1988-06-30 SP
QUBBRSBURY TOn PLAlIIIIIIG BOARD
Special Scheduled Meeting
Thursday, June 30, 1988 at 7.30 p.m.
PLAIIlŒD UNIT DBVELOPlØll'! 110. 2
QUAKER RIDGE (BAJtL'lOIOI)
Presents Richard Roberts, Chairman
Joseph Dybas
Peter Cartier
Hilde Mann, Secretary
Susan Levandowski
Victor Macri
R. Case prime, Counsel
David Hatin, Building/Codes
Mary Jane F. Moeller
Lee York, Planner
Daniel Ling, Ass't. Planner
Absents
Frank DeSantis
OLD BUSIRBSS
PLARRBD UNIT DBVBLOPMBll'l' NO. 2
,
Quaker Ridge (Earltown)
The
complete
documents
Board can
purpose of this meeting is to permit the Planning Board to
its review of the Earltown application for a PUD, the supporting
and any additional information, so that thereafter the Planning
make its report pursuant to Article 15 of the Ordinance.
Mr. Edward M. Bartholomew, Esq., represented the project. Mr. Roberts
reviewed that the question was raised to him by the media about whether or
not the Queensbury Wetlands Protection Law in 1976 would apply to this
review. Mr. prime, Counsel, stated his position that the Wetland
Ordinance is not a factor in view of the Planning Board at this meeting.
This may take place at a future date, because it involves a request for a
permit to build in or near wetlands. Tonight the Board will conclude the
review of the Earltown applications for a PUD, which is basically a zoning
change, and, based on Article 15 of the Ordinance, the Board is looking at
a review of the Sketch Plan submitted by the applicant, the criteria and
supporting documents that are set forth. The purpose is for the Planning
Board's recommendation/non-recommendation to the Town Board that there
should be a zoning change. The Wetlands Ordinance does not come into play
now.
Mr. Roberts suggested reading the PUD section of the Ordinance in
order the clarify some sections. Some of the timeclocks have been
changed, this review should have occurred about one year ago. The
1
I
---
applicant was ~equested to extend the ~eview pe~iod, so the~e would would
be benefit of the SEQR Act public hea~ing. Tonight's agenda includes a
p~esentation by the applicant to update ~ecent developments, and attend-
ance by the ~eviewing enginee~ing fi~m, Envi~oRmental DesigR partne~ship
of Sa~atoga (Dennis MacElroy), and DEC to answe~ questions.
M~. Ba~tholomew's initial p~esentatioR was an overview, which
~ep~esents the site which is bounded on the south by Quake~ Road, on the
west by Ridge Road, on the east by County LiRe Road, and on the no~th to
the Wa~ren County Ai~o~t. In March of 1987 the application was filed on
behalf of Ea~ltown, and membe~s of the Boa~d have ~eceived the DEIS and
supplements to the DEIS. At this point the~e have been a public scoping
session, two public hea~ings, two public comments, a DEIS and a supple-
ment. Following the Planning Boa~d's ~eport on A~ticle 15, the applica-
tion will go to the Town Boa~d fo~ ~eview, to DEC fo~ thei~ ~eview and
comment, and then pe~haps at that time othe~ agencies may be involved.
Ultimately, the application will ~etu~n to the Planning Boa~d fo~ ~eview
of the P~elimina~y Site App~oval and then Final Site App~oval.
A~ticle 15 (PUD) discusses flexible land use and design, ~athe~ than a
t~aditional development subdivision t~ough the Town. The objectives
include a choice in housing, usable open space, convenient location of
commercial and se~vice uses, development pattern p~ese~ving the natural
topog~aphy, efficient use of land ~esulting a smalle~ use of the land fo~
utilities and ~oads, and development patte~n consistent with
t~anspo~tation facilities, community facilities and objectives of the land
use plan. The contention is that the Quake~ Ridge p~oject meets full
compliance with A~ticle 15. In te~ms of housing, at the p~esent time,
the~e is an offer of 460 single family homes, which is a ~eduction f~om
546 f~om the o~iginal DEIS, fou~ cluste~s of 100 condominiums, a wide
~ange of style and p~ices, lots available f~om 19,000 sq. ft. upwa~ds to
32-40,000 sq. ft., thus lots and a wide ~ange of housing would be offe~ed
to a wide~ va~iety of residents. The te~~ain is taken into conside~ation
when lots a~e divided. Ea~ltown would assist qualified home buye~s with a
second mo~tgage a~~angement. The~e also is housing in terms of a hotel
and a country-style in.
In te~ms of p~oviding open space and ~ec~eation, 32 ac~es would be
p~ese~ved of a Class I wetland along the no~the~n po~tion in the Ceda~
Swamp, a thi~d ~ec~eational a~ea. The~e is a total of nea~ly 20 ac~es of
~ec~eational land, a 10 ac~e parcel in the northe~n secto~ of the p~oject,
and two p~oposed pa~ks along the County Line Road a~ea. The buffe~ zone
has been inc~eased f~om 25 to 50 feet along the Ridge Road a~ea. 15 ac~es
of land will be p~ese~ved on-site, the golf cou~se as open space is nea~ly
300 ac~es of 36 holes, the single family lots have been ~emoved in a~eas
that met with objection. Bicycle paths have been added along the
bouleva~ds connecting the majo~ po~tions of the p~oject, sidewalks will
connect the cente~ of the p~oject a~ea to the comme~cial a~ea. A
boa~dwalk would be established within the p~ese~ved a~ea of the 32 ac~es
that can be used by the va~ious schools, o~ganizations, as well as to the
general public.
2
---
The open space ~ep~esents 44' of the p~oject a~ea, 32 ac~e p~ese~ve,
the golf cou~se is ove~lying the cente~ of the peak. D~ainage and ~elated
ponds will se~ve as storm management basin. This will p~ovide mo~e
efficient use of the land, the peat a~ea to the cente~ is being p~ese~ed
as open space, the a~eas of comme~cial development a~e along Quake~ Road,
and will se~ve the ~esidents of the a~ea. With the PUD, the~e will be
mo~e of a cluste~ing effect with the village-style condominiums and the
lots in the a~ea. A pUblic access ~oad has been added along Quake~ Road,
that will ~un pa~allel, County Line Road has been connected to the se~vice
access ~oad.
Community facilities will consist of pUblic wate~ and sewe~. The
public access ~oad will be 1 1/4 miles that will assist the se~vice a~ea,
t~affic lights will be installed at Ea~ltown's costs and the~e will be
sha~ed expense fo~ futu~e studies and futu~e costs. Mass transit will be
p~ovided, Ea~ltown will wo~k with G~eate~ Glens Falls T~ansit and the Town
of Queensbu~y to p~ovide transit to the site.
Sto~m wate~ management, in te~ of p~oviding assistance to allow
detention on site, the~efo~e cont~olling the off-site flow. A ~ecent
letter from the Queensbu~y School Dist~ict indicates that, in conjunction
with a PUD development over a 15 to 20-yea~ pe~iod, this will not have a
substantial impact on the school system. A specific a~ea of conce~n is an
archeological one-half ac~e. The~e are two options I 1) leave the site
intact and avoid const~uction, o~ 2) if construction we~e to occur, have
fu~the~ excavation. At this point, it is intact and undistu~bed.
Rega~ding the Environmental Conservation T~ust Fund, the~e would be a
one-time payment by pu~chasers of prope~ty, an assessment ove~ a 20 year
pe~iod fo~ all units to be paid fo~ the fund. The pu~pose will be to
acqui~e and maintain envi~onmentally-sensitive a~eas, as well as to
p~ovide a trust fund fo~ the town. It is estimated that fo~ the fi~st 20
yea~s, the fund will be $400,000. Based on the pu~chase of lots of the
fi~st ten yea~s, $350, second ten yea~s $750, and the ~esale of any units
$350 will go into the t~ust fund. Whethe~ it is to be ope~ated by the
Town o~ not-fo~-p~ofit t~ust fund, has not been dete~mined. Off-site
mitigation that adds to the issue of open space, is 70 ac~es of land, 40
ac~es at the co~ne~ of Ridge and Haviland and 30 ac~es at Glen Lake, which
is cu~~ently unde~ Site Cont~ol by Ea~ltown. A good po~tion of the 40
ac~es is Class I wetland th~ough which Halfway B~ook flows. This
p~ope~ty, in combination with that p~ovided by Ga~y D. Bowen (Hiland
Development), will p~ovide ove~ 100 acres of nea~ly contiguous ac~eage
donated to the Town of Queensbu~y that will p~otect the co~~ido~ of
Halfway B~ook.
