Loading...
1993-02-22 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 22, 1993 7:00 P.M. MTG#15 RES #134-149 B.H. 5-7 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Supervisor Michel Brandt Councilman Pliney Tucker Councilman Nick Caimano Councilman Susan Goetz Councilman Betty Monahan TOWN ATTORNEY Paul Dusek TOWN OFFICIALS Jim Martin, Mike Shaw PRESS G.F. Post Star PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY SUPERVISOR BRANDT Supervisor Brandt -Opened meeting. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION OF MR. CHARLES SICARD RESOLUTION NO.: 134,93 INTRODUCED BY: THE ENTIRE TOWN BOARD WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury wishes to recognize Mr. Charles Sicard for his work as a member of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, and WHEREAS, Mr. Charles Sicard, a resident of the Town of Queensbury, has served the Town with distinction, and WHEREAS, Mr. Sicard was a dedicated member of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals for twenty-five years, dating from September 14, 1967 through December 31, 1992, and WHEREAS, the Town grew dramatically since he first took office, and he has contributed countless hours and invaluable guidance during the time of his membership, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, on behalf of the residents of the Town of Queensbury, wishes to express its sincere appreciation to Mr. Charles Sicard for the time and effort he has so generously contributed toward making the Town of Queensbury a better place in which to live. Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 1993, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:Mrs. Monahan Supervisor Brandt-Will present Mr. Sicard with framed resolution when he arrives at meeting. RESOLUTION ENTERING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 135, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and moves into the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 1993, by the following vote: All Those In Favor: Ayes All Those Opposed: None Absent: None (Councilman Monahan entered meeting) PUBLIC HEARING SEWER CONNECTION VARIANCE QUAKER VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION NOTICE SHOWN Mr. Michael Shaw, Director of Wastewater-What we have is a variance request waiver from sanitary sewer connection by Quaker Village Development Corporation for buildings five and six which are complexes located on the corner of Quaker and Bay Road. The reason they are asking for the variance from connection is because they are stating that buildings five and six are beyond the 250' feet mandate hook-in distance and also the cost of the connection. They have three estimates attached which, I believe you have the cost ranging from $21,000 to $22,000 for that connection. Councilman Goetz-Mike when you and I talked you said that the grinders had been put in on the back of the property at Town expense? Mr. Shaw-Yes. They have six buildings four of those buildings now are currently serviced by grinders for the back buildings of the property. Councilman Goetz-And you said you didn't know why the Town put them in because you weren't involved at that time. Mr. Shaw-That's correct. At looking at it the other day it's possible because of the elevations they couldn't serve those buildings by the elevations gravity pull...so they were serviced by grinders. Councilman Goetz-In that case does the Town usually pay for it the grinders? Mr. Shaw-In this case they did. Councilman Goetz-In this case, you know I just wish we knew. Mr. Shaw-I don't know, I can't answer that because that was prior to me. Councilman Goetz-I know you can't. But, I'd like to make the point that the Town did pay to put in the grinders. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Supervisor Brandt-Okay. Let's open the public hearing then does anybody have anything to say on this matter whatsoever? Please state your name for the record and tell us whatever you got in mind. Larry Dickinson-I'm from Quaker Village Development. We aren't asking for a permanent thing to begin with basically it's financial hardship right now. The cost to hook the two buildings up is quite a bit over our budget. We are running right now about twenty percent vacancy through the village. One of the buildings Quaker Electric has probably gone through the worst year we've ever gone through we just don't have the money to hook it up. The systems have been in use for quite a long time we've never had a problem with them we have them pumped every year. There has been no problems with any of the systems like I say, it's just a question of money right now of hooking them up. Councilman Goetz-Are you asking for a certain period of time? Mr. Dickinson-Yes. Councilman Goetz-What would that be? Mr. Dickinson-I'm not asking to never have it hooked up. A year, year and a half if possible. Councilman Goetz-I personally have a problem with that because when I was out campaigning in the Quaker Road Sewer District, I ran across people, single parent's that had to take out bank loans to hookup, you know there are so many people that have had financial hardship. Mr. Dickinson-We're not trying to get out of paying the tax we pay the tax now, we pay the water usage now, everything is paid. We pay everything it's just the cost of the hooking up at this time. Supervisor Brandt-When you say your paying for water usage all your buildings are on one meter? Mr. Dickinson-No. All the buildings are individual the offices are individual. Supervisor Brandt-But, these two buildings that aren't hooked in you do pay taxes on that? Mr. Dickinson-Yes, we do we pay the water usage and everything that's correct. We're not trying to get out of that part of it we just would basically like to have an extension of how long before we would have to hook onto it. Councilman Caimano- When was the sewer line put by that property? Mr. Shaw-Eighty nine, off of the top of my head. Councilman Caimano-I suppose an obvious question is what happened between eighty nine and when things tumed sour? Mr. Dickinson-Basically the economy has been going sour. Councilman Monahan-It was bad back then. Mr. Dickinson-We we're told back then, well next summer is going to be better the summer after that is going to be better it's just been one slow moving thing. Mr. Shaw-I have one question for you Larry. A contractor one time came to me and he had asked, he had some different ideas he said that Quaker Village asked him to give them an estimate. He had came up with a different idea of connecting your two buildings up. He ran it by me, I said it sounded fine, it met all our requirements and he gave you a bid, I notice that bid was not attached here. I believe that bid was for less than half of the $21,000 your showing here sanitary sewer service, I have a copy of the bid for $9,800. There was another bid also, I understand from Fava for somewhere's around $10,000. Mr. Dickinson-The other Larry, Larry Seminick was the one who was handling most of this who is on vacation right now. One of the things that somebody brought up we ran it by the engineer who designed our system who thought that's the way it should be and he didn't recommend us going that way because of the distances and everything. One of the buildings is about 395 feet and the other is about 375 feet from the septic actually to the tank. Mr. Shaw-When you measure the distances from the building to the connection one building within 150 feet and the other one is 316 feet within connection. One building is within mandatory connecting distance the other one is not. Mr. Dickinson-The other one isn't? Mr. Shaw-That's right. Supervisor Brandt-Mike in the bid that your talking about were it's quite a bit lower price from your departments viewpoint is that acceptable? Mr. Shaw-That's acceptable because he came to me he had the original drawings from their engineering firm and he went over with me and said that he had some different ideas of how to make his connection a lot cheaper and it's certainly a lot easier for me to do. He went over them met all the Town's spec's, I agreed upon that. Supervisor Brandt-Would it be subject to plugging or any problems from operations by the type of design he is offering? Mr. Shaw-No. In fact, it's probably a little bit better because what he is doing he is running both the buildings through one general line and doing away with a lot of piping that would be put in under the other plan. Councilman Monahan-Mr. Dickinson who did your design on this system? Mr. Dickinson-Neal Dickinson. Councilman Monahan-And he is a licensed engineer? Mr. Dickinson-Yes, he is. Councilman Monahan-I don't believe Fava is a licensed engineer are they? Mr. Shaw-No. Councilman Monahan-I have a problem taking a design not done by a licensed engineer and one done by a licensed engineer and saying that one is better. I think that puts the Town Board in a rather precarious position. Supervisor Brandt-Anybody have any other questions? Councilman Caimano-I understand that there is a letter on this. Deputy Town Clerk O'Brien-1 have a letter, I can read into the record. It's addressed to the Town Clerk, Darleen Dougher. I am a property owner in the immediate vicinity of the properties of Quaker Village Development Corp. I am opposed to granting a waiver or variance to Quaker Village Development Corp. relative to the requirements of the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District for the following reasons. 1. The subject properties are classified as being in a floodplain by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2. The existing disposal systems are in the floodplain and pose a threat to the water quality of Halfway Brook, especially in a flood situation. 3. A threat to the water quality of Halfway Brook is a threat to all of the property owners along Halfway Brook as well as to the general population. 4. The Town of Queensbury installed a sewer system to improve water quality as well as for other environmental considerations, and should therefore make it mandatory that the system be utilized. Thank you for the opportunity to be heard. Sincerely, James M. Weller Supervisor Brandt-Anybody else that wants to add anything else? Anyone else want to give input on this? Councilman Monahan-Mike have you checked the present systems are they working? Mr. Shaw-No, I haven't checked them. Supervisor Brandt-But, you represent that they are working right? Mr. Dickinson-Oh yes. Actually building five three of the offices in there are vacant which is at least a third of the building. Councilman Monahan-Do you have a separate breakdown and cost, maybe it's here, but I don't see it between building five and the Quaker Electric Building? Mr. Dickinson-No. The way we were going to design it was Quaker Electric was going to tie into part of the line going over from building five. Councilman Monahan-Is it possible do you know for the Quaker Electric building that is within the hundred and fifty feet to be done now and then tie in? In otherwords can you do it in reverse building five to be tied into that later? Mr. Dickinson-I don't know to be honest with you. Supervisor Brandt-What's the will of the Board. First, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Councilman Caimano-I think Sue bring's up a very interesting point. People who have paid to be on the sewer district they are being short changed. Just as a way of putting some numbers on the table, I just ran what $21,000 is over five years at nine percent is $435.00 a month. I don't want to break anybody, but... Councilman Monahan-It's a lot of money in the business they are in today. Councilman Caimano-Sure it is. Councilman Monahan-The one thing, I note here is that particularly for the building that is three hundred and sixteen we have granted variances in the past when they've been over the two hundred and fifty. It seems to be that we're kind of discriminating when we take one person that's quite a bit over two hundred and fifty and say we won't grant yours. I'm taking the two buildings apart here and looking at them separately when I make that statement. You will find out if you look back in our history of variances, I think people over two hundred and fifty we usually granted. Supervisor Brandt-If you look at income stream to the sewer district they are paying the full shot. They are paying the full tax they are paying the rent. If you look at the other point that's made in the letter is that if there were a flood that you do have a chance of a health hazard and that's what you were trying to prevent when you put this whole sewer district in. On the other hand maybe you could set up something here where you give people some time and you set an amount of time be it, I mean right now we're in February if you did it by November to be hooked up then people can budget and spread it out. Councilman Caimano- I was trying to think of a time, but he is asking for a year a year an a half. Mr. Dickinson-I was thinking about a year, but then I'm getting back into the winter season again. Supervisor Brandt-Find a time even next spring not this spring the following spring, but where there is a deadline and it has to be hooked up. I'mjust looking for a solution that can work. Councilman Caimano- What happens then if we have a disaster out in that field in the meantime. Supervisor Brandt-That's the gamble your taking. Councilman Tucker-Yeah, but who is responsible? Councilman Caimano-Yeah, that's what I want to know Paul? Attorney Dusek-I don't understand when you say a disaster. I assume you mean a septic system failure? Councilman Caimano-More in terms of a flood in the septic system than in the septic field. Supervisor Brandt-If you have a flood your going to have contamination of that water. Councilman Monahan-Regardless that's an act of god. Mr. Dickinson-These septic systems are in the back of those buildings actually they are quite a long ways from the brook. Councilman Caimano- They are in that open field aren't they? Mr. Dickinson-No. Actually they are right behind building five. Councilman Caimano-I see what you are saying. Mr. Dickinson-The septic systems are on the backside of the buildings there is none in the front of it. Supervisor Brandt-I think there is a safety issue in time and I think that the district was created and they should hook in. But, I think at this kind of cost even if it's the lower cost it's still a lot of money. I have no problem in giving an extension of time or a workout so they can prepare for it. Councilman Caimano-On the strength that they are already paying the rent anyway. Something like May 30th,ofl994. Councilman Monahan-They would give them at least sixty days of good construction should be April and May unless you have an awful deep frost. Supervisor Brandt-That's fair. But, your saying in 1994 in the early summer of 94 or late spring it should be completed. Mr. Dickinson-That's kind of what I was thinking about. I was thinking of a year and a half getting into the spnng season. Councilman Tucker-That would give you fourteen months. Supervisor Brandt-I'll offer it as a resolution. Attorney Dusek-Could I suggest there is a form right in front of you that if you go to the last page of the resolution. You could just insert what it is that you want to do. Councilman Caimano-Something like construction is completed by May 30th, 1994. Supervisor Brandt-It would be a temporary variance take the work permanent out. It is complete by... Councilman Caimano-5!30/94. Councilman Monahan-Should we say as long as both buildings are hooked to the sewer system by... Supervisor Brandt-Say June of 1994 is that reasonable? Councilman Tucker-June 1st? Supervisor Brandt-End of June, June 30th. Councilman Monahan-So it would be both buildings are to be hooked to the sewer system. Supervisor Brandt -Yes. Mr. Shaw-Is there one other stipulation that we can put in there? Supervisor Brandt -Yes. Mr. Shaw-In case the septic system then... Supervisor Brandt-Then it would be immediate I think that is a fair stipulation. Attorney Dusek -You should briefly outline your reasons for granting the variance. Councilman Caimano-Financial hardship and the fact that there has been precedence set for over 250 feet before. Supervisor Brandt-That's motion is made is their a second? Councilman Caimano-I'll second it. Supervisor Brandt-Any other discussion, please vote. RESOLUTION EXTENDING VARIANCE FROM REQUIRED SEWER CONNECTIONS FOR QUAKER VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RESOLUTION NO.: 5, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is authorized, pursuant to § 136-44.1 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, to, upon request, waive the sewer connection requirement of § 136- 44 thereof or vary the time in which such connection must be made, provided that certain standards and criteria or conditions are met or demonstrated and provided that a certain procedure is followed, and WHEREAS, in granting a variance or waiver, the Town Board may consider one or all of the following circumstances: (a) The distance from the building to the town sewer pipeline to which connection is required. (b) The cost of the connection. (c) The existence or nonexistence of any physical obstructions. (d) The financial loss to be sustained by the property owner in the event of nonuse of the current system. (e) Whether the current sewage disposal system is properly functioning. (f) Whether any rights-of-way or easements are needed in order for the applicant to make the connection to the town sewer system. (g) Whether strict application of the connection requirement of § 136-44 would result in a specified difficulty to the applicant, for which the applicant has not been given a reasonable time to respond to or address, and whether the variance or waiver would be materially detrimental to the purposes of the sewer connection requirement or that the property and the district in which the property is located or otherwise conflict with the description or objections of the plan or policy of the town and that the interests of justice are served; and WHEREAS, if the Town Board finds any or all of the above circumstances or conditions, the Town Board may grant the following relief: (a) In the event that circumstances giving rise to the request are due to physical obstructions, costs significantly greater than the usual sewer connection costs, a distance greater than two hundred fifty (250) feet from the sewer pipeline to the building or structure to be connected or a documented inability to obtain an easement or right-of-way over which the sewer line must pass in order to connect to the town sewer system, the Town Board may grant a permanent waiver from the requirement that the applicant connect the subject property, provided that the sewage disposal system currently serving the property is operational, in accordance with the Town of Queensbury laws and regulations and appropriate New York State agency rules and regulations, and (b) In the event that the circumstances giving rise to the request are due to excessive costs of connection, the financial loss to be sustained by the property owner in the event of nonuse of the current system or any other specified difficulty which makes it difficult or impractical for the applicant to connect to the town sewer system and the applicant is willing to pay the full and usual sewer rents or taxes accruing against the property, the Town Board may grant an extension of time, not exceeding two (2) years, in which to connect to the town sewer system, provided that the sewage disposal system currently serving the property is operational, in accordance with the Town of Queensbury laws and regulations and appropriate New York State agency rules and regulations, and WHEREAS, the Quaker Village Development Corporation previously applied to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury for a variance and relief from that part of the law requiring sewer connections upon the grounds that: the linear distance to connect either building to the manhole left by the Town exceeds 250 feet. The applicant says that the cost of the sewer line is extremely expensive (approximately $22,000.00) and due to the state of the economy, they cannot finance such a project; and WHEREAS, the applicant previously indicated that: one building has two 1500 gallon septic tanks, each with septic fields with over 200 linear feet of tile, and one building has two, 1500 gallon septic tanks, each with over 200 linear feet of tile field; and WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was given in the official newspaper of the Town of Queensbury and a public hearing was held in connection with the variance request on February 22, 1993, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has received a report from Michael Shaw, Waste Water Superintendent, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby grants a temporary variance, so long as: construction is completed by June 30th, 1994, as long as both buildings are hooked to the sewer system. In case of septic system failure then immediate hookup would occur, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the reasons the variance is temporary is as follows: financial hardship and the fact that there has been precedence set for over 250' feet before. Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 1993, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: Mrs. Goetz ABSENT:None PRESENTATION TO MR. CHARLES SICARD BY COUNCILMAN GOETZ Councilman Goetz-Presented Resolution of Appreciation to Mr. Charles Sicard. I was always impressed with how business like you were and your common sense and sense of humor, god knows you need a sense of humor in this business. Mr. Sicard-Thanked Town Board members. RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE OF SANITARY SEW AGE DISPOSAL ORDINANCE FOR MR. HOWARD DENISON RESOLUTION NO.: 6,1993 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is, by operation of Law, the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury and, as such, is authorized under Chapter 136 of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance to issue variances to such Ordinance, and WHEREAS, Mr. Howard Denison has applied to the Local Board of Health of the Town of Queensbury for a variance from certain standards of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance set forth in Chapter 136, Appendix A, such standard providing as follows: APPENDIX A TABLE I - HORIZONTAL SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM WASTE WATER SOURCES TO STREAM WELL OR LAKE OR WASTE WATER SUCTION WATER PROPERTY LAKE GEORGE SOURCES LINE (a) COURSE(c) DWELLING LINE AND TRIBS. Seepage Pit (a) Water service and sewer lines may be in the same trench if cast-iron sewer with lead-caulked joints is laid at all points eighteen (18) inches below water service pipe; or sewer may be on dropped shelf at one (1) side at least eighteen (18) inches below water service pipe, provided that sewer pipe is laid below frost with tight and rootproof joints and is not subject to settling, superimposed loads or vibration. Water service lines under pressure shall not pass closer than ten (10) feet to a septic tank, absorption tile field, leaching pit, privy or any other part of a sewage disposal system. and WHEREAS, Mr. Howard Denison has indicated a desire to place the seepage pit 6' from the water line, rather than placing it at the mandated 10' distance, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on March 8, 1993, at 7:00 p.m., at the Queensbury Activities Center, (reasonably accessible to persons with mobility impairment) 531 Bay Road, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, to consider the application for a variance of Mr. Howard Denison to place the seepage pit 6' from the water line, rather than placing it at the mandated 10' distance, on property situated at 379 Ridge Road, Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax Map No.: Section 57, Block 1, Lot 2.2, and, at that time, all persons interested in the subject thereof will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury be and is hereby directed and authorized, when in receipt of a list of neighbors within 500 feet of the subject property, to publish and provide Notice of said Public Hearing as may be required by law, and authorized to mail copies of said Public Hearing Notice to the adjoining neighbors. Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 1993, by the following vote: All Those In Favor: Ayes All Those Opposed: None ABSENT: None DISCUSSION HELD Supervisor Brandt-Noted that a public hearing was held earlier regarding this matter, but due to the applicant not receiving notification of this it was the decision of the Town Board to reset the hearing. RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.7, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from the Queensbury Board of Health and moves back into the Queensbury Town Board. Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 1993, by the following vote: All Those In Favor: Ayes All Those Opposed: None Absent: None RESOLUTION APPROVING MINUTES RESOLUTION NO. 136, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Goetz RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the minutes of January 11th, 14th, 18th, 21st, 25th, 26th, 1993. February 1st, (Special Mtg) February 1st, (Regular Mtg) February 2nd, 1993 (Special Mtg). Duly adopted this 22nd, day of February, 1993, by the following vote: All Those In Favor: Ayes All Those Opposed: None Absent: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SETTLEMENT RESOLUTION NO. 137, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, Agreements have been presented at this meeting, which Agreements provide for certain monetary compensation rather than complete restoration in certain instances where sewer pipes or other facilities were installed upon persons' property granting an easement to the Town of Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the payment of the sums indicated in the Agreements to Terry & Connie Howk, Mark Steele, and Quaker Village Development Corporation, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the payment of said amounts shall be paid for from the Quaker Road Sewer Fund, Account #32-1930-4400, which account shall be reimbursed by funds retained from the contractor in connection with such restoration work. Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 1993, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MEMBERSHIP AND EXPENDITURE FOR ADIRONDACK ASSOCIATION OF TOWNS AND VILLAGES RESOLUTION NO.: 138,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has recently received information regarding the request for membership in the Adirondack Association of Towns and Villages, 1993 membership dues being in the amount of $512.50, and WHEREAS, the Town Board desires said membership and expenditure, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the membership with the Adirondack Association of Towns and Villages, in the amount of $512.50 for the 1993 Dues, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized to forward for processing any and all bills for said expenditure, upon the receipt of properly completed vouchers, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that said expenditure shall be paid for from Account #001-1920-4400 (Municipal Association Dues). Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 1993, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION TO AMEND 1993 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 139,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, certain departments have requested transfers of funds for the 1993 Budget, and WHEREAS, said requests have been approved by the Chief Fiscal Officer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the funds be transferred as follows, for the 1993 budget: WASTE WATER DEPARTMENT: FROM: TO: AMOUNT: 34-8120-4400 34-8130-4400 $765.00 (Misc. Contractual (Misc. Contractual Hiland Park) Sewage Treatment Hiland Park) COURT: FROM: TO: AMOUNT: 001-1990-4400 001-1110-4400 $400.00 (Contingency) (Court, Misc. Contractual) and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the 1993 Town Budget is hereby amended accordingly. Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 1993, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FROM REQUIRED SEWER CONNECTIONS FOR MR. JAMES LAWRENCE C/O MS. MARY DUTY, Mr. ROBERT D. S. CONDIT RESOLUTION NO. 140, 1993 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is authorized, pursuant to § 136-44.1 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, to, upon request, waive the sewer connection requirement of § 136- 44 thereof or vary the time in which such connection must be made, provided that certain standards and criteria or conditions are met or demonstrated and provided that a certain procedure is followed, and WHEREAS, in granting a variance or waiver, the Town Board may consider one or all of the following circumstances: (a) The distance from the building to the town sewer pipeline to which connection is required. (b) The cost of the connection. (c) The existence or nonexistence of any physical obstructions. (d) The financial loss to be sustained by the property owner in the event of nonuse of the current system. (e) Whether the current sewage disposal system is properly functioning. (f) Whether any rights-of-way or easements are needed in order for the applicant to make the connection to the town sewer system. (g) Whether strict application of the connection requirement of § 136-44 would result in a specified difficulty to the applicant, for which the applicant has not been given a reasonable time to respond to or address, and whether the variance or waiver would be materially detrimental to the purposes of the sewer connection requirement or that the property and the district in which the property is located or otherwise conflict with the description or objections of the plan or policy of the town and that the interests of justice are served. and WHEREAS, if the Town Board finds any or all of the above circumstances or conditions, the Town Board may grant the following relief: (a) In the event that circumstances giving rise to the request are due to physical obstructions, costs significantly greater than the usual sewer connection costs, a distance greater than two hundred fifty (250) feet from the sewer pipeline to the building or structure to be connected or a documented inability to obtain an easement or right-of-way over which the sewer line must pass in order to connect to the town sewer system, the Town Board may grant a permanent waiver from the requirement that the applicant connect the subject property, provided that the sewage disposal system currently serving the property is operational, in accordance with the Town of Queensbury laws and regulations and appropriate New York State agency rules and regulations, and (b) In the event that the circumstances giving rise to the request are due to excessive costs of connection, the financial loss to be sustained by the property owner in the event of nonuse of the current system or any other specified difficulty which makes it difficult or impractical for the applicant to connect to the town sewer system and the applicant is willing to pay the full and usual sewer rents or taxes accruing against the property, the Town Board may grant an extension of time, not exceeding two (2) years, in which to connect to the town sewer system, provided that the sewage disposal system currently serving the property is operational, in accordance with the Town of Queensbury laws and regulations and appropriate New York State agency rules and regulations, and WHEREAS, Mr. James Lawrence c/o Ms. Mary Duty, has applied to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury for a variance and relief from that part of the law requiring sewer connections upon the grounds that: the ground is presently frozen; and WHEREAS, the applicant has also indicated that: he will hook-up as soon as the weather permits; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on March 8,1993, at 7:00 p.m., at the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, to consider the application for a variance/waiver request from the Sewer Connection Requirements, of Mr. James Lawrence c/o Ms. Mary Duty, on property situated at 25 Windsor Drive, Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax Map No. 106-1-2, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the hearing shall be on written notice to the applicant and said applicant shall be entitled to ten (10) days written notice, with the provision, however, that this notice may be waived by the applicant by affirmative action or by appearance at the time and place of the hearing, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury be and is hereby directed and authorized to publish a Notice of Hearing in the official newspaper for the Town not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing, which Notice of Hearing shall be in a form substantially consistent with the Notice presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is authorized, pursuant to § 136-44.1 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, to, upon request, waive the sewer connection requirement of § 136- 44 thereof or vary the time in which such connection must be made, provided that certain standards and criteria or conditions are met or demonstrated and provided that a certain procedure is followed, and WHEREAS, in granting a variance or waiver, the Town Board may consider one or all of the following circumstances: (a) The distance from the building to the town sewer pipeline to which connection is required. (b) The cost of the connection. (c) The existence or nonexistence of any physical obstructions. (d) The financial loss to be sustained by the property owner in the event of nonuse of the current system. (e) Whether the current sewage disposal system is properly functioning. (f) Whether any rights-of-way or easements are needed in order for the applicant to make the connection to the town sewer system. (g) Whether strict application of the connection requirement of § 136-44 would result in a specified difficulty to the applicant, for which the applicant has not been given a reasonable time to respond to or address, and whether the variance or waiver would be materially detrimental to the purposes of the sewer connection requirement or that the property and the district in which the property is located or otherwise conflict with the description or objections of the plan or policy of the town and that the interests of justice are served. and WHEREAS, if the Town Board finds any or all of the above circumstances or conditions, the Town Board may grant the following relief: (a) In the event that circumstances giving rise to the request are due to physical obstructions, costs significantly greater than the usual sewer connection costs, a distance greater than two hundred fifty (250) feet from the sewer pipeline to the building or structure to be connected or a documented inability to obtain an easement or right-of-way over which the sewer line must pass in order to connect to the town sewer system, the Town Board may grant a permanent waiver from the requirement that the applicant connect the subject property, provided that the sewage disposal system currently serving the property is operational, in accordance with the Town of Queensbury laws and regulations and appropriate New York State agency rules and regulations, and (b) In the event that the circumstances giving rise to the request are due to excessive costs of connection, the financial loss to be sustained by the property owner in the event of nonuse of the current system or any other specified difficulty which makes it difficult or impractical for the applicant to connect to the town sewer system and the applicant is willing to pay the full and usual sewer rents or taxes accruing against the property, the Town Board may grant an extension of time, not exceeding two (2) years, in which to connect to the town sewer system, provided that the sewage disposal system currently serving the property is operational, in accordance with the Town of Queensbury laws and regulations and appropriate New York State agency rules and regulations, and WHEREAS, Mr. Robert D. S. Condit has applied to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury for a variance and relief from that part of the law requiring sewer connections upon the grounds that: the estimated cost of connection is $4,450.00 and the applicant states that he cannot afford to have the work done; and WHEREAS, the applicant has also indicated that: the septic tank and leach system both located under the lawn on the west side of the building are currently functioning properly and have never created a problem. Also, the building has only a 1/2 bath, with no bathing or cooking facilities; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on the applicant on March 8, 1993, at 7:00 p.m., at the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, to consider the application for a variance of Mr. Robert D. S. Condit, on property situated on Quaker Road, Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax Map No. 107-1-1, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the hearing shall be on written notice to the applicant and said applicant shall be entitled to ten (10) days written notice, with the provision, however, that this notice may be waived by the applicant by affirmative action or by appearance at the time and place of the hearing, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury be and is hereby directed and authorized to publish a Notice of Hearing in the official newspaper for the Town not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing, which Notice of Hearing shall be in a form substantially consistent with the Notice presented at this meeting. Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 1993, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR TRANSIENT MERCHANT/SOLICITORS MARKET FOR PAUL 1. WELLS D/B/A GO SLO ENGINEERING RESOLUTION NO.: 141,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHEREAS, Paul 1. Wells, d/b/a Go Slo Engineering, has made application to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury for a Transient Merchant/Solicitor's Market License, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of holding a public hearing on said application as is required by Chapter 160 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby states that a public hearing shall be held on the 8th, day of March, 1993 at 7:00 p.m., in the Queensbury Activities Center, 513 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that at such public hearing all persons interested in the subject matter of the license shall be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that notice of said public hearing shall be given to the applicant and owners of property within 500 feet of the applicant's property by regular mail and that a notice of said public hearing shall likewise be published in the official newspaper of the Town a minimum often (10) days prior to the time of the hearing, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the said notice of public hearing shall contain the name of the applicant, the tax map number, a general description of the property, the date and place of the hearing, the fact that all persons interested in the subject of a license will be heard, the nature of the action by the Board, i.e., transient merchant license, and the length of time the license will be in effect, and the said notice shall be otherwise in a form to be approved by the Town Attorney. Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 1993, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION REGARDING YEARLY LANDFILL STICKERS RESOLUTION NO.: 142,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury previously established a fee of $1.00 per sticker per vehicle per year to allow entrance into the Landfill at the Ridge Road Site and the Luzerne Transfer Station, and provided that the sticker must be attached to the inside of the driver's side window of the vehicle, and WHEREAS, the Town Board hereby determines that the use of vehicle stickers is no longer necessary, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that effective January 1, 1993, vehicle stickers for vehicles used to transport solid waste to the Town of Queensbury Transfer Station or Luzerne Transfer Station will no longer be necessary. Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 1993, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RENEWAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF WARREN, ACTING FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE WARREN COUNTY OFFICE FOR THE AGING, AND THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY RESOLUTION NO. 143,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, the Warren County Office of the Aging has presented to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury a Renewal Agreement which provides for, upon compliance with certain conditions set forth therein, the paymentto the Town of Queensbury in the sum of $5,962.00, for the year 1993, for the conducting of a transportation for the elderly program, and WHEREAS, a copy of the aforesaid Renewal Agreement has been presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, said Renewal Agreement has been reviewed, and is in the form approved by the Town Attorney, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury to execute the aforesaid Renewal Agreement on behalf of the said Town Board, and take such other and further steps as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of the Agreement and obtain the funds provided for thereunder, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that payment for the aforesaid services shall be paid for from the properly budgeted account, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that a copy of this Resolution and of the Agreement be filed with the Director of Accounting Services and Town Clerk. Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 1993, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT WITH FINCH PRUYN RESOLUTION NO. 144,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has been advised that Finch Pruyn & Company is desirous of donating to the Town labor and materials necessary for the construction of a road to be dedicated to the Town across certain State owned property, for which the Town has acquired a right- of-way, said right-of-way essentially extending across Farr Lane, and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the Town to enter into agreements with Finch Pruyn & Company concerning the construction of said roadway, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to execute any such agreements and consents that may be necessary for the construction of approximately 150' of road across a right-of-way obtained by the Town of Queensbury across a certain State owned parcel at the end ofFarr Lane, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the aforesaid agreement shall be in a form approved by the Town Attorney. Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 1993, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION REGARDING INTENT TO ACCEPT ROADS UPON CONDITIONS RESOLUTION NO. 145,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, Mr. W. Merle Smith, working with National Church Residences, and Mr. Buckley Bryan have requested assurances from the Town of Queensbury concerning acceptance of dedication of a road extending from Farr Lane, across certain State owned property and onto certain property owned by Mr. Bryan, for purposes of servicing a 41 dwelling unit HUD 202 housing project, and WHEREAS, Mr. Bryan has presented to the Highway Department a "Road & Details" Map, indicating thereon the specifications to which the proposed road will be built across property he owns, and WHEREAS, the Highway Department has indicated that the specifications, as outlined, meet Town specifications and, if the road is built as indicated, the same will be acceptable to the Highway Department, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby gives Mr. Bryan and Mr. W. Merle Smith, working with National Church Residences, assurances that, should the aforesaid road proposed to cross Mr. Bryan's property and proposed for the 41 unit HUD 202 Senior Citizens Housing Project be completely constructed in accordance with the specifications presented to the Town Highway Department on a document known as a "Road & Details" map, and in accordance with Town specifications, including inspections thereof by the Town Highway Superintendent, that the Town Board will take such steps as may be necessary and proper to accept dedication of the road by the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, should a road be constructed across the State owned parcel extending from Farr Lane to the aforesaid property owned by Mr. Bryan, and should the road be constructed in accordance with Town specifications, the Town Board will undertake such steps as may be necessary and proper to accept dedication of that portion of the road as well. Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 1993, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None DISCUSSIONS Deputy Town Clerk O'Brien-Read letter into record from Joseph Mihindu regarding sewer variance connection (letter on file in Town Clerk's Office. Councilman Goetz-Questioned if Mr. Frank Shaw has been approved as a licensed contractor? Mr. Shaw-Noted he is in the process of doing that. Stated this came before the board and was denied. Noted that Mr. Mihindu is trying to comply is asking for an extension due to the weather conditions. Recommended to the Board that they might want to extend the variance due to the weather condition. Mr. Shaw noted that Mr. Frank Shaw was no relation to him. The following resolution was passed. RESOLUTION EXTENDING SEWER CONNECTION VARIANCE DR. JOSEPH MIHINDU RESOLUTION NO. 146,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz Councilman Tucker-I'll make a motion we give this gentlemen an extension to June 30th, 1993 to connect to the sewer. Councilman Caimano-Due to weather hardship. Councilman Goetz-I'll second the motion. Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 1993, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt Noes: None Absent:None DISCUSSION HELD Attorney Dusek-Spoke to the Board regarding the KVS Contract. Noted that the company wanted further revisions because they were concerned about misinterpretations of their warranties. Noted that there were some minor changes because of the way the contract came before the Board the last time you approved that particular contract. Asked the Board's permission to redo the contract even though the changes are minor changes. One part of the contract indicated that they were representing how the system would work and we simply added a reference back to an earlier clause that described the system. The second part deals with the installation progranuning and software programs. There was no warranty period spelled out the company had asked for additional language to be put in. Noted the warranty period will be for a ninety day period and thereafter they will continue to warranty it if you purchase the maintenance package program. That was the original intent that everything would be ninety day warranty and there is a similar clause put under the hardware equipment everything is full ninety day warranty on everything. Supervisor Brandt -Questioned if this was a package where we do buy software maintenance for it. Attorney Dusek-Noted that it is the Board's option. The way the contract is written it is left up to the Board's discretion whether you want it or not after that time period. In addition to that there is a no assignment clause where we don't allow them to sign their services they have indicated that they may need to utilized data general and also the cabling company services. What we proposed to do here is say, except that KVS may at their option utilize services of Data General and the Cabling Company if the Town must pay for the services by Data General or the Cabling Company the contractor agrees not to employee these third parties until they come back to you. The third thing is that part of the cost that you have to pay are their reasonable out of pocket costs including transportation meals, hotels expenses not to exceed the amount of $700.00 for the installation time that they need to put the whole program together. It was the decision of the Town Board to get some input on these items and to review this matter at the next meeting. Attorney Dusek-Spoke to the Board regarding the status of the satellite antenna zoning ordinance. Councilman Monahan-Noted that she gave Attorney Dusek information that she had gotten from attending the Association of Towns, would like him to research this further. It was the decision of the Town Board to have Attorney Dusek research this further and to report back to the Board in two weeks. Attorney Dusek-Spoke to the Board regarding the Girls Basketball Ad. Has reviewed the actual ad that was planned and it seems that the ad may qualify as a legitimate expense. Awaiting more information from the State Comptroller's Office concerning the matter. It was the decision of the Town Board if it's the legal opinion of Attorney Dusek to go along with it then they will go along with it. RESOLUTION ENTERING EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 147,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and moves into Executive Session to discuss two personnel matters. Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 1993, by the following vote: All Those In Favor: Ayes All Those Opposed: None Absent: None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 148,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Executive Session and moves back into Regular Session. Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 1993, by the following vote: All Those In Favor: Ayes All Those Opposed: None Absent: None DISCUSSION HUDSON POINTE PUD Supervisor Brandt-As I remember the process we had discussions at our last meeting and those discussions had been rendered to notes which were distributed to all of us it's from these notes where we're starting is that correct? Attorney Dusek-Are you saying these notes referring to Jim Martin's? Supervisor Brandt -Yes. Attorney Dusek-Maybe I can summarize for the Board briefly your goal as I understand it tonight. You made it through the Part II Assessment Form you had indicated on that form that there were certain impacts that warranted a large destination whatever the middle category was there. As a result of the designation it was required that a Part III statement be prepared to further identify those potential impacts which is what Mr. Martin's has drafted for the Board's attention this evening. I think at this point there are two things that have to be done. One is the Board has to continue to look at all of the documentation before it and determine whether there maybe an adverse impact that's different from just an impact it has to be an adverse impact. If the Board should find as a result of reviewing any of the documentation that there is an adverse impact then that would trigger an environmental impact statement. Now I say that, but I also acknowledge the fact that the Board has indicated in the past that they were tending to think that there was not such an adverse impact. I only point that out because that's still the decision that's before you is to scan the documentation to see what the story is on that. The second thing that has to be done is and I think it's done in conjunction with that is to go through Mr. Martin's statement much like you did with the other items that were prepared for you to see in fact you agree with the statements that are made in this report. This is your comments as to those various areas of impacts. You can add to it, take away from it, change anything that's in it. I discussed it briefly with Mr. Martin earlier today, I think he may have a couple of comments to you as you go through it for your consideration. But other than that I think this is a function at this point that's best taken care of between the Board and Mr. Martin. Councilman Monahan-This brings up a point that I'm going to raise. I don't know how I feel about it, but I am going to raise it. I've been looking at the Planning Board minutes of the meeting of December 24th, and when they gave the recommendation that this be approved as a PUD. Jim Martin was Chairman of the Planning Board at that time he is now doing the staff notes for the Town, I just want to throw that on the table so we're up front about it in case anybody has a problem with it. Supervisor Brandt-I don't think Jim is a hired employee of the Town Board. From what I've seen he has done is utmost to serve us directly and certainly haven't seen any signs of him circumventing any direction that we've given him, I have no problem with that. Councilman Monahan-I'm not saying that he is circumventing Mike, I'm just wondering if it's proper that we have this happen. It has nothing to do with his performance of his job or anything else, but whether the two things are compatible. I also have been looking at the requirements of a PUD and I'm wondering if this site really fits a PUD when you look back at what the requirements are for a PUD and the objectives. One is that it has to meet a community need and I don't really know what community need it really meets. Supervisor Brandt-It's a trying process. I thought we sat down at a scoping session with the developer, I don't remember the date it was with Lee York I believe at the time wasn't it? Councilman Monahan-No. Supervisor Brandt -Yes it was, I was there where we look at whether properly this should have been a PUD or whether it shouldn't. That's where it was her advise we proceeded a PUD. Councilman Monahan-We had a different project that was in front of us at that time this project has been materially changed. I'm going to raise that question does this properly fit a PUD and what a PUD is suppose to do. Councilman Caimano-I guess we're just reading things into the minutes here before we get into the meat of the matter here let me read something to you just for your benefit as well as mine. This is a pamphlet put out by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and it talks about what is an action under SEQRA. I thought it was something here and Betty saw it also that was interesting. It says when actions consists of several steps or sets of activities the entire set must be considered the action even if several separate agencies are involved that is our own Planning Board. Segmentation of an action into components for individual review is contrary to the intent of SEQRA. No agency involved in the over all action can make a final decision until the SEQRA process is completed. What I read in this Paul is that they are asking us to do the SEQRA review as if this entire project is going on and we kind of have to divine ourselves into the future and make the one and only determination on SEQRA. Attorney Dusek-Well that's been my understanding of what you have been doing. Councilman Caimano- There was some concern that if it stops here we're only going to do a zoning and then the Planning Board will take it on from there, I just want to lay that to rest. Attorney Dusek-Unless Mr. O'Connor thinks differently, I thought that was something that had been resolved along time ago that this Board would do the SEQRA for the entire project. Mr. O'Connor-That was our thought that's what we thought that you were doing. We started to do down a different avenue and because of those rules and regulations and interpretations of those rules and regulations we said....that you should do SEQRA for the entire project for start to finish. That's our intention of what we are asking to do at this point. Councilman Caimano-Ijust want to make sure again that we're all thinking of it in that light so when we answer the questions when the questions are answered they are answered not just for today, but for the future. Councilman Monahan-Which kind of brings me to the point Nick, if this is not properly a PUD it's a subdivision. Then if it is a subdivision normally the Planning Board does the SEQRA review. Supervisor Brandt -Your into some law here. First of all, I have a problem with the process that if you start as a PUD and you altered it then it's no more a PUD. I think in good faith that the Town asked it's staff was this a proper PUD the staff said yes it was. We've all proceeded and put a lot of time and effort into it to now just throw it out and say it's no longer even to be considered as a PUD you need position. Councilman Monahan-Do you realize the changes that have taken place. For instance Warren County in their minutes for part of the approval of this mentioned the trail system and the trail system is no longer there. Supervisor Brandt-We did away with the trail system on our own because we felt it would have a negative impact so what we've done is lessen that impact. I don't see that as a reason to throw the PUD out. Councilman Monahan-And the other thing is when it went to those Boards it had incorrect information on the EAF on the density. Now, I know the one that went to the Planning Board said allowable density under a subdivision was two hundred and one or two hundred ten, I forget which it is and the allowable density was a hundred and twenty so they had misinformation. When it went to Warren County Planning Board, I think by that time it been dropped to a hundred and eighty, but the correct figure was a hundred twenty so you have a significant change in what was presented to those Boards. Supervisor Brandt-I think that's a reasonable thing for us to discuss. I don't think there is anything wrong with looking hard at that question of the density. I think it's an issue we should resolve, but I can't see that we should take an applicant back to the beginning steps over a technicality. I'm not afraid to look at that right in the face any say is it acceptable not acceptable does it trigger a full environmental impact statement or whatever. But, I think it's our responsibility to carry forth the process. Councilman Monahan-Also, to get back to the ninety four acres and we said it wasn't significant as far as density. But, I'm quoting again from the Planning Board meeting of September 24th, and Mr. Brandt is speaking and they are talking about the twenty four acres. I think it's most significant because detached that ninety four acres isn't very important as a recreation area. But, attached to what else is being discussed in another form and another way it's extremely significant. Before we come to a conclusion that has no significance we need to be into that overall view of that whole greenway that's proposed very active discussion going on and it should be incorporated in this project because it really is part of it. Mr. Martin- Okay, yes we haven't seen, I don't think we've seen that map yet showing the whole greenway corridor there and the holdings involved. Then you go on to tell about the meetings of the Supervisor's so on and so forth. Supervisor Brandt-There was a meeting earlier in this process between Niagara Mohawk, I was involved in it several meetings where they are talking the whole greenway. That whole discussion fell apart when the funder at that time the National Conservation Group withdrew their support and said they did not have the necessary money in their...to pay for it so that's really separate. I don't know where that process is at this point, but there is discussion making a additional greenway, but then again that's changed we don't control that process. What has happened here is that ninety four acres has been deleted because our people said from the Town's viewpoint it does not have recreational possibilities. Councilman Monahan-Mike, I agree with you. It's just to emphasize what I'm saying that the Planning Board looked at and gave the recommendation on is not the plan that we're working on now. Normally when those plans change they have to start back and go with the correct plan. Supervisor Brandt-I have a real problem with that because if we do that as a procedure it's going to be danm expensive to do business in Queensbury. Councilman Caimano- Y our right. Just a questions why did we go to a PUD in the first place it was for density purposes... Councilman Monahan-It doesn't meet any of the other requirements. Councilman Caimano-Or was it for the other requirements I'm not sure I know. Mr. O'Connor-The reason we went to a PUD type designation as opposed to the cookie cutter type subdivision was to allow flexibility in design and to allow a mix of the types of housing that we're proposing here single family and multi-family by the townhouse type project. The idea is which falls within the intent of your PUD regulations. If you look at part of your regulations one of the big things is it says, that in a PUD there are no designated lot sizes. You keep overall an idea of density in the back of your mind, but it allows you flexibility in design so you can have greater masses of open area greater masses of area that are not developed and are left undisturbed. Like the point that everybody has been concerned with the slopes on the sides of the hills coming up from the river all those areas by this design the wetland along the head of Clendon Brook are left as undisturbed areas and the way that you do it is by coming in with a PUD as opposed to a cookie cutter type development where you try to go to the four corners of your property and divide it up and say that somebody will own some portion of it. It may be a different configuration, but conceivably you can have a house or two houses out on that point which is what everybody has said that they would prefer not to see. Councilman Monahan-Mike everything that has been achieved through this PUD as far as the Town is concerned could have been achieved through a subdivision without putting forty three more units in fragile land and that interior land is fragile, also under our clustering provisions. So everything that's been achieved so far could have been achieved in subdivision with subdivision density and using the clustering provIsIOns. Mr. O'Connor-1 differ with that because you wouldn't have the economics of what you have here. You wouldn't have the ability to put together the open space that you have as a mass and the alternative access. The alternative access is an expensive proposition which was made to accommodate what we though was a majority of the owners of the neighborhood that was there and existed. If you take away the PUD and you go back to whatever it is your speaking of that is