1987-06-18 SP SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING
JUNE 18, 1987
4:45 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY TOWN CLERK, DARLEEN DOUGHER
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS
Frances Walter-Supervisor
Stephen Borgos-Councilman
Ronald Montesi-Councilman
Betty Monahan-Councilman
ABSENT George Kurosaka-Councilman
TOWN COUNSEL- Wilson Mathias
PRESS-WENU, Glens Falls Post Star
GUESTS-Mr. Gary Bowen, Mr. James Bowen, Mr. John Lemery
JOHN LEMERY-Counsel to Hiland Development Corporation-I am here with the owners
of Hiland Park Project, and with our consultants who were involved in preparing the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, as well as the final Impact Statement, Morris
Engineering and Lever Anthony Associates, so if there are any questions the Board
has of our consultants please feel free to ask. We were here for the workshop session,
with respect to the consultants who have issued a report to the Board in connection
with the Final Impact Statement which was filed by Hiland Park. Hiland seeks from
this town either today or in the near future a resolution and a vote which would accept
their EIS as the final statement. My firm has been involved in the SEAR process for
many years, for example we did the Final Impact Statement and SEAR work connected
with the Hotel Sagamore, the Adirondack Resource project, we represented the State
of New York in connection with the Olympics in both the Mt. VanHovenburgh lugi
run and the ski jumps, we have done a number of industrial projects in connection with
SEAR. We are counsel to Green County in connection with Environmental issues, we
are counsel to Fulton County, Saratoga County Solid Waste, etc...this is to let you
know that what you've got on this table is the result of some very expert people in
connection with Environmental Impact Statement and what they are supposed to do
and how they are supposed to work and help guide a municipality in connection with
making certain decisions that affects all of us where we live. The issue before you
is really a zoning issue, you are being asked to make a zoning change to the current
zone and you are being asked to rezone a very large parcel of land in the Town. The
purpose of the EIS is in connection with a rezoning request, it is not meant to address
every single issue that could be more properly addressed in the Town wide master
plan. You've got before you the best plan the town has every had for a development
site in Queensbury. We are having a little bit of trouble with some of the responses
by your consultants today...I have to take issue also with a few things that Wilson said,
with respect to what the SEQRA process is, what an EIS is supposed to do and what
it means. The EIS by accepting it, what you are doing is accepting it as a statement
that addresses the issues that have been made a part and parcel of that statement
and what you did when you accepted the DEIS...you said to the developer, we accept
this draft, we find therefore they you have adequately addressed those issues which
we find to be of concern to the town therefore we will start a comment period during
which the public has a right to comment on what is in that draft. The discussion I
heard here today was a discussion that should have been had some time ago before
the DEIS was accepted...if the town was going to find issues that were discussed with
these consultants, that was not done and we have a right to proceed on the basis of
the fact that you accepted the Draft Statement. I also point out here that this DEIS
has been before you for a period in excess of what SEQRA calls for. Your consultant
and the Board has had this for sixty days so the question then becomes how long should
the draft sit there, how long should people have a right to comment on it and at what
point does the developer have a right to expect that the replies to the comments are
in and the right to say we accept it. The SEQRA provides for a thirty day period,
sometimes a forty-five -day period, we agreed to a sixty day period because we knew
that this in some respects is new to the town. This is the first Planned Unit Development
that you have been looking at in light of the new regulations, the new Article 15 which
by the way were imposed on us in the middle of our plans for presenting this to you...we
hung back once more while your consultants and attorney prepared the new Article
15. In any event this Draft Impact Statement was accepted and it was with you and
your consultants for over the sixty day period so now it has gone beyond sixty days.