In ~ega~ds to the 30 ac~es by Glen Lake, which is divided by the
Wa~~en County bike path, Ea~ltown will work with Wa~~en County to p~ovide
a small a~ea fo~ pa~king vehicles.
M~. Ba~tholomew int~oduced Olive~ Laakso, Chai~man of the Boa~d of
3
'---
EarltoWD Corp., who described iD more detail the issue of draiDage,
topography and contours of the land. Mr. Laakso explained in detail the
study of what was involved with the peat, how much was there and what was
the depth below the surface area. In addition, a coatour study of the
eat ire section was made betweea Quaker Road, the airport, County Liae
Road, and Ridge Road. Just south of the airport and to the east,
elevations varied between 320 aad 314, moving towards County Liae Road
elevations were in the form of a hill and ranged from 320 to 382. All of
the land towards County Line Road climbs gradually and fairly steeply at
the ead to about 60 ft. To the west and to the Ridge Road area, the
elevation climbs from 322 to 348. Housing iaterest was in the Ridge Road
area.
The iaitial acreage was thought to be farmland, and aot peat. Mr.
Laaske gave a quick history lesson on the original farms. The former
Stevens farm extends from the airport property dowa, the former SullivaD
farm goes from Quaker Road up and joins the SteVeÐS farm, the former
Brayman farmlands (Crockwell properties) are to the west, adjacent to
Ridge Road is the former Haviland farm. Peat was unsuspected at these
sites because it grows on level surface, and is formed from flooding with
waters in the Spring, gradual evaporation, then vegetation grows, aDd then
covering agaia by snows. The material actually decompose, each year a few
1000's of an iach of material grows. The peat in the proposed site goes
from elevatioa 312 almost 320. Early history shows draiaage ditches oa
the farms, some areas of Ridge Road were logged, at the top end of the
Brayman farm and lower end of the Havilaad Farm there was a Wood Swamp aad
a Roseakrantz Swamp. WheÐ the airport was built, farmiDg stopped on the
Stevens farm. At ome time the Sullivan farm was used for dyaamite
storage.
A study of the land contour and peat had to be made before the
proposed PUD layout could be evaluated. At Couaty Line Road at the
airport, there could be no buildings in a considerable portion, and the
golf courses that circulate the area. On the balance of the hill is
located a major portion of the housing land, from the bottom at 320
elevation up to almost 382 or where the golf course would begiD. On the
Ridge Road side, the housing development has been confined to the higher
land, begins at elevation 322.
The basic design criteria was to avoid placing the houses on any land
cODsisting of more than four feet of peat, which is just south of the golf
course. Touching the peat between the two foot and the four foot, there
are 46 housing lots, aDd the housing lots must go dowa to a clay or saDd
foundation. In the lower area are some individual lots, but basically on
the lower area are two residential condominium complexes. They are
Don-basement units, therefore they are on a slab. The power line is a
dividing point where the elevations are fairly gentle aDd becomes ideal
for iDdustrial purposes. The nature preserve does enjoin the land of
Warren County Airport. The water for the nature preserve comes from the
side of a hill, there will be no disruption of the water flow. The street
4
--
storm water
preserve.
slope al1d
the clay.
flow ditches.
drail1 system will be desigl1 to take the water to the
Duril1g the years, there is a peak that formed al1d there is a
a slope to the clay, there is a defil1ite trickle of water under
Because of the water, the farmers were able to put ill gravity
Regarding the drainage system that had been proposed to handle the
storm water system for the roads. The golf course is desigl1ed with
retentiol1 ponds, and there has been a retention basin designed at the
bottom end of the golf course. The system was based OR the criteria on
the fact that ill 5 years time, where someone's basemeRt level will be put
would not be kÐown. With the existing elevatioRs, the lowest level the
basement slab could be placed was 319. This is with a gravity flow system
out of the storm water drail1age system onto the golf course without allY
possibility of flooding the basements. Earltown will stipulate in the
deeds and it will be part of the coveRant, that no basement slab will be
built on an elevation lower than 320. That affects about 136 houses that
come into the area southeast of the airport. Some houses may have three
feet of fill outside the basement wall to slope down to the lot line. The
highest point of the swale on the golf course is elevation 318, and thel1
slope down to the retention pond. The pumps will be kept and will be used
for controlling the elevation of waters in the ponds, and there is
interest in contolling the water content of the peat and the moisture in
the peat, so there will be no decomposition.
Mr. Laasko summarized that the planning has been careful and not
haphazard arrangement, there has beeR a careful study of the topography
and that they have presented the best uses of the land.
Mr. Deanis MacElroy, Environmental Design Partnership, said there has
been no resolution to factoring the deDsity. He said it was not clear in
the DEIS or the supplement, he has not seen allowable deRsity numbers or
densities which result from the Ron-residential uses. Mr. Bartholomew
said the numbers that have beeR presented throughout the DEIS and supple-
ment were Rumbers arrived at meetings with S. Messinger, prior to his
leaving. Mr. MacElroy advised that not all questioRs OR the 6/13/88 EDP
correspoRdence have been answered regardiRg the DEIS and SEQR review
(Exhibit A). Mr. Roberts reminded that the plaRning Board is ROt to take
into consideration the SEQR review, only the PUD.
Mr. Roberts suggested reading Article 15 (Exhibit B), PUD, verbatim
with discussion as needed. Mr. Bartholomew advised CouRsel that any
changes made to the PUD, are incorporated in Chapter VI of the Supplement
of the DEIS under Preferred Alternatives IV iD terms of the buffer,
preserve, less deDsity, addition of park areas, designation of the
archeological area, sidewalks, bike paths, elimination of the lots in the
eastern area portioa of coacera by the aircraft pilots.
As Mr. Roberts read Article 15 (Jaauary 17, 1987 Revisioa), the follow-
ing defines areas of specific concern.
5
-'
15.011 b). Pete~ Ca~tie~ has a se~ious p~oblem with this sectioa, as
it is the Wetlaads issue. To save 32 acres out of 548, would be gettiag
~id of 94' of the wetlaad, aad would aot go fa~ to p~otect the a~ea. He
does not feel that the p~oposal is ia compliaace with that sectioa of the
o~diaance. M~. Ca~tie~ also ~efe~~ed to 15.073 d., which explaias a favo~-
able ~epo~t to the Towa Boa~d. MX. Robe~ts again stated that the Boa~d's
optioas a~e limited oaly to sayiag ·yes· o~ ·ao.·
Rega~diag
tool, take
ha~d look
develop.
the PUD Objectives, M~. Robe~ts felt it is a good plaaaiag
large blocks of laad oWDed by competeat people, take a loag,
at these areas, aad he feels it is a good way for the TOWD to
15.032 2.. DeRDis MacElroy, Eaviroameatal Desiga pa~tnership, men-
tioaed the~e are 8 1/2 acres of laRd iavolved, is that 8 x 43,000 sq. ft.
for commercial space? He is aot clear as to what the exteat of the sec-
tion is. He saw aothiag ia the DEIS iaformatioa that addressed the alloca-
tioa for commercial aad retail. If that had beea discussed with Stua~t
Messiager (former TOWD Plaaae~), it should be iacluded in the documeRt
just for cla~ity. Mr. MacElroy feels that the ratio of comme~cial/-
industrial versus resideatial is too high.
Mr. Bartholomew thought part of this traasceads iato the DEIS. Earl-
tOWD has takea the eati~e parcel, 904 ac~es, aad there has beeR oae
sectioa, the eastera portioa, which has had a 25-acre approval, outside
the PUD approval, which was discussed with the Plaaniag Boa~d aad M~.
Messiager. With the remaiader of the commercial areas oWDed by EarltoWR,
the issue was whether to eacompass everythiag ia oae PUD or preseat three
PUD applicatioas to the Boa~d8. For purposes of the PUD aad zoaiag,
EarltoWR, ia order to comply, removed the a~ea outside for the PUD consid-
eratioa, however, it must retura fo~ impact review fo~ the TOWD aad
Planaiag Boards to get aa ove~view of traffic, deasity, access/egress into
the area.
