The URL can be used to link to this page

1992-07-28 P2-92 RECOMMENDATION ONLY (REVISED) Subdivision No. 11-1992 PRELIMINARY STAGE PUD 1-92 RECOMMENDATION ONLY QUEENSBURY P LAINING BOARD filEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 28TH, 1992 INDEX General Mills Restaurant, Inc. 1. J. Buckley Bryan, Jr. 14. Hudson Pointe - P.U.D. 20. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIAllY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WIll APPEAR ON THE FOllOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WIll STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. V ./ -' QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 28TH, 1992 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES MARTIN, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY CORINNE TARANA TIMOTHY BREWER STEPHEN BARSON MEMBERS ABSENT EDWARD LAPOINT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-ROBERT PARISI SENIOR PLANNER-lEE YORK STENOGRAPHER-PAM WHITING MR. MARTIN-We have a coup1e of sHght changes on the agenda,. The first is we have an appHcant from 1ast week who was tab1ed untiJ tonight, the J. Buck1ey Bryan project. I don't know if anyone from the appHcant is here yet? Okay. We'n ho1d that off untiJ the next spot. The other thing was, we had another appHcation that was advertised for tonight, Site P1an No. 38-92, David Richardson. The site p1an review was waived for this for some extenuating circumstances. So, if anybody was here for that project, that has simp1y been moved on to a buHding permit. So, that's not going to be up for review tonight. Okay. With a11 that done, then we wi11 get right in to the rest of the agenda. P2-92 (REVISED) RECOMMENMTION ONLY GENERAL MILLS RESTAURANT, INC. PROPERTY INVOLVED: CORNER OF AVIATION RD. AND GREENllAY NORTH CURRENT ZONE: SFR-I0 PROPOSED ZONE: HC-lA FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A RED LOBSTER SEAFOOO RESTAURANT. TAX MP NO. 98-2-1 98-3-1. 5 TO CœSOLIMTE THE THREE EXISTING PARCELS INTO ONE LOT OF APPROXIMTElY 4.377 AC. THE DEVELOPMENT ifIll CONSIST OF A 8,336 SQ. FT. BUILDING, LANDSCAPING, PARKING FACILITIES, AND STORJIIATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES. PLAN REVISED SO AS TO PROVIDE A 100 FT. BUFFER AlONG GREENWAY NORTH AND OLD AVIATION ROAD AND A 75 FOOT BUFFER ALONG THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCES ON BIRCH LANE. ALSO, ELIMINATION OF THE VEHICULAR ACCESS ONTO GREEflfAY NORTH. (BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE) (IIARREN coom PLANNING) JOHN lEMERY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:00 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Robert M. Parisi, Executive Director, P2-92 - Revised, Red lobster Char1es Wood, Ju1y 28, 1992, Meeting Date: Ju1y 28, 1992 "The proposa1 for Red lobster has been reviewed by the Director and the mitigation measures are outHned in a 1etter of understanding. The on1y outstanding issue is whether Greenway North win be used as an access point." MRS. YORK-Would you Hke me to read the Memorandum of Understanding? MR. MARTIN-I think it probably wou1d be a good idea" a1though it's 1engthy. MRS. YORK-Okay. "On behalf of the property owner and appHcant, Mr. Char1es R. Wood, we have reviewed the minutes of the Town P1anning Board meeting he1d on Februa,ry 25, 1992, as wen as copies of correspondence forwarded to us by the Planning Department and have identified the foHowing 18 issues which have been raised by either the members of the P1anning Board or the public. After each issue we have provided our response and/or mitigation mea.sure that Mr. Wood a,nd/or the contract vendee, General Mills Restaurants, Inc. hereby commit to imp1ement upon approva1 of the project: 1. ISSUE: Concern over a second commercia1 10t for future deve1opment. MITIGATION: The p1an has been revised to show one 10t of 4.37 acres. The originaHy proposed second 10t has now been eliminated. The appHcant win agree that if the property is re-zoned to HC-1A, no future subdivision of the property wou1d be a11owed. 2. ISSUE: Increased traffic within the Greenway North subdivision. MITIGATION: The proposed vehicu1ar access to Greenway North has been eHminated and the Aviation Road access has been moved east to reduce the potentia1 for vehic1es to use the Old Aviation Road "short cut". 3. ISSUE: Traffic vo1ume and safety. MITIGATION: A comprehensive traffic study has been prepared by lawrence M. levine, P.E. A copy of the study is attached hereto. The specific mitigation measures which have been described in the study inc1ude the fonowing: stop sign contro1s will be provided at the site access drive, the tree Hne to the east of the site along Aviation Road wiH be trimed back to the property Hne to increase sight distance to the east and the traffic contro1s at the intersection of Aviation Road and Greenway North wiH be reviewed for proper operation and suggested repairs wiH be forwarded to the New York Sta,te Department of Transportation. 4. ISSUE: Peak hour traffic on Aviation Road. MITIGATION: The peak time for 1 ~ Red lobster is lunch on weekdays and dinner on weekends. As indicated in the Aviation Mall traffic study, the peak hour for Aviation' Road is 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. weekdays and 12:00 to 1:00 p.m. weekends. 5. ISSUE: Poor visibility for vehicles entering Aviation Road from Greenway North. MITIGATION: The revised plan orients all turning movements related to the site a,way from Greenway North by eliminating the site access originally proposed for Greenway North. 6. ISSUE: Effect on existing school bus stop at Greenway North. MITIGATION: All activity has been moved away from Greenway North. See response to prior issue. 7. ISSUE: Cooking and dumpster odors. MITIGATION: The restaurant's ventilation system will include a state of the art electronic air cleaner and odor absorption system which will have the capacity to clean the air volume produced by the restaurant at an air cleaning capacity of not less than 80%. The dumpster will be covered and enclosed and will have a,n a.utomatic deodorizing system. 8. ISSUE: Noise generated by the restaurant. MITIGATION: The large treed buffer zone will minimize the noise impact. Also, General Mills Restaurants will arrange for all landscape, maintenance, snow removal. and trash remova.l to take pla,ce between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. 9. ISSUE: Establishment of the buffer zone where the existing house is to be removed on Old Aviation Road. MITIGATION: A planting plan will be submitted to the Planning Board at site plan review for its approval showing the a,ddition of trees to blend in with the existing mature buffer. 10. ISSUE: View of site from homes along Old Aviation Road. MITIGATION: The proposal has been revised to provide a natural vegetative buffer comprised of existing mature trees which is from 100' to 200' wide along Old Aviation Road. Genera.l Mills Restaurants and Mr. Wood have both committed to deed to the Town a conservation easement covering the buffer area if the Town Board so requests, thus the buffer will be forever protected. Items 11 through 18 address the issues listed in the Planning Board's re-zoning checklist: 11. ISSUE: What need is being met by the proposed zone change? RESPONSE: The existing sewer rents are a significant burden for the members of the sewer district and will only be reduced through the addition of other users. The restaurant will pa,y approximately $24,000 in sewer rent annually, will provide 80-90 new jobs and will pay significantly increased property taxes and a,pproximately $200,000 in sales tax a,nnua,lly. 12. ISSUE: Are there a.lternative zones? RESPONSE: The highway commercial, plaza commercial, light industrial, recreation cOlIJIIercial. neighborhood commercial zones would each permit a restaurant, however, HC-1A is a more a,ppropriate zone for the parcel based upon the zoning of Aviation Road. 13. ISSUE: How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones? RESPONSE: The proposed zone is compatible with the existing ESC, HC, and PC zones located along Aviation Road. A significant natural buffer has now been provided along the existing residential zone which will be permanent and General Mills Restaurants and Mr. Wood have both committed to deed to the Town a conservation easement covering the buffer zone if the Town Board so requests. Furthermore, all activity is oriented toward the adjacent commercial zone. Moreover, the existing R-1 zoning is incompatible with adjacent zones because the construction of approximately 14 single family homes would result in the elimination of the vegetative buffer and the Aviation Mall would be visible to the homes on Old Aviation Road. 14. ISSUE: What physica.l characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed zone? RESPONSE: The property fronts on a. ma,jor arteria.l roa,dway which is the main commercial entrance to the Town of Queensbury. It ha,s illJllediate access to the intersta.te, and it is large enough to accommodate the proposed development while providing a significant buffer for the protection of the surrounding residential properties. Additionally, the site is accessible to the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District. 15. ISSUE: How will the proposed zone affect public facilities? RESPONSE: The Sewer District will be enla,rged to include this site and a large annual sewer rent will be generated. The Sewer District has sufficient capacity to a,ccommodate the increased flow. Also, see response to item 11 above. 16. ISSUE: What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change? RESPONSE: The large site has highly permeable soils. More than 50% of the site will remain treed and 64% of the site will remain permeable. The sa,nita,ry sewer will eliminate the potential for groundwa.ter contamination. The buffer zone will minimize the visual and noise impacts of the project. 17. ISSUE: How is the proposa.l compatible with relevant portions of the Town's comprehensive land use plan? RESPONSE: On pa.ge 26 and 28 the comprehensive land use pla,n recommends limited defined access to cOlIJIIercial property. The proposed single a.ccess to 4.37 acres of property a.long Aviation Road accomplishes this goal. Similarly, On pa,ge 29 the Plan recolIJIIends creating larger lots to discourage strip development. Pa.ge 34 addresses Neighborhood Number Five which includes this area. Neighborhood Number Five is cha,racterize as "The Commercia.l Center of the Town of Queensbury". Page 39 recommends establishing buffer zones, which we are proposing to do. Page 44 addresses the loss of employment in the Town limiting the residentia.l capabilities of the Town. Moreover, on pa,ge 62, the Intrinsic Development Suitability of the site is a,cknowledged. However, this site ha,s limited development suitability, unless it is connected to the public sewer system as we have proposed. Finally, page 64 addresses land uses, and characterizes the area encompassing the shopping malls. Quaker Road and Route 9 as general COlIJIIercial. This site is within the general cOlIJIIercial area. As such, the proposal is in conformance with the specific mandates of the Comprehensive land Use Plan. 18. ISSUE: How are the wider interests of the Town being served? RESPONSE: The project will provide sewer rents, jobs, taxes a,nd the attraction of tourists. Additiona,lly, the proposed buffer zone will permanently protect the character of the Greenway North subdivision. In summary, the site is only one of three parcels located along Aviation Road and Quaker Roa.d between the Northway and Ridge Roa,d which are not zoned commercial. We believe the proposal balances the competing interests of the economic needs of the Town and a.djacent residential neighborhood's desire for a permanent buffer which will protect its character. The proposed buffer far exceeds the requirements of the Town zoning ordinance. In addition, General Mills Resta,urants, Inc. is a successful national company which will fully meet its obligations with respect to the proposed mitigation, as well as professionally developing a,nd ma,intaining its property. Very truly yours, Jonathan C. lapper" 2 - -- MR. MARTIN-Thank you, lee, for rea.ding aH that, and I a1so want to thank Mr. Parisi for having the appHcant respond to that outHne in advance. It was most he1pfu1 to the meeting tonight. I think we have some correspondence there from New York State DOT. MRS. PULVER-I' H read it. This is to Pa.u1 Dusek, Town Attorney, "Dear Mr. Dusek: We have begun our NYSDOT work permit review of the Traffic Impact Study for the revised Red lobster Proposa1. We are stiH in the ear1y stages of our review process; and therefore, no fina1 determinations have yet been made. I am writing to inform you that the Department wou1d strong1y prefer to see a.ccess to the Red lobster site provided from Greenway North Road (as was the case with the previous Red lobster proposa1). The reason for this preference is to aHow eastbound drivers,' who must access and 1eave the site with 1eft turns, the opportunity to use the existing signa1 at Greenway North Road and Rte 254 to make those movements. The configuration that is shown in the Traffic Impact Study wou1d require aH traffic to enter and exit the site from a driveway off Route 254, forcing 1eft turning vehic1es to wait for breaks in the frequent1y heavy west bound oPPOsing stream of traffic to ma.ke this maneuver. These 1eft turn movements can be most safe1y done in a signa1ized intersection with .dedicated 1eft turn 1anes. Since the Greenway North, Route 254 intersection is such an intersection why not make it avaHa.b1e for 1eft turners by providing access to the site off Greenway North Roa.d? I am writing at this ea.r1y sta.ge of the NYSDOT review process so that due consideration can be given to this aHernative in the 1oca1 review process. After a thorough review, the Department wi11 make a determination as to the configuration of the access to be aHowed onto Rte 254. Thank you for the opportunity to coment on this proposa1. If you require further information, p1ease caH me at 473-0494. Sincere1y, Kenneth A. Car1son, Senior Transporta.tion Ana.1yst" MR. MARTIN-And I beHeve we have severa1 other pieces of correspondence from the pub1ic at 1arge. If we cou1d wait unti1 the pubHc hearing portion of the review, here, and we'H read those into the record at that time. Okay. We ha.ve someone here from the app1icant, I be1ieve, who wou1d Hke to address the Board? MR. LEMERY-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My na.me is John lemery, an attorney with the law firm of lemery & Reid. I was hired by the group that wou1d Hke to address the Board tonight. Jon la.pper of my 1aw firm, Richa.rd Stacey, who's a Site Deve10pment Ma.na.ger for the Red lobster, larry levine who's our traffic consu1tant, and John Gora1ski from the firm of Richard Jones Associates, our architect and engineer. I'd Hke to first make a request that this appHcation, on beha.1f of the a.ppHcant tonight, be tab1ed. I wou1d ma.ke this request based on what I understand to be the ca.se that on1y four members of this P1anning Board wou1d be voting on this matter tonight. We think this is a very serious zoning matter for the Town, and has far reaching impHcations, not on1y for the Town, but for the neighbors and for the owner of the site as weH. So, what we'd Hke to do, since everybody has come out, and subject to the notice, is to give everybody the opportunity to speak, both on our beha1f and on beha1f of the neighborhood and anybody e1se who wou1d 1ike to speak, but tab1e any vote on this, so that this can be brought to the attention of the fuH Board at the August meeting, and continue the hearing, so tha.t when the August meeting is had and we've got the new members of the Board working on beha.1f of the Town, it wi11 be brought before them again at the August meeting, so that we wi11 have the fu11 Board response to this request. MR. MARTIN-WeH, I was just informed, Car01 won't be here for the first August meeting, and I be1ieve Stephen Barson, who's our new member here tonight, a1though not voting, he is sitting in. He won't be here for the 1ast meeting. So, at best, you're going to have six, I guess, for August, at either meeting. So, what I'd Hke to do, though, is, for the benefit of the pub1ic who did come, I agree with you. We shou1d give them an opportunity to speak, as we11 as any information you do have tonight that you'd Hke to pa.ss a.1ong for their benefit as weH as ours,' and if we have to do this over a.gain in August, then so be it. So, is there a.ny questions that anybody has of the deve10pment team at this time? Does anybody have anything they'd Hke to ask? I have one. I know there was, I can read by the response here we have in the outHne, that I guess a considerab1e effort was made to keep the entra.nce a.nd the exit to the site on Aviation Road, and my on1y question wou1d be, was there a.ny consideration given to access on1y to the site from Greenway North, but with the proviso, so to spea.k, that no right ha.nd turns be aHowed out of the site. That wou1d keep the traffic out of the neighborhood, but we cou1d stiH access that tra.ffic Hght that DOT is encouraging us to do. JON LAPPER MR. LAPPER-Mr. Cha-irman, for the record, my name is Jon lapper from lemery & Reid. Wha.t we did when, obvious1y, this was before the Board earHer in the year, and when Mr. Wood a.sked us to take a 100k at this, we reviewed a11 the comments of the neighbors and the P1anning Department, 100ked at the p1an, and determined that, in aH fairness, the concerns of these residentscou1d be met, so tha.t we cou1d come up with a. compromise p1an that wou1d be more subjective. What we did at that point, because we rea1ized that the traffic issue was because peop1e were coming out at McDona1ds and Kentucky Fried Chicken a.nd using that subdivision road asa short cut to get up the Northway up to Aviation MaH. So, what we fe1t wou1d be the best thing we cou1d offer the neighbors was to have the on1y access to the Red lobster site on Aviation Road, even though we agree that using that signa1ed intersection wou1d probab1y be the most beneficia1 for this project. We fe1t that, to a.ppease the neighbors concern, a.t 1east, we fe1t that we cou1d convince DOT that because the traffic reaHy is not a significant increase on what's a1ready going on Aviation Road, tha.t we cou1d have our on1y a.ccess on Aviation. DOT, their 3 response, we contacted them after we read the letter, a.nd they talked to us before they issued the letter and told us that that's what they were thinking, and they let us know that if the Town feels strongly that they really don't want an access onto Greenway North, they would reconsider, and consider our proposal to have the only access onto Aviation. What you're asking is, would it be better planning to have the access only on Greenway North, so that they could use the traffic light. MR. MARTIN-With the provision of no right hand turns, if that would be accepta.ble to you, or to your traffic pattern. MR. LAPPER-No right turns is something, if there is an exit to Greenway North, which is totally appropriate. No one néeds to be driving through a residential neighborhood to access or leave the restaurant, and certainly the intersection could handle that because of the traffic light that's there. That's acceptable. I guess it's really more a question of what the Town wants, what this Board wants at site plan review, once we get through the zoning process. MR. BREWER-You say you think that that traffic light could handle the traffic. How many cars are going to be generated out of there at anyone time? MR. LAPPER-Well, our traffic engineer is here. We were going to go through the traffic study portion of this in a little bit, but if that's wha.t you wa.nt now, lets get him up here. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-And my other addition onto that would be to keep the curb cut onto Aviation Road with maybe right hand turns only into the site off of Aviation Road. MR. BREWER-That's going right back to wha.t we denied the last time, though, Jim. I mean, it's exactly the same pla.n. If you put that exit onto Greenway, that's what we denied. So, why are we back here asking him to do the same thing we denied him? MR. MARTIN-Well. I wouldn't be if we could limit it to no right hand turn. That would, hopefully, keep the traffic out of the neighborhood. Tha.t's the change, but lets see what the response is. MR. lEMERY-We understood to be the issue traffic in the neighborhood. So, obviously, if you couldn't make a right hand turn, to keep the traffic out of the neighborhood, it would certainly make sense to have access to a traffic signal. but our response to the neighbors, a.s we understood it, is a result of a hearing on this. COlllJ1ents that were made when this was before the Planning Board before was the traffic tha.t would be generated on Old Aviation Road. So, that's what we were trying to address. We have a rendering of Aviation Road, Quaker Road, all the way to the River Street, and I was wondering if the audience would like to see it. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's more for their benefit. MR. LEMERY-It's important, in determining whether or not to consider a. re-zoning for the site, that everybody understa.nds what's there, and the wa.y the principle corridor coming into the Town is now zoned. With that in mind, what happened in 1988, the last time the zoning commission looked at this, this is Route 254, the Northway down to River Street at the Hudson Falls area.. The only sites that are zoned under the Highway Commercial are the site here. which is the subject of tonight's presentation, the SFR-lO, the Pineview Cemetery, on the other side of Route 9, a very small piece of land which is mostly a wetland a.t the intersection of Meadowbrook a.nd Qua.ker Roa.d, a NiMo easement over here on the north side of the road, and a very smaJl piece of the Earltown property towards the end of the Quaker Road corridor. The problem with this site is not so much what's proposed here by GeneraJ Mills, but the way the site is presently zoned. We believe that the neighbors are more at risk, the neighborhood behind the site is more at risk with the way the property is presently zoned. The only thing we can envision is that at the time when it was re-zoned, the plan rea.lly was to try to avoid a.ny development at all on the site, and of course, that's not necessarily what is in the best interest of the Town. It certa.inly isn't in the best interest of the applicant, a.nd it certainly isn't consistent with the ma.ster pla.n of the Town, which is the development of the cOlIIßerciaJ corridors in the Town, to serve the commercial businesses and the Town taxes. Jon, if you could put up the subdivision. I don't know how well thought out this was, at the time when this site was zoned in 1988, but the way it's currently zoned, now, a 14 lot subdivision could go into the site. The problem that a. developer would have is that you can't have a.n entrance or egress, a. road, within 300 feet of another road. So that, in effect, the entra.nce to this subdivision would end up on Aviation Road, so tha.t all of these houses in here would end up coming in and out of Aviation Road. Obviously, if it were going to be developed, there would be a great deal of a screening that's now in place that would have to come out of there, and the question becomes, is tha.t rea.lly an a.ppropriate use of this site? It seems to me tha.t if we were to come before the Planning Boa.rd or the Zoning Board or the Town Board and say, we know it's zoned commercial, but we'd Hke to change the zone. We'd like to put in a residential subdivision here, people would say, you're cra.zy, why would a.nybody even give a.ny thought to a residential subdivision on Aviation Road, roughly a quarter of a. mile from the 1-87 Interstate? So, what in effect has happened is that the way it's zoned now makes no sense, unless it was the intent a.t the time to try to put a zone in position here that could never be utilized. Now, it seems to me that there are three interests 4 -- that have to be addressed in any zoning matter, certainiy, and in pa.rticuia.r this one invoiving this site. Certainiy the neighbors to the north ha.ve to be protected on Oid Aviation Road. They've ha.d enough troubie as this whoie area has evoived over the years from what it was when a iot of those homes were buiit. Beyond that, the Town ha.s an interest in deveioping the commerciai property. The sewer tax in this community is very substantiaL a.nd getting worse. So there's a need to deveiop the commerciai businesses which couid pick up a iarge percentage of that tax base. So, there's an interest on behaif of the Town for economic deveiopment. We couid taik about economic deveiopment a.n night. This compa.ny iaying off empioyees and that company iaying off empioyees, and the need, certa.iniy in these times, to broa.den the tax base, and what we put in front of you is a compa.ny that is a nationai company, tha.t couid meet its obTigations. can buiTd a fa.ciiity that wouid be, presuma.biy, a credit to the Town, and ca.n provide reai economic benefit, but that's not so much the issue, a.s it is, what's the proper use at the site that protects everybody. So, what we tried to do, given, what couid be done here was to cra.ft a situa.tion that wouid protect the neighbors, enha.nce the economic base of the Town, and a.now the iand owner, whoever that ia.nd owner might be, to have a reasona.bie use of the property for which he or she is paying taxes. The end resuit was that we tried to craft a situation for the community that wouid provide a permanent buffer. I ha.d occasion to taik to one of the neighbors. One of the neighbors, in the iast