I have trouble when I am looking at a project that a developer spent some practically
204
a half million dollars on preparing these kinds of documents which you see in front
of you and the Town pays $7600, which the developer has to pay for, to the consultants
to respond and we get a twenty page document in response, and we get about a five
page reply to the final comments. I am wondering how much attention was spent on
it. Mrs. Monahan is quite correct when she says, I wonder if a dialogue should have
been had with our consultants with respect to these traffic and water issues. We counseled
that at length, and I our representatives were, almost, on a daily basis trying to get
information. It was almost treated like it was an adversely proceeding and we don't
look at it that way, quite the contrary, Gary Bowen is a long time resident here and
I think that this an issue that needs to be resolved in a reasonable way and one that
we can all be proud of because we all live here, and we all want this to be a show piece
project and environmentally sound. I don't know what we could have done other than
to say look at it...look at it...let us have your comments and we will respond to those
comments, having accepted the Draft for what it was. The Draft has been accepted
and the comments in and now we have provided a supplement to those comments and
there has been some discussion here now that your consultants recommend that you
do not accept it and that you go ahead and require some sort of addendum...Under
the law a supplemental impact statement is authorized only in three areas, (1), if there
has been a change in the project from the time the draft was accepted, which there
has not been, (2) whether newly discovered information arises about adverse effects
not previously addressed which is not the case because the draft was accepted or (3)
whether there has been a change in certain circumstances which result in a significant
adverse environmental effect...unless I can be persuaded differently, I don't believe
that any of these appear to have been the case to the Hiland Park project. I want
to point out to you what SEQR says about EIS...basically the purpose of an EIS is to
provide for an environmental review process and with other agencies that might have
input on it relating to the approval of an action and in the action we are asking you
to approve here today is to accept this...ultimately the PUD is to rezone this site
for the kinds of purposes that Gary Bowen and Hiland Park are asking to do here.
I would like to address my remarks specifically to the comments that you received
from your consultants...the sewage disposal question, the lack of a concrete solid waste
seems to hinge on the ability of the applicant to connect to the Glens Falls Treatment
Plant—There is no lack of a concrete plan for sewage disposal in Hiland Park's EIS,
we provided for two alternatives...(a) on site sewage or (b) dispose of it with the Glens
Falls Treatment Plant...there is another super agency that sits on the Town Board,
sits on Hiland Park, it sits on the Planning Board and that is the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation. Before any on site sewage can be put on, in the event
it doesn't go to the treatment plant, permits have to be obtained before any discharge
can go into Halfway Brook, the necessary permits have to be obtained... ---
SUPERVISOR WALTER-We have been through a lot of planning and know about the
different permitting processes...are you going to go through all of our consultant's
comments, one at a time, because otherwise I am going to limit your comments.
MR. LEMERY- I would object to that, how can you do that?
SUPERVISOR WALTER-I am not entirely sure that we have to have you comment
on a client consultant transmittal here, we gave you a copy and we are trying to cooperate.
MR. LEMERY-You have an obligation to give me a copy, it is my client that is paying
for it.
SUPERVISOR WALTER-We have been educated by our consultants.
MR. LEMERY-You have not been educated, you have been miseducated by these people
because they don't understand the PUD process, they don't understand the SEQRA
process that relates to a PUD rezoning, and they don't understand the purposes of
Environmental Impact Statement.
SUPERVISOR WALTER-And you do?
MR. LEMERY-Yes.
SUPERVISOR WALTER-How many PUD's have you represented?
MR. LEMERY-A lot of them and we have done Environmental Impact Statements for
years and my immediate past partner wrote the regulations for SEQR, but that's not
my purpose to get this into an adversary mode. If you are going to say you are not
going to accept this today as the final product then we have to know what we have
to do and we have a right because of the money that has been spent and because he
is a major tax payer. We have a right asking you to tell us what we are supposed to
do.
{
SUPERVISOR WALTER-Absolutely.
MR. LEMERY-If you are going to say to Gary Bowen you are not going forward with
this project until such time as we decide whether we can get into the Glens Falls Treatment
plant then I say to you, you've got to stop every single developer in this town, every
single developer who wants on site sewage, until you decide whether you are going
to have a master plan for the Town of Queensbury that provides for sewering for the
entire town because I don't think it is fair. You can't say to one developer, you got
to wait till we decide what we are going to do with the long term master plan and
then let project by project get approved because it does have accumulative effect.
SUPERVISOR WALTER-We have a moratorium to determine these things because
projects of this size, such as Mr. Bowen's have come before the town and we are doing
our best to see what future planning we will have to do for water and sewer in our
town and the question always comes up if you have a certain amount of capacity do
you let one developer use it up because he happens to be first in the gate...these are
the kinds of questions we are wrestling with right now. I have to go back to saying
that our consultant did not have it for sixty days...he was retained on the 14th of April,
the comment period was the 29th of May, that's not sixty days.
MR. LEMERY-We complied with SEAR.
SUPERVISOR WALTER-You have indicated that you have addressed all the comments
that were made by the public, but the key word is satisfactorily.
MR. LEMERY-We have a right to know what that means, what does that term mean
satisfactorily?
