The URL can be used to link to this page

1993-02-12-S SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 1993 MTG.#14 RES. 132-133 5:00 P.M. TOWN BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Michel Brandt Councilman Betty Monahan Councilman Susan Goetz Councilman Nick Caimano Councilman Pliney Tucker Attorney Paul Dusek Executive Director James Martin Attorney Mike O'Connor, Allen Oppenheim, Rob Sutherland Supervisor Brandt-Opened the Meeting... RESOLUTION MODIFYING LANDFILL DISPOSAL RATES RESOLUTION NO.: 132,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury currently operates, owns, and maintains a Landfill located off Ridge Road in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Town Law of the State of New York, the Town is authorized therein to manage the affairs of the Town and the Town is desirous oflowering the rate at which particular items of solid waste will be accepted for delivery at the Landfill, while leaving all other rates previously established, the same, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby amends the rates charged for solid waste delivered to the Town of Queensbury Landfill as follows: 1. For miscellaneous non-burnable items, $9.00 per cubic yard delivered to the site, except that in the case of mattresses, box springs, and overstuffed chairs, they shall be received at $5.00 each, and in the case of tires or white good items and metals, those items will be received at $2.00 each; 2. For uncompacted miscellaneous solid waste identified as burnable, $13.00 per cubic yard; 3. Both charges to be the same for solid waste received from anywhere in the County of Warren (including other Towns) and elsewhere in accordance with agreements agreed to by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that other than as indicated, the rate structure for the use of the Town of Queensbury Landfill shall remain the same as last established and/or modified by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 12th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: None Councilman Caimano-Questioned if anything was done for physicals for the rescue squads...asked Town Clerk to check the contracts... HUDSON POINTE PUD Attorney Dusek-At the last session you had ended with a review of the Resolution concerning the determination of non significance we had gone through it, made a number of corrections to it. It was left at that point with a thought, that, that would be retyped by my office sent to you, which it was of course in fact sent to you with a copy of the Hudson Pointe Environmental Assessment Form Part I. You also got Part II, you were also sent part 617, 11 and 12 of the Environmental Conservation Regulations, so, that was the one part and I guess the best thing, my recommendation would be is, first of all, there are three things that have to be accomplished, looked at tonight. One is the Environmental Assessment Review Part II has yet to be conducted and that means going through the questions and answering them. The second thing that has to be done or considered at least would be the resolution of Determination as to whether or not you feel that this should be negative dec'd and then the third thing assuming that you get that far it would be to consider the resolution approving the PUD. Now, that resolution, by the way, has also been revised or parts of it to be consistent with the other resolution. So, tonight you should have a new copy of that before you as well. So, if you have the package that I sent you yesterday and if you have the new PUD Resolution you should have everything that you need on this project and it really, as I said I guess the last time I think it is up to the Board whether you want to take a look at the resolution on the Negative Dec first and go through and see if it is cleaned up to the point where you think it should be or if you want to do the environmental review first. In fact, you may want to consider doing the Environmental Review tonight first since you probably have a pretty good grip on the project at this point, by that I mean going thorough that Part II statement, do that first and then get into reviewing page by page the Negative Dec. to make sure it is in fact complete and satisfactory and then consider whether or not to adopt it. Councilman Monahan-I have a question of Jim before we get started. Jim if you remember I suggested that the Planning Dept. re-scale the open space of the new plan to make sure that it conformed with the PUD Regulations has that been done? Mr. James Martin-Scott went through, I think that was done in connection with the density that we have been looking that over again. Councilman Monahan-Yes, but there has been some changes since we did this. Mr. Martin-Well, we have not done it on the most recent version, no. But, Councilman Monahan-I think that needs to be done, so we are sure that, that conforms to the regulations under the PUD. That is why I mentioned it the other night. Attorney O'Connor-The changes that have, if! may, maybe so we all understand the same thing, for the purpose of your record if you have that running, I am Mike O'Connor. My understanding that the changes have been made did not change the calculations for open space because the change that you are talking about are, I think that you are referring to is the delation of the ninety four acres, that was not included in that calculation for open space. Councilman Monahan-Well, I think, to taking the bluffs out and stuff like that makes the changes too, Mike. Attorney O'Connor-That increases the open space. Councilman Monahan-I am not sure you can count that if you read that definition. Rod Sutherland-It was never counted as useful open space... Councilman Caimano-I would like to have Jim go through this please. Supervisor Brandt-There is a question here on density calculations, right? Councilman Caimano- Yes, Sir. Supervisor Brandt-And you and Jim Martin have been working on that? Councilman Caimano-Actually Jim Martin has been working on it, I asked the question because I was confused. Mr. Martin-He asked this morning if I could make up a chart that might assist the Board in seeing the rational and the methodology that was applied and ..in achieving the calculations. This was done in accordance with 179-54 and letter A of that Section OK. Ok, there were three parcels that were contiguous, that were proceeded to be the project. They were parcels C,D and E, I highlighted these over here to the side, Parcel C as you can see is ten acres, D is forty two, parcel E is one hundred and fifty six point two and that is this whole section both the shaded and the white section right down to the floor. This parcel E is a split up between WR3A and SRIA both of the other parcels are SRIA completely. So, we have total acreage of two hundred and eight point two acres between the three parcels. Step two that was taken right down to the parcel according to zoning parcel C is all SRIA all ten acres parcel D is forty two acres all SRIA parcel E is sixty six acres of SRIA zoning and ninety point two of the WR3A. So we have a break down of one hundred and eighteen acres for SRIA and ninety point two acres for WR3A. Step three, break down of permitted units. According to the Zoning parcel C ten acres, one acre zoning one dwelling units. Councilman Caimano-Wait a minute, go slow through here now, because this is the crux of your ... Mr. Martin-Right, this is the crux of my argument, the approach that I took that at this point you do not take out the the undevelopable that is the issue that was brought to the ZBA and the appeal that was made to them and the appeal was denied. Councilman Caimano-Undevelopable meaning anything undevelopable whether it was roads sidewalks or anything. Mr. Martin-Slopes, wetlands that type of thing. Councilman Caimano- Y ou are just taking every acre of land. Mr. Martin-Right. Parcel D is forty two acres at one acre zoning, forty two dwelling units. Parcel E at 66 acres of SRIA zoning which we got from up here, sixty six dwelling units, parcel E WR3A portion of that ninety acres at three acre zoning obviously would yield thirty units. OK. So we have one hundred and forty eight units of base density, without any bonus. Now, to begin to get into the bonus calculations you have to calculate the open space, ok, total acreage is two hundred and eight point two acres, total proposed development of one hundred and one point two acres yielding one 0 seven. That is open space, this is raw open space before undevelopable land is taken out. Councilman Caimano-...where did that come from the one 0 one point two. Mr. Martin-It came from a combination of the applicant and we scaled it off to verify the, verify as best we can we cannot get as accurate as they can because they have cad systems and all that, we do not have that capability as yet. Councilman Caimano-Does that take into account the infrastructure? This is, has the infrastructure been taken out? Mr. Allen Oppenheim-The developed land would include roads and include all building lots. Councilman Monahan-Developed land for this Nick should include anything that is under roof. Plus lawns around houses and etc. Mr. Oppenheim-The total building lot which we... Councilman Monahan-But, when I say under roof I am talking about the roads and all that kind of stuff anything. .. Councilman Caimano- This is where I am still not clear here, the total proposed development is one hundred and one point two acres. Mr. Martin-Developed land, developed acreage, where the development is occurring of the overall, all these three parcels total two hundred and eight acres. Councilman Caimano-Have you taken, ok. In that one hundred and one point two does that include the roadways, right of ways? Mr. Martin-Yes. Councilman Caimano-It does. Go ahead then. Mr. Martin-Ok. The fifth step that was taken, to calculate the undevelopable land, ok wetlands constituted eighteen acres, slopes of 15% or greater plus the fifty foot buffer constitute a twenty four acres so we had a total of forty two acres of undevelopable land. All right. Supervisor Brandt-Actually the fifty foot buffer we could debate that couldn't you. That's Councilman Monahan-Under our definitions you can't. Supervisor Brandt-Well, I am not sure. Your definitions say slope. Mr. Martin-There is no buffer required but the buffer was offered. Supervisor Brandt -So, what I am saying, that could be even padding, inotherwords in a direction of more density. Mr. Martin-According to how the project was defined that was undevelopable land, no development was allowed to occur in that area... Step six calculate land available for bonus calculations. Which as the ordinance calls for when you go through it you may approve a residential use density increase of 1 % for each 1% of open space not including undevelopable land.... Supervisor Brandt -So you take the One hundred and Seven Acres.. Mr. Martin-You have the forty two acres, you got the One hundred and Seven from before that was not called for development, take out the undevelopable land of forty two acres that yields sixty five acres of open land available for the bonus. Step Seven I may have combined a couple of steps here at the end but this is simply a calculation of the bonus, total open land available is sixty five acres alright now, all PUD's are required to have 25% of open space. All right we have a total project of two hundred and eight acres from the previous Councilman Monahan-Excuse me Jim, I do not think your two hundred and eight is right, I think the two hundred and eight includes the Niagara Mohawk easement and when you went down to the forty two acres you took out that easement so if you are going to take it out one place you ought to take it the other. Mr. Oppenheim-The calculations never included the Niagara Mohawk easement. Mr. Martin-No, it was only these areas within the boundary lines. Councilman Monahan-Are you sure... Mr. Martin-it excluded easements as you see. Councilman Monahan-lam just checking some other figures here and going by them. I realize that, I thought it got into these figures in the first place. Councilman Caimano- Two hundred and eight at 25% Mr. Martin-25% so they would have been required to have fifty two acres according to the ordinance for open space. They have sixty five acres of open space, alright. Now, this is where it gets the most complicated part. So, we have thirteen acres of excess over what the minimum was, all right the minimum the required amount was fifty two acres, with thirteen acres over that. Ok, thirteen divided by that thirteen yield 25%. Thirteen divided by fifty two yields 25%. That would be if you did not have a limitation that would have been your maximum allowed bonus. But, the ordinance goes on to read, in no event shall the density bonus here under exceed 15%, 15% maximum bonus, 179-54A. So, we have a total unit off the base calculation of one hundred and forty eight units times 15% yields twenty two additional dwelling units. Twenty two plus one forty eight brings us to one seventy total allowed units with bonus. Councilman Monahan-Wait a minute, how did you do that because the figures that Scott gave me the other day came down with fourteen plus a hundred and forty eight equals one hundred and sixty two. Mr. Martin-He had a mistake on his initial calculation. Councilman Monahan-It might be that eight acres Jim, I do not know, it should not make that much difference. Mr. Martin-Well, thirteen that effects this calculation here drastically, instead of five divided by fifty two, yielding only 9% it is thirteen divided by fifty two which brings it up to 25%. Councilman Monahan-Thirteen divided by Mr. Martin-Fifty two, equals 25% as opposed to five divided by fifty two which would have yielded 9.6%. Councilman Monahan-But, you are only allowed, what, the number of units that you have got there, units, units by right or what? Mr. Martin-One hundred and forty eight. Councilman Monahan-All right, so the most you can have is 15% of one hundred and forty eight. Mr. Martin-Right, is twenty two. Councilman Caimano-Ok, you have one hundred and seventy by those calculations right? But, you are asking for one hundred and sixty three. Mr. Martin-Right. Councilman Caimano- What is the minimum amount of land necessary to cover those seven dwelling units? From your Mr. Oppenheim-It would depend on what size lot, it could be multi family units that would occupy acre lots or it could be three acres lots so it would be twenty some acres, it really depends on the specific type of units. Councilman Caimano-Well, I guess what I am trying to tie down here is this? The, when you made your original calculations if you go back there, I cannot remember the exact number you used in order to come up with the acreage that you came up with you use every piece of land you did not take into account the fact that you build roads, driveways those kinds of things. Ok. Mr. Oppenheim-The initial calculation are gross acreage. Councilman Caimano-Gross acreage, but nothing changes, the whole thing filters down as gross acreage, when you asked to go and when you do all those calculations at gross acreage you come up with one hundred and seventy units. But, you cannot build on a gross acreage for obvious reasons, you have to have infrastructure. Is seven units that you have given us back you only want one hundred and sixty three, sufficient for that infrastructure. That is the question that is on my mind. I do not know that, I do not know either way. Mr. Martin-..or what the land will support... Councilman Caimano-Or should it be twenty or should it be none? Obviously it can't be none. Attorney O'Connor-That is what your whole resolution is framed around, we have asked for one hundred and sixty three so we have acknowledge that we have given up seven units of density but to actually put in the one hundred and sixty three we will have to show by engineering data, that the land will support that, that drainage will support that at Councilman Caimano-At site plan review. Attorney O'Connor-Yes. Councilman Tucker-Jim, just for me, the forty two acres of undeveloped what is that? Mr. Martin-Forty two acres of undeveloped Councilman Tucker-That you took away from the one hundred and seven, what does that include? Mr. Martin-That included wetlands, slope over 15% and fifty foot buffer. The roads and that type of thing were taken out previously in open space included in the total proposed development. Councilman Caimano-I do not have my book, is wetlands allowed to be used for this, as undevelopable? Attorney O'Connor-Not in the bonus calculation. Councilman Monahan-You have got to take it out. Attorney O'Connor-The bonus calculation you should take it out. Councilman Monahan-And you cannot use it in subdivisions either. Attorney O'Connor-Right. Supervisor Brandt -Satisfied with it? Councilman Monahan-My premises is I think that there is a step left out of this and that is Paul, on 179-56 Attorney Dusek-I do not have, Jim has got the book. Mr. Martin-I can give...mine Paul. Councilman Monahan-Item G which sends you right over to the subdivision regulations as part of the PUD. In the subdivision regulations it says you have to take out your undevelopable land before you ..do your density. Attorney O'Connor-I really wonder why we are re-inventing the wheel? This is the same discussion the same grounds that we covered when we were here before. Councilman Monahan-No it isn't because I did not bring up this other point, Tim or Mike. Attorney O'Connor-May I finish? Supervisor Brandt -Go ahead. Attorney O'Connor-This is the same ground the same arguments, the same discussion in total that we had before the Zoning Board of Appeals. If you look at 179, you know you look at one section take it out of context and make something of it. If you take a look at that one section 179-56G you have got to finish 179 and I think it is. Supervisor Brandt -You are saying this was the argument in the Zoning Board of Appeals. Councilman Monahan-Not really Mike, because they never talked about this section here, and they also said that this was the way West Mt. and Hiland was done as with no evidence was produced as far as I can see, and I have West Mt. here and West Mt. started off with a density of two hundred, lets see West Mt. a calculation of two hundred and eighty four which the consultant did, wondered about the final density given to West Mt. was two hundred and fifty eight. Attorney O'Connor-If you look at 179-56g you have to look at the whole paragraph. At the very end of that paragraph there is a statement where conflict between this article and any of the above exists this article shall govern. Councilman Monahan-Mike, and I realize this, but if you take this in logical sequence there is no conflict, because this tells you to go to your site plan, or your subdivision that is how you figure your den., once you get your zoning so you know how much you are allowed per unit then you go to your subdivision and it tells you how to figure your density and then you go back to 179.54 to find out how you do your bonus. So, if your mind goes in a logical sequence there is not, conflict. Attorney O'Connor-The same argument that was presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Councilman Monahan-No, it wasn't because I have read the minutes and 179 says Attorney O'Connor-and if you read... Councilman Monahan-Because 179-56 was never brought up in front of the Zoning Board. Attorney O'Connor-If you read this, it says this article it does not say this section, if there is any conflict in this article. The article is the whole business about planned unit development. Councilman Monahan-That is right. Attorney O'Connor-Planned Unit Development has various specifically the density consideration set forth at 179-54. Councilman Monahan-No it doesn't that is for your bonus. Attorney O'Connor-It is the plain simple. Councilman Monahan-I remember when we wrote this, I was involved with this when we wrote it. Attorney O'Connor-I am not trying to be confrontational or argumentative I think the issue Councilman Monahan-No, you are just trying to get all you can get which is your job. Supervisor Brandt-Let him finish, please. Attorney O'Connor-Our position is that we are entitled to density of one hundred and seventy by the statue your Zoning Board of Appeals has agreed with the calculations that was made by your Zoning Administrator we do not differ on our position on that. We have made an application seeking a density determination of one sixty three, and I think the ordinance backs it. Councilman Tucker-What is the legal step, Paul? Attorney Dusek-In my opinion would be first of all I would have to agree because I sat there at the Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting and they did address this very question, I think Betty may also be correct if she says they did not maybe get into this g part but it is a basic rule of law that when a matter comes before a tribunal and if all of the laws are not there before it or they fail to consider something then that is too bad the matter is still res judicata as far as the, already decided and done as far as that particular proceeding is concerned. However, this, it would seem to be that this Board has two possible, three things that I guess it could do. One it could honor the decision and proceed, two it could go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals and ask them if they feel that their decision is binding or not binding or that is it at this point or three challenge the Zoning Board of Appeals in a Court of Law in that decision. I think those are the only three options that I see available at this point. Unless you want, unless you decide to go with either going back to the ZBA or going to court I think you have to honor the ZBA's determination. Mr. Martin-The only thing I would like to add in terms of West Mt. I looked through the West Mt. file yesterday for about two hours yesterday morning and there were apparently five hundred and ninety three acres proposed for development within the Town and I found a calculation in the file somebody made SR30 zoning at forty acres yields fifty six point seven five units RC3A at five hundred and fifty three acres yielded a one hundred forty, one hundred and eighty four point thirty three total allowed two forty one point 0 eight plus a 15% bonus of thirty six came to a number of two seventy seven. I believe that the number that was ultimately approved was two hundred and fifty eight with two hundred and twenty two dwellings and thirty six non residential. Councilman Monahan-As of what date Jim? Mr. Martin-That was whatever the date of the approving resolution was for West Mt. Councilman Monahan-Because, what I have here is, October 26th 1989 SEQRA findings where the units were down to two fifty eight. Mr. Martin-The approving resolution for the PUD was two hundred and fifty eight principal buildings was how they were referred to. Attorney O'Connor-February of 1990. Councilman Monahan-That is the one that I have got here. Supervisor Brandt-I find your discussion traumatic. Councilman Goetz-Paul, could I ask you a question? Supervisor Brandt-I was there. I went through that crap. Councilman Goetz-Of the three options that you just outlined could you go over the second one again? About the ZBA. Attorney Dusek-The only thing you could possibly do with the ZBA at this point you always free to make an application back to them in the event that you feel that they had failed to decide something or in otherwords if I understand Betty's argument I think she is arguing that what they decided is not the same question here. You always have the right to go back to the tribunal the Zoning Board in this case and say that on, they also have the right though to say we have already decided the issue and our decision stands. They do not even have to entertain it or