Town Board, if I - 30 - ----' ':---- '-../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) remember properly, made their decision based on no significant impact on the groundwater flow flowing the way that has been proposed or stated, if it in fact find out that there's mounding effects or a divide on the property. Now we're talking about, well, it's really not significant, but the Board made their decision based on the way the groundwater was flowing, based on the limited amount of wells and information that we had, and therefore, how can you say it's no significant impact when you really don't have a full set of data, and see we're passed that stage, and I don' t understand how such an important data point or issue can just kind of skate through all these people that are looking at this. Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Who's next? LORI GRAVES MRS. GRAVES-My name is Lori Graves, and I'm a property owner on Ash Drive, on Glen Lake, and it's obvious why I'm here for my concerns, for the water quality of the lake. I would like to be sure, well, no, not be sure. I would like to know if a full Environmental Impact Study has been done, on a project of this size, and if it hasn't been done, why not? I do hope that if this development of this size does go through, the Association has been working very hard the past few years in establishing a data base for water testing and water quality. I do know that we have problems in our own back yards on the lake, which we do try to address, but I would like to think that with a project of this enormity, that if there are problems from this development on the lake, that the Town would have all their I's dotted and their T's crossed, and I would also like to point out, I have no day to day contact with the traffic issues on Aviation Road, other than an occasional trip up to the Mall, and that alone sometimes can be a nightmare, and I am glad I do not have to go beyond that, up Aviation Road. I do think your traffic studies need to be addressed in a little more detail. I don't think that I'm opposed to the idea of a development, except for the fact of the enormity of it. I think it should be scaled down, and maybe presented in the way that it was originally intended. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. MURIEL JACOBS MRS. JACOBS-Members of the Board, I am Muriel Jacobs. I am the President of a local ARP chapter, and I've lived here about four years, and noticed the traffic on Aviation Road. I am also very concerned with the taxes and have studies been done or proposed as to what impacts this proposed development would have on our local schools, and the taxes. Jobs are leaving the area. Money is tight here, and we have not had emphasis on industry, only on housing, which is backwards. Also, the cost of some of the problems of this development, such as rebuilding the Farr Lane intersection, buying land and new road extensions and traffic lights and so on will end up being paid by the tax payers. The taxes are going up on the schools, as you know, and a lot of people can't afford it. We've been trying to get those taxes paid in installments and we haven't gotten anywhere. It's been tabled, and so things are not too good in the area. Instead, we're putting emphasis on houses. Why don't we put the emphasis on lowering the taxes, on trying to get business in the area. That is what I wanted to talk about. MR. PALING-Thank you. BETTY BLANC MRS. BLANC-I'm Betty Blanc. I live on Buena Vista Avenue, which is right off Aviation. That's our only access to the rest of Town is - 31 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) to go down Aviation. Now I walk that area in the mornings between six thirty and eight o'clock, and I've seen the traffic on Potter Road go from about 10 cars for every half hour to about 60, and Aviation Road is just unbelievable. You walk from Sylvan to Fox Farm, you can count 100 cars going each way in the morning. A lot of them are school, youngsters who are driving to school instead of taking the buses we pay for, and you get to the Potter Road intersection, there's eight to twelve cars stocked up there waiting to get out. Now, that's now. What's it going to be when you add another 150 cars in the morning? Coming out from opposite Potter Road, and I just feel that they are not addressing the proper things on this, and one of the main problems is the traffic, and also I can't understand doing a project of this size without a full ecological impact statement. It just seems unbelievable that they would allow this to happen. MR. PALING-Thank you. I'd just point out that most of what you're talking about now is not within our jurisdiction or authority. You're talking about things that have been done, but you can say what you want to. I won't interrupt anYmore. The next person's from back here. Thank you. ALAN RANDALL MR. RANDALL-My name is Alan Randall. I'm a Hydrogeologist. I've worked with the U. s. Geological Survey since 1953, primarily in New York and New England, primarily on regional evaluations of groundwater resources and studies of surface water, groundwater interaction, streams and aquifers. I retired in 1991. Since then I have continued to work on an Emeritus basis with the U.S.G.S. and also doing some consulting as the opportunity has presented itself. I was asked by Citizens for Queensbury to review several documents concerning this proposed Indian Ridge development, mostly prepared by consultants for the applicant. A copy of my report has been furnished to you, and I will make some reference to some of the illustrations in it. Citizens for Queensbury was concerned that sewage disposal, leachfields close to the Rush Pond wetlands might adversely effect water quality in those wetlands and ultimately in Glen Lake. So asked me to review the information available with this concern in mind. It quickly became clear that the first and foremost question had to do with the direction of groundwater flow, as has been discussed tonight. The applicant infers flow to be south eastward away from the wetland, and if this be true, not only now, but also under conditions that would prevail after development. Obviously, the development would have zero effect on the wetland, and therefore I focused my attention. MR. BREWER-Excuse me. Can you explain to me what document he has? MR. PALING-Excuse me just a minute, don't take his time away. We were handed certain documents, Tim, which, as far as I'm concerned, it's impossible for us to review them. MR. BREWER-Well, he's referring to them as we speak. MR. RANDALL-I will refer, mention an illustration in them. That's all. MR. BREWER-All right. MR. RANDALL-I don't expect you to read them. MR. BREWER-No, no. I don't mean that. You're talking about this? MR. RANDALL-Yes, that's correct. - 32 - -' "-...e '---/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) MR. BREWER-I just want to look at it when you're talking. MR. RANDALL-We want to communicate clearly, and that's a necessary step to be able to do that. Okay. The interpretation presented by the developer and the simplest interpretation of the water level data that was collected is that of a smooth slope, southeastward toward the three or four points that were recorded. Briefly, I concluded that if and when the development is built as planned, an alternative interpretation is also plausible, namely that a groundwater mound would form, 500 to 600 feet southeast of the wetland, such that, of a configuration somewhat like this, with the wetland on my hand and this being off down toward Halfway Brook, and that such that any sewage disposal within the 500 or 600 feet from the wetland would drain toward the wetland, and let me try and be very clear in what I am saying. I am not claiming that the data proved that any wastewater disposal within 600 feet of the wetland will reach the wetland. I am claiming that the information presented so far does not rule out or discredit that possible interpretation. Therefore, I suggest that the action taken by this Board should depend on how strict a standard you believe the developer should be expected to meet. I was given a letter from John Salvador of Dunham's Bay Lodge who quotes a former Town Councilman, Ron Montesi, as saying, in 1986, when an area is deemed to be environmentally sensitive or critical, what they are saying to the landowners around that piece of property is that we, as a Town Board and as citizens of this Town, are looking at that area as very sensitive to development. It doesn't mean that it can't be developed, but it does mean that the Town Board is really going to require a Class A, Number One Environmental Impact Statement on that particular area for development. If that is still the standard to which the Town wishes to adhere, then I submit that the applicant has thus far failed to meet that standard. There are three weaknesses or omissions in the Environmental Impact Statement and related documents that were furnished to me. First, the wells drilled on the property in question are not located where they should be to fully support the interpretation of southeastward flow away from the wetland that the applicant has presented. If you look at Figure One, the map in my report, you will see that these wells, as I've plotted them, rather than being directly southeast of the wetland, are just beyond the southwestern end where they could be influenced by groundwater bypassing the wetland on the southwest side. Secondly, the Environmental Impact Statement contains a letter from T.W. Nace, in which the amount of wastewater recharge to be expected from the development was calculated to be 58,265 gallons per day, or 0.027 inches of water per day. The letter notes that, and I quote "This small additional amount of water would not create a perched water table or significant mounding of the existing water table. If Mr. Nace meant to say that the property is well suited to the operation of leachfields, I certainly agree. However, the amount of wastewater expected from this development is actually not insignificant. In 1996, the u.S. Geological Survey released a map that I have prepared of mean annual runoff in New York, New England, and parts of adjacent states for the period of 1951 to '80. It's the best map of its kind currently available for this region. In sandy terrain, average groundwater recharge is approximately equal to average runoff from a region because nearly all of the water infiltrates into the ground rather than running over the land surface to streams. MR. PALING-Can you interrupt what you're saying there and come back? MR. RANDALL-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay, because your five minutes is up. Okay. Who is next, please. - 33 - ,.-/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) MIKE MULLSHINE MR. MULLSHINE-My name's Mike Mullshine. I'm a local consultant. I think Mark Hoffman pointed out that, in the zoning booklet, there is supposed to be some flexibility to discuss issues, etc., and I think that the whole procedure seems to be, as evidenced by the current turn off, essentially channeling this whole process into a non ability to be able to discuss the real issues that the citizens here tonight really want to address. I've come to a number of meetings, Town Board meetings, and now the Citizens, now this Planning Board meeting, and you would have gotten the impression, at the Town Board meeting, etc., that eventually the citizens would be able to get some of their points across. The points, it seems like we're allowed to get our points across, but to this date, it looks like the only tangible effect of this is that there might be one extra boring, you know, and I just think it's sort of futile to, or I think it's small minded, perhaps, for the Board to limit the citizens of Queensbury who've turned out, not just the organization, but the people of the Town, who turned out in big numbers, and have been delayed at other Board meetings, Town Board meetings, and things, and in one case I remember sitting here until like 11: 30 or so before the people were even allowed to say anything, and a lot of people had to leave when there was about three times as many people as this, and now we're being told that there's no checks and balances, that basically the Town Board, the Town Zoning Board is allowed to do what they're going to do, and now we have such a strict and narrow perspective of what we're able to talk about that we can't even have an effect on it. It almost means that the potential court actions against the whole development are the only way that the Citizens of Queensbury can have any possibly or get any listening from their own Town Board, and that's basically what I wanted to say. I mean, I totally agree with Mr. Moore and Mr. Hoffman, the two Geologists here tonight, and unfortunately it sounds like I'm going to leave tonight and the only tangible thing is going to be, we've heard all your arguments, and we'll do one more boring, when the real issues are like some of the women have pointed out about the traffic, the environmental concerns, why we're tossing out the Planning Board plans from 1989, you know, the whole sensitive area issues. It's almost like Mike O'Connor's suggestion in the Post Star, I guess back in November, that they cut off Potter Road to Aviation, for example. It's a signal that if that's how easily we can toss out restrictive zoning accords, that maybe what ~ should do is get a bunch of citizens together and maybe buy the three acre zoned stuff between Aviation and the Watershed Area, and that would be a good investment on a development bases because you'll just toss that out in a couple of years and we'll be able to make more money that way, have a development across from the Indian Ridge development. So none of these points are obviously points geared toward what I hope Hoffman and Moore get to discuss later, etc., but some perspective, I mean, nothing's happened, and I'm totally frustrated with it. It' s obvious. So, thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. Okay. Who's next? JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I would hope that that's all we'll get tonight is another boring or two, but you should bear in mind, that if you don't take that boring now, it won't do you any good to take it later, because you'll have nothing to compare it to. You've got to take that boring today, and as you're going to re-test those other bore holes, you re-test this one, also. Then you'll find out what's going on in this eco system. The other thing I would like to suggest is that, and this is contrary to what all boards in this Town do, is that you allow this public hearing to remain open until your deliberation and your debate has finished, and the people have a chance to comment, once again, and - 34 - .- '- --./ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) when you close the public hearing, your work is done. You are ready to vote. The only thing you do, after the public hearing is closed, is vote. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. Who is next? YAN AHLSTROM MR. AHLSTROM-I'm Yan Ahlstrom. I live up in Westland. I have a very simple question for you. Are you totally rej ecting the paragraph Dr. Hoffman referred to? I want to know? Are you forgetting that wording which he referred to, read to you? MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Okay. Who else would like to come up? CHERYL ROBINSON HOFFMAN MRS. HOFFMAN-Hi. My name is Cheryl Robinson Hoffman. I live in Fox Hollow. I'm concerned about children's safety. In the last 15 years, we've lost three children within a mile and a half of Queensbury school. We have now three lanes of traffic. We have a sidewalk on one side of the road, one crossing guard at the John Burke Apartments, one way in front of the Catholic Church, and we have children crossing at Cottage Hill, no crosswalks, also at Midnight Drive, also no crosswalks, and the only plowed sidewalk where these children can walk off the road is in front of the school, and that was very difficult to get. I went to Father Joe to speak with him to ask the Catholic Church to go to the Board of Directors to see about putting a sidewalk on the other side because the people involved in widening the road were not willing to consider putting a sidewalk in because of maintenance problems with snow. We have grown to be a large community. I believe we're at 30,000. There are children and people coming from allover Queensbury that use this segment of Aviation Road. My son is six foot one and three quarters tall. The buses are very cramped for him. He chooses to walk back and forth to school when there is not a lot of snow, along the Aviation corridor. There are sidewalks in front of O'Malley's property and the last house on the end before Fox Lane, there are no other sidewalks. There are other children that walk back and forth for sports events. They've gone to their track meets or whatever, and they're walking home, so that they're not inconveniencing their parents. We are told by the School, their parenting classes, that we should allow our children independence, but we should allow them independence with safety, and I don't feel the Town has done enough with the design of the road, with the consideration of the traffic problem, to ensure the safety of our road. The people on Dixon Avenue, before the seven year old boy was killed, within the last three years, have asked for the Town Board to consider reducing the speed on that road, and I think it was a very reasonable thing. Other neighborhoods have come before the Board and asked that the speed limits through their neighborhoods be reduced and this has been denied. I know when Mr. Borgos was the Supervisor he also asked that the speed limit be reduced on Aviation Road to 30 miles an hour. In front of other schools and our community at large, Glens Falls in particular, the speed limit in front of the school is at a constant rate. There is a three to four foot margin in front of the sidewalks there. So if a car is traveling at a high rate of speed, there are at least three to five seconds that that child has time to respond. I would ask that you consider the same safety of our own children and extend the sidewalks far enough to ensure their safety coming and going to school. Thank you very much. MR. PALING-Thank you. Okay.' We're still in Round One. Who else would like to come up and talk? CRAIG EMBLIDGE - 35 - ~. (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) DR. EMBLIDGE-My name is not Betty Monahan, so I may not have much impact on what goes on here tonight, but I am a resident of Queensbury, and my name is Craig Emblidge. Others have expressed a frustration about not being able to address certain things we'd like to address tonight. I didn't plan to speak on this, but lets talk about sidewalks. Sidewalks in the development. It's my understanding from what I've heard tonight that the original plan, the offer of the developer was to put in sidewalks, and that's how the plan was reviewed, and that's how thoughts have been given to the project, and now all of a sudden sidewalks are difficult to put in. Maybe they're not cost effective. Maybe the profit margin isn't great enough, but there doesn't seem to be any concern now about this change in plans. Now I believe this is part of the purview here tonight. This is the Planning Board. It's also my understanding that, well, having attended the Zoning Board meetings, and having heard dear Betty Monahan speak so eloquently on behalf of this project, one of the reasons that she was so supportive was because this includes senior citizen housing. Again, she spoke eloquently. She swayed, I think, the Board, based on that issue, and we have no guarantee that this will ever come to pass, at least that's my understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not the first phase of the project. It is pie in the sky, you know, this may not come to pass, and what if it is not cost effective? What if the profit margin isn't great enough? What if not enough people are interested? This is one of the main reasons, I feel, that it got by the Zoning Board. A laudable idea, but I think this needs to be taken into consideration. There are more important things to think and speak about tonight, especially the quality of life, the traffic situation, the impact on the schools and taxes, but sidewalks, perhaps, comes under your purview. Thanks. MR. PALING-Thank you. Okay. Was there someone over here? Okay. Come on up. DOUG MILLER MR. MILLER-Doug Miller. I live at Four Stone Pine Lane in Queensbury. It has been stated that your hands are tied, in terms of what you can and cannot review. If I cite 179-38, in order to approve any Type I or Type II Site Plan Review Use, the Planning Board shall find, and I will skip down under that Section, just 179-38D, the project would not have an undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational, or open space resources of the Town. Going on further, 179-38E, the Planning Board shall review the Site Plan, excuse me, the Planning Board review of the Site Plan shall include as appropriate, but not be limited to, and I need to stress, not be limited to, the following general standards, and under that, we can skip down to Part E(6), the adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. We keep coming back to groundwater flow. That has a lot to do with sewage disposal. You do have the authority, in this document here, which is the guidelines which you have to follow, to do something about that. Going on further, under the PUD Section 179-58B, again, the adequacy of stormwater and sanitary waste disposal facilities is under your control. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. Okay. MYRON SWEET MR. SWEET-Okay. I live at 14 Farr Lane. What I want to know, they figure on putting a traffic light up there? Myron Sweet. Now are they going, it said in the paper, they're going west on Farr Lane. They're moving it over west. Now, are they moving it west or are they moving it east? I don't know. I mean, I don't want them running over the top of me. It doesn't mean anything to do. It - 36 - '-- ,L~ ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) means something to~. The last time they tried to go out there, they tried to widen the road out and come over onto me more, and that's another thing. How is all this traffic going to get out of there? That's the whole thing, and I don't understand, first of all, Dixon Road is a problem getting out. I never go out that way. I go through Farr Lane because then you've got to drive through all that water, and everything, but I don't understand, that's what I want to know, where are they going to move the road? It would seem like that would be the first thing you would find out, how to get into a development before you start it. How are you going to get in and out? Do you see what I'm saying? Now, I don't understand. You don't know where they're going to go with it. It said in the paper, who had the authority on that, to move the road over. MR. PALING-If you're looking for an answer, sir, I'm afraid we that we don't operate that way, and you're outside of our jurisdiction, but please continue as you see fit. MR. SWEET-Okay. Well, that's what I'm interested in, where they're going to put the road. I don't want them running over the top of me, that my main thing, right. Okay. I mean, the last development they put out there, lets see, O'Connor went out and he paved it and he did a nice job. He planted grass, and then along came the gas company and dug it all back up and left a mess and left it. I mean, that's another thing, that doesn't make much sense to me, but that's what my main concern is, where they, are they going to move the road? Are they going to widen the road? I mean, it used to be a dead end street there, right, and if they come over more on me, then I'm not going to any room to get two cars in my driveway, plus I'm going to get (lost word) on top of me. I mean, it may not mean anything to you guys, but it means something to me. Do you see what I'm saying? So that's what I want to know, and you haven't got an answer. It doesn't make much sense, and I don't know, if you lined the road up, to me, if you lined it up with Dix Avenue; that's the whole thing. You're not telling the whole story . Somebody isn't. If you lined it up with Dixon Road, you'd have to go east, it seems like. Do you follow what I'm saying? Now, if you went east, you'd be going through (lost word) yard, which is all right. then you'd be taking some of the gas station, so I mean, that's another thing. You'd uproot somebody else that's been there for 20, 30 years. I mean, this is the whole thing, you know. How much am I going to get uprooted. The last time with the gas line up through there, and some people are making a lot of money off of this, owns all that land, let them go across them with a gas line instead of coming across me all the while, but to me, unless you figure out something, how you're going to get in and out of there, it doesn't make much sense. I mean, are you going to put a traffic light there? You don't know? Did you figure on widening the road? MR. PALING-You're asking me questions I can't answer. MR. SWEET-Well, I live there, and if you lived there, you'd want to know the answer, wouldn't you not? MR. PALING-If I have a question concerning fire, I'm going to go to the Fire Department, but you're talking to the Water Department about a fire problem. MR. SWEET-I don't know. I wouldn't think so. MR. PALING-All right. dialogue. Go ahead, but please don't expect a MR. SWEET-Okay. That's all I've got to say, I guess. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Okay. Still in Round One. Who have we missed? - 37 - ----- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) ROGER BOOR MR. BOOR-My name's Roger Boor. I'm going to be very short, but a public hearing is supposed to be a dialogue. You can be smug and make fun of it, but if you're not going to answer questions, then why are we here? That's all I have to say. MR. PALING-I'm going to have to reply to that. I hope I wasn't, or no one on this Board was even close to being smug, but we do have a set of rules to run by. You people are talking away from them, and we're giving you a full, the full time to do it. If you haven't had enough time, you can come back, but I repeat, you're addressing questions for which we have no authority, and okay, but do you know what I'm afraid of? That the real issues we could be addressing, you're overlooking, and you're addressing Town Board issues instead of the things we can work on, and later on if you say, boy, I wish we'd have covered that, which is wi thin our authority, then we're all going to be sorry. I will re-read, to you if you wish what I said at the beginning of the program, that defines the authority of this Board, why we're here, what we do, but you're talking about, we're limited to this plat, and you talk about traffic on Dixon Road or that traffic lights, that was a Town Board decision to do that, and the SEQRA was the Town Board. We're not doing a SEQRA. All right. Is there anyone else for Round One that would care to come up and talk? And we do, by the way, I've got quite a number of notes here. We are going to address these. We don't ignore your questions. That's not true. I do however, I would say that we're not going to answer the questions that are the Town Board's authority. We'd be wrong if we did. Okay. Round One still. Yes, come up. DOUG IRISH MR. IRISH-My name is Doug Irish. I live at Number Eight Buena Vista, and I really didn't expect to come up and speak tonight. What I really thought was going to happen was you people would actually sit and listen and have a dialogue with us, rather than have the same type of situation we have when we go in front of the Town Board, where any question that is brought up and might be a little dicey to get into is, Mr. Schachner will break in and suggest they have an Executive Discussion to discuss those items, which under the law really isn't legal, but I don't want to get into that part of it. The problems that you're saying aren't under your control is, you originally got the Preliminary Site Plan and you had authority, at that point, to do something about it then. You should have done something about it then, when they came to you originally with a Preliminary Site Plan and it went to the Town Board after that. I mean, now that, you know, Fred Champagne says, take it back to the Town Planning Board and let them worry about it. Well, they already know they handcuffed you because they approved the zoning and the PUD. What the hell worry is to them that, you know, now you're going to sit here, listen to everybody's complaints and gripes, but not do anything about it. What good does that do the Town, and you people really do work for the Town. I mean, I'm a republican, and I probably have a lot of people that are upset about that, but I mean, I don't think that you're working for the republicans. You're working for the Town of Queensbury. I mean, if they want to run the Town like a Party, and that's up to them, there's always the end of a Party, and you people are all appointed, so you can take it from there. MRS. LABOMBARD-Mr. Irish, I know that we shouldn't be having a, supposedly we're not going into a dialogue or anything, but I would like to make a comment. You have to also remember that we gave a recommendation to the Town Board. That is all we did that first night back in May, and we were here for a long time, and we left it at that, and the Town Board did with it what they wanted to do with it, and I don't think that we should be accused of anything. I - 38 - --....' --' ~ 1-- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) don't think that you should come up here or anybody should come up here and say that, allude that Mr. Schachner does something illegal. MR. IRISH-I've been to those meetings, and I've seen it done. MRS. LABOMBARD-I mean, I think that's hitting below the belt, and I don't think that's what we're here for tonight. MR. IRISH-Okay, but you can't tell me, when they came up to you with this plan, that you didn't know that was going to be a problem in that area. I mean, it's your job to know what that Comprehensive Land Use Plan says. That thing never fit it, no way, no how, and there's no reason that it should have even gone to the Town Board for approval. I mean, at that point you should have known that this was not something that should have been happening over in that area. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. We don't have a dialogue because it gets a long, it'll make a very, very long evening, and it leads to repetitiveness. We try to make note of all of your questions, and we will try to answer all of them. If we don't, call us on it. JOANNE MADDOX MRS. MADDOX-I'm Joanne Maddox. I live in Queensbury. I think if you're calling yourself a Town Planning Board, that this is really inadequate, and here we're talking about planning. If you can't talk about traffic and you can't talk about safety, you can't talk about sidewalks and you can't talk about the environment, what are you planning? What is planning about except planning the whole big picture, and if you didn't do your job earlier and it doesn't seem like you want to do it now, I think you're really not serving the citizens of this community well, and you are our representatives. You're supposed to be representing us. MR. BREWER-Ma'am, could I say something? I would just like to add something. I've listened to 19 people or 20 people come up here and say something, and necessarily I don't agree with the five minutes and cut you off and not finish your sentence, but that's the way the rules are. So we'll get into the second round, and say whatever you want to say. I know as one Board member, we're willing to sit here, and we have in the past, and listen to everything everybody says, and I think we'll answer every question that we're able to. I don't think you're being fair to us. I've been to many meetings about this thing, and I take this serious, and I think when you say that we're not doing our job, come sit in our shoes some night. There's always openings, and you people that say we're not doing our jobs, come sit here some night until midnight with us, and you do things that we do, and then look at it the other way. I don't think it's fair that you condemn us. We haven't done anything yet. We sat here and listened to you. We've been here since seven o'clock, and if you don't like the way we're doing it, then change it. How? Come to the meetings, volunteer your time to do something. Now, we'll go on with the meeting and we'll listen to you, and I think we'll be fair. Just give us a chance. MR. PALING-Okay. gone. All right. back? Still on Round One. Going, going, Round One is I think that, Mr. Moore, do you want to come MR. SCHACHNER-Bob? Two. I just thought I'd offer a suggestion for Round MR. PALING-I've got to do one other thing before Round Two starts, also, because we're not completing Round One until we read the letters that we've received. These are public comments, and - 39 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) logically part of Round One. MR. MARTIN-We received three letters in the office. The first one is dated February 20th, addressed to Robert Paling, Chairman, proposed Indian Ridge subdivision. "I am opposed to the approval and subsequent construction of the above noted proj ect . The population density associated with this project is too great for the location. Thank you for your consideration. H.G. Beres, property owner, 9 Woodridge Drive, Queensbury" Okay. The second letter is from a Roger Michael Longo, addressed to myself. II Dear Mr. Martin: I am writing to inform you of my vehement opposition to the Indian Ridge project. I have attended all of the previous meetings and it was very clear that the implications on this project have not been well thought out by the Town Board. In my considered opinion there is a need for a full and impartial environmental impact study on the Vasiliou Proposal. It is my hope that the Queensbury Planning Board will have the wisdom to delay any consideration of this project until the results of such a study are available to all concerned parties. As noted on the town letterhead, Queensbury is a "home of natural beauty" and "a good place to live". I sincerely hope that the Queensbury Planning Board will consider those sentiments by not hastily approving a dubious proj ect that we will all regret at length later on. Sincerely, Roger Michael Longo, Ph.D. 35 Fox Hollow Lane, Queensbury, NY 12804" Okay. The last letter is dated February 17th, and is again addressed to me. This is from Steven W. Pidgeon "Mr. Martin: I appreciate the time you are taking to obtain feedback in what has become the volatile issue of Indian Ridge. On paper the development looks and sounds appealing. Since I live nearby the proposed site, there could be some attractive benefits to my family if the development is built. Such things as bike or walking trails, a park and easier access to Queensbury schools are definitely a plus! I do have the following questions or concerns: 1. What guarantees are there that the above mentioned benefits that were discussed at the public meetings will become a reality? Who's job is it to ensure that they happen? 2. The traffic in this area is already a problem and at times unsafe. If the development achieves full build out the traffic problem will become worse. (I know this is contrary to the contractor sponsored traffic study but common sense rules here.) A. Several board members are under the impression that the traffic problem will be fixed when the state expands the bridge over the Northway. This expansion alleviates the back up of traffic trying to get over the Northway. It will do nothing to aid the traffic in the vicinity of Farr Lane, Dixon Road, Potter Road and Fox Farm Road. In fact it will make it more difficult for cars on these roads to cross or turn on to Aviation road as the traffic flow will be increased on Aviation due to the bridge expansion. It is cars trying to turn on to Aviation Road that will encounter difficulty not the traffic already on Aviation. As you know this difficulty leads to unsafe conditions as drivers try to dart onto Aviation especially given that there are usually cars on both sides of Aviation trying to turn on to it at the same time. This is the traffic problem in fact, with the bridge expansion, Aviation Road will become the preferred route for traffic traveling to the western reaches of Queensbury. I don't understand the logic the town board is trying to apply here in saying that adding more cars from the development will be offset by the bridge expansion. I question their expertise in this area. It makes no sense to say no significant impact because they have no evidence that the proposed problem will be fixed by this bridge expansion. B. As a father with young children that get on and off a school bus in this area, I am deeply concerned about the increased stress the additional cars from the development will place on an already stressed traffic pattern. There have already been 2 accidents that I know of in this area since the last meeting on Indian Ridge. My questions are: What definite plans does the Town have to improve the traffic situation in this area? Since the developer is going to receive benefit from - 40 - ~ "-"' "-- I ' "-"' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) developing the land in this area that will cause a decrease in traffic safety, I would ask that the town receive some monetary compensation for some of the traffic improvements. Again the traffic situation needs to be solved before the development is completed. 3 . One of the issues that makes this proj ect to certain board members is the land being given to the town to build more housing for the elderly. This is a great idea but what are the chances that it will occur? It's not right to latch on to this one benefit at the expense of all the other issues. The board must be looking out for the interests of everyone and must consider the long term affects of the project. I am disappointed in certain board members decision to gloss over certain problem areas just for the chance to get free land that may not be used to build housing for the elderly. 4. As a practicing geologist, I install and measure groundwater monitoring wells as well as create groundwater flow maps. The three wells installed on the property to determine the groundwater flow are inadequate because they are clustered in one area. I question the selection of the location of the wells. I also question the results as presented. Surface water bodies are almost always groundwater sinks. It goes against basic hydrogeologic principles for all the water on the property to flow away from Rush Pond. The data should be rechecked even if it means resurveying the well elevations and the elevation of the water of Rush Pond. It is very easy to make an honest mistake when measuring this data. In addition, the water levels in the wells should be checked during several seasons. This could have already been accomplished given the length of the approval process. I am very disheartened to see that such basic flaws in the collection of pertinent environmental data goes unnoticed or unchallenged. It does not make sense for a board to make ruling on such issues when they have no expertise in this area. I cannot understand why the town engineers did not bring up such shortcomings to the board. In summary, I ask that: a) The contractor be held to the promise of walking or bike paths through the development. b) A definite traffic plan to improve traffic safety in this area be implemented before the development is built. c) The chances of building a home for the elderly on the parcel donated by the contractor are truthfully explained to the public. D. The survey (especially elevation) data for the groundwater wells and Rush Pond be checked. In addition the water levels in the wells should be checked periodically and compared with the original data. New groundwater contour maps based on this new data should be drawn. If conflicting data results, installing more wells should occur. Please ensure a copy of this letter is passed on to the town board. As it has been difficult for me to stay current on any changes, some of my concerns may already have been addressed. I would appreciate any updates and will be attending the next public meeting. Sincerely, Steven W. Pidgeon II And by copy of a memo I sent today, I passed this on to the Town Board, per his request. MR. PALING-Okay. Mark, you wanted to make a comment. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, only comment, and suggestion. My comment, I guess, is that I think the Board decision to limit speakers in the initial round to five minutes was a sound decision because that way we were sure that everyone had an opportunity to speak their piece. In my experience in dozens of these proceedings, if everyone is allowed to speak as long as they want in the first round, some people, for whatever reason, simply have to leave, and never get a chance to make their initial comments, and just as some are frustrated by being cut off after a certain time limitation, those people are more frustrated by never getting to speak their piece. Some people simply can't stay until 11 o'clock, 11:30, 12 o'clock or whatever. Having said that, I think the Board should be commended for that. I think we've heard from 19 people in person, as well as several items of correspondence, and by my notes, at least, only three people had to be cut off because they wanted to go longer than the five minutes. I would suggest that the Board - 41 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) first confirm that nobody else wants to speak in Round One. If that's the case, if anyone else does, I would urge the Board to allow them to do so. I would then suggest that we seek confirmation that the only three people that wish to speak in Round Two are Mr. Moore, Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Randall, and if that's the case, I would then suggest that rather than limiting each of them to their next fives minutes, and then having several go arounds of five minutes a piece, if we're only talking about three gentlemen that want to speak again, we could offer to them the opportunity to pick whatever order they want to speak in and to speak for as long as they like, without having to rotate around. That's just a suggestion, but in my experience in these proceedings, that might make for an orderly process. MR. PALING-I think it's a very good suggestion. Those are the same three names that I have. MR. SCHACHNER-But, Bob, I'm sorry. If any of those three gentlemen don't want to do it that way, and, you know, if somebody has a constraint and they want to stick to five minute rounds, I think that we owe them that obligation, because in fairness we should treat everyone equally. MR. PALING-Sure. All right. Last call for Round One. Okay. Anybody that hasn't spoken yet at all? All right. We have three names on the list, and I can add a fourth. Do you want me to put your name down, Mr. Salvador? MR. SALVADOR-Please. MR. PALING-Okay. Then we have four names on the list. anyone else who would like to speak in Round Two? Is there MR. MACEWAN-Does it make any difference? Just start it. MR. BREWER-Yes. Bob. I don't think we should limit it to just four, MR. SCHACHNER-I think it does make a difference, only in the sense of letting people know, deciding whether you want to let them speak as long as they want or structuring it differently. That's the only reason I think it's important. I don't think we should have anybody put in the awkward position of having to leave and not having had an opportunity to get their second round in. MR. PALING-All right. Is there a gentleman back there that wanted to speak in Round Two? MR. AHLSTROM-Everybody wants to have the right to speak again. You shouldn't limit it because you don't want to spend the time. MR. BREWER-Yes. I agree with that. I guess what he's saying, Bob, is don't limit it to four people. If everybody wants to get up and speak. MR. PALING-Okay. Lets get to the four people who'd like to talk in Round Two. We're not cutting anybody off. Anybody that wants to speak is going to have the opportunity. Do we agree that Mr. Moore can be the first to return to the table? Okay. Mr. Moore? MR. SCHACHNER-Why don't you also ask the four people if they want to have them each speak as long as they want, or if they'd rather have them go in five minute rounds, just in fairness to everybody. MR. PALING-Well, I'm going to suggest we let them speak as long as they want, for the concurrence of the Board. Go ahead, Mr. Moore. - 42 - '-' ~ ~ I , -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) MR. MOORE-Thank you, sir. I'd like to begin with a couple of questions, and I know there's been some debate about that, but I believe these are questions directed to areas of the Board's jurisdiction. If not, I'm sure someone will tell me. The first question is, and I fear I know the answer to this one, but in looking at Section 179-58B (1) (a) of the Town Zoning Ordinance, among the factors for consideration by the Board in a Site Plan Review application for a PUD, it says, the adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic. Am I correct in assuming that that reference is to traffic within the development, and not? MR. PALING-Within primarily, right. MR. MOORE-All right. The second question is this. Am I also correct in assuming that Mr. Miller, I believe it was Mr. Miller's earlier reading of Section 179-38 D and E, pertain to standards which are not within the Board's jurisdiction this evening? And in asking that question, I'm sorting of thinking back to what Mr. Martin said at the outset. MR. PALING-No. I believe Mr. Miller asked about, basically, the effect on Town sewage. MR. SCHACHNER-No, no, no. Can I jump in on this? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Moore is absolutely correct. Mr. Miller made two sort of, what I call, two sets of comments, and the first portion of comments related to Section 179-38, and Mr. Moore is correct that that is not the section of the Town of Queensbury Code that is applicable to this proceeding. That's the section that's applicable, and I believe it's title so indicates, it's Site Plan Review of Type I and Type II Site Plan uses. The proposed project here is not a Type I or a Type II Site Plan use. It is a Planned Unit Development, and therefore governed solely by the Site Plan Review criteria in Section 179-58. You're absolutely correct. MR. MOORE-Thank you. With those clarifications, I will pick up where I left off. We were talking about sewage systems and their impact on groundwater resources in the area, and I believe I had reached the point where I was talking about a Health Department variance, and that the Board's skepticism or at least what I will liberally interpret as skepticism, about the adequacy of the data that exists to this point on that issue is well justified. The Department of Health variance, to which reference has been made earlier, by the applicant, says the following, that it's conditioned on the soil and groundwater conditions on each lot, each lot, to be sold or offered for sale. They must be suitable for design and construction of on gravity subsurface sewage systems acceptable to the Health Department. Now that, to me, does not sound like a ringing endorsement of whatever data may exist at this point on the adequacy of those soils to accept subsurface septic systems or for that matter on the groundwater data. It's a very preliminary approval, and I think calling it preliminary is even charitable. Now, in addition, I don't know whether any members of the Board or any members of the public who are here this evening believe that the standards that the Health Department considers when they take up requests for variances from the requirements for public sewers. There may be a belief that there are some very rigorous, technical and environmental standards that this developer or any other developer has to meet in order to get a waiver from the requirement for a public sewer system. Well, let me read to you from those standards, ladies and gentlemen. This is the Department of Health regulations upon which the variance I read to you earlier is based. The Commissioner, that being the Commissioner of the Health Department, may, on written application, grant a variance from a specific provision of this part in a - 43 - --- ~~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) particular case, subject to appropriate conditions where such variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this part. That's it. Those are the rigorous, technical and environmental standards that this developer had to meet in order to get his variance from the Health Department. I dare say that that should not give anybody in this room great comfort, that what has been done to this point is adequate to answer the question of whether this Board is in now in possession of adequate information to determine that the proposed sewage systems for this PUD are adequate to protect the groundwater resources of the Town of Queensbury. It is not, ladies and gentlemen, the Health Department's job to do that. It never was. It never will be. They don't want the job, and it's not the developer's job either. His job is to worry about the bottom line, and there's nothing wrong with that. He's a business man. The job is yours. You have to answer the question, either tonight or before you make your final decision, as to whether a 120 units, with subsurface septic systems, in this area, will destroy the groundwater resources of the Town of Queensbury, and possibly impact one of it's Critical Environmental Areas. You have to decide that. Not the Health Department, not the developer, and on behalf of my clients, I would urge you, don't buy a pig in a poke. Make them get the information, and as was discussed earlier this evening, make them do it now, before this project goes any further. In conclusion, and I assure you this is a conclusion, I made reference this evening to a couple of the Town's Comprehensive Land Use Planning and Open Space planning documents. I would say to you that if the citizens who've come out here tonight in this room are to have any confidence that those documents mean anything, mean what they say, mean the things that I read into the record earlier this evening, are worth something more than the paper they're printed on, that the only thing that the Town can do is to somehow reduce the densities that are presently planned for this Indian Ridge development, by whatever powers you may have. The situation that my clients are confronted with tonight and the reason they called me here to speak on their behalf goes something like this. Because the government of the Town of Queensbury is saying, in effect, that black equals white, that one plus one is three, or to bring it down to the terms of this matter, that a high density, residential development with individual septic systems, in a Critical Environmental Area is the same thing as a low density development in an already developed area with a public sewer, the same thing, no difference. My clients don't believe that's true, and we certainly hope that you don't, either. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. Okay. I had Mr. Randall as being next. MR. RANDALL-Thank you, sir. When I was speaking before, I had said that there were three flaws in the Environmental Impact Statement and related documents that were furnished to me in regard to the questions of directions of groundwater flow. One having to do with the location of wells. I was also starting to refer to the question of the significance of the amount of wastewater that has been estimated as being generated by this project and added to the, as groundwater recharge. I said that i had prepared a map of mean annual runoff which in this particular location is a good estimate of mean angle recharge to the aquifer, and I was about to say that this map, which I have a copy of, just to look at it, indicates the mean annual recharge at this location for 1951 to '80 to be about 20 inches. The expected wastewater recharge, under fully developed conditions, as estimated by Mr. Nace, would be 10 inches, thus total recharge would be 150 percent of the natural condition. An increase of this magnitude, of 50 percent above the natural condition, deserves more serious attention, in my opinion, than provided in the Environmental Impact Statement. Thirdly, no consideration was given to the relation of the water table in early April 1996 when measurements were made to the long term average water table position, which is what we would want to use in - 44 - "-../ --~ "--' I '--' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) estimating long term effects on groundwater resources. If the water table happened to be about average in April 1996, fine. If it was above average, than southeastward flow away from the wetland, as interpreted by the developer under most conditions, becomes even more likely. If it was below average, northwestward flow toward the wetland under developed conditions becomes more likely. As it happens, as we know, 1996 was the wettest year of this century, but April was early in the year, 1995 was unusually dry, and the water table in sand plains, such as this one, commonly responds slowly over several years to changes in precipitation. Therefore, consideration comparison to results of water level observation wells and that sort of thing would be highly pertinent here. Finally, let me briefly present the basis for my interpretation. You have copies of my report which goes into this in more detail, should you care to review that. I drew a vertical section, which is shown on Figure One of that report. The line of the section, perpendicular to the edge of the wetland, parallel to the southeastward direction of groundwater flow that is indicated by the measurements in April 1996, three wells. That line, section passes through one of the wells, and another well is projected to the line of section, perpendicular to the section which is standard practice. I also sketched a 350 foot water table contour down to the southeast, along near the margin of the sand plain. This is based on the position of springs and seeps and ponds and streams as shown on the topographic map. We do not know how much recharge took place during the time period that determined the water table position as measured in April 1996, but we can say that whatever recharged reached the water table in the distance between the two wells, 1050 feet as I projected it, would, the same amount would occur in the next 1050 feet and the next 1050 feet and so on, and therefore the water table slope between those two points should be steeper down gradient, steeper in the next region, steeper in the next region, if the hydraulic conductivity is the same, and it similar should be gentler as you go up gradient, because there is, in proportion to the amount of water that has to be moved through the system, the steeper the gradient is required to move the greater amounts of water. Finally, I hypothesized two plausible scenarios. One, that all recharge to the northwest of this wetland and northwest of this property, really, was captured by springs and seeps that we know occur in the Rush Pond swamps and wetlands there, resulting in a flat water table, more or less equal to the wetland surface, in which case the slope of the water table southeast of the wetland in the area of the proposed development would be a function of recharge in that locality. This hypothesis resulted in a projected water table between the observation wells and the wetland that nicely coincided with the measured water level in the wetland recorded by the applicant. In Figure Two of my report, that natural water table is shown, I believe, as the red line. An alternative plausible scenario is that some recharge from the region to the northwest of the site is able to flow beneath the wetland and into the northwest end of my section, and the water table profile under natural conditions resulting from this scenario, this set of assumptions, is shown in Figure Three. The dashed line in that figure, it's the dashed line in both figures that is the natural condition. My apologies. I should explain that I drew a handwritten map here, and Mr. Miller kindly provided a computer version of it to make it easier to read, and I should have brought that up at the beginning. So it's the dashed line in each case that represents the natural condition here. Okay. Neither of these scenarios fits all the data perfectly. Taken together, however, they do support the interpretation that under natural conditions groundwater flow is southeastward, and there is relative little chance of a groundwater divider mound southeast of the wetland. Next, however, I increased recharge in both scenarios by a factor of one and one half, as consistent with the estimates that we've just give you, to represent the expected addition of wastewater. Under the first scenario in Figure Two, this modification results in the upper water table. This is the red - 45 - -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) line that I was speaking of, which shows a mound, and a groundwater divide about 560 feet from the wetland. Within that 560 feet, flow would the northwestward toward the wetland. Another factor here is the beaver, which I understand have colonized at least part of this wetland area. According to Citizens for Queensbury, they report a beaver dam that is located near where the stream drains the wetland, flows under the Northway. I was given a picture of this, which, I guess just to document that it really exists, and they say that it raises the water level about three feet. Perhaps some day the beaver will succumb to some disease or be effected by man, in which case the water table would drop about three feet to the lower profile in Figure Two, the green dashed line on Figure Two. This represents a drop about three feet, and the divide would migrate about 50 feet southeastward to about 610 feet from the wetland. By contrast, remember these are all, these are trial scenarios, under the scenario in Figure Three, which said there was initially some recharge coming through this system, the expected volume of wastewater would approximately equal, and therefore block the natural recharge from the northwest that was postulated in generating Figure Three. Thus under this scenario, little or no groundwater mound would result. Which of these two scenarios is most nearly correct? I don't know, and neither does the applicant. In summary, the information available can plausibly be interpreted to suggest flow southeastward away from the wetland under all conditions, or to suggest that under developed conditions, flow would be toward the wetland within a strip 500 to 600 feet wide, adjacent to the wetland. The applicant might choose to revise the site plan to eliminate wastewater discharge within this strip or to collect additional information that would more closely constrain the water table configuration and interpret it more rigorously in the hopes that the possibility of northwestward flow can thereby be ruled out, and that concludes my remarks. MR. PALING-Thank you. proceeded Mr. Hoffman? I believe, Mr. Ahlstrom is next? Who's name is next? Who MR. SCHACHNER-Mike Moore proceeded Mark Hoffman when they spoke the first time, but he's already spoken again. I think the other people, the other two people that have expressed an interest in speaking again, I believe, are Mr. Hoffman, definitely, and Mr. Ahlstrom maybe, I wasn't clear. I'm sorry, Mr. Salvador. MR. PALING-All right. Then Salvador's the last one, then. MR. SCHACHNER-It doesn't matter. MR. PALING-Or do you want to come up, Dr. Hoffman? There was reference made to a comment you made about the Hoffman paragraph, the paragraph you referred to. What were they referring to when they said, the paragraph you referred to? Who said that? MR. HOFFMAN-I'm not entirely sure whether it was the traffic issue? MR. SCHACHNER-No. What Mr. Hoffman, I believe Mr. Hoffman, one of his first comments was he read the criterion listed at 179-58B(1), and the criterion says, the Planning Board's review of a Preliminary Site Plan shall include but is not limited to the following considerations, and I believe when the person who made that comment made that comment, he was referring to that first paragraph that Mr. Hoffman referred to in his remarks. MR. PALING-Is that right? MR. HOFFMAN-Basically. MR. PALING-All