SUPERVISOR WALTER-You indicated that if we weren't going to declare the EIS final
today, that you would need to know why, well we haven't come to that vote yet.
MR. LEMERY-We all have to live by what the law says, and the law says if you don't
accept it but you have a statutory obligation to accept it, contrary to what information
Wilson might have picked up down in Albany, and if you don't accept it and require
that we file a supplemental EIS or an addendum, you should understand that there
are specific statutory requirements that have to be met. We suffer from a lack of
expertise here, which is not on our side.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You might not be helping your client with your attitude.
MR. LEMERY-I can talk about attitude if you like or I can talk about what we are
trying to do here.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's what I mean about your comment with your pressure
tactics here.
MR. LEMERY-Why don't you tell me what you mean by pressure tactics here?
SUPERVISOR WALTER-Please go on with your comments relative to the EIS.
MR. LEMERY-I resent the remarks that would suggest that the Hiland Park has pressured
this Town to do anything, quite the contrary, nor have I. I haven't had any discussion
with you, Mrs. Monahan at all, all we have done is submit a final EIS and I felt we
had a right to address the comments on the EIS so that we would know where we were.
I heard a discussion here today that sounded like we were back to square one, so if
I appear to be angry or frustrated its because I don't know where we are in the process
and we have a right to know where we are. The comment to the extent that the lack
of a concrete plan is erroneous because there is a concrete plan that you can make
a judgement on, which is, if you have a system in place to get into the Glen Falls Plant
or any other plant we'll absolutely go there, the cost will be borne by the developer
to put the system in, if you don't and its not planned for the future, then we would
expect to put an on site system in and we would expected to be guided by the rules
and regulations the statures that apply to that. If you put it as a condition to the development
that we go to one or the other or a specific time frame than that is certainly a condition
you impose on this project. When they say that the impact of the Glens Falls Treatment
facility must be addressed it must deal with the potential future proposals, I can't
argue with that except that it gets back to the master plan situation for the whole
206
town and which ever way you resolve the master plan to go we recognize our responsibility
to get on board and this project will do so. On that basis I don't think there is any
reason to hold up the acceptance of the EIS that deals with both those issues. They
talk about need and allocation, we can't address that, we are not in the position to
do that, because we are not the municipal government. They speak of the implications
of the Halfway Brook ecology if the system treatment at the Glens Falls Plant is not
feasible, if they start this project and are in site plan review and the DEC says you
can't get into the Halfway Brook then if there is not some other alternative, it isn't
going to get built...those are the kinds of fail safe protections that the municipal government
has to make sure the developers tow the mark do the right thing. The availability of
water here, (their comments says, the Town cannot allocate water to Hiland Park
if there is nothing left for future development)...this is one of the basis where they
say you shouldn't accept it...what is the developer supposed to do, he is not going to
put wells in that are going to dry up the area, that is not to his advantage or anybody
else's. That's not the position of this developer but how are we supposed to react to
a comment that says the town cannot allocate water if there is none left for future
developments...the town is getting water out of the Hudson River. The Hudson River
that has flowed for some ten thousand years will continue to flow and that water is
available and if the town needs to add to the infrastructure in the capital improvement
program than that will be borne on town wide basis and anybody who lives in this development
and pays these kind of prices are going to pay his share.
SUPERVISOR WALTER-In a town it isn't borne on a town wide basis.
MR. LEMERY-Well it may have to be.
SUPERVISOR WALTER-You can't do that in a town John, it is done on a district basis.
MR. LEMERY-I understand there is a water district for this...I am assuming at some
point that the entire town will be watered. As far as the Grenier traffic engineers'
report is concerned, the question is how far do we go out for the traffic. Do we have
to determine what the traffic impact will be at Monument Square in Glens Falls?
Does this developer have to go out beyond what is reasonable. We were told today
that Grenier was not provided by Environmental Designs with our face plan, so I don't
know if they had the information they should have had to write this report, we have
gone back and added the 2.3 % growth if that were the case, and it has a very modest
if not almost minimal impact on what the traffic pattern would be. What purpose
is this document supposed to serve, Betty is correct, we don't know what is going to
happen with her land which is next to ours, she might want to develop that, the Town
is planning an addition right here, and we don't know what the traffic problem this
would propose with this intersection, whether you did an EIS or whether you have traffic
studies, we can't control all that. All we can control is what this development will
impact but as to what all these undeveloped parcels is a sequential thing and I don't
think that is the purpose of and EIS, to address all those long range issues. I am trying
to narrow the scope of the inquiry here and get it back to what it suppose to be...which
is a rezoning request for a planned unit development, which provides mixed use, which
is much less dense than this developer would be allowed to do under the current zoning.
