1989-03-07 SP (2)
-.../
518/793-7362
(OWN OF QUi:ENSBURY
','$ ¡..,~.',~4," ;¡~. ífW~~· '!
,~ ~t\\.~!la .
'\,\,'
;,\¿ 'MAR 111989 .
SUMMIT SECRE'l'ARIAL
P. O. Box 265A
Queensbury NY 12804
~LANNING & ZONING
DEPARTMENT '
TO:
QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD/QUEESBURY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
FROM I
Mary Jane F. Moeller
DATE:
March 16, 1989
SUBJECT I WEST MOUIft'AIJ VILLAGES
Planned Unit Development Humber 3
Due to a
meeting was
as follows.
technical
not taped.
irregularity, a portion of the above-mentioned
Mr. DUsek was consulted and his instructions were
1) Part II Present a summary from any notes taken on the un taped portion
of the meeting, Tape 11, Side A.
2) Part III Present a Verbatim Transcript for that portion of the meeting
on the tapes, Tape '1, Side B and Tape '2, Side A.
3) Tapes 'I and 12 are to be kept on file and not to be erased without
authorization from Counsel.
I have no explanation for
tested prior to the meeting
There was no indication that
above, Side B did tape correctly.
what happened bétween the time the tape was
and the actual start of Tape fl, Side A.
an error was in process and, as evident
My sincere apologies for this
inconV.~i.nc.. 0
At-y~
cc: Paul Dusek, Town Attorney
Lee york, Sr. Planner
QUEENS BURY TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Special Meeting: Tuesday, March 7, 1989 at 7:30 p.m.
Part I - Meeting Notes
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 3
WEST MOUNTAIN VILLAGES, INC.
Present: Richard Roberts, Chairman
Joseph Dybas
Peter Cartier
Frank DeSantis
Hildagarde E. Mann, Secretary
Keith Jablonski
Victor Macri
Paul Dusek, Counsel
Lee York, Sr. Planner John Goralski, Planner
Mary Jane F. Moeller, Stenographer
Mr. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
PARTICIPANTS
TOWN OF QUEENS BURY:
Dennis MacElroy: Environmental Design PartnerShip
Dennis O'Malley: Greiner Engineering
Fred Austin: Superintendent, Warren County Dept. of Public Works
WEST MOUNTAIN VILLAGES, INC.
Joseph T. Krzys, Jr.:
Arthur Wellman:
Dana Broadaway
Robert Persico, Esq.:
Principal
Principal
Slide presentation
Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart, Rhodes & Judge, P.C.
1
WEST MOUNTAIN VILLAGESa Planned Unit Development Number 3
Mr. Roberts noted that the Queensbury Town Board is the Lead Agency for
this project, and the Queensbury Planning Board needs to make a recommend-
ation to the Town Board, pursuant to Article l5 of the Queensbury Zoning
Ordinance, as to whether the Planning Board is willing to recommend con-
ceptual approval on the entire project.
The application previously was Tabled at the December 12, 1988 meeting.
One reason was the necessity of more information on traffic to and from
West Mountain, which the Board feels is a major problem.
Mr. Krzys reviewed that the project started with the idea of having a
village at West Mountain, and originally Luzerne Mountain Road was to be a
major roadway. At the last meeting (12/12/88), documents were submitted
and there were reports from the Consultants, Counties, State and Towns.
Some other issues mentioned were as follows.
West Mountain primarily consists of an internalized project. Origin-
ally houses were proposed to be constructed at the base of the moun-
tain; now they will be constructed at the top.
Quality of life and how it is affected.
Recreational upgrading, including skiing and other facilities.
Cultural opportunities, including a theatre and museum.
35 acre park with one of the finest views in the area.
Availability of year-round jobs.
Major retail facility.
Financial benefits.
Master plana West Mountain Road does not need a major upgrade; Corinth
Road will require some alterations, which is consistent with the Master
Plan.
The developer will pay its' fair pro-rata share on whatever traffic
mitigation steps are necessary, similar to other approved PUD projects
in Queensbury.
The PUD is consistent with a total life style.
Traffic impacts: The quality of life is offset by slower traffic.
At this point, Mr. Broadaway presented a slide presentation:
HIGHLIGHTS OF CONCLUSIONS
(Exhibit A)
2
_/
Mr. MacElroy noted that traffic has been reviewed in the Supplement to
the DEIS, Supplement to the PUD, and the Second Supplement to the DEIS.
In general, he is concurrence with the issues, there will not be any great
impact on Exits 19/20, the right-of-way acquisition and the background
growth.
Mr. O'Malley stated that traffic monitoring is an on-going process. He
is comfortable with the fact that the Department of Transportation (DOT)
is comfortable with the procedures and discussions. There was a Workshop
Meeting with Fred Austin, Larry Gordon of Saratoga, in addition to repre-
sentatives from Wilton and the Town and Village of Corinth. The Transport-
ation Advisory Committee (TAC) will be used as the Reviewing Agency for
all future traffic reports.
Regarding trip generation, there have been disagreements about the
traffic distribution; however, facts support Roger Creighton Associates'
findings that the shortest route from the Northway to West Mountain will
be from Exit l6. However, people might find that the ride up the Northway
is more comfortable and would then make use of Exit l8.
Further, he stated that Mr. Austin was of the opinion that it will be
necessary to be prepared for Exit l8 usage, as well as Corinth must be
prepared for more traffic. Other items discussed are as follows.
Zoning
traffic
area.
would
would
quantify the maximum densities allowed as to where the
go, and what routes are serving the greater Glens Falls
If the land was developed to its maximum, there is a potential of 4,000
residential units.
If all the land was developed, West Mountain Road could remain a
two-lane road.
Corinth Road, with 900 cars in a peak hour, can meet the need of the
area, if it is a four-lane road from I87 to VanDusen Road.
Total buildout increase on an annual basis: 7% to 9%.
Phase I can be maintained. Queensbury could change, as there might be
an impact on certain highways.
Although it has been suggested that West Mountain Road will remain the
same, there may be intersections that would require local improvements.
Turning lanes may require rights-of-way.
Construction traffic: This would be less than the estimated peak hour
traffic1 there will be some traffic congestion; rather than climbing
lanes, bubbles will be created for truck traffic1 it is estimated that
3
'-
---
there will be 174 trucks delivering materials/day.
The estimated background rate for growth was low; it is higher than 3%.
Mr. Austin informed the Board that the TAC will have a fulltime Staff
person, whose sole purpose is to concentrate on the greater Glens Falls
area: trigger and monitor traffic counts; determine what is a fair share
for the developer; and who is going to do what and when.
are
time
tion
7 to
In response to Mr. DeSantis, he affirmed that the given time periods
realistic for building improvements. As to the length of response
from various departments, Mr. Austin gave two examples of construc-
that has been completed: 7 to 9 years for New York State on a bridge;
9 months for Warren County to widen an intersection.
(See Part II for continuation of meeting) ...
Richard Roberts, Chairman
Date
Date
:3, /6· f-r¡
,
4
'-
QUEENS BURY TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Special Meeting: Tuesday, March 7, 1989 at 7:30 p.m.
Part II - Verbatim Transcript
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 3
WEST MOUNTAIN VILLAGES, INC.