even hold a public hearing on it. My gut reaction is, is that they have already held their meeting and like I said I sat there, I think they really did decide this issue. Now, maybe you could argue that they did not consider all the points of law but, I do not think that is relevant. They did consider the calculation they made the decision that Mr. Martin is right, I think your most, the most probable challenge is at this point you know, well, like I say that is why I come up with the three options. One is to go back to them I am not overly, to be honest with you I am not overly optimistic that you will necessarily you know do anything at that level you can go to court against the ZBA if you feel that is warranted of course in that case you would have to, each one of you would have to get different Attorneys at this point because I am right in the middle of all of this. The third option is to honor what they have determined to on the density. I do not know of any other choices that you have at this point. You couldn't just disregard the ZBA decision because I think the applicant can hold you to that. That they have made that decision. Councilman Goetz-Would the ZBA have the ability not to re-hear if we had a question on procedure that they did that evening? Attorney Dusek-If in fact they determine it to be the exact same question that was before them, I think that they have to refuse to hear it almost, because it has already been decided. They do not have the benefit Sue, of that 267 -6 provision any more where they could just unanimously go back and re-hear. That was removed in July of 1992 so now they are stuck with the ordinary rules of res judicata that once they decided something, they are stuck with it. Supervisor Brandt - I do not want to go back to the ZBA, I do not see what we are serving by that. Councilman Caimano-I do not either. Supervisor Brandt-My feeling is I do not want to go back to the ZBA they have handled it, I just do not see any point in it. Is there something in the law that we want to change, legislatively because we think that their determination is wrong, well we can address that. But, I do not see any reason to address that. I do not have anything that tells me that what they did was wrong. Personally I would like personally move on with it and accept their determination. Want to take a poll of the Board on that issue. Councilman Monahan- I guess Mike, I just want to say one thing and then I am going to drop it. The idea of a PUD was to make a PUD more attractive then a subdivision, ok. That is why they were given the bonus points. But the way Jim has figured this unless you disagree with Scott's figures to start with, if they did this as a standard subdivision they would have been allowed one hundred and twenty units on that site. So, the way this is turning out now they are getting fifty units more which obviously is not the intent of that PUD legislation. Supervisor Brandt-When you say it wasn't the intent, the bonus was in there it is the intent. Councilman Monahan-But not to give almost 50% Mike, the bonus, the intent was to give some, but it certainly was not to start the whole process where you don't do it the same as a subdivision. That is why you ask them and I take exception to one of their answers in the SEQRA thing and I will get into that when we go into it. But, their obvious was not the obvious intent of that law to change the density of one hundred and twenty done by conventional development of a subdivision up to one hundred and seventy. I mean, that just, you know it's ludicrous it blows the mind. Supervisor Brandt-Well, I do not know, now you are talking legislative track and I didn't I wasn't there when they passed the law. The law is the law, so, what do you want to do, what is the will of the Board on this? Do you want to go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals on this matter? Councilman Caimano- What are, are three options? Attorney Dusek-Move ahead, leave it as it is. Two, go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals and ask them if they will reconsider it? As I mentioned there is no guarantees that they will or can. Or third, challenge the Zoning Board of Appeals decision in Court. Supervisor Brandt-I certainly do not want to challenge them in court. Councilman Goetz-If we went back to the Zoning Board of Appeals would we be referencing Betty's concern as to that certain section? Attorney Dusek-Well that is what you would do, but Councilman Goetz-I mean specifically would they know why it was coming back. Attorney Dusek-You would obviously make an application like anybody else for a re-consideration the problem that you would have though is that I am very concerned that you may run up against that argument that once it is decided it is decided and they may not be able to re-consider it even if they want to. Because, to be honest with you I sat there that night and I hear your discussions now and I do not see how the issues are different. Councilman Caimano-Even with Betty's comment. Attorney Dusek -Yea. The issue is the same, is the calculation performed correctly? Leaving out the roads and etc. that is really the question, forget about what the different sections that can be brought up in the discussion the question really is the same. They have considered that question I really would find it difficult to see how you could get them to reconsider it. If you take them to court I can tell you this much I think that the considerations there are they are put in the place they are in to interpret your ordinance. I would point out to the Board just by virtue of the fact that we are having this discussion I think you would have to at least agree that it is debatable. If it is debatable they are the experts. Mr. Martin-The other item, I do not want to go on the record as saying, I do not want to it to be the perception I was remiss and I did not see 156 or 179-56 g I did, I considered that and it mentioned also shall comply with appropriate designs site development plan and performance standards of this chapter and of all applicable local laws in Chapter A183A or A183 and I interpreted that to mean layout of roads, that type of thing physical design standards, surveying and mapping, character of land and layout of streets and roads and that type of thing. It is not that I did not see that, I did see it and that was my interpretation leading to my decision. Councilman Goetz-That evening did they in the process of making the determination did they take the steps that go back to this and that and the other? Councilman Tucker-They sure did. Councilman Goetz-They did, ok. Councilman Tucker-They worked it all over, they asked Jim and he told them what he is telling us right here, I sit there and heard it go on. Attorney O'Connor-I do not want to give the appearance that we are tying to hide behind a technicality. I think if you take a look at just what we are looking at and I am not saying that this Board has the power admitting on the record, for the purpose of preserving my position that this Board has the power by its own motion to over rule the Zoning Board of Appeals. But, if you look at statute construction and you look at Section g which Mrs. Monahan has referred to it says that, that will refers to other sections and other ordinances where this article is not in conflict. If you take a look at the density this article is in conflict with the standard density for a standard subdivision, there is no doubt about it. That is the point that Betty is making. That this article is different then if you had a standard subdivision. So, if you take the ordinance as it is written you apply what we call the common sense, the common rules of construction you have got to admit that yes, there is a conflict there. But the ordinance covers that and it says where there is a conflict this article applies. We have been arguing the same point. I have talked about Section g with Jim before and I think I have even talked it once with Paul, back in August, back in early part of the summer when we tried to get to our base calculation. If you take a look at some of the I do not know what your are referring to as far as Scott's calculations, but Scott has been off on a couple of things. Councilman Monahan-This was when I asked him to do the density calculation for Hudson Pointe what they gave me first they had under the date of January 27th was density calculation for the Hudson Pointe property using the standard subdivision calculation. Jim had Scott do it and Jim put this in my box and this was how they came up for a regular standard subdivision. Attorney O'Connor-Which is not the way you do a PUD, which was the point that we made to them. Which is why, that was even, Jim, you issued a decision December 7th, I do not know why Scott just didn't pull out the decision of December 7th and hand it to you. Mr. Martin-Well, no this was a specific request for the Board they wanted to see what the Councilman Monahan-And actually you are supposed to do that for a PUD, you are supposed to show what the density would have been under a subdivision. Attorney O'Connor-I do not see where your supposed, I do not know where you make that comment from. Councilman Monahan-It is one of your alternative type of things that you do under an environmental impact statement. Supervisor Brandt-...we are not in an environmental impact statement. Attorney O'Connor-I think clearly if you read the ordinance unless you really try to put some strange constructions onto the ordinance the basic density here is one hundred and forty eight with entitled to a bonus of up to twenty two units we asked for a bonus of whatever it takes us to get to one hundred and sixty three. Councilman Caimano-Betty let me see if I can move something along here. Since the very beginning I have had contact with the people who live there the Brewers and their family and there has been some serious concern and right concern regarding the protection of the environment and the size of the project and we have batted back and forth letters and meetings we have had. I have a letter here from Mrs. I just read this letter from Mrs. Allen, if I read, did we have a meeting the other night or not we seem to be at logger heads. But all along we have, we have, bandied about a name of a man that I do not even know and this Alan Koechlein and we have held him up as the man who agreed with everything. As much as I agree with the problems that the Brewers have brought up including, including their concern about whether Mr. Brandt had a problem or not, this letter seems to bring it down to the nub. I do not know how many of you have read this February 12th letter. Let me read if I may the last two paragraphs from Alan Koechlien in a letter dated February 12th. The next to last paragraph says, finally the flood plain is part of the total project and if you follow Koechlines arguments he had a letter on February 10th which he is referring to. I understood Mr. Sutherland to say that the plans for the flood plain have not been developed and therefore the flood plain point had been excluded from social, cultural and environmental evaluation. The flood plain being the last bastion of concern by the State. The use of the flood plain as well as the wetlands was subject to the discretion of the homeowners association there was no recreation development plan, as of the meeting of January 25th 1993 and Mr. Sutherland stated that are archeological survey had not been done on the flood plain. I concluded, I repeat, I concluded that the Town may not have done their homework. Next paragraph, In fact the Town has done their homework, the archeological methodology phase one and studies phase two fully meet and exceed the requirements of NYS Office of Parks Recreation and Historical Preservation. In addition environmental concerns associated with the DEC regulated wetland can be fully satisfied if a fresh water wetlands permit is required. I concur with the resolution the resolution being a negative significance, I concur with the resolution and the Town has fully satisfied my concerns expressed in my formal letters, and has in my opinion complied with SEQRA in regard to the above issues. Councilman Monahan-Nick, you know, I wondered about that letter to be honest with you because this letter of the 10th he talked about the plains and there is nothing different in the plains and he was not satisfied in this letter in the 10th about the flood plains. When I talked to him and I did talk to Mr. Koechlien personally Councilman Caimano- Today Councilman Monahan-No Councilman Caimano-Since the 12th I mean? Councilman Monahan-No. At the time he wrote the letter of the 10th and he said he considered even the fact I said there is going to be nothing dug down in the flood plain meaning foundations or anything. I said except perhaps whatever they have to put in for docks. He said that was not important he said when you have people as many as there will be walking on that area and you are going to have disturbance just kids digging sand piles and all that kind of stuff whatever being used down there he said I do consider that an impact on that archaeological site and it should be protected archaeologically. I don't I did not have a chance to call him after the letter of the 12th came in that is the trouble with trying to rush everything. To ask him why he had reversed what he had said to me on the phone because of the flood plain is still exactly as I described it to him, when I talked to him. Supervisor Brandt-We are getting off the track from density and we really had an argument about density Councilman Caimano-Well, lets try and move it along. Supervisor Brandt -and I, my feeling is we ought to poll the Board and I would like to poll the Board whether we want to go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals are Attorney is telling us that they handled it and argued the argument and came to the decision that the figures in front of us are correct. Pliney you were at that meeting and you say that those arguments were articulated and that is what they found. Councilman Tucker-The end result was that they agreed that Mr. Martin had done the calculations correctly. Supervisor Brandt-I personally do not want to go back to them. I would like to keep moving ahead. We have done that, it has been done and I don't think we need to re-argue it. I do not see any point in re- arguing it. So, I'm put my vote that we do not go back to them and I am going to poll the Board. Councilman Caimano-Clearly, Councilman Tucker-I agree Councilman Caimano-he agrees, clearly I wouldn't mind the option of going back to the Board and asking if they will open it up and consider Mrs. Monahan's request, but, the person who sits on both boards seems to think that there is no, that is not worth while. I do not want to waste everybody time. Supervisor Brandt-Right. I guess, I can't, I cannot see absent anybody else I cannot see why we need to go back, I certainly do not want to sue. Councilman Goetz-I do not want to sue the Zoning Board of Appeals and I am swayed by Paul's argument that, that new ruling in 19, was it June of 1992? Attorney Dusek-There used to be you know you could back without having to show anything new, without having to make a substantial change of circumstances argument. You could go back and if the Board unanimously voted to re-hear anything they could re-hear anything just as long as the rights hadn't vested. If we had that, they could do it if they voted unanimously. That is gone now, so now any decision that they make they are stuck with too even if they do not like it unless there can be shown a substantial change of circumstances. The cases that I have read just missing a law... is not enough of a change of circumstances to let them over turn a previous decision. Councilman Goetz-So therefore I want to abide by the Zoning Board of Appeals decision. Councilman Monahan-... I would go back. Councilman Goetz-I would go back if we had that other law. Councilman Caimano-I would to. Councilman Monahan-Therefore I leave the option open to the neighbors. Mr. Brewer-Could I make a point? Councilman Caimano-Sure Mr. Brewer-Pliney said that they calculated the and I am not going to argue the debate anymore I am sick and tired of hearing it, but he said they calculated the project they did not calculate the project. They said that Mr. Martin used the right methodology. Supervisor Brandt-Yes, but that is the key. Mr. Brewer-Plain and simple they did not figure the project they said he used the right methodology. Supervisor Brandt-The key is that they reviewed the methodology and that's Councilman Tucker-They asked him the questions on how he did it. Mr. Brewer-Right, they, in otherwords what I am saying is they did not take the map and figure out how many houses. Councilman Caimano-No, but you will do that, that is not the point of the PUD, you guys are going to do that. Mr. Brewer-I understand that. Supervisor Brandt-That is behind us. We polled, it is four to one, and we are moving ahead. Weare accepting the calculations as shown to us here today. Councilman Tucker-I have got another question. As long as we are asking questions. Hudson Pointe Environmental Assessment form part I, do you have that over there? Attorney Dusek-Are you talking to me or Jim? Councilman Tucker-Jim. Mr. Martin-Yes, I have it. Councilman Tucker-Go to the page where Alan signs. Zoning and Planning information, question three, what is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning. This has one hundred and eighty residential units. Mr. Martin-That is incorrect. Councilman Tucker-That is incorrect? Mr. Martin-Yup. Supervisor Brandt-..that's good news. That is an easy answer, we can go on. Councilman Monahan-Should be one hundred and twenty. That is the whole basis of my argument. Councilman Tucker-Wait a minute, I want to hear their, I know what we're are saying. Attorney O'Connor-I think that is a typo, if you look at paragraph five right below that we see again the repeat of one hundred and forty eight plus twenty two, which is one hundred and seventy not one hundred and eighty. Councilman Tucker-That is under the PUD is it not? Mr. Martin-It would be one hundred and in response to question three. Councilman Tucker-The proposed zoning, the proposed zoning is the PUD. Councilman Monahan-If you went conventional subdivision and that is what question three is I believe relates to conventional subdivision. Councilman Tucker-Well, that is what could go in there right now is a conventional subdivision. Mr. Martin-That is what the two questions are making a difference between the first question is permitted by present zoning and the question number five is permitted by the proposed zoning. Councilman Tucker-Correct, but what I'm saying is we are saying one hundred and twenty and they are saying one hundred and eighty. Who is right? Attorney O'Connor-I do not think anyone is saying one hundred and twenty, except Mrs. Monahan. Mr. Martin-I would say one hundred and twenty. Supervisor Brandt-Did you get your answer? Councilman Tucker-No. Why does that say one hundred and eighty? Attorney O'Connor-I do not think that we really have concentrated on what would be permitted in the conventional because we did not think we would go conventional we were going... Councilman Goetz-But you came up with one eighty. Attorney O'Connor-One hundred and eighty I guess what I am trying to say is I do not know the calculations by which you came to one twenty so I do not whether one twenty is closer to being correct than one eighty. Councilman Goetz-Do you know what calculations you used to get one eighty? Mr. Oppenheim-I think when we were sitting here and Rob was the one that came up with it, I think as we are looking at it that was a typo. Councilman Goetz-A typographical, do you have your original worksheet somewhere? Mr. Oppenheim-We can dig it up I mean, on this one question we were agreeing that one eighty is not correct. Councilman Goetz-Ok. Mr. Oppenheim-That is a fact, I you know. Councilman Caimano-But if its one twenty, if one twenty is correct on a conventional zoning and we are sitting here looking at one sixty Councilman Monahan-Fifty more units. Attorney O'Connor-Ok, but what differ, what relevancy does that have? Councilman Caimano-I do not know that is what I am asking. Attorney O'Connor-I do not think it has a relevancy. Councilman Monahan-It does because it is how, excuse me, it does because if you know SEQRA that is how you determine whether or not you go the conventional method or you go some of these other methods, it is a comparison thing and that is why it is in there. Attorney O'Connor-A simple difference whatever the difference be regardless of the amount isn't necessarily the controlling factor as to how you develop it. Councilman Caimano- I understand. Attorney O'Connor-This instance you have the threshold to request development as a PUD. That is the basis for our request. What the development might be as a conventional subdivision I do not really know as I sit here. I think you have to do some actual engineering studies more than what we have done at this point. Because, if you go to the subdivision regulations which are referred to in the section g that Mrs. Monahan referred to before, and you go to that particular part of the subdivision there are various calculations that you must make and I do not think you can make those without actually having a survey a full topographical study of the site and an engineering study of the site. There is a percentage of grades you cannot just ball park say you got so much in slopes. You know come out accurately.... Supervisor Brandt-I am not sure how this is relevant? Attorney O'Connor-I do not think it is relevant. Councilman Caimano- The only relevancy is if its understand it, it is one hundred and twenty and we are talking one hundred and sixty three what's Councilman Monahan-That is the impact. Councilman Caimano-how do we correlate, but you are saying there is no correlation. Attorney O'Connor-Under our Zoning Ordinance this area is eligible for a PUD and if under a PUD you are entitled to a one sixty three, you are entitled to one sixty three. Councilman Caimano-No that is not right. Councilman Monahan-No, no, PUD you get as the result of a rezoning. Supervisor Brandt-Let him finish Betty, please. Attorney O'Connor-The Zoning Ordinance provides for a lot of different things it is the same argument people have when you look at a variance, it is very hard to understand that the ordinance actually allows for variances. This is just a different type of development that is allowed within our Zoning Ordinance. So, for this particular area depending upon what is elected for the mode of development you have two different densities. I do not know exactly what the density is for conventional subdivision I know what the density is for a PUD. It is a minimum of one hundred and seventy and we have given up on some territory that we would not necessarily given up if we were pushed for density, with the calculations that were made. Like taking out to the top of the bluff that fifty foot strip, now that is developable land, that is not an area that is not developable by the definition when you get into conventional regulations. Councilman Monahan-The point of the whole thing is when you look at a rezoning under SEQRA you look at what would have happened if you let it go conventional, what they are entitled to under our present Zoning and then you look at it what is permitted if you rezone and that is the comparison you are supposed to be making for impacts and stuff. So, you make those impacts comparisons in many ways. Councilman Goetz-Have you ever turned down a PUD because you felt it was better to go conventional? Councilman Monahan-We have put a lot of restrictions in them. Councilman Goetz-And that is how you