Village of Colonie VILLAGE HALL PLANNING COMMISSION 2 THUNDER ROAD COLONIE, NY 12205 ALBANY COUNTY (518) 869-7562 NEW YORK FAX (518) 464-0389 email: ahart@colonievillage.org MINUTES TUESDAY, May 21, 2019 6:30 P.M. The regularly scheduled meeting of the Village of Colonie Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 21, 2019. ROLL CALL: Chairman Chris Dennis Commissioners: John Martin Ann Krause Mike Tommaney (absent) Peter Chudzinski Kenny Hart Dan Judge Village Attorney: Victor Caponera Andrew Gilchrist Village Engineer: R.J. Laberge Code Enforcement: Mike Cerone Chairman Dennis opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Commissioner Hart led the Pledge of Allegiance and asked that all electronic devices be silenced. The Commission reviewed the minutes from May 7, 2019. Commissioner Chudzinski made a motion to approve the meeting minutes as amended. Commissioner Krause seconded the motion. APPLICANT: 1526 CENTRAL AVE LIT HOOKAH LOUNGE (Change of Occupancy) Mr. Zaigham Bokhari, property owner, Ms. Remi Jude and Mr. Ramzi Yaghi, owners of Lit Hookah Lounge came before the Commission to seek approval for a change of occupancy at 1526 Central Ave. Mr. Yaghi state that customers will come in to vape hookah, there will be couches and televisions for lounging. Mr. Yaghi stated that there will be no cigarette smoking, only hookah. Commissioner Hart asked what a hookah is. Mr. Yaghi stated that it is a device, similar to a water pipe where flavored tobacco is inserted and vaped. Chairman Dennis asked if the couches were included on the floor plan. Mr. Yaghi stated yes, the drawing shows a coffee table with a couch and some chairs around it. Commissioner Martin asked how many customers will be there at one time. Mr. Yaghi stated approximately 4-5 people at a time. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 21, 2019 Chairman Dennis stated that the submitted site plan shows 10 parking spaces. He continued to state that this is the third use application for this site in 2 years and the site has been upgraded since the last appearance before the Commission. Commissioner Hart stated that the submitted site plan is not stamped. Chairman Dennis stated that there is a stamped site plan on file with the Village and the plan provided shows the previously approved site changes. Engineer Laberge asked if the improvements were made with the cooler. Mr. Bokhari stated no. Commissioner Hart asked if there will be any alcohol served on site. Mr. Yaghi stated no. Commissioner Judge asked how underage people will be handled. Mr. Yaghi stated that people must show that they are 21 years of age or older in order to enter the business. Commissioner Hart asked if there will be any retail sales. Mr. Yaghi stated that there are no sales, people come in and pay to vape hookah. Commissioner Martin asked if there is only one kind available or will there be choices. Mr. Yaghi stated that there is one brand of tobacco but there are several flavors to choose from. Engineer Laberge stated that if marijuana is ever legal in New York does the applicant plans on adding marijuana to the business. Mr. Yaghi stated no, he only plans on the tobacco hookah. Chairman Dennis stated that the site plan needs to be updated to reflect the removal of the cooler before a certificate of occupancy is issued. Commissioner Martin asked if the chain link fence or garbage bins, also shown on the site plan were updated. Mr. Bokhari stated that no, none of that was done. Mr. Bokhari stated that he also needs to plant a tree in the front yard but was unsure where to put it. Chairman Dennis stated that he will go to the site with Mr. Cerone to inspect and suggest locations for the landscaping. Commissioner Judge made a motion to approve Lit Hookah Lounge at 1526 Central Ave with the condition that the site plan be updated and new vegetation planted on site prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Commissioner Hart seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous to approve the application as presented. APPLICANT: 10 JUPITER LANE AMAZON (Sketch Plan) Attorney Caponera is the attorney for the property owner and therefore recused himself from this application and stepped down from the Commission table. Attorney Andrew Gilchrist entered into the meeting and replaced Attorney Caponera and will act as attorney for the Commission for this application. Mr. Dave Everett, counsel for Amazon and Mr. Chris Warshaw, Senior Project Manager at CESO Inc. came before the Commission to present an updated sketch plan. Chairman Dennis stated that the applicant has made significant changes to the previously submitted site plan and therefore the Commission will be considering tonight’s submittal and discussion as a sketch plan. Page 2 of 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 21, 2019 Mr. Everett stated that the last time he appeared before the Commission he discussed an initial proposed site plan and listened to the concerns of the Commission on several items. Mr. Everett stated that noise and traffic were two of the biggest concerns. Mr. Everett stated that a traffic study has been completed for the intersection at Jupiter Lane and Central Ave and the report has been submitted to NYS Department of Transportation. Mr. Warshaw stated that a sound