Loading...
1993-07-26 SP '-- "-' / QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JULY 26, 1993 INDEX Site Plan No. 33-93 Zaremba Group, Inc. 1. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. -' r::::- QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JULY 26. 1993 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER. CHAIRMAN CORINNE TARANA. SECRETARY ROGER RUEL GEORGE STARK CAROL PULVER MEMBERS ABSENT CRAIG MACEWAN EDWARD LAPOINT PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER SITE PLAN NO. 33-93 ZAREMBA GROUP. INC. TIM MORGAN. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT MR. BREWER-Tim. do you want to start out? MR. MORGAN-Sure. There were a number of things from our past meeting that were left unresolved that different members had asked if we could bring in to take a look at. and one of those things was elevations and materials for it. and since Tom's not here. maybe one of the things we could start with. to show the Board, is just those two items. What we have here. so that everyone can see. I don't know if you want to put it uP. or just pass it around. is a marked up and colored elevation of a Super K-Mart that we're doing down in Kingston. New York. which is about an hour and a half, two hours south of Albany. and in conjunction with that. there was a request for materials board, so that the members of the Planning Board could actually see the actual colors involved. I'll just pass them around together. and each member of the Board can take a look at the pallet board. in comparison with the colors on the sketch elevation. MR. STARK-Where are you getting the split block from? MR. MORGAN-That'll all be based on the subcontractors. and that'll all have to go out to bid once we get, if we get. site plan approval. There's no preset decisions as far as where that'll go. It's all competitive bid. MR. BREWER-It'll try to be all local. though? MR. MORGAN-They'll open it to local bids. but I cannot. in good faith. say to you that a local guy will get the bid. MR. BREWER-Well. just as long as the local contractors get a chance to bid. MR. MORGAN-They prefer to bid it locally. but it's a price driven situation. Only the top one's colored up. The other ones are just extra copies. MR. BREWER-That's what bids are all about I guess. MR. MORGAN-Exactly. The majority of the building will be a gray. split faced block. in conjunction with a teal barrel tile. with a red, or a dark red. accent board. We had had a sketch of some elevations. but I don't think that the members of the Board really had a good idea what it might look like without having a pencil drawing and being able to see exactly what the Design Department of K-Mart has put together. - 1 - --/. MRS. TARANA-Where's this fence? JIM CONNORS MR. CONNORS-That's about the Garden Shop. MRS. TARANA-Around the Garden Shop. MR. MORGAN-And I think really it came about. I has said that this would be a criteria store meeting. There would not be any significant changes. but it's tough when there's never been one around here for the Board to go look at. and I think that's what started the whole conversation. and that. without putting everyone in a van and taking them to a store. hopefully. will give you guys an idea what it will look like. but that was one of the details that I had said that we would follow up on at the meeting. Now. I know the bulk of what we wanted to talk about tonight has to do with Tom. and our response to some of his concerns. unless there might be some questions that the Board might just have generally. that we could talk about. MRS. TARANA-Will you bring these to the next meeting. because there are so many absent tonight. just so they can see them? MR. MORGAN-Sure. I'd be happy to. MR. BREWER-If we get this done tonight. you're still not going to come tomorrow night. correct? MR. MORGAN-No. unless Scott sees a need for us to be back. MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. MORGAN-What we were hoping to do. j ust sc~ the Board has an overview. this Wednesday is the submittal deadline for your August 17th meeting. We will have the traffic study. which I think you have a summary of. in complete form on Wednesday. for your meeting on the 17th. and if the Board has a chance to review those final drawings. which will come in Wednesday. and the traffic study. maybe we could have another workshop between now and the 17th of August. if Jim and Scott think that there's something to review. If not. we'll have the meeting on the August 17th date. receive your comments formally. and. if necessary. meet again in September. or some time in between. MR. BREWER-I don't even think it would be necessary. If we met the 17th. and we had any comments. we'd have another week before the next meeting. I don't think the comments that we have are going to be that significant that they can't be taken care of in a week. and we can just table the 17th. and then the 24th finish it up. MR. MORGAN-That would be fine. MR. BREWER-Then it wouldn't draw you into another month. MR. MORGAN-That would be fine. would work out. That would be appreciated. if it MR. BREWER-That's mY feelings. feels. I don't know how everybody else MR. STARK-Fine. MR. CONNORS-Yes. Tim had just mentioned abCiut resubmitting a package. you know. the site plans and so on. on Wednesday. If there are no substantial comments coming out of this meeting. that will reflect changes on the plans themselves. you have the complete package. MR. MORGAN-We were going to ask Jim if we could just go with what - 2 - --- / / --.......,1 we've already submitted. MR. CONNORS-But right now. even the comments that Tom had in his recent letters. I wouldn't consider warrant a change in the plans for submittal on Wednesday. Obviously. the stC)rmwater management report. there will be a number of issues that will be. a number of things that will be changed. but it's not substantial, and I guess the traffic study is the major. HR. MORGAN-That's the key. and I know that what everyone wants to see. MR. CONNORS-A major item of concern. MR. BREWER-I guess the comments that Tom had. Two and Three were pretty substantial to him anyway. the grading slopes. MR. CONNORS-Which letter. July 20th. or the 23rd? MR. BREWER-The 23rd. because I remember that we had just briefly touched on. MRS. TARANA-July 23rd? MR. BREWER-You should have gotten that tonight. MRS. TARANA-In our packet you mean? MR. BREWER-Yes. right on the front. As I remember. it was the grade behind. You two disagreed. You said there was two ways to do it. MR. CONNORS-Correct. Yes. Without Tom being here. I mean. I know he indicated he was going to be here this evening. MR. MORGAN-We'd be happy to take the time of the Board and go through it. It's just a question of. we have to start from the beginning. MRS. TARANA-Yes. That doesn't make sense. MR. CONNORS-There are a couple of issues on his 23rd letter that he's really leaving it up to the Planning Board to make a decision, and a lot of these comments are cursory. and just touching on things that. just bringing them to your attention. It's not necessarily technical problems. but more procedural. I can go through the 23rd right now. Item One. which identifies that we should show a clearing acti vi ty so that the Town may monitor construction. so that what gets disturbed out there. everybody's clear in their own minds. We can retitle the landscaping plan to identify it as clearing and landscaping plan. and on that. we will show the trees that are remaining. and actually it already does. It shows the trees that are remaining and everything else that's really going to be disturbed. Item Two is the 50 buffer zone. MR. RUEL-Do you have a landscape plan now? MR. CONNORS-Yes. It's part of your package. The second item is the 50 foot buffer zone. and he's really indicating that the Planning Board should consider if the buffer area proposed is consistent with the buffer zones as defined by the Zoning Code. and essentially it's our contention that it does. in fact. meet that definition. and that's something that you'll have to decide this evening. MR. BREWER-Can you read the definition. Scott. MR. HARLICKER-An unpaved natural area without buildings designed to reduce the possibility of adverse impact on land or water quality. and/or conflicts in the land use between two or more areas. - 3 - ~ -- MR. BREWER-Here's Tom. MR. HARLICKER-Here he is. No parking or storage of vehicles of any kind. or objects associated with the use of the property is permitted. and not inhabited with natural woody paths. i.e. trees and shrubs. sufficient to visually screen adjoining uses or zones. such buffer area shall be planted. regraded and/or fenced. MR. BREWER-Okay. and you're leaving that natural. right? MR. CONNORS-Well. we're regrading it. using part of it for stormwater management. and a two on one size slope. MR. STARK-I have a question. the macadam that goes around the building to the west. for your trucks coming in and out and so on. in the buffer zone. are they the same elevation? MR. CONNORS-Existing grade and. final grade. you mean? MR. STARK-Yes. final grade. Where the stormwater management is. on the north side. as it abuts Dix Avenue. we're actually excavating in the area. for detention and for mitigation