Loading...
2011.05.31 Queensbury Planning Board-May 31, 2011 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MAY 31, 2011 INDEX Subdivision 1-2011 VMJR Companies Page 1 Policies & Procedures Discussion Page 22 0 Queensbury Planning Board-May 31, 2011 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING MAY 31, 2011 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN STEPHEN TRAVER, VICE CHARIMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS FORD, MEMBER DONALD SIPP, MEMBER PAUL SCHONEWOLF, MEMBER DONALD KREBS, MEMBER LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-PAM WHITING MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, May 31, 2011. The only item on the official agenda is discussion of Subdivision 1-2011 VMJR. Keith whenever you’re ready to summarize staff notes: Mr. Oborne: Staff Notes-see below The Planning Board to Acknowledge Lead Agency Status. As subdivision plan revisions to Engineering comments and Staff comments have not been received, the Planning Board may consider a tabling motion with submittal dates to follow established protocols. APPLICATION: Subdivision 1-2011-Preliminary Stage / Freshwater Wetlands 1-2011 APPLICANT: VMJR Companies REQUESTED ACTION: Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Proposed construction within 100 feet of wetlands requires a Freshwater Wetlands permit LOCATION: Vacant parcel due north of Quaker Ridge Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: CLI-Commercial Light Industrial SEQRA STATUS: Type I – Planning Board to acknowledge Lead Agency Status ENGINEERING REVIEW: 4-22-2011 PARCEL HISTORY: SP 65-10 Fill activity Approved 10/18/2010 SP 49-10 Forestry project Approved 8/24/2010 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Subdivision: Applicant proposes subdivision of 84 +/- acre parcel into five (5) commercial lots ranging in size from 6.53 acres to 29.91 acres with a sixth lot of 8.86 +/- acres proposed as open space. Further, extension of Quaker Ridge Boulevard to access main parcel proposed. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater Wetlands: Proposed construction within 100 feet of wetlands [Great Cedar Swamp] requires Planning Board review and approval. Planning Board may acknowledge Lead Agency Status and conduct SEQR review. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant proposes a mix use development to include manufacturing, warehouse and office space. The main access for this project will be the extension of Quaker Ridge Road through the National Grid easement on to these lands. A further access was proposed initially due east to Queensbury Avenue through Warren County lands and private property; total combined road length proposed is approximately 4,400 linear feet. This road extension appears to terminate at the eastern boundary of the subject parcel, short of Queensbury Avenue; the Planning Board may wish to discuss the status of the road extension at this time. The site contains +/- 13.55 acres of wetlands and it is required that mitigation plans be forthcoming for any disturbance within delineated wetlands. As this proposal is at Preliminary Subdivision stage, a full review to include stormwater, erosion & sedimentation and traffic will be performed by the designated town engineer. Please note that the applicant has requested the following waivers: 1.Layout Plans 2.Construction Details 1 Queensbury Planning Board-May 31, 2011 3.Landscape Plans 4.Grading and Erosion Control Soils: According to the Soil Survey of Warren County, there appears to be three (3) soil map units located on the subject parcel and are as follows: OaB - Oakville loamy fine sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes. These soils are characterized as gently sloping, deep, well drained soils. Seasonal ground water is generally at a depth of 6 feet or more with high rates of permeability; bedrock may be observed at depth of 60 inches or more. This soil unit is the predominant unit on the parcel. FaB - Farmington loam, 3-8 percent slopes. These soils are characterized as gently sloping, shallow, well drained or somewhat excessively drained soils. The shallow nature of the soil is attributed to the underlying limestone bedrock; depth to bedrock is generally less than 18 inches. This soil unit is located along the eastern most portion of the property and is the second most prevalent soil unit on the parcel. Ma – Madalin silt loam. These soils are characterized as nearly level, deep, poorly drained and very poorly drained soils. The soil has a high content of silt and clay and as a result the high water table is at or near the surface most of the year; depth to bedrock may be observed at 60 inches or more. This soil unit is located along the northwestern portion of the parcel and is the third most prevalent soil unit on the parcel. Note: A soil survey is a generalized soils condition survey and may not accurately denote site conditions. In the case of this parcel it could be construed that the limits of the Madalin unit may correspond to the limits of the delineated wetlands. Further, Oakville soils have little to no wetland or hydric component to their pedon. Site Plan Review: (New Comments in Bold) Page C-001, C-002. C-100 1.No immediate issues Page C-101 1.Per §183-27I (4), Layout of streets and roads, Dead end streets shall not be longer than 1,000 feet… With no provision for an alternate entrance to Queensbury Avenue, and what is essentially a 2,820 linear foot cul-de-sac, the Planning Board may wish to ascertain when and where a second entrance to the project will be forthcoming. The applicant’s response is in need of clarification. As designed, the road is a cul-de-sac and cannot be greater than 1,000 feet unless the Planning Board waives this requirement. Further, road length dictates requirement as well as Dead-end streets as referenced in §A183-27E; this is a requirement and is applicable. Additionally, the applicant should avoid attempting zoning determinations in the future and instead contact the Zoning Administrator for clarification of the regulations. 2.Previous clearing activities to the northeast associated with the approach to the airport should be denoted on plans. Commented, awaiting updated plans. 3.Approach path for Warren County Airport should be delineated on the plan. No response, Incomplete. See additional comments below. Page C-102 1.Concerning the three (3) Archeological Sensitive Areas, the Planning Board may wish to discuss with the applicant additional methods to be offered to protect these areas. The applicant has offered split rail fencing encompassing these areas; however this appears to not be a permanent solution. Addressed and potential for discussion exists. Page C-110 through C213 1.No immediate issues. Additional Comments: 1.Full EAF provided with this application. Note: SEQR will not be performed until all the requirements of Preliminary Subdivision have been deemed complete by the Planning Board. 2.Involved agencies listed in the EAF include County Water and Sewer; Town of Queensbury Water and Sewer may be the proper reference. Addressed and complete. 3.Filling or disturbance of ACOE designated wetlands requires a Nationwide permit and certification; mitigation details must be offered with ACOE approval. Disturbance within 100 feet of a DEC classified wetland requires a DEC Fresh Water Wetland Permit. What is the status of these permits? All required permits and approvals for this project must be completed prior to final subdivision approval. Commented and awaiting submittal of permits. Note, ACOE has responded to the Planning Board request for lead agency status, see attached. 4.Warren County Airport has inquired of the applicant if a Form 7460, Notice of Proposed Construction, or Alteration to the FAA has been submitted. Please see attached. Note: this can be accomplished on- line at https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/portal.jsp Comment and requirements appear to be disregarded. Concerning letter dated April 12, 2011 to the Town of Queensbury from Stickle Levin & Peters, LLP staff has placed the specific requirement below for clarity (italics denote existing conditions): 2 Queensbury Planning Board-May 31, 2011 § 77.9 - Any person/organization who intends to sponsor any of the following construction or alterations must notify the Administrator of the FAA: Any construction or alteration exceeding 200 ft. above ground level ? Any construction or alteration ? within 20,000 ft. of a public use or military airport which exceeds a 100:1 surface from any o point on the runway of each airport with at least one runway more than 3,200 ft. within 10,000 ft. of a public use or military airport which exceeds a 50:1 surface from any o point on the runway of each airport with its longest runway no more than 3,200 ft. within 5,000 ft. of a public use heliport which exceeds a 25:1 surface o Any highway, railroad or other traverse way whose prescribed adjusted height would exceed that ? above noted standards When requested by the FAA ? Any construction or alteration located on a public use airport or heliport regardless of height or ? location Persons failing to comply with the provisions of FAR Part 77 are subject to Civil Penalty under Section 902 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended and pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Section 46301(a). 5.The statement on page 2 of the Project Narrative that “A conceptual site plan will be submitted to the Planning Board for their approval…” may be misleading as the Planning Board cannot approve a conceptual site plan; however, the Planning Board may offer input or guidance concerning a conceptual site plan. If the applicant has a site plan proposal for the parcel this should be submitted in conjunction with this subdivision application. Commented however, to clarify, the Planning Board will not give approval for a conceptual site plan. 6.The Planning Board may wish to consider a Generic Environmental Impact Statement for this project; this would require a SEQR Positive Declaration. The applicant references the Earl town Corporation Draft EIS in the application materials with a mention to the current proposal. This DEIS was generated in 1987 for an 850 +/- acre multi-use development that was never realized. Staff considers the Earl town Development EIS a historic document, should not be referenced in conjunction with this current project and any reference to be avoided in the future. If the applicant is referring, in part, to the Earl town DEIS, studies associated with that document are not up to date. If not, the above should continue to be considered. The studies referenced in the applicant’s comments concerning a positive declaration under SEQR having already been conducted may be accurate, however additional studies required by either the Town of Queensbury Planning Board or outside agencies such as NYSDEC and ACOE have not been quantified or qualified at this time. 7.Staff strongly recommends that any approval for this subdivision be contingent upon an agreement with not only the county but private property owners (lands of Panicky, Tax parcel #303.16-1-15) and National Grid for an easement to construct a connection to Queensbury Avenue. Any connection from this parcel should be planned to line-up with Stone Quarry Road located on the east side of Queensbury Avenue. Commented. The referenced A/GFTC study is in the RFP stage and has a completion date of six (6) months after contract signature. Note: This is a planning study and not actual design specifics. Again, staff strongly recommends that any approval of this proposed subdivision be contingent upon a connection to Queensbury Avenue at the existing three-way with Stone Quarry Road for traffic mitigation and emergency access purposes. 8.When all easements or purchases are complete for the Queensbury Avenue access road, all lands associated with the road must be part of this application. Commented. Note: See above comment. 9.Traffic build-outs by year: 2011 – 156,200 sq. ft. Wal-Mart 2013 – Phased approach to include the 80,000 sq. ft. retail and 100,000 sq. ft. office park initially 2020 - 400,000 sq. ft. office park ultimately Totals - 500,000 sq. ft. Industrial Office Park and 236,200 sq. ft. retail. 10.Chazzan Engineering comments attached. 11.Staff consulted with the Town of Queensbury Highway Superintendent and offers the following comments: a) Pedestrian walks within the proposed right of way are not preferred, b) Site distances based on established engineering concepts to be employed, c) Road not to be less than 24 feet wide with 2 foot wing curbs. d) Clarification as to why the road to the south of the traffic circle tying Quaker Ridge Blvd with Queensbury Way is proposed, e) Any proposed roads having the word Queensbury in the title should be avoided due to the plethora of that designated name in use. 3 Queensbury Planning Board-May 31, 2011 12.The Planning Board may wish to consider the tabling of this application prior to conducting SEQR for the purpose of addressing the deficiencies of the application generated by Chazzan Engineering, Department of Community Development Staff, and FAA obstruction evaluation requirements. Further, the Department of Community Development should be contacted by the applicant and/or agents if issues are not clear. Written responses and plan revisions to all engineering or consulted comments must be directed and submitted to the Queensbury Planning Department for transmittal to those entities as discussed previously. Application Protocol 1.Sketch Plan Review – Completed on 1/25/11 2.Preliminary Subdivision Review ? Planning Board to seek Lead Agency Status – Completed on 4/26/11 ? Planning Board to acknowledge Lead Agency Status and if application is deemed complete conduct SEQR 5/31/11 ? SEQR outcome dictates the next stage, either EIS or continued Preliminary Subdivision review - Submittal TBD 3.Final Subdivision Review TBD Mr. Oborne: With that I’ll turn it over to the board. Mr. Hunsinger: Good evening, if you could identify yourselves for the record. Mr. Osterhoudt: My name is Brian Osterhoudt; I’m an engineer with M J Engineering in Clifton Park, NY. Ms. Slevin: My name is MaryBeth Slevin with Stocki, Sleven & Peters Mr. Macri: My name is Victor Macri, VMJR Companies Mr. Hunsinger: Thank you, the floor is yours. Mr. Osterhoudt: Thank you for hosting this special meeting, it is greatly appreciated. Basically what I wanted to do real quickly is run through a quick power point just to kind of summarize what’s been done and where we’re at and kind of where we need to go in terms of discussion topics. With that Keith if you could show the next slide. The background on this property is back 1987 the property was included in a larger proposal for light industrial office complex known as Earltown project, the concept was reviewed through both an EIS reviewing the criteria uses on the site. In 1998 a comprehensive plan recommended the creation of a business industrial park with mixed use along Route 254, skipping forward to 2002 the property was rezoned to LI, 2007 the Town adopted the