right. I'm sorry. Go ahead. That's the paragraph we're talking about. - 46 - "----, -' I -..../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) MR. HOFFMAN-Frankly, I did expect that the Planning Board might try to take a fairly narrow look at this, and for that reason, you know, just frankly having been through this now for, I don't know, eight, nine, twelve months, I've learned a little bit about how this system works, and I've learned that you've got to kind of come up with the book and go through it, and that's what I intend to do. There's nothing that I'm going to say that isn't directly related to the section in the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury that relates to your responsibilities under this Site Plan Review, and I will, at various times in my presentation, make reference to that. I would just parenthetically state, in the process of doing this I'm going to try to show you some areas where, and that was one example which was just mentioned, where it would appear that the people who wrote this Ordinance did intend that the Planning Board take a relatively broad perspective here, and not overly narrow their scope. I did previously discuss the traffic situation. Again, I would like to emphasize that that does relate to Section 179-58B(1) (a), and I, again, emphasize that, and that relates to adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation including intersections, road widths, channelization structures and traffic controls. If you don't want to look at Dixon Road, okay. I mean, I think Dixon Road is pretty close to the project, but if you think it's too far away to look at, don't do that, but you sure as hell better look at Farr Lane because that is the access to that PUD, and you've also got to look at Fox Farm Road, and that intersection because that's another access. Previously in my remarks, I believe I provided fairly straight forward documentation that that is not adequate access for the PUD. There's documentation from the Town's own engineering traffic study in regard to that. I think you're making a mistake if you don't pay serious attention to that. With regard to the other access, the Fox Farm/Potter/Aviation access, it would appear, again, there that based on that one way designation, one way entrance designation, that relatively mediocre levels of service maybe maintained, again I would assert that the PUD agreement does not make that a hard and fast requirement, and it's not entirely clear what would happen to that intersection if it became a two way intersection. Again, mitigation to try to make that access at Dixon/Aviation/Farr Lane workable, Harza says in their report in August, it's got to be a major reconfiguration requiring purchase of a right-of-way, requiring traffic light. What's going to happen if you put that traffic light in? You've got another between those two intersections, between the Farr Lane and Fox Farm intersections, both access points. I don't know, maybe .2 miles, maybe a little bit less than that distance. You've got a steady stream of flow of cars along Aviation Road. A red light goes up at Farr Lane/Aviation/Dixon, those cars come to a stop in the morning. They're going to back up, potentially back up to that other intersection, the other access. I don't know if we've taken an adequate look at that. Again, the question comes up, who's going to pay for all this construction, all this traffic signalization. It seems like a fairly straight forward thing, but we could be talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars possibly millions of dollars. Your response earlier was it's not within your purview. It's up to the Town Board, but if you don't have a clear understanding of how this situation is going to be handled, how can you pass this Site Plan? The regulation here says you've got to look at access. How can you pass a Site Plan when the access hasn't been adequately addressed? Just also in that Farr Lane road access area, people who don't want to stop at that red light are going to be very tempted, I'm sure they will, they'll make a left hand turn down Manor Drive, heavily populated neighborhood with no sidewalks. You're going to have cars zooming up and down that road because they can't get passed that traffic light at Farr Lane. All right. Again, going back to the book, it says Section 179- 58B(1) (e) of the Town Code requires consideration of the scale of various uses within the PUD. In other words, scale down the number of homes in the development. If you can scale down that number of - 47 - '-..- '- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) homes, you'll help mitigate the traffic problem and you'll help with some of the other issues, the septic, the environmental issues related to the Critical Environmental Area. I'd like to switch gears now and briefly talk about that Critical Environmental Area. It is certainly within the area in question and certainly is an important issue within the Site Plan Review. It's been mentioned, again, I'll repeat that the Town Board unanimously adopted a resolution declaring within 500 feet of Rush Pond and adjacent wetlands as an area of critical environmental concern. The minutes of those Town Board meetings clearly indicated the intent of the Board that construction within that Critical Environmental Area would require an Environmental Impact Statement. The Town Board ignored that intent. The PUD, as shown there on your site plan, includes approximately 30 septic systems within that Critical Environmental Area. Thirty lots in whole or in part will be located within that Critical Environmental Area. Now in attempting to address this issue related to the Critical Environmental Area, the developers and to some extent the Town Board relied very heavily on their hydrology data, indicating that the flow of groundwater is away from the wetland. We've heard expert testimony from a nationally recognized expert in Geohydrology that that determination is far from certain, and we have graphic, I would again comment Mr. Levandowski's remarks that the Pond and wetland area down there serve as an additional site for determining water level. His determination has been very heavily dependent, in fact most of the remarks that he's made both in front of the Town Board and tonight have related to that use of the water level within the wetland as an additional site for measuring water level. We've had very graphic evidence tonight that that's not reliable. We've got a beaver dam right there that could go at any time. In fact, in the first meeting of the Planning Board, in January 1996, Mr. 0' Connor specifically mentions that the owners of the property don't like that beaver dam, and they've been known to go in and bust it out. That's Mr. O'Connor's statement, not mine. Well, is the Town going to go in there and build a permanent dam at that point to address the issue? How much is that going to cost? Start adding up the traffic mitigations and other things that are going to cost money down the line, you're talking real money. In terms of this CEA business, again, a lot of emphasis and stress has been placed on water. One other issue I just want to bring up, again, the business about depth to groundwater being 60 feet, that's certainly a favorable pattern. It's certainly better than having one or two feet to groundwater. However, again, the perc rates are extremely high in this area, and a depth to groundwater is very helpful in terms of cleansing impurities such as coliform bacteria, but it would not necessarily prevent an organic or soluble compounds, nitrates and so forth from reaching groundwater, or certainly we need more information before we can make that determination. I just want to get away, though, from all this business about the water, because in their CEA, Critical Environmental Area resolution, in 1987, that was only one issue that was raised by the Town Board in making their CEA determination. Let me see if I can just find it. I think that in just focusing on the water, we're ignoring a very valuable resource to this community. In designating this area in 1987 the Town Board emphasized "undisturbed natural beauty of this area". They go on to state "Rush Pond on the area here and above described have remained open and undeveloped and could be adversely effected by any change in use or intensity of use". So sure the water's important, but there are other issues here. We have a valuable, aesthetic recreational resource, potential resource for the Town. Lets not throw it away. In the site plan review, serious consideration has to be given to what does this PUD have to offer, in terms of those questions. I'd like to just quote Jim Martin on that. Again, January 16, 1996, this is in front of the Planning Board. "There is real character to this area here, especially when you get out along the edge of the sloped area by the wetland. It looks remarkably a lot like the bluffs of the Hudson River, and - 48 - "--- .-' "--- ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) it's a beautiful spot in there. There's a lot of environmental education opportunity there." Now, I like nature as much as the next guy, and there are a lot of beautiful places around the country that you can go. You can go to Yosemite. You can go to Yellow Stone. I've never been to any of those places, and I would suspect that probably many people in this room have never been to those places. What a resource we have here, absolutely spectacularly beautiful, natural resource, aesthetic resource for the community, within walking distance of 5,000 Queensbury residents. Lets be very careful about how we treat that, and how that fits into our whole Site Plan Review here, and just again to get back to the zoning book, Section 179-58B(1) (f) of the Town Code requires the Planning Board to consider the arrangement of trees, shrubs and other landscaping constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between adj acent uses and adj oining lands. Well, you've got an adjacent use here. You've got a Critical Environmental Area. You've got, apparently the developer is going to be donating this property to the Town. There's your adjacent use. Lets create an environment, lets create a situation, if you're going to have a trail that goes through there, that the people in the Town can use, where they're not going to get chased by dogs from back yards that are 50 feet away. Lets move those lots away from that area so people can enjoy it, and at the same time protect the people that are going to be living there. People that live there and have back yards there, they don't want to have strangers walking right through their back yard. Move those houses away. I think that's perfectly well within the jurisdiction of Site Plan Review here, certainly Preliminary Site Plan Review. At various stages of this discussion, the representatives of the developer have stated that the visual shielding is such that you're not going to see the houses from the CEA. Well, I'm not sure that's an exact quote, but the point is, the houses will be in the CEA, so obviously you're going to see the houses in a CEA. If they're talking about seeing them from the wetland, again, I'll just quote Mr. Vasiliou from January 16, 1996 Planning Board meeting. He explains that the houses in this area, "will be a little more costly. They'll be in the $150 to $160,000 range. These lots here are more valuable with the views." Well, what are they going to do, the people that live in these lots are going to be able to see out, but nobody's going to be able to see in? Something doesn't quite make sense there. They've talked about no cut zones in the back 40 feet of these lots which would be protected by deed restrictions. Frankly, I think if we would poll everybody in this room. I'm not sure what percentage of people in this room really even know what their restrictions state. Ten years from now somebody buys my home, he's not going to know what the deed restrictions are for the house up the hill. I think that we can do better than that. I think the Planning Board can address these kinds of concerns, as well as the traffic concern, with a lot less cost, by instead of spending millions of dollars in tax payer's money, they can reduce the density of this development, move the houses, at the same time, in the process of doing that, move the houses out of the Critical Environmental Area, and I think you'll have a better project. You'll have homes that are much more desirable to buy. You may have a few less homes, but it's easier to sell less homes than more homes. Okay. I recognize, and it's certainly been brought out here by numerous speakers, the Town Board has created a difficult situation for you by their unlawful resolutions of August 19, 1996. However, I would remind you that the re-zoning resolution was made contingent on passage of the POD, and that the POD resolution was made contingent on Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. I would also like to draw your attention to Section 179-48B(2) "The Planning Board may also require such additional provisions and conditions that appear necessary for the public health, safety, and general welfare". Now, you know, you can say I'm just interested in stormwater drainage, but somebody who wrote this quote here was interested in giving you significant authority, and you can choose to use it or you can choose to ignore it. I'll just quote one other section - 49 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) here. 179-56G. That's earlier on in the PUD section. It's not specifically in the Site Plan section, but it's in the same Article. It relates to PUD "In addition to the standards set forth in this Article, the applicant shall also comply with the appropriate design, site development plan and performance standards of this chapter and of all applicable local laws and Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land". Again, you know, somebody is saying, you've got to interpret this section here in the context of this entire zoning code, not just tune everything else out. Mr. Schachner earlier made reference to, I'm sorry, I believe it was Mr. Martin made reference earlier to another apparently limiting factor. Here is it. It's 179-58C(3), "The Planning Board's statement may include", may include, "recommendations as to desirable revisions to be incorporated in the final site plan, of which conformance with shall be considered a condition of approval. Such recommendations shall be limited, however, to siting and dimensional details within general use areas and shall not significantly alter the sketch plan as it was approved in the zoning proceedings." This english here, involved here. You can interpret that in a number of ways. The way ~ would interpret that is that you cannot substantially alter this PUD from what was put forth by the Town Board. In other words, you can't pass a PUD that's significantly different from the PUD that the Town Board passed in their resolution, but you can reject it. You can say there's no way, based on this site plan here, that we can meet our obligations to the Town of Queensbury under the site plan ordinance, and we just can't pass this, anything similar to this site plan right here. Go back, redesign it if necessary, and you can ask Mr. Schachner's opinion, if necessary, go back to the Town Board again and have them readdress the issue with another PUD resolution if that's necessary, but you don't have to pass this site plan just because the Town Board created a situation for you that's essentially unworkable. You can say it's not a feasible situation. We had the show and tell. I'm not sure if the public did have a chance to see the beaver dam there. It also kind of gives you a good feel for what a beautiful area this is. Again, relating to the functional use of this as a passive recreation area. This is being put up as an area for passive recreation for the community. Part of that is to go out and see some wildlife. Right now there's deer there. There's beaver there. There's all kinds of birds. We've got pictures of deer droppings. I've got pictures of deer tracks. Here's the beaver hutch right here. I don't know how hospitable this new development is going to be, with 190 units of housing, within a few hundred feet of this area. Here's the deer tracks. I'll leave these all for you. You can review them. I guess that about sums it up. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you, Dr. Hoffman. next. I think that Mr. Salvador is MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. I really think you've heard it all tonight. I won't try and expand on anything you've already heard, and I really believe the future of this project is going to turn on the issue of the flow of groundwater and how that flow from this project will ultimately effect the long term ecology of Rush Pond. We have a situation very similar to this in this Town. It manifests itself in what we call Mud Pond. You know where Mud Pond is. Mud Pond is adj acent to our landfill. We have similar conditions there. We have highly permeable soils. We have an aquifer that's unprotected from a landfill above it. We have a percolation of leachate, in a vertical direction toward this aquifer. We have test wells in there, and we have Mud Pond. If, in fact, the leachate were moving in the direction that you would think, vertically down to the aquifer, the results of the samples taken in these test wells would show something different, and Mud Pond wouldn't look the way it does. So I suggest before you make a decision, that you familiarize yourself with the conditions that exist at that landfill, the test results that have been obtained - 50 - '--' '--" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) and analyzed by the DEC and Mud Pond itself. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. Okay. Would you like to come up, please? CORRINE TARANA MRS. TARANA- I'm Corrine Tarana. I just want to point out one little thing, a simple suggestion. You can't stop a developer from developing. It's his right to do it. The question is density, so what are you going to do about the density? This plan has three things that are really, really bad. This circle, this circle, this circle. You eliminate those, the density decreases. He then has to reconfigure this way. I know some of the Board members have already looked at that, I'm sure. I just want to get it on the record that you eliminate these three circles, go back to replanting the whole thing, reconstructing it. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Was there someone else? MR. HOFFMAN-Just a very brief comment. I just wanted to mention, I hope that you have all gotten a copy of the submission from the LA Group. I believe it's a two or three page submission which provides detailed discussion related to storm drainage issues. It's very highly technical and I'm not going to discuss it tonight, but you should all have that and I would urge you to review that before you make your final determinations. In addition, I would strongly suggest that you go back and take a look at the submissions from the LA Group which were made to the Town Board during the public hearing during June, I believe it was June of 1996. It does relate to some of these same issues. They do have expertise that relates to some of the issues that are up for discussion here. It is in the Town record. If you'd like, we could provide you additional copies. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-But there's a new one, is that what you're saying? MR. HOFFMAN-There's an additional. MR. MARTIN-They just handed it in tonight. MR. BREWER-Yes, I've got it. MR. SCHACHNER-It's dated like today or something. JOHN STROUGH MR. STROUGH-My name is John Strough, and I'm just urging you not to make a hasty decision, and I don't envy your position as far as this project goes, but we are trying to secure some help for you, and various forms of information have been sent out to the following people this week, just to let you know that we are looking for assistance, Dennis Vacco, New York State Attorney General; Ron Stafford, Jerry Solomon, the Executive Director of New York State Planning Federation, George Pataki, the Nature Conservancy for Eastern New York, the National Audoban Society, Laura Livingston, the EPA Region II, Betty Liddle, Greenpeace Action, Environmental Federation of New York, Barbara DeBruno, New York State Department of Health; Citizens Campaign on the Environment, Mr. Caimano, John Cahill, and the US Corps of Engineers. MR. PALING-You've overwhelmed me. MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, so we're looking for help, and I hope to get you some. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Okay. I think we're at that point. - 51 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) I think everyone has been heard. Round One, Round Two, and Round Two and a half. All right. Now I'm not going to close the public hearing. I'm going to leave it open, for the moment, okay, but I'm going to limit the discussion now to the Board. MR. STARK-What about the applicant's response? MR. PALING-Yes, okay. We're going to talk about it. We're going to limit the conversation now to the Board and talking to the applicants, okay, and I guess to George's point, do you wish to respond in total to what's been said tonight? I'll ask that of the applicant. MR. O'CONNOR-Not in total. I think there are some things that can be easily responded to, and some other things. I would have to say that we probably would not respond in total to everything that's been put before the Board tonight. Some of the information we haven't even seen or weren't provided with copies, as I sit here, so I can't respond to it, particularly the matter that's technical of nature, and I think it is of a level that requires opportunity to take a look at it and make a fair response to it. MR. PALING-Maybe we could put, would you be will to just put your total response off to another meeting? MR. 0' CONNOR-I don' t have a problem with that, because in all honesty, I've made the same response at prior meetings to many of the same comments that were given to you. I need to get them of record, but I'm not going to convince the people behind me that my response is going to convince them that everything is right and they should applaud us and go forward. Unfortunately, we face the same discussion for the last eight, nine months. We really have not heard a great deal of new information this evening. Other Boards have passed upon the same information that was presented to you tonight, but there are some clearly factual errors that we can either do later or we can do now, whichever you? MR. PALING-All right. Why don't you go ahead and do it, then. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Dr. Emblidge spoke of us now changing our original plan, the plan that was submitted to the Town Board, with regard to sidewalks. Sidewalks was not in the consideration of the formal plan that was submitted to the Town Board. At one time there was an off the record discussion for part of the record that sidewalks is something that we would like to consider, and they, at that point, or at least the indication was given to us, it's going to create all kinds of problems, just don't get into it. Maybe later you could bring it up. It's not a change for us to say that we're having problems figuring out how it works. MR. VASILIOU-My name is Mike Vasiliou. I think Mr. Martin will verify the fact that we talked about sidewalks last week. That was the real first conversation that we had about my wanting to do sidewalks, and could we look into it. We talked, I think on two different occasions, once in his office, and once in the hall, and sidewalks just came to the table. MR. MARTIN-That's accurate. In all honesty, I do not ever remember discussing sidewalks previously to that. I'm just working off my recollection now, but I think that's accurate. MR. O'CONNOR-The comprehensive land use arguments, again, are arguments that we've addressed before. I really think that they are re-zoning issues, and the Town has re-zoned the parcel and we're coming forth, and I think it's your obligation to look at the property as it presently is zoned and make your determinations based upon that. That is a function of the Town Board. I think the Town Board gave due consideration to all the arguments that were presented, all the technical information that was presented to - 52 - -' --. '--'" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) them in detail over a long period of time, and they made a decision, a decision that they didn't come to quickly, but once they have re-zoned the property and designated the property with a certain designation, that is a density to which we are entitled to come to you and present to you as part of the package. It's not something that should be part of your considerations or reconsiderations. The issue on Health Department variances, Tom would like to make a few comments. MR. NACE-There's been a lot of discussion about the Health Department variance, and the insinuation has been made several times that the wording of that variance requires or will require percolation tests on each lot. The wording specifically states that groundwater conditions on each lot to be sold or offered must be suitable for the design and construction. That is a standard wording that they use in all their variances, and takes the proj ect forth from the variance stage to the actual review stage at the Department of Health local office. The local office on every subdivision, whether it has a variance, because it has more than 50 lots, or whether it's a standard subdivision of less than 50 lots using on site sewage, the local Health Department looks at the soils, goes out with us, observes test pits, looks at the percolation test data, determines how uniform the soils are across the site, and decides with us how many percolation tests are adequate to adequately show the system design required for each and every lot, okay. It may be on certain soils that it requires one for every lot, other soils it may require one for every five to ten lots. That's a determination that the local Health Department makes when they review the subdivision plan. MR. PALING-Is that confirmed, pretty much? MR. MARTIN-That's my understanding of how it works, yes. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-How did it come to be, with Hudson Pointe, that they did it with every lot? MR. NACE-That was two fold. It was, one, a fact that with Hudson pointe the initial percolation tests that were done had quite a few tests that were under one minute, okay, in fact, some of them were as fast as 30 seconds. They decided that because of that some of the lots may require amended systems because of the fast percolation rates. So because those percolation tests were scattered over a wide portion of the subdivision, they decided that the best way to adequately address that issue was individual percolation tests. Okay, but those percolation tests ranged from, I believe, approximately 30 seconds to somewhere over 4 minutes. So there was quite a wide variety. Here we have a much narrower range, and it's still to be determined how many percolation tests the Health Department is going to require. We will do whatever they require. MR. MACEWAN-What do you mean by a wider variety? Of soils? MR. NACE-Correct, yes, there were. MR. RUEL-What steps do you take when you have excessively high perc rate? Do you have to change your soil? MR. NACE-They require, yes, fill be brought in of much slower perc rate and amended soil be used for the system. MR. RUEL-Take that soil out and put different soil in and mix it? MR. NACE-That's correct. - 53 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) MR. RUEL-And you will check every piece of property? MR. NACE-If the Health Department requires that. So far from our tests on this project, there is not any information that would indicate that there are percolation rates faster than one minute. All of them have been in the one to two minute range. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The other issue is the question of whether or not the connection to Fox Farm within the subdivision would either be made one way, or two way as opposed to one way, as we had proposed it. I go back to the initial meetings we had with a couple of the neighbors. At that time, access from Fox Farm was up in the air, and it was our understanding that they did not want to have two way traffic, so that some of this traffic or any portion of this traffic would come from this development out Fox Farm to the intersection of Fox Farm, Potter, and Aviation Road. We're amenable to that, but it's not something that we have control over. We have said that we have no problem with the Board approving our subdivision on that basis, but I think the actual jurisdiction of that falls with the Town Board and the Town Board reserves itself, reserves to itself the right to change that type of thing on that street or on any street in the Town, and I don't know if that's really something you can speculate on, as they've approved this in this form. They've approved it to be a one way in only, and not to be used as an exit. MR. RUEL-Refresh my memory. Were there more than one traffic studies on this? Wasn't there an initial traffic study and then somebody else came in? MR. O'CONNOR-Well, there was a, we did a traffic study for the Town Board, and then when the Town Board reduced the density, or we changed the configuration of the densities, we reduced it once, and then we changed it. There was a supplement to reflect what is actually shown here as the densities. I've seen that since then, apparently in August or under a date of August 2nd there was a second traffic study done by the Town Board, not necessarily focused on this project, but it had to do with improvements in general to Aviation Road from where the first study left off, which was about Midnight Drive, as I understand it, all the way to Potter, and that's a separate requisition that the Town put out, and that's maybe what was being referred to. I don't know when that study was delivered to the Town. I am not really ascertained of that. MR. RUEL-Was that the same organization that did both? MR. 0' CONNOR-No. Transportation Concepts were the consultants that did our study. The study that did the, or the group that did the study for the Town was Harza, H-A-R-Z-A I think it is. MR. RUEL-And these studies did over lap, didn't they? MR. O'CONNOR-They had some considerations of the same area. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. 0' CONNOR-And they did use different criteria, though, and nobody has really gotten into that, but again, I think you get into, I have to reserve my position that when you get into off site traffic that is not something that really is within your review process at this point, but I would simply state to you that the traffic study that was done by Transportation Concepts spoke of lettering by reserve capacity, which is different than the manner in which the Harza study was done, and I have enough trouble with my own area of expertise. As explained to me, that had to do with time of delay and not reserve capacity on intersections. There's a new software that they use now, and it's a different study. - 54 - '-' ,--,' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) MR. RUEL-Well, there was a lot of discussion about access roads, and the access roads do go into that area. MR. WEST-Can you clarify for us, Jim or Mark, if the definition here is of, you know, 179-58B(a) pertaining to access, does that, in fact, relate to these two access roads coming in to the development, and should we, in fact, be taking a closer looking, considering this traffic? MR. MARTIN-Access is access. MR. WEST-Yes, you've got to get into it. MR. MARTIN-If access is achieved through that road. MR. 0' CONNOR-I think I can submit to the Board and to Mark satisfactory proof that what we're talking about is connection of this project to the Town road system, which happens before those intersections, and I'll submit that to you. I don't think, in your site plan, we are responsible for the Town road network system, and that's just a fact. MR. WEST-I'm not saying you're responsible for it, but we need to consider it as part of access to this PUD. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, let me submit something to you. MR. MACEWAN-A case in point was the Super K-Mart store. They developed their site plan, but because they were such a potentially large impact on the intersection of Dix Avenue and Quaker Road, they had to foot the bill for all that reconstruction cost down there to realign everything and put in that whole new turning lane. Am I wrong on that? MR. BREWER-No. MR. MACEWAN-Why wouldn't the same apply here? MR. PALING-Well, because I think, Craig, lets just say Farr Lane and Aviation Road. If you're going to go that far out, I think you've gone beyond what we can do. The Town has made a judgement on that already. MR. BREWER-But it's access, Bob. MR. PALING-Well, access, okay, then we've got to get a better definition of access, because to me access is, I'm looking at the entrance and exits to this plat. MR. BREWER-Does it not put a strain on it, though? MR. PALING-Does what put a strain on it? MR. BREWER-This development. MR. PALING-On the access to it? That's a judgement call. MR. BREWER-That's our job. MR. PALING-Now you're going out to the road way. MR. O'CONNOR-I can submit some information to that effect. MR. SCHACHNER-That's fine. My suggestion to the Board would be that the Board take the applicant's representative up on his offer. MR. PALING-All right, and George has a question, too. - 55 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) MR. STARK-Mark, wouldn't that question come under the SEQRA, I mean, you know, about the traffic impact? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, certainly no question that traffic impacts in general do come under the SEQRA review and were analyzed under SEQRA review. I think that the Board has asked a fair question. I think the Zoning Administrator has given a fair answer, but we also have the applicant's council stating that he wants to submit something to us about this issue, and I certainly would encourage the Board to take him up on that offer. MR. PALING-Okay, good. MR. SCHACHNER-And I'd be happy to review it, whatever it is. MR. PALING-Fine. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Those are the only specific comments I'd make at this point. If you have questions, we would try to address them at this point. MR. PALING-Any further questions for the applicant? All right. Then we may address questions to you, but we're going to bring the conversation back up to the Board and Staff only if you will. We'll reserve the right to question and get some information. I think now is the time we've got to determine, where do we go from here? We've got a lot of very serious questions that have been raised, and I think that we've, mY thought is that we summarize the information that's needed and then plan from there what we're going to do, how we're going to get it and when we're going to re-meet and that kind of thing. Now, what I'd like to do is to call on the collective notes and memories of everyone here and come up with a consolidated list of what we're going to look at. I'm going to start with the easy one that we just finished, the access. We're going to review that and we have the applicant will be submitting some information to the Planning office for review, okay. MR. RUEL-Are we also talking about what items the applicant will be responsible for? MR. PALING-Well, wait a minute. Lets go down the list of information that we need. Now, then we've got the issue of borings, and we've got to get into that, and there's information that we haven't really had a chance to review tonight. There has been input to us and we've heard it, but we've got to kind of sit and look at that. So we've got to go through this, and, Jim, I think we should call on Bill to work with us, or to review that and report to us on that. Okay? MR. WEST-Do we need a third party geological? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I will point out to the Board, there is language regarding, if you need special assistance. I think it's later on in 179-58. MR. BREWER-Yes, further engineering or whatever. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MARTIN-If it's found that you do need a specialized skill, I think Bill's of the opinion that it's really a specialization that's beyond his. MR. LEVANDOWSKI-Geological study of the level of detail that we're talking about is certainly beyond our day to day expertise. MR. WEST-Yes. - 56 - --" ~" '--' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) MR. PALING-Well, should we work it through Rist-Frost, however, to engage that? MR. LEVANDOWSKI-It's up to you. That's one way of attacking it. MR. PALING-All right, borings. MR. STARK-Additional borings or what? MR. PALING-Well, not additional. I think just to review the entire question, and then come up with, I hope, a final recommendation as to the number of borings, where they'd be located, when they're done, the whole thing. MR. WEST-Additional monitoring and all that. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay, a boring, now wells. MRS. LABOMBARD-Dr. Welsh suggested April 1997 and the fall because when they were done, it was 1995 during the drought. MR. PALING-Now you're talking about the ones that have been dug, right? MRS. LABOMBARD-Right, re-measure, re-evaluate. MR. PALING-Okay, measuring wells, that's a re-evaluation. Now, who is that done by, Staff or Rist-Frost? MR. WEST-That would also need to be done by a geological firm that has that expertise. MR. PALING-Wells? MR. MARTIN-You're talking about going out to the wells again, since the pipes exist, is that it? MR. PALING-The ones that were dug, yes. MR. WEST-Collection of additional data to begin to get a data base. MR. STARK-See where the groundwater is now. MR. MARTIN-That's typically the applicant. I mean, I don't know kind of detail you want to get to, whether you want to have Rist- Frost go out and observe them taking the reading? MR. O'CONNOR-The reports that were submitted were signed off by professional engineers, which is typical that you do for anything that you do, that we submit to you. I don't know why it would be any different. If you're going to have somebody else review it, that's your prerogative. I think I understand what you're talking about. MR. WEST-I think the concern was that there's extremely limited data available, just one set of data. MR. O'CONNOR-I understand that part, and you're saying maybe you want another reading. MR. WEST-Or two or three or whatever it takes to make sure we have a representative data set. MR. BREWER-I think another set of data and give it to our engineer and let him compare and whatever he's got to do with it to make sure that it's true. MR. PALING-All right. So that'll be by the applicant. - 57 - ~' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) MR. O'CONNOR-I think we'd have to have some meeting and probably have some technical review of what's suggested, and then see what the scope of that is, and then make a suggestion. MR. MARTIN-What I might suggest, Bob, what I think we should do this time, instead of taking time and money to do this, make sure that we get this adequately scoped, so when we get to the end of another data set, people aren't coming back and saying, well, this is insufficient because of this. MR. PALING-Absolutely. MR. MARTIN-Lets make sure we get a comprehensive list of everything you want to see, so that when we get to the end of that, that, in fact, will be the end, and we don't have to go back a third or fourth time. MR. O'CONNOR-For the purpose of the record, the applicant thought that that's what we did with the first review, and I just say that so that the Board understands, this is not something that we're not trying to provide to you. We're not trying to play hard to get, or act like you have to be a dentist and pull everything from us. MR. MARTIN-I'm not saying that. I'm saying that to be purely in the interest to give the Board a totally informed decision. MR. BREWER-When this was with us before, we didn't do any technical, so to speak, information, did we, in fairness to us? MR. PALING-Okay. We're loosing control a little bit here. Jim, in this situation, now, are you willing that the applicant do this work and submit the data for examination? MR. MARTIN-All I'm saying is before they do the work, though, that we give them a list of everything that you want to see, and maybe Bill can help generate that list, so we have adequate detail in that list, so that you're not short in anything. MR. PALING-All right. We'll get that detail for the applicant. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think it should be a list you should have before the Board. MR. MACEWAN-We should have this before we entertain bringing in an independent consultant, as well. MR. 0' CONNOR-With due respect, I think you ought to have that person's input. MR. WEST-I agree. MR. O'CONNOR-He's the one that should be described in the scope of the task. MR. MARTIN-I agree to that. MR. O'CONNOR-You can't ask him to judge it later and then have him say somebody else painted the picture. MR. MACEWAN-I was thinking from the aspect of getting his input before you went out and did more testing in the field, unless he wanted you to go out to some other area. I guess that's where I was going with that thought, but I agree with what you're saying. MR. PALING-Well, can we do it in one step, or have we got to do two steps here? MR. MARTIN-I think the first step should be you agree upon the - 58 - '-' .--" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) amount and type of information you want, and then once you get that part, then you go out and you actually go out and gather it and bring it back. MR. PALING-Okay. Amount and type, and then engage it, then have it done. Okay. All right. That's the wells. Who's next with something? MR. BREWER-Do we expect any comment from the Highway Department? I thought there was something mentioned in your Staff notes to the effect of something? MR. MARTIN-Well, Paul's on vacation this week. MR. BREWER-Yes, I know that. MR. MARTIN-Or he would have been more involved. I'd really rather not speak for him until he has a chance to look at this himself, and give his own feelings. MR. BREWER-Let him look at it when he comes back and get any comments? MR. MARTIN-He's seen it. He's been provided a copy. It's just that most of the time he's had it he's been away. So I think he's due back in Town next week. MR. PALING-Okay. I think the question of density has definitely been raised by quite a number of people, and at least the Board itself should review it when a lot of this other information is in, access and so on, but I think it's something that we better keep on the list, and the Board should review it. MR. RUEL-Okay. I have an item for you. I think the Water Department should be checked on the placement of water lines. MR. PALING-That's pretty well settled, I thought. MR. MARTIN-Well, we're looking for written confirmation on that. MR. RUEL-Do you have it? MR. MARTIN-Well, we have verbal so far, but I'll get you the confirmation. MR. RUEL-Yes, I haven't seen anything in writing. MR. PALING-Okay. You need confirmation from them. MR. PALING-When are we going to decide, as far as the last boring over there? Is that going to be in Phase III, or do we want to do that now? MR. RUEL-That will be one of the questions. MR. PALING-We're going to have to decide that when we get the data back from them. Okay. All right. Now there's density. MR. BREWER-Something else that was raised, Bob, was how do we enforce the restrictions on the cutting in the back of the lots, the restrictions? Is there any easy answer to that? MR. PALING-Well, beyond deed restriction, I'm not sure how you can support, maybe somebody else knows. MR. MARTIN-We have draft language. MR. SCHACHNER-I think the answer to the question is that one of the aspects of a Planned Unit Development, if it's approved in final - 59 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) form that has yet to come, is what's called a PUD agreement or a developer's agreement that's executed between the Town and the developer, and in addition to deed restrictions being enforceable by the residents, if you will, of a Planned Unit Development such as this and/or their immediate neighbors, the developer's agreement would provide the Town with the ability to be enforcer of that provision, if that provision is in the developer's agreement. MR. PALING-So that would come under your office, Jim, to do that? MR. MARTIN-Right, and that's something that's new. pointe doesn't have that kind of language. Even Hudson MR. PALING-Okay, and I would be in favor of taking no further action by the Board, but let the existing system apply, just what Mark just said. MR. BREWER-There is no existing system. MR. PALING-Well, you have the deed restriction by itself, and then we have this additional possibly coming. MR. SCHACHNER-On this issue about deed restrictions you mean? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. PALING-Yes. The beaver dam, what does that do to this? I'm not sure we considered beaver dam. I can't recall having discussed it before, and I wonder what, you can't just go down and throw them out. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, you can. MR. PALING-You can throw beavers out? MRS. LABOMBARD-I've done it. I call the ENCON guys and they come and take them away to a nicer place. MR. PALING-I see what you mean. Okay. MR. WEST-Until the next ones come along and do the same thing. MR. PALING-Should we do that, when we have the geological specialist working on the boring, should we talk about beaver dams under that? MR. RUEL-Yes, because that's water level. MR. LEVANDOWSKI-You look at an abrupt change in that water level for whatever reason. MR. PALING-Okay, then we'll put that up here. All right. other subjects does anyone on the Board or Staff have? What MR. BREWER-How far are we going to get into access, Bob? What are we going to do with it? MR. PALING-Well, access, we're going to get, the applicant is going to submit some information, and it's going to be reviewed, so we can all be from the same. MR. BREWER-I guess my question is, when are we going to get that information to review, and then we're going to make a decision. I just don't want to go and come back and then say we want another traffic study done. MR. PALING-Well, we're going to have to put this whole thing on a timeframe, Tim. - 60 - - '---- '.......". (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) MR. MARTIN-Well, the thing I want to make sure, have you got your list? MR. PALING-Well, that's what I'm asking now of the Board. Are there any other items that should go in here? Borings, access, sidewalks, turnarounds. We agreed that the sign rendering is to come. MR. RUEL-Yes, they said they would give it to us. MR. WEST-Lighting or sidewalks, those aren't issues anYmore? MR. PALING-The lighting is, Jim, that's not an issue? MR. MARTIN-No, that's out. MR. RUEL-And they've got to change the detail on Sheet Two. They said they'd do that, too. MR. MARTIN-The septic design detail. It's a typical. MR. PALING-All right. MR. RUEL-And the applicant said he would show, I think he said he would show a foot path through the central park area. MR. BREWER-Bob, can I make another suggestion? MR. PALING-Wait a minute. Let Roger finish. MR. RUEL-We talked about the, Jim, you had recommended a foot path shown through the central park area. MR. MARTIN-And we'll get details on that, Mike, the foot paths and the access to the school? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. We will do that. That also is something that you incorporate into the Planned Unit Development agreement that provides a temporary basis and also permanent basis, and we can show you construction detail. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-You'll show it on one of the plans, right? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Typically, at the time of the final approval of the first phase, we offer to you deeds, and title documents, some of which you actually record, some of which you will hold in escrow, but actually will have it like a completed transfer to the extent that we are transferring those type of rights to you. MR. RUEL-Jim, I was going to ask you about this deed covenants on the 52 acre parcel? Is that documented anywhere? MR. MARTIN-Again, that's been discussed previously. MR. O'CONNOR-That's going to be owned by the Town. The offer is to dedicate that to the Town so the Town will set its own rules and regulations. We will have, in the conveyance, we will put a limitation on it that it not be used for other than passive recreation, with some definition of passive recreation, some limitation on anything motorized on it. That's what I've seen in the past and what we would probably offer in this instance. MR. RUEL-And the Town probably would add their own restrictions. MR. O'CONNOR-The Town then owns it. It's like any other Town parcel. MR. RUEL-That's 52.7 acres, right? - 61 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) MR. O'CONNOR-I believe it is. MR. BREWER-What happens, Bob, if I go home tonight and read all my notes and read all this other stuff and I've got more questions to put on to that list? MR. PALING-We'll add it to the list, somehow. MR. BREWER-Do we have a time line when we? MR. PALING-Well, that's what I was just going to address now. If everyone's got all the subjects, I think, done, lets try to find out what kind of a time. MR. MARTIN-Well, the other thing, and I don't mean to be a detail freak about this stuff, but I just want to make sure I get it nailed down. What I might suggest is if we could have a letter maybe under your signature, Bob, that puts, commits to writing this list, and we could say that letter won't be generated, what' s today, Thursday. MR. BREWER-How about next Tuesday at our meeting? MR. MARTIN-Maybe by the Tuesday of your next meeting, that's a good idea. By next Tuesday, that letter will be sent out, and if you have any comments, you've got the weekend to add to them. Otherwise, the letter goes out, and that's the list. MR. BREWER-How about we get a copy of it Friday with our Staff notes, and then if we have anything to add to it, we can add to it by Tuesday? MR. MARTIN-Friday's tomorrow. MR. BREWER-Can't you do it tomorrow? eleven. It's only quarter after MR. PALING-Well, wait a minute. It is possible to get that letter out tomorrow. MR. MARTIN-We'll do it tomorrow. MR. BREWER-No, don't rush it, Jim. Give it until Monday. MR. PALING-I'll come over tomorrow, it will have to be early afternoon, I'll come over and we'll just do it and get it in the mail. MR. MARTIN-Actually, afternoon's fine. I've got some meetings in the morning. So, yes, that's fine. So we'll have a draft of the letter, then, off to the Board members by Monday that goes through the list. MR. PALING-Okay. I would, however, like to ask the applicant, or members of the Board, to comment on some of the timing of this, when you can get these things to us. We've got to engage a geological specialist here to talk about borings and beaver dams and all that sort of thing. That's not going to be done over night. How about that, Bill? MR. LEVANDOWSKI-I'm going to have to do a little research and find out who might be available. MR. WEST-Is C.T. Male, are they local? MR. PALING-It sounds to me like it's going into next month at some time, and I still hesitate to put this on the agenda. I think we better see what the Board thinks. We better call another special - 62 - '-" .--./ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) meeting. MR. BREWER-Why don't we wait until next Tuesday, Bob, and see what develops, and then we can talk about it the next meeting. MR. PALING-All right. MR. RUEL-And see what the list looks like. MR. WEST-I agree. I think it warrants its own special meeting. MR. BREWER-I agree with you, but if we wait until next Tuesday, we can see what develops. MR. PALING-All right. Well, we won't try to put a date on that until we've, until Tuesday night. The letter will be out. We'll review it and try to put a date on it then. MR. MARTIN-I'd like to get some sort of, at least soft time frame when we can, how long would it take to, Mark says he has some contacts in that field. What, a couple of weeks to get, a week, a week to ten days? MR. WEST-I also have some contacts in that area, if you're interested in any names and so forth. MR. STARK-Maybe by Tuesday Mr. Levandowski could tell us how fast he could contact the geological. MR. MARTIN-I just wanted to get some expectations as to what kind of time frame you're looking at. MR. PALING-When would you have the access information available? MR. O'CONNOR-Probably 10 days. I honestly think, you know, we're listening to what you're saying, and I think we can convince you, and you now have had, I really didn't hear that negative a comment from anybody who held themselves out to even be a hydrologist. Their question is whether or not you have enough information. That seems to be a key their, because if you aren't comfortable with the final information that you have in front of you, then you are probably going to be talking about something along that area maybe to get us further away, even though you've got, then I think you've got to go to the second level, what effect does it have if the water flows in a different direction, in any event, and maybe 60 feet of sand you're going to accept Tom's argument that it isn't going to make a great deal of difference with the perc rate that we have, but I think that's a key issue. I don't know. I don't want to spend a lot of time and effort re-inventing the wheel, and then coming back and looking at the same wheel over again. So I think that's kind of a critical issue that maybe should be up front, and then dictate a time table, once we seem to have our arms around that issue, based upon when that information is going to become available to you, because somebody spoke of density. I think you've got to have a legitimate reason if you're going to talk about reducing the density that the zoning permits, and the only thing that's been offered, and I think the only thing that is really out there is perhaps groundwater potential, and I'd rather stand on the facts and on the scientific review of it, than somebody's feeling that we ought to do something. So I recognize that that's going to be a key pin to do anything, and I think we've got to wait and see what the availability is with Bill, feeling comfortable with, and he hasn't even reviewed, I don't think, the information that was submitted tonight. We haven't looked at it, and then see what your third party, if you're going to have a third party. Maybe he thinks it's not necessary to have a third party, once he looks at all the information. I don't think it's rocket scientist what we're talking about. - 63 - "--- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) MR. WEST-No, but it is a very specialized field. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but I think if I were within a foot, two foot, I understand it, but you're talking some substantial difference here, and I think there's some other information available as to water levels on that wetland in the past that might give you some more averaging or seasonal feeling for it. I'm not sure what the Town had in its folder in 1988 when it actually made the designation of CEA. So I don't know about a commitment as to the other information, because it seems as though the other information is more of the tail, and the dog is going to be your review or your comfort level with the hydrology. MR. STARK-Mike, suppose like next Wednesday, next Tuesday, we solidify what information would be required, and that is given to you next Wednesday, and then you could tell Jim when you would think you would have most of it in line, and then we could set a date, you know, informally, like the second or third week, fourth week in March, whatever, when you think you can have it, and then we'll know from Bill when we'll have the hydrology report. We can't set a date right now. MR. O'CONNOR-No. I don't think we can set a date right now. MR. PALING-No, we can't, but after our meeting, we get the letter out and we chew over it Tuesday and then get it to you. You should be able to do something by then. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Somebody override me if you want to, but I'm going to suggest that we leave the public hearing open, but with comment. We have tried to make a definition of where our authority is and where it is not, and we've given you every opportunity to say whatever you wanted tonight, whether it was within that authority or outside of it, and I don't think any of us want to go through that again. It's going to be a waste of everyone's time, and then the public hearing comment we're going to, as best we can, request that you comments be narrowed to the subject at hand and make your comments brief, because we've had all of the other detail that we can absorb, I think, and much of it has no place before this Board, and if we go through, and we can go through another three meetings like this until whatever the hour is, but I don't think it accomplishes anything, and I'm afraid we're missing something that's important and to the point when we get off on these tangents which we've been on tonight. So I'm asking the cooperation of everyone in that regard. Does anyone else want to? MR. MARTIN-Just as a final business point, do we have the consent of the applicant for these expenses? MR. 0' CONNOR-I think we have to have some ballpark as to what "these expenses" are. You do not have a blank check. I don't have a blank check. MR. MARTIN-I know that. What I'm asking now, because this is an issue. MR. O'CONNOR-The fellow sitting behind me is too close for me to even suggest I have a blank check. MR. PALING-Well, can we bring it to a point where we define it on final definition on Tuesday and then ask that question again? MR. MARTIN-Is there any way we could get an estimate of what we're looking at here? - 64 - -~ ,-.. -..-/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) MR. VASILIOU-Are you asking that we pay for it, Jim? MR. MARTIN-Yes, as a matter of fact. MR. BREWER-Yes, it's in the Ordinance. MR. O'CONNOR-Up to $1,000. MR. MARTIN-And we're at that point now. MR. VASILIOU-Why don't we see what it is, get an estimate. MR. O'CONNOR-I think the Ordinance provides up to $1,000, doesn't it, Jim? MR. MARTIN-Yes. Already we're at that point. MR. BREWER-It isn't going to cost $1,000 to get an estimate. MR. MARTIN-No, I know that, but I mean, retaining somebody. Their time and effort. MR. BREWER-That'll cost us. MR. MARTIN-That's what I'm talking about. I just want to get that out in to the open now and not just say, we have this bill here, who's going to pay for it? MR. BREWER-Well, we have to retain somebody to do the stuff we want to do. Would you give us a blank check, Mike, for $1,000? MR. PALING-Lets do it Wednesday. MR. MARTIN-I'm just trying to be fair in raising it now. MR. O'CONNOR-I think you will be fair, we'll try to be fair, too. You've got to look at the information that was submitted tonight. Bill's got to look at it, make a professional judgement as to whether or not we're still talking about speculation, or are we talking about something that actually has some merit for further investigation. I don't mind sharing with you, I think what you have in front of you, based upon our study, cost us, I think $12,000, and there doesn't seem to be closure, and that's the problem. The people have the same frustration that the applicant has. Everybody's trying to look for reasonable closure, and that's all. MR. PALING-All right. Then we can leave the public hearing open, and we can table this, but not to a definite day. Is that what we should do? MR. SCHACHNER-That's fine. The public hearing's left open. You don't have any decision making time frame anyway. MR. PALING-We can just go home. MR. BREWER-We can adjourn the meeting, but we will notify the public of this. MR. PALING-Yes. Now we're re-notifying when the next meeting will be, right? MR. MARTIN-Yes, if somebody would like, that's what we will do. MR. PALING-The same notices that were sent out will go out again. MR. MARTIN-Yes, we have the list. - 65 - '-".' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/97) On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 66 -