Present: Richard Roberts, Chairman
Joseph Dybas
Peter Cartier
Frank DeSantis
Hildagarde E. Mann, Secretary
Keith Jablonski
Victor Macri
Paul Dusek, Counsel
Lee York, Sr. Planner John Goralski, Planner
Mary Jane F. Moeller, Stenographer
PARTICIPANTS
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY:
Dennis MacElroy: Environmental Design Partnership
Dennis O'Malley: Greiner Engineering
Fred Austin: Superintendent, Warren County Dept. of Public Works
WEST MOUNTAIN VILLAGES, INC.
Joseph T. Krzys,
Arthur Wellman:
Dana Broadaway
Robert Persico,
Jr.: Principal
Principal
: Slide presentation
Esq.: Bartlett, Pontiff,
Stewart, Rhodes & Judge, P.C.
Key:
.*.: Phrase unintelligible.
...: Broken phrase.
5
Mr. Austin: Discuss the impact of the limitations imposed by the 40 foot
pier at Exit 18, and it says that DOT should initiate steps to include
this project in their future work program. It has been discussed at the
TAC and the head of the Planning Department of DOT, Region l, sits on that
committee, as well as a couple of other planners. So, DOT is aware of it;
I'm sure if you stare him in the eyes and said ·Can you do anything?,· he
would tell you quite truthfully they have no money. Whether they have
money in three to four years ... and at that point it may also become
political at the State level.
Mr. Dybas: So what you're saying basically is that pier geometry for Exit
l8 would make it more difficult to do anything with it with a short range
span?
Mr. Austin: Correct.
Mrs. Mann: What about rights-of-way along Corinth Road...?
Mr. Austin: You'll see some of these scenarios. Up in Warrens burg we even
looked at a 90/l0 slip, just to make sure we were happy. I can live with
this stuff in here in terms of traffic and what it triggers. One of the
scenarios somewhere at some point, I truthfully can't remember which one
it was, talked about two left-hand turnways underneath the Northway. You
start putting four, five and six lanes under the Northway and you have
forty feet. Obviously you can't do it - widen that out or whatever is a
lot of money. That is a problem.
Mrs. Mann: What
different things.
about the right-of-way along Corinth Road; there are two
One says you have them all, the other says you don't.
Mr. Austin: O.K. That is my next comment. The State's own improvements
proposed within Warren County can be accommodated without property taking.
That is incorrect and one quick example is the corner of Corinth Road and
West Mountain Road. The development of the subdivision in there; Mrs.
York and the developers came up and sat down and again we took our
absolute worst case scenario; everything we could think of. What would we
have to do to this intersection and we quickly designed the intersection,
with left hand turning lanes and tractor trailers - you name it, it was
designed there. We found, in fact, that we would need some right of way
there, as you will at most intersections, you are going to need a sliver
down the side for that left turn. Working with Lee and the developer,
they have already changed their subdivision so that if, in fact, 20 years
from now and all this stuff comes true and then some, that right-of-way
will protect it to rebuild that intersection. We know at some point at
some places rights-of-way will be needed. So that statement really is
kind of incorrect.
Mr. Dybas:
easy task.
are going to
But you were working with one developer; that was sort of an
When you start working with everything along Corinth Road, you
have a larger task to accomplish.
6
",-,
.-
Mr. Austin: I know. We are on Quaker Road right now.
Mrs. Mann: What about the pull-off lanes for the trucks and whatever - the
construction vehicles.
Mr. Austin: We never really addressed that part of the project.
Mr. DeSantis: Fred, is there
still under the same job.
talked about rights-of-way.
also envisions as part of
project site down part of
within your bailiwick.
going to be any anticipated problem, you are
I am not addressing traffic totally, but we
This project, not to move away from traffic,
their proposal running a sewer line from the
the same road into the city. That will fall
Mr. Austin: Supervisor Borgos and Supervisor Grant assumptional1y
said running sewer lines down a highway right-of-way is consistent with
generally accepted practices. And, in fact, if the sewer construction
goes forward it may in fact accelerate some road improvements quicker than
you would normally expect them because it would make sense to do it all at
once.
Mr. DeSantis: That's what I was saying. What about the timing?
Mr. Austin: It has been addressed to the point that we recognize that it
may, in fact, speed up some roadwork. If you are going to be in there
tearing it up for a sewer, let's put it back right now and rather than
three to four years to do it. Technically, it hasn't been addressed, just
in general.
Mr. DeSantis: Has your department looked at the impact of the construc-
tion traffic on the existing roadways. One of the questions I had is:
·Will the existing Corinth Road be able to handle the level of construc-
tion traffic that's anticipated by this project/'and that's the most immed-
iate impact between now and '93. I mean, what I envision from a traffic
standpoint is a lot of concrete trucks breaking up the roadway.
Mr. Austin: From a traffic standpoint I don't see any problems. What
would happen in the Spring we would work out a construction schedule. You
used to see signs on the road: -Truckers, haul before noon.- If you haul
before noon on a day like today, you have no problem; if you haul at 4
o'clock, you wreck the road. We got good cooperation until they stole the
signs. That part really doesn't bother me.
Mr. DeSantis: The road will handle the weight of the construction.
Mr. Austin: Yea;
good shape now, I
want to mention.
Warren County Dept.
Mountain project at
the pulp trucks are running it down. The road's not in
recognize that. Just a couple of other things I did
They talked about Exists 19 and 20 and it says that
of Public Works agrees that the effect of the West
these locations is not significant. We agree but we
7
really haven't checked it and it made sense on the surface, but we have
not run it through our computers or anything and we probably won't bother
to - at least I don't think it will.
The issue of West Mountain Road, I would simply say I would agree
totally with what Dennis said.
Last thing. The key to the whole thing is understanding what triggers
improvements and what's going to be done. Do we stop at VanDusen Road and
if so, why? There's a statement in here that said for Phase II all the
splits will require the widening of Corinth Road to four lanes west of
Exit 18. Future counsel will be needed to determine where this improve-
ment can be terminated and that's a very correct statement. To say it's
going to stop at VanDusen Road, might be before, it might go all the way
to West Mountain Road. Who really knows again what's going to happen out
there, there might be some other conflicts that would require things. So
I think it is important that we all recognize that traffic counts are
what's not only going to trigger somebody being told, wherever that money
is stashed be it in a County fund, private fund, Town fund or somewhere,
or where the commitment lies for the money, TAC can trigger the flag that
says: -O.K. let's start the process to build the road, or the improvement
or the intersection, or whatever.- But, those traffic counts are also to
a large degree going to trigger exactly what goes where, and that is
probably the way it will be. It has to be.
Mr. Roberts:
and everybody
than that.
The last slide that you had here, it showed all sweetness
in agreement, did characterize that a little differently
Mr. Austin: No. There are times when we are not at all in agreement, but
I think the term ·consensus· is a good one and our disagreements basically
deal with timing. But when you recognize that the traffic that really
exists out there is what is going to dictate it, our disagreements really
fall by the wayside, because the traffic is going to be generated by
sales, economy and what else is going on that nobody even knows about now;
maybe something, maybe nothing. So the disagreements basically have to do
with timing of when the improvements are going to be needed. There are
some other problems that don't affect us, like over in the Village of
Corinth -Are you going to have parking on the main street or not?- I'm
not going to get involved in that.