achieve what you want to do? Councilman Monahan-Yea. You go and look at some of the PUD's that we have done and you see the restrictions that go into them along the way. Those are the trade offs you do when you do a PUD. Attorney O'Connor-How do we go from, I am not sure where we are at, at this point. I think you had a proposed declaration and you had some comments by staff I think the only other staff that maybe Jim got some other calls that he made that you had questions of, but I why don't we go to Part II if we are done with the proposed declaration. Supervisor Brandt-Part II, help me. Proposed declaration are what, aim me. Attorney O'Connor-Maybe I am rushing you. I would like to be sure that the Board is all fully aware of the background a little bit of Mr. Keochline, just so you are aware of what took place, or at least what I believe took place, and also we have another piece of information I want to be sure the Board has as background before you even get to the rest of Part II, because there were two issue that I thought were unresolved. Supervisor Brandt-I had an issue too, myself, at least one, but go ahead. Attorney O'Connor-I received Mr. Keochline's letter of February 10th and after confirm with Rob Sutherland I called him. Basically I said to him I am totally amazed, is this a letter on behalf ofDEC as an official position ofDEC or what is it, who are you, are you the review person for SEQRA for DEC? I preface all of that by saying I wish you had come to the meeting I don't like talking about somebody else that is not present at a meeting, you ought to come you are miss leading the board as to what you are doing at least from my perception of where you are coming from. He initially thought he was going to come and then after he rewrote the letter indicated that he was not going to come. I do not have control over that. Mr. Keochlein is in the wildlife department if you will of DEC. He indicates that he is Senior Wildlife biologist. He is not the SEQRA reviewer for DEe. Its regulators affairs that would be the SEQRA reviewer for DEC if they were going to take on the Lead Agency position or actively participate within a project. A Mr. Hall I believe is the fellow that would probably put together the team one person from each of the departments and they all would respond to it. In my conversation with Mr. Keochlein it was apparent that he really didn't know that much about the project, and that was what lead to his early letter his February 10th letter and then even with my brief discussion with them what lead to his February 11th letter. I in fact faxed him a copy of the resolution that was talked about the other night with the notes on it and said here is what the Board has been considering here is all the thoughts that the Board has had. Are you aware of all this, are you aware of what is going to happen on the point what is not going to happen on the point. I was totally amazed that the fellow would take a position put it on paper with what little bit of background and little bit offorethought that he appeared to have. I think I am just amazed, I think you have got to read the letter as it is now at least raised and you can see, I asked him and I wrote him a note is this a personnel letter or is this a DEC letter, he never responded directly to that question. But, if you read the letter in the final form that is of any significance from DEC, it is as Mr. Caimano has said, it's their opinion or his opinion whatever that you have complied with SEQRA. Councilman Goetz-So, he got all that knowledge between the 10th and 12th based on what you sent him? Attorney O'Connor-I sent him a copy of, I faxed him a copy of the proposed resolution. Councilman Caimano-I have to assume that since he writes on the stationary that he is speaking for DEe. Councilman Goetz-Well he shouldn't be writing it. Attorney O'Connor-He would not answer that question. Councilman Monahan-Paul, who did you send the DEC material to for the involved person? I do not have mine with me. Attorney O'Connor-The other question that I know specifically was asked, was again as to the megagloss, megagloss output of the power line that trans, that goes thorough the development. There was an actual measurement made and if you recall it was agreed that the standard was two hundred millagoss is now apparently the State standard it is obviously, the State standard for new construction. They measured this and at the edge of the right of way as of today it was two point nine to five point nine megagloss. Unknown-At the edge of the right of way? Attorney O'Connor-At the edge of the right of way. Standing in the center of the transmission line underneight the transmission line it was twenty megagloss well beyond well below the standards that the State has adopted. Supervisor Brandt-Is that milliguaffs? Attorney O'Connor-Yes. Supervisor Brandt - I think that is a hell of a difference. And you want a milliguaff I think is what this abbreviation is. As I understand the abbreviation, I am not sure of that. Mr. Sutherland-I would add on that, just for the record that I have an actual map that is a ..to identify where they actually took those readings. I can give those to you. Councilman Caimano- I would like to have that. Supervisor Brandt-Beyond that, your, there is a set back from the edge of the right of way to the houses, so the readings would be lower than what they are showing at the edge of the right of way. Mr. Sutherland-That is correct. Councilman Monahan-Except the lots, if the lots are going to be at the edge of the right of way and they have children the children are going to be playing on those... Mr. Oppenheim-There is a seventy five foot set back from the edge. Councilman Monahan-From the right of way? Mr. Oppenheim-Yes, that is correct to the edge oflot. Councilman Monahan-We have got the right of way seventy five feet that nobody can be on, here is the right of way over here the edge of the right of way, we have got another seventy five feet that doesn't belong to anybody that they are not supposed to be on and then we start the lot line? Mr. Oppenheim-That is correct. Attorney O'Connor-The seventy five feet will belong to the homeowners association as part of the common open areas. Supervisor Brandt-But, it is not a home. Attorney O'Connor-It is not a home. Mr. Oppenheim-It is not a home site. Supervisor Brandt-It is not a yard. Mr. Oppenheim-No Attorney O'Connor-I just didn't want to be, it's not owned by anybody. Supervisor Brandt-It would mean that you would have very significantly lower figures as you get that far away. I think that is very. Attorney O'Connor-I do not hold myself out as a expert to know what seventy five feet would make a difference but apparently. Mr. Southerland-Well it might make, it might make NIMO'S position was you would almost be down to nothing. Mr. Martin-I think you can draw some conclusion as to what the difference would be at very center of the transmission line you have twenty and from there to the edge of the right of way it drops eighteen milligloss approximately, fifteen to eighteen milligloss so, you can draw some conclusion to how. Attorney O'Connor-That is probably fifty feet I can tell you the distance from the center line of that right of way to that the edge of. Supervisor Brandt -So, it could be very pretty small figure. Ok. I think that is important. Attorney O'Connor-The other question which I know was raised and was asked was Trailing Arbutus, and as I understand it there has been some information given to the Town as to Trailing Arbutus. Mr. Martin-I was going to go through that when it came to that point. I talked to Laura Summers today, and she did not have that information specifically, she said the National Heritage Program, which is the endangered species plant division so to speak ofDEC has that information. I talked to a Steve Young there he is a botanist at the National Heritage Program. The Trailing Arbutus is classified as an exploitable venerable plant. It is not an endangered plant. Exploitable venerable plant means that there are rules against picking and destroying the plant on State land on State land only. There are no rules governing Trailing Arbutus on private property. I then further, I faxed him a copy of a map showing him the location of the project and I asked him to do a cross reference check against any other plants of an endangered nature and see if this site would kick off any problems. He said the only thing within any distance of the site, nothing on the site itself the only thing found was there is a spawning bed of, for walleyed pike apparently at the mouth of the hydro plant out in the river and that was the only thing they had in their data files. Councilman Tucker-I know that for a fact because we have taken them out of there. Attorney O'Connor-I also understand I think you have got to look at even that little bit of information and the letter that came in dated February 10th from Sandy Allen. They raised five points at the very end, the first one had to do with EMF which I think we have answered point two I did not understand at all because they are talking about who is going to own the artifacts if they are removed our plan is not to remove the artifacts that appears according to the State to be the prefer method of preservation to leave them within the site ... Mr. Oppenheim-Let me just add one thing to that for those artifacts that were uncovered during the study while it has designated Skidmore College if that is at all an issue we are 100% open minded to that if there is a wish to have those go to ACC that's fine. Councilman Caimano-But Mrs. VanDyke has a comment on that, right behind you. Mrs. VanDyke-It is not an issue at the moment..looked into how they are being controlled at Skidmore College.... Supervisor Brandt-But the rest, there is not, the proposal is not to dig any more. Mr. Oppenheim-Correct. Mrs. VanDyke-That is right. Supervisor Brandt-That is the recommended procedure by the State as I understand it is to not dig anymore. UNKNOWN-Then how can we ensure this the neighbors are not going to go over there and dig, and the kids are not going to go over there and dig and the homeowners association is going to own it how are we going ensure that the homeowners association isn't going to make sure that it is....in somebody living room Attorney O'Connor-We have offered as part of our offer a conservation easement which would prohibit that activity, that and I would think there must be some other State rules and regulations about digging these, I even ... Councilman Caimano-Well, certainly, I guess my answer, an answer to you would be that what is going to happen now is far more than what has happened from this point back. UNKNOWN-Yea but this point back there wasn't any near the type of population on that property or anywhere near the site that there are now. Councilman Caimano-How do we, you mean as far a development? UNKNOWN -Yea which goes back to the first issue, that we were just taking about the endangered species of whatever plant or wildlife, yes it is not on the computer right now but the data is not there, this is an area that has never been developed like this before, people have not been sent out to check this out before. I agree that sometimes inventory ...people have not been out on the site... Attorney O'Connor-We have been talking about this thing since June, July no one has discovered anything on this site other than what we brought to this board's attention. I think it is time we deal with the facts of the studies that you have in front of you instead of all of the supposes and coulds and woulds and shoulds and whatnot. I think, you look at the record in front of you the developer has made more than a good faith effort to develop an actual study of the site and identifying anything that needs to be given special attention to. Supervisor Brandt -Can we ask the developer perhaps in there literature to homeowners that you can tell them these sites, there are sites out there, I do not know if we have to flag them probably best not to and just say that, please do not dig them it is not within the law, they are not supposed to, make them aware that it is not accepted, and maybe they will take pride and protecting it. Mr. Oppenheim-In response and in correspondence with the Town Historian we have agreed you know as we hope to move forward here that we are going to work to further enhance our so called literature background on the historical and archeological aspects of the site and to make the appropriate information available to homeowners. Supervisor Brandt -Sometimes we have people there who take better care of the place then if you do not have people there and I can tell you not very far from there is the grave site that was dug up that was marked with a monument and whatever was there was human remains were removed and that was done when there was not a lot of people around. I can tell you that, that piece of property gets abused terribly bad with three wheelers and four wheelers and it is mis-used and maybe the best thing in the world is to have population there because that stuff will stop. Councilman Caimano-Mrs. VanDyke you have something you want to add. Mrs. V anDyke- The Bureau of Parks and Recreation and Historian Preservation advised me that there are two types of conditions that you can establish in order to ensure the preservation of the ..the artifacts one is to have a deed restriction which is all well and good but over time it is possible to change or alter deeds if you go into an conservation easement then you have a much more..in terms of your protective factor and that you can have on going forever purview or review of the actions in the area to make sure that they are protected to the maximum. This is the best that we have. Mr. Martin-That is the same information that was indicated to me. Mrs. VanDyke-It is the state of the art now and we cannot do any better than that. Councilman Tucker-This is what is going to happen then, isn't? Attorney O'Connor-That is what we have offered. We have offered a conservation easement and we have also offered the restrictive covenant in the deeds and I understand what you say about amending those but Paul has put, Mr. Dusek has suggested that the amendments at least as so far as they effect terms and conditions of your approval are not changeable except with Town Board approval. So, I, we are going to take both the belt and suspenders and wear them both and do what you can do. Supervisor Brandt -You are going through Sandy Allens letter and in item three I would like to hear your comments on that. Councilman Monahan-Are you on page six Mike when you say item three? Supervisor Brandt -Yes it is page six. Councilman Goetz-Next to the last. Councilman Monahan-Yea, but there was a lot of stuff... Attorney Dusek -Can I just answer a question that was raised a little while ago just so I can put these papers away? Betty had asked who was notified at DEC and my records indicate that the first notices were you requested Lead Agency status and sent copies of the long EAF went to Mr. Tom Hall in the Warrensburg Office and it also went to the Commissioner down at 50 Wolf Road, the second time around when we notified everybody of the public hearing my records indicate that they went to Tom Hall I might also mention that after the, so that was in January that recently went to Tom Hall with a copy of the notice. Councilman Monahan-Isn't that prall right? Attorney Dusek-No, Hall. Mr. Martin-Hall Prall works under Hall. Councilman Monahan-That is why I am confused. Attorney Dusek-What happened is from what my records show is that the September 29th letter went out to Tom Hall and the Commissioner Councilman Monahan-H-a-l-l Attorney Dusek-Hall, we got or I got a letter here back from Mr. Prall. P-R-A-L-L who said this Department concurs with the Town acting as Lead Agent for the above mentioned proposal. Once the Town has made its determination of significance please forward a copy to this office, so, we not only communicated then Mr. Hall and the Commissioner the first time around we further communicated with Mr. Hall the second time around and like I say under Mr. Hall we apparently have received a letter from Mr. Prall. Mr. Martin-As I was doing my research yesterday Mr. Hall is the one that responded on the EIS for Hiland Park it was under his signature that DEC responded on that. Attorney O'Connor-Mr. Hall is the one that is the head of Regulator Affairs which does SEQRA review for Region Five. As question three Rob Mr. Sutherland-The second sentence where is says whereever the developers own specialist suggests that there is another open area four or five acres east of the corridor which has potential to be a Karner Blue butterfly habitat I have gone back through all of our correspondence our consultants Spider Barber mentioned that there are two small areas they were east of the power line corridor. They weren't identified in any of the correspondences four or five acres in size. We were certainly willing to have those two areas looked at while the DEC is out on the site at the appropriate time next year. I might add given the extensive conversation we have had with both DEC, Laura Summer the people from the Nature Conservance their conclusion, it is very unlikely there is isolated habitats that were surrounded by woodland, they need corridors, not small enclosed pockets, of open space. So, the half acre sites that may be there it is extremely unlikely, that there would be a habitat there. Supervisor Brandt-But, you are willing to survey that. Mr. Sutherland-Sure. Supervisor Brandt -Ok, I think, I would like to see the stipulation that, that be included I think that is a reasonable request and I think we ought to do that. Attorney O'Connor-I think that your resolutions says areas of likely habitat. Councilman Caimano-I think it is already handled. Councilman Tucker-I think it was done when we went through this. Supervisor Brandt -Ok, if that is handled that is one of the points that struck me. Attorney O'Connor-I did not mean to go through this because I really think with due respect to ...she is simply repeating all the arguments that we have heard through the whole process. Supervisor Brandt-I had one that bothered me, when I read and maybe I am just missing something, but we talked about handling storm water runnoff and our concern has always been that we do not want to send it down the bluff, because if it goes down the bluff you are going to create erosion. But when, when I see in the mitigation and discussions on how it is going to be handled we do not say that. We really, somewhere we ought to say that we are going to handle it into the ground and not let it go over the bluff, specifically, now, am I missing something? Mr. Oppenheim-The concept described in the stormwater management for the engineering report that was submitted described, described the constant infiltration that excludes the direct. Supervisor Brandt-But we should say it excludes the right to send storm water down over the bluffs I think we ought to say something to that effect. Attorney O'Connor-We have no problem with that but I would be totally amazed if Tom Yarmowitz allows you to do anything, run it along, I have seen them, we have run it along what I think are fairly flat ground and he required us to rip rap it, simply so we do not have erosion. Supervisor Brandt -But, I do not know all those things and in my position I just Attorney O'Connor-I have listened to his review, you do not run anything that is going to cause erosion. Supervisor Brandt -Ok. And I think it is a major concern and we have all expressed it and I think we ought to explicitly say that storm water not be allowed to go over the brook. Councilman Monahan-Mike, I think you are right, because I think you know you cannot be you should be very detailed in these types of answers. Supervisor Brandt -Ok. That handled the two things that I had concerns about. Attorney Allen-When is a good time for me to go through the rest of these or do you want to go .... Supervisor Brandt-What is the will of the Board? Councilman Caimano-Sandra, go through them how, other than what we have read or do you have additional information? Attorney Allen-Well, obviously I had two other points just under this I would like to be explained further. Councilman Caimano- That is fine with me. Supervisor Brandt -Go ahead. Attorney Allen-Number 4 we talk about the bluff area and then there is a 50' buffer from the bluff that as far as we can tell is not going to be in the conservation easement and we feel that, that area should be included in the conservation easement, the Town has the ability to enforce against disturbance in this area. Councilman Caimano-We have already talked about this didn't we? Attorney O'Connor-It is already in the conservation easement. Mr. Oppenheim-It has been part of it. Attorney Allen-That has been added, ok, because that has not been my understanding. Councilman Monahan-The homeowners are going to own it, Sandy that was the final determination the homeowners were going to own it. Attorney Allen-But that area is going to be included in the conservation easement. Mr. Oppenheim-That is correct and we, that... Attorney O'Connor-The cutting restriction within the 50' buffer than it is in the bluffs but it is within the easement, and it is spelled out and what has been offered to be within the easements. Councilman Caimano-Do you have that with you? Supervisor Brandt-That is on the record, ..part of this record. Attorney Allen-That is good. That is not what our understanding was and I will tell you this is a lot of voluminous stuff and I have gone thorough all of mine and I did not see it, so may be was...in the file. Supervisor Brandt -We just put it on the record and so we are there. Attorney Allen-No problem. Going back to the docks in the picnic area again any time you put anything down there it is like a public nuisance you are going to be asking people to come down there we are concerned that, that is going to encourage people to use anything besides the trail. In addition something that has not be brought up before and I think we should at least think about it is there is no provisions for public restroom facilities down on that site and many of these homeowners are going to live considerably further back from the site. It just seems to me just from the Lake George Park Commission all the work I have done with them if you are going put people down along the water then you got to worry about what they are going to do down around the water. Supervisor Brandt-But you are not putting many people down there I do not think. Attorney Allen-Well what is the purpose of putting docks and Councilman Monahan-One hundred and seventy units you are going to put a lot of people down there. Four people per unit. Mr. Brewer-Lots of kids down there or whatever. Attorney Allen-The point is if you are going to start putting docks and picnic areas down there then you are going to be encouraging people to go down there and you are going to be encouraging people with picnic areas to be consuming food and drinking fluids and you are going to run into some sort of problem that way. Mr. Oppenheim-Just one comment to is, we have done an awful lot of projects and whether it is the Michels group of anyone else we have passive recreation areas where people can get together and congregate whether, there has never been provisions for public recreation or public jon facilities. I think on our end of things we would not want to have public jons. Councilman Caimano- That encourages too. Attorney Allen-We just think in light of the most recent Lake George Park Commission regulations and the concerns that they have expressed that these concerns. Supervisor Brandt -Lets address that issues on public jons and lets just poll the Board, my feeling is