CLUP second endorsement for LI offices on this property and of course this brings us to the present 2010-2011 Quaker Ridge Tech Park is proposing [not able to be transcribed]. Status of the project review, we’ve been before you twice now starting back in January, actually back in December. A subdivision application was submitted on December 13, 2010, initial staff notes were issued to the applicant dated 1/25/2011, the Planning Board conducted its initial review January 25, 2011 which was our first meeting. Staff and the Town’s consulting engineer provided comments on the preliminary proposal on April 22, 2011 and then th at the last meeting in April, April 26 the Planning Board declared its intent to act as lead agency and this meeting was noticed for public comment. Skipping forward to last month the applicant consulted with Town staff, counsel and the engineer, Chazen, to address comment letters. Additional comment letters were received from the Town staff and consulting engineer on May 27, 2011. That incorporated aspects of matters discussed by the Town and the consultants and Planning Board respectively <unable to hear>, so the issues to be considered: traffic, this was noted during our first meeting by one of the Planning Board members that there was concern over traffic in general in this corridor, to that extent a traffic study was previously prepared, was amended resubmitted to the Town and tonight we have our traffic consultant, Gordon Stansbury who kind enough to drive from Chenango, New York on a nice sunny hot day to join us and he is here to address any comments questions concerns that you may have or even summarize the traffic report in a kind of basic terminology, because there was a lot to it, I think it was several inches thick. But what, the traffic study did demonstrate even with the most conservative assumptions <unable to hear> from project impacts is that the mitigation proposed for the project resolves any potential adverse impacts. Details of the project access to route 254 has been designed in accordance with the reportable standards and reviewed with the Town’s consulting engineer, I know Sean from Chazen and Gordon have had discussions back and forth about the comments that were raised in their letter. Forwarding onto storm water pollution prevention plan has been developed for the area of the proposed road within the project. As we discussed even way back in January the intent of the overall development since the development within each of the proposed lots has not been defined at this point because it’s going to be tenant specific individual stormwater pollution prevention plans are intended to be developed for those individual lots and developments as they are realized and then they come back in are reviewed by the Town for each individual project. The SWPPP that has been developed for the project thus far was developed for what’s proposed at this point which is the road. The SWPPP was submitted and reviewed by the Chazen and those comments are being currently addressed. In terms of wetlands as Keith had mentioned we have applied for a freshwater wetlands permit from the Town of Queensbury, nationwide permit from Army Corps as well as DEC we’re talking about less than 0.4 of an acre of wetlands 4 Queensbury Planning Board-May 31, 2011 disturbance hence why we’re going through the nationwide permit <unable to hear? an individual permit and that’s disturbance that’s proposed as a result of the road construction. The Corp and DEC have issued permit letters to date and those responses will be forthcoming so that’s in progress. Layout of streets and roads: the applicant is proposing as Keith mentioned the creation of six lots in this application which includes subdivision for the proposed green space. You know, this is something that I’m sure we’ll spend some time on tonight because I know it’s an issue with staff comments but the applicant is proposing basically a boulevard loop road, not a dead end road, there is some ambiguity in the interpretation of town code but this has been designed so that there is to ensure safe and adequate access throughout. Look at this, there is not an area in this development that could be cut off based on the proposed design, the proposed road widths, and we believe that is the town code as currently written, we believe it’s a safe and a very viable means of ingress and egress. And also if the Planning Board believes the application as proposed cannot proceed without a waiver request which I’m sure Keith will get into from the Town comments on the road then the applicant would, tonight, submits it’s request for such a waiver without prejudice, if that’s where the Planning Board wants to go with it. Again we don’t think it’s necessary, you know, the Town staff has stated that they want a connection to Queensbury Avenue, we’re fine with that we just don’t control that overall project. We don’t believe it’s necessary for safe and adequate ingress and egress to and from the site for emergency purposes, as laid out we believe we’ve accomplished that but again we’ve designed for that future connection which is out for a feasibility study from A/GFTC so we’re all in favor of that connection, we’ve love to connect to it, we’re just not in control of that process. So anyways like I said, nonetheless we’ve made provisions to connect to that up to the property line as that process becomes more viable in the future. We have Warren County Airport in attendance tonight, the applicant ‘s consulting engineer is here to confirm that the criteria outlined in Section 77.9 which we can go into, I actually have that on my laptop if we need to look at it, but we’re not, those requirements are not triggered by the proposed development for the road. Future applicants when the building height and sizes and everything else become more concrete will most likely be requested to file a form 7460 in order to comply with that FAA regulation. At this point we’re just talking about the road in terms of the FAA requirement, so the Planning Board initiated lead agency status in terms of SEQR, we’ve provided a traffic study, we’ve provided an archeological study we’re not impacting archeologically sensitive areas, we’ve provided habitat studies, the wetlands impacts are going through their normal course but there is minimal wetlands impacts and of course as I’ve stated since January when we first had a chance to meet any future development within this park still has to go through on those individual lots the purview of you the Planning Board for site plan review. You’ll get a chance to look at each and every one of those applications under SEQR and conformance to code and at this time it’s just subdivision. That’s kind of where we’ve been, what he issues are and that’s what we talked about. Mr. Hunsinger: Okay. Before we open up for questions comments from the Board I’m just wondering how we want to proceed tonight. We do have in front of us a draft resolution to acknowledge lead agency status. I don’t see any reason why we wouldn’t just take of that now, unless there are questions or concerns by the board. Mr. Hill: This is our first involvement and first attendance at a meeting regarding this particular application and before you do that I just want to make sure that all potentially involved agencies were identified and noticed. It looked the ACOE and DEC were two that jumped out just in a quick review. Were they the only agencies that were notified? Mr. Oborne: No, Town of Queensbury Water, Town of Queensbury Sewer, and DOT were also notified and that’s per the applicant’s submittal of agencies involved. Mr. Hill: Okay, is there any reason that DOH is going to be involved at all in this? Mr. Oborne: There is no reason to think they would be, we do have Town of Queensbury Sewer involved in that aspect of, I don’t really for see any DOH actions with it, unless Sean do you care to chime in on that? Mr. Doty: The water system loop designed as part of the road? Mr. Osterhoudt: It’s an extension of the existing water main. Mr. Doty: Yes so DOH would need to be involved. Mr. Hill: And the Federal Aviation Administration, were they notified about this at all, or not? Mr. Oborne: No they have not been notified at this point. It’s my understanding, not by the applicant. Mr. Hill: Okay, they haven’t been notified by either the applicant or us and I think I understand the applicant’s basic contention that you’re not subject to any FAA jurisdiction or require the submission of the 7460 form because your contending that because at this point the only thing proposed for construction is a road that you’re exempt from that requirement. Is that right? Ms. Slevin: <unable to hear> The requirement is the trigger. 5 Queensbury Planning Board-May 31, 2011 Mr. Hill: The requirement is the trigger. Nonetheless we don’t know depending on what’s built that at some point in the future a 7460 may have to filed by anyone who proposes to construct something on one of these lots, is that right? Ms. Slevin: That’s correct. Mr. Hill: Do we know what the trigger is for height as far as the FAA requirements or regulations? Mr. Chairman I guess the question that comes to mind is if a structure of any reasonable height for purposes that any individual lot owner might pursue is going to trigger that FAA requirement that there may be a relevant question here as far as SEQR and lead agency, that’s all. Ms. Slevin: Well actually it’s not a question for SEQR, FAA is a federal agency, and SEQR doesn’t include federal agencies in the definition of agencies. Mr. Traver: If however, the proposed location of a one of these structures had to be relocated or moved in area because of the impact on the airport would that not potentially impact SEQR? Ms. Slevin: It wouldn’t impact SEQR, it would potentially impact <unable to hear> which is the review that would be undertaken for purposes of ACOE review, but it’s not a SEQR issue. As you said previously, as Brian said previously the applicant fully understands that to the extent he actually<unable to hear> come into the park with a proposal for a bigger building that they will need to most likely submit that notice to FAA. To do so now would be so speculative because we really have no idea what the nature of the building is going to be, where the footprint is going to be we provided a concept so that he Planning Board could take a look at what the possibility for development there but there is really no idea at all right now about what those buildings are going to look like, how tall they are going to be, it could be one building ultimately <unable to hear> to try to put something in on notice right now which would be such a pure speculation it really wouldn’t be worthwhile for anybody. Mr. Traver: Thank you. Mr. Ford: Beth, are you suggesting it would not be appropriate to have them sign-off on our lead agency status at this juncture? Ms. Slevin: Well the FAA is not considered an agency for SEQR purposes because the definition of an agency is a state agency or state or local government agency so they are not considered an agency under the definition. Certainly if you think there is nothing wrong with filing a notice of lead agency but for definitional purposes they are not <unable to hear>. Mr. Hill: I agree that technically speaking they are not considered an agency but nonetheless whenever the ACOE is involved the ACOE as a matter of course with this board is always notified of the board’s intent to seek lead agency so that’s the reason I asked. Mr. Macri: I think when you’re dealing with wetlands versus flight paths it’s two different things, wetlands have to be identified and they have to be specified where we know what the flight paths are, we know what the restrictions are in the flight zone where wetlands you don’t quite what the boundaries are or whatever you need to involve the ACOE. Flight paths, we know where they are and if we interfere with those flight paths we need to file accordingly. As far as an agency involved we don’t see the FAA an agency involved. Mr. Hill: Mr. Chairman, unless the board has any further questions with regard to potentially involved lead agencies if I’m understanding correctly the ACOE, DEC various town agencies have been notified of this board’s intent to seek lead agency so I think I’m satisfied that those requirements have been fulfilled as far as SEQR is concerned so thank you I appreciate the opportunity. Mr. Hunsinger: Thank you we appreciate the comments and having you here. Mrs. Steffan: But should we expand it to the Board of Health, the Department of Health rather because we have not considered that according to Keith? Mr. Oborne: No, we have not, my belief it was captured in the Town of Queensbury water department notification to be honest with you. And, it is incumbent upon to make sure the agencies are listed correctly Mr. Hill: I was just asking by way of example I wasn’t suggesting that DOH necessarily needed to be notified, just asking by way of example, that’s all. Mr. Traver: I saw in our materials we have a response from DEC, have all the other agencies responded, did they approve? Mr. Oborne: No just ACOE and DEC has responded. All others the 30 day time clock has expired. 6 Queensbury Planning Board-May 31, 2011 Mr. Traver: Thank you. Mr. Oborne: Actually I was surprised to see the response from DEC. Mr. Hunsinger: I was too, I was very surprised. With the assurance from our counsel we’re in good stead to accept lead agency status would someone like to move that? There is a resolution prepared by staff. Mrs. Steffan: I’ll put forth a resolution-see below’ Resolution Acknowledging Lead Agency Status for purposes of SEQR Review-Subdivision 1-2011 & Freshwater Wetlands 1-2011 VMJR Companies Applicant proposes subdivision of 84 +/- acre parcel into five (5) commercial lots ranging in size from 6.53 acres to 29.91 acres with a sixth lot of 8.86 +/- acres proposed as open space. Further, extension of Quaker Ridge Boulevard to access main parcel proposed. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater Wetlands: Proposed construction within 100 feet of wetlands [Great Cedar Swamp] requires Planning Board review and approval. Planning Board may acknowledge Lead Agency Status and conduct SEQR review; and WHEREAS, in connection with the VMJR Companies project, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Community Development office to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review, and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, MOTION THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD HEREBY RECOGNIZES ITSELF AS LEAD AGENT FOR PURPOSES OF SEQRA REVIEW IN CONNECTION WITH SUBDIVISION 1-2011 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2011 VMJR COMPANIES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 31st day of May 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None CC: MJ Engineering & Land Surveying NYS DEC USACOE NYS DOT Mr. Hunsinger: Now I’ll open it up for questions comments from the board. And I guess at this point and maybe we should limit questions just to the SEQR process but they are really pretty linked together. Mr. Traver: Well I guess my initial questions really center around the issue raised by the applicant and staff regarding the Earltown EIS as to whether or not that is considered current or whether we need to sort of reevaluate the entire development in light of this new development I should say. Obviously the applicant feels that these studies have been done and they’re adequate to give us the information that we need and yet this is dated to say the least and there seems to be some concern that therefore these studies need to be reevaluated or redone or whatever and Ms. Slevin: If I could respond, the Earltown EIS is offered for <unable to hear> purposes. New studies have been provided for traffic, habitat studies, new archeological studies and wetlands have been delineated. The purpose of <unable to hear> the Earltown EIS is to provide support for the proposition that this property can support the uses that are proposed Mr. Traver: Right Ms. Slevin: So if you look at 20 years back and you look at today the uses are still relevant. Soils haven’t changed so those kinds of sitings are still appropriate. But to the extent that things have changed I think Those updated <unable to hear> have been submitted and <unable to hear> for analysis of the application. We did ask you to take a look at the Earltown EIS to show that this is a concept that has been looked at in this area a fairly long period of time now and we’re hoping to actually to be able to move forward with it to get a 7 Queensbury Planning Board-May 31, 2011 shovel ready proposal so that Mr. Macri can go out and market it this <unable to hear> to come in and the only thing left for them to do potentially is site plan review that we know this board is going to have to conduct. Mr. Ford: Can you recall what happened with the Earltown proposal? Ms. Slevin: It did not go forward to development. Mr. Oborne: I would like to add also we do have that document in house if you care to peruse through it, it is quite interesting to be honest with you. Mr. Hunsinger: That would be my question, how extensive is it? Boxes right? Mr. Osterhoudt: One of the things I would just like to offer up is when you’re talking about EIS and the Earltown and everything else you look at what are the potential significant adverse environmental impacts because that’s what an EIS is, is trying to mitigate significant adverse environmental impacts you know, the applicant in this instance you know has developed for a long period of time is aware of what potential issues are which is why he went to the extensive outreach that he did to conduct traffic studies, wetland impacts, archeological studies and things of that nature, you know, to hit all the hot button topics and that’s why we’ve avoided those to date. That’s why we’re not impacting any of the archeologically sensitive areas, so you know we’re trying, there was an intent to look at those to try to mitigate and study those, essentially studies that you would require from an EIS to a large extent have already been done. Mr. Hunsinger: What is the requirement since you mentioned the archeologically sensitive areas; they seem to be relegated to that one proposed lot. How would those be protected in the future, what’s the requirement, do they have to be fenced off or anything? Mr. Osterhoudt: You can deed restrict it Mr. Macri: Split rail fence, that’s your proposal right. Ms. Slevin: The proposal is for a split rail fence the applicant is certainly willing to do a deed restriction in that area as well that would restrict it from disturbance in the future. We’re open and amenable to other concepts but we don’t want to engage in anything that would risk disturbance. Mr. Hunsinger: And that was part of the question I know in the past that the state has been, they’ve been forthcoming with where the areas are specifically, because they’re afraid once they are identified that people will pirate them and that was kind of the question you know by providing a very specific delineation doesn’t that? Mr. Osterhoudt: That was just to try to provide a visual barrier for that person, because what happens is a deed restriction can be done legally, Mary Beth can chime in on this but in the past I’ve done developments where those areas are deed restricted but just because it’s on paper it’s just like a deed to your house, who’s to say somebody’s not going to put a fence over your property line, there is an area of, there’s a requirement so to speak of who’s going to be there to enforce it so the split rail fence is done on a lot, I’ve done it on numerous developments not to say it has to be that way but it can provide an extra level of I’ll say enforcement or visual barrier so that somebody knows I can’t touch that area. Mr. Macri: It’s not like we’re going to put a sign on it saying this is a prehistoric area and you can’t disturb it, it’s just a delineation. We’ll work with the town <unable to hear> we just want to make sure <unable to hear> Mr. Sipp: In regards to this road here it exceeds the 1,000 foot level that is proposed by the zoning code, how are you going to access this property with only one way in and one way out. Ms. Slevin: We do respectively disagree with staff on the interpretation of that particular issue. The 1,000 foot limitation does lead to a dead end road, a dead end road is defined as something that has a terminate at the end, this is a loop road and there is actually two loops in the road Mr. Osterhoudt: You can’t pinch off any area Ms. Slevin: That’s correct, by design it has been very carefully designed to ensure that there is access ingress and egress throughout the site by providing a boulevard so that no one means of access ingress and egress will be cut off, it has the two loops have been designed to make sure there are other alternate ways to get in and out and there is potential for a future connection in the event that that connection to Queensbury Avenue is ultimately developed but as it stands as proposed it does provide full access for emergency vehicles, ultimately for them to get in and out in the event that there is a limitation on that lot. Mr. Sipp: How is that done? Where is this other ingress? 8 Queensbury Planning Board-May 31, 2011 Mr. Osterhoudt: The original concept I don’t know if you can see this, originally this is the extension of the boulevard coming in, we extended the boulevard coming in, originally this was loop road that did this, it came back, this is the potential future connection to Queensbury. We also created another loop road down here such that it can’t get pinched off. So basically a figure 8, so you basically have a figure 8 now going through the development, of critical widths that allow for emergency vehicles. Mr. Sipp: Okay let’s say in case of a plane crashing along the edge of that bottom loop, an explosion, no up at the top of it, no in the middle then, in the middle where you’ve got that, yeah. Mr. Osterhoudt: Okay. Mr. Sipp: That blocks both road right? Mr. Schonewolf: Yeah you can’t get in and get out, it’s a dead-end anyway you describe it. Mr. Sipp: You know you’re going to the future that there will be a road, what is the future, 5 years, 10 years? What are the possibilities of something happening in between? I can’t find no flight path on any of these drawings? Where the flight plan is in relation to this. Mr. Osterhoudt: The flight path is over in the eastern end of the property, this portion right here and the airport manager has got diagrams, I can show that, I’d be more than happy to provide, it’s over at this end of the development. Mr. Sipp: Yes, but I’m commercial corporate jet or even a small helicopter crashing in the right place could isolate the people in that Mr. Oborne: I will say some other concerns also would be accidents within some of the buildings there, that is more of a concern to be honest with you, and that’s just staff speaking to be honest with you. Mr. Schonewolf: And that’s the reason a lot of towns do not permit dead-ends is because of that. But they have flown next to the airport, is really pushing the envelope. Because if there is a crash it’s not going to be right in the flight path, it’s going to be one side or the other. You can’t get in and get out, that’s a dead-end, once you leave 254 that’s it. Mr. Traver: We talked about it at sketch plan too. Mr. Ford: The rationale for not connecting or planning to connect with the Queensbury Avenue is Mr. Osterhoudt: We’d love to connect to Queensbury Avenue, we don’t control the property. We would happily connect to Queensbury Avenue. Mr. Macri: We’ve been in discussions with the county for over a year. Mr. Schonewolf: Because I remember when you first came here and we were talking about Walmart that’s one of the things we discussed and you said then you were hoping the road would go through and that is a big benefit to this town to have that road go through Mr. Macri: We also believed we had an easement to go through that property and we may go to that point and argue that but right now we are just in discussions with the county and the county has turned it over to A/GFTC to review and study the road. Warren County EDC has requested that the road be put through, everything is in place to promote the road being put through, but we have no control. Mr. Ford: So who is in a position right now to say yeah or nay? Mr. Osterhoudt: On the road? The County, but I know everyone keeps referring to this as a dead-end road but there is not a pinch point. I understand what you’re saying I guess if a plane crashed right in the middle, I mean, we’re talking about a very unique circumstance but going back to what Keith said in terms of a building I can access it this way I can access it that way there is access to the buildings with this figure 8 configuration. I guess I’m having a tough time as Mary Beth said respectively we disagree with staff’s definition of a dead-end street. Moreover the size of the subdivision we’re talking about but I do think that we provide access with this figure 8 connection, it’s not a one way in one way out, it’s, we’re talking about dual lane boulevards throughout the Mr. Schonewolf: It’s a 24 foot road right? Mr. Osterhoudt: Yeah, 9 Queensbury Planning Board-May 31, 2011 Mr. Schonewolf: You’ve got a 24 foot road, you’ve got a fire at the end you bring in a fire truck and a drop tank and that’s it, the road is sealed. Then you’ve got to start backing in. <Too many talking at once> Mr. Stansbury: Gordon Stansbury, are we over 1,000 from here to 254; because if this is less than 1,000 feet then the argument would begin at the first intersection. Mr. Osterhoudt: Which is the argument we made to staff. Mr. Stansbury: From a pure traffic standpoint the dead-end idea is 1,000 feet, once you get to this intersection you’re now starting two dead-end sections so again there is no 1,000 foot section that doesn’t have access. Mr. Sipp: Back up Mr. Stansbury: If the distance from the beginning of the first loop is less than 1,000 feet from 254 then you’re not breaking that code of 1,000 feet. Mr. Schonewolf: Technically that’s correct. Mr. Stansbury: Technically as a traffic engineer that’s the wayI would look at it, because you’re allowed 1,000 feet and then you have two new roadways so now you have two new sections with multiple paths you don’t have a 1,000 foot dead-end section anywhere on the project. Mr. Sipp: But if it’s blocked, how do you get out? Mr. Stansbury: In that situation it would be no different than the Walmart when it’s built in a couple of months, if there an accident to the south of that you’re under 1,000 feet and there is still blocked access. Mr. Hunsinger: Counsel Mr. Hill: Mr. Chairman, if I may this is a determination I think at least from the code perspective this is a determination initially for the Zoning Administrator, do we know what the Zoning Administrator’s determination on this question has been? I thought informally my understanding was that the Zoning Administrator had determined that this is a cul-de-sac. I think it’s important for this board to know what the Zoning Administrator’s determination on this question is. You all this is very interesting information but this board is not the, does not have the jurisdictional authority to make a determination about how this road is treated under our code so that’s something that needs to come from the Zoning Administrator and if we don’t know what the Zoning Administrator determination on this question is then I would respectively suggest that we find out what that determination is. Mr. Oborne: I can state for the record that Craig Brown has determined through staff consultation and conversation it in fact a loop road. It is considered a cul-de-sac at this point and he has not placed that in writing, he felt it wasn’t necessary at this point but obviously if the board wishes that to be directed we’ll get that in writing. Mr. Hunsinger: If we just follow that to the conclusion then if he considers this to be a loop road then they would not need a waiver for a 1,000 foot dead-end. Mr. Oborne: He considers it a cul-de-sac; he considers it one access point greater than 1,000-he definitely does. Mr. Hunsinger: Okay Ms. Slevin: And if that was the case then we’re respectively request a waiver. Mr. Hunsinger: Okay, other questions comments from the board Mr. Ford: Could we request that in writing please? Mr. Oborne: If you could do that as part of any motion tonight, if I could chime in you know it’s kind of what I do, traffic is also an issue with this access point, to relieve the traffic onto Queensbury Avenue appears important to us, it’s important to our consultants and I’m glad you’re here, we totally discussed that because that’s the two headed beast with this road is emergency access and traffic. To me that’s the end of the story with this. Mr. Hunsinger: I’m unclear the A/GFTC is going to undertake a study, what is the process, what is the end result? What can we expect from that? I’m throwing it open to you applicant maybe staff has the better answer 10 Queensbury Planning Board-May 31, 2011 I don’t’ know but I read through the material and said you know this is great information but you know what’s the timing of, what’s the end result of it and how does it impact our subdivision? Ms. Slevin: We don’t have most of that information <unable to hear>. We don’t know what the timing is on that, we don’t know what the conclusion is, we don’t know, we understand the goal is to take a look at that potential connection but beyond that we don’t’ <unable to hear>. Mr. Osterhoudt: The due date for the RFP into them is the end of this week, how long they’re going to take to select a consultant, interview a consultant, select a consultant, and then undertake the study I can’t tell. But the reason we wanted to bring that up is because clearly it’s on the radar screen. Mr. Oborne: I would add upon the signature on the RFP they have a six month window by which to complete the study. Mrs. Steffan: So under the best circumstances we couldn’t hope for anything before December and that, but rd you know the difference between