Mrs. Mann: Will the timing be done in a timely fashion? I think that's
what
Mr. Austina My op1n10n would be if it is local money that has been commit-
ted through some formal process, which may be nothing more than a commit-
ment of the Government funding their fair share of it, and if the money
that is forthcoming from the developer for their fair share, whatever that
may be and whatever group works that out, I see no problem with the
timing. If the timing requires New York State DOT money, the timing can
8
be a problem and, in fact, the relief from that problem may have to be
political.
Mr. Roberts: Those are some details that probably we don't have to nail
down, rather have to make some assumptions that we have to make with the
County and Town O.K. Thanks a lot. Do we have any more traffic
questions, or can we get off the traffic problem?
Mr. DeSantis: You're the only guy that I hadn't had a chance to ask
questions of, Fred. Thank you.
Mr. MacElroyr One issue that we haven't really discussed and I think
needs a little clarification is the discussion of the Village of Corinth
and their concern about the River Street improvements and, while evidently
the traffic distribution within Corinth and at the intersections took into
consideration the River Street segment of it, there really was no discus-
sion of that and those in the interest and the concern of the Village of
Corinth and the letters that they wrote, I think we have to discuss and
address and expect the developer to present that type of information, as
far as what those improvements need to be on River Street, which is
currently a secondary city or village street that requires improvements of
some nature and that really hasn't been pinned down at all. That was an
outstanding issue that we presented in the report that we are just not
certain and, because the project does involve more than the Town of
Queensbury or Warren County, we do cross Village/Town/County lines. It's
I think the responsibility of eventually the Town Boards to take in any
considerations that those impacts
Mr. Roberts: Here again that's an assumption we will have to make ...
Mr. Persico: Dennis' issue on the Town of Corinth is not directly within
the jurisdiction of the Board here, although it is a pertinent issue with-
in the SEQR process, and it will be a matter that will be dealt within the
SEQR process, Lead Agency on that as you know is the Town Board, and it
will be dealt with in that process. That would be our position in respect
to that.
Mrs. Mann: What I think he was saying is that you demonstrated by the
slides that these improvements are to be made, but you have no agreement
with them to make them. Is that correct?
Mr. Krzys: We have
they are interested in.
had discussions with them about them, we know what
All that is negotiated at the Lead Agency status.
Mrs.
these
think
going
Mann: I understand
things are going to
we he was saying,
to be done.
that, but if you are going to demonstrate that
be done and we have nothing from them, that's I
that the implication is that these things are
Mr. Austin:
Larry Gordon of the Planning Department was at most of our
9
---'
meetings and a lady (whose name I can't remember) from this department,
plus Larry Gordon is a member of the Technical Advisory Committee of that
part of South Glens Falls. So, through Larry's Office there has been, he
was part of this dynamic give and take if you will... It took the
opposite position. He said all of the traffic is going to get off and
come through my County, fix up my roads. So, we had a good time of it. I
may be speaking out of turn but, through his office, they have been
involved and will continue to be through the Technical Advisory Committee.
Mrs. Manns The only letter we have from them I think is negative, unless
there is a different one or a later one it would be nice ...
Mr. DeSantiss Let's ask this question specifically. Has there been fur-
ther correspondence from the Village of Corinth since the December 7, 1988
letter (Exhibit B), which is part of all the Exhibits represented to us.
Mr. Krzys: That's part of the public review process.
Mr. DeSantis: Has there been any further correspondence?
Mr. Krzyss Only through the Technical Advisory Committee.
Mr. DeSantiss This letter was addressed to Steve Borgos.
Mr. Krzyss Yes, as head of the Lead Agency, it is part of the public
comment process.
Mr. DeSantis: I just see it impacting as a fact that, when the Village of
Corinth tells us they don't think your plan to go through their Village is
going to work and there are only two ways to get to the project, that
obviously lends some weight to where the traffic is going to go. It may
be outside the purview of our immediate review, but there are only two
ways to cross the Hudson River, and they are telling us it's not going to
happen through Corinth.
Mr. O'Malleys Just as a matter of perspective, Frank, that is the only
letter I have seen for the record from the Village of Corinth about the
West Mountain Project. We do know that the West Mountain people have been
meeting with representatives from the Village of Corinth and, in their
discussions, they seem to indicate a willingness on the part of the
Village to have some improvements. Not nearly the types of improvements
which may have been suggested in the original report, due to the signifi-
cant impact on how they perceive downtown Corinth developing and what they
want to do for their character. I think one of the key things is, at this
point, there is obviously a route available to people who may be going to
West Mountain, and one of those routes is off Exit 16 through the Village.
The road is there, people can choose to use it if they so wish to. I
think part of the Phase I process and the identification of this preferen-
tial treatment and so forth, is to find out whether or not the first part
of the people who go to West Mountain do, in fact, choose to use (Exit) 16
10
--'
as their elective choice to go to the project. If it turns out it is
skewed more heavily towards Chuck's (Charles Manning, Roger Creighton
Associates Inc.) predictions about that, then I think there is obviously
going to be a tendency to look towards the Village of Corinth and say -All
right, now let's live by what your position is.- If your position is that
you want to have very limited traffic above and beyond what our existing
highway system can take in the Village of Corinth, and that position is
stood fast by the Village of Corinth, that may have some limitations on
what the developer may suggest on improvements within the Village and
therefore force the traffic to l8, because l6 will only be able to take
whatever the highway system can bear. But we don't know that now. If the
election is to stay at l8 as we think it is going to choose to do, then it
becomes a mute point and the improvements that they elect to choose in the
first Phase for the improvement of River Street and so forth, may be more
than adequate for most of Phases I, II and III.
Mr. Krzys: If I remember the letter right, there were a lot of comments
from a lot of different people, the first half of the letter was extremely
negative and then he says however, if you choose to do these things, that
will certainly help the situation. So I think if you look at the bottom
part of the letter there are some mitigating things that seem to be accept-
able.
Mr.
the
we
are
DeSantis:
head. What
are looking
going to use
No, I agree with you. I think that Dennis hit it right on
I am concerned about is that it be clearly understood that
at Corinth is that if they don't go through Corinth they
18.
Mr. Krzysl True.
Mr. DeSantis: It is a very strong letter, it is so strong it makes you sit
up and take notice. Words like -unrealistic- and -totally unacceptable-
kind of draw your attention. But, that is the reason I am looking at it
and, if Fred Austin says that we can still handle 85/l5 or 90/10, then I
am not too worried about it as long as the improvements are in place.
Mr.
this
this
but,
come
Cartier: I have a procedural question, this pops up as a result of
gentlemen's comments about the letter here. He points out to us that
really isn't in our purview as a Planning Board. I understand that
I am confused about Phase II, Phase III. Does Phase II, Phase III
before this Planning Board?
Mr. Roberts: No, it will mostly be in the Town of Luzerne.
Mr. Cartier: It's going to be in the Town of Luzerne. And we will also
be told it is not in your purview to look at it as a Site Plan.
Mr. DeSantis I You won't see it in the Town of Queensbury.
*.*: Unintelligible regarding Site Plan.
11
Mr. Cartier: Can we pass judgement on a Site Plan that is not in our
purview?
Mr. Dusek: I think the point that Mr. Persico was trying to make was that
the comments that have been made by Corinth will be considered, or should
be considered, by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury as Lead Agency.