M~. MacElroy refer~ed agaia to 15.032 2. He stated that there are 46
acres of ~etail office, 33 acres of Corporate Park, app~oximately 80
acres. If the requirement is followed, the~e are 8 to 8 1/2 acres for the
aumber of dwelliag uaits. He is not condemiag the allocatioa, he feels it
is reasoaable. The sectioa of the Ordiaaace seems to be limited ia scope
for commercial space.
15.040. Mr. MacElroy waRted to know what was the formula that
established what the deasity should/could be, whether it be 948 uaits or
888 uaits. Mr. Bartholomew aaswered that he had a Dote written by Mr.
Messiage~ that 540 resideatial lots were being plaaaed aad 400
coadomiaiums, that came ve~y close to exceediag the deasity facto~s,
the~efore there was a reductioa to 460 resideatial homes.
15.073 a3.. Mr. Bartholomew explaiaed that geaerally the larger lots
will be located aloag the golf course area, basically ia the ceate~ of the
6
'"--,
property. Throughout the rest of the site, there is aa iateat to develop
a variety of square footage in terms of lots raagiag from 19,000 to 32,000
square feet.
15.073 a8.. Hotels will be limited to three stories, the hotel will
not exceed 40 feet. Traditional thought of a tall hotel is aot ia this
development, it will be within the height restrictioa.
15.073 b1.1 There will be a Homeowaer's Associatioa that will
address, maiataia and operate the commoa areas. The commoa areas will be
the buffered areas, commuaity gardea at the eRtraDCe, boulevard areas,
etc. Golf course will be oWRed by the CorporatioR, that will Rot be part
of the HomeoWRer's.
15.073 b21 In the origiaal draft documeRt, there was a stagiag plaa.
There will be a 20 year developmeat for the single family and
condomiaiums, the first five years, 90 homes, the secoad five years, a
little over 110/115 homes, the third five years, 138 homes, aDd the last
five years, 115 homes. The condomiaiums will be built as ORe over every
five years. Duriag the first five years, the first 18 holes of the golf
course will be developed, and during the aext two to three years, the
second 18 holes will be developed. The hotel will be coastructed duriag
the first tea years. The commercial area, although Rot addressed, will
probably be developed over an 8 to 12 year period.
15.073 C.I It was felt that eRough informatioa is on haad to make a
souad decision.
15.073 e.1 The timiag of the sixty (60) days does not exist, this was
doae a year ago.
Mr. Roberts expressed his feeliags that it is hard to discuss the PUD
without coasideriag other thiags as well, ie. Wetland. He felt the TOWR
Board was remiss iR Rot haviag the DEC as the lead ageRcy. Agaia, the
purpose of this meeting is for the PlaADiRg Board to make a recommeadatioR
to the TOWR Board that they proceed with a public heariRg that the Board
thinks rezomiag this property for the stated use is a good idea or mot.
Thomas Hall from DEC was preseRt, Mrs. Maaa meatioRed his letter of
4/9/87 (Exhibit C), which addressed the SEQR review process aad wetlamds.
Mr. Roberts felt iaterest could be expressed regardimg the wetlands,
because of 15.011 c) of the Article 15.
CouRsel advised that a decisioa does mot have to be made at this
meetimg. If the Board is satisfied with the iaformatioa on hand aad feel
that the applicatioa can be acted UPOR, he feels that he would like to
assist the Board iR draftiag a Resolutioa to iaclude items that are
expressed in the Statute. For that reasoR, he feels it would be best not
to make a decision aow, however, it is up to the Board.
7
~
----
Mr. Roberts would like to postpone the decision, because he is not
comfortable with the idea that the Board is not to administer Queensbury
Environmental regulations. Mr. Hall was asked his opinion. Answer_ Mr.
Hall stated that representation at this meeting was to answer questions,
and not to present any kind of formal positon or discussion with the
Board. However, in response to Mr. Roberts' question, his opinion is
that more information is needed to make a reasonable judgement, at least
in terms of the DEC wetlands statute. He urges that the Board need the
information before it can determine whether or not it is consistent with
certain provisions of the Town Ordinance relative to the PUD.
Mr. Dybas made reference to Mr. Halls letter of 6/10/88 (Exhibit D),
which he felt raised many questions and that it would be difficult for the
Board to make an opinion, unless the concerns were answered first. He
requested that the answers be provided from Earltown to DEC and then to
the Planning Board.
Mr. Bartholomew reminded that the Ordinance contemplates that the
planning Board reviews a certain amount of information, in March the Board
indicated that the application was complete and that two public hearings
were to be held. The Ordinance contemplates the planning Board requesting
a public hearing and requesting a EIS statement be made to the Town Board,
not to the Planning Board. Raised issues have to be answered, but because
of the structure this evening there should be a favorable/unfavorable
report to refer to the Town Board. The 6/10/88 letter goes to the DEIS.
The purpose of SEQR is to coordinate all of the comments made for the
EIS. At some point, some group has to start the process. A Final Impact
Statement is responding to other comments and will be subject to further
review. The Town Board is the lead agent for the park, following its vote
the PUD will go to the State of New York, who has jurisdiction over Class
I wetlands, that exempts towns and municipalities from jurisdiction.
There is a procedure that will bring that jurisdiction back to the town or
municipality.
Mr. Bartholomew also referred to the discussion regarding the PUD
Ordinance relative to natural resources, in particular the wetland. If
that is the case and there are questions and they are to be addressed to
the Earltown Staff, the questions would be answered. This would be not
the local Wetland Ordinance, but assistance in the PUD Ordinance. Mrs.
Mann asked if the N. Y. State DEC has the power to refuse, in the permit
process, any use of this whatsoever? Answer from Mr. Hall_ Depending
upon the activity proposed for the WetlaDd, a permit mayor may Dot be
granted, certain standards are used to make the decision. The departmeDt
may Dot be the final say, but it does have considerable say iD what
happens in terms of development of the wetlaDds. DEe wants to see COD-
sisteDt activities iD the wetlands, permits caR be denied. Mrs. MaDn felt
that what the Board has the majority of concern over, it has the least
control.
Mr. Prime remiRded the Board that what is being dealt with is the
8
Concept of the zoning and not the final result. The focus must be di~ected
in that a~ea, this is not the final decision as to what is going to
happen. M~. Robe~ts felt st~ongly that no one can convince him that what
is being looked at is a concept o~ a sketch plan, the wetlands a~e a
facto~.
M~. Mac~i discussed with the Boa~d when it was givea the wetlands map
about fou~ o~ so yea~s ago, that was p~oduced by DEC, ce~tain comments
we~e made by the Boa~d at that time that the~e we~e othe~ mo~e
environmentally-seasitive a~eas in the town. DEC decided that this a~ea
was mo~e impo~tant than othe~ a~eas. That was a concept and that was a
concept f~om this Boa~d, as to whe~e the a~eas a~ea. Now Quake~ Ridge is
zoned in as the environmentally-sensitive a~ea. It has nothing to do with
the concept.
It was a consensus of the Boa~d and on advise of Counsel, that
Planned Unit Development No. 2, Quake~ Ridge (Ea~ltown), be TABLED fo~ the
pu~pose of p~epa~ing a Resolution and voting.
M~. Robe~ts adjou~ned the meeting at 9.30 p.m.
~~ajJ?4j €!
Richa~d Robe~ts, Chai~an
~
stenog~aphe~
ì· I . Ii
9
'-
,e\ ~
\\\~ 'v\\Ù ~
June 13,1988
Mr. Stephen Borgos, Supervisor
Town of Queensbury
Town Offices
Bay at Haviland
Queensbury, New York 12801
Re: Quaker Ridge Supplemental DEIS Review
Dear Steve,
Submitted for your use are six (6) copies of our review
report for the Quaker Ridge Supplemental Draft Environmental
Impact Statement. The supplemental document was received by
the Town Board on April 26, 1988 and subject to a public
hearing held on May 16, 1988. The supplemental DEIS was re-
quired due to deficiencies found in the original) 'DE:IS. (JOf
particular concern were the following SEQR topics:
- Environmental Setting
- Significant Environmental Impacts
Mitigation Meásures '.