again, well you guys lead this one I lead all the time. Councilman Goetz-I think puttingjons there will encourage more peeing. Supervisor Brandt-How about you guys how do you feel? Councilman Caimano- I guess I just, I agree and as I said all along whatever is down there ought to be as unobtrusive as possible. I do not agree, we had a little argument about whether there should be canoes or motors boats it should be unobtrusive. I think putting toilet facilities down there encourages picnics and everything else. Supervisor Brandt-Pliney do you have a thought? Councilman Tucker-The place is certainly going to get used down there but again you are encouraging it if you make the accommodations real good they will be down there all the time. Councilman Caimano-What kind of picnic, this is a passive picnic area isn't it, there is no... Councilman Monahan-Well, I have got two thoughts about it Mike, you know both pro and con. One of them is, I know the situation on Sandy Bay and the people on the Boats there don't use the facilities on the boats they go in the wetlands and use facilities in the wetlands. You know there is a lot to be said for jons and there is stuff to be said against jons so. Mr. Oppenheim-It is a totally, it is a very different type of environment. Here you have a community, these people are going, they all live in the same community they are going to see each other day in and day out. I think the people have got to be able to control themselves and go down and use the... Supervisor Brandt-I agree with that, they are not far from their homes the distance is not all that much. I am against personally asking for public toilets there. Councilman Tucker-Mike, you know the Hudson River. There is a regulating board that tells you when the water goes up the water goes down what you can do along the shores and what have you. Correct? You people will probably have to talk to them before you get done. Attorney O'Connor-We have no intention of putting a jon facility down there, I guess if somebody is asking us that we should I do not know... Supervisor Brandt-From the polling here I guess we do not want it. Attorney Allen-I guess there is two sides of it, if you are going to encourage everybody to go down and use it which you are with docks and picnic areas then you got to remember what also that encourages and if you are not going to encourage people to go down there then obviously you do not need restroom facilities. Attorney O'Connor-Does the neighbors want us to build jons? Attorney Allen-I think the neighbors want you to consider what you are doing to the river. Attorney O'Connor-Ok...ifyou want us to buildjons and I am not saying the defendant, yea the defendant, I feel like a defendant, the developer is that the same word they both begin with a, d. The developer will build them according to the applicable codes but I do not think that we intend to do it. If you want us to do it fine, but it's like you do and you don't. We got to get off, lets go forward. Supervisor Brandt-We polled the Board the Board doesn't want it. Attorney O'Connor-That is, I would like... Councilman Monahan- I imagine it is probably one of those cases that maybe the property owners if a bad situation develops they may require the homeowners association to put some up there. That is going to be more impact on the land down there that is archaeologically sensitive so you are in a catch twenty two Issue. Councilman Tucker-If we say they do not want them and it gets out of hand they are going to have to limit the use, is that correct? Supervisor Brandt-If there are a lot of people around you do not tend to pee in the woods you know? If there is no one around you, you tend to do it. ... Mr. Brewer-I do not think we implied that we wanted them to put restrooms down there? We implied that if there was going to be a use down there are there going to be something there to accommodate the use. What we are saying is that if they are going to encourage people to go down there it is going to be more intensive of a use than if they don't encourage people to go down there. I am not saying to put restroom down there. Supervisor Brandt-We have said that we want the picnic area and the areas of concentrated use to be limited to the sites of the homes, the old houses that were, they are small sites you are not talking encouraging a lot of people down there I do not think. And we are talking two docks no motorized boats so, and there is a mosquito population down there I remember extremely well and it comes out. Mr. Brewer-I can remember as a kid going to the Hudson River and swimming and there would be forty of us down there and mosquitos did not bother us at all. Supervisor Brandt-They are down there, there is no doubt about it, if you got thick skin you got to be an Adirondacker to like that. So let's get going. Now, we have been thorough all of those issues, lets go, what is that? Councilman Caimano-Nothing I will tell you later. Supervisor Brandt -peeing in the woods? Councilman Caimano-No Supervisor Brandt-Where are we going from here? Councilman Monahan-I think you got to go Attorney Dusek -You may want to take up your part two review Supervisor Brandt-I think so. Councilman Monahan-Except that we do need to correct that part I because of the incorrect answer on part I. Councilman Goetz-Is that the one eighty. Councilman Caimano- I already corrected that. Councilman Goetz-...he wants one twenty... Attorney Dusek-Is the developer willing to change part I. Mr. Oppenheim-Yes to accommodate that? Attorney Dusek-Yes Mr. Oppenheim-We... Attorney Dusek-I think the thing to do is to have him initial the change, make the change and initial it on the original, do you have the original Darleen? Councilman Tucker-What is he changing the one hundred and eighty to one hundred and twenty? I want to talk to you after, ok, after this is all done no matter which way it goes I want to talk to you. Attorney Dusek-Why don't we use the Clerk's, we are going to notate the Clerk's copy with the Board permission, Mr. Oppenheimer is going to change his figure on his one eighty residential dwelling unit and initial it. Let the record reflect that Mr. Oppenheimer has put in the Councilman Caimano- Who Attorney Dusek-I am can't, I am sorry Councilman Goetz-Who ever you are. Supervisor Brandt-The guy here with the business suit. Attorney Dusek-Right. He has inserted the number of one twenty in stead of the one eighty and he has initialed it on the Clerk's copy which will be treated although it is a copy of a document it will be treated as the original or as another reproduction of a the original which will be retained for the Clerk's records. Supervisor Brandt-So we are going to part II the next page, page 6. Nick you have been through this many times. Would you lead us? Councilman Caimano- I would be glad to lead us. You guys have to answer this time, the last ones I answered myself. Are you ready Betty? Councilman Monahan-Wait a minute, until I get everything together here will you I have two or three copies I am following at once. ...Sue did not get it all.. Councilman Goetz-Is this what I need? Councilman Monahan-Unless it has been changed. Supervisor Brandt-I might have a duplicate. Councilman Monahan-That is it, but I do not know if anybody has done anything to that. Attorney Dusek-As you go through this it would be my recommendation that Darleen actually marks you official copy that she will keep as part of the Clerk's record and she will put down your responses and check the boxes and if you want her to add any particular language you should also let her know. Councilman Tucker-Ready, set, fire. Councilman Caimano-IMPACT ON LAND Number one. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? Councilman Tucker-Yes Councilman Caimano- The obvious answer is yes Supervisor Brandt -Yes Councilman Tucker-Yes Supervisor Brandt-You guys agree? Councilman Monahan-Yes Councilman Caimano-Can the impact be mitigated by the project change? Councilman Monahan-Wait a minute where are you? Councilman Caimano-I am down to, I am down to number one there, under the first ... construction of slopes of 15% Councilman Monahan-Ok. Councilman Caimano-Any construction on slopes, we are not going to construct on slopes, it will be 50' back from the slopes. Councilman Monahan-Any construction on slopes 15% or greater? Supervisor Brandt-No Councilman Tucker-So what happens there? Councilman Caimano-Just read the rest of these. Supervisor Brandt -So we have mitigated Councilman Monahan-No, no you just keep Attorney O'Connor-1 think you just leave it blank Councilman Monahan- You just do not do anything. Councilman Caimano- There is nothing else on there? Councilman Monahan-Wait a minute. Did you down through them? Councilman Caimano-Pardon me? Councilman Tucker-Yes there is. Councilman Caimano- Two, I am sorry. Councilman Monahan-Wait a minute you have to go down through the rest of one there. Councilman Caimano- I did. Councilman Tucker-Construction that will continue for more than one year or involve than one phase or stage. Yes it will. Councilman Caimano- Y es it will Councilman Monahan-So that is a yes. So I do not know if that's, what kind of an impact that is going to be. Councilman Caimano- The question is will it be small to moderate, potential large or can it be mitigated by the project change, those are the three questions. Councilman Monahan-Well, it won't be mitigated by any change. Supervisor Brandt-What is the impact? Councilman Monahan-It is probably going to be, it could be potentially large. Attorney Dusek-This is the impact on the land you are considering, is there going to be an impact on land by virtue of the fact that the construction will go on for more than a year? Supervisor Brandt-I would say no. Councilman Monahan-It could be because you do not know if it will make erosion or any of that kind of stuff you do not know that. Councilman Caimano- Y ou never know that. Attorney Dusek-No, you should know the answer to that, yes or no. Councilman Monahan-That is what you don't know and I have seen sites that are not properly protected and it does I think you have to put a potential large. Attorney O'Connor-Don't you, don't you have whole slue of rules and regulations that control development and those would be the rules that would applicable and those rules would have to be abided by. Councilman Goetz-Do you talk about that at the Planning Board? Site Plan Review. Councilman Caimano- That is why you would check under impact mitigated by the project change is that when you go to site plan review Mr. Yarmowich or whomever else is going to say you cannot build there you cannot do this over here unless you do this. Mr. Martin-Nick, you remember we, all the time we would refer to N.Y. State Standard for erosion control Councilman Caimano- That is correct, and Councilman Monahan-Then I think someplace you know, there you have to say what the mitigation is so that it is on the record, the mitigation would be are rules and regulations which will be Attorney O'Connor-You do in your resolution. Councilman Monahan-Sandy would like to ask a question. Keep that with you Sandy. Attorney Allen-He put, our concern about that is, is we are talking about they following the rules and regulations according to the Town we have no specific diagrams on how this is going to be done this is the only time we are going to have the SEQRA review process for this project. It is going to go to the Planning Board, mitigation measures and alternatives which is a big issue under SEQRA are not going to be able to be reviewed at that point, they are not going to be required at that point the way they are required in SEQRA as required in an environmental impact statement and that's the concern regrading just saying that they will conform with the Town rules and regulations. Councilman Caimano-But, the only mitigation measures are going to be those measures which are on the books now. We are not going create another whole set oflaws. We already have measurers in the books and you are well aware of them. Tim, is well aware of it, when we go, when it is in front of the Planning Board there are very specific criterion that he has to follow regarding, that they have to follow regarding erosion control of which our engineer is well aware and he will make those a part of the record at that time. We cannot change that we couldn't... Attorney Allen-But, there certainly are alternative ways to deal with erosion and stormwater, there is plenty of alternatives ways. Councilman Caimano-And that is an open discussion then. Attorney Allen-But, see in under SEQRA there has to be alternatives discussed and if you wait until it goes to the Planning Board they do not have to review under SEQRA and these alternatives do not have to be discussed including a no action. Councilman Caimano-But that is so. Attorney Allen-All I am saying a legal, as a legal definition in doing SEQRA properly you have to look at all the different alternatives and by going around and superseding what we perceive as superseding this SEQRA law by saying well, they will just conform, with the laws later on and avoiding this issue under SEQRA its making Councilman Caimano-I do not think so, but go ahead Paul. Attorney Dusek - I got a, I just got to make a comment on something that Sandy just said, because I think this is important distinction. Sandy says that in order to do SEQRA that you have to look at the alternatives, I strongly disagree with that. In order to do an impact statement you have to look at the alternatives, in order to do SEQRA the first part that you are undertaking now, the question before you is whether this project may have a significant environmental impact. That is the question. If you feel it does then you must move on and you will get into the alternatives but if you feel it does not then you won't get into that stage and the question really before the Board right now is whether the construction will continue for more than a year and involve more than one phase or stage and as to its impact on land is that going to be small to moderate or is it going to be potentially large? It is one of those choices. Now, if you pick one of those choices then you will also decide whether or not it can be mitigated by a project change and the project change being that, that can be imposed obviously in, by not only what you have conditioned in your resolution but also what the Planning Board can do at a later date. With that change take into consideration or that mitigation measure take into consideration is it going to be a small to moderate or a large impact. Councilman Caimano-And my answer if I was going to answer this was that potentially there is a large impact however it can be mitigated by the project change as the project is brought before the Planning Board and brought before the engineers. Attorney Allen-And my point to that though is Paul, is not that it's that by allowing this method of reveiw of this storm water control plan and going to the Planning Board the Planning Board cannot say gee you know now we would like to step back and look at alternatives they cannot do it at that point. Councilman Caimano- Why not? Attorney Allen-It had to have happened at this point. Councilman Caimano- Why not? Attorney Allen-Because it is not required under.. Councilman Monahan-You have to put that in your mitigation and say when it comes in front of the Planning Board we give the Planning Board the right to look at alternatives. Councilman Caimano-Fine, but I don't know that they are not going to do that. Councilman Monahan-But, they cannot do it if we do not allow it under SEQRA because they cannot do it. Councilman Tucker-Wait a minute, don't we have a clause in this thing that the Town Board can look at any of this stuff? Councilman Monahan-No, that clause won't kick in. Councilman Tucker-Paul Attorney Dusek-Well, no that clause only relates to if they do not build the site out the way you think they are going to in terms of its development, that is not going to get into, I do not envision that clause is something you are going to utilize in connection with drainage. Councilman Monahan-Pliney you have to do your work right now or you have lost it. Attorney O'Connor-You do not do this type work right now, basically your still on a sketch plan review for zoning and there are alternatives to drainage, somebody may like to have a contained system, somebody might like to have a system where we pipe away from one area to another area. Those are all the alternatives that are going to be looked at from an engineering point of view as to what best this site will support. You are talking about constructing a road and building some homes. You are building one hundred and sixty three homes. I do not really understand how that has any potential large impact. When it is all going to be done in accordance with the drainage the storm water management as well as other town regulations and a planning board review as well as an engineering review. Councilman Caimano- It is going to have a potentially large impact because we are taking attractive land and putting a lot of things on it, so for seven years potentially there is going to be a disruption to that land, almost daily. Supervisor Brandt-But that is already been mitigated by our requirement that it be reviewed by an engineer and that they pay for that review. Councilman Caimano-But that what... Councilman Monahan-But under two you still have got to mark potential large impact you have to do that under your SEQRA regulations. Supervisor Brandt -Ok, fine, but it is mitigated by the rules that we have adopted. Councilman Monahan-Then you have to come back and do that when you talk about your mitigation. But, right now you have got to mark that potential. Councilman Caimano- That is fine, I will mark it potential but I think it can be mitigated and that is why I want to leave it. Councilman Monahan-But, then the SEQRA says you got to tell how it is going to be mitigated. Supervisor Brandt -One of the conditions we have already defined, have engineering and that engineering will study storm water and further the storm water is going to be allowed to go over the edge of the banks that it must be infiltrated we covered all that. Attorney Dusek-Maybe I can, if there are a couple of comments first. When we prepared the resolutions and everything obviously we prepared them not knowing what was going to be checked absolutely in the boxes, if you check and that does not necessarily mean you cannot still utilize the resolutions but my only comment is this that if you check something in the potentially large impact box after we are all done with this form what will then have to happen is and probably best come from Jim's Office he will prepare a part III response for your consideration and that is as far as we go tonight, then when the part III response is prepared then you come back and you look at that and if that is acceptable and meets with your determination that it still should be negative dec'd then you move ahead with the resolution as prepared. Councilman Caimano- That is fine. Supervisor Brandt -Ok. Councilman Caimano-I do not think we should sit here all night debating it because it has to come back for a second view anyway. Councilman Monahan-Paul, does this come, when we get thorough all these answers back and forth then is, does another public hearing happen to see if the public has any comments on these answers... Attorney Dusek-No the negative dec when you are preceding into a negative declaration and you go with that there is no further public hearing. Attorney Allen-Only if you made a positive declaration then you would go back. Councilman Caimano-So, the answer is there is going to be a potential large impact which can be mitigated by the project change. Now, Jim goes through this and creates another answer. Attorney Dusek-He is going to develop a part III for you based upon discussions he heard tonight on this issue as well as other information you may have. Councilman Monahan-Then you have got another one in that same area there Nick, constructed in a designated flood way, within 500' of a 100 year storm. I would say that is a potential large impact, you are going to have... Attorney O'Connor-What construction is within the 100 yard...what Supervisor Brandt-...constructing in a designated floodway. Attorney Allen-The 100 year floodway the 500' from the 100 year floodway according to the Queensbury Zoning Map goes over a portion of the point that you have residences on Mike. Councilman Monahan-Yea, when you look at the map. Supervisor Brandt-500' is what? Attorney Allen-That is what the Federal Government regulates in order to require flood insurance. Attorney O'Connor-Not that I am aware of in that zone. There is a flood plain map for that zone we have shown it on our maps we are not constructing anyplace in a designated flood zone. Attorney Allen-It is right on the zoning map, do you have one? Supervisor Brandt-Where does the 500' come from? That has insurance but that's not constructing in the floodway. Attorney Allen-I guess my position is that if that is what the Federal Government decides has to be insured that it seems to me that there is the argument th... Attorney O'Connor-The question says construction in a designed flood plain. Supervisor Brandt-That is what it says. ... Councilman Caimano-We are trying to reinvent the wheel here. Supervisor Brandt-That is not even in the 10,000 year flood plain. Unknown-Let me trace it for you we have had this on document from the first day of submittal. It is at the base of the bluff and we have used the elevation that came off the Hud maps, the Federal Flood Plain Maps it is at the base of the bluffs, ...actually part of this is not in it, and it comes around here and back to the brook. Every below the bluffs you know down here is within the 100 year flood plain we have got 85' from the water of the Hudson River to the top of the bluff is not part of the flood plain. Attorney Allen-But the portion that is marked off on the Queensbury Zoning Map it shows 500' from the 100 year flood zone includes a large portion of the WR3 area. Attorney O'Connor-The question is not 500' it is not 100' it says construction in a designated floodway. Supervisor Brandt-That is going to be to obstruct the water and you know it has got to be. Councilman Monahan-Jim what about that, because I looked at out Zoning Map too the tax map and saw that flood plain ...line what ever it is that you have on those maps. Mr. Martin-It may consideration in terms of zoning but in terms of construction it has never been a matter, it has to be in the flood plain. Councilman Caimano-We have always read that question every since I read this question as construction in the flood plain. That is all. Supervisor Brandt -Obstruction of the flow of water. Councilman Caimano-And so far we have not been shot at midnight. Supervisor Brandt -Ok, lets keep going. Councilman Caimano- Two Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? That is cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc. The answer is YES I think in all fairness it is also a potential large impact but it is mitigated. What is your argument? Attorney O'Connor-You are approving this as a rezoning, you are approving it with the condition that there will be no construction on the dunes, not the dunes, on the bluffs your approving it on the basis that there be a buffer zone above it that is your approve. Your approval is not that we will do something or be able to do something on there. Supervisor Brandt-It is that you will not be able do it. Councilman Monahan-But that is the mitigation, that comes under the mitigation. Attorney O'Connor-That is not mitigation, that is not mitigation you are telling us that we cannot do anything we are not proposing anything. Councilman Caimano- That is the