engineer visited the site at 10 Jupiter to conduct a noise study and looked specifically at the layout and the loading dock on the west side of the building that faces the adjacent Residential A district. Mr. Everett pointed out on the site plan where a National Grid utility easement exists and stated that the easement is considered part of the residential district and beyond that begins the residential properties on Broderick Street. Mr. Warshaw stated that the noise study showed that the daytime noise would be acceptable under the Village Code, however the night time noise exceeds the 50 decibel limit. Mr. Warshaw stated that in previous meeting the Commission proposed a sound wall. However, when a sound wall sufficient to mitigate the evening noise was located on the site plan, it was a large structure about 23 ft. high and 600 feet long. Mr. Warshaw stated that sound wall would become a huge visual impact and created negative feedback. Mr. Warshaw stated that a different concept for the site was developed and was created just a few days ago. Mr. Everett demonstrated on the site plan where the loading dock exists on the west side of the building and showed where it is now proposed to be moved to the north side of the building. Mr. Warshaw stated that the existing office on the north side of the building provided a shield for the noise at night. With a preliminary noise study conducted with the changes, the site, with a small exception, now complies with the night time 50 decibel limit. Mr. Warshaw stated that he believes this is a better proposal with demolition of more of the building to bring the green space into compliance. Mr. Warshaw also states that the drive way will be pulled back to increase the non- conforming residential buffer. Chairman Dennis stated that the site layout as it exists is not allowable under code as the loading dock is front facing to the roadway. Mr. Warshaw stated that there are 2 overall traffic flow access points from Jupiter Lane. The first access point is more for employees and semi- truck deliveries and the second access point is for delivery vehicles. The delivery vehicles will drive inside the building, onto ramps and are loaded for delivery. Mr. Warshaw explained that the internal loading of vehicles is to protect both drivers and packages for weather. Mr. Everett stated that they are proposing to add more loading docks to the existing loading docks which will also be more beneficial to blocking noise. Mr. Warshaw stated that the traffic study was conducted at the intersection of Jupiter Lane and Central Ave and he has been talking extensively with DOT. Mr. Warshaw stated that the results of the traffic study were included with the application submission. Mr. Warshaw added that DOT agreed with the findings of the study which stated that internal traffic flow will change, not external traffic flow. Mr. Everett stated that the trucks coming in during the night will be semis and there will be about 6-12 deliveries per night. Mr. Everett stated that the trucks will come down Jupiter Lane and there will be very little ambient noise with the addition of a small sound buffer and the existing utility buffer along Broderick Street. Engineer Laberge asked at what residential line is being measured for the noise study; the conservative utility buffer or the rear yard of the residential zone along Broderick Street. Mr. Everett stated that most of the utility buffer is conservative and they are measuring from the residential line of the utility row. Mr. Warshaw added that the buffer Page 3 of 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 21, 2019 is about 100 feet wide. Engineer Laberge asked if the site meets the noise requirement at the rear of the residential line. Mr. Warshaw stated yes it does, however some sound control will need to be added for the ambient truck noises. Chairman Dennis asked Mr. Warshaw to explain the operations of the trucks at night with the time of night, number of deliveries and timing of each delivery. Mr. Warshaw stated that the operation of the facility is a last mile delivery service to the end user. The delivery center will receive the packages from a larger distribution center at night via semi- tractor trailers. The night shift will then unload, sort, set, and stage the packages for the delivery trucks in the morning. All loading of the delivery trucks are done inside the facility. Mr. Warshaw stated that the night shift will have approximately 130 employees who will come in after peak shift, around 10:30 or 11 p.m. and work through the night until shift change around 7:30 a.m. The business operations will then change from off-loading tractor trailers to loading delivery vehicles. Mr. Warshaw continued to explain that there will be about 35-40 delivery vehicles departing from the facility every 30 minutes. The delivery vehicles will depart for the delivery center, returning once during the day; a driver can make more than one delivery run throughout the day but would switch vehicles. Each vehicle will be used once throughout the day and then parked on site. Chairman Dennis asked how many employees will be staffed during the day. Mr. Warshaw stated there will be 80 employees beginning at 7:30 a.m. Chairman Dennis asked when the first delivery vehicle is