the June 3 date and when they actually sign a contract that could be a couple of months. Mr. Oborne: That’s correct. Mrs. Steffan: So we’re looking at next year. Mr. Macri: The reality to I think what they are trying to do is to prove the need for the road so they can go out and get federal and state grants to build the road. So that’s a whole process and it could take a while. What we had offered to the county or suggested is that we push through a navigable road that could be maintained <unable to hear> and the county had refused to entertain that but we may be able to accomplish that, the discussion was <unable to hear> Mr. Hunsinger: Well the irony is there is a dirt road there now. We’ve used it, members of the Planning Board to go and to do site visits. Mr. Macri: We’ve used it since we’ve owned the property. Mr. Hunsinger: You wouldn’t want to take a normal passenger car down there all the time. Mr. Traver: The Town van makes it alright. Mr. Macri: It’s not a bad road and we felt that we could improve that make it available for emergency vehicles if necessary <unable to hear> Mr. Osterhoudt: It’s not that the applicant’s not willing to do this, he doesn’t control the property Mr. Macri: I don’t control the property, well did have control of an easement over there but they <unable to hear>. Mr. Oborne: And you do you have to get through the county, NiMo or National Grid and the lands of Pennock, because that’s where that comes out where the road needs to be situated across from Stone Quarry Road, you’ve got a lot of work ahead of you. Mr. Macri: For the further intersection but currently the road does come out to Queensbury Avenue, it’s a straight shot, we do own five easements across that National Grid ROW, we do have <unable to hear>. Mr. Oborne: You’ve certainly got a large portion of that taken care of-that outlet. Mr. Macri: <unable to hear> Mr. Stansbury: I just wanted to note for the board’s edification the process would be MPO’s, I do a lot of work with Syracuse and other MPO’s, the feasibility study is just that, the result of the study will only be a recommendation, it doesn’t mean in any way that the project would be built at that point, the recommendation is just to the next agency, as to whether they move forward from there to pursue an actual project. So once you have the recommendation if they pursue it then they would go into full design and it would still be a ways out from there. Normally they take the feasibility studies and use them to develop their TIPS’, the improvement project plans at which it would get on the radar for design. Mr. Hunsinger: So this just goes back to the earlier comment that part of this process is primarily to get the project on a funding list for federal and state grants. Mr. Stansbury: Get somebody to look at it so they can have a formal educated recommendation. 11 Queensbury Planning Board-May 31, 2011 Mr. Macri: Which I think is a big step forward for us because in October when we met with them there was no need for a road whatsoever. Then we met with the EDC and EDC convinced them there was a need for the road besides our project <unable to hear> Mr. Hunsinger: I was under the impression and we talked about this a little bit at sketch plan that there was a previous feasibility study done of that corridor and that was what resulted in some of the improvements to Queensbury Avenue. Mr. Macri: I’m not aware of any. Mr. Hunsinger: Oh, okay, I thought they were done by the Transportation Council that’s why the improvements were made to Queensbury Avenue a few years ago was because of the result of that study. So it’s probably the same kind of thing it was probably just a feasibility study to say you know does this road warrant the requested improvement. Mr. Macri: I think the type of project we’re talking about is a major traffic corridor which will take congestion off Dix Avenue and the intersection and improve traffic flow for the whole area. It’s a larger project than widening Queensbury Avenue <unable to hear> Mr. Hunsinger: Other questions comments from the Board? Mrs. Steffan: I just want to clarify the National Grid easements, Mr. Macri, you said you have five National Grid easements so you have the access you need to hook into Queensbury Avenue Mr. Macri: I’d say it would help give them access because what they want to do is take the road down the hill cross underneath the right of way onto private property <unable to hear> Mr. Hunsinger: So it’s not a straight shot from your property out to Queensbury Avenue on county land? Mr. Macri: It is Mr. Oborne: But not the stone quarry. Ms. Slevin: It’s a straight shot currently but what we understand the proposal is for the connection is not a straight shot. Mr. Macri: Where the road currently goes down here it is a straight shot out to Queensbury Avenue. What wants to be accomplished is a connection to this loop which will require the road to come down and loop around and connect at this point coming out of Queensbury Avenue, that’s what they’re going to try to accomplish so that those intersections line up. Mr. Oborne: That’s for signalization. Mr. Hunsinger: Yes, sure. Mr. Krebs: Since we don’t probably don’t want to wait a year to get this study information before we make any decisions is it possible that we could use the existing road as an improved road for emergency use only. I’m saying if Vic was willing to take the existing road that we’ve been up and down before and just improve that sufficiently so that if Don’s scenario where the plane crashes on the middle of the roundabout and people in the building still need to be able to get out of the area they could go on that road to Queensbury Avenue, now that won’t be at the intersection with the other road but part of what’s going to determine whether that road gets put in is there a need for that road and we’re not going have a need for road unless we approve the subdivision and Vic is able to go out and sell somebody on putting a building on that property Ms. Slevin: The only problem with going down the road of what that connection currently is is that we don’t have control of the property. We need the county to cooperate with that. Mr. Macri: In our discussions with the county the county specifically said to us we don’t even think the Town of Queensbury wants this. That’s almost their exact words right? Mr. Oborne: Wants what? Mr. Ford: Town of Queensbury doesn’t what? Mr. Macri: Queensbury recommended that we at least improve it for emergency purposes that would go a long way getting the issue resolved. We were willing to do that and they just weren’t willing they also do have a plan for the emergency training center which would be off this road I mean there is a plan in place that they’ve been trying to get far as trying to get this safety training center built for years and they have certain grant money, that 12 Queensbury Planning Board-May 31, 2011 project is stalled too. Eventually they are going to need at least a portion of that road to get to the training center. Mrs. Steffan: Is that the training center that was supposed to be at the college initially. Mr. Macri: Same training center, they’ve sited that now on lands I used to own, but the only way you can access it because the wetlands is through that passageway. Mr. Oborne: I would say I wouldn’t be looking for that training center any time soon though but I do agree that would be access from that potential road Mrs. Steffan: And where is that hypothetically located on that map? Mr. Macri: Hypothetically it is right in this area. Mr. Schoneowolf: Those are built with federal funds and they like to build them around airports these days. Mr. Hunsinger: Really? Mr. Doty: Vic, could you identify for the benefit of the board the land you own as it relates to the existing road going out to Queensbury Avenue-what you have control over-easements. Mr. Macri: This is the property in question, we believe we have certain rights to that property a <unable to hear> and this is the property that’s being currently developed-Walmart. This is future retail; this is the boulevard that we’re talking which would be extended up through the National Grid easement. Mr. Oborne: This doesn’t show the subdivision on it. Mr. Macri: Right. Mr. Macri: We own these lots; this was subdivided for the Walmart project Mr. Doty: And it’s the long trapezoidal property that’s to the east that you don’t own but believe you have an easement over? Where the existing dirt road is located now? Mr. Macri: We believe we have some rights to access. Mrs. Steffan: But those other parcels are owned by other people, the three on the bottom. Mr. Macri: Yes Mr. Osterhoudt: To answer the original question I think that if the county would allow we’d have to improve that road to allow for emergency egress. Mr. Hunsinger: There must be some recognition by the county that that road is used occasionally anyway. I remember years ago going up there and there were people using that to go up. Mr. Macri: Up to recently the only way you could access the property. Because we had to block off the other areas because of the ATV’s. Mr. Hunsinger: Right, other questions from the board? Mr. Krebs: Can we make a recommendation to the county that they allow that road be built for emergency purposes only. Logically that means an awful lot of sense that road over all the way to Queensbury Avenue. Mr. Oborne: Not for just emergency issues though, for traffic mitigation, that’s huge, potentially. Mrs. Steffan: It is huge; when you look at the traffic addendum that we got in our package certainly you can see the degradation of the scores of the intersection at peak traffic. You’ve got D’s, E’s, & F’s. Obviously we wouldn’t want that at the new Walmart intersection. Mr. Oborne: That’s a lot of pressure on Quaker Ridge and Quaker Mrs. Steffan: Well, yes, and not the way it was intended and in my mind I’m just thinking through, the common man who goes to Walmart at holiday time and if this gets built we only have one access road, the loop road and then you know peak volume time during the holidays that whole area would just be jammed right up. And I could just hear it, who were the idiots that approved this. Similar things are said at the Exit 19. 13 Queensbury Planning Board-May 31, 2011 Mr. Macri: I don’t think we’re really impacting that road as everybody <unable to hear> Mr. Stansbury. I did want to touch on that, originally we started, when we started to look at this project, we looked at it with the access at Queensbury and while it does take off some pressure it’s not going to be a major entrance in my opinion, I think we’re looking somewhere in the range of 10-15% of the traffic would use Queensbury Avenue to access, what I would focus the board’s attention to is that in studying the project without that access we looked at the absolute worst case. If we put all the traffic on 254 and forced them through Quaker Ridge what would be the impact and in the study, as we discussed with Chazen, we’ve used a very conservative growth rate. Originally when the Walmart study was done the historical traffic growth in the area was 3% per year; the more recent data that has come out has shown that rate to be much lower. So we’ve projected out all the way to the full build which is 2020 a 3% growth every year on top of our development traffic. So we’ve added basically 20%, actually 27% growth so almost a quarter of the traffic increase plus our development which we’ve gone very conservative assuming its all office park as well as the retail. With all that traffic added the improvements that we’re recommending will not only mitigate the impacts of the development but will mitigate all growth as well. If you look at that final 2020 full build improved scenario the levels of service on 254 and Dix Avenue, the two, what I would are the core intersections of the use to be concerned with are levels of service B & C in the range of what they are today. We are recommending additional through lanes, additional turn lanes at both intersections, dual lefts in and out of the site as well duel lefts on 254 southbound exits and those improvements will mitigate not only our traffic but the growth as well. Mr. Sipp: You’re talking here, you’re talking proposed office park, proposed retail in effect. Mr. Stansbury: Everything full built all the retail and 500,000 square feet of promise. Mr. Sipp: You’ve got over 1200 parking spaces, they may not all be filled, you say 1,000 on the proposed office park and another 400 or so, so you’re talking 1,500 possibilities of cars. Mr. Stansbury: 1,500 parking spaces don’t mean 1,500 cars coming out in one hour. One thing to remember if is, I think my nice thin traffic impact study Mr. Ford: You said you built in around a worst case scenario. Mr. Sainsbury: Yes, we’ve looked at office park is the highest office generator and the retail if you look at shopping center which would be the worst case retail and if we look at traffic generation under the full build of the office park, it would about 700 cars. Mrs. Steffan: Would the retail in this subdivision be like a Sam’s club, a warehousing place that’s retail, because in my mind. Mr. Stansbury: You mean the commercial retail part? He’s talking about the retail that would not be it’s not part of this project but its part. <Everyone talking at once> Mr. Stansbury: They are looking at that both that piece and the office park. Mrs. Steffan: Because in my mind I was looking at this subdivision and when you said office like a corporate headquarters or something like that yes that’s a lot of cars. The other thing I was thinking of is that if there is any kind of warehousing and distribution you would have trucks versus cars scenario. Mr. Marci: You’d have fewer cars but you would have trucks. Mr. Stansbury: One of the core things if you look office park you’re talking about roughly a trip to 2 trips per thousand square feet, if you get into light industrial, manufacturing that number drops very quickly down to 0.2, 0.4 trips per thousand square feet, so traffic can easily be half of what we projected if it ends up being more of an industrial type use versus office. So if anything, my educated guess would be that we going overbuild the improvements and it will work much better than we’ve even projected. Mr. Hunsinger: I was going to put you on the spot and ask you what your thought was on that comment, because there was a lot of back and forth between you on the historic averages and the starting points Mr. Doty: Our office has come to resolution with Gordon on most of the comments but from this discussion I’d like to ask Gordon you noted in one of your responses that when you studied the Wal-Mart driveway into the Quaker Ridge Boulevard the intersection failed, had very long delays under full build out scenario would and I know you‘ve studied worst case scenarios without considering the connection to Queensbury Avenue would mitigation still be needed if the Queensbury Avenue connection was brought on line at that intersection? 