The URL can be used to link to this page

1989-08-09 SP 139 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING AUGUST 9, 1989 7:01 p.m. TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Supervisor_Stephen. Borgos Councilman Marilyn Potenza Councilman Ronald Montesi Councilman Betty'Monahan Town Attorney Paul Dusek TOWN BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Councilman George Kurosaka Supervisor Borgos-Called the Meeting.to order. . . RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 441j._ 1989, Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its .adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi : RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into executive session to discuss the retaining of a particular firm for professional service. Duly adopted thi-4` 9th 'day "c f Al .gust, 1989 by the _following vote: Ayes : Mrs . Potenza,`-Mr. 'M0�t+�,� '.Mr`. Borgos , Noes : None Absent: Mr. 1Curosgkat Mrsria ►' , (Mrs . Monahan' entered the n b RESOLUTION TO COMB, Alit SESS1 0 $9 by RESOLUTION .. r . Oinza who moved for it o adopt I on�� + `0 *d by MrB et y Monahan: RESOLVED, that' the Town , I bek ,rota' Regular Session. e� z Duly adopted this 9th day of August, 1989, by th,e ,following vote . Ayes: Mrs . Potenza, Mr. M0A' 'e . ,Mrs . Monahan, Mr..;�'torgos Noes : None Absent: Mr. Kurosaka RESOLUTION CALLING FOR BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 443, 1989, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, : seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza: RESOLVED, that the Town Board `hsroby moves into the Queensbury Board of Health. �► Duly adopted this 9th day of August, 1989,: by the following vote: Ayes : Mrs . Potenza, Mr. Mo Tit er8: t Mrs . Monahan,� 'Mr. Borgos Noes : None Absent:Mr. Kurosaka VARIANCE REQUEST OF Mr. Dick '`' Cutting--continued from the meeting of August 4o �1.1pervisor Borgos-Mr . Hatin was to do some field inspections +oday . . . asked for report . . . Mx . Dave Hatin-Building Inspector-I did make a field inspection with Mrs . Potenza today they did have the 100 ' marked out from both wells , they did mark out where the sropagP pits were going to be. We did examine the well. , �Trs . Monahan and found out it is a pipe that was in the g.r. o>> nd and comes out into the lake , a bubble test was done C'ni.incilman Monahan-There is a well on the property . Unknown -There is a well . Mr . Dave Hatin-Ok. the one they showed me goes out into the la.Ve , l did not notice a point . That is what we found, we arm s till looking at the same situation as last night, bar-ically . . . we just varified it today . Fol'perviso.r Borgos-Based on what you have seen in the field conditions , and whatever approvals have been given, the N .Y . 7"tate Department of Health recommended approval what is appraisal ? Mr . Dave Hatin-That is your job. Glipervisor. Borgos-I want your opinion, you are getting paid to loot, at this stuff . Mr. . Dave Hatin-My opinion is it is the best that we can come vp with given the area that we have got to work with. Supervisor Borgos-Mrs . Potenza or Mr . Montesi? Councilman Potenza-I agree with Mr. Hatin, I went out and looked at the location today and I do not see any other viable alternative then where the . . . septic system is placed now. It was suggested that maybe a little bit further south on the property and if that were to happen we would be ,- loser to the well of the Cooney well , I think this family did all that they could possibly do to comply with all the requirements that we needed through a variance . I would recommend that the resolution be submitted and voted upon. "ouncilman Montesi-I have talked to Mrs . Potenza. . .the other alternative is to go underneath the right of way and that did not seem to be a very good alternative to me , this is a double lo± that the Cuttings have purchased and they have situated their house the best that they can on that lot with the concerns for the well and septic . S,.ipervisor Borgos-Mrs . Monahan is related to one of the r'o1.incilman Monahan-I am related to two of the neighbors ryr.!: zal iy . 7,.i.pervi -;or Borgos-Closed the public hearing, started on n,tgqlist 0th J s , -'upervisor Borgos-This is a relatively new regulation it had been 100 feet am I correct? Mr . Dave Hatin-Since 1982 it has been 150 ' . . . Supervisor Borgos-Is there anyone in the audience that 1415 hes t^ talk about this , for or against? Mr . Dave Pine-I am the neighbor that adjoins the closest well I guess, I am within 100 feet , I certainly have no C objection to the location of the seepage pits where they are I have looked over the situation with the Cuttings and I agree that there is not much else that they can do, they have tried to stay within the guide lines it is the best of all possible worlds that I can see . Thank you. Supervisor- Borgos-Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? is there any other Town Board Member have any questions? If not , we will close that public hearing. 7 : 59 F .M. RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCE REQUESTS OF DICK AND HELEN CUTTING RESOLUTION NO. 36, 1989, Introduced by Mrs . Marilyn Potenza crh ^ moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr . Ronald Montesi : WHEREAS , Dick and Helen Cutting previously filed a request foi: a variance from certain provisions of the Sanitary ' Sewage Disposal Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, such provisions being more specifically, those requiring that there be a 20' distance from the distribution box to the dwelling, and WHEREAS , Dick and Helen Cutting have also filed for a variance from other certain provisions of the Ordinance, more specifically, those requiring that there be a 150' distance from the seepage pit to neighboring wells , and WHEREAS , a notice of public hearing was given in the official newspaper of the Town of Queensbury and public hearings were held in connection with the variance requests on August 8 , 1989 and August 9, 1989, and WHEREAS , the Town Clerk advises that property owners within 500 feet of the subject property have been duly notified, PLOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health grants the variance to Dick and Helen Cutting, allowing the 16 ' separation between the seepage pit and the dwelling, allowing the 15 ' separation between the distribution box and the dwelling , and allowing a 100 ' separation between the seepage pit and the neighboring wells and finds as follows : a . +:hat there are special circumstances or conditions which ii.tstify allowing the 16 ' separation between the nec, �.to r.i 4- nnrl 4-hn rlw=1 1 i nrT 4-ha 1 R I nn ho4-wncn 4-ha I 142 1 - T111 and that the variance is granted as the minimum variance which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the applicant . and d . that the Local Board of Health imposes a condition upon + he applicant that hP must also secure the approval of the New York. State Department. of Health. P1_1ly adopted this 9th day of August , 1989 by the following Vote : Ayes : Mrs . Potenza, Mr. Montesi , Mr. Borgos — Nr,?F , None Absent : Mr , Kurosaka Abstain: Mrs . Monahan ( DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE: Change Mr. Cuttings name to Dick and .remove the wording "and these issues were addresed when the area variance was approved" from a . ) RESOLUTTON ADJOURNING BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 37� 1989, Introduced by Mrs . Marilyn Potenza who moved- for its adoption, seconded by Mr . Ronald Montesi : RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby ad.journes and the Town Board reconvenes . Duly adopted this 9th day of August , 1989 by the following vote : Ayes : Mrs . Potenza, Mr. Montesi , Mrs . Monahan, Mr . Borgos Noes : None Absent :Mr . Kurosaka QUEENS331-IRY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL AUDIT OF BILLS RESOLUTION NO. 444, 1989, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs . Marilyn Potenza: RESOLVED, that Audit of Bills dated August 9 , 1989 and nvmbPred 89-2605 and 892596 and totaling $3, 930 . 20 be and hereby is approved. t10y adopted this 9th day of August., 1989 by the following +:e : 'dyes : Mrs . Potenza, Mr . Montesi , Mrs . Monahan, Mr . Borgos N n F, : None NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town SupervIisor' is hereby authorized to execute the contract for services with the Queensbury Economic Development Corporation;; Duly adopted this 9th day of August, 1989 by the following vote: Ayes : Mrs . Potenza, Mr. Montesi , Mrs . Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes : None Absent: Mr. Kurosaka Councilman Montesi -Announced that there will be an open house tomorrow at 3:00 P.M. for the first business opening in the Qsby. Industrial Park. . . ; WEST MOUNTAIN P.U.D. _F.E.I.S. DISCUSSION Supervisor Borgos-As we - gat staz`ted with what ;,is' about to happen I want to be sure *very�'ddy vinderstand;�'`wwhat it is that we are about " tb dog I'. ,slowing down berosuse I am waiting for our Attorney,, I dq�.knowwherehe disappeared to. . . .he and I;="ci3`esussed the fact that we were going to have this meeting -this„afternoon, S "maid `now do you k want to lay down the ground les� or'" I, well- he ,-'aaid either one of us could, so I w# 1l" gi"ve some brim background of this, Paul , feel free wh n, :am. done to .f111 An al l the blank spaces I leave We ,hae '?seady gone',,,,through, the" DEIS phase of this project, " °the �tra£ : Envi.rhbm+litital Impact Statement that was cuppleme` ted`c f ► t times. Public hearings were held a ",lot of r6o,64 has been done. Then we had, after the public hei`iits an opportunity, for the project sponsors to resporci tc�,a�hbse commsnts "both written ones and those that were .st ►ted .it: public meetings. in the form of what is known asl. ihal envirnmental , ,mpact, an FEIS. Than is "where w ', t the -m Mon � A oattple " of weeks, maybe`three `or'" wt+ lgs now,' . test Mtn --supplied each one of us a staol� "Vtv"."d� �tt�t�its,`� ike`��'au�� ax�d:�Betty has, and Lynn has her s, that is, the FEIS; that iffi not'.a co whole bunch of pies of :°tha game ` thing, that `isthe document. It is. monsteroui(;.. ve check to see if: 'indeed all that was new material; we xrre "assured that, than was not new material just: that. Vc i'. I #and -"a portion ..'cif 'Vol ..''II . Dennis McElroy from Envir�iftalital Design '`Partnership had his firm critique the rest :"df 'fit "and assured us'"that it is substantially at least the same."'as the original documents . The step that we have to go 'through now following the SEQRA process in our Planned Unit Development provisions would be to find at some point, either tonight or at some continuation of tonights mee.ting. 'that the document here is complete . It does not mean in any way that we agree, the Town Board agrees with what;" i's, there but rather 'complete in l— , I ha ve i not had a chance to talk to the Board r,�mt,ers , I have no idea what is going to happen. Unless s�,n►eo. np obiects strenuously . . i would propose it is about R : 10 now, if we go two hours-,and five minutes # ten fifteen t,,ol.yl.d be a crtt off , if we, a.r`e two or three pages away we will talk about maybe extending it and be done with it . If we ':rp only halfway through 17 think everybody would agree ghat two hours is a pretty : . . .Session. Our history of these is that we have gene thrbugh ".eesentially page by page . Having given some thought to 'this, and talk to Mr. McElroy Ii f.nr just a moment at the beginning,' he thought that perhaps he would like .a- minute as our consultant to indicate what- he dirt. to here , what he found and then • either he or the developers could respond to tho se . Some of us have seen +Arose responses but perhaps for the benefit of the public we could briefly summarize what has happened and then we will 7arry on the review- of the document. if I do not hear any objections to that? To my knowledge there is no required pl_tl,lir_ Input in the form of a public hearing from this point on. Maybe our 'Town Attorney can tither agree or disagree wi.til w1Zat I said or add to it and then we will try to have Dennis say a few words . Town Attorney Paul Dusek-Basically in this process, and that i-s exactly I guess what you have been involved in for some time now, is , before you can etrn get to the P'UD part of it and looking at whether or not y6u want to create that under the ordinance that you fi " 4en doing an environmental stt,-dy, t,aslr_al'1y. you` have had public hearing so that the public could have' input, at required under the SEQRA Regulations . The time for the public hearings has come 'to an end , so has the comment period, that is required under law. There were some resolutions that were passed some time ago that set dates for public 'hearings they. were held, there i were dates set for 'cc'mment period and when they would end so the public had full notice -Of thext. Now, the stage that the board is at, as has, been indtokt ,the Supervisor you are E now looking at environte�t' " l° itpet►ct study and saying to yourselves , is it cvmplet4; alb 'Mie all set,. can we accept this as a final do'dument? Hy d *, -that )you are only saying this is a study v£ the environment, you are not passing on the PUD tonight, you are also not -even making any -findings of whet you believe whet this rapott has generated. You are merely indicating that the report itself is enough. There has been enough study on the 'onVt ooment that the questions that have been raised by the #Ubjtc have been responded to, the response, part icularil.y` ih::thes final EIS at this point are adequate and suffici lifit., `Dhat 'is erne of the areas that will be addressed by Dennis:; Councilman Montesi-To ` be more specific, it is the study of the Qnyrironttent , the' impact of ' this development on the environment , r--wn Attorney Dus ek-That is correct Bongos-I think . .that I should, I would like to intr•,dur7e Victor Grant the ZUpSrvi#or of Lake Luzerne, thanks for coming. As youltna ► we have a very unique intermuni c;ipal agreement relettid to `this project because it c17rsses two boundary 1 ines .' The ..bottom ; line is that the Town of Queensbury has said that,,—,we agree that we will not accept anything in these°"docU 01wti%. or this project that is any less severe or less restrictive` than the Town of Luzerne wants . Sr.) Luzerne does riot have ,tot worry about their interest because we will 'ntt 'approve anything; that they do not approve, We '`Wray be!,'touOhi .fin some- areas but. ate cannot anq 'l e+ss t>hxrR f believe,a ed a letter ake 46 maybe OW is as good as titre as any from the Attorney from '-he Town of lake Luzesrne. Pattl would you read, that into the record, pleas#? :own Attorney Duse:k-Well , the letter is actually quite I.Qngthly but perhaps the most, if I could read the most important and then offer the letter to Darleen as a part of { ` tlp r-acord . Basically, they have indicated$ they y i acknowledge receipt of the FEIS prepared by Nest Mt . Villages . "In accordance with the agreement the Town of Lake Luzernp desires to continue to bean active participant in the SEQRA review of West tit. Villa' es on behalf of the Town Board of the Town of 'Lake Luzerne I am authorized to indicate to you that the Town Board. 