Loading...
2001-08-20 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING AUGUST 20TH, 2001 Mtg #34 Res. #330-341 7:05 P.M BOH Res. 35-36 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DENNIS BROWER COUNCILMAN JAMES MARTIN COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER COUNCILMAN DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER TOWN COUNSEL MARK SCHACHNER BOB HAFNER TOWN OFFICIALS Chris Round, Executive Director of Community Development Ralph VanDusen, Water/Wastewater Superintendent Mike Shaw, Deputy Wastewater Superintendent Bruce Ostrander/ Deputy Water Superintendent Henry Hess, Comptroller Bill Lavery, Executive Assistant to Supervisor PRESS: Glens Falls Post Star Supervisor Brower called meeting to order... PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN STEC PUBLIC HEARING FOR SOUTH QUEENSBURY - QUEENSBURY AVENUE SEWER NOTICE SHOWN 7:06 P.M. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-We have a public hearing regarding South Queensbury, Queensbury Avenue Sewer District, regarding the creation of. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I see Tom Jarrett and Mike Shaw are here. Gentlemen, would you like to come forward? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Dennis? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Yes, sir. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Can I just make a quick thing to get it on the record as to why we're doing the same thing that we did two weeks ago? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Certainly. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-We had a public hearing a couple of weeks ago on this project. Tom came and did a very elaborate presentation on it. We took some extra time, we're being very careful to dot every "i" and cross every "t", this is one of those combined projects. We have a lot of municipalities involved and we took some extra time to get SEQRA in line and we also, we're going to need the State Comptroller's Office, we have to make an application to them and they called and they wanted a little bit more information in the order. So, we're having a public hearing today. Tom's here, he can, you know, give you whatever detail you have but he gave this presentation before, so. He's here to answer any questions that you may have, he and Mike. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay. Thank you, Bob. Frankly, many of the members of the audience are the same members that were here two weeks ago but we do have some new faces and Mike, do you want to give them a brief background, synopsis of the project. MR. MIKE SHAW, Deputy Wastewater Superintendent-Sure. This project is a joint project with Washington County, Warren County, Kingsbury and Queensbury. There is a map up on the board. Basically, the blue area is the Washington County area, the orange area is an existing Warren County Sewer District and the green areas are additions to this project in the Town of Queensbury. One is the airport and the other ones are parcels known as Earltown parcels and Silver Bow parcels. It's ajoint project. It's been quite a process to get all of this together but we've gotten to the point, Washington County has had it's public hearings, Warren County has had it's public hearings on their districts. Washington County IDA district number 2 is creating a new district and has had it's public hearings on that and we're here tonight to finish our public hearing on our process. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. At this time, I'd like to ask any members of the audience if you have any questions or any comments regarding the proposed proposal, to please come forward, state your name and address for the record. The floor is yours. Mr. Salvador. MR. JOHN SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador, I'm resident of the Town of Lake George, a taxpayer in the Town of Queensbury. Has a cost benefit analysis been done on this project? That is to say, have we weighed alternatives? I understand we're going to take the wastewater from this area and take it to the Glens Falls Sewage Treatment Plant. MR. SHAW, Deputy Wastewater Superintendent-That's correct. MR. SALVADOR-There are other methods of doing this, other ways to accomplish the task. Have we evaluated these and we have compared the costs of benefits of each of the many solutions to this? MR. SHAW, Deputy Wastewater Superintendent-I think that's probably a good question for Tom. He's been involved with this type of project for some years and has come through quite a few years in Washington County basically looking at discharging to possibly Washington County, possibly taking monies and upgrading current facilities and the alternative, the preferred alternative was to the City of Glens Falls. Tom, you may want to answer that even better. MR. TOM JARRETT-Yea, if! had been sitting in that chair, I would have pawned it on to him. MR. SALVADOR-But, bear in mind that all I read in the literature these days about wastewater treatment, it is no longer state of the art to move wastewater over long distances between the collection point and the treatment point, that is not cost effective today. That's where I'm coming frorn. MR. JARRETT-Would you like me to address that now? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Certainly. MR. JARRETT-Some five years ago, the existing wastewater treatment plant serving the Washington County Industrial Park, the Airport Industrial Park that serves actually the Washington County Sewer District and the Warren County Sewer District, both of them of which are existing, that plant came under a consent order to either be upgraded or replaced. At that time, a group of Supervisors from both Washington County and Warren County got together to look at alternatives and it was decided that a sewer line connected to either Hudson Falls, Fort Edward via the BOCES on Dix Avenue or to the City of Glens Falls would be the best alternative to solve this problem. Largely, for a number of reasons, the existing plant was a very high maintenance, low efficiency plant. The stream that it discharges to is an intermittent stream and meeting those discharge standards ifvery difficult. The soils in the area are generally very tight, silts and clays so making on site wastewater treatment and disposal very difficult. 0, the alternatives looked at, number twelve between connection to Fort Edward and connection to Glens Falls, the most cost effective alternatives were one, to Dix Avenue, one to Glens Falls and the expedient solution, both being equal in cost was to connect to Glens Falls. So, essentially, it's driven by a consent order to replace or upgrade that existing treatment plant and the most cost effective alternative decided some five years ago was to connect to Glens Falls. MR. SALVADOR-Did they have the benefit of any numbers and then they evaluated the costs? MR. JARRETT-Yes, yes they were. MR. SALVADOR-There is a report? MR. JARRETT-Yes there is. MR. SALVADOR-It has been prepared? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-It's on record? MR. JARRETT-Yes, there is. Yes. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you, Torn. At this time, I'd like to ask anyone else if they have any comment on this public hearing, to feel free to come forward. Okay, seeing none, I'll declare the public hearing portion closed and I'd like to ask board members for any comment or any questions. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay, hearing none. Now, we went through a SEQRA form before, correct? MR. CHRIS ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-You haven't completed the SEQRA review. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-That's what we're proposing you do tonight. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-That's actually the sole action we proposing you take tonight. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Alright. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-As Mike and Tom have indicated, the Town Board is the lead agent for SEQRA review purposes. There are three, four, five, six involved agencies and the Town of Queensbury was, chose to be SEQRA Lead Agency and everybody that is involved has accepted. So, this is unusual that we're a SEQRA Lead Agency from activities that are going on, taking place in a different municipality in an adjacent county. So, this is, it's a little bit different and so what we tried to do to help you with that, is that the district, there's actually two districts being formed. So, there's two district formation reports. One for the Kingsbury portion, one for the Queensbury portion. Those were distributed to all involved agencies, EAFs were prepared for each of those and we prepared a consolidated, an EAF consolidated both of those projects. So, what we're looking at is the combined project and so that the EAF that you have in front of you outlines, it identifies each of the projects and identifies hem in a combined fashion. So, you have Part I, if you're familiar with the EAF forms, it is a long form, it describes the project, the characteristics, if there's any impacts, etcetera. Part II, is completed by the Town Board and that's what we normally do, we walk you through that, we ask you the questions. I provided you with some background information for Part II and then, there are some, in the staffs opinion, there are some potentially large impacts associated with this project because it is a sewer district formation. It's going to impact a large geographic area. Hopefully, it's going to stimulate some economic development and some industrial development activities. So, just keep that in mind as you move through this process and with that, I'll go through if you have Part II in front of you and then we normally, I'll read you question one but if you, there are, on the Long EAF, they do give you bulleted items which, that trigger you to look at, they're meant to provide you with guidance. They'e not everything that could potentially be a potential impact associated with the project. So, just keep that in mind, if there's something else that you have that's a concern, please raise our attention to it. I'll start, I know Mark, if there's anything else you want to touch on with the EAF. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Just, I mean, I think in order to do this, we need to make sure that everybody has got in front of them the Part II Long Form Environmental Assessment Form that was attached to Chris' Memo dated August 17th. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-I guess, does everybody have that, that form in front of them? COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yea. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-Okay. FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, PART II IMPACT ON LAND MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-I. Will the proposed action result in physical change to the project site: Yes Examples that would apply to column 2 Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 1O%. Potential Large Impact Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. Potential Large Impact Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Potential Large Impact Construction that will continue for more then 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. Construction in a designated floodway. Other impacts: TOWN BOARD DISCUSSION - QUESTION #1 COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I don't see how you can say that it wouldn't but. COUNCILMAN TURNER-It's not going to be very much. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-It's going to be in temporary in nature. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yea, the trench is limited, twenty foot wide. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Yea, I mean I would characterize it as minor. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Well, taking this a step at a time, are you agreeing, disagreeing or stating other? I mean, you'll notice that Chris has identified or staff has identified several bullet items triggered as, in staffs opinion, potentially large impacts. Are you going along with those or indicating that you don't agree with those or neither? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Okay. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-Just a note that the district formation reports projects presented, identify that there is construction on slopes, fifteen percent or greater. That is a threshold item under, on the EAF. But we've suggested that it's a potentially large impact. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Oh, okay. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-Identical to that, there is construction on land with depth to the water table is less than three feet and there's also construction where bedrock is exposed and there will be limited blasting in accordance with all permit requirements and plans that have been submitted as part of this project. So, we've identified three categorically large impacts to the land. I think, Jim, you mentioned that they are construction rated and temporary in nature and that's a good way to characterize those. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Okay. Tom, can you, for the record state what mitigation measures will be taken in regards to that, those potentially large impacts. MR. JARRETT-The areas that we're talking about are essentially all or very large percentages on the existing Niagara Mohawk right-of-way. There are some areas where slopes exceeds fifteen percent and those areas are primarily where there are bedrock outcrops now. We will have to blast in those areas and we will be meeting very strict Niagara Mohawk requirements for blasting because we'll be within close proximity to there overhead power lines. Grade will be re-established to close to, as close to as possible existing conditions. Along the same right-of-way, there are some low wet areas to the east of the bedrock outcrops. Actually, east and west of the bedrock outcrops and we will need permits for wetland disturbance from both DEC and the Corp. of Engineers. We've initiated those contacts and those permits are anticipated and we will have to restore that, those areas to a preexisting condition, reestablish those wetlands. So, frankly, the long term impacts, I expect to be very minimal. The impacts, asyou discussed as being short term, I agree with. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Okay. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-And you'll note that in the discussion in Part III, the proposed discussion of the evaluation of the importance of impacts, staff and our consulting engineer have described the impact and then summarized it by stating this impact is short term, temporary and construction related, it can be effectively controlled and will not negatively affect the environment, therefore this is not an important impact. I'm not saying those things to get it to jump ahead to Part III, I'm just saying those things so that COUNCILMAN MARTIN-They're relevant in the discussion. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Right, in terms of evaluating the potential impact. So, I guess we're looking for the board to express it's opinion as to what staff has identified as the three potentially large impacts and I don't think staff has identified any mitigation of those proposed impacts but staff has proposed saving the discussion of the importance of those impacts for when we get to Part III. So, to be more nutsy and boltsy about it, we would be putting X's in colunm two under potentially large impact for the first two and the fourth bullet items under question number one, will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? We'd be checking the box yes and checking potentially large impacts under the first, second and fourth bullet items, if the board feels that way. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Well, speaking for me, I would concur with that. COUNCILMAN STEC-I agree. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yes. SUPERVISOR BROWER-But a relatively small amount of this project were on slopes greater then ten percent. You know, you're talking ten percent of the project. COUNCILMAN BREWER-What's the significant environmental impact concerning blasting where there's the bedrock? MR. JARRETT-I think they're eluding to changing the physical character of the landscape. If we left shot rock all over the place and didn't clean it up, didn't restore it, that would certainly change the physical character of the landscape or could. COUNCILMAN BREWER-But that's not going to be the case. MR. JARRETT-It's not going to be the case. COUNCILMAN BREWER-So, why would that be potentially large if we're MR. JARRETT-Well, it's potential but it can be mitigated. I think you need to take into account the potential mitigation or possible mitigation we're discussing and then decide whether you feel that's significant. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-The EAF is written as a guide to environmental review and so that they put things in there that they're not, I mean, you're able to examine the differences between those items, I think, Tim. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Yea, remember the Environmental Assessment Form itself is a generic state wide form that's put prepared to create, to basically create a bunch of assumptions and presumptions but you then look at them yourselves with a hard look at the particular project involved. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I guess I concur with staff and then hold off, take apart III to address those, you know, items that we find that are potentially large. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yea. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-But I'd agree with staff, speaking for me. SUPERVISOR BROWER-That sounds reasonable. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Okay, are we done with number one? MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.) No Specific land forms: TOWN BOARD DISCUSSION - QUESTION #2 COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Do you have anything along the way, Chris, that would be classified as an unusual land form? MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-We haven't and I know in the district formation reports there were evaluations of geologic mapping and there haven't been any identified. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Well, then I would say no then. IMPACT ON WATER MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? Yes Examples that would apply Developable area of site contains a protected water body. Small To Moderate Impact Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. Potential Large Impact Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. Other impacts: TOWN BOARD DISCUSSION - QUESTION #3 MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-And we have noted, Tom noted in his presentation there are four wetlands which are waters of US and are State DEC wetlands that will be impacted but will be effectively dealt with through the permitting requirements. COUNCILMAN BREWER-So, we'll mark that small to moderate? COUNCILMAN STEC-On the first item? COUNCILMAN BREWER-Potentially large on the extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Are these in fact going through the Federal Wetland? MR. JARRETT-Yes. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Yes, then I would say, potentially large. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I would agree. MR. JARRETT -A very small section of it but it is going through it. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I guess you have to mention it. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-So, that's a yes to three and then check small to moderate on developable areas, site contains protected water body and then potentially large impact because the utility distribution for the facilities are indeed going through protected waters. MR. JARRETT-To put this in perspective, that is on the Niagara Mohawk right-of-way and it's being traversed now heavily by, not only recreational vehicles using it illegally but also Niagara Mohawk maintenance crews are using that. So, to put it in perspective COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Well, I think that's information relevant during Part III but I think you do have to note that it is potentially large. MR. JARRETT -Absolutely, absolutely. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? No Examples that would apply A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. Other impacts: MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-5. Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? No Examples that would apply Proposed action will require a discharge permit. Proposed action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action. Proposed action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. Proposed action will adversely affect groundwater. Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. Proposed action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. Proposed action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. Proposed action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. Proposed action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. Proposed action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. Other impacts: MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? No Examples that would apply Proposed action would change flood water flows. Proposed action may cause substantial erosion. Proposed action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Proposed action will allow development in a designated floodway. Other impacts: IMPACT ON AIR MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-7. Will proposed action affect air quality? Yes Examples that would apply Proposed action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. Proposed action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 Ibs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. Small To Moderate Impact Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. Small To Moderate Impact Other impacts: TOWN BOARD DISCUSSION - QUESTION #7 COUNCILMAN STEC-No. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-No. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, there saying, yes it will. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-There are two, if you look, if you read down to the fourth and fifth bullet items, it says, proposed, it asks, proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use and the next item, proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. I just noted on the attachment to Part III, brief narrative, and I'll just, I'll read from that, the extension of wastewater facilities to areas already zoned for industrial purposes will not change the development densities permissible under the current local land use regulations. However, land areas that may have been set aside for an individual property's on-site subsurface wastewater disposal will no longer be required. As a result of providing municipal sewer services this land area may now be developed allowing a minor increase in land area available for development. So, what that's saying is that typically you would have to handle septic onsite, now with the adding of municipal sewer, you don't need that so you no longer have to reserve land for onsite septic. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Right. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-Small minor increase in land area that's going to be available. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I would say small to moderate then under COUNCILMAN BREWER-Under both ofthern. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Yea. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I would agree. IMP ACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-8. Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? No Examples that would apply Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. Other impacts: TOWN BOARD DISCUSSION - QUESTION #8 COUNCILMAN MARTIN-We're not aware of any, are we, in the area? MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-Tom, would you just note for the record what's been found. MR. JARRETT-We're still awaiting official response. Our preliminary responses are that no, we won't and to elaborate on that, we're following Queensbury Avenue, within the shoulder of the highway and the existing Niagara Mohawk right-of-way. So, I don't believe we're going to be creating new impacts to any specIes. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-As part of the project, there have been phases, for each of the projects, at least phase lA cultural resource evaluations and as part of the district formation reports, the, Tom has made the inquiries to US Fish and Wildlife, to New York State DEC and Endangered Species, all the typicals to say, hey, are there inventory species that, within the project area. And also, they've done onsite delineations of wetlands, wetland delineations And actual on site, I think there was a, was there a IB for the cultural resource in one aspect? MR. JARRETT -Strictly lA so far and it recommends a IE for certain limited areas. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-So, there has been extensive environmental investigations. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Okay. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-That was a no? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I would say no. COUNCILMAN TURNER-No. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? No Examples that would apply Proposed action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. Proposed action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. IMP ACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? No Examples that would apply The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) Other impacts: IMP ACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? No Examples that would apply Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. Other impacts: IMP ACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOCIAL RESOURCES 12. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? No Examples that would apply Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. Proposed action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. Other impacts: TOWN BOARD DISCUSSION - QUESTIONS #12 COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Okay, IE, huh. MR. JARRETT-There's a number of areas along the road have already been investigated and no resources, cultural resources were found. A couple of areas had not previously been investigated so they recommended routinely to investigate those further. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I would say no. COUNCILMAN TURNER-No. SUPERVISOR BROWER-No, none that we're aware of. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Right. IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-13. Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? No Examples that would apply The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Other impacts: IMP ACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-14. Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14 (g)? No List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? No Examples that would apply Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. Other impacts: IMP ACT ON ENERGY MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-16. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? No Examples that would apply Proposed action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy in the municipality. Proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. Other impacts: TOWN BOARD DISCUSSION - QUESTION #16 COUNCILMAN BREWER-No. COUNCILMAN STEC-No. MR. JARRETT -Could add something to that? MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-Go right ahead. MR. JARRETT -Actually, Niagara Mohawk is proposing to share this project with us and they're proposing a gas main through their own right-of-way at this point and they would anticipate constructing one up Queensbury Avenue. So, actually, there may be a positive impact there with increased natural gas supplies to the area. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Can you note that? MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-I think you can still say no to that and I think impact on energy, this is focused on how is negatively or how is it going to adversely or consume energy sources that might provide a negative impact else where in the community and I think what Tom is saying is that this is not the case with this. NOISE AND ODOR IMP ACTS MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? No Examples that would apply Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. Other impacts: Blasting will occur, however not within 1,500 feet of a sensitive facility. TOWN BOARD DISCUSSION - QUESTION # 17 COUNCILMAN MARTIN-No. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I would say no, but I would include that note that you've got down here on the bottom. COUNCILMAN STEC-On the blasting. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-I just noted, they ask for blasting within fifteen hundred feet within hospitals, schools, other sensitive facilities. That means, related to potential vibration of a facility that may negatively impact. There are no hospitals within fifteen hundred feet of this area so I just, we noted that on the EAF. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Okay. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Alright, but I guess I'm confused. You're checking off, proposing to check off no, but you've identified a small to moderate impact. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-I think you can reach either conclusion. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Okay, but not both. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-But not both. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Right, so you should pick. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I would say no. COUNCILMAN BREWER-No. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-That's right. IMP ACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-18. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? No Examples that would apply Proposed action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. Proposed action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other flammable liquids. Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. Other impacts: IMP ACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-19. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? No Examples that would apply The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. Proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) Proposed action will set an important precedent for future projects. Proposed action will create or eliminate employment. Other impacts: MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? No TOWN BOARD DISCUSSION - QUESTION #20 COUNCILMAN BREWER-No. COUNCILMAN STEC-No. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-No. COUNCILMAN TURNER-No. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-That's an important conclusion that you draw because that does relate to the importance of the impact. If it does negatively affect and there's a strong public concern over it, that weighs into your decision making process under Part III. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Okay, in summary, we've got how many potentially large? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-You've got three under Item 1, Impact On Land. You've got one under Item 3, Impact On Water and I think on Air Quality, you've left both small to moderate, right? MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-Yes. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-So, that's it. You've got three under Item 1, Impact on Land and one under Item 3, Impact on Water. The proposed Part III that you have in front of you that staff has prepared called the Evaluation ofImportance ofImpacts, you can strike Item 7, Impact on Air Quality, because you did not identify any of the potential impacts under Air Quality as potential large. You're only obligated to go through this Part III Analysis where you discuss the importance of the potential impacts if you've identified a potential impact as potentially large. So, you can strike the bottom third of the page, Item 7, Impact On Air Quality in staffs memo and what we would encourage you to do is basically quickly read staffs proposed discussion of the Importance ofImpacts ofItems 1, Impact on Land and Item 3, Impact on Water and see how you feel about those. COUNCILMAN BREWER-And 17 also? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Pardon? COUNCILMAN BREWER-Or 19? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-We didn't identify 19 as potentially large, right? MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-No, 19, is Impact on Growth and Character in the Community of Neighborhood. I think, under 19, you said TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-We said no under that. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-You said no but I think there's an important positive impact that's what this narrative addresses so, it's not necessary to include it under Part III but I'd like you to examine it or discuss as part of the public record. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Well, I think the meat of Part III is in those bulleted considerations, to answer the question of importance. In terms of the Impact on Land, the probability of impact incurring, the probability is high. The duration of the impact, here in lies some of the mitigation, I think the duration will be relatively short lived, or short lived given it's nature. You know, we're digging trenches and then refilling them, it's irreversibility. I think you can, it can be reversed with you know, reclamation of the area after the pipes installed and I don't know of any permanently lost resources of value. You may have some minor impact on the wetland on an ongoing basis but I don't know beyond that. I think the impact can certainly be controlled with temporary erosion control measures and so on and so forth during the digging of the trench. The regional consequences, I don't know of any regional consequences given the actions that we're talking, or the impacts we're talking about. They're relativellocalized, I wouldn't characterize them as regional and I think this is, I think this is not divergent from local needs and goals but rather fulfilling them and as Chris pointed out, it's important, our response to number 19, I don't know of any known objections based on our public hearing comments. So, I don't, I don't know how everybody else feels, I don't see a need to go to an EIS. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don't either. COUNCILMAN TURNER-No. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Based on the information staff has provided. COUNCILMAN STEC-No, I don't think so either. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I would agree. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-So, within this context, you're deeming that COUNCILMAN BREWER-So, we're going to say Part III is sufficient? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-So within this context then, would you be deeming this potentially large impact, not an important impact? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-That's correct. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yea. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-That's the conclusion I would come to. You've got to sign it Dennis, so have a good time. That's how we feel but you sign. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thanks, Jim. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-I just, I do want to, I did provide a response to 19. You did check no that there was, there's not a potentially large impact but I think, we should discuss this, I'm going to read from that. I'd like to read it, just for the record. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Go ahead. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-Much of the project area is zoned industrial and it is anticipated the project will stimulate growth of the community's industrial base. This is desired and positive impact. The district formation and extension of municipal sewer service to the project areas is consistent with the community's goals as established in the Town of Queensbury's Comprehensive Land Use Plan adopted in 1998. Additionally, local and regional economic development organizations recognize the project in their own strategic plans. Queensbury's Economic Development Corporation, the QEDC, the Warren County Economic Development Corporation have both identified the project in their respective strategic plans. Just to note that the county economic development plan was provided, was developed through an extensive outreach program throughout the community. We are going to be providing sewer services to Warren and Washington County, the Airport Industrial park, that is based on an order on consent. So, that Iso is in reaction to a goal that's been identified by a state organization, so. Jim mentioned this is consistent with local and regional community plans and we hope this is an important and positive impact on our community. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I think you've made a very important point about the, satisfying the order to upgrade or satisfy the sewer problem that Kingsbury has been experiencing. So, DEC, I believe also supports this concept. COUNCILMAN BREWER-So, with that, I can introduce this resolution? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Before we do that, though, I just want to make sure in the notice that's done, that we have the typical language about, after having been, after having taken a hard look, we came to the conclusion of a negative declaration. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-The first resolve says, after considering the proposed action, reviewing the EAF and thoroughly analyzing the action, bless you, doesn't say bless you, for potential environmental concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-That's fine. Okay, I just wanted to make sure we had something in there. Okay, I'll second it. RESOLUTION ADOPTING SEQRA DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE REGARDING CREATION OF SOUTH QUEENSBURY - QUEENSBURY A VENUE SEWER DISTRICT AND CREATION AND/OR EXTENSION OF KINGSBURY SEWER DISTRICT NO.1 RESOLUTION NO.: 330, 2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. James Martin WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to establish a new sewer district to be known as the South Queensbury - Queensbury Avenue Sewer District, and WHEREAS, part of the overall project also includes creation and/or extension of the Kingsbury Sewer District No.1, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has been duly designated to act as lead agency for State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review of the entire project including both the Queensbury and Kingsbury components for compliance with SEQRA which requires environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type I action in accordance with the rules and regulations of SEQRA, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board, after considering the proposed action, reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form and thoroughly analyzing the action for potential environmental concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to complete the Environmental Assessment Form by checking the box indicating that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board approves a SEQRA Negative Declaration and authorizes and directs the Town Clerk's Office to file any necessary documents in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 2001, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION CALLING FOR QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 331, 2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. James Martin RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and enters the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brower, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: None BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE APPLICATION OF KRIS ERCEG BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 35,2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. James Martin WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board serves as the Town's Local Board of Health and is authorized by Town Code Chapter 136 to issues variances from the Town's On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, and WHEREAS, Kris Erceg has applied to the Local Board of Health for two (2) variances from Chapter 136 to allow an in-drain absorption system to be located one foot (1') from the right-of-way in lieu of the required ten feet (10') setback and eighty-seven feet (87') from a stream in lieu of the required one- hundred feet (100') setback on property located at 674 Moon Hill Road, Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health will hold a public hearing on September 10th, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, to consider Kris Erceg's sewage disposal variance application concerning property situated at 674 Moon Hill Road, Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 289.07-2-6) and at that time all interested persons will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish the Notice of Public Hearing presented at this meeting and send a copy of the Notice to neighbors located within 500 feet of the property as required by law. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 2001, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Martin NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN BOARD OF HEALTH BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 36,2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns from session and enters Regular Session of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brower, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: None REGULAR SESSION CORRESPONDENCE Deputy Town Clerk Barber noted that the Town of Queensbury's Building and Codes Monthly report for July 2001 has been received and is on file in the Clerk's Office and then read the following letters into the record: (letters on file in the Town Clerk's Office) TO: Town Board FROM: JoAnn Hick, Purchasing RE: Auction I am pleased to report that the Town of Queensbury surplus auction that was held on July 21,2001 in conjunction with Washington County was a success. I have received checks, which are now in the hands of the Comptroller's Office, totaling sixty-two thousand, two hundred and ninety dollars. The attendance at the auction was up this year, I have been told, due to the participation of the Town of Queensbury. Residents as well as our neighboring communities are impressed with the condition of vehicles and other surplus items that the town has offered for auction in the past and this year was no exception. The Town of Queensbury received the largest check of all the municipalities included in this year's auction. The auctioneer, Russ Scherrer, of Sherrer's Auction did a great job for the town. He and his staff picked up all the items as well as the vehicles and equipment at no cost to the town. In the past, the town has had to provide laborers to handle items, staff to move and arrange for pick-up of items and the Town Clerk and her Deputies who have given up a Saturday, without compensation, to keep track of sales, cost and receipting. The savings to the town for labor as well as time spent by staff during the normal workday on this event is beneficial in itself. The town, in the past, has also had to pay a ten percent fee for the auctioneer. This year the auctioneer added a ten percent buyers premium on to the total cost of an item saving the town that expense as well. Again, I am pleased with the overall results and feel that this trial run was a success for the Town of Queensbury as well as our neighboring municipalities. TO: Town of Queensbury Board Members FROM: Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification Dear Members: Due to the lack of communication between the Planning Office and the Beautification Committee, it is the position of the Beautification Committee that all duties for landscape site review be assumed and enforced by the Town Planning Board. The Town Planning Board would then review all applicants. Presently, only the applicants selected by the Planning Office come before our committee for review. In addition, our committee members do not receive monthly agendas prior to our scheduled meeting, which makes it impossible to complete field visits. The Town Planning Board would be in close contact with Code Enforcement to ensure site plans are completed as approved prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit. Therefore, with these duties being assumed by the Town Planning Board, attendance by applicants before the Beautification Committee would no longer be an issue and would provide one less meeting by the applicant for approval. The Beautification