coupie of days, was wiTTing to taik to me about the situation, and he said, wen, the probiem that I have with it is that if it's an of a sudden re-zoned commerciai, that's sort of iike the oid sTice of saiami. You get your foot in the door, and the next thing you know, it gets increased, and increased, a.nd increased, and pretty soon, the whoie site is deveioped in some sort of commerciai way that destroys the protection of the peopie here a.nd the peopie here. We tried to address that. I don't know if you couid hear very wen, when we were a.ddressing the mitigative measures concerning the site, but what the owner of the property is wining to do is to provide a conserva.tion easement to the Town of Queensbury which wouid in effect, for an practicai purposes, deed this buffer to the Town, and in effect it wouid never be used for a.ny purpose other than providing a buffer. It's aimost 200 feet here, 100 feet here, ciose to 75 feet here a.nd back here. Most of the trees are mature back here. Nothing wiii change, and the site is, as you can see, deveioped in a way that it fronts out here. The traffic and noise impacts are out here, and it seems to us that if you iook at aii the issues reiated to the site and what couid be done with the site as a subdivision, that this, from a neighborhood perspective, may very wen be a better way to address it. We've got an agreement with the Red lobster that the house up here wouid be taken down. Some of the very iarge trees wouid be taken out of the site, which is going to be deveioped, re-pianted up here, a.nd then beiow those trees which have fairiy high branch Tines, evergreens wouid be pia.nted so that there wouid be a buffer and you wouidn' t have to iook through the bottom of the trees out into Aviation Road, or get the noise impact coming there from. Aga.in, if you had the subdivision, and somebody came in there and deveioped the property, you'd end up with a bunch of houses in there, of presuma.biy sman trees, a.nd the peopie from Oid Aviation Road wouid iook right out onto Pyramid Man and certainiy the noise coming from Aviation Road and the Ma.n and the other areas, it seems to us wouid ha....e a greater impact getting back in here than was proposed. That's how we've tried to address it, a.nd in terms of why we've come to this Board a.nd asked for a re-zoning, as opposed to a va.riance or some other fashion, is because the present zone doesn't work. It doesn't work for the neighbors. It doesn't work for the Town, and it doesn't, certa.iniy, work for the appTicant. I want to just share with you, for a coupie of minutes, the economic impact of what this particuiar project wouid provide for the Town. in terms of economic Tiabiiity. Based on what Red lobster tens us the size of the project wouid be and their sewer usa.ge wouid be. it wouid provide $33,000 a yea.r in sewer rent to the Town of Queensbury. That's ð very significant number, given the tremendous impa.ct of the Sewer District on these businesses up there. The property taxes that Red lobster woutd pay approximate $18,000 a. yea.r. Red lobster tens us that the saies taxes that wouid be generated amount to about $200,000 a yea.r. That's the a.t seven percent. That's the totaJ saies tax generated, a.nd the jobs, 80 to 90 fun time jobs here. We think that's pretty significant, and that if the Town is going to iook at deveioping commerciaJ property in the Town, at the appropriate spot, that what's provided for here makes significant sense, a.nd provides a reasonabie use of the site. The fenow I taJked to the other day, who's aiso, a.s I mentioned, ð resident of the area, the neighborhood behind here, said he aiso waiked into the woods and waiked through here, in the buffer. He said it was very significant, much iarger than he ever thought, and that the mature foìia.ge out there couid do a significant job in protecting the neighborhood. He did mention to me iater that in the faii, when some of the deciduous trees come down, that you Cð.n iook through the site, a.nd I wouid ha.ve no objection in going back to the deveioper and Red lobster and saying, maybe there's a way to fin in some of those hoies that deveiop with some evergreens, as proposed out here, so as to provide a. better buffer, in some ways, than now exists for this particuiar a.rea.. I think I've addressed, pretty much, the issues reiating to why we think it's appropriate for re-zoning. In terms of the Town master pian, it reaiiy does meet the criteria estabìished, and reaiiy does become consistent with what eise is on Aviation Road, Qua.ker Road. We tried, one of the things had the benefit of, coming into it a ìittie iate, in terms of the second hearing, we had the benefit of getting an of the comments that were made by everybody who spoke at the ia.st hea.ring, a.nd we were very carefui in trying to address everyone of those comments, and providing for the mitigative measures, and that ietter we provided to the new pianner, and so we think thät we've tried to address the issues. If there a.re more concerns, we'n certa.iniy try to address them. We beTieve what we've put in front of you is consistent and appropriate, given where we sit today, in terms of Town's ma.ster pian and the site. I'd iike to go back to the traffic issues, if you wouidn't mind, and have larry speak to that for a moment. LARRY lEVINE 5 - --..-' MR. lEVINE-My name is la.rry levine. I did a traffic study for this site. In fact, I've actua11y done severa.I traffic studies for this site, as the entrances have evolved, a.nd I have looked at and ta.lked with Ken Carlson, severa.I times, rega.rding the access and how it should be hid out, and I a.gree with DOT that Greenway North would the sa.fest way to ha,ndle left turns. You have a traffic signa.I there. There are problems with that tra.ffic signa.Is. There have been problems with that traffic signa.I for several years. off and on. I evaluated the accident history at the intersection of Greenway North a.nd Aviation Roa.d, a.nd it wa.s quite interesting what I found. There are drainage problems on Aviation Roa.d, because of the design of Aviation Road. I'm not sure that DOT can do much about it. They're looking at it, and I've talked to Ken Carlson about this. Most of the accidents, 60 percent I believe, occur in icy, wet weather, and they occur from east bound vehicles on Aviation Road going into the Ma11. or on the side of them, and that would be the southeast qua.drant of the intersection, about 60 percent. ice and wet weather, a.nd the road is banked toward that side, the whole roa.d is cross sloped towards that. There's also a problem with the Mini Chopper there. People are coming out, a.nd there's weaving. There's a lot of weaving going on there to get into theMa11 , and in and out of the Price Chopper and so forth. That's the biggest problem. The second problem is the signal itself. There are right angle a.ccidents coming out of Greenway North, and what I observed, I was out there on a Saturday, and a. weekday, to look at the situa.tion. First, there's what's ca11ed a presence loop in the pavement, which is a wire, strung wire, in the pavement, a.nd that's supposed to trip the signal when vehicles come up Greenway North. It's supposed to give them enough time to get through the signa.I, and it works with the controller of the signal. Now, that trip device also works in conjunction with the trip device on the other side of Aviation Road, at the exit from the Ma11. What I found was, the loop wires are sticking out of the pavement, and there a.re three stra.nds wra.pped around. One of them is broken. So, that loop mayor may not be working. It may work one day. It may not work the next. DOT was not aware of that. So, the pavement has graveled and so forth in the area. That may be part of it. but the a.ccidents reflect the fa.ct that the signa.l itself, I believe a.Imost ha.1f the a.ccidents that occurred out of Greenway North, occurred when the signa.I was on fla.shing operation, or light bulbs were out on the signal, and they a.Iso occurred beca.use if you consider that if a car comes out of Greenway North, lets say there are two cars on Greenwa.y North, and you want to get out at the signa.l, a.nd the loop doesn't work. The signa.I doesn't know they're there. One car comes out of Aviation Ma11. That ca.r will trip the signal, but the signa.I will only give enough time for one car, not two cars, that are on Greenway. So, what ha.ppens is, just about a11 the a.ccidents say, vehicle coming out of Greenway North. trying to run the signa.I, or hit during the amber pha.se, and that would explain the loop problem. I talked to Ken Carlson about it, and I a.Iso ta.Iked to Jan Mulheedy about it, and they were investiga.ting it the last time I talked to them. There is a. problem there, though. They acknowledged that. MR. MARTIN-Is that their maintenance responsibility, or the County? MR. lEVINE-It's the Sta.te's responsibility. It's a State roa.d a.nd a State signal, so forth. Tha.t's why the entrance/exit off of Aviation Road ha.s to go to the State for review. It's their road. They have to a.pprove the access onto that road. They would like to see two access points, I think. The thrust of the letter, and my conversations with Ken Carlson are, they'd like to see two access points. because they'd like to spread out, whenever he can, he would like to spread out the traffic, and the left turns onto a roa.d like Aviation Road, you always try to get left turners out at a. signal, if you can, just because it's a safe move, it's a. protective move. So, tha.t's where he's coming from. I heard your comment. The ideal situa.tion that I've talked to Ken Ca.rlson a.bout, a.nd I believe was mentioned in the original proposal was, the driveway, the regula.r driveway onto Aviation Roa.d, and/or a right turn in. right turn out, a.nd perhaps two of those, and a driveway onto Greenway North so that left turners can a.ccess the signal during peak periods. There could be a. sign on Greenway North prohibiting right turns. I talked to the applicants a.nd there's no problem with that, but that's what I was talking to Ken Carlson about. MR. W\RTIN-Okay. A11 right. Does a.nybody on the Board have a.ny questions at this time? Anything further? MR. LEVINE-Since this is the first time I've been at a. meeting, I don't know if it's been discussed yet. One nice thing about the Red lobster application, this pa.rticular restaurant. I've looked at this type restaurant before, a.nd what happens is they have an off peak characteristic. Their evening business on the weekend is their peak period. Their lunch-time during the week is their peak period. Those happen to be the off peak periods a.t this road. Saturday noon time is the big. noon to two, is the big period for the Ma11, and that's rea11y, in the report, the critica.I time period for traffic on this road is Saturday, the noon time, noon to two. MR. MARTIN-How about. a.ny ana.lysis of the times. I mean, la.te a.fternoon, I mea.n, four, five o'clock, people returning to their homes up on Aviation Road. MR. LEVINE-Yes. I looked at that, and that's still lower than Saturday, and the Meyers Study that wa.s done for the Ma.11 also proved that out. So, it wa.sn't the peak period, a.s far a.s ga.p goes too. I sat out there to confirm what they ha.dsaid, and ba.sica.11y I looked at the ga.ps in the traffic that were ava.i1able, a,nd I think Saturday is peak also, because the traffic is more evenly distributed on Aviation Road. You've got cars going both directions. whereas. on the weekday peak, you're ta.lking about cars just ma.inly going home, a.nd they're going in one direction. So, every time the tra.ffic light holds them up at Greenway North, there's going to be ga.ps in the traffic. Saturday you don't 6 '---.... ---- always see that. One other thing. I worked with Richard Jones Associates. We went out in the field and the reason that this driveway into the site is off set, you'd norma.lly expect it to be in the center of the site. It isn't. The reason is, we chose the best location for site distance. It exceeds the, New York State DOT has driveway standards for site distance, a.nd we wa.nted to exceed those distances. MR. MARTIN-And that's true, even the site distance to the east? MR. LEVINE-Yes, both directions, and to the west, you've got the signal, but there is back up here, and I wanted to push it a.s far back a.s I could. The back up I've ta.l ked to DOT about a.lso. Through this whole area there's a problem, and that's because the bridge that's over the Northway is one lane. DOT knows that's a problem. They want to do something about it. They told me that they can't promise anything because they don't have it designed, per se. MR. MARTIN-It's in the pipe line? MR. lEVINE-It's in the pipe line for the next five to seven years, which is what they're saying about just a.bout everything. The reason is they ha.ven't yet gotten the ice tea. money, which is the federa.l monies coming down. DOT just hired 500 engineers. They can't design the projects fast enough to qualify for the money. The money is there in the next five to seven years. That's what they're counting on. When that starts to hit, and when the consultants such a.s myself, hopefully, get into the picture on it, there's going to be designs flying out there and there's going to be a lot of work, and that will hit, the consulting contracts are starting up in September, from what I understand. MR. MARTIN-And for the benefit of the audience, the ice tea acronym stands for? MR. LEVINE-Inter model surface transportation enhancement a.ct, but it's a lot of money. It's a.lrea.dy been allocated. A lot of it is going down state into transit, but we're talking so much money that's been allocated tha.t, and the way it works is, if the sta.te, a.nd I understand the loca.l governments as well. If they have a project designed and ready to go and approved, which is a long process, they get the money. If New York doesn't have it and ready to go, and New Jersey does, then New Jersey gets the money. That's just the way they work it out. So. everybody's working like crazy. The only State Department that's hiring is DOT. They're hiring a.nd they're an working weekends a.nd double time a.nd over time and holidays. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. MR. LEMERY-I'd like to ask Richard Stacey, Mr. Chairma.n, to speak. He is the Site Development Ma.nager for the Red lobster. I'd like to address the Board, and then I'd like to just conclude, shortly after. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Thank you. RICHARD STACEY MR. STACEY-Tha.nk you very much. My purpose in being here this evening, and by the way, I work for General Mills. Red lobster is a. division of Genera.l Mills. They a.re wholly owned subsidiaries. They own operate each of the 850 restaurants in the United States and Canada. These are franchise restaurants, fully owned, fully operated. Tha.t's an important point, beca.use if you anow us in your community, you're bringing in an orga.niza.tion with 25 years experience. Red lobster's been in opera.tion 25 years. We ha.ve been recognized as a premier dinner house in the United States. We are the largest dinner house in the world. a.s a. matter of fact, if you don't count Denny's or McDona.lds. We think that, as the developer has pointed out, this is the highest a.nd best use of this property. We a.lso understand that this is somewhat contenious a.nd somewhat emotional at this point. and we didn't come in here to liJa.ke that situa.tion any worse. What we would like to do, though. is to assure you that if, in fact, this is going to become a comercia.l property, we think we would be the best neighbor, possibly, to come in here and do this. As the developer has pointed out, there are severa.l mitigation things that we approve of, we think are the best way to ma.na.ge this. The buffering issue, I think, is a sensible, logical and realistic a.pproach to this issue. Your concerns about noise, visibility to the Ma.n, we think that's resolved there. The issue of traffic is. perha.ps, can be resolved by the signal. The economic that was pointed out is a. fa.ct. Our market a.na.lysis, and we have a very sophisticated market analysis program, says that this is going to be a very good market for us. We're prepared to invest a significant amount of funding, and if it takes a significant amount of development money to sati sfy you folks and make sure that you're happy with our development and happy with us as a. neighbor, and happy with us a.s a. corporation, we're going to do what we ha.ve to do to sa.tisfy you, ra.ther than force our way in.' Aga.in, we are in a. self financed corporation. Genera.l Mills ha.s been in operation for over 100 yea.rs. They own the Red lobster. They own several other major corporations. We want, again, to be your neighbor. and this is the best solution to this property. If I could answer any questions. MR. MARTIN-Thank you very much. MR. lEMERY-By way of conclusion, we'd just like to file with the Pla.nning Boa.rd a number of letters and some petitions that we have, of a number of substantia.l Queensbury businesses a.nd properties, an of which have an interest in seeing this site properly developed, a.nd a. reasonable and responsible 7 ----' zoning a.nd pla.nning tàke pla.ce. I just want to lea.ve you with a problem. It seems that, the way that this site is currently zoned, tha.t if somebody came in here and proposed a subdivision of 13 or 14 single family residences, that that probably wouldn't work, and it proba.bly wouldn't make any sense. Therefore, if it can't be developed, responsibly, as a single family subdivision, a.nd you decide that it shouldn't be developed as a cOlllllerciaJ use, then what ha.s, effectively, been done here is that the owner has been deprived of a reasonable use of the land. Nobody in this room would want their property so involved by a municipa.lity, whether it's a.nybody in the Greenway area or any pla.ce else in the Town or the community. That's not what we should be all a.bout. It seems to me that it doesn't serve the Town's purpose if it ca.n't be developed this way, a.nd it certa.inly doesn't serve the owners, and it seems to me that the people a.t greatest risk a.re the a.djoining land owners, because, ultimately, if not what we've proposed, somebody's going to come in here, a.nother land owner that buys this, and somebody else does something, a.nd propose some sort of commerciaJ use, or some use like this, and it seems to me that what we propose to you is fa.r more sensible and benign and creates an environment that everybody can live with, and I would think that, in terms of protecting the neighborhood, which we're aJl concerned about, it's a. fa.r less risk to go with what we've proposed, Mr. Chairman, a.nd members, than what could happen if left the way it is, and I think that's the central issue of the zoning, here, not so much Red lobster, but the way the Pla.nning Commission zoned this site back in 1988. Thank you for your time. MR. MARTIN-Tha.nk you. We ha.ve severaJ letters from the community at la.rge that's been addressed to the Board. Before we hea.r from the public here in attendance, if we could rea.d those into the record. MRS. PUlVER-"Dea.r Jim: I am writing to forma]ly voice my opinion on the re-zoning issue before the Town. It is my understa.nding tha.t General Mills Corporation is seeking a re-zoning in cooperation with the Seller, Mr. Cha.rles R. Wood on 4+ a.cres on Aviation Road. Being a resident of Queensbury and a. business owner on Aviation Roa.d, I feel qualified to offer my opinion. I am very familiar with the site as I pass it several times a. day. There is no question, in my opinion, that the property should be zoned to a.cconnnodate the proposed use. Clearly, the area is a commercia] corridor. I find it ha.rd to believe that the alternative use is residential housing. Furthermore, I believe the Board, of which you cha.ir, and the Town Board, have a responsibility to assist landowners and developers in achieving highest and best utilization of their la.nd. It is obvious that there are ma.ny specia.l interests at stake here. As a tax paying resident, I request that you plea.se do not vote on the politics of those interests. Plea.se vote to promote the highest and best use of our town land. Sincerely, Wayne Pela.k" "Dea.r Mr. O'Hara: We a.re one of the largest a.nd most established law firms in the Glens Fa.lls/Queensbury area. of northern New York State. We represent a fa.irly la.rge group of residents of the Town of Queensbury who are opposed to your proposal to site a new Red lobster restaurant on a pa.rticular property loca.ted on Aviation Road in Queens bury. This letter is sent in the hope that compa.ny mana.gement is truly interested in entering our community on a positive note with the support of as ma.ny citizens and potential customers as possible. It is our sincere desire that this letter be received and reviewed by Red lobster's corpora.te headquarters with a.n open mind and in recognition of a mutua] desire to read a common goa.l. Our clients are principally the residents of a neighborhood which is situa.ted immediately contiguous to your proposed project site. In fa.ct, the property on which the resta.urant is proposed to be located essentiaJly forms one end of this residentia.l neighborhood. For a va.riety of rea.sons, some rela.ting specifica]ly to your proposa] and some not, the residents are vehemently opposed to construction a.nd operation of a restaurant at this location. Foremost among our clients' concerns is the fact that the area is zoned for residential use and you have asked the Town to re-zone it to allow commercial use. We have a.lready been successful in blocking this proposal once when the re-zoning wa.s denied earlier this yea.r. Although the site pla.n has since been modified, the Town is still being a.sked to cha.nge the zoning in the same way and our clients are prepa.ring to renew their staunch opposition to the re-zoning request. However, it is not accurate to characterize our clients as being against the idea of a Red lobster restaurant coming to Queensbury. In fact, some of our clients feel that your Red lobster restaurants are very fine and would be pleased to welcome one into the Town, but not in a residential neighborhood. Therefore, we have been directed to suggest tha.t you consider other options, which we can virtually assure you will have a. much smoother road to approval. We strongly believe that you could successfully pursue other ava.ila.ble locations that are at lea.st as attractive as the proposed location at properly zoned sites where you would not meet with any opposition. There are numerous commercia] sites in the Town of Queensbury which are va.cant and ava.ila.ble and would seem to be prime locations for a. Red lobster resta.ura.nt, a.s they are situated on major roads, a.t ma.jor intersections a.nd in area.s situated on major roads, at major intersections and in areas which would seem to attract the desired tra.ffic a.nd a.re properly zoned for a. restaura.nt. In addition, we have heard severa] rumors indicating that you would prefer to own a resta.urant site, rather than leasing it, and tha.t the site should be nea.r a. highway exit, in this case, Interstate 87 (the Adironda.ck Northway). We a.re specifica.lly awa.re of commercially zoned sites which a.re availa.ble for purchase which meet these criteria, including at least one site which is a.lrea.dy the location of a restaura.nt on what is proba.bly the busiest road in this entire area.. We are obviously willing to share this information with you in more detail a.nd hope that you will conta.ct us in the very near future to arrange a discussion along these lines. We have successfully represented numerous businesses in locating here. A 11 seem to have shared the common goal of coming to our area without a.lienating any significant portion of the community. We believe that Red lobster ca.n be a welcome addition to Queensbury and our clients have indicated that they will a.ctively support your efforts to do so if you are responsive to their concerns. Thank you. Very truly yours, Miller Mannix, and Pra.tt, P.C. Mark Schachner" 8 -- -- "Dea.r Mr. Martin: This 1etter is to confirm my objection to re-zoning the property between Aviation Road a.nd 01d Aviation Roa.d from residentia1 to conmercia1. The issue is stin the same, re-zoning. Even if the p1ace of entrance was change, or the size of the bui1ding is sma11er, is it a case of taking residentia.ny owned property for commercia1 use, why? I cannot understa.nd the purpose of ta.king residentia.ny zoned property for the 1ocation of a commerciaJ business when there is a. very good commercia1 property a.va.Hab1e in the Town of Queensbury. Some of the empty commercia1 property in the Town of Queensbury needs to be fined to project the sense of a prosperous Town. There is a congested now of traffic on Aviation Roa.d from Route 9 to the Northway, especia.ny during rush hour. I have seen the traffic ba.cked up from one Hght to a.nother. Ca.n you imagine the traffic jam with the commercia1 business on the property in question? The property between 01d Aviation Road a.nd Aviation Roa.d wou1d make a very good site for a. senior citizens apa.rtments or housing for handica.pped peop1e. An entra.nce a.nd exit to the property cou1d be made from 01d Aviation a.nd 1eave a wood buffer a10ng Aviation Road. This property is fa.r better suita.b1e for residentia1 use than any cOl1ll1ercia1 business. I do hope you win think a.bout the homeowners in the area. as wen as the da.ngerous congested tra.ffic. P1ease decide not to recommend re-zoning the property between Avia.tion Roa.d and 01d Aviation Road. Thank you kind1y. Yours tru1y, Edna But1er" "I ha.ve been fonowing the proposed re-zoning