'considers the Draft FFIS to be complete and in sub~atantial compliance with the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 6,171 other wise known as Segra, accordingly it is recommended that, ther Queensbury Town Board amt as. designated lead agency; accept the FEIS and file it as prescribed by law. In addition to this he also made some references to some fak' s that ' were transmitted back and forth between offices . He also ha"s a response to one of the issues raised by Dennis, and maybe this would be important especially since the density issue of Lake Luzerne' s density. He says it is correct that the Lake Luzerne Town Board has to date approved a fi'ftean percent bonus for open space . The subject has been .dI'scussed no 'action has been taken by the Board. Underfext'sting Town zoning the West Mountain 'Resort` Project Site within the Town of Lake Luzerne would be permitted a total of 2, 112 residential and hors-residentiAl principal buildings . If the Town Board acted favorably upon the request of -the Project Developer for an amendment to allow for a 15% density bonus , the allowable number of principal buildings for the project site would. be 2; 521 . So that was, as opposed to the 2, 192 . The Town Board has considered the proposal "but no decision has been made nor have there been any commitments made to the Project Developer in this regard, Therefore, the 'densities• currently in effect contrO ' h n, he goes on to.' imdicate he looks forward ' to a joint' Torlrn Board meeting that was discussed back' in April s.nd o would appreciate 'having a letter as to; have this letter entered into the record of the Segra proceedings and 'asked that he be notified of the acceptance or when we will meet to discuss the acceptance of the FEIS and he was in fact nitttfi+ed by� my office and also there were some certain lettea trmsmited' to bath myself and Mr . Krogmann by Mr., Persico rho is the 4ttornok for West Mt . So, . he has to my ktiowledge had: notice and of course as acknowledged by the Supervisor here Mr. Grant is here toniarht as well Supervisor; Borgos-Thank you. Now, Dennis McElroy, from Environmental' Design Partnership' the consultant. . . Mr . Dennis Mckiroy-Steve, to summarize things fairly i accurately and' I want to make two corrections. number one I will take more than a minute and ` Supervisor Borgos--I was afraid of that . Mr. McElroy--Secondly, you mentioned that this stage we have hi -torically in the past gone- through page by page. That is not the case here, this is the FEIS not the findings statement. Supervisor Borgos-1 believe we did it also with the FEIS . Mr . McElroy-Regrardless , we' won't go through these six I J cuments page `by page: I thl nk that is why you hired us . . . 7pervisor Borgos-I do not want to be argumentative whatever the Poard deo;ides wi'l-1 happen, ok, I do not expect to go through ally six but I think we can look carefully at one . Mr. McE l or-y--Very good. S+±pervis6r Borgos-Thank. you Mr. McElroy-' It is certainly agreed that it is a long process . We are nearing the completion of the acceptance of the FEIS Let' me read from "a section the SEQRA Law that 17 . 14 which was included in the letter that I sent and I 146 ' guess that I would like to start by saying that I hope we have both the letter that we submitted dated July 26th and West Mt. letter to Paul Dusek, , dated August lst. I will be referring to that from time to time . The purpose of the FEIS is to, as you had summerized earlierer to respond to the public comments primarily. In that the lead agency is responsible for the adequacy and the accuracy of this document as the final EIS . regardless of who prepares it . With that in mind we reviewed these documents with the hopes of coming up with a document that was truly adequate and accurate. It is a heck of a document. It is well prepared, the format, I am not sure whether it was Mrs. Persico ' s input or what but the thing has certainly come together through the process . It. follows a neat, clean, path which inspite of the fact there are six documents in' front of you its easy to follow and provides for the most part necessary information that is required. The comments that I had in the letter of the 26th were not major but were intended to create an adequate and accurate .document before the Town Board accepts it as complete. ' The purpose of that is that the FEIS becomes the basis of . the findings and the PUD Resolution . . .with that in mind .let me go though the letter of the 26th and the letter 'of August 1st. and `try to summerize some of the things what the response was and where we stand right now. I would like to start first in a general sense referring to the August 1st, letter and also in a negative ';sense 1, the %first paragraph' and-`they `last paragraph don't necessarily deal-awi.th the Components` `of the document, but I want to clear something up. Because I, think what has been stated here and copies are issued to the various Town Board Members and the Town of Lake Luzerne Supervisor, I want to clear a 'few things up. There is an indication here that the document was provided to our office June 16, of 1989 and that I did not provide the review comments until July 26,` a period of nearly, six weeks . We feel that this is not a timely response in what was said. That is inaccurate and an irresponsible statement. I want to briefly state what the series ,of events were, We did receive preliminary submittal , in the binder this amounted to Vol . I and II . which are the meat of the document. That was received ' by me June 22nd.` on July i6 the transmittal letter dated June 16th but it was not until the 22nd that it was received. I in fact have another' transmittal letter dated June 16th but it was not , until the 22nd that it was received. I in fact'have another transmittal letter dated June 9th that said it was . . . ''In any 'event we received it the 22nd and they wrote',back to;`you indicating' that we would fit it into our program be able tq get staff to look at it (tape turned) this was the time .bf. the preliminary - submittal . Prior to the time of -that we got involved with the preliminary document we received the final document .Yellow bound copies on July 5th so in effect we received the documents the ., 5th we responded with the submittal dated July 26th you received it on July 27th. So I wanted to clear that part up because I feel it makes it look possibly, we were not as responsive as we should have been. I do not feel personally tha is the case. The last paragraph in that letter states that we strongly take issue with Mr. McElroy ' s implication 'that the Town Board may need several meetings as the SEAR. process continues, that 'is not accurate. If our letter of the' 26th ,was read properly and understood it states clearly that once we get through the acceptance of the FEIS there are. further meetings necessary for the findings statement ' and ' PUD Resolution, that has happened in the past I suspect' it will happen again. I anticipated that several "meetings would be required. This is sort of a scheduling item that 1 wanted to make you aware of. The last paragraph there, again has a negative light on the effort that we are trying to do and I want to clear those two items up first of' all . Now, for the comments . I will discuss each one in order' and please if you have questions through this, jump in and ask, as I said earlier I do not feel that for the most part any of the comments and responses are major issue but they are an effort to make the 4 T 1_-1-Iment complete . The first issue is density. my comment =.,a.c related to the fact that throughout the many volumns }here are a number of representations of what the project -"rsist.s of . regard ing density, I think the issue is {- ). pa.red up through the letter Paul read early on. I became "aWEIIP of that letter today and without belaboring the issue I think that , introduced as part of the record, will clear th.e issue there . Now, I would refer to volumn I page 43 rhi.ch was referred to in West. Mt . response saying that , that t,nca is tahat is accurate . That threw me a little bit in that i_+- now states that Queensbury density is, the Queensbury ,117elnpme"t is to be made up of 232 units, with the revision 1-„ the ?oning regulations the principal allocation has ?ia.sacrad. now, it is no longer a hotel. allocation. So that changes things somewhat, so that the principal building allocation in Queensbury truly is 278 units just like it =_lways was so now the allocation of that is different . As t is represented here , there are eight non residential units proposed. West Mountain could have as many as two h=.sndr. ed and'. Seventy principal buildings that are multi family , single family residential units as I understand it , the ordinance , the existing zoning .. That was part of my c-Infusion , so I want to make that clear that now, this represents a project in Queensbury which is two hundred and shirty +:wr:) residential units in eight non-residential principal buildings . Understood, as time goes on that could har]Q? . (-'--)uncilma.n Potenza-What is it , is it two hundred and fo rty • +tir h„nd.red and seventy eight units? . N.U . McElroy-The allowable is two hundred and seventy eight t.lseir proposed is two hundred and fourty, and that is new to + his (Incument . I would state that through out the various dorinients I realize it has been a long process and it is dynamic as Len Fosbrook knows, states to me a dynamic process . . .when we get to the FEIS I think we want to say, ±:his is the project . As best we can at this point understanding as we get into site plan there will some changes so again, rather than belabor this anymore, that is what I understand. Page 43 is the case as is represented in the response letter of August 1st. then, that is fine. I would correct the Lake Luzerne portion, just mathematical errors they have stated that twenty five hundred, two thousand five hundred and twenty- two unit are proposed the letter states differently. Indicates that the existing 4: -nsity would allow two thousand one hundred and ninety two whatever that "actual unit is unless the Town of Lake Lucerne takes that action and increases the density. Councilman Montesi-Dennis , just so the record is straight we +r ? Halking about two hundred and thirty two living units, rPGidpritial units . Ili- , !IrPl rny--That Is the way I read it . ” ==srici :lmart MontesI-Now, then when you get to a hotel , you ?xe ca1ii.n:o , a hotel a unit but that hotel can have a hundred , two hundred, three hundred rooms . Mr . MrEIcoy--Correct . Now, again, as I understand it, the -nning regulations ; dated October 1 , 1988 made an allocation or, principal building and specifically hotels of ten rooms ;-gl.taling one, unit . That is no longer the case with the r p-�,icod regulations- outside of the park area. For some reason within the park that stipulation still holds . the park its a principal unit . You could have a '-hree h=andred unit hotel and if it is one building I would =!l,l,ose that is considered one principal building . c",11.1.nci lman Montesi -And a health facility? r1r . M#-Flrov• Correct . 148 "c>> -i Iman Monte5i--So we g are dealing with, I do not mean --4 to throw -a monkey wrench, we are dealing with !Dfl I e sizes here we really do not have nailed down . We just -7aid, w- are (.icing Jo have a hotel . I ,lr . McFlx-?y -There are statments as to how many rooms wi- 11 be 1 !1 r,4 11 e r places and I qliess that Is where, because ITI Some llacQs i } is stated as one thing and other places it is as other bilsinesi . There is some gap some _i1--onFiLFt-3n-s in this it Is understood, but it is time to rlpa) C'ouncilman Montesi-I understand that , we are still , that is 'I r-a 1. difficult thing to nail down in terms of how big is the hotel but . . . Mr . MT Elroy-There has been references to , I suppose it could be one hotel bud ding with a number of phases but its , there arQ indications elsewhere that it maybe two hotels, in Qil,nnnsbilry another within Luzerne. . Col.incilman Montesi-I am not so concerned, I do not have a prol.,lew of what the ultimate number is I just want to make �Pl!:e myself and the rest of the Board Members understand 4 him i C_- hotel can be fifty unit hotel or 350 unit, a f,�r.-Ui+y can be small , medium of large the retail -onimerrial I guess that is three seperate retail commercial i-.n,A ±-h- only way you can judge that is impact of size is I I b'a t I- ±-h P -quarp footage that you are dealing with in a- retail commercial . Mr . 11,7'Flroy-Elsewhere in the document there are references +rD wha+- q1,)..9re footage , I think it is eighty square feet. . . Super-visor Borgos-In the interest of time you have offered to answer questions we might have as you go through, so, we will not have to go back again. I think In the interest of time +h- developer has obviously has come toward the microphone , maybe as we raise certain issues the developer r:Q1._1ld respond right then, rather than have you go the whole distance and he has to start again. We will reserve the r-ight to start at page one. , quickly and go through this . l�Ir . Joseph Krzys-I -think what has happen with this . . . is the 111 C e F F of doing the environmental review, the town changed 4- ordinances and we established right up front the number of ho-tel ronmT we were talking about the number of square footage for retail in Queensbury, none of that has ever flaJACTed . So we are very consistant with what we did. The reason that this chart on page 43 is the way it is was to rhot'y 4-lha4- we satisfied the existing density that was in f111.1=r.3Tj.Fb1.try . Which, as Dennis mentions , allows us two hundred Fe,,ntyeight units of things . What wp wanted to show in +his diagram that if the new set of ordinances were the V19Y to determine the number of buildings that we (1 have , in fact , we came in within the allowed density 5c, we put this chart in to show that iltho,i7h we have not changed anything the hotels rooms are -t--1, 1 1 fuyc sets of on.e hundred and twenty five room hotels and eighty thousand feet of retail spare none of that has o�'-0 yl- changed we J!ist- wanted to show in this diagram even -T-Ifler ±he new ordinances we met the density requirement in t1 . McElroy-Pl,it it Is a different number for a single family Ien+Jal , multi family residential then house . . .there are places its consistant with that, there are places where it is T guess , that we can say page 43 was with slight --rrections , are as good , ("n,jP(7i linan Mentesi --Well , then just for the sake of , we are s-all,incr about a hotel , would be a two hundred and fifty unit 1 Yni.7 are talki ng about an eighty thousand foot or eighty thousand square foot . . total the health s# o f=i^i l i .-y is a. facility for how many people? Do you measure hi.t in hods or room? Tir . Kr-Ys -No, it is square footage that is how they A±e.rmi_ne it . Mr- . McElroy`-I am not sure that has been stated, but they are -on-l , torit with what they propose for the project , the 7—pecifi.cs of that may not be clear at the time but no }•+ e+ 111 ran be a concern. !'oun-ilman Montesi-My only concern was . . . r Mr . Yr7ys--I think the thing Ron, with this, Dennis in his lett--r has pointed out . . . some inconsistances, and this is a gocumPnt +hat has evolved over time also, our original draft p-nvir. onmental impact statement is not, the same as the final , .ltho�agh . . we have not changed anything. We have gone F,-,r different mitigation factors based on public comment and } T thinl, that we have done all that in our final environmental impact statement substantially , it is the same document we started with the mitigation factors . r=rperv_isor Porgos-i guess that you can continue . Mr . Mcrl roy-'I ' would suggest that -the. density section be 7lRrifled and pined down; I agree with what is being proposed on page 43 for Queensbury certainly conforms with Qxistin densities, the statement under Lake Luzerne should he rlarified or the letter €om ,ake` Luzerne be relied on as far as what in` fact is a°llbWed at this point in time. I !-11.ppose If that change , occured b*ft)re the findings statement and possible that correction would be made within that . If i+ floes not occur until. after the project I am not sure how the Town Beard handles' that . . . E Supervisor Borgos-nn the same page �Mr. K O mane. had written lvientyfive twenty one the document says twenty five, twenty +•wo and if you arid' it , it .'is"twenty five, twenty three . What is the correct number. UNKNnWN-It Is stated in Krogmann's letter which I think all you have to do is make that a part of the record and it is part of the procedure . i Supervisor B.orgos-Where do we take the two away from? Does it come away fr1m . . . rlr . McElroy-XIt is twenty one -ninety two. The letter ac}ually states it clearly, it is either twenty,one ninety ti.io without the bonus or it is "twenty five, twenty one with the bonlxs "—r-rvi.sor Borgos-With the bonus, it 'shows twenty five twenty three . Mr, McElroy-That is, inaccurate, Srtppr'vi�or Boreog--Where do we take the two away from? Are You talking away from retail commercial , are you taking away from single family residential 'or multifamily residential? 