Committee does not take the position of making the recommendations to the Town Board members casually. We feel that this is an important part of the review process in order to keep Queensbury 'a good place to live'. We have enjoyed our duties and responsibilities to ensure improved green space in the town, however, after thirty plus years of commitment to the town, we feel our efforts are not being utilized to our fullest potential. As much as we would enjoy continued participation on this committee, effective September 1,2001, letters of resignation will be forthcoming from each committee member to the Town Board. Ms. Darleen Dougher Town Clerk Dear Ms. Dougher: I reside in the Town of Queensbury and my property fronts on Dunhams Bay, Lake George. I would like to request that the 5 MPH "no wake" zone be moved from its present location further out into Duhams Bay. Over the past twenty years the boat traffic and associated noise in this restricted area has increased to the point that it is overwhelming on busy summer days. Dunhams Bay: 1. is home to three major marinas, 2. there are three hundred thirty-five boats with motors docked within the bay 3. an additional forty boats are launched on a typical summer weekend from the Bay Road boat launch 4. the three hundred thirty-five Dunhams Bay motor boats represent nearly three percent of the eleven thousand, two hundred eighteen boats the Lake George Park Commission reported on the lake in 2000; yet 5. Dunhams bay represents only about one half of one percent of the total lake area; 6. Marina and launch boats make up nearly fifty percent of the three hundred and thirty-five boats and they contribute disproportionately to bay traffic, 7. boat traffic to and from the Dunhams Bay Boat Company gas docks is a significant factor 8. every forty seconds a boat moves in or out of Dunhams Bay on moderately busy weekend (ninety boats per hour) 9. in busy periods that number doubles. The high concentration of boats and boat traffic within the relatively narrow confines of the bay warrant moving the 5 MPH zone further out into the bay. I request that the 5 MPH zone be moved to a line stretching from the large white boathouse on the King property on the Dark Bay side to the beige boathouse on the Brothers property on the Assembly Point side. Thank you for your assistance. You may reach me at 486-1704 weekdays or 656-9072 evenings or weekends or by E-mail atsimms@globaI2000.net Sincerely, Lenton D. Simms 8 Burnt Ridge Road Lake George, NY 12845 COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I just wanted to, out of respect to my fellow board members and to my commitment of full disclosure in keeping this on top of the table as I have, I wanted to inform you that I have responded to the Ethics Board about the allegation that's been made. I was going to go as far as sharing with the press my verbatim written response, the letter and attachments that I have written but after hearing Dennis, what you had to say last week, it made be pause and think better of that. So, I'll keep that with the Ethics Board. But, I wanted to just summarize what has been done and what that does is it presents the facts that are associated with the situation, that support that there is no basis for perceived or real impropriety. It attaches to that letter, the contract of the LA Group with the City of Glens Falls, the entire contract verbatim which has an attachment to that contract, all the services that are provided. The three general categories are downtown revitalization, infrastructure and ecoomic development. I go through each one of those services and what's been done, and the nature of those services and once you've had a chance to see that, you'll see that there is no financial interest or bonuses or incentives for either myself or the LA Group. The services are temporary and part-time in nature. There are no associations or influence in sewer negotiations or any part of that section of the city government. There is no direct or indirect contact with that part of the city government. And I want to again, reemphasize that I have fully disclosed this from the outset, both formally and informally. It's got to be probably one of the best known things going on in this community, as a matter of fact. I'm sorry ifI seem somewhat incensed by this allegation but it's one thing to have the allegation made but then to have the editorial staff of the newspaper come to the conclusion that I'm guilty until proven innocent and then people, constituents in my own ward have taken upon themselves to wrie letters to the editor that come to the same conclusion without knowing the facts or the true genuine facts associated with the case. That is most disappointing, to be guilty until proven innocent and I think it is just completely unfair. My involvement in the sewer negotiations has always been from the standpoint of trying to be progressive and positive. It's been without personal gain or without any regard to personal gain and it's been in the utmost interest of the residents of the Town of Queensbury and particularly those people in the first ward and that's been the sole motivation for my involvement. And I think I've been perceived as being somewhat soft in the negotiations and that there's been this leap of faith that, that's automatically associated or due to my involvement in the city. That's not it at all. I'm just trying to see the larger goal that's out there and that's the ability to create jobs and extend services and expand our tax base, at the same time addressing some real environmentalthreats to this community in terms of the amount of wastewater going into the ground and I'm just trying to get to those larger goals and I'm one who personally has little tolerance for the minutia that we've gotten into in these negotiations. I just speak for me, and that's been my motivation for wanting to get on with this and not some secret city involvement or having my policy affected by that. That's all I have to say. That's a summary of what's been done and I welcome the investigation by the Ethics Board and I will fully and happily abide by their decision. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you, Mr. Martin. Just to inform members of the public that weren't here last week, I just informed the board at the start of the meeting that the process of ethics violations or even the charge, is at the town level is designed to be confidential, every part of it is designed to be confidential. In this particular case Mr. Martin chose to notify the press of the situation ahead of time and they made their decision in an editorial, you know, that was against Mr. Martin's liking, certainly and the bottom line is though, if Mr. Martin hadn't made it public, it wouldn't have been public. It would have been private, the decision of the board would have been private. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Or will be private. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Board members will be informed of it. The press will not necessarily be brought up to date unless Mr. Martin decides to let them know what the decision was. But certainly, I just wanted to make it known, no matter of fact because Mr. Martin let the press know about this decision, another gentleman who had charged an ethics violation against Mr. Martin had come forward and that was also the subject of a press article. So, sometimes, if, I guess if we had let the process run it's normal course of action, it would have been confidential, it would have been private and I know, Jim, you don't appreciate the treatment you've had in the press but you kind of invited it. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-No, I admit, I brought it on myself, that's clear but I think the overriding consideration is, that it be made public and you know, you run for these positions, hey, you're take your hits, you know, you're going to run with the big boys, you're going to run with the pack, you know that's going to happen to you. But, I think the overriding consideration here is that it be made public and be fully on top of the table. That's the way I've dealt with this and I'll completely abide and make public the decision of the board, whether it be that I have to bow out or I can continue. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Well, it's not the board's decision. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-No, I mean the Ethics Board. I will fully abide by that board's decision but I just want this to be out there in the public because that's where it deserves to be cause otherwise it has the appearance that you do have something to hide and I don't have anything to hide. OPEN FORUM 7:58 P.M. MR. JOHN SALVADOR referred to the Johnsburg Casey Restaurant issue at the county level and noted his 'bravo' for Supervisor Brower. Referred to this past weekend's Lake George Village Family Festival that was held and noted that the feature attraction at the affair was the ladder truck from the Queensbury Central Fire Department. Noted that the proof ofMr. Martin's environmental concern regarding the discharge of wastewater in the ground will be shown at the commencement of the discussions in North Queensbury for Wastewater Management. SUPERVISOR BROWER noted that the meeting is now scheduled for August 30th, at 7 pm at North Queensbury Fire House. MR. SALVADOR referred to the 5 MPH speed limit in Dunham Bay and noted that the legislation states authority fifteen hundred feet from shore and the location of those buoys at the present time is fifteen hundred feet from the base of the bay. Referred to Crandall Library and questioned whether the other municipalities in the library board move to adopt the same resolution that the board did previously at the last meeting? SUPERVISOR BROWER noted, I don't know if it's complete, the intent is that they will. MR. SALVADOR spoke to the board regarding the Crandall Public Library and his belief that the library belongs to the trustees. MR. PLINEY TUCKER, Division Road, Queensbury referred to Resolution 5.1, "Resolution Authorizing Purchase of Animal Land Property" and questioned the board for an explanation of the resolution? SUPERVISOR BROWER noted, that the board will probably pull the resolution... Mr. George Stec made the Community Development Office aware of land that was available, known as some of the former Animal Land property west of the Northway that was coming up for auction, and there was interest on behalf of the town, the land conservation group, of securing that land for back taxes... The resolution in front of us this evening would enable the town to purchase the property for the amount owed in back taxes from the county which is two thousand, six hundred, sixty-nine dollars and fifty-nine cents. However, one of the things that's not addressed in this resolution, is the fact that there is a state lien on the property to the tune of, I believe in the area of two to three thousand dollars, I don't have the exact amount. Mike Swan, from the county, indicated that the state, if I write them a letter, the state will typically either reduce or eliminate tax liens that they have on the property but that hasn't been doe and hasn't been addressed in this resolution. So, I think the appropriate thing to do would be to hold off on this resolution and get a determination as to whether or not we can eliminate the state lien on this property. MR. TUCKER questioned whether the land is landlocked? COUNCILMAN BREWER noted that he spoke with John Goralski who stated that they're working with the school to possibly link this parcel with other parcels so that the school could have outdoor classrooms and make it available so that people could get to the property. MR. TUCKER questioned if someone was to purchase it, would they have access to it? COUNCILMAN STEC-No. MR. TUCKER-Then it's landlocked. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR noted that the town controls adjacent lands. COUNCILMAN BREWER noted that the town would have access to the land. MR. TUCKER questioned why anyone would want to buy this if they didn't have access to it? COUNCILMAN BREWER noted that there may be another adjacent property owner who might be interested in the parcel. Town Board held discussion whether to move forward with the resolution or hold and it was agreed by the board to hold until the September 10th board meeting for further research regarding the lien and a title search. MR. TUCKER referred to drainage project for Queensbury Forest Subdivision and questioned whether the board has set aside a total amount? COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yes, two hundred thousand. MR. TUCKER questioned whether the Highway Department is doing it free of charge. COUNCILMAN BREWER-We have to pay them. MR. TUCKER questioned whether that's included in the two hundred thousand? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I thought that was the overall project cost. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Right, the overall project is two hundred thousand, that's the pipe, the machinery, the men. MR. TUCKER referred to the Fleet Management briefing from Division of Audit and Control and questioned the process. SUPERVISOR BROWER-The entire board gets briefed as well as Department Heads and it's not a public meeting, it's part of the Town Comptroller's process, part of their audit process and then they release the information that they provide to us at that meeting, ten days after, to the press and public. I specifically quizzed the State Comptroller's Office as to whether or not press would be allowed at that meeting and they indicated they would absolutely not be allowed and that's part of their policy. COUNCILMAN BREWER-That's a question for our attorney, how can we meet as a board and not have it open to the public? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-It's a state agency, they are governed by their own rules. Remember that there is a common misperception that any time more then two of you get together for any purpose, it constitutes a public meeting or meeting of the Queensbury Town Board, that's clearly not true. If the five of you want to attend the Warren County Board of Supervisor's Meeting, although the Warren County Board of Supervisor's meeting is a public meeting, that does not make it a meeting of the Queensbury Town Board. If the five of you want to go bowling tonight if we get out early enough, that also does not constitute a meeting of the Queensbury Town Board, you're not supposed to discuss and transact town business in doing that. RESOLUTIONS 8:20 P.M. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FILING OF APPLICATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL F ACILITIES CORPORATION FINANCING FOR PROPOSED CREATION OF SOUTH QUEENSBURY-QUEENSBURY AVENUE SEWER DISTRICT AND PROPOSED CREATION OF ROUTE 9 SEWER DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO.: 332, 2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is proposing to create the South Queensbury - Queensbury Avenue Sewer District and the Route 9 Sewer District, and WHEREAS, the Town would like the costs to be financed by the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC), and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 283,2001, the Town Board engaged the services of Environmental Capital LLC to provide financial advisory services with regard to the proposed creation of the Route 9 Sewer District, and WHEREAS, the Town Board is considering authorizing engagement of Environmental Capital LLC to assist with the financing of the proposed creation of the South Queensbury - Queensbury Avenue Sewer District, and WHEREAS, Environmental Capital LLC has advised that the Town must file an application with EFC prior to October 1, 2001 in order to be "listed," and WHEREAS, the Town must also file a pre-application form and application with EFC to be considered for EFC financing, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has not yet adopted a Bond Resolution authorizing financing for either project and no financing can or will be authorized without such a Bond Resolution, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Wastewater Director and/or Deputy Wastewater Director to sign and file documents and take any and all action necessary to seek New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC) financing for the proposed creation of the South Queensbury - Queensbury Avenue Sewer District and Route 9 Sewer District, including, but not limited to, executing a pre-application form and an application, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall not be considered in any way to be a Bond Resolution or as authorizing the issuance of any Town obligations. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 2001, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CAPITAL LLC TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH PROPOSED CREATION OF SOUTH QUEENSBURY - QUEENSBURY AVENUE SEWER DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO.: 333, 2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. James Martin WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to engage the services of Environmental Capital LLC to provide financial advisory services in connection with the Town's borrowing from the Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC) for the Town's proposal to create the South Queensbury - Queensbury Avenue Sewer District, and WHEREAS, Environmental Capital LLC has offered to render these services for the amount of $15,000 contingent upon the successful completion of the financing, plus traditional reimbursable expenses provided that such cost shall be decreased to $9,500 if such financing closes within 30 days of the financing for the Route 9 Sewer District financing, and WHEREAS, the Town Comptroller recommends engagement of Environmental Capital LLC to provide these services, and WHEREAS, a copy of Environmental Capital LLC's agreement dated July 19,2001 has been presented at this meeting and is in form approved by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes engagement of Environmental Capital LLC to provide financial advisory services as referenced above for an amount not to exceed $15,000, plus reimbursement for its reasonably incurred expenses to be approved in advance by the Town Comptroller, with the agreement to provide that if this financing is within 30 days of the Town's Route 9 Sewer Project financing, the cost shall be $9,500 instead of $15,000, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the agreement presented at this meeting and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the payment for the financial advisory services shall be paid at or after the loan closing and shall be charged to the Capital Project for the District Creation which will be established by the Town Board when it approves engineering reports. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 2001 by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON CENTRAL QUEENSBURY QUAKER ROAD SEWER DISTRICT BENEFIT TAX ROLL FOR 2002 RESOLUTION NO.: 334,2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to adopt the proposed Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District Benefit Tax Roll for 2002 as presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, the Town Board must conduct a public hearing prior to its adoption, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall hold a public hearing on September 10th, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury to hear all interested parties and citizens concerning the proposed Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District Benefit Tax Roll for 2002, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish a Notice of Public Hearing in the official newspaper for the Town not less than ten (10) days prior to the hearing date and also mail a copy of the Notice to all property owners within the Benefit Assessment District. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 2001, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brower, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HIRING OF MICHAEL PALMER AS WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERA TOR TRAINEE RESOLUTION NO.: 335, 2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town Water Superintendent has advised the Town Board that there is a vacant full-time Water Treatment Plant Operator Trainee position in the Water Department, and WHEREAS, the Water Superintendent posted availability for the vacant position, reviewed resumes, interviewed interested candidates and has made a hiring recommendation to the Town Board, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Water Superintendent to hire Michael Palmer as a full-time Water Treatment Plant Operator Trainee effective August 21st, 2001 on a provisional basis until such time as he passes the Civil Service exam for the position and subject to an eight month probation period, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that Mr. Palmer shall be paid the hourly rate of pay listed for the Water Treatment Plant Operator Trainee position in the current CSEA Contract, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Water Superintendent and/or Town Comptroller to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 2001 by the following vote: AYES Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REIMBURSEMENT OF ATTORNEYS FEES TO QUEEN VICTORIA'S GRANT HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION IN CONNECTION WITH DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN VICINITY OF QUEENSBURY FOREST SUBDIVISION PHASE III RESOLUTION NO.: 336, 2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 260,2001, the Queensbury Town Board authorized easements in connection with a proposed drainage outfall from Queensbury Forest Phase III to the north side of Peggy Ann Road in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Queen Victoria's Grant Homeowner's Association (HOA) is one of the property owners from whom the Town will need to procure an easement in order to resolve the drainage problems in the Queensbury Forest area, and WHEREAS, the HOA is not benefiting from the Town's actions to resolve such drainage problems, and WHEREAS, the HOA has agreed to grant the Town the necessary drainage easement contingent upon the Town reimbursing the HOA for attorneys fees associated with negotiating the drainage easement estimated to be approximately $500 - $1,000, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize such reimbursement of attorneys fees, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the reimbursement of attorneys fees up to the amount of $1,000 to the Queen Victoria's Grant Homeowner's Association (HOA) in connection with the procurement of the drainage easement referenced in this Resolution, with the understanding that the Town will pay the HOA directly upon the HOA's submission of copies of its attorney's invoices together with a signed Town voucher to the Town Comptroller's Office, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Comptroller's Office to take any and all such action necessary to provide for this reimbursement from the appropriate Town account. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 2001 by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Martin NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION SUPPORTING LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION TO BE SUBMITTED BY TOWN OF MOREAU AND INVOLVING BORDERING HUDSON RIVER COMMUNITIES RESOLUTION NO.: 337,2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury's Senior Planner has advised the Town Board that she recently met with the Moreau Town Supervisor who advised that the New York Department of State is now accepting applications from eligible communities to compete for Local Waterfront Revitalization Program funds, and WHEREAS, the purpose of the grant application is to develop a Local Waterfront Master Plan for the Hudson River including those communities bordering the Town of Moreau along both sides of the river, including the Town of Queensbury, and the Town of Moreau has hired a grant writer to develop the grant application, and WHEREAS, Goal 9 of the Town of Queensbury 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan is to "Pursue Regional Cooperation," and WHEREAS, the Moreau Town Supervisor has requested letters from surrounding communities in support of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program grant application, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby expresses its support of the Town of Moreau's submission of a New York Department of State Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Grant Application under the 1996 Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act and Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) for a 50/50 matching grant for the preparation of a Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Master Plan for the Hudson River, including the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes a combination of matching funds and in-kind services not to exceed the amount of $10,000 should the grant funds be awarded, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to sign any documentation and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 2001 by the following vote: AYES Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner NOES None ABSENT: None DISCUSISON BEFORE VOTE: COUNCILMAN BREWER-Can I just make one comment before we vote. I got a call today from somebody that went down to look at the work that the people did down on Big Boom Road, Ralph, they said they were very professional, did a nice job of cleaning up and did a very good job. MR. RALPH VANDUSEN, Water/Wastewater Superintendent-I'll pass that along. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Matter off act, Tim, I had the opportunity to go down this week, I was actually trying to catch up with Ralph but I missed him, and got a chance to look at the river crossing area and they did do a nice job. (vote taken) RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE ORDER FOR COMPUTER SOFTWARE FROM APPLIED GIS, INC. RESOLUTION NO.: 338, 2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. James Martin WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously adopted purchasing procedures which require that the Town Board must approve any purchase in an amount of $5,000 or greater up to New York State bidding limits, and WHEREAS, the Director of Information Technology has recommended that the Town Board purchase certain software from Applied GIS, Inc. as delineated in the June 12,2001 Quotation presented at this meeting for an amount not to exceed $10,015, and WHEREAS, New York State bidding is not required as the software to be purchased is in accordance with New York State Contract pricing, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the purchase of software from Applied GIS, Inc., as delineated in Applied GIS, Inc.'s June 12,2001 Quotation presented at this meeting, such purchase to be in accordance with New York State Contract #PT56395, for an amount not to exceed $10,015 to be paid for from Account No.: 01-1680-2032, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Director of Information Technology and/or Town Comptroller's Office to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 2001, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.: 319,2001 REGARDING ENGAGEMENT OF EMPIRE STATE APPRAISAL CONSULTANTS RESOLUTION NO.: 339, 2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 319,2001 the Queensbury Town Board authorized engagement of Empire State Appraisal Consultants, Inc. (ESAC) to prepare appraisals in connection with real property tax assessment litigation commenced by Pyramid Companies, Inc. and WHEREAS, the cost of the final trial-ready appraisal, if necessary, would not exceed $20,000 rather than $12,000 as previously proposed, bringing the total amount for preparation of the preliminary and final appraisals to a total not to exceed $28,000 rather than $20,000 with the costs to be divided equally between the Town and the Queensbury Union Free School District, and WHEREAS, counsel for the School District has recommended to the School District that it approve the revised fee amounts and is confident that the School Board will do so, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby amends Resolution No.: 319,2001 such that Empire State Appraisal Consultants, Inc. shall provide the final appraisal if necessary, referenced in this Resolution for an amount not to exceed $20,000 for a maximum total cost not to exceed $28,000 including the preliminary appraisal, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution is expressly contingent on similar authorization being obtained from the Queensbury Union Free School District to the same effect, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby affirms and ratifies Resolution No.: 319,2001 in all other respects. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 2001, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brower, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer NOES None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mr. Martin TOWN BOARD DISCUSSION 8:30 P.M. SUPERVISOR BROWER announced that August 30th is the date of the scoping session for the North Queensbury Sewer Meeting to be held at North Queensbury Fire House. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-We did send you a copy of the zoning ordinance that has been forwarded to you by the steering committee. We wanted to take the opportunity tonight to tell you that there is a meeting August 23rd, here at the town center and that has been advertised in the Post Star. It's an informational meeting. We are preparing a newsletter which is four pages of the town's newsletter which should be coming out in the next couple of weeks. We'll have our section available of that Thursday but this four page section outlines all the changes to the Zoning Ordinance, identifies those areas as we discussed a couple of weeks, identifies all the geographic areas where there are zone changes proposed and that's our means for notifying each individual landowner in the town how the zoning ordinance is going to be changed and how that's going to affect them. So, we gave you a copy of the ordinance a couple of weeks ago, I do have some copies here tonight if anybody is interested. I just wanted toniht to provide you with some updates, there were summary tables that were included in that with some typographic errors in that, and I want to make sure you've got a fresh copy of that. And also, I'm going to give you two things. So, I'll give you that, the second item is an inventory of the changes that were made from last fall's version of the ordinance. So, in case your interested, there's a hundred and forty some odd items that have been changed. I just wanted to let you know that our first informational meeting is August 23rd and it's here at the town center. Our second meeting is August 29th at the North Queensbury Fire House. Our third meeting will be September 6th, at the South Queensbury Fire House and our final meeting would be September 11th at the West Glens Falls Fire House. There was an ad in today's paper advertising those locations. There will be an ad at a later date. The newsletter will go out, the advertisement of those dates is on our website. The Zoning Ordinance will be on the wbsite in the next day or two. We have, I've given you a summary of the changes that were made since the last version and that's available to the public as well. What we've developed, I gave you several weeks ago, a citizen's guide to the zoning ordinance and what this is, is a synopsis of the zoning ordinance, breaking down the zoning ordinance into bite size pieces. It includes the summary tables, it includes the map that you have presented to you tonight and it's meant to give the public, I think one of the criticisms and rightfully so of the town's zoning ordinance, it's a complex document, it's very large and if you need to look at the document and go to find something that was specific to your property, it would be a cumbersome task unless you spoke to a staff member in my office and had them walk you through that. So, what the citizen's guide is designed to do is do just that, walk you through the zoning ordinance, identify what the property is zoned and what the particular permit requirements are fr specific land uses. So, that was one of our objectives, to make the zoning ordinance simpler and rather then try to boil down a two hundred or three hundred page technical document, we've taken extracts and boiled that down into a six or eight page document that everybody will have readily available to them. We've also developed informational brochures about specific project types, about specific categories of processes that the town residents may have to follow such as site plan review, or commercial design guidelines, we gave you that information several weeks ago. So, that's designed to all make the information more readily accessible to a landowner or a project applicant. We will have a series of informational brochures available at each of these informational meetings. We'll have the citizen's guide, we'll be presenting the zoning map, how the zoning map appears today versus how it's proposed to appear. We'll have several examples of our informational guide. We'll have copies as I said, I've thetown report that we're going, again, a different format to outline how those changes are going to fall out. We're doing our best to get media attention. John Geroux is here, he was kind enough to write an article, I think on the 16th oflast week outlining some of those changes. What we expect to do is, we expect to go through these four informational meetings, receive feedback from the pubic and we're going to receive comments and questions and try to summarize those comments and questions, we're going to bring those back to our steering committee, Ted Turner is the Town Board representative on that