dispatched. Mr. Warshaw stated that deliveries begin at 7:30 a.m. and return back to the facility at 7:30 p.m. Engineer Laberge stated that in the original project narrative it was mentioned potential uses to ancillary fueling or washing stations. Engineer Laberge stated that the applicant will need to return to the Commission to show locations and detailing of potential fueling and washing stations so the Commission can get a clear picture of the overall site operations. Mr. Everett stated that there is no expectation of fueling or washing on site at this time and they will certainly come back if anything changes. Mr. Everett stated that there will be minor repairs to the vehicles, such as tire changes and windshield wiper replacements, but there will be no changing of fluids on site. Engineer Laberge stated that these details will need to be enumerated. Chairman Dennis asked for a breakdown of the number of employee vehicles and parked vans on site. Mr. Warshaw stated that there will be a total of 429 vehicles in and out of the site daily and all that information has been included in the traffic study. Chairman Dennis asked how many parked vehicles there are on site. Mr. Warshaw stated that with the new proposed layout, there are 186 van stalls available. Mr. Warshaw stated that he is unsure about the exact number of vans however there is potential to have up to 380 vans on site at full capacity. The overall parking has been reduced slightly to accommodate the green space requirement per Village Code. Commissioner Martin stated that the original proposal stated that there will be 383 vans and when coupled with employee parking it appears the site will not have sufficient parking and he would like to know how the over flow will be addressed. Commissioner Chudzinski asked for clarification about non tenant owned vehicles also making deliveries. Mr. Warshaw stated that there is a larger need of delivery vehicles than the company currently has, so individuals can sign up to make deliveries, similar to the operations of Uber or Lyft. Mr. Warshaw stated that these drivers are considered employees of the tenants, are pre- scheduled for deliveries and make up about 5% of the overall business operation. Mr. Warshaw Page 4 of 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 21, 2019 stated that these delivery vehicles are also included in the traffic study. Commissioner Chudzinski asked if there will be any allowances for pick up or drop offs by individual customers. Mr. Warshaw stated that no, this will be a delivery service only and there will be no customers coming onto the site. Commissioner Judge stated that he is concerned with the beeping noises from the trucks at night, especially being so close to Broderick Street. Mr. Warshaw stated that they are working on the sound control to comply with the decibel level restriction and added that with the new proposal of tucking the delivery trucks behind the offices, the office acts as a sound barrier. Mr. Everett stated that there are 2 existing loading docks and the applicant plans on expanding to 6 loading docks. Commissioner Judge asked if the 429 total vehicles include the 133 vehicles for employees. Mr. Warshaw stated that 429 is the total amount of vehicle traffic each day. Commissioner Judge asked how many semi-trucks are expected over night. Mr. Warshaw stated that there will be up to 12 deliveries per night. Commissioner Krause asked if this sketch plan is proposing the business operation at full capacity. Mr. Warshaw stated that the proposal represents an average from current business operations similar to this site and added that it would be very difficult to expand on this site. Commissioner Krause asked what the delivery radius is for the vans. Mr. Warshaw stated that it depends on the location of the delivery, however this site will be set up to serve the greater Capital District. Commissioner Judge asked how far the furthest delivery point be. Mr. Warshaw stated that it depends on the logistics and if the delivery point is too far out of reach, then the package would be sent out to another delivery carrier. Commissioner Martin stated that he assumes Amazon selected this location with the same logic that 4 or 5G telecommunications towers are set up, i.e. to service a certain radius with possible overlap with other delivery stations. Commissioner Martin added that it will be very helpful to submit something to the Commission outlining how Amazon established that radius. Commissioner Martin stated that he had a list of questions and comments pertaining to the traffic study, and these will be will be included in Engineer Laberge’s next comment letter. However, the comments were summarized at the meeting for the applicant. These comments included: (1) a comparison between the traffic study performed for Cumberland Farms in 2014 and the submitted traffic study indicated that there was essential no change to the traffic along Central Avenue over the last four years; (2) it is not clear how the current traffic study accounts for the Bus Plus (bus line 905) in the calculations of delay times. At times if the Bus Plus is ahead of schedule it will remain at the bus stop through more than one light change; (3) the submitted traffic study only looked at the Jupiter Lane Central Avenue