- Alternatives
- Cumulative Impacts
It is the purpose of this review report to address those
ares of previous deficiency to assure that the DEIS is in
compliance with the SEQR guidelines. Throughout the review
the term procedural compliance is used. Obviously the
finished product of the DEIS and FEIS preparation must be
in compliance with the SEQR requirements. It is with that
objective of procedural compliance that we base our review.
The content of this report includes an introduction,-
comments and recommendations on the major SEQR topics, a
synopsis of the traffic comments, a summary statement and
a separate traffic report review prepared by Greiner .
Engineering Sciences. In addition several comments are
included which relate to the Quaker Ridge concept plan's
compliance with the Town ofi Queensbury's PUD ordinance.
It is not the intent of our review to continually request
additional information but in fact certain topics will require
content improvements prior to being considered complete or
final. We have tried to work closely with the applicant to
see that topics previous considered to be deficient, such as
the " alternatives " chapter, has been adequately addressed.
.
mooClClcCI
L .- C C CI C
B ~ c: '5, ïñ 'ë:
uãicmmm
wcm>1JID
m - L c
,I::? a.:J c .-
.cãiwoomCl
u D C
LI.JOO1JLID
m æ :J C :J
Q)E~.!!!
[l C m
m a-
u L
00 .-
"0 >
C C
.!!! ID
~(Q1
ili2)Dc=J
¿S
~@B
@!)~
~g
~~
@~
~(i®
DC] (Q1
~~
@@J))
DC]
@®ì)
¿S@!)
~~
ROUTE 1 46. CLIFTON PARK, NEW YORK 1 2065
28 MADISON STREET, RUTLAND, VERMONT 05701
(518) 371-7621
(802) 775-31 00
Principals
James E. Mitchall, P.E.
Richard A. Eats, L.A.
EXHIBIT A
Gordon P. Nicholson. L.A.
-
Mr. Stephen Borgos - cont'd
It does appear that there is a difference in ihterpretation of
the SEQR requirements regarding the Environmental Setting and
Significant Environmental impacts in terms of the wetlands.
As this has also been an issue with DEC I am suggesting that
the three parties; the Town (EDP), the applicant (Earl town),
and DEC get together to settle this content issue. If additional
information is to be presented we want the applicant to fully
understand what will satisfy the SEQR requirements.
Prior to any document being acc~pted as a complete FEIS
the following must be addressed - .
- The issues and comments from our supplemental DEIS
review must be responded to completely.
- All questions, comments, issues and inquiries which
have come from any source ( review comments, public
hearing comments, letters from the public, etc. )
must be adequately addressed. The format of such a
response must make it plainly clear that each and
every pertinent comment has been addressed with an
adequate response.
It is only after this has been achieved that the issue of the
PUD formation and concept approval can be considered. As I
interpret it, at that time the overall decision making process
as administered by the Town Board switches from a procedural
issue - does it comply? - is it complète? to a philosophical
issue - is the concept plan as presented acceptable? - does
it reflect the values and represent the interests of the Town
as a whole? These issues are separate and distinct.
Please also note the questions raised regarding the plan's
compliance with Article 15 - PUD Provisions. The issue of
allowable densities and non-residential uses has apparently
never been adequately addressed in terms of the Article 15 .
requirements. This information has now been formally requested.
Please contact me in Cliftoñ Park if you have any questions
on this DEIS review report.
..
Sincerely,
~E:N'Ñ\-=> ~~~c:ff
Dennis MacElroy, P.E.
cc: Paul Dusek
o
@]
(S
@)
®
~
@Jì)
@J
c::::::J
@J
@
@Jì)
@J
ß
l§)
~
c::::::J
@
~
(S
@)
~
(S
@,
ß
a:::J
~
@
..
--
-'
ARTICLE'15
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD) PROVISIONS
Section 15.010' Statement ofPur~oses and objeëtives. It is the
purpose of this Planned Unit Development (PUD) article to provide
,
flexible land use and design regulations through the use of
performance criteria so that small-to-large scale neighborhoods
or portions thereof may be developed within the Town that
incorporate '.a variety of residential types and non-residential
uses, and contain both individual building sites and common
property which are planned and developed as a unit. This article
specifically encourages innovations in residential development so
that the growing demands for housing' at all economic levels may
be met by greater variety in type, design, and siting of
dwellings and by the conservation and more efficient use of land
in such developments in harmony with the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan for the Town of Queensbury.
. Section 15.011 Objectives. In order to realize the purpose of
this Section, a planned unit development (PUD) shall achieve the
following objectives: '
a) A maximum choice in housing environment
occupancy tenure (e.g. cooperatives, individual
condominium leasing), lot sizes and common facilities.
and type,
ownership,
b) More usable open space and recreation areas and, if
permitted as part of a project, more convenient locations of
accessory commerical and service uses.
.
c) A development pattern which preserves outstanding
natural topography and geological features, scenic vistas, trees,
historical s~tes and prevents the disruption of nat~ral drainage
patterns.
d) An'efficient use of land resulting in small networks
of utilities and streets.
e) A development pattern in harmony with the land use
intensity, transportation facilities, and community facilities
objectives of the C~mprehensive Land Use Plan.
Section 15.020 Generù1 Requirements for Planned Unit Development
(PUD) .
,
EXHIBI.1J!
'-'"
'----
/
15.021 Minimum Project Area. The minimum project area for
Planned Unit Development District shall be thirty (30), contiguous
~cres of land'. The Town Board, following referral from the
Planning Board for its report and recommendations, may consider
projects of lesser acreage where the applicant can demonstrate
that the characteristics of his holdings meet the purpose and
objectives of tpis Section. '
15.022 Project Ownership. The project land may be owned, used or
controlled either by a single person, or corporation, by a group
or individuals or corporations. Such ownership may be a public
or private corporation. The Town Board shall be notified within
three business days of any changes in project ownership. The
approved project shall be binding on the project land and
owner(s) .
/ 15.030 Permitted Uses. All uses within a PUD district shall be
determined by the fOllowing provisions: .
15.031 Residential Uses. Residences may be of a variety of
types, including single family dwellings, townhouses and garden
apartments, but shall not exceed three (3) stories or 40 feet in
height.
15.032 Commerical, Service & Other Non-Residential Uses:
a. Commercial and prof~ssional service uses may be permitted
under the fOllowing circumstances:
l.
maximum of
units may
uses.
Where the PUD contains 100 or more dwelling units, a
2400' sq. ft. of floor area for every 100 dwelling
be used for commercial and/or professional service
2. Where the PUD contains 500 or more dwelling units, a
maximum of 1 acres of land for every 100 dwelling units may be
used for commercial and/or professional service uses.
3. Where the PUD contains 1000 or more dwelling units, 5
acres of land for each 100 dwelling units, may be used for
commercial and/or light-industrial uses.
b. Accessory uses such as recreational and community
activities, private garages, storage spaces, churches, schools
and health related,facilities shall be permitted as appropriate
to the PUD.
, c. Non-residential buildings shall not exceed 40 feet in
height.
-2-
'-
--
15.040 Land Use Intensitv Considerations.
The land use intensities of the particular zone(s) listed in
Article 4 of the Zoning Ordinance shall apply to the PUD except
that:
a. Where the open space area in a PUD exceeds 25\ of the
gross area of the PUD the Town Board may approve a 1\ residential
use density increase for .each 1\ of open space (not including
undevelopable land) in excess of the 25\ minimum required by §
15.050(b) of this Article. In no event shall the density bonus
hereunder exceed 15\.
b. The overall intensity of the project cannot exceed the
amount of available development potential of the individual
APA-LUDP Land Use Intensity Zone(s) if the proposed PUD is
located within the Adirondack Park.
15.050 Common Property in PUD
a. Common Property ~ Common property in a PUD is a parcel
or parcels of land, together with the improvements thereon, the
use and enjoyment of which are shared by the owners and occupants
of the individual building sites. when common property exists,
the ownership of such common property may be either' public or
private. When common property exists in private ownership,
satisfactory arrangements must. be made for the improvement,
operation and maintenance of such common property and facilities,
including private drives, services and recreational and open
space areas. ,Roads, streets and parking areas shall not be
considered "common property" for purposes of this section.
b. At least 25\ of the gross.ar~a of a PUD shall be and
remain open SDace. Land reserved for
recreational use pursuant to Town of Queensbury Local Law No. 5
of 1986 entitled HA Local Law providing for the reservation of
recreation fees or money in lieu thereof as a condition precedent
to site plan approval" shall not be included in computing open
space. Open space shall not include roadways, drainage areas,
residential or developed areas.
c. Recreation land, other than that reserved pursuant to
Queensbury Local Law shall be included in computing open space.