just not a feasible item. Supervisor Brandt-Let me ask you something. Under our laws if your calculations Jim were that there would be a normal subdivision a hundred twenty units allowed if it were brought in as a normal subdivision and you clustered it and were able cluster and come up with fifty percent open space how much density would be allowed under our laws? Mr. Martin-The density in that case in unaffected by the clustering. If simply cluster the houses and whatever land mass is left then the density is used up for that land mass if it's left as open space. Councilman Caimano- The number would be that one twenty number. Mr. Martin-Right. Supervisor Brandt-Unless your in a PUD you don't get the kicker for open space preservation? Mr. Martin-Exactly. The bonus provision is only in the PUD. Mr. O'Connor-A good example how that becomes frustrating is that the forty townhouses would then have to sit on a forty acre parcel. Councilman Monahan-Not on the clustering. Mr. O'Connor-You have to have that area set aside for that. Councilman Monahan-Your saying your townhouses are all in area now, Mike? Mr. O'Connor-We started this thing about a year ago and I think the developer has even before I became part of the development team tried to be cooperate with this Board and every other Board they have gone before with every planner the plan has been presented to. I think at one time or another this was reviewed by Mrs. Crayford then reviewed by Mrs. York it was even reviewed by Mr. Parisi, then finally by Mr. Martin. Everybody has had a shot at whether or not this is a PUD or not a PUD or whether it qualifies as a PUD or not a PUD from a planning consultant type review and no one has had a problem with that. Councilman Caimano- In all fairness things have changed. Councilman Monahan-Mike, I think the reason is because with inaccurate information on the first part of your EAF these things weren't picked up. If I saw a hundred eighty residential units that were allowed and then saw a PUD that only gets a hundred sixty three or your first one that said two hundred and one and that you were going to drop to a hundred sixty three, I think a PUD was a good thing too taking your figures. I mean, you know with errors on your part one of this it kind of changes the way people would look at it including both the Planning Boards. Councilman Goetz-Are you suggesting that it go back to the Planning Board? Councilman Monahan-I'm suggesting that I think this thing has to be look at as a project has developed with the recreation areas out of it. Then go down through the criteria now with the plan that's in front of us which has changed immensely and see if this criteria meets the same thing and see if we still get the approval from these Boards. Mr. O'Connor-1 thought we had a direct resolution a couple meetings ago, maybe three, I'm not sure when. As to whether or not the deletion of the ninety four acres was a significant or an important fact, I think it was unanimous that it was not. Councilman Monahan-I agree to it that it was not because of density. But, then I go back and start reading the minutes... Mr. O'Connor-1 don't think there is that reservation on that motion. Councilman Monahan-Yeah it was because of the density. We didn't think since it had not affected the density that it was significant. But, then when I go back and see during the very same meeting that the Planning Board approved this PUD the ninety four acres was still in. Mr. Brandt had talked about it's significance in the greenway then I have to take another look because I'm going back and putting information together that's spread all over the place. Believe me I've spent hours duck tailing all this different information that we have. Supervisor Brandt-I think we've got to be responsible in handling this and what I'd like to do is find out what the Board feels about continuing this as a PUD or not continuing this as a PUD so that we can move and start responsibly answering what we're doing here. So, I'm going poll the Board do you want to continue this process as a PUD or do you not want to continue it? I'll lead and say that I want to continue it as a PUD. Councilman Tucker-What does are experts have to say about it? Mr. Martin-Let's go through the purpose and objectives of the PUD and see what the Board feels. It is the purpose of the Planned Unit Development Article to provide flexible land use and design regulations through the use of performance criteria so that small to large scale neighborhoods or portions thereof maybe developed within the Town that incorporate a variety of residential types nomesidential uses and contain both individual building sites and common property which are planned and developed as a unit. This article specifically encourages innovations in residential development so that the growing demands for housing at all economic levels maybe met by greater variety and type design and sighting of dwellings and by the conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments in harmony with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Town of Queensbury. It goes on to list five objectives. In order to realize the purpose of this article a Planned Unit Development shall achieve the following objectives. Councilman Caimano- W ant to repeat that, shall. Mr. Martin-Shall achieve. A maximum use in housing environment and type occupancy tenure. For example, cooperatives, individual ownership or condominium leasing lot sizes and common facilities. Councilman Monahan-I question whether or not this is meeting maximum. There is no affordable housing in there no senior citizen housing there is not a mix of true choices in there, wait a minute please. The choices is for a certain segment of society and that's my comment on that. Mr. Oppenheim-I just like to respond to that. I think we have provided a unique combination of different housing types in one community. I don't know if I would this smaller single family homes affordable, but they certainly will be reasonably priced, priced in the low one hundreds. In addition to that... Councilman Monahan-Excuse me AI, what do you think my income would have to be to afford a house like that? Mr. Oppenheim-Without getting into the specific's I do believe by bringing a housing type that is priced somewhere between one twenty one thirty thousand we are bringing in reasonable priced housing, let me just finish please. In conjunction with that the attached housing we anticipate a major portion of those buyers being, I don't know if you want to call them seniors, but people who are looking to move out of their larger homes into smaller maintenance free living. So, we got some attached housing that will also be reasonably priced, but a very nice quality. In addition to that we've got some housing types that are going to be in the hundred and fifty priced range and then we will have whether you want to call it luxury or just higher price housing some higher price housing two hundred and above. I believe that we've got here a unique combination of housing types that you rarely find within one community. Mr. Martin-What's the expected price for the attached housing the townhouse? Mr. Oppenheim-A hundred and ten to a hundred thirty. Councilman Monahan-We've got loads of houses in this community in the hundred twenty, hundred fifty range they are out there all over. Supervisor Brandt-I come back to a meeting this Board had early on in it's first year where we talked about PUDs. We said as a Board and we went through these same arguments about the price of housing and low income affordable housing and PUDs. We said that we wanted as a Board to encourage PUDs because of conservation of land space. We had the argument, well we're going to force PUDs low income housing mix in with it and we said no we weren't going to do that because you couldn't solve social programs here on the Town Board level. Those are programs where funding for people is going to have to come from the Federal Government and federal subsidies of mortgages or whatever as it always has in the past and it's not proper for us to try and impose that on a developer and I remember that discussion very well. Councilman Caimano-Me, too. Supervisor Brandt-We said we wanted to encourage PUDs. Now, if we're going to go in this route what we're doing is circumventing everything we've done up until now. I don't want to do that so the discussion is still open are we going to move along as a PUD here? Councilman Monahan-I think you need to go through the criteria first. Mr. Martin-Okay, that was the first objective maximum choice in housing environment and type. 2. More usable open space in recreation areas and if permitted as part of a project more convenient locations of accessory, commercial and services uses. 3. A development pattern which preserves outstanding natural typography and geological features scenic vistas, trees and historical sites and prevents a disruption of natural drainage patterns. Councilman Monahan-Okay, Jim I have a question right there. I don't know if we've ever seen anything that shows that this prevents a disruption of natural drainage patterns. I looked through all the material I have, I can't find any drainage. Supervisor Brandt-Wait a minute. I'll point out that we said that you cannot drain down these slopes. That all drainage must be as a condition percolated back into the ground. So, we're not here in the final review of all the final design, but that's a condition that we've imposed. Councilman Caimano- I know what you just said and your right, but let me harken back to something I read and that's why I read it. What the State of New York is saying is that when we do this SEQRA review we have to do just that. Councilman Monahan-We have to have all the drainage stuff. Supervisor Brandt-But, we did do that. Mr. O'Connor-But, haven't you done that by the conditions that you have put upon it? Councilman Monahan-No. Councilman Caimano-I don't know. Mr. O'Connor-1 think you have. Councilman Monahan-I don't. Mr. O'Connor-1 think you have. You have a very lengthy condition as to what drainage will be permitted within the development. Supervisor Brandt-It has to be reviewed by an engineer and you have to pay for that. Mr. O'Connor-If you look at the PUD regulations the PUD regulations actually say that what we have presented is more than ample information at this point admitting that it did not include any actually engineering calculations or plans. Councilman Caimano-And it wasn't asked to. Mr. O'Connor-Your not asked to it at this point your not asked to in any PUD. Supervisor Brandt-This in not final design. Mr. O'Connor-This is not short cutting or circumventing SEQRA this is following SEQRA the way that it's set forth. I think Paul you put forth in your proposed resolution two or three different conditions that have to do with drainage and have to do with the septic design all which you indicate must be met in order for this to go forward that's a condition of your approval. Supervisor Brandt-Are you guys ready to poll on whether you want to consider this a PUD? Councilman Caimano-Let him finish it. Mr. Martin-4. A efficient use ofland resulting in small networks of utilities and streets. 5. A development pattern in harmony with the land use intensity transportation facilities and community facilities objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. That's it those are the five objectives. Councilman Monahan-Jim the other thing is when you were Chairman of the Planning Board...this the Planning Board had to find that it meets the community need. What community need did you say that this met? Also, the proposal is conceptually sound and that it meets a community need and that it conforms to accepted design principals in the proposed functional roadway system, land use configuration, open space system, drainage system, and I looked at your notes of that meeting and you guys didn't even discuss the drainage system during that Planning Board meeting, and scaled the elements both absolutely into one another. Mr. Martin-I recall my thought at the time was I was seeing a development that at the time had with the ninety four acres in was essentially using one third of the space for development, I thought that was in keeping with the preservation of open space. We had the change in the transportation system at the time the road network that included the new road-cut through the McDonald subdivision with a net decrease in traffic on Sherman Island Road, I saw that as an improvement over the existing situation. In terms of the drainage we had percolation rates here that are so high we can't accommodate a septic system for each individual house without modifying the soils so I don't see that percolation of the drainage in my mind was going to be a problem. Councilman Monahan-I also look at drainage and these natural drainage patterns and I didn't see any drainage information natural pattern being given to the board that night. Mr. Martin-I was also aware of the fact that this was going to come back to us as a Planning Board at site plan review where we were going to get into specific engineering design and drainage plans and type of things of that nature that were going to be reviewed by our consultant engineer that we as a board always look to for his approval and blessing. Supervisor Brandt-And certainly we handled drainage here since so what do you want to do board? Pliney do you want to continue as a PUD? Councilman Tucker-I want to go on, yeah. Councilman Caimano-I will continue with a PUD with a caveat. I still think we ought to have this thing looked at by an independent engineer. Supervisor Brandt-But, still as a PUD? Councilman Caimano-Ifit's looked at, yes. Supervisor Brandt-Sue? Councilman Goetz-PUD. Supervisor Brandt-Betty? Councilman Monahan-I don't think it fits the requirements iliat are in our own Ordinance. Supervisor Brandt-That's four to one we're going to continue as a PUD. You brought up a reservation about engineering? Councilman Caimano- Yes. Supervisor Brandt-Tell us more about what you think. Councilman Caimano- I just feel, I am consistent here because I said it several meetings ago, I would like to have this reviewed by a consulting engineering to make sure that we have done our homework. That we've done it properly that we're going down that road which is a proper road. I think that it is a medium step to going to a full EIS. That we stop this process have it reviewed by someone who is trustworthy and knowledgeable and find out if we have gotten off the path. One of the problems with this thing is the so called politics involved. We see both sides of the picture we keep getting pushed one way and then other. I think to see someone who is not emotionally involved in any way shape or form take a look at it someone who is knowledgeable and tell us, yes your in the right direction here. One of the things that I am most concerned with and I know that most of us here are concerned with is that we're breaking fresh ground here we're in a very tender piece of area of this Town. If we're going to break into we want to do it properly, I want to make sure that I've done it properly and that's my concern. Councilman Goetz-Nick, if we went to a full EIS the engineering studies that you suggested be incorporated in that? Councilman Caimano- The EIS is going to take about a year wouldn't it? Attorney Dusek-The environmental impact statement the time frames for that there are certain thirty day windows that have to be utilized. But, the real time is dictated by the developer and the development of the EIS. The faster the developer can turn it around and the faster the review process is conducted by the Town Board will dictate the overall time period. You can have an EIS probably, I would say fully completed within six months if you move right along. Councilman Caimano-Have we not, in fact gone a long ways down that road? Attorney Dusek - I don't think you started the EIS process. You haven't made your first determination and that is whether or not there is a positive or negative declaration that's the first step before you go anywhere near the EIS. Now, to the extent that you stated in essence if you did go to an EIS to the extent that you've already started to identify your issues, yes... Councilman Caimano- That's what I'm talking about. Attorney Dusek-You've done obviously that because you had to do that considering a negative declaration or a positive declaration you have to understand what the issues are. Certainly no matter what you've done to date you can utilize it in either fashion. Mr. O'Connor-Can you be specific at all as to what would be the nature of the review that the consultant would do at this point? I'm not saying, I have a real problem with that, I have a difference of opinion Paul as to the time. I've been involved in a couple of EIS and it very easily goes six months to a year just given a couple of forty five day windows that are there. The public hearings and everything else that you get involved with you'd like to think that you could do one of those things in six months. Councilman Caimano-It's almost like to me a binding arbitration to carry on what you just said. In that whoever we pick would take Sandy's questions, your comments, would take everything that has been raised and look at the answers that we have given to those. There is a term in here, I kidded you about it before the term is, hard look and it's always used in quotations marks whatever the hell that means, you know that's so subjective it's unbelievable. I'd like to see someone who is an arbitrator of this thing really that is what we're looking for. Now there are those who say we're the arbitrator, I don't want to be the arbitrator. We're making a decision I like to make as right of a decision as possible and I'm looking for someone to look over my shoulder who has no interest other than his or her professional background. Supervisor Brandt-I give you one, I'd like to see parallel to what Nick is saying. I like to see someone with more expertise than I have tell me that the effluent from the sewage systems is not going to be coming out into the wetlands. If somebody can say that with some scientific background and knowledge I sure love to hang my hat on that rather than my guesstimate. Councilman Caimano-I've seen your archeological plan and I think that it's a good plan, but that's my thought and I don't have a lot of background in archaeology. Councilman Monahan-If we go to an EIS you have a formal scoping session you have all the involved agencies there plus the consultant that you hire. That's when they start deciding the things that you need to put in that scoping option and what your going to do in the EIS. Mr. O'Connor-Everybody is looking at the SEQRA handbooks and what not as being maybe the bible. I think you ought to look at the total book. If you look at page 15, paragraph 3, it says is a environmental impact statement required for each Type I action, the answer is no. The last sentence of that, SEQRA responsibilities for Type I actions may be met by a well documented negative declaration. You go over to page 44, your going to see that again repeated in the bible which I'm sure we're going to be quoted from. On page 44, where it's talking actually about positive declarations the end of Section C, it says the project as proposed includes mitigations measures that would eliminate the potential significant impact or reduce it to a point where it is no longer would be reasonably considered significant. In that case a negative declaration would be appropriate. Councilman Caimano-Let's go back to your page 15 and here is my problem as a person. The last sentence says and I'll read it again for you. SEQRA responsibilities for Type I actions maybe met by a well documented negative declaration. I don't know if I've done that and that's my problem. Mr. O'Connor-My question to you is what additional information do you need from us at this point? Supervisor Brandt-I pointed one out that I like, let itemize. Councilman Caimano-And I pointed out the archeological side of it. Councilman Monahan-I'm going to say, I don't think we know until we get a consultant in here that's much more versed in this than we are and that's what consultant usually does. Councilman Goetz-It seems like the sense of the board is to go the full EIS and I'm for the full EIS. Supervisor Brandt-I'm not for the full EIS. Councilman Goetz-Well, I am. Supervisor Brandt-I'm absolutely not for the full EIS. Councilman Monahan-I don't think you have much choice. I think you have to go to a full EIS. Supervisor Brandt-Well you've got a majority vote whatever the hell that is. Councilman Monahan-SEQRA law says, condition negative decs may not be used for Type I action. Every time we've been putting these conditions on we've been doing this. Supervisor Brandt-We've got an Attorney here who has been advising us every step of the way Betty. Attorney Dusek-Your not doing a