of wetlands. We're filling on the southern parts. MR. STARK-Are they the same elevation. though. between the macadam and the buffer? MR. CONNORS-No. they are not. We're dropping off at a two on one slope on the southern end. and we're dropping off into a three on one down into a retention facility. MR. STARK-What about the AMG land? Will that be higher than their land? MR. CONNORS-No. It'll be lower than their land. building. I haven't seen AMG's plans. Well. our TOM YARMOWICH, RIST-FROST MR. YARMOWICH-They're not really doing any changes of grade significantly. They've more or less. their site tapers off to the back. MR. BREWER-Then they fill all that? MR. YARMOWICH-Not a lot. back in there. It's not a significant change of grade MR. STARK-Okay. I was just wondering. MR. CONNORS-In general. not knowing what they're at. we can't. but we will be filling about eight feet. It'll come down to a natural swale with that wetland area that exists between the two properties. and extends on into AMG's property. There's a little area. if you would. There's a projection sticking out of the back of the building. There's an eXisting wetland area right in here. which extends out into the AMG property. We're higher here than it is down here. but it slopes down and then it comes back up. MR. STARK-Okay. MR. BREWER-So. it's going to be like a. almost like a man made culvert. then. MR. CONNORS-It'll be a good swale. yes. MR. BREWER-Is it going to go the whole length of the property? MR. CONNORS-More or less. right about. this area here was the fence. We have a stormwater management area here. It will be - 4 - _..__.-.._._~- '-' -- excavated. and then there'll be a berm here. and then it'll go down a natural grade. and it'll be maintained as natural grade along the property. So. it'll drop down. so. essentially. if you. .pavement edge. drop down to the natural grade. and then it'll come up on natural grade. So this will be pretty much fill. from this area here. and this is the area with all the wetlands, which is right in this section here. MR. BREWER-So you're going to be forcing all the water over to? MR. CONNORS-No. A good portion of the water will be coming in to this. .from the building here. at the bUilding. and into here. The remaining water will be going out to the detention facility. out along Highland Avenue. HR. BREWER-Is it possible that water will lay there? MR. CONNORS-No. no more than what lays there under eXisting condi tions. due to. wi thin existing wetlands area... creating an isolated pond and this area here is intended to be free draining. There's a pond that exists. MRS. PULVER-When do they expect to start this project. and how long until completion? MR. MORGAN-We won't start it. obviously. until we get site plan approval. MRS. PULVER-Well. I know. but I'm saying. do you plan to start within six months after the approval. or? MR. MORGAN-No. we'll start immediately. MRS. PULVER-Immediately. Okay. and then what's the projected? MR. MORGAN-It's somewhat of a tough question to answer. Depending on where we get site plan in the fall. A lot e>f it's going to be determined by weather and the frost line. as far as blasting and digging foundations go. MRS. PULVER-What I want to know is. are we going to drag this out over two years. or? MR. MORGAN-No. This thing will get built as quickly as possible. Once we receive site plan approval. we will start the wetlands work and probably the blasting right away. MR. STARK-You want to be open next summer? MR. MORGAN-We want to be open in spring or summer. as quickly as possible. MRS. PULVER-Okay. That's what I was kind of thinking. that by this time next year. we'll be shopping there and having K-Mart specials or something. under the red light in the aisles. MR. MORGAN-All things being equal. we hope so. MR. HARLICKER-You mentioned the wetlands. What's the status of the wetlands permit? MR. MORGAN-The Army Corp of Engineer representative for this area submitted a report to her superior. who will review it. sign off on it. and then the Army Corp of Engineers will issue what they call a jurisdictional determination letter. which basically states that what C.T. Male delineated as wetlands. based on a field inspection. is correct. That report. once it receives Army Corp sign off. will go to Fish and Wildlife. and EPA. Once those two governmental agencies sign off and accept it. it's approved. So it has to. basically. go through three regulatory steps. one on the State - 5 - '-- -..../ level. and two on the Federal. MR. HARLICKER-What sort of time frame are we looking at? MR. MORGAN-We would hope to receive approval on this in September. if not late August. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-Back to the construction process where. and. again. if you've said this. I'm sorry. for the roads and the lights. is that going to be done first? Are you going to dQ all that grading first. or are you going to do the project first? HR. MORGAN-When you say the grading. the traffic is going to be. MRS. PULVER-Changing this intersection. MR. MORGAN-See. we don't know the answer to that. It's up to your D.P.W. We have gone to them. and I think that there's a memo in your packets to Fred Austin and Roger Gebo. and this will all be borne out in the traffic study which will be here in the office on Wednesday. We will do it one of two ways. We will do the off site mitigation. as the traffic study bears out. right away. or we will act as. I believe they call it a joint venture partner. with the County. and we will either fund a certain amount of those improvements right away. or we will wait until '96. which was their target date. to do this work. The point being that the County is saying that this is acting as an accelerator to that improvement area. and we will do it in any way that they suggest. whether it's right away. or it's to escrow the funds. and wait until they deem appropriate. MR. BREWER-I would hope that they would want to do it right away. MR. MORGAN-We would. too. roadway. It's to our benefit to improve the MRS. PULVER-I was going to say. If we have any influence. I certainly would want to put that forward. that we would like a right-of-way before the project. MR. BREWER-We could put that. I don't know how we could forward that to them. in a motion. or a resolution? MR. CONNORS-I believe the joint venture would also be between the Town. MR. MORGAN-It's the Town, the County. and Zaremba. MR. BREWER-So the Town Board would have to. MRS. PULVER-Okay. we can even bring that to the Town Board. because if this project is done. and then the mitigation measures for the traffic aren't taking place. guess what we've got there. traffic jam to 1996. MR. MORGAN-We would prefer to do it right away, because it's to our benefit to bring people to the site. Our suggestion to the Town. and the Town Board. and the County is that we would love to be a joint venture partner right now. finish the design process. put it out for bid. and start it in March. MRS. PULVER-So that's your first choice also? MR. MORGAN-That would be our first choice also. MRS. PULVER-Well, Scott. maybe you could speak to Jim. If we have to take this to the Town Board and ask them to pursue it as well, we'll do that. Certainly. to have this project down there and then - 6 - - -' not have all the traffic mitigation measures taken care of means that. MR. MORGAN-You might want to take a look at. this is a memo from Fred Austin about the Quaker Road improvements. MR. CONNORS-Which I received from Tom the other day at the Planning Board meeting. last Tuesday. it was in the packet. MR. MORGAN-It's a short memo. He began to broach the concept that maybe you should accelerate the improvement schedule. and start it in '94. MR. BREWER-I would think that would be the best way to do it. It's probably not the way they'll do it. but. MRS. PULVER-Well. again. going back to. if it takes. we have to write a letter to the Town Board. and make a physical appearance in front of them to request that this be done. I'm certainly willing to do that. MR. BREWER-Wasn't there some conversation that they might not even accept the road going in on Quaker? Somebody brought that up. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. That was mentioned in the meeting we had down at. the Quaker access. MR. CONNORS-The Quaker access. the County and the State. I guess. had indicated that they weren't very receptive to putting a new signal in at that intersection. However. they would consider limiting access to a right in. right out only. which is something we'll be incorporating in the plans. once they make their mind up. MR. MORGAN-State criteria has a certain number of minimum feet that signals must be placed from each other. and t:o put a signal on Quaker Road doesn't meet that criteria. MR. BREWER-It's too close. MR. MORGAN-Exactly. MRS. PULVER-Well. we would have certainly before site plan review. an answer to Wouldn't we? that question MR. MORGAN-It's really up to D.P.W. Austin. We have tried to push Fred MRS. PULVER-Well. I find it difficult to. I don't have any problems with the project. I think it's a good project. I think it's well thought out. You did a lot of work. but. MR. MORGAN-And you'll have the traffic study. Wednesday. to review. MRS. PULVER-Right. It's difficult for me to approve a project if I don't know if the mitigating traffic measures are going to be done before the project. because as a Board member. I know what happens when future projects come up like this that are not done in order. Everyone says. well look at the mess we have down there with the K-Mart. and we say. well. they haven't. quite finished it yet. They're going to do it in 1996. but these people don't know this. that are now complaining about another pr()ject that is going in. that they feel is going to tie into more traffic. etc. MR. BREWER-It would be like improving Dexter without the improvements up there. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. MORGAN-Public works will get the traffic study the same day that this group does. so they have adequate time to make a - 7 - ~ -- decision. If you could push them to make that decision. it would be to our advantage. MRS. PULVER-I guess that's what I'm saying. is what do I have to do. as a Board member. to push them to? HR. MORGAN-I don't know. I think that's a question we'd like to ask you. what wheels need to turn to make that process work? MRS. PULVER-Well. I guess we just discussed it with Scott. We need your approach to the Town Board. We need to let Jim Martin on this so that he can do whatever he needs to do. memo wise. MR. HARLICKER-It seemed to me. my gut feeling from that meeting was that they were looking to get this done as soon as possible. They were looking to put it on. these are the people in the trenches doing the actual. What's going to happen at the political level. with the funding and everything. and the public discussion takes place is a different story. MRS. PULVER-Well. we're just going to have to pursue that. because. again. like I say. I have trouble approving this entire project because that is. to me. part of the project. if it's not going to be done prior to or with the project. as the project is being done, so in the end. everything is completed at the same time. How can we complete a project that's going to have. like. 1.000 cars in the parking lot. and not have the traffic mitigation? MR. HARLICKER-The traffic mitigation measures in place. yes. MR. MORGAN-We agree. That's what's submitted with the site plan. MRS. PULVER-All right. right on that. So make good notes. Scott. and we'll get MR. BREWER-Maybe Jim can tell us what we've qot to do tomorrow night. MR. CONNORS-Did we resolve the buffer zone? So what we're proposing is acceptable to the Board. and it meets your definition? I know that's. MR. MORGAN-Our point being that it's going to be an unpaved natural area without buildings. design to reduce the possibility of adverse impacts on land. by definition. no parking or storage of vehicles. MR. HARLICKER-You'll provide adequate screening. MR. MORGAN-But screening. for one. aren't we backing up to a loading dock with AMG? What are we screening from? MR. CONNORS-And then the other contention that we have is that we have wetland mitigation that's going to span over half of the property boundary. which is going to contain naturally woody. now obviously once it matures. but the intent is that the wetland mitigation area is going to recreate the conditions that currently exist on the site. just so you know what the proce ss is. and generally they're just going to ball up all this material. with the roots and everything in it. and move the wetlands topsoi land vegetation right over in those areas and spread it back out. so they'll mature. Obviously the tree s and things like that won't mature right away. but within a number of years. it will grow into a very wild. MR. YARMOWICH-The slopes of those basins will be all those small plants and it's going to be allowed to·grow back. even though it's fenced in? MR. CONNORS-The fence is to protect. and that was a request of the Corp. to protect the wetlands from trash. They're really using it - 8 - -- - as a screen to keep the trash out. MR. RUEL-And how high is the fence? MR. MORGAN-Six foot. MR. CONNORS-Six foot high. going to blend right in. It's not anything significant. It's MR. BREWER-You can't have a six foot fence on the corner. MR. CONNORS-We'll make it four foot. MR. STARK-Go for a walk behind the Aviation Mall. MRS. PULVER-I've been there. MR. STARK-On the road. the little dirt road. and there's 18 carts in there right now. and it's steep. The ground is washing away. Macadam's washing down in there. some of the trees are washing down. That's got to be. that's the steepest area in the whole thing up there. MRS. PULVER-Yes. HR. BREWER-Is everybody happy with Two? MRS. TARANA-Scott. is it 179-72D that you're looking at. for the buffer zones? MR. MORGAN-179-7. the Definition Section. MRS. TARANA-And did you look at the buffer zones. 179-72? MR. HARLICKER-Reading this. it seems that the burden is on the industrial side. MR. CONNORS-It's also on the Plaza Commercial. Within the Plaza Commercial zoning district it indicates that a buffer shall be provided between Light Industrial and Plaza Commercial zones. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-Okay. So are we okay with that one. Number Two? MR. BREWER-I am. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Yes. I am. too. MR. BREWER-George. Corinne. Roger? Okay. We c:an go to Three. MR. YARMOWICH-There's a two to one grading slope. This is just a general description of what's going on in that back corner. two to one grading slope remains proposed behind the southwest side of the building. The proposed surface treatment is stone rip rap over fil ter fabric. The height of the two to one slope varies from eight to seventeen feet. A curb is proposed at the top of the slope. with no level area or barrier device behind the curb Eliminating the two to one sloped and utilizing the three to one slope would probably move the curb line 10 to 12 feet to the east. In general. the shoulder area with a slope of not more than 10 percent and width of no less than 5 percent should be provided adjoining paved areas. In addition. a barrier device should be provided where embankments are more than six feet in height. Barriers should be located at least three feet from the pavement and no less from two feet from the top of the embankment. It's recommended that the Planning Board consider both the steep slope issue and the relationship between paving limits. shoulders. and - 9 - -- - protected barriers along the top of high embankments. What that talks about is just basically that you have a traffic area there. right behind the curb that starts to drop off at a relatively steep slope. There are certain general rules which they're kind of, it's a question as to how you attach them to an access drive around the back. and there's supposed to be a five foot planted buffer. and it does a number of things. as far as separating it. In looking at that area, there was a concern about. well. what.'s going to happen. or is there a potential problem with that steep slope. MR. CONNORS-Yes. Essentially. the response that we have is. first off. the two and one slope. if properly stabilized with the stone and filter fabric. will not have an erosion problem. As far as the five foot buffer, it's only necessary if you're not providing any type of protection. What we propose to do. which isn't indicated on the plans. we would provide a guide rail along any slope which exceeds one on three. one vertical to three horizontal. That barrier. that guide rail. will actually be placed wi thin the pavement limits. as opposed to on the exteri()r of the pavement limits. to protect any vehicles or anything from going over that embankment. MR. RUEL-Do you have any cut away sections of what we're talking about. any illustrations? MR. CONNORS-Cross sections? No. I do not. MR. RUEL-It would be so simple if you had them" You'd be able to visualize it immediately. HR. YARMOWICH-Could you just put something up for Roger right here. to show him what you have. and what you're talking about? MR. MORGAN-Sure. MR. YARMOWICH-Here you go. You do a curve now right? MR. CONNORS-Yes. MR. YARMOWICH-Just a foot and a half or so. and then it drops off at a three to one slope. or a two to one slope, depending on. the building is out here. MR. RUEL-And this is two to one? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. MR. CONNORS-Lets look at it two scale. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. MR. CONNORS-It makes a big difference. MR. RUEL-And then you're talking about three to one also. right? MR. YARMOWICH-Depending upon. MR. RUEL-The location? MRS. PULVER-I want to ask you. Tom. what's your concern here? Are you concerned about the erosion? Are you concerned about. .up and down the slope. or just cars dropping off? MR. CONNORS-We'll put a guardrail. MRS. PULVER-Well. that's what I mean. The guardrail keeps almost everything except the carts. MR. RUEL-I thought three to one would be steeper. - 10 - -- MR. CONNORS-Yes. Most people do. but it's not. MR. YARMOWICH-No. It's three horizontal to one vertical. MR. RUEL-I see. It's not a three to one ratio then? MR. CONNORS-No. It would be 33 percent slope. MR. RUEL-How many feet is this? MR. CONNORS-We're about 45 feet from here to there. MR. YARMOWICH-Is it that much? So it's real wide. just put the guardrail right in. I think it's consideration. before that slope area is. So you want to worthy of some MR. CONNORS-This curb will put the guardrail face three feet. MR. YARMOWICH-And you just need the curb for wè~ter containment? MR. CONNORS-And the curb is for water containment only. MR. BREWER-So you're going to keep the curb? MR. CONNORS-Yes. pavement edge. This is the face of the curb. This is the MR. YARHOWICH-I think that's a good solution. given that you're going to have adequate room. HR. CONNORS-That's the curb. and here's the subbase material. This is the pavement edge. and from the face of the curb. MR. YARMOWICH-The curb is already there. MR. RUEL-Where's this recommended guardrail? MRS. PULVER-There's the guardrail. right there. MR. RUEL-I see. MR. CONNORS-This is the guardrail. and this would be the face of the guardrail. MR. RUEL-All right. You just had it floating in mid-air. I figured it wouldn't be too effective that way. I like that. MR. CONNORS-So essentially you'd be looking at. placing guiderail from this point right here. down around here. to about here. because this is the only area that we have the two on one slopes. MR. RUEL-And who's using that paved area? MR. CONNORS-This paved area? ..service area. moveability because you'll have a lot of local deliveries here. backing up this way. You'll have the tractor trailers in here. MR. RUEL-But not customers? MR. CONNORS-No. MR. YARMOWICH-What I was thinking of what in terms of. if you park up with your wheels up against that curb and you open the passenger door. and. MR. CONNORS-Well. the two on one. it's not too bad. You can't maintain it with regular. conventional riding mowers. but most people. what happens is. they look at things at an exaggerated scale. like you may have 10 feet horizontal to one foot vertical. and a three on one looks like a two on one. - 11 - -- -- MR. YARMOWICH-Two on one is a relatively steep slope. You can't walk up it. Even three to one. four to one slopes you labor walking up them. just to give you a perspective. It's steep. but it's not something you can't negotiate. One to one becomes very difficult to negotiate. Let me put it to you this way. if you were to step out two feet. and you drop one foot. MRS. PULVER-Yes. Every two feet you go one foot. every three feet you go. HR. YARMOWICH-That would be a slope from the seat of this chair, down to the floor out here. MR. RUEL-Right. and one to one would be like a 45 degree? MR. YARMOWICH-That's right. MR. RUEL-Okay. So that's about 20 some odd degrees. MR. YARMOWICH-Two to one is like 33 degrees. 30 degrees. MRS. PULVER-So. Tom. are you happy with the guardrail? I mean. I'm happy with that. but I want to know. MR. YARMOWICH-I think it affords the protection of someone inadvertently careening off that hill. MRS. PULVER-Okay. We're not going to have customers back there. but right. we could easily have a truck back off. MR. BREWER-Yes. but if a truck goes. the guardrail isn't going to stop a 40 foot tractor trailer. MR. YARMOWICH-By the time they got the last 11 feet of the trailer. by the time you got to the axle. hopefully. they would know. MRS. PULVER-Yes. They'd know they were going down. MR. RUEL-Three foot high guardrail? MR. YARMOWICH-Probably just use standard guiderail sections. MR. RUEL-With blinking red lights at each post:' MR. CONNORS-We may put reflectors on it. MR. YARMOWICH-And where there's three to one slopes. the Board feels it's adequate. regardless of the embankment height? MR. BREWER-Is three to one? MR. CONNORS-The Town Ordinance doesn't require a guardrail on three to one slopes. MRS. PULVER-I think since nothing is going to be done there. the slope isn't going to be a problem. Nothing's going to be done on those slopes. Nobody's going to be walking up and down them. MR. YARMOWICH-Well. you do have that one area where you have the head in parking. along the south side of the store there. That slope right there is eight. nine feet. The south side of the building they have that row of head in parking right adjacent to the building. MR. CONNORS-Yes. It's a 10 foot access adjacent to the building. and 30 feet between the parking stalls. and the pavement edge. MR. YARMOWICH-This pavement. .the height of that slope is 12 feet. 13 feet. - 12 - , ----- MR. CONNORS-But that's 60 feet off the face of the curb. MR. YARMOWICH-From the sidewalk. MR. CONNORS-So from here down. there's no sidewalk. The sidewalk's over here. MR. YARMOWICH-Right. MR. CONNORS-You're talking about these stalls here? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. MR. CONNORS-And this is the section you're say:Lng is. MR. YARMOWICH-Drops off about 12. 13 feet. MR. CONNORS-Yes. 13 feet. but. .so you'll have to drop 13 feet in. MR. YARMOWICH-The thing is traffic backing out into those parking spots. Is there any need for any protection for those particular? MR. CONNORS-The 30 foot drive lanes don't need. MR. YARMOWICH-Well. if they go over the curb. MR. MORGAN-They would have to gas it to get over that curb. MR. YARMOWICH-It happens all the time. I almost put a vehicle through a convenient store one time. with a vehicle. MR. HARLICKER-Driving in reverse. MR. BREWER-How wide is it? MR. CONNORS-Thirty feet. MR. BREWER-The drive lane? MR. CONNORS-Yes. They're 20 foot stalls. 30 feet. and 50 feet. MR. YARMOWICH-Well. there's 30 feet behind the vehicle after it's parked. roughly. Yes. MR. BREWER-That's my opinion. MR. RUEL-I agree. MR. YARMOWICH-I think it's fine. MRS. PULVER-I don't have a problem with it. MR. BREWER-Okay. Four? MR. YARMOWICH-Four. linking of the parking lot to the adjoining area should be considered. If the Planning Board feels this is feasible and desirable. then the site plan to..or should reflect the concepts on the plan. . future paved roadway at the discretion of the Planning Board. That comment comes from a requirement in the Zoning Code on parking regulations. and it's really at the pleasure of the Board whether or not they feel this site is appropriate to be linked with the adjoining light industrial use. and potential uses in the undeveloped sites to the south. MR. BREWER-How big is that parcel there? MR. HORGAN-Twelve acres. I believe. As an applicant. I can say right now that we would not be predisposed to hook in to the Light Industrial area. nor would I think the Town want that to happen. Number Two is it's going to be very difficult to link the parking - 13 - -......,/ lots. when you have ownership of a fee simple title right in between the NiMo easement. MR. HARLICKER-I thought. wasn't there a note on that that says access easement across there or something? MR. CONNORS-We can..a conveyance for the farm use. MR. MORGAN-Exactly. .. .of the property is farmed. so they can go back and for with a tractor. but we are not going to hook into that piece of property. as you obviously know. We have no development plans for that property. nor do we want to be hooked into that property. MR. BREWER-What we have done. in the past. is like. on the. what we've tried to do with other projects like Wal-Mart. hook your parking lots together. Suppose there is another developer that comes in and wants to put something on Claude's property right next door? Rather than have them go out onto the Quaker Road. come back into there. come back out onto Quaker Road. come back into your parking lot. if you tied the parking lots together. it eliminates a lot of in and out. in and out in and out. MRS. PULVER-Well. it internalizes. and I agree with you. We've done that in the past. but the only time that I know that we've done it is when the other property owners were also in favor of it, Dexter. but as those properties stand. if I were one of those property owners. I would object if I found out you were making them link up to my property when I didn't want them to link up to my property. MR. YARMOWICH-Well. that's the Zoning Code. It's up to you. It's in the Code. MRS. PULVER-Well. I would consult with the people. MR. BREWER-What I think we could do is make them have access available if another. the next parcel. MR. MORGAN-But, see. that's part of the problem. We can't link our lot over a fee simple piece of property we don't own. Niagara Mohawk owns it. If someone in the future should subsequently sit in front of this Board on the piece of property to the south. and tþey work something out with Niagara Mohawk. we're paved to the property line. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. BREWER-We have to have your permission to let them come in to your parking lot. MR. MORGAN-That's true. MR. YARMOWICH-What's the status of this piece of property? MR. MORGAN-It's owned by others. MR. CONNORS-That's owned by Charlebois. MR. YARMOWICH-So what you're talking about is if this gets developed. that's going to be one of the points of access? MR. CONNORS-The other one would be down on Warren Street. MRS. PULVER-Unless he could cross NiMo's property. MR. YARMOWICH-And so to go from here to this facility. you have to go back out onto Highland. MR. BREWER-So leave an opening there so it would be available in - 14 - ----" the future. MRS. PULVER-The whole thing really is available. This is all just pavement right here. MR. BREWER-Yes. but Carol. if we just say that it's available. and don't get anything from them. the next guy that comes in says he wants to do it. and then K-Mart says. I don't want you cutting through there. HR. MORGAN-There's a reason for that. That property. if we get site plan approval and develop the project. is owned by us. If there is an accident on that property. it's a question of liability. It's not a question of whether or not we grant them a reserved access easement or not. If Tom's coming in to that property to the south. it's a grocery store. for example. and he has an accident coming through the K-Mart lot. it's our liability. and I don't know that we'd be willing to grant cross easement rights. from a liability standpoint. MR. YARMOWICH-Your liability only extends to the limit of your property. MR. MORGAN-Right. but what we're saying is that we're linking the lots. So if someone. as I think Tim mentioned. does come in our access off Highland or off Quaker. the Board wants to limit the number of cuts onto all the adjacent roadways. MR. YARMOWICH-No. that's not to limit the cuts. because I don't think there's an intent in that Zoning Ordinance to keep access off the highways. The idea is just. if people want to go from one establishment to the other. don't make them go out onto the highways. MR. MORGAN-Regardless of the intent, I don't want to argue what the intent is. The point is it's from a liability standpoint. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. It can be because it's in the Zoning Code. the liability. a condition of use of the site It comes with the use. I mean. MR. MORGAN-But does the Board recognize by making that stipulation they become part of the liability? MR. YARMOWICH-The Town Board has already made that a part of the Zoning Code. MR. MORGAN-Okay. Then that's something you might want to take up with the... MR. CONNORS-.. people wanting to use the store on our site. It's the people that want to avoid going out onto Warren Street and go out onto Highland Street. and will use our site to travel through. So now you're creating additional traffic distribution that we have to taken into take into consideration. or that they have to consider. You're going to have people driving through our parking lot to access Dix Avenue. They're using it for short cuts. MR. YARMOWICH-And that's a tendency will all interconnected parking lots throughout the town. Your case would be no different than other cases that it's in use. I understand that. yes. you have a liability when anyone uses your property. You have to maintain a standard of travelable surface up to the limit of your property. and you have no control over what the guy does past your property. MR. MORGAN-Agreed. MR. YARMOWICH-And there's certainly an issue. and I think it's valid. and I'm not dismissing that. I'm not disagreeing that you do carry that liability with you. You carry that liability with - 15 - ',--- -- you regardless of who's using your property. Even if someone cuts through your parking lot. and never uses your store. you still remain liable for their traffic through your property. HR. MORGAN-I think part of the issue is it almost is null and void. because if that property's developed. okay. and the Board wants to tie in the parking lots. Niagara Mohawk says. we don't want the traffic across our property. What I'm trying to say is you don't have two adjacent land owners. You have a piece of property that's owned. fee simple. by an outside part. and even if the Board should decide tonight. we want to link this parking lot and that parking lot. should it become a development in the future. you can't if the property owner in the middle doesn't want to become part of it. That's one of my points. MR. BREWER-Do they own actual property. or is it just an easement? MR. YARMOWICH-No. It's fee simple. They own the right-of-way. MR. MORGAN-So they would have the right to say to the Board. or to that future development. sorry. but we're not going to link up your parking lots. MR. YARMOWICH-The scenario that you cite is. in fact, a possibility. HR. HORGAN-A possibility. That's all I'm saying. MRS. PULVER-See. my scenario is that we leave it as is. and if Claude Charlebois develops his property. and it's something that's compatible with K-Mart. we then go to K-Mart. because I feel that business is agreeable to having things done so that it works better for the Town. and that K-Mart will say. yes. we will link up. MR. YARHOWICH-In this case. the applicant has already expressed an unwillingness to do that voluntarily. MRS. PULVER-Because of the current situation. HR. YARMOWICH-The liability is notwithstanding whether or not NiHo is going to do anything. This applicant. nor is Claude Charlebois able to influence NiMo. but this Board might be able to. The only reason I brought it up was that there's a time to do it, and you want make them a part of it. now's the time. If you don't feel that the applicant ought to be asked to do that. then don't consider the issue further. MR. MORGAN-Tom. you talked about the plan. with NiMo and the Town often being on the same page. To use an example. as someone contrary to that. the land that QEDC owns. where AMG is going in. they had every intention of extending that sanitary line over to service the property. but one of the stipulations that we had to be subjected to was all that work had to be done on a no bid basis and by an AMG subsidiary. So. it's one thing to say the intentions are often on the same page. or are for the good. but when it comes down to reality. they're not always on the same page. The point being that you say that here's a party that's usually on the same page we are. and willing to do what we want. NiMo could come to the adjacent property owner and say. we'll grant you a reserve access easement for $50.000. So my point is. we're paved to the property line. well. we're paved that you could tie in. I mean. you've got probably 2.000 feet of which you could make a crossing. MR. YARMOWICH-Except where grades would prevent it. It's something that won't interfere with stormwater. too. MR. BREWER-I think that access should be made available. I mean. I'm not asking you to put a road in. but saying. yes. okay. if some further development comes in and it's compatible with ours. we'll tie together. because that's what we've tried to do in the past. - 16 - '--- -- and I think that's what we should continue to do. Across the street. they've got a service road. and that was the. everybody thought that was great when they did that. MR. STARK-Yes. There's nothing over there. They're parking lot is not set up for any more traffic than they've got planned right now. MRS. PULVER-Well, I mean. the point that just was brought up was that. the way the parking and pavement. everything is set up to contain their stormwater, it's part of their stormwater management. and now they'll have to redo that. because certainly any breaking down of the curbing or whatever to let traffic in will change. So now we've got to go through all that again. too. HR. MORGAN-Not only that. if you're K-Mart for a second. and you have a certain number of spaces. because you feel that's what will be used. and just to use an example. a grocery store is put in next to you. and they have holidays and busy times of the year when they have overflow parking. What's to stop that person from parking at the K-Mart lot to go to the grocery store? That's not what the K- Mart lot is there for. It's for K-Mart. You can use any example you want. but the point is. we would have tc:) incur addi tional maintenance cost. We would have to incur the potential risk of liability. and Number Three. we would have to incur the potential of losing our parking spaces to service another development. Now. I'm not.. .that that would be a good idea from a zoning point. MR. YARMOWICH-The likelihood is that your particular retail development would probably get to an overflow condition before an adjoining grocery store would. but that's my opinion. MR. MORGAN-I'm not going to say I disagree with you. but I'm just saying. who can say? MR. YARMOWICH-Your hopes are that the overflow is due to your operation. and not somebody else's. and that would be your hope. MR. MORGAN-Agreed. MR. RUEL-I fail to see any great benefits in either putting roads now or allowing roads to be put in later. It seems to me. based on everything that I've heard tonight. that the liabilities far outweigh the benefits. MR. BREWER-Okay. I can tell that you that today I was up on 149. It took me 15 minutes to go from 149 to the red light at down by the Northway. not by the Municipal Center. the other one. I counted the light. Seven times it changed before I got to that light. Cars coming out of the. if it was internalized. it would eliminate the cars pulling out. going left. right. and you've got to let somebody go. I had to let about 10 cars go ahead of me pulling out of parking lots. MR. RUEL-But that's a little different. MR. BREWER-It isn't any different. MR. RUEL-They're side by side. You don't have that here. MR. BREWER-You don't think. in 10 or 15 years. it's going to be the same way there? I think you've got to look beyond your nose. You've got to look years down the road. MR. RUEL-Even if we don't make it part of this package now. can't it be done later? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. BREWER-They're saying no. You can't make them do it. If you do it right from Day One. then 10 years down the road. you're going - 17 - -- -- to have a road that internalizes all the shopping centers down the road. MR. RUEL-How can you anticipate where the road shall be now? You can't. right? MR. YARMOWICH-It's no different than when this Planning Board goes about setting up a subdivision for the continuation of the street. okay. If there's two adjoining parcels and one is proposed for subdivision. and they want to put a street through. for the future. they'll make them put it right up to the property line. even if it's a paper street. and if and when the ad joining parce 1 gets subdivided. another street gets connected. and this through street gets built. The same concept is the reason for having that provision in the zoning code. as it relates to commercial parking lots and interconnection. You're talking about private property ownership. and the differences in who is liable and who maintains. and the standard of maintenance. I agree. Those are all appropriate issues. and I think the Board ought to look at those and decide what they want you to do. MR. MORGAN-What happens if arbitrarily set the curb cut? move. . NiMo doesn't accept where you They say. you know. we'd like to MR. HARLICKER-It.. stand in the way of this possibility in the future. MR. YARMOWICH-It's as simple as showing a dashed line as to where you would elect to have the road. based on this site plan. that you feel is feasible with your drainage and your grading. It makes sense what would work with the other property. to the best of your knowledge. It's a crystal ball thing. I'm not going to say it isn't. It's definitely a crystal ball thing to try to do it. but it is done. and it's done in the context of subdivision, and it's also done in the context of commercial development in the Town of Queensbury. Whether or not the Board wants it is up to them. MR. RUEL-Question. now. if a road was put in. would you. in fact. have to re-engineer or somewhat redesign anything that you have now for the parking lot. since the parking lot was designed without a road? MR. CONNORS-It would be our contention. at all. that we would only show the access, and not design it. MR. BREWER-That would be fine. just leave the option available. MR. YARMOWICH-It wouldn't make sense to design it. because you'd have to work with the adjoiner at some point to make.. MR. CONNORS-Your point of connection that you would like to see here would directly go through an existing Niagara Mohawk fall line. I know that they're not... So. if you wanted us to connect that at section. right now. I would tell you that that would be a significant change. and would significantly effect this project. as far as the parking configuration and so on. It would be a significant change. MR. BREWER-Is there no place to do it. Tom? MR. YARMOWICH-Looking at the grading. there is relatively little grade change from. MR. BREWER-It doesn't have to be a 50 foot wide road. be. what? It has to MR. CONNORS-The zone indicates 20 foot wide. MR. YARMOWICH-From here on back. they're pretty much blending very - 18 - - - closely with eXisting grade. but there's a pole here. and there's a pole here. and there's a pole here. MR. CONNORS-Tom. look at the grades going across Niagara Mohawk's property. What do we have. in grade change. coming across that? MR. YARMOWICH-What's the zone over here. now? MR. CONNORS-Plaza Commercial. MRS. PULVER-Plaza Commercial. and the rest is Light Industrial. HR. YARMOWICH-And this is Light Industrial. and this is Light Industrial. MR. MORGAN-What's not to say that those people won't use that drive for the Light Industrial? MR. HARLICKER-You think that Light Industrial is going to stay Light Industrial. once this is built? MRS. PULVER-Your Planning Board was not unanimously in favor of this zone. So what makes you think that the rest. if the Planning Board philosophy stays the same. that it won't stay the same? MR. YARMOWICH-I don't know whether or not. this is a good point. MR. STARK-Why don't we put it to a vote? I don't think it's a problem. I don't think that we ought to make them link up. Now. we could talk about this from now until next week. Lets take a vote on it and see. I don't think ought to do it. HRS. TARANA-I definitely do. I think it's one of the major problems in this Town right now. MR. RUEL-Should not do it. MRS. PULVER-Should not do it, should not be made to do it. MRS. TARANA-I'm not saying they will be made to do it. think..the possibility of... I just MRS. PULVER-But even in the future. to say they'd have to tie in. they'd still have to rework their stormwater management and everything. just to make that tie in. MR. YARMOWICH-No. negatively. The stormwater I don't feel would be too MR. CONNORS-Eight percent at the minimum. and that would come in to an eight percent with a one percent grade break at the curb line. MR. YARMOWICH-You have the stop sign there. right? Something like that anyway. MR. CONNORS-I don't know what they have. MR. YARMOWICH-No. YOU would. HR. CONNORS-We wouldn't have anything. If anything. we're just allowing the interconnection. Whatever improvements that would be necessary for that intersection. MR. YARMOWICH-You've got a stop sign here. right? MR. CONNORS-That's a three way. It's a three way stop sign. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. So coming in this way. you'd have a stop sign coming this way. - 19 - '- ~ MR. CONNORS-You'd have at least eight percent. and that's minimal clearance with those lines. So that whoever the adjoining property owne r would be. I mean. we already surveyed that. those 1 ines. because of our sewer crossing. MR. YARMOWICH-These lines. over in this area? MR. CONNORS-Yes. feet. Overhead clearance...low line. It's like 17 MR. MORGAN-I think the thing to do is let the Board talk about it. We'll move on to other issues. The bottom line is that. as an applicant. we will not accept that. I will not incur the liability. nor would K-Mart. with a net worth of $3 billion. for someone to be in an accident on that property. Now. it's not my place to make a decision. Tim. MR. BREWER-Go ahead. MR. MORGAN-The conversation, we're just generating the different points. It's for the Planning Board to decide. not for me. but as an applicant. we will not accept linking in and opening up ourselves. as the developer. and K-Mart. as our client. who will have to self-insure that property. for fire. property. and casualty. for that kind of liability with a net worth of billions of dollars. We won't do it. MR. BREWER-..two on Dix Avenue. one on Quaker Road. and one on Haviland. and you're saying it's going to be more liability? HR. YARMOWICH-I'm just pointing out. and I agree. Jim. you brought up another point. The height of the wires is a significant factor in its feasibility. MR. CONNORS-And very well so. because we'd be filling across that area. So you would effectively reduce the overall clearance on those lines. MR. YARMOWICH-And I don't think there's an opportunity to cut the grade on the K-Mart parking lot because of the wetland plan. MR. CONNORS-Because of the wetlands. because of the financial. MR. YARMOWICH-I'm not saying I've evaluated all the feasibility. That was your job. MR. CONNORS-I think that's what we're doing now. So we're saying that it's almost physically impossible without significant expense for either property owner. to make that connection in the future. MR. YARMOWICH-..a compared to this characterization. whole new road in. a overall development. significant expense, That's not a fair MR. CONNORS-Tom. what are the costs associated with relocating tension lines. Niagara Mohawk lines. MR. YARMOWICH-I wouldn't suggest that that (TAPE TURNED) MRS. PULVER-So why would we ever want people running under and back and forth all these telephone poles and high tension lines anyway with their vehicles? MR. YARMOWICH-It happens all the time in the Town. MR. CONNORS-They're doing it now. MRS. PULVER-No. but what I'm talking about is this whole. if it's like what I'm seeing. I mean. people ride up and down the power lines with three wheelers and all that. and I can't think of a - 20 - ----- whole strip anywhere. but what I consider the woods. wherever the woods is, like there's some on Luzerne Road. You can look down and see a whole strip. but there's really. nobody's crossing underneath those lines to do anything where it would be this type of situation. HR. YARMOWICH-Right up there. Rt. 9 and Glen Street. between the Grand Union and that Quick Lube shop. wires going over head. They run right down along the..right over the bank. across from. There's nine the side of MRS. PULVER-Isn't that blocked off? MR. YARMOWICH-No. It goes right over Route 9. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. YARMOWICH-You're right. Those areas are often used by people who use them as an access corridor for places where they wouldn't ordinarily get to go. whether it's walking. four wheeling. taking their dogs out to relieve themselves or whatever. They do get a lot of use out like that. and NiMo, to this date. has been pretty relaxed about those uses. I think that the wires hang low is a significant factor. and I don't think you can expect NiMo to move these to accommodate two retail developments. It may be feasible on a grade and alignment standpoint. but you've got vertical problems. MRS. PULVER-I was going to say. just because it's been done doesn't mean that we should continue to do it. Sure. if it's there. a Quick Lube or whatever is there. but it doesn't mean that we should continue to have people riding under these. MR. STARK-Well. you're not happy with this. though. right? So. if you're not happy with this. if we make them do this. they're going to withdraw from the project. Is that what we want? MR. BREWER-Think about what you just said. very. I don't think that's MR. MORGAN-I wouldn't be so sure. One K-Mart. Now think about this. They have 1600 K-Marts in the United States. Now if we have to go up to Bay and Quaker. where you're talking about a net worth of billions of dollars. it may happen. I'm not here to get into an argument. but it's a question of the Planning Bc)ard. not mine. and we're just going to argue. So I'll let the Board decide amongst themselves. It's not for us to decide. MRS. PULVER-I think. Corinne. this is one thing and either Corinne finds she can live with it. or the rest of us find we can live with what she wants. and then you go on with it. MRS. TARANA-AIl I'm saying to you is don't close the door, when you have the one opportunity to perhaps get them. not "them". I don't mean "them". I mean. the universal developments here. to get the businesses connected. because it's a major problem in this Town. If it had been done years ago. we wouldn't see some of the things we're seeing now. which probably will never be able to be corrected. and when you go back to someone like Dexter. who swore up and down they were going to make all these improvements. they haven't done one thing. not one thing. MR. STARK-They haven't started construction yet. MRS. PULVER-They haven't started their project. HRS. TARANA-Well. I'm not at question if you will ever see they've got their building. liberty to say. but lets say I those improvements. because once - 21 - ---' MR. BREWER-They can't build their building without their improvements, Corinne. MRS. PULVER-They don't have a bUilding permit yet. MRS. TARANA-All I'm saying is. keep the door open. MR. MORGAN-Do you know what the difference is? I think maybe the difference from the example that you used on us tonight. I'm trying to be very honest with you. I'm not going to sit here and look you in the eye and say. you know what. that's fine. just to move this progress along. I'm trying to be honest in saying. I don't think we will do that. MRS. TARANA-I realize that. I don't know that it can't be done. MR. MORGAN-But it sounds like some people promised the sun and the moon. to move the process along. MRS. TARANA-I know you're not doing that. MR. MORGAN-Okay. MRS. PULVER-All right. Well. assuming that the applicant going to do this, Corinne. and there is three of us. and I know how Tim stands. that says. we're not in favor of that. you live with that for the rest of the project? is not don't Could MRS. TARANA-I.. .looking at the whole project. This is one little tiny thing. MR. MORGAN-It is. and that's why I don't want to make a big issue. MRS. TARANA-If you're trying to get a commitment out of me tonight. you're not getting it. MRS. PULVER-No. I'm not trying to get a commitment. I'm trying to move this along. MR. BREWER-I think that issue's done. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Next. MR. YARMOWICH-I guess in terms of Item Number Five. the first thing is ask Jim if he's had a chance to look into this stuff. I don't know that we want to discuss this in this workshop. MR. CONNORS-No. HR. YARHOWICH-Some of them are like. fix this. and change this. and maybe you've got to look at that. Can I rely on some kind of response from you, on what you're going to do ~Iith all that? MR. HARLICKER-By Wednesday. MR. YARMOWICH-And I guess the up shot of this is that the Board should know that I've fully considered your responses about the infiltration issue. and have decided that it appears in the best interest of this project and other regulatory agency jurisdictions to allow them. or to accept the stormwater management concept as proposed. which is a detention system without infiltration. After having made that determination. I took a hard look at what the stormwater management system has shown, as far as how all the pieces of the puzzle fit together. You mayor may not understand what these pieces are all about. I don't think that there's something that's significant here. I can't think of anything that's significant here. except for perhaps. well. I'm kind of reluctant to get into any of this. - 22 - - -- MR. CONNORS-Really. I think a lot of those are things that we can resolve between ourselves. It's really methodology. and applications of the stormwater management practices. MR. YARMOWICH-I guess since we're in this forum. let me just tell the Board this. because it may effect future development. and hopefully if you remember what happened in this process. because I don't think it's anything that this applicant is responsible for. and I don't want to attach it to anything. Brayton Avenue. down the road. coming off of Warren Street. it's got two 24 inch culverts under it, and right now. the analysis that's been presented shows that they're going to flood. and flood significantly. at relatively minor events. MR. CONNORS-The two 24's? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. MR. CONNORS-We didn't analyze that. MR. YARMOWICH-I know. That's why it shows. well. down stream from that. because all that's tributary. hasn't even been included. MR. CONNORS-Correct. MR. YARMOWICH-And the 36 inch. and it's not anything this applicant has any bearing on. because they're not increasing the flow to it. but if and when development occurs on that section of Warren Street. around Brayton Avenue. MR. CONNORS-And Earltown. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. because that's where it's all coming from. MR. CONNORS-Almost that entire swamp drains down through. MR. YARMOWICH-It's nothing this applicant's done. but their analysis has been broad enough to identify it as something that's going to have to be dealt wi th. It can't be attached to this project. So you should know that. it's not this project. but some downstream areas from it have some problems. and I think the rest of this stuff I'd like to allow Jim Connors to look into and hopefully give me some input on some of it. MR. HARLICKER-Maybe you could just highlight. what's their management plan? Are they going to store the water in? MR. YARMOWICH-In detention basins. using control outlets to simulate peak rate controls. and the analysis. as it's currently assembled. shows that they won't increase any maximum flow rates. MR. RUEL-And where are these basins? MR. YARMOWICH-It' s actually several drainage basins. Jim could show you. There's two areas on site that will be used for an active stormwater management. MR. CONNORS-Here's one. and over there's the second one. and then there's some other things in here that are just sediment control. MR. RUEL-And a controlled overflow? MR. CONNORS-A controlled overflow. which would restrict the discharge from the site. It's essentially just a culvert. a fixed culvert. 12 inch culvert. which restricts the flow appropriately for the watershed. and the quantity of the quantity of flow that comes off the site. MR. RUEL-Do both of these basins eventually flow into the same area? - 23 - '- MR. CONNORS-Yes. They all flow into the Feeder Canal. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. CONNORS-Each basin flows into a different culvert down on Warren Street. but they all meet on the opposite side. on the southern side of Warren Street and get into the Feeder Canal. There is one other concern that the Town may want to be aware of. and the County's made aware of. is that currently all the stormwater that flows from the north across Quaker and picks Dix. all go along an existing ditch that's out here on Quaker Road. It goes down around the corner to Highland. From a review of the County plans. the original intent was that line. straight across. MR. RUEL-Straight ahead. yes. HR. CONNORS-And that may be attributing to some of the flooding that I s occurring down on Highland Street. I know a number of residents and business owners have indicated there's problems down at the intersection of Warren Street and Highland. We are continuing that intent. not to say that we're making conditions worse. We're actually improving the conditions. MR. YARMOWICH-Your model doesn't rely on that change back to the original intent. MR. CONNORS-Correct. MR. YARMOWICH-Your model relies on the way it is. and you don't intend. MR. CONNORS-And we're not intending to make that correction. That's a responsibility of the County. MR. YARMOWICH-That'll happen with the Quaker Road reconstruction? MR. CONNORS-Yes. it would. at the direction of the County. There'll be designing all the reconstruction. MR. RUEL-Do you have any feel at all for any increased amount of runoff water due to the construction over the present site? MR. CONNORS-It's less than 10 percent. MR. RUEL-Less than 10? MR. CONNORS-About nine and a half percent total. MR. RUEL-So catch basins are really not overloaded. MR. YARMOWICH-What happens condition rise and subside and then subside a little duration of the peak. You is that rather than have the peak flow as it does now. it'll rise. stay high. bit later. Usually you increase the don't increase the. MR. RUEL-Stretch it out. Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-It drains down to the Feeder Canal over a longer period of time. at a high flow rate. MR. HARLICKER-So it's not going to increase the amount of water going to the Feeder Canal. MR. YARMOWICH-It's going to increase the volume. but not the rate. MR. CONNORS-It won't be surcharging. MR. YARMOWICH-Hore water will make it there. but it won't increase the rates of flow or aggravate any existing problems. The reality of the situation is that once you get past the 10 year storm. - 24 - "- analysis shows that most of the culverts in Warren Street are going to over top. MR. HARLICKER-The..percent increase in water going to the Canal. what effect is that going to have on polluting the Canal with stuff washing off the parking lot? MR. YARMOWICH-Well. the water quality effects should be mitigated by their on site. Now that doesn't say that the question. that there is a relationship there. because if there are pollutants in the waterway. there's a potential that they could be released by longer duration peak flows. Those are all very difficult things to predict and say what the actual magnitude is. MR. CONNORS-When you consider that the volume that falls on a site does not change. it doesn't care what exists on the site. The same volume of water is ultimately getting to the Feeder Canal. It's the time that it gets there. . .through groundwater. It'll get there through surface runoff. a combination. and to address your concerns regarding the quality of the water. we're implementing sedimentations within the catch basins. We're putting catch basin hoods on each individual catch basin to pullout any potential petroleum contamination that may exist. The wetland itself will serve as a mitigation factor. That's only a secondary benefit of that. We're installing bile filters or sediment traps prior to the wetlands, so that any pollutants. sediments will be removed. so the quality of the water will be enhanced significantly. MR. RUEL-What do you do with the sediments that you remove? MR. HARLICKER-There's a cleaning procedure that you go through. MR. YARMOWICH-You take those..trucks. on occasion. and clean out the catch basins from time to time. MR. CONNORS-There'll be people that will. part of the wetland mitigation. there's a significant mitigation. MR. RUEL-Do you have any data at all on hundred year flood. or isn't that relevant? MR. CONNORS-Do we have any data? MR. YARMOWICH-It's not relevant. MR. CONNORS-This is not relevant. MR. YARMOWICH-One thing. you asked the question. how much water is going to be generated, and I agree. Jim said that there would be about a 10 percent increase in total volume in this water shed. That's true. and that's how it effects the water shed today. but on a site specific basis. this 28 acres, I believe. increases in the order of about 40 percent for your site. So even though it's a substantial increase for the site, the mechanisms are there to control water quality as well as flow rate. So. what that would mean. if ever parcel in this water shed were to develop to this intensity. you could still maintain those peak flow rates. but you certainly would have significantly added volumes. Whether or not there's any downstream negative impacts. I don't think there's enough evidence to say. yes. there would be. If everybody implemented stormwater management like this. the water shed could handle it, because the outlet is the Feeder Canal. which doesn't have the capacity problems. MR. RUEL-What is the proximity of their site to the Mississippi? MR. YARMOWICH-I don't know. influx of. I don't think we could handle the MR. CONNORS-I think this'll benefit the water quality of the Hudson - 25 - - ---- River. MR. BREWER-One last thought from me. When AMG gets built, how many people are going to be traipsing through the woods to go to the K- Mart? MR. CONNORS-F irst off. the detention facility will be fenced in entire I y. so more than hal f of it wi II be fenced along the perimeter. The rest of it would also be the two on one slope. MR. MORGAN-Tim. did AHG have to do a traffic study? HR. YARMOWICH-They have limited traffic flow. They only have 18 employees. 18 office people. MR. CONNORS-So essentially your July 20th letter is null and void. and that's the infiltration issue. MR. YARMOWICH-Right. What I thought that this letter was. it kind of represents all the outstanding issues. if we need to go back over any of the old stuff. I think I pretty much put it all in here. MR. MORGAN-Can you just respond to me on Question SA.? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. What I understand it. One. you're going to do something to give us a defined landscape clearing limit on the landscape plan. or otherwise? MR. MORGAN-Yes. MR. YARMOWICH-Three. you're going to deal with the guiderail along the two on one slope area. Items Two and Four don't require any action at this time. based on the Board's preferences. Five, you'll deal with directly with me. and Six will be forthcoming. MR. MORGAN-Okay. MR. BREWER-Anything from anybody else? MR. STARK-Did you go in front of Warren County? MR. MORGAN-For a site plan? MR. STARK-Yes. MR. MORGAN-For zoning. yes. not for site plan. MR. STARK-When will you appear in front of them? MR. MORGAN-Jim will send all the materials by the 11th of August for a meeting on the 18th. which I believe is a Wednesday night. They have a one week submittal deadline. So the materials that you receive by the 28th of this week. Jim has until the 11th of August to send it on to them. and then we'll meet with them. MR. STARK-When is our meeting in August? MR. MORGAN-The 17th, I believe. MR. BREWER-So. how can we meet. Warren County meets when? MR. MORGAN-I believe it's the 18th. MR. BREWER-How can we meet before Warren County? meet. but I mean. We can still MR. YARMOWICH-You can't approve it. MR. MORGAN-What Jim had said there might be the possibility of a - 26 - --- ...~. special meeting in August. MRS. PULVER-Why can't we have them meet on the regular. our last meeting of the month of August? MR. BREWER-Next month when they make the agenda, Carol, that's probably what's going to happen. MRS. PULVER-Because the 17th, if Warren County meets on the 17th, they ought to be able to be on the last meeting of the month, rather than having a special meeting. and I can't see where we're going to have too many things to discuss. public hearing. MR. BREWER-Well. we will have a public hearing. MR. HARLICKER-And go through the SEQRA. MRS. PULVER-You can open the public hearing. MR. CONNORS-Actually. you may want the 17th meeting to be an early meeting to discuss the traffic. That may be one issue that's still outstanding. MRS. PULVER-All right. We could do that. discuss the traffic. MR. BREWER-Well. if you get the traffic study Wednesday. when do you think we would have comments? MR. YARMOWICH-Wednesday. I could have it done the week following. That's plenty of time before your meeting. MR. MORGAN-We'd be happy to come back whenever. MRS. PULVER-Warren County meets on the 18th. So you could be on our 17th meeting. but we would only discuss the traffic. Eighteenth. Warren County meets. Then the 24th is our regular meeting. MR. BREWER-Yes. but why would we want to bring the traffic stuff to our regular meeting? MR. BREWER-Have a workshop to go over the traffic. MR. MORGAN-Before the 17th. MR. BREWER-No. before the 24th. MRS. PULVER-Before the 24th. MR. CONNORS-Well. we would like to be able to get. if you do have comments and we need to revise. MR. BREWER-If we had a workshop before the 24th, then you could have them done at the 24th. Potentially. it may be done right here. So. if we had a meeting, Tom's going to have it. MR. MORGAN-Tom will have his on the 4th. MR. BREWER-The fourth. So he'll need at least until the 11th. MR. MORGAN-No. He'll have it this. he's going to get it here. MR. BREWER-All right. So he'll be done by the fourth. MR. MORGAN-And he'll be done by August 4th. MR. BREWER-So how does the 10th look for everybody? MR. STARK-That's to discuss the traffic? - 27 - ~-.;, '- MR. BREWER-The would have his would have this 10th. So we'd comments. traffic. Then we'd have Tom's comments the, we comments. he would be done by the fourth. so we comments probably Thursday. Friday. through to the have five days to look at them ourselves. Tom's MR. YARMOWICH-That Tuesday's bad for me. if you want me to be there at that meeting. MR. BREWER-How about Wednesday? MR. MORGAN-How about Thursday? MR. BREWER-The 12th? All right. Roger? We have site visits the 11th. Is the 12th all right with you. MR. STARK-What time. seven o'clock? MR. BREWER-Seven o'clock right here. Okay. Is there anything else from anybody? I'll make a motion to adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Timothy Brewer. Chairman - 28 -