The URL can be used to link to this page

1989-10-02 f 32r TOWN BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 2, 1989 7:04 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN BORGOS-SUPER VISOR GEORGE KUROSAKA-COUNCILMAN i MARIL YN POTENZA-COUNCILMAN RONALD MONTESI-COUNCILMAN BETTY MONAHAN-COUNCILMAN TOWN ATTORNEY f PA UL D USEK TOWN OFFICIALS John Goralski, Lee York, Kathleen Kathe, Rick Missita, Dave Hatin PRESS: G.F. Post Star, Channel 8 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN POTENZA PUBLIC HEARING - GLEN LAKE FEN 7:05 P.M. I NOTICE SHOWN i SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Anybody at this time wishes to speak, anyone who wishes to speak may come forward. Please state your name, address and say whatever you would like to about the proposed regulations for the Glen Lake Fen, for, against or whatever. I'm sure a whole bunch of us will have questions probably as you go along rather then wait until the end, because we'll never remember at the end. It's been suggested that Mr. Goralski put up a map so we can point to things. I would ask that we give everyone an opportunity to speak once before we come back for a second time, that's in fairness to everyone. Once the map is up, who ever would like to be first please just approach the microphone. Before we do that, we'll ask Mr. Goralski to explain what the different colors are. JOHN GORALSKI, TOWN PLANNER-(demonstrated on map) The red line that's shown here is the limit of the proposed critical environmental area. The blue line is the mean high water mark of Glen Lake as defined in the Glen Lake Technical Study. The green line is the DEC limit of GF18, GF21 and GF15. The orange line here is the limit of the Round Pond critical ~" environmental area. The black lines are the different roadways that surround the area that's proposed to be designated as a critical environmental area. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-The area that's filled in John, is that 250 feet? MR. GORALSKI-Right. That's 250 feet from the limit of the wetland, the mean high water mark of the lake and it usually stops at any roadway which has been eliminated from this designation. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-While you're right here and while you've got the map, will you clear up a point? The last time it was mentioned at our public hearing, that statement already protects 100 feet back, is that correct? I haven't been able to find anything where it says... I MR. GORALSKI-DEC regulations require wetlands permit for any action, not any action but most actions that take place within 100 feet of the wetland limit. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Would that pertain to the lake also? MR. GORALSKI-No, just the designated wetland. I SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Designated wetland, okay, thank you. We are ready for any and all. - UNKNOWN-1 assume that the Glen Lake Association is going to speak for the proposal. I { SUPERVISOR BORGOS-1 don't know, I've been busy with budgets for a couple of weeks. I really don't know what is out there tonight or who is out there. i see Mr. O'Connor here ready to say something I'm sure. MICHAEL O'CONNOR-I'm Michael O'Connor. I'm a member of the Glen Lake Association and speak on their behalf. Since the last time we met and we've discussed this, the Glen Lake Association has had a meeting. It was a very well attended meeting. The Association at that point endorsed the proposal that is before the Board now and asked the Board to pass a designation of an environmental critical sensitive area for the three wetlands that have i` i v been outlined on the map and for the entire shoreline. That would include also 250 feet adjacent to that. Basically at that meeting we talked about what we are trying to do and this is really the first step forward, not first step but one of many steps we hope that we take in the near future to protect and give additional protection to Glen Lake. Glen Lake still serves to many people as a source of drinking water, some with filtration systems, some without filtration systems. That is something that I think we should be very sensitive to. We had a proposal here to designate only the two wetlands to the west side of the lake as critically environmentally sensitive areas and it was a suggestion at that meeting that maybe the whole Lakeshore and the areas, the wetlands to the east side of the lake should also be designated. First I'd like to remind the Board of what we are talking about is simply a triggering device for the State Environmental Quality Review Act. It is a not a zoning ordinance in the sense that it will prohibit anyone from doing anything that is permitted or not permitted right now. This is not a use zoning restriction. This is simply a notification restriction and even within that perimeter, there are certain limits. Before when we talked about this, we heard different people mention different things, which I think was practically not correct. This will not trigger any action from anyone if you're talking about an exempt action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. An exempt, among other things, is maintenance or repair involving most substantial changes in an existing structure or facility. When anybody is talking about an existing single family residence, they are talking about repairing it or maintaining it. This is not going to have any impact upon the land and nature. Secondly this does not require any action in addition to what is already required if the people are taking what is called a Class II action, not a Class I action. A Class I action for the most part is commercial or large size undertaking. Specifically listed as Class 11 action, which would not require any particular action of parties, again, and 1 don't know why it is listed separately but it says, specifically, the replacement of a facility in time on the same site unless such facility meets or exceeds any of the thresholds that are otherwise provided. Again they are talking about large scale operations. The granting of individual setback and lot line variances. Repaving of existing highways, not including the addition of new travelings. Construction or placement of minor structures, assessory, or pertinent to existing facilities including garages, carports, patios, home swimming pools, fences, barns or other-out buildings not changing land use or density, including upgrading of building to meet the building or fire codes. Now everything I have said so far would be permitted and would not require any action, even if you adopt what we are proposing that you adopt. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Can we stop just for one second and just be sure that Mr. Goralski or somebody else agrees with that. MR. GORALSKI-Yes we do. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Anybody who disagrees with that under the law? Okay, thank you. Let's keep going. MR. O'CONNOR-What this would pertain to is what I call or what SEQRA would require or call Class 1 activities. As examples you're talking about construction of new residential units which meet or exceed the following thresholds ... 10 units in municipalities which have not adopted zoning or subdivision regulations and I think I come down the list with right to where Queensbury would be in a city, town or village having a population of less than 150,000, 250 units to be connected ... go down into other activities, project or action which involves a fiscal alteration of ten acres, a project or action which would use ground or surface water in excess of 2 million gallons a day, parking for a thousand vehicles ... that is when this will become a threshold that would have to be crossed when somebody is undertaking those actions. So comments that have been made as to the effect it might have as to putting single family residences out of business, I don't think are correct. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Let me ask you one other question while we're here again, I'm not trying to interrupt you. You've just given us the threshold related to physical size and numbers of cars. Are any of those thresholds things that would not otherwise come up for special review under planning regulations? In other words, what I've heard you say probably would have to come to our Planning Board for special review anyway. MR. O'CONNOR-1 think those actions would. Where you'll get into a new triggering device that we don't have presently is in un listed class 11 actions. SUPERVISOR BOR GOS-Such as...would you give us some examples? MR. O'CONNOR-Those that are not specifically mentioned, that I have not specifically .... SUPERVISOR BOR GOS-Such as, for instance.. I don't mean to press you but I think we can cut down a little time this way. i MR. O'CONNOR-I f you are going to construct a brand new residence or you are going to begin a brand new use within the critical environmental zone. Replacement or maintenance of I existing would not trigger this but some brand new structure or activity would. Construction j of an out building to an existing facility would not fall in that category. But construction of a brand new operation or new residence or new commercial property would require, so that basically is what we are talking about as for as when this would act as a triggering device. What it does, when it does become involved, says that the applicant will file with the application for a permit. In essence a five page disclosure form, telling the party reviewing the application, what they will be doing and that's basically it. The application or the affidavit, the long form affidavit is some 9 or 10 pages long but most of that is made out by the reviewing agency. All that is made out by the applicant is some 5 pages, alot of that being name and address, location of property and what you propose to do. So we're not talking about a great deal of burden that we are putting upon people. What we are talking about is having the control over large scale developments and any new activities that might conceivably have an effect upon the lake or quality of the lake or quality of the wetlands. We specifically have asked that the Board talk about a 250 foot area outside of the actual designation of the high water mark or the wetlands because we think its important. You've mentioned the fact that there is a 100 foot buffer zone if you will outside of the wetlands. That is true. But if you look at our ordinances, the first thing that comes to mind is that your septic systems can not be closer than 100 feet. So new septic systems for new activities wouldn't necessary trigger { any type review of this nature if it were outside the 100, even if it were within the 250 feet. Most of the lots as they've been broken up around the lake would include area within the 250 feet, that probably would be used for septic. There aren't an awful lot of the lots there that ' are beyond that. So we would have a pretty good handle upon any new septic use or activity that is going to go on around the lake, around the wetland, with the particular 250 foot designation. j Additionally if you take a look at the topographical features around the lake, there are many f of the lots that are 200 to 250 feet deep, that are sharp, steep inclines. I can't conceivably understand why the flow from the back of the lot would have any less effect than the water flow in the front of the lot. I think that is something that we should have some control over. Specifically there are areas on the south side of the lake... if I can get oriented right...(demonstrated on map)...1 call this the Round Pond side, the south side of the lake and I would take this to be Mannis Road, this being Fitzgerald Road. This entire area right here is sharply inclined toward the lake. Most of those lots run 250, probably 225 feet deep. We would then have some control on the upper parts of those banks as well as the lower parts of the banks that we don't presently have. The same is true, I guess this is, I went a little further, this is ... road down there, its a private road, its not even a public road. Its this area up in here, we have the some questions and the same concerns ... I guess its back in this area. If you take a look at the actual maps of that area, much of the land lying between Glen Lake Road and the Glen Lake Fen, is outside of the 100 foot zone but certainly it feeds into and contributes to the zone or to the fen with its run off. I've got a specific map if you want to look at that. (shown map) This is a composite of the area that was put together when the sewer district `— was proposed for Queensbury and the County of Warren many years ago. Part of the wall of that particular map it shows the topographical features of the land that lies to the north of the Glen Lake Fen but south of the Glen Lake Road. You see that you get into the topographical j features of 500 feet down to 400 feet, all at a sharp incline. In this area right here we would like to see protected. We had an overlay down of the area that is within the 100 feet of the i Glen Lake Fen and along this particular area. If you look at the blue line behind that, you can see that there is still as much land that lies south of Glen Lake Road, but north of the Fen that is outside of the 100 feet and when we get into discussions before as to the grading that is going on in that area, we were able to stop the grading simply because is was part f of a site plan application or parcel that was owned by an applicant who had a site plan pending. Without that, I'm not sure what restrictions we have. You asked whether or not there are other restrictions in existence that would prohibit activities that might influence the lake. As I understand it, they are allowed to grade up to 10 acres of land, without any permits being required. I've seen in the last couple of weeks, quite a bit of activity there. I've seen no application for a permits so I presume that its under that type exemption that that activity is going on. Either that or... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-1 hear what you are saying. This is a public hearing related to this but I think you are drifting a little bit off the subject. MR. O'CONNOR-1 think you've asked, the question has been put on the table, why are we talking about 250 feet as opposed to 100 feet. There are certain areas of the lake where we think we need to go beyond the 100 foot area in order to give ample protection to the Ilake. I think that is the best example I can give you, the activity that is going on today or has been going on in the last couple of weeks, which is apparently without permit, without review... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Once again, Mr. O'Connor, i know where you're going and where you're coming from and I do see the relative relationship but I think that belongs in a different form than here perhaps. Maybe in open forum or maybe you would file some kind of document as a complaint. Your example is well taken but we could go on all night and have a battle here that we're not ready to solve that problem. G f MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I stand ready to answer any questions that the Board might have as to any other thoughts that the Association has as to why we would like to have the entire shoreline designated critically environmental sensitive area as well as the shorelines of the 3 wetlands that adjoin, two of which serves as a source of water and one is the outlet to the lake. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-1 have a question. Five page disclosure form, is there anything on that form that I would need professional help in filling out? Except what is available in our Planning Department. MR. O'CONNOR-1 think it could be filled out with help from the Planning Department, if not by themselves. 1 can read you the questions if you want. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No but I'm just wondering if there is any reason you would need an engineer or anything like that to fill out any of the questions that are on that five page form. MR. O'CONNOR-1 don't think you would because, also in your instructions that come with -� it says that you fill it out to the best of your ability with the knowledge that you have. There is a specific disclaimer in the SEQRA law and I think in the instructions for that sheet that says, you should not and are not required to get professional advice in order to fill out the form. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you very much. We may have some questions for you a later. JOHN GORALSKI, Planner-I just want to clear up one thing. If somebody has a building lot, they file for a building permit and they don't require any variances, it is a conformed lot which means they don't need a site plan review for it, this, the SEQRA, the long EAF and what not, its not required. I just want to clear up, Mike mentioned it for building a new houses, if that lot and that house meets all requirements of the Town and no Board in the Town is going to be granting any approval of that, then this won't even come into play. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. JOHN MOOSBR UGGER-1 came before the Board about approximately a year and a half ago. I bought a piece of land, that I can show you on the map after I get through with what I'm going to say here, to see if.there would be any problems with building a single family residence at that time, there were not any variances needed or anything like that and they basically said that there is no problem. What I want to know is if there is a problem, would this have an effect on me? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-From what 1've heard, I don't know if there is a necessary problem, but there certainly would be some extra steps because you would then be new construction. Is that right Mr. Goralski? Is it currently vacant land? MR. MOOSBR UGGER-Yes. Its a 3 acre piece of land. MR. GORALSKI-i really have to check on the tax.map as to exactly what zone your property is in and if it is a conforming lot and the building can meet all the set back requirements, then this ... MR. MOOSBR UGGER-Thats what 1 want to know, with these new requirements, now make it so it doesn't ... MR. GORALSKI-These new requirements that they're discussing here, okay, would not effect it as much as the zoning change that took place in October of 1988. 1 don't know if you were before the Board before or after that. MR. MOOSBR UGGER-!t was before that. a MR. GORALSKI-Myself or the Zoning Administrator could take a look at it and tell you if you need a site plan review. If you need a site plan review, then this would come into play. �. If all you need is a building permit and you don't need a site plan review, then this would not effect you at all. If you want, we don't have to do it here, I can look at your map. ..t SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. Next, Mr. Fitzgerald. NEIL FITZGERALD, Farm to Market Road-I would like to start out by saying that I'm in favor of reducing pollution in Glen Lake. I think either the entire shoreline, the control area, that is a declared wetland if you will. A 100 feet to 200 feet, I don't know. The depth of that should be determined by a qualified person and it would certainly have to do with the clustering of housing-se that one guy gets it here and some 50 feet away the next guy doesn't get the i i :;ame treatment. So I think that type of thing should be taken into consideration. I think certainly the control of pollutants such as fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides ought to be under complete control. Sewage, septic tanks, cesspools ought to be inspected and investigated. Control of hydrocarbonp/ates, ie, gasoline, oil, whatever from whatever type of a device that they use whether it is a lawn mower, whether its a motor boat or whether it is a ATV, or whether its a car, truck whatever. That is the disposal thereof of those. I think the control of trash and garbage is probably already under control. I oppose the fact that maybe if we move to 250 feet this might be entrust into the hands of the Town and cause additional taxpayers money. I still do not understand the difference between 100 and 250 feet. I think that when one talks about what the subsoil or sublayers are, that thats not completely able to be concerned unless one drills and finds out what the stratas are and how they go. I studied geology and a few things like that and i found out that when I put in a well in on the lake, it was a 150 feet from the lake,.that I went down about 280 feet to get water. Now there has to be a reason for that, either the guy wanted to drill alot and make slot of money or else the layers of shale or whatever is under there, the bedrock tilt in different directions ... I don't subscribe to the fact that because you are on a hill that makes a difference. I think that you have to investigate that. I don't deny,_that that is a possibility but just that its not necessarily a simple as just looking at it on the surface because this is all, most of Glen Lake is a gladial meraine. Whats underneath, I don't think many people know what that is. So that means its been drifted down there in the piles and whatever hills and valleys and so on and so forth are there, they're a result of somebody opened them up, putting them there. I oppose the 250 foot boundary just out of hand. I think it has application where I said, I don't think it has application in most places. I would particularly say not GF78, because there is only two of us living there. There isn't much that we're going to do. So rather get into alot of that type of thing, I think that it is something that has to be decided and whatever it is I don't, I'll obviously follow the ground rules. Other than that, I'm a member also of the Glen Lake Protective Association, newly as it is. I'm not casting any aspersions, but the people who attended that meeting by large numbers, were people who probably wouldn't do anything to their house because they've owned it for many years and they have no intention of doing anything to it. So when the Association says that they do this, 1-can't speak for the Association because just a member. But I have a feeling that there is alot of people, demographic circumstances taken into consideration around the lake, that probably wouldn't subscribe to that but they just don't attend the meeting or else they're not invited to attend, whatever. So I think that should be taken into consideration, what is the demographics around the lake. How old are the people and what is the likelihood that they're going to expand the existing house because I think an expansion would constitute, I'll refer to Mr. O'Connor, but I think an expansion would require them to go through this process. Is that so or not? . SUPERVISOR BORGOS-He said not before. MR. FITZGERALD-I don't know whether he really says... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Mr. Goralski now says, yes it would. 1 thought Mr. O'Connor gave us examples before if it would include expansions, closing in porches and so forth. MR. O'CONNOR-It depends upon what you are talking about. SUPERVISOR BOR GOS-You're talking just expansion of foot print? MR. O'CONNOR-It depends upon what you are talking about. I would have to read you the exact language. MR. FITZGERALD-I'm talking, somebody sells this piece of property and its of such a structure, somebody moves in, they've got five children, they want to put two rooms on the house. That's a whole different ball game.' (tape turned) SUSAN ... Jay Road-Just in relation to what Mr. Fitzgerald had said, depending on the demographics and the people living on the lake and knowing what they are going to do with their properties. My husband and I bought our property about a year and a half ago and there are things that we want to do with it and probably we will have to _go through the site plan review. But we have small children and we want to keep the quality of the lake. We want to leave it to our children and our grandchildren. The ... of money or time on our part I think that is just the way it goes. I want to make sure in 20 years when my grandchildren are swimming are in the lake just like my children are now, I can say, sure go for a swim, not stay away from the water theres problem with it. So if it takes all of us ...I think that is the way it is. JOHN BROWN, Glen Lake-I'm for this proposal and I also would like to see some day the whole basin area taken effect by the protection. Because what we do all the way up in the mountains ... it all comes down to the lake so eventually we should start expanding this protection, to protect our water. Not just Glen Lake, all our lakes. Thank you. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mr. Brown, I think you're going to be very interested in something 33°' that the Planning Department is proposing that we study that is going to come up later this evening. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-John, I have a question for you and I was writing a note to Steve, there is still a question in my mind. We've drawn a 250 foot line around Glen Lake. I asked the Planning Department and I know you've done it, how does that affect splitting property lines? Are there many properties around Glen Lake that, this lady says she doesn't mind doing a little bit of paperwork, suppose a quarter of her property is in it, three quarters is out of it, does she still have to do the paperwork? i mean I'm concerned about creating a problem that is not solvable. MR. GORALSKI-First of all we picked the 250 foot distance because what that basically does in most cases is encompass all of the properties that actually, the entire property that actually borders the lake, has lake frontage. For the properties that are split as you would say for this critical environmental area, the resolution reads substantially, adjacent or substantially— contiguous to. So my understanding and you can check with the attorney for a legal determination, is anything that is, any piece of property that has a critical environmental area in it would be effected by this designation. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Okay, my concern is that, lets assume that a property owner that owns 1400 feet from the lake up and he wants to do something on the backside. Lets say what he wants to do happens to be a 1,000 feet away from the lake, is that individual going to fall into the critically environmentally sensitive area because the front part of his property falls on the lake? MR. GORALSKI-1 believe so. ATTORNEY DUSEK-1 think I should just interject at this point. It is my feeling you have to look at where the action itself is occurring. For instance, say you have a parcel that stretches 1400 foot in length and 150 of it or the last 150 of it is on the lake, if the project itself falls within the 250 obviously it is under the critical environmental designation. However if it falls at the other end of the spectrum up say at the other 250, so in other words its 1150 feet away from the lake, I think in that case if, obviously there is a judgement call here as to whether or not it is substantially contiguous but it would seem to me it probably isn't and it would be outside the critical environmental area so therefore it would not be treated as a type I action. Rather it would be treated as whatever type of action it would normally fall under SEQR A. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-But who will make that decision Paul? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Usually it is up to the lead agency to make that decision as they do in all instances when they decide whether its type I or type II. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Would that mean we would have to go so far as to identify a lead agent? ATTORNEY DUSEK-In every time you do the SEQRA process you do that. MR. GORALSKI-If it got to the point where you were determining whether this was an unlisted action or type I action, even if it is an unlisted action, the Board has to determine a lead agency ... COUNCILMAN MONTESI-The Town Board... COUNCILMAN POTENZA-So there would surely be paperwork involved even if, at the end of this ... MR. GORALSKI-It would be the Planning Board most likely. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-So there would be paperwork involved and a procedure that would be followed even at the end of this procedure, the decision would be made that there would be no impact. MR. GORALSKI-Right. COUNCILMAN PO TEN ZA-Therefore no action would be taken. ATTORNEY DUSEK-The Planning Board as it now sits is, unless its a type 11 action or is exempt under SEQRA, in every single time a project comes before them, they have to make an evaluation as to whether or not they're going to have to a SEQRA study. The first thing they do, is what kind of action is it. Is it in a critical environmental area? Is it a type I? Is a type II? If they see its a type Il or exempt, then they're done. Thats the end of it. If however they find that its an unlisted action, that they can't find either in the exempt or type ll or they can't find it in one, then they have a decision to make. They can either say, we'll treat it as a coordinated review action, notify everybody and then make a decision as to whether. we feel there is any adverse environmental impacts or they can simply handle it themselves in the first instance and then still make that same decision, so they have like a choice there. Ultimately though each time a proposal comes up, a Board, whatever Board it is thats giving the approval has to make that decision unless, the only time that would differ, is if you have more than one Board involved, then what the SEQRA law tries to do, rather than have everybody do this, we'll pick somebody. Either if ENCON is involved, sometimes they'll take it. Say you have the Town Board, the Planning Board and ENCON involved, anyone of those agents could be the ones that run withjt. Just as the Board here did on the West Mountain project. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Or all the PUDs. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Right. DICK BARTLETT-I'm here representing the Great Escape Amusement Park, now owned by IBC and Charlie Wood is an officer director and stockholder of IBC is here with me and Mrs. Beckos, also an officer of the corporation. Let me say that ... we fully understand the interest and concerns of the citizens who are members of the property owners and who are members of the Glen Lake Association, in wanting to protect that lake and the adjacent marshes. We think that the proposal is beyond what is necessary to afford that protection. We note that we think it was before the Board before, it did not include Glen Lake, thats been added, that probably makes it a better proposal. We would like to suggest that 100 feet is an appropriate delineation from the edges of the lake and the marshes and it should be consistently applied everywhere. Currently, as I understand the proposal and perhaps the Planner can correct me if I'm wrong, it goes to 250 feet unless it runs into a road. MR. GORALSKI-Thats correct. MR. BAR TLETT-There are places, are they not, where the road runs right along the marsh? MR. GORALSKI-Thats correct. MR. BARTLETT-I couldn't understand the sense of that. There is nothing magic about a road, when one talks about environmental control. In fact I have to say that a major source of the contamination of that fen and that lake, is the salt and the sand that goes on those highways every winter. We don't know a better way to do it around here and I want to safe roads too, but when we're going to talk about what goes into the lake and what effects its purity and what effects its nutrient contribution, all those factors hove to be taken into account. Now the Department of Environmental Conservation designates certain areas as wetlands and they have so designated the Glen Lake Fen. That statue requires that it extends a 100 feet from the boundary which seems appropriate and which will give an opportunity for planned protection that the citizens here tonight seek. I think we have to understand that it is more than just a mild procedural difference, if this is part of a critical environmental area. All unlisted projects must be treated as type I projects. In fact that is the most significant thing that happens. So that decision is made for the reviewing Board, whether it is the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Planning Board or this Board; once the area is designated a critical environmental area, all un listed projects, as well as those projects ... are classified as type I, must be treated as type 1. Now Mr. O'Connor, I agree with a great deal of what he said. He noted that you just have 5 pages to fill out and that it doesn't require professional help. That maybe so. But to do a good job however, one would probably want professional help because the determination of whether or not an environmental impact statement is required, it is going to be made based on that information. Ladies and gentleman, once that is triggered, were not talking about just another piece of paper, we're talking about 5 months. It can be in terms of the application for a change that the landowner wishes to undertaken and final approval. In fact it can stretch way beyond that as we all know, that is pretty much the threshold time period that you are going to have to encounter. I think that is a serious burden on homeowners as well as business people. Now make no mistake about it, but I'm here representing a business person, well known to everybody here and the Board. He is concerned, as properly he should be, that 250 feet extends into the area now developed, Raging River for example is a part of that, a choo choo train runs through part if it. None of it is within a 100 feet. The 100 feet is the designation that I indicated, that the State has seen fit to put around its wetlands designation. We think it is appropriate. We applaud the idea that that should extend to the rest of Glen Lake, it should extend to the other marshes that are adjacent to and are connected with Glen Lake. We think that is appropriate. But lets make no mistake about it, its not just another 5 page set of papers, it really triggers a process that can be very burdensome and very time consuming. For a business person, hiring an engineer may not be that big of a deal, but for a single landowner, it can be a big deal. I would suggest that if the Board determines to make such a designation to the 100 feet I described, I think, a thought should be given to removing the highway boundaries. In fact I don't know any requirement that has to be within ... of the highway and if a 100 feet means something, it seems to me it should mean something all over... I do agree with Mr. Goralski that an addition to a residence would in all likelihood being an unlisted and therefore a type I if its within the area. We fully understand the desire of the Glen Lake Association and its members to enhance the protection of the lake and the fens ... but the areas should be limited to 100 feet rather than 250. 1 want to take just a minute more of the Board's time, if I may, and the audiences to show you a map to show you where are the ... on the Great Escape property. (map shown) This is the 250 foot mark here, that goes back as you can see that goes through the collection of maintenance buildings right here, in the fact of existence we agree but any changes that area made there would require in all likelihood the SEQRA process. Right here is the ride that goes right through here. Here is, Charlie you may have to help me here, I'm looking for the Raging R i ver. CHARLIE WOOD-To the left. MR. BAR TLETT-To the left. Okay, here we are. Right here is the Raging River which is partially on there. Now, we have to conceive to all of you that the adoption of a 250 foot buffer zone even does not effect the existence of those facilities. But as the Town Board well knows, the characteristic of successful amusement park, is constant change. I know its a burden to everybody involved in the process, but its the name of the game. Rides have to be changed, attractions have to be changed. If you don't build you don't attract. It doesn't mean always addition, it can mean substitution. But anything that took place within the 250 foot zone would clearly require a full SEQRA process, if this change is adopted. We urge you to give favorable consideration to the Glen Lake Association's application but limit it to a 100 foot buffer. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Any questions for Mr. Bartlett before he sits down? Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to speak? DR. HOROWITZ-I'm a resident of Glen Lake. While sitting down, I've made some notes. l'l/ address some points that I have made, which, that I have taken, which have come up here and may be loose ends. 1 can tell you that the last Glen Lake meeting was one of the better attending meetings, attracted well over a 100 people. To get those people there, notices went out to all members of Glen Lake Association. No one is denied an invitation because of their politic, race or religion or anything else. The Board members in a previous meeting, in fact the night before that meeting, went over the environmental statement or application, question by question. We feel that anybody with .... subnormal intelligence can fill that out on his own and not be worried or bullied into having an attorney fill that out for them and I kid you not, don't mean to be sarcastic. Many of our members are new members. The Glen Lake Association has ... recently and I have a feeling thats why our attendance at meetings has grown, people are very interested in what goes on around the lake. The vote taken and votes were taken and on different distances from the lake that we thought should be protected up to 500 feet. We stopped at 250 because, as Mr. O'Connor has mentioned, most lots go about 220 to 250 feet and we feel that septic systems which you know that we are quite interested in, should be taken in by this statement, by this environmental statement. We feel that people who add onto their houses, expand their houses by adding bedrooms therefore should have to expand or enlarge their septic systems. These things should be watched. Somebody, some governing body should make sure that these things are legal systems. We do feel that there is no such thing as enlarging an house, not enlarging the septic or doing something to make some lip service to a septic system. As far as building in a restricted area, these things should be checked and the people are going to be stopped dead in the water by having to submit such forms, so be it. This is something that governs everybody who lives around the lake. As far as these systems go, they are in the back of the lot. As for as I know there are very few laws that came true, and gravity is one of them and no matter whats between 250 feet and the lake, things will flow down hill, as the saying goes. Septic systems as I mentioned before must come under control. Glen Lake lake committee took an inspection tour of the lake shortly after your last meeting and we did find several systems which are grossly inadequate. We found things flowing right down into the lake and we'll take that up at another point. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Let me just interrupt you for a second like I did before, if you've got such situations, please notify us and we'll take care of them. DR. HOROWITZ-We certainly will. As far as 250 feet as an uniformed measure around the lake, people who live around Glen Lake feel that this is a good thing. If a road is in the way, though the present statement reads that a road would interrupt this 250 feet, we see no problem with extending over a road. Certainly if the County or the State is going to put salt on that road, they should be held accountable to. One of those instances I referred to, certainly there is a system along Glen Lake Road which seems to be draining the road right smack directly into the lake. As someone behind me, one of my neighbors mentioned, there is nothing wrong with a 100 feet from the lake or a 100 feet from the swamp except the swamp keeps getting smaller, especially recently. We do ask you for 250 feet. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. Is there anyone else? 33� , LORI GRAVES-I'm a seasonal residence on Jay Road. I want to put in the records that I'm in favor of 250 feet, not only for the present but for the future. This is what we need to protect the future, our children. Expansion, people that have properties don't plan on expanding it now but whats to say whats going to happen in the future. Properties are sold, whether they have buildings on them or whether they are vacant. We need to keep in mind, things don't always stay the same. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. I can't help but comment that the non-attorneys get it done so much faster, the same message. ROGER GILBERT, Fernwood Road, Glen Lake-I've been at Glen Lake for over 40 years, either as a youngster at my father's camp, now I have a year round house. I'm in favor of the 250 foot setback. Over the years I've seen a gradual deterioration of the lake, the quality of `— the water. I've also seen erosion of the hills and I think its time, we have a beautiful natural resource in this area, water and if we don't do something soon, we're going to lose this lake and the property around it. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. Anyone else, first time around? JANE BARTIS, Melrose, New York-I'm a seasonal resident of Glen Lake and I'm in favor of the 250 feet. CHARLIE YORK, Burch Road-I'm a Glen Lake resident and I'm in favor of the 250 feet. I'm also appalled at the development up on the Route 9. A view from the top of French Mountain down there and that massive blacktop is just a big needle and every time it rains it drains into my backyard and that swamp. Wetland, excuse me. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. Anyone else? That was the first time around. Second time? Closing arguments from either of the attorneys? MR. O'CONNOR-Just a couple comments. One, you asked a question, Mr. Montesi did about split lots? I think the analogy to be made is like the flood plain control and maps that we have, they are legal in size and they do cover lots that are both in the flood plains and outside the flood plains, and the common interpretation by all municipalities that I've been before is that you've got to talk about the improvement being inside the flood plain itself before that regulation comes effec#ive. I think we could word this regulation in the same nature explicitly if not by ... do the same things so we don't have that particular problem. The other thing that had been mentioned, I've heard a couple of comments that everybody be treated equally. That is our intention. I think the break off of the zone by roads, crept into the description, simply of convenience. I have'no preference to keep that there. I would just as soon have it be a straight lineal distance if possible. I thought we were trying to do it so that administratively it would be easier to keep track of when you are in the zone and not into the zone so that you don't have to put a compass off of each point every time somebody goes in that may or may not be in the zone. That doesn't bother me one way or another. We certainly would welcome that if that was a change that was proposed. On the some line with equality, I remember this Board that when it designated the critical environmental sensitive area for Round Pond which is just above here, you talk 500 feet adjacent to it. When you designated the critical environmental area for Round Pond which sits down in this area, you've also designated 500 feet. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-You're talking Rush Pond. MR. O'CONNOR-Rush Pond is up here, Round Pond is down there. Both of those were 500 feet. The critically environmental sensitive area for Lake George as been designated by the Lake George Park Commission, along the entire shore of Lake George and in particular as it effects us, the area that is along the shore of Queensbury, is 500 feet. We actually are asking for less for our protection then what has been afforded for those other bodies of water by this Board or by other area Boards. I find it very curious that Mr. Wood has presented this map. You'll notice that it has been cut off in this area where the ... pit is where we're mostly concerned about as it runs to the north. I don't think there is any question in here that the existing facilities can stay. I will ask the Board to look at the Planning Board minutes when we were talking about the survey boundary of the wetland and I think Mr. Morse from Morse Engineering said, well most of the survey or most of the boundary as shown on the map was correct except as,its been changed since 1983. Everybody stood back and said, what do you mean changed by 1983, you've had the wetland fill permits. I ask the Board to go in and take a look. Go in and look specifically ... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Again, Mr. O'Connor I think, I know this was introduced by the other party. The owner of the party talked about the impact on their particular land. I have no objection to you talking in general about people around the lake who might possibly fill in a place where they shouldn't fill in. But I think the specifics of your particular accusations 33f!. probably don't belong in this public hearing related to this thing. MR. O'CONNOR-1 think they should be part of the record because that is the problem that we had and we've had. We've no real protection of the wetland. We started this project with an idea to get some protection to the wetland. Thankfully its gone a little bit beyond that, now we're talking about the entire shoreline. You probably are talking about a requirement for the filling or the filing of a petition if you do expand your residence, as I take a look upon that. You can replace it but if you increase its density, you will be required to file. I think that is something we're all going to have to undertake, its something that we're going to have to do because that effects the quality of the water the same as some other pocket. It's no different. If you put hard surface there and you've got drainage that is going to run into the lake, we've got to take protection or ample protection of that. Even if they're little projects as opposed to big projects. If you talk about 100 feet, you might just as well laugh because I think you can also ask the Building Department that you got a shoreline setback requirement of 75 feet for any structures in excess of 100 feet. So what you are going to end up doing with this grand 100 foot ordinance, you'd be protecting a band of 25 feet wide, in essence. You can't put your septic systems within a 100 feet of the lake. You can't put your, if I get it right, your drainage field or the leach field or the dry wells. You can put your holding tank within'50 feet of the lake but you can't put the other. That would seem to be some of the most critical activity and I say within the lake and also within 100 feet of the wetlands. Because our shoreline setbacks applies to stream, wetlands and lakes. So really if you are going to offer any protection at all, if you are going to do anything, make it meaningful. Make it 250 feet. If you really want to take this farther, set another public hearing to tell us you want to put it 500 feet. I think we'll be back here and we'll support it at 500 feet. MR. BAR TLETT-Representing IBC, the owner of the Great Escape. The 100 foot buffer that was established by the State in connection with its wetlands project, the wetlands designation process, I submit is adequate for all the purposes described Mr. O'Connor. One hundred feet back from the shoreline will effect every frontage property or any activity which could possibly effect to make certainly to 250 or beyond. Let me tell you why. Its right in the Town's own resolution, this Board's resolution. Any unlisted action which takes place wholly or partially or substantially contiguous to the critical environmental area would be considered a type I action. Its silly to say that it means you only have 25 feet of protection because you already have 75 setback. Any residence, I guess thats what Mr. O'Connor was talking about, at least at that point, any residence with frontage on the protected property whether its one of the fens or the lake itself, would certainly fall within the purvey of the critical environmental area designation. Finally let me say, that in so for as fill is concerned, clearly fill is irrelevant more than 100 feet from shore, 100 foot designation would deal with that without any question. We believe that is an appropriate limitation. We agree with what a couple of the other speakers said about 100 feet being adequate, we think so too and we are very concerned about the impact of 250 foot zone on the future of the Great Escape Amusement Park. Thank you. MR. GORALSKI, Planner-I'm not a lawyer but I'd just like to say one more thing. I think the reason the 100 foot question has come up is because DEC uses 100 feet as a designation. We contacted DEC to ask them why they use 100 feet. DEC designates their wetlands basically by going out and locating wetland vegetation. That is not an exact science. Two different scientists can go out and flag a wetland, basically the same, but slightly different. Therefore they use the 100 feet as a margin of error. I guess thats the best term I can use, so 100 feet to them as far as vegetation is concerned, was more than enough to encompass the wetland area itself. That is why they use 100 feet. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-John, can you tell us the date of when they did the 100 feet designation, the year? MR. GORALSKI-That I don't know. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Or any idea? MR. GORALSKI-When the wetlands act? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-1 don't know. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-1 think it was in the seventies, but I'm not positive. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I'm just thinking about now about pesticides and herbicides and stuff like that is greatly increased since that time, thats why I'm asking that question. CHARLES WOOD-Vice President of IBC, the General Manager of the Great Escape and Fantasy World. I would like to say my learned opponent here, I'm sick and tired of him using me as • punching bag. I cut the map off to make it more usable. I'd be glad to see that you have • map tomorrow morning in your office the whole thing that would show no different than this map. I bought this land 36 y s-vgd.-1t'was zoned for recreation. I've not broke that ordinance. I've paid taxes on it. I pay taxes on the wetland. I'm not asking for anything special. I was happy with the 100 foot setback but it was only aimed at the Great Escape. I want to thank at this time the people of the Glen Lake Association because they are the people who demanded another hearing to make it around the entire lake and not just to be pointed at me. My friend is determined to point it at me. I don't know what his vendetta is, but believe me, I'm sick and tired of picking on the Great Escape and Charles Wood. I've been a good citizen of this county. i pay as large of taxes as anybody. We pay a great sales tax. I try to contribute to everything in the area. 1 don't feel I deserve the point out at me for the Great Escape. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you sir. Anyone else? ED SHADWILL, Hall Road, Glen Lake-I'm a part time resident of Glen Lake and if the Board would just bear with me, I'd like to make an analogy because there is something bothering me. I live in Florida, the State of Florida. Florida has hundreds maybe thousands of small, medium and large sensitive wetland areas. Developers come in and naturally they have a right to develop but the point I'd like to make is this. In the middle of piece of land that somebody wants to develop, there is a sensitive wetland area, and the developer says, I'll move it over there for you and make another wetland area, if you let me encompass this land and have it totally to fill in, I'll make you a new wetland area. Well my personal opinion, this is the most stupidest, ridiculous, asinine thing that occurs. Now when I'm up here in New York State, I don't know what is going on down in Florida until i move there and then I found out, I don't know what is going on up here. Unless the Governor has a hernia or the Mayor Koch was blasted out of office or whatever. You can't take a wetland area over there that through hundreds and thousands of years, nature has diverted the water. There are single cell organisms in there, there is wild waterfowl, wildlife depending on that, the natural topography flows that water there to eliminate that. To put it over there is like putting, its like taking a barrel of oil and trying to put a concrete block in it and say, here, hold it up. It can't support it. But that wetland was supported through nature, through eons of time and its there. So they put wetlands over there as a trade off. Well to me this is ridiculous. I know I'm making analogy and I hope you bear with me. When I moved to Florida and saw all the problems that they're having down there, I said, why didn't Florida make a one mile setback line around the whole perimeter of the State and the State is a peninsula. Just for recreation. No building, no nothing, a park. But they don't, they build right up and now they have problems with hurricanes, beach erosion, the condos may topple, problems. I'm sitting here listening and I have been on Glen Lake since 1954 and I'm looking at areas around the lake like Hiland Park, like West Mountain and other areas around Glen Lake and I'm thinking we shouldn't be quiveling with 100 feet or 250 feet because, maybe I'm wrong, but its my opinion, but I feel that something that is not in West Mountain, some builder comes in or builders come in and change something or even high land, it is going to change the natural flow on the surface and the subsurface aquifers and something is going to be diverted that nature has made the way it is now and if you change something there, you're going to have a negative result over there or in other places. Now I don't know, I don't know if you, if anybody understands what I'm saying and if I've made myself clear, but I'm making a proposal-that the Town Board move a 1,000 feet from Glen Lake shoreline around in total unless it goes out of the Town of Queensbury. Why? Because something is going to happen over there, that is going to block something and its going to start moving over there and then its going to come down through the back pipe over here and its going to be damaging Glen Lake. I'm not a geologist, I'm not a, what else do we have? Any other kind of profession that deals with topography under the ground or whatever they've got. But, I think, what I'm saying is, I think there should be, I think the Town should have control of what is occurring and that other studies should be made to define and address what something there is going to do, not today, not next month or maybe in the 1990's but in the year 2,000 when somebody outside the Town's control starts developing over there, how is that, what they are doing over there, how is that going to negatively impact around -and what new flows are going to be established, which could be negative flows. I think we're all looking at today and we're not looking at 10 years, 20, 40 years down, 50 years or 100 years down the line. I hope you have bore with me about this analogy about Florida but its where I live now and I see and I feel so strongly of what is going on down there and developing is running rampant and the State lost control years ago when they had the chance to control the shoreline and these trade offs for ponds here and we'll build you a new pond there, so they put the new pond over there and there is probably sand and they set a machine and they dig a hole and they put water in it and the water seeps right out. Theres not these supporting structure underneath. That pond that is there, a sensitive wetland today and supporting the organisms and all kind of wildlife and other animals and the whole surface development, the trees, the birds, the growth in that area can not be duplicated by man with a machine over there. So I recommend a 1,000 foot control review, panel, board, ordinances, whatever unless it goes outside of Queensbury. Thank you. '3 3a(, COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Steve, I just did want to comment to Mr. Shadwil/ as I did to the gentleman earlier in the evening, you are going to be very interested in a proposal that the Planning Department tonight is making to this Town Board. HERB LEVINE, Burch Road-I'm a seasonal resident. I'm also a business man in this area and as a business man I have the responsibility not to screw up the rest of the area for my fellow citizens. Also in business they say the best partnership is run by two parties that don't trust each other. Mr. Wood feels singled out and I'm sorry he feels that way but we're just keeping an eye on our partner. I have 50 feet on the lake. If I do something that would endanger the shoreline or endanger the lake, my neighbors would keep track of me. We're just doing that to Mr. Wood. I saw this morning that there was heavy machinery out there. I'm wondering how the existing rain that came today is effecting the shoreline or the wetland. I'm willing to put myself under the restrictions of the 250 foot setback if thats going to help my neighbors give them that piece of mind. If we need at some future date to expand it or perhaps you feel that another meeting is necessary to expand it to more than 250 foot, than that would be okay. But I don't think we should start at a 100 feet. I think we should at least start at some reasonable level. The area that is in question here is ... by s lopes. Gravity, as Dr. Horowitz pointed out, is an universal law. I think because of the slopes we need more setback than 100 feet and 200 feet would be personally acceptable to me. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The proposal sir is 250, is that also okay. MR. LEVINE-Yes. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. Anyone else who wishes to speak for or against or say anything? Okay, any Board members want to make some comments? COUNCILMAN POTENZA-1 guess 1111 start. I just want to point out one thing. I think the Glen Lake Association should be commended. They're the first organization thats come before this Board supporting the paper shuffle in this Town. Normally we get from the other side of the mic, the frustration of going to the different departments and filling out the required forms. The comment made that it is only 5 pages, sounds fine until you're the citizen sitting down filling in those 5 pages and it can be quite frustrating to alot of people. I have a hard time with the 250 foot and the reason I'm having a hard time is that it is an arbitrary figure. We have people stand up to the mic and say, well, perhaps it should be 500, perhaps a mile, maybe we'll accept 250 feet this year and maybe look for 500 next year and a 1,000 the following year. I don't understand why; what happens to the back of the lot does not directly effect the 100 foot setback either on the lake or on the fens. Anything that is built or developed or changed, 250 foot from the boundary line, obviously through seepage will go into, whether you talking the lake or the fens. So its the arbitrary figure of 250 feet. If you could prove to me or discuss with me why 250 feet or the difference of 250 feet makes other than the fact the lots are 250 feet deep. We had a member of the Glen Lake Association I think he was, a couple of weeks ago come before us on a septic problem and his lot went back, if I'm not mistaken about 300 feet and it was high terrain on the south end of the lake and there was nothing, the back of the lot was not conducive to any type of building or putting in the septic system. So no matter what happens to the back of the lot will effect, 1 am sure or at least I feel it will be, the front of the lot and the water. Thats my stand on the 250 feet. Its just an arbitrary figure and I haven't been, it hasn't been shown tonight to me, why that figure. Why not 300 and why not, as the gentleman said, a mile? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Anyone else on the Board? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Steve, yes, I've got my thoughts in order. I am probably the only member on this Board that will eventually be effected by these regulations. I do not live on Glen Lake but I live on Sunnyside. I have lived there practically all my life except a year or two. For the first time in my life this year I was concerned about the quality of the water in Lake Sunnyside. I know what we're proposing in Glen Lake will sooner or later follow to all the lakes. Its going to be a pain in the neck but a pain in the neck, that anybody who has -been concerned with these lakes and lived on them all their life, is going to welcome. Otherwise we are going to see these lakes get into the conditions of lakes that I've seen outside of Boston that used to be maybe 30 years ago, living lakes, where people swam, where people skated, where people can no longer use. What they support is alga and tin cans floating on them. My daughter lived in Rochester. I'm aware of Ontario when it was closed for swimming, that beautiful big lake. Fisherman could not eat the fish out of it. We can worry and sit here from dooms day and not take action because we're talking about certain number of feet, or we can make up our mind that we're going to start some place and 250 seems a logical place to start. We may wont to increase it but we can sit here and we can fiddle and we can fool and we can see these lakes go down the drain so that we can not recapture them for many,. many, many years. I live on a lake that I think is well on the way to that status right now. Glen Lake has changed in character and quality in the last few years as I've swam in Glen Lake. Frankly, I think anybody that drinks water out of that lake is toying with their health. I'm saying do not hem and haw about this. Do not put this off. If we need to do some adjusting zzl . later in certain areas to make it deeper, fine but don't take a chance on seeing these lakes that are in the Town of Queensbury that have made Queensbury what it is, go down the drain because we'll all regret it. Mr. York is completely correct when he says, we are covering alot of this Town with asphalt. This asphalt coverage is damaging this lake. People are entirely correct when they say, roads are slanting towards these lakes, that there's drainage into the lakes from the roads, absolutely. They're problems that have got to be addressed. We may not address them all tonight but boy we better start. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Having grown up on a lake, Lake George, as a child, I can tell you what's happening with Lake George and right now the Waste Water proposal by the Lake George Park Commission, ....which means they're trying to do too much too late. Let's not have this happen to our other lakes. Let's protect what we've got. I don't want to see what happened to Lake George happen to the other lakes in this community. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-This is interesting. I can see the votes coming. One guy hasn't said anything but 1'll talk anyway. Mr. Shadwil/ talked to us about concerns about Hiland Park and West Mountain. This Board has has the great pleasure and I sometimes put a question after that, sitting as lead agent for those projects. We're concerned at all times with property rights of individuals and corporations and what people can do with their property and what they can't do. We sit here in the Town office building every day, Lee York's office and John Goralski's office and Dave Hatin's office and Paul Dusek's office dealing with applications and requests and requests for variances, we're finding all the time that people who own property, regardless of where are concerned about their rights and as property owners, all of you should be concerned about your rights. Your concerned that, in this particular case if you own property with lake front, your concerned that the lake which is not under your ownership but certainly part of your property right, is protected. Got to be very concerned about that. Also want to be darn sure that somebody else doesn't go a to meeting at the Town office building and take away your rights. If you happen to have a piece property that is exactly 100 feet deep or 250 feet deep and sometimes someday at a meeting here it doesn't just happen to hit the right to know what the people who you are making a proposal to, you might find that your property rights are all gone. We're also concerned with health and beauty and preserving the lakes and streams and the mountains and certainly I would never want to be accused of doing anything but that. I try to sit and look at this thing scientifically. I normally try to do more homework before these things and I do apologize, I have not yet read that special publication, the technical data on Glen Lake. We have been absolutely burdened and buried with the budget and alot of other things, I didn't get to that. But I do know that we've sat here through many, many meetings acting as the Board of Health, looking at requests for variance related to water wells and septic tanks. The law requires somewhere now in access of 100 feet between a well and a septic tank. The old rule was much closer. We've heard people testify time and time again, that the water going through 6 to 10 feet or so of sand will clean that water and clean water is clean water. I suppose there's some micro organisms that could be in there and I suppose, yes, that's presuming a, that there's a certain grade of sand underneath but as Mr. Fitzgerald said before, who knows what's down there unless you dig it all up. The State of New York has set, I believe, either 100 feet or 125 feet as the maximum, the routine rule of thumb limit between a septic system and a water well. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Minimum. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Minimum. But certainly 125 feet at the most is considered a minimum for the State. If its good enough to clean your water coming directly from a septic system, your drinking water, what's wrong with 100 feet? Some of you argued, perhaps on the surface, if some chemical is on the surface of the ground, it then gets washed into the water. Well the chemical shouldn't be there, whether it's a 100 feet or 500 or 1,000 feet, our action here to increase that 100 feet won't tell people or won't stop people from putting the chemical on the property. In theory you could only buy what's legal. Alot of people bring in things that aren't legal. We've had a case of PCB's on the river, as just an example. I'm very concerned. I share Mr. Shodwill concerned. I look at the mountains and I look the valleys. It would be nice if we were in a .... situation, where there would be no more development periods. Stop it all right now, everybody move to somewhere else, to somebody else's backyard. But then the Village of Corinth would be unhappy, City of Glens Falls would be unhappy, Kingsbury, Lake George, Lake Luzerne, they'd all say, well move back to Queensbury or just keep going. j There'd be no place left. At some point we have to take a stand. I personally think, looking at the evidence that I've seen so far, that there is no difference between 100 feet and 250 feet. l certainly would support the 100 foot boundary and that was before Mr. Wood and Mr. Bartlett spoke. I wrote it down when I came in. I haven't heard anything tonight to change my mind. I've heard no evidence that says 250 feet is better than 100 feet, scientific evidence. It would seem to all of us that the further we go the better it'll be but realistically there's got to be a limit. So that's my position before I vote so you'll know how I'm going to vote. Mr. Montesi. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-My only comment is that I was one of the guys that thought it was important to circumvent the lake with this. I wholeheartedly support the fairness of going all the way around the lake instead of taking it apart as we did the last time. I too don't have any particular strong reasons for 100 feet or 250 feet. As I look at the impact on Mr. Wood's property there, the red line being 250 1 presume and the green line being the 100 ... MR. BAR TLETT-Excuse me, the green line is just to highlight where it impacts on existing facilities. The red line is the only significant line in terms of distance. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-And that's 250? MR. BARTLETT-250, right. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-It would appear that your project is impacted at the 100 feet or 250? MR. BAR TLETT-To some degree. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-To some degree. Obviously a 150 feet difference... MR. BAR TLETT-None of the structures or none of the developed portions. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Looking and following some of Steve's concerned, you as a major landowner as everybody else around the lake, have some rights too. You are impacted either way I think. Arbitrarily whether I take 100 feet or 150 feet, to me doesn't make much of a difference. l think the important thing is that we're trying to make stand here at an environmentall. impact, critically environmentally area. As everyone sat here tonight on the Board, 250 may not be enough, maybe it will have to be 500. Well if a 100 isn't enough, maybe it will have to be 250, maybe it will have to be 500. I'm not sure. I certainly want to do something and I certainly want to list the area as critically environmentally sensitive. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-1 would like to add a little bit of knowledge to what Mr. Shadwill said about Florida. A few years ago 1 went down the inland waterway near Ft. Lauderdale. The pleasure of my boat trip was ruined by the stench of the septic and waste that I could smell the whole length of that boat trip. The everglades are in danger in Florida from the development that has gone on because of what's happened to the underground lakes in that area. 1 would also ask this Board why, if 500 be so critically important for Round Pond and Rush Pond, why only a 100 is necessary for Glen Lake? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-1111 be glad to answer that Betty. In my mind, go back to my story of property rights and uses. Rush Pond is essentially undeveloped. Round Pond is essentially undeveloped and I thought it would be wise to keep it that way provided that we didn't infringe) on property rights and it didn't appear to cover the large size of the properties owned that any individual be hurt to the point of perhaps losing their rights to use any part of their property as it might happen on Glen Lake. I think in the case of those other bodies of water, that 500 feet or whenever we can get a body of water that's undeveloped, 500 feet is certainly is a good number, because of the scenic beauty. I'm not so concerned of the runoff and the waste but I'm more concerned with scenic beauty there. That's the answer in my mind. (tape turned) COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-In the Town of Queensbury, as many rights in this area have gone under, we have destroyed the property rights of every single person that lives around that lake or within a certain distance of that lake, those are the property rights we'll be destroying. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-If you'll recall on Rush Pond too, George and i did the, I guess you'd say the geological study on that. That's 500 feet from the 350 foot elevation mark and that elevation mark is a ridge line around Rush Pond. I think in reality it is about 800 feet from the shoreline in that instance. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-1 see hands. Let me check with the Clerk. Have 1 technically closed this? I don't think, I think just stopped and then I shouldn't have started discussing before. Its up to the Chairman to make that difficult decision. Any other Board member first before? The hearing is still open. I just don't want to start any major arguments but certainly come up and state your name and your address and position. This is not any easy ... DON BEADLESON-1 live on Glen Lake. Who owns Rush Pond? -- SUPERVISOR BORGOS-There are I believe 3, 1 think the last time I looked at the map, about 3 property owners perhaps whose property comes close to ... COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Queensbury Central Union District is one on the southern portion. I think Guido Pasqerelli whose a developer also, West hit. Grove or Gurney Lane ... SUPERVISOR B OR G OS-Freiberger's own a piece, I remember that. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Freiberger's own a piece and then ... MR. BAR TLETT-IBC owns apiece as well. MR. BEADLESON-That's what I wanted to know. My other question is that Mr. O'Connor brought up, I would like to see the surveyor's map of the swamp around 1954 to 1956 on Glen Lake to see where the boundaries were then. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-/ don't think there is any such map. MR. BEA DL ESON-What's the latest map up to date? COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-USGS maps. The latest one I think was around 1966 and the one before that is probably 1918. MR. BEADLESON-1 know years ago my boys used to sneak into Jungle Land, they'd go through with boats. Now you can not get up through there with a boat, things have changed, things are still changing. We better save Glen Lake or we're going to have a big cesspool like Saratoga Lake is right now. That's a septic tank down there, you can't give the property away. Unless someone would like to buy us all out and then do what they want with Glen Lake. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. Mr. O'Connor. MR. O'CONNOR-My point in arguing on behalf of the Association for the 250 as opposed to the 100, is that under our regulations you can't construct a septic system within the 100. You'll be constructing your septic system, even if they are replacing a system, outside of the 100, most likely within the 250 feet. I think that's one of the major activities that we'd really would like to be sure we have a handle on, so that if somebody does come in with a conforming lot that doesn't require a variance, we will have this type of review as to that particular system. I think that's one of the most critical parts of what we're asking for. The areas actually are most impacted on this are going to be the homes and residences on Glen Lake when they go and replace their septic,systems. Large scale developments like Mr. Wood's has really are not going to be impacted. You keep speaking about taking away rights. This is not a restrictive use ordinance, this is simply a notification ordinance. It doesn't say that they can or can not do anything with their property. S UPER VISOR.BOR GOS-But realistically, when you say to someone, all you have to do is fill out the form and then tell them, that you, by the way have got to be in by a certain date so it gets considered for the agenda. Then you get on the agenda and are told, fine, thank you for coming in, we'll look at you next month or something else and pretty soon these people find out that they have to wait for 3, 4 months or longer, they're going to find out what an impact it is in dollars, in frustration and you still never know what the outcome is until the end. MR. O'CONNOR-What has been the experience of the Building Department of people that live along the shore of Lake George that now live in an environmentally critical sensitive area? There hasn't been any 3, 4 month delays with those people that I'm aware of. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-i don't think that's an environmentally sensitive under our regulations so I don't believe any of those people have to fill out those forms that I'm aware of. MR. O'CONNOR-I think once its designated by whatever agency it pertains. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-1 don't believe its being followed in the Town of Queensbury. Correct me if I'm wrong. MR. GORALSKI-I'm sorry, what was the question? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Individuals wishing to do construction activity within 500 feet of Lake George, don't have any special environmental forms. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, they do. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-They do? Our forms or are we looking through State, Lake George Park Commission? MR. GORALSKI-The way the SEQRA Regulations are written, any critical environmental area, any action within any critical environmental area that is unlisted, then becomes a type I action. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Are we the watchdog on that? dw MR. GORALSKI-If there's an action that our Planning Board is reviewing and is going to grant an approval of, then yes, we require a long environmental assessment form. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-How about construction of a single family home on otherwise vacant land...that doesn't go to our Planning Board? MR. GORALSKI-If it doesn't go to the Planning Board, either in the case of this Glen Lake designation or the Lake George designation, then the EAF is not required, if it simply needs a building permit and nothing else. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That would be though; under this proposal? I understood that any new construction ... i MR. GORALSKI-That's what I said after Mr. O'Connor spoke. Something that needs just a building permit and is not going to be reviewed by one of the Boards in the Town of Queensbury, is not required to submit a long environmental assessment form. SUPERVISOR BOR GOS-Okay. Thank you. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Would you say... MR. O'CONNOR-1 think you've got a little disagreement over there. DAVE HA TIN, Director of Building & Codes-No, I agree with him. MR. O'CONNOR-1 think the form then has to go to the officer issuing the permit even if it is not a Board. ATTORNEY DUSEK-No, I view the issuance of a building permit as an administrative action and therefore an exempt action under SEQRA. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-We have never had to do an environmental impact statement, critical review or any project on Lake George since this 500 foot has been in effect? MR. GORALSKI-Are you talking environmental impact statement or environmental assessment form? 1 COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Assessment form, that triggered a full impact statement. _. MR. GORALKSI-That triggered a full impact statement? No.. MR. O'CONNOR-You're going to mostly run into large scale commercial development. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-That's pretty interesting. MR. O'CONNOR-That's what I'm trying to speak to. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-...it might have been built in recent years and they have not gone through any environmental impact statement, I don't know if they've gone through another statement. COUNCILMAN MONA HA N-Mike, I'd like to bring up another point please. I think part of the problem with building near the lakes and you know, perhaps the Planning Department would like to comment on this also because I have seen this on our lake. Its not just the septic systems its also the fact that when there is not any kind of control at all, people are digging foundations with no protection to keep the dirt from going into the lake. That dirt going into the lake, I firmly believe is part of the problem we're having, one of the reasons that we're having some of the great weed problems that we are today, give them a place to anchor in. I'm seeing this going on in lakes all the while where the proper precautions to keep the siltage away from the /akeshores is not being done and I think this would be another advantage of this regulation also. MR. O'CONNOR-1 don't tend to be an expert. I'm not sure if the Town has referred this to the Town Engineer for a consultation report even, that may give some engineering technological reason and justification for the distance. My suspicion would be that they would require or suggest a setback larger than 250 feet. One other point ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But i think the least that people should be doing is taking some precautions so that dirt is not going into the lake like the hay bales and the things like this when your digging around a lake. I've seen piles of dirt near lakeshores and just stay there for, well I can think of one that's been there a year now that I can think of. MR. O'CONNOR-As I understand, all the technical reports that have been done on Lake George which are much or well funded than our studies ..., they're talking about septic as being a possible pollutant of only 5 percent of the pollution. Their main pollution which I think would be handled a little bit by this ordinance would be surface runoff and as Mrs. Potenza had said, it really is going to get there whether its 250 feet or 100 feet. So if you are going to restrict it, I think you've got to come back to a point where it mal es some reasonable sense. I think most of our lots after 250 feet start dropping off the other way. There aren't an awful lot of lots that extend for a slope much greater than 250 feet if you want some technical data as to what a break point is ... at least on the south side of the shore. On the north side of the shore, at the corner of Route 9 and Glen Lake Road, there is an area that goes beyond 250 feet. That's probably about the only area that has a slope that is constant in grade directly to the lake or to the wetlands... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. COLLEEN BEADLESON-1 would like a professional answer. Now when you said that it doesn't make any difference a 100 feet or 250 either way or 500 ... COUNCILMAN POTENZA-That's what I felt, it was an arbitrary figure. MRS. BEADLESON-Well nobody understand, could I ask Mr. Wood or his lawyer to explain to me, just so I'll understand, why are you fighting it if it makes no difference? Could you tell me Dick? MR. B A R TL E T T-We're not fighting. MRS. BEADLESON-What problem is it going to cause? MR. BAR TLETT-Let me tell you. The developed portion of Great Escape is all out of the 100 foot zone, all of it. The developed portion of Great Escape is partially in the 250 zone. Its a very important difference. Let me just make one more observation. In terms of controlling construction and maintenance of proper septic systems, this has nothing to do with that. That's a different regulation all together. Its a separate question. I do want to say to Betty that if you are talking about making property subject to this where, a deeper lot for example, if there is any building at all within the 100 foot line and you and I know that they go to the inch to the 75 foot setback, to the inch. You're going to have that structure included in 100 feet just as well in 250. It is important to us. That's why we are here. But we are supporting the 100 foot knowing that that could impact upon us at sometime in the future too. We think it is reasonable and we think the present plan which applies to Glen Lake and all of its adjoining marshes is a rational plan. MRS. BEADLESON-1 don't agree but thank you for explaining it to me. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. Any other hands? Okay, seeing none, we'll declare this public hearing closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:50 P.M. RESOLUTION APPROVING DESIGNATION OF GLEN LAKE AND ADJOINING LANDS AS CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS PURSUANT TO §617.4(H) OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION RESOLUTION NO. 550, Introduced by Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Kurosaka. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 617.4 of the Rules & Regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury may designate specific geographic areas within the Town of Queensbury as critical environmental areas, and WHEREAS, a public notice was published as set forth by the aforesaid regulations and the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury held a public hearing on October 2, 1989 at 7:00 P.M., on the issue of the designation of much of that area consisting of Glen Lake and adjoining lands as critical environmental areas, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that much of that area of land and water designated as Glen Lake, GF-15, GF-18 and GF-21 on the official New York State Official Freshwater Wetlands Map known as Map 28 of 31, Glens Falls Quadrangle, and lands lying outside those designations and adjacent thereto within 250 feet possesses unique and/or exceptional characteristics as follows: A) a benefit to human health; B) a natural setting (eg fish and wildlife habitat, forest and vegetation, open space and areas of important aesthetic or scenic quality); C) social, cultural, historic, archaeological, recreational, or educational values; D) inherent ecological, geological, or hydrological sensitivity to change which may be adversely effected by any change; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, after consideration of the foregoing, hereby designates the following areas previously described as much of Glen Lake GF-15, GF-18, and GF-21 on the official New York State Freshwater Wetlands Map for Warren County known as Map 28 of 31, Glens Falls Quadrangle, and lands outside those designations and adjacent thereto within 250 feet, as critical environmental areas: A// that piece or parcel of land lying within the 400' contour line circumscribing that freshwater wetland identified as GF-15 on the official New York State Freshwater Wetlands for Warren County, known as Map 28 of 31, Glens Falls Quadrangle, and all that land lying within 250' of the said area circumscribed by the said 400' contour line, except that the said piece or parcel of land shall not include any part which extends beyond the easterly side of Route 9 and the southerly side of Glen Lake Road(the contour lines referred to herein are those as shown on the New York State Freshwater Wetlands Map and the U.S. Department of Interior Geological Survey Map identified as SW 14 Glen Fails 15 - Quadrangle - 1966, and the "side" of the said road being that boundary line which separates Town of Municipal Road right-of-way and/or usage from adjoining property owners' property or property rights), and All that piece or parcel of land lying with the 400' contour line circumscribing that freshwater wetland identified as CF-18 on the official New York State Freshwater Wetlands Map for Warren County, known as Map 28 of 31, Glens Falls Quadrangle, and all that land lying within 250' of the said area circumscribed by the said 400' contour line, except that the said piece or parcel of land shall not include any part which extends beyond the northerly side of Glen Lake Road(the contour line and the side of road being defined as indicated in the previous description), and All that piece or parcel of land lying within the 400' contour line circumscribing that freshwater wetland identified as GF-21 on the official New York State Freshwater Wetlands Map for Warren County, known as Map 28 of 31, Glens Falls Quadrangle, and all that land lying within 250' of the said area circumscribed by the said 400' contour line, except that the said piece or parcel of land shall not include any part thereof which extends beyond the southerly side of Moon Hill Road and the westerly side of Fitzgerald Road(the contour lines and the sides of roads referred to herein being defined as indicated in the first parcel described herein), and All that body of water known as Glen Lake and all that piece or parcel of land lying under said Glen Lake at or below or within the mean high water level of Glen Lake, which has been found to be 398' above sea level, in accordance with the Glen Lake Technical Water Study, and all that land lying within 250' of said area circumscribed by the mean high water level of GLen Lake, except that the said piece or parcel of land and body of water shall not include any part thereof which extends beyond the southerly side cf Glen Lake Road and the westerly and northwesterly side of Fitzgerald Road and the northerly - l annis Road, and the southerly side of Moon Hill Road, (the contour lines and the sides of the roads referred to herein being defined as indicated in the previous description), and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Senior Planner of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed to file notification with the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and notify the regional office of said department in Warrensburg, _. New York, in regard to said designation of said critical environmental area, and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said designation shall take effect 30 days after filing, such filing to.contain a map at an appropriate scale to readily locate the boundaries of the critical environmental area, and each designation of a critical environmental area shall be published in the Environmental Notice Bulletin by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation shall serve as a Clearinghouse for information on all critical environmental areas. Duly adopted this 2nd day of October, 1989, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Monahan Noes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Borgos Absent: None RESOLUTION DEFEATED Z5%/J } RESOLUTION APPROVING DESIGNATION OF GLEN LAKE AND ADJOINING LANDS AS CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS PURSUANT TO §617.4(H)OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION RESOLUTION NO. 551, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenza. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 617.4 of the Rules and Regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury may designate specific geograp#�ic•areas within the Town of Queensbury as critical environmental areas, and WHEREAS,.a public notice was published as set forth by the aforesaid regulations and the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury held a public hearing on October 2, 1989 at 7:00 p.m., on the issue of the designation of much of that area consisting of Glen Lake and adjoining lands as critical environmental areas, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that much of that area of land and water designated as Glen Lake, GF-15, GF-18 and GF-21 on the official New York State Official Freshwater Wetlands Map known as Map 28 of 31, Glens Falls Quadrangle, and lands lying outside those designations and adjacent thereto within 100' possesses unique and/or exceptional characteristics as follows: A) a benefit to human health; B) a natural setting (eg fish and wildlife habitat, forest and vegetation, open space and areas of important aesthetic or scenic quality), C) social, cultural, historic, archaeological, recreational, or educational values; D) inherent ecological, geological, or hydrological sensitivity to change which may be adversely effected by any change; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, after consideration of the foregoing, hereby designates the following areas previously described as much of GF-15, GF-18, and GF-21 on the official New York State Official Freshwater Wetlands Map for Warren County known as Map 28 of 31, Glens Falls Quadrangle, and lands outside those designations and adjacent { thereto within 1001, as critical environmental areas: All that piece or parcel of land lying within the 400' contour line circumscribing that freshwater wetland identified as GF-15 on the official New York State Freshwater Wetlands Map for Warren County, known as Map 28 of 31, Glens Falls Quadrangle, and all that land lying within 100' of the said area circumscribed by the said 400' contour line, except that the said piece or parcel of land shall not include any part which extends beyond the easterly side of Route 9 and southerly side of Glen Lake Road(the contour lines referred to herein are those as shown on the New York State Freshwater Wetlands Map and the U.S. Department of Interior Geological Survey Map identified as SW 14 Glens Falls 15 - Quadrangle - 1966, and the "side" of the said road being that boundary.line which separates Town or Municipal Road right-of-way and/or usage from adjoining property owners' property or property rights), and All that piece or parcel of land lying within the 400' contour line circumscribing that freshwater wetland identified as GF-18 on the official New York State Freshwater Wetlands Map for Warren County, known as Map 28 of 31, Glens Falls Quadrangle, and all that land lying within 100' of the said area circumscribed by the said 400' contour line, except that the said piece or parcel of land shall not include any part which extends beyond the northerly side of Glen Lake Road(the contour line and the side of road being defined as indicated in the previous description), and All that piece or parcel of land lying within the 400' contour line circumscribing that freshwater wetland identified as GF-21 on the official New York State Freshwater Wetlands Map for Warren County, known as Map 28 of 31, Glens Falls Quadrangle, and all that land lying within 100' of the said area circumscribed by the said 400' contour line, except that the said piece or parcel of land shall not include any part thereof which extends beyond the southerly side of Moon Hill Road and the westerly side of Fitzgerald Road(the contour lines and the sides of roads referred to herein being defined as indicated in the first parcel described herein), and All that body of water known as Glen Lake and all that piece or parcel of land lying under said Glen Lake at or below or within the mean high water level of Glen Lake, which has been found to be 398' above sea level, in accordance with the Glen Lake Technical Water Study, and all that land lying within 100' of said area circumscribed by the mean high water level of Glen Lake, except that the said piece or parcel of land and body of water shall not include any part thereof which extends beyond the southerly side of Glen Lake Road and the westerly and northwesterly side of Fitzgerald Road and the northerly side of Mannis Road, 4!W ,3 y x . and the southerly side of Moon Hill Road, (the contour lines and the sides of the roads referred to herein being defined as indicated in the previous description), and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Senior Planner of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed to file notification with the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and notify the regional office of said department in Warrensburg, New York, in regard to said designation of said critical environmental area, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said designation shall take effect 30 days after filing, such filing to contain a map at on appropriate scale to readily locate the boundaries of the critical environmental area, and each designation of a critical environmental area shall be published in the Environmental— Notice Bulletin by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation shall serve as a Clearinghouse for information on all critical environmental areas. Duly adopted this 2nd day of October, 1989, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: Mr. Kurosaka Absent: None COUNCILMAN MONA HA N-Would like to explain that / have not changed my sediments but to get some protection for the people in Glen Lake and I'll work to get that increase. Request that the Town Clerk read the communication from John Goralski, Planner regarding the Proposed Small Lake Study for the benefit of the residents of Glen Lake. TOWN CLERK DOUGHER-The Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Town of Queensbury lists nine lakes and ponds within the Town. They are: Lake George, Glen Lake, Rush Pond, Lake Sunnyside, Dream Lake, Round Pond, Hovey's Pond, Mud Pond(near the Queensbury Landfill), Mud Pond(between Glen Lake and Round Pond), and Bear Pond. Lake George is unique with respect to its size and intermunicipa/ boundaries. It is regulated by the Lake George Park Commission, Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Adirondack Park Agency. Bear Pond lies within an APA land conservation area and is strictly regulated by the APA. With the exception of the DEC Wetland Laws, the remainder of the lakes in Queensbury are not jurisdiction to any governmental agencies except the Town of Queensbury. The small lakes have limitless value to the residents of the Town. In the case of Round Pond, Rush Pond, and potentially Glen Lake, the Town Board has recognized this value and has designated these as Critical Environmental Areas. This is a first step in protecting our small lakes, however, it is the recommendation of the Planning Department that a comprehensive lake management policy be developed for the Town. Currently, we have little information pertaining to small lakes in Queensbury. In an effort to develop a comprehensive lake management policy the Planning Department proposes to undertake a study that would address: a, current land uses around the lakes; b, terrestial and aquatic habitats; c, water quality; and d, interrelationship of the small lakes in the Town of Queensbury. A lake management plan based on such a study will ensure the preservation of what many people believe to be the most valuable resource in the Town of Queensbury. OPEN FORUM 9:15 P.M. PLINEY TUCKER, Ward 4, Queensbury-Questioned the procedure regarding the 1.2 million for low rent housing. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We've been notified by Congressman Solomon's Office that a 1.2 million dollar HUD award has been granted to National Church Residences to build a Senior Citizens Housing Complex somewhere in the Town of Queensbury. No exact location has been determined. The Town is not involved in this process as for as handling any money, filling out any of the forms or applications. We may be requested to do some zoning or rezoning but other than that it is not a Town project, a private project. DISCUSSION held regarding the hiring of an inspector for the Town of Queensbury. OPEN FORUM CLOSED 9:30 P.M. COUNCILMAN MONA HA N-Concerned with construction across the street. Questioned the progress of the proposed light for the corner of Bay and Haviland Roads. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that the light is on order. RICK MISSITA, Deputy Highway Superintendent-The poles, from the factory will take sixteen weeks. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Are you considering borrowing? MR. MISSITA-We've got two people looking to see if there are any contractors that have any available that would be willing to sell, still no answers. COUNCILMAN MONAHAWSuggest that we put in the order and cancel if we need to. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Questioned the setback for the building across the street. MR. HA TIN-Thirty feet. COUNCILMAN MONA HA N-Would like Paul to see about changing our subdivision, commercial subdivision regulations or any commercial building, that no building can be in so many feet of an intersection so that they are visually blocking the view. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Remind the public that there are vacancies presently existing on Town Boards, Planning Board having 3 vacancies, Zoning Board of Appeals having 1 vacancy and the Recreation Commission having 1 vacancy also. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Questioned Mr. Hatin what the minimum setback for a home in the Town of Queensbury. MR. HA TIN-1 believe 30 feet but not sure of what zone it is, suburban residential and the single family residential. MR. MISSITA-Noted that the back of the building was closest to the road and could be even closer. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Questioned if they can come closer to the back of the line. MR. HA TIN-it is considered the rear of the building and can be as less as 20 feet but I think in that zone, it is 30 feet. COUNCILMAN MONA HA N-Regardless of what the zone is, its a hazardous situation that exists and needs to be prevented from reoccurring in the Town. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Noted that there are 2 ways of handling this type of problem. One way is, introduce various amendments to the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations. Another way it could be picked up in the interim until that happens, during the course of site plan or subdivision review, you have the right to make sure under SEQRA that potential environmental impacts or adverse environmental impacts are mitigated. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Were there any kind of SEQRA papers filed on this project? ATTORNEY DUSEK-There would have had to be. COUNCILMAN MONA HA N-Negative Declaration or did they really have to do some homework? ATTORNEY DUSEK-1 don't think that there was any environmental impact statement filed, but rather a standard environmental assessment form and an engineering evaluation. MR. HA TIN-Spoke to the Board regarding letter to Adirondack Park Agency in reference to permit for George Sicard. Town Board agreed to support letter by resolution. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF LETTER RESOLUTION NO. 552, Introduced by the entire Town Board. WHEREAS, the Director of Building and Codes Enforcement, Mr. David Hatin has presented to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury a proposed letter dated September 29, 1989 addressed to the Adirondack Park Agency and concerning the present application of George Sicard to the Adirondack Park Agency, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its agreement with the letter proposed by Mr. Hatin and directs that a copy of this resolution together with the letter be sent to the Adirondack Park Agency. Duly adopted this 2nd day of October, 1989, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None MR. HA TIN-Noted that there will be demonstrations of the sprinkler trailer at the Aviation —' Mall on Saturday and Sunday between 1 and 3 p.m. and would like to invite the Board members. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that West Glens Falls Rescue Squad has an open house on Saturday from 11 to 3 and the Fire Company on Sunday has a dedication at noon. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MINUTES RESOLUTION NO. 553, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenza. . RESOL VED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approve the Town Board minutes of September 20th, 1989. Duly adopted this 2nd day of October, 1989, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE PARK AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE RESOLUTION NO. 554, Introduced by Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Montesi. w WHEREAS, there are presently seven vacancies on the Park and Recreation Master Plan Steering Committee for the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has the authority to fill the vacancies, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby appoints Town Councilwoman M. Potenza, Town Planner L. York, Town Parks and Recreation Director H. Hansen, Recreation Commissioner S. Simmonds, M. Woodbury, M. Connolly, to the Park and Recreation Master Plan Steering Committee, for one year terms to commence immediately, and the seventh vacancy will be filled at a later date. Duly adopted this 2nd day of October, 1989, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION TO SELL VINYL CURTAIN WALL TO THE MASONIC TEMPLE RESOLUTION NO. 555, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenza WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has the authority to sell a vinyl curtain wall from the former Town of Queensbury Court Room, ayn . NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury to sell the curtain wall referenced above, to The Masonic Temple, for a value of $1.00. Duly adopted this 2nd day of October, 1989, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION TO APPOINT TOWN ASSESSOR RESOLUTION NO. 556, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by George K orosoka. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, by virtue of the real property tax Law of the State,of New York, has the authority to employ such employees as the Town Board may determine necessary for the proper conduct of the affairs of the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the position of Town Assessor has recently been vacated, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of filling the recently vacated position of Town Assessor, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Helen Thomson is hereby appointed to the position of Town Assessor and will be paid an annual salary of$40,000.00, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and approves her commencement of work on October 9, 1989, in the capacity of Town Assessor. Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None COUNCILMAN POTENZA-1 wish the new assessor good luck but I would like to note that I strongly supported the reappointed of Mr. LaRose, I felt he did a good job. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I'd like to state that I think this lady is the best qualified applicant next to Mr. LaRose. Mr. LaRose did a competent job for the Town of Queensbury, my vote was for Harold, I thought he did a good job. RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING MOBILE HOME BUILDING AND ZONING PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. 557, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Montesi. WHEREAS, Harold Nash and Shirley Nash previously filed an application for a Mobile Home Building and Zoning Permit in accordance with Paragraph 2, Section 4 of the Ordinance for the Regulation of Mobile Homes and Mobile Home Courts in the Town of Queensbury, to permanently locate a mobile home at property situated at RD #3, Sanders Road, Queensbury, New York, and WHEREAS, it is hereby determined that the said application complies with the requirements of said Ordinance, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on October 16, 1989, at 7:00 p.m., at the Queensbury Activities Center, Bay at Haviland Road, Town of Queensbury, New York, to consider the application of Harold Nash and Shirley Nash to permanently place a mobile home on property located at RD #3, Sanders Road, Queensbury, New York, and bearing tax map No. 126-1-53, and, at that time, all persons interested in the subject thereof will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury shall issue such notices as may be required by law. Duly adopted this 2nd day of October, 1989, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS RESOLUTION NO. 558, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Montesi. WHEREAS, certain Departments in the Town of Queensbury wish to transfer funds because of a lack of funds in certain accounts, and WHEREAS, the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury has reviewed the Departments' requests for transfers of certain funds and has approved the same, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the following funds be transferred in the following manner: Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District From: 543858130176 To: 543858130440 $800.00 (Maintenance Man) (Contractual Acct) Queensbury Consolidated Water District From: W12758320153 To: W12758340205 $1,000.00 (Building Maintenance) (T&D Radios) Duly adopted this 2nd day of October, 1989, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION OF TOWN BOARD DETERMINING THAT PROPERTY OWNED BY HOWARD GR UNDBORG IS UNSAFE - TAX MAP NO. 147-1-47.2 RESOLUTION NO. 559, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Kurosaka. WHEREAS, Mr. Whitney Russell, Code Enforcement Officer for the Town of Queensbury, has advised that he has investigated and inspected certain property identified as the Grundborg property, Town of Queensbury, and bearing tax map no. 147-1-47.2 and has made findings as more specifically set forth in a memorandum dated September 27, 1989, the original of which is presented to this meeting, and WHEREAS, Mr. Russell advises the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury that the property and structures situated thereon are dangerous and unsafe to the general public and has asked the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury to provide for the demolition and removal of said structures and general clean-up of the property, and WHEREAS, photographs have also been presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Law Number 3, 1983 the Town Board may, by resolution, determine whether, in its opinion, that the structures are unsafe and dangerous and thereafter order their repair or demolition and removal, and 3 YT• WHEREAS, said Local Law Number 3, 1983 provides that notice be served upon the owner or other certain persons interested in said property, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that upon reviewing all of the evidence presented at this time, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is of the opinion that the property bearing tax map number 147-1-47.2 is: 1. presently unsafe and dangerous 2. potentially an object of attraction and danger to minors, 3. and unfit for the purposes for which it may be lawfully used, and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED, that a notice be served upon the owner(s) of said property, said notice providing: 1. a description of the premises, 2. a statement of particulars in which said property and structures thereon are unsafe and dangerous, as set forth in Mr. Russell's letter, 3. that the structures and other property should be demolished and removed within 60 days of receipt of this notice, unless good cause is shown by the property owner or other interested persons whereupon the time shall be extended by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, 4. that demolition and removal of said structures and other property must be commenced in 30 days of receipt of this notice, unless good cause is shown by the property owner whereupon the time shall be extended by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, 5. that a public hearing before the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, in relation to the dangerous or unsafe condition of the building and property shall be held on October 16, 1989, at 7:00 P.M. or not less than 5 days from the date of service of this noticewhichever date is later, 6. in the event that there is neglect or refusal to comply with the order of this Board to demolish and remove the structures and other property located on said property, the Town Board is authorized to provide for its demolition and removal and to assess all expenses thereof against the real property on which it is located, and to institute special proceedings to collect the cost of demolition, including legal expenses, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that service of the notice provided for herein shall be in accordance with the provisions of Local Law No. 3 of 1983. Duly adopted this 2nd day of October, 1989, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TOWN CLERK TO SUBMIT PETITIONS FOR CHANGE OF ZONE TO PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY RESOLUTION NO. 560, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Borgos. .WHEREAS, the Town Board has previously approved a form entitled "Petition For a Change of Zone" for rezoning matters, and has directed that the same be used for re-zoning requests, and WHEREAS, the Town Attorney has recommended that any and all applications for rezoning must first go to the Planning Department and Planning Board for recommendations regarding the same, and WHEREAS, the following such recommendations, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury will then review the Zoning Applications and take such other action as it shall deem necessary and proper, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs that the following application be submitted to the Planning Board for the Town of Queensbury for report and recommendation: Bay Meadows Corp., c/o Garth Allen. Duly adopted this 2nd day of October, 1989, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None i COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Would like the Board to consider for tomorrow a resolution employing Rist Frost, Town Engineer to design the footing foundations for the 40 x 30 generator building at the Water Treatment Plant site. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Would like to see some ground work done, getting back to the Glen Lake situation, whether or not it should be 100 and 200 feet, I would propose that we entertain the idea of retaining Rist Frost to do some engineering work. Suggest first that Mr. Goralski of the Planning Department give us a memo of the parameters of the work that he thinks needs to be done and then get on estimate from Rist Frost of what it would cost to do that work. Suggest making revisions to our Stormwater and Runoff Regulations that would protect these small lakes when there is digging be done. Would also ask for an amendment to the Sanitary Ordinance that when there are any new building or changes in plumbing, in a critically environmental area, be specified that the latest in water saving devices that are on the market are used. COMMUNICATIONS BID OPENING - STATE POLICE SATELLITE BUILDING 9-29-89 Hilltop Construction cashier's check $136,000.00 Glens Falls, NY non-collusive Pinchook & Buckley Construction, Inc. bid bond $168,000.00 Glens Falls, NY non-collusive Valente Builders, Inc. check $148,885.00 Queensbury, N Y non-collusive RSR Ventures Ltd check $98,000.00 Schenectady, N Y non-collusive SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that the low bidders came highly recommended. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INCREASE IN.AMOUNT TO BE SPENT ON NEW YORK STATE POLICE SATELLITE OFFICE RESOLUTION NO. 561, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenza. WHEREAS, by resolution no. 488, dated November 10, 1988, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury previously authorized the construction of a building to house the New York State Police Satellite Office, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury established that the cost of the said project would not exceed$200,000.00 and WHEREAS, the total amount of the bids proposed to be accepted on the said project totaled $204,101.77, and there are other costs associated with the construction of the building, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes an increase in the amount of money to be spent on the construction of the New York State Police Satellite Office, to $250,000.00 Duly adopted this 2nd day of October, 1989, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Zvi Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT BIDS FOR FIVE (5) CONTRACTS FOR CONSTRUCTING NEW YORK STATE POLICE SATELLITE OFFICE RESOLUTION NO. 562, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Montesi. WHEREAS, the Director of Purchasing for the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, duly advertised for bids for five (5) contracts to be let by the Town of Queensbury, regarding the construction of a New York State Police Satellite Office, such contracts to consist of: General Construction; Panelized Package; Plumbing Installation; Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Installation; and Electrical Wiring and Illuminating Fixtures Installation, as more generally identified in the proposed contract documents in possession of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the following firms submitted the lowest bids for the aforesaid contracts, a copy of the bids being presented at this meeting: 1. General Construction - R.S.R. Ventures L td., Schenectady, New York - $98,000.00; 2. Panelized Package - Ve/ante Builders, Inc., Queensbury, New York - $52,193.77, 3. Plumbing Installation - Adirondack Mechanical Corporation, Broodalbin, New York - $18,231.00; 4. Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Installation - Hollisters Plumbing and Heating, Glens Falls, New York - $19,877.00; 5. Electrical Wiring and Illuminating Fixtures Installation - C.D.K. Electrical, Inc., Hudson Falls, New York - $15,800.00; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, hereby approves, accepts, and awards the bids to the aforesaid bidders as low-bidders on the respective contracts to be let by the Town of Queensbury for constructing a New York State Police Satellite Office, in the aforesaid amounts, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed to sign al/ documents, including the Notice of Award, contract documents, and other documents that may be necessary to complete the award of the contracts to the aforesaid bidders, and _...,.__ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all other bid bonds or deposits made by al/ other bidders be returned once contracts have been signed between the Town of Queensbury and the aforesaid bidders, in accordance with bidding documents. Duly adopted this 2nd day of October, 1989, by the following vote: . Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AUDIT OF BILLS RESOLUTION NO. 563, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenza. RESOL VED, that the Audit of Bills appearing on Abstract October, 1989, and numbered 2697-3390 and totaling $333,152.54 be and hereby is approved. Duly adopted this 2nd day of October, 1989, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 564, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Montesi. RESOL VED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby enter into Executive Session to discuss real property acquisition, litigation and retaining the services of a particular individual and corporation. Duly adopted this 2nd day of October, 1989, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None On motion, the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK TOWN OF QUEENSBUR Y