condition negative declaration. What your doing is the project has a series of modifications or conditions that have been attached to it which in the end control the nature of the project which determine what kind of environmental impact positive or neg that your going to give it. In otherwords your not saying this is a conditional negative dec your dealing with a project. You have a very unique situation here because you have a zoning. If it was a subdivision plan before a Planning Board for instance they would not have this type of ability that you have to condition it in the fashion that your conditioning it. That part I have not been troubled with just so the Board knows as far as the conditions go. Councilman Monahan-But, I think you do if you look at this book Paul. It says when you start putting conditions on, they are talking about a condition declaration which we can't do because this is a Type I action, but I just want to read the definitions that follow that. Is a form of negative declaration for unlisted actions propose by an applicant that may have potentially significant environmental impacts which can be eliminated or adequately mitigated by conditions imposed by the lead agency. What we're doing is imposing conditions to mitigate those effects therefore we're really doing a conditional declaration. Attorney Dusek-I don't think you are because of the nature of the zoning. Councilman Monahan-I think we are and that's why I want a consultant that's versed in SEQRA and knows what they are doing. Supervisor Brandt-We have a consultant on the law we pay him very well and he is sitting right there and he is telling us that we're doing it properly. Now, I'll believe him and I don't want to hire another one to tell me that he is wrong because then we'll have to go to court and fight about that. These are our experts and I'm going with them. I think there is no problem in my mind to looking at specific issues that has been suggested by Nick, I think that has some merit. I have a problem with asking for a full EIS in view of what we've all been doing. I don't mind reviewing it and having someone else look at it and tell us, hey your missing this or your missing that and let's look at it. I don't have any problem with that, but I have a problem with going into a whole environmental impact statement unless that is the will of this Board. Mr. O'Connor-Your basically saying you want someone to review some of what we submitted? Supervisor Brandt -Yeah. Councilman Caimano-All. Mr. Martin-What I would caution if your going to do this type of thing is that you develop a very tight well written scope of services of what you want from this perspective firm. You just can't have somebody come in and say, well listen to this or here is a bunch of paper we've been looking at and give me your . . ImpreSSIOn. Councilman Caimano-Let me ask the other side of that question. Maybe the short way to do it is the EIS because there is very specific. Mr. Martin-The scoping session in fact will do that same thing. Mr. O'Connor-1 differ with that. I'm not sure where you have an actual concern with what we've done at this point. Is it traffic? Have we not documented what we are going to create for traffic? Is it archeological? Is it ecological? Councilman Caimano-It's more ecological than anything. It's more having to do with the typography with the land where your going to put this thing and what is going to happen with the future. I see John Salvadore back there who makes his living on the lake there are mistakes that we made in all good conscience that are hurting us on the lake, I'm trying to avoid doing that on the Hudson River that's what I'm trying to avoid. Councilman Goetz-Could I say something. It's my understanding and I've been trying to leam more about SEQRA if just one person has a concern about a project that you should go the full EIS that's where I'm coming from, I don't want to make any mistakes. Attorney Dusek-Maybe I could just interject at this point just to point out something to the Board. The type of comment that Nick has just made where he indicates a lack of comfort and is indicating that he needs more information, I have to tell you that is exactly what a EIS is designed to do. I'm concerned that if you were to go to an outside consultant to somehow address these concerns that is not necessarily the answer. I think that if the Board were to go that route your really indicating that you need more information you need that study. That's what an EIS is all about it's a study to give you that information. Your indicating a lack of comfort means you need more information. I'm not advocating an EIS.... Councilman Caimano-I see what your saying. Attorney Dusek-But, I'm just pointing out to you based on the comments that I'm hearing from you. Mr. O'Connor-We've given you a soil analysis study part of what we have submitted to you is over and above what is required in your PUD regulation. Based upon that you have indicated that you will approve the project with modification of the septic systems. That very modification of the septic system in part answers what Jim said earlier as to on site drainage and infiltration. Because of the soils themselves drainage probably by itself obviously is not going to be a problem except to prevent erosion as Mr. Brandt has indicated in which he's indicated will also be a requirement that we not be allowed to have anything that will add to or create erosion. Councilman Caimano-I don't think, I can say anymore than what I said before that's my concern that's my only concern as a matter of fact. Mr. O'Connor-When could you on a project be satisfied without an engineer signing off, I guess? Are you saying on every project you must then have an engineer sign off so on every project your going to go through an EIS? Councilman Caimano-I don't think so. I think I made it very specific about me personally now, about the fact that we're into some very hollow ground, but we're into some new ground here. That's where I need guidance because I don't know, I simply don't know. I can nod my head, but I simply don't know, I can't define the future. I'm not good enough to know that what your telling me not that your trying to tell me a lie, but what your telling me is going to hold up for the future and that's my concern that's me talking now. Mr. O'Connor-What we told you is that we will apply to and obtain approval of engineering staff selected by you of anything before it is built. You will then have the sign off by that engineering firm as part of the site plan review. Your asking a developer to spend a great deal of money right now without a zoning classification. Councilman Caimano-We're asking the first developer. I think that's the key here you happen to be the first one in this particular... Mr. O'Connor-1 don't think so Nick and I would argue that point. On Tuesday night, I think I have three subdivisions that I'm going to present. Councilman Caimano-On the river? Mr. O'Connor-Two of them are on John Clendon Brook and feed directly to the river same thing as this brook here. Your not talking about anything different whether your talking about eighteen acres or two hundred acres. Those same standards same things those developments have to meet the same standards is my point, I guess. Those developments, I will show that the drainage from the roads the drainage from the nonpermeable area will not affect groundwater that the septic will not affect groundwater they will not cause erosion. There is another book which, I don't know it's the....on New York State Environmental Laws a book put out by the Bar Association. It's current, I think it was put out this year and it talks about mitigating measures. It says where mitigating measures have been incorporated as to the design of the propose project and it can be said to eliminate the potential for significant environmental impact issuance of a negative declaration is appropriate not withstanding the size or complexity of the project. The size of the project doesn't necessarily mean that you have different standards. Hopefully every house that is built is built to the same standards in the Town of Queensbury. Councilman Monahan-But, Mike your talking about an area that's got a lot of environmental concerns. Your talking about an area that your asking for density over the allowed density. I have some problems with that, I have a lot of problems with your part one because there are a lot of mistakes on this part as I look through it frankly and I have some problems with that. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? You marked it no, our Master Plan says those are important. I can go down and pick up some more here through this stuff. I think we've got some environmental concerns here that have not been addressed that need to be addressed if this Town Board is going to do their job properly. Mr. O'Connor-1 thought from the conversation and Nick's has left that you were leaning towards trying to get somebody to take a look at this to see if you have done your environmental review. I don't have a problem with that I thought that Mr. Martin had done that, I thought Mr. Dusek was guiding you in doing it, but if your talking about some specific areas and whether it falls upon us to do it or whoever. Attorney Dusek-I think I should just mention here as you go through the SEQRA process there are two parts of going through this or two series of expertise if you will that your looking towards I think. One is your looking for somebody who is knowledgeable in the law which I would hope that I have some knowledge in that area and that can help you through that process. But, then there is a second part which I can't help you with and that is the planning and engineering aspects that is a separate set of criteria. I'm not knowledgeable in septic systems in understanding how far they have to be buried or where they will travel or anything of that nature so that is a second part of it. As we go through this process I'm trying to give you guidance as far as the law goes. The law requires that you take a hard look and I think you've certainly been doing that. Whatever anybody can argue about this case nobody is going to be able to argue that you didn't take a hard look. I think that the other thing the law requires though is for the Board to make that determination as to whether or not you feel you have enough information including alternatives if that is necessary to pass on this thing. If you feel you do not have enough information then it's an environmental impact statement that is exactly what it's for. If on the other hand you feel you have enough information then you can pass, of course, you go to the negative declaration. The only thing at this point that I can think of that a consultant could possibly help you with is in that determination of whether this should warrant a negative or positive dec. The minute the consultant gets into studying the aspects and trying to tell you whether or not that septic system is good or bad, I think your marching into an EIS territory which could be potentially problematic for the Board. Councilman Caimano-Injust extending time we don't necessarily have to have. Councilman Tucker-Paul, act of law New York State Board of Health will determine how the septic system shall be built and whether it will qualify and if it doesn't qualify they won't be able to build the thing. Councilman Monahan-In the first place you have to realize Pliney that this project is going to require a variance what they have stated in their book. Any time you have over forty nine units on a septic system it also has to get a variance from the Department of Health your not automatically granted that. Supervisor Brandt-But, that in itself gives a review of the technical side of that. Councilman Tucker-No matter what an engineer says, check if I'm wrong Jim, no matter what an engineer says the Department of Health will have the final say on the septic systems on this project. Mr. O'Connor-And DEe. Supervisor Brandt-And/or DEe. Mr. O'Connor-DEC will take the townhouses because it's a SPEDES permit and it's over a thousand gallons a day plus the Department of Health on the other systems. Your going to have both the agencies reviewing everything that we do. Councilman Tucker-I know building individual homes I have to deal with the Department of Health and they are the people that have the final say. Attorney Dusek-The only thing I would mention in that regard is that the Department of Health and all these other departments, of course, are going to be bound by whatever you find in terms of your SEQRA review because your the lead agency. Councilman Monahan-We're doing the work for every involved agency. Mr. O'Connor-Not as to septic Paul, I think they still have to approve the system as being a working system. Attorney Dusek-They will have to approve the septic system your right. But as far as the SEQRA part of the review that will be over with this Board. Mr. O'Connor-They received noticed when you decided to be lead agency and they have not appeared yet. I think their review after we get construction details put together engineering details put together and submit to them at that point. Supervisor Brandt-I guess philosophically I've got a problem. My problem is that if we want to preserve open space then we need to encourage PUDs. If every time someone comes in here for a PUD they are going to do a full environmental impact statement because it's easy leverage then your not going to have anyone walk in here to do a PUD and you sure as heck aren't going to save much greenbelt. Councilman Monahan-Mike you know, here we are also giving up forty three more units of housing and that's taking up a lot of your greenbelt too. Greenbelt can be achieved through clustering just as much green as you've got here. Supervisor Brandt-Let me ask you something. I read this whole thing and we talk about density and change in the neighborhood. But, if you look at it your already going to build under our regular rules a hundred and twenty units of housing that's some change in the neighborhood let me tell you, I've lived there, I know what that neighborhood is like that's a change. That's our law and we said when we zoned this Town that's normal. We also said if you want to come in and do this as a PUD you can get a kicker offorty three units. In this case there is actually thirty five because they lose eight units in the neighboring area.. Councilman Monahan-You can't count that. Supervisor Brandt-Well, I can count it. I can count just like you, I'm not talking about this application, I'm talking about the Town of Queensbury for god sake and that is part of the Town. Let me finish please, I mean after all my god Betty this is not a filibuster. We are adding thirty five units as net because these people clustered and preserved open space that's our law. We said in our infinite wisdom in this Town that's what we're allowing now that's exactly what they've done. Now we're going to say, gee they are doing it we're changing the Town this is terrible we need an environmental impact statement, I don't buy that. I think we did set these laws, this is, what we allowed to do now can we do it can you conduct business in Queensbury or can't you, it gets right down to that. Do you have the political will to make a decision or do you have to put it off and put if off. Councilman Monahan-What I was going to say Mike is that you cannot count on McDonald subdivision yet. It has to go to the Planning Board and it has to be approved it is not a done deal so you can't count something that you don't have. Supervisor Brandt-Our law allows a forty three so it's within that law. The impact is within our law we created that law and that impact is provided by that law. You know there is an impact, but we defined it as a Town we said that's acceptable. Now someone comes in and they've got a plan to save space do we beat them up for it? They've got a plan to say they have.. .types of housing do we say no we really don't want that now? But, that's what we said we wanted that is what the PUD provides. Councilman Monahan-But, we have other plans that do the same thing. Mr. Brewer-....Anything that has a substantial impact then you should review it whether it be a hundred sixty units for this subdivision or a PUD or one on the other end of the Town. If it has a substantial impact you should have it reviewed that's all anyone is asking and that's what the law says why the hell should we side step the law. Supervisor Brandt-If you really look at the impact of the community it's the total impact of all the housing all over the community and it's little patches here and there. Mr. Brewer-But, that particular piece of land is zoned for a hundred twenty units and your putting a hundred sixty on it. If you have a bridge that holds ten ton you put twelve ton on it it's going to have more of an impact then if you put ten ton on it. Supervisor Brandt-But, the bridge is our law. The bridge says we do a hundred and twenty and the bridge says that if you do it in clustering you can do a hundred and sixty that's our law. Mr. Brewer-The law doesn't say you can do it in clustering you can do it a hundred and sixty it says you can do it in PUD. Unknown-Is this a public hearing? Councilman Monahan-But, we're letting O'Connor's their group participate. Councilman Caimano- There is an excuse there because he is the applicant and I certainly would let Sandy ask questions as a result of that. But, he is the applicant they are here to get a decision from us. Supervisor Brandt-What do you want to do? The problem is you put this in an environmental impact statement let me tell you the guy who buys the home is going to pay another thousand, two thousand bucks for that home I can guarantee. Unknown-Let the Michael Group pay for it. Supervisor Brandt-As a matter of fact that never happens. In the end when it cost more to build a car we pay for it. When it cost more to build a house we pay for it. Every time the customer pays for it and that's the sad truth that's the way it is. It's really decision time so what's the will? Councilman Goetz-Let's go to a vote, I mean we screwed around enough. Councilman Monahan-Do we think it needs a positive declaration or a negative declaration, but we may have to do the steps. Councilman Caimano-We have read that. Your talking about Jim's stuff? Supervisor Brandt -Yes. Councilman Caimano-I read it. Supervisor Brandt-I haven't. Councilman Monahan-I think there is a lot oflax in it. I don't agree with Jim on all this stuff that's the trouble with getting it Friday afternoon. Supervisor Brandt-I don't mind going through it and probably we ought to do that for the record at any rate. But, I don't want to spend three more days of going through this to find out all our work for not. Councilman Caimano-I don't think it's for not, I think it's all a part of the record. Sandy Allen-Presented petition to Deputy Clerk from neighborhood residents requesting a full EIS. (On file in Town Clerk's office) Mr. O'Connor-1 really thought the public record was closed. If you want we will also give you a letter from the neighbor who owns land immediately adjacent to this project on Sherman Island Road which indicates he has no objection to the proposed PUD. He thinks that the PUD is an improvement. We have other letters that would come in back and forth I don't think that actually helps you as far as your decision that you have to make. This goes back to the whole premises of the information that's being put out there that we've got all these problems that nobody has looked at. I've been to at least ten meetings where I think you looked at everything. Supervisor Brandt-My problem is that we voted on every issue singly the votes were either four to one or five zip every single issue we voted on. Now, we're looking at the block do we want to change that vote? Councilman Caimano-I guess we're saying and even you said yourself that we're uncomfortable with that's what I'm saying. Councilman Monahan-I like to say for the record we also have a letter from Joan Roberts, Citizen, Taxpayer, Southern Adirondack Audobon Society, asking that we do a full environmental impact statement also. (letter on file Town Clerk's office) Supervisor Brandt-Is that where we're going? Councilman Caimano-He is talking about two years what kind of time limit, give me a time? Mr. O'Connor-One year. Attorney Dusek-I will say, Mike indicated a little earlier that my six months scenario was optimistic and I certainly would concede that point. I've seen environmental impact statements even since I've been Town Attorney, I think take a couple of years by the time they got through the process on a PUD. But, I think a lot of it depends on how fast the parties are willing to move. I think it can be done in six months. I think you could look towards the longer time period of as much as a year. Probably something inbetween is the realistic time frame assuming everybody moves quickly in good faith, I would say six months to a year is a reasonable guesstimate. Mr. Martin-The Town has the virtue of seeing either end of the spectrum. In looking through the Hiland Park information. The Hiland Park PUD came to the Planning Board, January 23rd. The resolution granting the PUD designation was July 2nd, with a full environmental impact statement. Councilman Caimano-Six months. That was the first Planning Board meeting right? Mr. Martin-The first Planning Board meeting. The Planning Board recommendation of the project referral on to the Town Board, EIS, and PUD designation came in less than six months. Supervisor Brandt-Do you think that can ever be accomplished again in this Town? Councilman Monahan-Yeah, if you do the process right. Mr. O'Connor-We have cooperated fully with this Board and with every other Board we made a presentation too. I'm a little discouraged because of all the individual votes that have been taken on each issue on each piece of mitigation that has been offered and now we appear to be going in a different direction. It's certainly your prerogative, but I think it's misleading to people who are doing business with this Board to do it in the manner that you have done it. Councilman Monahan-Mike all I can say is that I've looked back over all the paper and I've seen all the changes and some things that have fallen through the cracks as we've been going from one to another thing and that's my concern. We better take some time here and pull this all together and not let anything get through the cracks because it certainly has as this plan keeps changing and the comments that have been made along the way. Mr. O'Connor-My point in substance is what is an EIS going to offer you based upon the information that you presently have. I don't really perceive under your PUD regulations anything different being submitted to you except that the documentation you have being put in one binder and submitted to you with some chronological sorting of it. Then your going to start your scoping session and then your going to start accepting whether or not we have put in a final EIS. Then your going to have a forty five day comment period. Then your going to have a public hearing then you may want some supplemental information. I just really am lost on how we do business with you. I've looked at the PUD regulations and I think we've complied. Attorney Dusek-I think the final judgement call here belongs to the Board. Supervisor Brandt-I know. I think the question is should we do a resolution right now and ask whether this Board wants a full environmental impact statement and I think's that's the question. Councilman Caimano- There is a proper way to do it. The proper way to do it is to make a positive declaration on the SEQRA. Supervisor Brandt-Okay. Let's put it to a vote let's find out where we are that's the only fair thing to do. Attorney Dusek-If you make that kind of a motion whoever wants to make that you should identify what the areas of concerns are that you feel that there may be an environmental impact. Councilman Monahan-Are we locked into those because once we talk to a consultant we may find there is something we didn't consider that we should of considered? Attorney Dusek-No. SEQRAjust requires for an environmental impact statement that there would be one area. Your scoping session is the session that is designed to identify all the areas. I would encourage the Board if that was your intent to identify as many areas as you think are appropriate at this point. Mr. O'Connor-How have you varied from your review of Part II the other evening? Where you identified five potentially large or significant impacts, but you indicated all can be mitigated and you have the mitigation written up by Mr. Martin? I'm lost as to follow that thought process. Supervisor Brandt -So am I. Mr. O'Connor-And that's been the trail that we've been following for three months. Supervisor Brandt-Somebody want to offer a resolution? Councilman Caimano-You deserve an answer and that's an interesting question and I'll answer it from my perspective. There were a number of things which came up as could be mitigated. I guess, again my comfort level says there were so many of them that I'm not comfortable with it it's as simple as that. I don't know if I'm right, I have no idea all I'm saying there is several things that came up all of which have to be mitigated. Councilman Monahan-We're not even sure if the mitigation will work. Mr. O'Connor-Do you want to go back and visit the five as Mr. Martin has visited them in his suggested draft? Councilman Caimano-I'd be glad to do that if you want to. Attorney Dusek-I think it would be appropriate to do that in any event because as part of the process you did the part two, part three is the next logical step before you make a determination in any event. Councilman Tucker-I guess the question I got to ask if we went down the road and mitigated all these things and spent hours and hours and they spent time and everything else. I guess now what we're saying anything that we've done doesn't amount to anything right? Councilman Caimano- I wouldn't say that. Councilman Tucker-We've got these people right here that are suppose to be our guides we've hired them to do this kind of stuff. I gather maybe I was at other meetings but, I gathered that what we were doing they agreed was right. Supervisor Brandt-At least procedurally was right. Attorney Dusek-Let's make sure we understand where your at here. Procedurally, I feel that this Board has done a correct job. I think every move that you have made up to this point has been legally correct and proper. You've gone through the phases, I think you've made one heck of a record as I indicated earlier taken a hard look at this, but the bottom line is that it's procedure. The judgement call is your's to evaluate this project and decide whether or not you feel there may be an adverse environmental impact. If you think there may be one and that's where your at right now is if you think there may be one or if you think that in any area and you feel additional information is needed on that issue then I think you must go to an environmental impact statement. On the other hand if you feel that there are no adverse impacts then you don't need one. But, as your lawyer I can't tell you which way to make that decision. Supervisor Brandt-That's our decision and it's decision time so let's get at it who wants to read it? Mr. Martin-I wrote it, I'll read it. Councilman Monahan-Jim can I ask you one favor, please. Mr. Martin-Sure. Councilman Monahan-I tried to follow yours and follow this at the same time and I didn't find you were in order. Mr. Martin-I thought I had it in order. I'll read my introduction then I'll pick up on the order. Attachment to Environmental Assessment Form for Proposed Hudson Pointe Planned Unit Development Part III-Evaluation of the Importance of Impacts Introduction - The following narratives discuss those impacts which were identified as having a potential large impact as a result of the environmental assessment of the proposed Hudson Pointe Planned Unit Development. The following narrative will assess the importance of the potential large impacts and how they can be mitigated in order to reduce the impact to a small or moderate level. The following issues will be considered in order to establish the importance of each potentially large impact. The probability of the impact occurring, The duration of the impact, Its irreversibility, including permanently most resources of value, Whether the impact can and will be controlled, The regional consequence of the impact, Its potential divergence from local needs and goals, Whether known objections to project relate to this impact. The conclusion of the above analysis will be a decision as to whether or not the impact is important. One, I thought I was following the order. Councilman Monahan-You are there, but after a while I lose it maybe I'm not just following it. Mr. Martin-What might have thrown you Betty was the impact on water had two items that were found as potentially large so we had five, but two we within one item. Supervisor Brandt-Lets go ahead with the impact on land. Mr. Martin-Impact on Land - Construction will continue for more than one (1) year and will involve more than one (1) phase. Then I attempt to follow those items I laid out. If you have a copy of the Part III, the Part III lays out the outline for answering the questions of importance. I tried to follow that outline in each instance. Councilman Monahan-Excuse me is that Part III what Paul gave us that copy of the law? Mr. Martin-Part III is at the end of the EAF. Impact on Land - Construction will continue for more than one (1) year and involve more than one (1) phase. The proposed schedule for project completion is five to seven years over several phases. The specific amount of development to be accomplished with each phase has not been determined. The number of units to be built and the time required for project completion will be dictated by the market demand for the homes proposed. The areas to be developed first are the areas referred to as the Southern Exposure subdivision and Parcel D, a 42 acre parcel encompassing both the primary and secondary entrances to the site. The development of the remaining parcel, Parcel E, will follow. Councilman Monahan-Now Jim, Southern Exposure subdivision is McDonald's right? Mr. Martin-Right. Councilman Monahan-I don't feel that has any part in here because that hasn't been approved by the Planning Board we're presuming something that hasn't happened. That's got to go back to be reapproved so I don't think you can use it. Mr. Martin-I was just stating fact. Councilman Caimano-But, that's not a fact that's the problem. Mr. Martin-It was my understanding that it was suppose to be the first part of the area to be developed. Councilman Monahan-But, we don't know that because the Planning Board has got to reapprove that whole subdivision. Mr. O'Connor-My understanding of that is that we would be making application after you do your PUD designation of our particular parcel which is subject to us having the entrance through the McDonalds subdivision for an amendment of the McDonalds subdivision plan. Councilman Monahan-But that has not been done. Mr. O'Connor-No, but either have we gotten the water district extension. Councilman Monahan-Maybe you have to do the Southern Exposure subdivision if approved. Mr. Martin-Okay. Councilman Monahan-I don't like the idea that it's stated here as a matter of fact. Supervisor Brandt-That's reasonable. Mr. O'Connor-We understand that, I don't have a problem with that. Mr. Martin-Given the size of the area to be developed, the number of dwelling units proposed and the associated infrastructure (roads, water, etc.) needed to service the site there is a high probability that construction will occur over the projected time frame of five to seven years. Therefore, the filtration of land disturbance associated with road construction, lot clearing, foundation installation, septic system installation, etc. will also occur over the five to seven year time frame. The primary resource to be lost as a result of the land disturbances will be the vegetative cover (trees, bushes and plants) cleared to accommodate the roads, houses and garages for the development. Some reclamation will occur from landscaping and lawn installation at the individual houses within the subdivision. It should be noted that the cluster design depicted in the current site plan will minimize the amount of area to be disturbed. The cluster design will also maximize the opportunity to retain natural topographical features throughout the site. As the project design has changed to accommodate the larger lots on the pointe, the cluster design element and the conservation easement shall be retained to insure minimal disturbance. In conclusion, the impact of the land disturbance will be mitigated through the cluster design and individual landscaping at each individual house. As with any residential development of this size, some disturbance will result in irreversible losses of vegetative cover. However, the mitigation outlined above will reduce the impact of lost trees and other vegetation resulting in a small to moderate impact overall. Phasing of the land disturbance is recommended as this will control the amount of disturbance and prevent disturbance well in advance of actual house construction and final grading and landscaping. The regional impact of the phased land disturbance will be small. Access to the building sites will be restricted to access points established for this project. In addition the ares nearest to existing neighborhoods will be developed first which will reduce the impact to these neighborhoods to the first phase. Phasing of a project of this size is in compliance with the development goals of the Town. There have been public questions and concerns over length of time and the amount of land disturbance proposed. Mitigation of these concerns will result through phasing, clustering and conservation easement. Councilman Caimano-I have to ask you a question here. My question here is what with a question mark. What does that mean exactly? Mr. Martin-Mitigation of these concerns will result through phasing, clustering and conservation easements. The concern is over land disturbance. Councilman Caimano-Right. Mr. Martin-So that is mitigated the only way possible that has been suggested is number one through phasing. What I'm trying to say is that you won't have roads extending all the way out to the pointe area of this project well in advance of the houses being built. The disturbance for the roads will be in association with the houses being built. Councilman Caimano- Y our not saying that one phase will be completed and then other phase started? Mr. Martin-To some extent, yes. Councilman Monahan-You have to Jim, what is it under the regulation? Mr. Martin-There is a certain number of homes so that's through phasing. Clustering, obviously mitigates the land disturbance through small areas being disturbed and retaining open space the conservation easement is much the same. Councilman Monahan-Now, I have to ask Mike something. Rereading back through some of your material it seems to me that you were also going to put conditions on the homeowners at least in some of these areas and I'm not talking about the buffer zone, I'm just talking about the regular lot that they couldn't cut trees over a certain size it seems to me I read that is some of your material I was reading back? Mr. Martin-I thought that was language as part of the conservation easement? Mr. O'Connor-That in the conservation easement. Councilman Monahan-But, isn't this to do with the regular lot not the part that's in the buffer zone. Mr. O'Connor-It had only to do with the portion of the lot that would be in the buffer zone. Councilman Tucker-The buffer zone at the top of the bluff? Mr. Oppenheim-Fifty feet in from the edge of the bluff. Mr. Martin-In conclusion, the potential large impact related to the land disturbance occurring over several phases spanning five to seven years is a preferred approach to development as it will restrict the disturbance to smaller areas. In addition the cluster design and conservation easements will further restrict disturbed areas. With these forms of mitigation as part of the project, the potential impact is not important. That concluded the first one which was the impact on land. Supervisor Brandt-Any questions on that? Councilman Monahan-I don't know if that answers Jim, this is why I was trying to follow this. Construction will continue for more than one year or involve more than one phase or stage. They seem to think that it makes a big impact as I read that question. I don't know how we said that it doesn't make a big impact. Your saying the fact that it's phasing it's going to mitigate it and they are almost saying that it makes the impact. Mr. Martin-From a duration standpoint there is an impact. It's going to occur over a longer period of time there is no question about that and it maybe even longer than the estimate of the developer that's subject to market demand. I think that's the focus of that question is the duration of the time. The point I was trying to make by taking smaller pieces is that we're not doing the whole site all at once. Mr. Oppenheim-Just so we know can we get an opinion of the Board on each item as we go through? Supervisor Brandt -Sure we can. Councilman Monahan-I don't want to do it until we look at the overall. That's the trouble you've got to look at a SEQRA as an overall type of a thing. Councilman Caimano-Let's finish it up. Mr. Martin-2. The proposed action will affect surface or groundwater... Councilman Monahan-Jim, excuse me. I didn't see you touch this. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site which is the bluffs and according to your staff notes it was also the wetlands. The applicant didn't agree with you, but I agree with your staff notes that the wetlands are important. Mr. Martin-I had that indicated as a small to moderate impact that's why I didn't mention it. Councilman Monahan-We had it marked under our mitigation thing and your not mentioning it. Mr. Martin-In terms of the disturbance to the land, okay? Councilman Caimano-Go on to your next one. Councilman Monahan-But, I think that is something that has to get stuck in. Mr. Martin-The proposed action will affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity through; the use of water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day, and each residence will be served by individual septic systems rather than a municipal sewer system. The project after completion of the proposed 163 dwellings is projected to require 72,0000 gallons of water per day. The project will be serviced by the municipal water system. The director of the water department has indicated the available capacity exists to meet the projected demand of 72,0000 gallons per day. The project is not within or near a municipal sewer district. Therefore, wastewater from the dwellings will be handled through on site, individual septic systems. An associated issue is that the soils throughout the site have shown to have excessively high percolation rates for conventional septic systems. To address this issue and to mitigate the potential environmental impact the developer has proposed to modify the soils in the areas of the leach beds in order to establish an acceptable percolation rate. Such an approach is subject to approval by permit from the New York State Department of Health. It should be noted there also, DEC. Councilman Monahan-I think we have to have someplace in there Jim as we did in Inspiration Park that when the soils have changed that an engineer has to sign that those new soils meet the requirement. Also going over the applicants information where it says, projected demand of water was 72,000 gallons per day. That was an average they said the maximum could go up to 144,000. Should we note there that they are going to have to get a waiver from the Dept. of Health for their septic systems the fact that it's over 49 lots which probably would come in your next paragraph I think. Mr. Martin-Okay. In terms of probability, the project at build out will exceed a demand level of 20,000 GPD. In terms of wastewater, there are no plans to establish municipal sewer service in the area of this project. Therefore, individual, on site treatment will be needed. The duration of the impact from the stand point of provision of water will be permanent. The impact of the wastewater treatment will also be permanent unless at some future date municipal sewer service were to extend to the project area. Such extension is unlikely in the foreseeable future. The irreversibility of these potential impacts is low. However, there are no identifiable resource which will be lost as a result of the proposed impacts. Councilman Caimano-Can I ask you a question? Mr. Martin-Yeah. Councilman Caimano-I want to go back to that first sentence. How could the irreversibility of this potential impact be low when in fact they are permanent. Mr. Martin-What I'm saying it's unlikely to be reversed. Your not going to be able to reverse it. Whatever impact does result you won't want to reverse it. Councilman Caimano- Y our not going to want to reverse it. Your not going to want to take the septic systems out and that kind of stuff that's what your saying. Mr. Martin-Yeah. It's going to be very difficult to reverse it. However, there are no identifiable resources which will be lost as a result of the proposed impacts. Water is a replenishing resource. This is especially true for the Town as the source of water for the Town water plant is the Hudson River. The individual septic system will not impact resources to the point that any will be permanently lost. The systems, depending on individual maintenance practices, may