Loading...
1996-05-07 SP ..- QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING MAY 7, 1996 INDEX Site Plan No. 18-94 Connie & William Gebo 1. P.U.D. No. 1-96 Indian Ridge 2. 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. (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MAY 7TH, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY TIMOTHY BREWER GEORGE STARK ROGER RUEL MEMBERS ABSENT CRAIG MACEWAN PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON STENOGRAPHER --MAR I A GAGL I ARD I OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 18-94 CONNIE & WILLIAM GEBO OWNERS: SAME ZONE: SR-IA LOCATION: BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANTS HAVE RECEIVED S[TE PLAN APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A DUPLEX. APPLICANTS REQUEST A TWO YEAR EXTENSION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL ORIGINALLY GRANTED ON 5/19/94 AND EXTENDED TO 5/18/96. TAX MAP NO. 138-}-}5 LOT SIZE: 85' X 100' MR. PALING-Okay. Is there anyone here representing the applicant? Okay. How does the Board feel about this? MR. RUEL-Any reason given for the extension? MR. PALING-George, can you help us? MR. HILTON-I have this handout that you should have in front of you. The only thing that it says is, due to financial circumstances, the applicant would like to ask for a two year extension for Site Plan No. 18-94, which was originally approved on May 19, 1994. MR. RUEL-And they want it extended until, what, May 18, 1998? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. BREWER-I would go with a year, like we always do. MR. PALING-I question a year. How long can we leave an approval out there where conditions change, neighborhoods change, and that would be three years, it's four years the other way. It's not an expensive process to re-submit, if the prints aren't changed. MR. BREWER-I don't see a reason to make them go through that, Bob. It was just a single family house, wasn't it? MRS. LABOMBARD-I agree. MR. PALING-It's a duplex. MR. STARK-'Bob, I would kind of agree with Tim on that. MRS. LABOMBARD-Me, too. I would agree. MR. PALING-Make it a year instead? MR. RUEL-I would make it a year. -, 1 - (Queens bury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) MR. PALING-All right. Why don't we have a motion to that effect, then. MOTION TO GRANT AN EXTENSION TO SITE PLAN NO. 18-94 CONNIE &. WILLIAM GEBO, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: For one year, to 5/31/97. Duly adopted this 7th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan NEW BUSINESS: P.U.D. 1--96 SKETCH PLAN TYPE I INDIAN RIDGE APPLICANT: MICHAEL J. VASILIOU, INC. OWNER: THOMAS J. FARONE &. SON, INC. J. BUCKLEY BRYAN, JR. LOCATION: FARR LANE REZONING AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON 140 ACRE SITE - 111 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS; 9 DUPLEX LOTS (18 UNITS); 1 - 7.1 ACRE LOT FOR SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING, 1 - 1 ACRE LOT FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE USE; 1 - 52.76 ACRE LOT FOR LAND CONSERVATION; AND 1 - 8.79 ACRE LOT FOR TOWN PARK USE. PER SECTION 179-57 C(1) THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL REVIEW THE SKETCH PLAN AND ITS RELATED DOCUMENTS AND SHALL RENDER EITHER A FAVORABLE OR UNFAVORABLE REPORT TO THE TOWN BOARD. §179-57 C(3) A FAVORABLE REPORT SHALL INCLUDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD THAT A PUBLIC HEARING BE HELD FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING PUD DISTRICTING. §179-57 C(4) THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL CERTIFY TO THE TOWN BOARD AND THE APPLICANT WHEN ALL OF THE NECESSARY APPLICATION MATERIAL HAS BEEN PRESENTED, AND THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL SUBMIT ITS REPORT WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS OF SUCH CERTIFICATION. §179-57 C(5) MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. Lets just go over the background of this situation. In the previous meeting, a reconm1endation was passed on to the Town Board to re-zone this property from RR-3 to SR-15, Suburban Residential 15,000 square feet. Now the purpose of tonight's meeting is twofold. First, it is that we should certify to the Town Board that all the necessary, basic, material has been presented by the applicant. Second, we have to make a reconm1endation in regard to whether or not this property should be made a P.ll.D., and the Planning Board must report to the Town Board within 60 days of the certification of this material. Now tonight, this is a public meeting, although not a public hearing, but we will accept any public comment that anyone wishes to make. We hope you will keep it br i ef, for the purposes of thi s meeti ng, because your real audience will be the Town Board, when they have a public hearing in conjunction with SEQRA. The Planning Board will not do SEQRA, but the Town Board wi.ll. Tonight, the order I'd like to follow would be to have Staff corrunents first. We may want to categorize them, if we want to separate the subject material, or you can do them all at once. We'll have to see, and then hear from the applicant. There wi.ll be no SEQRA, and then open it up for public corrunent, but again, please, if you're going to make comment, make your real detailed comment to the Town Board when they meet on this and do the SEQRA. SO with that in mind, if there's no question, we'll ask George to corrunent, please. MR. HILTON-Okay. Thank you, Bob. Right now, basically, Staff's point of view is that we're looking at Section 179-57C of the Zoning Ordinance. That is a checklist, so to speak, criteria that the Planning Board looks at and reviews P.U.D's under. When each -- 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) criteria is met, then it goes on to the Town Board for referral. So I think that, from a Staff's point of view, if we structure the meeting so that we try to make sure that all the requirements of 179-57C are met, and then from there we can send it on to the Town Board where the real review will be. My only comments, we have a lot of information that has been submitted from the re-zoning, and up until today's date. Really what I can add to it is that the applicant needs to indicate whether or not the project will be phased. If the project will be phased, the applicant needs to indicate when and in what areas of the site phasing will occur. Information needs to be submitted about how the open space in the project will be owned and maintained. Also, the requirements of Section 179-57C,I,C have to be addressed during the review of this item, as I've said previously. The overall residential densities have to be indicated as a requirement of this section of the Zoning Ordinance, and again, I just want to stress that at this point we're reviewing it under this Section of the Ordinance. The real review will come before the public hearing at the Town Board. MR. PALING-Okay, and there were quite a few, I think, unanswered questions from the last meeting that we had on this. So would the applicant please come up. I think the best way to do it is to turn it over to you fellows and let you go ahead and tell us where we're going and answer, perhaps, some of the questions Staff has raised off a previous meeting. MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Basically, let me state for the record, I'm Michael O'Connor, from the firm of Little & O'Connor, who are here representing the applicant. With me at the table is Matt Jones, who is an attorney also involved with the project, to address questions by the Board, if you have any specific questions. We have Matt Steves, from VanDusen and Steves, the surveyors for the project, Jim Miller, from Miller Associates, Landscape Architect who's doing some of the planning for us, for the project, Tom Nace, from Haanen Engineering, who is doing the groundwater study and also will do the drainage plans, She.l1y Johnston, from Transportation Concepts who did the traffic studies for us that are part of your packet. I think we probably have everybody here except for the people that actually did the groundwater test wells that we had put in, which are included in the packet, and also Hardig Engineers, or Hardig Archaeologists who did the Archeological study, which has been signed off by the State. So we didn't think it was necessary to bring them. We haven't had any question on that aspect of what we're proposing. I think you are correcting in stating that the purpose of tonight's meeting isn't for you to approve the project in detail. It is for you to report back to the Town Board whether or not our application is complete, and whether or not this project qualifies for their designation, if they wish to exercise their discretion of designating it a P.U.D. project. We have submitted to the Town Board a request for re- zoning for the property, and we have also requested that the property be considered as a P.U.D., and that's what brings us here. For the purpose of your record, why don't we have Jim Miller give you an overview of the project, and then we'll give you specific answers to the few questions that Staff has raised, if that's the way you want to proceed. MR. PALING-Fine. JIM MILLER MR. MILLER-Good evening. My name is Jim Miller, Landscape Architect. The site, as you may recall, is located over on Aviation Road, adjacent to the High School, the Northway, Aviation Road. The site is accessed by Farr Lane and Fox Farm Road. It's 140 acres. The existing property, and as you'll remember when we 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) came in, the archeological study was complete. There were some sites found along the edge of the bluff that traverses across the property, which are these circles here, which we had to avoid in the design of the project. We also had three separate soils investigations done, because the soils in the area was a concern, and since our last meetings with the Town Board, additional concern was voiced by the neighbors that proximity to this wetland was at the blue line, and the sandy soils, the site would tend to infiltrate, reach the wetlands, but since our last meeting with the Town Board, three test wells were advanced on the site, one near the existing house, one next to the Solomon Heights, senior citizens property, and another near the High School. These were done by Fred Dente, Soils Engineer, and these wells were extended 60 feet, 57.7, and 52 feet to groundwater, and what was discovered was that the wetland elevation is 428.3. This well, groundwater was at 427.6. So it was actually about seven inches below that wetland, and back here, groundwater was at elevation 420.3. So there was an eight foot change from the elevation of the wetland to this well, as well as this well. So the conclusion the Soils Engineer has made is that that groundwater is actually flowing to the west. It's not flowing into the wetland, and that report has been submitted to answer that question. The site, as you can see, is predominantly flat, with a ridge that runs across it, and the wetland. The proposed subdivision is to use Farr Lane as the major access and essentially create a loop through the site. Fox Farm Road, because of the concerns of traffic and the adjoining developments will be a secondary connection to provide us our second means of egress, and we've discussed that this road could be one way in only to avoid having any traffic exiting from our project across Fox Farm Road, other than emergency vehicles. The green colors, the 1 ight and the dark green represents the 111 single family lots. The smallest lot size has been increased to four tenths of an acre, which is the light green. The light green lots represent four tenths of an acre, up to a half acre. The dark green is a minimum of a half acre in size, and what we've tried to do, in the areas adjoining the existing developed areas, and the environmentally sensitive area, to have all larger lot with more frontage in those particular areas. We have one, one acre community service lot, which is located near the front entrance. The purpose of this is to be a clinic or a day care center or some type of a use that will serve the development as well as the senior citizens complex, and other neighbors in the area. It's not meant to be a commercial development, but more a support to support this particular project. The number of duplex lots was reduced down from 18 to 9. They now, as you see here, are in yellow, also adjacent to the senior citizens housing and the community service area, and then the Solomon Heights project that's here now, is existing 41 unit senior citizen apartment complex, an additional 7.1 acres will be added to that for an expansion of 61 apartments to the existing development that's here, and right now it looks like the National Church Residence will be the developer and owner of the existing apartments there now. All of the land from the top of the bank, we have a minimum setback from the top of the bank of 15 feet. In many places, it exceeds that. It's 30 and 40 feet. All the 1 and f I' om the b a c k 0 f the pro pert y 1 i n e , i n c 1 u din g the wetland, the bank, and some uplands on the other side of the wetlands will be conservation land, and one of the questions that George had was, is it our intent that that would be dedicated to the Town. The reason for the clearing, the setback from the top, is to possibly allow some bike trail connection or something at some point along the top of the bank and also to keep the developnlent back. There'll be access points from the roadway out to that green space. In addition to that, a linear park through the center of the development of 8.79 acres would also be dedicated to the Town, and it was the intent that this would be more of a trail connection or could serve as an area for some playgrounds or preserved as forever green through the middle of the development. It's designed in a linear fashion to allow trail connection through - 4 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) the center of the development out to the wetlands area, and also out to the High School property, and also a trail access that would come ou t to the High Schoo 1 . Th is takes you out beh i nd the baseball field, which is right in this corner. In addition, one of the concerns in working with the Planning Staff was clearing and preservation of trees. So in addition to the park land and the conservation area, we've also designed into the project an additional 4.1 acres, that's these areas in dark green that you see here, of deed restricted clearing area, and the intent, here, is to maintain some of the woods that are on the site against the back of lots and against adjoining neighbors, to try to maintain some woods and some separation throughout the project. We developed some typical lot plans. Actually, there's two different sized lots. The minimum lot would have 100 foot frontage, and has a minimum size of four tenths of an acre. This particular lot here is .41 acres. The septic systems will be located in the front yard, which will give us an increased setback of a minimum of 50 feet, and you can see even with the minimum sized lots, we still have area for side access to the garages. This other typical lot is actually Lot 79. That's one of the larger lots which occurs along the top of the bank, and you can see, here's a Town road. The rear property Line is back here. We have 36 feet to the top of the bank, and then an additional 70 feet actually down to the wetland. Again, all the septic systems have been placed in the front yard, increasing the setback from the wetland as much as possible. All the area of the bank wilL be the preservation area. In addition along the back of the property line, we're putting an increased area of 40 feet, which is a no build area, so that sheds and things like that, because these lots would range from about 175 to 200 feet deep that would be part of the rear yard, but to have some deed restrictions as to how far back on the lot it can be