So there is a point in the process where they are considered. I think
that is what he was trying to say. Now, to the extent that there may not
be a second access to the Village, if Corinth should for some reason say
-Not through our Village are you going to come; we are going to put up
some kind of roadblocks there.- To that extent, then you have to consider
the level of access or whether or not there is *.* project. I suppose
that is in the Board's purview at this point. Now, later on when the,
let's assume this project goes forward and you get into the Site Plan
Review process, to answer that part of your question, it will be liable to
depend upon what exactly is up for Site Plan Review. If it is the busi-
ness portion of the property up near West Mountain Road and from the
studies there is no indication that the traffic will pass through Corinth
at that point, then I suppose we will have to do .*. to consider it again
at that point. However, if later on in the Site Plan Review process you
are over on the side of Corinth Road and there has been, I think what we
are seeing here is there is a reasonable expectation that traffic will
proceed from both l8 and 16 to get to some points in the project, then at
that point this whole traffic issue will come back to surface there. But
I think clearly probably the most significant place from Corinth's view-
point to get it addressed will be by the Town Board.
Mrs. Mann: That doesn't answer your question, though.
Mr. Cartier: Yes. My question, and I am confused about this, so maybe
I'm having problems phrasing my question properly. My question is: -Phase
II and Phase III are in the Town of Luzerne.-
Mr. Dusek: Yes.
Mr. Cartier: O.K. -Do Phase II and Phase III come before this Planning
Board for Site Plan Review, if they are totally in the Town of Corinth and
have nothing to do with -- (correction from attendees - Luzerne) -- and
they have nothing to do with the Town of Queensbury, I don't think they
would come before this Board.- So, in other words, we don't have control
over Phase II and Phase III, we only have control over Phase I.
Mr. DeSantis: That's right, I think you are absolutely correct. I think
what Paul is saying is that, once the PUD is established - if a PUD is
established - and under our regulations, I don't know what they are in the
Town of Luzerne, what generally happens is that the items that are up for
proposal in the PUD come back before this Board for Site Plan Review. We
are establishing a PUD in two towns, and the items that occur in the Town
of Luzerne, I don't know what their procedure is, they certainly won't
come back before this planning Board for review, because they are in the
Town of Luzerne.
12
'---
----
Mrs. MannI if the Town of Luzerne wants to waive the density after
Phase I and Phase II and triple the density and the traffic .*..
Mr. Dusekl Now, even if though the Site Plan Review is only done in the
Town of Luzerne, there is still a possibility though, more than a possibil-
ity, the Town of Queensbury still will be involved to the extent that
there has to be further SEQR proceedings when the Site Plan Review occurs
in the Town of Luzerne. So that will give the Town of Queensbury an oppor-
tunity to get involved in it at that point of the process as well. So it
is not like you will be totally excluded at any given phase of the pro-
ject. In some cases, your involvement will be less than others.
Mrs. MannI How much could be changed from this overall presentation. In
other words, could they play with the density or anything else?
Mr. Dusekl You mean in the Town of Luzerne?
Mrs. MannI You bet.
Mr. Roberts I Not after the PUD's formed, no.
Mr. Dusekl No.
Mrs. MannI Even though we don't have review power ...
Mr. Roberts I They are considering changing density, changing the zoning
now, that will be done prior to the agreement with the PUD, I assume.
After that, any significant changes will have to go back before both Town
Boards. Very minor changes, then the respective Planning Boards can take
care of it. You don't mess around with density of
Mr. DeSantis I I understand that. Wonder if the Town of Luzerne changes,
we review this at this stage and we make recommendations to the Town Board
of the Town of Queensbury and the Town of Luzerne changes the zoning dens-
ity before the PUD is established?
Mr. Roberts I
on rezoning ...
I think they plan on doing that. And this density is based
Mr. DeSantis I This density is based on their ultimate rezoning.
Mr. Roberts I Yes.
Mr. Krzysl .*. PUD as we have submitted.
Mr. DeSantis I The numbers you are using, Joe, are based upon the end
results of the zoning in Luzerne.
Mr. Krzysl Yes.
13
'--'
~
Mr. DeSantis: O.K. After they rezone.
Mr. Roberts: If that doesn't happen, we have less .*. Can we get away
from traffic? On other issues, we haggled over density in the Town of
Queensbury and we solved that, I guess, to our satisfaction. The two
respective Town Boards have told us politically what's going to happen
with sewerage, we don't have to worry about that, I guess. We thought
there were two viable plans and one has been chosen.
Mr. DeSantis: What about water supply? At one point at the last meeting
I remember water supply being discussed by Mr. Montessi, he isn't in the
room now he was shortly. He was the one who raised it at our Workshop
sessions, it was about storage facilities, fire protection, the ability to
pump above a certain level, etc., etc., etc..
Mr. Roberts, The Town of Queensbury has only agreed to serve water to the
500 foot elevation mark and it's up to you to push it the rest of the way,
isn't that basically it? These again are a lot of details. The formation
of the sewer district, the water district are the things I assume will
rest with the Town Board.
Mr. DeSantis: Dennis, have they addressed water in general terms as satis-
factory?
Mr. MacElroy: Yes.
Mr. Roberts. We were concerned about the methodology of the gate at the
top of Luzerne Mountain Road as how that would keep from becoming a well-
traveled exit. I think there were a number of options probably. I don't
know that I care which one, but we want again to be sure that happens.
What other concerns do we have? Again, there are a lot of details that do
need to be worked on, most of the details have to be worked on by the re-
spective Town Boards. We, as a Planning Board, are looking at the overall
concept and whether or not we think the project is -do-able, makes sense-
and we have looked at it in some detail. I guess we are at that point.
Mr. Cartier. I have one other concern, I would like to bring up I guess.
I am looking at (PUD PROVISIONS), Article 15, Section l5.010, Statement of
Purposes and Objectives. -This Article specifically encourages innova-
tions 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,- so on and so forth. That is my concern. We
have another Planned Unit Development where the housing is upscale, for
higher income. One of the things we have been hearing over and over
again, and it was re-emphasized again last night, is with the idea of
affordable housing, whatever that is, we still haven't sorted that out
yet. In looking at our Master Plan, that is heavily emphasized also. The
only place where that is dealt with in any of the Town Ordinances is ....
I am concerned with this project that, one of my concerns with this pro-
ject is that we don't see that, we don't see this mixed-type of housing in
14
"--'"
'-
-
terms of housing in terms of income levels.
Mr. Krzys: I think in terms of housing, I think the question of - I was
at the Master Plan meeting last night and there is a concern about low
income housing or moderate income housing.
Mr. Cartier: Both.
Mr. Krzys: Yes. I don't know what it is here, but I know for example in
Albany it is between maybe $18 and $28,000 per year to be considered
moderate income there. I don't know, it is different in every area. This
is a major social problem, not only here but allover the country; it is a
hard problem to solve. Forgetting that for a second, I'll get back to
that question. In terms of the rest of the housing, this development has
been designed to meet some of the housing needs here, we are not looking
at all $300/$400,000 houses and $200,000 houses. We are getting down to
houses that get down to $125/$l35/$l40,000 range, that is considered, I
think for a lot of the development going on around here, that's getting to
the probably midlevel to the midupper level. But it isn't being designed
just for the $200/$300/$400,000 household.