1 z: rrNYNOwrr--Take it off multifamily residential . Supervisor Bongos-Take off two multi to reduce that to five fourty? , TINKNOWN--Yes 1 ^`:pervA sor Borgos-Thank you. M * Y . tlr.Elrn} -13ut also in a sense that is not accurate {, because . a a jtp„rvisnr For.-cros-With the understanding that this is the 1,995 Ihi. I ity wj th the bonus . But at least those numbers add 11inc lman t1onahan-Hut you cannot do that., you have to go by aljp pr--ent day , yoi.i can' t rule on a possibility if you do ,no± accept it that way. r, hi twenty one, ninety two is the _ per visor I3�rgs-I think tw+�n „z ,- ,,± I acceptable, `hey just showing"i:f, the bonus r,nme- it would now be twenty five , twenty one . r",111„riImg MoDtesi--rf yo,i go from twenty one ninety two to '-wPnty five , twenty two , is that a jumping of fifteen percent on each and every . . . total Li `Iot.*n Attorney Paul Dusek:`-Combined residential and non- r-eside-ntia.l both. Mr . McEiroy-Somewhere it has to come out of the components a:nd maybe that should be fifteen percent less of each component . I will get into that in the unit breakdown r,0tnMeTlt5 . Councilman Montesi-How do you take fifteen percent of a h(.4`el . mt.. fj,rElroy-1 would expect that they would reduce the r-es ; den.i-ial units by whatever percentage is required to get km HAo, proper amount. . . .the facilities would apt to be the , V-311,143 , the x1,.±.ether of units . . 5tipPrvisor Borgos-Just for the record, would you speak into iJig mic or you could sit up here if you would like and just lower the mic so you can sit and hold it right in front of You Mr. Krzys-I think, what we are talking about,, it is in total having twenty five if Lake Luzerne allows the bonus for open space that we would end up with twenty five, twenty one principal buildings or twenty one ninety_ two principal buildings If they don't. Assuming that the principal brfi_ ldings is similar to your regulations here that is all we would qualify for. So if the principal buildings turned out tr) be more of the retail we have to loose some of the hot.tsing . Mr . McElroy-I think we have taken care of that. The next is 1,110 + break down, in which I was concerned that again throughout the document there was a number of. tables and char±a and na.ratives which discussed the various breakdown of the components that the developed single family, multi f mlly hotel units principal buildings . . . I have referred hack to the article 15 to find out just what should be done, ol�^;I y . a.aain it. is a dynamic process things change, rhQrP f; ill be certain single family that may become multi �iic versa through the process that is understood . ^iJpervisor Borgos-Let me interrupt, is it.. understood? Or do yov nail Onwn the numbers in those categories and just talk about perhaps just site spacifigs? In otherwords you are saying It- could be twenty hotels , I do not know that would he the Irish of the Board.? Mr . me complete my thought here, this refers to Article 15 which requires that for sketch plan approval of the PTJP there is a del'ination of various residential areas ii-J.1cati.ng for each such area its general intended size and composition in terms of the number of dwelling units so + otal numbers have to be given and approximate percentage allocation by dwelling units, by ie. single family detached, + ownholjse, ao in fact we are not here to pin West this development is going to turn out and have two 51 � Vrntsand: one hundred and twenty three ml.t.lti family units and + 1;:14- is tl,A end of things but some representation of what ahe project consists o£, that is the final thought at this n4. ir, ti_inA . Again, a clarified corrected page 43 I think so vp that . In the future as you go to site plan, ,.1 o,_t I d 1 i.nal �i.±p plan the Planning Board members can tare these f ,!,,cements and hopefully go back. to the PUD resolution and this is what this project was when yotl yea ,aFFro;;ed it and if there is a change well then you take ,r-nre(11v19l things are necessary to change these � ; f+aan mu F lti families bark into single family or whatever . Por rs.-I.,et me interrupt you again, and cheep F .t g. ..Oth our Attorney , because . on page 43 under principal },•le l 1 i ngG the hotel is listed as one and if at some poin{-. this roject with one hotel 'I want to be darn vote for p there is one hotel . The Planning Board does not have the ability to make it five. if they want two they should say two now . Nip-. . McElroy-Again, there is some place in here and I will , r , att find one of my flags in the documents there is s�mQplace that do oes show two hotels in Queensbury and a o, again there is third one in I��rze — S inconsistencies in + Ije documentation, if that is a concern, if that is what i4 ?°Qqi0.red lets clear it now. councilman Monahan-I9 that under findings? T„wan AttnrnPy Pus..e k-You can, I do not think that the appropria}e place would be under findings but acutally in 4-he agrepment with the developer and in the PUD legislation 1„at I believe , I have spoken with Dick in the past and I +•t•,i n!-v he has at least somewhat of an answer on this issue maybe . c„pervisor Borges-Please state you name and affiliation, iust for the record? I rir. Richard Persico-My name is `Richard, Persico , I am an A+ +�,rney far West Mt . Project. Dennis , I believe that the answer to your question is the letter we wrote to Paul Dusek in response to your concern about . . .'.the 'split between the residental type development and we provided to Paul today a letter for, the record meat which wouldaset that tat twenty en•,ironmental impact sta_ement percent of the residential units will be single .family dwellings eighty percent will be multi dwelling. Mr. Krzys-3.n Queensbury. Attorney Persico-Beyond that on the question of pining down the project on the number of hotels etc , even my) you are t lki.ng about this evening 4s only the environmental imparts , yoga also have before you, not to act on tonight but F},o actual PUD application. That states very definitively two hundred and fifty units or whatever. or Forgos-That was my opinion until I just heard 110 pons i.bly change , I just want to be sure . 71+ tnrn°y persico-That is the application you have behind g.n,l Rjla.t is totally within your discretion on how you are g.�i.ng tc, act on that application. ' II I Dorgos-I wolxld just like to be sure that we know ialle-Hier there is five or ten, it could always be less than , . .biit i f it is one, it is one. Mr- . yr ,ys--tn response to this we have asked for two , one h1indr. ed >• and twenty five unit of hotel it is somewhat Confusi=ng, because above our retail space where the second "rooms are gollig to be it will be bed and breakfast rnnms 3�,ove the retail space, we do not what to call that Because, it is ..hot,. a + :h 0 t eA Pk tit. it is a hotel it is in a retail building. So, it is sort of a hodge podge, it is a different design* - i r a <Jt_-eat j.10 11 U ` Supervisor Borgos-Mr: ` Hatlniia sefail?ing ybu:xare"-'getting into all kind's of 1code* quest16h8(V itj.=.i'al a m1tVhg Mr. Krzys-I think.!,:that ' drhatm, bur°x''intentlbh' is to 'do two hundred and fifty' itpits. ' of:lh.bte4' ln' Que hsbur�; that is what we stated in"the.'begginnifig. 1"Wh6ther it`'is in, there will be one bui l dixig tlY,at"wi 1 l`'be°,'a";hbte l'- "btii iding -` exclusively for `r a'" hbtbl"andV ; .".beds`` Ahh btf alkfast rooms above retail space' ' it seethtf tb" AaA�te' a' ti"dihbadous','market. Supervisor Borgos-Where ` i�t3ili l �'th#t fits" n"'tYie° principal building category It' ' would",""De thiu''tika�ily�rs Mr. Krzys-No, they would be ' considered hotel units but, Supervisor Borgos-So you would really, more than one hotel unit, one hotel principal building? Mr. Krzys-Yes, I do not know what to call it Steve, because Supervisor Borgos-I do not either Councilman Monahan-You have probably have it under retail commercial . Mr. Persico-It is innovative planning. Mr . Krzys-I think what we could do is to express our design and our intent in the PUD process ' and in the agreement so. . . Councilman Montesi-Can I Mask you a question, if, just for the sake of maybe, more definitive, its possible to have a hotel with retail space, it is an unusual situation to have a retail outlet and' a hotel . . .the concept of a store' under ,a hotel is something we see day in and day- out, so if you in essence you really want two hot sls. 'why cannot you have, herer, two here for hotels and on`your "detail commerial go to two. The concept is that the second'=Kote1 is gong `to be` a hotel but there is going to be some;;. rail going under it onthe first floor. The square bootage;.is still going to be the same nothing will change except :'hi,s Board and everyone else knows that there are going'to b�s,.two hotels.` up there one is a seperate hotel that wil t. be► 'itt'the top of the lunicxlar the other will be a bed `and'�r'eakf'ast type �of hotel."above the retail in the "interna:ti,6iial',.Vi.l.lage . You, ar"e:' going. to have only four units in two# ` You still get' your" eighty thousand square feet of retail",Space; Mr. Krzys-I think that is a' great idea by the way, none of the complexing parts of this right now, because we' have not done the site specific design of the village, where we are saying three retail buildings right now the only reason why there is room between the two seventy eight and the two fourty we have it might really be to get the eighty thousand square feet it might be . . .retail buildings it would always be within the zoning regulations. We already said that is what we want, the number , of hotel rooms isn't going to change we said to you what we want. I cannot tell you until we do the site specific ;desigd, and the topography exactly how many buildings there are g,6ftg to be, all I` know' is that there is going to be less than.`'two, hundred and,seventy eight and when we did this chart to COth'e up with two fourty, we did it using the number of residential units we'would 'have under the old ordinance if we did the:.equivalency for hotel rooms and translated that into housing units we would use, we would have ended up by that figure of two hundred and seventy eight units. Under ,the new ordinance we end up with two hundred and fourty. Councilman Montesi-The public and this Board knows that you '153 have three retail commercial or five, ultimately the square footage would be totally only eighty thousand. So, if you are just playing with some numbers here, my only comment is for just purposes of clarity' put two hotels in, put two retail you are still going to get' all the space you need and want and entitled to it made you a "little more up front. Is that acceptable does that answer I your question Steve? Supervisor Borgos-Yes, I am concern . we want to be able to say before we vote, what we are looking at, are we looking at one or two or three or five?, Again I would rather be on the high side up front . . . then be on the low side and someone accuse you of building more and we get-back into. . . Mr. Krzys-In the agreement we do in the PUD process when we get to that level I think what: we would want to do then is maybe clarify this different4: now, because we had a hard time figuring out how to dQ>°; this thing under the new ordinance and still be consistent with what we talked about originally, eighty thousand square feet and two-hundred and fifty hotel units. So if we could work that ,out' so-that you are satisfied as long as you are within the existing zoning the density level I think that,'. is'.the whole point of this. Councilman Montesi-The public ; perception is more clear. Attorney Persico-You can finalize it anyway you want to in your FEIS what I am suggesting;;•is that if you are agreeing i with what Mr. Montesi :is sayng� that we can agree generally to the language . fets agree;tbs, it and then we= finalize such without having to put it off` td`," &AOther` date. Supervisor Borgos-So, forinstanoe "you are saying you would agree to change retail commorciif from three to two; would you add a parenthesis next t# the eighty thousand square feet. Mr. Krzys-Yes . If we do that Steve what is your intrepretation then when we .•. end . 'up with six buildings because they may want: to put g9Lps between buildings; rather than one great big shopping 'mal:l ,-,1 ike a ;shopping mal I, could be considered one great big building. One` hurtdre, thousand square feet I think what we want,.to ' do is to.:. bre 'ak this out with trees inbetween and thirigs{ 1'ike that for;'our. ?retail areas . Supervisor Borgos-How about an ,'aiterisk after the;.three put the eighty thousand square. "I iet' and asterisks•.=would- say total would be eighty thous'and 'equare feet; maybe', three or more buildings. Mr. Krzys-That is fine, as Jong . as we stay within the existing density. Supervisor Borgos-That. would' be reasonable. . . - Councilman Montesi-Or two or more buildings you could play the numbers anyway you want, you I arIe`'going from three to two we are going from one to two on the hotel Supervisor Borgos-We are not excluding you from this discussion yet we are just getting some things and we will come back to you. Councilman Montesi-Then on the hotel if you could just say two units presently one twenty • fve` each and that sort of clarifies it for everyone. : We always saw two hotels up there . Mr. Krzys-I do not want to mare"' tihis any more complicated then it is, lets say we end up 'wth four retail buildings it is very possible the other one hundred and twenty five hotel rooms end up above those four.'.;.buildings, so now we„have a problem, so if we''aster,sk':''it .arid :stay within the existing 154 L ,!-Iasi ty and do what Steve suggested. ,`�incilman Potenza--density as to where we put one building or two buildings or four buildings . . . upervisor Borgos-1 am concerned that as other projects have ^ome before us perhaps they were allowed five hundred twenty and they said we are only going to use, four eighty, that was a selling point that they are going below the required density. What you are saying tows now is that you are proposing two fourty but you really have the flexability of aoinq to two seventy eight point seven if you want to . It +hint. som ehow that should, be _ you are not saying you are only going to go to two forty, you, ' make' it very clear now, bll+ it is not clear on paper. Somehow a sentence or something in there will say,- we are not indicating that we are going below the density you have the right to go to the density. Councilman Monahan--I am going to ask the question when you arp ±a.lking about that, then, you are talking about raising i-.hat density, by raising your residential units? r,_t.petvisor Borgos-That was part of my question. That is -;:actly the point that I am looking at, I do not know where , that is why I said before your could add twenty hotels . . . ('ounc i lman Monahan--1 would like a committment on how many actual residential units there are going to be. Mz- . Krzys Again, historically how this came about, that if we were to use the old , ordinances and have two hundred and fifty hotel rooms and retail space and all that, we would have ended up with' two hundred and thirty two residential units and then all .the rest of:.fie ,things-that we wanted to do would have eaten up the'r*M*i.nder of the residential - units . So we would have ended up with two hundred and seventy eight. Now, In order to be consistant with what we did before, all we ended up-with y i s two :f ourty I never even thought about whether we ,were going to have more houses or not? I am mostly concerned about making sure are have enough principal building. . Councilman Monahan-1 want a comm3ttment from you. Mr. Krzys-I would like to talk to my partners on how we would do that. I' think that our committment is not to exceed the density. I undersand what you are saying. . . rounci lman Monahan-1 want a Comm ttment as far as the r-sidPntial units . 