14 Queensbury Planning Board-May 31, 2011 Mr. Stansbury: I believe if the development was built out under the worst case scenario as we projected with the growth we projected that Queensbury access would not take off enough to not warrant some possible mitigation of the Walmart driveway. Mr. Traver: Isn’t there this subjective element of human nature though I mean I envision myself going there shopping and if I find that not that the intersection fails that if I’m waiting and waiting to go out to the light not based on your study but based on experience I’m going to use that Queensbury Avenue intersection and probably lots of other people are as well. Mr. Stansbury: I fully agree with you. Mr. Macri: But I think there is a service road there that <unable to hear> we know that, if you go down to that intersection, you could still make a right to that service road and then come out. Mr. Stansbury: The problem with Queensbury Avenue access is the main majority of traffic is coming from 254 and the north and may not swing all the way around to come down Queensbury. I still believe that 80-85% of the traffic is going to be focused on 254. It’s the primary corridor in the area. People that are experienced especially around the holidays when lanes are more congested than normal are certainly to be used as an alternative access. But again all the congestion is highly based on do we have the maximum build out of the office park and that’s why my recommendation to Chazen was that consideration of any mitigation at Walmart is contingent on what actually gets built and that that should be evaluated in the future as specific uses <unable to hear> and it’s the only way you can address it with any kind of certainty. But I believe it can be mitigated, worst case it would have to be signalized and tied into 254 signal so that those two signals are coordinated and traffic is moved through both simultaneously. I believe a solution can be found if there is an issue with unable to hear> but that likely isn’t to occur until close to probably 70-80% build out of the office park. And it’s only really identified as an issue during the evening peak when you have all of the traffic <unable to hear> Mr. Doty: Correct me if I’m wrong, Gordin, you had indicated that that may require as you said timing coordinated with 254 and also right turn only out of Quaker Ridge onto 254. Mr. Stansbury: Oh, the right turns only off the fire road that was something we discussed originally when we did the Walmart study. There was a lot of concern noted with the, the fire road today is only 50 feet from 254 even with the Walmart alone those people coming off the service road would have a hard time turning left, and I recommended back with the Walmart study, I recommended at that time that consideration be given to making that a right only onto Quaker Ridge just because of the proximity. I think that would be independent of even this development. Mr. Macri: And we engaged Gordon specifically because <unable to hear> Mr. Krebs: I mean we certainly can’t know who the eventual tenants are going to be but if I look at the market out there I think an Angio Dynamics which has wanted to expand, has expanded would be an opportune candidate for a manufacturing facility on this property and then they would use Queensbury Avenue all the time because they would be going back and forth between the two plants. Delcast Systems which is also on Queensbury Avenue also is a good candidate as a potential. I don’t see a significant office park here maybe I’m wrong. Mr. Macri: History shows us, we develop these things, we put in the roads, we set them up for failure because we get these people that come in they look at the sites and it just doesn’t fit my needs. What we’re trying to do here is address all the impacts, make sure we have covered every issue that is imaginable under SEQR, and then allow the market to dictate what’s necessary. Mr. Stansbury: I have a very similar project that I did in Dewit outside of Syracuse it did the traffic study in 1998, it’s been 13 years and we have a very similar 800,000 square foot office park and we had a two phased improvement plan developed on the traffic study and just last year they went to Phase II. So it took them 12 years just to recognize the need for any improvements outside the signal at the main entrance. So what I would emphasize is the consideration with the Queensbury Avenue access it’s certainly not needed up front. You know, it becomes more useful and beneficial as the park builds out so if they’re studying now feasibility if that’s something that occurs in the next ten years it could occur well before this is ever built out. Mr. Hunsinger: The concern I have about all this discussion, and I’m going to pick up on something you just mentioned if you look at all of the traffic mitigation measures right now and you spread those costs out over the whole subdivision the cost per acre wouldn’t be too expensive but if we say let’s wait and see if it’s needed and we get 70-80% into full build and then we have that last 20 or 30% remaining and then they come in with a site plan and we say Time Out, you need to put in all of these traffic mitigation measures now and then the applicant’s going to throw their hands up and say well I can’t afford to do that. So what’s the assurance or what’s the vehicle or what’s the mechanism to make sure that you don’t overburden the last person in? 15 Queensbury Planning Board-May 31, 2011 Mr. Macri: Can I answer that, we intend to control this, it’s our intent to build and lease, that’s the format we’re looking at which means we will control, we will manage the entire subdivision, we will manage the property. It’s not a sale; it’s not intent to sell. If the market forces us to sell off it may happen. If that’s the case when we come to you the first time we sell off we need to set aside enough funds to make sure that this is done. So we’ll deal with it on a project by project basis. Mr. Hunsinger: So really the need for the subdivision only becomes a vehicle for financing each project? Mr. Macri: The need for the subdivision is <unable to hear> prove that the property can work <unable to hear> and can be developed to the magnitude we want to develop it and we’re doing this as a necessary evil in order to get it shovel ready, shovel ready is really where we want to be. I know that the ordinances don’t allow us just to let anyone to pass through the door, we’re trying to get them to pass through the door, so I think we’re addressing all these issues now so we can pass them through the door, and hopefully we can control the property through the process, obviously we need to generate income in order to keep the project going and when the opportunities come along we can’t work it out, my typical response to anybody that wants to buy property is, the property is not twice the value but you can do it. Usually that <unable to hear> Ms. Slevin: <unable to hear> with respect to you initial question what happens is you get to the point where <unable to hear> that’s not a unique situation. <unable to hear> it was developed contingent upon certain thresholds that would need to meet before <unable to hear>. As each new lot came in those thresholds were evaluated and there did come a point where the threshold was met and traffic improvements included a turn lane and some other traffic improvements had to be done. That next lot <unable to hear>. Those thresholds that were established which determined what was going to be <unable to hear> Mr. Stansbury: Typically what we would be taken from the traffic study is that Phase I can be built and that’s normally what’s agreed upon so the Phase I can move forward and then once you recommend any building or square footage beyond that threshold which is the retail piece up front and 100,000 sq. ft. of the office park once you get to the that threshold any piece needs to be basically restudied. So that a new study updated, not a full bore traffic study but an update is done to identify have we triggered any thresholds so that we need to now incorporate the improvements before that next piece is going to happen. Mr. Doty: Could you please summarize for the benefit of the board what mitigation is proposed and when it’s going to occur? Mr. Stansbury: The ultimate assessment of Phase I which was the retail part and 100,000 sq. ft. of the office park, we found that that can be mitigated through signal timed adjustments. The improvements that are part of the Walmart project the left turn lane, the right turn lane, and the signal, that Quaker Ridge can accommodate that development as well. Once we get beyond that we look at the whole build-out and the ultimate improvement recommended for build-out of the park that includes widening Route 254 to two full through lanes in each direction from approximately 500 feet north of Quaker Ridge Boulevard to 500 feet south of Dix Avenue, so you now have a full two lanes in each direction through those two primary signals. We would construct a second eastbound left turn lane on 254 before entering Quaker Ridge so you now have a dual left as opposed to a single left at Walmart. We would construct a second southbound left turn lane on Quaker Ridge at 254 so we have two lefts coming out. We would widen Dix Avenue to include two lanes eastbound, construct a second southbound left turn lane on 254 at Dix Avenue. That’s where you have the major <unable to hear> now heading out toward Queensbury Avenue, you would now make that a double left with two receiving lanes on Dix Avenue for approximately 500 feet, let them turn and then <unable to hear> back down. Construct a 150 eastbound left turn lane at Queensbury Avenue on Dix; intersection currently has just one lane in each direction and then the modification of the traffic signals at both Quaker Ridge and Dix Avenue to accommodate the roadway widenings. And then just some other signal timing adjustments at other intersections. Really what the study found was what would be expected is that the core impact of the project is at that those two signalized intersections Dix Avenue and 254 and 254 and Quaker Ridge. The improvements that ultimately are recommended for a build-out of the site are expensive. So to answer the question when will they be built, they could be required once that 100,000 sq. ft. of the office park is built that there’s identified operation problems the agency can say Nope you have to build it now because we’re not going to accept any future consideration, if it’s identified as working well then a study could be done for additional building <unable to hear> and that can be evaluated as the <unable to hear> so the project I did in Dewitt we said full build improvements we’re going to have at 200,000 sq. ft., they actually made it to about 450, before they recognized that the improvements were necessary. Because again what gets built versus what was <unable to hear> . Mr. Hunsinger: Thank you. Further questions from the board on that? It’s an interesting approach and we did something similar with the Great Escape many years ago now and they still have not triggered the next phase of necessary improvements. Mr. Stansbury: One of the key things you don’t want come up up front and widen 254 and everything because then you form a racetrack, if you have two lanes and you don’t need it then you end up having more traffic issues because you have too much pavement out there, so you really do want to identify what is the appropriate time. 16 Queensbury Planning Board-May 31, 2011 Mr. Hunsinger: What other issues does the Board have questions on? Mrs. Steffan: I’d actually like to hear from the public, the airport people. Mr. Ford: I’ve got more questions after we hear from the public. Mr. Hunsinger: Do we need to state that the submission is complete before we open the public hearing though? Mr. Oborne: What do you think? Is that necessary? Mr. Hill: I guess let me clarify, we’ve got a public hearing scheduled for tonight on this project? Okay. Has the board made a determination that the application is complete? Has that determination previously been made? Mr. Hunsinger: No. Mr. Hill: Then I think you can take public comment certainly on what’s in front of the board if you want to but I would encourage you to keep the public hearing open until the application is deemed complete. Mr. Hunsinger: Having said that we do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there members of the audience that want to address the board on this project? We have at least one if you could give up the table please. The purpose of the public hearing is for members of the audience and interested parties to provide comments to the board. I would ask that you address any comments or questions to the board and when you first sit down if you could state your name for the record we do tape the meeting, that tape is then used to transcribe our minutes. Mr. Degraw: My name is Don Degraw, I’m the airport manager for Warren County. As you know this proposed subdivision is right off the south end of the airport and it is located on the approach for a primary runway which gets the planes in and out of the airport in foul weather. You can see the colored area that we have designated on there and that’s an area that the FAA has an imaginary protected air space going through which protects the airplanes as they come down at an angle before approach. So we just want the make Planning Board aware of the fact we do have protected airspace that is over the top of this area and that as any buildings are built they could potentially go in to that protected airspace. The mechanism that we use to protect that area is we use a, it’s called a notice of proposed construction, form 7460 which an applicant would put down all the vital information of the elevations of the ground, the elevations of the buildings and locations and what have you. And then the FAA would send that to a process to determine all the hazards, which will determine all the different impacts that would have to the airport, not only airspace but wildlife and what have you, ponds being built so on and so forth. So the FAA doesn’t protect, the FAA doesn’t make determinations on what can and cannot be built around airports, they simply indicate what the impacts are going to be for the airport and then if there are adverse impacts to the airport they actually go to the airport operator and have them adjust the runways and what have you. So they work with the local entities to make sure that the airports are protected. The local entity, the owner is Warren County, obviously we don’t own the property around the airport so that would then call upon the Town of Queensbury to ensure that the airport is considered for the Planning process for not only the current threshold but we also have in the works a 1,000 foot extension so as this runway is extended protected airspace is lowered somewhat over that area. So just looking to ensure that the issues of the airport are part of the planning process and that the 7460 form at the appropriate time is part of the planning process. Mr. Hunsinger: Could you put that back up for a second? Could you show us where the 1,000 sq. ft. extension would end