I think in terms of the other kinds of housing, part of the difficulty,
and I think Joe Carusone wrapped it up last night, is the whole question
of infrastructure. And housing is dependent on what does it cost to get
to the house. It doesn't have to do with building a house. We could
build a house that we could sell for $25 or $30,000, if we didn't have to
put in the whole sewer system, whole water system, all the roads getting
to it, if we didn't have to take care of emergency fire control and all of
the things that we are being asked to do. When you start adding all that
there, then the question is -How does anybody build a house for a persont"
and infrastructure is really a key issue allover the United States, in
terms of solving the problem. I think that we're, just by our own per-
sonal values, I can't figure out how to solve that problem, because it is
a national problem. If we can get the housing to a certain level with the
infrastructure that we have to build, beyond that unless somebody wants to
give, as Joe Carusone said, more density or bonuses for doing low income
housing or moderate income housing, that's an interest to us. But, again,
I think it would have to be done for everyone in the same way. And, I
think it is a good idea, as they were talking about last night, for the
Boards to consider that kind of a thing, because I don't know how else it
ever gets done anyplace in this country.
Mr. Dybas: Are you going to have any housing for your employees up there?
Mr. Krzys: We are certainly taking that into consideration, yes; there is
gotta be something up there.
Mr. Dybas: Obviously, there is going to be some lower housing.
Mr. Krzys: Yea, I think you have to look at it on that property or around
15
'-"
that property. Someplace you have to take care of employee housing. You
go to a place like Stratton, one of Stratton's biggest problems is how do
they get employees to work there. Their employees get bussed 40 to 50
miles/day to work there, and they can't get anybody to live there; it is
too expensive for people tò live there. We are going to hire a lot of
people, and one of the advantages I think we have is that we are a high
.*. employer, the question is where do those people live. We certainly
have thought about that.
Mr. Dybas I I remember that you are going to have a fabricating plant of
some sort up there. That will help you as far as you are concerned.
Mr. Krzysl That
housing down and
houses up there.
absolutely
make it
helps. That's one way to get the cost of
more affordable, and also build high quality
Mr. Cartierz I have some problems with your statement that you are going
to have housing in here in terms of $l30,OOO houses, I assume we are
talking 1989 dollars here. Everything I have been hearing lately from
real estate people in this area is that, if you can find me a house under
$lOO,OOO, I could sell tons of them and the market is flooded with these
$130/$l40,OOO houses. And, I am not sure what need we are meeting in
this area, when we are talking about building second homes for people from
somewhere else. How does that address the housing needs in this area?
Mr. Krzysz The way I look at it we are three years away from having a
house up there. It is going to take two years to build it, we have to
come back for preliminary/Final Site Plan approval. You are not going to
see a finished house up there until three years from now.
Mr. Cartierz We are not meeting the housing here, nobody's going to live
on Aviation Road and buy a second home on West Mountain. We are talking
about a house, a second home, a vacation home for somebody who doesn't
normally live in this area.
Mr. Robertsz I don't think the project was designed for our need, it is a
vacation resort area, second homes for out-of-towners.
Mr. Cartierz I am not arguing about that, the only argument I have is that
it is not meeting the housing needs here.
Mr. Krzysz My sense of it is, if we get to market and we put up one house
as a model, it costs too much and nobody wants to buy it, we will build a
less expensive house. That's the only way you really determine market
demand. If I could build a very inexpensive house, everybody in the
United States would want to come here to live here, because housing is so
expensive to build. There are some economics with this project that far,
far exceed the economics of other projects in this Town, because of the
amount of infrastructure that we are being required to build. What makes
16
'--<
---'
----
that property worth is the fact that the housing price matches the infra-
structure price. I can't do anything about the infrastructure; I gotta
deliver a house that makes some money. If you don't do that, the pro-
ject's not happening anyway. Nobody will ever finance it.
So I think the issue is to build a house that you can sell enough of that
meets the infrastructure price and has that balance between what it costs
to build this, what is costs to build a house the way the market is. You
only determine that at the point in time when you get close to building
the house; we are still 2 l/2 years away in having to make what that deci-
sion is. It may not be the answer your are looking for, but for this pro-
ject there has to be a definite balance between market, between how many
houses will sell and infrastructure costs. I know what, from at least
with our research, I know about how many houses we can sell at different
price levels here, the number of houses we need to sell at different
levels per year and we can do that with the existing market that's here.
We already know, we did the studies for that. And also we are not looking
at building a lot of houses per year, we are also looking at getting a
second home market that we have done a lot of research on. It comes from
someplace else; it is coming here anyway right now. If you look at, again
from the market data, if you look at the number of houses that are being
required for the people that are coming here on a second home basis be-
tween now and the year 2000, that's the biggest housing market that exists
here, and there is more demand and more need for that. All the data that
comes from the County and comes out from other places, it is true, and we
are building for that market. It's one of the prime purposes of this and
that's to meet a housing need that's here. These people are coming and
are looking to buy houses here now, do you want to live here, in fact we
are living here. We are really meeting a large need, I think, in terms of
the population. If we were to say that we wanted to build out
$2/$3/$40,000 houses and that's the market, I .*. sell a lot, we would
have a lot of problems, there isn't a big demand for that. The bigger
demand is for lower numbers for permanent houses; for second homes it is a
lot different. Demand for expensive houses, for second homes, is extreme-
ly high. Once you get outside the Capital district and start heading down
towards New York City, the number of people willing to pay a whole lot of
money in the Adirondacks for a second home is extremely high and that's
part of our market. We feel, from both those samples, that we are meeting
the market demand.
Mr. Cartier I O.K., let me just, while I have the microphone take another
30 seconds, just to finish off my thing. I put in more time on this one
than I have on anything else, and I have only been on the Planning Board a
year. And I have been trying to compare to what little experience I have
in going through the, the only other one I went through was the Earltown/-
Quaker Ridge thing. But I have been doing this as we have been going
along; these are quotes I ·who knows, we won't know until, we'll have to
wait until decides, we have to assume that they will be resolved.·
I have an awful lot of problems with that. We are being asked to approve
something with an incredible number of unknowns. And my question is, and
I don't have an answer for it and I', not expecting an answer, my question
17
-'
--
is it really good planning? Is this how we want to plan for the next .*.
years, on the basis of these kinds of unknowns.
Mr. Robertss We said among ourselves that we think Planned Unit Develop-
ments are a good way to develop a town. Something this massive there are
some unknowns, and I guess the system has really been set up to address
that, more so than we have ever had in place before.
Mr. O'Malleys As kind of a response, I will tell you that many of us
transportation people have in years gone by made predictions about what
will happen and when it will happen, and have only had that come back and
hit us in the face because of the unpredictability of the economy,
development, people's driving trends and habits, their ability to ride,
the automobile is the driving force of today's economy. The classic
example that we are seeing now is down at Exit 8 on the Northway at the
Twin Bridges. Predictions that were made by DOT that this volume of
traffic will not occur until year 2000, only to have to see it in the year
1988 or before, have just made people skeptical about giving point-blank
answers to questions. We have all taken a step back and saying wUnder-
stand our business of transportation, the fact that we are dealing with
people driving automobiles over roads which they can elect to choose a
route that they feel is their most appropriate route.W
Traffic is like water, it follows the path of least resistance and makes
this business less than, from an engineering point of view: safe traffic
engineering I think is somewhat of a misnomer, it is as much of an art as
it is a science, and it certainly has a degree of unpredictability. I
think we have just become enough gun shy that we need to .*. our comments
and take an approach that we suggest to the Boards wFrom this point until
now we think we have taken a reasonable approach, and beyond that we will
have to taken another look at it- and not say point blank that this is, in
fact, what we need to accommodate the steps beyond that which we .*. at
this pOint in time.