2!r , Vr7ys-We will have to clarify that in this and if we can do that a's far as the FEIS proceeding and we will clarify ^,�r,P* visor Borgog-Only' because ' as I understand it this d.,)r+tme0- becomes our document when we approve it, it is no longer your document, ready, to answer public questions . I).n.ni_s Tnot.tld Y01-1 continue a little `bf.t we are managing to rxPate some comments . Mr . McElroy- . .we will ,go on to traffic . My concern is , this d.or,,.ment response to public comments that the village of Onrinth had made a fairly significant comment during the r,trlic comment period and I was : (tape turned)I guess this sg1.iP maybe becomes a non-issue i.n try view point now that infact legally there is not a requirement I did not recommend that it happen but I -suggested that it might Occur, but legally it is not a _basis for that . Throughout this process there are a number of comments that have come in from the average citizen to D.E.C. to Queensbury Association, review comments in, what our job is to consider si1bc%1-an4-; ;T- comments and see that they are. properly =�l.f3ressed . I do not want to say that I looked at more, that i ': made to be seen anymore importani: than any of the others' h1at the fact when comments come from municipalities , D.E.C . t.hcise tended to be the more substan-ive comments as opposed }c the standard letters from Citizens that either were :nt;ally against the project or totally for the project and ':hat it basically the content of the letters of support letters denying. That was , I felt was a significant letter, ±:he comment and their response indicates that I continue not accept the stated: consensus of the traffic officials including ` Queensbury' s traffic consultant well in fact Greiner. s Eng. is our subcontracts for the project and not Queensbury's , so they are, our consultants . I was part of :hat prot4e"ss as well , sn , it is certainly not the case that I did not accept that consensus . I do want to make it clear becayse' I think there is a public perception that, because I have read it in certain letters and maybe letters to the editors and certain things like that we are saying that these impacts of traffic are not known. That we will decide on them 3n the future . I want to be clear about this, that, that is not the case. We anticipated what the impacts are in several different scenarios and what the mitigation are within those different scenarios . We are just not sure trihich one is going to transpire. It is not that we are pushing that evaluation of impact off in the future, it is clear that an effort was made to determine what those impacts were in the mitigation for those . So that is the traffic issue kind of evolves into understanding what those impacts are now or what they can be projected to be in the fi,ture . ? do want to make it clear we have an idea what the impacts are, West tit . has done that for us, volumns of different scenarios and they understand what impacts are . apt to be . We just are not sure which one are actually preferred . Now, the issue with Corinth, I am satisfied that response related to the Palmer Avenue, Main Street Traffic Signal is not specifically addressed they have requested a light there at a certain date and time. The response to that is evidently is that there . . .after phase two understood, I understand that', that should be understood as part of the response to the public comment. The next two issues are similar, related to traffic, , right of way acquisition and cost of improvements . Originally we had had a feeling that this issue of right of way acquisition should be some what defined the public concern, this traffic is going to create four lane highways . People who live in the area of town, the properties are going to be taken away, I do not believe that is going to be the case. I do not feel that , that is an impact that should be preceived I originally talked about defining where right of way may need to be a:cq uir6d.. That was wrong in the way I stated it, and understand that and the developer has kindly corrected that situation by saying that we do not know what the right of way should be, we do not know if the improvements are +' n-ressar. y or where they should be. So, I understand that, t>tt+. I then sort of reversed the situation and requested ±:ha.': information be submitted that would determine the exist ng right of way in those areas that are at this point in l i-+yle IMcogni z'ed as those that could require improvement . T � is pr. ojecfed that through different traffic scenarios Rna:d for instance would be widdened . What it is the ; t1.taticn , what is the existing right of way the response in fF�a t�tt.aust lst . letter didn't even acknowledge that, they wen+ back try the feeling that I was asking for defining what ' '-tea needed right of way was . 'That is not the case . The letter was reversed, that is an opinion T thought the comment we felt was necessary to 'clarify the impacts of this particular project . West Mt . has responded by saying it is necessary it is not appropriate at this time I turn to 'Ton ('flunci. lman Montesi-Dennis , are you saying in essence what, let me jest see if I can understand it . I know that when _. Q,.taker Road went to be, widened` I had a very good handle on what the County owned on Quaker Road, how wide and how much E lmw T-10 would have to acquire, as a County . You are-, saying on q Y toad from Exit 18 to West M4-- . 1.ets assume that that i. � nnp of the roads that untimately will be affected and it may 11a•119 to go to four lanes . Yol.z would like to know how m'ich of that the County in ,fast owns-. How wide a berth do w- take and if it is going to, go to four lanes that means it •could. he ;ust suppose_ it is one hundred and fifty feet wide ' , i whatPvpr , what is the impact on that. In other words holy rxipA ; Northern Dist . would have to move . Is that the hind of thing that yo,.x are asking for. ? f` Mr . McElroy-Yes , basically At is an understanding of what that Q` :st.ing right of way is so that I guess, I heel that the tr_,tal impact of the impact of the project could be ?; understood . The mitigation is there as far as the '-raffi_c improvements , we may in fact need to widen this road based on not only West Mt . traffic but other growth in traffic and need, in the next twenty years . That the comment 1 made and tried to make the document more accurate moro a,19qu.ate more complete . You see the response , we are ^oxt of at a stalemate there . I do not know if it is a Major isFue but it is a comment and it has been responded f7r 1n,-iloran Monahan--My frank opinion is if I were in business ay)( along that road and I maybe planning on expansion I ,gould want to know what my future possibilities were . If I 1.7pre a home owner I certainly would want to know what the fv.t-.ire of my home and the possibilities of it were going to 1, 1),r) ;.h in traffic , noise, my front yard, or if I am going to a.dd on do I add on in front_ or do I add on in back },aca,-yse of what is happening .out in front. I think this is something people have a certain right to know and not have . . A—ld over their head. r"ouncilman Montesi-The other point too , I guess is that if t we had a better handle on that what I would probably suggest � and 4: would depend on what the actual right of way is , perhaps our Planning Board and our Planning Dept . through the Planning Dept. would recommend that any and all buildings built on the Corinth Road from this day forward have seventy five foot set backs rather than a fifty, because then we would only be causing a problem that we knew :,Wind be coming down the line . . . Councilman Monahan-It would cost more to acquire the right ,.,f way too once the people build on them and so on and so f forth , Mr . McElroy-This came up through the discussion with Fred Al,.stin and referral to this TAC how they would resolve certain issues . Fred had basically made this recommendation -i +hin his memo that is rpferred to a number of times within t.ha document that we could get going as far as understanding G ��la? the right of ways are, where they may be needed in the for these planning efforts . It came up immediately +_10 s Be.ifnrd Close expansion, new phase , at the corner, c,f_ west M► . Road and Corinth Road and in fact I think that plannina effort resolved that issue Where they did require `h It to be set back because of the potential future needs . A.uain +- is a definition of existing so that those involved can evaluate the impact, I do want to caution just like West ?lt . did that we can' t project exactly what those lmprnvpments are going to be as far as the geometric design. , Ts it going to be four lanes is it going to be needed you have to be caucious as far as taking that next step but it fs information that would help better evaluate the Impact. ; s Fupervisor Horgos-Mr . Brandt i" l-e Iirandf:- Vith West Mountain-In no way do we want to avoid identifying What has to be done. But that road is owned by fAie County and the County operates within certain laws ,=yl+hit, New York State and they are very complex. The County hay tight« t:o choose how they want to look at those laws . Tha-± is their right and their obligation and they have a.7ked tha;t•. they handle that and so we have asked that, we can not handle that if they want to handle that . We cannot tR e away their legal rights and responsibilities of how `hey want to act . It is very clearly stated to us that the (` my by the County lUghway Administrator Mr. Austin, that hA r'ounty has to choose how its going to look at those ways , that Is not for 1.rs to do we can 't do that . them to do . I think we can`t force them to take a iPut they ha—N e legal rights to look at it from bhp; * ?,iew point., it is their road and they Will design it a.r-cnr.ding to how they view it , We will work with them and the traffic study committee at the appropriate times to do wba.t- has to be dome . The Planning Board in Queensbury has alreay made provisions for, in the Town' s plan for the -idQning of Corinth Road and has required new set backs on t1�at xoad if my, I have been told. From now on set backs '.r. A more than they were so I think everybody has done what they can do at this time . Borgos-1 think what Mr. McElroy is asking you, P1.1 7-rY simply can you produce by asking the County some tYPe of sketch some currently what the right of way width is , is i� sixty feet , , ninety feet or one hundred feet. Mr . McElroy 1 think that they have asked the question, I have a copy of the letter that Dana wrote to Fred and I 4-hat process may be underway but. . SUPervisor Porgos-I would think that would be a fairly easy• t_-he Town we know generally if our roads are thirty fAAt >i�e or fifty or sixty. TI r . Ptrandt---It is not that 'simple . Supervisor Borgos-i know there would be variations , Mr. Prandt -That I am saying is that there are more than one ordinance in which the County can use in establishing its right of ways,. They have to do that themselves . =.1pervisor Borgos-I do not know about the future, I think what we are talking about is . . . Mr . Pr and - . . for now. Supervisor Borgos,-There are some roadways by usage and maybe not deledpd . Mr . Br. andt -I do not know the laws''and i'c��t.rZr-j 1ma7 Montesi- It is not clear cut. i ! r . Pr_ and,t-There is something there that is more complex a deeded z:`ight nf Way. There are laws in there `,at +:hoY hIVP to -Ud(Te how to work within those laws and a�Y-1 =.tr to 0:RY o,.if: of it and let them handle it., ha 4: is a polite way of saying it . a c=v.n^j lmaPl rlor)ahan- h can only say, I live n a County Road and my map shows the exact amount that has to be left there r,r - hp County to use tt is specified that way on the map. Mr. . Brandt-we are only trying to respect what the County is a s 1c 1.„c of =,,s ! "!=.pervisr?r Borcros-Any farther comments about this? r' ?nr loran rionall, n-Ma-ybe Lee and Fred could work on this, �o r.,a cc) ld get a handle on this. . . Porgos-1 would think a statement could generally ` � maid , that generally from Exit 2S to the project the road i r itl�, r. itll,y of wa-y i.s sixty f_Qe+: or n3'nety feet., that wo�tlj lielp, and it is more than we. have at the moment . we do not laa.ve any grasp of it at the moment. f'ovncilman Monahan--Like I said mine is surveyed right out on f pt-,IpPr_ ty to=ip, it shows how much is there for the County . 4 am one of those on my Ride read I own by +.�, t ]-Je middle of the road. Mr . Naylor tells me, he r.-.7 TJ f 1. +'Y f e e t . �•,r(7i1man Monahan-My deed shows the County owns twenty five r..enter of the road . . . R rrr . M,,F ro other issue is cost of improvements and this gat to he more involved than it need be I suppose but it i.s a similar type situation where we feel that a definition of ,f ma.gani. ude of costs should, be presented to tn*lers� and in impact the response has been that its , it =•,t,,.tl.d hn 11. 1 advised at. this point to speculate to that far+ Basically in these traffic scenarios, Phase I , Phase IT , Pha.sP III , split one , split two, split three, we came ,,ip with •carious improvements that would be required to mitigate . Phase one is conveniently is pretty much ctnnsista.nt -�o the different splits . That information has 1,een presented of magnitude of costs of those improvements avid that is part of the document . Well there was rasistarlr +-n provide information for phase II and III based r on the .f?.ct that it could be speculative and misleading. I I 1.1.ririerstand, what they are saying, T guess I felt before ' =rd I 74-ill feel that that comment could be responded to phase IT improvements whether its split one, split two, or 7plit '-hree has various improvements associated with it . No l � _ O s-f i ried than the phase one improvements . Those numbers tld be attached to those to give us a more complete +cr)riers+.a�:irlj.ng of the impact of the project . Understanding c-.',iat Dome of those improvements are not only related to West k; 11+, . b,14: iri fart. part of the new growth of the community. Those rests would be shared. rq, ' -yam I think in relation to this if we look at the hilt^ry of the whole traffic issue , is through our traffic enuineei- we came tip with, based on scientific methods of -ilf,ulati.ng traffic the estimated on how traffic would flow l bqi weep. exit. 15 and exit 21 . When that was completed there r,Tas a lot of different opinions about that , People of �Ir.eej�:C y, .felt that most of the traffic would- go'. to exit 1p and people down in Corinth suggested that most of it cti+ i„t�. ge tt, exit 15 . I do not think anybody knows who is Ir jaht . Fverybody has their intuition and their perception r.'f t,c7w th- traffic was going to flow. So we did two more �_td.ies to show what happen if there was a different split + ►;o„ to_1� based on people ' s perception of how it might flow ii:regardless of the scientific methodology . Also , as part of 4-n ii-_ f YnIA Make 501Pe improvempnt'F. someplace Yol.. Rr*e c,,, ; ,-„_r t ,, force the traffic that way, if we were to spend a mon_y fixing exit 19 traffic wo"Id riot flow c �r� rig rm?l way you would think it would flaw today it would , 1 1 rJO + c exit 19 heca.�xa? 'it would be a much better roa�3 . The 14 olp idea from my understanding is let the traffic flow 1)o r ma.l flow. Mori i.fo it land f l sure out where the impr,yvement,s have to go based on the monitor. If we were to {90 wha.t 1?ennis Is suggesting I think two things happen. One i_G that we would be calculating traffic improvements for l sr,mething that could be fifteen years off or twenty years l off acid pricing it and in all honesty I do not know how to t price it that far in advance . rI> McElroy-14,99 Dollars . That is the way it is stated, +hat is a standard engineering projection, i kRr xr yT- I.f we price it in 1999 dollars we are going to be f,r i �. .Ii 7 i.t for- different methods based on speculation, were P c•ro s��cxr}tested in the letter to comp up with a formula , i t:hpre we pay our prorata share and we pay all of it , if we use the cause of it whatever the improvements are. Which I thinl- 1!7 more corzsist.ant" with the conceptual approval ortrept that vie are before you about . It is to get into all the speclficc when it is all speculative right now, them isn ' t p ,-en agreement between the people that did the study , Whai they are saying is that we have to monitor it to see 4,r_w i going to flow. The 'other thing is in some way we br.itnt of firxuring out what thoie cost have to be . { t"r r' gi,a=v i s oirer a time there are going to be other ot.?ter propert.3 es for other reasons along Exit ! 