approximately? Mr. Degraw: Right here 1,000 feet these little dash marks are 500 feet so 1,000 feet would bring it here. Mr. Hunsinger: And that color coding over the applicant’s property what does that represent? Mr. Degraw: Well that represents the ground height, versus the height of the protected air space, I can hold it like this, it’s harder to see, but the airspace 200 feet the end airspace goes up 50 to 1, and the colored areas indicate the height between the protected airspace and the ground elevation. For instance the green is 0-10 feet, the red is 10-20 feet and so on and so forth, for the existing runway in, and that’s the area that they would want to protect. Now that isn’t necessarily the area that you couldn’t go into but until you file the 7460 and give the FAA a firm indication of exactly what you’re doing you really don’t know what the impacts are going to be. But as you can see the farther out you go the less the impacts are, the yellow and purple are 50-60 feet plus, so what happens here you have a lot of wetlands in this area so <unable to hear> the high area which happens to be closest to the airport and the threshold and the runway. Mr. Ford: How will the 1,000 foot extension impact that coloration? Mr. Degraw: It will lower it. But again till you actually file the form and know where you’re going to build what size you’re going to build you really don’t know what the impacts are, some impacts can be mitigated by simply having construction lights on tops of the building and things like that. 17 Queensbury Planning Board-May 31, 2011 Mr. Ford: When is the 1,000 foot extension expected? Mr. Degraw: We’re just finishing up the environmental assessment as we speak, next year would be design mitigation permitting, and we can start that in potentially 2-3 years. Mr. Ford: My compliments to you or to the FAA whoever used that coloration for, it’s almost an exact duplicate of the colors that I selected for my hot air balloon. Mr. Hunsinger: Any other questions from the board? Thank you. Mr. Degraw: Thank you. Mr. Hunsinger: Did anyone else want to address the board? Okay I guess we will conclude the discussion for this evening. Mr. Oborne: I do have public comment. From EDC Warren County NY dated May 31, 2011-on file. Mr. Hunsinger: Any other questions comments from the board? Mrs. Steffan: I think we have to determine whether we think that it’s a complete application at this point. Certainly Sean has been talking with their engineer and so we have to get those comments addressed and I don’t think as far as the documentation we have we have a complete application. There have been several references in the dialog back and forth that the SWPPP needs to be updated and other documents need to be updated. Mr. Ford: It’s a work in progress. Mrs. Steffan: Yes, so we have to table it, what do we want to table it for? We obviously the other comment that was made tonight we’d have to get a zoning board, Zoning Administrator’s determination on exactly what that road is, you know whether it’s a cul-de-sac, we just need a determination on that. I’m not sure what other things we need, this board, certainly having the engineering comments addressed, staff comments addressed, and then Zoning Administrator’s determination, those things are on the radar screen right now. Mr. Hunsinger: Other comments? Mr. Macri: When do you want to table it to? Mr. Oborne: I do have before the Chairman, obviously June’s agenda, with the size of this project and I loathe to do this I do believe this is worthy of a special meeting. Now that is obviously something the board will have to discuss, we do have a backlog going into July of quite a few so keep that in mind, and I just wanted to offer that up. Mr. Hunsinger: Okay. Do you want to come back to the table? What’s the feeling of the board? We had some pretty extensive discussion this evening and we only spent about an hour and a half, I don’t know if we need another special meeting or if we could fit it in. I mean I would anticipate that the next meeting the discussion will be a lot less than an hour and a half. That’s why I bring that up. Maybe one half hour, I don’t know. Mr. Traver: I think that would be the case if we can get the engineering and staff comments addressed. So if we have them come back at that point we can get them on the regular agenda. We don’t appear to be triggering a lot of public comment. Mr. Hunsinger: No. Mrs. Steffan: Well the other question that I have is the discussion came up earlier in the evening about whether the existing Earltown EIS is sufficient or whether we wanted a new EIS. We had discussion, but I didn’t think we had come to a conclusion. What does the board want to do? Mr. Krebs: Part of the problem is until you know exactly what’s going to go in there how do you understand the impact? Ms. Slevin: If I could address that, we’re not relying upon the Earltown EIS <unable to hear> we’re primarily relying on the new studies that provide you with current data. With respect to evaluating the project we haven’t evaluated it for SEQR purposes for worst case scenario, full build-out so that the board does have adequate information to evaluate the impact, evaluate whether they have those worst case scenarios have been adequately mitigated. So that’s the predicate we’re asking the board to move forward with respect to SEQR determination. To the extent that there is information that town staff has asked for <unable to hear>. One question I would ask the board to address as you decide how you move forward, one of the issues that is on the table is the interpretation of the Zoning Administrator, if that interpretation is that it does constitutes a cul- 18 Queensbury Planning Board-May 31, 2011 de-sac we’re asking for a waiver. I’m not quite sure how we work the timing because then we don’t kind of having ships passing in the night dealing with those two issues so if we can figure out how we can timely address the issue of whether its a cul-de-sac and the provide us with an opportunity to timely get the request for the waiver in so that we’re not wasting the board’s time <unable to hear> Mr. Oborne: I would add that it’s at the discretion of the board to grant that waiver regardless. Mr. Hunsinger: I was going to say I think you’ve gone on record to say if that’s the determination you wish to request a waiver. Ms. Slevin: That’s fine, we didn’t know if we needed to get something more formal. Mr. Hunsinger: I mean ideally we do get it in writing and it’s better to have in writing but I don’t see that as a measure stumbling block. Mr. Oborne: It is a response to my staff notes and so to a certain extent it is in writing. If you want it formally from counsel then obviously make that note. Mr. Hill: Mr. Chairman with regard to that there is only further thing I would note, I believe in an earlier part of the meeting it was noted that a waiver would be requested without prejudice and that suggests to me that what the applicants proposing to do is to ask for a waiver, but if the waiver’s not granted, to then ask the Zoning Administrator, to appeal the Zoning Administrator’s decision about whether it’s a cul-de-sac or not. I think if the applicant and maybe perhaps I’m misunderstanding the applicant’s position but I would suggest you get clarification on that and if the applicant is indeed seeking a waiver from the provisions that would treat this as a cul-de-sac that the applicant waive any right of review at the ZBA if it’s wants this board to go ahead and consider the issuance of a waiver by this board, otherwise the normal course of things is for the applicant to appeal the Zoning Officer’s determination that it’s a cul-de-sac to the ZBA and take the issue up with the ZBA, that’s the alternative. Mr. Macri: Would it be difficult to do what you’re saying until we really know from what point he determines the 1,000 feet? We have no idea. That would be the issue, the 1,000 feet is figured as 254, then we’d want a waiver without prejudice. Mr. Oborne: It’s not, it equivocally from the service road. Mr. Macri: It’s from the service road? Then we don’t understand how he’s interpreting it, we’d like an explanation. Mr. Oborne: We shall give you that. Mr. Macri: Once we have that explanation then the planning board can determine whether or not Mr. Hill: Or can make a determination about how you want to proceed. Mr. Macri: They can make a determination too whether or not they want to deal with it and send us to the ZBA. Mr. Hill: Or whether you in fact want to go to the ZBA. Mr. Macri: We don’t want to go the ZBA; we’d rather handle it here. If the PB feels that we should go to the ZBA, we’ll go to the ZBA. If the PB decides it’s an issue that they don’t want to address and I’ve been there before then we should be allowed to go to the ZBA. Mr. Hill: And I certainly, I’m not suggesting that you’re right to go there should be constrained, I’m simply saying that if tonight you’re saying to the board that you want a waiver, then this board’s position should be if that’s what you’re asking this board to do then you have given up your right to go to the ZBA to appeal the Zoning Administrator’s determination. If on the other hand you’d like to have the Zoning Administrator make a determination about what this is and have the right to appeal that to the ZBA then any request for a waiver from this board should be held in abeyance until you get that determination from the Zoning Administrator and have the opportunity to appeal to the ZBA Mr. Macri: So what you’re saying is that tonight the PB can determine that whether or not <unable to hear>. We don’t have go through discussion with the Zoning Administrator on how he determined it. Mr. Hill: If you are willing to give up your right of further review about the Zoning Administrator’s determination that this is a cul-de-sac and you’re willing to state that on the record and provide something in writing confirming that, then you can proceed with your request to this board to seek a waiver if you wish to do that. Mr. Traver: And we don’t have a decision in writing from the Zoning Administrator? 19 Queensbury Planning Board-May 31, 2011 Ms. Slevin: I think that we need to see that before we can make <unable to hear>. Mr. Ford: And we’ve requested this or will request it as part of the motion Mr. Hill: And that’s, and as the applicant that’s your perfect right I just want to procedurally make sure that we’re doing things in proper order, that’s all Ms. Slevin: We understand, and your point is well taken. <unable to hear> Mr. Hill: So it seems like then the thing do is get a determination in writing from the Zoning Administrator which you can then use as a basis for deciding how you want to proceed. Mr. Hunsinger: I wasn’t sure what you were getting at at first either but now I understand. Mr. Ford: And so can we. Mrs. Steffan: So when I ask for the Zoning Administrator’s determination in writing specifically what am I asking for? The determination on the road, I don’t want to call it a loop road because I’m labeling it, but Mr. Oborne: I would use the specific reference that I have and it is Section 183-27i4 which is the subdivision regulations. Ms. Slevin: And if you could just add to that <unable to hear> from what point is <unable to hear> being measured. Mr. Oborne: For the record it’s being measured from East Quaker Service Road north. Mr. Hunsinger: Are there any other specific issues that the board has other than the issue of the cul-de-sac interpretation, anything that’s in staff notes and anything that s in the engineering comments, anything else that’s not covered by either of those three? Mrs. Steffan: From my point of view when I read the Chazen notes and then the response to the Chazen notes from M. J. Engineering we kept coming back with the SWPPP so Mr. Osterhoudt: And the reason that the SWPPP hasn’t been updated is because it rests <unable to hear>, no really it’s because honestly the road configuration, I mean we’re designing stormwater for the road not for any of the buildings, or any of the future development so if something were to change with the road <unable to hear>. So that’s why we were looking for direction in terms of the board’s feeling on the road. Mr. Traver: So we’re back to the road. Mr. Hunsinger: I did have some concerns about some of the cut and fill that is being proposed, just the depth of it, if you will, and I don’t know other members had similar kinds of concerns but we’ve certainly had projects that didn’t or were in more sensitive areas than what you’re proposing, and it’s not like you’re proposing slopes that are going to be excessive when the project is done. I think the most I saw was I think there was a 6%. Mr. Osterhoudt: The site’s got varied topography on it so essentially we tried to create to the extent the most balanced site. For the areas that we knew were developable and areas that we knew we weren’t going to impact for various environmental reasons, wetlands, archeology <unable to hear> road configuration the grades of those roads trying to make sure that it was a balanced site and that it was safe for emergency vehicles, truck traffic, for cars things of that nature. Mr. Hunsinger: Now we previously approved the filling of sort of the southwest corner. I assume that any cut that’s done to construct the road would be used in that area or other areas where you’re doing filling. Will any of it be trucked off site? Mr. Osterhoudt: To the extent that there is excess material yes it would be trucked off site. Mr. Hunsinger: Do you have any idea how much that would be? Mr. Hunsinger: We couldn’t have you sit there all night and not make any comments Mr. Osterhoudt: It’s in the EAF, Mr. It’s roughly about 50,000 cubic yards of stone or limestone. It’s a large enough site to facilitate any cuts and fills balanced throughout so the only burden that would be removed from the site would be any flagstone <unable to hear>. They could actually recycle that material and if so sell it. I think we put a fair number on there to show at least the material coming off that there might be some trucking activities. We don’t foresee 20 Queensbury Planning Board-May 31, 2011 this being a mining operation. Anything once you get over 100 to 200,000 yards off the site it sort of <unable to hear> the operation of a mine would require a permit I think we should be under those thresholds, I thought we were fair with the calcs on that. As far as the geometry configuration of the road and your concern about <unable to hear> it’s only maybe 5% of the entire <unable to hear> and it stages <unable to hear> very well and going back to FAA comment we have considered the application and looked at all the variables, we don’t for see having to do very much in the way of <unable to hear> so like I said we tried to consider every angle, every aspect of where the road is and how its laid out. <unable to hear> Mr. Doty: Mr. Chairman, if I could, there is one comment I’d like to make, it relates to response to the response letter by MJ dated May 27, 2011 in response to comment to the resolution states that Chazen has requested that the minimum RRV