Loading...
2002-06-18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/02) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 18, 2002 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO LARRY RINGER ANTHONY METIVIER JOHN STROUGH CHRIS HUNSINGER SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER TOWN ENGINEER-C.T. MALE – JIM HOUSTON STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES April 2, 2002: NONE April 11, 2002: NONE April 16, 2002: NONE April 23, 2002: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF 4/2, 4/11, 4/16, AND 4/23, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: Duly adopted this 18 day of June, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE RESOLUTIONS: 1. HOME DEPOT: REAFFIRM SEQRA JON LAPPER & DAVE CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MRS. RYBA-It’s just a reaffirmation of your SEQRA determination, because the project now is going to be having a subdivision. The project is exactly the same except for the subdivision, as you’ve seen presented earlier, and perhaps Mr. Lapper and crew can talk about it a little bit more, make things a little more clear for you. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper and Dave Carr, Landscape Architect from the LA Group. Since we were here last time, nothing on the project site, as Marilyn said, has changed on iota, but because of issues with the existing lender, which are not site related issues, we’ve had to do the project in a three lot subdivision. The new Home Depot site would be a separately owned parcel, but it would be owned by the exact same members of an LLC, a Limited Liability Company, that own the existing Northway Plaza, but they’re going to have to call it essentially Northway Plaza One and Northway Plaza II, because the existing lender, it’s a securitized financing, which just means it has ridiculous rules which has nothing to do with planning and zoning, but it’s a situation that no one anticipated. So we’re doing it as a separate lot, and additionally, the lot on top of Miller Hill, which, that little strip center, it had been intended that that was going to be fully incorporated in the project, but it was the owner/seller’s responsibility to vacate the tenants, and they were not able to reach agreement with one tenant. So the deal is that that stays as a separate parcel. If and when they get rid of a tenant in the next few years, it would become part of the project, the project would be owned by the same people and get redeveloped. So we’ve now got three lots, and the only Area Variances that we’re asking for as a result of that are that the Home Depot lot, although it has frontage, of 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/02) course, on Montray, it doesn’t have access to Montray, because that was this Board’s wish, that it not. So that requires a variance because we’re not using the frontage. There’s no parking on that lot, but in a reciprocal easement agreement, the parking is in the exact same location, but it’s on the other parcel, with an easement so that it can be used, and so all of the utilities, access, parking, would all be shared for the whole site. So that doesn’t change anything. It’s just a contractual matter, and that ultimately would be a condition of the site plan, and lastly, although the complete sites, all three lots work, comply for green space, if you look at it as one project, the three individual lots, two of them comply, but the one lot for Northway Plaza, the existing lot, doesn’t comply with the green space if it were standing on its own, but that’s covered by the fact that we’ve agreed, as a condition of the rezoning, and at the Planning Board’s request, that the area in the back of the Home Depot site will remain forever wild. So, therefore, nothing changes from what you’ve seen and this is really a technicality, and it’s just an unfortunate complication for us, because we didn’t need to have to ask for two more approvals, but here we are, and it doesn’t change the project. MR. MAC EWAN-Any comments from Board members? MR. STROUGH-Just, that doesn’t change the relationship we’ve had, I mean, the agreements that we’ve had with Northway Plaza II, I guess it is, all the stormwater and landscaping and all that is still? MR. LAPPER-Identical. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And that’ll all be, that’s on the final site plan that Dave did for submission that we’ll be talking about next week. Hopefully and presumably after we go to the Zoning Board next Wednesday, we’ll be back next Thursday to the Planning Board, and all of those agreements and conditions, architecture, site plan, the extra buffer, all that’s in there. MR. VOLLARO-I just have one question. I have a question why this is draft and not a regular resolution. Does anybody have an answer to that? MR. RINGER-It’s always a draft until we approve it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ve never seen the word “Draft” up on top. It’s no big deal. I’m just asking a question, that’s all. I understand that. There’s a, the sixth Whereas down on the resolution, what Mr. Lapper just described, I guess, is defined where it says “And said subdivision will require relief from the Town Zoning Ordinance. Jon, is that what you just referred to? MR. LAPPER-Those are the three Area Variances, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand that. On that basis, I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING THE SEQRA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING THE PROPOSED HOME DEPOT IMPROVEMENT STORE, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: WHEREAS, Home Depot, U.S.A., made an application to the Town Board requesting a change in zone, and also submitted an application for site plan approval by the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. WHEREAS, the Planning Board having been duly designated to act as lead agency for State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review of the entire project, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type I action in accordance with the rules and regulations of SEQRA, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Planning Board, after considering the proposed action, reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form and associated documentation and thoroughly analyzing the action for potential environmental concerns, determined that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board adopted Resolution No. 12-2002 April 11, 2002 adopting SEQRA determination of non-significance, and WHEREAS, the project applicant has submitted an application for subdivision of the subject property for the purpose of financing the project and said subdivision will require relief from the Town’s Zoning Ordinance, and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for variances for relief from the permeable area requirements and parking standards to the Town’s Zoning Board of Appeals, and 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/02) WHEREAS, the Planning Board has reviewed the proposed changes which do not involve any physical alteration to the to the project and which consist of the application for subdivision approval and relief from the Town’s zoning ordinance and found them to be insignificant with respect to the project’s potential for environmental impacts, and THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board hereby reaffirms its SEQRA determination of non-significance and authorizes and directs the Planning Board Chairman and the Director of Community Development to take any necessary action to effectuate this resolution. Duly adopted this 18 day of June, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck with the ZBA. 2. GREEN MT. DEV. GROUP: RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes? MRS. RYBA-This evening, you’ll getting in-depth into this project, so that you can do your SEQRA review. The SEQRA is required for everything that’s going to take place here, the Area Variance for access by easement that will be required to do the project, Preliminary Subdivision, your Site Plan Review, and the SEQRA, you need two things here. One is declaring your SEQRA Lead Agency Status, information has come in from other agencies, and second is deciding whether or not to do a SEQRA Negative Declaration, or some other form. This is a Type I, which means that you would not be able to do a conditioned Negative Declaration. You would have to do an Environmental Impact Statement, or require an EIS be done if there were certain concerns, and with that said, if you have any questions, I’m sure you can ask the applicants, or if you have any other questions in reference to this. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s do the first one first. Let’s do the resolution acknowledging Lead Agency Status. It’s just a procedural thing. So, does someone want to introduce that, please. MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH AV 36-2002, SB 8-2002, SP 25-2002 FOR GREEN MT. DEVEL. CORP., Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, in connection with the Green Mt. Dev. Group, Inc. project, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Executive Director of Community Development to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review, and WHEREAS, the Executive Director of Community Development has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review, and Duly adopted this 18 day of June, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-With that, I’ll turn it over to you, Mr. O’Connor. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2002 PRELIMINARY STG. FINAL STG. TYPE I GREEN MT. DEV. GROUP, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: WOODBURY DEV. GROUP, INC. AGENT: STUART 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/02) MESINGER, MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR ZONE: PO & RR-3A LOCATION: ADJACENT TO AND SOUTH OF CHURCH OF THE KING PROPERTY (685 BAY RD.,) OPPOSITE ACC NORTH ENTRANCE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 25.01 AC. PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS OF 5.536 AC., 3.724 AC., 3.724 AC. & 15.745 AC. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 36-2002, SP 25-2002 TAX MAP NO. 296.07-1-15, 289.19-1-15/60-7-3.4, 2.2 LOT SIZE: 25.01 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS SITE PLAN NO. 25-2002 TYPE I GREEN MT. DEV. GROUP, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: WOODBURY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. AGENT: STUART MESINGER, MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR ZONE: PO, RR-3A LOCATION: ADJACENT TO AND SOUTH F CHURCH OF THE KING PROPERTY (685 BAY RD.), OPPOSITE ACC NORTH ENTRANCE APPLICANT PROPOSES A PHASED DEVELOPMENT FOR INDEPENDENT APARTMENTS FOR SENIOR ADULTS (AGE 55 AND OVER) WITH SOME ASSOCIATED COMMON FACILITIES. PHASE ONE CONSISTS OF A BUILDING HOUSING 44 ONE BEDROOM AND 18 TWO BEDROOM APARTMENTS. TOTAL BUILDING AREA IS 55,140 SF. APPLICANT SEEKS APPROVAL FOR PHASE I AND PHASE II. MULTI-FAMILY USES IN P O ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 8-2002, AV 36-2002 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/8/02 TAX MAP NO. 296.07-1-15, 289.19-1-15/60-7-3.4, 2.2 LOT SIZE: 25.01 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & STUART MESINGER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, I’m Michael O’Connor, from the law firm of Little & O’Connor, representing the applicant. With me are other consultants, Stuart Mesinger, who is our Planning Consultant, Joel Bianchi, who is our Engineering Consultant, and the two principals of the applicant, Charles Brush and John Giebink. There’s been a great deal of exchange of correspondence and information, as issues have come up, but we think that we’ve addressed them. We think that we probably need to have one more of a sit down with C.T. Male on a couple of final issues, but other than that, we think that we have satisfied the concerns that have been raised. If you have questions, we would be glad to address them. If you still have issues, we’d be glad to address try to address them. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I guess maybe, why don’t we just start with C.T. Male’s letter of June 14. Jim, th maybe if you guys want to go back and forth on that. I think that probably seems to be the biggest issue at the moment. MR. STROUGH-Are we going to do site plan or subdivision here? The first one’s subdivision, right? MRS. RYBA-Because of the SEQRA, you need to really look at everything together, at this point. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and then at the end we’ll separate it and do it? MRS. RYBA-Correct, although you won’t be able to make any final resolutions this evening, because the ZBA meets tomorrow night for the access by easement, and that has to be done first. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MRS. RYBA-Or after SEQRA. MS. RADNER-Right. The SEQRA has to come first before anything else. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We have a written response to the letter that you just referred to, as well as we can walk ourselves through a narrative, and why don’t I give this to Stuart. MR. MESINGER-Thank you. What we’ve done is put together a written response to the C.T. Male letter. I think we have a resolution on pretty much all the issues, except for the very first one, which relates to the design of the stormwater basin, and it’s really a matter of preference as to how you want us to respond to it, because there’s a couple of different ways we can do it. So our thought was is we would just sit down with Male in the next week, go through that particular issue, reach resolution with Jim and Mr. Edwards, and then submit the final plans. We know we can’t do a final approval tonight because we’ve still got to see the Zoning Board, but outside of that the remainder of the issues, I think, are straightforward. I’d be happy to pass this out, if you wanted to do it that way, or I could, we could read them one by one. It’s really up to you guys. MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t you just go that route, read them off. MR. MESINGER-Okay. The first issue just related to the design of the detention pond, and the vertical separation between the bottom of the pond and bedrock. Essentially, we can either raise the pond or we can design an extended detention pond, which has to do with the way we design the outflow structure. Either mechanism meets DEC’s requirements for stormwater management. We’d anticipate sitting down with C.T. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/02) Male and seeing which they’d prefer in this case, but it’s simply a design matter and easy to do. The second point in the Male letter. MR. MAC EWAN-Stuart, why don’t we do this one at a time and let Jim respond to those comments. That way we can try to keep things moving along here easily. MR. HOUSTON-I agree with that response, and I think there can be design changes made to the plan to accommodate what was found in the soil borings. As Stu indicated there’s shallower depth to rock than what was originally indicated. Basically, there was no information presented previously. So now that we have that soil boring information that shows a shallow depth to rock, and they can bring the bottom of the basin up and work around that issue. I think there’s enough space to do that. It’s just the design, as presented so far, isn’t consistent with the soil borings. MR. STROUGH-Now, Jim, will the type of soil they use to uplift this drainage system make a difference? I mean, because some soil’s going to reach a saturation point or earlier than others. MR. HOUSTON-The intention would be not to excavate down and remove the material that’s there. The soil boring indicates good soil there. So the key thing would be not to remove that and expose the rock. So, at that one boring, it shows that there’s percable, suitable material. It’s just that the original grading plan showed removal of that material right down to rock, and that was not the way you want to go. MR. STROUGH-So the deeper the better. I mean, three foot would be better than two foot, if they could leave that kind of a depth, if they could leave that kind of a depth. MR. HOUSTON-Yes, if they could leave that depth. MR. MESINGER-Yes, and that’s the point, John, is that we could simply bring the pond up to keep three feet of native material there and, as Jim said, it’s decent material. So, it seems like the simplest fix. The second point in the letter related to the drainage structures along the road, the drywells along the road, and whether or not the soils in that area had been investigated. We’re going to eliminate those and simply collect the drainage along the road surface and convey it to a low point and discharge it to the stream. So we’re simply going to get rid of that particular feature, and that would be the end of that. MR. STROUGH-It’s just going to discharge directly into the stream? MR. MESINGER-Along the roadside edge, right. MR. STROUGH-Without any treatment? MR. MESINGER-Not in that location, no. MR. STROUGH-How much stormwater are we talking about? JOEL BIANCHI MR. BIANCHI-It’s actually less than what was previous. The road really creates a divide. MR. STROUGH-But it’s a different kind of stormwater. MR. BIANCHI-It’s faster in its sheet flow. Because of the way the subcatchments were prior to development, water sheet drained in a different direction. We’re capturing much less. The volume is less, and the volume and rate is less than what was previous. MR. STROUGH-So my point is it’s coming right off the road, and with salts and everything else used on the road, it would be nicer if we could pre-treat it at a retention or detention basin. MR. BIANCHI-What we could do is possibly divert it from the roadside into graded swales, grass line swales that do provide a level of treatment, prior to discharge to the stream. MR. STROUGH-That would be nice if you could do that. MR. HOUSTON-Yes, I’d recommend and concur with that. MR. MESINGER-Okay. Joel, do you want to do the third one, since you’re the drainage man here. If you want to do the drainage ones, that would be fine. MR. BIANCHI-Comment Three was relative to some drainage structures that we show behind or south of the Phase II building. These are just a series of catch basins with perforated 12 inch HGP Pipe that collect surface runoff. It must be noted that these structures would only be built if that provisional parking behind 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/02) the building was required. Otherwise, it would just be sheet flow through grassed areas, but, regardless, if those structures are, you know, installed, they would be installed along the emergency access road, the swales that are graded there. I believe the current plans show one of them off the roadway slightly, but they would be placed actually in the roadside swales to collect runoff. MR. HOUSTON-My only comment in that regard showed the, on the catch basin inlets into that infiltration trench quite removed from the access road, I would guess 30 to 40 feet, and it was unclear how water was going to get from the road out to that infiltration structure, and I think there’s a gap in there of, you were going to widen that road or whatever, and also provide provisional parking in there, which wasn’t shown on that plan, I guess is my interpretation. I don’t know. It just appeared that the storm drainage structures were quite removed from the access road and could not directly serve the access road. MR. BIANCHI-Right. Their purpose is not to serve the access road, only the aisle width and the parking spaces that would be provisional. They would only be installed if that parking was to be installed. So I think if you look at the utility plan which they show up on, it’s sort of hard to align them with the provisional parking that only show up in the layout plan. So that’s why they look sort of out in the middle of nowhere. MR. STROUGH-There wouldn’t be any reaches going to those? That would only be sheet flow? MR. BIANCHI-It would only be sheet flow for the paved area for that provisional parking. The emergency access roads have roadside swales which provide a level of treatment sufficient for that area. MR. MESINGER-Okay. Number Four? MR. BIANCHI-Number Four was merely separating design points. Basically it shows the reviewing engineer, Town Board, and whoever would look at the report, is how offsite discharges exit the property, and I believe in our report we had lumped two design points into one area. We just cumulatively did those. C.T. Male requested that we separate those two. We can do that in the, a revised stormwater report without any problem. MR. HOUSTON-Just to clarify that a little bit, there was two design points along the south property line, one at the far corner there, I guess the southeast corner, and then there was another one directly due south of the Phase II apartment building, and the post development condition had those lumped in as one design point, which made a comparison between the pre and post conditions difficult or impossible. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, there was a Design Point One and Two, I think it was, and I noticed that, too, and I had some concerns about that as well, but you can go ahead, Jim. You’ve got the expertise here. MR. HOUSTON-Well, if the infiltration trenches perc the water into the ground there, whatever, and I think that you should be able to, if they do perc, the have the capability of meeting the conditions at both design points. It’s all contingent on the soils being able to take the water and acceptability of that water into the infiltration trenches, and that’s. MR. VOLLARO-Can we tie those two together? Is there enough sufficient data to tell us what the perc rate is at those two locations so that they do perc sufficiently? MR. HOUSTON-There’s not sufficient information that I’ve seen so far that I’ve reviewed. The soil borings seem to focus on the building foundations and out into the detention basin, and then we have other soil information up in the wastewater disposal field, but nothing over in this area where we’re looking at for these infiltration trenches. MR. VOLLARO-Can we make any assumptions, based on the other test points, that that data translates to this, to Design Test Points Two and Three? MR. HOUSTON-I think it’s quite removed and it would be stretching it to be able to take the assumptions that you’ve got from the one part of the site over to this site, which would be well in excess of probably three or four hundred feet away. MR. VOLLARO-So we’re really not sure whether Design Point One and Two can handle this or not? It’s a good idea to separate them, but you still don’t know what the perc rate is of either one. So there’s still a question there as to whether they’ll perform or not perform, based on the soils. MR. HOUSTON-I think that’s a fair statement. MR. STROUGH-Along with that thought, there was some mention of, around Design Point One, that some of that sheet flow would go off site. MR. BIANCHI-Design Point One being, I believe, towards the Old Maids Brook, correct? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/02) MR. STROUGH-No, I believe it was in the southeast corner. MR. BIANCHI-The southeast corner, there’s two design points I know, essentially, towards the existing wetlands, and along the south and southeast corners. MR. STROUGH-Good. That’s one thing I wasn’t clear on the, so it would be directed into a wetland? MR. BIANCHI-Existing wetland. MR. STROUGH-At that point. MR. MESINGER-Joel, the difference, the distance between our borings and the trenches that we’re talking about is how far? MR. BIANCHI-Maybe no more than 50 feet from the building corners to those proposed trenches that we’re talking about. We have soil borings at every building corner, every major building corner. MR. STROUGH-So it wouldn’t be substantial. MR. BIANCHI-Substantial in what? MR. STROUGH-It wouldn’t be any great impact. MR. HOUSTON-Because the soil borings that I saw only had the Phase I building but nothing for Phase II. Maybe I was misreading that. All the soil borings I have were for the Phase I building, but nothing for the. MR. BIANCHI-You’re correct. I misspoke. There’s only soil borings for Phase I building. So we actually do not have borings in close proximity to them, the infiltration trenches. MR. HOUSTON-Yes. The two design points that we’re talking about are Design Point Two, which is at the southeast corner, and Design Point Three, which, Design Point One is over towards Bay Road. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I don’t have a plan. I’m trying to go from memory. MR. BIANCHI-What we can do to substantiate those infiltration trenches is merely going out, doing perc tests at that location, and do (lost word) permeability tests that show that we have soil that can accept the stormwater at the rate we’re anticipating. MR. MESINGER-That’s what you’re looking for, Jim, is a perc test. MR. HOUSTON-Yes. MR. MESINGER-Not a deep hole back fill, but a perc test? MR. HOUSTON-That’s correct. MR. MESINGER-I understand. MR. BIANCHI-Item Number Five, essentially pretty much covers what we just discussed. C.T. Male had indicated that the infiltration rate which we assumed seemed to be overestimated. What we can do, by performing infield percolation tests, we can actually verify what the infield percolation rate of the soil exfiltration rate, and carry that over into our stormwater model, to make sure what we have designed can adequately collect and convey runoff at that location. MR. VOLLARO-Most of your test point and percolation data that was taken, was taken in May of 2001, I noticed, in one of them. Is that correct? MR. MESINGER-No, it’s May of 2002, it’s this spring, not 2001. MR. BIANCHI-No. We took them, we took perc tests last year, and also did additional perc tests for the septic system a month ago. MR. VOLLARO-A month ago. MR. BIANCHI-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I notice on the drawing it says, you get into test points and you get into perc data, there’s a note on there that says all this data was taken on May of 2001, and it doesn’t amplify that to say some testing was done in 2002. The drawing probably ought to say that. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/02) MR. BIANCHI-Right. There was borings that were done for the building, specifically for the building and there was one done for the detention pond which was done this year. Those are not on the plans, however it indicates that within all these supplemental reports that we’ve provided, although you’re correct. They are not on the plans. MR. MESINGER-Item Six is the available parking for Phase II, whether it’s adequate. You’ll recall we talked about this at some length, and it was the applicant’s experience with other facilities that there will be sufficient parking. We’re sort of front loading it if you will, so that more of the parking occurs in the first phase. If the Board wants us to bring in some of the provisional parking, you know, we’ve provided for it. It’s there. We just don’t think it’s necessary, but it’s going to be the Board’s decision whether you want us to do it. I would suggest to you that it’s in the applicant’s interest for there to be enough parking and if, when the units were constructed, we found that people couldn’t park, we’d bring the provisional parking into use. I mean, you’re not going to be able to rent units if people can’t park there. So that would be my response there. Obviously, it’s the Board’s call. MR. VOLLARO-The differential in the parking is, I think the requirement is 183, I believe, and what you’re proposing is 177. MR. MESINGER-Very, very close. MR. VOLLARO-I just put a note down in some of my notes here so that I’ll remember that that was fairly close, and I didn’t think there was enough of a margin there to make a contention out of it. That was my opinion. MR. STROUGH-I concur with the applicant, too. Whatever serves your needs, the less paving the better. MR. MESINGER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MESINGER-Okay, and then that gets directly into the Comment Seven, which is provisional, the provisional parking area serving Phase II and pedestrian access. If, in the event that that parking were developed, what we would do is shift the spaces to the south to accommodate a four foot wide sidewalk. Again, we don’t think it’s going to be necessary, but there’s certainly room to do that, in the event that it is, and I think that we could just revise the plans to show that as a provisional sidewalk, since, as John said, we don’t want to build it if the parking’s not going to be there. So it’s kind of a, if you build one, then you get the other. Comment Eight related to the plans showing the access road provisional parking area as ten feet wide. We will go ahead and revise that to a twelve foot wide road with one foot of gravel on the other side. The fire department had made that request as well. Number Nine is sight distance. C.T. Male commented that they agreed with our proposed mitigation, which is the placement of warning signs to the north of the proposed driveway. The recommendation from Male is that we consult with the County. We had done that and neglected to provide Male with a copy of their response. It’s included at the back of this letter that we’ve handed to Jim and that we’re going to hand to you. The County has said that the mitigation is fine and acceptable. They’ve asked us to give them a plan with the exact location of the signs which we have done, and we expect to hear back from them hopefully any day, saying that the location is fine. It’s fairly limited where we can put it. It needs to be before the vertical curve, and after the stoplight. So where we have them is about 100 feet south of the stoplight. MR. STROUGH-What will the sign say? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I was going to ask. MR. BIANCHI-It’s on the plans. There’ll be two signs mounted together, one will show a driveway to the right, as you’re heading south, and then the speed limit sign, 35 miles per hour. MR. MESINGER-The last comment was regarding the wastewater disposal fields and diversion swales on the uphill sides, and we’ll go ahead and add those to the plans, pretty straightforward comment. I think Staff’s comments were limited, if I’m not mistaken, to the parking question, or the road question, Marilyn, I don’t recall. MRS. RYBA-I think there were a number of things. There was, in terms, right on the last page, under Staff comments, a little bit about additional lighting information, and just some suggested questions for the Planning Board, and perhaps some of these are related more when they get to a point of actually doing approvals. MR. MESINGER-Okay. The one issue that, let me just respond to your couple of issues. With respect to Number Four, which is traffic mitigation, I think we just discussed that. Number Five is the access road, and I think we discussed that. Six is, I think, the only new one that we haven’t really talked about, which is obtain 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/02) additional lighting information, and you had in your detailed comments prior, asked for some additional details there, and I can’t see any reason why we wouldn’t go ahead and do that. Basically, you asked us for the minimum, maximum, and average foot candle levels on the roadway. MRS. RYBA-Correct. MR. MESINGER-Okay. So we can certainly add that to the plans. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, did you have a question? MR. VOLLARO-He answered it. MR. STROUGH-While we’re on the topic, I’m going to defer to Marilyn on the expertise on the lumens, but the walkway going between the two buildings, and the kiosk or whatever it is, the gazebo in between, is that going to be lit at night? JOHN GIEBINK MR. GIEBINK-The gazebo, no, would not be lit. The walkways you were talking about before will have a roof and probably some siding closures that could be open, you know, that during the winter can be closed in. So there’d be ceiling fixtures, you know, that just illuminate right straight down. You wouldn’t see anything. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I’m not worried about, you know, the overflow of lighting. I was just concerned that nighttime pedestrian safety. MR. GIEBINK-Yes, correct. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. MESINGER-Marilyn’s comment seven is to ask the applicant the status of our permits. We don’t have them yet. We expect to have them hopefully soon. Getting permits from the State agencies, as you all know, can sometimes be a time consuming process, and nobody is more anxious than us to have those in hand. MR. VOLLARO-More permits wouldn’t be issued until the SEQRA was issued. MR. MESINGER-That is correct, but that’s not what’s holding them up. We’ll get the federal ones sooner. The State is backed up right now, is the simple answer there. So, in summary, I think that all we really have to do is a couple of fairly minor changes to the plans, a perc test to document stormwater report, and then make sure that C.T. Male is happy with the final stormwater details, and then I think we’re there, as far as technical review. MR. MAC EWAN-Jim? MR. HOUSTON-Yes. I guess that infiltration, or the soil information on the south side is missing and something that’s critical to the design as they’ve got it here. On the flip side of things, of that coin, I would say that there’s adequate space in there that they could accommodate a basin if they had to, such that it wouldn’t pre-empt this site from being used for what their intention is. There’s just the actual system that they’ve designed there. Whether that’s the best system or the most logical to be using that is still suspect at this time, but there appears to be adequate space in between the buildings and property lines to accommodate a different type system if needed. Otherwise, I think it is technical in nature that can be resolved, and what Stu said I agree with. MR. MAC EWAN-When do you people anticipate getting together so you can iron out these things so we can move forward on this? MR. MESINGER-Well, we’d like to do it as soon as C.T. Male can meet with us. I think we’re tentatively on your agenda for next week. We’d love to have it resolved before then, so that we could come before you and get our approvals. MR. MAC EWAN-What meeting are you on, Tuesday’s or Thursday’s? MR. MESINGER-Thursday’s. MR. MAC EWAN-Thursday’s meeting? MR. MESINGER-Yes. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/02) MR. MAC EWAN-So that means if you got things together and you were able to iron everything out, we’d want a report from you or a letter from you that would be distributed in the Staff notes that would come to us on Tuesday night. So that means that you guys have to get together before Friday of this week, I would think. My interest here is to move this application along. I mean, I’m not trying to fast-track it, but knowing that there’s approvals that are needed to be in place by other agencies and such. I think we’re close to being able to get to the point where we can do our SEQRA and come up with neg dec on it. Let’s just get this out of the way. MR. HOUSTON-If they could do a percolation test tomorrow, or whatever, and then. MR. BIANCHI-Yes, what we can do is like you said, you alluded to that there might be other alternatives. We’ll look at that first thing tomorrow. If we feel that we can’t do anything else and we have to go with what we’ve shown, we’ll have perc tests done by tomorrow, and we’ll have that information submitted to you during our meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll let you guys iron out when you’re going to get together. I mean, that’s where I’m thinking right now. I mean, in order for us to move with this application next Thursday, I want to have that information in our hands Tuesday night of next week, because that’s when Staff notes will be delivered to us for Thursday’s meeting. Anything else you wanted to add? MR. O'CONNOR-If anyone has any other questions, we’ll be glad to address them. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, we’ll start with you. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I wasn’t here during the May meeting, and actually I was hoping that my fellow Board members maybe would have acted on this, so that I wouldn’t have to read the volumes of information. I think probably the best thing that I read was the archeological/historical review because that had, I think, one of the best histories of the region that I’ve ever read, which I think I’m going to keep. Really, I think most of the questions that I had were pretty technical in nature. I had some questions on the traffic report and the line of sight, and I’m a little confused as to the nature of this sign. Is the sign just a recommended reduction in speed, or is it a mandatory reduction in speed? MR. BIANCHI-The sign would be a New York State DOT approved sign. It would be mandatory. MR. HUNSINGER-So it would be a speed limit reduction, such as you would see for a curve? MR. BIANCHI-No. It would be a speed limit sign, similar to what you’d see on any New York State highway or actually Town road. It’s enforceable by the police. MR. HUNSINGER-So there would be an actual speed reduction? MR. BIANCHI-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s what I was concerned about. MR. BIANCHI-It’s not an advisory. It’s an actual mandated speed limit. It’s a white sign with black lettering. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other feasible alternative to that? There didn’t appear to be in the reports that I’ve read. MR. MESINGER-We don’t think there is, short of reconstructing Bay Road, because it’s, the problem is a vertical curve. That’s what the engineers call it. I call it a hump in the road, and, you know, short of getting out the bulldozers and shaving the road down. That’s really what we need to do. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any plans in the future to have Bay Road reconstructed? MR. MESINGER-Not that I’m aware of. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MESINGER-I’m not on the hotline to the DPW either. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, just in thinking through larger planning issues, you know, Bay Road being one of the hub arterials of the community, you know, having a speed reduction in the middle of the road I find kind of problematic, and if there was some other way that that could be addressed, that would be my preference, but be that as it may. I did have some questions, I think, when we get to the SEQRA discussion. I think I probably should just raise them then, or should I bring them up? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/02) MR. MAC EWAN-You can go right ahead right now. MR. HUNSINGER-I think a lot of this information kind of came out in some of the earlier discussions about stormwater drainage. Forty-nine percent of the site had poorly drained soils. I think, you know, I’m reading off your SEQRA report. There was some discussion about the depth to bedrock and how it also effects the stormwater management report. The federally regulated wetlands areas, but, there’s going to be no impact on the wetlands? MR. MESINGER-The only wetlands impact is under a tenth of an acre for the crossing of Old Maid Brook. MR. HUNSINGER-There was a comment about the use of herbicides and pesticides. Could you elaborate on that? MR. MESINGER-I think, did we check yes on that? Routine use. MR. BIANCHI-Lawn care. MR. HUNSINGER-I really wasn’t ready to be first. So can I come back? MR. MAC EWAN-Would you like to reserve the rest of your time, be allocated? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, absolutely. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tony? MR. METIVIER-I don’t think I had much to add. I, overall, am very pleased with the project. I have to say I was shocked more than anything to hear Stu say that they were going to have runoff go right into a stream. The little bit of hair that I have on the back of my head stood up, and I guess, as long as that doesn’t come to fruition, when the final plan is drawn, I think we’ll be okay with that. I’ve just never heard such words in a public forum like this before. I’ll tell you, my heart stopped and everything, but, no, I think overall it’s a good project, with what you have, as far as the land to work with, I think it’s going to come along well. It seems like everybody knows, or is comfortable with what they’re doing with it, and, you know, as far as the water problems, I don’t think that there’s going to be any, from what I hear tonight, between the two sides. So, I’ll be anxious to see everything come together. I think it’s good, though. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything to add. I’m really not thrilled with that 35 mile an hour speed limit sign. Nobody will use it anyway, and it just becomes a speed trap. I wish there was another alternative to that, but I don’t have anything. I’m not necessarily in favor of that reduction in speed, but I don’t know of anything else to do. So I don’t have anything to add. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I just was talking to and discussing things with my fellow Board members here. Is the septic system going to be completely foolproof? I mean, is it always going to work? It’s a big project for everything that’s going on on that road. MR. MESINGER-You design these things to the State standards. You design them with redundancy. They’re inspected when they’re installed, and that’s all people can do, you know, and we hope, and we think that the standards that the State’s adopted are there to be workable and to protect us, and we think that the reason there’s as much redundancy in the system is in the event that there are problems. So, to the best of our engineering ability, we’re designing a system that’s going to work. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And if it breaks down, you just fix it, right? MR. MESINGER-That’s what you do with everything. Right? There was a gas explosion in South Glens Falls today, you know, who knew that what happen? MRS. LA BOMBARD-And if the time comes when we have sewers? MR. MESINGER-It would be the applicant’s intent to hook into a sewer if one becomes available. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Okay. There’s just a couple of things before I get into my own notes, on Staff notes, under Study of the Plat. I notice that under Streets and Roads, it references to the letter from Warren County Department of Public Works, and that Department is asked for scaled and dimensioned plans and so on. Is that something you plan to do for them? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/02) MR. MESINGER-Right. That’s what we were talking about, the exact placement of the signs, and we have given that to them, and we’re just waiting to hear back. MR. MAC EWAN-Will you have a response before next week do you think? MR. MESINGER-If it’s necessary, I’ll sure try to get one. MR. MAC EWAN-Try to get it. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Well, I’ll get into my notes, basically, on the SEQRA, and I’ll just read from what I put down. I just want to get a feel. This application is still for Phase I and II. That’s how it was written in the Preliminary Stage narrative. That’s still valid. With the intent to combine into a single stage at the site plan review for a total of 114 units. Is that a fair statement? Is that what we’re doing? MR. MESINGER-We’ve never used the term “combined”. We’re asking for site plan approval for a two phase. MR. VOLLARO-You use the term “single stage”. MR. MESINGER-Does the distinction matter? I mean, we’re asking for approval for both stages. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just want to make sure that when we go into SEQRA that I know we’re going for Phase One and Phase Two, as separate things, but then the intent is to combine these things with a single stage at site plan review, and we get there we’re going to be talking about Building One and Building Two. MR. MESINGER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and I think we’ve gone over the 183 spaces versus the 177. I don’t have a problem with that. We have Area Variance 36-2002 is still pending approval on 6/19, or not pending approval, it’s pending, basically, what the ZBA has got to say about that. MR. MESINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Now, on the site plan, on the site septic, you know, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan has always been a guide arm for this Board, or we’ve tried to use that as a guide arm to guide our stuff, and it says in there very, very clearly that the residential use could be included if sewer service could be assured, and that was backed up by the County Planning recommendation, approve with condition that the applicant work with the Town to facilitate a municipal sewering of the project. Now, I happen to be particularly sensitive to some of this stuff, because I’m privy to some of the stuff that’s going on on the Bay Road with respect to on- site septic system, and if you get down into a comment that was made by C.T. Male on the March 29 letter th that indicated, and I quote, it says, “Native soils will perform marginally at best”. These kind of terms that I read throughout here, somewhat concerns me as to the ability of that septic system up there to perform as advertised. Stu, I heard you say, if it breaks, you fix it, but I can tell you, fixing septic systems, under DOH requirements, is pretty expensive. Removing what they call contaminated material off the site, having it dried properly so it doesn’t leak on the roads when you transport it, etc., etc. The fix is not the easiest thing in the world. MR. STROUGH-Along with the septic issues, since we’re on the topic, if you don’t mind, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Go right ahead. MR. STROUGH-It’s just, are you going to have to possibly bring in outside soils to lift up the infiltration bed? Because in the archeological report, they reported that in the area of where the infiltration bed would be located, that they couldn’t do a shovel test because it was bedrock in that area. So I’m going to assume that. MR. MESINGER-Our test pits in that area didn’t encounter bedrock. I mean, they may have hit a piece of ledge or a boulder in that location, but I don’t think that’s confirmed by the test pits, but, Joel, do you want to talk about? MR. BIANCHI-Yes, we did two test pits last year. Did two additional test pits this year. Four perc tests this year. I believe you did eight last year, and that wasn’t focused in one area. That was generally over the entire area. So we felt that we had a good working knowledge of what was in the subsurface, and we encountered no bedrock which, you know, basically agreed with the soil survey, understanding that the soil survey for any county is a very vague but guiding tool for you. So that was the need for the additional perc tests and test pits, and our perc tests that we actually conducted this year yielded a more favorable, as you might call it, or a better perc rate than they did last year, and this was after we had a substantial rainfall two to three days prior, this year. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/02) MR. STROUGH-Yes, but you’re going to be pumping it anyway. So if push came to shove, you could bring in outside material and just put the infiltration bed up higher to meet State standards, and that’s probably something that you’ll go through with New York State Board of Health. MR. BIANCHI-Yes. New York State DEC is reviewing it right now, and if they feel it’s prudent to modify the subsurface soils, we can do that. However, we’re confident that they will not require that. MR. VOLLARO-I notice that there’s a prepared statement, and I think I have it here, that had to do, I don’t know who prepared this statement, but it’s a prepared statement for the negative declaration, and in that statement, it talks to, right at the end, in other words, I think this was prepared and it says reasons for supporting the negative declaration. Under “Sewage Disposal” there’s, it says that the DEC has indicated that there are no environmental issues with respect to the issuance of this permit. This permit being the SPDES permit, and yet I went through all of DEC’s two letters that they wrote concerning this, and I don’t see anything in their letters at all that says that the DEC has indicated no environmental issues. They haven’t declared themselves yet, officially. MR. O'CONNOR-They have in this Lead Agency process, or they are silent in it, and this would be their opportunity to raise any issues that they had of that nature. MR. MESINGER-Typically, we do an awful lot of these, Bob, and when you circulate a Lead Agency letter to the DEC and they have a permit, if they have an issue, they tell you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So, based on the fact that they haven’t said anything, this statement that the DEC has indicated there are no environmental issues, what you’re saying is because they remain silent, they don’t have any statement. MR. MESINGER-And if you’re more comfortable, you could re-word it to say the DEC has not raised any environmental issues. MR. VOLLARO-I would prefer that, because I just don’t know where they’re at when I hear a statement like that and I don’t read it in their documentation. Now I know it came from an interpretation, in a sense. Getting back to, we’re talking about the CLUP, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and so on, and John’s statement’s well taken, I think, as well. If you’ve got a raise that you’re going to get into a raised bed design. We don’t know that yet. Are you planning a raised bed design for that or are you going to be pretty flat? MR. BIANCHI-No. It’s not flat, per se. It basically follows the existing contours out there, where we excavate our bed area, place our place our small perforated pressure laterals, backfill with stone, and then just put topsoil back over the top of it, and try to maintain existing grades as they are, with the swale on the upper side to divert any sheet flow. MR. VOLLARO-Are you going to be using infiltrators for this? Is that what you’re planning to use, or just PVC lateral? MR. BIANCHI-It’s PVC pressure laterals within a stone of 15 foot by 100 foot long stone bed, similar to a conventional trench system, except there’s three laterals within one trench that’s 15 feet wide. MR. VOLLARO-Have you looked into the infiltrators, and I don’t want to get into this. This is maybe something that Jim wants to talk a little bit about, but have you looked at infiltrators as opposed to typical PVC laterals? MR. BIANCHI-Infiltrators, I believe I know what you’re speaking of, they take up a significant more area than what we’re proposing. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t want to get into design, Jim, that’s your area, but supposing we looked into, or they looked into the Elgin System as opposed to PVC’s? I don’t know. See what I’m trying to look at is, your comment stands out, to me, when it says native soils will perform marginally at best, that was in your 29 letter. MR. HOUSTON-Yes, let me clarify what my thinking was when I wrote that comment. If you look at the test pits and the percolation tests that were done in that area, it indicates, in a test pit, that there’s three feet down to mottling, and that’s an indication, usually, of high groundwater, and it also talks about silty material or something that would be not highly percoable, and also there’s variation in the percolation rates, you know, just amongst the percolation tests that were done. So it has some, I’ve had concerns whether it’s 15 feet of nice percoable sand, I think maybe (lost words) and where you’ve got these kind of conditions, boy, it’s got to be very closely monitored, how it’s constructed, and make sure it uses the soils that are out there, and so my key comment about the marginal soil is dealing with this mottling, and that’s a boundary condition. I’m sure DEC is going to key in on that particular aspect, and it’s critical that I don’t think you can put the trenches right into the native soil that’s out there, in certainly locations, because it’s only three feet down to this mottling, so you’ll have to have some separation in there, because the treatment occurs where you’ve got 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/02) some dry sand, and so it is critical that a lot of attention be paid to exact elevations that all those laterals are placed at, but as far as whether you go to perforated pipe or whether you go to these Elgin type systems, I guess I don’t have a preference one way or the other. This perforated piping meets the design standards for DEC and is an acceptable practice, and I’ve design systems similar to this myself that have worked okay. Haven’t presented a problem. My key focus would be on the on-site soils and their ability to accept this wastewater. One point I was thinking about on my way up here is to address some of the other also concerns about if that does fail, part of the DEC system requires that reserve area be allocated on the site for total reconstruction of that bed, and they have adequate space on their site, and they have proposed areas where that could be. One of the typical things that DEC requires is that there’s also a soil investigation in those areas to determine that the soils are there suitable for that expansion area. So that’s a follow up to our earlier discussion about soils and information over towards the infiltration trenches. So they’ve identified areas. They have the luxury, on this site here, of having a lot of area to be able to move into to basically reconstruct the system and let the old system that has failed go, and that’ll alleviate some of the concern about having to remove that material immediately and during emergency type condition, but it’s critical that those expansion areas be identified and give the same level of thought and investigation as the primary disposal fields themselves. MR. VOLLARO-The primary disposal fields have their own test pits and perc rates. If I remember the perc rates in my mind is average somewhere around 12 minutes. Is that about right? MR. HOUSTON-They range from probably three minutes up to approximately fifteen minutes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. If you take a look at the overall average of the perc rate up there, I think I averaged them out to about 12 minute perc, close to it. MR. HOUSTON-I think that’s fair. MR. BIANCHI-If I can just expand briefly, the purpose for our additional test pits and perc tests this year were to cover the expansion area, and some additional areas that we hadn’t covered for these systems as they’re proposed. So we did actually, that was the purpose for additional studies this spring. MR. VOLLARO-Should some of the drawings reflect that, since they don’t now. MR. BIANCHI-They will. We, unfortunately, had done them after the plans were submitted. MR. HOUSTON-I haven’t seen those results. So that’s something useful to look at. MR. VOLLARO-What I’m wondering, Mr. Chairman, with all of this, I’m trying to determine, when we do our SEQRA, and we have to answer these questions, whether this sort of thing is, just clouds our answer a bit. It makes it more difficult for us to say yes or no or whatever. Because there’s some things that still have to be done here, it seems to me. MR. MESINGER-I’m not sure what has to be done, Bob. MR. STROUGH-Isn’t DEC and the DOH going to be kind of watch dogs on this? MR. HOUSTON-Yes. This is a system that has more than 1,000 gallons per day. So it requires a SPDES Permit from DEC, and then since it’s more than with the Phase II, I and II, it’s more than 10,000 gallons per day, they’ll also do the technical review of the system, and so they’ll give it a very detailed review. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. HOUSTON-Before they issue a. MR. STROUGH-Yes, that was my point. MR. VOLLARO-So what you want to do is you want to just kind of hang your hat on the SPDES permit being issued. If it’s not, it’s not. Our SEQRA is going to assume that the SPDES permit will be issued. MR. STROUGH-It’s going to assume that. MS. RADNER-Your obligation is to take a hard look at any potential environmental impact, and if you have any questions that you feel need to be answered in order to take that hard look, you don’t want to just defer to the fact that some other agency is going to look at it. You want to make sure that you can give a reasoned elaboration for you conclusion that this is not going to have an adverse environmental impact. MR. VOLLARO-Well, on that statement, taking that statement in context. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/02) MS. RADNER-What I’m saying is if you have additional questions, ask them now and try and get your answers now. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I have asked them, and I think Jim has tried to give as best answer as he can on the soils that are up there. I would go back, I’m having a very difficult time with this, only because I live I that area, and I know an awful lot about what can go on in that, what is going on in that area. I happen to be directly affected by something that’s going on in that area. So, I might be just a little bit biased here. I want to try to get that bias out if I possibly can because I’m directly effected by something like this. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that’s part of, I think, where we are, where he’s got to, the applicant’s got to supply C.T. Male with this additional information to assure C.T. Male that the system’s going to work, and that this information that’s hanging out in this letter, that the design is going to be acceptable to them. MR. MESINGER-I don’t think there’s anything that Male’s waiting for on the septic, although we’ve just identified they’d like to look at the percs in the expansion area. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m referencing the letter, the June 14 letter, specifically where they’re talking about th depth to bedrock and how you’re going to design the system. MR. MESINGER-Right, but that’s from the storm, that relates to stormwater, not septic. MR. STROUGH-And I’d be more concerned about this if it was a gravity feed infiltration bed, but it’s a pump feed, which means we can go and put fill in. I mean, it’s not like we’re going to be stuck in a corner on this. MR. VOLLARO-Well, when you’re dozing a field with a pump, it’s getting its shot each time it gets dozed. I mean, I don’t know what, is that what you’re talking about, dozing a field with a pump? MR. STROUGH-No, what I’m saying is they’re not stuck in a corner. What we’re talking about is a soil that’s marginal, but since it’s a pump system that they have, they can always bring in fill and bring up the infiltration beds. I mean they’re not stuck in a place where they couldn’t get out of it. So I feel fairly confident that, after DEC and Jim reviews this, that we’re going to come up with a fairly good plan, but we are giving it a hard look. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I just, I guess I’m having a hard time not being able to see an installation of 117 units going on some sort of a municipal sewer. I’ve been stuck on this since I’ve been reading this, and I have a problem with it, I guess, and I’ll have to decide, as we go through the SEQRA, what I’m going to do, but I can understand all the safeguards and all the DEC safeguards, and I sure have a lot of respect for Jim here and his ability to oversee this. I think there’s a statement in some of the Staff notes here, but I think it goes back onto the last page under recommendation, which I caught, that seems to make some sense to me, and that’s Number Three in the Staff comments, that says the Planning Board should consider having Town consulting engineers, and I assume we mean C.T. Male in this area, inspect the installation of the septic system and make this a condition with a note to be placed on the final plat. Now this isn’t normal. Normal in Queensbury is for the Building Inspector to do this. So this is a departure, as far as the Town is concerned, for how it’s going to inspect this. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s just one more added safeguard. MR. VOLLARO-And I agree, and I think it is a good safeguard, and I want to make sure that it gets in whatever motion we make. MR. STROUGH-I can agree with that, Bob. MR. O'CONNOR-The applicant has no objection to that. It will also be inspected by DEC with installation, also. MR. BIANCHI-Yes. We, as the design professionals, we are required under the submission of a SPDES permit application, we are required to inspect certain phases of the construction, and also certify to its completeness to construction. MR. VOLLARO-And (lost words), it that how you plan to do it, Jim, if you get to do it? MR. HOUSTON-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ve made my statements. So that’s where I’m at. I don’t have anything else, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-John, you probably haven’t got anything, do you? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/02) MR. STROUGH-Well, I’ve got a couple of things. Well, let me ask the questions that I had about the subdivision first. Now all three parcels are going to be leased by you from Woodbury’s? MR. O'CONNOR-No, they’re going to be purchased. MR. STROUGH-They’re going to be purchased? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Because in the plans it talks about leasing. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s an outright purchase. MR. STROUGH-It’s an outright purchase. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay, but, okay. Fine. Good enough, and you’re going to be purchasing all three? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That answers that. Next. Describe how the lots will not meet Town Code? Not meet. MR. O'CONNOR-They will not meet Town Code in that two of the lots, well, one of the lots will not have Town road frontage. I think that’s Lot Two. Lot Three also, well, it won’t have practical use. It’ll have road frontage that goes up to Blind Rock Road, but nobody has suggested that that be used for access. So I think we’ve put in for a variance for both lots. Because you just wouldn’t build a road up through Blind Rock Road. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Otherwise they do meet Town Code? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, we believe we do. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and would you explain to me the need for subdividing, I think it has to do, if I remember right, something to do with the lease. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s the same argument that you heard earlier. It has to do with financing, that they will have separate financing packages that will focus on Phase I, or Building One, and then a separate package on Building Two. MR. STROUGH-And then on the final plat, you’ll eliminate the old acreage notations? When I was going through. MR. O'CONNOR-We can do it. If you’ve got a question as to we’ve got to show three lots. MR. STROUGH-Yes, you know, when I was trying to figure this out, it says, for example, lot line to be eliminated to form one lot, 25.01 acres. Well, that’s not going to be true. MR. O'CONNOR-No, three lots are going to be 5.5, 3.7 and 15.7. MR. STROUGH-All right. So that verbiage will be eliminated on the final plat, and then over on Parcel Three, it refers to 20 acres, and it will no longer be 20 acres, it’ll be 15 acres because it’s being re-divided differently. MR. O'CONNOR-I think they got juggled, they got reconfigured. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but I’m just saying I kind of got confused because the old figures are on with the new figures. Do you see what I’m saying? Stu, you know what I’m talking about? MR. MESINGER-I understand. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, reciprocal agreements. Now there’s going to be an agreement, because we’re worried about bankruptcy, change of plans, loss of funding, change of ownership, things that might be unforeseen, and unfortunate, but you will be putting in to the deed to Lot Three that they’ll have an easement which will be in the general area of the road going into Lots One and Two. They’ll have an easement access from Bay Road to Lot Three? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/02) MR. STROUGH-Now, will that be, so Lot Three will be able to access Bay Road as well as Blind Rock Road. MR. O'CONNOR-By road it will be to Bay Road. MR. STROUGH-Theoretically. MR. O'CONNOR-Theoretically, it could be both. MR. STROUGH-Theoretically. Let’s say we do Phase I, and then something happens. So we’re stuck. MR. O'CONNOR-When we do Phase I, as part of that closing, documents will be put on record in place that will have reciprocal agreements that will benefit all three parcels. They will benefit parcels two and three, I believe, for access. They will benefit parcels one and two for sewer system, or septic disposal, and other utility easements back and forth. MR. STROUGH-But what I’m getting at, yes, okay, and you may just verify this by what you said, you spoke about it in a general sense. Let me ask you a specific. Let’s say, for example, after we do Phase I, that something happens. So now we’re up in the air. Well, Phase I may be alive and well, but now Lot Two and Lot Three are going to be re-sold to somebody else. MR. O'CONNOR-They would be subject to those easements, correct. They would be permanent easements that would run with the land. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So Lot Two will be able to access, say, Blind Rock Road through Lot Three, according to what you’re saying. MR. O'CONNOR-No. The only access will be out the roadway that we’re going to construct. The only easement of access will be that one. Lot Three, I think, is the lot which, by itself, by its configuration, has frontage on Blind Rock Road. They won’t share that with the other two lots. MR. MESINGER-In other words, the easement, I believe, is going to be the sewer easement. I mean, that’s the easement have across, into Lot Three. MR. HUNSINGER-It says utility easement. MR. MESINGER-Yes, that’s what it is. It’s not an access easement, and it doesn’t go up to Blind Rock Road. It’s a sewer easement to get over to the waste disposal field. MR. O'CONNOR-Lot Three gives Lot One and Two the right to put their septic on Lot Three, I believe. Lot Two really is the, receives, from Lot One, the right of access to Bay Road and the right to put septic on Lot Three. Lot Two gives nothing to anyone. Lot One, which doesn’t need an easement for access because it owns the roadway out to Bay Road. It will receive an easement to put septic on Lot Three. MR. STROUGH-But see, here’s my thinking. Let’s go back to Phase I goes in, and Green Mountain, something happens to the Corporation. So, let’s say by default, Lots Two and Three have to go to a new developer and they’re also going to build senior housing. MR. O'CONNOR-They’re subject to this approval, and they’re subject to the restrictive easements, or the mutual easements that will be of record. MR. STROUGH-But will Lot One be allowed, in the event that fails, will Lot One have easements written into the deeds of Lots One and Two that it can use Lots One and Two to access Blind Rock Road? MR. O'CONNOR-No. There’s no access. MS. RADNER-Can I interrupt a minute? When you’ve got an easement, you’ve got a dominant estate and you’ve got a serviant estate. It’s kind of a master and slave. The easement becomes sort of a contract between the two parties and it runs with the land. So even after the slave estate is sold, it’s still bound to the master. They can have two different owners now, but the easement is still there, it’s still in place. It survives that sale, and you can have two different kinds of an easement. You can have a general easement, which says I give you the right to put your septic on my land, and then that’s a perpetual right that runs with the land. It’s in the deed, or you can have a metes and bounds that says I give you the right to put it on this piece of land that’s described here. I think, from what they’re saying, that the septic easements are going to be general easements. You have the right to, as needed, use my land, Lot Two, for sewage for Lot One, because Lot One doesn’t have enough room for its own. The access easement, that road easement, is a different kind of easement. It’s going to stay where the road is, and limit access there. So the fact that you’ve got an access easement doesn’t mean that future owner of Parcel Two can put eight new roads wherever they want. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/02) MR. STROUGH-Well, see here’s what I was thinking. MS. RADNER-Is that answering it? MR. STROUGH-Well, no, not really. MS. RADNER-Not really. MR. HUNSINGER-John wants to know if they can use Blind Rock Road for access. MR. O'CONNOR-No, they can’t. The only one that has frontage on Blind Rock Road will be Lot Number Three. MR. STROUGH-Because of the concerns of exiting out onto Bay Road, should there be something happen and another development occur on Lots Three and Two, my thinking was I would like to see a road that might connect Blind Rock Road with Bay Road, mutually used by anyone that develops that area, but I guess that’s too complicated. MR. O'CONNOR-Grading of that road, no, there’s some physical constraints to developing such a connection. The grading of that road is such that we probably wouldn’t have it, you wouldn’t approve it. MR. MAC EWAN-I know there was an issue with a previous application that you guys were talking about with the business park and having access on Blind Rock Road, and we had some concerns about that because of sight distance. MR. STROUGH-At least Blind Rock Road is a four way stop intersection. There’s nobody flying along at 50 miles an hour. It’s actually a safer way to come out than Bay Road. MR. O'CONNOR-John, where this exits onto Blind Rock Road. MR. MAC EWAN-Is at a curve. MR. O'CONNOR-You’re coming right up at a pitch into the road. You have no visibility coming up, and if we got going, it would be a very steep road, much in excess of your 10% permitted. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and another point, too, is that by the time you get done with the septic system, the infiltration bed, the access road, and what’s wetland, you don’t have much to develop on Lot Three anyway. MR. O'CONNOR-We’ve used our density. Between the three lots, we’ve used our density. You’re not going to see, well, close to it. We’re at 114. The maximum density on the site is 120, 119. MR. BRUSH-No, we actually have a little extra density if you had no septic systems out there, but with the septic systems, we’re pretty much, we’re pretty close. MR. STROUGH-One last question, then, on subdivision. Is reconsolidation going to be in the future? MR. BRUSH-I don’t think so. You mean, reconsolidate meaning put the two lots back together? MR. STROUGH-Put the two lots back together. MR. BRUSH-No, there’d be two separate projects, as banks look at it, if you will. MR. O'CONNOR-What’s the term of the financing on that project one? That’s probably a 50 year grant, isn’t it, 40 year grant? MR. BRUSH-Well, yes. MR. O'CONNOR-The approved financing, I think, is like a 40 year term, on Building One. MR. STROUGH-So what’s that mean? MR. O'CONNOR-That means that’s a standalone item for the next, for that 40 years. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I thought you said four. MR. O'CONNOR-No, I’m sorry. MR. STROUGH-Forty and four years, I can see, well, that’s not so long. Okay. Forty. Yes. All right. On the site plan. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/02) MR. MAC EWAN-I thought you only had a couple of questions? MR. STROUGH-That was on subdivision. Now I’m on site plan. I’ve only got a little, a couple of things. The bus stop location. Now I see that Greater Glens Falls Transit is willing to accommodate you. Where will the bus stop be, though? I see one located, you know, in the site plan SP-1, I think it is, you show a little, but is that where the pick up spot’s going to be? MR. BRUSH-I can’t remember his name, but I talked to him at Glens Falls Transit, he will not come into the project unless you have a disability, and there’s two ways for people to access the public transit. They could walk out, and that’s why we’re going to want to put a bus stop out there so there’d be some shelter for them out there. If they have a disability of some kind, then another bus will come right to the front door of the project. MR. STROUGH-So the bus is actually going to be on Bay Road, facing south, right next the intersection where we’re concerned about because of the hill, and the short sight distance, and there’s going to be a bus stopped dead right there? MR. BRUSH-He’ll have to be off to the right side of the road. I assume he’ll be out of the main, because there is a wide shoulder there. MR. STROUGH-See, that has a concern. That’s what concerns me, is because the very intersection that we’re concerned about, that has such a short sight distance, is going to be right where a bus is going to be stopped. MR. MESINGER-Yes, but, John, there is a good, a shoulder there. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, John, not only that, the issue with the line of sight was height. A bus is so much taller than a car, you’d be able to see the bus, well in advance of when you would see a car. MR. STROUGH-That’s a good point. Okay. Next question. All right. So none of this is in a floodplain. I think Dave Hatin. MR. O'CONNOR-We have a letter to that effect in the file. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Not a 50 year, not a 100 year, nothing. MR. MESINGER-No. MR. STROUGH-Okay. We’re going down quick. I’m going to ask you something. Now, I know only have of it is yours, but there is a stone wall that I think goes back and dates back to the old 18 century brown th farm that used to be in this area, and it’s right on the property line. So it’s really only half yours and half your neighbor’s. Can I condition it, and I’ll word this, so that if you’ve got to disturb that, that you’ll come back to us, somehow? In other words, we’ll try and preserve that stone wall, but let’s say you’ve got to break through it for some reason, that you’ll come back to us before that’s disturbed? MR. O'CONNOR-Why don’t you just say we won’t disturb it. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m giving you an option saying. MR. O'CONNOR-No, but I would rather, from a format, have you tell us not to disturb it and then if we choose, think that we have to, then we’ll come back to you. I’d rather, that’s a cleaner way of saying, doing it, than saying, if you’re going to disturb it, come back to us. MS. RADNER-I rarely agree with Mike, but I agree with him on this one. MR. STROUGH-Well, that was easy. Yes, but, historically, like I said, I think they’re tied in with the old brown farm, and I’m not sure of that, but if we can preserve them, it would be nice, and if they’re not in your way, that would be great. Now, on SP-2, total number of bedrooms, SP-2, yes, okay. I go down through Phase I, Phase II, are you on SP-2? Are you with me? You have 44 one bedrooms, 18 two bedrooms, and then in Phase II we’ve got 37 one bedrooms, 15 two bedrooms, and then on total we’ve got 81 one bedrooms and 33 one bedrooms. MR. MESINGER-Does the math not add up? MR. STROUGH-The math is fine. It’s just it should be 33. MR. MESINGER-It’s a typo. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/02) MR. STROUGH-Okay. Picky. Now you do have a turning radius up there, I think, Stu, you remember, 34. You’ve got quite a turning radius coming in the entry road now, don’t you? MR. MESINGER-You looked at that, Joel, and found that met the standard, right? The turning radius coming in off of Bay, I know we looked at that earlier. You don’t remember what it is? MR. BIANCHI-Off Bay Road, the County had no problem with the radiuses we provided. They just wanted us to label it. I verbally told them to them, and they also received them through our revised SP-7, I believe, and they had no comment relative to that. MR. STROUGH-I thought it was more than ample myself, but when they were showing that, I don’t know if you’ve seen the work of the diagram of 42? I mean, I’ve never seen a 42 radius. It may exist. You’ve probably seen one. Okay. So that’s okay. Check. Check. We’ve already talked about that. Future sewer connection. Is there some way we can word it to ensure that the applicant does tie into a sewer, if it someday goes up Bay Road? MR. VOLLARO-Only on an Unlisted can you condition a SEQRA. MS. RADNER-Yes. You cannot have a conditioned Neg Dec. The application can include that, but it’s kind of hard to have an application based on some future possible event. MR. STROUGH-Yes, because I know the applicant’s willing to do that, but, if you were. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think you need to condition it, because my understanding is the DEC, in approving the private system, says that if municipal system becomes available and we become part of that district, you will go to the municipal system. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I didn’t know that. That’s good. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s their rules and regulations. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s great. MR. VOLLARO-Let me just inject something here, John, since you stole some of mine, I’m going to steal a bit of yours now. There is a new sewer district being formed on the Bay Road, at the present time. In order to comply with what John is saying, and of course that’s a good idea, is to have the SITA’s included in that district, if that’s possible. MR. O'CONNOR-We’ve asked Mike Shaw, and he says that’s not feasible at this time. MR. VOLLARO-Not feasible at this time. You’re too far off. MR. O'CONNOR-The Town is bringing it to the north side of Walker Lane, which will serve the development that you’ve been involved with in the homeowners association, and part of that is going to be by contribution, as I understand it, from the Town Board, which will be reimbursed as it’s utilized and I’m not sure exactly how. Maybe the Town Attorney understands that. MS. RADNER-I haven’t been working on this project. So I don’t want to speak about something which I have no knowledge of. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We’ve talked to Shaw three or four times about going beyond that, and there aren’t any takers between us and where it ends, and that’s the problem. So there’s nobody that is available to fund it, and they’ve done, I own land on the corner right across the street here. I’d love to have sewer over there, but even if I join with them, it’s not enough to bring it up there. They’ve done studies on it, and you probably are more aware of the studies than I am. It would make it, if they spread it through the whole district, nobody would be able to live in the district. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So the neighbor to the north has no complaints. All right. Tell me about the north. How come we shifted the sidewalk to the north side of your entry road, instead of leaving it, you know, where the residential area is? I see it crosses the entry road and then crosses the bridge on the north side. Is there a reason for that? MR. BIANCHI-If you look on the plan for the entrance road, there’s a, we’re basically limited by space. There’s a retaining wall on that other side, and just by, you know, site design practice, you try to keep sidewalks away from retaining walls, just as a trip hazard, fall hazard. So we put it on the uphill side where the retaining walls would be actually, the vertical face would be facing the sidewalk as opposed to a sidewalk and then a vertical face that you could fall off of. That’s the only reason why we did that. MR. STROUGH-All right. That’s a good enough answer. Building height is going to be? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/02) MR. O'CONNOR-It’s going to be in compliance. We’ve got a letter from Craig saying he’s looked at the heights and the. MR. STROUGH-So it’s going to be in compliance? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Because there was a question of that at some point in time in this adventure. Okay. In a letter from Chazen to Marilyn Ryba from Chazen, dated 5/23, I have here, I must have the wrong one. Page 14, I have discuss suggested maintenance practices, and I can’t, well, I’m not sure. Let me find that. Let me skip that, for now. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that relative to SEQRA? Or is that just regular site planning issues? MR. STROUGH-Just site plan stuff. I’m going to skip that for now. If I find it, I’ll get it. I have half a suggestion, some of it’s been answered, and the permits, I have a list of the permits and those are all underway, and the illumination the covered walkway, and I like your placement of your community garden. Okay. No shuffleboard, I guess, but it’s, I thought it was a great location around the gazebo, and that’s it for me. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, back to you. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments? Staff? MRS. RYBA-One of the things we had discussed in one meeting was the relevance of how long this project would be available to senior citizens, because the traffic mitigation the traffic numbers are based on the fact that it is for seniors, and I know with the Omni Development, there was some discussion about that, and one of the things, there was also a private agreement because the developer, it’s not public information, but the agreement with the developer was not to have it convert to multifamily because Richard Schermerhorn has multifamily developments, which he, of course, doesn’t want competition for from somebody who’s developing land, but in this situation, I know that’s something that talking with Green Mountain Development, I had mentioned to you folks, too, and maybe you could just give the Board some indication of how long you expect this project to remain as a senior housing development. MR. GIEBINK-There’s two answers to that. One is that just in the configuration of the units, these are very, very small units. So from a physical standpoint, no matter what happened with the legalities and stuff like that, it’s highly unlikely that any family would ever want to rent in one of these small little units. So just from a physical standpoint, which would be from a forever standpoint, the financing is tied to senior housing. So basically with the funding that comes from (lost words) comes from New York State, that is, you know, tied directly to senior housing. MRS. RYBA-How long does that financing last? MR. GIEBINK-The term of the home financing is, I believe, 50 years. MRS. RYBA-So it’s a home project and not a low income housing tax credit project? MR. GIEBINK-It’s a combination MRS. RYBA-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anybody else? MR. VOLLARO-I think the short answer to Marilyn’s question, I guess, then you’re saying is that it will remain senior housing, period. MR. MAC EWAN-For at least 50 years. MR. O'CONNOR-In our lifetime. MR. GIEBINK-In our lifetime. MR. O'CONNOR-Not everybody’s lifetime. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Nothing else? So I guess at this moment, we’ll table it to a week from this coming Thursday, which is the 25, right? th 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/02) MR. O'CONNOR-You’re not prepared to do a SEQRA resolution at this time? MR. MAC EWAN-Not until we get everything, I think, tied down with C.T. Male, and I think we can do that next week. MR. VOLLARO-On the 27. That way we can do the SEQRA and the site plan review concurrently? th MR. O'CONNOR-How about, let me ask you this. What’s Mr. Stone’s Board going to do tomorrow night? MRS. RYBA-They won’t be able to hear it. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s if you don’t do SEQRA. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we can’t do a conditional SEQRA. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I honestly didn’t hear anything, after discussion, that was still outstanding from SEQRA. I think your engineering consultant, where we talked about the stormwater area, there seemed to be enough room to use different methods, something could be worked out so that the infiltration wouldn’t be a problem, or whatever we were going to do. The same thing as far as the septic. MR. MAC EWAN-I think we want to be comfortable with that. MR. STROUGH-I, for one, am comfortable with doing SEQRA, and I think that any of the issues that were brought up can be mitigated, and I think that any of the issues are small to moderate. MR. MAC EWAN-Does everybody else feel the same way? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think we can do the SEQRA. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s move forward, then, with it. MRS. RYBA-One of the things, you do have a Long Form, so you would need to go through that, before pulling any other resolution. I don’t know, does the Secretary have the Long Form, or do you need a copy? Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t I open up the public hearing on this. Does anyone want to comment on this application? MR. O'CONNOR-On the SEQRA portion. MR. MAC EWAN-On the SEQRA portion. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ll close the public hearing for the SEQRA. Start us off. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Here we go. “Impact on Land Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?” MR. VOLLARO-Physical change? Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Examples that would apply, would you give me an example. MR. VOLLARO-“Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet.” I think we’ve talked 36 inches of mottling. I don’t know whether that, I’d have to defer to my engineering consultant there, but we did see mottling at 36. Did we, Jim? MR. HOUSTON-Yes. A specific note here says water table. I don’t know you consider that a water table or, it did say, it does mention in here exactly at three feet. So it’s not less than three feet if you look at it verbatim. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/02) MR. VOLLARO-We’re on a tight rope, because it doesn’t give you plus or minus anything. MR. HOUSTON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-You really can’t measure at three feet unless you’ve got some sort of a (lost words) to do it. You realize that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Well. MR. VOLLARO-“Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within three feet of existing ground surface.” Does that fit? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, you can put your own in. You can say other impacts. You don’t have to go with what is exactly there. MR. VOLLARO-Some of these are very good. They fit this site very well. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That’s why I’m staying with them. MR. HOUSTON-On that particular item, I would say there’s no evidence that I saw that it was exposed, and generally not within three feet. It’s more than three feet, based on what the test pits, or the boring logs are. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HOUSTON-They’re close, but I don’t think it meets that criteria. MR. STROUGH-Plus we’ve gotten engineering reports that say that the placement of the buildings, the ground is stable enough. MR. HOUSTON-To support the proposed building construction. MR. STROUGH-Yes. We’ve got some expertise opinion. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s your answer going to be? MR. STROUGH-Small to moderate. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Small to moderate. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. STROUGH-But it’s been addressed. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Mitigated through site development. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Water Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL)” MR. MAC EWAN-Wetlands. One tenth of an acre is being affected, but the way the regulations are written it’s not really affected. Right? MR. MESINGER-Well, actually the answer is yes, because in Article 25, it’s not the wetlands, it’s the stream crossing. It’s the stream crossing is the effect, is that we’re simply, we’re crossing a protected stream, and we require a stream disturbance permit. MR. VOLLARO-And that would come under small to moderate, I think. We’re talking about Old Maid’s Brook crossing the stream. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/02) MR. MESINGER-Because you guys seem to be talking about is it mitigated or not, if you looked at the joint permit, there’s a number of mitigation measures in the construction to protect the stream during construction. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Will proposed action affect surface groundwater quality or quantity?” MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. “Proposed Action will require a discharge permit”. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-A SPDES permit. Yes. MR. MESINGER-A SPDES permit. MR. VOLLARO-Two kinds of permits. One is your groundwater SPDES permit, and the other would be your pollutant SPDES permit. MR. MESINGER-That’s the general construction permit. It’s not a specific permit. Everybody understands that, that it’s simply that we have to do construction in accordance with the DEC’s rules and regulations for stormwater pollution prevention and control. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s your determination, small to moderate? MR. VOLLARO-I think so. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What about, proposed action any adverse effect on groundwater? MR. STROUGH-Well, I think they’ve. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s all a part of the same thing. MR. STROUGH-They’ve proposed mitigation plans to our satisfaction. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Agreed. “Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff?” MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Well, they’ve altered it, but even where it was going to go in a direct flow, he’s going to try and work on an alternative system so it doesn’t go. So I think they’ve offered mitigations to our satisfaction. MR. MAC EWAN-Small to moderate. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. “Transportation Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?” MR. STROUGH-Yes, but it’s small to moderate. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-I say no. It’s only a three percent increase in peak demand. MRS. LA BOMBARD-For one of the bullets it says result in major traffic patterns, and alter it, will it result in major traffic problems? No. MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s small to moderate. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I would say it’s small to moderate, at the most. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you think the impact is just because of the change of speed limit? MR. STROUGH-Well, the impact of the potential dangers of coming up to the intersection is the way I looked at it. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/02) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, that’s the way I look at it. MR. HUNSINGER-I was only thinking of the volume of traffic, which is the only. MR. STROUGH-I agree with you in volume. I was just concerned about the public safety on the intersections. MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s another implication of Marilyn’s last question concerning whether this would ever revert to other than senior housing. So that if it ever did revert the traffic pattern would definitely change. MR. HUNSINGER-At that point it wouldn’t matter because you’re changing the speed limit to mitigate the concern. MR. STROUGH-But they’d have to come back for us to get a site plan approval before that could ever happen. MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s one of the reasons Marilyn asked that question, to take a look at the future implication of that, but the answer is small to moderate on this one. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Cathy, I didn’t hear you ask Number 14. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Did I skip something? MR. HUNSINGER-Critical Environmental Areas. Unless I missed something. MRS. LA BOMBARD-14 was existing transportation systems. MR. HUNSINGER-Must be I have the wrong one. MRS. RYBA-Actually, the CEA question is a newer question, and it’s not applicable here. It’s not in a CEA, but you should probably still ask the question. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Do I have the right, am I reading the updated form? MRS. RYBA-I don’t believe so. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MRS. RYBA-I’ve been checking through the questions, and Chris is right, and I just didn’t mention it because I knew it wasn’t applicable, but you probably ought to mention it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-My 14 is your 15. All right. I don’t have the CEA one. Okay. I’ll be glad to read it here. “Will proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR Part 617.14(g)?” MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You know, I always wondered why we always ask that in the Short Environmental Form, but this one. MRS. RYBA-I’ll make sure you get a new one. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, it was in my notes, except, I just never really took it out. Yes. MR. STROUGH-Bob has one, too. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So then, if there’s no public controversy, then, on Part III, Cathi, right now, can I make a motion for a Negative SEQRA Dec, or do I have to go on to the Evaluation of the Importance of Impacts? MS. RADNER-I think you evaluated the importance of the impacts as you went along. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MS. RADNER-My recommendation would be that you have a resolution that’s been prepared for you by Staff. If that accurately reflects what you intend to do, then you could adopt that resolution. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/02) MR. STROUGH-And it says only for potentially large. Right? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, yes, even if the impacts may be, yes, that’s right. MS. RADNER-Yes, there’s times when you have to go through Two and then look at Three, but you didn’t identify any on Two. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA declaration. WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board by Green Mountain Development Group, Inc.; and WHEREAS, the application was received on April 24, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has been duly designated to act as lead agency for State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review of the entire project including the variance, subdivision, and site plan components and the construction related components for compliance with SEQRA which requires environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments; and WHEREAS, the project applicant has submitted a long Environmental Assessment Form and supporting documentation information fully identifying the potential impacts of the project as required under SEQRA; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type I action in accordance with the rules and regulations of SEQRA, and the Town of Queensbury; and WHEREAS, the following agencies are involved; the ACOE, a federal agency, the NYS DEC, NYS DOH, NYS Div. Of Housing Urban Renewal, the Warren County Planning Board; and the Warren County Dept. of Public Works; and WHEREAS, a coordinated review has taken place; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has enlisted its own engineer to assist in the evaluation of the proposed project and its potential impacts; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Planning Board, after considering the proposed action, reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form and associated documentation and thoroughly analyzing the action for potential environmental concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and BE IT FURTHER, 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/02) RESOLVED, that the Planning Board hereby authorizes and directs the Planning Board Chairman to complete the Environmental Assessment Form by checking the box indicating that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Planning Board approves a SEQRA Negative Declaration as prepared and presented to the Planning Board and authorizes and directs the Town Community Development Office to file any necessary documents in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Duly adopted this 18 day of June, 2002, by the following vote: th MRS. RYBA-Excuse me. There was one thing that Mr. Vollaro had mentioned about the DEC language, and so I didn’t know if you wanted to modify the Staff information. MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking about the DEC language concerning. MR. HUNSINGER-The prepared resolution as modified. MR. STROUGH-Under Sewage Disposal? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. RYBA-Right. MR. STROUGH-When we get to this motion. Is this the motion we’re on right now, Marilyn? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. STROUGH-All right. Bob, do you want to make that? MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy’s already introduced it. We’re waiting for a second. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think you’re talking about two different things here. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I think we’re talking about sewage disposal. It’s listed as reasons supporting negative declaration. It is Roman Numeral Number Three, titled Sewage Disposal, and the last sentence in that paragraph should read, The DEC has not raised any environmental issues with respect to issuance of the permit. MR. VOLLARO-Let me just take a look at my own statement for just a second, and the way it reads now, it says the DEC has indicated there are no environmental issues with respect to issuance of the permit. MR. STROUGH-And I just said that DEC has not raised any environmental issues with respect to issuance of a permit. MR. MAC EWAN-So what you’re doing is amending Mrs. LaBombard’s motion for a negative SEQRA dec with that added to it. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Fine. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re seconding it, right, then, John? MR. STROUGH-Yes, I’ll second it. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m confused. Are we adopting the resolution that was in the packet? MR. MAC EWAN-What we’re doing is neg SEQRA dec, and they’re adding the disclosure regarding DEC’s involvement as a review, and we had a second. Maria, call the vote, please. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/02) AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-So your mission, tomorrow night, is to go to the ZBA and hopefully get your variances, then come back and see us on the 27 and hopefully do site plan and subdivision on the same night, and you th will have everything to us, in our hands, Tuesday night of next week, no later than. Just so you understand, if you don’t. MR. MESSIGNER-And if we don’t, we’ll be bumped to July. MR. MAC EWAN-Very good. Thank you. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 28