request by Genera1 Mins a.nd Mr. Cha.r1es Wood on property 10cated on Aviation Road. As I am una.b1e to attend the pubHc hearing, I wou1d Hke you to be awa.re of my support for the project. Ha.ving been responsib1e for much deve10pment in Queensbury, I beHeve the proposed use conforms with the chara.cter of the area. Furthermore, as a. tax payer, I beHeve this project wou1d great1y benefit the economics of the Town of Queensbury. It is c1ea.r that this project win reHeve some of the tax burden now on the Quaker Road Sewer District, increase sa1e tax revenues and create jobs. The Town of Queensbury has a. duty to ma.ke decisions which win benefit the greatest number of peop1e in the Town whHe eva1ua.ting the repercussions of those affected negative1y. I see this project as a positive, progressive step which wou1d be good for the majority of the Town residents. I am hopefu1 that you a.nd your Board win concur. Sincere1y, Theodore Bige1ow" "Dear Mr. Chairman: I am a Ma.na.gement Representative of Aviation Man in Queensbury a.nd I am writing on behaH of its owner, Pyramid Compa.ny of G1ens Fans. We a.re famHiar with the re-zoning proposa1 for Red lobster to be 1oca.ted on the vacant h.nd across Aviation Road from Friend1y's Restaurant. We support the Red lobster proposa1 beca.use we think that it is in the best interest of the Town of Queensbury and the business community. We a1so be1ieve that the wooded buffer wi11 protect the Greenway North residentia1 neighborhood. Thank you. Pame1a M. Tobin" MR. MARTIN-Okay, and I just ha.ve a petition here. It's addressed to Mr. Brandt, Town Supervisor, "We the undersigned are dec1aring our support for the re-zoning of the proposed Red lobster site on Aviation Road. It is our be1ief that the property current1y before the Board for consideration of a zone change shou1d be gra.nted the necessa.ry zoning a.nd site p1an approva1 toa11ow for the deve10pment of a commercia1 res ta.u rant. Moreover, we urge that you a.pprove this cha.nge to ensure the highest and best use of the property, create jobs a.nd increa.se the economic tax ba.se of the Town of Queensbury. Thank you for your judiciousness in this ma.nner", and it's signed by 17 individua1s, a.nd I'n pass those a11 on to the P1anning Staff. MRS. PUlVER-"Dea.r Mr. Ma.rtin: You are about to ma.ke a decision on the re-zoning of property on Avia.tion Road for the proposed construction of a Red lobster Restaurant. The 1,000 member Adirondack Regiona1 Chamber of Commerce urges you a.nd your Boa.rd to vote fa.vora.b1y on behaH of the petitioner. It is our understanding tha.t questions of tra.ffic concerns, a.ccess, a.s wen a.s the green buffer zones have been adequa.te1y addressed. Consequent1y, given the nature of the property, its 1ocation on Avia.tion Roa.d on an obvious1y commercia1 strip, we fee1 this is a. justifiab1e re-zoning. Need1ess to say, the economic impa.ct win be positive for an the businesses and the residents of the Town. Signed, James Berg, President of the Adirondack Regiona1 Cha.mber of Commerce" "This 1etter is in rega.rds to the proposed Red lobster Resta.ura.nt for Aviation Roa.d. In these difficu1t economic times, a.ny new business that wou1d increa.se property a.nd sa1es tax revenues, a.nd a.t the same time not have a.n a.dverse effect on the a.rea. is desirab1e. It is my understa.nding that this business wou1d create ma.ny new opportunities for perma.nent emp1oyment, something this a.rea. wou1d benefit from. The on1y misgiving I have for this project is the area under consideration. As it is zoned residentia1, I fee1 great stress shou1d be p1a.ced on preserving the origina1 character of the neighborhood. With the a.ppropria.te buffer zones and the reputation Red lobster has in mainta.ining its opera.tions, I do not fee1 that this is an insurmountab1e prob1em. In c1osing, I be1ieve this wou1d be a very beneficia1 addition to our area., with the right a.ttention to the existing neighborhood. Thank you. Kenneth Nob1e" MR. MARTIN-Okay. I think that is a.n the written comments to the Boa.rd. I win open it up to the pubHc now who's here on this appHcation. I just want to remind those present though that the responsibiHty of this Board is simp1y a recommendation to the Town Board. It's a non binding reso1ution or recommenda.tion. The u1tima.te decision Hes with the Town Board. I'm ha.ppy to see that they're a.n in attendance tonight. So, I again want to stress tha.t for your benefit, so that if you do have a.n interest in this project, I encourage you to not on1y spea.k tonight, but a1so come forth at the time the Town Boa.rd win have this before them, because they are the u1timate decision makers, in rega.rds to the re-zoning. So, I just wanted to remind everyone of that before we move a10ng further here with the pubHc. So, if there's anyone here from the pubHc who wou1d ca.re to address the Board, p1ea.se come to the microphone and state your name. JOE CARUSONE 9 -' MR. CARUSONE-Hi. My name is Joe Carusone. I ìive a.t 19 Peggy Ann Road in the Town of Queensbury. I'm addressing you not only a.s a, private citizen, but I was Cha,irma,n of the Queensbury land Use Committee, which was the Committee responsible for the current zoning. So. I would ìike to cOßll1ent on what our logic wa.s. A lot of people said we ha.d no logic, of course, but we certainly attempted to, a.nd I'd ìike to teTT you what our thinking was and what we saw for this property. When we were doing our re-zoning of the Town, of course, we didn't know who owned the property, nor did we ca.re. We were looking at neighborhoods. We were looking at growth. We were looking at where we saw change taking place. When we looked at this property in particula.r, or this a.rea., we saw a. neighborhood tha.t was one of the oldest neighborhoods in the Town of Queensbury, and we felt that that neighborhood needed some particular protection. We reaTTy didn't know how to a.ccompTish that protection. We did not have the time or the wherewithal to develop a.ny kind of special or unique buffering just for that area, a.nd so we felt, in ìieu of maybe a. better decision perha.ps, that we would do what we could at that time to protect the neighborhood by zoning this property, or recommending the zoning of this property as residential. I do fee I, however, that the ma.jority of the Committee, and my memory serves me, I think, quite weTT in this area, recognized that this property reaTTy was not reaTistica.TTy a residential property, that ultimately, with the cha.nges that ha.ve a.lrea.dy taken pla.ce, that this property would proba.bly, at some time, have to be used as a commercial property. We had no idea. how that would take place or what would take place, just that it wa.s not reaìistic on that road to expect this is going to be a. housing development of some kind, but we were very concerned about the neighborhood behind it. and we felt that something had to be done to protect it, and because we could not devise a particular buffer just uniquely for this a,rea., that wa.s exclusive to this a.rea., that we had to make the decision we made, but we felt as a. Committee, a.nd I would say rea.lTy the majority of that Committee, that some day something different would take place, that it would have to be commercial. We did feel, however, that some extraordinary, that is beyond the normal zoning and subdivision regulations, some extraordinary buffering would have to ta.ke pla.ce, ultimately, if this property were to be used. I have no comment on what the Red lobster proposal is. I don't know the recommendation. I don't know how they're going to ha.ndle traffic. I'm not that famiTiar with it, but I do know, I did feel at the time, and stilT feel, that this property would ultimately have to be conmercia.1. but that the Town would be responsible for ~ tha.n the normal buffering, that some extra.ordina.ry work would have to take pla.ce on the part of the developer to protect the neighborhood that exists behind this project. MR. MARTIN-Tha.nk you very much. It's nice to have that insight into the past. Is there a.nyone else who'd like to come forward? MARK SCHACHNER MR. SCHACHNER-Thank you, Mr. Chainma.n. Mark Schachner from Miller, Ma.nnix, and Pratt. We represent, I beTieve, substa.ntia.TTy aTT, or the va.st ma.jority of the neighbors in the immedia.te area. who are dramatica.TTy or vehemently opposed to the re-zoning, and I guess what I'm going to propose to do is shorten this evening up substa.ntia.TTy. As I understand it, the appìicant's representatives have asked that you not ma.ke a decision tonight. It's got to be tabled. MR. MARTIN-That's correct. MR. SCHACHNER-In my experience before this Board, this Board is usua.TTy very gra.cious in this respect, in that if a.n appìica.nt a.sks for a taMing, this Board usuaTTy gra.nts that request, obviously, with the appìica.nt' s request. I ta.ke it, therefore, that tonight, in fact, we wiTT not be making a reconmendation, but that will await some meeting down the road. Is that correct? MR. MARTIN-I think that was going to be a discussion forthcoming here very shortly, yes. MR. SCHACHNER-I see a.TT the hea.ds nodding, so I assume that's correct. So, what I would propose to do is ra.ther tha.n, we have ma.ny, ma.ny of our cìients a.nd ma.ny, ma.ny of the concerned neighbors here tonight to offer their perspectives, a.nd I think rather than do that tonight, since this wiTl not be decided tonight, but wiTl be decided at some future meeting, I'd rather shorten your night tonight and teTT them, or a.sk them, I guess I should say, to withhold their comments tonight, a.nd not bother ma.king them tonight, but to come ba.ck on the night when this is going to be decided, and we've got the members that wiTl be present that night to make their pitch. What I wiTl do, if you ìike, if it's relevant to the five members that are here tonight, what I would propose is that myself and my colleague Sandra. AlTen wiTl just summa.rize our concerns on behalf of the conmunity, but I would rea.lTy say that we're only wiTTing to do that if we wiTT have the opportunity to do that a.ga.in at the meeting when it's decided, not because I wa.nt to beat you over the head with this, but beca.use the purpose of the ta.b ìing is tha.t there wiT 1 be other members here that won't have ha.d the benefi t of heari ng our presentation. So, frankly. if you prefer, we won't say a word, and we'll just come back next meeting, but we'TT do a. short presentation, a.nd a.sk our cìients to refra.in from cOl1ll1enting tonight. We'TT try to shorten your night up tonight and we'll be on to the next ma.tter. MR. MARTIN-My personal view of this is wha.tever everybody feels comfortable with. There may be some people who can't ma.ke the the August meetings or whatever. It's up to the public. We're taking this time to do this now. So, if they want to come forward tonight they can, or if they feel more effective use of their time next month, that's fine with me. I don't know how everybody else feels, and we'lT 10 --- -- certainlY take any summary you have now, and you'll certainlY have that opportunity at the next meeting. MR. SCHACHNER-That being the case, since it's difficult to ma.nage such a. la.rge group of clients, I will say it through this microphone to our clients here, if you can come to the next meeting, I think it would be relativelY polite of us to the Board to not double dip them and to hit them with a.H our comments tonight a.nd aH our comments at the next meeting, and what I propose to do with our clients is that if there are a.ny tha.t ca.nnot make the August meetings, perha.ps they' H spea.k tonight, and they're boss. I'm not. They can overrule my suggestion, but my suggestion would be that myself and Sandra AHen will just briefly highlight for you our principal concerns. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Is there a.nyone who wants to come forwa.rd now, or would prefer to wait until August or whenever the agreed upon date is, that'll be fine as well. Okay. Would you like to summa.rize then, I guess. That's what we're looking at, I think. SANDRA AllEN MS. AllEN-Hi. My na.me is Sandra Allen. I'm from Miller, Ma.nnix, and Pratt also. I guess what we're witnessing tonight is basicallY a conflict in interest between the neighborhood, that's an old established Queensbury neighborhood, a.nd a commercial entra.nce, a.nd I think that's what we rea.Hy have to consider. There is nothing in zoning that says that a property owner has to be entitled to the maximum development of this property. Perha.ps there is a. problem placing 14 lOtS on this piece of property, but that does not limit the possibility that this could be used for residential, and I think we have to focus on that. Also, tonight it seems to me like we're looking at a site ph.n application. In fa.ct, we're looking at a. re-zoning application. These folks could get it re-zoned, and tomorrow something could ha.ppen. Red lobster could be out of the picture. We have no gua.rantee, once the property ha.s been re-zoned, that it ha.s to be Red lobster who is a. weH established compa.ny that we might trust and might believe in. There is no guara.ntee tha.t they're going to fulfiH their promise to complete this project, and there's no way, fra.nkly, that you can, or the Town Board can make them do that. I think, in considering this re-zoning, while it's nice to think that it is Red lobster's project. In reality, it's not. It's a re-zoning to Highway Commercial One Acre, a.nd I think we have to keep that in consideration, beca.use this is just not a site pla.n application, and there's no guarantees here. Ba.sicaHy, we have a concern, stiH, rega.rding the traffic. We got a letter from the Depa.rtment of Tra.nsportation that wa.s read tonight that indicates that, in fact, the Aviation Road sOlution may not be a. sOlution at aH. In fa.ct, we may have to go bad through the Greenway North, a.nd in fact, we may end up with traffic problems that we've encountered, and that certa.inly aH the neighbors are very concerned a.bout. We've also brought up before, the neighbors ha.ve brought up before, aesthetic concerns, particula.rly the a.ppea.rance of the project a.nd the smeH of the project. Again, Red lobster says that they're going to take care of this, that they're going to have filters, that they're going to be responsible, but this is are-zoning, a.nd we ca.nnot going to guara.ntee that it is going to be Red lobster that is in there. FinallY, I'd like to point out that this is an established neighborhood. That there a.re people who have been there for at lea.st 20 yea.rs or more. That it's cìoser to shopping and it's cìoser to schools, a.nd it's relativelY a.ffordably housing. It's relativelY moderate housing, something that Queensbury, I think a.dmittedly, is somewhat short of right now, and I think that we have to ta.ke that into consideration, and we have to provide some opportunity to have this sort of neighborhood in our community, and with that, thank you very much. MR. MARTIN-Thank you for that summa.ry. Aga.in, I'H give é,,"other opportunity for a.nybody who's come with tonight in mind that they'd like to spea.k, and I think we're definitelY looking at ta.bling, here, but I want to give you that opportunity. Okay. MR. lEMERY-Since we're here and gave the presentation, in terms of the buffering, since all the neighbors did turn out, I mean, obviouslY our intent was to try and satisfy their concerns with the buffer which we think is reallY significa.nt. It's something that doesn't ha.ppen every day, and as Mr. Carusone wa.s talking a.bout, provi ded tha.t buffer tha.t the Zoning Comiss ion Comittee didn't have a handle on. I would just like to ask if there's a.nybody here. I understa.nd that there's a lOt of pressure in the neighborhood, a.nd everyone's sort of gotten psyched and hired a.n attorney to say, we don't wa.nt it, we don't wa.nt it, but I mea.n, we feel we did something unusual a.nd significa.nt, that certainlY would make a big difference in the value of the lOt, etc., and I just a.sk that since everybody's here, if anyone does recognize, maybe nobody does, but I would think at least the people that live on Old Aviation Road across the street that now have learned that there will be a permanent easement that they'd always be looking at, and mature trees a.cross the street, that if this is cha.nged a.nything, and I think that it's being objective, they should recognize this. I think a.s pìa.nners, which you are, and some of us do this every day, objectivelY, that this is a good proposal, a.nd if a.nyone here feels that tha.t's the case, I would like to here tha.t, beca.use they're here. Otherwise, we'H aH come back and we'H put on a presentation next time for the fUll Board, so that everyone's aware of this. MR. MARTIN-CertainlY. Again, would anyone like to come up? DAVID KENNY MR. KENNY-David Kenny, Queensbury resident. I wa.s on tha.t Zoning Comittee with Joe, a.nd I would just like to say that we a that time discussed the piece of property, and we felt a.t some point it would go commercial, and we were looking to see it done right. 11 ~ --./ MR. MARTIN-Anyone else? MR. SCHACHNER-Very briefly, Mr. Cha.i, rman in response to Mr. lapper's comment, plea.se Iet me assure both this Boa.rd a.nd the a.ppIicant's representatives that neither myseIf nor my col1eagues Iive in this neighborhood. If our cHents ten us that, in Hght of the revised proposa.1, they Iove this project, or even they Hke this project a.nd they want to withdraw their opposition, you can rest assured that we witl immediately notify this Board, the Town Board, and the a.ppIicant's representatives. We've given you only a very, very, short sna.p shot view of what we perceive to be the main problems here, for the rea.son I indicated ea.rlier. We're not going to take up more of your time tonight. The only pa.rting comments I wa,nt to make is I think this Board and the Town Board has to think very, very ca.reful1y, not a.bout the Red lobster Resta.urant, and is this a. good thing or a bad thing for the Town of Queensbury. There are a number of very ea.sy ways, or not so ea.sy ways, but there a.re a number of other ways that if Red lobster wishes to come to Queensbury, to do so. There are a whole slew of sites that are properly zoned, that are ava.itable to· Red lobster, that fit within its criteria, and it can come, as of right, in numbers of other properties. Even on this property, if the zoning is as bad as the a.ppHca.nt's representatives say it is, that perhaps the a.ppIicant has a golden case for a varia.nce. Why isn't a. variance being sought here? In a. variance context, first of al1, your Boa.rd wouldn't be bothered with this proposa.1, but more importa.ntly. the Zoning Board of Appea.1s, in the context of a. va.riance request, has much, much broader powers to impose very strict conditions on any approva.1 that it may give. much broa.der, not that your Boa.rd, since your Board doesn't rea.ny have the fina.1 say. here, but much broa.der tha.n the Town Boa.rd's powers, in the context of are-zoning. The Town Board ca.n't Iimit this property in the re-zoning context to just Red lobster. It ca.n't even Hmit it, proba.bly, to just this certa.in type of resta.ura.nt. The Zoning Boa.rd of Appea.ls can do an sorts of things by way of imposing conditions on an a.pprova.1, if that's al1 that meets the eye here. So. there's got to be something more tha.n meets the eye. There's got to be something underneath the proposal here than just the Red lobster Restaurant. The forum or the means of achieving the goal that's stated is not the a.ppropriate goa1. What they're a.fter is a re-zoning, a re-zoning that witl al10w a ga.s station, a. ga.rage, a. drive-in, a. ca.r wa.sh, a. hote1. a. fast food resta.urant, a. barber shop, al1 manner of stores, al1 sorts of shopping mal1 type affa.irs, and a.ga.in, even if the Town Board Hmits the re-zoning, if they enact the re-zoning, they ca.n't do so a.s much as the Zoning Board can in a variance context. So, I'd just a.sk you to keep in mind, and I'd ask the Town Boa.rd members also that a.re present to keep in mind, this is a re-zoning. This is not a Red lobster specific proposa1. An the wonderful assets we've heard about are Red lobster specific. In site pIan review, you've got one applicant in front of you and you can Iimit that use essentia.ny to that appIica.nt, not by name, but as a matter of practicaIity. So can the Zoning Board, but you ca.n't do tha.t in the context of a. re-zoning. This is not just any old re-zoning. This is the most dramatic form there is. You're often a.sked to pass on re-zoning requests, cha.nge something from Highway Commercia.1 to Plaza Commercial, cha.nge something from SFR to SR. What I can re-zonings within category, a different type of residential zoning, a different type of commercial zoning. This is the most significant type of re-zoning request you can have. Wel1, that's not true. It's the second most significa.nt. The most significa.nt would be to re-zone it to industrial. That's not what's sought here, but it is the second most significant, from residentia.1 to commercia1. Keep that in mind a.s you ponder this for the next however amount of time it is, untit you dea.1 with this in a more detaited fashion. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. lEMERY-I just wa.nt to respond by saying tha.t we were mindful of Mr. Carusone's comments, and Mr. Kenny's comments, a.nd the issue wasn't the Red lobster. We've offered the Town, by way of this re-zoning, a perma.nent conservation for this site, which I think a.ddresses some of the issues Joe Carusone raised regarding the fa.ct that they knew that ultimately this site ha.d to be developed in some way other than residential, and that the neighborhood ha.d to be significantly protected. I ca.n ten you that Mr. Wood a.sked me to tel1 you tha.t he has no pla.ns other tha.n to make this avaita.ble to Red lobster. We're not here a.ttempting to try to get something re-zoned a.nd then run around and put some sort of, Hke Mark said, ga.s station or barber shop. or whatever. The Red lobster people have been on a. three yea.r site selection. So, we have every rea.son to beHeve tha.t if you find that this is an appropriate use, it protects everybody, then it wil1 be a. Red lobster site. The Town Board ca.n set conditions. in terms of re-zoning. They have a wide Iatitude to do those kinds of things. We're very mindful of the kind of quality you'd want on Quaker Road, and we wouldn't come up here in a.ny Iess kind of an environment tha.n wha.t we propose to. Before I c1ose, though, I'd Ii ke to ask Dick Sta.cey to spea.k. He's come a.n the way from CaHfornia on beha.1f of Red lobster, and he's tired, and he'd Hke to just conc1ude by tel1ing you about what he thinks his compa.ny, believes this site means to him and the site selection process they've gone through, a.nd whether or not they've Iooked at other potential sites in Town. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-And as you're c1osing, John, I'd Iike you to discuss a.n a.ccepta.ble date for the tabIing and the reappearance of the application, so we can wrap this up. MR. LEMERY-Okay. MR. STACEY-I wa.nt to say that a.t 3:30 this morning, your time, I wa.s in the City of Mova.do, CaHfornia, which is just north of Sa.n Francisco ma.king a presentation for a. joint Red lobster Society. The residents 12 '- were not nea.rly as polite as you folks are. I a.ppreciate that. I just wa.nt to respond to Mr. Schachner's letter to us, and thank the person for presenting the letter. I ma.na.ge the Site Development a.ctivities for all through the United States a.nd Canada.. We are concerned, and we did want to respond to a portion of the letter that you sent us, and it says. "There are numerous cOl1ll1ercial sites in the Town of Queensbury which are vacant and available and would seem to be prime locations for a Red lobster, as they are situated on major roàds, at major intersections, and in areas which would seem to attract the desired traffic a.nd a.re properly zoned for a. resta.ura.nt." There a.re other sites, a.nd I examined each and everyone. We do studies, we do ma.rket studies, we examine the cost. We know how ma.ny customers we're going to be getting over the first yea.r, the second yea.r, third yea.r, etc. We know what the cost of development is, and this property arra.ngement is, but we honestly believe that we have looked at every viable property. We need to be where we have high visibility, high traffic, and close proximity to the Ma.1l. MR. MARTIN-Thank you, Mr. Stacey. MR. SCHACHNER-Some of our clients say they've written letters that weren't read. So, they were just wondering, they said they wrote it to the Planning Board and the Town Board, and I just wanted to ma.ke sure, I don't think we care if they're read tonight. Do you have some letters elsewhere? MRS. YORK-No. All the letters that were received by the Planning Department were read. MR. MARTIN-There was one written to us, as a. Board exclusively, and not the Depa.rtment, and that was rea.d in a.1so. We rea.d in everyone we get. So, maybe this, in that rega.rd, will work out good for you. You can send us another copy. We'll certainly read them in next time. MR. SCHACHNER-What about if something was sent to the Town Board? MRS. YORK-We would not be getting that. MR. SCHACHNER-In some cases, I think our clients sent letters addressed to the Town Board and Planning Board, so maybe there's some stuff in the Town Board's files, but we'll make sure to get it together. MR. MARTIN-Well, if they ca.n get those to the Depa.rtment between now and the next meeting, they'll be read in the next time. Thank you. MR. SCHACHNER-Thanks. MR. LEtERY-I think what we heard was that most people will be here at the second meeting in August, so that we would prefer that, if that's acceptable to the Board. MRS. YORK-That's August 25th. MR. PARISI-I'd like to ma.ke just one comment regarding re-zoning and the stipulations that may be ma.de by the Town Board. I'd like to ma.ke something clear right now, and that is that the Town Board has in the past, and may continue in the future policy of having stipula.tions on re-zonings. Now, they've done this in the past, and they ca.n do this in this pa.rticula.r ca.se, and in fad there may be stipulations. I just want to clarify that point. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. Okay. So, is that something that we can work out, lee, for the second meeting in August? MRS. YORK-Certainly. They ca.n be the first item on the meeting of the 25th, if that's the Board's desire. MR. MARTIN-Steve Barson will be the one not in attendance that night. He has a conflict. Do we have any knowledge that Ed might not be here again next month, or? MRS. YORK-No one has called the Department to let us know who's going to be available. MR. MARTIN-All right. Well, we'll try a.nd cla.rify that for the benefit of all pa.rties involved, as to what kind of attenda.nce we'll have ð.t that meeting that night. Hopefully, we'll get the six out of the seven anyhow. MRS. TARANA-I have a. comment to make a.bout that, beca.use I've seen this ha.ppen severa.1 times now, people come before the Boa.rd, a.nd if there a.re only four or five people here, they may choose not to let us hear the project. If we've got a. quorum and we're lega.1ly able to sit as a. Board, I think we should hear the projects. You've got a lot of people that have come tonight. Maybe they can't come another night. We've put a lot of work into looking at it. We're rea.dy to dea.1 with it tonight, now it's going to put off. I don't think applicants can come here and look at who's here and decide I'm going to put it off until another time. I think it's a bad policy. I've seen it happen over and over again. If there's a quorum, then we should be able to sit and listen to the project, and ta.ke a vote. That's just my opinion. We don't have to argue a.nd hold up the people. I just wanted to ma.ke the comment. 13 - -- MR. lEftERY-It's been the policy of the Boa.rd to table something. We didn't find out until very late that only four voting members would be here. I think, given the significa.nce of the matter, and a.ny matter that a tax payer brings before the County should have time to look at it. We didn't find out until this afternoon about how ma.ny people would be here. It's hard to say how ma.ny people are going to be a.t a meeting. So, that's where we're coming from. We'd ask you to table to get it on to the second meeting in August. MR. MARTIN-Wen, in response, for the two years that I've been on the Board, the Board ha.s always been a.cconmodating to applica.nts who wish to be ta.bled, a.nd that's been for a.ny rea.son, whether it's in their interest or not, a.nd secondly, I think we're best served when we have a fun Boa.rd here, and that's pa.rt of the problem with these vaca.ncies when they ha.ppen in bunches like this, and I think the Town Board's done a good job in turning this a.round in a short time. It's only been, rea.lly, about 45 days, and we have the two vacancies filled. So, my persona.1 opinion is it's best to have it seen by as ma.ny members as possible. That's the point of a seven member Board ma.de up of laypeople appointed to do this type of thing, and I think the more members present the better the Town is served. MRS. PUlVER-I agree with what you said. I think we're much better the more members tha.t we have, as fa.r as ma.king a decision. MR. MARTIN-Beca.use there may be some corrments that we miss. or a viewpoint that we miss that somebody else may see. That's just my opinion. MR. PARISI-If on the August 25th meeting you don't ha.ve a full Board, are you going to set some sort of a. policy for how you're going to dea.1 with that? MR. MARTIN-Well, how does everyone feel? MR. BREWER-August 25th, lets just do it. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Whether there's four of us here or seven of us here, we'll vote on it, or not vote, make a. recorrmendation. MR. PARISI-All right. MR. BREWER-We'll give them the benefit of the doubt to give him one ta.bling. That's fair, for whatever rea.son. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Then, would somebody like to offer a resolution for tabling? MOTION TO TABLE P2-92 GENERAL MIllS RESTAURANT, INC. CllNER BY CHARLES R. IIOOD, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Until August 25th. Duly a.dopted this 28th day of July, 1992, by the following vote: MRS. TARANA-I'll vote yes, with my objection noted, please. AYES: Mrs. Tarana., Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. laPoint MR. MARTIN-Okay. The application is tabled until the meeting of August 25th. SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1992 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED RR-3A/MR-5 J. BUCKLEY BRYAN, JR. MER: SAME AS ABOVE FOX FARM RCMD FOR A 2 lOT SUBDIVISION. TAX MP NO. 73-1-2 lOT SIZE: 24.96 ACRES SECTION: SUIIJIVISION REGULATIONS lEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT APPLICATION WAS TABLED FROM LAST WEEK'S AGENDA. SOME OF TAPE WAS lOST. MR. STEVES-The soil is pure sand, no groundwater, no evidence of high groundwater. I don't know what more we can do, but if we're going to have a site plan review, then we should submit further information for that site plan and simultaneous review. MR. MARTIN-Well, this will be coming ba.ck for site plan, right? MRS. PULVER-Right. 14 '-" --..../ MR. STEVES-Abso1ute1y. MRS. PULVER-It's up to the a.ppHca.nt, isn't it. to prove, when they come in with their a.ppHcation for the 41 units, to prove that the soi1s and everything can ho1d the 41 units. MRS. YORK-Right. First of a11, there's a coup1e of issues, here. Number One, are the conditions imposed by the Town Board at the time of re-zoning met. That's the first item. The second item is the Subdivision Regu1ations require certain things to be. MR. STEVES-Pa.rdon me, lee. I'd H ke to interrupt you with that. these conditions are met. He's not a.sking for a re-zoning use. five acre 10t in a three a.cre zone. Why shou1d the a.ppHcant prove that He's a.sking for a. subdivision of a. MRS. YORK-The Board cannot act on a subdivision when it's in different zones, if those zones have not been estabHshed. The estabHshment of the MR-5 zone wa.s conditioned on certain things being done. MR. PARISI-I'd Hke to just interrupt here for a moment. I've conferred with Town Attorney and with the Town Supervisor, and they concur with my opinion, in fact, it's not an opinion on their part. They steadfa.st1y a.gree that you can't make a.ny waiver in their 1egis1ative intent. In other words, the 1egis1ative body has ru1ed that there are certain conditions and that the P1anning Board reany can't waive them or interfere with them unti1the conditions are met. They ha.ven't been met, and because they haven't been met, a.nd this is rea.Hy not an officia1 MR-5 zone untH they are, the subdivision appHcation is rea.Hy a moot issue unti1 they are met. MR. MARTIN-Someone p1ease fee1 free to chime in here. I'm hea.ring aH this for the first time. This was just before, I thought the conditions had been met, and that we were seeing a subdivision at PreHmina.ry Sta.ge. This is aH new to me, un1ess someone e1se has heard something that I haven't. MR. BREWER-That's what 1 thought, myseH. MR. MARTIN-This is the first I'm hea.ring of it. MR. BREWER-I thought 1a.st week we tab1ed it because he wanted to move a 10t Hne. MR. PARISI-The a.ppHca.nts were awa.re of this on December 9th, 1991, as a condition of the re-zoning, and it's inc1uded in your pa.cket. They have, for whatever reason, waited unti1 this time to address the issue, but they cou1d have addressed it a.nytime between now and going back to December 9th, because it's c1ear1y out1ined. MR. MARTIN-WeH, then what you're in fact saying to me is that we're 100king at an appHcation for a subdivision that, technicaHy, I guess, doesn't have a.ny right to be here yet. MR. PARISI-Exa.ct1y, and beca.use these stipu1ations were a resu1t of the 1egis1ative body, you're not in a position to waive them. MR. MARTIN-WeH, yes. I'm not going to touch that one. This is just a surprise to me. MR. PARISI-Yes. I on1y became a.ware of it in the 1ast day, as I researched backwards to the reso1ution for this re-zoning. MR. MARTIN-Was there a.ny effort to contact the a.ppHca.nt prior to tonight? BUCK BRYAN MR. BRYAN-No, not a.s far as I know. Hi. I'm Buck Brya.n and I own the property, and I have, as I pointed out, no intention of deve10ping it beyond this at an. As a matter of fact, I've a.ttempted to seH it. The cha.nge in the Queensbury zoning of the 1986 tax 1aw has prec1uded my interest in the property at an, but this was a good project. So, I've tried to work with the Town Board, with the Zoning Board of Appea1s, and whoever, to get this senior citizen housing put in, and if we don't move a10ng on it, we're going to 10se the HUD funding for it. It's as simp1e as that. As I understand it, today the approva1 was gra.nted by the State of New York for the Fa.rr lane extension. So, we've gotten past that stumbHng b1ock, been given by the Town, and I've ma.de every effort, I think, to work with lee York for the pa.st, a1most, yea.r on this, and we've done everything that lee York ha.s a.sked us to do. We've met with her on severa1 occasions. I was handed some paper-work tonight da.ted today, with a 10t of things on it that I was not aware of, proof of ownership, etc. So leon quick went over to his office and got a. deed that he happened to have. last week when we taMed this, my understa.nding is, I think you said, Mr. Brewer, that it wa.s strict1y for some additiona1 test pits to be dug. We immediate1y got a backhoe out in there to do that. The perco1ation tests have been done. We did that, and that is what, we 1eft the meeting with that understanding to do an of that. MR. MARTIN-That's what I recan from the 1ast meeting. I didn't know that there were an these under1ying. 15 --- --- MR. BRYAN-Now all of a sudden we get all of this additional stuff, which I'm sure we ca.n provide, but now we're looking at a. cut off time from HUD for the funding for this project, and I certa.inly wouldn't like to see it die due to a couple of technicalities. Now, if something is missing that we should provide, a.ccording to this data that you, sir, just indicated that you just knew about today, I'm sure we can provide that, but if this were delayed and pushed further into the future, we're going to lose this project in the Town of Queensbury. MR. BREWER-How much time do you have before the funding? MR. BRYAN-We're on very thin ice right now, as I understand it. MR. BREWER-I guess what I'm saying is, how much time would it take to get this stuff done, that we could have a special meeting. Is that possible? MR. BRYAN-Well, with everything that seems to crop up at the last minute, here, I'm not sure what's going to crop up between now and then. MR. PARISI-Excuse me. This was on December 9th, 1991, and if you were at the meeting you would have been aware of it. If you were at the meeting, you have no excuse not to be aware of it, and to refer to this as something at the last minute. MR. BRYAN-Well, I've worked, consistently, with lee York on this, and I'm certainly not a professional in this at an, but all of a sudden we get hit with this at the la.st minute. We've met with lee. lee has said, consistently, this is what you have to do, and I believe we've made every intention to do this, working with you, and all of a sudden something like this comes up, perhaps an oversight, and if we made that, I apologize for that. I was not aware of that, but if this is delayed much further, we've got a real problem. BETTY MONAHAN MRS. MONAHAN-Jim, may I address the Board and Mr. Parisi, plea.se, because I feel there's some information that perha.ps Mr. Parisi is lacking, with this Town. This is a project that I have been very deeply involved with ever since it sta.rted, trying to get the senior housing and subsidized housing here. The hold up has been that they needed a.n extension of Farr lane. Permission from the New York State to give us a road ea.sement there so we could extend Farr lane. So, this development could be on a Town road, and I think you'll find that that's why Mr. Brya.n did not go forward, beca.use we're waiting for the papers from New York State. Those pa.pers from New York State did arrive in the Attorney's Office yesterday. We do have the deeds in pla.ce now to the Town, and I think that is maybe what put a monkey wrench in their work. Mr. Brya.n has the been the most cooperative person I have ever worked with in this Town to try and put a. project in pla.ce. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I was just going to say, I don't know what interest will be served by re-ha.shing the recent history. MRS. MONAHAN-No, I just wanted to bring Mr. Parisi up to date. MR. Ml\RTIN-What I'm interested in is do you ha.ve a, has there been made known a. deadli ne from HUD, a.s to a final time that this ha.s to be in pla.ce, or something that we can work for and have these conditions met and get this underway? Now, I can understand the justification, but lets just get on here with this. MR. BRYAN-As a specific thing, no, to answer your question. I wa.s in contact, very briefly, with the people from the National Church Residences Council in Ohio a.bout six weeks ago, and I also spoke, with the gentleman who's the go between, between HUD and the National Church Residences Council, and both said strongly that if this project doesn't come to fruition in the very near future, that HUD is going to rip the financing for it. MR. MARTIN-Well, I know this site wa.s pulling it out of the fire, as it was. MRS. PULVER-Well, as I recall, Betty, didn't, it was Meryl Smith, didn't they have to get a hold of Jerry Solomon, too, and ask him to get a couple of extensions, because it's been hanging by a thread forever. MRS. MONAHAN-We almost lost it in December. In fact, we did lose it temporarily and were able to gra.b it back, when we fina.11y got the a.ccounting done. MR. MARTIN-Well, leon, I was going to suggest, here, at the end of the meeting tonight that we have a workshop session in ea.rly August for several other reasons, and if the Board comes together, we win be more than ha.ppy to look at the project at this time. Would that be a. feasible date for you, given what you're seeing here tonight, and with the funding? 16 ------ MR. STEVES-Okay, but I would have to ask you to waive your submission date, which is tomorrow at two 0' clock. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think the Board would be interested in doing that. MRS. PULVER-Well, what are we talking about ha.ving done? All the engineering things, and there's two waivers and notations. MR. MARTIN-The first and foremost is getting the conditions for the re-zoning met, which are outline here in lee's, that's the comments she first read to us. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MRS. YORK-Those were the Staff Comments, not necessa.rily..!!!l comments. MR. MARTIN-I'm sorry, Sta.ff Comments, and then we can get into, I would believe, Tom Yarmowich's letter rega.rding the engineering, and I think we'd be at a. point where we could move out of the Prelimina.ry Sta.ge. What is a reasona.ble time frame for you, given what you've heard tonight? MR. STEVES-When is your date for August? MR. MARTIN-Well, we haven't set it. We can do that right now. MR. STEVES-Then I'll just say we will meet it. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but what I need is I need a time-frame in which you can do the work and then get it to Tom and the Planning Sta.ff for their review. They're going to need some time to look at it. So, I think we're looking at a week in each instance there. MR. PARISI-Excuse me. I think you're forgetting one very importa.nt issue, and that is the Town Board has to review the stipulations, and they have to decide if they've been met. MR. STEVES-Bob, you're ta.lking a re-zoning, now, and we're ta.lking here a. subdivision. We're not ta.lking a 41 unit structure. We're ta.lking a. single unit. MR. PARISI-Well, with a subdivision, under SEQRA, the scope of the subdivision is a.lways to be considered. So, saying it's just a three lot subdivision is, essentially, just a play on words. I don't see why that would be a.ny problem to ask the Town Board just to concur that you've met these stipula.tions. MR. MARTIN-Right. I'm not trying to bypa.ss a.ny of those. I'm just saying, with all that taken into a.ccount, what date can we get together and meet all of these hurdles we have? The Town Board meets every Monday. MR. STEVES-I ca.n do the engineering a.nd surveying, but I can't meet the conditions. Mr. Brya.n would have to do that. You're ta.lking a.bout covenants and restrictions on that site. I don't know what the Town is looking for, but certa.inly Buck could supply that. MR. BRYAN- I'd have to go bad and take a look at the records that I have. When we fi rst started out with this project, we, of course, went for a complete re-zoning of the entire parcel. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. BRYAN-And at that point in time there were some restrictions and covenants requested, and we said, fine, we would meet those, but then over a period of time the Town Boa.rd saw fit not to go a.long with a.nything. I was going to put in subsidized housing. They didn't want that, a bike trail, they didn't want that, and then there was the subject of access from Fox Farm Road, and I believe that was dropped, because we fina.lly went to strictly re-zoning the southeastern five acres. It was never specifica.lly delineated because we had to coordinate with HUD and with the Nationa.l Church Residences as to how they could put that in there. So, it wa.s strictly a five acre chunk in the lower right hand corner. MR. MARTIN-Right. I recall all that. MR. BRYAN-Well, we did a.ll of that, and I'm not aware of a.ny restrictions or covenants that were that at the time. I'd have to go back and look a.t it, but being hit with this five minutes before a meeting I don't think is pa.rticularly good either. I mean, not even one day did we have a chance to go a.nd look at that. MR. BREWER-It says on the last pa.ge, Ca.rol. a.ll conditions must be met, the very la.st sentence. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but I wa.nt to know, what are the conditions? MR. BREWER-I don't know what the conditions are, but it says they have to be met. 17 '-..-. MR. BRYAN-And if HUD wa,nts to ya.nk the funding and scra.pe the deal, it's okay we me too. I'll just put the whole works up for sale. It's not worth the hassle. MR. MARTIN-Wen, there's been a, considerable effort IJ1éIde to this, and I, personaHy, would 1ike to see every attempt made to keep this viable. The Town Board's meeting August 3rd, Betty, Monday, August 3rd? MRS. MONAHAN-Yes. MR. MARTIN-That gives you less than a week. Is that too soon? MR. BRYAN-We 11 , I'd have to review what the things are we're supposed to supply, here. We've got lJ1éI.ps, upon IJ1éIpS, upon lJ1éI.ps. So, the surveying work's been done. The percolation tests have been done. MR. MARTIN-Wen, I think there's some lega1 work that needs to be done, here, with your attorney and the Town Attorney. It's just my sense here. with these covenants a.nd restrictions. MRS. PULVER-Yes. I'm confused. What a,re the covenants and restrictions that we're talking about? MRS. MONAHAN-I think we'd have to see Paul Dusek about that, beca,use I agree with Mr. Brya.n, that to start with we were taUing about re-zoning the whole project, the whole area, and then it was the buffer zone, and there was no access to Fox Fa,rm Road. I think, proba.bly, the no access to Fox Farm Road sti11 might be a covenant on this. I rea.lly, this stuff has gone on for so long, I would rea.lly have to check with Paul Dusek to see which ones were still effective now. MR. BRYAN-It's not clear in my mind either. MR. MARTIN-It seems to me Hke at least a couple of weeks is warranted here. That if we could go, Hke, I'm just throwing this date oUt as a preHminary date, August 11th, that gives the space of two Town Board meetings, August 3rd a.nd 10th, and gives you two weeks to get a.ny technica1 work you have to have done, as well as any legal work. MR. BRYAN-It sounds reasonable to me. as long as we don't get hit with something five minutes before the meeting. MR. MARTIN-Well, lets get all the cards out on the tab Ie, and make sure all the I' s are dotted and the T's are crossed. MR. BRYAN-It's fine by me. I don't want to do a.nything snea.ky. MR. MARTIN-I think, and I've worked with HUD a lot. I think a,s long as you're showing them that the project is moving forwa,rd, and that it's in the approva1 phase, I don't think they're going to yank the funding on you, and they're certa.inly going to give you a date before they win do that. They're going to say, by this date, you must, and I think you're at least 30 days away from that. MR. BRYAN-Well, perha.ps our first step is, as Betty points out here, to check with Paul and find out what an of this mea.ns. MR. MARTIN-Right. I agree. So, would the Board be interested in a. workshop session August 11th? MRS. TARANA-With the Town Board or just us? MR. MARTIN-Well, I was going to propose it as a workshop session amongst us for, you know, the Town Board ha.d asked us to look at the Ordinance and do severa1 things of that nature. I was going to try and do it that night, or some time in August. Would the 11th be a good date for everyone? How about the Staff? MR. PARISI-I ilJ1él.gine so. For the record, though, I would Hke to say that the engineering that we received from the appHcant went directly to Rist-Frost from the app1icant at 3:45 p.m. today. I mean, we're ta.1king about last minute cha.nges that the Sta.ff is providing the a.pp1icant with. I'd Hke to make you aware that that has not been the case in this particular appHcation. MR. MARTIN-And then also I'd like to set a date to for leon to have this stuff in to the Pla.nning Staff. So, we'd give you some time as wen as them some time to look over whatever you submit. How about August 4th, a week from today? MR. STEVES-How about August 5th? MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. STEVES-I mean, because since the 4th is the day after the Town Board meeting, and some stipulation may be a.greed upon that shouldbe done. 18 - ---- MR. MARTIN-That's fine. My next question is to the Staff, ca.n the fifth to the eleventh. does that allow you enough time for your in-house reviews and with Tom Yarmowich a.nd all that. MR. PARISI-That would reaJly depend on when we receive the information from the a.pplica.nt. MR. Mc\RTIN-Well, it would be August 5th for sure, like we usua.lly say two o'clock in the afternoon. Would that be a.dequate time? MR. PARISI-I think we'll be able to handle it, yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right. So, why don't we try and keep that time-frame, then. If something changes, you can certa.inly get a. hold of Bob or lee. We'll say submission of the revised pla.ns by August 5th, Wednesday at two o'clock, in Bob's office, and then we'll have our meeting Tuesday evening at 7 p.m.. and I assume we'll just need the sma.ll conference room downs·tairs. I don't know that we'll need a.nything more than that. MR. PARISI-That's fine with us. MR. STEVES-I would like to say that Bob has been very helpful in this project. If I've given you the impression that he hasn't. MR. MARTIN-No, no. I can understand. There seems to me li ke there was something that wasn't seen here today until. like, three o'clock, and this an of a sudden hit. I think if we can meet these dates, we'll get this all clea.ned up and get this through the stages here. Okay? MRS. MONAHAN-Jim, can I ask the Staff a question, plea.se, just for clarification for the applicant? Number Three on the cover letter says, aJl practical steps shall be taken to identify, preserve, or enhance to the extent pra.cticable, the habitats, if any, of enda.ngered animals or pla.nts on the premises. Are we ta.lking, on the whole, 24 acres. or are we ta.lking on the site that the senior housing is going to go on? MRS. YORK-The SEQRA was done on the entire site. MRS. MONAHAN-Okay, because we thought that that would probably be site pla.n review, at the time, at site plan review, they would have to identify that. MRS. YORK-Perha.ps you could cla.rify this when you review it. MRS. MONAHAN-It may be a little hard if the new Board doesn't know what happened, but I know at the time we were concerned with the area that would be developed. MR. Mc\RTIN-Okay. Does that sound reasonable to everyone? MR. PARISI-Yes. MR. Mc\RTIN-Okay. So, I guess I'll accept a motion for tabling, then, until Tuesday the 11th, and within the motion we should have the August 5th date cited a.s a submission dea.dline. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1992 J. BUCKlEY BRYAN, JR.. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Until August 11th at 7 o'clock, with the stipulation that new pla.ns be submitted to the Staff by August 5th at 2 p.m. Duly adopted this 28th day of July, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. laPoint MR. Mc\RTIN-This has been a complicated one, and I think these things just happen. I a.pologize. Okay. Thank you. Now, getting back to the regula.r a.genda., the next item on the agenda. (END OF FIRST DISK) 19 --- 7 -J:¥ 4~ -- PUD 1-92 RECOMMENDATION (lilY HUDSON POINTE - P .U.D. CllNER: NIAGARA tDlAlfK P(lÆR CORP. PROJECT IS A PLA_D UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA OF SHERIN ISLAND ROAD AND CORINTH ROAD CONSISTING OF A +106 ACRE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (126 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED IIŒllINGS AND 40 TIllUKllSES), AND 201.8 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE (99 ACRES ifIll IE ŒDICATED TO THE TCIIN AND 103 ACRES ifIll BE PROTECTED BY THE HOMEClfNER'S ASSOCIATION). (WARREN CooJlTY PLANNING) ALAN OPPENHEIM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from lee A. York, Senior Planner, PUD 1-92, Hudson Pointe. July 27, 1992, Meeting Date: July 28th, 1992 "The Hudson Pointe PIanned Unit Development has been submitted to the Planning Board which wi1I make a report and recommendations back to the Town Board. A favorable report shan inc1ude a recommendation that a pub1ic hea.ring be held for the purpose of considering PUD districting. It shan be based on the fonowing findings which shan be inc1uded as part of the report. (pg. 18011 Zoning Ordinance)", and the Zoning Ordinance is cited here. "1. The proposaJ meets the intent a.nd objectives of the Planned Unit Development as expressed in Section 179-51B which states (pg. 18004): Objectives. In order to rea1ize the purpose of this Article a Planned Unit Development (PUD) shaH achieve the fonowing objectives: A. A maximum choice in housing environment and type, occupa.ncy tenure (e.g.. cooperatives, individual ownership or condominium Ieasing), Iot sizes and common faci1ities. B. More usable open spa.ce and recreation areas and if permitted as part of a project, more convenient Iocations of a.ccessory, commerciaJ a.nd service uses. C. A development pattern which preserves outsta.nding naturaJ topogra.phy and geologicaJ features, scenic vistas, trees and historic sites and prevents the disruption of natural drainage patterns. D. An efficient use of Iand resulting in sman networks of uti1ities and streets. E. A development pattern in ha.rmony with the Iand use intensity, transportation faci1ities and community faci1 ities objectives of the Comprehensive land Use PIan. The proposaJ is for a residentiaJ PUD which win have single fami1y and multi fami1y housing. lot sizes wi1I differ. Common faci1ities for sewage treatment are not being considered. Page 111-5 of the fun EAF states: A pre1imina.ry analysis of the sewage treatment options avanable has identified individual septic systems as the preferred alternative. The proposed townhouses would utnize clustered septic systems, which win require a discha.rge permit from NYSDEC. Since the development wHI require 126 septic systems, a variance win be required from NYSDOH (NYSDOH threshold is 49 Iots). NYSDOH has conceptuany a.greed to the proposed a.pproa.ch as Iong as fea.sibiHty is proven in the engineering a.naJysis. Pre1imina.ry soHs testing has shown that the permeabnity of the sons on site is somewhat fast, as expected in a,n aquifer recharge zone. If necessa.ry, sons modifications wHI be incorporated into septic system design to ensure the wastewater is properly treated and that the groundwater tabIe is not adversely impa.cted (See Appendix C, Engineering Data). The project inc1udes a totaJ of 166 new residentiaJ units which would be served by Town water. There has been concern recently regarding the Water Treatment PIant being over capa.city. Documentation is necessa.ry to assure that this development can be served. 2. The project wHI Ieave a. substantial amount of property in open space. 94.10 acres of the open spa.ce is not contiguous to the project area.. The slopes on this parcel (parcel A) are identified as 25% or greater on the Slope AnaJysis Ma.p. This is designated as unsuitable. The concern is that the Town Board may choose not to consider this as avaHable open spa.ce due to the constraints. They may choose not to consider this as recreationaJ area. This would substantiany cha.nge the development density. These questions should be settled prior to a.ny recommendation by the Planning Board, to be fair to the developer. 3. The development pattern is away from the floodplain and the steep sloped areas. The EIS states that prehistoric a.rchaeologicaJ sites were found. 'This group of artifact occurrences suggests the presence of an extensive archaeologica.1 site extending behind the bluff.' (pg. 26, EIS) The evaJuation of the archaeologicaJ information states that the interior of the project area is defined as a Iow sensitivity area where archaeologicaJ sites cannot reasona.bly be expected to occur. The EAF indicates that there wHI be an impact by the development on a site of historic, prehistoric or paJeontologicaJ importance. The EAF states that this activity wi1I be sman to moderate. The Iead a.gency wi1I need to review this in depth to determine the impacts. This wi1I proba.bly require specific professionaJ input which is not currently avaHable. The project wi1I create approximately 22 acres of existing pervious site area which win be transformed to impervious services through bui1ding, parking area. and road way development (pg. 111-2). The EIS states that this win not be significant because of the topogra.phy of the developa.ble area and the amount of open space. The concern is that 94.10 acres is a. Iot A and not contiguous to the project area and a substantiaJ amount of the rest of the open spa.ce is on slope areas and f1oodplain. The topogra.phy of the developed areas is fIat, however, is the open space in these areas significa.nt enough to mitigate storm water concerns. 4. The development win take place in the area adja.cent to Sherman Isla.nd Road. A second access through Foothi1ls Drive has aJso been provided. The ba.ckground growth in the traffic study was estimated at 2%. The staff has been trying to contact DOT pla.nning officiaJs since most recent traffic studies have used a 4% background growth. Since Corinth Roa.d is the most heavi1y used road in Queensbury (3700 trips per day), the background growth can be a. significa.nt factor in evaJuating the project. The Town win need to have expert evaJuation of the traffic study. The app1ica.nt has indicated that they be1ieve that the additionaJ impa.ct on Sherman Island Road ca.n be potentiaHy Iarge. 5. The development pattern has to take into account the sensitivity of the Iand, which appea.rs to be the case. There may be other issues rega.rding the impa.ct on pI ants and animaJs. Recent information from OEC indicates enda.ngered species habitat on or near the site. The staff has requested that the developer update their Ietter dated July 5, 1990, as recommended in that Ietter. Unti1 the Iead agency has that update no SEQRA determination can be ma.de. The developer has fined out part 2 of the EIS, which is the purview of the Iead agency.. In the developers opinion there are four checks in the potentiaHy 20 ---' large impa.ct category and nine checks in the sman to moderate impa.ct category. There are 12 involved and interested pa.rties. Given the number of potential impacts identified by the developer, the areas which need clarification, and the variance needed from DOH standards, the staff recommends that a scoping session take place on this project. An involved agencies and interested pa.rties should have an opportunity to coordinate through the lead agency. This is also an opportunity for the developer to get a laundry Hst of concerns which can be addressed expeditiously. II MRS. YORK-And we have a letter from. MR. MARTIN-I guess this would be the neighboring property owner. MRS. YORK-Right. Would you like me to read this? MR. MARTIN-Sure. MRS. YORK-"Dea.r Board Member: In reference to the proposed development of 307 acres of Nia.gara. Mohawk land on Sherman Island Road by the Michaels Group, the residents of the existing development wish to state their concerns created by this project. (pa.ge numbers refer to zoning cha.pter 179 from the code of the Town of Queensbury) 1. Traffic (Pg. 18014 sec B 1a & b) A. Volume to exceed 400 vehicles at pea.k hour of the day (7-8 am - 3 - 5 pm) B. Safety of chiTdren wa.1king to and from the junction of Sherman Island Road and Corinth Road to meet the school bus. School bus hours coincide with peak traffic hours. C. Ha.irpin curve on Sherman Isla.nd Road D. When turning left from Sherman Island Road there is Hmited site distance to the east of the intersection of Sherman Island Road and Corinth Road. Also there is a problem turning left from Corinth Road onto Sherman Island Road. E. This development would turn the currently seconda.ry Sherma.n Island Road into a primary conection road from the increase of traffic. F. The addition of this large volume of traffic generated by the Michaels Group project and the expa.nsion of Bedford Close, Herald Squa.re, Inspiration Park, and the Cary Road Commercial Development wiTI ultimately add to the problem of congestion at Exit 18 of the Northway. 2. lot size (page 17957 sec a & b, 17959-60 sec a & b) A. The Michaels Group is proposing to buiTd One (1) famiTy homes on 1/3 acre lots where as the Town of Queensbury existing code is 1 acre buiTding lots. Also. the proposed construction of estate homes along the river front near the wet lands on one (1) acre lots should be increased to three (3) acre lots. B. The proximity of this development to the Hudson River and Clendon Brook a.1ong with the wetlands could cause a serious ponution problem due to the lea.ching of sewer vaults in these areas. (example lake George) WR-JA protect delicate ecological balance C. There is a.1so the concern as to the a.biTity of the Town of Queensbury's Water Depa.rtment to produce a.dequate water supply to this development since it is a.1rea.dy pumping to ca.pa.city. D. The overan land mass consists of 307 acres but in rea.Hty the complex is buiTt on approximately 200 acres. RC-3A 94.10 acres of this project is questionable as to its value to the Town of Queensbury. 3. Endangered Species - (page 18083 sec E & F 18084 sec I, J, & K, 18085 sec l & M, 18086 see N) A. The D.E.C should be requested by the Town of Queensbury to do an update and eva.1uation of the area. There may be some enda.ngered or threatened plants or animals on the site of the proposed development. 4. Archeological Concerns A. Several prehistoric sites are located in the Michaels Group project. Many artifacts have been discovered such as chert and qua.rtizite flakes, fire craked rocks and pottery dating to anea.rly phase of the Owasco culture circa AD 1000. B. There may be some historical va.1ue to this area concerning the existing remnants of a raiTroad believed to be used during the ea.rly settlement of Queensbury for the purpose of transporting buiTding materials and supply's to buiTd the dam. 5. Neighborhood A. This development would also jeopardize the character of our suburban neighborhood by over populating a condensed area. B. The added population to an alrea.dy severely over crowded Queensbury School System would generate the need to enlarge our schools ultimately resulting in higher taxes. C. The placement of multifamily dwenings and single family starter homes within the immediate vicinity of permanent family residents would result in lower property values of the already established homes. In surnrna.ry, we the people of Sherman Island Road and Heatherbrooke Subdivision wish that the Town Board and Pla.nning Board of Queensbury take these valid concerns into consideration before ma.king any final decision on the Michaels Group proposa.l. There are several discrepancies Hsted in their appHcation for developing this area. We feel the acceptance of this plan win be deva.stating to the qua.Hty of life for the residents, wiTdlife, and environment." And there are quite a number of signatures. MR. PARISI-About 75. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Thank you very much. Do we have someone here from the applicant? ALAN OPPENHEIM MR. OPPENHEIM- I I m A Ian Oppenheim, Director of Project Development for the Michaels Group. The project in front of you is, a number of other professionals, Susan Westa and Bob Sotherland from the Saratoga Associates have been involved with the property for a number of years. Chuck Manning from Creighton Associates has been involved in doing an of our traffic studies, and John Anen from the Albany law firm of Shannon, Sweeney, Rodman. It's tough to know where to start, after hea.ring an those comments, and I'd like to say that our project team has done a tremendous amount of work on this site over the last few yea.rs, and I think that we have a lot of facts and information, that you wiTI be able to address issues tonight or in other sessions to come. I'd like to keep things brief this evening. I'd like to just, as the Project Sponsor, to provide a brief introduction to the project and some of the ba.ckground, 21 ----- have Rob Sotherland of Sa.ratoga. Associates provide everybody with some specifics on our proposa1 on the site. Chuck can address our findings on the traffic study which you've seen, in the EAF, and a.ny other issues with the discussion. This pla.n was forma.11y submitted to the Planning Board on June 26th. As I mentioned ea.r1ier, the project team has been involved with this property for a number of years. The Michaels Group was brought on as the project sponsor by Nia.gara Mohawk who is sti11 the property owner about a yea.r ago, just to give you a sense for, it's take us a yea.r to the point of submitting a pIan, and Niaga.ra. Mohawk, as the property owner, has made a cOßlßitment with Iands such as this that have been taken out of a their rate base and classified as excess Iands that are not integrated, they're hydro operations, to remain involved in putting together a comprehensive 1and management pIan for this property as we11 as thousands of other acres along the Hudson, and it's Niagara Mohawk's goa1, and they have an ob1igation to their stockholders, as a pub1ic company, obviously to Iook at things from the highest and best use perspective, but at the same time are committed to implementing plans for their Iand that are socia.11y responsible. Since first being involved with the property, we've had numbers of meetings, primarHy on an informa1 basis, with various members of the Town, and we had a meeting with the neighborhood group that was, I be1ieve, on May 28th. Since first meeting with the Town, and starting to perha.ps attempt to forma1ize our pIan, after having done extensive market ana1ysis, as we11 as site ana1ysis, to come up with a concept that we think makes sense for the property. The pIan has undergone a number of changes. The Iand area that you see here comprises, as was mentioned in the Ietter, and I'll Iet Rob dea1 with the specifics, again, it's 307 acres of Iand, and we're taIking about a proposal for 166 housing units. One of the primary issues that was addressed ea.rly on by members of the neighborhood was traffic, and that issue was recognized ea.rly on. In our ear1ier meetings with the Town, probably dating back to ea.rly '92, the Town made it dear to us that it was the Town's fee1ing, for a property of this size, that two means of access was a.ppropriate for the project. MR. BREWER-That's in the Ordinance. It's not just particular to this project. MR. OPPENHEIM-Okay. I'm just providing a 1ittle ba.ckground. At that point in time, basica.11y, we developed early concepts, identifying just Sherman Island Road as the primary mea.ns of access. At that point in time, it was made dear to us that two means of access were most appropriate for this site. We, at one point, had a second access coming in from this bit of Iand here, off Corinth Road. Based upon our ana1ysis of the sites, our traffic study, it was determined that that didn't make a whole Iot of sense, just based upon the 1ikely use, given its Iocation and how many people are going to be inc1ined to use that point of access. At that point in time, we went back to the drawing board and Iooked at other alternative means of access for the site, and identified here, which is now Foothi1ls Drive, as a 1ikely and favorable second point of access, and were able to work out an arrangement with the Iandowner to secure those access rights. That, I be1ieve, was the pIan that we presented at the time that we met with the neighborhood back in May, and without getting into a.11 the figures on percentages, from a traffic standpoint, what percentage is going up Sherman Island, I'll Iet Chuck dea1 with that. Based upon our meeting with the neighborhood, we heard Ioud and dear, and have understood it from Day I, obviously there are concerns with the traffic. To further address that, we reaHgned our interior road system to direction additiona1 traffic connecting here in the interior of the site directly to Foothills, and not having, on the western portion of the site, the road system tying back into Sherman Island Road. So, we've effectively been able to rea1ign the traffic system so that more traffic is going to work towards Foothills Drive, than origina11y the concept imp1ied. I guess just as a quick overview of the pIan, as a PUD, in terms of satisfying a.11 the criteria of a sensitive Iand use with a number of different elements, as mentioned the property comprises 94 acres of Iand that we've set aside for open space recreation, five acres that have been slated to be deeded to the Town for purposes of recreation and a scenic overlook. The trail system that you can see out1ined here, the red dots with the u1timate goal of potentia.11y connecting to the future pub1ic park, so you've got Town 1ands on that side, and obviously as you can see here in green, a.n extensive network of open space. So, we feel that it's a pIan that's been given a Iot of thought. We think it's a very good pla.n for the Iand and a good pIan for the area, and I'll Iet Rob give you some of the specifics of the proposed development. ROB SOTHERLAND MR. SOTHERLAND-I'm Rob Sotherland, landscape Architect for Saratoga Associates, and I want to refer back to this exhibit for two additional points, and that is to taIk about some additionaJ Iands. I think many of you, Nia.ga.ra. Mohawk also owns the Da.irywood Plant that's Iocated, the Hydroelectric plant. This area here, which is about 20 acres, we original had in the Planned Unit Development, and that's an area that's currently being considered by the water company for expansion of their facHities, as we11 as an area right now that's, to my knowledge, been deeded to the water company for expansion here to Niaga.ra Mohawk. As many of you know, a.lso, Nia.gara. Mohawk owns considerable acreage to the west in Queens bury , and one of the things, in Iooking at a PUD, was how Niaga.ra Mohawk comprehensively Iook at deve Ioping thei r Iands. Hence, we're rea.11y tryi ng to inc Iude other areas of open space with the main area involved with this particular project. So, that's just a bit more history on some of the outlying kind of pieces that origina11y were connected to this and are being considered for other uses for the Town, comunity benefit at this point in time. The other thing on this exhibit was submitted is rea1Iy the as of right development right, Iand use intensity that's calculated from the acreage, and our ca1culations provide a view of 180 dwel1ing units on 307 pIus or minus acres in here. The area at a different scale than the previous exhibit, shows the primary area that we're rea.11y considering for housing, arid some recreation areas, and we use this exhibit to high1ight some of the environmental 22 '--' features, some of the cultural features that are here. and as the EAF described, there's a significant wetland here, a. New York State regulated wetland. There's a 100 yea.r floodplain that encompasses the area below the bluff, and there's a. level area at the bottom of the peninsula, some very significant steep slopes dong the river, a borrow pit that is used for materids for the Coffer Dam, that win eventua.Hy be dismantled pa.rtly on the Hudson River for the construction of a new dam, and an area that's generaHy forested, almost level, very Httle terrain difference throughout this area, and that's the area of primary development, again, the area of the Ieast amount of environmental constraints on the site, and in Iooking at the more detal1ed site pIan for the same scaled area, a number of things we've tried to do, as far as the housing mix. The first, to the west of Sherman Island Road, there's an area that's one third of an acre Iots, and we've tried to Iook at conserving existing vegetation that would surround this area from Sherma.n Island Road itseH, through the ma.king of a c1uster environment for the residential Iots, and th~n again this being the through street. The Foothins is another access point. The other areas on the interior of the site, the Ietter yenow, these Iots are a haH acre in size, aga.in very much Hke a clustered project with a sense of open space systems that are designed to protect some of the swaIes that are here, as wen as provide a pedestria.n system to the center of the site which would be some common recreational faciHties uti1ized by the Homeowners Association. Some of the perimeter Iots here are one acre minimum, as far as the size of those, and we have taken this pIan and made some adjustments, based on archeological reports. Some on-site surveys have been done to rea.ny Iook at avoiding some of the areas that they've identified in their report as being sensitive. The area right here is where we're proposing 40 multi famHy townhouse type units. There wil1 be kind of a cul-de-sac arrangement, and then where the borrow pit is right now, we're Iooking at renovating that area so it wi1I reaHy be a conunon open space system for the project, and rea.l1y a center piece on your arrival for this comunity. So, that's the different types of Iand uses that are there. Some of the other considerations that we have are we recognize that there's a high quality scenic environment, certainly one on the Hudson River. We're Iooking at a scenic easement that would eHminate any cutting of vegetation here. So, that this section starts to inustrate that. The houses then would rea.l1y be up on top of the bluff, and reaHy preserving aH the vegetation down at the river bank, and in rea.Hty, we've done a number of studies, and these houses would reaHy not be seen from the river itseH. So, that's one of the things that we've tried to Iook at, particularly in this area bordering the river. A couple of other things we've tried to do is, again, pul1 back some of these Iots away from the wetlands, away from the steep slopes, and away from some of the areas that we've had some preHminary indications have the most a.rcheological kind of sensitivity. Just one footnote on that, we're currently in the process of completing a Phase II archeological study that will real1y give us a perimeter boundary where some of the a.rcheological areas are, and a150 tening us in more detai1 what the significance of those are. So, we've made some adjustments to this pIan. based on the Phase I B surveys that have been done. but we funy intend to make some additiond adjustments if we find that there are sensitive areas. One other thing here that Alan mentioned, whi1e this area in green, an the green areas wHI be common open space for the homeowners association, we Iook at this as a pubHc easement to connect a future pa.rk, come through the site, connect down to this area, which would Iead into the Town, to the pub1ic pa.rk, and we've had numerous discussions with the Parks and Recreation people in rega.rd to some of the open space recreational opportunities on this site, and it Iends itseH to a Iot of different passive activities with the traH system. That's, in a sense, a summa.ry of some of the Iand use and the environmental issues, some of the cu1tural issues related to the site, and I'd 1ike Chuck Manning, reaHy, to use this exhibit to describe some of the traffic issues. CHUCK MANNING MR. ~NNING-Thank you, Rob. Yes, I'd Hke to deal with the traffic. We did do a traffic study for this particular project, and in doing that, what I'd Hke to do first is run through what we did on the study, and then taU about how the plans have evolved over time, to the pIan you see up here today, and I'll be trying to do this without taUing about a great deal of numbers. There are a Iot of numbers of importance, but there are a few key numbers that I win try and stress as we go through here. First of an what we did is we Iooked at the existing conditions in the area and measured the traffic volumes at two Iocations, one is Sherman Island Road and Corinth Road, and also down at West Mountain Road and Corinth Road. We counted the traffic volumes during the morning pea.k hour, and during the afternoon pea.k hour at those two Iocations. We also Iooked at the existing site distance at each of those Iocations, and what we did find was that at the Sherman Island Iocation, as people are fami1iar with that Hve in the area, who've been out there, there is a site distance problem. If you're sitting at Sherman Island Road Iooking to the right, and you want to make a Ieft hand turn, there's a Httle dip in the curve there, so it's a Httle difficult to see Iooking to the right or to the east at that particular Iocation. and that was something we noted in the initial study. Also, it was apparent that most of the traffic which is currently using Sherman Island Road from the residences in that area has as its prima.ry destination areas to the east of Sherman Island Road. In other words, there were very few people, fortunately, because of that site distance problem, who come out from Sherman IsIand Road and make a Ieft hand turn. It's obvious because most of the deve Iopment, most of the emp Ioyment opportunities of shopping and so on would be to the right towards Glens Fans, and that was confirmed by our initial traffic counts that we did. After we'd done the analysis of the existing conditions, the