Loading...
1993-02-08 TOWN BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 1993 7:00 P.M. MTG#13 RES 113-132 BOH 1-4 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT MICHEL BRANDT -SUPERVISOR BETTY MONAHAN-COUNCILMAN NICK CAIMANO-COUNCILMAN PLINEY TUCKER-COUNCILMAN SUSAN GOETZ-COUNCILMAN TOWN ATTORNEY PAUL DUSEK TOWN OFFICIALS Jim Martin, Dave Hatin, Tim Brewer, Corrine Tarana, Ralph VanDusen PRESS: G.F. Post Star PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN TUCKER Supervisor Brandt called meeting to order ... first on the agenda, a public hearing on a sewer variance and we have to become the Board of Health. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 113, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session to enter as the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 8th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: Ayes ALL THOSE OPPOSED: None ABSENT: None QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH PUBLIC HEARING - SEWER VARIANCE - MR. HOWARD DENISON NOTICE SHOWN 7:02 P.M. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Would you lead us through it? DAVE HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-I don't see Mr. Denison here yet. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Maybe he'll be along, in the mean time, let's start. MR. HATIN-I take it you all have three letters that I asked the Town Clerk to photo copy and give to you so it would save us some time tonight. Basically those are the events that happened the day that this was discovered. Pretty much what happened, is they were installing a seepage pit without a septic permit and when my inspector arrived they had are already been notified what the regulations were and he reminded them again. And in good faith the Town Water Department hooked back up the water line at the end of the day so that the renters of the house would not be without water for that weekend. Then we had pursued quite aggressively to get Mr. Denison to correct the situation. He has refused. Ultimately this has lead to the variance which he has a right to submit for. Tom Flaherty I think in his letter and I verbally here would request the Board denies this because there is room to move the water line and variances are usually given when there is no alternative and he does have two alternatives to move the water line. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-What kind of water line is it? Do we know? MR. HATIN-It's a municipal, I think one inch or two inch. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Is it black iron, copper? MR. HATIN-I believe copper from what I've been told. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-So if they broke it, they would have to make some kind of repair. MR. HATIN-Right. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Do we know what kind of repair they made? MR. HATIN-I take it, it was just a union coupling. As far as I know, that's what I've been lead to believe and it's within the six feet of the pit, somewhere in that range. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Is there anyone that's here to speak on this public hearing? The public hearing is open and if you have any input or desire to be heard, this is your chance right now. Any questions by anyone on the Board? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Dave, are these lines replaced in the location that they were? You said there was a break. MR. HA TIN -Yea, the pit was excavated to find out what was causing the problem with the septic system. Upon excavation they found that the pit was plugged, I assume and proceeded to replace in the same location. However, when they excavated, they also found a water line within six feet. How that came to be? I don't know, it was done back in the mid, late seventies, I believe. The people that worked, that did the inspections, we pulled the old file on it, found no mention of the water line being within six feet or even mention of the water line at all. I've told Mr. Denison that I can only assume that the water line went in after the septic system which would be the main reason why that could have happened. You wouldn't see the septic system if you dug a trench the way they normally do. So his contention is, he want's to leave it the way it is. Our contention is, that two wrongs don't make a right and we should correct it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, alright, we need kind of a chronological thing here, I think. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-I think it's in this letter but we just got it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well I know, we just got a letter and it's kind of hard to follow it when you're here ... Dave, the date the house was built? MR. HATIN-I don't have the file here with me Betty, but I believe it was in the late seventies, if! remember right, 78, 79, somewhere in there or 82. It might have been 82, I take that back, it might have been 82. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Then when was the septic system put in? MR. HATIN-At that time. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So that's 82. MR. HATIN-Right. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-When was the water line put in? MR. HATIN-Same time, I believe. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So, as far as we know, everything was in 1982. Somebody gave a CO to that house and therefore gave a CO to all of the facilities at the same time. MR. HA TIN -Correct. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So now we're asking them at this time to move it. MR. HATIN-I think I'd also add there Betty, though, the contractor did agree to move it at the time. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Agreed to move it at what time? MR. HATIN-When the problem was discovered. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You're talking about in 1993, right? MR. HA TIN -Yes, I think both letters reflect that, that you have before you, the statements of what happened on that day where the contractor did agree to move it. He just asked that the water be turned on temporarily until he could get a chance to move it which we assumed would be the following Monday. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Did he agree to move it at no extra charge to the applicant? MR. HATIN-I have no idea, I can't speak for Mr. Denison. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, I mean, you know, you've got an agreement here from the excavator, verbal and really he didn't have any right to make that agreement for the owner, when you come right down to brass tacks. MR. HATIN-Well, there's two problems here. Number one, is that Mr. Batease knows that he needs a septic permit for the work that he was performing. Did the work without getting a permit. If he had brought this into us we could have advised him right then, he could have moved the pit over and avoided the problem. Number two, Mr. Denison has been well aware of this for three or four months now and has chosen to delay it through whatever means. I had to issue a court sununons to get this variance submitted to the Board. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I think we're missing a very important point. The person asking for this still hasn't appeared before us. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I don't understand, they were here last week when we set the public hearing and I don't understand how come they're not here tonight. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Maybe they don't care anymore. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, I think there must have been some kind of a snafu and I don't know what. Maybe they didn't, I don't know if they left before we set the public hearing, it was later on in the agenda. I can't quite remember when we did that. They left about nine o'clock. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-It bothers me that there would be a repair in the line right near the septic system. And it bothers me that sometimes you can get a negative pressure in a Town water line and you could possibly put water into that and even back into the main header. MR. HATIN-I had that exact problem this Fall at a residence, it was on a pressurized well line, same thing and it happened to contaminate. He's blaming it on the person that put the dry well in next to his water line. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-As far as I'm concerned, I don't want any part in that but I would consider letting it go until the ground thaws. Because I think it would be extremely difficult and expensive to do that right now, wouldn't it? MR. HATIN-Well it's going to be more work, there's no doubt about it but Mr. Denison has had opportune time to take care of it before frost. In fact, I reminded him back in November that he should get this taken care of before the frost got in the ground. And the frost has really only been in the ground about the last month. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-And why didn't he? MR. HATIN-He basically said, he was going to ... first, he wanted me to just let it go and I said I couldn't do that. And secondly, I think he just figures, his basic word was, I'll do it when I get to it this Spring. So, I have a memo of what our conversation was if you want to read it, I didn't want to get into it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-This did go to court? MR. HATIN-Yes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And what did the Judge say? MR. HA TIN-The Judge said that he would hold off any ruling until Mr. Denison either received a variance or was denied a variance and then he would take it from there. So if he was approved for the variance, then obviously the court case is null and void. If he's denied the variance then we'll deal with it on February 28th when we're back in court. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-You had to take him to court to get him to apply for a variance? MR. HATIN-Yes, plus several phone calls. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Is there anyone else here that want's to speak on this matter? You guys got all your questions answered? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, I really would like to talk to either Mr. or Mrs. Denison, I'd like to kind of hold this open and see if they come. I don't know why they are not here, that amazes me. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I guess, I understand your feelings Betty but if in fact, in order to get this person to the Board, we have to take them to court, it seems like they really, do they care? I mean, maybe they don't care. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, I know they do. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Have you talked to them? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Oh, okay. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes and that's why this amazes me, to be honest with you. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well I don't care if we wait until the end, it doesn't bother me but I just don't know what the purpose of it is. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Then what, keep the public hearing open until later in the meeting, does that make sense in case he shows? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I would think so. ATTORNEY DUSEK-You could do that if you like. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Which means we would have to change hats again to do all of that. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That's not hard, no. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, so, we can handle that. MR. HA TIN-If the Board doesn't mind, I have to teach in Pottersville, do you have any other questions, if I can be excused? Would that be a problem for you? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -No problem. MR. HATIN-I think I've answered everything. Okay and I'll just wait to see what you're ruling is. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-So let's leave that open and just go back into Town Board business. PUBLIC HEARING TO BE LEFT OPEN UNTIL LATER IN MEETING RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.1, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns and enters Regular Session of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 8th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: Ayes ALL THOSE OPPOSED: None ABSENT: None QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION APPROVING MINUTES RESOLUTION NO. 114,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the Town Board Minutes of January 18th, 1993. Duly adopted this 8th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: Ayes ALL THOSE OPPOSED: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION RETAINING THE SERVICES OF HEATH CONSULTANTS, INC. TO CONDUCT SECOND PHASE OF LEAK DETECTION PROGRAM FOR ENTIRE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM RESOLUTION NO. 115, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, in accordance with Town Board resolution 606,92, retained the firm of Heath Consultants, Inc., to conduct the initial phase of a leak detection program covering the entire Town of Queensbury water distribution system, and WHEREAS, Thomas K. Flaherty, Water Superintendent, has recommended that the Town continue with the second of the three phases of the program, as Heath Consultants, Inc. is still in the area and has agreed to perform the services at the price quoted in the present contract, ($165.00 per mile for 45 miles of pipe, or a total cost not to exceed $7,425.00), NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, subject to the conditions set forth in this resolution, hereby authorizes the employment of Heath Consultants, Inc., to conduct the aforesaid second phase of the leak detection program, at a quoted cost of $165.00 per mile for 45 miles of pipe, or a total cost not to exceed $7,425.00, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed to execute an agreement with Heath Consultants, Inc., for said leak detection program, said agreement to provide a time table to the satisfaction of the Town of Queensbury Water Department, and to be in a form and contain such other provisions to be approved by the Town Attorney, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized to forward for processing any and all bills for services rendered, upon the receipt of properly completed vouchers, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the expenditures shall be paid for from the appropriate Water Department Account. Duly adopted this 8th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING UPDATE AND SUPPLEMENT TO 1987 KESTNER ENGINEERS, P.C., REPORT RESOLUTION NO. 116, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is currently studying the need for and cost of an expansion to the Water Treatment Plant of the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of receiving an update and supplementation to a 1987 Report previously furnished by Kestner Engineers, P.e., NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the retention of the services of Kestner Engineers, P. e., to update and supplement its 1987 Report to provide information concerning any increased costs, inflationary figures, technological modifications and/or other changes that may be advisable since the Report was presented to the Town in 1987, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Engineers shall be paid on an hourly basis for any services performed and that the costs shall in no event exceed the sum of $3,000.00 without further authorization of the Town Board and the expenditures authorized under this resolution shall be paid for from Account No. General Town Engineering Fund. Duly adopted this 8th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Monahan ABSENT: None DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE: Councilman Caimano-I have some questions. Councilman Monahan-Mike, I'm going to respectfully put in a statement that I think you have an extreme conflict of interest and that you should not be in this matter. I've asked the Water Department to give me a run down of the ten largest consumers of water and West Mountain heads the list with 39,476,000 gallons for the last five billing periods. Anything we do at the Water Department is going to have a big impact on West Mountain financially and you far, West Mountain far out strips any other consumer. The next closest one is 14,399,000 gallons and I just don't, I think that you have to abstain from this situation. Supervisor Brandt-Well, I don't. I don't believe so and if! do something unethical, you can take me to the Board for it. But I think to find good administration of the Water Department and cost effective expansion plans, it's my obligation and why I run for office and like anybody else that's in the water district that holds public office, I'm no less in a conflict of interest than anyone else in that water district. Councilman Monahan-I think you are when it has such a huge financial impact on you and ... Supervisor Brandt-I'm delighted that we've been able to buy water from the Town of Queensbury. I'm delighted that we've been able to pay for it even though on one case it had to go against our taxes but we have paid our bills. I don't think, I don't see where there's any conflict. We're served by this facility and if I can find a way of helping to reduce the costs of operating it, I think it's my right and my obligation and I'm going to hang in there. So I still put the, the resolution is still on the floor. Councilman Monahan-Caroline, I'm going to introduce this as part of the record with the minutes please. (on file) Councilman Caimano-I have a more mundane question. Councilman Tucker-Excuse me a minute, Mr. Chairman. You've made your statement. Are you going to follow this up Betty and file charges? Councilman Monahan-Probably not with the local ethics boards, no. Supervisor Brandt-Well, let's get to the matter of the real business here. Councilman Caimano-Now I have some more mundane ... Supervisor Brandt -Yea, go ahead. Councilman Caimano-First of all, we started this discussion the last time you brought this up. My concern is that, number one, this is obviously an old report. But I can see the reasoning for updating it, provided we update all the reports. I want to go back on the record of saying that we as a Board had agreed to meet on the 27th, which now may be changed, but we had agreed to meet in order to discuss this entire matter. And then before we got to that meeting, this idea that we ought to upgrade Kestner's report came up and part of the resolution is what bothers me. It says, if I may read it, 'Resolved, that the Town Board, etcetera, etcetera, update and supplement it's 1987 report to provide information concerning any increased costs, inflationary figures, technological modifications and other changes'. As far as increased costs and technological modifications, it seems that if the Town is going to pay three thousand dollars for Kestner, it ought to pay for all people who bid at that time to upgrade. As far as inflationary figures are concerned, it's simply a matter of taking out a calculator and multiplying the numbers of years times the inflation rate. And if we don't know the inflation rate, then I think EJ could get it for us. I'm concerned that were spending three thousand dollars to upgrade a report that's easily upgraded and if we're going to do it for one, then we have to do for others. And I just don't believe we should spend the three thousand dollars. Councilman Monahan-And I'm concerned Nick that we actually, as far as I'm concerned, are wasting tax payers money in the amount of three thousand dollars to update a report that was an inadequate report for the time and based on some false premises. Councilman Caimano-But that's going to be argued on the, at the meeting. That's what I thought this meeting was going to be about, is to argue the merits, not so much the dollar and cents but the merits of these reports. Find out if O'Brien and Gere was the right one, if not, what was Kestner's ideas, just find out all of that. I just don't think we should spend any more money until we have that meeting. Supervisor Brandt-Well I looked up what we spent with O'Brien and Gere since 1991 and I haven't gone through all of these to sort them out but we spent two hundred and thirty-seven thousand dollars in plant operation study, rate study, plant expansion study, groundwater testing and administration building design. What bothers me is when I read all these reports, they're all aimed at one grandiose scheme and they all follow that scheme. The 1987 report of Kestner wasn't in sync with that, it was a much smaller, much more cautious approach. And what I'd like to do is go back to Kestner and say, one, are your figures correct? And alot of things have changed since 1987, not just inflation rate, Department of Health law, the growth in the Town of Queensbury has changed immensely since those days. Those were the days you had major growth taking place and now you have fairly minor growth taking place. I'd like to re-examine that, sort of a second opinion. And for three thousand bucks when you're looking at a fourteen million dollar expansion or a twelve million dollar expansion, I think it's well spent. Well spent money to look at a different philosophy, a different idea and I think we would be wrong not to do it. Councilman Caimano-Okay, just to further my point. There are differences, there are changes and that's exactly why we want, because so much time has passed, that's exactly why we want to sit down with all of the people who were involved in this thing. I don't, in reading the Kestner report, I don't see it as that much different and I'll tell you why. First of all, they asked for a five million, their basic recommendation is a five million gallon per day addition to what they say, is five million gallons. It turns out that our standard operation is three point seven five million gallons, not five. If you take it as a single number, it's five on top of five which is ten. If you take it in terms of parallel, it's three point seven five times two which is seven fifty, add the five, that's twelve and a half which is exactly what O'Brien and Gere has recommended. I don't find that there is a, except for the ability to understand how Kestner is going to add onto what, I don't find that there's a great deal of difference between the Kestner report and the O'Brien and Gere report. If you take inflation at a standard four percent rate times five years and multiply his five on five by twenty, you come out with exactly what we have with O'Brien and Gere, twelve million dollars. So I'm not suggesting that there isn't room for questioning here, as a matter of fact, I was the one who suggested the Saturday meeting. What I'm saying is, if these people want to upgrade their reports, let them upgrade their reports at their expense, not at our expense. I don't think it's necessary for the Town to spend public money for them to upgrade their reports. Let them upgrade their own reports. Supervisor Brandt-Well I think its, you know, your hiring professional services. How do you expect people to come and work for you for nothing? Councilman Caimano-Well wait, we're not hiring professional services. We are asking a potential bidder to upgrade his or her numbers. That's a whole lot different. Supervisor Brandt-No, now wait a minute. I'm asking for a report, an updated report. I'm not asking for a professional bidder to bid anything. I'm asking him to take his recommendations, come back in here, look at all of the data that's available. Go to the Water Department, ask them for any information that they have that he can use. Get up to date from 1987, he hasn't been here for a while. Find out what's going on, come back and give us a report and that's where I want to bring it. Councilman Caimano-Okay but I just don't think it's public money worth. I don't think it's worth public money. Councilman Monahan-And I agree with Nick that if it is going to be spent, it belongs after that meeting that we're going to have with hopefully Kestner and O'Brien and Gere there. Councilman Caimano-At that point, I'd be glad to spend the money. Councilman Monahan-Yea. Councilman Caimano-But we don't know where anybody is coming from now. Councilman Monahan-That's right. Councilman Caimano- This is a, it's a fact finding meeting. That's all I'm looking for. Councilman Monahan-Plus the fact, we have to factor in the State regulation that you have to be, plan on your largest module being shut down and what you have left is going to be equal to the pumping capacity that you need and that regulation also ... Councilman Tucker-These people will tell us all of this Betty. Councilman Caimano- Yea, but I don't want to pay them three thousand dollars. Councilman Monahan-Well we know that already, we know that. That's a State regulation. Supervisor Brandt-Well, I'll tell you, we ... Councilman Caimano-Well, we're talking about three grand, I call the question, I had my say and we all had our say. I think it's a waste of public money at this stage of the game. I'm not suggesting it wouldn't be well worth the money later on, but now it's simply a matter of somebody justifying their figures and I don't think the public should have to have anybody, whether it's O'Brien and Gere, Rist Frost or Kestner, I don't think the public should be paying for them to upgrade their numbers. Supervisor Brandt-Well, how about the public paying for an eight hundred thousand dollars set of offices that's pretty danm hard for me to justify that we ever built. Councilman Caimano-I know but don't ... Supervisor Brandt-And we just paid for that ... Councilman Caimano-That's fine ... Supervisor Brandt-It cost us a hundred and sixty thousand out oflast year's budget, we don't worry about that. Councilman Caimano-Oh, I didn't say don't worry about that. I stood side by side with you at a meeting and asked them not to do it, there was nothing we could do about it. It's done. It's water over the dam. Supervisor Brandt-But we don't want to look at a second opinion, I want to look ... Councilman Caimano-Oh, I didn't say not look at a second opinion. I said I don't want to pay for it. Supervisor Brandt -Oh, well. Councilman Caimano- If Kestner wants to be in on a deal, they will come in on the deal, absent our three thousand dollars. Supervisor Brandt-O'Brien and Gere didn't volunteer to do that, did they, two hundred and sixty thousand dollars worth? Councilman Caimano-I am not holding any... for O'Brien and Gere. I'm just talking about public money to be spent for upgrading a piece of paper that they will do for free if they want the business. That's all I'm talking about. Supervisor Brandt -Well, I want them to do alot more than that. I want to go far beyond just upgrading the calculations. I want to look at the logic of the figures. Councilman Caimano-Fine. Supervisor Brandt-I want to look at the logic of the report. Councilman Caimano-Fine. Supervisor Brandt-And come back and examine it. Councilman Caimano-Ijust don't want to pay for it, that's all. Supervisor Brandt-I do. Councilman Caimano-Well, then you pay for it. Councilman Monahan-I think what we're saying on that Saturday meeting, we intend to ask these engineers Councilman Caimano-Sure. Councilman Monahan-What they intend to do, what they think needs to be done to these reports and etcetera. Right now, we don't even know. Supervisor Brandt-I want to go to that meeting and make decisions. Councilman Caimano-Well, call the question. Supervisor Brandt-Okay, any other discussion? Please vote (vote was taken) Town Board held discussion regarding appropriate account to be used to pay the three thousand dollars and it was agreed to be paid from the General Town Engineering Fund at this point in time. RESOLUTION APPOINTING PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN RESOLUTION NO. 117,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has previously established the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, Mr. Timothy Brewer was appointed as a member of said Board, said term to begin on May 13, 1991, and to expire on September 30, 1994, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has recommended that Mr. Brewer now serve as the Planning Board Chairman, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby designates Mr. Timothy Brewer as Chairman of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, pursuant to Town Law. Duly adopted this 8th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Monahan (For the record, I wanted it noted this is not a personal no against Mr. Brewer, the no is in keeping with the position that I said before. That I didn't think we should be interfering with the Planning Board decision's in the first nomination that they sent over when we had no good reason to turn their recommendation down as chairman). ABSENT: None DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE: Councilman Caimano-We've had an addition to this from Mrs. Tarana. The members of the Board have seen the vote and now we have a letter from Mrs. Tarana which seems to indicate that was not her intent. I'll read the letter which is addressed to Supervisor Brandt and members of the Town Board: I would like to clarify my vote on the resolution before you regarding Timothy Brewer's nomination as Chairman of the Planning Board. It was my understanding when Mr. Brewer was elected chairman, that his name would be sent on to the Town Board for approval. A motion was then made in the event Mr. Brewer was not approved by the Town Board, that the Town Board would then appoint a chairman for the Planning Board. My no vote addressed this resolution specifically, it was not intended to indicate a negative vote for Mr. Brewer's appointment. I am not in favor of the Town Board appointing the Chairman of the Planning Board. I am however very much in favor of Timothy Brewer being approved for that position. I hope this clarifies any misunderstanding inherently interpretation of this resolution. Very truly yours, Corrine Tarana Councilman Caimano-So now what we have, of course, is a vote in front of us which is no longer a vote, it's now apparently five to one if she indeed is allowed to change her vote at this time. Corrine Tarana-No, I'm not changing my vote. Councilman Caimano-Oh, your not changing your vote. Mrs. Tarana-No, I think that's the whole point. Can I explain this to you? Supervisor Brandt -Sure, please, talk to us. Mrs. Tarana-I think this is a procedural thing. The last time when we voted, we all took a, we had a secret ballot. You remember Mrs. Pulver was nominated, so it was said at the time, her name will now go on to the Town Board for approval. We did not make a motion to do that. It was just, we took the vote and it when on to the Town Board. Okay, when we took our next vote, we did the same thing, we had a secret ballot and the acting chairman said, now Mr. Brewer's name will go on to the Town Board. So that was okay. Then someone said, well do we want to include this motion that, if his name is not approved, the Town Board then appoints the chairman. That was the resolution I believe that was made and that's what I voted against. Supervisor Brandt-Okay. Councilman Caimano-Now I understand. Supervisor Brandt -You're saying, you wanted it to come back to you people if we didn't. Mrs. Tarana-Absolutely. Councilman Caimano-Right, so the original vote for chairman was a secret ballot. Mrs. Tarana-Was a secret ballot, that's ... Councilman Caimano- This vote was an open vote on whether or not we should do anything. Mrs. Tarana-Right. Councilman Caimano-Okay. Supervisor Brandt-I understand, thank you. Any other discussion? Councilman Caimano-Well, kind of, there is. I guess we've been through this thing, several times. My understanding, Paul Dusek, is that the, it is first and foremost responsibility of the Town Board who then can lay this off to the Planning Board. Is that correct or not correct? Attorney Dusek-That is correct, under Town law, the Town Board is charged with the appointment of the Planning Board chairman. What has happened in this Town however, rules and regulations have been adopted which essentially add in an extra step. The extra step is that before the Town Board makes it's decision, the rules call for the Planning Board to nominate a person and send them to the Town Board. When that nomination comes, then that would be the end of those procedures in my opinion, then your Town law kicks into effect and if the Town Board decides they can obviously designate that person or they can designate any other person, that's up to the Town Board. On the other hand, if they don't designate anybody, then the Planning Board would hold another session and ultimately they could elect their own chairman without any Town Board assistance at that point. Councilman Caimano-Let me just throw a thought out to all of you and you can do whatever you want with it. Meaning no disrespect to Mr. Brewer what-so-ever, one of the problems we have with both Boards now and certainly with the Planning Board, through a unique set of circumstances, experience and knowledge are in relatively short supply. If you remember Sue, because you served on the ZBA and I served on the Planning Board, we used to leam from the older hands. We don't have that luxury. We do have however, experience and knowledge on the Planning Board and if it pleases the court, so-to-speak, I think Mr. LaPointe, certainly in terms of experience and knowledge, would also be a good candidate for the chairmanship. Councilman Monahan-He's been serving as vice-chairman for the past year, Jim and then served as chairman after you resigned from the Planning Board? Mr. Martin-That's correct. He was elected vice-chairman in January of 92. Supervisor Brandt-Any other discussion? Please vote. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INTERFUND ADVANCES RESOLUTION NO. 118, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9-A of the General Municipal Law of the State of New York, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is authorized to temporarily advance moneys held in any fund to any other fund, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the temporary advance of funds to the accounts or funds indicated, and in the amounts indicated, as set forth below: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT 01 - General Fund 910 - Landfill Fund $34,000.00 and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor, as Chief Fiscal Officer, is hereby authorized and directed to arrange for and accomplish the above-authorized transfers, and temporary advances, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor, as Chief Fiscal Officer, shall keep suitable records and arrange for the repayment of the temporary advances as soon as possible, and the Town Supervisor shall also determine the amount of interest, if any, to be paid, upon repayment. Duly adopted this 8th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AMENDING RES. 92,93 CONCERNING DEDICATION OF FERRIS DRIVE AND HAMPTON COURT RESOLUTION NO. 119,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, the Town Board previously adopted resolution no. 92, 93 accepting the dedication of Ferris Drive and Hampton Court, in the Queensbury Forest Subdivision, Phase III, and WHEREAS, said resolution contained blanks to be filled in concerning the Letter of Credit, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury desires to amend said resolution to add information in said blanks, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby amends resolution no. 92, 93, such that the second "Resolved" Clause should read as follows: "RESOLVED, that the Letter of Credit in the amount of $31,800.00 and Affidavit wherein the developer promises to complete the road by January 11, 1994, be accepted..." Duly adopted this 8th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FROM REQUIRED SEWER CONNECTIONS FOR QUAKER VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT CORP. RESOLUTION NO. 120, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is authorized, pursuant to ~ 136-44.1 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, to, upon request, waive the sewer connection requirement of ~ 136- 44 thereof or vary the time in which such connection must be made, provided that certain standards and criteria or conditions are met or demonstrated and provided that a certain procedure is followed, and WHEREAS, in granting a variance or waiver, the Town Board may consider one or all of the following circumstances: (a) The distance from the building to the town sewer pipeline to which connection is required. (b) The cost of the connection. (c) The existence or nonexistence of any physical obstructions. (d) The financial loss to be sustained by the property owner in the event of nonuse of the current system. (e) Whether the current sewage disposal system is properly functioning. (f) Whether any rights-of-way or easements are needed in order for the applicant to make the connection to the town sewer system. (g) Whether strict application of the connection requirement of ~ 136-44 would result in a specified difficulty to the applicant, for which the applicant has not been given a reasonable time to respond to or address, and whether the variance or waiver would be materially detrimental to the purposes of the sewer connection requirement or that the property and the district in which the property is located or otherwise conflict with the description or objections of the plan or policy of the town and that the interests of justice are served. and WHEREAS, if the Town Board finds any or all of the above circumstances or conditions, the Town Board may grant the following relief: (a) In the event that circumstances giving rise to the request are due to physical obstructions, costs significantly greater than the usual sewer connection costs, a distance greater than two hundred fifty (250) feet from the sewer pipeline to the building or structure to be connected or a documented inability to obtain an easement or right-of-way over which the sewer line must pass in order to connect to the town sewer system, the Town Board may grant a permanent waiver from the requirement that the applicant connect the subject property, provided that the sewage disposal system currently serving the property is operational, in accordance with the Town of Queensbury laws and regulations and appropriate New York State agency rules and regulations, and (b) In the event that the circumstances giving rise to the request are due to excessive costs of connection, the financial loss to be sustained by the property owner in the event of nonuse of the current system or any other specified difficulty which makes it difficult or impractical for the applicant to connect to the town sewer system and the applicant is willing to pay the full and usual sewer rents or taxes accruing against the property, the Town Board may grant an extension of time, not exceeding two (2) years, in which to connect to the town sewer system, provided that the sewage disposal system currently serving the property is operational, in accordance with the Town of Queensbury laws and regulations and appropriate New York State agency rules and regulations, and WHEREAS, the Quaker Village Development Corp., has applied to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury for a variance and relief from that part of the law requiring sewer connections upon the grounds that: The linear distance to connect either building to the manhole left by the Town exceeds 250 feet. The applicant says that the cost of the sewer line is extremely expensive (approximately $22,000.00) and due to the state of the economy, they cannot finance such a project; and WHEREAS, the applicant has also indicated that: one building has two 1500 gallon septic tanks, each with septic fields with over 200 linear feet of tile, and one building has two, 1500 gallon septic tanks, each with over 200 linear feet of tile field; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on the applicant on February 22, 1993, at 7 :00 p.m., at the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, to consider the application for a variance of the Quaker Village Development Corporation, on property situated at the corner of Quaker and Bay Roads, Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax Map No. 59-1-16, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the hearing shall be on written notice to the applicant and said applicant shall be entitled to ten (10) days written notice, with the provision, however, that this notice may be waived by the applicant by affirmative action or by appearance at the time and place of the hearing, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury be and is hereby directed and authorized to publish a Notice of Hearing in the official newspaper for the Town not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing, which Notice of Hearing shall be in a form substantially consistent with the Notice presented at this meeting. Duly adopted this 8th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF FUNDS RESOLUTION NO. 121, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of arranging for a transfer of funds in the amount of $18)03.11 from the General Fund to the Joint Landfill Operations Fund to cover the Town's share of the 1992 Landfill operating deficit, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes an increase in the appropriation of the General Fund To Landfill Transfer Account, in the amount of $18)03.11, with the source of funds to be the General Fund Contingency Account, and hereby also authorizes a transfer from said General Fund to the Joint Landfill Operations Fund in the amount of $18)03.11, and the 1992 Budget for the Town of Queensbury General Fund and Joint Landfill Operations Fund is hereby amended accordingly. Duly adopted this 8th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDED CONTRACT WITH KVS INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INe. RESOLUTION NO. 122, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, by resolution no. 84,93, authorized an agreement with KVS Information Systems, Inc. for the purchase and installation of a computer hardware upgrade system for the Town of Queensbury Accounting Department, and WHEREAS, since the proposed agreement was presented to the Town Board at their January 18, 1993 meeting, KVS Information Systems, Inc., recommended changes in the agreement, and WHEREAS, the Town Attorney has reviewed said changes and has presented a copy of the new, amended agreement at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the agreement with KVS Information Systems, Inc., presented at this meeting, and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the same. Duly adopted this 8th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO APPOINT MEMBER TO ZONING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 123, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has previously established the Zoning Board, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby appoints Mr. Robert S. Karpeles, P.E. to serve as a member of the Zoning Board, said term to expire on December 31, 1997. Duly adopted this 8th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None DISCUSSION - ADVERTISING IN NYS GIRLS BASKETBALL PROGRAM Councilman Monahan-Noted, it's great PR for the Town of Queensbury and we worked very hard to save this. I think it's a welcome gesture that most communities do by putting an ad in. Councilman Caimano-Questioned the amount of money involved? Supervisor Brandt-Two hundred and fifty dollars. Councilman Caimano-I have been on the record as saying that public monies shouldn't be used for private donations except where the general Town good is at stake. I think this is, actually the basketball tournaments do bring alot to this community, to all of our businesses and certainly pleasure to our people. John Salvador-Let those businesses who benefit take the ad. Supervisor Brandt-I like that philosophy, let the businesses that that are in it, take part in it. I'm glad it's in our community but I don't think it's something for government to be doing and I personally am not for it. Councilman Monahan-The business do, do alot of things for it. It's showing that we as a community welcome this basketball tournament and are glad to have them here. This is a normal thing that happens all over and we're very close to losing these. Councilman Caimano-Every time we get involved in this thing, the same old argument comes up and that's the fact that, how much should government be involved in spending the people's money that way. I have to agree with the philosophy of not donating public funds except as the public wants them donated. Supervisor Brandt-Personally I'm against it. Do you want to do a resolution and put it to a vote? Town Board held discussion and the following resolution was proposed: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PROMOTIONAL ADVERTISEMENT (NYS GIRLS BASKETBALL) RESOLUTION NO. 124, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan I'll make a Motion to purchase the half page ad at $250.00, to be paid for from the Contingency Account. Duly adopted this 8th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan NOES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt ABSENT: None Councilman Tucker-Noted, I want the public to recognize that the famous three didn't pass this. DISCUSSION/PRESENTATION - PLANNING ISSUES 7:45 p.m. Jim Martin, Executive Director spoke to the Town Board outlining topics that the Town Planning Department are trying to undertake for the first half of this year. The following topics were reviewed: Town Master Plan; Mr. Martin-First and foremost, updating the Town Master Plan. Noted the request by the Town Board for district plans - Route 149 Corridor study and Greenway North! Route 9/ Aviation Road neighborhood study. Noted, this will involve mail out study surveys and public informational meetings. Town wide master plan, not as easy to have mail surveys but will hold public meetings. Development of Minor Subdivision Regulations; Mr. Martin-Noted concern with the present policy of 2 lot subdivision rule, not requiring public input. My recommendation would be in place of that, Minor Subdivision Regulations potentially for subdivisions of four or less lots, where you would have a one step procedure with a public hearing. Another possible recommendation, an additional clause where we could restrict further subdivision. Concerned that it's been abused. (Councilman Caimano-Concerned that we spent alot of time on that 2 lot policy, recommended to work and chisel that policy to see what you may come up with, for us to review. Councilman Monahan-Requested both proposals to compare and review). Revision of application formats. Amendment to Transient Merchant law; Mr. Martin-The amendment is essentially already done. As an out-reach effort, I sent a copy to the Queensbury Business Association to get their input into it as they may potentially be affected. I wanted to get the input from groups like that and the public as well and then send to you a suggested revision. There's a number of improvements that can be made to the law. Basically, it would be bringing transient merchants into conformance with zoning in terms of the districts. Would like to see it worked into the law, so that they would be restricted to our commercial districts within the Town. (Councilman Monahan-Recommended, since not all businesses belong to QBA, to publicize and make available for other businesses to review and give their input). Review procedures that go to the County for review. Mr. Martin-Would like to come to some sort of mutual agreement on threshold, some sort of a triggering system when the County review is needed, otherwise remove that step from process when possible. (Councilman Tucker-Would like for you to review our own system as well. Concerned there are some things going to the Boards that could be handled by the staff itself). Revision of Sign Ordinance; Mr. Martin-Alot of work has already been done on this and we're ready to go at any point. (Councilman Monahan-Recommended scheduling a workshop with the Town Board). Small City Grant Application; Mr. Martin-I think there is a need and an opportunity within the Town to do a small cities application in terms of housing rehab. The areas that come to mind would be South Queensbury or West Glens Falls. What I propose doing, the staff doing a windshield survey of those areas for housing condition and report back to this Board with a conceptual idea for maybe one or two target areas. Computer Mapping Program; Mr. Martin-We have purchased the map information GIS system, we have the hardware in place as well. We don't have all of it though, we have a large monitor coming and we also have a color plotter coming. That system is now being installed and we're trying to get trained on it, it's very complex but I think it's going to be a tremendously exciting feature for our planning office to have. What I want to emphasis here, I have some good news in terms of finances. I think there was an original budgeted amount for this whole system that was considerable in size. That was also to accommodate the digitizing or installing all the tax parcels in the Town onto the program. I've talked to the County and the County, if they haven't already, is going under contract to a new mapping firm from Maine and they are going to do all the tax parcels in the County and the County said we can have that information at no cost. So that represents a considerable savings, in the neighborhood of thirty thousand dollars that was originally budgeted for this area. So I think that's a big savings and I think we can tap into that information from the County with the existing software that we just purchased. Revision of the PUD Ordinance. General Ordinance Amendments. Review Areas of Traffic Congestion. Lake George Park Commission Stormwater Management Plan; Mr. Martin-I'm looking completely for the Board's direction on this. (Supervisor Brandt-We have a plan in the Town of Queensbury, why don't we just enforce those and say those are ours. I don't want to become their enforcement agency. We have to take a good hard look at that one, this Board needs to address those before your department gets into it). Mr. Martin-In terms of undertaking the Master Plan and doing alot of these district plans that we're doing, we are incurring some costs as a department that weren't originally foreseen in the budget. We have a number of mailing costs and things like that. We're not talking about enormous figures but they will certainly, in the first few months of the year, we'll use up our miscellaneous contractual or wherever you might take something like that from. So I would ask the Board to consider some of the savings that we are now going to realize, and I'm talking about a very small amount of it, out of the computer mapping and if we could apply that towards these costs. Supervisor Brandt -Let's just make a resolution and bring it before the Board and take that right up. I think that's an easy one, just a transfer of funds. Councilman Caimano-Noted, that I did have a chance to talk to Jim and one of things he didn't mention, somewhere along the line we're going to get more training for at least two of the three Planners in the SEQRA review. The other thing, I personally commend what you're doing, my questions is, have you prioritized what it is you want to do? Have you assigned tasks? That is, you can't do it all. Do you have a plan, during this assignment, to intersperse the current work as it goes on? Mr. Martin-What basically is happening, in terms of the month to month operation of the department is, we have Scott and Arlene now and myself. Arlene is the primary staff to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Scott is the primary staff to the Planning Board but I feel that anyone of the three of us can service those boards in the event of sickness or vacation or something like that. But what we're finding is the first two weeks of the month are dealt with pretty much the regular day to day, or month to month operation of the department, meaning the setting up the agendas and schedules for each of the Planning Board and the Zoning Board. But there is, I think a significant amount of time that can be made available to undertake this other work meaning the update of the Master Plan, a Small City's Application, these corridor studies. I wasn't around when Scott and Arlyne were hired but my personal view is they both work very hard and they enjoy their work very much and they're very enthusiastic and they've never once balked at anything I've asked them to do. I realize I can't do these things and I have been delegating alot of that responsibility in terms of the real nuts and bolts work of doing this analysis and undertaking some of these assignments to them and I think they've done a very good job. I think it's working very well, we have some rough spots I will acknowledge and I think the Planning Board and the Zoning Board will attest. I think it's been relatively smooth, we have had our rough spots but were working those out and I think it's going to be a very smooth process when we're all said and done. Town Board held discussion regarding training for the Boards. DISCUSSION - SATELLITE RECEIVING ANTENNAS 8:25 p.m. Town Board held discussion, agreed to review proposal further, modify and come back for next Town Board meeting. DISCUSSION - 1. BUCKLEY BRYAN Supervisor Brandt-I talked with 1. Buckley Bryan this afternoon again and he asked if we would work together with him and prepare a couple of resolutions basically empowering Finch Pruyn to go on this piece of land that we have a right to be on to build the roads that we didn't decide to build. He also asked that we would commit ourselves to accepting the roads that he builds on his part of the development providing they meet Town specs and I told him that's already done. That's normal, I don't know what's needed there. Councilman Tucker-There isn't anything needed there. Councilman Monahan-I think HUD demands something in writing before they will release the grant. Supervisor Brandt-I told him that we'll get together. I'm asking Paul, would you talk to him, see what he needs, prepare it and come back to us. HUDSON POINTE PUD 8:35 p.m. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Just to summarize what we have to date, of course, the Board at the close of the last meeting, indicated that they would like to explore a resolution of non-significance and also obviously that would follow then, would be a resolution creating or authorizing the Planned Unit Development. On your behalf I drafted those three resolutions of course and presented them to you on Friday with the knowledge of course and with the stamp on them, that they were in fact draft. That this was a first shot through here basically trying to pick up on the notes that I had which I have since found and a couple of instances I guess we're incorrect in some points and I'm sure the Board might have seen them as well. But basically to give us a working document from which to proceed. Mike O'Connor has indicated to me that he had some suggestions concerning some changes, here again on some things that he felt maybe weren't quite right in it. Jim Martin approached me, said that there were a few things that I'm sure that the Board members may likewise have some things through out it. What I thought you could do, is go through the documents tonight and once they are fully beat up and changed or modified in any fashion you would like, I could then have them retyped and presented back to you for your next meeting for consideration for adoption. Just one more thing I'd like to mention that may be helpful in getting through these documents is that your first document of course that you would have to do in any event before you did anything else would be to adopt a resolution concerning the environmental effects of the project. And that's, by the way, the order in which I did these. I focused in on that first based upon the Town Board's discussions, went through it and then what I did is drafted your PUD resolution which in order to draft that I relied on basically a couple of things. One the PUD ordinance and I also relied upon the SEQRA document for the types of conditions that would be, that were reported in the SEQRA document to make sure I covered those. The negative declaration is really nothing but a rehash of everything else. So I don't think there's a need to spend alot of time on that because that will be easily conformed. So with that being said, it would be my recommendation that you go through the resolution of non-significance first and whatever you don't like in each paragraph or anybody doesn't like, we can, you know, the Board hopefully can reach a consensus on each point and we can correct it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Are you talking about this one? ATTORNEY DUSEK-No at the top it says, Resolution of Determination of Non-Significance in the bold caption at the top. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, so how procedurally, recommend to me, tell me how we can do this. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I think it would be easiest to go page by page through the document and take everybody's comments unless somebody else has a better idea. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, we had some questions of the applicant that he or they were supposed to look up. Do you remember those questions? ATTORNEY DUSEK-I believe there was some things that Jim was going to get for you which if you want to take those issues up first, that would be fine. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think we should. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, I think so because if they don't get answered properly then there's no sense in even going to a motion for a non-significance. MR. MARTIN-Okay, I have my, I had as a summary of our last meeting, I had a conversation with SHIPO, a conversation with DEC, I checked the ordinance regarding the McDonald's Subdivision and the use of pesticides and herbicides, speak to the Superintendent and Dr. Carpenter regarding the electromagnetic fields. I can go through each one of these. In terms of the State Historic Preservation Office, I talked with Robert Coon who is the listed contact person on the correspondence. His comments were that the archeological study that was done, was done very appropriately, were his words and the only suggestion he had would be to temporarily fence of the areas during construction. I questioned him about, was this in fact a preferred option of just simply conservation easements to mark off the areas. He said that was in fact a preferred option, the less preferred option is actually dig up the sites and attempt to take off the artifacts. That should only be done as a last resort in those instances where disturbance can't be avoided, like you have to site the building there or you have to dig a foundation there or something to that effect. Now in terms of any teeth that they have with their regulations, what would have kicked in their involvement had the developer not chose to do this voluntarily, is at the point at which they went to DOH or DEC for any of their permits, they would have asked, have you done an archeological survey and if that had not been done, then the permits would have been suspended until that have been done and written off by SHIPO. So I guess as a bottom line, his opinion was, it was a quality job. I questioned him further about the areas along the shore, why they weren't done at the base of the bluff. And he had primarily two responses to that. He said, typically the areas along the shore were not archaeologically sensitive areas because those were areas of only temporary settlement or they weren't permanent, typically thought to be permanent sites for structures or housing or settlement. They were just short visitations to these areas and then they left. That's the general impression he had. And secondly, due to the nature of this specific project that there wasn't any disturbance called for in the project, such as placing houses in this shoreline area or anything like that. It was passive recreation and such activities as deemed not to disturb the sensitivity of any archeological finds that may be there. So that was the extent of my conversation with Mr. Coon. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Do you know what his background is? MR. MARTIN-I just know that he works in the State Historic Preservation Office and he's assigned as like a field inspector or a field representative. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Okay. MR. MARTIN-My next conversation I had just this evening with DEC and I spoke with Peter Nye there. Laura Sununers was not available, I guess they had a late night on Friday, they were counting bats in a bat cave or something like that and they're only allowed to work forty hours a week, so she had to take comp time. Anyhow, he had also reviewed the information that had been submitted to Ms. Summers and he found it as very acceptable mitigation measures to in fact resurvey for the butterfly in the Spring or Summer of this year. The two brewed periods that are most notable that he thought were late May and early June or late June and early July. His preference was the late May, early June brewed period as that's the time that the Blue Lupine is also in full blossom and that will be easily detected as well. Now if any butterfly sightings are in fact encountered on the site, at that time mitigation measures would be suggested by DEC and they would likely require buffering and that type of thing. A buffer area around any marked habitat area and they would determine what that length of buffer would be depending on the magnitude of the find and the concentration of the find. In terms of further endangered species on the site, I asked him about that and he said, usually it's, common practice is to go as far as the index or the reference that was used by the applicant and anything beyond that, could be done but he said we've found it to be kind of difficult with every project in the State to require them to go beyond that because it just becomes, on many instances it's an exercise offrutility. So he said, if you go as far as that reference point, that usually will suffice. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Jim, I know we've talked about Trailing Arbutus which is on the most protected list, most endangered and that should be done early Spring and I think we should do that because there have been reports of it there. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That's part of it. MR. MARTIN-Well then again, maybe that late May time frame. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's too late. MR. MARTIN-Too late? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You've got to do it very, very early and I can find out from the Audubon Society what date that should be. MR. MARTIN-Okay. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Roughly, you know because your Springs change. MR. MARTIN-Alright, then I talked to Jack Irion today, the Superintendent of Schools for Queensbury. He said that in terms of the impact on the school, the class size and that type of thing, it didn't appear to be a problem for two reasons. One, the developer is proposing a varied housing type, meaning affordable or more affordable housing, medium price housing right on up through what might be considered a luxury housing. And with that type of varying housing type, they usually see a varied school age population. They don't see a real concentration of like grade school or high school. It varies and usually with the luxury housing they see a lot of retired people or people whose children are grown and raised and don't really have an impact on the school. The second reason was the phase nature of the project coming in over five to seven years, that would be a time that would allow the school to adapt to those, any increases in the class room sizes that result. So for those two reasons, he didn't see the number of housing that, as a number of houses as a concern. Now, in terms of bus safety, it was his preferred option to see the walking path installed from the cui de sac to the Morningside Circle bus stop, at least in the initial phase of the project because the half mile rule that they have does not get tripped off until you go beyond that. And it's not until the later stages of the project that you get beyond that half mile and at that time, then they can put in their own bus stop somewhere within the project. So he would like to see that Morningside Circle bus stop used, was my impression. Okay, in terms of my call to Dr. Carpenter, I couldn't get a hold of him directly and I talked to his assistant Patricia Lanfear. They're primarily concerned with the health effects of the electromagnetic fields so she again deferred me to Dr. Driscoll. She thought that he was the best authority in terms of any mitigation measures that you might want to look at. Now, in terms of what the current standard is for milligauss output, the standard is two hundred milligauss, anything above that is considered to be not acceptable for development. That usually is the edge of the right -of-way at least, sometimes it can even fall way below that depending on the specific transmission line. Now, he said, so in terms of the law, that's what your bound to enforce, if you want to call it, that's the standard, now, but he says, in terms of his recommendation, it would be, it might be a good suggestion to review what the typical output is in a given neighborhood within the Town. You know that's not near a transmission line and he said, you'll likely find an output of point five to one milliguass and if you're looking for a standard that's above and beyond the State law, that might be something to consider. A setback or a buffer area that would give you that kind of output. And such a distance to do that though may be considerable. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Excuse me, did you happen to see or do you watch ABC Good Morning America? MR. MARTIN -Yes, well that was my other point I was going to make. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Go ahead. MR. MARTIN-I saw Good Morning America this morning and there seems to be two schools of thought that are currently, currently exist on this. One is, the physicists are saying, well you're absolutely crazy, it would take one hundred and fifty times the output we are seeing to have any impact on health. The other school of thought is the medical community who is saying, well, be that as it may, we're still seeing these studies that have these correlations between populations that live next to transmission lines. So, what, there still is no conclusive evidence so what the Federal Government has authorized is a Commission of Inner Disciplinary Members both from the medical community and the physicists, will come together, study the problem and come up with some recommendations. Unfortunately, such a study I understand, my impression was, is years away from developing any conclusions. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Five years I think. I think it's five years. MR. MARTIN-That's what they mentioned on the program this morning. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-They used the word decade. At least a decade. MR. MARTIN-And there was another article in the Wall Street Journal today, also. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think Dr. Driscoll told me that they had to come back with a report in five years. MR. MARTIN-There was another article in the Wall Street Journal today, also. So if your looking for a standard that's in effect today, it's two hundred milliguass. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Anything above that is dangerous? MR. MARTIN-Right or termed not acceptable, deemed not acceptable for development. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Has NIMO given you a profile of that transmission line yet? MR. MARTIN-No, that was a call I could not get through. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And that was one thing they were supposed to do. MR. MARTIN-Right, I tried to get a hold of Joe Mulcahy who is the local field representative here and I couldn't get through to him but as soon as I do, I will report back to you. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Because I think we have to have that profile. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Okay, good. MR. MARTIN-Now, in terms of the ordinance. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Excuse me, just a minute Jim, while we're talking about people. I believe you were also, maybe I'm wrong, going to contact Al Koechlein so that we had something in writing that all DEC's concerns that he raised in his letter, had been met. I know that the developer say they've talked to him, but we don't have anything from DEC signing off and we could be in trouble if we don't. MR. MARTIN-I didn't have that on my list but I will, I can do that. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Now, in terms of the ordinance, I can't find any reference to pesticides or herbicides in the ordinance. I looked in the shoreline special regulations. I looked in the special or the individual districts, the waterfront residential district. I looked in the subdivision regulations, I can find no reference to pesticides and herbicides, even as a consideration by any of the Boards in any of our reviews. So I have, I find no reference in there. If someone can find it, then it would be news to me. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-So what are we going to use for a standard? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Boy, we have used that in other PUDs. MR. MARTIN-I know and I know... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I was just looking at one today. MR. MARTIN-The Planning Board typically sets requirements in any development along shorelines, I know. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes. Is that a Cornell require, I mean a, you know like a requirement that would come through the extension service or something? Department of Ag? MR. MARTIN-I, all I know is that I found it no where in our ordinance and I've looked in every likely spot. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I've thought about that one a little bit since we've met and typically we look at that on a shoreline question for both fertility and bringing nutrients into the water and pesticides and herbicides. One thing that's unique here, it's not a lake. It's a river and there's an enormous flow of water through it so if there is something that leaches into water, it's going to end up going into the river pretty fast and in the matter of a month, it will be somewhere out in the ocean. It is a constant flushing and that's not to say that we should put things in it that we shouldn't be putting in it. That's been the problem with the Hudson River but certainly there's been an enormous effort to clean it up and there needs, you know, on the State level, the heavy metals, the oils and all those things. But I think it's not as sensitive as Round Pond or Glen Lake or a body of water that has very, very little turnover. It's a thought, I certainly don't want to try and quantify it but I think we've got to be careful to be over, you know, we don't, no sense in being overly sensitive on that one. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Jim, I found one section here but it may be for the AP A, I'm not sure and that's that 183-53 section. And it doesn't tell you too much, I mean it's pretty general. As I said, maybe this just applies to the APA, I'm not sure because I didn't start at the beginning of it. It's up at the top of the page when you get to that page. It's on page 18394. A18394, if that makes a difference. MR. MARTIN-Yea, that would, yes that's under development objectives for cluster development. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Does that apply all over Town or just to the APA? MR. MARTIN-I think that would be, that would be a review criteria for cluster development, not necessarily in the APA. Any subdivision ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-What did you guys do for Hiland Park? Didn't you make them use organic fertilizers and if you did, under what? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, of course, alot, they could use some on the golf course and that was all subject to very strict DEC control in the storage of it and everything else. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-It still is though. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-There were studies that they had to do, you know, relative to anything that was used. There's quite a bit of restrictions in there regarding that. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-In our proposed conservation easement, we indicate that within the area of the bluffs and the setback of the bluffs, there will be no use of pesticides or herbicides. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But what about, okay, you say there but what about, wait a minute. Give me that again, Mike, what you just said. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-In the area of the bluffs and the fifty foot setback or buffer area of the bluffs, there will be no use of pesticides or herbicides. I think that was offered in the language that we gave you for our conservation easement. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But what about where the wetlands are and Clendon Brook and that area? You shouldn't be using it within that area either. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-In the wetlands, there's no proposed development of any nature. ALAN OPPENHEIM-Not even close to that area. A couple hundred feet from that area. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Right. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-About two hundred feet, you think? MR. OPPENHEIM-Even more, even more. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I really haven't concentrated on that because there was no planned development in that area at all except for the walking trail which has been eliminated or suggested to be eliminated. MR. OPPENHEIM-Yes. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Okay, let's ... MR. MARTIN - I have one last item that was on my list was checking the ordinance in terms of the McDonald Subdivision. I draw your attention to section AI83-13, Submission and Review Procedures for the final plat. Plat void if revised after approval. No changes, erasures, modifications or revisions shall be made in any subdivision plat after approval has been given by the Planning Board and a duly designated officer thereof has signed the plat, unless such plat is first resubmitted to the Planning Board and such Board approves, in writing, any modifications. In the event that any such modified or revised subdivision plat is recorded without complying with this requirement, such recording shall be null and void, and the Board shall institute proceeding to have the plat stricken from the records of the County Clerk. So, I believe any modification to the McDonald's Subdivision would have to go back to the Planning Board. As to whether or not, they would be officially deemed a preliminary application or a final application, I believe it would be up to that Board to determine how much information they would need to review the modification. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -I don't think we can change that law. That's the law. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, yes we can but we're not going to. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea, but we're not going to. I mean that's, not in this application time. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Ifwe can't, no one can. MR. MARTIN-If they see the modification and want to call for like a revised stormwater management plan or something like that due to any configuration or something like that, that would certainly be within their power to do that. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, I think that they may have to comply with the new density and all the new regulations too, because it just says, plat void if revised after approval. So you're talking about a real new plan coming in. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I don't think that's what that means Betty and I'll argue that if somebody takes that position. I think that means ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, I might argue with the other side. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Well, I think that means that if you have a plat that's been stamped by the Planning Board with their stamp of approval and then somebody goes and makes a modification to that and tries to offer that to somebody as being a legitimate proved modification, you've voided your original modification, you've falsified your modification. I think if you follow the case law under that section, that's what your going to find. I think there's been a couple cases where plats have been modified in an illegal manner in that way and they've been stricken from the records of the County Clerk's Office. I think if you get into the substance of what we're doing, you're going to find that in the McDonald Subdivision, what we propose in order to alleviate any traffic concern of the neighbors that adjoin that, is simply a changing of boundary lines, a reconfiguration of the lots within that subdivision, to some degree, with even a lessening of the number oflots within that subdivision. So I really don't think that that's ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Let me suggest something to you. This was in the original presentation to the Planning Board, was it not? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Yes it was. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Then the Planning Board has already ruled that that, in fact, is okay. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I don't think that's really true. They ruled at it from the point of Hudson Pointe, but they didn't rule that from the point of McDonald. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-They did not give an approval. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I mean, you know, you've got to do a formal hearing on that thing. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Okay... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No, but presumptively and I may be presuming... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, no. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, maybe they need to look at that. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-They did not give an approval of the modification, they... MR. MARTIN-We didn't give an approval of that modification per say... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Oh, okay. MR. MARTIN-But that modification was seen by the Planning Board. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That's right, it was seen by the Planning Board. TIM BREWER-Not as this plan is here today... ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-In fact if you look at the approval that was sent onto this Board, I think it was with a condition or stipulation that at the time that this comes back to the Planning Board, that the modification plan of the McDonald Subdivision also come with it. MR. MARTIN-I'm fairly certain that the reconfigure of the McDonald Subdivision was seen before it left the Planning Board. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Yes. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-But a part of our reservation is that, will this work, regardless of what the Planning Board says. Remember? Wait, can we talk this here, just for a second here? A part of what we are proposing in this law, in this resolution, is that we become the last word no matter what happens, in effect, right? That's one of the things that's written in here. ATTORNEY DUSEK-As to the PUD. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's the PUD. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-As to the PUD. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Not as to McDonald Subdivision. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Oh, okay. That's a point. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-You know, this Board did address all those old subdivisions town wide earlier in the year and we basically said, leave them alone, as far as density goes. Now, I think we've got a legislative track of what this Board thought about when it did, when it took that action. As far as I'm concerned, with that as history, go back to Planning Board and let them look at this particular thing in detail and rule on it. I have no problem with that, I think that's what the law basically says. So, let's keep going if that's agreeable. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Whose turn? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Are you finished? MR. MARTIN-I'm finished, that was my list. I have a couple of other items I'll follow up on with Al Koechlein and so on. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Okay. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, how do you want to proceed? Do you want to take this page by page? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I would say... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- The whereas or the resolve clause? ATTORNEY DUSEK-I should mention just one other thing that has to be accomplished tonight and I've got some debate in my own mind as to which way you might want to do this as to the best way to handle it. But you also should go through Part II of the SEQRA form for the project. Now, one thought I have is that you could that first or you could do it after you reviewed through the resolution as a key, you know to refresh your recollection and key back in on some of the thoughts you had. I don't ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-My feeling is ... ATTORNEY DUSEK-You're not going to adopt a resolution anyway but... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I'd like to go through this piece by piece to refresh our memory before I go into SEQRA because I think this is what really tells you what your doing with SEQRA, and then answer the questions of SEQRA in context to what we've just done here in this working session. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-And they'll be already answered, as we go through this. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea, so I'd like to do that first rather than SEQRA first. So let's go. Rather than me lead this ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Do you want to go through with the resolve, whereas clause too, or just the resolve clauses? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well, the whereas is really history unless you found anything objectionable, you could probably skip right through those. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No, lets start ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Wait a minute, this three hundred and seven acres isn't right that's in here. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Where? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, okay let's just take them page by page. Let's start and go right through them and fix whatever's got to be fixed. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So three hundred and seven acres is the old figure. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well, that's technically correct though because this is siting the history, this is what it first was presented as. One of the subsequent resolution or whereas clauses indicate that that parcel was dropped. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Take that out? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Alright. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-How's your voice? Let's go through it. I'd like to go through the whole thing. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Go ahead. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I may get a chance to do this again and I want to do it right. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Do you want us to comment after each page? I have some suggestions for input as we go along, that's all. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I will tell you right now, that I have told the Planning Department, I don't agree with the way they arrived at their density and I was in the process of arguing that out this afternoon. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Fine and I think we just keep going and as we come up to ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, but I just wanted you to know that I've raised that question. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Come up to a stumbling block ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I've raised that question. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- W e come to a stumbling block, then answer it. Go, Paul. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Paul, why don't you lead us through this thing. You are the author. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Maybe what I'll do is just briefly summarize each paragraph and you tell me if there's anything wrong. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Key word is ... ATTORNEY DUSEK-Summary. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Briefly. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Briefly, all right. The first one, Whereas is just a history, as I mentioned, I don't think there's any problem with that, that's what they submitted when they first came to Town. The second paragraph indicates what it is they want. It's my understanding that the project consists of one hundred and sixty-three dwelling units, a hundred and twenty three single family, forty town houses. Here again, that's what they requested when they first came in. The next one indicates just history, July 6th you adopted a resolution, sent it to the Planning Department. The next Whereas on August 31 st, this is what you did, you adopted a resolution indicating the desire to be the SEQRA Lead Agent. The next Whereas on September 24th, the Planning Board adopted a resolution and made certain comments to you. The next one Whereas, the Warren County Planning Board reviewed it which is what the documents will show. Here, again, you know, I've looked at these documents, if you feel that I've made any errors in what I've said, please point them out. Whereas on December 21st, this was the Board, once again the Town Board acknowledging that Part I had been submitted and you had a number of exhibits. The next Whereas, is a listing of the exhibits that I got through Jim's office that were attached to the documentation and I defer to Mike if he sees any errors there at all. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I don't see any errors, but under 3 in that submittal, I would suggest that we add some additional language for an important part of the information that was submitted. And I would suggest language along the line, that developer policy statement regarding power, frequency, electric and magnetic fields with New York State Department of Health Article, that was included in that submittal and is part of this Board's consideration, I believe. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Was that submitted in October 27th, your saying Mike? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Yes it was. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Does the Board have any problem with adding that language? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No, if it was actually, if you remember it. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Mike, that exact language, could you give me that tomorrow and I'll add it in? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Yes, yes I can. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Just out of curiosity, does Sandy have a copy of this? Do you have a copy of this? ATTORNEY SANDY ALLEN-No, I do not. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You don't have a copy of what we're working with right now? ATTORNEY ALLEN-No, I don't. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-She should have one, I think. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Jim, do you have one that you can give her a spare? Do we have a spare one? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Wait a minute, wait a minute, I might. Yea, I do. There's going to be two things here, I have duplicates. And Sandy, we're on page 3 of that first one. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Assuming there's no further problem with the statement of exhibits, will move on then to page 4. Top of the page, once again, December 21st, Town Board acknowledge that it was going to be lead agent and set a public hearing. Once again, just reading a resolution. Next Whereas, on January 18th, I have a copy of a letter by which the developer amended and withdrew that parcel. That's the correction, Betty that I referred to that was in here. The next thing we have is that in accordance with the ordinance, you held a public hearing on January 25th. Next, once again, is more history, that on February 2nd, a week ago, you convened and discussed the environmental concerns raised by virtue of written communications, documentation, etcetera. This is your statement, if you feel you want to add anymore to this, you can, I just tried to summarize. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I would have a suggestion on the third line where you say, and discussed. And I would suggest, and took a hard look at, which is basically what you've been doing and that's the language of SEQRA. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Does anyone have objection to that? Okay, it's the language of SEQRA, I can, you know it makes probably sense. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Okay, and at the very bottom of this paragraph where it says, Town staff comments, I would suggest that you add prior SEQRA determinations involving similar projects in geographic locations. We did talk about Homefront. We did talk about the West Mountain PUD. We did talk about Hiland PUD. So, you have kind of done some historical comparison as to what else you've done in that area, as well as what you've done with similar projects. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I don't think there was that great, that weighty comments though, frankly. ATTORNEY DUSEK-It's up to the Board, it's your statement, you can either ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I don't really think we delved into those. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, we did discuss those things, I don't remember the context. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But we didn't delve into them very much. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -No, we, but I don't remember the discussion any more. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And I don't think it was very much in depth. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Is there a different statement that the Board would want to make instead of what was just made? I'll tell you my own recollection, just if this will help you, is that and I don't if I say this some place, but I think that the Board made some kind of a comment at one point or somebody on the Board did, that some aspects of this project were no different than alot of other projects, they get negative declarations or something like that. That you know, they have to comply with all the other regulations and because of that, they get negative decs or whatever. I remember that comment being made but I don't know exactly who made that. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -I don't remember it. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I remember the comments. I guess, you put more weight to that then I do and I don't think it's part of the... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I don't think it ... ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I think that's part of your obligation under SEQRA, is that you're to look at the project and you're to also look at how you have made prior determinations when you consider even this project. At least that's my understanding of some of the rules and regulations. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, I think like Inspiration Park, I made the comment and Inspiration Park, we as a mitigation, we put right in our SEQRA, mitigation that they had to move in soil to make that adaptable to the septic systems. I mean that's the only way it came up, was in things like that, really and Inspiration Park is not a PUD either. Inspiration Park was a rezoning. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, I think we're getting hung up on a relatively minor thing. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I don't think there was that kind of weight given to that type of thing. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I'm not, there's nothing in here, Mrs. Monahan that says anything about weight. It says simply a recital of what you did or didn't consider when you made the or are making the determination that's before you. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, I guess I'm just saying, you're giving it more weight that I think we do. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I have no argument with putting it in. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No, please put it in. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -It's historical. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-We looked at historical data regarding other PUDs, but don't say hard look. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Cursory. ATTORNEY DUSEK-So you want, after staff comments, coma, historical data regarding other PUDs? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Yes. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Okay. Next, on page 5, top of the page, it indicates, once again, another statement that you should take a look at to make sure your happy with. It says that the Town Board also considered and discussed proposed mitigation measures, zoning conditions and future Planning Board reviews that would be required. I hope that's a fair statement. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I think so. ATTORNEY DUSEK-The next Whereas, indicates that the Town Board developed a sense that the identified, and this is kind of recapturing your consensus that you were sort of indicating to me, that you developed a sense that the identified environmental effects of the project would not be significant due to no significant environmental effect or, so another words, one is that you saw no significant environmental effect or due to the mitigation measures, a part of the project or due to the conditions that you could impose. So, anyone of those reasons were things that you felt that maybe there wouldn't be an environmental effect in the end. The Town Board nevertheless had certain questions, and that's what Jim Martin answered for you tonight, that's what I was trying to elude to there. Next Whereas, is Part II of the Long Environmental Assessment Form, has been reviewed and the Town Board has directed or authorized certain responses, and of course, before you adopt this resolution, at the next meeting, you will have accomplished that part of it, that was what I was mentioning earlier. Whereas, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, has considered the proposed Planned Unit Development, reviewed the Environmental Assessment Form and the criteria, 617.11 and I will be furnishing you with a copy of 617.11 before your next meeting with the revised version of this so you can take a look at, through that yourself, to make sure your comfortable with that. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Isn't that the same one that we've gotten about seventy thousand copies of? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yes, it's basically the same criteria that's on the back of the short form but I'm going to give you a photo copy of the statue itself, so that you have it, to just take a look through. To make sure you really feel comfortable that you did what your supposed to do. Then the next clause as your first Resolved clause and this Resolve clause deals with the removal of that parcel of the land and I believe it was the Board's feeling, that just because the parcel was removed, it didn't really change the project and that you could move ahead. That it was insignificant and that's what this clause tries to say. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea, we voted on that. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Yes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Paul, just so this isn't confusing to somebody else that wasn't there, why don't we in parenthesis, put ninety-four acres plus or minus, so that they know which parcel we're talking about. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well, it does say in the middle here that the land involved consists ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Okay, alright. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Of approximately ninety-four acres and was identified as parcel A on maps. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Okay. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Okay. So that, getting that out of the way, then we move into the next Resolved clause which indicates that the Town Board takes notice of the fact that the project still is the same, even know the parcel is leaving, your still looking at one hundred and sixty-three dwelling units, townhouses or single family homes and I'm putting in here two hundred and thirteen acres, and I just did that by calculating. I defer to Mike, to make sure I'm right on that number. Is that the correct two hundred and thirteen acres? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Now, that two hundred and thirteen acres includes the five acre park doesn't it, that's really separate from the other land? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Yes, it does. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-See what I'm saying Paul? There's two hundred and eight acres that's contiguous with the PUD, then there's five acres, that park, that is not contiguous with the PUD. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-What park are you talking about, Betty? ATTORNEY DUSEK-That's okay though, it's all part of the PUD though, right? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, but I just wanted to say that. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Betty, Betty, what park are you talking about? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That little green piece that's down there on the lower left corner. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I thought that was five and a half acres. It was five and a half acres when the project started, somebody take some of it? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-It's always been five acres. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-It's always been five acres. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-It's always been five acres, as far as I know. ATTORNEY DUSEK-The next Resolved clause simply recognizes this is a Type I Action under SEQRA. The next Resolved Clause indicates that the Town Board recognizes and here again, this is your statement and if you don't' like it, please change it anyway you like but it says, the Town Board recognizes the importance of carefully examining, from an environmental standpoint, any development of an area near or adjacent to the Hudson River, particularly this site as a result of various areas of environmental concern that have been raised either in the documents that the developer has given you or by other agencies or members. And this is just, basically your acknowledging that, hey, it's important that we take a close look at this thing. Next Resolved clause, and this really get's into the meat of things, this is on page 8 and this says, that after you have examined the areas of environmental concern, the mitigation measures and the conditions, you now determine that the project will have no environmental effect because and now you get into a lengthy discussion of each major item that was listed there that night when you were going through them with Jim. The intent here was to try to capture what I thought you were agreeing to and you very well may have some changes or there maybe some suggestions. The first point was the bluffs and point area. And by the way, I might mention too, that for purposes of trying to write this up, I consolidated obviously some things. You talked about the bluffs at one point in the meeting and then you talked about the point later on but it became clear that the conversations you were having, really concern the same thing. So I tried to consolidate, believe or not, so we could avoid a fifteen page document. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-This is the question I'm asking. I'm not quite sure what we're talking about when we refer to the point area. Are we talking that area that's going to be developed on, calling that the point area or are we talking about that, that's not going to be developed on, it's all green there on the map, are we calling that the point area? I'm, was a little confused right there. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I think in this particular paragraph, your talking about this point right through here. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Okay, so we're talking about the point, that area which will be developed? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Yes. Paul? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yes, that was my intent, it was to refer to the entire land mass that jutted out into the river at that point. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Well, not down here though. ATTORNEY DUSEK-No, the whole, the whole thing. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That's what I thought too, goes all the way to the water. MR. MARTIN-Yea, it would have to be, because he's referring to the docks and so on. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-It goes all the way to the water, this paragraph. MR. MARTIN-Maybe it would be better ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I'm kind of confused, I mean, I think the wording is confused. MR. MARTIN-Maybe it would be better to title it, Bluffs, Point Area and Shoreline Area. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I think the first paragraph, where you talk about density, when we talked about, the other night changing the density, you're talking about just this area right in here. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-The developable area. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Yea, but the major headline Mike, is the whole, the whole thing. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Bluffs and Point Area. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-The major headline, Bluffs and Point Area... ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-There are some paragraphs that refer to other than this. Okay, but the first paragraph under that heading ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Can you propose language to clarify that? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Paragraph by paragraph, I have a couple of suggestions. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-After that particular point area, could we put the developable part? I mean, the first paragraph is talking about the developable area of the point. Right? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I don't have a problem with the heading as is. I think Paul is correct, if you go through, there are like seven different paragraphs there, some of which, particularly the dock area, has something to do with down here. Okay, that paragraph. But when you talk about density, you're talking about this. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, and that's why I got confused. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Well, my suggestion would be on the first paragraph, the fourth line, where you say dwelling units, right after that, you strike out the words, along the river and on the Point. And my suggestion is that you insert, on the Point where sixteen, one acre lots are now shown. So it would be just this area here that we're talking about limiting it to a three acre, the equivalent of the three acre zoning. Because we didn't include that when we got into the ... we weren't trying, I'm not trying to play games ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No and that's why I thought it was very confusing, the way it was worded. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Okay. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Oh, you didn't? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-No, I didn't, that's not included. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -No. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Oh, no, they can't include that. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Yea, that's true. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-No, I didn't include, I won't necessarily agree with you Mrs. Monahan that we can't. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Okay, we will fight about this later, Mike, instead of during this meeting. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-But we did not. Okay, we did not. So I would suggest that you use, and then I think that indicates the area where you want us to come up with the factor of one dwelling unit per three acres. ATTORNEY DUSEK-So the language would be, on the Point where sixteen, one acre lots are now shown? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Yes. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Okay. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-The second paragraph, I didn't have a... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Excuse me, but I'm going to get confused all over again. The sixteen is going to drop to eight, am I right? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Yes. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-If by survey, we show that we have point four or plus in this area. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So, are we getting ourselves in a mess Paul, by putting sixteen dwelling units there? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-No, that's identifying ... ATTORNEY DUSEK-No, no, that's for historical purposes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Okay. ATTORNEY DUSEK-It's saying what's there now, so you know what area your talking about. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Alright. ALAN OPPENHEIM -You can refer to the dated plan. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, we ought to put the date of that plan maybe. ATTORNEY DUSEK-That is a good idea. Do you have a... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, what's the date on that? MR. OPPENHEIM-January 22nd, 93. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Now shown, instead of saying now shown, shown on plan dated, on plan last revised, January 22nd, 1993, there are three or four dates there. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's the revised plan. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Last revised. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, actually all you need to do is, the sentence reads dwelling units on the point where sixteen by one acre lots are now shown, the next word is will and then if you put the word now, between will and not, will now not exceed the total number that would be allowed, had three acre zoning would imposed. It changes the whole meaning to the sentence. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Don't forget, they're doing it in a historical sense, too. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I know that but that's what this is supposed to be for, this is to bring this up to date, right? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Will now not exceed. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Will now not exceed, the total number that would be allowed if three acre zoning been imposed. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-That's the intent of it. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That's the intent of it, right? ATTORNEY DUSEK-But we're still keeping the language Mike talked about, right? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Y ea but then insert the word now between will and not, and it changes the entire meaning of that sentence. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Okay. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Paul, if you want, instead of saying, now shown, you can say, shown on the map last revised January 22nd, the same as typical language that we would use. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That's lawyer talk, I try to do it in one word, what you guys do in a paragraph. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-They get paid by the word. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's why they get the big bucks, see, more work, more bucks. ATTORNEY DUSEK-So, just to make sure we have, I'djust like to re-read this then as I've gotten written to the Board. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Okay, go ahead. ATTORNEY DUSEK-It would say, now that the same be designed such that the total number of dwelling units on the point where sixteen, one acre lots shown on a map plan last revised January 22nd, 1993, will now not exceed the total number that would be allowed had three acre zoning been imposed. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Right. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Okay then, is that paragraph alright at this point? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Yes. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Up to that point, you've got three more sentences. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Pardon? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Nothing, go. ATTORNEY DUSEK-The next paragraph down, speaks about the actual area of the bluffs, that the same will not be owned by individual homeowners, but rather a Homeowner's Association with a conservation easement running to the Town or State or an approved not-for-profit corporation, thereby helping to avoid further intrusion or development on the areas of the bluffs. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That's awful wide open though isn't it? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-How do you know what the bluffs are really? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I am not worried about the bluffs, I am worried about where does this all end? We haven't really tied down where this all ends in this paragraph. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I have a legal question. Conservation Easement running to the Town, if the Town takes the Conservation Easement later on down the road we want to give it to the State or to a non profit corporation have these people got to be involved in that decision? ATTORNEY DUSEK-It depends on how you take the Conservation Easement at the time you get it, if they stick in language that says they, you have to go back and consult with them, yes they will be but it will be dictated by that document by which you get the easement. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I gather that you will see that it will come to the Town with no restrictions on what the Town can do with it? ATTORNEY DUSEK-If that is what the Board wants it would be something that the Board would review first anyway. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I think that clearly is what the Board wants. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think we need to get that language before we move on this PUD. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That was my question before his question. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-..we could assign it to a Nature Conservancy or somebody else that is in that area doing that area doing a broader look at the whole... ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-We can say to the Town or its assigned COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That is really what it needs to say, the Town or its assigned. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-That was the intention there is no, there was no intention that we would be involved in anything further. That would be up to the Town if they wanted to ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-It's assigns, covers the whole thing. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I believe you Mike, but I would like it in writing. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Well, ok. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We have dealt with Lawyers too long Mike. ATTORNEY DUSEK-So, I am going to scratch the State or approved not for profit Corp. and just put in Town or its assigned. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Why don't you just leave them in also. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Ok. ATTORNEY DUSEK-You want them in as well? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I do not want them in, but I am not trying to restrict it. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Town or its assigns. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I think that leaves it pretty open. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-All right, I do not care. MR. MARTIN-How about that last phrase, thereby helping to avoid further intrusion? Can't that be more powerful saying thereby restricting or thereby stopping. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I don't know that you will ever stop all intrusion. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No, but it is nice to say it in there. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, but I think Jim is getting the idea over much better that we are saying ha we don't want this messed with period. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Right. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-They ...help and we want it to stop. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Thereby stopping any further, stopping any. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Now, remember, you are not trying to direct anybody by this document what you are trying to do is make a fair statement of why you think, this will not have an environmental effect. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Oh, you are right. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I do not think you can ever stop full intrusion into this area, but you can certainly work to try to stop that, you see the difference that I am, later COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Instead of helping I think attempting maybe. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Whatever the word you want is fine but I think later in the PUD is where you actually going to direct what can help. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I get the point. Attempting to stop. ATTORNEY DUSEK-You want the word attempting instead of helping? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Ifyou like that, put it in there. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, I think helping is kind of weak, I'm trying to think ofa word a little bit stronger. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-We'll be here all night, at this rate. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Okay, next, there is also proposed, and the legislation will require, a fifty foot buffer area adjacent to the bluffs, which, although the buffer area may be owned by respective lot owners, it shall be left in it's natural and wild state. Is that a fair statement? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I want to know how you're going to start measuring that fifty foot buffer zone. From where to where? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-On top of the bluff. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, but what do you call the top of the bluff? That's what I'm getting at. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-The edge. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-The topographical feature that shows the highest elevation of the bluff. Okay, I have a question on that. The conservation easement that we've offered, did not indicate that that would be a forever wild buffer area. And I'd like to take the last part of that sentence out, it shall be left in its natural and wild state and add language, will be subject to conservation easement to limit clearing and prohibit construction. Which is what we offered. I think we said that there would be no tree cutting of trees in excess of six inches in caliber at chest height and that there would be no fertilizers, no herbicides, no building of any nature of any structure within that buffer area. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Will be subject to conservation easements and... ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-To limit clearing and prohibit construction. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Is that acceptable? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I like that better. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-It's better than what we've got. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, wait a minute, that's also going to be subject, Jim, isn't it, to regulations within our ordinance? Jim isn't that also subject to like our shoreline regulations within our ordinance too? MR. MARTIN - I don't believe so because... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Why? MR. MARTIN-The distances. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-It's too far away. MR. MARTIN-Yes, thirty-five feet from the shoreline. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, but that would be high water mark and where's high water mark there? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Certainly not up there. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, no, I'm talking about if you were doing, you know, you've got to drop a line. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Here, we go again. Here we go again, straight down. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You've got to drop line to where the water line is. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I think the top of the bluffs actually are set back at least seventy-five feet from COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-From where the water comes on the shore below. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Yes, it's a significant, it's not a short distance. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Mike made a good suggestion I thought there a minute ago, that was brought up when Betty made her comment and that is, in this paragraph, it might be helpful where it says, the legislation will require fifty foot buffer area adjacent to the bluffs. Maybe we could put in, commencing from, did you say the top of the bluffs? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-The highest elevation, he said. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No, he said, highest topographical point. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Commencing at the highest topographical point of the bluff. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-The edge of the bluff. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, but you've got to define what an edge is. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, we're defining that. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, you know, I've got a problem with that. I mean I know that terrain, there's places where it comes up very fast and breaks over and there's other places where it comes and gradually breaks over. It seems to me that a bluff is something that you would consider a fifteen percent angle or more or something like that, fifteen percent grade or more. Because you've got some places where you're coming up and you've got five percent and you keep going back and back and back, my God, I'd hate to set that as a regulation. I think that's terribly restricted. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-You've got to find a spot. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Well, the intention here is to provide a surveyor mapping of it with topographical features when we get to the site plan review that the Planning Board is going to have to approve as being in compliance with the intent that you set forth here. And the discussions that we have, I think are lengthy and they certainly will leave very little question to the Planning Board as to what you're talking about. You do not want any construction below the bluffs or for fifty feet to the inland side of the bluffs. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-What happens if you take the high point in your language, you're restricting yourself terribly bad. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I'm not trying to do that. I thought we would be reasonable in defining the high point. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I mean you know, bluff has got to be at least ten percent grade or more before it's a bluff. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-What's that? ROB SUTHERLAND-When you're walking that site and looking at the topo, I would estimate right now, there's actually one contour that pretty much defines the edge of that bluff. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Can you define it in words? MR. SUTHERLAND-We could probably define it with an elevation, you know, based on our survey data. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I think he needs to do that. ATTORNEY DUSEK-That would be ideal. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-We need to have a starting point, otherwise we'll never know where it is. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea, I think that's, I think we ought to come to a define criteria here. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And I think that is something, after you get it, somebody needs to go out and check it. MR. SUTHERLAND-Well we have a survey, that's been done by a registered surveyor as far as a two foot contour interval for that. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Will you get together with Jim then and ... COUNCILMAN TUCKER-This is all going to be marked anyway isn't it? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-After you get that ... MR. MARTIN-I think it would be a good idea though to see what reality that point would in fact be. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, I think you would need to go out and visually agree with that. MR. MARTIN-Right. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-So in that paragraph your saying a fifty foot buffer area ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-As defined ... ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Inland from ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No, as defined and you guys define it. We'll leave it blank right now. MR. SUTHERLAND-From the top of the bluff. ATTORNEY DUSEK-We can restructure that language a little bit. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Right. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I think what we want to do Mike, from what I'm picking up from the Board is, will, depth defined by contour of the bluff exactly and then from that point out will be the buffer area. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Right. ATTORNEY DUSEK-And then from that point over to the river will be the bluff area, obviously. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And what we're saying is after Jim gets that contour map, we want him to go out and visually walk that to see if that looks like the logical conclusion to reach. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Betty, the contour map is not going to be marked on the ground at this point. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Right. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, but I think you could follow that pretty much. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Well, wait a minute now. I think that obviously they have to get together but if we're talking about a registered surveyor, I mean what, how is he going to question the registered surveyor? He's not a surveyor. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-He can't. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-He's not but visually sometimes when you look at something, you see something that you don't look at flat ... the blue roofs ought to tell us that, right off the bat. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Okay. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You know what I'm saying? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I know what you're saying ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So walk it and make sure. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-But let's not ... ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Why are we not doing that at site plan review? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, we need to have something here ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Because if we're putting a definition in, I want something we're comfortable with. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-As a definition, that's all. That's all, just a definition. How can we, you just said that the Planning Board is going to look at something and know exactly where you stand. That's what we want. That's all we want. I'm not suggesting that we rewrite the constitution here, just that we have a starting point for these bluffs and what are we measuring from. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Okay, we'll see what we can do. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Moving along then, should we wait for Mike or should we continue? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Go ahead and if we hit a stumbling block we'll let you know. ATTORNEY DUSEK-The next item is docks along the river front. It says the project will be conditioned to limit the same to two forty foot docks for the entire project and be such that they are only utilized by cartop carried, non-motorized watercraft. Is that a fair comment? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-You used that term several times, cartop carried ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And I'm wondering how your going to get down there? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-And I think that ... COUNCILMAN TUCKER-There's a road going to be down there. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I know but are you guys ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Wait, wait let me finish my question. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Excuse me, excuse me. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Why do we limit ourselves, I mean, I can, non-motorized watercraft is fine, cartop carried, why do we even bother with that? ATTORNEY DUSEK-The only reason I did was that because the Board was giving me a sense that you wanted to somehow restrict access to the facility so that you would in turn restrict the type of craft that could use that facility and what came to my mind was DEC has allover the place, these areas where you can only launch cartop carried boats. So it avoids people coming in with trailers and attempting to launch with a trailer. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Oh, I got you. MR. MARTIN-I would suggest that you don't enter the word cartop. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Me too. MR MARTIN-And car into the language. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-There's no way of, if! understand these gentleman, there's no way a car can get down to this point and launch a trailer. MR. MARTIN-Yea but I'mjust saying that ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And this is almost saying like we expect them to be able to get a car down there and that's why it troubles me. MR. MARTIN-Even if they can't get a car down there, then they're parking at the top or something. MR. OPPENHEIM-Scratch it. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Well, I strongly object to that whole phrase and be such that they only utilize, they are only utilized by cartop carried, non-motorized. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We agreed on non-motorized. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-No, well, I disagree with non-motorized. I would ask that you limit the same to two forty foot docks for the entire project. You've got two hundred acres of land here. Two hundred and five acres of land... development, five acres of this piece over here. I don't know of any other track in the Town of Queensbury that you can't have two docks on with that type of... land, back land. I think that's unreal to think that your going to make that a reasonable request. Just to, take a look at the mural that you have behind you on the nice rural setting of a lake. You have one, two, three, four, five, six docks on there. They didn't come to this Board. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Wait a minute, that's been in court, you know, that one has been to court. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-They didn't come to this Board. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Didn't come to this Board, you lost that one for alot of reasons. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-As I sit here, I get frustrated Betty. MR. MARTIN-The other point I would make to Mr. O'Connor is that I would say that none of those docks are forty feet in length. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-But they all have power boats. I think the developer ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And unfortunately this Board has nothing to do with it and it went to court and the whole slew of other things. Mike that's an awful bad thing to bring up, that's a sore subject. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Mike, let me point something out to you. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And we had agreed the last meeting if you remember. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-If we did everything that, the same every time we sat here, you'd be out of work. You know, that don't you? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-There's other things I could be doing. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Oh yea. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-The other thing, which I understand, is that you're talking about putting a, looking for a boat launch right up here on the river. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No, that's going to be fought over. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea, further up there, that's correct. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-You know, what is this? Is ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-You can't do that, you can't, I heard that too. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-What's on the river now? What's two docks going to do? If you got two forty foot docks, conceivably, you could put four boats. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Three boats, four boats. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Reasonable size boats, twenty foot boats or something of that nature. I mean what's that going to do to the pristine nature of that river as it now exists as opposed to all the other ... boats that are out there? Mr. Tucker has talked about the traffic that's already on that. And I don't mean that, that may be is a good example or even a better example then the mural behind you but ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-The discussions of the Town launch site that the Recreation Department has asked for is for non-motorized boats also by the way. Just so that the public understands that. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I think your just inviting enforcement problems. It's not the intention to set up a marina there. It has not been the intention to set up real active recreational area but I think your getting overly restrictive when you get into trying to limit a landowner who owns two hundred acres of land. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-You really can't launch a big boat there. There's no way you would be able to do that although you could launch somewhere else and come up stream and dock there. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-If you remember right, Mike ... ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-There's no intention oflaunching at all or setting up a launch. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Right, that's what I say, it's already restricted. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-If you remembered right, part of this came in because of jet skis and the problem they are with the noise and stuff in different areas and that was one reason and that was part of the public comment out there, is one reason, we said non-motorized. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-We're already weaseling this thing. We sat right here and we all agreed. In fact you are the one who said, you could limit it by having a shallow draft. You said that. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I've come here and asked this Board to enact a Town wide ordinance limiting jet skis. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Fine, well we're on the PUD right now and I... ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Well, no, no, no, let's go back to, you were saying, what I've said and I've not said. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No, I'm saying what you said on this particular ... ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I'm not saying promote jet skis by having the ability to have flexibility here and be able to put in other than non-motorized boats. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, this is what we agreed last week. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-You sat, dammit, you sat right there ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute, let's get some order here. I think, there is a history and there's been a discussion by this Board that really wants to limit what kind of boats that go down there. That's been the legislative track so far. MR. MARTIN-And I also thought I remember the source of that being that there's a concern about the shoreline and the bluff area, is a very sensitive area and that you just want to limit the activity as a whole and that was the reason for only two docks. So that, sure you could have more docks there but we're acknowledging it's all this environmentally sensitive area down there that, the activity was supposed to be limited by the virtue of the limited docks. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And even the wash from jet skis against sensitive areas can be a big impact, the wash from those. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I suggest you scratch cartop carried because it's meaningless and leave non- motorized watercraft. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes. You lose. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well not yet. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I don't have to poll but I think I heard it all the way across. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Okay, going along, it is proposed that the legislation will require that the area of the bluffs will be clearly marked so the Town as well as individual homeowners are aware of the exact area of the bluffs. And that was with the idea of putting in monuments I believe... ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I would suggest that you substitute for the word area, top. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Pardon me? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-It would be proposed that the legislation will require that the top of the bluffs ... MR. OPPENHEIM-Well, it's really the agreed upon edge. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- You're going to do that. MR. OPPENHEIM-The agreed upon edge. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Whatever goes in the paragraph two up, will also be a part of this paragraph, as far as I can see. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, it has to be consistent Paul, with whatever's up above. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well, I think if we use the terminology that they suggested, we can correct it now. It would be that the homeowners are aware of the agreed upon edge of the bluffs. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Okay. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Whoa, whoa, whoa. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Where are you? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-How about the fifty foot setback? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-And after the word bluff, you add, and the buffer area of the bluffs. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Whoa. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Wait a minute, we've got to start back ... COUNCILMAN TUCKER-If you just, wait a minute Betty. If you just put in there, that it will be marked at the fifty foot setback, that makes it all controllable. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-But Mr. Tucker, you have two different restrictions. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Right. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-The bluffs are completely forever wild. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-We understand that. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Okay the fifty foot ... COUNCILMAN TUCKER-And it's in the law. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-But the fifty foot buffer area, is an area that you can have some tree clearing. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-We understand that. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-So I would suggest ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT -So maybe you need them both marked. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I would suggest two markings so you don't have a problem with enforcement. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, that makes sense. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Okay. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Agreed? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Okay. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Alright, then go back to the bottom of page 8. Are we going to change the word area there? MR. OPPENHEIM-Wait a second. We've got to change one word. Do we have monument in there? ATTORNEY DUSEK-No. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Where are we? Tell me where we're talking about first, we've been skipping around. ATTORNEY DUSEK-First of all, we're reading the paragraph starting from the bottom of page 8 going to the top of page 9. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Okay. ATTORNEY DUSEK-The only change proposed for this paragraph so far are at the top of page 9, and instead of saying the exact area of the bluffs, as I understand it from the conversation so far, it should say, the agreed upon edge of the bluffs and the edge of the fifty foot buffer from the bluff. Is that a fair statement? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Yes. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -It sounds reasonable. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Yea. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Now, I'll just ask you one question Paul, before we leave this. On the bottom of page 8, where it says area there, does that word need to be changed to be consistent? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yea, I think maybe we ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-It says at the top, we changed it at the top already. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well, Betty is saying you should be consistent. If I'm saying area, I should say edge here as well as edge up at the top and I think that's not a problem. We can change that to the word edge. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Are you talking about the third paragraph up on page 8? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, down at the bottom Mike. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Way down at the bottom. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-The very last paragraph. ATTORNEY DUSEK-It says, it is proposed that the legislation will require that the area of the bluffs, it should read instead, that the edge of the bluffs. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Alright, you go up two more paragraphs and you've got the same thing there, add it and put in. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Right. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well that's, wait a minute, that's a buffer area there, so you've got to be careful how you do that one, it's a little different. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-You've got to define it ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, that's what they're going to do. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Okay. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Okay, you know one point that probably would be a simplification and I don't know how we would work it in and Alan just made it, is that we've taken the lots away from the bluffs. The bluffs won't be part of the lots. But the back corners of the lots, will be the back, will be the top of the edge of the bluff. MR. OPPENHEIM-Not always. I mean and I this is something I think we can work out in the language and we shouldn't get stuck on but if you look at these lots here, our objective should be, you know pick one lot in here particular, is for this lot owner, we should mark obviously the sides of the lot but this line will be clearly marked, but that line there is well over fifty feet or more from the edge of the bluff. So the key thing to delineate is, for that particular lot owner is the backside of the lot. But in that instance, it's not going to be productive for anybody or necessary to actually delineate the edge of the bluff. So I think it's going to be ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea, I think that's clear. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Wait a minute, I don't understand what you're saying. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That's more than fifty feet and it's not being deeded and it already is the conservation easement. MR. OPPENHEIM-Yes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I thought it was being deeded to them. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -No. MR. MARTIN-So what you're essentially saying Alan in that particular lot, the fifty foot wide area is maybe sixty, seventy feet or wider. MR. OPPENHEIM-Yea, that's correct but the way we are going to be redefining, I mean these lots are going to be as presented. Along here, the way that we're going to be redefining our plan and the way these lots are laid out, as long as you mark and monument the backside of the lots, it's not going to be necessary also to monument the edge of the bluffs. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Okay, now, are you saying that anything I'm seeing there in dark green, going along the lots, is going to be part of this conservation easement and in some places it maybe more than fifty feet? MR. OPPENHEIM-That's correct. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And then your going to mark that conservation easement on each lot and say you may not go into this conservation easement and do cutting except, you know, the trees over six inches, and so on and so forth? Am I interpreting you correctly? MR. OPPENHEIM-If that fifty feet actually encumbers a portion of the lot, that's correct. But I think the point is and I'm just looking ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I'm still getting confused. MR. OPPENHEIM-I mean for those, I think what we could do ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I need an overlay. MR. OPPENHEIM-I'd rather suggest that we fine tune some language and we could work with Jim to come up with some languages, plan specific. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think I want to see an overlay exactly what we're talking about there. MR. OPPENHEIM-We'll come up, we will come up with something that works. What I'm trying to avoid is, you could go crazy surveying hundreds and hundreds of points that's not productive. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Right, I see what he's saying. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Right. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Is he agreeing with me? By gosh, I think he is. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Okay, I think that's a reasonable suggestion. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Okay, so this, all those paragraphs that we talk about bluffs are kind of going to be, or the bluffs that are buffer zone part is going to be reworked, kind of? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-We've agreed upon what we're talking about, we've got to put it in language that we can read. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Okay. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I think we have. I think I understand that we have. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I'm not sure if I do or not. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Okay, are we ready to move on. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yes, keep going. ATTORNEY DUSEK-The next paragraph is development of the lower point is proposed to be, and the legislation will require that the same be limited. Existing cottages shall be removed, access shall be by walking trails only except for provisions for the handicapped, and recreation use will be passive except for picnic areas which may be considered for existing cottage sites. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-What does that mean? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I suggested that for be changed to at, I think it makes more sense. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Y es but before we even get to that, what does that mean? You talk about existing cottages shall be removed, and then you say for picnic facilities which may be considered for existing cottage sites. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's why I said, it has to be at previous cottage sites. At previous cottages sites. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well, I guess maybe I need some help from Mike, he's, this is, I tried to just pick up from language that I heard from him that night, that I thought the Board agreed to but maybe I misunderstood something. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-We're throwing the cottages out but then we're saying it's okay... ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-To put a picnic area down there. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Right. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's what I'm saying, they're not there anymore. MR. MARTIN-Why can't we just say for picnic facilities, period. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Period, leave existing cottage sites out. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well, no but are you going to ... ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Well, I was limiting it to the existing sites, that's all because they've already been ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Oh, I see what you're saying. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, at the sites ... ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Do you want to put them any place ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-No, I think it's worth putting them at the existing sites and not the other place because there was ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-It's just the language is awkward, that's all. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But our language needs cleaning, that language needs cleaning up. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well, I guess part of it was my own lack of clarity in my own mind here in terms of, are the cottages existing or are they not existing at this point? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yes, they are. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-They are existing. ATTORNEY DUSEK-And is it part of the condition of this approval that they be removed? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Yes. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Yes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And then the sites ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-And that's the site where the picnic areas go. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Okay. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And then the sites where the cottages no longer are, will be the picnic sites. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I don't remember, hey, I don't remember seeing any buildings down there. I see a couple foundations. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -No, there's some buildings. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- There's a couple cottages down there. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-There's a cabin down there and there's a half-ass cabin. I don't know, I've often wondered how anyone got a building permit to put that second one in. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-You got thatPau1? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-They probably never did. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -I'm sure they didn't. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I thought both of them looked, what you said. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, one of them predates all our laws. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Oh, okay. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Okay, I think if! change that, now that I understand, let me just try this on the Board real quick. What it would say now then, is development of the lower point is proposed to be, legislation will limit, existing cottages shall be removed, access shall be by walking trails only, except for provisions for the handicapped, and recreation use will be passive except for picnic facilities which may be considered for areas where existing cottage sites previously existed. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Right. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Fine. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Or where cottage sites previously existed, not existing cottage sites. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Okay, next item. Drainage, as well as other Town regulations, and Planning Board review, as well as engineering review, which must be engaged in by the developer prior to the time of any construction, in conjunction with other restrictions and mitigation measures proposed herewith, further protect the area of the bluffs and point. It's kind of a lousy sentence, I know but it's really saying, all of your regulations plus the conditions you're putting on, is going to help further protect this area of the bluffs and point. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Should there be drainage, and/or stormwater management? ATTORNEY DUSEK-You can say that if you would like. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think we ought to get that in there very specifically. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Okay, then it goes on, it says, it should be noted that utilization of the project site, as well as the total number of dwelling units, will be limited as to what the carrying capacity of the land is in those areas. Therefore, although the proposed Planned Unit Development indicates one hundred sixty-three dwelling units, the same is recognized as the maximum number and it may in fact, be reduced should the carrying capacity of the lands not support the same. And this is going to be the Planning Board review that kicks this in. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Right. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea, I think that's what we all understood clearly? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-They agreed to that. Didn't you Mike? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I did and I think what we agreed upon was based upon engineering data, not subjective data, and I don't know if we need to spell that out. I didn't ... it in as a remark but I think that was the understanding and I'll make it as part of the comments of the record here, that we're talking about engineering data as far as ability to support. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Right. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Next is, it says, finally, it's noted that the Zoning laws for the Town of Queensbury and the Homeowner's Association's legal abilities, will serve to enforce and protect these conditions and mitigation measures that you'll be imposing. Okay. Next item, drainage and soils throughout the site, basically this paragraph simply says that you have stormwater and drainage regulations, as well as a site plan review process which includes engineering that will address the carrying capacities, therefore, development of this site will be no different than any other site in Town. Further, the density of the project is a maximum, so there would not appear to be any drainage effects. That's what we're basically saying here, that that's covered. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Good. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Now, Paul, before you leave this area, in Inspiration Point as a mitigation, we put in the fact that the soils might have to be, what's the word I want to use? MR. MARTIN-Modified. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Modified, for septic systems, that I think that really belongs in here. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Yea, but that will be determined by the New York State Board of Health. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Right. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-You ain't going to do anything that ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, you put it in as your mitigation because you already know your soils are bad and so you're saying to mitigate the fact that the soils are bad, after tests are done, the soils may have to be modified. It's a mitigation measure. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Alright, and to the status of the New York State Department of Health. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, that's what it is. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, so all we're doing is saying the obvious, which, but we are saying that's a mitigation measure ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, because that follows your mitigation. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -I agree with Betty, seldom but, by God, I do. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Geezum. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-I know, this is pretty amazing. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-But we don't know, we honestly don't know if that applies to all hundred and sixty-three dwelling units. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -No. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, we said if necessary. If necessary. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-As, yea, as determined by Department of Health and their standards. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, we did the same thing with Inspiration Park, so that's where it's necessary ... MR. OPPENHEIM-Probably during the site plan review process. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -That's fine. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, that's right, you're not going to do it now, it's when you apply for site plan, they can require you to do as many soil tests as necessary to mitigate. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-It's kind of a statement of the obvious, isn't it? MR. OPPENHEIM-It is but you know we can ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, that's been ... MR. OPPENHEIM-There's got to be some ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Again, that's been past history and I think we should follow what we've been doing. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Hey, I went through this for three years once. Three years. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Consider yourself lucky. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea, and poor too, by the way. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-He's got grey hair now. Do you want your hair to turn grey? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Not just lucky. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-He's gritting his teeth. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Okay then, what we will do is, we'll try to add some sort oflanguage, then I'll look at the Inspiration Park document and see what we said there and see if I can add it in here. Next item, was archeological and historical considerations. The Town Board of the Town of Queensbury recognizes that an archeological survey furnished by the developer has, in fact, indicated that the site contains indian artifacts and certain other archeological finds that are of importance. First, the Town Board notes that it has been proposed that the legislation will require, that the archeological or historical sites, will not be used as building sites of homes and not sold to private to homeowners. The same will be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. The Town Board also notes that there will be no development or excavation and that there will be no conveyance of these sites to third parties. Further, the sites will be marked by surveyor placed permanent monuments, and also, during construction, the areas will be fenced off to avoid possible intrusion. So that's the, that's saying why it is you feel that there won't be any environmental impact on this because of all those mitigation measures. The second clause deals with the concern that was raised by a member of the public that perhaps there was some problems with the survey, and it's saying here, that you as a Board have analyzed this and that you have confirmed with this New York State Office of Parks and Recreation, that it's acceptable. I bet you wondered how I knew that was going to happen. But although some concern has been raised during the comment period of the adequacy of the archeological survey to date, the Town Board finds against this concern. The report consists of hearsay and the credible weight of the evidence suggests that the Town Board can rely on the developer's reports. That's your statement, if you don't like it, please change it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, I just want to make sure that what we're saying here and I didn't check it because it just dawned on me, also goes along with the statement from our Town Historian, that's part of these documents. Did anybody check, recheck that to make sure that that follows some of the things that were raised? ATTORNEY DUSEK-I didn't. I did not check the Historian's report, I simply, what I heard at the meeting plus the Parks and Recreation thing. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Jim, I suggest maybe you better look at that Historian's report to make sure we've solved, we've covered all those concerns. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Does the Board have any problems with anything that was said in that paragraph, couple paragraphs actually? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I have two suggestions. At the very top where you say, Development contains indian artifacts, you might want to change the word indian to significant. I think that's the language of the report. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I think that's right. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I think some of them were other than indian. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Okay. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-And down when you refer to the New York State Office of Parks, I think it's the New York State Office of Parks, coma, Recreation and Historic Preservation. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I stand corrected by learned colleague. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Here it comes. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I watch CSPAN, that's the way they do it down in Washington DC. The next item is wildlife, Kamer Blue Butterfly and associated supporting plants. The Planned Unit Development site was investigated by the developer's agents who have reported no significant findings in this regard. There has been, however, some concern raised as to whether the investigation of the site for wildlife, particularly... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Excuse me, but what does wildlife mean? I think of animals. Are you using that to cover plants too, because you did seem to kind of use that interchangeably through here? ATTORNEY DUSEK-No, I'm using wildlife to mean any kind ofliving animal, butterfly, etcetera. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Judging from the empty beer barrels down there, it's a bigger thing than you realize. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-What did you say Paul? ATTORNEY DUSEK-I mean wildlife to mean animal, butterfly, insect, that kind of thing. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Okay, an all encompassing term. Okay. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Not to include plants though. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Oh, because I think you need to put something about plants generally there. ATTORNEY DUSEK-We may have to clean this up. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Okay, so then, investigation of the site for wildlife, particularly the Kamer Blue Butterfly and it's habitat, was sufficient. The developer has agreed and the legislation will require a resurvey and reinvestigation of the site at the time of year suggested by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. And we say, if there's any areas of significance, they will be preserved and maintained in accordance with DEC policy and regulation. Then we go on and say, the Town Board recognizes that this will be a proper method to address the concerns of the existence of Karner Blue Butterflies and that there are acceptable measures to do this, therefore, the environmental effect or concern has no significance on the environment. And then also I noted, as an aside, that they, and this is what I took out of your meeting, you indicated you assumed that the developer's representatives or DEC's representatives when they investigate the site, that if they find anything else of significance, they will address that issue. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-But that's been changed now since Jim talked to them. ATTORNEY DUSEK-How's it ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Because they said it was not necessary to do that. Isn't that what you said? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-They said they would look at it in late May, early June. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea. MR. MARTIN-They said they would look at that for the butterfly, however, they did say in terms of other endangered species that, the index that was referred to is usually sufficient. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Right. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea but that's pretty incomplete and you know it as well as I do when it get's down to ... MR. MARTIN-I'm just telling you what they said to me. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I know, when it get's down to site specifics. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-But that's not, whose going to make the determination? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We are. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-We can't say it's incomplete. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I just think, what we've said, you go in there early in the Spring and you look at, for the endangered species. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Fine, fine but what does the index refer to? MR. MARTIN-The index refers to all those species of plant and wildlife that have been found to be endangered.. . COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-And they're going to look at those. MR. MARTIN-And already in existence and indexed. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-And they're going to look at those? MR. MARTIN-Right. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Yea, fine. ATTORNEY DUSEK-So, is there any problems with any of these paragraphs? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -No. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-As long as you've got plants in there covered, you know, if you see any place you need to put the word plant in, please put it in. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I had a problem with the first paragraph under wildlife. Down about the ninth line where it began with the word require, a resurvey and reinvestigate the area, and I added, of likely habitat of the Kamer Blue Butterfly. I don't think there's any dispute at all in the information that's been submitted, that the likely area of habitat that they want us to look at again, is the powerline corridor and the open area where the pit, borrow pit. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You're not going to find it where it's heavily forested or anything. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-And we don't want to get involved in somebody saying, you didn't do that whole site. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -I have to agree. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Okay. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I do too because that's been zeroed in on, any number of times. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, because when I went looking for it, there's certain areas that you look for. I mean another site, not your site. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Okay, so I would say the area oflikely habitat of the Kamer Blue Butterfly. And then, and Paul you've been consistent in most, in the rest of it, you say the developer has agreed to, and I would add, and the legislation will require the developer to modify construction. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Where are you at Mike, I didn't ... ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Down a little bit further. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That same paragraph, right Mike? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Down a little bit further. MR. MARTIN-Next sentence Paul. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Oh, okay right. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-It would say, if any areas of significance are uncovered, the developer has agreed to and the legislation will require the developer to, and then go on with your modify. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Right. Any other problems with that paragraph, that area? Okay, next one on page II is Wetlands, Associated Wildlife Areas. The development occurs in the vicinity of some wetlands and it is recognized that the wetland areas of Clendon Brook, as well as other areas, may contain wildlife, and I guess we should say plants there from what Betty was just saying. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes, just do a slash, wildlife, plant. ATTORNEY DUSEK-That are generally relevant and are generally relevant areas of environmental concern. The project, however, will not have any significant impact on the wetlands. The development of these areas is proposed to be and the legislation for the project will condition, limiting the same. Access, if any, will be by walking trails, and with regard to Clendon Brook area, there will be no walking trails provided. The area will be left in its wildlife state in a buffer area consisting of, and I didn't know what you wanted there for feet from the stream. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Do we have something already in, Jim? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Why don't we define it when you're defining this other. MR. MARTIN-We say thirty-five feet but I don't know if you ... ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I would suggest that you simply leave it as, without a buffer area and you simply have the sentence in, the area will be left in it's wildlife state, period, and leave that off. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I like that. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-If it's a designated State Wetland, there's a hundred foot buffer area that you must maintain. MR. MARTIN-It is a designated wetland. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Where Clendon Brook is too? MR. MARTIN-Yes. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-If there is a stream, there is a stream corridor protection that's some place else in the ordinance, I don't think you really need to define it. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I agree with that. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea, it makes sense. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Mike, something I want to point out to you. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Do you agree with that Jim? MR. MARTIN-Yes. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I build houses in this area and I believe Clendon Brook has a setback established by the City of Glens Falls Water Department. Is that right? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -I think your right. UNKNOWN-Yea, a hundred and sixty feet. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Yea. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, but does that apply to it down there or just through the watershed property? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-The full length. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-The full length of the ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-And it's something you ought to look into. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR - I think actually everything by way of construction is outside of that distance anyway. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Yea, but I mean that's ... ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Okay, I appreciate your ... COUNCILMAN TUCKER-One of the restrictions that's on it and the engineers have got something to do with it too, the Army engineers don't they Roland, if I remember right? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You mean that's an navigable river, Clendon Brook? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-No, it's something to do with ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-It's water supply. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Yea, to the Hudson River. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Can I go back to the paragraph before, just in finishing up the paragraph before. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Which paragraph please Mike and which page? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Before the wetlands. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Oh, okay. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR -You said on the fourth line, and if any other significant wildlife or species. I would like to substitute the word endangered, instead of significant. I don't know if significant really says anything. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It doesn't say much. UNKNOWN-How about endangered and threatened? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Well, I think the language is, of the ordinances that we talk about is endangered. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-What are protected? There's so many classifications, I'm getting, I get confused Jim. ATTORNEY DUSEK-While we're correcting here too, I think it might be a good idea, instead of saying wildlife or species, we say wildlife or plants, right? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Yea. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I think that was the intent. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Find out what the correct wording of that should be. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, as far as ... MR. MARTIN - I think endangered... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But then what about protected ones? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Then the next sentence, at the end of that sentence you say something may have to be addressed, I would change the may have to, to will be addressed. So that it reads... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Where are you? Oh, I see it. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Developer has also recognized this as something that will be addressed, instead of the mayor should or whatever. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Will have to be addressed. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-No, I would just say, will be addressed. And then at the end of that paragraph I would add a sentence and I would say this just so, maybe we've already covered it but it is important to note that the powerline corridor is not part of the project except where the project roads cross or are to cross the same. If we run into habitat on the powerline corridor, but it's not an area that we're crossing, it's not part of our project. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I think that's been clearly stated all along through. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR -Okay and the other thing which Betty raised and I would like to see if can clarify it and I don't know if this is the place to do it or not, is that, and we've indicated that we were willing as part of this resurvey for the Blue Kamer Butterfly to look for other endangered plants or species but we would like to do it one survey and not be going back a various times. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That may not be possible though. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Except there's one and it is probably the most protected plant in New York State and that is very early Spring and we should go in and look for it. MR. OPPENHEIM-Well, can we defer to the judgement ofDEC? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Yes. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Yes. MR. OPPENHEIM-I mean, I would like to do that so there's an established standard ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-But it also, so far we said, you're going to look for the Kamer Blue, where Kamer Blues are found. But if your looking for the other plants, you've got to look where they're found. MR. OPPENHEIM-No, I understand that but we, I, no I'm happy... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-The answer is yes ... ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-But there's no indication in the record, with due respect, of any other plant. The literature search shows that there are no other, doesn't show anything. The only reason that we are really looking at the Kamer Blue is that there is a site known to exist north of this site. Typically you answered the question on your report, no. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Except for the fact that some of the neighbors, you know, think there are Trailing Arbutus in there and if there is, they're both protected ... whatever you want to call it, flower in New York State. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Why do we keep going back to, we have already agreed what's going to happen. We agreed half an hour ago what's going to happen. It's out of our control, it's up to them, right? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, would you guys, I want you to explain something to me. The powerline is out of the project. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Yes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Now where the roads go under it, does that become a part of the project ... ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Yes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Or is it an easement your getting from NIMO. I mean, what's going to happen to the actual land? Is it a transfer ofland where the roads go through? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-It will be the same thing that took place in Hidden Hills and I honestly don't know what you did in Hidden Hills. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -It's an easement. MR. OPPENHEIM-It's an easement. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Okay, it's going to be an easement. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-The same thing we just did with Queensbury Forest. We just did it. MR. OPPENHEIM-That powerline is owned and feed by Niagara Mohawk and for all practical purposes the entity at Niagara Mohawk that owns that powerline corridor, could be a different country. I mean, although, it's an entity within NIMO that owns the land that we're dealing with, totally separate and distinct. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-The real estate. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Yea, okay. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Are we ready to ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So which, are we saying, just so I'm clear and I hope this doesn't happen but I'm going to put it down there on the table. If we find habitat for the Kamer Blue Butterfly where those roads go through the easement, those roads are going to have to be moved or something is going to have to be done to mitigate it? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Something is going to have to be done, it's got to be addressed. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Mitigation, mitigation will have to ... MR. MARTIN-That's what was indicated by DEC today... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Okay, that's why, see when we're talking about what's part of the project and what's not, I just want to clarify that. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-The mitigation will have to be satisfactory to DEC. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Okay. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, let's keep going. ATTORNEY DUSEK -Okay, one just brief comment at the end of Wetlands Associated Wildlife Areas, at the very end now that we've taken out that last part, it says in it's wildlife state. I think it should just say, in it's wild state, take out the wildlife, or natural maybe it would be a better word than wild. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Okay. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Traffic Transportation. The development of the Planned Unit Development requires new roads to be constructed and requires the connection to be made directly to Corinth Road. The developer has proposed and the zoning legislation will require that the roads servicing the development connect with servicing roads, with, it should be with roads servicing, with a road servicing an adjacent subdivision, the McDonald Subdivision and that the road from this subdivision will directly connect to Corinth as opposed to the McDonald Subdivision's current connection with Sherman Island Road. The current connection of the McDonald Subdivision with Sherman Island Road would be blocked and reserved only for emergency access to and from the McDonald Subdivision and Sherman Island Road. Which, I'll stop right there because I understand from what Mike said to me earlier, that this is wrong, this is not what was planned. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-This is a little bit different. If you got as far as connections, the word on the outside, that should be an s, so it should be connections with Sherman Island Road. The next sentence, the current connection, should again, have an s on it. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Okay. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-The current connections of the McDonald Subdivision with Sherman Island Road would be blocked and reserved only for utility access to and from the McDonald Subdivision and Sherman Island Road. That's not going to be an emergency access, that is only going to be for the existing water line connection. Let me show you on the map. These are the two connections that we're talking about disconnecting, if you will. They are not going to be emergency entrances or exits. We are going to leave a twenty foot utility easement right here for the water line and I believe the same for up here. The emergency exit or emergency access by easement is going to be off of this cui de sac to the road that's the entry road for the subdivision. So I've changed the language around to correctly reflect that. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That's what we agreed to, clearly. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Yes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mike, has the Water Department agreed to that easement? I don't know what they've got up there now, they've just got an easement there now, where you said that's going to be closed except for an easement to the water? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-That's a Town road. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, sometimes they don't like easements when they already own something and I think we have to clear that through the Water Department. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Why? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Because there's legal restrictions on how they can use an easement rather than ownership and I know there's been some questions about that one time. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-This Board is the Board that owns that land there, that we're going to ask you to take, to give back to us as a developer, reserving to yourself an easement for your existing utility lines. I don't know if the Water Department makes an independent decision, I think that's this Board's decision. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-They work for us, I think. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No, they work for us. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No but the point of it is, they may have some reasons. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Fine, fine ... ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Mechanically, we will accommodate what ever they need to accommodate or engineering wise, however you ... ATTORNEY DUSEK-Continuing with that paragraph then it says, the project and the McDonald Subdivision therefor would have independent access to Corinth Road at two points. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Okay, I would change that sentence Paul to say, the project and skip to the word therefore, would have an independent access to Corinth Road and then I would add, a secondary access to Corinth Road through Foothills Drive. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Now, wait a minute, do the two points stay in or does that come out. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-No, I would take out, at two points. You take out, at two points and you take out the words, and the McDonald Subdivision. The sentence will read, the project therefore would have an independent access to Corinth Road and a secondary access to Corinth Road through Foothills Drive. The rest was okay, over to the next page. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Let's see, all access will now be made on new roads. Town Board finds that this is ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Okay, after the word new road, I would add a new sentence and I've got this written out for you. The development will have a twenty foot wide emergency easement for access from the new terminus of Sherman Island Road, ..., new cui de sac, end of ..., to the development entry road for use by emergency vehicles. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Is that alright with the Board? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-That completes the loop. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Then the final sentence is still in there? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-The final sentence is still in there. ATTORNEY DUSEK-And that's a sentence that the Board feels comfortable with, we'll leave. Electromagnetic Fields. Concerns have been raised as to what effect, if any, power lines owned and operated by Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation and running through a portion of the site, will have upon person coming near the same or occupying and living upon property in the general vicinity. The Town Board, after considering a Department of Health article on the matter, and I'm referring to that article that you guys read at the meeting there, has determined that the developer will be required to adhere to whatever State or Federal regulations may exist concerning dwelling units and private property ownership near the power lines and therefore, this should not result in a determination of an impact. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I don't think we can say that until we get that profile on that line from NIMO and I don't think we can just refer to the health article and not do some of those other articles that were introduced too. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Yea, I thought the same thing too. After that Department of Health article on the matter, and other information, other informed information. I shouldn't use the word informed, though, they may not be. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Other information. ATTORNEY DUSEK-And other information? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Yea. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Okay. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-On the matter. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But I don't think we're prepared yet to say it doesn't have any impact, until we get the profile of the line because we don't know what we're talking about. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-We need to have that, that should be added to this. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Even if we see the profile of the line ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-But that's not going to have any impact on the project. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Am I going to tell you it does or it doesn't have impact, I hope not. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No, well ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Please, I'm not God. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But we don't know it yet until we get the profile. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We, you know what, we look at all the data and we still won't know it, none of us will. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Well. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Be honest about it. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-We may know if it goes above two hundred, then we've got to say that the development can't go on. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-But that's the State or Federal regulations. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That's right. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-But basically, you have already said that. You said that, we will be required to adhere to whatever State and Federal regulations may exist. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That's correct. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But you also remember that Dr. Driscoll made another recommendation which Jim read as his report from him, so I think you have to get that profile and take that into account. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Well, I cannot agree ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea but with all due respect for the man ... ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-On behalf of the client, cannot agree to anything other than the State and Federal regulations. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, that's all we have to go on. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I think that's all there is. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Well, I'm hearing something different. I'm hearing that two hundred milligauss at the right of way is ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, then maybe we have to put a disclaimer in there that the Town takes no responsibility or liability or anything of this. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Maybe, I think we need, let's wait and see what happens. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-That won't do it for you Betty. That won't let you walk away from your responsibilities. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Okay, I think we've read before the corporate policy that I have to stand by and the only authority that I have and that is that Niagara Mohawk supports all research on the effects of EMF, their electric and magnetic fields, task force reviews, all available information, pertinent to health and safety effects from EMS and recommends appropriate corporate action. The company will continue to provide information about this important issue to all concerned. I don't think I can say that we're going to accept some other standard then what is in place right now. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I think we clearly said this at the, we went all through this and we came down to Federal and State regulations and I think we've got to stay with that. Lord knows, those may change and ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, then maybe we have ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-You as the developer may have a problem with that later on, that's your problem. MR. OPPENHEIM-Well, we as a developer, might may well, we have has as much interest or more interest that you in staying current on all the new findings and we might want to impose stricter guidelines than State and Federal standards. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Right. That's up to you. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And Alan, I hear what your saying but I think we've all lived through the tobacco company and lung cancer, the tobacco company saying for years that there was no connection. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea ... COUNCILMAN TUCKER-But I don't think we have the authority to set... ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I don't think that's a fair analogy. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Up restrictions, we don't have the knowledge or anything else. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-And I will say that on the record and I won't, I just, purposefully we've got a record here and I'm going to protect the record. I would suggest that you in the last sentence, change the word should to, does not result in a determination of an significant, insert the word significant. I'm not saying whether it has an impact or not but I don't think it's been shown to have a significant impact. We are going to abide by State and Federal regulations. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That's what we said, that's what we came to. I think we are all in agreement with that. ATTORNEY DUSEK-This does not result in a determination of significance? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR -Of an significant impact. Just insert the word significant before impact. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Okay, that was the intent when I drafted it for you, was that you're saying that this is not something that should trigger an environmental impact statement obviously. Next item then, is Fertilizers and Pesticides. It is recognized that these issues concerning the dangers of fertilizers and pesticides, whenever near wetlands or bodies of waters, are always of concern, however the Town Board also recognizes that the Town has adopted certain rules and regulations concerning pesticides and fertilizers and their use near bodies of water and therefore feels, actually it's not use near bodies of water, it's use in cluster regulations. Let's see, in their use in cluster developments. That was a, and that's referring to that 180, 180 what, 183.53, 182.53 section? And therefore feels that this constitutes a sufficient mitigation measure. Is that satisfactory to the Board? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Yes. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Up to this point. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Schools, the Town has received copies ofletters from the School District concerning potential impacts. In view of the letters and in view of the conversations had with the Town's Executive Director, the Town Board feels that the Schools will not be significantly impacted, and therefore, there is no significant impact to the environment to be considered in this regard. River ... ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Can I make a suggestion? Just so the record is clear. At the end of Schools, I would add a sentence. Until the one half mile criteria is met for school bus stop, within the development, the developer will provide walking path connecting development with Sherman Island Road, per letter of December 2nd, 1992 to Dr. Jack V. Irion from the Michaels Group. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Good. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-That was part of his suggestion. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Yes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Paul, can we back up just a minute please? Because in Part II of the EAF, page 8, impact on plants and animals, one of the questions asks, application of pesticide or herbicide, more than twice a year other than for agricultural purposes, and that's under, of course, the threatened or endangered species. So, I don't know what the carry over is, do you know what I'm saying? We're talking about herbicides and pesticides, we don't have to worry about them and yet there is a question about that mentioning twice a year in the State form that we have to fill out. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Right. I don't, I guess I don't understand your question. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well if this says, you know, it is important if they are applied more than twice a year and yet we're saying over here, there's no importance of them. I'm having a hard time following the line of reasoning. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well, that form just ask questions, I don't think it makes any statements as to whether it's important or not. Isn't it up to you to make that determination? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, it asks you whether it's small to moderate, potential or large and their standard is, application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year. ATTORNEY DUSEK-But it doesn't say what that means. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, but I'm just wondering, I'm trying to tie the two documents together and I'm wondering if we're doing it properly. That's what I'm saying. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I think the only, the only thing I would say is that when you get to that document, when we go through it, if we find that your in conflict someplace, we'll have to go back and re-analyze that section but right now I don't. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Okay, that did raise a concern when I was... ATTORNEY DUSEK-You know, you may, when the Board goes through that question, you may end up saying small to moderate or none or it can be mitigated and that will resolve it anyway. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-See when I read this, I was also trying to read this and go back and forth, and I just want to make sure that we're going to be okay. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Sure. When you go through that Part II, I think that's when we'll trigger any differentials here. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Okay. ATTORNEY DUSEK-There's just a general statement about the river, saying that for reasons set forth above, you feel that this is going to protect it. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Okay. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Future control by Town Board, it is proposed that the legislation will require that the developer shall, through final approval of the final phase, keep the Town Board apprised of all submittals to the Planning Board. If at any time the substance of these submittals is not in compliance with the intent and express conditions of the Town Board approval, the Town Board will have reserved to itself the right to reconsider the PUD determination on notice to the developer and amend or further condition its approval. With the developer's agreement to this, and the conditions in place, it is felt that this will provide further assurances that the conditions and mitigation measures set forth in this document are basically adhere to. Other, now this other category is a catch-all saying that basically, due to the nature of the project and after consideration of all evidence presented, the Town Board does not feel that there are any other areas of environmental concern that will be significant. In making this determination, the Town Board acknowledges that it has reviewed Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation. And that's what I mentioned to you earlier, I'm going to give you that section and I'd like you to go right through it yourselves and make sure that you feel comfortable with that statement. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay. ATTORNEY DUSEK-And Betty is kind of already doing that by looking at the Part II, obviously of the, because that's, some of the same things are mentioned in that part of the statement. Alright, next Resolve clause, says, the Town Board in view of all the foregoing, determines that the Planned Unit Development as proposed, with mitigation measures and legislative conditions, will have no significant environmental effects and therefore does not require a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. And be it further Resolved, that the Negative Declaration has been prepared to accompany this resolution is hereby approved and the Town Attorney's Office is authorized to file. It does have to be filed with DEC and there's a bunch of filings that have to be made because it's a Type I action. Supervisor is authorized to execute and complete any parts of the Environmental Assessment Form or Negative Declaration and that's, I always throw that in just in case there's something I need somebody to sign. And then, Resolve that a copy of the Negative Declaration is to be filed with the appropriate agencies there, that's also required under law. That gets us through part of the environmental review on the resolution. Did you want to go through your Part II at this point or how did you want to conduct...? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Can we really go through Part II until we get the thing from Al Koechlein? I think we've got to have some further information before we can go through that and do it right or we're going back and redo it again. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well, is it just a matter of one question they, we may have to wait on or? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think we ... ATTORNEY DUSEK-The only reason I'm suggesting ... ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Betty, can I ask what the question is? I think the record is kind of clear. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-AI Koechlein raised some questions in his letter and I think we have to have a sign-off ... ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-AI Koechlein had no idea what we were developing here. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes and I think now we have to have a sign-off so that we don't get in the same mess that we are, were with Earltown when DEC said we had not met their concerns. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-A little bit different situation. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-If you look at his letter, your going to see he's talking about construction on the point, which there isn't. He's talking about construction within the wetlands, which there isn't. I don't think you have to wait for that. I would urge the Board not to hold that up. I understand that we've got to go back and get this redrawn. I've got a couple of suggestions, even beyond that but I don't think Al Koechlein's letter is the DEC position on this. I'm not sure why he author the letter. If you really look at where we're going, we will be submitting to DEC, you gave a submittal to DEC saying you wanted to be Lead Agency. They I think wrote back to you, indicating that you could act as Lead Agency. They did not indicate that they will be formerly participating in the any of the presentations or whatever. They have not sent anybody to the public hearings to present anything with regard to the information that's been presented or reviewed by this Board. We will be going back to them as part of the septic system design and presentation. We will be going back to them as far as the Kamer Blue to find out when they think we should make the study. MR. OPPENHEIM-They will be accompanying us on the site walk. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-So I don't know if you necessarily have to wait for that. If you look at the letter, I think the answers, they're self evident to the questions he raised. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I see no point in waiting for that, I think we can move on. I think everything's been addressed. I'd like to keep moving. ATTORNEY DUSEK-The next stage would either ... ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I had a couple of questions though, Paul, I'd like to see if the Board would include those in their thoughts. Specifically, I went through, I did my preparation a little different than yours. I went through Part II and they had a specific section on impact on water and I would like to maybe have the Board set forth on the record it's finding as to potential impact on water. And I wrote something up to the affect that there is no proposed construction within a designated wetland and no proposed discharge into any protected or unprotected fresh water body. The Town Board has reviewed reports of Thomas Flaherty as to the capacity of the Town of Queensbury to provide the development with municipal water and has found that there will be no significant effect upon the Town water supply since adequate capacity exists to accommodate the proposed development. Further, the Town Board has reviewed the engineering data supplied by Saratoga Associates as to the sanitary septic and septic facilities proposed and finds the concept presented, to present no significant impact. Actual construction plans for the septic systems will be in accordance with the stricter, of the Town of Queensbury, State of New York Health Department and the Department of Environmental Conservation Rules and Regulations for septic systems and the actual construction design will be reviewed by an engineering consultant by the Town at the expense of the developer. Thus, the Town Board believes that the proposed sewer or septic facilities, will not have significant impact on Town water quality. And that's just a suggested subparagraph, the same as what you've got on the others. ATTORNEY DUSEK-It's up to the Board whether you would want to put that as part of this document. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I have no problem with it. I think it says pretty much what we've determined. Anybody have a problem with it? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I don't have any problem with it, no. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I guess I would like to see it in writing, in front of me. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I would too. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It's hard to just listen to something and come up to that kind of determination. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Okay, I can give it to Paul. The other thing is, there's a section on impact on aesthetic resources and I've written that the area of the development is remote and with the bluff protection and the setbacks from the bluff, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury believes that there will be no significant impact on aesthetic resources of the Town. And the third area that I would like to have included was impact on growth and character of community or neighborhood. The Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has found that development as projected is in keeping with the general residential character of the existing development within the neighborhood of the project and that as the project will, by market demands, be phased over a number of years, will not have any significant impact on the growth pattern of the community. I'll submit those to Paul, if you, unless ... ATTORNEY DUSEK-I can put them in and if you don't like them or you want to modify them, because we're going to have to give you this back anyway and when you read through it, if there's any problems, you can delete them entirely or else change them. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Right, okay, submit them and let's ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I'd like to get that all back and re-read it. I'm not saying that we couldn't meet again this week if you so desire to do a SEQRA but I don't think we're, I think we need to do that first just to be sure and there may be some questions that Miss Allen has of the Planning Department. There may be some things that she wants to bring up that could be answered by you and relayed to us. I think that little, there's nothing wrong with that time. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I don't, I'm not following on something here, I think. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-We're not going to do it tonight. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Pardon? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I don't want to do it tonight. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Okay, you don't want to do Part II. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I don't think we can yet. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Now, do you want to continue with the ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I think we can but I just want to sit back and think about it a minute. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's what I'm saying, we need to look at this in total, revised. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Did you want to move ahead with the PUD legislation and review that? That's another package. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I don't think so. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-How are you going to do that without doing the SEQRA? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We need doing all the other ... ATTORNEY DUSEK-No, I'm talking about just the draft form to see if we have the conditions and things right. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, I think that's almost the same as this one. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-All it is, is a recitation of what we're doing in the SEQRA review. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, so what changes you made here, you're going to make in that. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well, but it's different in that the one document that we just went through is really addressing generally the environmental issues and why you feel there's not an impact. The conditions that is put, that is the actual terms and conditions upon which you say that this project is to be developed and if the language isn't quite right or if you don't feel the restrictions are proper, that's why I'd like you to really take a look those. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I didn't see a whole lot different than ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think it ... ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well, they're mirrored after, there's no question they are mirrored after your SEQRA but the thing is, the language they use, the way they mount the conditions. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Right, then I think you have to redo the SEQRA to it's final... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And let us look at that, then we'll look at this. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- This draft to it's final analysis, including what he's got and make sure that that is mirrored in this because right now this not a mirror of this. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Right. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, supposing we do that. When can that be done and what I would like to do is set up a special meeting for this because I don't want to hold people for hours while we're doing our other business and then go into this because it gets to be long nights. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think maybe right now it would be courtesy to ask Ms. Allen if she has anything that she wants us to think about while we're doing this. You know, we've heard from the developer, I think it's only fair that we do that. ATTORNEY ALLEN-I would ask that we ... I've been compiling notes as we've gone through this ... I'll try drafting a letter and get it to you by Wednesday. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I can't hear her. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Okay, good, I think that's fair. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, when can we set a meeting where we can re-go through this, how fast can we put that together. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Most of the changes I've already handwritten into the document, I'll pick up the other ones that Mike made that, from him, I'm sure by tomorrow. I don't see, you know, this is really a typing task at this point, something that could be turned around certainly within a couple of days of time. DISCUSSION WAS HELD regarding scheduling of next meeting ... it was agreed by all parties to meet Friday, 5:00 p.m. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I have a concern with your earlier comment that we still have a question on the table as to density. That's something that the Planning Board has looked at, that's something that the Board has looked at. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -I don't have a problem with that. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- What? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, I do with their calculations. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, let's put it on the table and let's get that one worked out. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I've gone through it with the Planning Department and I'll go in and see them tomorrow again. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Well, let me ask this. The Zoning Board of Appeals has ruled, there's been a determination by the Zoning Administration, that has been appeal to the Zoning Board of Administration or Zoning Board of Appeals, that has affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator. Is that what is now the law in the Town of Queensbury, as to this project? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I think so, isn't it? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-As far as I know. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That's the law, isn't it? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It all depends upon what basis that was based on ... if there's new evidence, it might have to be changed. I don't know and this is something I ran into today... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-You've got to have a law, you've got to have a standard. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You've got a standard and the standard is what I'm talking about, whether or not it was properly applied and that's exactly what I'm talking about. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-But everybody says it was, it's already been reviewed. ATTORNEY DUSEK-The, maybe if! can help in this regard, there's only one way now your going to change that and that is you take the ZBA to court. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -I'm not doing that. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, we might but that's not going to help this ... ATTORNEY DUSEK-But I'm saying that's the only, just so you know, they have made the decision. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I'm not trying, I mean, we keep going back to the same issues. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, I think we settled the issue. Let's poll the Board, have we settled the issue on the density in this project? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I don't know what the question is, frankly. What is the question, Betty? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It was the methodology that they used and at ten thirty at night, it's a real complicated thing, I think their methodology was wrong, I don't think it's the same methodology that's been used before and at ten thirty at night ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Can you settle that Jim, tomorrow? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I went in and started to settle with Jim today. MR. MARTIN-My understanding of the question was, that it was that the undevelopable area should be taken out during the initial calculation, as well as for the bonus. That was the ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, not, well, your not saying it quite right but go ahead. MR. MARTIN-Well, I thought that was the question because that was the very same question ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-One hundred and sixty-three, that's the answer. MR. MARTIN-That was the very same question that was brought before the Zoning Board of Appeals. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-And the Zoning Board of Appeals said what? MR. MARTIN-They agreed with my interpretation. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That? MR. MARTIN-That you do not take out the undevelopable area in your initial calculation. I've got the section here. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-What happens Nick, if your doing a subdivision and that's what this would be if it weren't a PUD, when you do a subdivision to calculate your density, you have to take out your undevelopable land. Now where it mentions it again, in the PUD, it says that when you, to re-emphasis it, that when you do your bonus, again also there you can't do undevelopable land. When they allowed the density, they included undevelopable land that you wouldn't be allowed to do, if this is being used as a subdivision. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-And what is your analysis of it? MR. MARTIN-Here's the Section, 179-54, Land use intensity considerations. The land use intensities of this particular zone listed in Article IV of this chapter shall apply to a PUD, coma, except that, colon, where the open space area in a PUD exceeds twenty-five percent of the gross area of the PUD, the Town Board may approve a residential use density increase of one percent for each one percent of open space, not including undevelopable land in excess of the twenty-five percent minimum required by Section 179-55B of this Article. In no event shall the density bonus hereunder exceed fifteen percent. It was the very same question polled by the ZBA and the question was, in that initial calculation, do you take out the undevelopable land? My interpretation was that the initial sentence, the land use intensity of the particular zone listed in Article IV of this chapter, shall apply to a PUD, coma. That to me was one thought, end of thought. That was ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That's the way it's been applied, it was applied ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, it hasn't been applied that way. MR. MARTIN-So therefore, in the land use intensities of the particular zones listed in Article IV, your zoning districts. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That was applied in the West Mountain Development, I know that. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-It was determined the night of the ZBA meeting that it was applied that way in all the PUDs. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-All the PUDs have been that way. Look it, if we do it wrong, somebody take us to court, beat up on us in court. But the way, I want to move along and so far, our discussions have been a hundred sixty-three dwelling units, specifically. We've discussed it over and over and over again, we understand the law to be a certain thing and we're going on that basis. If somebody want's to teach us a lesson in the law, teach us a lesson in the law in court but meanwhile, let's make some progress here. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I think the question of the lesson in law, which is frustrating is that there is a procedure by which you appeal a determination like that. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Right, and it's happened. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-And that's happened and the appeal has been decided. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Right. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Now, we're back to the same issue again. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Maybe we'll go to the Supreme Court of the United States but meanwhile let's just move and get our work done. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Well, don't we have to look at the legality of it? Paul, you said that it would have to be an appeal to the ZBA decision, right? ATTORNEY DUSEK-What I mentioned earlier, is that at this point there's only one way I know that you can change things and that is, you have to continue with the administrative proceedings which would be to suit the ZBA. Take them on an Article 78 to court if you think they're wrong. Because I don't think, you can't change their determination. I mean, you can't make them change it and you can't change it, unless you rewrite the ordinance, that's another opportunity you have. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We're not doing that. ATTORNEY DUSEK-But you can either rewrite the ordinance or you can take them, challenge their decision but they've made a decision and you have to ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-And they agreed with Jim. ATTORNEY DUSEK-That's correct. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-They sure did. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Betty disagrees, but there's four of us that agree so let's ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, I ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Let's go. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No, wait, I read the sentence. If you read the sentence clearly that's wrong but that's besides the point now, now we're stuck in a bind. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Well, you think that you ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I don't think we're in a bind, we're saying a hundred and sixty-three units and we're making a determination. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-We've made a determination, the ZBA has made a determination for us. What did you say? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-If you read the sentence as it's written, I think your going to find that it says that the area density of the classification applies to the gross area of your land. Except your given a bonus in certain occasions. It's not except, we will take something away. It gives you a given right ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It's giving you more. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-For a density. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Right. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-And then it says, except you can have a bonus. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-And that does not apply on the undevelopable land, that bonus. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-And when you calculate the bonus area, do not consider undevelopable land. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Right, that's the way it's always been administered here and we're doing the same thing. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-So you didn't. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-We followed what it says. We took the basic density, which gives us a hundred and forty-eight units and then we applied the bonus only to the open land that was developable, which gave us a total of one hundred seventy units density. Our application here is actually for a hundred and sixty- three. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Okay. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -And that's maximum and it may have to come down, depending on engineering data. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Yes. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-And that's what we've said and we've said it in every conversation and let's move on. Okay, is that the consensus of the Board? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Yea, I don't have any problem with what you just said, just then. I mean I think you've given, I think you've been very conservative, in applying the law. That doesn't mean I won't argue with him, I think he read that sentence wrong. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Pliney, you agree? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I was here to the ZBA meeting and I see what took place and that's the law. And you going to change the law because somebody don't like it? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-We've done it before. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Sue? COUNCILMAN GOETZ-I'm going on Paul Dusek's recommendation, that it would have to be an appeal to the ZBA decision. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -And I've made my position clear. Betty? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think I've made my position clear. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, so it's four to one. Keep going. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Okay, we're going to meet five o'clock, Friday evening? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Yes. MR. OPPENHEIM-What will be the purpose of our agenda there? To go through the redraft and do Part II? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- The SEQRA review. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We're going to take what we just revamped and then we're going to reflect it into the next piece which is the PUD ... ATTORNEY DUSEK-What I'm going to do now is go back and revise your resolution and I will also do correlating revisions to the PUD legislation and then have this all back to you. Now, that's the other thing, I've got to have this back in time so you can review it before that meeting. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Are you going to have time? ATTORNEY DUSEK-I'm going to shoot to have it to you by Thursday night, alright? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Alright, wonderful and I'd like to, if we can, if it moves along, get into the SEQRA and finish it. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I hope to get the SEQRA done Friday night. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay. Thank you. AUDIT OF BILLS 10:45 P.M. (Councilman Monahan temporarily left the meeting during discussion of Audit) RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS RESOLUTION NO. 125, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz RESOLVED, that the Audit of Bills appearing on Abstract February 8th, 1993, numbering 93- 26400 through 93-54300 and totalling $311,456.42 be and hereby is approved. Duly adopted this 8th day February, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: Mrs. Monahan ABSTAIN: Mr. Caimano, GF Post Star, #00127 (Councilman Monahan re-entered meeting) Supervisor Brandt-We still have a public hearing open, we need to go back as the Board of Health. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 126, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session to enter the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 8th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: Ayes ALL THOSE OPPOSED: None ABSENT: None QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH PUBLIC HEARING, CONTINUED - SEWER VARIANCE - MR. HOWARD DENISON SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Is Howard Denison here, want to speak? Not here, hasn't come. I will close the public hearing then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 10:50 P.M. Supervisor Brandt-Now, what's the Board's decision? Councilman Goetz-I think we should abide by the recommendations of Mr. Flaherty and Mr. Hatin and deny it. Supervisor Brandt-I do too but I honestly feel that let the guy have until the ground, I mean there's a certain element of risk but it's pretty minor. If you let it go until the ground thaws and then you tell him he's got to fix it, and then you don't get into using extreme measures to break frost. Councilman Goetz-So what period are you talking about? Councilman Caimano-Except he had the opportunity ... Supervisor Brandt-I know but that's ... Councilman Tucker-Mike, he's been playing games with us. Supervisor Brandt-I understand that but ... Councilman Tucker-We had to spend money to take this guy to court to get him to even put in a, and these guys have got better things to do with their time. Supervisor Brandt-Well, I know but I hate to, I mean to go out and jack hanuner frost to find a line at this time of year, boy that's severe. Councilman Caimano-I know but he didn't even think, I maybe drawing a wrong inference here, but he didn't even think enough of this to show up to argue it. Supervisor Brandt-I know, I know but I still, my feeling is enforce it to the hilt but enforce it in May. Give him until May, let him put in, let him fix the danm thing and then enforce it. Councilman Tucker-I don't think your backing your people Mike when you do this. Supervisor Brandt-Well I, you know I mean, to go jack hanuner up the yard. Councilman Tucker-Mike, hey, he didn't give a danm. Councilman Caimano-He had the opportunity though. Councilman Tucker-Yea, he had the opportunity last November to do it. Supervisor Brandt-Well, Okay, it's the will of the Board, make a resolution. Attorney Dusek-What you should just do is, resolve to disapprove the application for a variance and state your reasons why. RESOLUTION TO DENY VARIANCE - HOWARD DENISON RESOLUTION 2, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby denies the application for a variance by Mr. Howard Denison for the reasons that have been set forth in Mr. Hatin's and Mr. Flaherty's letters and in addition that he was given more than enough time to correct the problem and chose not to do so and finally that absent any evidence to the contrary because he did not show up at the public hearing we cannot make any other decision. Attorney Dusek-Do you feel that this is not a proper existence to have a septic tank and a water pipe together? Councilman Caimano-Right Supervisor Brandt-I do not think there is no question. Councilman Tucker-That is what the law says. Councilman Caimano- That is what we are saying we are backing up ... Councilman Tucker-That is what the law says. Councilman Caimano- I will second it. Supervisor Brandt-The motion has been made and seconded, any discussion? I would like to point out that it seems to me this person did have a right to come to us and appeal this and I do not think we have a right to be vindictive because he chose that course. I think the right thing to do is to modify your motion a little bit and to give them time to react after frost and that is all I would ask. Councilman Caimano-My only comment is that I do not think that for my stand point I am being vindictive, I do not have any evidence that he has any interest in trying to solve this thing because he did not show up nor did he send information to us. Councilman Monahan-Well if Mike wants to amend the motion, he has that right to do it and we have to vote on that amendment first. RESOLUTION TO AMEND PREVIOUS MOTION RESOLUTION NO.3, 93 Supervisor Brandt-I would propose an amendment that it be enforced middle of May Seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan Supervisor Brandt-So on the amendment any discussion? Councilman Goetz-What is the final time period? Councilman Monahan-A yes will mean that he gets extended to what did you say Mike, May? Supervisor Brandt-May 15th. Duly adopted this 8th day of February, 1993 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MOTION AS AMENDED RESOLUTION NO.2, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby denies the application for a variance by Mr. Howard Denison for the reasons that have been set forth in Mr. Hatin's and Mr. Flaherty's letters and in addition that he was given more than enough time to correct the problem and choose not to do so and finally that absent any evidence to the contrary because he did not show up at the public hearing we cannot make any other decision and be it further RESOLVED, that there is a extension of time until May 15th 1993 to correct the problem. Duly adopted this 8th day of February, 1993 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES; Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.4, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns and enters Regular Session of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 8th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: Ayes ALL THOSE OPPOSED: None ABSENT: None QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD Councilman Caimano-I have a quick question, we had a letter and I'm assuming the rest of us have it written by Pam Whiting to a resident and I don't think it's necessary to mention who the resident is. But I just didn't understand, A, way this letter was written and B, I don't understand the whole circumstances says. The letter says... Dear whoever, This afternoon at approximately 4: 15, Mr. Harry Hansen came into my office and questioned why I made copies of the map of Hovey Pond. I told him it was at your request. It was my understanding that the copies were for BOCES and for a file copy to be kept here. I believe that this is what you discussed with Jim Martin. I would appreciate it if any requests that you have regarding any correspondence be directed to Mr. Jim Martin, Executive Director and Mr. Harry Hansen. He told me, whoever he is, that if you wanted additional copies, you should have requested them from him. I hope this clears up my involvement in this situation. (letter on file in Clerk's Office) Councilman Caimano-My first question is, why does, I mean are we simply allowing any person within the Town to write to a citizen and this was not written as this person's title, it was written to a citizen. Councilman Goetz- I agree with you. First of all, I think both of the people involved were wrong in what they did. Councilman Caimano-Absolutely, absolutely. Councilman Goetz-Both of them and that letter should not be going out to the public. Councilman Caimano- This letter should never go out. Otherwise, everybody in this Town will be allowed to write to anybody and chew their tail out. Councilman Goetz-Yea, it's bad. Councilman Caimano- This is absolutely ... Councilman Tucker-Maybe she was instructed by the guy in charge to do it. Councilman Caimano-It doesn't say so. It does not say so. Councilman Tucker-Well, let's find out. Councilman Caimano-Well, that's all I want to find out. Councilman Tucker-We're paying thirty-eight thousand dollars a year down there for a guy to run that department, let's find out whose running it. Councilman Caimano-Ijust want to find out, okay. Supervisor Brandt-Okay. Councilman Goetz-We should, definitely. Supervisor Brandt -Yea, there are alot of wrongs there. OPEN FORUM 10:55 P.M. John Salvador-Questioned whether the Open Forum portion of the meetings that you have regularly are recorded on the minutes? Deputy Town Clerk Mitchell-Open Forum is not word for word, the meetings are taped and those tapes are kept as part of the record. Mr. Salvador-Fine, thank you. Referred to earlier discussion, talking about a Planning Board secret ballot. Questioned whether that meets the requirements of the Open Meetings law? Attorney Dusek - I presume, and I wasn't there but I presume that the meeting the Planning Board held at which that vote was taken, was in fact open to the public. If your question is, is it required to be open to the public, of course it is under the Open Meetings law. However, can they take a piece of paper and write on it a vote, I don't know anything John, that says they can't because the Open Meetings law says you can come in and watch what they are doing, it doesn't say you can participate but it says you can actually watch what it is they're doing. Mr. Salvador-Well, check with a fella down at the State Department, New York State Department, he's in charge of the Freedom ofInformation Law. Attorney Dusek-I know who he is. Mr. Salvador-Check with him on whether or not they can conduct a secret ballot. Councilman Tucker-But the end results were made public. Attorney Dusek-Right. Mr. Salvador-The individual voting members of the Board, their vote, the public is entitled to know how they vote. Attorney Dusek-John, I gather from what your statement is, your objecting to the secret ballot of the Planning Board and basically your saying that it's not proper, under the law, to do that. Mr. Salvador-Yes. Attorney Dusek-This is something the Planning Board can take under advisement and if they need help determining the law, I'm sure we can work that out. Mr. Salvador-Okay. Referred to earlier discussion regarding payment of a two hundred fifty dollar ad. You should be guided by the State Constitution that says that public funds shall not be used for a private purpose or benefit. Attorney Dusek-My understanding is that the Town Law, Section 64 provides that the Town Board may spend money on promotional type of items. It would seem to me that this would certainly follow, taking an advertisement promoting the Town of Queensbury as well as an event that benefits the Town, is something within the discretion of the Town Board. Mr. Salvador-The item being promoted, number one, the Comptroller has ... that the event should be opened to the public. That means no admission charged. Do they charge admission for these basketball games? I don't know. Councilman Caimano- Yes. Mr. Salvador-Specifically, that decision has come down, open to the public and I think it means no admission charge. We're having these same battles with the County Tourism Department. Attorney Dusek-Here again, I take it from your comments that you're contesting that this in fact may not be a legal expenditure. You apparently have sites of Comptroller opinions and some documentations that I'm sure you would like to share with my office. Perhaps, you and I could review the information and I can render an opinion to the Town Board. If it's something they can't do, then we'll come back and advise you that. Supervisor Brandt-I'd appreciate knowing that, I think that's a very serious question. Councilman Monahan-Paul, I can only say that, during the time that I've been on the Town Board we've been through several State Audits, as well as our own private auditing firm, and never have we been criticized for doing this type of expenditure. Attorney Dusek-Well I can say Betty myself, obviously I've sat here why you've done these things too and my initial reaction was the same that I've just given to John, that I know there's a provision under the Town law that would seemingly allow this type of an expense. John obviously has further information that maybe senses, it might not be allowed. I think the only way you can be absolutely be sure and I can't say that I ever in-depth, researched these issues because I can't research every single one that comes before you but you go with what you think is correct. If you find at a point in time, it should be further researched, by all means, I have no problem doing that for you and giving you a complete answer. Supervisor Brandt-I'd like to know, also, for on the County Board. I'm now on the Tourism Committee and this issue is going to be in front of us all the time. Councilman Monahan-But again, I want to say and as far as the Basketball thing, this is not private, it's done by the schools and there's no private organization involved whatsoever. Councilman Caimano-I think it's private. But he's going to look at it so there's no sense talking about it. Councilman Goetz-Well, first of all we have that letter to send back and say what we're going to do, should we hold up on that? Attorney Dusek-Well, I think it would be advisable under the circumstances. Mr. Salvador-Referred to discussion earlier about the County Planning Board. It's appreciated that the County has no zoning authority whatsoever. By the Constitution, they have no zoning authority. They have gotten their zoning authority by statute. I've been to County Planning Board meetings. They conduct a meeting, they allow the applicant to make comments, to answer questions, to present the project and they don't allow the public to participate. I have been at that meeting and I have heard false statements made. That Planning Board will not entertain your thoughts. Will not listen. They tell you, that they are an Advisory Board. That's right, they have no zoning authority. It rests with you. It's ajoke. Very, very political. Councilman Caimano-What's the point, other than the information? Mr. Salvador-Well, you seem to be frustrated with this procedure. Councilman Caimano-With the County Planning Board? Mr. Salvador-Yes. Councilman Caimano-I'm not frustrated, we just take whatever they say with grain of salt and that's the end of it. Councilman Goetz-I'm frustrated with it. Having observed it for many years, I am frustrated with it. There is a problem with it. First of all, the public can't have a say. Councilman Caimano-But my point is, why should we get frustrated with something we can't do anything about. Mr. Salvador-That's the point. Councilman Goetz-I'm not sure we can't. Mr. Salvador-You can do something about it. You have rights, the Town Board has rights. Attorney Dusek-John, are you making a suggestion that the Town does not have to send things to the Warren County Planning Board? Mr. Salvador-As I read the Constitution, they don't have any zoning jurisdiction whatsoever. Attorney Dusek-Initially, the problem that your faced with, is regardless of what you maybe reading in the Constitution, there is a New York State, General Municipal Law, Section 239M which requires that this stuff be sent there. Now, legislative acts whether they be of this Board or the New York State Legislature, are presumed to be Constitutional. Presumably, they knew what they were doing when they enacted them. I think the Town in good faith has relied upon that legislation. Now, if in point of fact, that that legislation is not valid and it's worthy of contest, it seems to me rather than simply ignore the legislation, it would be advisable for the Town if they wanted to, take a declaratory judgement action on that particular piece of New York State Legislation. Then have the courts rule as to whether they have to comply but I would not counsel the Town ... Supervisor Brandt-I don't think that's the will of this Board. Mr. Salvador-No, no I'm not suggesting that. But you do pay dues to a New York State Association of Towns, they do lobby, they do legal work, I've seen their papers. Attorney Dusek-That's another avenue. You wouldn't want to just ignore that law, because what it could mean and the courts have held... Mr. Salvador-I'm not suggesting that. Attorney Dusek-The actions of the Board would then be illegal and improper. Mr. Salvador-I understand. The subject of the Dunham's Bay Road, is that on the schedule? Attorney Dusek-We're at a point now where I can meet with the Board. I'll just need a little time to prepare with Leon Steves, so we can set a date that's far enough in advance that I can get everybody together. We've got a lot going on in the next couple of weeks, maybe about three weeks from now or so to meet and go over this issue. Supervisor Brandt-Yes, I'd like to see that one put behind us. Mr. Salvador-Okay. Referred to Lake George Park Commission Stormwater Regulations ...Town Board held discussion regarding the appropriate action concerning these regulations. Attorney Dusek-Noted, I see three options available to the Town Board. One is, you do nothing and their regulations come in and they enforce them. Two, you agree with them and you match up your regulations with theirs and handle it that way or three, the only other possibility that I can see is, you take a declaratory judgement action against them to stop the enforcement of the regulations against the Town. Councilman Caimano-Referred to earlier discussion regarding letter written by Pam Whiting. Noted, Jim is back in the room and I need an answer to that question. Mr. Martin-In terms of this letter, what happened was, this morning I noticed Pam running through my office with maps of Hovey Pond and I didn't know why she was making copies. I found out they were being made for Mrs. Gosline in regards to Hovey Pond and I figured as Director of the Department, I should know about those things, usually we charge for those size maps, I didn't know what that paper was being used for. But I did find out it was for Hovey Pond, I went up and told Mr. Hansen that these copies were being made of the park plan, I understand they we're going over to BOCES or something like that. Harry came down and asked Pam later on in the afternoon, he would have liked to been informed that copies were being handed out and she wrote this letter. Councilman Goetz-Okay, I have a big problem with her writing that letter. Councilman Caimano-Me too. Councilman Goetz-You know, that is poor. Has it gone out? Supervisor Brandt -She works for you, you give her her directions. On the other hand, we have freedom of information, if somebody wants a copy of something, I have no problem with that. Mr. Martin-I don't either, I just would like to know what's going on in my department. Councilman Caimano-Fine, but that's the issue. The problem is that we, forgetting about whether it's Gosline, it could have been anyone out in the audience asking for information. Mr. Martin-Right, I didn't know and ... Councilman Monahan-I guess that I will take part of the blame for this, okay, because they needed the maps, I said I would get them for you if you want me to. Councilman Caimano- That's fine. Mr. Martin-I didn't have any problem with it. Councilman Monahan-I didn't know there was any big problem, I'd gladly pay for them Jim if that's part of the problem. Mr. Martin-No, no, no, I'm not saying that. Councilman Caimano-No, no, no. The problem is that an ass-chewing letter should not be going out from a clerk of this Town to a citizen, that's the problem. Mr. Martin-I didn't even know the letter was written. Councilman Tucker-Alright, but if a letter is going to be written, it goes out under your name. Councilman Caimano- Y ou write it. Mr. Martin-Believe me, that will be the case. I came back tonight to get ready for the meeting and this was taped onto my door. Mr. Francis Martindale-What John was saying and I think this Board ought to really think about, if your not aware of it, there is a big push to make this whole area a national park. Supervisor Brandt -We're part of a organization we just joined of all of the Towns within the Adirondack Park and they're all very concerned about it and they're all being deprived of a way to make a livelihood. There's no question we're concerned about and we are aware of it and we're meeting with other people within the Park to see, as elected officials, if there's something we can do about it. OPEN FORUM CLOSED 11:20 P.M. Town Board held discussion regarding Hiland Park Sewer District and the following resolution was proposed: RESOLUTION CONCERNING SEWER SERVICES FOR P ASSARELLI BAY ROAD SUBDIVISION AND BAY MEADOWS SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION NO. 127,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has received a letter, dated February 5, 1993, from Thomas W. Nace, P.E., of Haanen Engineering, requesting, on behalf of the Passarelli Bay Road Subdivision, that 75,000 gallons per day of average daily flow be allocated in the sewer system for the project, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has also received a copy of a letter, dated February 5, 1993, from Nicholas D. Sciartelli, estimating that the daily needs for the sewer system in the Bay Meadows project will be 26,000 gallons per day, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has an Agreement with Hiland Park whereby Hiland Park gave up certain capacity in the Hiland Park sewer system but certain actions must be taken by the Town before it can use the said sewer capacity, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor, after the Town Attorney determines the correct legal methods and notices that should be used, to send written notice of the desire of the Town of Queensbury to use all of the 100,000 gallons per day of capacity relinquished by Hiland Park. The notice shall be sent in accordance with the terms and provisions of the agreement and indicate the Town's desire to use the capacity for other projects, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor and Town Attorney to take such other and further steps as may be necessary, including contact with Hiland Park's attorneys and, if necessary, the Bankruptcy Court, in order to exercise the Town's rights under the agreement. Duly adopted this 8th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None Town Board held discussion regarding Ethic's Law... a case regarding an Assessment Board of Review Member who is also an Attorney, has voiced concern disclosing list of clients. No action was taken, Town Board agreed this needs further review. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 128, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and enter Executive Session to discuss a Personnel Matter, two Lawsuit Actions and Attorney/Client Privilege. Duly adopted this 8th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: Ayes ALL THOSE OPPOSED: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO RECONVENE RESOLUTION NO. 129,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Executive Session and enter Regular Session of the Town Board. Duly adopted this 8th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: Ayes ALL THOSE OPPOSED: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION CONCERNING APPEAL IN ELLSWORTH VS. TOWN OF QUEENSBURY RESOLUTION NO. 130, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has been advised of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, decision in the matter of Ellsworth vs. Town of Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire not to have the decision appealed. Duly adopted this 8th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO CANCEL TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO. 131,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz Supervisor Brandt-I move that we not have a meeting next Monday because of the Official Holiday. Duly adopted this 8th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: Ayes ALL THOSE OPPOSED: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 132, 93 INTRODUCED BY: WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and enter Executive Session as previously described in Resolution No. 128, 93. Duly adopted this 8th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: Ayes ALL THOSE OPPOSED: None ABSENT: None No further action was taken. On motion, the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK-QUEENSBURY