Such open space shall not be sold off as a separate subdivision
and shall not be used for' future building lots, bu~ may with Town
approval, be conveyed to the Town or to an appropriate and
approved corporation or association formed to operate and
matntain said open space.
--
-3-
~'
15.060 Desiqn Standards
Unless otherwise indicated compliance with the following
standards shall be required.
15.061 Lot Area and Yard Requirements.
No minimum'lot size, frontage or yard requirements within a
PUD shall be required except thbse dictated by health, fire,
safety, function and buffer'considerations.
15.062 Interior Streets. The arrangement, character, extent,
width, grade and location of all streets shall be considered in
relation to existing and planned streets, topography, to public
convenience and safety, and in their appropriate relation to the
proposed uses of the land to be served by said streets, whether
private or public, said streets shall conform to all other street
and road specifications of the Town.
15.063 Access. All uses shall have access to a public
street except residences which need not front on a
must have access thereto via a court, walkway or
dedicated to public usc or owned and maintained by a
association.
or private
street but
other area
homeowners
15.064 DUl lding Area. 'l'hu location and arrangemcnt of structures
shall not be detrimental to existing or prospective adjacent
development or to the existing or prospective development of the
Town.
-15.065 Doundary Setbacks, Buffer Areas and Transistional Uses.
Along the boundaries of a PUD, provision shall be made for a
combination of uscs and buffer areas which constitute a
~ransitional separation between surrounding existing and
prospective uses and the proposed development.
15.066 Off Street Parkinq and Loading Requirements.
off-street parking and loading requirements for
structures in a PUD shall be at least equal to
requirements stipulated for such uses or structuros
of Oueensbury Zoning Ordinances, Local, Laws and
Regulations.
The minimum
any uscs or
the minimal
in tho Town
Subdivlulon
15.067 Additional Si~e Development Standards. In addition to tho
standards set forth in this Article, the applicant uh",U é11uo
comply with the appropriate design, site dovulopmunt pliln ¿and
performance standards of the 'I'own Zoning Ordin¿ancuu and of all
applicabl~ Local Laws anù Subdivision Rugulations for the '!'own of
Ouéensbury. Where a conflict betwecn this Article and any of tho
above exists this Articlu shall govern.
-4-
e·'
-
---
---
..
15.070 PUD Application Procedure and Approval Process.
15.071 General. Whenever any planned unit development is
proposed, and before any contract is made for the sale of any
part thereof, before any building permit or certificate of
occupancy shall be granted, and before any subdivision plat may
be filed in the office of the County Clerk; the prospective
developer or his authorized agent shall apply for and secure
approval of such PUD in accordance with the procedures herein.
15.072 Notice of Intent. Prior to filing an application for
sketch plan approval, the developer shall submit a letter of
intent to the Town Board for referral to the Planning Board.
,
15.073 Application for Sketch Plan Approval.
a. In order to allow the Planning Board and the deve~oper
to reach an understanding on basic design requirements prior to
detailed design investment, the developer shall submit a sketch
plan of his proposal to the Planning Board. The. sketch plan
shall be prepared by a licensed professional engineer, licensed
architect ora landscape architect and shall be approximately to
scale, though it need not be to ,~he precis~on of a finished
engineering drawing; and it shall clearly show the following
information:
1. The location of the various uses and their areas in
Acres;
2. The general preliminary outlines of the interior
roadway system and all existing rights-of-way and easements,
whether public or private;
.
3. Delineation of the various residential areas
;¡indicating for each such area its general extent, size and
f~'i\composition;;j;;; in terms of total number of dwelling units,
,APproximate percentage allocation by dwelling unit type (i.e.,
~aingle-family detached, duplex, townhouse, garden apartments,
'condominiums) and general description of the intended market
:'!'; . ';í$~;¡8tructure'" (i.e., luxury, middle-income, elderly units, family
·units,:'etc.); plus a calculation of the residential density in
J;~t¡t;'f,G)dwelling units per gross acre (total area including interior
;;:;.¡~;;·roAdwAYS) for each such area.
,",;:--:'-'.
,~-.- ,'''':' : -, .'
4. The interior open space system;
S. The overall drainage system including RChematic···
the plan for storm water management;
;';',' .
.
settinçr forth
e
6. If grades exceed three pe~cent (3\), or portions of
the site have a moderate to high susceptibility to erosion, or a
",,;
-5-
'~
~
moderate to high susceptibility to flooding and ponding, a
topographic map showing contour intervals of not more than 10
feet of elevation shall be provided, along with ·an overlay
outlining the above susceptible soil areas, if any:
7.
facilities.
Availability
of roadways, water
and
sewage
8. General description of the provision
community facilities, such ,as schools, fire protection
and cultural facilities, if any, and some indication of
needs are proposed t~ be accommodated;
9. A location map showing uses and ownershi~ of
abutting lands.
of other
services,
how these
10. Architectural renderings or drawings of the
structures within the development.
11. Historic sites or buildings shall be identified and
a plan for their preservation must be noted.
b. In addition, the following documentation shall
accompany the sketch plan:
1. General Statement as to how common open space is to
be owned and maintained;
2. If the development is to be staged, a general
indication of how the staging is to proceed. Whether or not the
development is to be staged, the sketch plan of this section
shall show the intended total project;
3. Appropriate documentation of compliance with NYS
SEOR shall be prepared and submitted to the Town Board. For
purposes of this Article the Town Board shall be considered the
lead agency. ,If necessary, a final envir.onmental impact statement
shall be filed prior to Town Board action creating the PUD
District.
c. The Planning Board shall review the sketch plan and
its related documents; and shall render either a favorable report
to the Town Board or an unfavorable report to the applicant. The
Planning Board may call upon any public or private consultants
that they feel are necessary to provide a spund' revie\í of the
proposal. In addition to the fee listed on the schedule of fees,
the Planning Board may charge a fee to developers of' projects
requiring legal and technical review provided that the fee
cHarged ' reflects the actual cost of legal and technical
assistance to the Planning Board. This fee is not to exceed
$1,000.00 without consent of the applicant.
-6-
e,
e.
e
""';:.
. ~
.
d. A favorable report shall include a recommendation to
the Town Board that a public hearing be held for the purpose of
considering PUD Districting. It shall be based on the following
findings which shall be included as part of the report:
1. The proposal meets the intent and objectives of
Planned Unit Development as expressed in Section 15.011.
2. The proposal meets all the general requirements of
Section 15.020.
3. The proposal is conceptually sound in that it meets
a community need and it conforms to accepted design principals in
the proposed functional roadway system, land use configuration,
open space system, drainage system, and scale of the elements
both absolut~ly and to one another.
4. There are adequate services and utilities available
or proposed to be made av~ilable in the construction of the
development.
e. The chairman of the Planning Board shall certify to the
Town Board and the applicant when all of the necessary
application material has been presented; and the Planning Board
shall submit, its report within sixty (60) days of such
certification. If no report has been rendered after sixty (60)
days, the applicant may proceed as if a favorable report were
given to the Town Board.
15.074 Referral of Application for PUD Districting.
a. Upon receipt of a favorable report from the Planning
Board, the Town Board shall set a date for and conduct a public
hearing for~the purpose of considering PUD districting for the
:';:I,applicant's plan in accordance with the procedures established
. under ,Section 264 and Section 265 of the Town 'Law or other
,..applicåble' law, said, public hearing to be conducted wi thin
'. . ';,for~Yi:five (45) days of the receipt of the favorable report.
'reo,,;;, ..-.":*,,, ............,.'¡-..;.._,.' <,:..i"
b. Where the application for re-districting involves
property lying within a distance of 500 feet from the Town's
boundary, or from the boundary of any existing or proposed county
or ..... state park, recreation area, road or highway or in any other
instances where General Municipal 'Law §239-M is applicable, the
Town Board shall refer the application for re-districting to the
Warren County Planning Board for its review.
.