Mr.
this
Plan?
Robertss
stage of
Isn't it your best guess, if you want to call it that at
the game, .*. buildout that we can stay within our Master
Mr. O'Malleys It's an educated guess in the sense that it is based on
trip generation characteristics for developments which are consistent with
what is .*. in the field. That is, I mean, when we say the numbers of
trips per single family homes, any number of single family homes in the
Capital district, in this area, and across the country have been observed
in order to find out what the trip-making characteristics are of those
places. We feel comfortable with what we have seen in today's economy are
representative of that type of development. But it is a guess in saying,
that is, in fact over the next 20 years, will the same trends hold true,
we don't know. In fact, in 20 years will we even know the automobile as
we know it today is going to be that major a part of our transportation
system. The whole transportation system may be driven to another form by
18
~
----
that time. There are all kinds of things, ·pies in the sky· things, which
we may have laughed at 20 years ago, that are in fact reality today; micro-
electronics and so forth. You are absolutely correct. It's a guess, but
I think it's not just a pull it out of the sky and that's what I think,
it's based on some evidence that we find, on historical trends that we
have seen, our best estimate is based on economic trends and driving
forces of what we think will happen.
Mr. Dybas I I have to agree with what you are saying, because I read the
traffic report that was commissioned for the Capital District. That was
commissioned in '86 and supposed to take it to 2006. Now this was 1986
when it was commissioned and completed, supposed to go to 2006. It was
exceeded in 1988 which is two years later, now somebody had an awful lot
of mud in a crystal ball. It is unbelievable that two years later it
would be obsolete.
Mr. O'MalleYI It is like the chicken and an egg. You create a new road -
sometimes the worst thing you can do to your traffic system is create a
new road, widen a road or pave a road, because it makes people go to that
road and volumes go up. You make improvements, you are in a never-ending
struggle to try to meet the demand. People have been somewhere else
because they perceived that what you had is not acceptable, you improve
it, they think it's better and they all go there. We all do it.
Mrs. MannI One of my major concerns on this whole project was the traffic
picture, because .*. I think my problem with accessibility and I am basic-
ally convinced, and can shoot the Town if you are wrong, .*.. I am
basically convinced that you have concurred with their engineers and the
things that I was looking for that the roads for the most part can handle
that type of traffic in Phase I. Phase II obviously somebody else is
going to take out of our hands. I love that, just approve Phase I and
they'll worry about the other two - they're gone. Really, you have con-
vinced me, and I don't know of anything more we can ask these people as
far as traffic goes. The other things I think will be worked out.
Mr. Roberts I I refer to the Master Plan, this is in Draft form, but I
guess * opinion on it. In the Master Plan it also states, and I can't
quote it or find it, about the fact that we want to try to protect the
ridge lines and developments of the SEQR slopes and so forth. I think if
we are to approve this, I would like to, one of our suggestions or perhaps
assumptions that the Town Board will suggest, or maybe we can have you
address it now, ma~mize to the extent possible the views and vistas on
the ridge lines and try to use earthtones, no glaring lights, give some
thought to .., not letting us see just a ridge of buildings on the ridge
line or the citizenry will be up in arms. Attention has to be taken to
that.
Mr. Krzysl
that.
I think we said that from the beginning, that we want to do
19
-'
Mr. Robertsz Anybody else have any...?
Mr. Macriz Dennis MacElroy. You have gone through the whole thing, you
have been with us since the beginning. I guess my question to you is "Do
you have any further concerns?- We have raised questions, you deal with
these things on a day-to-day basis. Are there any concerns which we
haven't addressed or any concerns that you still have, or do you feel that
all has been addressed?
Mr. MacElroyz I guess how I would address that is, first of all taking
into consideration what your roll is as a Planning Board in offering a
recommendation to the Town Board of a conceptual plan. In that sense,
there are some details that maybe, I would think that you have looked into
in greater detail than I would imagine, that is just my own thought. You
have a job to do and you do it the way you see fit. I think there are
some issues that still have to be resolved, certainly between today's date
and the time that the Town Board is comfortable to take some action on
this proposal. But they get into maybe some greater detail within the
realm of the SEQR process in the consideration of the environmental
impact. And I will just throw one out now - stormwater - and how that was
addressed and we made comments in our SEQR review and those items I be-
lieve are being addressed, within the Final Environmental Impact Statement
by the project sponsor. That is one, just to name.
In terms of a conceptual review and recommendation to the Town Board, I
would say that you have done your job, you have asked for information
specifically related to traffic. In this case for this meeting, that is
clearly the most significant controversial aspect of this project. We
have discussed already wastewater disposal, I guess that is an issue that
has been taken care of. Again, traffic is the -biggy,- and I think it has
been taken care of through our series of meetings and with some loose ends
that will have to be tied down within the time frame leading up to the
SEQR decision by the Town Board. We have discussed it here briefly is
your concern about Phase II and Phase III, it is a good one but I think
that is where we have to work now through the Town Board to establish the
Resolution which puts those conditions in there that ties the Town of
Queensbury to the project right through. That can be done, it has to be
done, and is the consideration which the Town gives to the project. While
II and III may be 901 or lOOl within Lake Luzerne, its impacts are still
related to the Town of Queensbury.
Mr. Macriz In your opinion, are we or has this Board performed all the
things that we are required to do under Article l5.
Mr. MacElroyz Well, I think Pete has brought up certainly a good issue,
those are things, those questions you asked -Does this project satisfy
those requirements?- That's a tough question, the issue of housing, meet-
ing a need and providing .. and it's probably an interpretation of your
Article l5, as well.
20
',--
.../ ..-'
Mr. Macri: Well, we hired you to interpret it.
Mr. MacElroy: Ultimately you have to make that decision.
Mr.
want
mind
Macri: We make the decision based on the consultants we hire. I just
you to say you are comfortable with the project, so I can say in my
Mr. MacElroy: Yes, it certainly is consistent with other projects that
you have reviewed in terms of PUD's.
Mr. DeSantis: I agree with what Dennis said. I think it is consistent
with what we have reviewed so far. It just has one area in which we have
addressed a lot of time and effort to that I would make a recommendation
to this Board, and I know that these minutes are going to the Town Board,
but I most strongly make this recommendation to the developer's them-
selves, is that in the Article l5, the very last item that is to be re-
viewed is that we are to find that ·There adequate services and utilities
available or proposed to made available in the construction of the develop-
ment.· I think everybody agrees, as we sit here tonight, there are not
currently adequate services and utilities available, so we are talking
about proposed to be made available. And further on in Article l5, when
you get to the Preliminary Site Plan Review, several of the specific items
that we have to address at that point relate to the items that maybe we
have gone into in greater depth at this stage than the Article calls for,
but I don't think the time was wasted, because we have educated everybody
on what may be needed and maybe save some time in backpedalling in the
long run. At least that was our goal, it was not .*.. But specifically
later on we talk about adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic
access and circulation (Article 15.082 Factors for Consideration) for
preliminary Site Plan Approval, which would be the next time this Board
sees this application; that's why I bring it up.
