Loading...
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