-7-
~
c. The Town Board shall render its decision on the
application within 45 days after the public hearing· unless an
extension of time is mutually agreed upon by the Town Board and
the developer.
15.075,Zoninq for Planned Unit Developments.
a. If the Town Board creates the PUD Districting, the
zoning map shall be so notated. The Town Board may, if it feels
it necessary in order to fully protect the public health, safety,
and welfare of the community, attach to its zoning resolution any
additional conditions or requirements for the applicant to meet.
Such requirements may include, but are not·confined to, visual
and acoustical screening, land use mixes, order of construction
and/or occupancy, circulation systems both vehicular and
pedestrian, availability of sites within the area for necessary
public services such as schools, fire houses, and libraries,
protection of natural and/or historic sites, and other such
physical or social demands. The Town Board shall state at this
time its findings with respect to the land use intensity or
dwelling unit density as called for in Section 15.034.
b.
following:
PUD Districting shall be conditional upon the
1. Securing of final site plan approval in accordance
with the procedures set forth in Section 15.088.
2. Compliance with all additional
requirements as may be set forth by the Town
resolution granting the PUD District.
conditions
Board in
and
its
.15.080 SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS.
15.081 Application for Preliminary Site Plan Approval.
Application for preliminary site plan approval shall
be to the Planning Board and shall be accompanied by the
fOllowing information prepared by a licensed engineer, architect
and/or landscape architect:
a. An area map showing applicant's entire holding, that
portion of the applicant's property under consideration, and all
properties, subdivision, streets, and easements within five
hundred (500) feet·of applicant's property.
b. A topographic map and survey prepared by a licensed
land surveyor showing contour intervals of not more than five (5)
feet of elevation shall be provided.
c. A preliminary site plan including the following
-8-
, ..
"--'
4t- information:
1. Title of drawing, including name and address of
applicant.
2. North point, scale and date.
3. Boundaries of the property plotted to scale.
4. Existing watercourses.
5. A site plan showing location, proposed use and
height of all buildings, location of all parking and
truck-loading areas, with access and egress drives thereto;
location and proposed development of all open spaces including
parks, playgrounds and open reservations; location of outdoor
storage, if any; location of all existing or proposed site
improvements, including drains, culverts, retaining walls and
fences; description of method of sewage disposal and location of
such facilities; location and size of all signs; location and
proposed development of buffer areas; location and design of
lighting facilities; and the amount of building area proposed for
non-residential us~s, if any.
.'
d. A tracing overlay showing all
classifications and those areas, if any,
susceptibility to flooding, and moderate
to erosion. For areas with potential
overlay shall also include an outline and
vegetation.
e. Copies of Certificate of Incorporation of Homeowners
.Association, By-Laws of Homeowners Association, Declaration of
Covenants and Restrictions, and offering plan, where applicable.
soils areas and their
with moderate to high
to hiqh susceptibility
erosion problems. the
description of existing
15.082 Factors for Consideration.
a. The Planning Board's review of a preliminary site plan
shall include, but is not limited to the following
considerations:
1. Adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access
and circulation, including intersections, road, widths,
channelization structures and traffic controls.
e
':;-
2. Adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access
and circulation including: separation of pedestrian from
vehicular traffic, walkway structures, control of intersections
with vehicular traffic and pedestrian convenience.
J. Location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of
-9-
'--,
'--"
off-street parking and loading.
4. Location, arrangement, size and design of buildings,
lighting and signs.
S. Relationship of the various uses to one another and
their scale.
6. Adequacy, type and arrangement of trees,
other landscaping constituting a visual and/or a noise
buffer between adjacent uses and adjoining lands.
7. In the case of apartment houses or multiple dwellings,
the adequacy of usable open space for playgrounds and informal
recreation including land reserved for recreational use pursuant
to Town of Queensbury Subdivision Regulations and Local Law No. 5
of 1986.
shrubs and
deterring
8. Adequacy of storm water and sanitary waste disposal
facilities.
9. Adequacy of structures, roadways and landscaping in
areas with moderate to high susceptibility to flooding and
ponding and/or erosion.
10. Protection of adjacent properties against noise,
glare, unsightliness, or other objectionable features.
11. ' Conformance with other specific charges of the Town
Board which may have been stated in the zoning resolution.
12. Architectural compatibility with other elements of
the project and with the neighborhood.
13. Protection of historical sites and/or buildings.
o. In its review the Planning Board may consult with the
Town and County officials, as well as with representatives of
Federal and State agencies including the Soil Conservation
Service and the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation. The Planning Board may require that exterior
design of all structures be made by, or under the direction of, a
registered architect whose seal shall be affixed to the plans.
The Planning Board may also require such additional provisions
and conditions that appear necessary for the public health,
safety and ,general welfare.
15.083 Action on Preliminary Site Plan Application.
.
a. Within ninety (90) days
application for preliminary site plan
of the receipt
approval, the
of the
Planning
'-
-10-
--
"--'
--
Board, shall act upon it by resolution. The Planning Board shall
hold not less than one public hearing prior to preliminary site
plan approval.' If no decision is made within said ninety-day
period, the preliminary site plan shall be considered
conditionally approved. The planning Board shall notify to the
applicant stating whether or not the preliminary site plan is
conditionally approved. A copy of the appropr~ate resolution of
the Planning Board shall b~ a suf!icient report.
b. Where the application for preliminary site plan
approval involves property lying within a distance of 500 feet
from the Town's boundary or from the boundary of an existing or
proposed. county or state park, recreation area, road or highway
or in any other instance where General Municipal Law §239-M is
applica~le, the Town Board shall refer the application for
preliminary site plan approval to the Warren County Planning
Board for its review.
c. The Planning Board's statement may include
recommendations as to desirable revisions to be incorporated in
the final site plan, of which conformance with, shall be
considered a condition of approval. Such recommendations shall
.be limited, however, to siting and dimensional details within
general use areas; and shall not significantly alter the sketch
plan asit.was approved in the zoning proceedings.
d. If the preliminary site plan is disapproved, the
Planning Board's statement shall contain the reasons for such
findings. In such a case the Planning Board may recommend
further study of the site plan and resubmission of the
preliminary site plan to the Planning Board after it has been
~~!ised or red~signed.
~ ,,'. ,
'r.,,;%:.:);-;t::,·~·· '
'<.i: . e. No modification of existing stream channels, filling
;n"~it;of lands with a moderate to high susceptibility to f¡'ooding,
<>'i.~;~grading or removal of vegetation in areas with moderate to high
i>t/...!~'¡¡?i8U8ceptlbility to erosion, or excavation for and construction of
i.~i.';·;;>:'Vj:'8~te . improvements shall begin until the developer has received
:',;êpreliminary site plan approval. Failure to comply shall be
t>:~0.i~~· 7'cbnstrued as a violation of the Zoning Ordinance and, where
':i~~;~;:ne~es8ary, final site plan approval may require the modification
'.. . or.removal of unapproved site improvements.
e
'.
-
15.084 Request for Chanqes in Sketch Plan.
If in the site plan development it becomes apparent
that certain elements of the sketch plan, as it has been approved
by. the Town Board,' are unfeasible and in need of significant
modification, the applicant shall then present his solution to
the Planning Board as his preliminary ~ite plan in accordance
with the above procedures. The Planning Qoard shall then
-11-
'--
'---"
determine whether or not the modified plan is still in keeping
with the intent. of the zoning resolution. If a negative decision
is reached, the site plan shall be considered as disapproved.
The developer may then, if he wishes, produce another site plan
in conformance with the Approved Sketch Plan. If an affirmative
decision is reached, the Planning Board shall so notify the Town
Board stating ·al1 of the particulars of the matter and its
reasons for feeling the project should be continued as modified.
Preliminary site plan approval may then be given only with the
consent of the Town Board.
15.085 Application for Final Detailed Site Plan Approval.
a. After receiving conditional approval from the Planning
Board on a preliminary site plan, and approval for all necessary
permits and curb cuts from state and county officials, the
applicant may prepare his final detailed site plan and submit it
to the Planning Board for final approval~ except that if more
than twelve (12) months has elapsed between the time of the
Planning Board's report on the preliminary site plan and if the
Planning Board finds that conditions have changed significantly
in the interim, the Planning Board may require a resubmission of
. the preliminary site plan for further review and possible
revision prior to accepting the proposed final site plan for
review.
b. The final detailed site plan shall conform
substantially to the preliminary site plan that has received
preliminary site plan approval. It should incorporate any
revisions or other features that may have been recommended by the
Planning Board and/or the Town Board at the preliminary review.