plan, he is right. Councilman Monahan-I do not think he is right. Councilman Caimano-Well I do. He makes a good argument. Attorney O'Connor-1 do not think that there is any. Councilman Monahan-Plus the fact I think you also you know, again, you are not going to keep people off them so you are going to effect them no matter what and so I think you have to acknowledge that. Then you put the mitigation down that you know, trying to keep the people off there to the greatest extent possible. Attorney O'Connor-Will there be an affect? Supervisor Brandt-Gee's those are steep bluffs. Attorney O'Connor-By what we are proposing and what you are approving will there be an effect? Councilman Monahan-I thought the Town Board was supposed to fill this out, or is the developers Attorney supposed to fill this out? Supervisor Brandt-I do not mind hearing his input it may offend you it doesn't me. I think we are hearing out everybody extremely well and I would like to hear it but I would like to keep moving. I personally think we said there is no development whatsoever on these bluffs except for that one roadway that is already in existence which we have discussed as the access and the only access down to the lower part. Councilman Caimano-So the answer would be small to moderate right? Supervisor Brandt-I would say so. Attorney Dusek-Is there mitigation measurers that take care of any Councilman Caimano- That is not needed, is there? Supervisor Brandt -Small to moderate and it is mitigated I mean gees.. Attorney Dusek-The only reason that I bring it to your attention, I mean, I guess I can say this is it is obvious to me it is in the resolution you are in fact limiting by conservation easements etc. access to it so there are mitigation... Councilman Caimano-Fine, so it is mitigated. Three, IMP ACT ON WATER Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? There is no water around here. Will proposed action affect any water body Councilman Monahan-Wait a minute, wait a minute, what about that Clendon Brook? Councilman Caimano-I was only kidding, I just wanted to put some levity in the evening. Councilman Goetz-You always do. Supervisor Brandt-How are we going to affect that water in Clendon Brook, I do not think we are, in fact we have done everything to protect that. Councilman Monahan-But that is your mitigation Mike, that is the whole point you are looking this after we have done mitigation that is why we shouldn't even have done that stuff first because it is confusing the issue. You have to look at this as though you haven't even talked about the mitigation yet. Supervisor Brandt-Why, we have talked about it, I have been here. Councilman Monahan-Because that is the way you do a SEQRA. Supervisor Brandt-I do not give a danm what you think the way we are doing a SEQRA we are doing it this way right now and we are doing it and danunit it we did have a conversation that did cover that and I was here and I heard it and I cannot put that out of my mind. Councilman Monahan-And that becomes part of your mitigation. Supervisor Brandt-That is fine it is part of the mitigation we did the mitigation first. Councilman Monahan-But that is why you have to put the yes there. Supervisor Brandt-Jesus I do not have to do anything. I do what I think makes sense to me. Mr. Brewer-Mike can I make just one statement? Supervisor Brandt -Yes Mr. Brewer-If there wasn't any affect on it you would not have to do a mitigation, so therefore it does have an affect, if you have to do mitigation. If that makes sense. Supervisor Brandt-I do not know we, said that because we do not want and affect there we have designed a certain type of design that we asked... Mr. Brewer-The question is will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? Councilman Caimano-No Councilman Monahan-If you go in, Mr. Brewer-then how the hell are you doing mitigation if it doesn't have affect on it? Councilman Monahan-if you go in there and put one hundred and seventy houses or whatever it is when is it going to affect the body of water, that is the question. Supervisor Brandt-It is not going to affect it because you are going to catch storm water runoff....Wait a minute I have a chance to talk too Betty...we are saying that we have by rules said storm water will be picked up and infiltrated into ground and not allowed down the banks to these waters, so we have said that we will not affect them and I can tell you in my heart I can say no we will not affect it. Councilman Caimano-Let me just say that on page 12 of this resolution if we are talking about Clendon Brook the final sentence is really the key here and it says the area will be left in its natural state. If that is going to be our determination then there is no impact on water. Supervisor Brandt-That is my view... Attorney O'Connor-That is my point on much of this, I am trying make light of this I think you really have analyzed the project from top to bottom Supervisor Brandt-To death. Attorney O'Connor-and now you are putting down what your results of your analization. Councilman Caimano- That is the way I look at it too Betty I have to say, but that is the way I look at it we have gone through this time and time again and now it is time to answer honestly what we see and we have been through the Clendon Brook situation and we said leave it, we took the trails out we took everything out leave it the way it is don't ...it. Councilman Monahan-You know, I agree, Mike, or Nick we said we took the trails out and yet I looked at something today, and that is the trouble with trying to rush this, I look Supervisor Brandt-Rush? Councilman Monahan-at something, yes this is being rushed Mike Supervisor Brandt-Holy Christ. Councilman Monahan-then we are talking about a trail again in the stuff that come with this today. Councilman Caimano- Where are we talking about a trail? Councilman Tucker-Not in that area. Supervisor Brandt-Not in that area. Councilman Monahan-I do not know where the trail is going to be because I thought we took the trails out. Councilman Caimano- Who is talking about the trails? Supervisor Brandt-We did take the trails out, I was here I heard it. Councilman Monahan-It says a proposed trail system to traverse the open space that will surround the residences Councilman Tucker-In the wetlands we took them out. Councilman Caimano- Who is writing this letter? Councilman Monahan-I assume because it was received in the Town Attorneys Office that it came from the developer, I do not know, because I do not know who wrote the letter, that is my problem. I do not know who wrote half this stuff I got in front of me. Supervisor Brandt-I do not know what letter you are looking at. Councilman Caimano- What letter are you looking at? Attorney Dusek-I do not know... Councilman Monahan-Who wrote this thing that was on front of the stuff that came from your office? Unknown-The introduction to the assessment form she is referring to. Attorney O'Connor-It is part of submittal by the developer, I believe. Attorney Dusek-Are you talking about this thing here? Councilman Monahan-Yea. Attorney Dusek-That was the developers. Councilman Monahan-Ok Attorney O'Connor-That was prior to the trail coming out. Councilman Monahan-Now, when you go down there and you refer to the trail where are we talking about? Attorney O'Connor-But that has been taken out. Supervisor Brandt-That is out of context, that is the beginning of the process, we have been a long ways since then. Councilman Caimano- That trial they are talking about. Councilman Monahan-But this just came to me from the Attorneys Office to be part of this statement, that is all I can say it was in the mail I just got Thursday, night. Ok Attorney O'Connor-...got in June of 1992. Councilman Monahan-If I supposed to throw this thing away in front of me I wish I had not have gotten it from Town Attorneys Office this is what I am trying to find out, I just got this yesterday, Mike as part of this whole outfit. Attorney O'Connor-Historically he gave you a copy of Part I and the introduction to Part I as submitted by the Developer he is not going to change what the Developer submitted in June of 1992. Councilman Monahan-Just answer me a question, when I am considering Part II do you want me to throw this whole thing away that I have got here on the front? Attorney O'Connor-No. Councilman Monahan-You want me to throw part of it away that I have got on the front. Attorney O'Connor-No. Councilman Monahan-But then what changes have you made that you do not want me to consider when I am looking at Part II. Supervisor Brandt-Let's take one at a time and we have made these changes .. Attorney O'Connor-The changes that are Councilman Monahan-That is why I am trying to get the stuff pulled together. Attorney O'Connor-Because the changes that are reflected in your proposed resolution. Councilman Goetz-Wait a minute can I say something? Between the two of you fighting, fighting, fighting all the time? Councilman Monahan-Because it is a mess. Councilman Goetz-I tend to agree with Betty, I am looking at this form the same way she is and I amjust trying to learn SEQRA I do not know a lot about it. But, do we need to poll the board as to how we are approaching this form? Councilman Caimano- Y ou go ahead and help here Paul. Attorney Dusek-I do not think you have to worry about Part I and the documents here that have been offered by the Developer and that is, not in the sense that Betty is suggesting right now, because this document is something, this is the introduction written by the developer Part I was drafted by the developer and it just outlines and gives you information concerning the project. You have to consider though that information in light of the mitigation measurers that have been proposed and the resolution that we drafted, that is why we did it in the order that we did it because the resolution now, sets forth what this project really going to look like so when you do your Part II you should be doing it with the resolution in mind that set forth the conditions and mitigation measures and I do not think you have to be overly concerned about what is in this first part because that is what the project started off as and it has been somewhat changed so when you evaluate Part II you really want to evaluate it as against what the project really is today and that resolution of non significance, I think is your best evidence and the PUD resolution I gave you, is the best evidence of what you think this thing is going to look like, when you are all said and done. Councilman Goetz-So, I am improper in saying that I agree with Betty the way she looked at it? Attorney Dusek-I do not think you are improper in saying that, Ijust. Councilman Goetz-I want to know how to do it the right way. Councilman Monahan-My problem is if we change the project then we should get new papers as we have with every other project and you start with all new stuff in front of you instead of this mess of going back and forth between old and new, old and new, old and new and throw out this and put this in, baloney. Supervisor Brandt-This is the first project I have been involved in on this side of the table and I find it easy to keep track of. Councilman Goetz-I want to do it the right way and make sure I am doing it right, so I should take the resolution and as we go along. Councilman Caimano- Y ou should apply the knowledge that you have gained in the months that we have talked about this when you answer these questions. That is what Paul is saying. Councilman Goetz-All right, Ok. I just want to make it clear. Councilman Monahan-On the other hand we have a project as it was presented and we have no subst., the only changes are in the mitigation that we have done we don't really have changes in the project. Unknown-You have plans dated... 1993 updates...as part of the record... Councilman Goetz-Ok. Councilman Monahan-Impact on water, what did you do yes or no? Councilman Caimano-My answer is no. Supervisor Brandt-No Councilman Tucker-No Councilman Caimano-Shall I go, do I dare go? Supervisor Brandt-Keep going. Councilman Caimano-Four Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? Do you want to explain non protected Paul? Or is it self explanatory? Attorney Dusek-I guess I would say it is self explanatory ...that it is when you use the word protected and non protected I have got to assume they are referring...govemment regulations or some other criteria the fact the body of water is already under, like you have a protected species, protected body of water, any body of water I would look at. Councilman Caimano- The answer I have would be no. Supervisor Brandt-No, I agree Councilman Caimano-Five Will proposed action affect surface, hang onto your hat, will the proposed action affect surface or ground water quality or quantity? And there are a number of criterion here, the proposed action will require a discharge permit, it does. The proposed action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed project. It does not that is a No. The proposes action requires water supply from wells with greater, that is a No. Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. That should be a no. Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. Councilman Monahan-We do not know. Supervisor Brandt -You know that is going to be an academic question, our existence will affect groundwater, we exist. Attorney O'Connor-If you said small to moderate. Supervisor Brandt-Small to moderate. Councilman Caimano-I think the action again, if we are talking about it as we normally would have talked about a SEQRA review will have a small to moderate impact however, when it goes to the Planning Board for Site Plan there will be other mitigating circumstances. Supervisor Brandt-The Dept. of Health and all the other measures are there in place to protect groundwater. Councilman Monahan-You have to check the mitigation and we have to make sure it is in the resolution. Attorney O'Connor-Paul, I am not trying direct how we do this or not do this but my understanding is that if you check small to moderate you do not have to have mitigation. Attorney Dusek-You do not have to have mitigation. Councilman Caimano-Only the two has to have mitigation. The liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. Councilman Tucker-No Councilman Caimano-Proposed action would use water in excess of twenty thousand gallons per day. At build out that is a yes. Councilman Monahan-Wait a minute, they said in there thing you have to go back to theirs, I believe that was answered in part I if I remember right. Mr.Oppenheim-72,OOO.. Councilman Caimano- 72,000 right. Councilman Monahan-So that is a yes. That would be a large impact. Supervisor Brandt-A large impact? Councilman Monahan-With 72,000 vs 20,000 yes. Supervisor Brandt-Is that right? I look at the rain fall not a very large impact. Councilman Monahan-But you have town water so it is no big deal, you can solve that one fast enough. Rob Sutherland-That is fine that is the correct. Councilman Caimano-I think it is large and I think it can be mitigated. Attorney O'Connor-That should come under colunm two. Supervisor Brandt-All right. Councilman Caimano-Proposed action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contract to natural conditions? Councilman Tucker-No, because it is not going to be allowed. Councilman Caimano-I do not think so. Councilman Monahan-I think you have to put yes and then you put the mitigation in are regulations and etc. because it would Supervisor Brandt-We have already done that. Councilman Caimano- The project is not going to do it because the project has been changed to an extent that it has been done, the mitigation, I Supervisor Brandt -we are not allowing the project Councilman Caimano-We are not allowing the project to do it. Councilman Tucker-So it isn't even going to happen. Councilman Caimano- That is the way I see it, Paul any comments? Attorney Dusek - I think you can look at it just the way you indicated. Councilman Caimano- The project is not going to be allowed to do it as I see it. Supervisor Brandt-That is a no. Councilman Caimano-Proposed Action will required the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. No Supervisor Brandt-No Councilman Caimano-Proposed Action will residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. Councilman Tucker-No Councilman Monahan-Yes Supervisor Brandt-We have required that they have town water. Councilman Caimano-But, will allow residential uses but Councilman Monahan-where there is no sewers so that has to be a potential Supervisor Brandt -or sewers ok yes Councilman Monahan-so that has to be a potential for large impact and you are going to mitigate it with the regulations. Attorney O'Connor-You would strike out water. Councilman Caimano- Yea, it is sewer services only. Attorney O'Connor-and check the box in colunm number two. Councilman Caimano-And has a potential large impact which is going to be mitigated by project changes, meaning whatever comes up at site plan review. Supervisor Brandt-Well project changes by New York State Law, ...by existing law. Councilman Caimano-And our law. Councilman Monahan-Other impacts. Councilman Caimano-Proposed, no proposed action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require now or expansion...no Other impacts I do not know. Councilman Monahan-I cannot think of any. Councilman Caimano-I cannot either. Supervisor Brandt-I would say none that I know of. Councilman Caimano-Six Would proposed action alter Attorney Dusek-Before you go on, you never really answered the top question yes or no, Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? Councilman Caimano- The answer is yes. Attorney Dusek-Just so the record has it. Councilman Caimano- I thought we had done that. Attorney O'Connor-1 did not understand you markings then maybe I apologize. Number three did you say no? Councilman Caimano-Number three we said no. Number four we said no. Number five we said yes. The reason we said yes there are several things in there that make it a yes. Mr. Martin-We have two potential large impacts ... Councilman Caimano-One, two, three, you have four potentially impacts two of them large. Councilman Monahan-I count three large. Attorney O'Connor-Under five under box one Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. Councilman Caimano- Y es Councilman Monahan-Yes and I put that under potential to large. Mr. Martin-I thought it was small to moderate. Councilman Caimano- Y ea Supervisor Brandt-I put it small myself. Town Clerk-You want it small to moderate and you want yes. Councilman Caimano-Small to moderate as far as I am concerned. Attorney O'Connor-Then you go all the way down to proposed action will adversely affect groundwater Supervisor Brandt -Yes Attorney O'Connor-And you put yes under small to moderate. Councilman Caimano- Y es Supervisor Brandt-I did. Councilman Caimano- The next one is the 20,000 gallons which is a yes under potential large impact which can be mitigated. Supervisor Brandt-I agree with that, at first was looking at it the amount of water going in the ground and what that affect had rather than looking at the treatment of water and the ability to deliver treated water. Councilman Caimano-And the next to last is a yes, that is the sewer. Is a yes again, potentially large and again mitigated. Supervisor Brandt -So there are two potentially large under that section. Councilman Caimano-And mitigated meaning that you are going to be told what to do and you can get it in there unless you do it. Six will proposed action Attorney Dusek-Each one of those small and large impacts all of them should have yes checked for mitigation? Councilman Caimano-No the small are not, do not have to be mitigated. Attorney Dusek-So the only ones that you are mitigating are the two large ones. Councilman Caimano- That is correct. Councilman Monahan-Are you sure small..ifyou have enough smalls I am trying to remember the regulations. Councilman Caimano- I do not know about that. Attorney Dusek-I do not think it is a matter if you have to or not the question is really are you going to mitigate it even if it is small. Councilman Caimano- The answer to your question is, if the first one obviously is yes because it requires a discharge permit and therefore the permit will mitigate whatever problems there are. Councilman Monahan-So you would put yes over there, really. Councilman Caimano- That is up to Paul, he is such a vacillating character that... Councilman Monahan-It makes common sense that you would have to. Councilman Caimano-Fine Supervisor Brandt-I agree Mr. Martin-A potential large impact on the discharge permit? Councilman Monahan-No, no, small but it is going to get mitigated by Councilman Caimano-We are going to let Darleen plug yes's under the mitigation measures. Mr. Martin-The same one for the adversely affect... Councilman Caimano-Sure... Councilman Monahan-Yea, I think so because we are going to say the requirements that we are going to make them follow. Councilman Caimano- Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? And obviously the answer is yes. Councilman Monahan-Yes. Councilman Caimano-It won't change the flood water flows Supervisor Brandt-No Councilman Monahan-Proposed action may cause substantial erosion, it can very easily even on the inland one. Councilman Caimano-Well actually, one of those, next to last one there the proposed action is incompatible with existing drainage pattern. Obviously we are going to change that by just the fact that you are constructing in that area. We do not what the change is going to be but common sense says it is going to be changed. I do not know if we can say if it is going to be small to moderate or potentially large. All I know is that it is going to be changed. I also know that the developer has to have a plan to handle that. Supervisor Brandt-And we said that it must be reviewed by an engineer that he is going to hire ... Councilman Monahan-And that is why no matter what you do you do the yes because you are going to put that in. Councilman Caimano-I have already answered yes, the general answer is yes. Councilman Monahan-But I mean you put a three under three proposed action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns I do not know if it is small to moderate or what but you are going Supervisor Brandt-I would say it is large. Councilman Caimano-It does not have any difference it is still going to be mitigated. Supervisor Brandt-Potentially large but because we will not allow it am I thinking wrong? Councilman Caimano- What did you say? Councilman Monahan-No I think you are right Mike. Supervisor Brandt-Because you are changing drainage patterns and you could do a lot of damage but we said you won't because you are not going to be allowed to flow that water over where it is going to erode, you got to infiltrate it. So it is mitigated. Attorney O'Connor-But I think that is how you get into small or moderate and say yes then. Councilman Caimano-Makes no difference. Councilman Monahan-It makes no difference as long as we say yes. Attorney O'Connor-Yes it does under SEQRA it does. Councilman Goetz-Did we answer the first one there, proposed action may cause substantial erosion, Nick? Councilman Tucker-No because we, are not going to allow it to happen. Councilman Goetz-I just want to know what... Attorney O'Connor-It is subjective but I think basically you are saying that you can handle it and Councilman Caimano-I do not care, I will vote small to moderate, if you like... Supervisor Brandt-Small to moderate because of the ... Attorney O'Connor-and answer yes. Councilman Tucker-What are you going to do with the first one, you did not answer. Councilman Caimano- What is that. Councilman Tucker-Proposed action may cause substantial erosion it will be no because we are not going to allow substantial erosion. Supervisor Brandt-That is correct. Councilman