So that's why I am saying this to the applicant that I know we have
heard a lot of, as Peter refers to, maybe's and what if's, you know,
what's going to happen. I can say to you straight out that I would not
vote in favor of the Site Plan Application unless there are adequate serv-
ices either in place or bonded to be in place, and we have had these dis-
cussions one-on-one before, so this is no surprise to you fellas. So I
know that our review level at this stage says ·or proposed,· but our
review level at that stage doesn't say ·or proposed;· they have to be
there. So, I just don't want to be cast in a light of leading anybody
down any ·yellow brick road· here. And, I want the record to be plain
that that's the basis upon which I think we are acting this evening; so
there is no question about it's ·or to be proposed,· and we have had our
experts say that the services to be proposed are adequate, and that's been
addressed and answered, I think. Fred said that, traffic study said that,
Environmental Design said that - woe be me to disagree with them. That's
my point.
21
-./
--
Mr. Roberts: I think we are in a position to maintain a motion. Remember,
we are making a Recommendation. Counsel has given us two motions, for and
against. I guess - which one are we going to read from?
Mr. Roberts: (To Mr. Dusek). All right if we doctor up your proposal?
Mr. Dusek: Yes.
(There was an inaudible discussion regarding the proposed Resolution.)
Mrs. Mann moved APPROVAL of the QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD REPORT ON THE
WEST MOUNTAIN VILLAGES, INC., APPLICATION FOR PUD DISTRICTING UNDER
ARTICLE 15 OF THE QUEENS BURY ZONING ORDINANCE.
Mr. Roberts: Do we have a second?
(Prior to the second, the following discussion took place.)
Mr. DeSantis: As we have done in the past, I believe it is proven that
not only do we direct that a copy of the minutes of the meeting be sent,
maybe a transcript, we have done that in the past. We did it with Earl-
town and I think maybe with Hiland Park.
Mr. Roberts: You want an exact transcript?
Mr. DeSantis: What did we do with Earltown? Didn't we pass on a Verbatim
transcript? I do believe that is good practice for large projects. My
recollection is that we directed a transcript in addition to the minutes.
Mrs. Moeller: One or the other, either transcript or the minutes.
Mr. Roberts:
meeting the
project.
I believe that we did it for Earltown, but that was a short
night we actually made the decision. That was not as large a
(After further discussion, it was decided to submit a verbatim transcript.
The Resolution as originally read by Mrs. Mann was corrected.)
Seconded by Mr. Macri.
Passed 6 Yes (Jablonski, Dybas, Roberts, Mann, DeSantis, Macri)
1 No (Cartier)
I hereby verify that this document has been transcribed to the best of my
ability.
~ . / ¿. c? ,
Date I
22
"---'
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD REPORT ON THE
WEST MOUNTAIN VILLAGES~ INC. ~ APPLICATION FOR PUD DISTRICTING
UNDER ARTICLE I5 OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING ORDINANCE
WHEREAS~ West Mountain Villages~ Ino.~ has filed an apPlioation with
the Town of Queensbury for PUD redistrioting under Artiole l5 of the Town
of Queensbury Zoning Ordinanoe~ and
WHEREAS~ pursuant to said Ordinanoe~ the Planning Board for the Town
of Queensbury has reviewed the West Mountain Villages~ Inc.~ Sketoh Plan
and supporting documents~ including the DEIS and other doouments relating
to impacts to the environment~ and finds the documentation complete and in
compliance with the requirements of Article l5~ and
WHEREAS~ the Queensbury Planning Boa~ met with the applicant on
March 7~ 1989~ December 12~ 1988~ and on a previous occasion at the Queens-
bury Town Hall and had open discussions of the purposes and concepts with
respect to the proposed rezoning of the designated PUD area~ and after due
consideration~ the Planning Board reports:
A. That the proposal meets the intent and objectives and general
requirements of Article l5 of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance~
and
B. That the proposal is conceptually acceptable as meeting a commun-
ity need and conforms to accepted design principals as set forth
in said Article l5~ and
C. That adequate services and utilities have been proposed to be
made available in the development of the PUD~ and
OJ
'-'
~
D. Furthermore~ we recommend that the Queensbury Town Board further
investigate the possibiZity of the Queensbury PZanning Board hav-
ing the opportunity of reviewing Phases II and III of the West
Mountain ViZZages~ Inc. DeveZopment.
THEREFORE~ the Queensbury PZanning Board recommends the estabZishment
of the proposed PUD to the Queensbury Town Board and that said Town Board
proceed with the rezoning of the PUD area and that a PUbZic Hearing be
heZd in accordance with ArticZe Z5, of the Queensbury Ordinance~ and
directs the Chairman of the PZanning Board to forward a copy of this
report and a copy of the verbatim 'transcript of this meeting to the Town
Board of the Town of Queensbury.
DATED:
~11
1917
ill
VOTE OF THE BOARD: rES NO
Richard Roberts~ Chairman ./
HiZdegarde Mann~ Secretary ."
Joseph Dybas ./
Victor Macri ./'
Fzoank DeSantis /
Peter Cartier /'
Keith JabZonski /
I hereby certify the within report
this 3!:: day of March~ 1989.
~/0u-
QUEENS BURY TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Special Meeting: Tuesday, March 7, 1989 at 7:30 p.m.
Part I - Meeting Notes
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 3
WEST MOUNTAIN VILLAGES, INC.
EXHIBIT A
A PRESENTATION FOR THE
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD
---'
~E.,
, . ~:.
~u
ri :
'<-~~
'~f3 '~. ,,'<,
,- ..,'....
:"-<1 ~
~ fr&Ì1
Q~
fr , ,. '),
r~1~
~~.U~
~,.., >
Q)
~
~
'"
'"
~~ ~
.~.~ ~
~ :> ~
~P,D
~ ~ 00
~~ ~
o ~ Q)
~SQ)
o~
~uCl
00
~O~
~~o
Q)'"Ci~
~Q)~
~~o
~bIJ~
,D.~ Q)
.~ ~
~S~
~Q)~
~,D 0
Q)
~~~
Q)~~
bIJu~
u ~ ~
.~ U Q)
~Q)~
~ .~ 00
~ 0 ~
~~S
~~
...
...
-../
00
~
~
~
00
...fo-J
~
c\1
...fo-J
~
~
00
~
o
U
u
.~
~
,D
~
~
bIJ
~
~ .~
o ~ Q)
. ~ bIJ
.. ~ c\1 ~
~~ ~ ~
,D Q) ~ .~
'\JQ~;>. >
Q) ~ ~...fo-J ~
~ ~ ~ ~ .~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0;:j;:j o~~
§:o ~U ';:j
~Uoc\1qo
:~U~Q~
~ ~ ~ ~ en ...fo-J
tI'J ~ ~ \,\J ~ tI'J
~~E8~z~
s.....
U
(
ng
Volull1es
& Phasi
Traffic
e Traffic
e Occupancy
e Background
(
Design Peak Hour
(
(
Maxim.u11l hourly traffic flow used to
design the capacity of roadway system..
e One hour period
e Maxilllulll traffic
e Occurs infrequently
e U sed to deter11line design
capacity of roadway syste11l
(
(
e Only occurs weekends in
July & August (Infrequently)
(5 .
all
(
(
year
6p11l)(1 hour)
week, Not all
span
Not
11le
day,
e Short ti
e Not all
--
II EXIT 16
. COUNTY R1: 9
& MAIN 81:
. EXIT 18
:)\17
".:.:.:.:.:.:.:
'.:.:::::.'