committee and prepare responses to that. One of the criticisms or one of the comments last September, was how come you haven't boiled down and reduced the number of zones in that and we have that information prepared. If you look at, well why don't you consolidate an SR zone with an SFR zone? Well, there's an impact on each of those districts and that means, either allowing an additional land use in an SFR one or eliminating a use from the SR zone. So, we'll have those kinds of things broken down for you so that if you, yourself have questions, we can respond to those and to help you in the decision making process and what do you want to include in the zoning ordinance that's going to be revised. The new ordinance that was delivered to you, was completely reorganized. The ordinance had been built over a course of twelve or fourteen years and the habit was to add new stuff at the end or insert it somewhere. That's not always the easiest way to go find something, if it's built incrementally. So, what we did is we broke it down completely, reorganized and made it more modular and what we'd like the board and future boards to do, is get into the habit of revisiting the zoning ordinance every two years. An ordinance or any body of legislation and laws needs to be refreshed, needs to be examined to make sure that it's still being applied in the form and context that it was originally conceived. One thing thatwe also did do, as a part of revision of this ordinance is that we asked the New York Planning Federation to provide us an audit. Dave Church is and I think Jim might be familiar with Mr. Church, is a professional planner from the New York Planning Federation which a membership organization which most communities across New York State are members of, he examined the ordinance on several different levels, he provided us with suggestions, those are categorized in that document I gave you tonight. We responded to his suggestions, we made changes where we felt they were appropriate. So, he found the document to be on par or above par with zoning ordinances across New York State. He felt it was well organized and I can provide you with copies ofMr. Church's audit. I think some of the issues that were raised last fall and continue to be raised is, why doesn't the zoning ordinance deal with this particular issue. Why haven't we looked at a particular element and I think those are more directed at, well, why hsn't the Comprehensive Plan or why hasn't the town tackle the specific category or specific land use issue. Such as, well, why isn't there an affordable housing policy in the town or what are we doing about affordable housing? Or a topic of interest as of late, we do have a smart growth committee, well, how is our zoning ordinance conducive to sprawl or how does it address sprawl? Well, that's an issue that our comprehensive plan did not address and that is something that we do need to look at and we feel that the contents in this ordinance is much improved. It does not address every issue that faces the town but it is a rewriting of our ordinance and it's time that we adopt a new ordinance so that we will bring the benefits of this new ordinance to the public. We've talked to you before about design guidelines, improved lighting and landscaping requirements, expedited review processes. There's a wealth of new information in the ordinance, it's reorganized and we think it's going to provide a real beneit to the town and to our department especially, when it comes to dealing with land use application. We invite every board member to any and all of the public informational meetings. We don't expect that all board members will be at each of those. We're going to provide, it's going to be a workshop or an informational type format. We'll have a very brief presentation and we will have enough staff on hand at each of these meetings so that we'll be able to field questions of the public and the idea is to outreach to the public and not to make a formal presentation. Do you have any questions on where we're going with the ordinance, what the informational meetings are, I'll be happy to answer them. We are meeting this week with the Adirondack Park Agency. The AP A has to review and approve our local land use plans so that we are an approved local land use plan. An approved local land use plan in the AP A eyes allows us, our Planning Board to review projects of a certain categorical class, what they call Clas B projects. If we don't, we're one of few, Mark Schachner has informed me, we're one of very few communities in the park that has a locally approved land use plan. If you don't have a local approved land use plan, that means that projects that take place in the park, any projects or a greater of category of projects, would be approvable by the park agency. So, we're starting that process, that can take several months for them to review and address those issues that they might have. So, we're still on target for a late fall adoption and a public hearing some date in the future and we're looking forward to October or November to do that.... I'll just note, Jim did have, provide several good comments during the fall and then in follow up to that, we have addressed some of Jim's comments, not all of Jim's comments. Good neighbor plan is a component that's included in the new ordinance that would encourage the Planning Board to require of applicants that they maintain a dialogue or actually establish a commnication tool, whether it's a written plan with a particularly affected constituency meeting, like a neighborhood group and that they be involved with a developer to make sure that the issues that effect a particular neighborhood are continuing to be evaluated and addressed after an approval is issued such as noise, alcohol use, littering, traffic issues. So, that's included in the new ordinance and we're trying to be responsive to the public as well as the board with these issues. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Concerns that come up from the public regarding certain parcels of land that they might own and might object to the rezoning proposal, how are you addressing that? MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-Every rezoning that's proposed in this project was developed out of our comprehensive plan and it generally, it came from the landowner themselves, probably ninety percent of the time. There are not a lot of re-zonings. There are changes to some allowed uses in some of the districts and I think one of the ones that's going to be controversial or at least going to generate some interest on the part of the public, and I know that's one that's come across your desk, Dennis, is the Highway Commercial Zone that's along Route 9 that's north of Quaker Road, basically, that whole area north of Quaker Road as you drive to the Great Escape is zoned Highway Commercial. One of the major changes is, on the east side of Route 9, we proposed softening the Highway Commercial use, we're going to designate it Highway Commercial Moderate. That would eliminate some traffic intensive, noise intensive uses from that. So, we tried to do that to address some of the neighborhoods, some of the residetial communities along there, to soften that impact. The thing that we did along the west side is, we still do have a Highway Commercial Intensive which is identical to our Highway Commercial Zone today but we proposed that we reduce the building or the structure size to forty thousand square feet. Forty thousand square feet would effectively eliminate big box uses from the Route 9 corridor. That was in response to anti-sprawl constituents, that's in response to many people who have a concern that would be coming any place, USA, which is one of the tag lines that certain people use, we feel that there's opportunities for large retail areas elsewhere in the town. You are going to have landowners come to you and say, well, why shouldn't I be able to build a hundred thousand or hundred and fifty thousand square foot retail establishment on my property when somewhere else somebody else in another location can do that and that's an issue that you're going to have to weigh. What it's designed to do is lessen te traffic impacts. You're not going to get some of the larger traffic impact generators. That's one of the pressures that's affecting Route 9. It's going to eliminate, I think one of the things were trying to do outside of our zoning ordinance with the Lake George Outlets Mall, is some of those uses, we're trying to create cohesive, more pedestrian friendly environments and you do that by shrinking building sizes, in a certain sense. So, how are we going to deal with that? I think, we're going to draft a responsiveness, we'll have pros and cons about the ordinance and some of them are going to be property specific issues. We're going to draw up a responsive to this document, we're going to develop a document, here's the issue, here's what our position is from the staffs standpoint, here's what the position of the steering committee is. Town Board, it's your zoning ordinance that you have to adopt, if you do not agree with that, you can choose to go through a process where you would edit this ordinanceor accept it in total and you would have to deal with it at that time during, subsequent to a public hearing. Jim, I don't know how you've dealt with that in your experience with communities where they have particular elements that aren't acceptable in a zoning ordinance. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-That's a tough call, it varies, in all honesty. I haven't had a chance to really read through this in detail. I mean, I can see where there has been a lot of improvements made over the last draft. But, you know, there's some things, but the list is shrinking, let's put it that way, in the things I've noticed and like you say, you're going to come out of the public meetings with a number of comments yet to address. It depends on how much staff time you can donate to it, in all honesty, I think the fall estimate on your part is optimistic. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-You have to have goals. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-But maybe I'm wrong, I'd love to be wrong. You know, I think there's, you're getting a lot of comments, zoning is a tough issue in this community as it should be, we're a growing community. ATTORNEY MATTERS TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-One suggestion to discuss one case, very briefly in Executive Session, a litigation case. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO.: 340, 2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. James Martin WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourn from Regular Session and enter Executive Session to discuss a litigation matter. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brower, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO.: 341, 2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. James Martin WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Executive Session and enters Regular Session of the Town Board, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns their Regular Town Board Meeting. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES: None ABSENT: None No further action taken. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK TOWN OF QUEENSBURY