'I - Innr, Fait 16 and other ways that are going to effect 4-he costs are going to be . They may not even be what we Grp talking about because of other things that are happening +hey may be much greater than that . I just did not think that we should be in a position of speculating when the fact ',f the matter is that there is a process set up that �� eYybody agrees on is the way to determine where the traffic n>>aht to go by formula to pay our fair share our whole share for the cost of it . So we just felt it was too tq respond to it when we are in a conceptual stage . So , we said lets have a formula regardless of what. 1-h, approvals are that we are ° going to have to pay our share . My understanding of the process is the development l.x �. _PCs it has happened to me every place I go no one gets a s,.thdi-�is3.on approval for- the next subdivision unless all ?ire issues are solved ,tp front . We are not going to say wp ant oizr next subdivision we are going to get away with -omethiry maybe we will, not have to pay because my guess. is. s "Olat happens , you do not even get a building permit unless yol guarantee the payment. which 4buld guarantee the improvement and so consequently there is a. process all set ,gip for handling all of this and we Just felt it was better left open and be opec,ilative . r-outicilman Potenza--Joe, where was the formula, you said. i , Mr . Krzys-I think, in conversations that we had with some Poard members we suggested that a formula would be the way to ('1o . it . In our letter we are talking about doing a Prn rata, share, or we are paying. the full . costs . I think we s.re going to tall: about that in the findings as a methodology for determining the . . . Mr . McElroy-If I could just make a comment about that. Back In the review process , traffic primarily we talked about TAG the technical advisory committee which was made up of 1-r. affir officials that term has been used 'a lot and we are •-ort of hanging our hat on the savior of the technical a(I- sory committee and I know Fred Austin is part of it and I ±hlnk Steve, are you a member of the technical advisory r t�,2+Y rf cn� ROrQ(� "j Fitt not on that si-,b--committee but Paul T'Flrr,y..i'hPre are trarious officials that are part of th.q+ jr) troth Fred' s Input , Fred Austin, it was acknowledged 7 =nd 4i.7russed and everybody agreed on it that would be an gppropTJa.tP committee to monitor these improvements or the v: t)TAtth of traffic . The monitoring of the traffic the llcrat3 >n of the cost of these improvement's . That is a responsibility and I hope as we enter into that the f i prj.i TtgG process , where we better define the formulas that ado,I,_ia±= representation of the TAG is part of this or 7t-and: what they have gotten themselves into. Somewhere there is going to be a significant responsibility as far as +.r ?.Lfis r rnrrd.inating the moni,4�orirtg of traffic which 14o,tld be the responsibility of lets say partially of West ?°t+ , anti m;kybe other de--elopers involved in the area . There ji.- come coordination there, they have got to understand that c,f that process bark in January arid February we kind of this on and that they are going to be responsible for j 1.hi � ai)_ 1 ? . i i s f r'ct�nrilrnan Potenza-1 agree with you Dennis , I am getting a 1 i +-+,1 - -nnfi)sed now, with this formula and this committee aren' t we trying to get a FUD' s and our EIS' s a little , wott),tin' t that have a more to do with the approval of the k PUD than it does the Etd7 Mt . McElroy-I suppose , blit. what I am saying is that this TAC 1a-. been referred tq throughout this document and r,ogotl,ai-lens and discussions I should say related to the +--e.ffir , {,hpy halt- been taken into this circle of . . . "cuncilmaD Potenza-Has there been an agreement with this 7,A "� 4 M-f . McElroy-Through Fred Austin, we sat around a table and shool� o�Ar heads and said yes, it sounds like a good idea, Wpst mt . made no . . . about it . Slz pervisor Borgos--As far as I know, there has been no official action on the part of this Town Board to accept ± his TAB, as anything at all . As I understand it is out there it is floating making recommendations I do not believe that we have agreed to any fashion to accept their opinions . I do not think we have been asked to agree to their opinions . Mr . Krzys-I sort of misunderstanding something, we went through a, very lengthly process on this traffic study, we did two supplements all kinds of meetings with the committee and what everybody agreed on through our Town Consultant our . Consultant and his subconsultant was the mitigative neas„rers that went through after about six months worth of ff a public process . The mitigative measure is to have TAC moral tor- tale process determine when improvements have to be made, and that we would come up with some type of method for payment . That has been what has been put on the table, a solution to this thing, way, way back and all of a sudden it being questioned or discredited as I ho-pe they know what ' they did and this kind of stuff. That is what the traffic shady recommended as a mitigation. Supervisor Borgos-We obviously, this is the time to debate these things , correct me if I am wronI do not believe that H there has been any action. We gave seen that as a Trowing proposal coming toward this document and the finding but I do not know that we have been asked to take any ooi. on on that. Attorney persico-You will firm it up of course when you do y01.tY findings that will be , your finding will be that such and such a committee will be established all the EIS is ,loing at this point is saying , pointing in that direction atnd that ' s the way we are going to mitigate . When you get a rz±�. the f_i ndings page i.n the development contract you will pin down the specifics . rrr Fir.Flr ,'r-That ' s what I made a comment to the Town Board tlir,r,+ as jap (jet into that findings . . e A.`nrney Fprsico-Mott are discrediting it, you are poo-pooing Mr . H-F>l rr,y-Not at all , Attorney Persico-You are smerking about it, poo-pooing it, that will all come . At that Juncture you right, those are +-o be firmed up flushed out and put terms and conditions fr down . Put to sit here now and kind of say, well if it works T hope everybody takes it seriously . P7cElrrly-I never said that . A` !.oxrpy Persico-It is something that was spent an awful lot f + i tip woriring no-, and sat arrosG from you, you were a rig part of it • McElroy-Understood, I am sorry if I did not present myFtel. f clearly there I am mentioning that as we get into the findings process and this is defined and this TAC committee obviously has to have representation that the Town Poard is aware before they assign these tasks to them that been understood in these meetings by Fred Austin. A174_,-rPey Persico-Just review your. . Borgos-Next. Item. i m.tncilman Monahan-I just want to say something too Steve, maybe 1 s beca,,se I have relations in Texas and have seen !,that has happened to real estate there, everything went boom arid. then bust, over developing then . .how are we going to get a guarantee that the developer in the future is financially able to meet this responsbility? 7Apervisar Borgos-These are the things, and here is where I q�t?ss I art► going to try and keep this on track, these are the specifics I believe that will come in the findings, we will tall, about performance bonding and all those kinds of things . Tonight we have to stick to the completeness to the response to the public comments, that is on the long list that I have, and I am sure the developer understands that, 4_113± is part of the findings that, there is going to be bonding required. rnkincilman Monahan-I think we have been pretty naive on,. acme of these things we have done in the past and I am afraid we are getting a little burned on things we have done in the past, I do not want to see this town burned in the fut,:jre from stuff that we are doing. I am also concerned about this traffic committee that everybody is talking about . In someway we put in the findings that, this kind of committee that we are talking now, mly be disolved, we do not know how long it will be effective, it is something when we put in place to take its place if necessary. Supervisor Borgos-Good point, it really exists from year to year as I understand it . Mr . K-rzys-I think actually, we look forward to coming up with some alternatives because the fact of the matter is if we are going to go forward and we want some sort of certainty as to the process that we are going to go forward. f 7upervisor Borgos-We may wish to designate or request the designation of a committee comprised of very specific officials from specific areas,, the Highway Supt. in Luzerne those kinds of things even if it isn't officially TAC fifteen yours from now maybe we would agree to that kind of �iTtk_pTnWT1 -fjot7°¢°iC grou-P 1 Bor_g,)q-A genera.,_ group. . . ncilman Mont.esi-Specifically we might have to fund that CrMlloric group because if they are going to make a r-commendation they will have to do some consultant study something in some form . Mr . Kr?ran-I think it is all for the best. . . 114_ McElroy--Exactly my point, Mr . Krzys-1 think it is all in our best interests to create anme certainty out of the methodology because. . . it effects ..is ag mach as it effects the Town: i i r�,t,.nritma.z,. Montesi-I think we all said we agree in concept at a certain point in phase I , these things we saw ld happen and a certain point in phase II . I think some of the comments least wise 'I heard them, I heard them I do riot lrPow if I said them was that we ought 'to have a mechanism of testing so that we know if we are right . We ought to be doing that yearly or bi-yearly testing get the counts , gee , we really are ahead of our selves , we have to lip that concept becatige the impact is greater. Mr . Y* -- --y I think out, at least the sense I have the Board an,! tts have always tried to be fair about the methodology F and we do not want to pay for something that we did not buy and all we want to do is pay for what . . . Attorney Dusek-Excuse me, Joe , the Clerk has asked me,. could Y(?". �_!G the mic , she is having some difficulity. . . !!I- . Yr yT -I thinly, in arguing the Board members and the iisr•,a.ssions that we had the sense that I had was that we wanted something that is fair, we do not want to pay for sometlainr_s that we do not create and if we create something we want to pay for it . I think than has been the attitude everyone , and I think if we can come up with a method 'hats fair then we will all be happy and one that has a F.ury I val to it . Its going to lust twenty to twenty five years or what ever, because the fact of the matter is we x Plan to be at this for a long time and we want to make sure that we Jo not get burned and we want to make sure . you do 1 ,t get. x f Supervi'gor Borgos-You are on page two of your letter. . . I have read it. . i Mr . McElroy- Waste water correct , simply said the Glens Falls conz)ection is the only option. I am satisi.fied with what has been presented. The next issue is stormwater I want to skip over that momentarily. f 7lipervisor Borgos-We are still covering your letter, the 's Board members have it . . . gape t,trr,ed? i Mr . McElroy-On our letter-Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology . . . again its a point of clarification in that need not be beaten to death here. We , there was a comment by DEC saying that the document missed, erroneously represented something that was said by a reviewer of DEC. There was a comment related to that should be rectified. The response does not really get to that issue I am not sure what the ,gin erstanding of what was said was , but there are a couple of typo ' s in that paragraph, but its not a real significant 15sl±e in that, I think that the major point is the fact that *wintering areas , the information that has been presented through the d-ncliment Is adegi,late , the major point tl,a4 th6 two expectQd wintering areas on the project site are= rof Affec !,,ply considered that any longer there is one a'i.j,acent to the site that there was an indication the Delmar Wildlife Pesources Center that further:' evaluation of that be could summarize by saying that I do not feel that G a. major issue at this point. .Last on the letter Is fire Gta' icn that was just an consideration of the clarification ,,1- t.h- Fi.nancing response to that I , it was said that it Is I findings issue , enough said on that. 4 f7-),tnri lrrran Monahan--Dennis, please, Could I go backwards a rninttte to your terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology, did you cons>>.it the maps and so and and so forth that were done by our environmental advisory committee under our new master plan committee? Because they have done some very detailed 14ork on that type of material . Pix: . McElroy--T have to defer to the fellow in my office that r:'r, n-i lman Monahan- fry you" havtu...t you� should. check with Lee �x becatlsA they, have got --A ' loE 'rf,"d#tai led, information down in Office . Mr . MclElr"ay-Very good Now" s brta: hater This has turned t to i#_t l"e mores' c,f�, an 1.s ue than maybe �i f-i rst - - thought . I will give you 'a littlea :background of it. The icri.nai: I� E. X . . submitted i +tae level of..-d.etaIl . of storm water management analysis ' Thette were comments made ;by my firm n.r,r." and a 40&ers of" tt-e public,-, related,., to store, . + e , it '�.s b t. {'an ?;,«-q, ,le `th :. taken t:4 a�< auPP ement I J.kp tlae tra:ffie' wag'` like► wa°ete a .initially wave , It was €plt that the- level TM of info , i tt redi d could be supp1ie in tiie . I .,gr = S06 *101 t` �.:tha;� Information sat in its origfnA bii**n dc ° ctttt 4 � docuttaent appeared, the ri c Om p iringg; r�l l`. t,fartnaet .on" with final infaz ma, tion �thert wss to'ta11Y' ditt,aar t i. furl atip l�rov i d e Tki+ :-.ttb l e 8, the charts that repreaaeht. gi flows , s+ eracre' flows ° wer=e diffeerent+ " ' ° mot po the. q>xeaation in nizr +^ntCtmAr�t 'lR*tt r, what Is aa<cc rate ,a ud prc►vide thy. back--up information ° netce►s"sary and it h6 led thaet numbers had changed. In `he ` ri~esebtation O " rta4In date, to support the = tubers that shared up `on th+; t Therm also,. ,ft ere was l.At{or from l LO.C . which t+aa�cls:;:c t tints yabt t the, historic- flows and now we are talking about' th-# original storm water ln.f.orma.±ign provided in the original D.E:1 S. The D.E.C. C- -,mments ° the July 15th letter ffoth D.E*C., made a comment that it appears that the float ' O'%tiM*tes . givan:-D.S, 1 .5 . with p-a.k . . flows of such and such would be . . .bl--ah, blah, blab are may be"excessive . Where ` Ahis f'Iow data come. from, some additional technical infa k.=' . ""ion teas aaRetkeci.°fQr what' is ' the 11. . . 7 -CDQ . . . . specific 'r+a r tiis 'comment made'".�D.E�C. in that rase involved in rev e�*,,q,. th1s and- we find that in face the F r'. I. document 5r~e is diffeiet a rW-1 grant to say signif c4htly different nth ways information, so we scratched our li`e►sd anti asked t 4 bons a ' because the back up data was not totally prod#decd this" hays' beonr on going thing last week, we have asked fns further .inforatatiQn and i have had nice conversations tt4� th " ha f`ellor��tT. i� Utah about crw they came al�iut tl�is� � � bottom. ,line: Is` that the new Jnfi d'i itf. n Iw- j4"ti dy "+ tit th+ aret tally dPVplegsd they will be se►riditag : ►io ►er ttekup informAti.on for that, so and , boots technical i nfoxmation that is typical 2 jg� raa<ted ' dr "3 tt rtat water for F.E. I "has b e'�nted» Now, the next step of tht. .. is the methodo,l +g n, you` ideal with that increased floes related to the deveIop�reent'. That is where �.hereseeni to�:, e ± onf l ict and . wi`1`l report these to you and ask for -lour iant`er rat et gas arel'l . Vhdther it is a ("age of what, ';the►"ri'g t ham Ptah wad �t� r�� aatnd did not know what . the left ' lie"t�d end �'ha' that is simply the case.'