How Traffic
Reaches Project
Site
t/
\
I 1 . 2. 3.
EXIT 16 85 55 40
EXIT 18 15 45 60
-
*" EXIT 18
*" COUNTY Rl: 9
& MAIN S"[
*' WESTERN & BROAD
,¡:tt.
"::;::::::::'
Traffic improvements
Needed Now
-
II EXIT 16
. COUNTY R1: 9
& MAIN 81:
. EXIT 18
:¡¡a.
°0:,:,:,:,'
Phase I
improvements
(By 1993)
(85/15, 55/45, 40/60)
',--,
Phase II
improvements
(By 1999)
(85/15)
. PHASE II
= FOUR LANES
PHASE II
-- CLIMBING LANES
PHASE II
Phase II
improvements
(By 1999)
(40/60)
::¡~,
. PHASE II
= FOUR LANES
PHASE II
--
-' --
Phase III
improvements
(By 2009)
(40/60)
::¡I;,'
. PHASE III
- REALIGNMENT &
CLIMBING LANES
PHASE III
-
---./ --
Phase III
improvements
(By 2009)
(85/15)
. PHASE III
- REALIGNMENT &
CLIMBING LANES
PHASE III
Secondary Peaks
~
e Identified & studied
e Reflect leaving the project
e Im.provelllents to accom.odate
Design Peak provide adequate reserves.
Secondary Design peak
peaks
EXIT
19
SPEED
55
LIMIT
~¡
¡¡
¡~
¡;
::
.:
'J,
]1'\\<//,
e
<0'
,u,:i::,,::""·
:::...,.::::..:::.......
....
.f····~
.~;:::... ';:"
-Z·l:::}:
<0'
.;~r i::"';~{-
....
e
(
isties
Construction Material
e Phase I
e Peak Tillles vs. Average
e Telllporary Illlpact
Log
(
(
Time Planning Assessments
Real
TAC Com.m.ittee
e Monitor
e Assess Patterns
e Plan im.provem.ents
e Where
e What
e When
l
e Cost
e Allocate cost
VILLAGE
OF CORINTI-I
2'OMAIN STREET
CORINTH, NEW YORK 12822
654·2012
rcf!/1~~ OJ/Ul/J' 1336 - 1.9rfG
ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF SERVIC~
MAVOR
DONALD WILLIAMS
TRUSTEES
JOHN MURPHV
THOMAS WEST
ROBERT THORP
CHARLES DOODV
ATTORNEV
JUDD GREV
CLERK
WARREN SAUNDERS, JR.
TREASURER
LINDA LOZIER
WATEH... DPIfII follr>ERIN1!:I.DENi
CAL VIN nUTLER
WASTE TnEATMëNT PLArJï OI'f:RI\'''Oi'
T/fOM"~; ~Oflr,\l.::
POLICE C~II<:r:
nlCttMIO CIIMW::!. '-
December 7, 1988
Mr. Stephen Borgos, Supervisor
Town of Queensbury
Town Office Building
RD nl, Bay Road
Glens Falls, New York 12801
Re: Town of Queensbury, Lead Agency
SEQR, West Mountain Resort Project
Supplement to Draft EIS
;.;.t...
Dear Mr. Borgos:
Pursuant to Notice of Hearing dated November 10, 1988, the Village of Corinth
wishes to submit comments on the proposed develo~ment.
Members of the Village Board have been kept informed by representatives of the
developer, culminating in two meetings during the week commencing November 28,
1988. The Village has carefully reviewed with develop~rs the Traffic Survey.
The Board of Trustees find the impact onerous and unacceptable. 4\'¡é..alsò',"find
the solutiors proposed highly ,unacceptable in theï'r:~present form:;-
" .~.'
It must be realized that the benefits to the Village of Corinth are highly
speculative and extremely nebulous.
In Phase One of the study, it is proposed that a signal light be installed at
the-{nt~isection of Main Street, Palmer Avenue, and Mechanic Street. Such an
installation is absolutely essenti~l. The signal would have to be synchronizcd
with other signals northerly on Main Street. It is recommended that a south-
bound right lane on Route 9N be added. It must be pointed out that there is
already in place a traffic signal calling for a right turn on the State Higl1\'¡DY.
The signal is installed and maintained by D.O.T. of New York State. The
proposal also advocates by the completion of Phase One there be additiollul lancs
added on both ~Iain Street and Maple Street. Such -a proposal'"ïS' totally:uná,ëccpt-
able 'as it -would eliminate.all parking ;~n,,',the business district of this small
.., . .1,-0 '. "" .. ...... ".'
£XII¡e¡T ¡q
Mr. Stephen Borgos, Supervisor
-2-
Deccmber 7, 1988
rÙralvillage. There is no space available for alternate puhlic parking. The
survey also contemplates adding lanes on CR 9 (River Street east of Main Street).
This is also totally unrealistic and unacceptable. There is located on the
northeast corner of Main and River Streets a First National nank of Glens Falls
which has been newly constructed ,.Jithin the last 16 months. Soon to occupy part
of this building is the Corinth Post Office, which will 11ave a suhstantial
impact on this already overburdened intersection. There is no space for
additional lanes.
The proposals'for Phase T'17oare totally unacceptable. If implemented, it ,.¡ould
ultimately Cäuse the complete death of the business district and turn Palmer
Avenue, and particularly Nain Street, into a high,.¡ay of extreme traffic,
changing the entire rural character and ambience of the Village of Corinth, as
well as having a negative effect upon its business tax base.
While we find the present proposals as having a significant negative impact,
both environmentally and economically, we would like to~uggcst the following
steps that might be taken to significantly mitigate suc~ an impact: -
1. The developer, at their expense, install a traffic signal at inter-
section of Palmer Avenue and Main Street ,no later than September I,
1989. The developer to be responsible for purchasc, installation,
repair, and maintenance.
2. The, State of New York D.O.T. .:!-n<:tall as soon as possible, but no later
than July 1, 1989" a ,traffic signal at the intersection of Main Street
{9N) .and River.Street (CR9).'
3. That prior to or upon the commencing of Phase Two, the developer, at
its own expense, pave and upgrade River Street from the intersection
of Palmer Avenue to the intersection of CR 9. Such upgrading ,.¡ould
include the developer, at its expense, to acquire any necessary real
property in order to establish a highway that would meet generally
~ccepted standards.
It is urgêd'~nd reqµested such mitigating requirements he placed in a specific
schedule with provision for suitable payments into an escrow account and be
part of the Planned Unit Legislation and Contract.
In closing, it· is extremely important to realize that the Village of Corinth is
realizing no increase in its tax base but is assuming an onerous burdcn upon
its facilities, environment, and ambience. T.1:!~.::present proposal ,.¡ould turn its
busine~s~nd residential streets into a major vehicular' route whicl! is neither
y
needed; wanted, or desirable.:
The Village Board, as presently constituted, is willing to continuQ to discllss
solutions with the devleoper once the mitigating suggestions are in place.
--
~
,
'...
'-
5. All amendments to this agreement must be signed by
"
each of tfte municipalities which are a ?art of this agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the part 18s have caused this agreement
to be executed by the duly authorized officers as of the day and
year first above written.
,.,'(.:,