developed, knowing that there may be a trail here and the area of preservation in the back. Since there was a concern about the setback to the wetland, this is a scaled drawing of that typical lot that you saw. This would be looking at that side access garage. This line is the Town right-of-way here, so here's a road. We have about 50 foot setback in front of the house the house with the septic system in the front, and you can see from the septic s y stem, i n fa c t , t his wet 1 and are a , we h a v e 245 I bel i eve the setback is. The requirement is 100. Also, we have, from the wetland boundary to the top of the bank, we have 152 feet, another 40 feet to the rear property line, and another 40 feet proposed building area. So there's a lot of concern about encroaching development onto that wetland, as you can see from this section, and this is pretty representative of the height and the character of the woods there. You can see from this section that there's substantial separation there, not only for drainage, but visibility, and one of the other questions has dealt with runoff from the site and the road in each site is going to be graded away, and the road will be cut down to provide a pitch from the curve line up to the house. So the front yard will tend to sheet toward the street. It'll be a standard Town road with the wing swales and drainage in the road, similar to what we've done over at Hudson Pointe. There'l1 be catch basins and drywells, combination of drywells located in the road so all runoff along the roads will be collected and infiltrated. In addition, drainage from each site, from the lawn areas, will be pitched around the sides toward the front, trying to minimize any runoff that may occur toward the back, and that will be fairly consistent throughout the project, because the grades are relatively flat and sandy, that it'll be easy to achieve those slopes. Another comment that George had dealt with phasing of the project. We have a phasing drawing, which I believe we submitted. If we hadn't, we will resubmit, and you're looking at six phases of the project. The initial phase would bring this road straight in to this intersection along here. That's Phase I. Phase II would go back to this cul-de-sac. Phase III would be this portion. Phase IV we're envisioning the loop road would be continued back to the existing cul-de-sac that's 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) here, and would include houses in this area. Then there's Phase V and IV, but we do have a phased plan, and it is a six year build out. One of the things that we did, when we did the phasing plan, we didn't include the senior citizens, because it sound as though as soon as the project is approved, that may go along paralleling the Phase I project. MR. PALING-Will you put numbers with your phasing? Will you put so many houses per phase? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. PALING-You will do that. Will you do that tonight or later? MR. MILLER-Well, let me grab that phasing plan. MR. O'CONNOR-Basically, when we get to the final approval, I think, with your Board, we will ask you to work with us in setting final phasing. This is our anticipated phasing, at this point, where we're talking a five to a seven year build out. MR. RUEL-The last phase, 2001? MR. O'CONNOR-Five to seven years from now, depending on when we get our permits. MR. RUEL,-I think that's what you have in your document there. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. That is also dependent on when we get started. MR. MILLER-Like Mike said, this phasing plan is schematic and will probably change, but this is what is anticipated. Phase I, II, [II would be this area, IV would complete the loop road and include these lots, V is this cul-de-sac, and then VI would be the completion, and as I said, the senior citizens is really kind of stand alone in this phasing and could be implemented at any time. MR. RUEL-How much of the first phase must be completed before you start the second one? MR. BREWER-Sixty percent. MR. RUEL-What's the percentage? MR. HILTON-I think the 60% applies to just non P.U.D. projects. At the time of final approval, the Planning Board could stipulate some kind of percentage that, before a second phase is started, a certain percentage of the first one has to be built out. MR. RUEL-Yes. Are all roads put in there initially? MR. MILLER-No, with the phasing. MR. RUEL-Just by phases. MR. MILLER-That's the intent. MR. O'CONNOR-The intent is just by phasing- by requirement. If there is a particular economic consideration, maybe they would even go beyond the phase, although we wouldn't get approval (lost words). If we've got a short part to do, and it makes sense to do it, we ma y , go a 1 i t tie bit bey 0 n d the ph a s e , as far as the infrastructure goes. Our Phase I road would go out through one section, but if the senior citizens complex wants to come on board immediately, we would have to give them access to their site, too. - 6 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) MR. RUEL-I have a question about the soil. You mentioned about soil, for septic systems, the percolation rate, is it a high rate, is it excessive? MR. MILLER-No. The soils report lists the various percolation rates, and I believe they range from like a minute and a half to two minutes, and as a matter of fact, Haanen Engineering submitted an application to Department of Health, and they have granted a variance that includes the use of septic systems for this project. MR. RUEL-Because it's all sand, right? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. RUEL-And therefore the per rate would be high, and might be too excessive. MR. MILLER-It's not. MR. RUEL--No? TOM NACE MR. NACE-Okay. Tom Nace, for the record. The percolation rate, the Health Department demands something special be done if the percolation is faster than that. MR. RUEL-Yes. You have to mix the soil. MR. NACE-That's a one minute perc rate. The soils on this site are one and a half to two. It's a really ideal range for septic systems. The variance that Jim is referring to is that if you have over 50 or actually over 49 lots, the Health Department stipulates, for subdivision approval, that you hook up to municipal sewer. Well, if there's not a municipal sewer available, well, they'd have to get a variance from the Department to have a subdivision over 49 lots. MR. RUEL-Okay. soils? The variance is not for the composition of the MR. NACE-Not for the soils. The soils on this site are excellent perc for septic systems. MR. PALING-We'll have to re-visit the phasing subject, both for the phasing numbers and the percent for completion required, before going on to the next phase, so we nail it down, we both understand. MR. O'CONNOR-We have no problem with that. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-As I understand the process that we're involved with, that we're still involved with the re-zoning and the P.U.D. designation, before the Town, and then after those two things are hopefully accomplished, we'd come back to this Board, and look for approval of Section I or Phase I, whichever you want to refer to it, and then ultimately we'd come through your Board for all the other, I think we'd end up with Preliminary approval, and then Final approval of Phase I, and then you go through your same process with every other phase. MR. PALING-Right. Okay. MR. RUEL-Who will have responsibility for operation and maintenance of the common property? - 7, (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) MR. O'CONNOR-We are going to offer that to the Town, and have them. We'd probably do it in the same nature that took place with regard to Hudson Pointe. We will, in the very beginning of this, offer a deed in blank for them to hold, to either have them fill it out for themselves if they wish, if the Town Board to take it on, or if they want to have a third party. I don't know if the project is big enough to involve somebody like Open Space Institute. We've talked to the Town about having some type of Town conservation holding, and we really haven't gone for that. There' ve been probably five or six different developments where the developers have dedicated small pieces of land directly to the Town, but I think there's some thought processes here that we may end up with an actual formal holding entity within the Town. We're completely open to whatever the Town Board directs us to do. MR. RUEL--He mentioned, a moment ago, the wetlands would be dedicated to the Town? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. RUEL-What about the park, that Floyd Bennett Park? MR. O'CONNOR-That will also be dedicated. MR. RUEL-Also? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. RUEL-And are there any other areas within the? MR. O'CONNOR-They are the only two COnIDlOn areas within the development. MR. RUEL-I have a question for Staff. On the open space requirement of 25%, does that include wetlands or not? MR. HILTON-I would have to look that up. I think in this case the amount of land that is proposed to be dedicated, obviously, includes the wetland, exceeds 25%, and is acceptable.. MR. RUEL-Well, if it includes the wetlands, then it probably goes way beyond 25. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. RUEL-But if it doesn't, then it doesn't meet that requirement. MR. HILTON-Right, and it's my understanding that it can include the wetland. I'll double check for you. MR. BREWER-Does this P.U.D., do you calculate that by buildable land or the total amount of land? In other words, do you have to deduct the land? MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Ruel, are you referring to the possibility of a bonus for density under the P.U.D. Regulations? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We're not asking for that to be activated. We have a cookie cutter type plan that shows that we are actually developing in less number units than what you could if you came in with a straight street, no cars, (lost words). MR. BREWER-That's the only time it applies that applies is if you want a bonus? MR. O'CONNOR-I believe it is. - 8 - (Queens bury Planning Board Mee~ing 5/7/96) MR. RUEL-Are there any rights-of-way or easements on the property, either private or public? MR. O'CONNOR-The two things I don't the answer to is, and I think the Town Board's got to tell us what they want to do. We've proposed and provided for two different access ways to the school property, here and here, okay. My thought would be that we would dedicate that as part of the park land. MR. RUEL-It wouldn't have to be an easement then? MR. O'CONNOR-No. They would actually own it. MR. RUEL--Right. MR. O'CONNOR-Other than that, I don't know of any actual easements that will be given to third parties, other than lot owners that own a lot. MR. PALING-That access would not allow vehicles. That would be a walking access? MR. RUEL-That's walking. MR. O'CONNOR-Again, we'd leave that up to the Town and the School to determine. Our understanding is that they would like to have this particular access available on an emergency basis for vehicles. This one out here everybody has talked about just being a walkway. When they realign Aviation Road, what they're going to do is cut down the number of curb cuts on Aviation Road, and they were talking about having a secondary access to the back of the School property, although I don't, you know, there aren't great curbs in front of the School property, and I would think that you would always go across the lawn, even if we had a problem with the right-oi-way, depending on the season of the year, I suppose, and what kind of equipment you're going to move. MR. PALING-Well, however, the Town Board would decide on those both access, you'd be pretty well amenable to that? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. As I understand that process that we're about to take the next step, we will end up with a P.U.D. agreement pretty much like, the same nature, that they did with the most recent P. U. D. tha t they approved, and tha t will touch, on detai 1, everything that we've presented. They have expressed an opinion to us, or at least an attitude to us, that if they approve this, they're going to tie down everything, and it is going to be binding upon the proper ty, not jus t upon us, the deve I oper, and thi s development team, and we will have to record something at the County Clerk's Office to assure the Town Board of that. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-I have a couple of questions. The first question probably should have asked a long time ago. Why are you proposing a Planned Unit Development versus leaving the land zoned the way it was? MR. O'CONNOR-First of all, if it was not re-zoned, it wouldn't allow us to develop with the density that would have us go forward. So we're asking for it to be re-zoned to get to a density that we can do what we think it going to be affordable housing, and still be attractive housing. We left it up to the Town Board, the Town Fathers to try and indicate to us whether or not they would let us go in with just a cluster zone and do it, which I think we've shown that we can do that, or go with the P.U.D. In this particular zoning, just for background, I think either under Cluster zone, or P.U.D., the mix that we propose is allowed. The Town Board, again, - 9 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) I think wants to have control, and they can, under the P.U.D., require us to do this Planned Unit Development agreement, and they also can, I think, maybe tailor some of the aspects of their approval more to this particular site. We're talking about a community service area for one acre right here. That's not going to be a Neighborhood Conm1ercial site. It's going to be very limited in use as to what can go on there, per their approval, per the P.U.D. They honestly looked upon, I think, the re-zoning, as a blank check. They've said that they would not give us that, that they were not comfortable doing that. MR. RUEL-Do you consider this to be affordable housing, this set up? Middle income type? MR. O'CONNOR-I think it's starter housing and probably retirement h 0 u sin g . M i k e Vas i 1 i 0 u c am e i n a few In i nut e s 1 ate. He' s the actual developer, and he can address the pricing of the housing, and you can make your own judgement as to whether or not YQ.IJ think it's an affordable housing or not. MR. RUEL-And the reason I ask is that, initially, it was large lots, right, large acreage. MR. O'CONNOR-Not in our proposal, okay. The very beginning, or before we had become involved, there's a line right down through here, and this property over here was approved for three acre lots. I t was ma I' k e t e d for t h r e e a c I' e lot s, but I don't t h ink the y eve r did anything to it. When we got involved with the project, and we incorporated this into our project. We've always had about this density, not about this density. We've decreased it significantly. We actually have increased our size of our lots. We've increased the size of our lots. We haven't decreased them. MR. RUEL-You're SR-15 now, 15,000 square feet. MR. O'CONNOR-Our request is for SR-15. We don't have a lot on there less than four tenths of an acre. Actually, it will fit into SR-20. MR. RUEL-And if you had left the zoning as was initially, the homes would be too expensive and there'd be no market for them. Is that it? This makes the whole project more marketable. MR. O'CONNOR-It makes it marketable. I think it's an ideal project for this type housing that close to the School, that close to the traffic center. MR. RUEL- So it's bene fie i a 1 to the homeowner as we 11 as to the builder, I mean, the project developer. MR. O'CONNOR-I think so. MR. BREWER-Mike, if that fits in with SR-20, why wouldn't you go with SR-20? MR. O'CONNOR-My impression is that that's what the Town Board probably will end up approving. The Town Board will probably end up approving this area as MR-5, and the rest of it as SR-20. MR. RUEL-Well, right now you have four tenths of an acre, right? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. RUEL-That's 160,000 square feet? MR. BREWER-No, 40,000 an acre. MR. O'CONNOR-About 16,000. - 10 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) MR. MILLER-It's 20,000 square feet, so it's slightly under the. MR. RUEL-Well, that's under SR-20. MR. MILLER-By cluster, we've done a plan. If we did not provide the park land and some of the additional green space, we can do a cookie cutter plan on SR-20 and easily get 137 lots. MR. RUEL-Could you make that SR-20, as is, with the park lands and etc., the way you have it? MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. BREWER-Why? MR. O'CONNOR-Because of the park. We have to cluster. to have eight and a half acres of park land. We're have going to have a setback to the top of the ridge. qualify. We're going not going to It wouldn't MR. RUEL-You have, what, 111 units now? MR. O'CONNOR-One hundred and eleven single family homes. MR. RUEL-Okay, and approximately what would it go to if you went SR-20? Any idea? Leave it the way it is, SR-20, how many units? MR. O'CONNOR-I can't tell you that, Roger. MR. RUEL-Can you guess at it, maybe 80, 90, 100? MRS. LABOMBARD-Maybe 95, get rid of 15 lots? MR. O'CONNOR-I don't know. I don't want to make a guess. MR. RUEL-I think there is some concern as amount of homes in that area, and that's something that might alleviate that. to why the dens i ty, I'm looking the for MR. O'CONNOR-We've looked at this from any place from 160 homes down to 111 homes. Every time we've looked at it we've come back a little bit. This is not necessarily the first plan that's been put on the table. In order to try and keep the amenities of having a community setting, with P.U.D., with the dedication of open space and what not to the Town, this is pretty much where we think that we need to be. MR. RUEL-The average frontage will be about 100 feet you said? MR. MILLER-One hundred is the minimum, and 125 on the larger lots. MR. RUEL,-Yes. MR. MILLER-One of the things I think that's been a little misconstrued is the fact that we're looking for the SR-15 zoning, and the reason that was originally applied for was to give us a density includillg the senior citizens apartment complex, and we're thinking that the lot size is 15,000 square feet. We did a c a 1 cui at ion 0 f sin g I e f am i 1 y lot s . The a v era gel 0 t s i z e , as i t shows up here, is .485 acres. It's about a half an acre, and if we eliminated the park and some of the other conservation land, not counting the non-buildable wetlands, and included that into the lots, it goes up to .72 acres, if we did a conventional subdivision, and eliminated that green space, and I think part of the problem is that that's not being recognized. The other thing is, most of the subdivisions in the area were 20,000 square foot zones when they wer e deve loped, and th i s was r e- zoned. So, you know, what we're trying to do is come up with a project that makes -- 1 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) sense for the site and is compatible with the other developments in the area. MR. BREWER-Also, to get that allowed density, and the combinations of a P.U.D., you'd have to have that green space. Don't you? With a P.U.D. you don't have to have open space? MR. RUEL-Yes, you do. It's a requirement. MR. MILLER-You don't have to have, you have to have a certain mix. Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-You have to have a mix of housing. I don't think you actually need open space, but you've got us off into never never land a little bit, with due respect. This is what we're proposing, and we think it qualifies for the qualification of P.U.D. or designation of P.U.D. MR. RUEL-It does. MR. O'CONNOR-And I don't know how you want us to go further than that. We're not in agreement or willing to stipulate to a re- design. We spent a significant amount of time trying to put this together, with a lot of input from the Town Board and taking into consideration also input from neighbors. A couple of points we didn't maybe make, and one point that I'm not sure if we made clear or not. The actual water flow from the wetland is southeasterly. I think somebody picked up on, and said westerly. It's actually, from the water line to our development down toward the School. MR. RUEL-The water in the wetlands actually goes southwest? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, the groundwater does. MR. RUEL-The ground. How come the wetlands don't dry up? The wetlands are higher than the ground level, and it's going the other direction, how come there's water in the wetlands? MR. O'CONNOR-Why doesn't Glen Lake dry up? There's enough water continually going into it. MR. NACE-There's enough water upland of the wetland. MR. RUEL-To feed it? MR. NACE-There's no water shed that continually feeds the wetland. If you look at it, Halfway Brook is down here quite a ways down, but it's also quite a ways lower than the wetland. So evidentally, all of that area eventually recharges Halfway Brook. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have heard three or four different directions. Just clarify this, please, Mike. Originally, Jim said the groundwater flowed to the west. Just tell me, it might even be irrelevant. I just want to know. MR. MILLER-The north is to the groundwater flows southeasterly, right, on the sheet, from the wetland. and the MR. BREWER-That's southwesterly, isn't it? MR. O'CONNOR-The Northway is over here. The School is over here. MR. BREWER-All right. MR. NACE-I put the map with the north up, southeasterly. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Fine. Thank you. Is the groundwater the same as the water from Rush Pond and Halfway Brook and all that - 12 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) kind of water? In other words, we have water that's groundwater, and we have water that's surface water. So where is the high elevation, the highest elevation, and what direction does the water from the pond and the wetlands flow? MR. MILLER-Well, what happens here, the stream that comes in, and feeds this wetland along our property, and actually this map doesn't show at all. That actually comes easterly, goes under the Northway, and then turns and comes back into Rush Pond, and then goes down through the Great Escape. If you drive down the Northway here and look across at Rush Pond, and you '11 see there's a high ground, and then you look into a second wetland area. The second wetland area is this area which actually comes under the Northway and back around. MRS. LABOMBARD-Gotcha. Thanks. MR. RUEL-I've got another question. On your environmental assessment form, you've indicated no traffic impact. I find that hard to believe. MR. O'CONNOR-We've submitted a traffic study which, I think, addresses what we think will be the trip generation, based upon this particular development, and it's based on the level of service of all the intersections that we looked at. We will not change the level of service of those intersections. MR. PALING-Could I interrupt that just a minute? I'd like to, if we could, not wander. Are we finished with the discussion of the wetlands and all the discussion of size of houses and lots? I didn't mean to interrupt, but I'd like to keep it, is there any other question about that? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I have a question. What you have proposed right now is to re-zone it SR-15, even though your minimum lot is .485 of an acre? MR. MILLER-The minimum is .40. The .485 is the average. MRS. LABOMBARD-Is the average. Excuse me. That's right. Okay. So .40 is more than 15,000 square feet. So, like I think you made the point before, because you're saying SR-15, it makes people nervous and a little bit uneasy. So why don't you go up a little bit more, a few more thousand? MR. O'CONNOR-We began there, okay. The approval process that you go through with P.U.D. is going to be, what's on the map is what's approved. MRS. LABOMBARD-I see, so it could never be changed after that was approved. So that should be known. MR. O'CONNOR-This Board can change it in its final approval process, but I think the last time the Town did a moderate P.U.D., they gave specific directions to this Board that if you were going to change the P.U.D. in ~ny significant manner, they wanted to be given notice of it, particularly when it was as to questions of density. The approval will be per a certain density, up to X Lots, Y lots, and that type of thing. MR. RUEL-So it's the plan. MR. O'CONNOR-It's the plan that gets approved. MR. RUEL-That gets approved, SR-15, it's just a starting point. MR. MILLER-Actually, it was done just for the sake of math, because we did a cookie cutter layout, to get the number of units, but we 13 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) were also, at the time, including a senior citizens apartment as part of that. Now, the recent discussion that we've been having is that may be zoned separately, MR-5, which is what the other senior citizens apartment is. So if they stay in one zone, then if that happens, then we don't need the SR-15 to get the density for the rest of the development. MR. RUEL-Well, we're only talking about a seven percent difference between SR-15 and your .4 acre, 16,000 square feet, very little difference. MR. PALING-Okay. Lets move on. Now, Roger, did you want to bring up the traffic situation, if we're finished with this? Are we finished? Okay. Lets go to traffic, then, if you'd like. Go ahead. MR. O'CONNOR-As said, we've submitted, as part of the application, the traffic study. Shelly Johnston is here from the firm that did the actual traffic counts. I've heard other people from her firm say that a subdivision is not a unique animal. It's something that they have all kinds of studies on them, and they can tell you what the traffic generation will be out of a subdivision. They've taken those figures and they've applied them to the actual counts, and they have actually projected rates of increases over a period of development, to show us what we will be at at time of total development, with our one to seven year phasing and type project, and said that we will not affect the levels of service significantly in any manner at all. MR. BREWER-Can you tell us what the level of service is of Aviation right there? MR. PALING-On that, there is a sentence in there that says it will have an effect, but it doesn't qualify it, as to whether it's major, minor, or anything else, but it says it will have an effect on the traffic. MR. O'CONNOR-If you take a look at the charts for the traffic study, Shelly, do you want to come up. MR. PALING-Has the rest of the Board seen this traffic study? MR. RUEL-No, I haven't seen it at all. MR. PALING-I've seen it, and I've been to a meeting. MR. BREWER-We haven't seen it. MR. RUEL-You're talking about two roads now, right, Farr and Fox? SHELLY JOHNSTON MRS. JOHNSTON-Yes. MR. RUEL-Are they both two ways? MR. O'CONNOR-For the purpose of your record, this is Shelly Johnston. MRS. JOHNSTON-I'm a principle with Transportation Concepts. Yes. We studied the two intersections that will serve the project or are adjacent to the project, Aviation Road at Farr Lane and Dixon Road and Aviation at Potter and Fox Farm. Now, as Jim has said, the way the access from Fox Farm, Fox Farm Road will allow only traffic to enter the site. Traffic exiting the site will all exit from Farr Lane. The traffic counts that our firm have done at Farr Lane, Dixon and Aviation Road shows that, right now, there are very few cars exiting Farr Lane during the peak hours. Therefore, there's ample capacity to add additional traffic. - 14 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) MR. RUEL-The Fox Road will be one way? MRS. JOHNSTON-No. Fox Farm Road will only allow traffic into our site from, the end of the existing Fox Farm into the site will be one way in and will continue to be a two way. MR. RUEL-It is a two way road, right? MRS. JOHNSTON-That's correct. MR. RUEL-And so if Farr? MRS. JOHNSTON-That's correct. MR. RUEL-They're both two ways, except at the entrance to the development there is one way, from Fox Farm? MRS. JOHNSTON-That's correct. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-And so the traffic study has to do with both of these roads into Aviation Road? MRS. JOHNSTON-That's correct. MR. RUEL-Yes. Which one is it at that angle that the gas station? MRS. JOHNSTON-Dixon Road. It's across from Farr Lane. MR. RUEL-And Farr Lane. That's the one I'm concerned with, because it seems to be a problem now, without the development. MRS. JOHNSTON-We recognize that and we have been notified by the Staff that that was an issue that the Town had in the past, for many years. We've addressed it, different options that the Town has. You mayor may not be awar e tha t the Town has al so corrunissioned a separate study and a separate improvement plan for Aviation Road, the second phase of which will include Dixon Road and imp rovemen ts to Dixon Road. The t r af f i c gene rated by th is site. MR. RUEL-It's a planned modification to Aviation Road now, correct? MRS. JOHNSTON-Yes. MR. RUEL-How far will that extend? MRS. JOHNSTON-It's three phases. So the first phase will be just east of our project. The second phase includes Farr Lane and Potter Road. MR. RUEL-And that'll be, what, widening Aviation Road by one more lane? MRS. JOHNSTON-That is the plan at this moment. MR. RUEL-With a center turn around? MRS. JOHNSTON-A center turning lane. MR. PALING-But I don't think that plan includes any of the three alternatives that you have in your study. MRS. JOHNSTON-As I understand the plan from the Town, and correct me if I'm wrong, George, the actual improvements to the Dixon Road intersection have not been determined yet, that's purpose of the study, is to determine what can and cannot be done. - 1 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) MR. PALING-Yes, right. MR. STARK-Ms. Johnston, I was up on Farr Lane tonight, around ten after five, and I just sat there and watched the traffic come out of Dixon Road and so on, and I had a heck of a time pulling out, taking a left, going east on Aviation Road, and you're saying it won't impact, if you put 100 houses in there, or 150 houses there, it won't impact, you know, with the number of trips going out, a lot of two car families in there. You're talking over 1,000 trips a day coming out of there. MRS. JOHNSTON-During that time that you're referring to, the afternoon peak hour, four thirty to five thirty, when the traffic is highest on Aviation Road. MR. STARK-Right. MRS. JOHNSTON-As you can imagine, a residential development, the majority of traffic is coming in during that time period. You have 100 trips coming in, approximately, during that time, and only about 58 exiting during that time. Of that, half of them are going to turn left. So you're now only talking about 29 that will turn left during that critical time we talked about, about one every two minutes, an additional car one every two minutes, and they will wait and turn left or go straight, but that's what we have found in our traffic study. That's the conclusion. There's, undoubtedly they will wait. There's 1,000 cars on Aviation Road there in that time period, but there's no different than what would be there now. That two minute period, their one every two minutes, will be enough to allow a car to exit before the next one comes, on average. MR. BREWER-What is the level of service now, at that intersection? MRS. JOHNSTON-For unsignalized intersections, the minor street approaches, so it's not an overall level of service, like a signalized intersection. Right now, Farr Lane, during the morning, is a Level of Service D and during the afternoon is a Level of Service B, exiting Farr Lane. Left turns from Aviation Road are at Level of Service A, and existing road is Level of Service D, during both peak periods. MR. BREWER-D being the best or the worst? MRS. JOHNSTON-D is neither. A is the best. MR. O'CONNOR-A is the best. Traffic is also being considered by the Town as part of the environmental review, as part of the SEQRA process that we'll undergo. We've answered as far as we think the questions that they've had. We, in fact, have even updated, based on the small modification, changing some of the units of the senior citizens, and that has no, in fact, it has a positive impact with what we have here. MR. PALING-Well, our recommendation could, in this situation, contain a recommendation that they consider the three alternatives, for instance, within the traffic study, in conjunction with this, that the Town do that, but I don't think the present program that we have for Aviation Road includes any modification like those talked about in the traffic study. Am I correct, George? MR. HILTON-Right now, we are Road widening. We're, you alternatives, and as of yet, going to go with. still up in the air with the Aviation know, viewing a bunch of different we haven't determined which one we're MR. PALING-All right. regard. We 11 , we can make a s u g g est i on i nth a t - 16 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) MR. BREWER-What are the alternatives? they are. I don't have an idea what MR. PALING-Okay. I wish that the Board, the alternatives, and you stop me if I'm not remembering these right, but first of all, were to ma keD i x 0 n R 0 a d an ex i ton 1 yon t 0 A v i at ion R 0 ad. I not her words, you'd have to turn right before you got to the present intersection of Dixon and Aviation, on, I forget the name of the road that goes, it's before the shopping center. MRS. JOHNSTON-Just so I understand you, the contemplation of one of the options was just the opposite of what you're saying. To go from Aviation to Dixon, but not the opposite way. MR. PALING-That's what I thought I said. Okay. MRS. JOHNSTON-You couldn't go from Route 9 to Dixon and take a left onto Aviation directly. You'd have to use some of those residential streets, or smaller streets, to the east. MR. PALING-And then you had one where there would be an island put on Dixon that would pretty well stop left turns. MRS. JOHNSTON-That would be the purpose of the. MR. PALING-And the third one was, I believe, aligning Farr Lane with Dixon, which would be quite a major undertaking, but those were the three, basically, that they had. MRS. JOHNSTON-The t hi rd one was, t he other one was to ins tall a traffic signal (lost words) the current traffic volumes and the volumes after the development of this development would not satisfy, the State warrant for a traffic signal, the volumes are still relatively low. So a traffic signal would not be warranted there. MR. PALING-That's a very difficult intersection. Those of us that have lived there will testify to it. Even in light traffic times, if you're turning left off of Dixon, you can have trouble, and I hope there's something incorporated in the Aviation Road development to help. MR. O'CONNOR-I think what the Town Board's reaction to that part has been they acknowledge it. That's why they are aggressively trying to begin, even before the bridge across the Northway is com pIe t e d wit h the i r pro gram, the y , v ego t the 0 n e pro gram t hat's going to be in place by the beginning of school year this coming year, and then they're going to do the other two phases, but they have kind of said, now this is 20 to 25 houses a year for the next seven years. That is not going to seriously impact that problem or that condition that is already there. MR. PALING-The phasing is a major factor in this. Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-And if they were going to really effect us or get into telling us something about what's out there, they probably then wouldn't issue any more building permits in that whole section of Town, as opposed, you know, they've got to treat everybody kind of the same way. The other thing which our study doesn't really take into account is people, and you have to, when you do your study, you have to do worse case scenario, and you have to presume that everybody will come out one way, which is Farr Lane. Probably some of these people will come down and go out Manor Drive, below Sokol's and below the gas station and be on a direct right angle i n t 0 A v i at ion R 0 ad, w hie h w 0 u 1 d ma k e ita lot e a s i e r t urn t h a n coming out Farr Lane, I think. The other thing which they haven't taken into account, because it's not in place, is whether or not the pontooning that will effect, the light in front of the School, 1 7- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) which will cause breaks in that traffic, as it comes west on Aviation Road, whether that will make it easier to get out of the side roads on Aviation Road that are west of the light, which typically happens, and I think it was happening on Route 9 by Wal- Mart, when they put that light in there. Everybody had a real concern about pontooning and the effect of getting across Route 9. It gives you the pauses that allow you to do that. MR. RUEL-We have a traffic study, now, that apparently says very little impact or no significant impact. MR. PALING-No, it does not say that. It says it has an effect. It doesn't qualify. MR. RUEL-Do you want me to read it? MR. PALING-No, that's not the traffic study you're reading from? MR. RUEL-No. I know. It says, wil.l the proposed action result in a generation of traffic significantly above present levels, answer: No. MR. PALING-Well, that says significantly, and I think the report probably does agree with it. MR. RUEL-Yes. I just used that word. My question is, is this traffic study predicated in any way on the three alternatives that Bob mentioned? MRS. JOHNSTON-No. The traffic study is based on existing geometry, existing conditions, at those intersections. MR. RUEL-So the alternatives have no bearing on it at this time. MRS. JOHNSTON-Exactly. MR. RUEL-And if there are, it would probably just improve it? MRS. JOHNSTON-That's correct. MR. RUEL-Okay. MRS. JOHNSTON-Any improvement to Aviation Road or the geometry of that Dixon Road intersection would only improve the situation. MR. BREWER-I had one other question for traffic. Has the Town somewhat committed themselves to changing the direction of that road to one way, rather than two way, or is it all predicated on this? Not Dixon Road, Fox Farm. MR. O'CONNOR-What we're talking about is entirely within the area that we're going to develop. The existing Fox Farm Road, which I show right there, that services, I think the last house it services is Chip Collins, Richard Col.lins. That would still be two way. The one way will begin after his house, within the development. MR. BREWER-All right. MR. RUEL-It's only one way into the property. MR. BREWER-So this road ends right here right now, Mike? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. It ends, let me see where you're showing Yes. The Town road ends, I don't know with what formality, just prior to a single family house that's existing in there. not sure, and I don't know if Matt knows whether or not the actually goes into the single fan1ily yard and comes out that Sometimes they have a combination. me. but I'm plow way. -- 18 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) MR. RUEL-It goes up to the house, the road 1 was on. MR. BREWER-Not the road. MR. O'CONNOR-It's like a driveway, as far as I know, once it ends Fox Farm. Whether they maintain it beyond that, I'm not sure. MR. RUEL-How many existing homes are there on this property? MR. O'CONNOR-One. MR. RUEL-Just one. MR. O'CONNOR-There is only one home on the property. MR. RUEL-And it'll fit into the P.U.D.? MR. O'CONNOR-'I don't know if the house will be refurbished or removed, to be honest with you. MR. RUEL-Is it vacant now? MIKE VASIL IOU MR. VASILIOU-It's occupied now. It's presently occupied. MR. O'CONNOR-The sheds will go. They've been out in the yard, all the sheds and all the junk that's with the sheds. They will go. MR. RUEL-They're falling down now. They're on the way out. MR. PALING-All right, is that enough for traffic? I think we've talked that one pretty good. I have four items here left on my agenda. Some of them, George, could perhaps be answered, you have letters, do you not regard hazardous waste and the blue lupine? MR. HILTON-As far as hazardous waste, applicant has submitted, they indicate a in the SEQRA letter, dated. that the MR. PALING-We don't have the letter. MR. HILTON-A Letter dated August 30, 1995 from Walter Haines, DEC. We don't have that letter in our file, if we can get a copy of that. MR. BREWER-Refers to what, the Karner? MR. HILTON-No. It refers to hazardous waste on site. The question is, has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. They've indicated no, and they reference a letter which we don't. MR. BREWER-Can I answer that? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. BREWER-I think, at one time, we had, and, Matt, your father was involved with that. MR. STARK-Leon Steves, about the PCB report, remember? MR. BREWER-With had him do it, perform a test out there at the airport to see if there were PCB's, and the test came back negative. There was none. This Board had them do that for. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think that was on this property. This was In the deveLopment of the Buckley Bryan subdivision. -- 19 (Queens bury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) MR. BREWER-Right, didn't they do it out on the airport? MR. O'CONNOR-Or in the development of the existing senior citizen housing. MR. BREWER-It wasn't for the senior citizen, Mike. Buckley Bryan. It was for MR. O'CONNOR-Buckley Bryan. Okay. MR. BREWER-We had him do a test out there on the old strip of the airport. MR. PALING-Well, the letter you have must refer to the site talking about. , we re MR. O'CONNOR-We can supply that. MR. PALING-And problem. Okay. that Yes. is a negative you're saying? If you would, please. There's no MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. PALING-Now, I would like to see something, well, how about the blue lupine? MR. O'CONNOR-Let me ask you. August 30, 19951 Is tha t let ter for Wal ter Hai nes , MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-"The Department has no records of active or inactive hazardous waste sites or landfills in the areas described." This is a copy for you. MR. PAll NG-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-On the question of blue lupine, we have a number of letters, the most recent letter was April 30, 1996, addressed to Jim, and I'm sure that the Town has a copy of that, that's from Cathy O'Brien. Basically, and 1 had talked to her, and she referred to my conversation with her. She had an earlier letter that some people seemed to think that there was a habitat, either for the Karner blue butterfly or for blue lupine on the premises that were developed, and I called her and said, my understanding of your walk through was that you found nothing, and people are taking this as maybe being misleading, and she says you're right. What we would like to do is try to re-establish what, apparently, has become a lost habitat. I said we're willing to work with her, but I don't want it to be clouded, and cloud this approval process, with the thought that we have a habitat for your Karner Blue or blue lupine, and that's what this letter supposedly was saying, but I'll tell you, she talks as well as I talk. She goes around and around in a circle, but she says Mr. O'Connor has told me that my January letter to you has been miscontrued by some individuals as to the presence of Karner Blues on the site. I will try to clarify our view of the project. The area the project is in was once home to a Karner Blue population. The population no longer exists on the site of the subdivision, and then she goes off into never never land again, and I don't mean "she" in a derogatory manner, but she wants to see if, my point to my conversation with her was, if there is no habitat, you have no jurisdiction. MR. PALING-If there is no butterfly, they have no jurisdiction, really. MR. RUEL-The vegetation has to exist. - 20 - - (Queens bury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, either. It either has to be a viable habitat, or an actual colony of endangered species, and this doesn't say it, but we're still talking to you. MR. PALING-Yes, but you've indicated that you're willing to work with them to promote? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and we talked to the, the Town, apparently, has talked, apparently, some people would like to see the church group that developed the existing Solomon Heights develop this site here. They're satisfied with the way that they operate and that they've serviced the people in the Town. In that connection, we've talked to them and part of the increasing of the space for them was so that they could accorrunodate perhaps something along this line. They've indicated a willingness to do that, and that's what we're going to approach Cathy O'Brien with. MR. PALING-All right, and lets see, I have one other, yes, two other, really, now I hope we can introduce into the record some kind of documentation or "expert opinion" about the effect on the School and the utilities. In other words, I hope we can hear from the Principal of the High School or something like that that can give us numbers in regard to the kinds of houses that are going in, how many kids that generates, and the effect on the School system, and then something on the utilities also. MR. O'CONNOR-Anticipating that, have written a letter to, I believe, the Water Department, to the Fire Department, to the Emergency Service, and to the School. I've not heard that there's going to be a negative response from any of them. I have seen Dr. G's response. MR. PALING-This is this letter I have now. MR. O'CONNOR-I believe it is. Perhaps we've got to ænplify that, and to be honest with you, there is a reference book that will give you the type numbers that we're talking about. I asked a month ago to get that through the Crandall Library, and they're still in the process of getting it for us. His letter, if you notice it, says right in there that he has no way of generating numbers. He talks, in general, about development of the School, but he really doesn't relate that development of the School to this project, and there are a couple of problems with that is that you need the reference to give you the actual perhaps national guideline as to children per household, and then you probably have to make some type of intelligent judgement as to how many of these households are actually going to be new households within the Town of Queensbury. This type housing, I think we're going to have a lot of people in the area re-Iocate to it. Many of those people are going to be already within the Town. So whether or not to look upon that as being an impact or just a displacement or relocation of the same people, it depends upon where they're coming from. We're talking, as we see it, as maybe starter homes, or retirement type homes, people that don't want to have a lot of upkeep, and I don't have a figure to give you, but it is something that we will submit as part of the completion of the SEQRA to the Town. MR. PALING-Okay, and the last one have on my list is, you're working toward the establishment of a bike path, is that not right, to hook up with the bike path on Aviation Road? MR. O'CONNOR-We've kept them advised on what we're making available. Mr. Hodgkins, I believe it is, who is actively involved with the bike paths that are being developed within the Town. He has endorsed what we have shown him. He has, I think, included this in his portfolio, as to potential available connections. This would connect to all of Westland, at least the north side of Aviation Road, of Westland, through the School property, without - 21 -- (Queens bury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) people having to go out onto Aviation Road. The kids, as I'm told, are kin d 0 f h a v i n g ani n for ma I t r a i I s y stem now. We' reg 0 i n g to make it more formal. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. Do you have anything further you want to pass on to us before we move on? MR. O'CONNOR-I do think you talked about the calculations, and we have done those calculations, and we submitted those. MR. MILLER-I gave a copy to George. MR. PALING-What calculations? MR. HILTON-Densities. MR. O'CONNOR-Calculations under the P.U.D. as to the density of each proposed use, and the percentages. So we've submitted those. We've talked about how the open space would be owned. We've talked about phasing. I think we've answered the questions that Staff had. Is there anything further, questions, Staff has of us? MR. HILTON-Right now, no. If you want to just continue with the meeting, and if we have any questions. MR. PALING-Well, we're going to get to a public conmlent pretty quick. At this point, we're going to open the meeting for public corrunent, but I just want to say a couple of things, some of which is repetition, but this is not a public hearing. It's a public meeting. We ask you to keep your conmlents brief at this meeting, just give us the basics of what you want to talk about, for our benefit as well as the applicant's benefit, that your real forum is going to be when the Town Board meets. You should go there with all the detail. You'll be notified of the public hearing, and you can then speak as long and as detai led as you want, and that's where you will be heard. It will be recorded as such. In a public meeting like this, it just doesn't have the same impact. Having said that, we will open it now for public corrunent. Would you come up to the microphone and identify yourselves, please. ANDREA EICHLER MRS. EICHLER-Hi. My name's Andrea Eichler, and I had a question regarding the water flow studies that were done, and, Cathy, I think you hit on this when you were asking about, what is it from one side compared to the other. It looks like the studies that were done were done on the outer perimeter on this side of the, what I want to ascertain is, is there any way that studies have been done on the area near the wetland with wells, the way they were done on the other perimeter of it to ascertain that what is being drawn out of the one side over here is indeed what's coming from the other side? Is there a chance that the grade changes below the surface, as Rush Pond changes, halfway across, the levels change. Is there a possibility that that, too, is happening underneath, and that what they're getting on this side in studies actually comes from the entire development, or is it only coming from part of the development? MR. PALING-Okay. All right. MRS. EICHLER-Thank you. MR. PALING-I should have said that all questions are directed to the Board. We mayor may not answer them or ask the applicant for a corrunent, but we'll go through the whole procedure, and then go back and see what we might do. Okay. Would anyone else like to talk? - 22 - (Que(~nsbury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) DALE HARRIS MRS. HARRIS-My name is Dale Harris, and I live on Fox Hollow Lane. Concerning the traffic study. The traffic studies were done at Farr Lane and on Fox Farm Road. Most of us that live in that development go out Gilmore because we can't get out Fox Farm Road. My question is, were there any studies done at Gilmore? Because that's the next road down. We cannot get out most of the time. I never, ever go ou t Fox Farm Road. Ther e 's Fa 1'1' Lane, and then parallel to that is Fox Farm Road, parallel to that, the next one up on Aviation, toward West Mountain, is Gilmore, and most of us that live in that development go out there because we can't get out the other street, and they studied Farr Lane. Well, not many people live there right now. So you're not going to have much volume. Another question that Mr. Ruel brought up, why are we now changing the zoning, requesting to change the zoning from three a ere s to as sma 11 as f our ten t h s 0 f an a ere , be c a use why was i t originally put at three acres, (lost words) percolation rates, but now it's going to be okay to change them. Has the soil changed? That's what I don't understand. Why would we want to do this? I'm afraid it would benefit some of the people involved in this, but not benefit a lot of us who live in that area, and would be faced with some problems in the future, and traffic is a very main one, because not only are we talking about what comes out of these developments, but what is coming out of the Pines and West Mountain Road. The volume is just so high. Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Who's next? RICK HAAG MR. HAAG-My name is Rick Haag. I live in the Fox Hollow Lane neighborhood, and at one of our, or at the Town Board meeting, prior to the hearing, I did present some material to the Town Board in reference to the proposed development, prior to the few minor changes that are proposed in this hearing, and I would still suggest the proposals that I made in conjunction with the other residents in the area, not only Fox Hollow Lane, but down Helen Drive, the residents off of Potter Road area as well, and many of those concerns are still legitimate. Several people have mentioned about the individual traffic areas. I think that's certainly one critical point to our concerns. People, even though it may be one way coming in on Fox Farm Road, it certainly is such a short distance between Fox Farm and Fox Hollow Lane that I would suspect many people would, that are in that first phase and up along Ridge area would still attempt to come out and exit down and around the Fox Hollow Lane and, as Mrs. Harris indicated, out through Gilmore Avenue. There are many different things, and I'm not going to go over all the different points that we raised in relation to the application and this file initially, but I would .like to give everyone a copy of the material that we discussed in the past. So the traffic study that was done, there was an indication that on the Aviation Road/Dixon/Farr Lane area a combined total area would indicate that it was going to receive an E rating. I don't know what the concerns of the different levels of service, what that's going to equate to in terms of volume, but there certainly are concerns that all the people in our vicinity have, as well as those that are further out and along West Mountain Road that come and use the Aviation Road and the Potter Road intersection to exit down into Glens Falls or to the Northway. There is a great deal of traffic that is impacting those areas, and I would say certainly in the future, without having a crystal ball with that watershed property that is owned by Glens Falls, whether there's some development of that. That's going to be another big consideration that the Town is going to have to consider and look at to determine that it's not going to become a real zoo coming east/west or north and south, whichever way you may be going, and I would also call attention to the fact that the Town Board has created a - 23 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) Comprehensive Land Use Plan, a great deal of time and effort and a variety of input was used to develop this Land Use Plan, and I think in too many cases there's been such a lax enforcement or following, at least, of what we have, that it has caused a lot of problems, there are many different developments where there have been engineers and professional people involved, with assurances that everything was going to be satisfactory, and come to find out that not too many years after the development of the particular area was started, that there are problems that cropped up that were not anticipated. I think that's up to the Town Board and the Planning Board as well to make certain that individuals from the choosing of the Town Board and the Planning Board are considered in reviewing the material that has been presented so far to this point, certainly accepting the studies that have been done, there's no assurance, as has been the case in the past where there have been problems that certainly contributed to many development concerns and some lawsuits in the past. There was something, just very briefly, in today's paper about the Town coming under attack on a lawsuit, and Fred Champagne has indicated that we need to hold "we have to uphold the zoning laws", and I think certainly it's up to the Planning Board to make certain that everything is considered, without giving away the quality of the life in Queensbury, that things are protected, and not only today, but five years or ten years down the road, some of the anticipated or unanticipated changes do not come up to haunt us and create additional burdens for the people in that particular part of Town. MR. PALING-Thank you. Anyone else? MARK HOFFMAN MR. HOFFMAN-My name's Mark Hoffman. I live on Fox Hollow. A question for the Board. My interpretation of the introductory discussion prior to this meeting was that, in a sense, this is some sort of a pro-forma type meeting, wherein which data is collected and then is passed on to the Town Board. I'm not sure that that's actually the case here. Whether, as Planning Board members, you have the responsibility to make a reconmendation, based on your assessment of what this project means to the community, and whether the changes to the zoning that the developer is asking for, which are quite radical, are justified by the potential benefits that they've presented here. Again, I'm not sure what the exact legal requirement is that you have, but my understanding is that you are going to end up making a recommendation to the Town Board, and I would suggest that you take that recorrunendation seriously, and put a lot of study and effort into it, and if I can just answer the question that I just posed, my sense is that the changes which are being asked for in the zoning which are qui te radical, are not justified by any potential benefit that can be seen in this plan. The green spaces and so forth that we're talking about are really, I mean, if you just look at it, it's really negligible, in terms of comparison to the entire project. Most of the land is going to be taken up by housing. There are isolated areas of green space in people's back yards. My sense is that, as Planning Board members and as people interested in the future of this Town, we have an opportunity to ask for and get significantly better for our c i t i zen s t 11 en, you k now, we s h 0 u 1 d bel 00 kin gat w hat's the qua lit y of life going to be in Queensbury in the next five to ten years, and what do we want this community to feel like, and what do we want it to look like, and I think, rather than bending over backwards to satisfy this developer or that developer, we should perhaps set a little bit higher standard. MR. PALING-Thank you. GEORGE DRELLOS - 24 --- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) MR. DRELLOS-I'm George Drellos, 27 Fox Hollow Lane. I'd like to ask a question. All these tests that are done on this property, the traffic studies, is all done by Mr. Vasiliou's party. Do you people do your own tests, or do you just take their word? That's what i'd like to know. MR. PALING-Okay. to be grilled in study. A lot of work. It's a combination, usually, but we're not here that regard, but that may be, part of it is their it Staff enters into directly and does their own MR. DRELLOS-I don't see the Town doing 60 foot bore samples. I'm just saying, do you? MR. PALING-They would observe them, though, and make sure they're right, possibly, but those are done by licensed people, people qualified to do it, and, yes, many times we would take their word for it. Sure, but they are professional people. That's what their life is. MR. DRELLOS-I understand that, but I'm just saying, so the Town is there to watch? MR. PALING-If you had any specific suspicion, I'm sure we'd be very to look into it. MR. DRELLOS-No. I'm asking.Y..QJd if you're there to verify it, or how can .Y..QJd verify it? MR. PALING-Many times we are, yes. MR. DRELLOS-You are. MRS. LABOMBARD-George, and also we have a Town Engineer verify everything that comes up. I mean, of course Engineer isn't going to do a, go into a soil samples and of depth, but he does make sure that everything is where be, as far as legit. that does the Town that kind it should MR. DRELLOS-Okay. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. Who else? .JEFF KILBURN MR. KILBURN-My name is Jeff Kilburn, and I submitted earlier a four page outline dealing with some of the zoning issues which is one page, and three pages dealing with a land use plan that was adopted in 1989. The first thing I'd like to ask, I'm asking the Board if your professional has looked up, during the course of this meeting, the question as to whether density, the computation of density, includes the wetlands. MR. PALING-All right. all of your questions. Please don't expect an immediate answer to Okay. Go ahead. MR. KILBURN-I saw him looking up, and thought I'd ask the question. The land use plan, on Page Six, states that perc rates greater than 20 inches per hour provide very little cleansing properties for septic and chemical removal, and the critical issue there is that Rush Pond is very close, and though we've been told that the property will be graded away, and that 60 foot test borings were done out here, I agree with what was stated earlier, that with a 60 foot test boring here, here, and here, have no idea what the geological formation is between this point and Rush Pond. We do not know if there is an outcropping of ledge or of a deposit of clay, which would create a partial barrier, and would create water, part way, to flow back into Rush Pond, and it would seem to - 25 - (Queens bury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) me that, though those tests borings are very valuable, that they should be supplemented with test borings within 100 feet, 200 feet and 300 feet of Rush Pond. I was a developer in Vermont, in my previous life, and I was developing within 500 feet of the Battenkill River, and I was developing on sandy soils like this, and although it has no bearing here, I was forced to design a site specific septic system for each one of my subdivided lots. That is, I couldn't do a few test borings on the entire property, because of the intense concern about the pollution of an extremely important environmental asset, and I think we're dealing with the same thing here, with Rush Pond. Thank you for your consideration. MR. PALING-Okay. Documents like this, thank you, are better submitted in advance, giving us a chance to look at them. Receiving them directly at a meeting and having to go through them, it makes it a little bit tough. Okay, having said that, who else would care to speak? MR. O'CONNOR-I've got a couple of answers. MR. PALING-Okay. Lets leave that until the end. Lets let everybody speak. Is there anyone else who would care to speak? All right. If not, I would ask, would you care to respond? Go ahead. MR. O'CONNOR-Just for the purpose of your record, a couple of corrunen ts that I wou 1 d addr es s, ther e was a ques t i on as to why we chose the sites to do the test wells where we did. We did that In conjunction with the Town Planning Department, with an idea that we couldn't get out near the edge of the hill, wetland without doing a great deal of tree removal, which would probably have more of an effect than actually getting the results that we were talking about. The site the engineers thought was small enough that doing the tests where we did them, and I believe that maybe Rist-Frost will be involved in this as well, that we would have valid results to give to you. Based upon those results and the engineering that was done, we have professional opinions that they should be considered valid as to water flow from the wetland, and I'll also say that the water flow from the wetland actually was a surprise to us, and it really wasn't the purpose of the test. The test was to see how