P. Grealy: What does it equate to?
L. Wolinsky: Including these projects and the background traffic what that
would equate to.
It’s going to be up there at about eight, nine or ten percent.
P.
Grealy: It’s going to be more than that when you take each project
and you add them in it’s going to be pretty close.
A.
Dulgarian: You can give what ever you want in a traffic study but we live
in the community.
We’ve seen it. We’ve sat and waited and we want
to have the least amount of impact possible on the rest of the residents.
P.
Grealy: I think, in this case, what we’ve done here we’ve done
this generic study where we said let’s make sure we include all these
projects, let’s look at and see, for example, you may not need a certain
improvement when only one project goes in. But what this study does is say
if all of these projects happen then you’re saying that this will have
to be done so you’re planning for it now as opposed to waiting to when
that is needed.
A. Dulgarian: Your traffic study. . .
P. Grealy: Yes.
A. Dulgarian: Are you building a five hundred thousand square foot warehouse
and using all five hundred thousand square feet in here or are you building
a five hundred thousand square foot warehouse and using three hundred or four
hundred and allowing for that space?
P. Grealy: The improvements that are here have some extra coverage. At certain
intersections it will vary. For example, if I take the intersection of Silver
Lake Scotchtown Road and Tower Drive. I am just going to use that as a simple “T” intersection.
One a traffic light is put in, I can handle this traffic plus probably ten
percent more on top of this before I really have major drop offs. In this
case by the Town requesting this generic study we are now getting both the
cumulative plus growth and while some of these things may not be needed before
four or five years from now you have them outlined and you have them coming
on line instead of at year six or eight. As the projects get approved you
will have either the funds or the project will implement the major improvements
as they come along.
A.
Dulgarian: You’re saying that these projects that are listed in this
traffic study is not going to impact the Town more than two percent.
P. Grealy: No. Absolutely not.
A.
Dulgarian: Okay. Now my question is if you’re using that two percent
those are not the only people that are going to be using those intersections.
P.
Grealy: You’re exactly right. Traffic is going to increase in the
area and at the intersections even if none of these projects come in.
A. Dulgarian: Using that thinking then why did we say in the year 2003 the
existing traffic will increase by only two percent.
P. Grealy: The two percent is . . .
T. Hamilton: On top of everything else.
A.
Dulgarian: That’s not listed out here.
T.
Hamilton: Some day we might see casino’s up the road. Now a lot of
people who would normally come out of Galleria on to Route 211 to get on to
the Quickway to go up that way a lot more now are going to start taking the
back roads.
A.
Dulgarian: They’re using the back roads now.
T. Hamilton: Is the percentage going to be enough if that does happen?
G. Luenzmann: I have a question for Dick? How is it out at Silver Lake Scotchtown
Road. I go through their every day. If you make a left hand turn you block
everybody behind you. When projects like this and everybody else comes in
is there money set aside so eventually there is another lane that can be
put in there?
D. McGoey: We can have money set aside but years down the road the next project
that comes along we would come up to look at that intersection again and see
whether a turning lane is necessary.
T.
Hamilton: It’s not in with that light configuration?
D.
McGoey: The turning lane, I don’t know.
P.
Grealy: The left turn you’re talking about is from Silver Lake Scotchtown
Road on to Tower Drive?
G. Luenzmann: Yes.
P.
Grealy: What we’ve analyzed here was to put in a signal, there is
no left hand turn there now. To put in a signal and put it in an advanced phase
so that it would get the people making the left out of there. But again, that’s
something that we could have as an add on at that intersection.
G.
Luenzmann: The point that I’m getting at , I understand the traffic
issue is that it is almost sort of phasing. The first phase which is more or
less a remedial fix. But then at some point in the future you’re going
to have to make some major improvements.
P. Grealy: There may be a range of improvements at some of these intersections.
For example, if you take Route 211 and Tower Drive, the improvement that is
going to be done by the Town will buy you some impact but to get to the next
level of capacity maybe you need a double left turn lane.
G.
Luenzmann: But there’s no money set aside for those future major.
G.
Lake: That’s
what this is all about.
G. Monaco: Is it generated from formulas or is there one standard formula
and everyone meets it?
L. Wolinsky: The most aggressive one that I’ve seen is the one that Dick
is requiring us to use which first measures what the existing traffic is and
then tells us to add two percent growth factor which in most traffic studies
. . .
G. Monaco: Is lesser than . . .
L.
Wolinsky: That’s standard in the industry. Most places that would
be the end of it. Here you’re saying we want you to add the two percent
on every single project that we’re aware of now.
G. Lake: I think maybe what we should do is maybe set up something with everybody
Dick?
D. McGoey: Yes.
G.
Lake: Maybe have a work session since these people basically have three
large projects.
Have a work session to address the traffic. Let’s try
to identify what we want to clear up in the work session.
D. McGoey: I would like to have a spreadsheet of the intersections, what the
improvements are, what the costs are.