. Let me jug - ,u an exat pl$ . . sithation This p + � >"were`,prowl d `figure J . that play represe'hts``,. hyet btig al storm di-a i nage mansgmon't plan th t +4r.ant tho methodology to h� employed "to� handte the sttitm grates. " The original *_) .F. I . ' . did lent really: go to tflis extent, 'this methodology sr, t}).at was one of th1% items' that may have `been lathing. This doclimov now presents what stdrage is tetultOd for that t` ?nrrPase d vel aPM snt, . forty. six° acre feet �+lue or minus , Ll -.red there: is a metbodologY aga n ' raiposed here and without ge+t3 n+ to ccimpl"icated` if �`o rre£e'r to the technical appendices 'in the ;terrOtri:* )i" aquatic` ecol+�gry the plan +.17at x apres+snt 'a. ,certe.ip` hydro :o#k 'map gnu" i l i. shave that , Y—A see that " there represi44d" the w#tlan8 ALreaa, the cieRigne+.eri wet lend areas of tie alter 1. and- L4 and four �_�thPr wet ar.eas which Technical 'ate.`note on" the' State list of designated wetlands' but aer dons,idewed c1Qse to it but not bi'g enough, basically what "I:t 'domes down to ' Then the st.Yeams, " surface hydrology, sttraams, inclu ing beaver dam 1-rook which IA the classtfie OV t at is "a trout 5tr. Pam The management. 'plan khovi that those` wetlands would 164 a be used as detention areas ,and,,.tjhean 4 in the c:snter peak of the property there is, ianothe to ti;gn pond basically that would be on stream so to ,.speak,, XoK,, that its ,where there is a conf1 ict because;,,in ,var-iqup,, .ces ,d : the document, it has been stated that =and I ,cou.ld .gb.,„o4,e,pte�'and page' and refer to you, but tbasi,cally therj �is jjcussion,s, ghat detention basins will not be within the'<Jy eam `corridor, one hundred foot buffers will occur and there statement on the streams, wetlands and the streams . Basically that the wetlands will not be disturbed. Now, that could be an intrepretation, by adding storm water are you d .strubing the wetland or what are you doing? I asked D.E.C. about this, what would be their feeling about a storm water management plan which proposed to use the wetlands, that- is a natural function of the wetland to retain storm water. It seems logical and I can see how they proposed it . ' " There was discussion in the document that says we are not-, going to touch the, wetlands were are not going to impact them so there is some clarification there and just to Complete the thought if in fact that is the management plan --and it does use wetlands there should be some discussion' And <this came through D.E.C. what that impact becomes maybe ;it .is . . . . . maybe it adds an inch of water -to the wetland maybe it does two feet that information is not provided and we do not know what that impact is . That has kind of evolved in, that maybe a little bit more of an issue we all first thought but that is where it is . Councilman Potenza-Did D.E.C.. say that there would be an impact on the wetland with the storm water? Mr. McElroy--They cannot tell with out the information that would either support it or maybe it would be good for the wetland, maybe? Councilman Potenza-But D.E.C, had..no. comment Mr. McElroy-Well , there comment was that they.'do not have the information to substantiate one way, the other. Mr. Krzys-Maybe I can go thr'ough� th'is. historically. When we started the DEIS we proposed, w8 u�3ed some data that showed that in fact the storm water run off was greater than the D.E.C . in their comment letter;. suggested was rea l . So, we had to go back in order to respond to the comment, we had to go back and re-do the data,'; tha i`s ;the data that Dennis is talking about. So, in our F.V. X�,S, we put ire the now data that was more consistent with W tt D.E.G. had as. a comment. Dennis, you were right . abQUt' the right hand'a.nd the left hand talking to each other- abg,u't this, our engineers look the liberty and being the , .crisative people..that they are about coming up with a wary -of,'""a 'm'ethodology that in fact would use the wetlands as a way;to ,.enhance the wetlands and at the same time offer a .,`better storm water management system. Unfortunately, that:`is. with everything that we have written into the -'document which said we are not going to use the storm water management, we are not going to use wetlands for anyth ng.. As a matter 'of fact if you look in our document, it states that. It is pretty obvious , there are comments- that- other people made how are we going to handle wetlands - and° we said it was project policy no development or distu'rbance is proposed on the designated or significant wetlands on the site. And then when we get to the section on' .st6rm water when we talk about mitigation there is a secti, n, >basically this gets down to the whole issue again of how'mv,ch; 'when do we get into the design of the storm water system. . What level do you do that. What we suggested here as our mitigation all those typical ways of resolving storm,"water a.nd the fact is that I think the data shows that we have forty six acre feet of retention area that we need =out of twenty eight hundred acres of land, in order to be ,abl6 to handle storm water run off. There is no way that. we ,have to use the wetlands, . . . .the engineers decided to .-;do is use a Creative way to nr,h t,ra the wet Iand where everybody Is trying to take theta ar,rz,y sap at-e trying to 'make it better and an it caused a *t . : vosi- are right the right- hand. did not talk to the 7l pervisor @orgos-i thInk' for this locument, we have to Oecidl, w111,h way It is going to be . "r . Yrzy s-We are not going to use the wet_ lands. Porgos--You have sa.id� that r1r , ux -y -It is inn the F .�i:S, that. pezni `is talking' something. that. is a te,chnicatl report. to 'us that we Included i n the `docume.nt and it°;'�s 1-eke of the last page of the thing, Y there i4 . sine par eg h, in a1J honesty we all missed. It was saw, that, i t wpil �l have n#�ner been in there in the first, place , I :.think wa have iii gati'on methods fnr handling storm- wat€�r I thinC M?' . McElroy-It would x: also mean faking' the drawing out .. Mr. Krzys-Yes , the map, you are right; thank you for picking 4?o, Dennis, was right, the right hand the left hand r ` 7�.tper,rigor Borges-Wh=ile we are at this point, do you want to dba.eto that drawing , frofma the, F.E. I ? P1r Krzys- Yez i delete "P. drawing'. t1r_ . McElroy-But there 4hould raid# 1 e a replacement drawing 111 ,to give that indication tf. ,riiat methodol,dgy ' could be employed to mitigate in, and that is 'not tiidommon det2il for a D .F. I S . that,;,type- of thing roprres,ented. Is the methodology req„ps± , =how _ is it going try ` used. Joe says forty six acre feet these new figures are correct, the forty six: acre Ll feet now, a tremendous volume over the total "Area, reasonable to think th .t- some at4pr areas a golf course pond some means could be uas� to mitigate that . Mr. . Krzys-1 th ink ,ou�, 11.1ff t6ul in this is we have twenty night hundred acres and 'a. lot 61 this is' so sight specific where are -you actually going to `put the road. You draw the I line now, based on tapo, you think you kiriew where it acres , when you • .ge.t, out there, and survey equipment out there and et.=ery±hi-ng� e1$e when: ;you are Acing what is sight specific t things l lw,..-auk ¢ngineering' work and a-ll that, that is when yoti re lly�� k, w�ta t all .this- 'ohs about. ,'That is when you. d¢s i gn the 4yst m. If' thi s< were.,,a thrs�te hundred acre parcel or f 1ve hun*lz .d nacre parcel youvs'l:d`:have gotten into a let more of that,, but. twenty els t .huhdrsaci acres is really a j diffici It thing to do ,that .°. t.tperri or r l or tos-Let. me as 4 , rodedural question of our ±torr�py, ?Tr. i� Elroy, has rspre�� ent c -h+s fart that the male 1-119t i s tr# there now, is ng,� the coregct `mhp,`,?ir . Krzys ' a -eea the+ it is ncit the dorr�e"ct one. Mr. McElroy` agrees +hale there �shallld be ka correct iocause in keeping with what liar happened mith gther Fud' s 'etc .' I get, th'e feeling Mx� . �;r7ys does not wisk to .do that:., Procedurally do you feel s J' h(:it.t.i.d have the new .I�►ap, the true map fiery!, or is that main not needed .fir this dcc! ment? f'rr•1n A±tnz npy= Puselr-Well , I guess, I'`am concerned about the aetip, if the documentation has been put in and it is not s,.ipposeci to be there it obviously has to como -out"and' if Dennis is saying that , 9ther ,d9cumentaEtion be in to complete rel?lor , and I think that " is what yoAl are 'saying right, witho,it =that .dnettmentation you are saying, P.E.C . is saying T{ ran ' . make p+ex diiinatians whether or not these 'is going o be impart , or no? ' t1r . Fr7-ys --They are saying Af you are going to effect the r±�� 1, ar.r? yr�,.t, 1 eve }! 2'ccpr?n(1 to that and we show how we a-1 xninc ' � cio it but W.? are saying we are not effecting the wQt) a.r,d.5 gn mgr be3ziA••P i.° that we do not have to do it . Tr,Yn z t,7r. raoy I>,_rsek-What will your documwntat on do for the ti„ay ±}ron , that yo,-1 are requesting? Mr . M,-Elroy-well , it 1"Tt adds this , map and the paragraph a E,aF lrppnrted. this map , it explains tie methodology of _tn m water management . Now, there are several pages within +-}re dace d,r cement which will refer, which talk about m1+-iga+_ion methods , starting on page 11 of that particular 4-hing. , . . . 'Vegetation, erosion control , blab, blab, blab, then there is one final paragraph which really is an important one but it happens to be the last statement, how Ire yo,t going to do it, recharge, detention basins, throw it i,p in +:h;? air -and. let it evaporate or what?- C,,cp l ana*_ion short l d be part. of the document , if you take this is -going to re , I do no think that is a hard 4-hing t.c necessarily represent in this , to this document . i }rnar tiryntesi -Penni.s , as a layman are you saying to me, ,_.p y,-,,A asking that , I know you do not have a sight specific road so therefore yr„j do riot knows where all the catch resins mill lie , hi1± , taltimately if you are not going to use lar cro portion of a we+.land, nine'' mile swamp or whatever yolt may be using a five acre pond on the golf any and all roof line drnAnG and t;he road storm, no. but also create another pond someplace , is that z°,}� .�: yni are asking, that kinc?, of methodology not so much e..ar�ly where it is going to be but . . ? mi . Krzys-,In o«.r F.E, T .S . we go from page 65 to page 69 and talk about , all the ways to mitigate this . . .with storm d-ter,+Jon basins with talking abot.r.t peak 'flows, you are +.•alking about how to control erosion, you talk about methodology. if we get into standards , we .get into retention of vegetation you get into eroaidn- control , you q,*+, into a.11. these things , on how to handle this so that we Ian. infact mitigate the whole ,storm water alley, Pir . M,7Elroy Exactly and part of that is this paragraph we never referred to that thing, to that paragraph In this , this is the F .E, I .S . this is what are comments are and responses are, that is a technical report that they gave to u-5 and we chose to put in there and we did not use it, this ,s what we said we were going to do , it talks' abou, t.hi.nas like fifty, pounds fast emerging grass seed per acre, +-c•s� tons n£ hay mulch per acre for stuff Tike erosion j r7ontr_•cl, and you get into all this stuff T think it is pretty clear t}-,at we are going to do what is absolutely required in older to have a good storm water program that does not -ffQ,-t .+he environment . Consider, that we have a + i,errtl e;t.+ lr+ hundred parcel of land, we are not showing where -,1 } thq qt,. f is going, we chose to do it this way. The +- +..,hey pat that report in there i4, we put it In be-ralisP it had the technical data that Dennis was r t,r,}� i pq fri'> , and that Is ashy it was there . r _ '„ ar nor n,or ns—He is our coria,zltant so, we want to make fol. l.owing the regulations , i rir . Yrzys-The q„estion is , is that necessary? ^,, r-vi:sor Poigos--That is what I want to find out . r,„_,ni lman< pot.enza-That paragraph you just quoted is that in i:he final F.E . t . S . or is that in -another document? Mr. rrzy7_ .-I - is in the appendix. . T9r ra,-rtr, y Ter_)1nJ Rlly 1"_- is part of +he F.E. I . S . A7 ^rnpy FPrsicn -Bu y,,,,� knew what we are sayin�x . . . so ar ey;4 T ltd+° r�,sa f �ptl You know what we are saying. , .rlr y yes , but technel ; F.E, I . S .} n f R `�tC`Y 'I r . McElroy-This paragraph explains within technical 3.itl>Andicec ir�ha± methr�dt►lacry is nprv,os0 d,` elsewhere . . .`withIn `I^lumn I , i.iern you referring Yr7,,yr---«6 tumn I Is the r1 ne 1 nv r rifienta l ' impae:t ^ta±AmPnt , . . '1r . McElroy-This is the response. . T?r , Yr_7 ys 1"age 55 a1T i[^Flrny-to comments , r?r, YTZYs-Page 6S to , 5a responds to the questions about t7as±pt�ater .4nd storm water . 1 Mr . McElroy-What you are proposing ii dyoTa can eliminate this paragt-aph eliminate the dr4w11 nj, and then `thet utou l d be �r,mi,lP�o , �NLtni. ney Fersico--We are not eliminating we are .just using it pa? + of the .record, because it taae submitted by a inn^ititaxt+. , olr, go, you include it in the record but we are staying 91l},!7ttant vely it was not used. Town Attorney-, Du' sek-Vxcuse Ofo a we go ' on, where is the paragraph .so. I can; bead, it :p'Iease . Mr . Krzya-.Pa.ge 20 LlCT.r . McElroy-Page 20, but it is sort of a se10 ond nut�berIng of +hztt , in effect it is the last page of that appendix five. 'ounci:lman Monahan-Are we in tlolut six? Town Attorney Pvspk-�,Olumn si t' c e finical appendixes under. . . Supervisor Borgos-Is t.here a . why o chairing this up by ' i�l.t+±ing, a .:,, etttPnce in this vnlumn on+� that says the information, in voiumn one. is pet' 1caIIy n0hded to be our jar oposal and, s.peciflcal, lir ;fie jest that ' th t has been w-ppQrted el.sewhere That tray c,3. a : up, what the position of the Town woljld, be, because, it i$,,. Oklr d0c9MOOt Recognizing that ,,le know it is there but` wex are not going to use it . Attorney Fersic,o-�We are- notL 900- Aq,..to use it. :Pr)rgos-Would language A '(%` ±hat work? T ; t_fill no put that In the record now. . n�Isek-I. gi.;ess .I .have got a. gr.testion Dennis , . the :study .A�as r.onc'lttd�d to a certain t�ararxraph that., the wetlandg wll ►A .ltepd in mitigation, that e whit then=! s t-udly, . bane of t eir alternatives conelttded Th ^ r, T T) Attorney I us.ek-My quests off.' ;i s, i s that h!?t� that they -ffered. other m tJgatjgn miOgptr `wh'' ph is a paren+_ly 3.n alternatIve of .,vhat they ► r t 9 o in their final Qrifironmatttal :;mpact , staterwsnt. es, the document, that is, ; the riocumenta,tion contained" in the ' technical `appendices . 