next thing we did was we Iooked at the traffic that would be generated by the proposed development, and we included both the 126 single famHy homes, and the 40 townhouses, and in terms of peak hours, the trip generation from that area, we found that the peak trips in the morning peak hour would be about 125 trips, and in the afternoon peak hour, it would be about 162 trips. When we were Iooking at the future trave 1 23 l --' patterns in the area, we a150 inc1uded the future development in the subdivision here dong McDona1d Drive, and traffic from that was included when we Iooked at how much volume is going to coming in the different roads in the area. Now, in terms of the roadway networks we Iooked at, we rea.11y Iooked at four different plans as this project evolved, and that's what I wanted to spend a Httle time on, and the first pIan that we Iooked at prior to coming to the Town was what would ha.ppen if there was no seconda.ry access, and a.11 the traffic were to use Sherman Island Road, and obviously if that were to be the case, 100 percent of the traffic from the proposed development would be using Sherman Island Road, and in terms of the peak hour volume, which would be the highest volume during the day, we came up with a volume, a two way volume up Sherman Island Road of about 246 vehicles. Now, the second pIan we Iooked at, Rob mentioned, was this access down here. Clearly, that did not divert a significant amount of traffic off the Sherman Island Road. It goes back to where the trips are going to, or where they' re ~ to be going to from this development, and primarHy they're going to, Hke I said ear1ier, be heading to the east. So, that particular road down here does not rea1Iy do much for traffic that wanted to go to the east. So, essentia.11y, we had stin roughly 90 percent of the traffic from the development would be using Sherman Island Road. A third pIan we Iooked at was to then put in an access to FoothHls Drive, and that pIan did not have the cul-de-sacs Iocated on this portion of the development. Instead they came back out onto Sherman Island Road. With that pIan in place, we had about 65 percent of the development traffic that would stin be using Sherman Island Road. and about the remainder would be using Foothins Drive. So, the volume in that case would be about 170 in the pea.k hour up on Sherman Island Road. The fina1 pIan that we came up with is the one that's shown here, and I think what we've done here is come about as c10se as we can to getting a spHt in the traffic from the development. We've got about 45 percent using FoothHls, about 55 percent using Sherman Island Road. So, in effect what the volume would be on Sherman Island Road now is 157 vehicles, of which about 89 of them would be coming from this development, and the rest of that traffic there would be coming from background traffic, either from the Town drive or from the other people 1iving up in this area. Now, we've developed that split, just to go into a Httle detaH on that, based on the Iocation of the housing within the development itseH. and because of the densities and so on, you have about 43 percent of your housing single famHy housing units are over in this area over here shown, and I guess you could ca.11 that a knot here, so that's why it's possible to divert that much traffic on Foothins Drive, because of this area here having a higher proportion of development. Once we determined what the traffic volumes would be at the different Iocations, then the next step was to Iook at what type of improvements might be necessary to carry that volume of traffic, and we came up with a couple of measures which we think win help do a couple of things which were mentioned by the neighborhood association. One was the impact of through traffic, and just the speed of through traffic a10ng Sherman Island Road, and what we're going to be recommending there is the insta.11ation of, essentia11y, a three way stop, either at Morningside Circ1e or at McDona1d Drive. So, in effect traffic coming onto Sherman Island Road is not going to be able to buHd up a great dea1 of speed because they're going to be hitting a stop sign there. Also, to encourage the use of the FoothHls Road connector at this point, even from some of the people Hving over in this area, who are recommending stop sign controls be pI aced on Sherman Island Road, rather than the connector road, or possibly a four way stop at that Iocation as wen. So, the idea here is to make this a11 a residential type complex, and rather than make it a true conector type road, and I think we've accompHshed that by getting a nea.rly 50/50 sp1it in the traffic between the two areas. The other improvement that we Iooked at was the need for a Ieft hand turn Iane at this Iocation into Sherman Island Road off of Corinth Road. This would be primarHy during the afternoon pea.k hour when the heavier volume of traffic is coming out from the Glens Fa11s area. We Iooked at the possibHity of putting that Ieft hand turn Iane so that traffic waiting to come into Sherman Island Road would be out of the flow of traffic continuing on Corinth Road, and we thought that would be a good idea, so we recommended that in the study as wen. So, with that, that in a sense summarizes the results of the traffic study, and I'd be happy to deaJ with any questions as they come up Iater on. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I guess that wraps up your presentation then. Does anybody from the Board any questions at this time, of the applicant, before we get into comments from the public? MRS. TARANA-I have just one right now. The townhouses wHI be owned by individua1 famHies? MR. OPPENHEIM-Yes, yes. It wHI be for sale housing. MR. MARTIN-Members of the homeowners association wHI be made up of a11 properties within the PUD? MR. OPPENHEIM-Yes, that's correct. WhHe there wHI be different, probably wHI be two or three different associations. We' n have a condominium association, perha.ps a recreation association, an of the homeowners wHI be part of the different associations. MR. MARTIN-An right. Is there any other questions at this time. before we hear comment? Do we have a.ny written comment, lee, beyond the one Ietter we had read in? MRS. YORK-No, I don't believe so. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Wen then, I'n accept pubHc comment at this time. Is there anyone from the pub1ic who wishes to address the Board regarding this app1ication? 24 '- -.-" PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TOM TEll MR. TEll-Hi. I'm Tom Teil. I own one of the residents in the area, and my concern, basicaily, is with the traffic on Sherman Island Road, and safety of the youngsters walking along there. I reaily, I was listening, but I don't believe the figures and the amount of traffic coming along Sherman Island Road. It doesn't make sense that more than half of the people would go more than half a mile west, to go east into Glens Falls. It doesn't sound logical. Secondly, it's already a dangerous road. We're just hoping none of the children walking out on luzerne Road, or Corinth Road get hit. Sooner or later, somebody's going to get killed. I don't believe they've really addressed the traffic issue. They've just re-hashed what was proposed before. Additionally, the lands to be included in these studies, to the west of the water treatment, I really don't know why they're including for consideration anymore than the lands that NiMo owns. MRS. TARANA-I have one question for you, Mr. Teil. Where does the school bus pick up the children? Is that the corner of Sherman Island and luzerne Road? MR. TEll-That's correct. MRS. TARANA-All buses stop there? MR. TEll-Not ail buses. I understand now there's a kindergarten bus that goes in. A number of the parents, apparently, each day, take it upon themselves to go out to the main road and try to look after for the safety of the children. MRS. PULVER-Has anybody brought this to the attention of the Town Board, I mean, about the dangers, whatever dangers you feel with this road? MR. BREWER-I think that's the school board function, isn't it? The Town Board has no control over the school buses. MRS. PUlVER-Weil, he's saying walking along the road with the traffic. That's certainly a concern of the Town, not the school bus, and maybe a speed limit,or. MR. BREWER-There is a 15 mile an hour speed limit there now. MR. MARTIN-Yes, posted. MRS. TARANA-Weil, let me just say something, because I had this direct experience. I was out there Sunday evening around, I think it might have been seven o'clock, and as I came off luzerne Road onto the Sherman Island Road and made that sharp little curve, I'm a slow driver, so I was not going fast, and some little boy rode out right in front of me with his bike, and I almost hit him, and it scared me to death. So, I don't know who's problem it is, but I think somebody's got to address the kids being on that road. I don't know that it's the applicant's. I think you neighbors better do something about that. That's a terrible situation. MR. TEll-Another' concern is the proposed density. The rest of us have about an acre a piece. To cluster more than that may lead to problems. MRS. TARANA-In rega.rd to the road, any chance that a sidewalk can be put along that, do you happen to know? I don't want to put you on the spot. MR. OPPENHEIM-I'd have to go over it with the Board. MRS. TARANA-But is that the Board's, these people can make a request of some sort to the Town Board. MR. MARTIN-Anyone else from the public? CRAIG MCEWEN MR. MCEWEN-My name's Cra.ig McEwen, and I certa.inly voice some of the concerns that Tom has, specificaily with the density that they want to put in the houses for, on third acre lots. Most all of the houses up there are on a minimum of three quarters of an acre up there. Another condition that they haven 't taken in consideration, that there's another development on the books out there already. McDonald Drive is a development which is about 40 houses in there, which also creates traffic. They've made comments that there's suggestions on stop signs on Morningside Circle and McDonald Drive, which are already in place. They're there. Some of the other situations, as far as the traffic goes, we have suggested to them, and I don't know if it's do-able or not, maybe to dead end Sherman Island Road at some point, so that traffic coming out of this new development doesn't go up the other end of Sherman Island Road. I want to suggest possibly the idea of maybe dead ending it at the corner of Corinth Road. Their traffic studies say that with this additional road and Foothills, it would help alleviate 25 ',--- --" some of the traffic, a.lthough 70 percent of the traffic wiII stHl continue to use Sherman Island Road. When they did their traffic report, we asked them, when we had the neighborhood meeting with them, did it take into account the school buses that were there during peak periods in the traffic report, in their study, and they never saw any school buses, either in the morning or in the afternoon. So, I have to question as to when was their traffic study taken, at what time of day were they taken, and along the lines, also, is the archeological findings that they have found out now. I would like to see that done as weII, more in-depth, and also the environmental impact of it. That many cluster houses with those kind of septic systems, where would it be 10 yea.rs down the road, if the percolation couldn't handle it a.nymore. We have to look into those serious considerations. With the larger lot sizes, I don't think anybody has really thought of which way is the aquifer going to go. Does it go toward the river, or does it go toward Corinth Road. Thanks. MRS. PUlVER-I have a question for you? I thought someone just said chHdren are picked up on the corner of Corinth Road and Sherman Island for the bus? MR. t«:EWEN-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Well, then there wouldn't be any buses going down there, would there? MR. t«:EWEN-There are buses that do go down the development right now, but there are also buses that are picking up on the intersection of Corinth Road. MRS. PUlVER-WeII, what buses go down into the development? MR. t«:EWEN-Just for the kindergartens. FRAN WAllETO MRS. WAllETO-Hi. My name is Fran WaHeto. I live on Morningside Circle, and with the busing situation, just this past yea.r they brought the elementary school bus because if a chHd has to walk more than a half a mile, the school bus has to come in. We are on the cul-de-sac in Morningside Circle. So, we are the furthest away, because of that, they brought the elementa.ry school bus in. Once you have the rest of the development in, the rest of the school buses are going to have to come in, and when a school bus comes around the hairpin curve, it's the only thing that fits, and there are no sidewalks. The children who are taking the corner bus on Sherman Island and Corinth Road, do have to stand on that corner and get past the ha.irpin curve, as weII as now the elementa.ry buses are coming in. So, I see eventuaIIy, once the rest of the development is in, all buses, and all of them will have the same problems getting around the ha.irpin curve. So, that is en issue that will have to be addressed along the way. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Paul, they mentioned about blocking the road off. Is that feasible or possible. blocking it off at Sherman Island Road and Corinth Road, and have another exit down the road further, align it? PAUL NAYLOR MR. NAYlOR-We could probably look at it. For the record, my name's Paul H. Naylor. We've done all we can with that road, because as you know, everybody's kind of snuggled up close to us on either side right there. We own just what we've got, from what I can find out through the agencies, and the only way we're going to get more room there is start with a big stick. Probably the only secondary road, one of two, that's got white lines and yellow lines to keep you on your side of the road. I've been over there a few times. It doesn't make any difference if you have two, but it probably would be a good idea, if you could find that second hole there. I know where it is, but I don't think you're going to get it. MR. BREWER-I asked Bob if he could bring that plan for Inspiration Park. Whereabouts is Inspiration Park on your map? MRS. YORK-We have the plans. MR. OPPENHEIM-It's down right in this area right here. MR. BREWER-How far does their road go back? Just a. thought. MR. OPPENHEIM-That road's going to be coming in, just to get back to your suggestion, just so we as the applicant understand, could you show me on the map what you're suggesting? MR. BREWER-I spoke with lee and Paul Naylor about, and I was in a neighborhood meeting. The suggestion was to block off the Corinth Road entrance to Sherman Island Road. MR. OPPENHEIM-Okay. 26 -- MR. BREWER-Possibly, nothing's etched in stone. The only reason I bring this up is, to be honest with you, I live in that neighborhood and the neighbors have aB gotten together, and we an talked about it. If your road, you have one here. Inspiration Park you said comes in here? MR. OPPENHEIM-That's correct. MR. BREWER-If it's at an possible to have a line. I don't know how you could adjust these lots, and have two accesses, close this off, is what the idea was, everybody could come down here, have a straight shot on Corinth Road, rather than having this turn here, because then 90 percent of the traffic is definitely going to go that way. The idea behind that was the consideration that these people have with these people up here. Rather than having 400 cars come by their house, why not, lets an go out here and here, and leave this alone up in here, then possibly nobody's going to get kiBed on that corner. MR. OPPENHEIM-WeB, Number One, it's not 400 cars, and I believe with the current road, at peak hour times. we're talking an additional 89 cars would be created by the proposed development. . MR. BREWER-By 166 units? MR. OPPENHEIM-With the way. MR. BREWER-The way you have it designed. MR. OPPENHEIM-On Sherman Is land Road. MR. BREWER-All right. I understand. MR. OPPENHEIM-And you've got the other 45 percent coming out Corinth. MR. BREWER-Is there a guarantee of that, though? Honestly. I'm not trying to badger you. MR. OPPENHEIM-What I would suggest, Mr. Brewer, and that's where you aH can verify, check, have somebody else look at the numbers, but we feel that those are reasonable numbers. Obviously, I think that you ought to verify those on your own to give yourself comfortable. We are comfortable with those numbers, and the only other comment I have, I mean, there are existing residents. From a reasonable standpoint, it seems the most logical way of addressing it is to disperse traffic in a way that makes sense, and not to create undo burden on Sherman Island Road, but a150 not to unduly burden FoothiBs Drive or any other proposed roadway. So, as the sponsor, we are more than prepared to work with the Town, to work with the neighborhood, with the existing conditions, come up with a solution that, from a reasonable standpoint, is safe. We recognize that you have a tough curve, and we have proposed a turning lane to deal with future traffic issues on Corinth Road. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Is there anyone else from the public? CATHY CLOUTIER MRS. CLOUTIER-My name's Cathy Cloutier. I live on the hairpin curve. It was an issue a few years ago. The Town of Queensbury pa.inted lines. Now they seem to go over the lines, but if you stated 166 homes, and you stated 55 percent of the traffic leaves Sherman Island sti11. Your average now days 166 homes has two cars, that's 332 cars. Fi fty percent of 332, we're back to 166. He quoted us 55 percent. We're stiH looking at 166 cars in their development. We have cars in our development. Mr. McDonald's going to have a development with 40 houses, or whatever, in it. The road can't handle it. My parents live on the corner. We're an for the idea of blocking off Sherman Island Road. There's going to be at least seven houses. With the influx of this traffic, we might as weB quit work and stay home, because we're not going to be able to get out of our driveway. There's no, and if anybody wants to come up on Sherman Island Road, we can offer to have 166 cars come down the road and try it. Right now, the people who drop kids off at the school bus pa.rk opposite my parents house. There's just about room for a car to get through because the cars are parked along the side of the road. What's going to happen now? I've seen a couple of accidents on the curve. My maHbox and fence have been taken down, and I'm on the first part of the curve, and it's a real concern for us, and it should be for the Town of Queensbury. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Is there anyone else? HAROLD RIST MR. RIST-My name is Harold Rist. I'm a resident a little further down the road on Sherman Island, and I'd like to look into that other possibility that someone else brought up, the idea of blocking off the two systems totaHy from each other. We that live on Sherman Island Road have accepted the responsibility for the number of houses that are there. We've accepted the McDonald's loop. and we were rea.dy to accept that. It was a.1ready accepted by the Town. I think we can handle that kind of traffic, but I don't think we can handle another 166 homes, or 55 percent of that. I don't think our kids can. 27 ,---. -...--' MR. TEll-One comment. Mrs. Pulver asked the question as to why we didn't bring our concerns to the Town Board. We didn't because we weren't aware that the Michaels Group was going to the Town Board on it. When we had our meeting with them on the 21st of May, they took our recommendations and our suggestions and they said they were going to go back again, and come back and have another meeting with us before they went a.ny further. MRS. PULVER-No. My comment was, if you've been having problems with your road for years, before the Michaels Group even came, you have the ability to go before the Town Board and make a compla.int that your road was unsafe for children, rather than waiting until now. MR. TEll-WeIl. it wasn't that bad of a problem until we found out, you've got 166 more homes going to go in there. I've got a real problem. We've been able to get by with what we've got. We were able to keep it under control. The only problem we have is traffic that comes through there that is not accustomed to driving on those roads. Those of us who live there, know the conditions, know the roads, and know how to drive them. They did paint the lines, as Cathy said, but something more than that needs to be done. MR. MARTIN-Does anyone else have any comments? TOM MCGRAW MR. MCGRAW-My name is Tom McGraw. I also live in the development, and one of my concerns was also traffic, and another one is the smaIl lots. It looks like what they've built, it's kind of like a mobile home park with houses on it, and it's still a residential area, but if anything we'd like to make the lots a little bit bigger. That would solve some of the traffic problems. Thanks. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. Is there anyone else? CHRIS HUNTER MS. HUNTER-I'm Chris Hunter and I'm a resident of that area. I've only become aware of the situation recently. What somebody's failed to mention that I heard at our neighborhood meeting was that all of the homes that are going in that new development are being afforded the luxury of not having their driveways directly on Sherman Island Road. I live on Sherman Island Road, and so mY driveway is there and going to receive all this extra traffic coming down, as weIl as the other people that live there. We should maybe the afforded the same luxury of not having our driveways enter onto a road that's going to be heavily trafficked, as these people will be, by living in the cul-de-sacs. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. Is there anyone else? LADY IN THE AUDIENCE-I just have a question. If you could just go back over the 100 percent, if there were no other exits, I believe you spoke about percentage during pea.k hour would go down, at 100 percent? MR. MANNING-Yes, that's 246, that includes existing traffic. LADY IN THE AUDIENCE-And I believe Mrs. Pulver was asking about the issue about the road. It was brought before the Town Board at the meeting. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else? MI KE SCHRODE MR. SCHRODE-I'm Mike Schrode, and I live on Canterbury Drive, which is not pictured on this map, but it is part of the development in this area. That corner that leads into Sherman Island, which everybody's debating about, is a very dangerous corner, and regardless as to what anybody thinks would aIleviate that problem, as far as access, right now, it's a dangerous corner, and any amount, regardless of the numbers, is not going to help to aIleviate any problems right now. I have a youngster, and he wiIl be, probably, walking or riding his bike into that area sooner or later, and regardless of how safe it is, there's really no safe speed on that corner. So, to me, to try to put any more traffic on that, it's just like suicide. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Is there anyone else? TI M BOYTON MR. BOYTON-My name is Tim Boynton, and I live on the corner of Sherman Island Road and Morningside Circle, and the biggest problem with the traffic on Sherman Island Road is the hair pin curve across from Ramsey's house, which now is a major hazard. We did approach the Town to look at that curve in the past. At that time they looked into it and found that, with the homes and the property, to widen that. Any additional traffic that is put on that road is going to put children in the neighborhood in jeopardy. I happen to be a school teacher myself, and I am finished with my job at the same time 28 --- as the high school kids meet the bus on Corinth Road and Sherman Island Road, and it's very difficult, even at seven o'clock in the morning, to miss those kids who are out in the morning. They do not necessarily walk on somebody's grass, and God forbid any cars should be coming out of the road in the opposite direction, there's no way that two cars can pass that road, and still leave enough room for kids to get around the corner. If something isn't done with the traffic flow to prevent any of these things, there is going to be an accident, and I'd hate to see the Town wait until something like that happens. At the present time, when there's a bus for the kindergartners, there is no room for a school bus and a car coming in the opposite direction. There's a yellow line on the side of the road, supposedly, I assume, where the road ends. If there's cars pa.rked on that part, where the Town told us to park, there is absolutely no room for two cars to pass, let alone a school bus and a car, or a Niagara Mohawk truck and a car. MR. MARTIN-Is there anybody else? VICKY MCCRAY MS. MCCRAY-My name is Vicky McCray, and I would just like to say that no matter how many access roads you put off to Corinth Road, it's human nature to take the shortest and fastest distance, and that is between a straight line, and when everybody in a hurry, in the morning, to get, as we've said before, all want to go down Corinth Road, that is going to be the fastest point, and they're just going to all take that way because it's human nature to take the shortest distance. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. Is there anyone else? BIll SEE BRIDGE MR. SEEBRIDGE-Bill Seebridge, Canterbury Drive. I have a question for the Michaels Group. Now, I might have missed the boat here. This area right in here, I believe, is single family, right? Now, how was it determined that 50 percent of the traffic would go down Sherman Island, and then the other 50 percent down Foothills? How was that determined? MR. MANNING-There's two sets of movements here, the people who go left, and the people who go right. Now, most of the people are going right, but for the people who are going left from anywhere in here, this is the shortest route out. MR. SEE BRIDGE- True, but you won't have that many people going left, right? We've determined that. MR. MANNING-In calculating the percentages, we assumed roughly 10 percent out of the total trips were going to be going right. So, we said, that's 10 percent right there, okay. Right in this development right here you have 43 percent of the units. The shortest way for them to get out here when we have a three way stop here, this way is one stop and they're gone. Here they've got a three way stop. They've got to go around the curve, which everybody has brought up is a problem. They've got another stop sign here, and the site distance isn't as good. So, they're distance for these people is identical, going this way out around or this way out around, and so we would assume that they'll go this way because it's easier. MR. SEEBRIDGE-But you're assuming. MR. MANNING-Well, you've said everybody's going to take the shortest route. For those people, that's the shortest route. I didn't assume anybody from over here was going to do that, and probably a few people will from over here, because they want to miss these stop signs and stuff. They may do that too because that's a nice straight shot. So, that's how we came up with the 50 percent, and with this roadway, I'm very comfortable with. MR. SEEBRIDGE-It's kind of a ball pa.rk figure, though, isn't it, 50/50? MR. MANNING-Well, yes, it's 50/50/60, you know. MR. SEEBRIDGE-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to come forward? STERLING AIKENS MR. AIKENS-Sterling Aikens, on Corinth Road. I was just wondering if Niaga.ra Mohawk made any plans to change any of the power lines up there? Right now it locks to me like you've got high tension lines going over the whole development, and I know there's some studies right now going on about magnetic fields, and what they have to do with personal health. MR. OPPENHEIM-In response to that, I can't offer you a technical answer to that, but we have looked into that, and based on our research and research in a lot of other developments, we feel very comfortable that there is no risk or concern for residents. The Michaels Group has been in a number of communities 29 -- ---- where we have .simHar power lines going through projects, and it's never been an issue. Niagara Mohawk done, as you can well imagine, they have done endless number of studies, and that information, obviously, is available to anybody that certa.inly wants to see that information. MR. AIKENS-They've always had signs an over that area up there about danger, high voltage, and up untH the last year or so when this became of interest, and I no they haven't had good luck keeping people out of this area, and I think it's mainly for liability purposes they had the signs up, but now an of a sudden they're going to add four or five hundred people into that area, and it seems to me that they're just asking for problems. MR. OPPENHEIM-Wen, to start with, I think the project, putting in a housing project like that keeps people out, people you don't want rummaging around. MR. AIKENS-You've got a power station right there with an kinds of transformers within a few hundred yards of your houses. MR. OPPENHEIM-Wen, that lot win be appropriately protected. I guess I just want to make one other comment, in response to Mr. McEwen's comment about the neighborhood meeting. At that time, when we made our presentation to you, we received some input, and the neighborhood, and rightly so, everybody voiced their ongoing desire to be kept informed, and we made it clear to you that the way that we would keep people informed was through the Town Planning process, and at no point did we say that we would come back before you, prior to submitting to the Town. That is not to say, I want it to be made clear that our intent here is not to come up with a proposal and stuff something down people's throats. That doesn't make sense. We expect there to be an ongoing dialogue. We want to open it up to input, but from a practical perspective, we felt the best way to keep the process moving was as the next step to bring our plan before the Town, and that's something we made very clear at that point in time. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Is there any other comment? MR. RIST-I'd just like to say that I'm not against this development at an. I believe Niaga.ra Mohawk should use their land as they see fit, as long as it doesn't inadvertently or adversely effect the neighborhood. That's my only concern is that additional traffic going out Sherman Island Road is going to effect our neighborhood. If there was some way to divide the two, I'd have no objections to it at all. At the last lot that's there now, put a fence across, close it off, and make them two separate entities. Who owns the last house? Whittemore's? Okay. Right after Whittemore's house, that's the last existing house. I would cut it off right there. I'm not exactly sure where it is on here, but it's right in this area right here. We have accepted the burden, if you want to can it that, of additional homes on McDonald Circle. We've alrea.dy voted on that. Everybody agreed to it. It's been passed. MR. NAYLOR-Any thing's possible. It will take a lot more looking at, just like the three way stop signs on the main artery. He knows better than that. They're in lieu of traffic lights. That's why you put up three way stop signs. Town Board members do that. I don't go for that. No other Highway Superintendent goes for it either. It probably could be done if the Town Board agreed to it, and if you can show us a better deal. I don't know. You've got to think about this. You guys have been looking at it, and I haven't, until tonight. There's more to look at. There's fire protection to look at. There's snowplowing to be done here. There's a lot more to than just, bingo. MRS. CLOUTIER-How could that change the nature of the way the road is currently? MR. NAYlOR-Wen, we're going to have to come down in here, cul-de-sac, go back out, and then a truck's got to come in here, plow up here, and go back around to an these people. It'll be a split, and the one thing we try, in the highway business, is to link everything so a plow can, when that guy comes down this road, he would automatically go to the right, to the right, to the right, and come back out right to the right, and back out this way, when he plows. So, every time you block a section off, then he's got to go back out, then he's got to make that left hand turn that nObody likes. We're going to have to talk to the Town Board. To get another 160 houses in there, we're going to have to beef up going in there and plowing, another truck, more people, to get it done faster. MR. TEll-Do you have a 50 foot right-of-way on that road in there? MR. NAYLOR-Not on the corner. Down a hair. We researched it and asked the surveyor. MR. TEll-What is your right-of-way on that corner? MR. NAYLOR-Right there, what we've got, right on that bend there, blacktop. MR. TEll-What is that, 22 feet? MR. NAYLOR-That road is above 22 feet. That's all we own, period. We can't even cut the brush on that corner because it's owned by others. 30 -- --- MR. TEll-Niagara Mohawk previously used the Sherman Island Road as access to the hydroelectric station. They no longer do because their bridge over the track house there is unsafe for truck traffic. So, they've directed their traffic from the water treatment plant, so it wouldn't, I believe, adversely effect Niagara. Mohawk's access to the plant. It would be blocked off passed the Whittemore house, and it wouldn't impact our neighborhood, as we fear it's going to, with another couple of 100 cars rushing down that road. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Anyone else from the public? MRS. HUNTER-A lot of people have been focusing on the traffic, and I have that concern as well. One other concern I do have is the quality of the neighborhood, character of the neighborhood, most of the houses are on lots bigger than a third of an acre, and me, as a homeowner, who is working on doing a large home improvement on my home, I really would hate to see some homes go in that might depreciate the value of my home now because they're on smaller acreage, maybe their small houses, whatever, and I think that that's a concern of mine, in addition to the traffic on the road, that maybe people haven't thought of as much. MR. OPPENHEIM-I just want to respond to that, and I guess to start with, I would say that with the quality of this plan. and the quaHty of this development, I believe that this will increase the values of home in that area, in your area, over time. Additionally, a third acre lots, you've got, yes, you have a variety of housing stock here, no question about it. You do also have smaller lots proposed for the Inspiration Park area, and that's what bringing in a mix of housing into any new area provides. That enables us to provide a housing product that's not all $250,000 along the shore on big lots, and I think that, from a planning perspective, it's certa.inly in the Town's interest to have people come in and be able to afford to introduce housing types that are not all $200,000 homes, a very homogeneous neighborhood to have a housing mix. It's nice for the comunity, and by introducing a smaller lot, there are obviously greater efficiencies from the road construction on a per lot basis, and it allows us to bring a home to the market that, yes, it's not a $200,000. Those homes will, we see these homes as being priced in the low $100's. MR. W\NNING-I just had a couple of things that, we were talking here among ourselves, and what had occurred to us with the school buses. if this connection is made on Foothills, the school buses wouldn't have to come around this curve at all, because they come down here and come in Foothills. come up, loop around McDonald, or loop around a Morningside Court cul-de-sac and come back out and go back out there. Aga.in, ta.1king to the school district, that might be a solution, in terms of keeping the school buses, which was one of the concerns mentioned going around the curb. With rega.rd to the trip generation, how many cars are going to be generated by this development at a peak hour. I'm not sure, how many houses are here now. not in the development, up here, on the Canterbury/Morningside? Twenty five to thirty houses? MR. BREWER-More like fortyish. MR. MANNING-Okay. When we did the traffic counts up here, in the peak hour, we had 25 cars coming into those 41 houses. So, I think, in terms of the trip generation we're talking about for this development, we're not saying it's any different than the trip generation you're getting from the current houses that are there. What happens is not everybody comes home in one hour. You get some people that come home between 5:30 and 6. Some people come home between 4 and 4:30. It spreads out over about a two hour period. The other thing that we've done, it's very difficult receive in your own minds, and I appreciate that, how much traffic, and how much, you know 100 cars an hour, 50 cars an hour, how much traffic that actually is. One of the things we thought about doing, if it would be helpful, if the Board thinks it's worthwhile, we can bring a videotape on another residential street that has very similar volumes to what we're ta.1king about here, and you can look at it and you can see, in your own head, is that a lot of traffic or not. WOMAN IN THE AUDIENCE-What's the speed limit? Do they have a ha.irpin curve? MR. W\NNING-The speed limit on that road is 30 miles an hour. WOMAN IN THE AUDIENCE-We're 15 miles an hour. MR. MARTIN-We have to keep it all on the record. NANETTE CLOUTIER MRS. CLOUTIER-I'm Nanette Cloutier. I live in the first house. Does that tell you anything? I really feel sorry for these people. We don't have young children, but I've seen little children almost get killed. My fence has been knocked down several times. My shrubbery has been, well, dissembled, and it is a dangerous situation. I'm sure you're all aware of it. Whatever we can do to work out something for the children, we'll go along with, but we don't like it the way it is. Thank you. MRS. MARTIN-Thank you very much. Is there anyone else? Okay. Does the Board have any con,nents they'd li ke to make? I have several notes here. 31 - MRS PûulJ{-1 have one question on the, if anyone contacted the water treatment plant and seen about bei g serviced, because I know right now they're ta1king about an expansion, but they're already weB bey nd their Hmit, their capacity, as far as giving water to the Town. and certainly 168 houses are goi g to have a tremendous impact, and I wHl say with the expansion, it was proposed and now I und rstand, is this not right, the Town Board has undertaken another study see whether or not that ent re expansion is going to be done or some portion of it, Betty? BET Y MONAHAN MRS. MONAHAN-It's always in the process of being studied, Caro1. It's time to make some decisions. as ar as I'm concerned. MRS. PULVER-But I mean, it is true that they're beyond their capacity right now, they're working beyond the r capacity right now? MRS. MONAHAN-On a peak day, on a summer pea.k day. MRS. PULVER-Yes, on a peak day. MR. MARTIN-I just have several things I've jotted down here, listening to the comments and also reviewing the Ordinance. in terms of its PUD requirements and I think there's got to be some more homework done her on the part of the appHcant. I've just got several things here. I' B just go through them. The e are a list of things. Is there any phasing proposed? If, what? How many units? When? What's the time frame? How many units in each phase? Ownership of cODlllOn land, I'd Hke to hear something specific about that, who's going to own that? How's that going to be ma.inta.ined, and in rega.rds ome of the comments, renderings of the homes. I'd Hke to see some elevations of the homes, and level seen, even the ones on a third of an acre, right on up through the two or three acre lots. definitely like to see the results of the archeological survey that's going to be completed. We wer up there yesterday and we talked to some of the people there at the site, some of the surveyors, and he said his report would be done by the end of next week, I think, didn't he, Tim? MR. BREWER-No, he'd be done digging next week. MR. MARTIN-Or the middle of August. I'd Hke to see some more detaH on the septic. We got caught a 1 tHe bit, recently, with a subdivision where we didn't look thoroughly at the septic early on, and then we were faced with a shared system and an that, and that was a little bit of a surprise to eve bOdy. I'd like to see some more specific detaH on the septic, especiany on those third of an acr lots. Topography is not shown. I know you've got some, you've marked off areas where you have limitations due to the steep river bank there, but I know, walking the site, that there is some other areas of severe topography, and that was noted aIso in the Staff Comments. I'd H ke to see where those area are, and if that's going to limit any of the development, or the positioning of the lots. Sto ater management, some more emphasis on that. Fire protection, this seems to be a sizeable lot her. What district, Betty, is this? This is West Glens Fans. I mean, are we talking an additional truck? What is the capabHity of that district to serve an increase of this size? location and own rship of abutting land is not shown, and I think that's especially important if we're talking about may e cutting new roads in here adjoining with Inspiration Park. I'd li ke to know who those owners are and is that a real possibHity? The recreation land, I've been in contact with the Recreation Dir tor, and it's his opinion that the 94 acres is not very usable, and he's here tonight if he wants to omment. It's going to be his recommendation that that not be accepted. So, if that's ultimately not useful to the Town and not going to be inc1uded in the project, how does that effect the calculation of he density? MR. BREWER-That also effects the green space, too. MARTIN-Right. Now, traffic, I've saved that for the end. It's within the purview of this Board we can require technical review from a consultant, an objective review on our, you know, someone we'd Hke to see review this, whether it be Rist-Frost or even a consulting engineer of our own, to heck some of these numbers out, and this whole traffic scheme, and see if that's a worthwhHe thing with what's being shown here, or something eIse that's being kicked around here tonight, alternate rou s, blocking off a road. If those types of things or if there's other aHernatives out there, I d n't know. I'm not a traffic engineer, and I'm not going to sit here and waste the developer's ti as a layman, and talk about issues I reany don't understand. So, I think that's something the Boa d should consider, maybe caning for that. We can have the developer pay up to $1,000, it says her. towards the cost of something like that. It might be worthwhile. It's my personal view, I think She an Island Road, in its current condition, is alrea.dy unacceptable, and any increase on that is ma.king a bad situation worse, and I think the one lady who came up and said people are going to go up hat street because it's the quickest way to get there is right. That's just my personal view. So, does anybody else have anything they'd like to add? MR. BREWER-The letter from lee stating about the SEQRA they did should be updated. 32 - MR. W\RTIN-Okay. That's a worthwhile comment. I just want to give the Town Board, they're uItimateIy goi g to be cha.rged with the acceptance of this, and we've got to give them the most information pos ibIe, and Iet them make the most educated decision they can in regards to this, because this is a jor move for the Town, and I think further study is definiteIy warranted, and we need more inf rmation. I think we've got a nice start here, but if I'm personaHy asked to act on this tonight, as guess we're asked to give a favorabIe or unfavorabIe report, I wouIdn't want to be pushed into the corner, tonight, because it wouId be unfavorabIe at this time. I'd Iike to see this have some fur her study and further information. MR. BREWER-I concur. MR. OPPENHEIM-AIl of the different issues that you mentioned, whether it's topography, aH of that has been done. There's a Iot of work that you may just not have seen. MR. MARTIN-Right. 'That's alI I've seen, is what we have. MR. OPPENHEIM-Phasing, aH the different issues that we addressed, we trust and respect the fact that toke an educated decision you need to see a variety of additionaI information, much of which we aIr ady have, whether there's a contribution towards an objective. I know there was some input on tra fico That's fine, and our goal here is obviousIy, we didn't expect you to come here and render a d cision with the amount of information presented. Septic design, there is a Iot of work ongoing. MR. OPPENHEIM-No, that's fine, and I think you can heIp to provide us with some guidance as to future ing dates and contact peopIe on your behaIf, so that we can be sure that we wouId get you, a Iot hich you already have, the right information. W\RTIN-See, I don't mean to take you to the point where you're essentiaHy designing a project you were ready to break ground tomorrow. You're stiIl at risk here somewhat, and I'd Iike to and strike a balance here as to what's reasonabIe for you, but yet can suppIy the pubIic and the Board, and this Board with enough information to project what the impact of this is going to be. MR. MARTIN-Right. I wouId suspect that we wouId have a Iot of that alrea.dy. MRS. PULVER-The onIy thing is the architecturaI renderings. If any of these homes are going to be cus om built homes, they wouIdn't know what the home was even going to Iook Iike untiI the Iot was soI , and we've never requested that of any other appIicant, that they have their architectural ren erings. MR. MARTIN-WeIl, this is through a PUD. This is a unique component to this section of the Ordinance, and I'd Ii ke to take advantage of that, in this case. I think the neighborhood wouId Ii ke to see what the houses are going to Iook like that are potentially going to be down the street from them. MR. OPPENHEIM-They did actuaHy, at the neighborhood meeting, we brought some renderings. ObviousIy, on he MichaeIs Group, we've got a lot of homes that are typical of the different price plans that we addressed that are going to be very similar to what we're putting in here. MR. MARTIN-Right. I'm not saying this has got to be House Model A, and lot 6 has got to be that. MR. OPPENHEIM-No. We've got plenty of things to give you and the neighborhood a sense for the arc itectural styIe of the house. MR. W\RTIN-Okay. MR. BREWER-Jim, it says so in their notes about the traffic, here. The Town wiIl need to have an expert evaIuation of the traffic study. MR. W\RTIN-Right. So, does anybody else have anything they'd like to add? MRS. TARANA-You hit so many of mine that I have to kind of plow through here, but I've got to get back to he traffic, just for one point. You've said that the leveI of service is A now, and it wiIl be Alter, after the project is completed, after six, seven years, whatever. Now, when I read level of ervice, the description of level of service, it says, operations with very delay of less than five sec nds per vehicle, coming out of Sherman Island going onto Corinth Road, I mean, is this what this mea s, there's less than a five second delay? MR. MANNING-Okay. I think what you're reading is the definition of level of service for signa.1ized int rsections. MRS. TARANA-It doesn't say that, so I don't know that. MR. W\NNING-Yes, because an unsigna.1ized intersection is not defined in this. It's the Ievel of service bas don. MRS. TARANA-So, what would be a level of Service A for an unsigndized intersection? What would be the delay time? 33 --- MR. MANNING-Unfortunately, the way level of Service A is defined for an unsigna.1ized intersection, it oesn't give you a measure of. MRS. TARANA-Well, then how do you know if it's level A or D? MR. MANNING-Because there's another measure which is caHed reserve capacity, which is how many more could be put in, potentially. MRS. TARANA-So, the fact that cars may be pHed up trying to get out has no impact on the level of ser ice for a road that's unsignaled? MR. MANNING-Unfortunately, the way the procedure currently works, that's the way it is. I can, using oth r procedures, and maybe working with your traffic engineer, whoever you hire, we can come up with so estimates as to what that delay would be, but within the standard level of service analysis that measure of delay is not computed. MRS. TARANA-So, how many more cars, to maintain level A, are you saying can be at that intersection? You Iook that up, I'll go ahead. let me know when you've got it. I have a question about the park. You were talking about the, or somebody was, about the unusable Iand, aho the five acre park. Were you addressing that in the same vein? MR. MARTIN-Yes. No, it's been indicated to me, again, by the Recreation Director that the five acres tha would Hkely be useful to the Town, this 94 acre parce1. that a Iot of it is not. MRS. TARANA-Okay. I had a question, I think maybe you can answer. What you caH the estate houses. Do ou expect they'd see a river view? MR. MARTIN-I don't think they will. MR. OPPENHEIM-The majority, no, and I'll te11 you why, probably the only way that you could have, I thi k we're taJking 29 Iots in total, that they could have a river view is if you forced them right up 0 the edge, which I think would not be a sound Planning practice. So, from a practicaJ standpoint, the way that we see the homes being along the river is, One, we would antici~te, through some certain cov ßants and restrictions, having some required buffer zone within the Town, something that makes sense, and the other thing that we would have, because as Rob a11uded to here, where we've got an ele ation of the two story home, is that we wi11 have also, within the legal guideHnes of the dev Iopment, is something that restricts the cutting of trees over or under a certain size, so that a10 g the water, you're going to be able to Iook up and see trees. So, it's very, there may be a few tha are going to have a glimpse of the water, but that's, we don't anticipate that being the case. MR. MARTIN-I was just up there, along there, the river bank yesterday, and a Iot of those are wen age hemlocks, and you're not going to be able to see through those at most points in the year. Even in he winter time it's going to be tough to see through there, I would think, and the other thing your dark Hne indicates the f100d hazard area, right, along the river bank there? You're not g to be able to build in there anyhow. MR. MANNING-Right. This is, you know, the top of the bluff is rea11y right here. The 100 year fI0 dplain is right below that. MR. MARTIN-It takes up the whole bank. MR. MANNING-That's right. It pretty much comes right around here. MR. MARTIN-So, that in itself is going to be a Iimiting factor as to where you can place the home. MR. MANNING-Correct. MRS. TARANA-One other point. One of the provisions for meeting a PUD is maximum choice of occupancy, typ of occupancy, and it seems to me that you have an single famHy residences. single owner residences, and I believe that's one of the requirements of a PUD, that you have to have a mix. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think they have the mix, as it's defined. MRS. TARANA-It says, mixed occupancy, for example, cooperatives, individual ownership, a condominium Iea ing. Am I reading that right? MRS. YORK-You're correct. MRS. TARANA-I just point it out because I think that's another criteria that you're going to have to mee at some point. 34 '- -- MR. AllEN-I'm John Allen, Shannon, Sweeney, and Riiey in Albany. If I can address that last issue, I t ink the permitted uses under the PUD is somewhat permissive. It says, residents may be of a variety of ypes, including single family dwellings, townhouses and garden apartments. I think it's permissive rat er than an absolute requirement, and I think that what we have here, because there are some tow houses that would be attached housing, single famiiy houses on a great variety of lot sizes, from a t ird of an acre up to one acre plus, and I think the type of, I didn't write the zone. I can only rea what it says, but I think that the mix that was anticipated is provided for a development of this typ. We are not talking about simply a bunch of single family homes all selling in the same price ran e with no lack of diversity. Clearly, there's going to be significant diversity in terms of prices, as llen has indicated, and indeed in styles, if we're talking about townhouses or condominiums. MR. MARTIN-I was at a Town Board meeting and I heard you mention the price ranges when this was presented bef re them. What exactly are the ranges? OPPENHEIM- The only other comment on that, as response to a PUD, and 1'm not sitting here looking he Ordinance, but I know that the recreational component, I mean, it is a planned unit community 's got, as John mentioned, we've got a diversity of housing type. We've got a diversity of lot , and we've got a significant recreation component that includes open area that's going to be owned homeowners association, that includes trail systems. So, in a true sense, it is a Planned Unit unity. In terms of pricing, whether tOday's market or two years out when the next recession hits. MR. MARTIN-Well, do you have those numbers? MR. OPPENHEIM-Well, basically, on a first cut basis, from our perspective, housing types, smaller single family homes, we see generally somewhere in the low $100's. As you move into the project, you've got the more conventionally sized single family lots that you see here in yellow. We see those being priced so here in the $150 to $200,000 range. Along here you've got the larger, what we described as the estate lots, really probably the most desirable lots, with not water views, but certainly a great location. We see those being priced $200 to $300,000 range. MR. BREWER-Is that today's market? I'm just guessing. to have an idea where you get the figures from. mean, you're talking figures, but you have MR. MARTIN-If you're using today's standards, it's certainly not going to appreciate any in value. MR. OPPENHEIM-Yes. I think that's more today's standards. I mean these, and without getting into specifics on your phasing, because we do, indeed, have a phasing plan, and there's intent to introduce a v riety of housing product of one type, but from a development perspective, obviously, I'm just trying to e sensible from the financial standpoint. We're not going to come in here and build out the entire roa system. of that is going to be driven by the market. I mean, two years out, a year and going to continue to update our market analysis, figure out which product types we wan to introduce and that's going to dictate our final phasing plan, but we do have thoughts and specific ideas on that, and finally, the attached housing, which is a townhome product which we see bein a smaller unit, appealing to people who are moving out of their larger homes and willing to have the intenance free living of not owning a big lot that they've got to take care of. MR. RTIN-Yes. I understand that. MR. RTIN-Okay. Thanks. Well, does anybody else have anything from the Board? MRS. TARANA-Well, I just want to add, you might want to be sure to check that with our Zoning Administrator, our Executive Director to be sure that that occupancy business is correct, for your own sake. The yellow X. MR. NNING-Yes. It's going to be roughly about 50 cars, additional. MR. NNING-It would drop, at that point, from an A to a B. MRS. TARANA-So, if 50 more cars are allowed on that road, it still maintains a level. MRS. TARANA-Fifty one cars would drop it to a B? MR. NNING-Roughly, without going through the long calculations. MRS. TARANA-Right. About how many cars did you say were going to be going on that road, additional cars? Wasn't it 89? MR. NNING-About 50 more from what it would be in 1997. So, in '97, there were 157 cars. MR. BREWER-I don't understand where he comes up with the numbers. 35 - MRS. TARANA-No, I'm sorry, I don't understand it. MR. MANNING-We11, it's tough to do it back and forth 1ike this. I think if you wanted to have a workshop mee ing or something. MR. BREWER-Yes. That wou1d be fine, then we cou1d understand what we're ta1king about. MR. MARTIN-I think one of those is definite1y in our future with this. MR. OPPENHEIM-I know that wou1d be he1pfu1 to us, and we'd we1come the opportunity to do that. MR. MARTIN-I think we've broken the ice here. MR. OPPENHEIM-Because it's a 10t of information. MR. PARISI-I have a coup1e of questions. The first one that I have is, 100king at the Environmenta1 Imp ct Statement, I'm just curious why the 1ead agency isn't in here, and who fi11ed out Part II of the Environmenta1 Assessment Form? MR. OPPENHEIM-We11, 1et me respond to the first. on the 1ead agency. We are a1so, and we've been waiting for that designation as we11. MR. PARISI-Genera11y speaking, on a re-zoning, the Town Board wou1d be the lead agency. To the second question, who fi1led out Part lIon beha1f of the 1ead agent? MS. WESTA-l fH1ed out Part II, along with the rest of the project team. The idea was, in order to sub it as comp1ete a document as possib1e, to look at the potentia1 impacts up front, we thought that if e 100ked at Part II, we cou1d go to Part III right away, begin to analyze those impacts, have those additiona1 studies done, and that's why we went ahead and did the traffic study. MR. PARISI-I don't mean to cut you off, but who authorized you to fi11 out Part II? MS. WESTA- That is often how we proceed through SEQRA. We were just trying to assist the Town more. The Town Board, certain1y, is free to fi11 out Part II as they wish. MR. PARISI-I'm sure they're going to. The point I'm making is, obviously, that Part III, which is the Environmental Impact Statement, is very dependent on how Part II is fi11ed out, and Part II is the responsibHity of the lead agency. I take great exception to the developer presuming that he can fH1 out the lead Agency materia1 and the SEQRA document. As a matter of fact, it's farcical that you even went that far with it, and essentially, this is going to have to be re-done. I'm sure the Town Board wi1l want it re-done as the 1ead agent. This hasn't been brought out strongly enough, but this absolutely ridicu10us that you just presume that you're the 1ead agent, because this is something tha just isn't done here, and I say that because of the fact that you fi11ed it out, and that's how the determination of significance was based. It is not something that we ordinari1y allow, and I just wan you to be aware of that. MR. MARTIN-And it's even more cut and dried in the PUD Section of the Ordinance. The Town Board is sta ed right out as the lead agency. MR. PARISI-Yes, and I'm saying, I don't want to open a forum for debate. I'm just informing you of tha. The other things that I wanted to mention, I agree with, essentia11y, the statements that I've hea d. So, I don't have to reiterate them, and I agree with what the Planning Board is asking for. I a so want to point out something that they haven't rea11y 100ked at but needs to be 100ked at is the re-zoning from the Waterfront Residentia1 3 Acres to 1 Acre, okay. I've been out there. That's ridicu1ous. To ca11 those kind of 10ts estates, I have to te11 you that I don't even think it's feasib1e. There's gu11ying going through that entire area. If you go out there, you'11 see the erosion rig t now is an extreme1y serious problem. It's a very steep slope going into the Hudson River, and this prob1em is going to be exacerbated by any kind of excavation activity that goes on there. It's goi g to be great1y exacerbated. I'm just mentioning that because that rea11y hasn't come up as an issue, but it shou1d be. to see the stormwater management and the topography. That'11, I think, expose any MR. PARISI-And the other point that I want to mention is that the sandy area that we're just taking for granted is going to work very we11, the septic systems, is rea1ly very wet for a sandy area. There's apparent1y some perched bedrock going through there. We don't have an engineering study, so I can't go nto great detaH, but I wHl te11 you that the vegetation is very high1y indicative of something tha is not very conducive to 14,000 square foot 10ts with septic tanks mu1tiplied by several hundred. 36 1 1 I I I I I ttink you need to iook at that very, very cioseiy, and the issue that was brought up about the water. It' true that the water piant is at fun capacity, and then some. It's reany oniy rated for three, I t ink three and three quarter minion, and we're running at seven minion, and at peak we're hitting 1001 percent, then we use up the four minion gai.ton reservoir routinety. This summer redty hasn't bee~ that much of a probiem because we've had a tot of excess rainfait in the month of Juty, but this prOject is going to use at ieast 30,000 ganons a day of that water, presuming about 200 ganons per uni , and just iook at the cumuiative effect of that and other subdivisions that are coming in on a sim iar scale. Essentiany, I just wanted to point these few things out, and the fact that the rec eationat area is essentiany waste iand. It doesn't do anything, the 94 acres doesn't do anything I to fnhance the project in any way. I mean, it doesn't increase the carrying capacity of the project. It ~imPiY designates off site 94 acres which is reany useiess to the developer, and reany I don't kno how it's going to benefit the subdivision or the Town, but it's essentiatty something that shouid be iscussed. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I think the best way to proceed here is, I want to make sure that we have some record of ~hiS' both for our own benefit and for the benefit of the appiicant. What's the Board's feeHng her? Woutd you Hke to have Bob maybe draft a ietter that outtines these issues that we've talked abo t as wen as some of the things he's raised, and pass that aiong to the deveioper, and use that as ~ starting point? I MR.!BREWER-It sounds good, and then we can get back together. MR. MARTIN-You can pun it right off the minutes, and we're going to be, our meeting now, we set a mee ing for August 11th. We can review that and pass that atong to you at that time. We can have a d ft of it at that meeting, and then finatize it then. '- MR. ARISI-What was the meeting that you're tooking for this to be? I I MR. ~RTIN-The August 11th meeting that we just set tonight? i MR. PARISI-Weii, it's going to be pretty tight for August 11th, frankty. MR. þREWER-HOW about our first meeting in August? I MR. ~RTIN-The first meeting in August, then? MR. ~REWER-ExCiUding the 11th. I MR. pARISI-The third Tuesday. Yes, I think we can do that for the third Tuesday. I , MR. ~RTIN-And have the tetter in a draft form, and that way we're ati working off the same checkiist, so tio speak. There woutd be no missed points or misunderstandings, and I'd aiso Hke to iook into the mechanics of retaining a third party objective traffic engineering review here, whether it be, if R'st-Frost has the capabitity to do that or whoever, what we can do to accomplish that. Does anybody eise have anything to add? MR. REWER-Wait for the archeoiogical report aiso. MR. I RTIN-Yes, that'tt be in the tetter. MRS. ITARANA-And an update from ENCON. MR. RTIN-An update from ENCON. Does anything etse come to mind? So, we'tt have that tetter. I guess, that third Tuesday, and then we can proceed from there. I woutd imagine we can get together for a . , work hop sometime thereafter, after you've had a chance to review the tetter and respond. We d be happ to meet on a workshop basis in September, or something tike that. MRS. ,PUlVER-We'n have a fun Board then too. MR. PPENHEIM-Okay. Weren't we going to do fire protection, too? MR. RTIN-Wett, I think Saratoga Associates has subcontracted that out, right? RTIN-Yes. He's going to took through the minutes, and I touched on that, I think, in my comments, into the capacity of the fire district to service this area. MR. chec I MS. ESTA-Who's responsibte for the archeotogicat survey? MR. NNING-Correct. MR. ~RTIN-It' s my understanding that that firm, they have given us a pre Hminary report here. They witt ¡be making some finat reports at that time, and then they're going to recommend what type of remediat actiln is needed, right, whether it's avoiding certain areas, preserving certain areas. 37 I - '-- WO~N IN THE AUDIENCE-How do we ensure that that survey is not biased, and the developer is the person who liS the person that's going to do it? MR. ! MARTIN-Wen, again, we can do some third party checking on that, but from what I saw, it seemed to ~e. MR.BREWER-we were down there and talked to the archeologist. MR.IMARTIN-And they seemed to be doing a pretty good job. I I WOjN IN THE AUDIENCE-It was just a question in my mind I guess. to evelop the traffic study, I would venture to guess that there's occ r there. The developer pays for the survey some tendency for some bias could ! MR'jw\RTIN_we saw pieces of, they had found pieces of pottery they showed us that they estimated to be nywhere for 1,000 to 1,500 years old. I guess it matters as to what concentration is found in, as 0 what type of mitigation measures were wa.rranted. whether it be preserving certain areas of the sit, or the ultimate is having to excavate the whole site to remove an the artifacts, and that's whe~e it becomes very expensive, but I'd like to see the report before we say that we don't have any fai~h in it. Does anybody have anything else? So, we'll have that letter the third Tuesday in August, and I then we'n send it along to you and we can get together, we'n set a meeting in September, on a I wor~shop basis. I MR. IOPPENHEIM-very good, and the other thing I just wanted to add, Mr. Parisi, because I know you get out there, it's a big site. We would welcome the opportunity to get you or anyone else out to the site! so you can see where the proposed lots are set, because I think it's important to get that I perSjpective. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I'd like to have a resolution to that effect from someone. ! I I MRS. PULVER-What are we doing? I MR. I W\RTIN-Drafting a letter, by the first meeting in August, for presentations to the applicant for thei!r review. ! MRS.I PULVER-Okay. Wen, first I'd like to make a motion that Tim abstain from voting on this because I b~lieve he has a conflict of interest. I MR. !BREWER-What's the conflict Carol. because I live over there? I MRS.! PULVER-Wen, and you signed the letter. ! MR. BREWER-NO, I di dn' t sign any letter. I ! MRS. PULVER-That isn't your name? MR. BREWER-No, Tim Blake, maybe. I - MRS.I PULVER-Wen, I still think, since you live there, Tim, and everything, it is a conflict. Wen, lea~e it up to them. The public will take issue. . If they don't believe it's a conflict, then Mr. Bre~er can vote. , MR. 10PPENHEIM-I guess, in bringing the issue to our attention, I think we would concur that, in being of ~esident of that area, and obviously you'd be in support. MRS; PUlVER-I just don't feel that you can be objective, and it would be better left to the other people tha don't live around, in the same area. MR.BREWER-Okay. That's fine. I can step down, but I'd still like to be involved in the dialogue. I MRS.! PULVER-Wen, absolutely. I'm not saying that. I'm not saying you shouldn't be. I ! MRS. TARANA-Do you agree not to vote? Is that an right with you. Tim? MR. BREWER-I don't agree with it, but I'll do it. MRS. TARANA-Should we have a ruling from the Executive Director about it? MR. BREWER-No. That's fine. It's not a problem. I'd rather not vote than have any conflict. MRS.! TARANA-I agree. I think that's probably wise. I I MR. BREWER-That's fine. 38 ~ -- MR. MARTIN-Well, I don't know if we have to have a motion, if we have your agreement. I, personaHy, di 't have a problem with it. MRS PULVER-Well, Bob has suggested that we have a motion, but the problem is. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Well, Carol, do you want to frame that in the context of a motion? MOT ON THAT TIM BREWER ABSTAIN FROM THE VOTING FROM BECAUSE I BELIEVE THERE IS A C(JtFLICT OF INTEREST, Int~oduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Corinne Tarana: Dul~ adopted this 28th day of July, 1992, by the following vote: I I AYE~: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Tarana NOE~: Mr. Martin MR. I MARTIN-Okay. Motion's passed. All right, and then I'd like a motion for, I guess we'd call it a t1bling with the applicant's consent. MR.OPPENHEIM-we do. MR.MARTIN-Okay, outlining the date for the letter to be drafted, and so on. MOT ON TO TABLE PUD 1-92 HUDSON POINTE OIlER: NIAGARA JDfAWK CORPORATI(Jt, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Corinne Tarana: Wit a letter to be submitted August 18th to the applicant, outlining the issues with the project, and a workshop session to be set up at that time, a date for a workshop session. , DU1~ adopted this 28th day of July, 1992, by the following vote: MRS. TARANA-I was just wondering, can we vote? I MRS.I PULVER-No, we need four. MR. [BREWER-we can't even vote. MR. ~RTIN-WhY can't we vote? I I MRS. PULVER-No, she's talking about the vote for Tim. MRS. TARANA-Just on this? MR. ~REWER-Yes. i i MRS. PULVER-We needed four. MRS. TARANA-He can vote on this? MRS. PULVER-What, Tim can? Yes, he could. MRSi TARANA-He could vote on this motion. So we have four people voting, right. MR. rRTIN-He can, of his own conscience, abstain. if he wants, yes. AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE I ABST~INED: Mr. Brewer MRS. PULVER-All right, now, we didn't have enough for a vote. We need four for a quorum. So, there's no a tion taken on either of our last two motions. MR. RTIN-We need a majority of the quorum present, right? So, three out of four. MRS. MONAHAN-No. It's got to be a majority, a quorum of the Board. I I MRS. PULVER-So, neither vote passed. So now there's no motion by the Board. We have 45 days, is that it? So, at the next meeting, we'll just make the motion. MR. RTIN-Right. 39 I I i I ¡ II MRS~ PULVER-Because we'll have more members. MRSt MONAHAN-Excuse me, but why should not Tim vote on whether you're going to do the future work, as 10ng as you're not voting on any approval of the re-zoning or anything? I I MRSi PULVER-We didn't say that he couldn't. I I MR. ',BREWER-I'm abstaining from the whole thing, Betty. ¡ MRS~ MONAHAN-Yes, but. MR. BREWER-Why should I vote on part of it and not the other part of it. I don't think that's fair. MRS.¡ MONAHAN-Wen, I think that you can vote on the procedures invoIved, as long as you don't vote on ~he project itself. The procedures to permit this to go forward, and the letter and the paperwork bei~g done, that makes, you know. MR. BREWER-That's the procedure of the whole project, though. That's me having something to do with the project, and that's what they don't want. Is it not? I mean, if we were voting tonight to say, well, this project's going to be okay or not, I wouldn't vote. - -- MRS., MONAHAN-You're not at that point. MR. ~REWER-It's progression of the project, and I'm not going to vote on it. '¡ MR'¡'W\RTIN-Wen, we're locked in, I guess. Again, this is just these continuing problems with, and havi g those two vacancies. I'm so glad they're fined. Wen, it's fined, but he didn't get his info mation this month. He had no, that's why it's just a red problem to have two vacancies like that We've had problems the last meeting. So, we're up against the 45 days, and we'n accommodate it i August. We have to decide within 45 days. MR. NNING-I believe that time could be extended by consent of the applicant. MR. ARISI-Excuse me. The application hasn't been considered to be completed yet. The 45 days doesn't begi until that point. Now, if you want to consider it completed, you could vote on it. Until you do. he clock isn't running. I MR. ~RTIN-Okay. I just wanted to make sure we didn't have some statutory problem come up and bite us, ~nd we didn't see it coming. All right. We're all set then. I just need a moment of the Board's timefor some housekeeping measures here. I've got a stack of minutes. I've got back to April 21st, and ybe Pam can help check these out at some time, as to when we did adopt. I believe we did do the rch minutes, but we haven't done anything in April. MRS.TARANA-We did April 21st. ¡ MR. ~RTIN-We did April 21st? I I MRS. i TARANA-I think so, because I've got an the ones that I've read that we haven't approved right here., MR. kRTIN-Okay. Corinne, would you mind keeping a running check on this for me? That would be a greafhelp. MRs.ITARANA- The ones that I've got, I mean, these are the ones that I've read, May 14th and May 19th. I kn9w we've got all the other ones, but I haven't had a chance to read them. MR. ~RTIN-I have April 28th, April 29th. May 14th, May 19th. May 21st, June 16th. MRS. rUlVER-I don't think that I've gotten as many minutes as you have? MRS. ~ARANA-I don't have an April 29th. MR. RTIN-An right. If everyone would make an effort, either if you didn't get them or whatever, but next month I want to get caught up on these. So, those are the dates. MRS. WHITING-Wen, I pass them out an at the same time. So, I don't know why some people get them and s me people don't. MR. RTIN-Maybe somebody misplaced them or whatever, but those are the dates. Pam, if you could check and ee if the 21st has been, in fact, adopted, April 21st, and then the dates we need are the April 28th, April 29th, May 14th, May 19th, May 21st, and June 16th. Now, this workshop session, August 40 -- - 11t~, I'd like to do several things at that meeting, if we could. We've already got the one item with Buc ley Bryan, but I'd 1ike to be able to assimiIate the new Board members, so to speak, and just gen ,ra11y go over the process and procedures with them, as a general discussion, and also the Town BoaJd has asked us to look at the Zoning Ordinance, specifica11y the definition of Agricu1tural Use, and come up with some language that we think would be appropriate, and other changes. So, if you could, bet een now and that meeting, look at the Ordinance, high1ight some sections that you have questions abo t or may have a problem with, and maybe we can, in some context of a resolution, pass that on to the I Town Board for their consideration as they go through a11 these amendments. We already have the ame~dments that Bob gave us that we can use as a starting point. Okay. Has anybody got anything else? MRS. PULVER-Yes, I got this in one of my packets, permits issued in June. I love this. Could I get one ¡every month? MR.MARTIN-YeS, we've been getting them every month. I MRS. WHITING-Yes. I give them to you when I get them from the BuiIding Department. So, I wi11 try to include them in your packets as I get them. We just started doing that. I MR. IMARTIN-One other thing, site visits, and this is something else I can explain to Steve. Now, we've got la workshop August 11th. We've got a meeting the 18th and the 25th. I I MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. MARTIN-Now, normally, we would have site visits Thursday the 13th, but that hasn't been popular. MRS. PULVER-No. That's not a good day for me. Wednesday. MR. MARTIN-Wednesday's fine. Wednesday the 12th. Site visits are, we have old business and new business at ,ach regular meeting, we get in the car together, we meet behind the Town Ha11 here, and we take the Ivan out and we go visit all the new business sites. So, we see them first hand. You have to see it. I To know what you're talking about, we feel more comfortable by going to see what we're talking aboult, and we go visit every site. It takes about an hour or two hours, on a bad day, it'll take even mor~ than that. Why don't we say August 12th at 4 o'clock, at the usual site. Okay. That's all I've got~ MRS. WHITING-Jim, you wanted to mention about people notifying someone if they weren't going to be at he meeting, as in the case of no one knows where Ed was until, I sort of remember reading in the minutes that he wasn't going to be here. I MR.JMARTIN-yes. I've been caught too many times here in the past, if you're not going to be at a mee~ing, you've go~ call the Planning Office like a couple of weeks in advance, because I've come here tWiC¡ now and looked around and seen two members, one member on each side of me, and we've got three, and that's been a problem. MRS. PULVER-Why don't we do something with, and change our own, there are Planning Rules, change them to s y, the quorum of the number of members present. I MRS.I YORK-You can't do that. It's a State law. I I I MRS.¡ PULVER-Yes, but what about when you don't have actual members? I I MRS. YORK-An you can do is make sure your membership is there. MRS~ PULVER-Wen, that's a Town Board problem. I mean, when we're short members. If you only have fiv appointed members, and one. MR. MARTIN-I would imagine you couldn't. I MR. IBREWER-I make a motion we adjourn. I On ~tion meeting was adjourned. RES~ECTFUllY SUBMITTED, I Ja~s Martin, Chairman I I I 41