intersection for one day. Since there are a number of fitness facilities and varying delivery activities with in the industrial park the applicant is requested to look at a full five day schedule to allow for any differences in day to day traffic. Chairman Dennis confirmed that there is a bus plus stop on the corner of Jupiter Lane and Central Ave and he has witnessed the bus arrive early and sit there until the scheduled time and backs up traffic. Chairman Dennis stated that the added traffic in addition to the bus stop is concerning. Commissioner Hart asked how long each delivery van off site are making deliveries. Mr. Warshaw stated that the vans depart every 30 minutes starting at 7:30 a.m. and will return by 7:30 p.m. Mr. Page 5 of 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 21, 2019 Warshaw stated that it is possible that a driver makes two runs a day, but each van will only make one trip per day. Commissioner Hart asked if there is a time when delivery vans stop departing. Mr. Warshaw stated that they will stop departing at about 7 p.m. and return at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Hart asked if this is a 5 day per week operation. Mr. Warshaw stated that this will be a 24/7 operation with some holiday exclusions. Commissioner Hart asked if Capital District Transportation Authority was notified of the traffic study. Mr. Warshaw stated no. Commissioner Hart asked if Amazon has a preferred offsite fueling location. Mr. Warshaw stated that he did not know, but can get that information. Commissioner Hart stated that he would like to know if all vans would be stopping at the Cumberland Farms around the corner adding to the traffic congestion. Commissioner Hart asked if the non-tenant delivery vehicles rotate through the building like the other vans. Mr. Warshaw stated yes they will rotate and run like the other delivery vehicles. Commissioner Hart asked if there will be any outside speakers. Mr. Warshaw stated that no there will not be any outside speaker system. Commissioner Hart asked if the applicants were aware of the emergency access egress with a tree growing through it. Mr. Warshaw stated that they are aware of the current issue and will come back with a solution in a future submission. Chairman Dennis asked if a turning radius is shown on the site plan. Mr. Warshaw stated yes. Chairman Dennis asked if there was any elimination of parking from the previous sketch plan. Mr. Warshaw stated that they eliminated about 130 parking stalls to accommodate the parking regulations and new proposed layout. Chairman Dennis asked if there will be any parking overlay. Mr. Warshaw stated that there are over 300 parking spaces that will be sufficient for the site and operations. Mr. Warshaw added that not all employees depart and arrive at the same time, there are staggered shifts. Commissioner Martin asked if all delivery vans and employee vehicles can be accommodated during the overnight shifts and during shift change. Mr. Warshaw stated yes and added that there are 96 parking spaced in the front of the building that will primarily be employee vehicles. Mr. Warshaw added that if parking cannot be accommodated then the vehicles will go to overflow parking. Chairman Dennis stated that he would like to see the possibility of some flexibility in the delivery times as he understands the difficulty at times to get in and out of the Central Ave side streets during peak hours even with signaled intersections. Commissioner Chudzinski asked if the delivery vans will always exit at Central Ave because in the traffic study some vehicles were shown to depart towards Washington Ave Ext. Mr. Warshaw stated that those cars were considered employee vehicles leaving to go home, all delivery vehicles will leave from Central Ave. Commissioner Chudzinski notified the applicants of the Lincoln Ave traffic restriction Monday – Friday from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Mr. Warshaw stated that there will be approximately 33% of vehicles departing to Washington Ave Ext on off peak hours and 15% during peak hours. Commissioner Hart stated that there should be no delivery vehicles accounted for exiting towards Lincoln Ave and Washington Ave Ext and the traffic study specifically should reflect that. Chairman Dennis asked if the loading docks are recessed or level. Mr. Warshaw stated that they are all recessed docks and trailers will be level with the floor and that will be noted on a future Page 6 of 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 21, 2019 submission. Chairman Dennis asked if there will be any refrigerated trucks. Mr. Warshaw stated that there will be no climate control trailers. Engineer Laberge stated that in his previous comment letter he stated that there will need to be a note on a future submission addressing vehicles. Engineer Laberge also stated that the bakery on the corner of Petra Lane and Lincoln Ave was restricted and the Commission should be consistent in their decision. Chairman Dennis asked Attorney Gilchrist to check into the decision for that restriction. Engineer Laberge stated that the site plan should include delivery routes via state and county highways, avoiding residential streets. Commissioner Hart asked if there is a proposed lighting plan. Mr. Warshaw stated that one has not been submitted at this time however LED shielded lighting will be proposed. Mr. Warshaw also mentioned a fire hydrant on the site and stated it will not be affected. Commissioner Martin stated that at the last meeting there was mention of a drop in pressure. Mr. Cerone stated that he looked at the new plan and determined there would be sufficient water pressure within the building to support firefighting. Engineer Laberge stated that the water is looped around the site to support that statement. Commissioner Judge stated that question 10 on the site plan application regarding classes has not been answered. Mr. Warshaw stated that there will be no classes for the entire company on this site, there is one training room that can hold about 15-20 people that will be used periodically. Mr. Warshaw stated that the question will be answered on the next submission. Mr. Everett polled the Commission to see if this new proposed plan is preferred over the original proposal. Chairman Dennis stated that in his opinion the new proposal is better. Commissioner Hart stated that he is in favor of the new layout and liked the positive changes made. Attorney Gilchrist stated that he anticipates some critical peak traffic changes during the holiday time and changes in season. He stated that the traffic study should include peak delivery times in addition to the average numbers currently included in the traffic study. Commissioner Hart stated that he would also like to see some information on other sites like this in the area for reference. Mr. Everett stated that he is still waiting on an answer to see if the Commission can visit any other sites. Commissioner Martin stated that he understands that everyone uses a standard traffic study, however the standard does not apply to most local areas with the amount of traffic concerns like our area. He stated that experience has shown that the local traffic situation along the Central Avenue Corridor is significantly different from the assumptions made in the general traffic handbooks. Commissioner Martin stated that it is suggested that CDTA be notified and to see if the timing of the lights can be changed on Central Ave. Mr. Warshaw stated that they asked about retiming the lights and DOT said no, all the lights are timed together. Mr. Warshaw asked if he can meet with someone to understand the scope of the traffic study so all comments can be identified. Engineer Laberge stated that he will contact him to set up a meeting. Commissioner Martin stated that the study needs to be conducted more than one day during the hours of 6 am and 8 pm to get a real look at the intersection. Chairman Dennis sated that he is just concerned about 35-40 vans backing up the queuing at Central Ave. Mr. Warshaw stated that there was a queuing analysis and it can be revised with data points however the right turn has 230 feet of storage and 215-220 feet of storage during peak hours. Mr. Warshaw noted that the intersection already fails as an existing condition before the addition of Amazon. Chairman Dennis asked for this data to be represented visually on the next submission. Page 7 of 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 21, 2019 Mr. Everett and Mr. Warshaw thanked the Commission for their time and they will re-submit an application in the future. Attorney Gilchrist stepped down from the meeting and Attorney Caponera returned. DISCUSSION: Chairman Dennis discussed a house on the corner of Central Ave and Breeman St. that is parking work vehicles again. Mr. Cerone stated that he will address the property owner. Mr. Cerone stated that the house was struck by a vehicle when the property owner had an application before the Commission to run a business out of the house. He stated that the property owner’s son now lives in the house. Chairman Dennis stated that he and Engineer Laberge met with the Szenats regarding 560 Sand Creek Rd in attempt to have the two parties work together. Chairman Dennis notified the Szenats that they would require 2 variances if they would like to put up duplexes. The Commission discussed the access road and who owns it. Attorney Caponera stated that he will need to review the title and survey to determine who owns the property. Chairman Dennis asked the Commission if they were comfortable with entertaining the application for a 20 foot driveway if the Church can prove if they own it. The Commission stated they were comfortable with continuing the application with ah 20 foot driveway. Chairman Dennis stated that he spoke to Engineer Laberge regarding the possibility of an overlay zoning map in attempt to help clean up properties and make it feasible for property owners to have mixed use buildings. Chairman Dennis stated that would like to have the Commission meet with the Mayor and Board of Trustees and see the possibilities of an overlay zoning district. Commissioner Hart made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Martin seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Alexandra M. Hart Planning Coordinator Village of Colonie Page 8 of 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 21, 2019 Review Comments – Traffic Here are some preliminary questions regarding the traffic report provided in support of the Delivery Station Building. Additional question may follow depending on resolution of these preliminary questions. 1. Creighton Manning issued a traffic assessment of Cumberland Farms in the Village of Colonie on January 12, 2015. It is not apparent from the references cited that the results of that study were considered to check for consistency in reporting. On Page 3 of 7 of that report summary, growth rates were assumed to be 0.5% while the current report submitted cites an assumed a growth rate of 1.0% per year (page 13). How does the assumption of 0.5% used in 2014 compare to what actually has happened since that time? 2. If the growth rate of 0.5% under predicted the growth rate then what is the basis for accepting the assumed growth rate provided in this report. 3. Only one day was selected for traffic counts but that may not be a typical day representative of the traffic during peak hours. There are a number of fitness facilities that have classes at different times and different days. How were these classes and their timing included in the provided report? It is suggested that the traffic study provide data for five consecutive weekdays to allow for differentiation of traffic patterns in and out of the industrial park. 4. Table 1 Level of Service of the summary (page 6 of 35) reports the Central Avenue/Jupiter Lane Intersection overall rating for existing as 40.6; no build out 41.6; and full build out as 46.5. However, the 2015 Creighton Manning report for the Cumberland Farms Project cites the existing overall level of service ratings for 2014 for the same intersection as a existing 41.0; no build out 41.6; and full build out as 46.5. Comparing the two reports would indicated that (a) there has been no increase in traffic at the Central Avenue/Jupiter Lane intersection in five years, and (b) that the inclusion of 858 trips ill actually decrease the traffic on Central Avenue. The Project is requested to justify the apparent difference between results. 5. The notes on the 2020 build weekday peak hour traffic volumes have a note “existing site volumes removed from network. Does this imply that all existing traffic from the surrounding properties are not included in the study? 6. Figure 8 shows a total of 545 vehicles (228 L/97T/220 R) leaving Jupiter Lane at the peak hours. The summary report, page 5, reports there will be 429 trips outbound please explain how given these numbers that the proposed project will only add 4% to the traffic exiting Jupiter lane during peak hours. 7. CDTA bus 905 runs approximately every 15 minutes and when stopped severely impacts traffic movements at the Central Avenue/Jupiter Lane intersection. It is not apparent how is this is accounted for in the intersection delays provided in this report. 8. How does the report account for the delays in the Central Avenue westbound turning lane in the PM hours? It should be noted that observational data indicates peak PM hours may not be the 4:15 to 5:15 cited in the report when fitness facilities classes are exiting in the 5:30 to 6:00 PM time frame concurrently with traffic flow from Washington Avenue to Central Avenue after office hours along that corridor end between 4:30 and 5:30. Page 9 of 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 21, 2019 9. How does the report differentiate between shift employees entering and leaving the site and those vehicles that are delivery vehicles? There are 163 employees cited for each day shift, when do they arrive and depart and how is that different from the delivery personal coming and going? A better description of the operations is needed to support the traffic study provided. 10. The traffic report cites large truck traffic only occurs between 10pm and 4 am however, it is not apparent that this takes into account all the other commercial activities that occur within the industrial park. Please clarify this statement. Comments on Site Application 1. The site application included in our packets does not appear to be completed. Questions 14-19 and 20-23 have not been answered. 2. The tenant parking requirements do not appear to match the numbers cited in number 11. The total vehicles listed in #11 are 625 (business 492/employee 133) while the parking cites only 359 required. 3. The totals for employee vehicles in 11b cites 133 while at a shift change you could have as many as 292 employee vehicles. Comments on EAF D.2 (b) Doesn’t the site runoff impact the Patroon Creek D.2 There are a number of places where water, sewerage, and electric power requirements are cited and it is stated that the site can use existing facilities with no increase in capacity. A letter from DPW or any other authority should be provided for the record to support this statement. D.2 (j) Shouldn’t the response also reflect the 5-7 PM timeframe D.2 (j) see site application comment #2 D.2 (m) noise study and operational descriptions required to support statement D.2 (t) MSDS sheets will be required for all materials stored. E.2 (d) has not been answered E.2 (n) is the site within the boundary of the blue karner butterfly and the Albany Pine Bush as mentioned in E.2 (o) and (p). What is the site doing to protect these species during the construction phase? E.2 What actions are required if any to address the positive response to items E.3 (f) and ((h)? Page 10 of 10