We are asking to accept this report as a final impact statement, make certain findings
in fact and determine what ever approval you require or conditions to the approval
you require before approving this. This developer is totally cooperative with the Town
Board, everybody has been out to the site, it has been totally open and our attempt
is continue to do that. We will try and get back and provide additional information
if that will be helpful.
COUNCILMAN BORGOS-You have indicated that the phasing plan you proposed on
traffic earlier was presented, I thought I read one when I read the draft. Asked Mr.
Lemery to identify that in his statement.
MR. LEMERY-In the chart table.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-In accepting this final impact statement there is a ten day
period and we cannot go less than ten days, if we agree to accept this at the end
of the ten day period, the vote would be what?
TOWN COUNSEL- It would be certain findings that you make to the SEQRA Statue
and after making those findings then make a determination about whether or not to
approve the PUD.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-At the end of the ten day period, can you make additions
as an addendum to this EIS before you approve the PUD.
TOWN COUNSEL-You can make conditions on the granting of your PUD approval.
1-110
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-If the Board has some concerns about the sewer and about
water and traffic, can those three issues be conditioned in the final approval of the
PUD.
TOWN COUNSEL-If you can identify those issues you can then set a series of conditions
under which the approval is granted.
JOHN CAFFRY-Queensbury Association-Agreed with the consultants, and wanted
to remind the Board what was said in earlier comments that the vast majority of voters
in this town would like to see agricultural land preserved. The best way to do this
is to rezone this land and deny this permit.
MR. LEMERY-In answer to the question of conditions...you have an obligation to make
conditions and make findings under the stature that stays consistent with social economics
and other essential considerations to the maximum extent practical. Adverse environmental
effects revealed in the impact statement process will be minimize or avoided by incorporating
as conditions to the decisions, those negative measures which were identified as practical.
Findings in fact and conclusions are relied upon to support the decision, so we fully
understand that you are going to make findings and conditions on here. We then know
we have a critical path and protocol by which we can go forward and meet those conditions.
The issue we are talking about today is whether the impact statement points out those
concerns, and what the Board does about those concerns in making findings as conditions
to approval to the rezoning...that is what we are trying to frame this thing not as to
whether the impact statement addresses all those things. We expect you to make
findings. If Mr. Caffry wants to have this whole thing zoned agricultural, there is
a price for which he could pay for it.
COUNCILMAN BORGOS-Speaking to Mr. Lemery and Mr. Mathias...when this EIS
is finally accepted whether today or some other day, are we in agreement what process
happens after that point on, time frame wise, comment period wise, is there any problem
about that?
TOWN COUNSEL-I have told you what I think, but I don't know if Mr. Lemery agrees
or not, you've got ten days in which within you can do nothing and in which people
have the right to comment after which time you have to make a series of findings
pursuant to the SEAR and then you are going to make a decision, presumably after
all this...we are going to grant a PUD to Hiland Park under the following terms and
conditions...spell out things, such as water, sewer, traffic, the types of provisions named
in our PUD. In that time there is not a limit under which that runs other than one
that would be reasonable. I don't think you can adopt this as final and then do nothing.
COUNCILMAN BORGOS-Ok you are saying until it is adopted the clock doesn't start
to run again.
TOWN COUNSEL-I don't think it does.
MR. LEMERY-Stated that work sessions might be the best way to approach this thing.
GARY BOWEN-Hiland Park Developer-Sewage is not our upmost, ultimately it certainly
is, but as far as everyone feeling that we are pushing everbody in a sewer decision
on which way the sewage goes, we feel we certainly have a lot of time...remember
in our earlier work sessions we've had, it wasn't till the fall of 1988 that we were entertaining
any of that, so that is quite a ways away yet. We start building our infrastructure
and we start planning for our infrastructure, and as we have noted in A and B option...