All such compliances shall be clearly indicated by the applicant
on the appropriate submission.
15.086 Action on the Final Detailed Site Plan Application.
.
Within sixty (60) days of the receipt of the
application for final site plan approval, the Planning Board
shall, by resolution, render a decision to the applicant and so
notify the Town Board. If no decision is made within the sixty
day period, the final site plan shall be considered approved.
a. Upon approving an application the Planning Board shall
endorse its approval on a copy of the final site plan and shall
forward it to the Building Inspector who shall then issue a
building permit to the applicant if the project conforms to ali
other applicable requirements.
b. Upon disapproving an application, the Planning Board
shall so inform the Building Inspector. The Planning Board shall
also notify the applicant and the Town Board in writing of its
-~_.
-12-
'---
~
,
decision and its reasons for disapproval. A copy of the
appropriate min~tes may suffice for this notice.
15.087 Staginq.
If the applicant wishes to stage his development, and
he has so ind~cated as per Section 15.013 (b).(2) then he may
submit only those stages he wi~hes to develop for site plan
approval in accordance with his staging plan. Any plan which
requires more than twenty-four (24) months to be completed shall
be required to be staged; and a staging plan must be developed.
-
15.090 OTIIER REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS.
15.091 FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.
,
a. Prior to the issue of building permits, the developer
may be required to post performance bond(s) pursuant to, and in
accordance with the same procedures as provided for in Section
277 of New York Town Law, in sufficient amounts and duration to
assure that all streets or other public places shown on the' PUD
Plan shall be suitably graded and paved and that sidewalks,
,street lighting standards, curbs, gutters, street trees, water
mains, fire alarm signal devices including necessary ducts and
cables or other connecting facilities, sanitary sewers and storm
drains shall all be installed in accordance with standards,
specifications and procedure acceptable to the appropriate Town
of Oueensbury Departments.
b. Alternatively, such improvements may
developer in 'accordance with standards,
procedure acceptable to the appropriate
departments. .
.
be installed by the
specifications and
Town of Oueensbury
15.092 Construction After PUD Approval.
If no evidence of progressive activity has occurred
pursuant to the adopted plan (a) within one year of the date of
the adoption of the PUD, or (b) upon expiration of any extension
of time for starting development granted by the Town Board, the
approved plan shall become null and void and a new precise plan
shall be required for any development on subject property.
15.093 Compliance With Plan After Construction Started.
,
After general construction commences, the Town of
Oueensbury Senior Planner shall review, at least once every six
(6), months, all building permits issued and compare them to the
overall development phasing program. If he determines that the
rate of construction of residential units. or nonresidential
structures substantially differs from the phasing program, he
~
-13-
,---./.
'-
,
shall so notify the developer and the Town Board, in writing;
thereafter, the Town Board may suspend the developer from further
construction of dwelling units or nonres'idential struQtures until
compliance is achieved.
15.094 Filing Reports.
All Pl.anninq Board decisions and repo.rts shall be filed
wi th the Town Board. .
Dated: January 17, 1987
Dar1een M. Dougher
Town Clerk
Town of Queensbury
.
'.
- ,*- ...
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Regulatory Affairs
Box 220
Warrensburg, New York 12885
~lephone: (518)623-3671 or 668-5441
(;C:. ';1 ù.:rf_\..er ts "
~ 1Iii1r~
.....,
~
~\
Henry G. Williams
CommIssIoner
HAND DELIVERED
April 9, 1987
Frances Walter, suþervisor
'lbwn of Queensbury
Bay at Haviland 1bads
Glens Falls, New York 12801
Re: Lead h¡Jency Determination pursuant to State Environmantal Quality Review
Act (~RA)
Quaker Ridge Developnant by Earltown CDrporation
Queensbury (T), Warren (CD.)
Dear Mrs. Walter:
In response to your letter of March 10, 1987, this will oonfiDn that Region 5
cxmcurs with your r~tion that the Qœensbury 'lbwn Board be lead
agency for the Quaker Ridge Planned unit Developrent. our ooncurrence with
your lead agency r~tion is predicated on the presurption that the
Queensbury 'lbWn Board will require that a Draft Environrœntal Irrpact Statement
(DEIS) be prepared for the project. In oonsideration of the extensive inpacts
that the project would have on a large, Class I WetlaOO (HF-3) arrl in view of
our long-starrling interest in this iIrq?ortant resource, our Natural Resources
Staff have taken the liberty of identfying several issues that relate to the
. scope and content of the DEIS. '1hese include, but are not limited to, the
following:
a. a "Marl Fen", one of only 5 in New York, would be destroyed by
the developœnt of Wetlarrl HF-3.
b. In terms of vegetation, the wetlarrl contains a variety of structural
groups (Le. flooded decidoous forest, emergent marsh, wet neadow, etc)
which make it ideal habitat for a variety of wildlife species.
c. the wetland may oontain, as a resident breeder, the Red Shouldered
Hawk. '!be Red Shouldered Haw is a threatened species in New York State.
d. in addition to providing wildlife habitat, the wetlaOO provides a
variety of benefits inclOOing habitat for rare orchids, storm water and
flood water oontrol, groundwater discharge/recharge and open space (the
EXHIBIT C
~....'_ oM
.-......-..... "'-.'" ------..-
-.--
(' '.~.¡
raœes Walter, Supervisor
-2-
April 9, 1987
wetland is within an urtanized area and is the second largest in the
Town of Queensbury).
Due to these concerns, it is i.nq)erative that the DEIS thoroughly discuss:
1. significant environmental impacts that will result fran the project
2. reasonable rreasures to minimize environmental impacts
3. unavoidable adverse impacts and
4. alternatives to the project (or portions thereof) that \\Ould achieve
the same or similar results.
M::>reover, because of the statutory findings that must be made pursuant to SEORA,
Fegion 5 urges the Town BJard to give full and adequate discussion in the EIS to
these and other relevent issues so as to enable our Depart:Jœnt to make the
requisite SE}JR findings that must precede our permit decisions. 'Ib further serve
the intent of SBJR, Region 5 rec:x:>mœOOs that the Town Board, as lead agency,
conduct a public neeting for the purpose of soaping the DEIS. Public scoping
\\Ould assist the Town Board in focusing on those issues that require irx:1epth
discussion and analysis in the EIS.
Thank you for the opportunity to cœment. Region 5 looks foxward to ex>ntinuing
our cooperative review of the Quaker Ridge Project. Should you have any questions,
please contact me at the Warrensburg Office, telephone #668-5441.
Sincerely,
~I(,\',i~
'lhanas W. Hall
Associate Environmental Analyst
'lWH In
. cc: Richard A. Wild
Ernest Lantiegne
.~_I.~
-.
"t~"'..A.-
_ U ..__._'h'_ .
--
o
--
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Regulatory Affairs
P.O. Box 220, Hudson Street
Warrensburg, New York 12885
Telephone: (518) 623-3671 or. 668-5441
e
~
HAND DELIVERED
Thomas C. Jorllng
Commissioner
June 10, 1988
Stephen J. Borgos, Supervisor
Town of Queensbury
Bay at Haviland Roads
Glens Falls, New York 12801
Re: Quaker Ridge Development by Earltown Corporation
Queensbury (T), Warren (Co.)
Dear Mr. Borgos:
The following comments pertain to the Supplement to the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the Earltown Corporation
for the Quaker Ridge Planned Unit Development (PUD). For purposes of
clarity, our comments have been arranged according to the Chapters of
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DE IS).
Chapter II - Environmental Setting
While this'Chapter has been significantly revised, the Ißvisions
consist primarily of removing information from the technical'
appendices and inserting the same information into Chapter II.
Unfortunately, this has done little to improve the fundamental
deficiency in this Chapter - that is, it still lacks any meaningful
discussion of the wetland (HF-3) that occupies at least 60% of the
project site. Moreover, the entire Chapter seems overly complex and
technical which unfortunately obscures the Chapter's intent - which is
to clearly describe the existing environmental conditions at the site.