Monahan-But you cannot do it that way. It's whether or not it would and then you go to the mitigation and that is how you do not allow. Councilman Caimano-I think that's not, Paul has really made this, because we have gone through this so many times it is obvious that we know the answers, we have already caused the applicant to do certain things we cannot answer as if we didn't cause the applicant to do certain things, so that is why the answer is no in erosion because we already made him do things to... Councilman Monahan-No, no, because the things that we are going to do as part of the mitigation for the dec. that is why you have to check it under small to moderate and then it is going to be mitigated. Supervisor Brandt -Small to moderate and yes mitigated. Councilman Caimano-All right. Supervisor Brandt-I will go along with that, I agree with that. Councilman Caimano-Me to. Councilman Tucker-Already done that. Councilman Caimano-Good. IMP ACT ON AIR Attorney Dusek-Before we leave that, lets just make sure we have the right things checked here. On this page we are showing the top two boxes checked as small to moderate Supervisor Brandt -Yes Attorney Dusek-And we are showing three yes, yes and then when you go up to the other page six where you started off we have yes checked and that is it. Councilman Caimano- That is correct. Councilman Monahan-Is anything proposed action will allow development in a designated floodway and there is nothing in the designated floodway. Supervisor Brandt-No Councilman Caimano-IMPACT ON AIR Number Seven Will proposed action affect air quality? And the answer to me is No. IMP ACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS Councilman Monahan-Wait a minute Nick, I want to just read these questions before we keep going. Ok. I am ok on the air. Councilman Caimano- The only thing that could possibly do it would be heavy construction, construction truck, we do not have that. Councilman Monahan-But there is not that many vehicles. Councilman Caimano-No. IMPACTS ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS Eight Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? Councilman Monahan-It could we don't know. Councilman Caimano- The answer obviously is yes. Attorney O'Connor-Why are you saying yes? Councilman Goetz-We have the Karner Blue. Councilman Caimano-It will affect it but you, as Betty said Supervisor Brandt-Wait a minute, it has not been seen Attorney O'Connor-We have not even established that there are any on the site. Councilman Caimano- Y ou are right, you are absolutely right. Councilman Monahan-Yea, but we cannot say that there isn't either. So, if we cannot say there isn't we have to say there are. Councilman Caimano-No. But we have got to think about this a minute he is absolutely right. Councilman Goetz-Who is absolutely right? Councilman Caimano-Mike. Councilman Tucker-If there is we are going to Supervisor Brandt-Mitigate it. Councilman Tucker-mitigate it. Councilman Monahan-But, that is the whole point that is why you put the yes's Attorney O'Connor-1 think you could answer No and then down under other impacts Councilman Caimano- That is what I am thinking Attorney O'Connor-Say, that the developer will be required to revisit. Councilman Monahan-Well, wait a minute Attorney O'Connor-However you have done it. Councilman Monahan-You have got one already that you have got to answer yes to because the application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year other than for agricultural purposes, you know the homeowners are going to put that on. So you cannot very well answer that whole thing no. Councilman Caimano- That is true. Ok. Councilman Goetz-Now we are marking it yes? Councilman Caimano-Well, I think we go through the questions first application of pesticides Supervisor Brandt-I do not think it makes much difference, I think you could say it either way if you say yes, then you have got to point out that it is mitigated by the actions that we have taken. Attorney O'Connor-1 do not know if you can answer no to number eight as a category and still and then I agree with what Betty has said, answer small to moderate on the pesticides or herbicides. Councilman Caimano-We cannot answer no you got to answer yes. Councilman Monahan-We got to answer yes, you have got to answer yes. Attorney O'Connor-But, I mean answer yes to small to moderate there. Councilman Caimano- I think, I think that, yea. Attorney O'Connor-Because my problem with eight it says specifically threatened or endangered species you are not talking about, you are saying, generally you understand that people will put down pesticides or herbicides, not fertilizers, you are saying pesticides or herbicides more than twice a year. I do not know if that is actually a given fact. Mr. Brewer-A lot of mosquitoes down there. Councilman Monahan-I think it is Mike, because everybody is buying the fertilizers now that has got the pesticides in it. UNKNOWN-It is not fertilizers... Councilman Monahan-I said, wait a minute, I said wait a minute excuse me, they are buying the fertilizers now that have got that mixed right in with it unfortunately. Attorney O'Connor-Doesn't that have to do with threaten or endangered species and if you do not have them in the first instance Councilman Monahan-I do not know, all it asked is the question if there is going to be application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. Supervisor Brandt-That is under proposed action, affect any threatened or endangered species. Councilman Monahan-What they are saying is if you put that on your lawns that can have an affect and we do not know if there is any threaten or endangered species, that is the whole point. Supervisor Brandt-Wait a minute, this is part of we are analyzing threatened or endangered species. Councilman Monahan-That is right and we do not know if there are any there or not. Attorney O'Connor-There is showing that there is. Councilman Monahan-But there is no showing that there is not, and that is why you are going to do that search again. Attorney O'Connor-Yes, there is Supervisor Brandt-There is showing that there is not and we have asked to go back and look again to be sure. So far, the showing is that there is not. Councilman Goetz-I thought there was Supervisor Brandt-If there is found to be, we have said they must mitigate that. So, Councilman Monahan-But that is the point Mike you, the mitigation go over there under the yes column. And we have already said that we are going ...some mitigation. Councilman Caimano- W e need to Attorney O'Connor-My point would be is that there is no inventory for endangered or threatened species on the site by any showing by the inquires that have been made to the appropriate authorities in addition to that we have actually done an on site phase I phase II type study showing none, the only question on that was a timing issue. Supervisor Brandt-And we said revise it. Attorney O'Connor-If you look clearly at that study even, they said revisit it, you look clearly at that study the fellow there said that he could tell the plant even though it was not within the maybe the fly period. Supervisor Brandt-I do not know. Councilman Caimano- Y ou are looking at me? Councilman Tucker-No, I am.. Attorney O'Connor-My suggestion would be that you answer eight no. Councilman Monahan-Maybe the answer is we have to put a note on that we cannot answer it until a further study is done. Attorney O'Connor-1 would object to that. I think you have got to make decision now, whether you can or your can't. Attorney Dusek-If you are saying that you cannot answer it then you are saying you need an environmental impact statement. Councilman Caimano- That is correct. Supervisor Brandt-When they say no or yes I am not sure the difference but I know danm well that if you say yes you say you have mitigated it by requiring a revisit and you, it is a very qualified yes because you do not know that there are any there but if there are you have already taken steps to check if there are and you have required that they mitigated it if there are. Councilman Caimano-Actually the one, two, third dot if to re-read this thing the third dot is not appropo here, I think Supervisor Brandt-It isn't. Councilman Caimano-I think that eight, Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species the answer is yes and it goes under other and other impacts and there is where we list the fact that there has been a potential raised for and we answer that there is a mitigation measure. The mitigation measure is that the applicant has agreed to survey the site and do what ever is necessary after the site has been surveyed, you have said that on the record. Attorney O'Connor-We have said that and I am not trying to back away from that we will do that, ok, but I think correctly here there is no threaten or endangered species and no showing of it on this site. Councilman Caimano- W e also do not know that Mike. You cannot be on the record as having said you will do something because something may be a problem and then deny that there is any potential for threatening. You cannot do both. Attorney O'Connor-Yes you can... Attorney Dusek-Jim Martin mentioned to me there is no question that in that general vicinity over there, there has been sited the Karner Blue Butterfly, right? Councilman Caimano- Y es Attorney Dusek-Maybe not on this property but in that neighborhood Supervisor Brandt -near by Attorney Dusek-of town. So, it seems to me that if the Board wanted to you could certainly answer it yes and then under other impacts as Nick suggested that is where you want to indicate that you are concerned about the potential of Karner Blue Butterfly habitat showing up in this area then make your determination whether its small to moderate or potentially large and the whether or not you have got it mitigated. Councilman Caimano-It is already mitigated because the developer on the record has said they will check for it and if it is there they will take whatever measurers are deemed necessary. Supervisor Brandt -So it is small to moderate so, we will go yes I agree with your analysis, it would go yes there, other impacts as you described it would be small to moderate and mitigated. Councilman Caimano-And in there the listing is the only listing we could put in there is, the only listing that we could put in there is the Karner and the Trailing Arbutus. Supervisor Brandt-The Trailing Arbutus is not. Attorney O'Connor-The Trailing Arbutus is not an endangered species. Councilman Caimano-OK Councilman Tucker-According to the letter that Jim wrote. Councilman Goetz-Did we answer the second dot then? Councilman Caimano- The what? Councilman Goetz-The second dot? Councilman Caimano-No. We do not need too. We are not going to remove any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. Councilman Goetz-I am just asking. Attorney O'Connor-Under other impacts are you going to add some language to the affect that in the vicinity of development Karner Blue Butterfly has been reported and Councilman Caimano-the applicant has agreed to Councilman Tucker-take another look Councilman Caimano-survey Attorney O'Connor-likely habitat Councilman Caimano-survey the likely habitat and take whatever measurers are deemed necessary at the time. Attorney Dusek-So then you are going to add to what I previously said that commentary... Councilman Caimano-And he has, he is on the record as having said that. Attorney Dusek-Well, no, we have got have... Councilman Caimano- Type it in. Attorney Dusek-Now, before you leave this to make sure I have got it then you are looking paragraph eight is aYes under other Impacts we have small to moderate, we have mitigation yes we have language written in how about on the pesticide and herbicides Councilman Caimano-No because we reading that wrong, the sentence reads will proposed action affect any threaten or endangered species example that would apply to column II meaning the potential large impact the applications of pesticides etcetera meaning is this the reason why they are being threatened? That is not germane to this at all. Attorney Dusek-So your answer to that is no. Councilman Caimano-No, that is correct. Councilman Monahan-I am not sure if you are right Nick, if there are Blue Karner Butterfly there the pesticides and herbicides will certainly kill them. Councilman Caimano-But that is not the answer to the question. Supervisor Brandt-The answer is that if they are they will mitigate that is defined. Councilman Monahan-But the point of it is, if you still allow pesticides and herbicides it is going to kill them anyway. Councilman Caimano-My point is that we have already covered it because if, if in fact and lets get ridiculous about it, if in fact you guys go in there with the State and it turns out that there is a whole colony in there, the State if going to say gee, Karner Blue Butterfly reacts violently to some pesticide and therefore you will not be allowed to use that pesticide, the whole thing just rolls down hill as far as I am concerned. The answer is they are going to look at it, if it is there they are going to take whatever steps are necessary to mitigate it. They have already said that on the record. Supervisor Brandt-Right, ok, lets go on. Councilman Caimano-Nine, You got the answers to these Paul or are you falling asleep over there? Attorney Dusek-I just ...a yes and there is only one small to moderate impact under other impacts and it is yes under mitigation. Supervisor Brandt-That is correct. Councilman Caimano-Nine, And you got all the answers as to what you are going to type in there. OK. Nine, Will proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? I always laugh at this because the key here is the word substantially, I think. Councilman Tucker-In what sense? Nobody is there.. Councilman Caimano- Y ou could hardly answer no to this ever? Mr. Martin-What you have to do with the following two questions are statements to guide you a little bit. Councilman Caimano- Those are examples by the way, not to be confused with the other fifty million things. . Councilman Monahan-Yea, they seem pretty narrow. Councilman Caimano-Proposed action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. Supervisor Brandt-I would say no there. Councilman Monahan-Is that where we use some of these other things that are in this part of the law? Councilman Caimano-But, Betty the key is substantially I do not think there has even been any mention of the fact that there has been non endangered species running around, we have not even talked about it. So, how could we substantially affect them if no one has even brought them up in the nineteen months that we have talked about the project. Councilman Monahan-Non threatened or non endangered it did not say threatened or endangered it said non. Councilman Caimano-Muskrats are non endangered but nobody has mentioned those yet, my point is that nobody has mentioned any... Councilman Monahan-Because nobody has asked about them. Supervisor Brandt-There has been mentioned, there has been deer mentioned there have been wildlife.. UNKNOWN-It has been mentioned... Supervisor Brandt -deer and wild turkey have been mentioned and I have seen their tracks down there I know they are there but they are not there in large quantities. Councilman Caimano-Has there been substantial affect to those? Councilman Monahan-You have got to answer yes to that. Attorney O'Connor-1 think the point that Nick is making is substantial Supervisor Brandt -the word substantial is the word Attorney O'Connor-what will affect them substantially people have said they built in their own developments and they still see the wildlife. I do not think it is a significant issue I do not, how you would. Mr. Brewer-I think if you were taking two hundred acres and developing one hundred and seven acres of it all the wildlife that lives down there you are going to substantially affect. Councilman Caimano-I do not disagree with you at all, not all of us, you are going to change it there is no question. Supervisor Brandt -Of course you are. Councilman Monahan- I think, if you do not know it though you cannot... Councilman Caimano-I do not know it. Councilman Monahan-But, Nick, if you do not know it you cannot say no. Councilman Caimano-Wait a minute, what is the key, what is the key to the definition of substantially altered? Mr. Brewer-Substantially they are not going to be, they are not going to be there. Supervisor Brandt-I do not disagree with you, most of them will go away but there are other places for them to go. Councilman Monahan-But that is not the point. That is not what the question is. Supervisor Brandt-That spot there will be an affect. Councilman Monahan-Then you got to answer yes. Councilman Caimano-Fine the answer is yes. Supervisor Brandt-I would say Mr. Brewer-..have to answer yes... Councilman Goetz-But how do you mitigate it? Councilman Caimano-I do not know how you would ever answer no frankly. Supervisor Brandt-I do not see how you can answer no to that. I think it is a yes. But, Councilman Goetz-That is what I mean. Supervisor Brandt -it is small to moderate if you look at the habitat of those species there is a hell of a lot of habitat around. They will move over up river a little bit and I know where there are thousands of acres, of it habitat Attorney O'Connor-There is four thousand acres just in this green belt. Councilman Caimano-Pardon me? Attorney O'Connor-There is four thousand acres just in this green belt, we have heard that spoken by representatives from Niagara Mohawk. So, you are going to say yes and then you are going to say small to moderate. Supervisor Brandt -Small to moderate, that is what I believe. Councilman Monahan-Well, wait a minute there is no small to moderate up there because the proposed action Attorney O'Connor-On the next one there is. You have to go down to the next thing. Councilman Caimano-Proposed action will substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife, and what they are saying is that there are deer and other wildlife species. Councilman Monahan-Right. So, what are you going to do, small to moderate. Supervisor Brandt -Yea. When you say mature forest over a hundred years of age most of that forest is young, there is some old forest, the oldest forest is out on the point and it, I do not know when you get into a hundred years if it is hundred years its probably Mr. Martin-The only thing I would add is you have a conservation easement that's siting certain sizes of trees that are restricted in cutting in and obviously they are the older trees... Supervisor Brandt-The older stuff in there some white pine and I do not, it might be a hundred years but I doubt it. Councilman Tucker-..reaching Supervisor Brandt -You are reaching if you say it is a hundred years. Councilman Tucker-You are really reaching at a hundred years for the white pine. Councilman Monahan-Not for that. Are you going to put Supervisor Brandt-I would say small to moderate. Councilman Monahan-Are you going to do a no, why would you put anything Mike? Councilman Caimano-I would not put anything. Supervisor Brandt-All right. Councilman Monahan-You do not put anything. Councilman Caimano- There is no one hundred year forest. Supervisor Brandt-There is no one hundred year, all right I agree with you. Councilman Monahan-Are you going to put a mitigation by that proposed action with the wildlife species? Councilman Caimano-Well, I do not know what you are going to mitigate? Supervisor Brandt- Not really they are going to move that is all. Councilman Monahan-That would be the mitigation. Attorney Dusek-No, no the mitigation would be Councilman Caimano- That is us or him. Councilman Monahan-Ok Supervisor Brandt-They are going to mitigate it... Councilman Goetz-No we are not going to go in there and shoot them. Councilman Tucker-Well that would be the mitigation, that would be one source. Councilman Caimano-IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES Will the proposed Councilman Monahan-No Supervisor Brandt-No Councilman Tucker-No Councilman Caimano-I better read the question through, Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? No. Councilman Tucker-It used to be a farm but no longer is. Councilman Caimano-Eleven, IMP ACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? Councilman Monahan-Yes. Councilman Caimano- Yes, because the first one says proposed land uses or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns whether man-made or natural. So, obviously there is going to be a major change there. Attorney O'Connor-It is residential now, that is what we are proposing. Councilman Caimano- There is nothing there now. Councilman Monahan-There is nothing there. Attorney O'Connor-Proposed land uses or project components are obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns. The land use patterns that are around this parcel are residential. Councilman Caimano- And you are going to change it because you are going to put streets in there you are going to put lots in there. Attorney O'Connor-Are we in contrast to the other residences? Attorney Allen-It says also man made or natural after. Councilman Caimano- This land where you are going on right now, doesn't have a street on it, doesn't have lots on it, it is changed Mike, I do not know how you could argue that. Attorney O'Connor-1 say in the small in the nature of the potential then I would say small to moderate mitigated because you have got conservation easements that are going to keep us away from the bluffs. Councilman Caimano-I am not arguing that, I am arguing that fifty feet in you are going to put streets, you are going to put driveways you are going to put, you are going to change it. Councilman Monahan-And I do not think you can have that small to moderate that is a potential large impact. Councilman Caimano-It is a major change. Attorney O'Connor-Well you have got current surrounding land use patterns, so outside of our development not what our development is, it is a comparison of what our neighbors are, what are our neighbors? That was my point. Councilman Caimano-I know what your point is but and you are right, your next door neighbor have houses but you are changing this Councilman Monahan-The whole area of the river. Attorney O'Connor-Changing our site, not, but not in contrast to what they are already. Councilman Monahan-It is still changing the river along through there. Councilman Goetz-You are going to mitigate it so I would not fight it if I were you. Councilman Monahan-It has got to be potential to large Supervisor Brandt -You know what is interesting though, who are their neighbors, not their land their neighbors land all the land you are looking at that is preserved is Niagara Mohawks land, if you look at their neighbors most of it is used. That is a fact. Councilman Monahan-But, that does not ask you whether or not who owns it Mike? It says surrounding areas, if you look across the river you have got all the land that nothing has happened to it. Supervisor Brandt-But, that again is their land. Councilman Monahan-That doesn't matter you have got to ask, that isn't the question. Supervisor Brandt-Betty go down the stream just a little bit, there is cabin, upon cabin, upon cabin, there is people with docks all over down there they are our neighbors too. Councilman Monahan-I am just answering the question. There is a potential large impact there. Attorney O'Connor-Jim, am I right in reading contrast with neighbors as opposed to our land? I know our land changes. Mr. Martin-I think it is important to consider the question, from the view point of the neighbors, it is not from, like if you were standing on this property and you were looking out the other way, the aesthetic appearance. Councilman Caimano- I think... Councilman Monahan-It's a big change, it is going be a big change. Supervisor Brandt-All right I agree with that. Councilman Caimano-I am looking at the same thing because the next question clearly indicates that you are looking from the neighbors point of view. Councilman Monahan-Yea. Councilman Caimano-Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. Councilman Monahan-And that has got to be a potential for a large impact. Supervisor Brandt-Wait a minute, we are protecting all the bluffs, we are protecting the views, we are protecting the forest all the way up and fifty feet in I would say they are going to have a hard time see it. Rob Sutherland-Look at the elevations on the map. Supervisor Brandt -Yes Mr. Sutherland-You will. Councilman Caimano- What is that? Mr. Sutherland-Along the river we, we've been out on the point, along the river you are not with the buffer Supervisor Brandt -You are not going to see it. Mr. Sutherland-You are not going to see, no Councilman Caimano-But the neighbors. Councilman Monahan-That isn't, that isn't true. Councilman Caimano-Can the other subdivisions see? Supervisor Brandt-No I do not think so. Attorney O'Connor-Clendon Brook is across the wetland...you could see it from the Water Plant maybe. Supervisor Brandt -You are taking out two cabins, a whole bunch of junk in there. Councilman Monahan-Well, I will tell you what it will be Nick, it will really I do not know if it goes under aesthetics now, what you do is get the light at night and stuff like that, that you have not had before and everything. Supervisor Brandt-But that is minor, that's... Councilman Monahan-I have noticed that, I noticed, you know where I noticed that was when I was over to the house at Greenway North and they talk about that land being a buffer zone, you sit there in the window and see all the cars going right up and down the Aviation Road. Councilman Caimano-I guess I would say no to that, I do not see any. Councilman Monahan-So what are you going to put, small to moderate. Councilman Caimano-I am going to put, no, I do not think, I do not know, what is the small to moderate what is the? Who is going to be bothered by it that is going to eliminate or reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. Supervisor Brandt -Some light blue .. Councilman Monahan-Well, I do not know, it is hard to visualize a project of this magnitude of one hundred and seventy houses that isn't going to be an affect on that. Attorney O'Connor-If you look at the site and try to visualize the site as it is laid out though and the open space and the trees that are preserved that is there, this is not a plain, it is not something that is being built a farm, this is Mr. Brewer-It is not just developable land just for ... Councilman Monahan-That is what I am looking at is all that inland there, when you figure all those houses in there. Mr. Brewer...all those one third acre lots on Sherman Island Road... Councilman Caimano- I.. small to moderate Councilman Monahan-I think you have to really. Supervisor Brandt-I think so too. Attorney O'Connor-1 am sorry and I am lost. You are on Councilman Caimano-the second dot down, proposed land uses Attorney O'Connor-Small to moderate? Councilman Caimano- Yea. Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views, known to be important to the area. Supervisor Brandt-I think we have taken measurers so that will not happen, so as defined I would say no. Councilman Monahan-lam not sure if I agree. Project components that will result in the, I mean it is just like all that building up around Lake George you cannot see Lake George any more. You know? Supervisor Brandt-Now wait a minute, they do not screen like we just screened this thing. Councilman Monahan-No, no that is what I am saying. It says are you going to be able to see the scenic views and I am not sure you are going to be able to see the scenic views. Supervisor Brandt -You want to see the scenic views you go there and cut all the trees off and stand there and look at them, they do not exist right now.. Attorney O'Connor-What are the scenic views now? Supervisor Brandt-There aren't. Attorney O'Connor-You cannot see thorough that site. Supervisor Brandt -You are not going to change that. Attorney O'Connor-You cannot see through the site right now. Councilman Monahan-Ok. Councilman Caimano-So, you got the, so the answer to the question eleven is yes. Councilman Monahan-That is in the potential large under oh yea. Supervisor Brandt-No Councilman Caimano-Eleven general answer is yes and then there is a potential large impact which is mitigated and also a small to moderate impact. Attorney O'Connor-Is that large the first one, potential I would object to that, ... Councilman Monahan-Well, we are filling it out. Unknown-You can object to it. Councilman Monahan-We are filling it out Mike. Attorney O'Connor-This again is a round... Councilman Goetz-You are mitigating it I would drop it Mike if I were you. Councilman Caimano- Y our object is Councilman Goetz-Because we are filling it out. Councilman Caimano- Y our objection is duly noted. IMP ACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Twelve a proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, and prehistoric or paleontological importance? The answer Councilman Monahan-It has to be yes. Supervisor Brandt-The impact is yes you are going to save the resource. Heck, you have a positive impact. You have identified it and you have said you are not going to, you are going to preserve it. Unknown-You have not identified it all... Supervisor Brandt -You may never be able to identify it all though, but that Attorney O'Connor-So, you are saying yes to that. You go down... Councilman Monahan-Marilyn is this site on the New York State site inventory? Marilyn VanDyke-1 do not believe so, no. Councilman Caimano- They would not even know about it until we told them, right? Marilyn VanDyke-That is the problem with inventories. Councilman Caimano- So the yes is the first two dots, right? Attorney O'Connor-The second dot I think isn't it? Councilman Caimano- The proposed action occurring wholly or paretically within Councilman Monahan-It is not under the State or National. Councilman Caimano-No, I am sorry, that is right, the second one, any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. Councilman Monahan-Yea. Attorney O'Connor-Small to moderate. Supervisor Brandt -Small to moderate Councilman Caimano-I would say small to moderate and you are into mitigating so it does not make any difference. Mr. Sutherland-We are not impacting any archaeological site. Councilman Monahan-There will be impact just from people walking on the land. Supervisor Brandt -You are impacting it by preserving it as a matter of fact. Councilman Caimano- Y ou are impacting it. Councilman Monahan-Just from people walking on the land there will be an impact. Supervisor Brandt -But you are preserving you identified and preserved if anything it is a positive impact. Councilman Caimano- Y ou are impacting there is no question about it. Ok. Attorney O'Connor-You are going to check Yes then? Councilman Caimano- Y es Supervisor Brandt -Yes Attorney O'Connor-Small to moderate and yes. Councilman Caimano-Under the second dot. IMP ACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION Will the proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? Supervisor Brandt -Yea Councilman Caimano-Permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity? Councilman Monahan-That is true. Councilman Caimano- A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Obviously major is a question. Councilman Monahan-So it would be permanent foreclosure recreational opportunities is the first one. Councilman Caimano-Yea I think that is so. Supervisor Brandt-I think that is fair. Councilman Monahan-You have got to do a potential large impact there. Attorney O'Connor-What is the potential of you building a park on this site that you are trying to preserve by everything that you are doing? I mean... Councilman Tucker- How would it be potential recreational I mean if Niagara Mohawk owned the land ... Councilman Caimano- That is a good point. Supervisor Brandt-The only potential is for someone to buy it and develop it and that, and that is not something Councilman Monahan-That is what they are asking you, would there ever be the possibility of this area in the future being used for recreation, does it have the ability to be used for recreation? Attorney O'Connor-You could open it up for a park and have a nice beach down there. Supervisor Brandt-That is right. Attorney O'Connor-Maybe a boat launch. Councilman Monahan-That is what they are asking you, and you know Councilman Caimano-go home and have dinner... Councilman Goetz-You are getting fisty aren't you. Councilman Monahan-And then the mitigation is that we decided that we do not want that to happen there. That is the mitigation that you decided that you do not want a recreation site there. Attorney O'Connor-It is also not in the inventory of the Town. Councilman Caimano-Pardon me? Attorney O'Connor-As Mr. Tucker said it is privately own it is not within the inventory of the ... Councilman Caimano- Y ou are presuming that somewhere down the Road if this project did not happen that Nimo wouldn't sell it to Mike Brandt who would develop a recreational area down there. I should not have said, that, Nick Caimano who would develop a residential area down there you are presuming that you cannot presume that. Attorney O'Connor-1 think the recreation area as it is used here is.. Councilman Caimano-And we are changing the zone to the PUD if this goes through... Supervisor Brandt-The truth is if we did a major recreational area there you hit it right on the head you would cause all the problems that we are trying to mitigate. Councilman Monahan-And that is why, that is why you say large to moderate Supervisor Brandt -So you really wouldn't do it. Councilman Caimano-He has got an interesting point. Councilman Monahan-You do the large to moderate and then the mitigation is that it is too sensitive to let it be open to recreation. Councilman Caimano-Wait a minute, Pliney has an interesting point here. Councilman Tucker-I believe they were questioned Councilman Caimano- They meaning NIMO Councilman Tucker-NIMO was questioned way back in July that they would sell this land for a park and we were told no. Councilman Monahan-But I do not think that is the question. The question is, is this the type of land that could be used for recreation that is what they are asking you because they are looking at SEQRA asks those kinds of questions. They do not say what the developer ....it they just say what is the capacity of this land, that is what SEQRA is. What is the capacity of the land, the water, the air? Attorney Dusek-Just to point out something to Board these are only examples these comments here and maybe the problem is that the question that they are asking you doesn't quite fit your concern you are more than free under other impacts to make your own statement and then qualify it as a small to moderate and large impact and mitigation. Maybe there is some word you would rather use that would be better described. . . Supervisor Brandt-There was discussion in this government about possibly looking at that parcel of property for a recreation site and after looking at that the conclusion was that it has limitations and a lot of limitations and if you had a lot of people in there for a recreation site you would destroy it and we concluded that, at least some of us discussing it that it was not an ideal piece of property for a recreation site at all. Attorney Dusek-Well then you are not foreclosing a recreational opportunity. Supervisor Brandt - I do not believe that you are, because it has very minor potential and a piece of sarcasm Mike O'Connor said it, but he said it correctly. If you did make a recreation site then you put in the boat launches and all the things that we restricted. So, in effect you are not shutting down a major site there, it certainly has some impact there is some recreational use of that property now we all know that it has been for a long time. But, it is pretty minor in numbers. Councilman Caimano-Let me just add something here and make sure we have the emphasis on the right part of that, of the right part of that example. The emphasis should be on the permanent foreclosure and that is what we are concerned about is, is this a piece of land that hereinafter regardless of anything else will not be able to be used as a recreational opportunity because of what we are doing. Supervisor Brandt-In fact what we did. Councilman Monahan-And that is right. Councilman Caimano- The answer to that is yes. Councilman Monahan-Yes Supervisor Brandt-Except what we did is we allowed these people to use it as a recreation facility within its ability to handle that. In otherwords we said, you cannot destroy the archaeology you have a very limited us of passive recreation and in fact we allowed it to be developed properly, with a very limited amount. Attorney O'Connor-Part of the development we are offering a five acre over look park for a view shed or whatever you obtain out of that which right now is not available. Supervisor Brandt-And that can be high density. Councilman Monahan-Those go under the mitigation. Councilman Caimano-Draw a shade over there just for a minute. Dream a little bit, all the SEQRA wants to know what are we going to do with this piece of land? The answer to a question like this has to be yes because we are permanently foreclosing it, you cannot do anything else with it. Supervisor Brandt-That is true. Councilman Caimano-That is the only question. I think it is very small I think it is... Supervisor Brandt -Small that is the case. Councilman Caimano-I think it is there, you have to answer yes. Supervisor Brandt-I marked it yes. Attorney O'Connor-You are saying yes and then saying small and the first one permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity, small and mitigated yes. Councilman Caimano-We are not even worried about that because it is number one colunm. Councilman Monahan-You may want to worry about that if you get challenged in court. Councilman Caimano-Fine, but I will be long gone by then, dead. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION Fourteen Will there be an affect to existing transportation systems? Thereby meaning present patterns of movement of people, the answer is yes, we will change the streets. The answer, actually it is mitigated Supervisor Brandt-It is small. Councilman Caimano-It really is a positive influence. I think that should be ... Councilman Monahan-You put a yes on that didn't you. Councilman Caimano- Y es mam, but I also think under other impacts that it ought to be noted that there is a positive influence here regarding the change in construction traffics of Nimo is that not so? Supervisor Brandt -Yea. Councilman Caimano- That is on the record. ..a portion of it. Councilman Monahan-Some neighbors up there do not like that so you have. Supervisor Brandt-I do not think anybody dislikes the fact that Nimo is not going to drive their trucks down that road anymore. Councilman Monahan-No, I mean some of the other things happening with that road. Councilman Caimano-I did not say that, I am saying yes. I also want it noted there is some positive. Attorney O'Connor-So, are you saying yes, and then you are saying other impacts positive influence decrease on Sherman Island Road small to moderate. Supervisor Brandt-Small to moderate. Councilman Caimano- Y ea Councilman Monahan-Where are you putting...wait a minute, what are you doing small to moderate under what? Councilman Caimano- Two places under Alternation of present traffic patterns and under other impacts. Mr. Martin-And you are mitigating the ...present patterns. Councilman Caimano- W e have done that, yea. Mr. Martin- Other impacts, small to moderate. Councilman Caimano- That is it period. Weare noting what happened at the Sherman Island Road is not being used by Nimo traffic. IMP ACT ON ENERGY Fifteen Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? The answer has to be no. NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action. They talk about blasting within fifteen hundred feet of a hospital or school odors will routinely occur more than one hour per day, proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. I actually to do not see any here. Supervisor Brandt-Well, proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise level, yes... Councilman Caimano-Under construction you mean? Supervisor Brandt -Yea. Attorney O'Connor-If you go back to your preamble again you are saying will there be objectionable odors, noise or vibration as the result of the proposed action? Supervisor Brandt-I am sure that I can find someone that will object to noise. Councilman Monahan-I think Supervisor Brandt -but I think it is small to moderate. Councilman Monahan-Under the noise, I know, Nick if this were coming in front of you as a subdivision when you were on the Planning Board the questions that a lot of people ask right off the bat is what hours are you going to permit this construction to go on? So, therefore someplace we ought to put that we give the Planning Board the right to set the hours of construction if we do not put it in here we cannot do it. Councilman Caimano- They have the right. Councilman Tucker-They have the right anyway. Councilman Monahan-I am not sure if you do, you do because you have it under SEQRA. Once we are doing SEQRA I am not sure if you will have. Mr. Brewer-I think that is not an issue, I think that is the discussed at the Planning Board ... Councilman Monahan-I want to make sure you have the power to discuss it, that is what... Councilman Caimano- They always do. Supervisor Brandt-They got it. Councilman Monahan-But, because you do SEQRA for subdivisions. Attorney O'Connor-Do we limit construction hours in other subdivisions? Councilman Caimano- Y es. Yes, I can remember limiting Councilman Monahan-Absolutely Councilman Caimano-dust to, dawn to dust. Mr. Martin-I also remember though as Attorney O'Connor-Not in construction Councilman Caimano- Y es Mr. Martin-Whenever I approached this question when I was on the Planning Board, the proposed action is the establishment of a residential neighborhood, the means to that end. Councilman Caimano- I was just going to bring that out. Mr. Martin-Is construction, the construction is a temporary state Councilman Caimano- That is right Mr. Martin-I have often times gone through this on the Planning Board and said no to this question. Councilman Caimano-I have too for that reason, is that the proposed action is really the subdivision the PUD it is not the construction aspect of it, that is why Tim is right because that is where they handle that, because they handle the medium part of it and that is the construction phase. Yes, there have been... ...you bet so I think that answer is no to this question. Supervisor Brandt -Ok, I agree Attorney O'Connor-Sixteen is no. Can you go back to fifteen also, I think you have to answer that yes. Councilman Monahan-Why? Attorney O'Connor-Because in number three there the second example, proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve... I think that's a small to moderate impact but it is a yes. Supervisor Brandt-I agree. Councilman Tucker-What kind of a, what kind of heat are you going to have? Councilman Monahan-They won't know. Supervisor Brandt -Gas, I bet you. Mr. Sutherland-We know that NIMO has plans to come up and bring ...down Bedford Close so we hoping gas IS .. Councilman Tucker-So, you do not really know yet. Mr. Sutherland-They have to make a business judgement if density are sufficient in the area to bring it down there. Supervisor Brandt -Ok. Councilman Caimano-Ok. Councilman Tucker-We did fifteen what, yes? Councilman Caimano- Yes, under the proposed action will require the creation or extension of energy, small to moderate. Supervisor Brandt-IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEARING No Councilman Caimano-Will proposed action affect public health and safety? It does not seem to. Eighteen Councilman Monahan-Wait a minute. Under noise and odor impacts I do not really have a problem with I just want to make sure we are doing it right. It says proposed action will create, will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen, do you think there is a problem with that one? Supervisor Brandt-I do not think so. Councilman Caimano- I do not think, unless they have parties every night, I do not think the community is going to be. Impact on huh? Supervisor Brandt -You are preserving some, you are setting some up that, are being preserved. Councilman Caimano-Impact on growth and character... Councilman Monahan-Well not only toward the River Mike Councilman Caimano-community or neighborhood, number 18 ...Will the proposed Mr. Brewer-Where is the pizza? Councilman Goetz-Yea you did say that. Councilman Caimano-It is too late now, I am past hungry. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? Supervisor Brandt-No, I am not even going over there. Councilman Monahan-Well, sure it will. Attorney O'Connor-Well, community, is the community of Queensbury, will this affect the character of Queensbury? Supervisor Brandt-I said I am not going over there to visit it. Never mind. Ok. Lets go. Councilman Caimano- The proposed action will cause a change in the density of the land use, because we are changing to a PUD. Councilman Monahan-Yea, certainly, it is potential to large impact. Councilman Caimano- That is always subjective. Councilman Monahan-If you allow, almost 50% more than you would under a subdivision you mean to tell me you can say that, that isn't a large impact? Councilman Caimano- Wait a minute, lets fight over that Attorney O'Connor-1 think if you go back to the recommendation of the Planning Board part of their recommendation was that the proposed PUD was in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. That was part of their specific resolution. We are talking about a residential neighborhood. The idea of the PUD is to give us more flexibility of design. Councilman Caimano- I am making a moral judgement I am saying that the proposed action will cause a change in the density of the land use. That is where it is all about. That is the only thing that I am saying. Attorney O'Connor-But, isn't the density that we propose a permitted density? Councilman Caimano-Not now it isn't. We are changing... Councilman Monahan-Because you are going to a rezoning. Councilman Caimano- Weare asking for a rezoning. Attorney O'Connor-No, no, I am asking for what is in the zoning ordinance. Councilman Caimano- Y ou are asking to go to a PUD. Councilman Monahan-No, Mike come on. Councilman Caimano- The answer is yes. Attorney O'Connor-Is that... Councilman Caimano-I think it is small to moderate but Betty will argue with me. Supervisor Brandt-I think it is small to moderate also. Councilman Monahan-Well, I do not think you can prove that when it is that much of a percentage, I will tell you that much. Councilman Caimano-How much of a percentage did you say? Councilman Monahan-It is 50 divided by 120. Councilman Caimano-It is 43 divided by 120. Councilman Monahan-No Councilman Caimano- They are asking for one hundred and sixty three units. Councilman Monahan-They, what they have by right is one hundred and seventy is by right one hundred and seventy. Supervisor Brandt-They are asking for one hundred and sixty three. Attorney O'Connor-One hundred and sixty three and ... Councilman Caimano-Forty three divided by One hundred and twenty assuming one hundred and twenty is right... Attorney O'Connor- Let's also understand that of the one hundred and sixty three, seven of them replace existing lots within the McDonald Subdivision Councilman Monahan-That has nothing, we cannot take that into account. Attorney O'Connor-You are really talking about one hundred and fifty six new units. Councilman Monahan-No, no, come on Mike. Councilman Caimano-Either way it is only... Supervisor Brandt-It is true. Councilman Monahan-I have seen you do this with the Planning and Zoning Board and I get tired of being salamied in this kind of action. Councilman Caimano- Y ou know what they say about Lawyers Paul. That is not. Councilman Monahan-I have watched him do this an argued things for hours after hours. Supervisor Brandt-Lets get back to work. Councilman Caimano-It is not an elephant it is a mouse with a glandular .. Supervisor Brandt -Small to moderate or are we talking potentially large with mitigation, I think it is small to moderate. Councilman Caimano-Well, I do to, but it is a subject thing, I do not really know. Supervisor Brandt-Who else... Councilman Caimano-Lets just say it is going to be it is not even going to be mitigated... Attorney O'Connor-It does not have to be. Councilman Goetz-Then it is large if it is going to be mitigated. Councilman Caimano-Does not even have to be, what is going to be mitigated? Ok. The last question is going to be a very, very touchy one. Councilman Monahan-Well, what did you mark it? Councilman Goetz-Small to moderate. Councilman Caimano-Small to moderate. Supervisor Brandt-Small to moderate. Attorney Dusek-We had one small to moderate in that group? Councilman Goetz-We have to poll everybody. Mr. Brewer-Betty said large, ... Councilman Caimano-Who said large? Supervisor Brandt-Who said large? What did you say Sue? Councilman Goetz-Large Councilman Caimano-Fine Ok. Supervisor Brandt-Pliney what did you say? Councilman Tucker-Large, large, large, large, will that make us mark a box and move on? Supervisor Brandt -Ok. Attorney O'Connor-1 have a problem with that, it is not that late, if you start marking too many boxes you then actually negating all the discussion and the conclusions that you have reached in the resolutions you kind of have agreed to and that is not... Councilman Caimano-But it really does not make any difference. Councilman Tucker-Wait a minute Attorney O'Connor-1 think you should weight each one... Councilman Tucker-What I am saying is Mike, what you are doing to that land has a large impact even what we have mitigated it still has a large impact. Attorney O'Connor-A large impact on density is the issue I do not think it does. Councilman Tucker-Yes it does. Councilman Caimano-Either way that is what the purpose of the PUD is. Councilman Monahan-There is nothing there now, there is nothing there now, and you are going to put a hundred and sixty three there yes it does have a large impact. Councilman Caimano- Yea, but the positive side of that Betty is the fact that by going to a PUD you can . .. that is all we are talking about. Councilman Monahan-We have to answer the question. Councilman Caimano- I am Councilman Monahan-The question is and so that is a large impact when you have nothing there and you go to one hundred and sixty three. Attorney O'Connor-Mr. Brandt how did you decide? Councilman Caimano-We will go to large I do not care... Supervisor Brandt -Go to large Councilman Tucker-Which one are we marking? Supervisor Brandt-The polling was large. Attorney Dusek-Was it mitigated? Councilman Caimano- Yea. It does not make any difference does it? Attorney O'Connor-Yes Councilman Goetz-I think part III will take about that, won't you Jim? Councilman Caimano-Here is the thing, it is a potentially large, if we are going to say it is potentially large because it is 35% increase Councilman Monahan-Well actually it is more than that, because it is zero right now and that's what the proposed action would cause a change in the density of land use. There is nothing there now. Councilman Caimano-Density is still there. Councilman Monahan-Yea, but there is nothing there and that is what they are really telling you, there is nothing there now and it is going to one hundred and sixty three think that is what that question is really saymg. Attorney O'Connor-Aren't you really saying that under a Councilman Monahan-No, I do not think so Mike. Attorney O'Connor-standard subdivision you could do Supervisor Brandt-Wait a minute let him say it, what is it? Attorney O'Connor-Aren't you saying under a standard subdivision you could do a hundred and twenty but because of your PUD change you are thinking that it will go to one hundred and sixty three so you starting from one hundred and twenty to one hundred and sixty three, you are not starting from zero. Councilman Caimano-... the way I read it. Councilman Monahan-I do not think so. I think you are going from zero to one hundred and sixty three. Councilman Goetz-We have already got three that say large so lets just stick with it. Attorney O'Connor-Well the question is you have got to answer the question as can it be mitigated by project change? Councilman Monahan-I do not know let Jim worry about that when he comes up with the answers. Councilman Caimano-No he wants to know about that right now. Supervisor Brandt-Wait a minute we mitigated the hell out of this thing. Councilman Goetz-He said he is going to address it in part III is that right Jim? Councilman Caimano-How will you address it? Attorney O'Connor-That is a Board's obligation. Mr. Martin-In terms of the density of the land? Councilman Caimano- Yes. Mr. Martin-I would raise issues oflike, the land the clustering the land can, it can show that the land can bear it physically based on prior mitigation measures of the septic and all of that. There are conservation easements.. . Councilman Caimano- Wait a minute let him finish. Mr. Martin-all those types of things... Supervisor Brandt-Yea, but if it isn't shown then they have to cut density, they have to fit in the capacity of the land. That is a given. So, it is shown in that context. Unknown-It is in the resolution. Councilman Caimano- I think we have another answer yes, here Mike, before we get off this. Attorney O'Connor-Can you answer three..can you give Councilman Caimano-Can you give a what? Attorney O'Connor-Can you give an opinion can it be mitigated by project change? Councilman Caimano- Yes. Attorney O'Connor-Ok. Is that going to be the answer? Councilman Caimano- Yes. Attorney O'Connor-That was my question. Councilman Caimano- There is one other one here, the proposed action will set an important precedent for future projects. Councilman Tucker-Why Councilman Caimano-Because it shows that we are willing to seriously look at PUD's as opposed to what's already been designated as the density and the zoning of that area. Councilman Monahan-There is another one to, it maybe small but you cannot ignore it, development will create a demand for additional community services, it certainly will. Councilman Caimano-Where are you? That is small, ok, I will say yes but that is small. Councilman Monahan-Yea. Certainly you cannot ignore it. Councilman Caimano- No. Attorney O'Connor-Are you saying yes to the last three then? Councilman Caimano-Not the last three, not to create or eliminate employment but the one before that. Attorney O'Connor-It will create some employment. Councilman Monahan-Not really. Councilman Caimano-The project won't, the construction will...ok. Attorney O'Connor-So you are saying yes to .. Councilman Tucker-They indicated zero Councilman Caimano-Small to moderate impact as far as, I would not say it is a large impact, there is an important precedent for future projects as far as I am concerned. Attorney O'Connor-You said small Councilman Caimano- I said small Attorney O'Connor-To both of those? Councilman Caimano- Yep. Councilman Monahan-Is there or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? The answer is yes it has already been shown. Attorney O'Connor-1 think you have got to define the public and you have to define controversy, I think for people to come forward and comment on the project certainly is not of the nature that they talk about here as controversy. People have expressed concerns, I think that we have addressed those concerns you basically still potentially have at least four people that are opposed you have as many people who have spoke at the Zoning Board of Appeals without any prompting in favor of the project who are neighbors to the project and at the Planning Board and even before this Board some have spoke. Councilman Monahan-Mike, I think what we have to do is go back and look at the public hearing record and that during the public hearing there was a lot of controversy and I think that's where we have to pick our answer from. Councilman Caimano-I think we are putting an emphasis on the wrong end of the thing, I understand what Mike is saying and you know as compared to other things there is not a lot of controversy but that is not what the question says, I do not think. It says, is there areas that are likely to be public controversy related to the potential adverse environmental impacts? And the answer to that question is yes. Attorney O'Connor-But that's presuming that, there are adverse environmental impacts of this project?...you have indicated that there aren't. Councilman Caimano-I am not presuming, no, I am not presuming anything, I am saying that ... Supervisor Brandt -the controversary is there but we have address them. Councilman Caimano-Let me tell you something, if you guys go in and there is a construction project going on where everything is beautiful we have answered yes to all of these things and somebody goes in there and spills a fifty five gallon drum of oil for their trucks down the bank into the River there is going to be hell to pay. So, there is a potential... Attorney O'Connor-That is not part of our project. Councilman Caimano-I did not say it was. Attorney O'Connor-1 cannot say how you can even get that into the conversation in all honesty. Councilman Caimano-I did not say it was part of your project, I am saying that there is a potential if, the answer has to be yes. Supervisor Brandt-I think the answer is yes but, I think the answer is that we have, listen to that concern and we have mitigated specifically. Attorney O'Connor-That is not the purpose of the question though Mr. Brandt that is the problem. Supervisor Brandt-That is the problem I do not know the purpose of that question. Attorney O'Connor-The purpose of the question is whether or not you should go to an EIS based upon public outcry against the project. Supervisor Brandt-Well, I do not see that. Attorney O'Connor-That is a typical SEQRA... That is what that question is there for, that is what the question is there for. Councilman Monahan-I do not know, I am not sure Councilman Tucker-It is not there Councilman Monahan-I am not sure you can say that. Councilman Caimano-Paul, lets think about it from that stand point again ... Supervisor Brandt-Let's put in the record that we do not see the outcry for a full impact statement... Mr. Brewer.. .go back to the public hearing and you look at the amount of people who spoke... Councilman Monahan-That is where you have got to go. Mr. Brewer-So don't say there is not controversery asking for an EIS because there is. Supervisor Brandt-There was some, there was no question that there was some Mr. Brewer-People from the audobon and people... Supervisor Brandt-There is no question that is true. Councilman Monahan-And that is where you got to get it from. Supervisor Brandt-There is no question in my mind that we have addressed those issues. Councilman Goetz-Well, lets ask Paul Dusek Attorney O'Connor-In our mind. Supervisor Brandt-In my mind, that is right. Councilman Caimano- What do you think? Councilman Goetz-Paul Dusek, what is the answer? Attorney Dusek-Whatever you want it do be. Councilman Goetz-Yea, Right, well answer the question. Supervisor Brandt-Well that is the fact it is our answer. Councilman Goetz-I know but I want his input. Attorney Dusek-Let me say this, there are two thoughts I have, first of all, I am not that concerned to be honest with you which way you answer this because I think you got a record here and the record will speak for itself as far as what your feelings were about the question and some of the confusion that has occurred over the question. I think there is no question in my mind that obviously there is some controversy with this project there are some people sitting here in the room that are, that have some concerns about the project and they are opposed to the project I guess...at least that is the ...are they the public, I think they are. Is this controversy, I think it is. Is it related to potential adverse environmental impact? They are claiming that there might be so it seems to be that the question could be answered yes. Mr. Martin-I think the thing that could outline the potential environmental impact is you go back through and review your answers to the questions and you have several hearings that potentially large and you have had even more where you said small to moderate you review those and after you have done that, is there any public controversery related to those. Councilman Monahan-You know I think you have to also go back and look at some of this material that Paul sent us with the Environmental Law, this part right here and here is some of the questions. The encouraging or attracting of a large number of people to a place or places for more than a few days compared to the number of people who would come to such a place absent the action. Councilman Caimano-Are you talking about the construction or afterwords? Councilman Monahan-This is just the questions they said for you to use in determining significance. It certainly, once this becomes a residential area there is going to be a lot more people there then was there before. Supervisor Brandt-I do not think building of the homes will create the people I think the people will come on their own and if there are homes there they will buy them but they are coming here otherwise. Councilman Monahan-They ask if what we are doing would encourage or attract a large number of people to a place or places for more than a few days. Weare doing that compared to the number of people who would come to such a place absent the action. The impairment or the character or quality of important historical archeological, architectural or aesthetic resources of an existing community or neighborhood character, we probably do not have a problem. A substantial change in the use or intensity of use of land. Councilman Caimano- Y ou have to define substantial. Supervisor Brandt-..well you are going back through it all. Councilman Monahan-That is what I am saying but you know, that is what I am saying this is Councilman Caimano- W e have got to answer this last question I think that is a good Councilman Monahan-So you know. Supervisor Brandt-Nineteen, I have marked yes. But I think we have discussed it and we, and that is the whole process is how we have addressed it and I think we have, in my mind responsibly addressed it. Attorney O'Connor-1 honestly do not think that any time that you propose a development of a large track of vacant land that other people have had a feeling of benefit over and you impose some additional traffic, or you, potential traffic that is how this whole controversy started and we had everybody going down Sherman Island Road although we have changed that significantly that you are not going to have a lot of people come out. There has not been one project that I can think of in the Town that has ever gone through without a lot of people out without public hearings without every body going to the mic and speaking, that is the thing that people are doing now days. I think you really have to take a look at what it boils down to at this point with the project as you have it. How many people do you have and it was in todays paper, that this meeting was going to be here to discuss the final SEQRA review, how many people do you have that are here that are complaining or concerned about your project in its final form. Attorney Allen-At five o'clock on Friday night in the middle of a snow storm on a three day weekend Supervisor Brandt-We did not schedule the snow storm, please. Attorney Allen-I am just pointing out that Councilman Monahan-I know, we said at the time it was a bad time if people expected people to come out Supervisor Brandt-We said Friday night, we scheduled that and everybody had a chance to ... Attorney Allen- Michael is absolutely right, any large project of this size on this type of land is going to cause a lot of controversy that is what we are saying, that is why we think it should be checked yes if anything SEQRA has always said if there is any potential you should check yes. It is there, it should be yes. Attorney Dusek-Maybe what would be helpful here could the Board perhaps just add a statement under 19 describing the nature of the public controversy? Councilman Caimano-I think that would be a good idea.! think the answer is yes too but Attorney Dusek-That way when you say public controversy you will be describing what it is just make a one sentence statement as to what the public controversy is. I think that will resolve the issues Mike, that will take care of your concerns. Councilman Caimano-I think that, that is so, I would like to do that. Mr. Brewer-40% of the people in this room or the audience are against the project so is that public controversy, Mr. O'Connor said... Councilman Caimano-40% of the people in this room Mr. Brewer-In the audience, two, four, six, seven, eight ...over 50%... Councilman Caimano- That is not germane, I like that idea. Supervisor Brandt-Lets, Paul I like your idea and I think in my mind the answer is yes there has been, hang on guys this is our meeting we have got to get something done here. I think the answer is yes I think the answer is that people have come and expressed concerns about many issues I think we have addressed those issues in an orderly fashion I think we have addressed them to the satisfaction of this board and we have polled ourselves over and over again and I think while the answer is yes I think in my mind we have handled and mitigated the problems that were brought to our attention. Councilman Caimano-I think it is clear that the controversy as Michael, as Tim says is a very large percentage of the people in the very close area, but if you are talking about the community, if you ar talking about the community it is a very small number and I think that is the case. Mr. Brewer-I would agree with that. Supervisor Brandt-But, it is also a community or neighborhood so you have got to look at the neighborhood and I think that yes is the answer but again with all of these other things as we described. Attorney Dusek-What I would recommend to the Board's consideration. Councilman Monahan-It did not ask you about degree of anything it just said plainly is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts, it did not ask you if it came from that little community or it came all over Queensbury. Councilman Caimano-The question was obviously written by a very... Supervisor Brandt-I said yes. Attorney Dusek-The answer is yes and what I would like to recommend to you is that Mike made a statement and then it was followed by a statement by Nick I think if you type that statement out and add it as an addendum to 19 Councilman Caimano-Do you have it on tape? Attorney Dusek-And she has got it on the tape that would help explain, why it is you thought you answered the question the way you did. Board Polled, all yes... Supervisor Brandt-We all agreed, the famous five to zero. What is next? Attorney Dusek-The next phase now is a part III evaluation that has to be done because you checked certain potential large impacts and interestingly enough I took a look through them they have really been addressed in the resolution but what we should do is they need to be further addressed there is certain other information down here that should be added to it and I think it should be addressed in a Part III separate document. Councilman Caimano-I do too. Attorney Dusek-Jim Martin would be the person that would prepare that for you and he would prepared the document just like I prepared the resolutions he would prepare that document so then you can go through it and make it your own. I think Jim, from listening here tonight plus you know the resolution feel that we have gotten from the Board should be able to draft something that will be pretty close and then the Board can review it and then once that is done then your final call will be made on whether you feel there is a non significant and you will move ahead with the resolution. Councilman Caimano-Can you get that together and type it and mail it to us at our place of abode. Mr. Martin-Yes Councilman Monahan-We will not be here. Councilman Caimano- That is why I want it mailed home so when I do get home I can read it. Supervisor Brandt-The Association of Towns meeting is next week Councilman Monahan-But I do not intend to read it Wednesday evening or probably even Thursday, by the time I catch up on all the mail that is in the house. Supervisor Brandt-When are we going to address this again. Mr. Martin-I will have that delivered to your homes Wednesday. Attorney O'Connor-1 do not understand the need for it to be honest with you because Supervisor Brandt-We do though Attorney O'Connor-Basically, you are contradicting I thought you had reached a conclusion to your concerns and addressed them in your proposed resolution that Paul had prepared. If you are indicating that you are doing further mitigation other than what is in there then I think what you are telling us is that... Councilman Caimano-All I want to do is see the finished product. Councilman Goetz-He is going to say what the mitigation is. Councilman Caimano-I want to see what he is going to say, what those are, I want to see the finished product before I vote yes. That is what I want to see. Attorney O'Connor-The finished product of what? Councilman Caimano-He is going to put a part III together, off all those things we talked about those mitigation I want to see it on paper. Attorney O'Connor-That is not within your resolution? Councilman Caimano-Pardon me? Attorney O'Connor-That is not within your resolution? Councilman Goetz-We did not pass the resolution, Mike. Attorney O'Connor-That is not within your proposed resolution. Attorney Dusek-Parts of it are but Mike, part of what you got the problem here is technically and legally under the SEQRA regs. they must do a part III, the resolution in my opinion would not suffice for that and I would rather have them do that and have it as a part of their record. Councilman Monahan-Would it be out of order Jim and if I am out of order tell me I am that you also have a copy of your part III delivered to Sandy Allen too? Attorney Dusek-That would be up to the Board... Councilman Monahan-Would the Board object to having a copy of that part III delivered to Sandy Allen also, Jim's replys? Councilman Goetz-It is part of the open freedom... Supervisor Brandt-It is an open record, I do not have a problem with anyone seeing it. Mr. Martin-It will be clearly marked as draft, subject to the Board's approval. Councilman Caimano-Draft, that is right. Supervisor Brandt-I also want to keep the process moving, I am not interested in seeing how long we can take. Discussion held next Meeting February 22nd. on Hudson Pointe... Attorney O'Connor-do you need to review for Mr. Martin the map that was put in by VanDusen and Steves which shows the top of the bluffs? ...Reviewed with Mr. Martin... RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 133, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into Executive Session to discuss personnel. Duly adopted this 12th day of February, 1993 by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: AYES ALL THOSE OPPOSED: NONE ABSENT: NONE On motion the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Miss Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk-Queensbury