G. Lake: Right.
D. McGoey: And then a recommendation as to how we distribute the costs.
G.
Lake: Let’s
get them all here at a regular meeting and get them all here.
L.
Wolinsky: The only thing that I want to talk about in this whole entire
context is
when we can have our Public Hearing because this could take a long
time and granted it’s got to be done before we ever get any approvals.
G. Lake: Right.
L.
Wolinsky: But we have to target a date or at least identify what it is
outstanding
we must do because if it’s just a matter of packaging some
information and there is some additional improvements Dick knows right away
that he wants included, we can do that right away and get our Public Hearing
targeted date.
G. Lake: I think we can do something on that but on the same token we have
the traffic issues.
L. Wolinsky: We can’t get it approved.
G.
Lake: You’re
not going anyplace any way.
L.
Wolinsky: We know that. Part of it should be to include the public process.
Let’s
get it in now, earlier than later.
P. Grealy: They may have some other traffic comments that we missed.
G.
Lake: We’re
going to set up an extra meeting with everybody and all the applicants. Anything
else, members?
A. Dulgarian: Not on traffic. These new houses, are the home owners going
to be able to do decks and things like that in the back?
D.
McGoey: We’ve recommended some restrictions.
A.
Dulgarian: That was kind of a lead in question because I have some concerns
with the
houses that border the railroad tracks. I mean they’re right
on the fifty foot setback line which is what our code is but I’m just
concerned fifty feet from the actual edge of that house is to the railroad
track property. Dick said there is an embankment there but I don’t know.
L.
Wolinsky: You don’t want structures in that area?
A. Dulgarian: I definitely do not want anything in that area being that the
house itself is right on that fifty foot line. It really bothers me. I wish
there was more of a back line.
L. Potter: The Home Owners Association will have a restriction.
L. Wolinsky: Your code prevents an accessory structure within so many feet.
G. Lake: Are you going to have decks built on the houses?
L. Wolinsky: No.
L. Potter: It would not be part of the building structure itself.
L.
Wolinsky: I think that’s something we can work on.
A. Dulgarian: It really bothers me.
G.
Lake: I think it’s a good comment.
P. Owen: Nothing else.
R. Carr: Nothing else.
G.
Luenzmann: No. I don’t have any more questions.
G. Monaco: No.
T. Hamilton: No.
L. Wolinsky: In fairness to Dick, he said he wants it packaged in a certain
way before we should. I think what we aught to do, I would like to target a
date on the basis that we get the information to Dick that he wants and that.
G. Lake: The next Public Hearing date is August 6th.
L. Potter: Excuse me but I think at the work session you had us tentatively
scheduled for July 16th.
G.
Lake: Lets see what we did. We did, you’re right.
A.
Dulgarian: That’s too soon.
D. McGoey: I would like to have an idea on how this mitigation is going to
be handled.
L.
Wolinsky: I say let’s go August 6th and try and wrap up this mitigation
issue.
MOTION to schedule a PUBLIC HEARING for August 6, 2003 made by G. Luenzmann
and seconded by G. Monaco.
A. Dulgarian: Aye
P. Owen: Aye
R. Carr: Aye
T. Hamilton: Aye
G. Monaco: Aye
G. Luenzmann: Aye
G. Lake: Aye
MOTION CARRIED. 7 AYES
1. HERITAGE HILLS - 33 LOT SUBDIVISION - Lybolt Road (12-1-45) #030-001
L.
Potter: I am with Lanc & Tully Engineering. I’m representing
Heritage Hills for a thirty three lot residential subdivision on Lybolt Road
and yes, we did receive Health Department approval. We received that the end
of April. We’re here to request Conditional Final Approval. I’ve
received Dick’s comments. I can go through them if you would like.
G. Lake: You can go through them.
L.
Potter: Preliminary Approval was received on April 28th. In regard to the
lighting
and drainage district the application is being made to the Town Board
and that’s in process. In regard to the notes that were eliminated, they
were duplication. Dick, there were three notes that were duplicated.
D. McGoey: Okay.
L. Potter: We will mark up a set of final plans for Dick to review. He is
recommending that the new Highway Superintendent look at the plans to make
sure that the details are satisfactory to him. The last note I think belongs
to different project.
D. McGoey: Yes.
G. Lake: Let me go back to the Board to see if they have any other questions
or anything.
A. Dulgarian: Nothing.
P. Owen: Nothing.
R. Carr: Nothing.
G. Luenzmann: Nothing.
G. Monaco: Nothing.
T. Hamilton: Nothing.
MOTION for CONDITIONAL FINAL APPROVAL made by P. Owen and seconded by G. Luenzmann.
A. Dulgarian: Aye
P. Owen: Aye
R. Carr: Aye
T. Hamilton: Aye
G. Luenzmann: Aye
G. Lake: Aye
MOTION CARRIED. 7 AYES