7,!pport what their proposal is in the z Mr. McElroy-1 think I understand what you are saying but I would say partially, the technical information says a little bit more and now the statement is that we did not mean that to be in there, we did not want that to be in there . Town Attorney Dusek-But when you look at what, what they are proposing on the F.E. I .S . and you go back to the technical documentation that is contained in here,. is it the type of thing that yea, this documentation here supports this as a workable solution and it is just merely that use of the wetlands was another alternative, is that what we are talking about here? Councilman Monahan-1 think what you are asking him is the technical material in here to back up what they want to do . Town Attorney Dusek-Right . Councilman Monahan-in a nut shell that is what you are asking. Mr. Krzys-i think Dennis said yes . Because he said the data . that came in showed that we have fo rty six acre feet of storm water run off that we have to retain. Town Attorney Dusek-He .puzzles me, because he said partially, one time there . Mr . McElroy-'Well the information that is provided in .the F.E. I . Vol . I talks about the existing base soil groups the evaluation menthods,the impacts,the amount of flows; then it gets into means of I guess really without as saying as much it talks about what it mitigation standards, . —erosion control , retention of vegetation erosion controlY,a number of these factors which are general approaches with some specifics . But it does not. . , Councilman Montesi-Dennis, can I ask you a question. On page 65 where I2 saying I am it says mitigation, Vol . j reading here it says peak flows will be controlled through the rise of storm detention basins, the detention basins and outlet works will be sized to detain an increase in run off, etc . etc . Now, what west Mt. has said to us at this point we are no longer, going to use the wetland, we are going to use detention basins, my question to you is 'I understand that, and I understand that I cannot ask them to be as site specific as using a 'wetland because it doesn't exist. 'Do you need to have, or we need to have some you feel that detention basins shown on a map, at least a footprint of It? Mr. McElroy-That would be consistent with what has been provided at other times in o ther Councilman Montesi-That is the cru x of what you are saying, rjot so much the methodology but the fact that. . , Mr. McElroy-It is part of the methodology it is explained here in ` mitigation in these general terms and then under standards and erosion control I guess this be removed, Figure J . be removed and paragrAph 4 be removed and then it is a question does something else need to go in its place, or is that information available and complete at this point? ,x Councilman Montesi-we have page 65 which says, in place oI those two things we are going to have detention basins, guess the only question that i have at this point to you is would It further 'benefit the Town and west Mt. to conceptually give us a footprint o same of these detention basin, Mr. Krzys-My guess is that whatever we gave you is going to change and I guess in order to do it more accurately I think s< in a way that will work for everyone is again as you go CA through subdivision approval and you have to design a system that works that handles the storm water without touching the wetlands , that does all the right things for the environment and that is a site specific thing as you go along, we would he guessing where they are going to go . Councilman Monahan-It also has to pass through the Planning Board. . .and professional engineers . Councilman Potenza-The definition of 65 that Ron read and the top of 66 to me fulfills the need of where the storm water run off is going to go. I do not see . . . Mr. McElroy-Describe the methodology of how that is going to be done . Again, consistant with other projects it has been provided . There is an age old question and Dick is going to jump up and talk about it being site specific type information which as long as this SEQRA process goes on there is always going to be that issue. When we work on the other, side and we get asked that question all the time to the point of one project that we have been asked the level of information for waste water necessary to submit a permit application. That. is complete design. Now, I do not know whether that is justified, Dick will argue that point but. . Councilman Montesi-Let me ask a question, when we did Hiland Park and I remember a great dead of ponds . Mr . McElroy-Golf course ponds, presented there just the same as Quaker Road. Councilman Montesi-Those particular ponds in essence are the retention basins . . Mr. McElroy-Correct. They are the structures which mitigate the storm water flow, they absorb the storm event flows and pass it on and detain it so that . . .that in words has been stated in one version a map was produced it was decided that it was not accurate, eliminate the paragraph if you are satisified with the presentation of mitigation then the storm water retention basins in the narrative sense. . . Supervisor. Borgos-Can you identify this paragraph so we know? Town Attorney Dusek-I do not want to be a pain about this but I do not feel like I ever 'got an answer to that one question and I feel that it is a very _important question. The developer has made certain statements with regard to proposed mitigation measurers which we all understand is in the final E. I .'S . appearing on page 65 etc . My question to the consultant, Dennis , is, are his measures or the proposed measurers supported by the documentation that 'is contain in the E. I . S . and this is very important because some of the documentation contained in the technical part of the E. I .S . is saying well we believe in using the wetlands! So, the question that pops into my mind if they went down that path is there also support for the mitigation measurers that the developer is proposing Councilman Monahan-or are they making a statement with no technical support? Town Attorney Dusek-Right. I would like the Consultant to answer that, on the record. Councilman Monahan-Maybe Dennis needs time to evaluate ghat . . . Mr. McElroy-1 do not totally understand your question, , j tZt Kr. zyr:-ls there apother way to say it perhaps , Paul , i another way to say t is that, they say the amount of storm � water that we generate, . . . is there enough land there . . . (Tape turned) to solve the problem. Town Attorney Dusek-That is not the question. The question is , is that you propose mitigation measurers , whenever you propose mitigation measurers , if I had. a piece of land someplace and I said we are going to have storm water run _,Ise I putting on a building and I propose to put in a catch basin or I propose to put in a detention pond that is fine , I have proposed that, but now I look to Dennis to ell me will that resolve the problem. Dennis is going to cay I-Fell I do not know if it resolves the problem until I see all the documentation and that is what I am asking, is the documentation here present in the E. I . S . to support their resolution to this problem? councilman Monahan-Dennis , if you need time to reserach that a little bit I think we are willing for you to take that time , you do not have to give an answer right this minute. Mr . McElroy-Well , if I understand the question properly I will. respond by saying to the level of detail necessary within the D.E. I .S . or the F.E. I . S . That information is presented the nuts and bolts the numbers of the project peak flows and the volumn increase i presented and that really is aptailed as you normally would get number wise and then you present a methodology, where the conflict is , is that in this document and this map it started using areas that happen to be wetlands and a Class CT stream which goes against what they said elsewhere. So , the . . . Councilman Monahan-If you take out those two documents that you just talked about and everybody agrees that they are to be not a part of thiq then if what remaina,. can it stand along with no more supporting data? Mr . McElroy-Yes . Councilman Monahan-If you do not want to answer it right now, without research. . . 1 Mr . McElroy-Well, no, my answer would not be any different today then it would be tomorrow, in past projects that type of information has been provided. Now, I will not say that it has been provided on the basis of the Town Board' s .requests but it is typically provided. Here is a drainage scheme, here is a methodology for storm water management as represented on a sight plan. just as it was done right here , but in fact this one we don't want part of the record we don' t want to make that paragraph part of the record. . . Co?.tnci:lman Monahan-Are you asking for just the design of a i.rain type of a field or whatever You wantt�all it. . .but. no}. k'eing site specific this is how we are going to do it we are not saying what site . Mr . McElroy-That is what has been done at this point, if you remove those two documents . Councilman Montesi-Just one question, what is fo rt'y six acre feet, what hides , fo rty six surface acres? That is a pretty good size pond. V41r. ? s- t. VAe bALVft tw :Tyt V a itgb, _ WlMdreA _V 4&S, Councilman Montesi-That is one big pond. . . Mr. Krzys-It will not be in one place . . . I think what Dennis is saying, maybe .I will ask the question of Dennis , if you take that map, it does not really show you all the solutions to the problem , all it says is here it is , if you � take the map out it does not effect the methodology at all 1 471- -H-i at we are talking about , The methodology is a whole bunch � of catch basins , it is a whole bunch of detention ponds . . . Mr . McElroy-It makes it a little less specific . Mr . Krzys--Again, I think our problem is that we have twenty eight hundred acres and anything that we put in there is going to be put in just of the Make of having a document in there , and I do not think under SEQRA we need to have that, but it is our opinion but at least . . .having a map in there . What this document says if the methodology in how we plan to take care of that and mitigate it everytime a problem comes ,.xp relative to storm water. Councilman Monahan-Paul , I have another question and it is not really realative to this and I-;do not know if it effects it , but we are in the process of ;doing a storm management law, ordinance or whatever our selves . When that comes in place that is going to take.7 pretsidence , over anything here, the requirements of the storm water management ordinance that we are going to put in place, am I correct? Town Attorney Dusek-In part it depends on how it is written. It could take presidence at future development points in the project before they come in for further site specific planning. t Councilman Monahan-Like going into phases . Town Attorney Dusek=One way to ensure that it will take preference is just to put it in as part of the conditions that the PUD is established under, that they will have to comply with that future ordinance . Mr . Krzys-I think that when we go through the process when we get into the development, We have to get through all the subdivision approvals which is almost do the same thing that we are doing now, on a site specific basis, you have to go through the Planning Board you have to show. . . Councilman Monahan-1 do not want anything in here that you can say to the Planning Board but that is not what we agreed to, back then they said we could do it that way and we are grandfathtred, I do not want to give you that out. Mr. Krzys- : ..that is part of the findings . I think what we tried to do in here was to try and respond to the comments to fix the data, based on the comments that came out of DEC I think that Dennis has found that the data as you mentioned that the methodology'. is ok, it is appropriate for what we hope to do . Mr . M,-Elroy-To get to that issue, I do not know that you ha.vP adequately responded to the issue. If you understand what lie said, DEC said, we think that these historic flow cl"a.rtF- Get , you recomputed them and now they are three to four times as much as they were . . . . Tnwri Attorney Dusek-This is exactly, this is what I was trying to get at earlier. I do not even want to interrupt j you because you are now heading down the path of the g-.restion that I had Mr. McElroy-I understand what the changes are in their nuts and bolts figures they did not for the first part include the entire drainage area, they just included the project area.. Well that is not proper, so- now they have gone back and they have got a drainage area that is ,three to four times the size of their 'original project area within that drainage basin. So, now those numbers naturally reflect numbers that are three to four times the c-riginal historic flow. That is a general explanation of what was done, but it was based' on maybe an inappropriate way of calculating things initially and that has been corrected and provided t2 uithln the document . tit- . Krzys-What we are responding to Paul , is the comment that pEc made that the historic stream flow was less than w1;3t we p resented that data for. so they asked us to 7Pe-a.1 .,,i .ate the numbers . When we did . . . as long as the methodology is right on this . . .regardless . . Mr . McElroy-Although the . . .comment still stands that they felt for what ever reason from their knowledge of the sititatioi-a they feel that those flows were excessive now, the flows you represent as three to four times that, so I would think his question would still be pertinent. Aren't they still excessive? Councilman Monahan-Are you saying that when they first presented this project , they took the area from whence the drainage came was a certain number of acres, and now they have said no, you have got to figure drainage that is coming from this many acres? is that what you are saying. Mr . McElroy-Basically initially, yea, , . . Councilman Montesi-But, DEC did not say it was underestimated they said it was over estimated. 1 Councilman Manahan-Nobody is comparing apples to apples and peaches to peaches as I understand it . Mr . McElroy-1 do not want to over complicate this issue. .. Councilman Monahan-I would like a picture up there, and I think I could understand if you draw a picture and tell me s what is going on. t Supervisor Borgos-Let me phrase it this. way and I will let E Mr. Brandt talk. Mr. Dusek, is our Town Attorney, if at some point we are the subject of a law-suit - and . . . he goes into cr)urt is what is in the document good enough for him to be able to defend the town position in accepting this document with accurate information or is it not, is that the bottom line? Town Attorney Dusek-Well actually there is a few question, but that is one of them. Supervisor Borgos-Without the map and that other paragraph. . . Mr . McElroy-The map and the paragraph is not necessary to generate the nuts and bolts . . . r "ttpervisor Borgos-Now, you said traditionally we asked that, ! t.radltinnally the other sponsors had furnished that you said �p did not ask for it . i Mr . McElroy-Not that I recall . F Supervisor Borgos-4k, so it is not a requirement then. This project developer has given us other things that the other ones probably have not given us , so — it is a little different in each case . So, with that in mind is there enough documentation here to support the information y generated on page 65 and 55 in terms of words forgetting the j map. i j tit . M-Elroy-Yes . The general discription of the methodology y i of storm water managgement . . . Supervisor Borgos-Would comply with the minimum requirements of SEQRA as you understand it. Councilman Monahan-And is the technical data there to r, + $1,•;. # ? + es s'" s .gyp r is writ . n on ltwe pages i 4 i 1f Mr. McElroy-currently the technical data is not complete it Is being sent., I have long discussions today with Utah and they recognize that not -all the computer generated information was supplied. Supervisor Borgos-Without ignoring Mr . Brandt, now, I think nu,r Town Attorney has . . . Town Attorney Dusek-This is the issue then. You have just said +.lia# this , now, correct me if I am wrong ,,I do not want. tr plit words in your mouth but 'my understand is that you are saying that this F.E, I . S . is not comglzete It does not r"rintain sufficient tec_hnical .because you are still waiting `— for it to come from Utah. Is that correct? I need Dennis +o answer that because, because if that is the case then it is very important that this Board know that because they should not act upon this document . 