require replacement. The impact on water and the impact of wastewater will be controlled by the limitation on the size of the project. The proposed project will be limited to 163 dwellings. This will serve to ultimately limit the water used by the residences of the project after build out is achieved. Such a limitation will also serve to limit the amount of wastewater resulting from the project. Mr. O'Connor-So you probably focus on that hasn't everybody said that the proposed project will be limited to a maximum of 163? Supervisor Caimano- That's right. Mr. O'Connor-Because basically what we have agreed to is that we will show from an engineering point of view that the land will sustain whatever is proposed and that's what we will get approval for from the Planning Board not a 163. Supervisor Brandt-That addresses the concern I mentioned which is groundwater. Mr. O'Connor-Yes. Supervisor Brandt-Because that is review by DEC and the Department of Health. Mr. O'Connor-If we can't show we can construct systems for drainage and for septic that are satisfactory to the Town engineer, Department of Health, DEC, then we're not entitled to build a unit to go to those systems. Your not necessarily approving a 163 units here your saying the maximum density is a 163. Councilman Monahan-Jim, I think your going to have to put that language in. They are going to have to prove that the soil can support that capacity so you have to put that kind of language in. Mr. O'Connor-1 think it's an important part in offer of mitigation by the developer. Councilman Caimano-Let me go a little far a field here and you may not even want to answer me. Do you have some bench mark numbers as far as build out is concerned? Would you be willing to limit yourself to the 120 units? Mr. Oppenheim-For this project, no. Just as your saying you have to look at the whole. If you look at the whole for all the things that we've been able to include here from the open space to the reconfigured road network which I think is a benefit that's been getting overlooked here the project does not work. Councilman Caimano-Okay. I just wanted to know. Mr. Martin-The regional consequence of the impact lied primarily with water usage. The Town's water plant under its current configuration has a set capacity. The cumulative affect of this project as well as future development will serve to utilize available capacity. The Town is already actively considering expansion of the plant to meet projected levels of demand. The regional consequence of the wastewater impact will be minimal providing that the individual septic systems are installed according to N.Y.S. D.O.H. standards and specifications. Compliance with these standards will be assured through inspection by the Town Building Department of each system at the point of installation. Councilman Monahan-I have a problem with that. I don't think our Town Building Department has that expertise. Again, that has to be an engineer because the soils being brought in and stuff that certifies that these are going to work. Supervisor Brandt-That's been agreed to hasn't it? Councilman Monahan-But, that's why I want Jim to change that. Supervisor Brandt-That should be shown then. Mr. Martin-It has been the policy of the Town as stated in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (p.43) that whenever possible a proposed development or project be serviced by municipal water and/or municipal sewer. The developer is in compliance with this policy. There has been public objection expressed over the capacity of the soils on the site to accept wastewater from the proposed 163 dwellings. The objections have related to the proximity of the leach beds to the Hudson River and Clendon Brook. Councilman Monahan-I think also the quality of the soils. Mr. Martin-In conclusion, the Water Department through written correspondence from the Director has confirmed that available capacity exists to meet the water demands of the project even at build out. We should say average, right Betty? Councilman Monahan-I would think so. Mr. Martin-In terms of wastewater disposal, the proposed modified septic systems which will require N.Y.S. D.O.H. approval and permitting will mitigate the impact of the wastewater from the individual dwellings to the point where such impact is considered to be small to moderate. Given the availability of water to the projected demand and proposed mitigation for the individual septic systems the potential impact on surface and/or groundwater is considered to be not important. Councilman Monahan-I don't think you can say that because you don't know what the disturbance putting these houses in putting so much of it under roof and all that kind of stuff. I mean your just saying the septic systems are, but there are a lot of other things that can affect groundwater quality and I don't see how we can say that. Councilman Caimano-There are two things that are said in here. One you indicate D.O.H. approval in permitting will mitigate the impact of the wastewater from the individual dwellings to the point where such impact is considered to small too moderate. Mr. Martin-I was going to point that out that when I get through with this it's something the Board would have to consider that changes your response to that particular question I don't know if you want to do that. Councilman Caimano- Y ou can't then follow it up and say it's not important because it is in fact it may be one of the most important things in there. Mr. Martin-If that remains to be the response then a positive declaration I think is appropriate. Councilman Monahan-It says propose action would use water in excess of 20,0000 gallons per day they don't give you any choice you got to make that an impact. Mr. O'Connor-The problem with what you have is some thresholds that your given and those are simply thresholds to look at and consider what the impact of those thresholds is. If you use a million gallons a day, but you properly treat it before it goes back into the groundwater that is not something that would activate the need for an EIS. The quantity that you have doesn't simply say, then all you would need is a computer. To say every project that's going to have ground water or water usage in excess of X gallons a day your going to have an EIS and that's not what any of the literature says. Attorney Dusek-I think that's a fair statement by council. I think the bottom line here again is that it's an element that the Board has to consider in conjunction with a lot of things. Even the things that were in Part II they were only examples of things that you have to consider. As you evaluate this you have to consider the location, the amount of water going in, all of the criteria has to be evaluated not just one eliminate of it. Mike is right to the extent that he says you know, if it's over 20,000 EIS under 20,000 no EIS. But, I think you have to evaluate the big picture take a look at it. Councilman Monahan-The other thing as I said it isn't just the amount of water that you use or get rid of that affects your groundwater it's the other things your doing on that land that also affect your groundwater and the quality of it. You know we talk about insecticides and pesticides and I do notice that in Part I they said there would be no insecticides and pesticides used. I'm assuming they are just referring to under construction. I don't know if they are talking for the landowners or not maybe that was in the written material, I can't tell you until I find it again. But, you know the minute you start using that kind of stuff your going to affect your groundwater. I don't think you can just say that it's not going to affect the groundwater and that we mitigated everything. Mr. O'Connor-1 didn't know a rule or regulation, I guess this is my problem where you cannot use insecticides or pesticides in the Town of Queensbury. I say that seriously there are some places that use them extensively. Some of those places tell you not to pick up the little white objects in your hand the day after they use them. We've said we will not use them in the areas of the bluff or the buffer. I don't think that this development is any different that. If you take a look at the distances of the rest of the development beyond those areas your well beyond most setbacks. Councilman Monahan-Measured not on a slant, but measured direct up as you should measure what's the closet development your going to have to the Hudson River? Mr. Sutherland-I don't want to guess at that, I can scale it off for you it's well in excess of 150' feet. Councilman Monahan-I believe there is some place or some place I read that you can't do anything within 500' feet in development of the Hudson River. I'll have to find that again, but I did find that. Mr. Martin-I don't know I know that standards for the Park Commission are 200' feet at the lake in terms of septic systems located next to the lake a separation distance of 200' feet that's pretty stringent it's the most that I've ever heard. Councilman Monahan-I think I have some notes some place on it. I want to reread that part and make sure I interpreted correctly. Mr. Martin-Okay, proceeding on. The proposed action will affect resources as the proposed land uses or project components are different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use pattern, whether man-made or natural. The proposed PUD will cover an area 208.2 acres. The entire area is open and vacant with substantial river frontage along the southern and eastern boundary. A substantial portion of the river front area is identified as an areas of scenic value on the scenic resource map of the Town. The property immediately across the river is also substantially undeveloped. The project site is further bounded by vacant property to the west and a single family neighborhood to the north. Upon completion the project will have developed 101.2 acres leaving 107 acres of open space. The primary use will be 123 single family detached homes on lots ranging from 1/3 acre to 3 acres in size. Also proposed at the site will be 40 dwellings in a townhouse configuration. The open space will be owned by a homeowner's association and will be protected through a conservation easement mutually enforced by the association and Town. A buffer area will also be provided fifty (50) feet inland from the edge of the bluff. Included in this easement will be environmentally sensitive areas such as the bluff along the river shore. The aesthetic resource of the natural untouched open space will be impacted by the proposed development. This impact will be permanent in nature with the installation of infrastructure and the proposed dwelling units. Councilman Caimano-I think you should read that paragraph again because that hits at the heart of what my problem is. Councilman Monahan-Yeah, one of them. Councilman Caimano-Read it again. Mr. Martin-The aesthetic resource of the natural untouched open space will be impacted by the proposed development. This impact will be permanent in nature with the installation of infrastructure and the proposed dwelling units. Councilman Caimano-And that's the basis of my fight. Mr. Oppenheim-What's the alternative. Councilman Caimano- I'm not saying your project is wrong. I'm just saying that the basis of my concern that's where my concern lies. Mr. O'Connor-1 understand your concern, but I'll ask you directly what will an EIS do to that concern? Councilman Caimano-Ifyour talking about belt and suspenders it will give me belt and suspenders that's what it will do. Attorney Dusek-The other thing it will do Mike, of course, it will lists alternatives. Mr. O'Connor-There is a no action alterative. Attorney Dusek-Well in addition to the no action there are other alternatives that the EIS would explore. Councilman Monahan-What this would be like is a regular subdivision clustered and etc. Councilman Caimano-All I want you to do is know that the paragraph right there is at the heart of my questioning. Mr. Oppenheim-How is this site when you read that paragraph any different than any other development? I mean, if you read that paragraph, yes I agree with what your saying if you read it the natural open space will change with housing. Councilman Caimano-Right. Mr. Oppenheim-But, isn't that true with any housing project? Councilman Caimano-Yes it is in our Town it's especially true because we happen to live up in this so called pristine neighborhood. However, as I said before we're opening up an area that once it's opened it will go and I want to make sure it's done right. I'm talking about the bluff area of the river once we open it, pardon me? Mr. Sutherland-All the sensitive on this side are closed the wetlands, bluffs. Councilman Caimano-We'll see. I mean that's all I can say. Supervisor Brandt-It has been addressed they we're precluded from development. Councilman Caimano- There are areas that are precluded from the development that's correct. Mr. O'Connor-There is a triangular section that could be included which would give you another 20 units. There is a triangular piece next to the Water Department then your talking about 140 going to 163 that's a paper transaction. I don't understand the desire for the comfort level. That was left out on purpose because of the intention that the Town might want that area for a public utility area. I don't think including that in the density including it within boundaries of the PUD although it confuses the issues right now, but in honesty would change at all density requirements except to give us more density. Then you could say part of the area was going to be devoted to perhaps potential Town utilities. If you take a look at the overall picture which is what I think your trying to do in all honesty a real good faith effort here has been made to met and mitigate each and every potential impact from a lot of different points of view. But, I'm not trying to beg the question let's go ahead. Mr. Martin-The impact of the aesthetic resources are irreversible given the permanent nature of the development. However the amount of open space, and the conservation easements and the 50' buffer area provided in the project proposal provide substantial and enforceable control on the magnitude of aesthetic impact. The regional consequence of the action on aesthetic resources are diminished by the existing single family neighborhood to the north of the project area. The initial phase of development which encompasses the area closet to this neighborhood will involve construction of homes of similar style and character to what exists within the neighborhood. Upper end, or luxury homes will be constructed on the larger lots along the pointe. This approach will provide a visual transition through the project. Such a design approach will also provide the largest lots and open spaces near the areas of greatest environmental concern (i.e. the bluffs, and Clendon Brook). The Comprehensive Land Use Plan of the Town states that rural character of Queensbury needs to be maintained through preservation of scenic vistas, natural mountain sides and green areas (p. 53-E. 1.). The plan further states that the goals related to cultural resources include; protection, preservation and enhancement of the natural and scenic beauty of Queensbury; and enhancement and beautification of developed areas. (pg. 58-4) The plan goes on to state the following strategies for achieving these goals; require special design consideration when projects are proposed in scenic resource areas; require the provision of green space and protection of existing trees; and limit the area which can be clear cut without permit. Therefore, any development proposed for these scenic areas must be adequately controlled to preserve the scenic value of the aesthetic resources. Given the mitigation measures proposed the project is in compliance with the goals and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. The conservation easement protecting the open space including the bluff, the 50' buffer along the bluff, the preservation of 51 % of the project area an open space are elements of the project which are in specific compliance with the strategy of the land use plan. The public record from the various public hearings and meetings held in regards to this project clearly indicate that there are concerns for the aesthetic resources at the site and objections to the potential impact of this development have been stated. In conclusion, adequate mitigation measures have been imposed on this project to assure preservation of the aesthetic resources. The conservation easement allows limited access to the open spaces and restricts cutting of trees to a certain size. The bluff area will be included in the easement, therefore, the visual resource of the bluff will be protected. FurtlIermore, the conservation easement will be mutually enforceable by the homeowner's association and the Town. The visual character along the bluff will be further preserved by the addition of a fifty (50) foot buffer area extended inland from the edge of the bluff. The presence of the buffer area will reduce the visual impact of the homes to be located along the pointe. Based on the review of the considerations as well as the mitigation measure.... Councilman Monahan-Jim aren't you really taking something for granted there, because I still maintain. If people own that fifty (50) buffer your not going to stop them cutting a tree? Mr. Martin-What I was trying to say is the fact that the house is setback that much farther from the edge of the bluff that being able to see it from the river will be reduced. Councilman Monahan-Not if they cut all the trees up there. We have a case of it right up on Lockhart Mountain who cut trees where they were not suppose to cut it you can see that place from the lake you can see it from all over. Mr. Martin-My interest in mentioning the area.... Councilman Monahan-I will also mention Top of the World where DEC was suppose to have some control over that and you know how you can see that from the lake now. Supervisor Brandt-Remember we have a conservation easement. Councilman Monahan-But, they don't work Mike. Supervisor Brandt-Wait a minute, wait a minute. We have a conservation easement where under that easement we can force the person to replant at their expense we can force them to do that. We didn't have that at Top of the World and DEC didn't have that it's unique here. Councilman Monahan-And your going to take them to court for every tree that's cut. Supervisor Brandt -Your danm right that's what this Town is saying it's going to do. If it's going to have a conservation easement then it's going to enforce it and I think that's a given. If your not going to do that then we better get out of conservation. Mr. Martin-I wasn't mentioning that so much from the standpoint of the tree issue. The house will be 50' foot further back and since the edge of the bluff as we defined it as the highest typographical point on the bluff if your looking up from the river the further the house is setback the less likely your going to be able to see it that's even if the whole 50' foot area is cleared of trees. Councilman Caimano-Mike do you have something to say? Mr. O'Connor-1 wonder what alternative you suggest. I mean short of going like the Supreme Court has done on the island of Palms in South Carolina where they said if your not going to allow people to use their property for any reasonable benefit then you should pay them for it, I don't know what else you suggest. We've all criticized the AP A for the restrictions they have put upon properties this is an attempt by a developer to be reasonable. I don't know what else you suggest what is an EIS again going to suggest different than what we talked about? Councilman Monahan-I'm just saying be realistic in the statements we're making Mike that's all I'm saying. Mr. Oppenheim-We are giving the Town the ability here. We've said we will work with whatever mechanism that you think that we need to put in place to protect the trees within that fifty (50) setback. We'll do whatever makes sense for everybody here, I don't think there is anymore reasonable that we can be on that standard do you have any other suggestions? Councilman Caimano- We're not saying your not reasonable. What Betty is saying the reality of the situation is and Mike you know this as well as we do since you work in this Town is that we have a book that thick on codes in our Town. We have violations allover the Town we simply don't have people to go around and beat up other people to make sure that they keep the violations down. Mr. O'Connor-1 think you've seen enough interest in this particular area if that interest continues you are going to have people that are going to be beating up on other people. I also think if you really look at the land development Nick the conservation easement which we have offered is the state of art protection that municipalities state and other agencies are taking as being the tool to use. I don't have