deep we though t that the groundwater was on the sit e . Before that, I think we had simply manually dug test pits to a degree, to a 15 foot depth. We didn't have the equipment to go a lot deeper, digging into the sand, and that's why we did the wells. The actual main purpose of those wells, to quantify where groundwater was. Tom, if I'm speaking out of turn, that's ffiY understanding of why we did it, and how you worked out and Jim Martin where to have them done. MR. PALING-And this will kind of answer two questions, both to the initial question of the drainage and flow. won't Okay. it, MR. VASILIOU-I want to interject here, too. We selected Fred Dente as a person that the Town was going to ask for their expert. Jim Martin indicated that he would be the Town's expert, and he would be a person he was very comfortable with. So that's why we hired Fred to do that. MR. O'CONNOR-Fred Dente, the name doesn't mean a great deal to me. I don't know if it does to you, but he is the principal of Empire Soils, who is now operating on his own, and not part of Empire So it s . MR. NACE-Correct. Fred's been around the area doing soil samples for 25 years. I think he was the original founder of Empire Soils. He's a very reputable soils engineer, geologist. To answer one of the questions of whether the stuff can be verified. Fred collects soil samples every five feet, as they drill them. Those samples ,- 26 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) are kept. They're in storage. They're available for examination. This information is valid. It's real information. The borings that were taken, one is relatively close to the wetland. Any time that you take three borings on a fairly decent triangular basis, you can start to get a good idea of how the groundwater (lost words) which direction the groundwater flow is. If you take a look at a large topographic map of the area, it's fairly obvious that what is happening in here is that the water ponded in this wetland. Some of it surface flow. Some of it does go out and surface flow toward Rush Pond. Some of it filters down through the soil, through the bottom, the bottom of the wetland, through decayed vegetation, is probably partially sealed, but there is some infiltration down through that which helps to recharge the groundwater in the soil, and the groundwater eventually works its way on to Halfway Brook, which is quite a ways south of this, and Halfway Brook is a good deal lower, but with the gradient that we have across these sites, it's obvious that there is no other conclusion, that the groundwater is moving away from the wetland, that anything that goes into the ground here would never reach this wetland. Now, a question that came up about the three acre zoning, why was the zone three acres if it's bad for septic systems then, why isn't it bad now. When the rezoning was done in '87, '88, the Town, in the Master Plan, relied heavily on the Soil Conservation Service soils mapping, and this area, if you look at the soils mapping, is mapped as windsor sands, which are fairly course sands that can have fairly rapid infiltration rates. When you go out and look at the soils specifically on this site, which is what Charlie Main did for us, you find that they're not really windsor sands, that they're a little finer, a little more loam than windsor sands typically have, and the percolation rates we found can verify that, okay. I think the three minute thing, I think it was 20 inches per minute or per hour, that was brought out. I don't know, really, what basis that has, and the Health Department has established one minute perc rate, one minute per inch, the perc rate being the standard beyond which they're concerned about how much treatment the septic received. Now that, bear in mind, that regulation is written based on the fact that with the Health Department approved s e p tic s y stem, you can h a v e g I' 0 U n d w ate I' wit h i n two fee t 0 f the bottom of the septic system. Here we have 60 feet of sand, okay. So there's quite a safety factor built in. MR. RUEL-It's not the distance between the septic system and the groundwater, but the most important part is the soil itself? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. RUEL-If it's a type of soil that allows the water to go through it, without any filtration, that's no good, then the soil has to be changed? MR. NACE-That's right, but we have soils that have a perc rate and a composition that has a loam in it. MR. RUEL-It must be a marginal amount. MR. NACE-No, not really. MR. RUEL-Because I'm on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and the soil map indicates that area to have very high perc rate. MR. NACE-But that's based on the very generalized U.S.G.S., or I'm sorry, SCS Soils Mapping. MR. RUEL-Yes. We're in the process of revising it now. MR. NACE--One of the problems with the SCS, I mean, my father was a Soil Scientist with SCS down in Maryland, but one of the problems wit h t hat i sit bee am eve r y s pee i f i c i n i n ten s e 1 y use d a g r i cuI t u r a 1 - 27 -- (Queens bury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) lands, but in the lands outside intense agricultural use, remember, this was an airport, it probably (lost words) after 1900 per i od. So it probabl y, when SCS di d the i I' mapp i ng, really didn't pay a whole lot of attention to this area. and the they MR. RUEL-You're absolutely right, in that indicate the quality of soil for agricultural the soil use only. map does MR. O'CONNOR-And there are actually in this file three different soils studies, all of which support the position that we have given to the Town Board, that we've taken, and I think the latest study as to the water is probably the fourth study, because that actually has soil borings to the 60 foot level on those three reports, on each one of those, as to actually what the site makes up. MR. RUEL-I have a question for you, Tom. I haven't been in Town that long. Do you have any idea why this was originally zoned 42 acres? Was it because it was predicated on that soil map? MR. O'CONNOR-Prior to 1988, it was zoned 5,000 square foot lots, or 5,000 square feet development. MR. RUEL-Where does LC-42 coma in? MR. PALING-That's the other property. MR. O'CONNOR-That's just the wetland, and that we're not talking about changing, but before 1988, it was developable into mul ti family housing, with one unit per 5,000 square feet, feet per acre. MR. BREWER-Can I ask one more question? What was or what is the zone for Fox Farm, right now? MR. O'CONNOR-It was re-zoned, in 1988, to RR-3. MR. BREWER-Since then, has it been changed? MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. BREWER-It's all three acre lots right now? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and that's part of this process. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. PAL I NG--The zon i ng I' ecommenda t i on has been made. MR. BREWER-No I I under stand tha t, bu t I mean, I don't mean on th is P.U.D., on the homes that are there now. MR. O'CONNOR-Fox Hollow, I think, is probably one acre zoning. Maybe I'm wrong. When they were built, most of those homes, it was SR-20. MR. BREWER-It was, and they went to an acre? MR. O'CONNOR-And then they went to an acre. I don't believe they went to three acre, George. You can correct that. MR. HILTON-I'm not sure of the history, and I don't have the map in front of me. MR. BREWER-I'm just curious because it's right next door. MR. NACE-Their average lot size over there, and I'm looking at a map that has the actual lot sizes on it, varies between about .51 acres. I see one lot that's up to 1.3 acre. There's one that's 2.47 acres right on the edge of the wetland, but most of the lots - 28 - (Queens bury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) are in the .5, .6 and a few into the .7 acre variety. MR. RUEL-And that's in the? MR. NACE-That's in the existing Fox Hollow subdivision. MR. RUEL-And it's zoned what, now? MR. NACE-I don't know what the present zoning is? We have people trying to find that out. MR . PAL I NG-W ell, I t hi nk it's RR - 3, is n 't it? MR. O'CONNOR-That's SFR-l Acre. This is a map that we have that's within the Town packet that shows the zoning of all of our parcel and of all the neighboring parcels, and this is what is now Fox Farm right here, SFR-l Acre. MR. PALING-Okay. That's this here. MR. NACE-This is Farr Lane. part of it is right here. That's Fox Farm Road. Fox Hollow, MR. RUEL-So it seems compatible with the surrounding. MR. NACE-This whole area is half acre lots, or less. MR. PALING-Okay, do you have any more comments? MR. O'CONNOR-I think most of the other comments we're going to address as part of SEQRA, unless the Board has something specific. To get back into this issue, the other thing about why the old wall was three acres, and why we're asking this, basically it appeared to be, from t 1'1 i s rea din g 0 f w hat the so i 1 s maps we rea n d the potential of the site. MR. PALING-The only question I can think that wasn't answered was the y tal ked a b 0 u t the s t u d y not i n c l u din g G i 1 mo reA v e n u e . I t didn't include Gilmore Avenue, did it? MRS. JOHNSTON-I can address that, if you want. The primary reason i s bee a use , as I sa i d be for e, t r a f fie from the sit e will no t be able to exit toward the western area. So there won't be an impact from Gilmore, because traffic from our site won't be exiting that way. The majority of our traffic is coming to and from the east. MR. PAL lNG-Okay, bu t that commen t shou 1 d be r epea t ed to ,the Town Board at the time that they have their meeting, if you wish. Okay. MATT JONES MR. JONES-OUf request, in terms of the procedure, in terms of the motion practice with the Planning Board, would be to track the language from 179-57(4), which is the statute that you're operating under at the present time, and to make, actually, those findings, and tor e que s t a f a v 0 r a b 1 ere p 0 r t , but h a v i n g to ma k e tho s e findings as a part of your resolution, which I think your statute requires. To be technically correct I would ask you to do that in your motion. MR. RUEL-What was that number? MR. JONES-179-57(4). It begins with "A favorable report..." MR. RUEL-Yes, right. MR. BREWER-It's necessary we have to go into that right now? - 29 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) MR. PALING-No. I'm just saying okay, I hear you. MR . JON E S - Rig h t . MR. HILTON-I can answer the question that was raised by one of the citizens concerning the 25 percent open space. If there is over 25 percent of the gross area of the P.U.D. is open space, they can apply for a one percent density increase, residential density increase. Although the entire open space on this site is over 25 percent, it isn't developable land. It has to be not including undevelopable land, which the wetland is classified as. So in order to receive some kind of density increase, they would have to take the open space other than the wetland, which is not equal to 25 percent, and at this, I have about six percent, actually. MR. BREWER-I was going to say, I've got it down here, less than ten percent. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. HILTON-And actually, though, wi th this application, they are not asking for or seeking an increase, residential density increase. So that 25 percent and the one percent increase doesn't apply to this application. MR. BREWER-Right, and I think you said that. MR. O'CONNOR-We actually have less numbers than what we can get simply as a cookie cutter, without going for the bonus. MR. PALING--Okay. AU right. We will close off, now, all comment, be it public or from the applicant, and the Board, now, will talk amongst ourselves, which is still a public meeting, and we wilt, however, if need be, ask questions of anyone in the audience, applicant or public, if necessary, but all we'll do is ask you to answer our question. We are not seeking any further comment at this point in time. So now it becomes, and we will try to abide by the 179-57, but to remind the Board, that we are here for two reasons, and one is to certify to the Town Board that the basic material that has been submitted is complete. We can ask that they provide more detail to the Town Board, but we're only concerned with the question of basic material, and then we have to make a judgement in regard to P.U.D. districting, as to whether we want that to be or not. Okay. So now it's within the Board discussion. MR. RUEL-Okay. I see two open items, to meet the requirements of 179--57. One would be, the assignment of responsibility for the ope rat ion and ma i n ten a n ceo f the c onmlO n pro per t y, w hie h has n 't bee n done, and secondly, that the phasing should be indicated on the plan, by section and number of dwellings, and the anticipated beginning and ending of the six phases. That's the only two items I see open. MR. PALING-Yes. Those were both brought up in discussion. That's right, maintenance of common ground. Right. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. PALING-Yes. Both of those are valid points. MR. RUEL-And phasing. MR. BREWER-Along that line, how are we going to get the accountability of that land if we have no idea whether the Town wants to take the other land? In other words, if the common space, we're asking them for a plan that you're going to take care of it, or who's going to take care of it? - 30 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) MR. PALING-All right. stipulated. We're saying that that's got to be MR. BREWER-Well, it's got to be decided before it's stipulated. If they're going to ask the Town to take care of it. MR. PALING-But the Town Board can do that. MR. RUEL-The Town Board can do that. MR. PALING-We're just cautioning them that that's got to be specified. MR. RUEL~Someone has to assume the responsibility. Now it's up to the Town Board to determine who will be responsible. If the land is given to them, they have the responsibility. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. RUEL-That's all I'm saying. MR. PALING-Whatever, the Town Board will decide. MR. RUEL-Yes. The only other item 1 have is phasing. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-Give me a couple of minutes. MR. PALING-All right. George, how about you? MR. STARK-I think it's complete once the phasing question IS addressed. MR. PALING-Okay. I think we've got to make reference to the sensitivity of the traffic situation, that there is a Lot of comment, in regard to just the actual impact of this, and I think we've got to mention that in there, so that the Town Board wilt consider that in detail. MR. RUEL-Wouldn't the Town Board use the same traffic study? MR. PALING-That is the only traffic study that I know of. they'll use it. Sure, MR. RUEL--But if they're not satisfied with it, they could have their own, couldn't they? MR. PALING-That would be their judgement. just think we ought to call their attention to it, that there is a lot of concern by the. MR. RUEL-How can we do that when the traffic study indicates that there's no impact? MR. PALING-No. impact. The traffic study does not indicate there's no MR. BREWER-We didn't even see a traffic study, Bob. MR. PALING-You've never seen it. that's seen it. I'm the only one on the Board MR. BREWER-So how can we make any determination on what we didn't see? MR. PALING-That's right. MR. BREWER-So why don't we get it and look at it? -- 31 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) MRS. LABOMBARD-You're right. MR. PALING-Well, that's a possibility. MR. HILTON-The Board has that option. MR. BREWER-I would like to do that. MRS. LABOMBARD-I agree with you, Tim. MR. HILTON-You have that option. MR. BREWER-Well, that's an option I'd like to take. MR. PALING-All right. Lets take that, in other words, you want to not even decide tonight? MR. BREWER-I didn't say that. I'm not a traffic engineer, but would like to at least look at it, or have the opportunity to. MR. PALING-George, could you let me have the traffic study a minute, please. MR. RUEL-Do you understand these traffic studies? MR. O'CONNOR-This is not a SEQRA review. MR. BREWER-No, I understand that, but we're making a recommendation tonight whether this thing should go forward and be a P.U.D., and maybe I'm out of place here, but if we made a recommendation for the change in zone, and I'm a little uncomfortable with it right now. MR. PALING-Okay. This is the traffic study, Tim, and the Board has an option of saying we want to take a further look at this. MR. BREWER-I mean, I don't think there's anything that says we have to make a decision tonight, is there? MR. PALING-No. MR. BREWER-We have two more meetings this month. MR. PALING-We can say that the, well, for the here, but we still have 60 days to make a final the Board. All right. So lets take some Tim's it on the list, and lets keep going on this. anything else? two reasons we're recommendation to suggestion, leave Tim, do you have MR. BREWER-Well, like I said, we're at a point now where we're going to recommend whether they do this P.U.D., and I'm a little bit uncomfortable, I look at the purpose of the zone that it is now, and then I look to the requirements, and I have a little bit of a problem with the density. It says, the proposal is conceptually sound that it meets a community need, and it conforms to accepted design principals and the proposed functional roadway system. I don't know that it meets a need. I don't have any say that it does or it doesn't. You're talking about 197 units. That's a lot of houses, and I'm not saying that I'm against the project, but, I don't know, I just have my thoughts on it. MR. PALING-All right. You're talking density, is your concern. MR. BREWER-And I may be out of line by saying that now, because we've already reconunended the zoning change. MR. PALING-The zone recommendation. Yes. change is through, from us, as a - 32 -- ,---,' (Queens bury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) MR. BREWER-Right. So maybe there's no merit to what I'm saying, don't know. MR. PALING-All right. Well, lets move along. MRS. LABOMBARD-See, think Tim put it very nicely. I've been thinking along the way he's been thinking, too. You're right, should we recommend it for the zone change, I feel that, when we heard the initial proposal, it was done very, very well, but yet it was one sided, and everything sounded really wonderful, and even tonight, I look at this and, you know, the applicant has certainly done his homework, and it's absolutely lovely and beautiful, but then I hear the other side, and there are some things that need to really be taken care of, and maybe a happy medium can be met somewher e. Maybe, you know, thr ee acr es is too much, bu t maybe 15,000 is too little. Maybe there's some place where we could come in between. I'm concerned about the density, too. I'm not so concerned about the, as far as the way the groundwater and all those studies have gone. I'm concerned about the traffic study. I think some good points have been made. It would be interesting to see what, and I 'n1 not saying that the study that was done was, there was anything wrong with it, but it makes the person on the other side a little bit leery because the study was paid for by the applicant, and, you know, again I'm not trying to imply anything, here, but I know you're probably inferring that I am, but it's just that the other side feels that, you know, maybe we should have a second opinion, I ike when you go to the doctor and you need surgery. Maybe you need a second opinion. Right now, I've got to go home and think about all of this, too, and we've got two more meetings this month, and, like I say, there's good things here, and you people have made good comments. MR. PALING-George? MR. STARK---Well, we're not talking about the recommendation. We're talking about the Sketch Plan, whether it's complete or not, going to the Town Board. MR. PALING-That's one of them. MR. STARK-Yes, that's one. That's the first thing we're talking a b 0 u t , and now we' rea 11 tal kin gab 0 u t the r e c omm end a t i on . W 1'1 a t about talking about the Sketch Plan? Is this complete? Yes. We could send it to the Town Board. They can look at the traffic study. MR. RUEL--Yes, I agree with that. If we leave the traffic study as is, and recommend to the Town Board that they, in fact. MR. STARK-I didn't say recommend to them, Rog. I said, is the application complete? Yes, it's complete, as far as I'm concerned. MR. RUEL-Yes, except for the two items I brought up. MR. STARK-Well, the phasing. Okay. We talked about that. MR. RLJEL-Which they can fulfill, as far as the traffic study is concerned, if we feel that traffic study is not valid, we could recommend to the Town Board that they initiate their own traffic study. MR. PALING-Bear in mind that the Town Board is not looking for us to fin d, i n de t ail , that t he iI's u bm i t tal i s tot all y cor r e c t, 0 n 1 y that the basic information is there. Then the applicant will provide additional detail to the Town Board, as I would assume we would suggest, or that they would see fit. They only have to say that, is the basic material complete? That's the question. - 33 - (Queens bury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) MR. RUEL'-Except for the two items I mentioned, it is complete. MR. PALING-And we can make comment to that, for your two items. MR. RUEL-It is complete except for those two items. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. HILTON-If I may, Bob. The Planning Board also has the ability that if they feel they would like to look at the traffic study, in order to make sure the Town Board has all the information that they need in order to make a decision, they can take the time to review that traffic study, to make sure that all the information that they would like to see is there. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. HILTON-So you have that ability. know that you've said you've just tonight. If you want to take, and I seen it for the first time MR. BREWER-I haven't seen it, period. MR. PALING-No. I'm the only one that's seen it. MR. HILTON-That should be taken into consideration. to alert the Board to that. I just wanted MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. All right. What I have so far is that concerns are phasing, the traffic situation, density, I've asked for documentation doesn't have to be provided tonight about the effect on the School and the bike path, too, but those last two are more routine, and I think, lets refer to 179-57 to be sure that we're doing this right, before we get to a motion point. MR. RUEL- I went through every item. items. only found a couple of MR. PALING-Yes. MR. BREWER-Is it a big problem if we get the traffic study and look at it until next Tuesday, and then give our report? MR. PALING-From my own standpoint, we can, I don't think so, Tim, no. MR. RUEL-Did you look at the traffic study? MR. PAL lNG-Yes. MR. RUEL-Well, we didn't. Anything? What are your comments about it? MR. PALING--Well, my comments are that, and I lived there for over four years, just down the road from this intersection, so I'm very familiar with it, and my comments are that something's got to be done with that intersection, and I know, bearing in mind the traffic study, which I'm not questioning at all, but I know the trouble I have had with that intersection, and I think that the change should be part of the Town's renovation of Aviation Road, and not necessarily put off, you know, make the subdivision suffer because of it. Let the Town correct that problem, whether the subdivision ever comes there or not. MR. RUEL-It needs it. MR. PALING-It needs to be corrected. Yes. - 34 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) MRS. LABOMBARD--That's a good point. MR. RUEL-Well, think that's the direction we should go then. MR. PALING-Okay. Now I'm just going down this to make sure we're all aboard. MR. RUEL-I've never seen a traffic study anyway. could understand, MR. BREWER-Well, it's not just the traffic study, Roger. If we're making a favorable report, or unfavorable, we have to look at what's required, and it says what's required is that 179-51B, and if you read them, does this P.U.D. meet all those requirements. MR. PALING-Where are you now, Tim? MR. RUEL-Page 18004. MR. BREWER-Or could changes better, that's all I'm saying. be made to the P.U.D. to fit them ['m not saying it can or it can't. MR. RUEL-) think it meets them all. I read them. MR. PALING-You must bear in mind, as you know and repeated a little while ago, the zoning recommendation has been made. So that's not part of tonight's consideration. MR. RUEL-You should bypass that. MR. PALING-Well, we've done it. rescind it. It's all done, unless you want to MR. BREWER-Well, at the minimum, I want to look at the traffic study until next Tuesday. That's all I'm saying. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, Tim, according to 179-51B, is the study complete. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. PALING-Yes. Lets answer that question first. MR. RUEL-For Sketch Plan, it is. MR. PALING-Do we consider it complete, and I think we can go to a motion on this for that one point. MR. RUEL-That's what George said. That's the important thing. That's the only thing we're talking about. MR. PALING-No, no. cover this point. We'll come to Point Two in a minute. Lets MR. PALING-Is the information complete, and I think there can be a motion here that says it's complete or its complete except for the following we would recommend be looked into by the Town Board. MR. RUEL-So we're making a favorable recommendation, with certain conditions. MR. PALING-That's right. MR. BREWER-I'd rather not make a recommendation tonight and wait until Tuesday. MR. PALING-'Tirn, why can't we make a recommendation on one part, and - 35 - (Queens bury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) then get to the second part. MR. BREWER-He just said that one part ties into the other one, doesn't it? MR. PALING-Not necessarily. MRS. LABOMBARD-But, wait a minute. Why can't we take the first part. We're not making the reconm1endation at this point. We're just determining whether or not the study is complete. MR. RUEL-That IS a recommendation. wants. That's all the Town Board MR. HILTON-If there's some uncertainty among the Board, and some of you feel that you don't have the information needed to make a decision, you know, you do have the option to request further information. We could table this. You could get your information, review it, come back, and we could probably take care of all the required steps in one meeting. MR. PALING-All right. Now, on Point for is, is the basic information we go to whether we would recommend P.U.D. Now, Tim, are you bothered One, we know what we're asking have complete? Then we have to that this be considered as a in both points or just one? MR. BREWER-I'm bothered by, Where's Part I and Part II? you're saying Part I and Part II. don't understand what you're saying. MR. STARK-That's what he said at the beginning of the meeting, Tim. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, it is. I wrote it down. MR. PALING-Tim, it's in the Code. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. When we opened up this meeting, I took some notes here, and the first part was to determine if the application is complete, and the second part is the property is to be considered a P.U.D. MR. BREWER-Okay. The application is complete. problem with that. I don't have a MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. MR. PALING-All right. Do you have, Roger, how about you? MR. RUEL-I indicated two open items. two items. It's complete except for the MR. PALING-Okay. All right. referred to are phasing. think the two open i terns you MR. RUEL-And the assignment of common property. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right, phasing and the assignment of maintenance of the common property. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-For operation or maintenance of the common property. MR. HILTON-I believe the applicant has, phasing plan, and at the same time, they've common property is, it's their intent to dedicate it to the Town. tonight, indicated a also indicated that the offer it to the Town, ,- 36 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) MR. PALING-All right. Okay. Now, just in case there's any kind of bounce back from that, I'm going to leave it open. We're not going to do anything with it. Now lets go to Point Two. Do we recorrunend that this be considered as a P.U.D.? Now I think you have problems with that, and that is the traffic study and density. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. You say we want an agreement that touches on detail everything that has been presented, and I think the key word is "detail". MR. PALING-Are you on Point One? MRS. LABOMBARD-No. I'm on Point Two right now, and I think the traffic study is something that we need to go into more detail. MR. RUEL-I have a question about that Part II or Part B. If you reject it on the basis that certain information is lacking, what further information will you gather to make you change your thinking? MR. PALING-I'm not sure they're saying the information is lacking. I think one of the requests is time to study the traffic study. MR. RUEL-You're going to look at this document and after you've loob~d at it. MR. BREWER-Maybe we'll ask our engineer a question on it, Roger. How do we know? Let us look at it. Maybe we'll call the engineer and ask him a question. I got this stuff Friday. MR. STARK-Mike, in order to alleviate some of the fears of some of the Board members, would it be an inconvenience to wait until next Tuesday, so we could get Rist-Frost to look at the traffic study, and then come back next Tuesday again? MR. O'CONNOR-I don't have a problem with a week. It's part of the nature of the process we're doing. I'm a little disappointed that we supplied 15 copies of this traffic study to the Town, and that wasn't put in your packets some time ago. I don't know what they did with the 15 copies we submitted. MR. BREWER-I don't know, Mike. I didn't get it. MR. O'CONNOR-I also really think that, at this point, you're dealing with speculation. We've put a lot of homework in here to give you actual answers to questions that are raised. It's like the question about, well, what happens if the City develops their watershed property? ~' MR. BREWER-We don't know that. MR. O'CONNOR-My point on the traffic study is, I've not heard any proposal or any question of the documentation upon which it was based, and I think you're unnecessarily delaying it. That is also a very sensitive part of the SEQRA review, which the Town Board is undergoing right now. You're not into SEQRA at this point. I think you're into whether or not we fit within the purposes, and this property fits within the purposes of the P.U.D. thing, and considering that the zoning thing is not an issue, I think we fall right within all (lost word). MR. STARK-Bob, would you poll the Board to see what they want to do. MR. all this have PALING-Yes. I think we are at that point where I think we've had a chance to comment and question, and lets just think about a minute and then say what we want to do, and you're going to to answer on Point A and Point B. I think Point A, the - 37 -- (Queens bury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) submittal information, I think looks pretty well covered, is okay, and the Point B is the one we're lost on. MR. BREWER- Let me pu tit to you thi sway, Bob, the Town Board doesn't meet until a week from Monday, correct? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. BREWER-What's the harm in waiting until next Tuesday? MR. PALING-Okay. That's what you want to do? MR. BREWER-That's what I want to do. is. I don't know what the harm MR. RUEL-I don't want to do that. I want to make a favorable recownendation to the Town Board indicating the open items at Sketch Plan, and also to caution them, emphasizing the traffic study part of the SEQRA review. That's the way I want to go. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. RUEL-Because, frankly, I can't see, within a week, what additional information I can get that would change anything that transpired tonight, and the questions we asked and the answers we got. I can't see it. I mean, are we going to get another traffic study? MR. PALING-No. You're not going to get another traffic study, not right now, not short range you're not, no. MR. RUEL-Well, I think it's important to caution the Town Board that there's a lot of interest in that area, and that they should really be careful in a traffic problem when it comes to SEQRA. That's as far as 1. want to go, but I would give a favorable recommendation, with these conditions. I don't see the reason to delay it. MR. PALING-Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-I'd like to wait a week, and right now I have another problem, and it had to do with Jeff Kilburn's remarks, as far as just some little loose ends here, paying attention to detail, as far as the test boring and maybe there should be more. Maybe we should consult our engineers as far as that goes. I mean, we are talking about a critical environmental area, and Jeff, I felt, made a good case for maybe just doing three or four, a couple hundred feet apart doesn't cut it. I mean, I'LL even call my brother up. He's an engineer. He does all kinds of septic work, and I'll ask him what he, I have to have more time. I'm going to ask him what he does in something like this, and I'd like to just, maybe our engineer would have a, could answer that question for me. I don't know. I just thought that that was a good point that he made. MR. STARK-What happened to our engineer tonight anyway? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. How come nobody's here? MR. PALING-He wasn't requested to be here. MR. STARK-I think I concur with Roger. MR. PALING-We'd have to have a vote of four, one way or another, and we're not going to get it, because we've only got five of us here. MR. BREWER-Why do you have to have four? - 38 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) MR. PALING-Majority vote. MR. STARK-Bob, we're not going to reach a vote, so just put it off for a week, then. MR. PALING-Yes. I think that's the position we're put in, because we can't get it through on a vote. I think we're going to have to put it off for a week. I didn't br ing the agenda wi th me for Tuesday. Are we talking about another special meeting? MRS. LABOMBARD-No. Our regular meeting is the, our meeting isn't until the 21st. MR. PALING-Yes. This is only the seventh. We have a meeting the 21st. So if we're going to do it that way, we're going to put it off for two weeks. What does that do to the applicant? MR. JONES-We've got some time constraints that I would prefer not to talk about publically, but we have some time constraints in this application that I'd prefer to take up with the Chair. MR. BREWER-Why can't we just come back here next Tuesday? MR. PALING-Yes. That's what I'm thinking. I hate to do that, but I think we're going to come back in here, whether it's here or I don't know where it's going to be. It'll be either here or over in the other, in the Conference Room, and we're going to have to have another special meeting because of what's happened here. Now, George, we need the traffic study. We've got to get that to the members of the Board, and we have questions regarding phasing, and if the applicant would like to submit anything, that's optional. If we don't hear from you in detail, we'll just ask the Town Board to get the details from you later on. MR. O'CONNOR-There is a copy. MR. PALING-Well, we asked for a little more detail, I think, then you have there, though. MR. VASILIOU-We'll do that. MR. PALING-Yes, with the time-frame and quantities and so on. MR. BREWER-And, Bob, I would like to know why we didn't get that. I mean, they submitted it. Why didn't we get it? MR. PALING-Why didn't you get the traffic study? can't answer the question. don't know. I MR. RUEL-I want to know how come only the Chairman got it? MR. PALING-I went to another meeting where the traffic study. You were advised of the meeting, as everyone else was. I just happened to be the only one that went. So that's how I'm familiar with the traffic study. Now, lets get back to this. We have the phasing. We've got thE? question of maintenance. That can come up later. We've got the traffic study, which we're talking about now. There are some lingering, well, but we cannot, the zoning thing is beyond us. So what else are we asking for besides the traffic study? What other information? MRS. LABOMBARD-I want a little more information about the test boring sites, and especially the lots in the back. MR. STARK-Could we have our engineer here next Tuesday? MR. PALING-Yes. - 39 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) MRS. LABOMBARD-I'd like to have our engineer, and I'd like to look at the traffic study, too. MR. PALING-Okay, the engineer for the boring. MR. RUEL-Rist-Frost? MR. PALING-Yes, probably Bill MacNamara, I assume. All right. What else is it you want for this meeting? Lets be sure that we don't ask for something, after they come back next week we didn't ask for tonight. MR. RUEL-We always think of something the next day. MR. PALING-Yes, we always think of something. All right. George, is that okay with you? MR. STARK-That's fine. MR. PALING-Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. PALING-We're asking for two things. We're asking for a traffic study, and additional information on the boring, and if they can, on the phasing, too. MR. BREWER-Well, that's, they're going to submit that. They showed us that tonight. MR. PALING-But they can either do it with us or the Town Board. know that it'll be done. MR. O'CONNOR-You just added a you're saying about additional third thing. I'm not information on borings. sure what MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, when Jeff talked, he made it sound like, you know, you did three or four different tests, and then he was really concerned, because he said he had done a lot of developing near the Battenkill River, and how things can change over so many feet, and within the different topography. So I'm just saying that, he came up here as a constituent, and I think he made a good observation, he brought to our attention, and nothing may even come of that, but I feel that that should be addressed. MR. PALING-If Bill MacNamara reviewed that, Cathy, would that be okay with you? MRS. LABOMBARD-Sure. MR. BREWER-Is it sufficient, that's all you want to know? MR. VASILIOU-Regarding the water tests, the reason that we did three borings that Fred Dente wanted to triangulate the location, the first location was selected by Jim Martin. He wanted one close to the senior citizens, and then he instructed us not to cut any trees or to do anything, not to clear roads defining an area as close to the bank as we could get. That was where we could get, and then, to get it as far into the project as we could get without doing any clearing. Why we didn't do one three hundred feet from the bank was because of access, strictly because of not going through clear cutting a path through the drilling (lost word) to get there. MRS. LABOMBARD-But, you know, when he brought to my attention, but there's so many septic systems that have to be designed individually because they don't work like they should because of the soil, etc., etc. So you have to get an engineer in and do a - 40 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) septic system, and when he brought that up, it kind of clicked that maybe, if you didn't go way to the periphery, the farther toward the wetlands, maybe something could change in there, but I do understand, it's very inaccessible at this time. MR. O'CONNOR-Cathy, do you have an understanding the nearest septic system to the wetland. MRS. LABOMBARD-Has to only be 100 feet. MR. O'CONNOR-It has to be 100 feet. Ours are in excess of 300 feet, and you're talking a depth of 60 feet to groundwater, if the material were to go straight down, and you're talking about, not somebody's speculation. You're talking about a report that's part of this file, from an engineering firm, that's signed and stamped by an engineer, and I don't have any problem with you saying you want to review that or have your people review that, but I think we're off into never never land of speculation again, as to something on the Battenkill that has nothing to do with this particular project. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay, Mike. What you just said, you put that very well. Maybe the people that are here tonight heard that, too. Maybe I just want that reiterated, too. What you just said made a lot of sense. It made a lot of common sense. MR. PALING-Could we just refer this matter to Bill MacNamara, and ask him to come and make comment at the next meeting? MR. HILTON-Right. I think Rist--Frost, meeting, that'll clear up a lot. think if they're here next MR. PALING-All right. We'll refer that to Bill of Rist-Frost, and he'11 come with his comments. MR. O'CONNOR-But I'm not sure, studies on studies. just don't want to get off into MRS. LABOMBARD'--No. I understand what you re saying MR. O'CONNOR-The purpose of this study was to determine the groundwater level. MR. PALING-Yes, and we're not asking for a new study, either. We're only asking for Bilt's comments. MR. BREWER-Is that study sufficient, and probably he'll say yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-George, you have this In your file? MR. HILTON-Yes, we have that. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Thanks. MR. PALING-All right. We'll do that. George, you'll get the traffic study to us. Now the traffic study is only going to be this report to review. There's going to be no other, you can ask for comment if you want, but I think you just want to review the study itself. MR. BREWER-Yes. just want to look at it. MR. PALING-All right, and then, okay, the other is the phasing, and the maintenance report. MR. O'CONNOR-This is the map that we have, the phasing. -- 41 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) MR. PALING-Yes, the quality, quantity and date and that kind of thing. MR. VASILIOU-We're anticipating 20 houses a year. MR. PALING-Yes, you said that, yes, before, and you're also going to commit to a number, are you not? You're going to commit to a number that you won't exceed per year. Am I not understanding that? MR. BREWER-The only thing he's committing to a number is the total amount of units. MR. RUEL-Just total. MR. PALING-Then will you have a phasing program that you won't go by, are you telling me? MR. O'CONNOR-That we think is realistic. We're giving you what we think is a realistic phasing plan. MR. PALING-But if 100 people came up with 100 checks in their hand, you'd sell them 100, you'd build 100 houses? MR. O'CONNOR-I doubt it, based upon our operational ability. We build custom homes. We do not build on speculation. We don't build track, or Michael doesn't build on track. We've had a few other subdivisions within the Town. There are a number of s ubd i vis ions. Nobody has shown up for 100 cus tom homes in any particular subdivision, and probably this is not the best time to be making this investment. MR. PALING-I relate this to the improvements to Aviation Road, and it's best, if it is a schedule like this, and I guess I'm wrong, because I thought you had to commi t to that, but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. MR. VASILIOU-In a year, isn't the number that requirements on what we phase. We've got to be agree on. we bui Id 25 houses. can be built in a have to do in order 60 percent, whatever The phas i ng 1 imi t year. It's you're to get into the next percent we've got to MR. PALING-All right. Then I think the thing is we should table this, and we have to have the applicant's permission to table this. MR. JONES-Two questions. You asked about bike paths and information on that. Are you still interested in that? MR. PALING-Yes. That is in the category of not necessary, but we know that that's what the Town wants, and I think you're trying to cooperate and work toward that. Yes, we'd like it if you can, yes, the School information and the bike path. MR. JONES-And for the next meeting, you have two members who are not sitting. This discussion remains open. Do you anticipate their participation and their vote? MR. PALING-We're one member short. We're only six members now. So I trust that we'll do our best to have six here. We can't do the seventh, but we still have to have a vote of four. MRS. LABOMBARD-I think that, something Bob said a little while ago. I wish more people, some of the Town people were here, but if good projects are what the Town wants, and because of the traffic situation that we have on Aviation and some other places in Town, I think that it's time, they have to start accepting some of the responsibility to widen the roads, fix the roads, do their own new - 42 - (Queens bury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) type of design of some of the roads that are going to be accessible to some of the new projects that we want to develop and develop well, and develop so people can have a good quality of life, and the roads are an integral part of that. MR. PALING'-Okay. In the order of priority, I have five items that we would like to see. Number One, the traffic study will be distributed to the Board members, and they are to read it and we're not looking for any further reference on that, only to give them time to look at it. Number Two is the boring situation, which is being referred to Bi 11 MacNamara, and Bi 11 wi 11 be at the next meeting and provide his comments to the reports. MR. HILTON-Someone from Rist-Frost. MR. PALING-Someone from Rist-Frost, okay, fine, and then the effect on the School, that is to say how many children that this is going to generate, that kind of thing, and then four is phasing, and fifth is the bike path, and that's good if we can, but if we can't, that's okay. MR. JONES-'Are you satisfied with that representation that our plan is for the Town to own the open spaces? MR. PALING-I don't have a problem with it? Does any of the rest of the Board, on the ownership of the land? MR. RUEL-I'd like to see it on the master plan, on your plan, as a note. MR. PALING--As a note. Okay. That shouldn't be any problem, wouldn't think. All right. Then why don't I go ahead and make a motion. MOTION IN REGARD TO pun 1-96 INDIAN RIDGE THAT IT BE TABLED UNTIL TUESDAY MAY 14TH, Introduced by Robert Pal ing who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: That the applicant will provide to the Planning Board further information regarding the traffic study. The Planning Staff will review the boreing program with Rist-Frost and have a report for us at the next meeting. That the applicant will supply us some information regarding the children population, effect on the schools, and that the applicant will provide phasing detail, and the applicant will provide comment on the bike path. Duly adopted this 7th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. Ruel ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. PALING-All right. This meeting will be continued a week fron1 tonight, seven o'clock. MR. DRELLOS-Can this information get out to the public in time for the next meeting? MR. PALING-Yes. Under Freedom of Information, you can get. This is all recorded, and you can get a copy. Why don't you relay your specific request to the Planning Department, and I'm sure they'll try to meet whatever request you've got, and you can talk to George Hilton right now about it, if you want. MR. DRELLOS-Will we be able to comment on the new stuff that they submit? -, 4- 3 -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/7/96) MR. PALINC--Yes, on the same basis that you commented tonight. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 44 -