requirements of the stormwater design manual be met for the project. That resolution is inaccurate, that minimum requirements are required by DEC, the goal is that 100% of the RRV be met. So I just wanted that to clearly understood. Mrs. Steffan: Sean, I’m glad you’re hear. You might as well be speaking a foreign language to me. Mr. Hunsinger: So it appears that we’re about to table this the board had a few minutes to think about whether or not we want to have a special meeting or table this to a regular meeting presumably in July. There would be th new material submitted, the 15 of June is only two weeks off so it’s kind of a tight time frame to meet a July deadline. But I also don’t think we’ve asked the applicant for any specific other than to address engineering and staff comments. Mrs. Steffan: I think the Zoning Administrator’s determination; that could certainly be done in two weeks. The engineer’s been talking through the process. Mr. Hunsinger: Are people comfortable tabling this to a July meeting or do we want to have a special meeting in July. Mr. Ford: July, what was the agenda looking like? Mr. Oborne: For July? July we have a bump list of about 6 and then we’re coming in with June’s agendas of which are full and the bump list has to do with the amount of recommendations we’ve had also that have to pushed off to complete that three headed cycle there. So July is filling up but we certainly could make room for them. We’ve had to balance that the best we can. Mr. Ford: May I offer a suggestion perhaps a special meeting that might not be exclusively confined to this applicant, in other words pick up some of those others. Mr. Oborne: No I do not, I would Mr. Hunsinger: What we’ve done in the past is since this project needs to be tabled, table it to one of the regular scheduled dates in July and at then at our first meeting in June if we could find out room availability to schedule a special meeting. Mr. Oborne: Sure. Mr. Hunsinger: Does that make sense? So if we were to table this to a July meeting do you have a preference thth over the 19 or 26? thth Mr. Oborne: I would go with the 12 or 14. Mr. Macri: We greatly appreciate that, the grant time table is really Mr. Hunsinger: When is that? Mr. Macri: End of October. Mr. Oborne: So let me get this straight there is a potential of a special meeting will be performed and we’ll discuss that during one of the June agendas Mr. Hunsinger: So if you could find out the room availability for our first June meeting and then we could set the date specifically. Mr. Oborne: And still follow proper protocols for submission? Mr. Hunsinger: Yes. Mrs. Steffan: So left the public hearing open 21 Queensbury Planning Board-May 31, 2011 Mr. Hunsinger: The public hearing is left open and I guess there is just three issues: Mrs. Steffan: I’ll make a motion-see below RESOLUTION-SUBDIVISION 1-2011/FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2011 VMJR COMPANIES A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Subdivision: Applicant proposes subdivision of 84 +/- acre parcel into five (5) commercial lots ranging in size from 6.53 acres to 29.91 acres with a sixth lot of 8.86 +/- acres proposed as open space. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater Wetlands: Proposed construction within 100 feet of wetlands [Great Cedar Swamp] requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 4-26-2011, 5-31-2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION 1-2011 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2011 VMJR COMPANIES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved its adoption seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled to the July 26, 2011 Planning Board meeting. Submission deadline date for new materials would be Wednesday, June 15, 2011 so that the applicant can address the Engineering comments, Staff notes, and so the applicant can obtain the Zoning Administrator’s determination in writing for Section 183-27i, paragraph 4 which will include the type of road and second item to include at which point the 1,000 foot is being measured. Duly adopted this 31st day of May 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Mr. Oborne: Did you want to use that reference number from 183? Mrs. Steffan: Yes that’s what you told me that we wanted to use, is that correct? Mr. Hill: Will you be continuing the public hearing also? th Mr. Hunsinger: Yes, the public hearing will be held until the 26 of July also. Any further discussion? Everyone clear? Okay Mr. Macri: Thank you. Mr. Hunsinger: See you in about seven weeks. You’re welcome, thank you. For the public, the public hearing th will be held open and we’ll take additional public comments on July 26 Mrs. Steffan: And the staff will notify the applicant of any special meeting dates if it’s a contrary date. Mr. Oborne: Mr. Chairman I did make copies of those Policies and Procedures however I neglected to bring them with me. I can run down and get them if you want to wait for about five minutes. Mr. Hunsinger: Do people have copies with them? I guess of way by Counsel and our engineer you can stay or go whatever your pleasure. I guess I’ll just open it up for any questions or comments from Board members, we’ve had these for a while, we talked about it a little bit, but we haven’t looked and talked about the proposed revisions. You can probably put it up on the screen. Mr. Oborne: Let’s see if I can access e-mails Mrs. Steffan: We used the process a couple of times and its working. Mr. Oborne: It’s worked well with one in particular it hasn’t worked so well with another one. But with that the other one was a smaller project and that was on the lake and that was Shine/Cleveland, it took a little bit of back and forth on that one, that they had to get tabled but obviously Kenny worked like a T. The Reebok Center worked perfectly. Mrs. Steffan: And that was a complex application. Mr. Traver: The screening ahead of time which applications are appropriate and some staff input on that was called for, for that reason. 22 Queensbury Planning Board-May 31, 2011 Mr. Oborne: It’s a balancing act, I want the onus on the applicant to make that decision, I don’t want to make that decision, I’ll give him that offer but I’m looking for from you are parameters that we can put into the Policies and Procedures. Mr. Hunsinger: In the end it all comes back to the same thing it always does and that is how well the applicant does their homework and how timely the information is submitted. Mr. Traver: Hearing comments that are out there the engineering comments that are out there then the com in and give all these explanations to attempt to rectify the situation and we aren’t qualified to judge whether their explanation is reasonable so they end up getting tabled and going back and for with the engineer again. Mr. Hunsinger: And then the irony to me and I realize it really has nothing to do with site plan review and such but it seems as though there has been more applications in the past few months that have come back for a request to have their approval extended a year. And I was thinking about this at our last meeting where it’s, we’re pressured to take action on project and then a year comes and goes and nothing happens and their coming back to ask for extensions. It’s like why did we rush through the process? Mr. Traver: Well I think every application that is before us is an emergency, I mean that’s pretty much the approach that the all of the applicant’s take and Mrs. Steffan: Well that’s a negotiation tactic to try to get folks to take action that they wouldn’t normally take. Mr. Traver: I’d be suspicious if an applicant came in and said please take your time on this project we’re not in a big hurry to get this process over with. Mr. Hunsinger: But the flip side is we see it, when they have good professionals, bring in a complete application. We have no choice, as Gretchen says we have no choice but to approve it. They answer every question. Mr. Traver: Yes Mr. Oborne: I would say that most professionals are good professionals but they’re sort of being behind the scenes, behind the curtain if you will being told by the applicant to do it this way because and Sean knows this, you’re first priority is to your client. That’s the bottom line. Mr. Traver: Yes, I think getting back to the policy of the proposed revision to the Policies & Procedures I know at one point we had had some discussions about the engineering and I know this is not all about engineering but at one point we didn’t do anything formal with, we almost talked that if we had applications that had more than a certain number of engineering comments we’d more or less automatically table them and this is a more structured way I think to handling that as opposed to simply tabling them, this way they Mr. Oborne: And as PB members come and go and as staff comes and goes that’s there for the future. That’s one of the reasons why we want to update that. Mr. Traver: this may help applications become more complete Mr. Hunsinger: I would hope. I mean that’s the goal. Mr. Traver: I think they will see this as okay we can avoid some of this review complication by just addressing these issues ahead of time so we won’t have as many engineering comments which certainly would be great. Mr. Oborne: Well they’re certainly to address them before they set the application, I may they pay the fees for the application to sit down with me, certainly you want to talk about the planning issues that are small in comparison to what Sean going to have to do if, dealing with the application depending on the complexity of the project so to have an applicant have engineering beforehand for a small project I don’t think it’s worthy of this, but for a larger project at that’s where I’m looking for you guys to give me some guidance on that. So I can write this up and get it back to you, prior to voting on it for changing Policies & Procedures. What are the thresholds, you think are logical. I just threw some examples out there, one acre, is there a SWPPP right off the bat, do you want to go ahead and do that or if it’s Mr. Traver: It’s difficult because it’s subjective to a degree and as we see applications into the future we’re going see more and more applications involving more and more engineering because all the property to be developed with requiring minimal engineering those have all got structures on them. And here we are in the Town of Queensbury and now they are taking a second look at property that they turned down before for development for that reason. 23 Queensbury Planning Board-May 31, 2011 Mr. Krebs: And I was just going to say the problem with saying one acre we have had projects that were one acre that had all sorts of complications and larger that had very few complications, so it’s very difficult to use acreage, in my opinion, as Mr. Oborne: That’s true. Mr. Traver: I think it really, I think in the planning process with staff and the applicant and you know with the involvement with the agenda review with the chairman, some recommendation could be made I think with this as to whether a particular application is a good candidate. Mr. Ford: It really deals with complexity. And I don’t know how you get to that Mr. Oborne: I want to give the option to the applicant, it’s all about the applicant, and the impetus is from Nace engineering. They requested this type of approach based on certain plans. Why don’t you go ahead and let us talk to the engineer and get it all done, then we can come back and present, everything is flat, everything is done, all we have to talk about it planning. Mr. Doty: I would offer that the PB may change the application on the applicant too, which would revert back to our office Mr. Krebs: But that kind of fits in to what I’ve asking for a couple of years to get the applicant and the engineer to resolve the engineering problems prior to have it come to the PB. Mr. Oborne: Well that’s difficult, you have to have some sort of input from the PB to begin to kick start it, I feel, there are planning issues that can be so blatant to you guys Mr. Traver: One example might be a subdivision application, looking at a sketch plan; we might get inkling then the project for that Mr. Doty: I guess for my benefit have there been a lot of complaints about tabling applications, is that Mr. Krebs: Tabling is a very expensive process for an applicant. Mr. Traver: Then it’s frustrating for us because then we have three meetings per month. What triggers it, not always, but often the number of, the planning and many of the subjective aspects of the project we can comment on, make suggestions and negotiate but when we have engineering comments that are unresolved and there are large numbers of them relatively speaking it’s frustrating for both parties because the applicant may come in particularly if they had not had a long time to review or respond to the engineering comments that they received, they come in hoping that they can give us an explanation and or argue a resolution can be made or that perhaps that they disagree with the engineering comments to begin with, but it puts us in a situation where we’re dealing with engineering issues that are not subjective many times, sometimes they are and that’s why at one point we had talked about the frustration in getting to that point and having to table these applications drove us at one point to consider having a number of engineering comments unresolved that would trigger a strong consideration of a tabling that evening and this is kind of an alternative to that, it really is an alternative to that where possible. And I can certainly understand Keith’s desire, I mean, it’s nice to be able to have very specific triggers that would select this process but it’s not always clear until sometimes we’ve had the first discussion with the applicant. Mr. Hunsinger: yes, I agree with you. I think during subdivisions it’s during sketch plan review I think typically it’s obvious that it might be a good applicant and we can offer it to the applicant and they can choose to accept it or not. The problematic ones are site plan review. Mr. Oborne: And that is definitely the issue, subdivisions you’re going down a three month road anyway. Mr. Hunsinger: I think it worked with Kenny because they voluntarily came in for sketch plan before we had this concept in mind. We kind of said we’ll make this the test case; we kind of modeled it after that project. Mrs. Steffan: This is also the first time that those used an engineer, usually they’ve done those plans on their own, so it worked out very well. Mr. Oborne: There was two meetings; There was a three or four month gap between the meeting Mrs. Steffan: It requires a lot of judgment on you Keith because it ends up coming back to you but the situations that we run into, like some of our difficult cases, wetlands issues, and slopes. Those are the things that create a heightened level of review and if they can work out some of those details in advance and get input then we do a much better review having them work with the engineering. I think of the steep slope driveways and things like