an alternative except for buying it and putting it in forever wild trust and then you've got a trespass. Councilman Caimano- To answer your question the only thing an EIS will do for me is that it gives me that one more layer of decision making. Councilman Monahan-Or alternatives that you can look at iliat we haven't thought of. Councilman Caimano- That's the only thing. Mr. O'Connor-We do the EIS. Councilman Monahan-We'll have it reviewed. Mr. O'Connor-We do the EIS we make the suggestions of alternatives. I sit here and I honestly don't have another alternative better than the conservation easement after three to six months of working on this thing for protection of those bluffs and buffer areas. Councilman Monahan-But, I think what we're saying is the consultant may have a better alternative. Supervisor Brandt-Okay, let's keep going. Mr. Martin-Based on the review of the considerations as well as the mitigation measures listed above the impact of the proposed development is determined to be small to moderate. Therefore, the importance of the impact as it relates to the setting in and around the project site is reduced due to the mitigative measures noted above. Again, you may want to strike the reference small to moderate. Councilman Monahan-I just don't know if I agree with that sentence frankly. Mr. O'Connor-On that issue do you have a preference to have a consultant look at it? If that's the major concern the aesthetic preservation of the bluff area with the.... Councilman Caimano- The two things would be the aesthetic as well as the soil nature and what it will hold of the bluff area. If I had to stand up and say that's what I would want out of it that's what I would want and I think most other people would too. Councilman Monahan-And the drainage pattern. Councilman Caimano- The groundwater. Councilman Monahan-The drainage pattern. Councilman Caimano-On the bluff. Councilman Monahan-I'm talking about on the whole side, I'm concerned about the groundwater. Jim have you walked that site and seen the ravines in it and everything? Councilman Caimano- The bluff as far as the aesthetics is concerned that would go along ways. Mr. O'Connor-1 don't have a problem with that to be honest with you. Councilman Goetz-Good. Mr. O'Connor-Is that's something that would satisfy your concerns and I don't know how we go about doing that is what I'm asking short of going for a one year procedural process. Councilman Monahan-Mike why don't we get through this whole thing and then we can talk about that. Supervisor Brandt-Let's get it to a vote and find out where we are. Mr. Martin-The proposed action will affect the character of the existing community through a change in the density of land use. The project site, which consists of 208.2 acres, is zoned both suburban residential - one acre (SR-IA) and waterfront residential - three acre (WR-3A). If subdivided under the current zoning and in conformance with the land subdivision regulations the resulting density would total 120 dwellings. the PUD proposed according to the land use intensity regulations of the Town zoning code (Section 179-54) qualified for a density of 170 dwellings. The actual proposal is for 163 dwellings. Councilman Monahan-Okay. This is where I think you have to mention that if this were developed according to a standard subdivision that could be clustered only 120 units would be allowed. I think that statement has to go in there. Mr. Martin-If subdivided under the current zoning and in conformance with the land subdivision regulations the resulting density... Councilman Monahan-I'm sorry Jim, I skipped that whole sentence, I beg your pardon. Mr. Martin-Also associated with the request for PUD designation is a proposed modification of the existing Southern Exposure subdivision. The Southern Exposure subdivision currently contains 36 building lots, two of which are already built upon. The modification.... Councilman Monahan-If approved. Mr. Martin-The modification if approved by the Planning Board would reduce the number of lots from 36 to 28 resulting in a decrease of 8 lots. The impact of the density from the Southern Exposure subdivision on the surrounding neighborhood will be further reduced by elimination of ingress and egress from the subdivision via Sherman Island Road. Councilman Monahan-Wait a minute I want to think about that. It reduces the traffic impact it has nothing to do with the density. Councilman Caimano-It has nothing to do with the density of the houses. Councilman Monahan-It has nothing to do with the density Jim, that sentence should come out of there. Mr. Martin-Okay. The whole last sentence I will strike. Supervisor Brandt-Doesn't it now go in on Sherman Island Road? Councilman Tucker-It does right now. Councilman Monahan-But, it's not density this is density of housing. Mr. O'Connor-The impact of the density is what the sentence says. Supervisor Brandt-Right. Mr. O'Connor-The impact of potential traffic. Councilman Monahan-But, that belongs under a traffic kind of thing not under a density. Councilman Caimano- That wasn't what I was looking at. I thought they were talking about density. Mr. O'Connor-Doesn't that affect the character of the existing neighborhood how much traffic you put through it. Supervisor Brandt-That's an accurate statement. Councilman Caimano-It may affect the character and it may affect the traffic, but it doesn't change the density. Mr. O'Connor-It doesn't say it changes the density. Councilman Monahan-Where is it Jim? Right in the beginning is the impact of land. Supervisor Brandt-Let's get this thing to a vote lets move it along. Councilman Monahan-We still have to make sure we do the thing in the rest place. The sentence you just read should go in this impact on transportation which was item 14. Mr. Martin-I'm going to strike it completely. The probability of the increase in density is termed as likely. The build out of the housing project will be reliant upon market demand. It is assumed that the time frame of five to seven years for build out is reasonable. The duration of the impact will be of a permanent nature. Once the houses are built and established minor fluctuations may occur with changes in family sizes residing in each house as well as changes in ownership patterns. The density once established is irreversible. The impact of the density has been controlled first and foremost by the land use intensity regulations for PUD's as stated in the Town zoning code. Other factors, given the location and physical limitations of the site, have further controlled the density. For example, the location of five archaeologically sensitive areas at the site have resulted in a reduction in the number of building lots. Councilman Monahan-That's not true they want to move it to another area they didn't lose numbers. Mr. Martin-They were at 166 they lost 3 lots when the archeological sensitive... Councilman Monahan-Excuse me because I thought you said you if you could use those someplace else. Mr. Oppenheim-That was along the bluff. Mr. Martin-The areas will now be part of the conservation easement and clearly marked by the developer. The regional consequences of the increased density are minor. Through the review of this project, input from the water department, volunteer fire company, school superintendent and the N.Y.S. Department of Transportation has been received in the interest of assessing the impact on regional services offered by each respective group. Each have indicated that any resulting demand can be accommodated with existing facilities and equipment. The land use plan for the Town states that the goals for land use development include; locate lower density housing in areas without adequate water and sewer services to protect the Town's natural and cultural resources and values (p. 38). The plan goes on to state the strategy to achieve this goal is to reduce density in the environmentally sensitive areas and to consider increasing density in these areas once sewer and water services have been provided. Councilman Monahan-Jim, I don't agree with this. You raised the density because this is a PUD. I think the whole paragraph is a fallacious statement. Mr. Martin-That is simply restating what is already in the plan. Councilman Monahan-What I'm saying is this is a negative rather than a positive. Mr. Martin-That's true, but it's none the less still the plan and this is therefore then in conflict. Councilman Monahan- I think we have to state that in this respect we're not meeting the goals of the Master Plan. Mr. Martin-I raise it it's a relevant point. Councilman Monahan-I think you have to state that in this respect this does not meet the goals of the Master Plan. Supervisor Brandt-If the goals of the Master Plan are this then why do we have PUD legislation? Councilman Monahan-It says locate lower density housing in areas without adequate water and sewer services. That was the whole point to do the PUDs where there is water and sewer services. You remember at West Mountain we told you you were going to have to put in a sewer system you were going to have to hook to Glens Falls. Most all of Hiland is on the sewer all of Earltown is going to have to be on sewer. Mr. Martin-If you let me read on Betty, I think you'll see I've attempted... Supervisor Brandt -You'll also noticed those developments didn't happen. Mr. Martin-In terms for goals for housing the plan states that the rate of growth and the quality of growth should be controlled and that overall potential density across the Town should be reduced to protect the natural resources and maintain the quality oflife (p. 51). The purpose of the PUD Article is to provide flexible land use and design regulations (Section 179-51 A). The PUD section goes on to state that the objectives of the PUD Article are as follows: Maximize housing choice; provide more usable open space and recreation areas; preserve outstanding natural topography and geological features; efficiently use land; provide a development patter in harmony with land use intensity objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (Section 179-51 B (1) - (5)). Councilman Monahan-It also says you have to meet a community need. Mr. Martin-It wasn't enumerated there in that section. Councilman Monahan-We're saying we want to lower density. I guess this the whole point of what I'm having trouble with. We say we want to lower density in sensitive areas instead we've raised it so we've gone against our Master Plan. Supervisor Brandt - I didn't enact the PUD legislation, I think you were on that board. Councilman Monahan-Mike the PUD done properly is a good piece of legislation that's what I'm saying does this meet the requirements of a PUD. Supervisor Brandt-Where have you been for the last year why didn't you bring that up at the beginning? Councilman Monahan-Because frankly this thing has been by the time you keep getting all this material that changes and changes I've finally sat down for two weeks intensely studying this and trying to put this together these things now start to pop out. Mr. Martin-The project does diverge to a degree from the generally stated density goals and strategies of the land use plan. I was making that statement in compliance with the review as potential diversion from local needs and goals. However, the project has to fill the objectives of the Town's PUD Article. Elements of the project design have provided mitigation of the impact of the density. The specific elements are as follows; a reduction in building lots... Councilman Monahan-You can't use that it hasn't happened. Mr. Martin-Okay, I'll strike it. A proposed traffic pattern routing traffic away from the existing neighborhood along Sherman Island Road; maintenance of the three acre zoning along the pointe; larger lots (one acre, plus) along the remaining shore of the river; clustering of building lots throughout the site; open space (51 %) in excess of developed area (49%); a conservation easement providing enforceable restrictions on clearing and disturbance. Given these project design elements the divergence from the land use plan is minimal. Councilman Monahan-Jim you have larger lots (one acre, plus) along the remaining shore of the river. What was that originally zoning for that area along the remaining shore of the river? Mr. Martin-I believe it was a mix 3 acre and one acre, but primarily 3 acre along the shore. Councilman Monahan-I have some problems with it. Mr. Martin-Therefore, the impact of the density given the proposed measures of mitigation is small to moderate. Again, you might want to consider just removing that. Therefore, having assessed the importance of density as it relates to this particular project, the impact of density is not important enough to warrant further environmental review. Councilman Monahan-I don't agree with that. We haven't touched on the fact the public controversy is that suppose to be put in this statement Paul, I'm not sure about that? Attorney Dusek-No. Councilman Monahan-You haven't mentioned the Kamer Blue Butterfly and those kind of things. Supervisor Brandt-We took care of that. Councilman Monahan-He has to put it in his statement don't you? Mr. Martin-I thought it was only those listed as potentially large. Councilman Monahan-Okay. Attorney Dusek-One thing, I should just mention to the Board keep in mind that all of these documents are like tools for you. These are a tool to help you reach that final conclusion as to whether there is an adverse impact or not. Councilman Monahan-Jim your talking about the Master Plan the Hudson River is mentioned an awful lot of times through that Master Plan and what we should be doing along the Hudson River, I think we kind of picked and choosed. I don't know exactly what this means so I'm going to ask you. The following watersheds occur within the Town of Queensbury; Hudson River West, Hudson River East, are we saying this property here is watershed? Mr. Martin-I wouldn't think so. I didn't think it was in the watershed area. Councilman Monahan-I'm not talking about Glens Falls City watershed, I'm talking about a natural watershed. Supervisor Brandt-What's a watershed? If it rains everyday and it runs off isn't that a watershed? Mr. Martin-It's usually a source of drinking water. Councilman Monahan-16. Goals. Restore protect and enhance water quality and associated aquatic resources and streams in the Hudson River and critical shoreline areas associated with fish and wildlife habitat. 17. Policies. Protect restore and enhance streams wetland in the Hudson River and the corridors to which they flow so that the natural benefits derive therefrom can be enjoyed by the residents of Queensbury. Protect the health, safety and welfare of those who might be affected by the degradation of such stream, wetland river or corridor. Strategies. Develop standards and guidelines or erosion control measures to be used during and after all construction to minimize siltation of Queensbury streams, lakes, rivers, and wetlands. 18. Reduce density in aquifer recharge areas and areas of high soil percolation. It's probably a little late to bring this up, but Jim I will mention for the future that we do have on page 4, the list of plants that we feel are important to the Town of Queensbury in the Master Plan. Mr. Oppenheim-I think we see the direction that this is going. I want to note as the applicant, obviously we've been at this process a year. We all know that we all agonized over this spent a lot of time and there have been a number of changes made to this plan. We have come in on a PUD basis, yes we have looked for some additional densities. To make some of the changes that we feel are positive changes to the plan for the neighborhood specifically Sherman Island Road we secured two additional points of access. Obviously at this point as your looking at different alternatives we need to look at different alternatives. One of those alternatives is when we're going and referring so much to the as of right subdivision as the way to go from a Planning perspective which we don't agree with we don't think that serves anyone well. If you think of this and you throwaway all the laws and the framework here for a second and say, okay 120 is as of right they do have an additional 20 acres that they put aside to be able to work with the Town on a positive basis with the water company. If all of a sudden we put that land in you bring it up to a 140 units your looking at a 140 units verses a 163. A 140 units on a as of right basis, I believe you need two points of access you use Sherman Island Road in conjunction with Foothills Drive. You can't do what we've proposed to do in terms of a lot of things from an open space and land use perspective. I think, you know when you cut a lot of the stuff we've been through and you look at one verses the other, I think there is a lot of merit to some additional densities to be able to come up with some of the creative things, I felt have worked together on a positive basis to come to. I think it's important we all understand where this thing is gomg. Councilman Monahan-I think Alan what we would look at would be the density, groundwater, aesthetics and alternatives and then you make your choice. Councilman Monahan-Jim, I just want to say something else that we have not addressed either. That would be the impact on the adjoining neighborhoods, roads, during this whole construction time with the noise of the trucks, odors, etc. that also has an impact really. Councilman Goetz-I like to take the floor if possible and make a motion. I think we need to move this along. RESOLUTION REQUESTING FULL EIS ON HUDSON POINTE PUD RESOLUTION NO. 149,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan Councilman Goetz-Under the SEQRA law, I would like to move a positive declaration which would trigger the full EIS. The Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is lead agency will determine that the propose action may have a significant effect on the environment and a full environmental impact statement will be prepared. This will provide us with an outside engineer who can possibly come up with some suggestions of alternatives. The reason that I'm making this motion is that I feel that there is an impact on the land with land disturbance as the big factor. I think the propose action will affect the surface or groundwater and natural drainage patterns need to be defined. The proposed action will affect aesthetic resources as the propose land uses or project components are different from or in sharp contrast of current surrounding land use patterns. I think the big point is the aesthetic resource of the natural untouched open space will be impacted by the proposed development. The propose action will affect the character of the existing community through a change in the density of land use and the project does diverse to a degree from the generally stated density goals and strategies of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 1993, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano Noes: Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt Absent:None Discussion Held It was noted that each Board member would write out their concerns and present them to the applicant. A consultation between Planning Office, Town Attorney, Developers to be arranged. (Councilman Caimano left meeting) OPEN FORUM Mr. John Salvadore-Ask the Town Attorney to get an opinion from the Comptroller Office on the necessity for the event to be opened to the public regarding the Girls Basketball ad. Attorney Dusek-Noted he has checked into this and there is no problem in this area and is also aware of the constitutional issues that have been raised. Mr. Salvadore-Questioned the Board on the status of the Lake George Park Stormwater regulations? Mr. Martin-Noted he is awaiting direction from the Town Board. Also mentioned that there is a meeting that is going to be held on February 26th, at 1:00 p.m. An informal group on behalf of the Lake George Association for Zoning Administrators from the Lake George Basin are scheduled to meet on a regular basis. Mr. Salvadore-Regarding the stormwater regulations. If the Town does get involved in changing the code noted the position he has taken is that the Town needs to do an environmental impact statement on it. Attorney Dusek-Stated the Town hasn't issued any kind of a binding agreement or taken any binding action. Mr. Salvadore-Questioned the Board as to what mistakes have been made on the lake? Questioned Mr. Brandt's Guest Essay Survey that was in the paper regarding the termination of the Sheriffs Contract with Warren County. Supervisor Brandt-Noted the Town is terminating the contract. Last year it was $200,000 this year is $150,000. The threat by the County was that they would reduce police services. The Town went through long negotiations and are phasing it out without losing any police protection. No further action taken. On motion, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk Town of Queensbury