DEC suggests that the lead agency require that Chapter II be revised
to include ,a description of the wetland that dominates the project
site. DEC suggests that the wetland be discussed in the context of
its Class I status - i.e. describe why it is a Class I wetland,
describe its functions and values, describe the vegetative cover types
in and around the wetland, describe their relative proportions and how
this feature relates to habitat diversity and/or wetland uniqueness.
In addition, there is no discussion in this Chapter of the "Marl Fen"
that is known to occupy a portion of the site. As you may be aware,
marl fens are a rare occurrence in New York State - i.e. only four
others are known to exist. In conclusion, the chapter does not
require addition41 tables, charts or species lists. Instead, the
chapter requires a description of the e~vironmental setting that
represents an analysis and summary of these tabular data. DEC
EXHIBIT D
'--
~
(2)
requests that the Town Board require this information as part of the
DEIS.
Chapter III - Significant Environmental Impacts
In general, the intent of this chapter is to enable the Lead
Agency, involved agencies and the public to assess the impact of a
proposed project on the existing environment - a process that requires
a comparative assessment of Chapters I and II of the DEIS. However,
with respect to wetland impacts, it is DEC's contention that Chapter
III of the Quaker Ridge DEIS does not provide this analysis. As a
result, the DEIS is deficient. For example, at page 3A-S, the DEIS
notes that the "preferred alternative" will utilize 44.3\ of the
wetland area. This statement does little to reveal anything about
significant wetland impacts, yet it is essentially the only statement
that is made in this Chapter relative to wetland impacts. We suggest
Chapter III be amended to include a description of the wetland that
would exist after construction of the "preferred alternative". That
is, what portion of wetland HF-3 will remain after ground and surface
water flows are altered, would the marl fen be affected or unaffected,
what functions and values would the resulting wetland have and what
would its tentative classification be? Only in this manner can the
reader be in a position to judge the significance of the wetland
impacts and offer relevant comments.
In addition, DEC would appreciate clarification of the following:
1. on page 3A-4, at the section"entitled "Site-Specific
Ecological Value Enhancement", what is the relevance and
meaning of paragraph '1.
2. on page 3A-S, what is the derivation of the terms type I,
type II and type III that appear in the second paragraph.
Chapter IV - Mitigation
This major chapter is generally intended to be a discussion of
reasonable measures that can be taken to minimize or offset the
~ignificant environmental impacts of a project. Without question, the
Supplement is noticeably improved over the discussion of mitigation
that was offered in the original DEIS. That is, the Supplement
includes a discussion of mitigation that at least acknowledges certain
wetland functions and values and an effort is made to offset their
loss. However, to effectively mitigate wetland losses, it is
necessary to know more about the off-site parcels that have been
offered by Earltown. For example, what is the total acreage of
'wetland that has or would be acquired, what are the characteristics of
these'wetland areas in structural and functional terms, what would
their tentative classification be? Only with this kind of information
can the Town, DEC and the public determine if mitigation is a "good
deal" - i.e. that there is a reasonable balance between what is being
offered as an offset and the'resources that will be irreversibly lost.
'---
~
(3)
Chapter V - Adverse Environmental Impacts
The next major chapter in an EIS typically focuses on a
discussion of unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. The
Supplement to the DEIS for the Quaker Ridge PUD devotes one page to a
discussion of relevant wetland impacts. Perhaps one page is
sufficient, but the information provided on that one page (5A-1) is
not. Most of the page is devoted to a description of impacts that
will be "buffered" or "prevented" and faunal inhabitants that will
"adapt" or "relocate". There is little that describes adverse
environmental impacts - wetland or otherwise. With respect to wetland
impacts, DEC suggests that Chapter V be revised to include a
comparative discussion of the functions and values of the existing
wetland and the functions and values of wetland HF-3 that will either
remain or be compensated through mitigation.
Chapter VI - Alternatives
In this Chapter, the EIS is meant to focus on a discussion of
reasonable alternatives that will accomplish the sponsor's objective.
In the Supplement to the EIS, this Chapter represents a significant
improvement over the "Alternatives" chapter in the original EIS.
However, on three occasions since May, 1987, DEC-Region 5 has
requested that the Town Board, as lead agency, require discussion of
two specific alternatives: '
1. a project that would result in no wetland losses - that is
development would be confined to areas of the site that are
upland of the boundary of wetland HF-3¡ and
2. a project that would result in development of 25-50% of the
onsite wetland areas.
In view of the fact that the preferred alternative would eliminate
somewhere between 60% and 100% of a 600+ acre wetland, DEC contends
that both represent reasonable alternatives that should be discussed
and compared with the preferred alternative. It is understood that
discussion of these two alternatives would not obligate the sponsors
to make any ~oncessions with respect to their preferred alternative.
As an involved agency, DEC is puzzl~d by the fact that while no one
has disputed the reasonableness of either ,alternative, neither has
been discussed in the original or Supplemental EIS. DEC requests that
the Town Board, as lead agency, require discussion of these
alternatives in the DEIS. As a final comment on Chapter VI, the
. discussion of Alternatives 1-5 in the Supplement would benefit from a
description of the wetlands that would remain as a result of each
proposal. This description should include the size of the remaining
wetland, its residual functions and values and its tentative
classification.
General Comments:
Following DEC comments at the public hearing on May 16, 1988, the
Town Board noted that the sponsors of the Quaker Ridge Project will
-
(4)
-'
require a wetlands permit from the Department of Environmental
Conservation. As a result of this comment, staff was left with the
impression that the lead agency might regard certain of DEC's comments
as "deferrable" on the basis, perhaps, that the comments could be
addressed during DEC's project review process. If this impression is
correct, DEC staff want to assert that DEC's jurisdiction with respect
to wetlands should not affect the " Lead Agency's decisions with respect
to the scope, content or adequacy of the EIS. That is to say, the EIS
should be a decision-making document for all agencies, not just the
lead agency. As such, a deficiency in the discussion of environmental
setting, wetland impacts, alternatives and/or mitigation should be
corrected now rather than via yet another Supplement to the EIS. Were
DEC lead agency, staff would feel compelled to require discussion in
the EIS of any issues of concern to the Town such as traffic,
community character, utilities or public schools. With this in mind,
DEC will reiterate its recommendation that the EIS include å
discussion of the project's compatibility with the the New York State
Freshwater Wetlands Law and the Freshwater Wetlands permit
requirements. In particular, the regulations pertaining to wetland
permits require, among other things, that the Earltown Corporation
demonstrate that its preferred alternative:
1. is the only practicable alternative that could accomplish
the applicant's objective;
2. has no practicable alternative on a site that is not a
freshwater wetland or adjacent area; and
3. satisfies a compelling economic or social need that clearly
and substantially outweighs the loss of or detriment to the
benefits of the wetland.
While these standards do relate to wetland permit requirements, more
importantly, they require the discussion of information that is
clearly at the heart of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and
Environmental Impact Statements. DEC requests the Lead Agency's
assistance to insure that the EIS provides a proper foundation for
making decisions of compatibility and permitability with respect to
DEC's laws and regulations. As was mentioned at the public hearing,
DEC staff remain available to provide further explanation of this
issue. For that matter, staff is available to discuss any of the
written and oral comments that we have provided during the past year.
Finally, DEC staff will reiterate that a "show of hands" should
not be used to determine whether the Supplement to the DEIS is
sufficient. Instead, the decision should be based on an evaluation of
the content of the EIS. And while it is OUL objective to produce
EIS's that are brief and analytical, it is our contention that most of
the comments provided by our Department at the publicscoping meeting
and public hearing have yet to be addressed in the DEIS. In fact, the
"Responses to Comments" provided in the Supplement to the DEIS leaves
DEC with the impression that the project sponsors have been left to
pick and choose the comments for which a response is required. As a
result, DEC will also reiterate its req4est that the Town Board
require a response to all reasonable comments on the DEIS and its
I
I
I
I
I,
l
.
.
(5)
---
Supplement. Until these responses are provided, DEC will continue'to
regard the EIS as deficient and, therefore, as a draft document.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Region 5 looks forward
to continuing our cooperative review of the Quaker Ridge project.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at the Warrensburg
office. .
Sincerely,
.-J"'_/ ~\;. \-Tt~L(
Thomas W. Hall
Associate Environmental
Analyst
THW/cg
cc: Terry Healey
Alan Koechlein
Richard Wild