11r . McElroy-The information that would be supplied and has been supplied partially for this document, let me start again, the technical data that has been partially supplied is not complete. Three of the drainage areas that, this is the computer generated information which has not been supplied we discussed it on the phone it will be provided . T do not have any concerns necessarily about the way they have done it because one of the drainage areas for some .reason that information was provided but the other three were omitted . I know the methodology to make the document comple±e to make the supporting data complete that would be . . . I do not have fears that when that data comes to us in tomerrowg or fax or what ever that it is going to show �:cmething different than what the tables represent . Councilman Montesi-Dennis, is that . . . in essence the drainage area represent fo rty six acre feet it has to be contained in basins . . .that kind of a number. Mr. McElroy-That is correct. The technical back up for the tables that you see on page 60--61 or whatever page on the F.E. I . S . page 65 the technical data that support that, it also supplied the one hundred year developed flow data that was not supplied for any of the drainage area. Councilman Potenza-The F.E. I . S. is not complete as it stands right now. Mr . McElroy-If you interpret it that way yes . Councilman Montesi-We need another page or two that will have to go into. . . Mr . Krzys-In this data, I think the data is in there . The summary data, he is asking for backup data additional data to support what is already in there and he has already agreed on the methodology. Me is looking for two or three !_-fj-p4.5 . Computer sheets that just back up that. S„pervi_goi Borgos-Lets hear from Mr. Persico . Attorney Persico-I think that, that there is more than enot,qh Jata, you indicated that earlier in your presentation, I think now whatilyou are saying is that these •-- engineers have agreed to send you some more information all well and good from that point of view you say it is not complete , I have more coming in but you do not need it, you have enough now to form a legal basis anyway of— for our piirpnses to support our mitigation methodology that are expressed in the F.E. I . S . The fact that they are going to send more back up data is going to be helpful to all of us when we begin to do the site specific methodology is for sure . it is not needed at 'this level . Councilman Montesi-Dennis , let me ask you something, if the 177 Fpd.P.r.al Express ruy walked in to night would that piece of paper , those two sheets be added to this F.E. I . S . or just be su.pp r tang documentation? Mr . McElroy-It would be part of it , if it is consistant with what has been presented as part of the . Mr . Mike Prandt-Would it change the figures in our summary , one bit would why it . It would only support it, so y don' t we get off of it and we have given an accurate summary of the flows and there is plenty of room to absorb the flows on the property and we told the methodology of how to do it . Is that not right? Mr . McElroy-Right . 1"(Y- . Mike Brandt-What else is there, we have identified what t),A en-ji.ronmental impact is , we have identified how to mitigate it , what are we talking about, are we trying to see how many days we can sit here and talk around, and around and around and see how much money we can spend? I tell you T have a hard time with this Supervisor Borgos-I think we all share your concern Mr. Brandt , this is one of the frustrations of modern development, I have been through it and others have been through i± . It_ is brutal we have found that if we do not follows procedures we are open to such tremendous attack all of cis that the projects are joist going to be delayed. Mr. . Mike Brandt-But all of the data is in front of us . What our: problem is , is one man who does not want to say in simple clear terms , that all the summary data is in front of you it is in the F.E. I . S . and it is part of the F.E. I .S . and there is a method shown to mitigate the storm water } runoff . Tt is as simple as that and it is in there . Supervisor Borgos-1 think he is asking for the back up that supports that . Mr . McElroy-That is part of it. I had asked them today, from U+;a.h, I am not sitting here and telling you that, that is an- inQ, I do not know what is going to keep you from taking any action tonight . . . Fupervisor Borgos-The clock. Mr . McElroy-well , that is not, there are other issues that we have talked about throughout tonight and I am not sure if you are still waiting for information or whether you are taking action or. . . Mr . Mike Brandt-Can' t we address an issue and finish it like this one and say that all the data is in the summary sheet and it is included and there is a method for handling the storm water run off has been identified and if you want to sap more computer backup that is fine , for people that like + lool- at computer backup but the fact is it does not r I anae any of the data ^!.rppr.�riGo.r Porgos-Lets ask our Attorney how he feels at this moment , tired? Attorney Ausek-Tired, Supervisor Borgos-We are rapidally approaching that hour we aot two or three minutes , What do you think on this issue, Mr . Brandt would like to clear it up, do you think there is enough here or obviously we are going to have to be here for another night or two or three at the rate we are going. Would you prefer not to resolve this issue? Attorney Dusek-I think that, if the question is answered by Penni^ i.ri the same manner that Mr . Brandt has just answered 3 -- - 15 It then I do not know if we really have a problem. I guess that is what we have been trying to gpt at here all night . To try and just re-explain whet my concern has been and what i ha.v- been looking for an answer, for, I see that the -developer has proposed mitigation measurers, ok, now, as I men!-ioned earlier the detentions to resolve the building problem. The question I have, ok, he has done that now he is also giving you some technical materials, my question is after you review the technical materials that he has given ynij , An you reach the same conclusions as he does or do you feel that his conclusion are reasonable? That is all if tljey -are then I think that the documentation is complete if yry review what he offered you and you say wait a minute, he =ays that the mitigation measurers will be this, this and this but based upon the technical information I have in the document I do not see how that is possible. Mr . M�iElroy-There may not be necessarily a clear connection b tween the mitigation measurers and the nuts and bolts of the numbers here . I do not have any problem after speaking 1111t1, the engineers in Utah that the information provided at this point is accurate and that the backup information will s,.,pport. that . It was just inadvertently left out of the +document . If the Town Board takes whatever action tonight and +Jia.t document comes in, what ever information comes in and it is part of the document, I do not have a problem with that . I do not have any concern after talking with these . Councilman Monahan-Paul , why don't we just make that information when it comes here a part of the document, because we are just going around in circles . He is talking about a. phone call, we can't put a phone call in a document. Supervisor Borgos-Early in the evening, when it appeared ' that we might be able to get through this and take action +-hat was a big issue, but now since there is going to be a delay anyway, in a day or two you should have the other information to get to us . Councilman Montesi-But the other information will not change this sheet . It will only justify, . . . just to close the book OM the other issue in the past other developers that have comp forth with PUD' s have proposed some rather site specific ponds for retention this developer has not at this point , he said he is not going to use the wetlands but use d.et6ntion basins and except here you just do not have a site specific map. That should not be a problem for us , it is nn± a requirement of us I suppose it would be nice to have but I am not sure what it really would prove looking at a map that shows ponds on a golf course as retention ponds, so I do not have a problem with that . The very specific data that you are going to get should not change these figures they should .just supplement them. t1, tfcFlroy- l ha.- A not indicated any differently . Supervisor Rorgos-Let me interrupt, a minute or so past the de'1r1 line we set which was two hours plus a few minutes . ^ Pefore we conclude for this evening, I would just like to rpnpond to some public commentg that I have had in the last Epw days . The public comments that I have heard the gijesi-inns were, are there going to be more public hearings? The answer I have given in no there are none required. The people wanted to find out how they might make comments between now and the time that this document is approved even at this level . My statment has 'been the same as I would like to state now, while the press is still here, to say that we have an open forum as part of each of our Town Board meetings and if people 'want to come and talk about any issue they are welcome to do that they should feel free to { do that, certainly those comments would be listened to and perhaps lead to a lot of questions , but not necessarily more data collection, before this approval process is over. We dry have another public meeting in a regular meeting in two J{{ii i weeks I would presume we will have a follow up meeting to ±}pis sometime next week I will have tr-) check calendars and ask Dick or Joe to be in touch with Paul we will do it as quit_kly a4 possible . I do not know at this moment , I know Monday and Tuesday are not good next week. . . I think we have to be gi?re everybody can be here . Mr. Kurosaka will be back at that point too I believe . . . I have several things marked here which I jilst would make comments on when it is my turn }o go through the book. Crt.inc. ilman Montesi-In deference to, Mike, Mr. . . .did call me and ask me if I had any questions about the letter your response and I gave, I just said that I thought that this meeting we should get specific and nail down the numbers on density and we have done that. I think that this process has gone very well . one question that I did have, that did y1t)t get addressed, and Dennis comments was , I need a little better feeling or understanding or at least concept as to where you are going with this recreational fee, recreational activity, recreational land. It is a little bit up in the air maybe it is left up in the air because you ura.nt tc) deal with that in the findings maybe it is not something you want to deal with at this PUD or , but it is part of what becomes a major part of it in a way because it involves land, it involves some decisions by which the Board, or money one of the three options and I do not, after reading this I still do not know what kind of direction. . . I k I i f V i 1 i 6 E E 1 1 �\ I I 'i 177 '?r . Kr7ys --I think we want to do is talk about that during the findings statement., Town Attorney Dttsek-I think that there will be time at that point . That would by appropriate . {"cUDC.iiman Monahan-Paul , where does that leave us in a situati.,nn like this where we have a recreation fee they do not and we are talking -about a' project that encompasses two r'LJT?r,7 r ,t.rr, Attorney Dusek--We can only charge recreation fee within our town . .'ouncilma.n Monahan-How do you handle this? i SuPervi. s(�r. Porgos-You make it town specific probably. Councilman Monahan-Technically how do you handle it . Town A+-tor.ney Dttsek-As far as addressing it? Councilman Monahan-We would only collect on our units . They collect none at all so we just state that in what we do? " .tpervisr Porgos-ln the findings probably. Town At-torney D??sek-I do not know that you would have to Grate it because at some future date when the recreation, when i+ comes time that they are developing we would collects the .*_recreation fees , and we would use it for our own town t f Councilman Monahan-We may use some mitigating measures . rolinci. lman Montesi-That is the question that I am asking, F what I am asking you is that if we leave that to the a� findings part you and Betty are under- the 'impression at that time you will collect the fee suppose ultimately what we are talking about is land in lieu of the fee or open space retention in lieu of the fee or land. That concept. . . Town Attorney Dttsek-That would be addressed then at the time the PUD is created. rolincilman Montesi-Should it be part of this, is what I am saying, because right now what we are accepting here on that particular issue is . E ('(21i.nci lman Monahan-Is concept. Cot.tncilman Montesi--no, as such the developer intends to reach an agreement with the Town relative to . . .recreational fee , are you comfortable with that? Cc ? T �ilman Montesi-That is all I needed to know. PIt: Yr`ys J jT st want to say about the 3:'esidential stuff ' `teat you asked us before in Qyeensbury, we will leave the reGill-liti.a.l level exact we are not looking for any more r ?:Qsidenti.al units than we have . Sil_per'vi.5or Bor.gos-240 or 232 whatever it was that was a —„_tple of hours ago. Mr . K.rzys-232 I think. We will keep it at that, in case we have ±(:) go UP, we will go up within the boundaries of the two hundred and fifty . . . eighty thousand square feet , . . r'ounci:lman Monahan-Paul , I don't know if this would effect W-st . Mt . or not. , I know that we are in the process of doing mapi.ng w-tland.s within the Town of Queensbury according to standards that would be smaller than DEC standards I 4 } ; k,1- G=b have to have something in the f indings "tha.t Shy , tba_i covers that . T�.,rr, + tnr_ney 1)us°t'--That would be similar to the storm water r12a.r,acremA22;a ordnance tha± yc)u were ?:.alking about earlier. . Mnntesi -vastly the only thing I could say is that 1 t,•, , } ,i }dope that. I +cndArstand the financial constraints of that is two and a half years old and we are at a c,i.n± her. e that we ar. e close and, we run into a l' n}2 T g1,2PSG , T t•rould hope that the rest of my hoard rr,orhe.rc �•�o�zlyi share the concern of the developer and try far �c,mP o;rpediency at the next meeting . 6 Borgos-That is very important again, although the d#?velopQrs know from the beginning that this is not going to h- an easy process , it may take forever . . . i r-nvncilman Fotenza-We did not literally mean that. r„p;_ry} sor. Boraos-obviously, . . .we have to get somewhere at =�,mmQ pn+.nt , we have not had a chance to get to a voting point. !)efore_ as I understand the law at some point we have 4ry accapt an F .E . I . 5 . we may ask you for twenty thousand )tf-t things but at some point it has got to be accepted as 11„p1a?:p Sooner . or .later we will do that, we have got to get tc the p014 of soreie findings and then we can take a �t Wok have to march on. Everybody has been extremely, -�� c aC you noticed, am hot surprised that this noo+ r, 11.a5 crone this long, nobody intended it that way , but. T an, n„+. surprised . It is a very bid issue although there 3r. e eery few people here now lots and lots of comments there ljas been lots of comments , we want to be sure it has been J-ne right spa that everybody has had their fair opportunity Ilefore we get- to a voting stage . Z think that is the ('irection we are going. . . . cn„nri1man Montesi-Noted that he may have a conflict with the next meeting date . . . ^�_2pPr�Tiaar Borgos-We may get to the point where we gay to the developer , we can have three board members here, or four do you want to meet , that is what happened tonight . I think ii- is to your advantage to have all five . !Ir . I,:rz,ys-That would not be possible if we had to wait for another two weeks . ,, p .pr� i �nr Borcros-we will do it. as quickly as possible . I ,.,,, lr the rest of this week is out. and Monday and Tuesday, are t,nt gf,c,i , Mr . M,)ntesi j22st Ind icated that Wednesday is not rrr, , i fn2 }�ZTR. is -tile meeting for the Master nrns-Taking lip this room. . . I think by noon x t at all oa2r sched+2les and look -a T,o,,nis � availability . . . I think we can get it in next t,to}> . irr2,ec{nI2 held in re gaYd to scheduling the next "I Pet ing . . . no date set . .* , Or+ mo+- f,x, th- meeting was adjourned. F.espec”±fully aubmit.ted rli s lia.rlepn M. Doligher Tn,•rn t'}.o.rk 'l