said if the town can't buy into the Glens Falls Treatment Plant then the project would
go to option B, to go into a well designed treatment that the DEC approves. We do
have some time on sewage. Our first proposal to the Town Planning Board for our
conceptual review was for complete sewage, and we have worked back and forth on
that so we are ready, willing and able to work on sewage. Our main desire is to have
it all sewaged by municipal. We have lots of time on the water issues, our requirements
on water are very minimal in the first three or four years. It doesn't even come until
the year sixth, seventh, eight, or even the tenth, when the retirement comes which
will be a big water draw and we get up to that 3 thousand gallons plus a day requirement
but that is like year ten. For the first two years we don't have a tap on as we are
putting in infrastructure so these burdens everyone thinks about...trickle in. The same
for Town Roads, we want to build the best roads possible, but all these roads are not
going to happen overnight. We are going to do our best diligence to both the project
and to the town to get the sewage into a municipal treatment plant. We are willing
to work on the traffic solution...I have sat here and heard our traffic plan get hammered
and that bothers me a little bit, because I know the couple of guys that worked awful
200
hard on putting together a good diligent plan. Those people were not picked out of
a hat to do the traffic study, we were guided by three or four town officials, we asked
them what do they think, who do they think would be a good person to do these traffic
studies. Noted that one engineer can design one thing one way and another engineer
can do it another way, its one teacher teaches one way and we all do things differently,
but they all go by the same manual and handbooks, whether or not you use a one percent
growth in the town which has been a normal up till now, we are willing to change,
but we didn't feel we had to change because the last project you approved used the
1%. No one told us until after our plan was done, to use the 2.3%, we did calculations
on a 2.3% and on Haviland Road the previous number that we gave on 1% was 95-90
trips per day after full growth of twelve years with the anticipated 1% growth. We
redid the calculations with a 2.3% growth and it comes out to 98-20. How can you i
see with ten thousand cars can you see two hundred cars, its insignificant but we are
willing put that in the plan. Nobody asked us to...we used the standard norm that was
accepted by this town very recently on big projects. I was in the office on the PUD
requirements and reductions, and I heard what the guy on the DOT on the other end
of the phone said...he said if you use the minimum number which is 24%, we could
go to court and back that up, you can go up to 50% reduction on certain mixed uses.
We used the minimum and we were discredited for using the minimum and this is the
standard, and it is in the third manual of PUD they use, because PUD are just coming
on board the last three or four years. We've done the right things and if you want
us to do them different just ask us. We're anxious to get started on a golf course,
one that our study shows is very very needed. I am getting the impression from my
own town that all of a sudden I am being held hostage, I get the opinion that we have
an adversary relationship. We all love this place and these things are important to
US.
SUPERVISOR WALTER-Mr. Bowen, I can't let your comments go by without responding,
you have asked if the town has something in particular that you should be doing that
they should let you know...we did let you know with our comments on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement. Maybe the public should know that those comments were rather
lengthy were addressed, they were printed and they were delivered in eight days and
again going back to yes, certainly they were responded to but on your DEIS can you
honestly say that they were addressed satisfactorily in all that time. There is a lot
of information in the EIS, there is a lot of data and very little analysis. I don't think
there should be any kind of adversary relationship with your project. I think that the
Town Board, if that is what you think, has failed to get through to you that we are
most concerned about development in the Town of Rueensbury and we are looking
at developments, each one on their own merits and hope that we will make the right
decisions. I know you believe in your development but so does every other developer
that comes through the town doors or appear before the Town Board or the Town Planning
Board. It is very difficult to sit here and hear from the developers saying that they
have all their things done and want the Town Board to act on their project immediately
when as a planner, that is the whole purpose of this is to plan it out to have some idea...there
are some options in there but that's not good planning, you ought to know where you
are going with perhaps an alternative if because of some circumstance you can't possible
perceive as you thought you would.
OPEN FORUM CLOSED:6:60 P.M.
RESOLUTION TO RETAIN CONSULTANT
RESOLUTION NO.178, Introduced by Mr. Stephen Borgos who moved for its adoption
seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan.
WHEREAS, the Town Board has determined to undertake a revised Master Plan for
the Town of Rueensbury, and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to generate traffic information on various roads and intersections V
within the Town, and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that a professional service would serve the best
interests in providing this information,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, to retain C.T.Male Associates, P.C. of Latham, New York to perform
a Traffic Planning Study for various Roads and Intersections for a sum not to exceed
$8,900.00.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
'26 .