that, we don’t see one if it doesn’t have appropriate engineering and stormwater runoff taken 24 Queensbury Planning Board-May 31, 2011 into consideration and a real driveway with real controls in place. They can work that out in advance and they should. Mr. Oborne: We can go down this path and put into Policies & Procedures for future people. I think the way it’s working now I think we understand that it’s a process that can work if the planning board wants to condition that th tabling like we did with Kenny, you don’t come back until you follow the protocols, the 15 of the month or if it falls on a Monday, etc. If you miss that I can’t put them on, I can give them some latitude depending on how full the agenda is at that point. Regardless they have to follow the same protocols when submitting. I think what I’m getting to is we can do it here in house and meetings like this because we know how this process works and how well it works, moving forward other people may not as time goes by and I that’s really the impetus to get this into that planning policies and procedures. Mr. Traver: One thought I had with regard to Mr. Krebs concern about the applicant’s having to pay their professional staff to accompany them to meetings where there is perhaps a strong likelihood that they will get tabled. When they receive the engineering comments if there are a significant number of them if they were contact you and say request a tabling motion, now granted that kicks them back on the agenda but on the other hand they are only having to pay the piper once as opposed to having their professional Mr. Oborne: They won’t get on an agenda until their engineering is flat. So regardless they won’t even be on the agenda. The only way they are eligible for agenda under this scenario is with this man’s sign-off. Mr. Traver: I understand under this scenario, what I’m saying is a way to , one trigger, if there already on this option is if when they get their engineering comments and there are a lot of them and there aren’t professional staff in this town that are working with applicants so they will get word at some point. If they get a lot of things that they’re not going to have a quick easy answer, they could call you and say I’m going to requesting a tabling motion, now granted that sets them back but if they come here and have a long discussion with us and they end up getting tabled anyway, then they have the cost associated with their professional team making a presentation to us and they are not getting on the agenda any quicker. Mr. Oborne: I think they generally do that. I think it’s their own issue if they’re going to come with their client to do that, Mr. Traver: Whether that would be an option at that point Mr. Oborne: Absolutely, I mean they’d be foolish not to, to at least approach me on that and many times I’ll be proactive and ask them are you sure you want to come to the meeting because you can’t offer comments, the board isn’t taking comments at the meeting. They’ll ask me that and I’ll say you’re taking a difficult tact with the board if you’re going to offer 47 answers to engineering questions. Mr. Traver: If his P & P were revised to formally accommodate this alternative path to review maybe when they have that discussion with you well what do you think, am I going to be able to argue this you’re saying you’ve got 47 engineering comments, you could say you could be considered for this alternative which is now policy. That’s what I’m saying so instead of having their team come to a night it would set them back to the calendar but it wouldn’t set them back as much financially because they’d have an opportunity to have a cogent Mr. Oborne: That would be a little difficult for me to do that, because that is on the assumption that they are not using that path, they are using the initial path, the one that’s always been presented to the applicants at this point. Knowing that other path is open to them if they’re going to have that complex of a application well shame on them for not taking that one, the obvious path. So I think that would be difficult for me to manage. Mr. Traver: One of the outcomes I would hope from this would be we would make, and I want to say this diplomatically, but one outcome would be that applicants, developers, engineers or whatever within the town would become more skilled at preparing their applications and dealing with the engineering issues. That’s what’s driving this potential change in policy and I think ironically as we implement this we’re going to need it less, and less and less. That would be what I would hope would be an outcome would be oh okay now I see the way it works. Mr. Oborne: One would hope Mr. Traver: It’s financial, the engineering issues aren’t going to go away but as Tom pointed out its money and if they realize this is the way it’s going to work and we’re going to stick to it, at least some of them are going to be and probably the ones that are going to be in higher demand are going to follow this because their projects are going to get through quicker. Mr. Oborne: Its mind boggling how much waste there is out there by applicant utilizing or not utilizing their engineer. It goes both ways. 25 Queensbury Planning Board-May 31, 2011 Mr. Traver: In the subdivision that we had before us earlier tonight sounds like they’re from the materials and the comments there could have been utilization of staff for resource. So, yeah, I don’t know what we can do about that but we can certainly Mr. Oborne: It’s certainly not for lack of asking. I mean they’ve had these notes for four months now. Mr. Ford: Could I make an observation of, it’s interesting that to watch this from a historical perspective developed at this point and those who have served for a few years on the board have got to recognize that it is because of the level of expertise that Keith and other staff members bring to the table that we’re even having this discussion. I can remember in previous years this wouldn’t even be before us. It wouldn’t even be a consideration. So Mr. Traver: And some towns don’t even choose to have a planning board Mr. Oborne: I don’t know if its expertise I think it’s apathy in the past. I don’t think I can be considered an apathetic person so but I do appreciate it Tom thank you. Mrs. Steffan: So do we need to put this forth in a resolution or are we trying this out? Mr. Oborne: I’m sorry Gretchen Mrs. Steffan: Are we going to use this as policy and procedure or what Mr. Oborne: Do you agree with the concept review narrative up top, does that make sense. Does the minimum submittal requirements make sense or is there anything you want to remove or add to that? Mr. Sipp: I’d like to add on location map that they have contour lines. We had for a while and then all of the sudden it seemed like it dried up and went away. Mr. Oborne: Okay, Mr. Hunsinger: Contour lines at sketch plan? Mr. Oborne: Well this would be for site plan, at subdivision you’re required to have contours, but not at sketch plan that’s true and I think that’s fair enough. Mr. Hunsinger: A lot of times the applicants come in and say hey I didn’t want to spend the money to do two foot contours if I didn’t have to you know. Mrs. Steffan: Should we put in after b we’ve got approximate amount of grading for post to include grading on slopes in excess of 15%, in that situation if they’ve got slopes in excess of 15% they should provide contours in my mind. Mr. Hunsinger: Well don’t be Mr. Doty: Are you suggesting it’s on a location map, like USGS contours or are you asking for physical surveys contours of their property? Mr. Sipp: I like physical surveys, but that may be, you know, Mr. Doty: USGS contours can be easily obtained and placed on a location map, at least giving you an idea of what the slopes on the site are. Mr. Traver: The other question I have is could we as an alternative to making this policy could we make this a pilot practice for a period of time, calendar period of time and reevaluate it at the end of that time and decide whether we want to make it policy or an amended version of the policy. Mr. Oborne: That’s fine; you’re doing this under the site plan review application, okay and not a concept review application. This is a totally separate application from site plan review although it falls under Article 9 of the zoning code it is just a separate application geared toward the engineering aspect of it. With that said that leads or comes full circle to what I was stating before, we all know how this is working, it’s worked once well, it has not worked so well on another project, let me keep it going, let’s get a success rate of 50-70% I mean above 50%, however you want to approach that, or just move forward. Mr. Hunsinger: I kind of like that thought Steve, is maybe Mr. Traver: Not a policy but a practice and a pilot program for 26 Queensbury Planning Board-May 31, 2011 Mr. Ford: For the balance of 2011 Mr. Traver: Yes, something like that, just so we have some additional we and staff have additional input, because the result of that I mean we’re talking about whether do we like the concept review minimum requirements and so on, we’ll be amending this if we keep this a living document for that pilot practice period of time at the end of that time we’ll much more confident about things like do we need contour intervals or various other items we can’t think about tonight necessarily. Mr. Oborne: Please add to it, spend some time on it, there are, you get more experience with it and other issues will come up and you can adjust, that’s definitely fine. Mr. Hunsinger: Sounds like we’re all in agreement so why don’t you make that a motion. Mr. Traver: I see the secretary writing, Mr. Hunsinger: She’s making notes in December Mrs. Steffan: It’s on the calendar Mr. Oborne: At site plan I’m just concerned, because with the one operation it was he came in for basically a sketch site plan, he came in for information meeting and you suggested why don’t you do this and he did that, now I don’t see how that’s going to happen unless somebody has a site plan before you in front of me. Mr. Hunsinger: Right, that’s the problem. Mr. Magowan: Could you offer this up to people who come in with applicants, we have a new policy, they have the option to Mrs. Steffan: We have a new pilot program Mr. Magowan: A pilot program Mr. Traver: I think that we want to control the route the application, at least at this point while, if it is going to truly be a pilot practice for some period of time I think that the assessment of what applications are appropriate for this should be made by staff and by the town rather than by the applicant. Maybe at some point Mr. Oborne: Yes, once the parameters are set sure Mr. Traver: I can envision at some point this could be a standard thing or whatever but I don’t feel that that’s where I’m at with this concept right now; I think it’s still very much a pilot Mr. Oborne: When you have an applicant you know you’re going to table and we can certainly wrap up, when we have an applicant that certainly is going to be tabled don’t even think about coming back until you’re engineering is done and see how that works. Mr. Traver: It also could help move the agenda along because we could avoid the lengthy discussion of each and every engineering comment which we’re still not going to be able to, that might help the applicant ironically it can help the applicant move along a little further and other applicants that are perhaps more fully prepared. Mrs. Steffan: So how is this going to work is if we get a sketch plan review and we think that this process would be to that individual’s benefit we recommend it. That’s one way or if somebody comes in to the town and wants to put an application in place you also have the prerogative initiative to say you know this process fits really well with the new pilot program we have called concept review and this is how the program works and then you lay it out for them and they can make the decision whether they’re going to go with it, so there is two ways to put somebody into this pipeline. Mr. Oborne: They all have to fill out a site plan review application at this point so they have to meet the minimum standards of that. Mr. Hunsinger: Well did Kenny didn’t he ask, he asked us for a workshop Mr. Oborne: He did, he asked you for a concept review, do you like this twice I believe Mr. Hunsinger: The first request it was kind of like he hadn’t filed a site plan review had he? Mr. Oborne: I believe he had. Mrs. Steffan: I don’t know, the first time 27 Queensbury Planning Board-May 31, 2011 Mr. Traver: The application was incomplete, and he filed some Mr. Oborne: He was eligible but there definitely some engineering issues on it, I’d be surprised if I would let that happen. He was in twice Mr. Hunsinger: Because I thought there was almost a request that came just from him to the board, he came to a meeting and asked us if we would consider and I think he called it a workshop and we said well we have sketch plan review Mr. Ford: I almost felt like the PB was planning Mr. Hunsinger: Yes exactly, Mr. Traver: Well you’ve got the same thing across the street Mr. Hunsinger: Yes but that’s subdivision Mr. Oborne: And that’s the perfect example there of how this would work very well, I think, but that has a level of planning that you’re really going to have to look at. Mr. Schonewolf: That is a lot work there. Mr. Oborne: A lot of pedestrian things going on and traffic and all that. Mr. Schonewolf: We’ve got the road being improved already Mr. Oborne: It’s really improved all right. Mr. Krebs: In talking about that project by the way I stopped in to talk to Mike Travis and about the right turn lanes, etc. here and he said Don I have nothing to do with it, both Bay Road and Blind Rock Road and Havilland are all County roads when we get to that point where we’re going to look at that we’re going to have to get the county involved as well. Mr. Oborne: Actually Havilland Road is a town road. Mr. Schonewolf: You won’t see those guys for months Mrs. Steffan: Just so you know, that application across the street they did have their neighbor meeting. There were folks that got responses like hey we’re good with it. Mr. Oborne: So what I’m getting I’ll direct applicant to submit a site plan, you know you’re going to have engineering issues, go to the board and what they’ll have is Sean’s review at that point and the crux will be talk to this man, get this all taken care before you come back and follow those protocols. Instead of giving them a tabling date. And then obviously the next step will be just to close this all out, would be a concept review plan, fill that bad boy out, make sure it’s complete, get everything to Sean we have a file going, you don’t even see it or do you want to see it for the planning aspect of it. Mr. Hunsinger: Well we want to see it sketch. Any other discussion or business? Motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY 31, 2011, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: Duly adopted this 31st day of May, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE Meeting Adjourned 28