Ayes: Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE AND EXECUTION OF PROPOSED LEASE
AGREEMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 179, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption
seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi.
j WHEREAS, in connection with the operation of the summer recreation program by
II the Town of Queesnbury, Harold Hansen, Queensbury Recreation Director, has recommended
--- to the Town Board that recreation activities be provided in various areas of the Town,
and
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is presently not the owner of lands in these various
areas of the Town that would be suitable for recreation activities to be conducted
by the Town of Queensbury Department of Parks and Recreation thereon, and
WHEREAS, Harold Hansen has made tentative arrangements, subject to the approval
of the Town Board, with the owners of certain lands in North Queensbury, South Queensbury,
West Glens Falls, Glen Lake and Bay Ridge respectively to lease said lands for use
in connection with the Town's summer recreation program, and
WHEREAS, Harold Hansen has recommended to the Town Board that the Town of
Queensbury lease said lands for recreation purposes for the period from June 22 to
August 14, 1987, and
WHEREAS, Harold Hansen has informed the Town Board that he has inspected these
six parcels of land and has found each to be suitable and appropriate for recreational
purposes, and
WHEREAS, it would serve a legitimate Town purpose to provide summer recreational
programs in North Queensbury, South Queensbury, West Glens Falls, Glen Lake and
Bay Ridge, and
WHEREAS, the terms and conditions set forth in each of the proposed leases appear
to be reasonable, NOW,THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury enter into written lease agreements with
the respective owners of the aforesaid six parcels of land for a period from June 22,
1987 to August 14, 1987 under the terms and conditions of the proposed lease agreement
annexed hereto, and be it further
RESOLVED, that upon execution of the lease pertaining to the Bay Ridge area owned
by Elva McDermott, owner of said premises, One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) be paid
by the Town of Queensbury from the appropriate account to Mrs. McDermott for the
lease of this property.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka
Leases on file
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT- HILAND
PARK
RESOLUTION NO. 180, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption
seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos.
WHEREAS, a draft environment (DEIS) impact statement on the Hiland Park P.U.D.
was accepted on March 31, 1987 by the Queensbury Town Board, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on April 28, 1987 in accordance with the State
`z0
Environmental Quality Review Act and Article 15 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning
Ordinance for the purpose of obtaining public comment on the said DEIS, and
WHEREAS, a proposed final environmental impact statement (FEIS) has been submitted
for review by the Town Board.
NOW, THERFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby accepts as a Final
Environmental Impact Statement the proposed FEIS dated May 1987, submitted by
Hiland Park Corporation: and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the annexed Notice of Completion of Final EIS
is hereby approved and adopted, and it is further
RESOLVED, that copies of such Notice of Completion and FEIS shall be served in accordance
with the applicable state regulations.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent: 1
NO VOTE TAKEN
COUNCILMAN BORGOS: If the developer were to develop this property as it is currently
zoned, the density there would be much much greater then the Planned Unit Development
and I am concerned about density, traffic patterns, under that scenario, the developer
I believe would not be required much if any data at all, certainly nothing compared
to what he has proposed and with the less dense proposal than he is making.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Suggested that we should table this resolution and finish
reading the statement, and take the comments from this meeting and the workshop
as one Board member was missing until Tuesday night.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I really would like before we accept the FEIS statement
for your consultants to get together with our consultants and resolve these things that
are bothering us so that when we approve the final EIS we really have a final one.
I have had twelve days to review a document of this magnitude and I try to do my
homework and there is a lot of reading in there and a lot of cross references. I feel
that Hiland is a very good developer but I have to look at the fact that Gary Bowen
inclusive will not be the people developing this in the future for some reason...as a
Town Board Member be cognizant of this fact that somebody beside Gary Bowen could
end up owning Hiland Corporation.
RESOLUTION TO TABLE RESOLUTION 18DDECLARING HILAND EIS FINAL
RESOLUTION NO. 181, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption
seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos.
RESOLVED, by the Queensbury Town Board to table Resolution 180, of 1987.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL AUDIT OF BILLS
RESOLUTION NO. 182, Introduced by Mr. Stephen Borgos who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi. _..
RESOLVED, that Audit of Bills as appears on Abstract and numbered 2242 and totaling
$1500.00 be and hereby are approved.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi,Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION
RESOLUTION NO. 183, Introduced by Mr. Stephen Borgos who moved for its adoption
seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi.
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby moves into executive session to discuss litigations.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
r
'— Ayes: Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka
ON MOTION THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
DARLEEN DOUGHER
TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY