Loading...
1993-05-03 TOWN BOARD MEETING MAY 3,1993 7:00 P.M. MTG #33 RES. #266-274 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT MICHEL BRANDT -SUPERVISOR BETTY MONAHAN-COUNCILMAN NICK CAIMANO-COUNCILMAN PLINEY TUCKER-COUNCILMAN BOARD MEMBER ABSENT SUSAN GOETZ-COUNCILMAN TOWN ATTORNEY PAUL DUSEK TOWN OFFICIALS Jim Martin, PRESS: Moreau Sun PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY SUPERVISOR BRANDT Supervisor Brandt called meeting to order ... first item on our agenda is a public hearing on a zoning change. PUBLIC HEARING - AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE DESTINATION OF PROPERTY FOR RONALD L. NEWELL & GARFIELD RAYMOND NOTICE SHOWN 7:01 P.M. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We have to establish first that proper notice was made. Okay, and I'm going to open the public hearing. Is there someone here who wants to address the Board on behalf of the property owner? Okay, so I'm opening it to the public, if there's any comment on this whatsoever, now is your time. Come on up. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mike, excuse me but wouldn't it be a good idea if Jim put up the map so can people can see it? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. JIM MARTIN-Yea, I don't have, the one's they submitted weren't that good. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, put up whatever you've got. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Alright, I've just got the one that shows the wetlands. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-You get to sit down and say whatever you would like. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Jim, here's a better map I think. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I don't know if this is, no I think this, I think this is the trailer court. No, can't help you. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Bay Road side here, Country Club here. The dotted lines indicate the wetlands and the bold line indicates the property boundary. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Jim, excuse me, when you said the wetlands, the wetlands are between that line and the border, right? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-It goes right down the center of the property like this and they go over off like that. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-You don't care if we see it. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Oh, I'm sorry, I'm trying to get it at a good angle. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Roughly, how many... EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-These were flagged by DEC last October. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So we've got a DEC wetland in there? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Right. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Of how many acres? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I would say take the proper, approximately half of the acreage, I would say probably six, seven acres, in that range. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Where's Country Club? Point out Country Club again. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-County Club Road here, Bay Road here. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Okay, I see it. ELIZABETH VALENTI-Good evening. Can you hear me? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Yes. MRS. V ALENTI-I want to make sure everybody is. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Would you give your name for the record, please? MRS. VALENTI-I'm Elizabeth Valenti, I live on Sweet Road, I also own four lots on the Country Club Road that are still yet undeveloped, as well as one that I did build on besides my own home. Therefore I also, represent Valenti Builders in this as well. We were at the last Zoning meeting where this first came up. Mr. Brandt, as you can see by one suggestion I made to you when you had asked about any kind of improvements you can make in the approval process, a good map would help considerably. This is better than what we saw anyway. I basically am here to say I'm opposed to the rezoning of the property that fronts on the Country Club Road to multi dwelling. Originally, I was not opposed to it. I definitely don't see any problem with the Bay side, only because I really think office buildings are appropriate, I don't see any problem with that. Since the Zoning Board meeting and considering what when on at the Zoning Board meeting, a couple of things have happened. I've also had the opportunity to check with a couple of people who served on this Town Board during the moratorium that lasted eighteen months when the entire Town was looked at and rezoned. I wanted to make sure that indeed perhaps that property had been incorrectly zoned, at the time somebody missed something or, you know, for whatever reason why had it been zoned single family versus multi. I was told by two people that requested that I don't mention their names but they're good authority, I assure you, that a mistake was not made on that property. That it was zoned single family residential one acre because of the configuration of the land, the soils. There's only one spot that really is high and dry, the rest is fairly wet. I'm pretty familiar with the soils there and I know that it is difficult, I really don't think that multi dwelling would serve any constructive purpose in there and I don't really think the soils could support it. I think single family residential is more appropriate. There are no multi dwellings in our neighborhood. We are constantly fighting to keep it a residential neighborhood because unfortunately under your multi zoning listing there, classification, you have alot of sub classes I guess that allow alot of other things and we've been battling with this for years, the neighbors in the area because it seems like there's always a commercial venue trying to get in there under health related facility or some such thing. Also, we've also had the privilege of, for the past six months looking at a test hole. It sort of looks like a foundation hole but since a building permit was never issued, we were told at the Zoning meeting that this is a test hole. This is a situated on the property that we're talking about tonight. That hole has been dug and has been sitting there for the entire Winter. I have supplied you with some photos this evening that were taken Saturday. It is not a liability to the people who own this property, but to the Town as well. If a child should ever fall in there, it's a virtual swimming pool. I really feel that it's fantastic to me, that anyone would ask for any consideration from a Town Board who obviously has no consideration for the Town rules and regulations as far as getting a building permit, let alone the neighbors or the neighborhood that they're requesting to do anything in. I really think, like I said, that single family is appropriate. I would like to see you leave it that way, if possible. And I would also for the record like to ask Mr. Caimano, cause I have to ask you this question, if you indeed have any knowledge of plans for a horse riding stable to being go in on that property? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No, I'm glad you asked me that. There was at one time a chance that, that would happen and when that discussion was on the table, I abstained from that because for obvious reasons, I know why you're asking the question. That is off the table completely, there are no serious considerations being given to it and that's why I'm sitting here right now. MRS. VALENTI-Okay, good I'm glad and I wanted to clarify that because this is what I'm saying about ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I asked about that today as a matter off act. MRS. VALENTI -Yea, sub classes and what could be going on and I really consider that to be a commercial venue in my opinion. So, like I said ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Actually, let me just tell you that it would, that probably would not have been so. It was going to be somebody's residence, that's not going to happen though. MRS. VALENTI -Yea, well I also heard though it was going to be several thousand square feet of indoor riding facility. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That I don't know anything about it but it's off the table anyway. MRS. VALENTI-Okay, well anyway like I said, I really don't feel there's any hardship here. I really feel that single family lots are very appropriate and I really don't see any hardship, there is no real need for multi. I don't think we're under multi in this Town, we have plenty and like I said, I'd like to see the neighborhood stay the way it is. Thank you. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mrs. Valenti, in the pictures that you took a road shows, is that Bay Road? MRS. VALENTI-No, that is Country Club Road. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's Country Club Road. MRS. VALENTI-That is almost directly across from my corner there at Sweet Road and the Valastro's have a house for sale right now that they have this sitting there and I asked Jim Martin a couple of weeks ago about it. I would really like to know what happened with that because I really believe, I mean, what's good for the goose, is good for the gander and I can assure you if, as a builder, I did that, I know who would be breathing down by neck very quickly and this has been allowed to go on for months and I'd like to see the hole filled in as well. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Ron, we started and we have an open, we're open for comments on this rezoning and we're just, we started without you. I don't know if you have other maps. So far, Mrs. Valenti basically said that she's against the rezoning along Country Club Road, is that correct? MRS. VALENTI-Yes. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-And has criticized an open hole, pit which she submitted photographs about on the property, but I'm not sure where it is on the property. MR. RON NEWELL-I think that deals with the lot that fronts Country Club Road. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Why don't you come right up and put you on the record because it is a hearing. MR. NEWELL-Which I believe is this. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Do you want to identify yourselffor the record, Ron, please? MR. NEWELL-My name is Ron Newell, I own the property in question with Garfield Raymond. The lot I think that she's making reference to is not part of the current application, that's a separate lot which adjoins the Country Club Road. What we're talking about is the property that abuts the, let's refer to it as the Country Club Road lot, abuts it at the north, south westerly side and goes over to the Bay Road side. The application currently before you, I don't believe deals with the Country Club Road ... EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-My understanding was the application was frontage to frontage all the way through to, fronting on Country Club Road. If that's changed, it's news to me. MR. NEWELL-I thought that's what we talked about the last time we were here, correct me if I'm wrong. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-No. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We talked about it but I don't know of any revised application was ever put Ill. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-No, the Planning Board did say in their recommendation that they would like to see the Country Club Road side stay single family. That was part of the recommendation for approval to the Board but only under that condition. MR. NEWELL-And it's my understanding when we were here the last time, the clarification of the application, then we're only talking about Bay Road to the Country Club Road lot, not to Country Club itself, not to Country Club Road ... EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Do you have a tax map Ron? MR. NEWELL-All the maps we produced and submitted and I don't know if I have another one. There's two lots, one lot runs from Bay Road to the lot on Country Club Road and then there's that particular lot that runs from the Bay Road to the Country Club Road lot. This is one map we're dealing with. This property going all the way over to here, this is the Country Club Road lot, we drew the line here and I understand the ... there's some question as to the application. It's my understanding the application that we've currently got goes over to here, it does not deal with the Country Club Road lot. MR. GARFIELD RAYMOND-Does not include that. If you look at the, application refers to three, or actually two tax map numbers, the third one is not included in that which would be the back piece dealing with, it's a separate deed. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Why don't I go get the tax map. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Would you please? MR. RAYMOND-Because that was the discussion we had the last time... that was cleared up the last time we were here. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Come on in on the record, talk to us officially and tell us your name. MR. RAYMOND-Garfield Raymond, part of the application that's here pending before you. Last time we were here, that issue was raised and that was discussed. All we're dealing with is the, approximately thirty acres, it does not include the back lot which is adjacent to Country Club Road. That's a separate, separate parcel. That was by a separate deed. All we're dealing with is land that was transferred to us by John Wheeler, not by the La Rose, Howard La Rose. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Is that clear on the application? MR. RA YMOND-I believe that it was, I thought we cleared it up the last time. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I can't recall exactly what transpired the last time, but there are two index map, or tax map numbers referred to which Mr. Raymond has said that there were, there are a total of three. So if you left off the one, that would mean just the two are being proposed for rezoning which would not include the lot on Country Club. But Jim Martin's also going to check that on the tax maps that he'll bring over to you. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay. MR. RAYMOND-And further, further in some value, notice that the property we're dealing with is zoned as right now UR one acre, where as that one piece on Country Club Road is currently zoned as SFR twenty, I think or some ... ATTORNEY DUSEK-I don't know. MR. RAYMOND-It's a separate zoning. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-One acre, I think it's SFR one acre. MR. RAYMOND-One acre, so it's zoned, it's an entirely different zone and that's not what we're asking for. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Sir, while you're there, I've got a question for you. You have a hole dug over on Country Club Road. It's got four or five foot of water in it by the looks. Do you know what's going to happen with that thing? MR. RAYMOND-No, I don't. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Do you know, is it ... MR. RAYMOND-All that is, is a hole just to see what kind of water level that's going to be there, that's all. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-How long before you'll be filling it in? MR. RA YMOND-I don't know, I don't know what that has ... COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Because it's dangerous, there's water in there, a kid come along and you're liable, we're liable. MR. RA YMOND- W ell you're not liable. If there's any liability there, I'm liable, not you. I mean if there's a hole on my property, I can dig a hole anywhere I want to dig a hole. I don't see where that has anything to do with it. MR. NEWELL-If you wanted the hole filled as part of the, part of the application process, I'm sure we can, we can fill the hole if that's what you wanted to have done. I don't want that to be a stumbling block to this current application. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Right. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this while we're checking out the tax map information? We'll keep the floor open, anybody who wants to talk on it, come right up and talk to us. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Okay, the application listed 61-1-41.1, that would be this here, okay. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Alright, you're saying this here but you you've got to tell us what it's bounded by, Jim. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Yea, where it is. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Okay, 61-1-44, that's all this here, okay and it has ajug down off of Bay Road here, follow the line, this is the southern boundary which is the northern most boundary of the Woodbury Residential Development here. And then it proceeds over 61-17, it goes over to here and up and then this is the one that, this 1-17 is the one that fronts on Country Club, so that would have to be the stricken from any reference to a rezoning. ATTORNEY DUSEK-That has been left out of the paperwork so you're not including that. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-That's a one and a half acre lot that fronts on Country Club Road. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That's Country Club Road? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yea, if you look at your resolution, it does not include 17. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Okay. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Alright so its, 44 and 41.1 which is, would be this right here. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-What's that UR1A right above you? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-That is another lot that's, this is the lot that bounds it to the north which is a thirty acre lot under another ownership. But this is all, the UR1A refers to this area here, outlined in yellow. And then you have SFR1A down the side here on Country Club Road. And the Planning Board recommendation was specifically to leave this as SFR1A. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Right. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, but since that's not in the application and it's really not a consideration unless we want to ... EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-It's not in your, it's not in your resolution. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -In the resolution, okay. Mrs. Valenti, you were commenting about that, with that information do you want to make further comment? MRS. VALENTI-My understanding is that they had recommended that it remain one acre. I think the one and a half acre lot is where the hole is right now, is that what I understand? UNKNOWN-That's correct. MRS. VALENTI -Okay, that's where the hole is. Okay, and then if you see for a one and a half acre lot, what they did was obviously they want to access to the property from the Country Club Road. So if you look at the hole it's, for one and a half acres, it's awfully close to the house that's already there, that's pre- existing. So that they have access to get a road in and that's where I believe they want to rezone it to multi, so that they can put a road in to that area and build multi dwelling units in the back between ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea, that's what you're applying for, right? MRS. VALENTI-Right. MR. NEWELL-That's correct. MRS. VALENTI-Right, between Country Club, the wetlands and Bay Road. So, in other words ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-How deep is that lot facing or coming from Country Club to the land you're asking for rezoning? MR. RAYMOND-Depth wise? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea. MR. RA YMOND-I would say probably three hundred feet. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-In other words, what you're asking is ... MR. RAYMOND-About a little over two hundred feet. Actually more, take that back, about three hundred and fifty feet. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-There's three hundred and fifty feet between Country Club Road and the road you're, and the land you're asking to go multi family. MR. RA YMOND- That's correct. MRS. VALENTI-Right and I think that the Planning, I keep saying Zoning, I'm sorry, I think it was Planning Board. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yes, the Planning Board. MRS. VALENTI-Had recommended that it would, that it remain one acre zoning on the Country Club Road but after the meeting, I was told that one of the members especially didn't realize that even though the Country Club Road is zoned single family one acre, that the intention was still that the road, in other words, who cares about Country Club, you would access to the back and put multi's in the back. She thought in another words that there would be just single family residences across the Country Club Road when indeed, you know, there was a road going in and the multi's would go in through the rear. Like I said, since then I had a chance to talk to a couple of people who really felt that the ground can't permit it, you know, just wouldn't, just like I said, we have no problem with single family residential, we feel is perfectly appropriate. But multi's, anyone whose in the building business, knows multi's are in the basement right now worst then commercial building anyway. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-What if we had a restriction that would limit, or have no access off of Country Club Road? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Then what do you do with the land, you've got a wetland right through the middle of that, in effect, do you landlock it? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Y ou come in off of Bay. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-There's always access from Bay, but ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-You can't cross a wetland. MR. RA YMOND- Y ou can't do that, you're going to have a cross a designated wetland to get in there. I mean the whole purpose of splitting that up is for that reason. MRS. VALENTI -You can still put in an access road in but what I'm saying is make it even single family, cut however many lots are in there. There's no problem with single family lots. MR. RAYMOND-All of that stuff is site plan review. Whether or not an area is going to be subject to that type of development is going to be subject to site plan. I don't see where that's a problem. MRS. VALENTI-Other than zoning it to multi. MR. RAYMOND-Still is going to have to go through site plan on anything that's put in. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Anyone else that has input on this? MR. TIM BREWER-My name is Tim Brewer and I'm a member of the Planning Board and I think Mrs. Valenti is correct in saying what she's saying. I think our intention of our recommendation was to prevent an access from Country Club Road to go to multi family or commercial ventures on, in other words, if they cut a road through there, they only have to go back three hundred and fifty feet and they can put a commercial venture there and I think that's what we were trying to prevent them from doing by asking you to leave that residential. I don't know if ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That part wasn't clear in the resolution though. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Tim, wait a minute, do that again. MR. BREWER-What we were saying was, it was very confusing what we had in front of us because we had maps that were wrong and right down the line but we intended to do was to ask you to leave the land on the Country Club Road residential. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Now, are we talking about just that one lot where the cellar hole is or are we talking about more land? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, that whole group of lots. MR. BREWER-That whole group of lots so that they couldn't just cut a road through there and then put commercial ventures in that piece of property that would fall under that zoning. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-On the Country Club side? MR. BREWER-On the Country Club side because it is residential up and down Country Club Road and we didn't want to start a domino effect or somebody would put something commercial here and then next year somebody else comes in and go right down the line. I think that was the intent of our, of our recommendation to you. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Okay. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I'll just point out though, a MR5 zoning, the only remotely commercial use that's allowed is professional office and that has to be within a thousand feet of Bay Road. After that, it has to be residential. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-So that's not a consideration, so even if we rezone it as they ask, then they could not use this piece for commercial. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-The only commercial that would be allowed in MR5 is office within a thousand feet of Bay Road. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-But is that a thousand feet, that's ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Roughly Jim, where's a thousand feet back on that map, could you show us please? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-If that's three hundred .... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Are we back in the wetlands? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That's more than a thousand feet. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Are we back in the wetlands with a thousand feet? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea, a thousand feet would take you into the wetlands it would look to me ... EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Well, one inch on this map is two hundred feet so five inches back, you would probably in, I would say this area here. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-So from there to ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We're deep into the wetlands then? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I can tell you better on this one. One inch equals a hundred feet here so you would be probably ten inches off of Bay Road, you be in probably in this neighborhood here, yes. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-In other words, from there towards Country Club could not be commercial? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Right. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay so that ... EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-The wetland area is here. As a practical matter, the only land that doesn't have any development constraints is this area right here along Bay Road. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Towards Bay Road. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's fronting on Bay. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Right, plus then you have to have a hundred foot separation distances from the wetland so you're out into this area. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So actually the only thing that makes sensible to rezone perhaps is that part. You shouldn't even talk about rezoning wetlands or anything. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, I don't think the wetlands are an issue but the land to your left or towards Country Club, this would give them a right to do multi family dwellings, that's what they're really asking for. That's the application, isn't it? MR. NEWELL-It's basically all you can use it for. The statue clearly applies, your regulations clearly, actually fits this land setup because as a practical matter you can't do what these people are concerned about want to be done. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I think has a practical matter too, the other issue that we have to be concerned about if development was to occur, the reason why this area is so wet is because of the development that's occurred to the north and the development that's occurred here to the south with Woodbury, has really dumped the water off this area ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But Jim that's been wet for years, you know. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Well, I know but it's clearly impacted that. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, that may be. MR. NEWELL-That's a point I think you have to consider. When Woodbury put in their development, that area may have been wet before but the development itself aggravated the situation probably by fifty percent. So, you could say, well it's wet but we didn't create that problem. We didn't create the problem as it exists today. MR. DAVID KENNY-I guess I'd like to say something, I'm David Kenny, I own property in Queensbury. I've been to about three different Planning Board meetings and Zoning Board meetings in the last two months. We have MR5, whatever it is, right up the road here on Bay Road and I happened to be on the planning committee years ago when they rezoned that to MR5 because a multi family were wanted in Town. The man that owns the land has just come before the Zoning Board and got a variance so he could put single family in there saying MR, it wasn't, there was no call for MR5 and what he could sell things. My question is, this is one acre single family now, if we make it MR5, which if it is, fine I have no problem with that if you feel that way, then can they go back in a year before the Zoning Board and say now they can put instead of one house on an acre, four, five, eight houses on an acre because it's MR5, get a variance, just like the guy down here is doing now. He's putting a hundred and some houses on wetlands down here because we zoned it MR5 which allowed that density. Once it was rezoned to that, he said, well MR5 is no good for me because there's no, multi family isn't selling. I want to put single family in there now and I'll make them on eight thousand square foot lots rather than forty thousand square foot lots if it stayed at one acre. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And the impact on that land down there, it's going to be terrific. MR. KENNY-And the impact on that land. Now, something isn't adding up here because here I have a developer that develops all over the country saying multi family is not selling and right across the street you have somebody that want's it changed to multi family. There's, you know we gave this guy a variance, let him go back to single family, now across the street, we're going to say, let's go multi family. At least over here you have sewer, this property I don't believe does. MR. NEWELL-It will though. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-It will. MR. KENNY-But the question is, if there is even a variance granted, ifhe's so sure ofMR5, I don't believe he should come back and go before the Zoning Board in a year and say now I want it single family which is what took place right down here on Bay Road, right across the street. He's going for a hundred and something lots in there, single family homes and the neighbors are up in arms about it because it was zoned MR5 because we really felt that's what was needed in Queensbury and I still believe some multi family is needed in Queensbury. But then to change that zone and allow single family to go in there at that density, it wasn't the purpose of the Master Plan and you have to look into that. If there is a change then it should be stipulated that it can't be developed as single family five thousand square foot lots. Because that's what in turn can do. It doesn't have to go multi family because you're changing the zone. You're changing the zone from five thousand square foot, from one acre lots to five thousand square foot lots and that's what you have to be more, I think considered of what, what actually goes in there. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I got two comments on that. In terms of this changing to MR5, I think the driving force behind that and the applicant can correct me if I'm wrong, was just to get the office use on Bay Road. UNKNOWN-That's correct. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-So it's really not, the priority was not the multi family available on the back. In regards to the comment on the development across the street, I think limit, cutting the number of units by seventy-five percent, going from four, four units per acre down to one, is a significant reduction in the impact on the character of that area, what the infrastructure will bear and what the environment will bear. MR. KENNY-Oh, I don't disagree with that. I'mjust saying is, you have two and if they want MR5, they should have it along Bay Road corridor then. Why do they have to have MR5 in the back? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, I think that's a very good point. MR. KENNY - I mean, I think what you just said, I don't have any problem with making it MR5 along Bay Road. I mean it should be. But you're talking about ... EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Well, that was the motivation. MR. KENNY-Well then, if that's what they want, why does the whole lot have to be MR5 when I've been listening here for the last three or four months about MR5 with single ... that's with office buildings, you're talking about now? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. KENNY-But multi family homes are a hard sell in Queensbury is what I've been hearing and I don't know if it's true or not. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I don't know if it's true or not either. MR. KENNY-And when you rezone the back section that it allows them the same thing that the other developer is doing. Okay, fine we'll put the offices along the front and the back we'll go single family on eight thousand square foot lots. You're changing the whole concept of the Master Plan and I don't have a problem with that if that's, I would review the Master Plan and change the Master Plan then. Just don't ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT - I think in effect, that is happening because of the sewer that came through the whole area and the costs were so prohibited that ... MR. KENNY -But I don't believe sewers to this property and you know, I guess I have, I have a problem when you say, when you have one developer on one side of the street saying that, he's in the home business, builds homes all over the Country, MR5 is impossible to sell or multi family homes are impossible to sell in Queensbury. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -But that's a market thing, I don't know why we care. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That's his problem. That's really not germane to the situation. Everybody has, the old story, everybody has a right to go broke. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, I think what Dave is saying, everybody's asking us to flip flop ... MR. KENNY-Well if he's proving a hardship saying, I need to have multi family... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Flip flop our zoning according to the market and yet, one side of the road says the markets one way and the other side says the other way. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Yea but that's ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Two different people judging the market. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But our zoning, our zoning shouldn't be zoning, our zoning should be according to the character of the land. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Well, let me just say this that going back to something that really is germane here as far as I'm concerned and that's what Harlicker says about, in his analysis of this whole thing, it really hinders around number three in his analysis which says that the site contains a large wetland area and the wetland encompasses, I'm quoting here now, the wetland encompasses a great deal of the site and therefore restricts development of the site to the perimeter areas. The wetland was also one of the principal considerations when the property was zoned URl acre. The more intense uses allowed in MR5 zone increases the probability that development could have a serious impact on the wetlands. MR. KENNY -Correct. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I got to tell you that we come to a SEQRA review on this thing and that's, it's going to hinge on that, for me it's going to hinge on that quotation. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Absolutely. MR. KENNY-But I guess that, you know the land along Bay Road, I don't see a problem going MR5 because that is, it looks like it's planned to go offices all along Bay Road. I don't think there should be a problem with that. I think the problem was more with the land closer to Country Club Road on the other side of the wetlands and that's where I would say there should be some more serious thought and if their intent was to get what Jim says, the Bay Road corridor zoned for office space, I think they should stick to that and just have that rezoned. But the back land when we looked at on the Master Plan, we felt that it was with the wetlands there, MR5 would be too heavily densely populated for that particular piece of property. Not to say it can't be changed. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Okay. MR. KENNY-But that's ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- The question, do you have a definitive plan as to what you're going to do or is it just a kind of a broad brush plan? MR. NEWELL-Well, we really haven't been able to do much with the property the way it's currently is zoned. It was rezoned from what it was to begin with, we tried to market it, we tried to do something with the property and as a practical matter it just is not to feasible. We've had a number of hearings here, we've had a real estate broker come in and testify as to what the property can be used for and what it can't be used for, what's a feasible return, what's a non-return, if you want to use that type of characterization. You say what's your intent, our intent initially was to try to do something with the property. We got rezoned and as a practical matter that we're stymied, we tried to operate within the current zoning and found that, that was not a practical thing to do. So we're back here after going before the Planning Board, in all candor, I had understood them to say that and maybe what the people are indicating now, I misunderstood but their primary concern was to leave that Country Club Road lot the way it was and we said fine, it's not even in the application. And I thought at that point everybody indicated well, we've gotten over that hurdle, let's just continue on with that other lot and we have no real problem with that. I thought when we came here the last time we had clarified that particular point that we were only concerned about the Bay Road property and we are up to the edge of the Country Club Road property, period. Now, as Garfield I think properly indicated, we're also going to be subject to site plan review where we're restricted by other regulations dealing with the usage of this property with footage from the wetlands which we except. We're stuck with property that we have, unfortunately it's changed some what since the time we acquired. It's changed in the sense it's been rezoned and it's changed since the water from the Woodbury property has kind of poured over on our property. Well, that's unfortunate but it's a fact oflife. We're going to deal with as best we can but we'll deal with it within the ... the restrictions of the DEC and the site plan review of this Town. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Jim, if we were to rezone this as they asked, what rights do they have if they chose to make single family homes instead of multiple under the law? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-If you were to rezone this MR5 for those two larger lots, they would have no, single family is not an allowed use and they would need to pursue a use variance in order to do that. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Which means though that they could put them in five thousand square feet? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-No. UNKNOWN-Ten thousand square feet. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Ten thousand square feet. That's the minimum ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So you're getting, you're getting four to an acre where under the other, the normal single family, you're allowed one. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Right. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That they had before. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-And if you were multi family, you would have eight per acre, if you had a multiplex building. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But you'd have less ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No, but the point is if you go back to single family, you would get four times what's allowed now. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Right. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's right, as Dave said, it's another way to circumvent the intent of how this zoning was set up. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -But that's also subject to site plan review. Somebody's got to handle sewage, somebody's got to handle, you got to have a plan for stormwater, that's also part of the regulations. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But it's also something we have to figure when we do a SEQRA review. We have a responsibility here too under the SEQRA as lead agency. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Was I only the guy at the meeting when this first came in front of the Board and I thought we were talking about I think two one acre lots on Big Bay Road ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's what I thought too, on Bay Road. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Well, that's a proposed ... COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Wait a minute, when it left this Board, that's what we had forwarded on to where ever it went and then all this other stuff developed after it left us. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Those were two one acre lots that were proposed that don't exist today, that were proposed as part of the application, that were shown on the application ... COUNCILMAN TUCKER-When it came to us, that was what they were looking for, right here and that was the reason we moved it on because the big question at that time was most of this property was wetland. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Right. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-And then after it left our Board, I don't know if our recommendation means anything or what but it certainly didn't in this case. MR. NEWELL-Well, a lot of water went under the dam after it left here you ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-So to speak. MR. NEWELL-So to speak, I guess it ended up on our lot. The problem was, we tried to do a number of different things such as what you just described and as ..., on two occasions, we tried to do it and we weren't able to do it. We went before the ... EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-What if we limited the MR5 rezoning to a thousand feet off of Bay Road? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Let me make a suggestion and let me see if we can get off the dime here. My personal opinion is, I don't think this can get past the SEQRA without an EIS. I don't see how we can neg dec this thing, that's number one. Based upon what we have right now, why don't we go, why don't we, you go back and have a definite plan, a much more definite plan as to what came before us the first time because I just don't see how we can pass this. I just don't see how this can pass the SEQRA review. I just can't see it. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-But would it pass if you did a thousand feet from Bay Road in? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-It might. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-It takes you into the wetland, leave the rest the way it is. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, see I don't even think you should take it to the wetlands, I think you should stop it this side of the wetlands. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-In effect, that is the law, they're not going to be ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- They can't go in the wetlands anyway. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Right, they can't go in the wetlands. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Unfortunately, I've seen alot, we can't, we can't and I've gone to Boards and found out they could, they could. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Ijust think we're ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So I think the time to stop it is right now, so you don't impact those wetlands. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, I guess what I'm saying and maybe Betty's echoing it is, do you want to step back a little bit, rethink what you're going to do rather than have things come to a no. MR. NEWELL-Well, if this was our first time before this Board, you know, I'd say, you know, you got a real good idea and maybe that's what we ought to do. But you have to understand, I think before this Board probably the last time we were here about a month ago and I think two times before that. This is about our fourth time before this Board. There were two times before the, Planning Board? MR. RAYMOND-Planning Board. MR. NEWELL-Two times before the Planning Board. Two times before the Planning Board on the County level. In all candor, I'm right up to here with Board's. I can appreciate your concern and Betty I can appreciate where you're coming from but you've got to admit, I've been around the horn an awful lot as far as this application is concerned and I think my feeling is, if you're going to say, we're not going to do, I'm almost be willing to say, do that because we've got another avenue that we're going to approach and we'll deal with it from that angle. So in all candor, I think we've gone just about as far as you can reasonably ask any human being to go. We've been in front of your Board, as I've said any number of times. We've been in front of your other Boards any number of times. It's not to say, why don't you step back and rethink it. I can appreciate where you're coming from but I think you've got to appreciate where we're coming from. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Okay. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-What if we ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well you see, I think Pliney is right, that when it left us, we were talking about those two dry lots on Bay Road. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I wasn't here, so I don't know. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Then tell me why it couldn't fly? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-That's not a problem in terms of, you know it's, I think ... COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Well, what was recommended or what we recommended go to the Planning Board, why couldn't it fly? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-When did it get lost? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I got a feeling that we had a discussion and that was what you were referring to and then there was a application which was broader and is essentially this application that we then sent through the process. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-No. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, that wasn't what happened. MR. RA YMOND- This Board, you told us that when we came in here and asked, you said this is not the proper avenue to go. What you got to do, is you've got to rezone it. Don't go for a use variance, that's not the way to do it. We ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Wait a minute, we can't do that. MR. RAYMOND-No, no but the other Board and that's how we got this route. We came in, they said, this is not a use variance, we were denied on that because we wanted to put an office in there and that was the extent of it. They said, what this has got to be done, this area deserves to be rezoned. This has been an issue for a long period of time, this is not, when this was first changed from UR5 to URl acre, we were before the Board's arguing that it really shouldn't be and now, like Ron has indicated, the wetlands has gotten worse because of other areas dumping water into our area, other developments. And any negativity you hear today is self serving, is by people that already have multi family units in the area. So I don't know as if that really is applicable to this. That's why we're here, I'm just telling you, that's the reason why we came back. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Y ou mean, just go in a thousand feet from Bay Road, rezone that and leave the rest of it URl acre? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That's my feeling, I think that would pass. The wetlands, God, there's enough protection of the wetlands, let that stand on it's merits and do a rezoning of a thousand feet off of Bay Road. MR. RAYMOND-See one of the things that when you're dealing with this in terms of multi family, off Country Club Road, if you have an access off Country Club into the back, there is a certain area, there's about eight acres in there that is not designated wetland and if you cluster build back there, that's going to give a better return than if you have single family units spread throughout there. I think that it's going to be a heck of alot better in terms of building. As it's presently zoned, you're not going to be allowed to do that and when we're ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Why can't you do that as it's presently zoned? MR. RAYMOND-Under a single family..., I don't believe that I can do that. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You can cluster. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-You can cluster. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Certainly, you can cluster. In fact, it's encouraged. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-And the density of what's going to be built there, is going to be dependent on the soils because I don't see sewering going on at that side. MR. RA YMOND- That's correct. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Right. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-So, I think that comes out the same for all practical purposes. The land is going to determine the density there. But if we go a thousand feet in from Bay, that is, from Bay, we go west one thousand feet, that will give you everything you want on Bay Road and probably that would be liveable and that wouldn't have enormous impact on the wetland from what I can see. MR. RA YMOND-I have no problem with that, then. I wasn't aware that I, that you were allowed to do that. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay. MR. NEWELL-Well, if that's where you're coming, essentially you're saying it ought to be, will ... we'll go along with it. I think at this point, everybody's getting a little bit frustrated with this process. I think you are and I can assure you, we are. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I can understand how that happens, but let's keep it going. MR. NEWELL-If you can live with a thousand feet from Bay Road, we can live with a thousand feet from Bay Road, at least we're getting off the dime. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-This Board, several months ago, I don't know how many months ago, lived with that concept. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Let's try it again. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Let's try it again, let's not get argumentative. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I just have a question for Jim because ... COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Well, the system ain't working Mr. Chairman. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea, I know but it's going to in a few minutes here. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It's running all through the Planning Board Minutes and that is, what did Warren County recommend. What came in front of Warren County and what did Warren County recommend? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-They the application as it went on and that was for MR5 because that's how it left this Board. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But they keep talking about the original application which was not MR5, so what was the resolution that came down out of Warren County? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I don't know the specific resolution. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We need that resolution because there's a very much muddy and if they, if their recommendation was for a different zone then we're talking right now, we're going to have a problem. MR. RAYMOND-It should not be because they were aware that it was MR5. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But there is this question that runs all through the Planning Board Minutes Jim and I think that ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, if that screws it up, so fine, we have to come back but let's move off the dime and get something done. MR. NEWELL-We'll be glad to proceed on the basis that the Planning Board in Warren County made a recommendation on MR5. That was, as it was explained to them, that's my understanding of their resolution that was passed and we would be glad to proceed on that representation. Because if it isn't, then we're going to have to come back here and straighten it out but I can tell you that it was. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Betty, we could do it on a contingency basis, based upon that, can't we? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Sure. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well, the Warren County Planning, if you haven't got their approval, then you can't take action. That's the bottom line. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Why? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Because they have a right to review the applications and approve them before you can take action. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, so that means that if we take action and they didn't action, our's is null and void. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Right. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-But if they did, our's stands. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Right. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-So, let's go, let's get on with it and try and move it. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-All I'm saying is we do it on a contingency basis based upon what they might have done that we don't know about. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Okay, and I'm going recommend as we go through the environmental impact statement that we talked, the Bay Road side, a thousand feet to the west. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, we got to really change the front for that ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT -So that when we look at the environmental impact, that's factored in. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this? Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:50 P.M. Supervisor Brandt-Paul, will you help me reform this resolution so that it's going to be the Bay Road side of this property, a thousand feet to the west? Councilman Monahan-The whole SEQRA Part I has all got to be changed too. Councilman Caimano- It hasn't even been filled out. Councilman Monahan-Part I has. Councilman Caimano-No it hasn't, turn to page 4. Councilman Monahan-You're right. Councilman Caimano-I will say this, I know how you feel. How would you like to get one more week out of this so we can do this right and have a clear conscience. You sit down with Mr. Martin, complete this as if the thousand feet in from Bay Road is the issue. Make sure that this is completed and I would be glad to look at this again as opposed to trying to go through this now. Mr. Newell-Sure, we'll come back next Monday. Supervisor Brandt-Yes, that's fine. Councilman Monahan-Jim, please have a new map that shows a thousand and please check Warren County's resolution. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes. Councilman Caimano-Guys, could you do me a favor, fill in the hole? Mr. Newell-Yes. Councilman Monahan-Mike, do you want to leave this public hearing open until next week? Supervisor Brandt-No, I've already closed it so we'll look at it next week. Thank you. Councilman Monahan-Paul, will this require another public hearing since we're changing? Attorney Dusek-No, I don't think so and the reason is because you're shrinking down so nobody could claim they were prejudice because they would know that this was the parcel that was going to be included. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 266, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session to enter the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 3rd day of May, 1993, by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: Ayes ALL THOSE OPPOSED: None ABSENT: Mrs. Goetz QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES OF SANITARY SEW AGE DISPOSAL ORDINANCE FOR STEVEN AND KATHLEEN MURPHY RESOLUTION NO. 15, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano 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, Steven and Kathleen Murphy have 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(s) providing as follows: APPENDIX A TABLE I - HORIZONTAL SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM WASTEWATER SOURCES TO STREAM WELL OR LAKE OR WASTEWATER SUCTION WATER PROPERTY LAKE GEORGE SOURCES LINE (a) COURSE(c) DWELLING LINE AND TRIBS. Septic Tank 10' and WHEREAS, Steven and Kathleen Murphy have indicated a desire to place the septic tank 4' from the property 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 May 17th, 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 Steven and Kathleen Murphy to place the septic tank 4' from the property line rather than placing it at the mandated 10' distance, on property situated at 6 New Pine Street, Town of Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax Map No.: Section 111, Block 6, Lot 8, 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 3rd day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: Mrs. Goetz RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 16, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns and enter Regular Session of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 3rd day of May, 1993, by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: Ayes ALL THOSE OPPOSED: Noes ABSENT: Mrs. Goetz QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD DISCUSSION - HUDSON POINTE PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 7:55 P.M. ATTORNEY, MICHAEL O'CONNOR-Mr. Supervisor, Mrs. Monahan, gentlemen. I state for your record, I'm Michael O'Connor from law firm, Little and O'Connor and with me, Alan Oppenheim and with us are other members of the development team for the Hudson Pointe PUD. We're here to answer whatever questions you might have or your consultant might have trying to set a date for a formal scoping session and trying to get an idea of the outline of that scoping session so that maybe that when we have the formal scoping session, we'll have a proposed scoping document that we can actual review at that time. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Our consultant is here, right? Why don't you pull a chair right up and join at the table. MR. DICK MORSE-For the record, my name is Dick Morse, I'm with Morse Engineering, Queensbury New York and we've been retained by the Town Board to assist the Town Board in the preparation of the scoping document. It was my understanding that this evening we were going to receive input basically from the Town Board members directed towards me so that I could basically have some feel for where members of this Board stood. To date, we have a received a document from the Town, I think it was prepared by the development group. We have reviewed that document, I have met informally with Jim Martin who is overseeing the project for the Town and directing our contract. I met with him last, I believe it was Wednesday. On Thursday of last week I went out and toured the site with a number of members of my staff. We have briefly spoke to members of Saratoga Associates on several questions that came up, one on subsurface sewage disposal for clarification and today I was provided by the Town a document that was prepared for Warren County on traffic study on the corridor of the Corinth Road corridor into the City. So at this point, I would just like to hear from the Town Board, if that is your agenda, to hear from you any specific questions that you might have. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-None that I haven't given you already. Jim? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I just wanted to make sure that Sue Goetz comments were read into the record. These are concerns that she outlined to me I think in February. These were concerns for scoping. One, was the carrying capacity of the land, overall land disturbance and soil adjustment for septic systems. Two, wetlands as pertaining to land disturbance. Three, natural drainage patterns, surface and groundwater. Four, the second viewing of the Karner Blue Butterfly. Five, impact on shore by dock installations. And six, any additional archeological site inspection needed. And what I was hoping is, if anybody had anything to add in addition to that, that Dick would be provided with that information at this early time, prior to getting into the scoping. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Those were my four out of five I gave you. MR. MORSE-Right, I received those. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-You talked about the percolation of groundwater. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Same thing that Sue's. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea, same thing. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Jim, I've got a couple of extra ones. The sensitivity of the interior soils, the virginity of those soils. The number of truck trips during construction, the affect on the highway system and on the neighborhoods that it will be passing through, noise, dust, dirt, etcetera, hours. And any plants that should be identified. And Jim has a list of the three or four different categories that we discussed the other day. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Any what that should be identified? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Plants. MR. MORSE-I have a question for the Board. It was my understanding there were some issues raised on EMF along the power line. Was that issue put to bed by the Board or where does that stand? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Not as far as I'm concerned, not in light of all the new information that's coming in from Sweden. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, it hasn't been put to bed either way. As a matter off act though, Ijust saw on, I hate to use this word, television the other night that a law suit was found in the opposite direction that school children were not allowed. So, it's not put to bed in any way, shape or form. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, maybe I think this Board did pass a resolution stating that it was going to take the State's standard on that problem. Not set a new standard of it's own, that we were going to follow whatever the State standard is on EMF. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Didn't Mr. Martin establish that the State standard was 200 units of their measurement and we showed by study that on the outside perimeter of the area that's used for the high tension lines, the measurement was in fact 2. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I think the check of the minutes will say exactly that. I think that's exactly what we did. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Are you, have you filed a map Mike, to that effect, so that we have that on record? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. ALAN OPPENHEIM-Yea, we did give to Mr. Martin a map showing where the readings were taken and also a letter from Niagara Mohawk representing exactly what the milligauss were at different points where the measurements were taken. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I believe I got the letter but I have not received the map. MR. ALAN OPPENHEIM-Yea, well I did give you but I, if that's a problem, we can dig you up another one. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I have the letter showing what the specific readings are but I don't have the map. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-You have a map anyway. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-We have a map showing the actual placement where the testing was taken. My understanding of it, what we're talking about is the scoping of the DEIS and we understand that proper DEIS will cover all the items that we've been talking about from day one to date. But I thought that we had some understanding that many of those issues we had satisfied the Board on and this is one of those areas that we have satisfied the Board on and I don't ever recall traffic being an issue before. So I don't know if we can get to a point where we can specify, perhaps the better way of doing it, specifying simply those areas where we need additional information to submit to Mr. Morse or you want Mr. Morse to or his firm, to specifically review the information that we've submitted because I think there was some question on that. You didn't feel as though Board members had the engineering capa..., engineering comfort as to soil carrying capacity and even though we've submitted all kinds of documentation on that, you wanted your consultant to look at that issue. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That was my understanding, I thought that I heard plainly from this Board that they wanted an outside expert to look at it from our view point and to review it for us and give us his advice, her advice. I believe that's where we ended up, isn't it? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-There's a couple offormal things I'd like to establish. Number one is the actual date for the scoping session. I would recommend at least ten days from today so we can notify the involved agencies properly and give them enough lead time. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-At least ten days because by the time you get to it, that get's to them, they're not going to have ten days. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, pick a date. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Just to make sure we accommodate the mailing and all that, maybe two weeks from tomorrow night. Is that ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-What's the date? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-The 17th of May. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, you can't do that on a Town Board night, Pliney. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-The 18th. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, I won't be here anyway. MR. TIM BREWER-That's a Planning Board night, Jim. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Oh, that's right, we have Planning Board that night, that's right. We're starting to get into the Planning Board and Zoning Board that week. MR. BREWER-Because I won't be at the Planning Board if you do that. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-After the 19th? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-After the 19th? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-We could do it the 20th, then? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I've got to meet, well ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That's fine. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I can skip that meeting on the 20th. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- The 20th is fine with me. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-The 20th is fine. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-What time, earlier or? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Jim, didn't you in fact complete or comply with the necessary SEQRA notice requirements when you gave notice of the positive declaration. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Right but you still, my understanding, you still have to give notification as to the scoping date. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-And you need ten days lead time? ATTORNEY DUSEK-No, you don't need ten days lead time but the requirement Mike under the SEQRA reg's says, that you'll notify the involved agencies of the time or give them prior notice so they can be involved in the hearing. So there's not a particular date, but you've got to give them enough time so they can respond obviously. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-But you had a regular chain of communication going back and forth with everybody that's been involved. ATTORNEY DUSEK-That's correct. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I, we're at a point where I would like to shorten to what ever degree we reasonably can shorten it. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Fine with me. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-The 20th or are we trying to get ahead of the 20th? MR. OPPENHEIM-Is there anyway to do it any earlier? I mean ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- There is, I don't have to be there. I'm going to be gone from the 12th to the 18th, that's all I'm saying. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, I think this is so important that every Town Board member should be here. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I'd like to be here but I'm not going to want to hold it up because of me. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, it doesn't seem to me that few days is that big of a deal. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Do I understand correctly though Mr. Caimano, you've already submitted in writing your comments for, to Mr. Morse for his consideration? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Yes. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I don't know what else ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Help me, what's a formal scoping session? I hate to be totally dumb but I'm starting to figure out, I may not understand this. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-There's really alot of latitude. The Board can make it anything you want it to be really, as long as the involved agencies are notified. It can be various levels of public input, there can be no public input. You can limit it to written comment, you can allow a full open verbal comment that's really... SUPERVISOR BRANDT -But we've given our comments. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Right. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-What's next is, whether we say in writing or in verbal, you're inviting the public input, right? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, it's the involved agencies have the right to input now. ATTORNEY DUSEK-But the end all goal of where you're trying to get to, I think is the most important thing which is just putting together your list of items that are going to be covered in the DEIS. Things that are going to be investigated and studied and perhaps to what degree so everybody's got to agree ... EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-What the Board has to agree upon is, given all the comments, you know from the involved agencies or from the public or whatever, what ones are relevant and should be considered in the Draft EIS, that's the point of scoping and with the assistance of Mr. Morse. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-If that's going to be the case, I would love to ask for written comment so that we all have a chance to look at them and not have to take them, you know, in a live session. You know, if we've got them in writing, it gives us a chance to look at them and identify what we need. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You still got to have a session. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-From whom? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-From the public and from the other agencies. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You still always have a, whether or not the public is here, the involved agencies have a right to speak and explain their points during that scoping session. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Fine. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And I may say that that's why we got in the law suit with Earltown because DEC said we did not respond to their concerns. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -And you didn't. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I agree with you. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I voted no on that thing. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I watched it, it was terrible. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But this is what we don't want to happen here. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, I don't think, that's up for us to respond to what's brought to us, that's all. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But what usually happens is that we have complete minutes of that, that read afterwards to make sure everything is being answered of the scoping session. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Well, the way the contract was structured with Mr. ... ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-No, you've got to go back to the purpose of scoping. Scoping is simply to allow the developer to know what questions you're going to have that we can answer in the DEIS. It's to our advantage to get as much input as we can, but we've been around the horn so many times on this, we've been to so many meetings, I almost think it is actually almost unnecessary in this particular instance, unless there's some new players that have come forward. We've got more correspondence from the various parties here than I think you've had on any other application. Particularly any other application that was talking about a hundred and sixty-three residential units. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I think I would agree with Mike to the extent that you probably, I'd be very surprised if you see anything new come about but here again, I think the goal if you will of your scoping session will hopefully be to refine these and not have to study everything. To limit the, here again that's the idea, limit the scope of the document in a proper fashion so you don't have something that's just totally unwieldy and covering issues that don't need to be covered. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-So, to hold this meeting, at that meeting, what are we going to do? We've given you our input so if one of us is missing, does that matter? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I don't think so, that was the point that I started. With due respect, Mr. Caimano has taken the time to write out his comments, he's submitted shortly after the last meeting. I thought that, that was his input. I'm not trying to shortcut his input but I'm also ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No, you're not and I agree with you. That's what I thought too. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I'm also trying not to delay it because he has some other commitment that he can't be here. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-So, we get every, scoping session then allows the interested parties to come in and bring in their comments. Then after we look at them, then we come back and say of all the comments, here's the ones we think our relevant. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-The way the contract was structured with Morse Engineering was, the meeting was to occur just to feel all the parties out, then have the formal scoping session, then Morse is to report back to you with what they feel are the relevant comments for your consideration based on what they heard at the scoping. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Okay, alright so if the whole Board isn't here, that isn't a problem with the . . SCOplllg seSSIOn. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-There's no decisions to be made so it's not really important, although ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-So, we could go earlier then the 20th if that works. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Can we do that next Friday? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -As far as I'm concerned we can. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Friday meetings are kind of bad, I think for all the involved agencies and everything else. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Geez, that's good for them, then they have to stay at work, they can't go on vacation until Saturday. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No, but I think that you're right, I think a Friday meeting ... MR. BREWER-Yea, but is that fair to everybody Mike? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, Friday is not a good day. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Whose it not fair to? Friday is a work day, if we're having a meeting, we'll have a meeting. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Fine, if you want to have in the afternoon or something or other. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I don't mind that either. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Then four o'clock next Friday? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That's fine with me. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-It's this Friday coming? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-A week from Friday. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-A week from Friday? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-The 14th. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Gosh, I can't be here, I got ajob and I want to be here. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea but, you're serious? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I'm serious, yea. They're going to allow to build houses in the Town of Moreau, so I'm going to go over there and build one. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Tuesday the 18th, you've got a Planning Board meeting? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN -Yes, and then the next night is Zoning Board. We can still do afternoons in all those cases. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But Pliney can't though, right Pliney? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-What's an afternoon you can make it? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-What time? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Four. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -How about five? What works for you? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Yea, five would be fine. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Five o'clock Friday. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But again, you're running into that Friday weekend Mike, when people are leaving. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -So what. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So what, so you have some consideration for people. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, how about myself? You know, we'll be here, everybody that wants to come here, come here. If they don't want to come here, don't come here. God, go on vacation, to whatever you want to do but let's conduct the business of the Town and let's move on. So Friday, five o'clock. MR. MORSE-Mike, you can accept written statements. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Right, people, we you know... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- There's a question over here, Mike. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yes sir. ATTORNEY JEFF FRIEDLAND-Hi, I'm Jeff Friedland and I represent the Aikens and the Brewers, they're neighbors of the proposed project. I guess I'm not quite clear on what the Board thinks about public input in the scoping session. Is the public going to be allowed to speak at this session or just written comments? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I think that's what this, the question is whether they're allowed to speak or whether they submit in writing. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-That was going to be my next question, I wanted to get the date set then the format for the session. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Right. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-But the date now where it's agreed, the 14th at five o'clock? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Yes. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- The format, my suggestion is to both. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think your involved agencies certainly have to verbally communicate alot of their concerns. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No, but Mr. Friedland's question to the answer, is both. ATTORNEY FRIEDLAND-I think if the public should be allowed to speak, then it should be in the evening so people can attend, when they work, can't get out before five o'clock. The idea of SEQRA is to get as much public input as possible and have it at before five o'clock, it's not going to do that. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-But if you ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Jim, what about Thursday? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Five o'clock is not going to work for the public? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, they're working. ATTORNEY FRIEDLAND-Alot of people work ... five o'clock, they can't get to the meeting ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, it will go on for a while so get here at five-thirty. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Jim, what about Thursday? Can you get your ten days on Thursday, the 13th? ATTORNEY DUSEK-You don't need ten days officially. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN -You don't need ten days, that's just a guide line. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Alright, why don't you move it to Thursday at six o'clock or something like that, then you get everybody. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Oh, I like that. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Better? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Alright, is that game? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-How about you Pliney, okay with you? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Yea, I won't be working at six. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Seven-thirty? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Six. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Five, thirteen at six o'clock. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Okay, we have a conflict ourself we a pre, I'm sorry with another meeting. Seven-thirty, eight o'clock, we could make. MR. BREWER-See, now that's not fair for them, so we can change it, Geez... SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Come back and talk to us Tim. MR. BREWER-I don't want to talk to you. ATTORNEY FRIEDLAND-I just have one more comment. The only other thing I would like to say, there should be enough lead time and I'm not sure ten days is, maybe the Board thinks it is ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We've only been at this how many months. ATTORNEY FRIEDLAND-So that all of the involved agencies can attend if they want to ... go out, the involved agencies, the interested agencies and I'm just, maybe you think ten days is enough, perhaps not but ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT -I do. I'd like to keep things rolling. Thursday at seven o'clock? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-The only, what involved agencies are we talking about? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Thursday, seven o'clock? MR. OPPENHEIM-Thursday at, no can't do it a seven. Why don't we say seven-thirty? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Seven-thirty? MR. OPPENHEIM-Okay. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Seven-thirty, Thursday. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Getting better all the time. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Seven-thirty, May 13th. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Agreed. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-May 13th at seven-thirty. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Okay. Did I interrupt Mrs. Monahan? I didn't mean to interrupt Mrs. Monahan, you were telling us what you're concerns were, I hadn't heard those or seen those. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, I just listed them for Jim and for ... ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-And those are the concerns? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, my other concerns have already been listed by somebody else, those were a couple that hadn't been in there. I think I had mentioned them during some meetings Mike. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-What's the date on that, May? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-May 13th, Thursday the 13th, not to be confused with Friday the 13th. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Is it the feeling of the Board that EMF has been answered with the map, with the State standard and the actual readings that we have? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yes, for me. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-We passed a resolution saying that we were going to ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-We said we're going to go with the State standards. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Yea, State standards. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea, we passed a resolution. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I will say you know with the State standards what they are, if you're keeping up on the research coming out, New York State standards are a bunch of bologna. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Geez, I'm glad to hear an expert. Anyhow let's keep going. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-In, to facilitate them knowing as fast as possible, I'll fax out the notices tomorrow, I'll hard copy mail it and also place phone calls. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think for the record we need the map on your readings of the EMF. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Yea, he asked for that. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Okay, we can get that for you. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Because that will then become part of the document. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-And now as part of the format for the session, we're going to accept public comment verbally and written as well? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Yes. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-And written to facilitate those folks who can't be here. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Right. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Okay, I'm asking Mr. Morse whether or not there are any other issues from what he's read already, that maybe we should try to identify as not being an issue, if you would. And my question was on traffic, as I understand it, there was no real issue ever raised with traffic. In fact, what happened was, when the developer found the secondary access or the second primary access to the site, he in fact alleviated the potential traffic problems along Sherman Island Road and the intersection of Sherman Island Road with Corinth Road, taking traffic off of that road. Further, he took off that road, the Niagara Mohawk truck traffic which goes to their facility using Sherman Island Road. That was the only question that I ever saw at any of the meetings that I was at, as to traffic. MR. MORSE-In reading through the document I saw a comment that Warren County was putting forward a new traffic study on that corridor and I believe that there was comment and maybe it was generated by Jim Martin in his questioning to you at one point in the review of the long form, assessment form, EAF that stated that when that came out, that you would review that. Now, I'll have to go back through the document and square that but ... ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-We'd be glad to review that. I think when I remember the questions on counts and what not, there was a question of our consultant whether or not he had projected anything for future growth of other development within the area. MR. MORSE-Yes and that was changed from two to three. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-And he gave a percentage and said that he didn't include some potential growth in accordance with what the practices and the profession. We can look at the, if you're talking about, have we looked at the Warren County? MR. MORSE-Yes. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-We hadn't, because it's just out, we can look at it. MR. MORSE-Correct. Okay fine. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-If that's the issue, maybe we, we will do that. MR. MORSE-Alright. MR. OPPENHEIM-Yea, I'd also like to hear from Mr. Martin on that because I know we went through the ... even having to do with further work because at one point there was discussion about further work but then it was realized that there had been an elaborate study done of that whole corridor and I think, I thought we had put it to bed a hundred percent. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN -Well, the results weren't out, they were just out last week with this traffic study and I provided Dick a copy of that today. And, you know, we didn't have the information back in February when we were look at this so thoroughly. MR. MORSE-I think it's an issue that we can address at scoping but I think you need to get a copy of that latest traffic study and have your consultant take a look at it. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-The other issue from what I've heard this evening which I thought was addressed was a question of rare or endangered plants. As I understand it, we have answered negatively as to whether or not there are any plants in existence on the site that are rare or endangered. We have done the typical literature study and that has come back negative. We have made the written enquiry to the State and that has come back negative. We understand that we are being directed that all this will require a second viewing of the corridor and the other likely areas for habitat by the Karner Blue or the Blue Lupine. But my understanding is that is where we stand as far as rare or endangered plants and I think we had discussion of one other plant and Jim looked it up and even if it's on the site, it is not a plant that is endangered or protected under State law. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Well, protected some what but it's restricted to, the protection is picking on State lands. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Which, and this is not ... EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-That was the Trailing Arbutus, it was a, what was it Betty, that terminology for that? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It's on the third list, I know that, I can't tell you what the ... did leave my booklet with you? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-No, you took it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I've got it, okay. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-So whatever that is, it's not an issue, as I understand it. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Well I understand it, from our position, we have done the reviews that we need to do, they are contained in what we've submitted and we will not be submitting any additional information or propose to submit any additional information as part of the DEIS. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I have no problem with it. Nick, you have no problem? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-No. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Betty? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-My problem is, their timing Mike, lots of times you go out looking for those plants and you look at the wrong time in the year, you're never going to find them. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Typically, you don't even go out though Betty and do a site study unless there is a showing by literature that you have a need to do that and ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mike, you know that the State lists are not all inclusive, they can't possibly be there in wide ranges rather than being finite and you know, be that as it may. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Did you check for banana plants? You know, possibly, coconut grows, possibly. Maybe they've wondered, we've had a pretty warm season of weather here. You know, there's no literature, there's nothing that says ... ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-The other issue which I would like to address openly is, the question was raised by Mrs. Goetz about any additional archeological site inspections needed. And that issue I think was also raised by Mr. Caimano about our measures taken to protect the archeological sites sufficient. I will submit on behalf of the applicant that we have followed the proper protocol, we have followed the proper procedure in all the areas that are going to be disturbed by our particular development. The State of New York under the Department of Office Recreation and Parks, has reviewed that and signed off. I don't know what else would be required of us. I have no belief that we're going to file anything in addition. Now, if you're saying that you want Mr. Morse's firm to look at what we've done and give his opinion as to whether or not we followed proper protocol and procedure and did the proper steps, I understand what you're saYlllg. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, I'm not going to speak for Sue, I'll speak for myself. There seem to be, first of all, I compliment you on the work that you have done, I'm not suggesting that work hasn't been done. But there appeared to be evidence, especially from our Historian that there may be indeed more work to be done because we were not quite sure how important this dig was. That's the only, that was my only concern and that I wanted our consultant to look at that, to talk our Historian and make sure that we've done everything that needs to be done to protect that. If in fact, I mean I don't know why we dismissed this so easily, if in fact that those digs are the age that someone has said that they were, it's very important and we ought to make sure that we've done everything we can. It's just belt and suspenders, based upon what I heard from our Historian. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-You're talking about the existing areas that have been identified? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Yes. I don't know any, you know, for all I know, we can dig up ground out here and see ... ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Okay, I have no problem with that being, that work being reviewed. I think in fact Mr. Martin called the office of Parks and Recreation and spoke specifically to the people that reviewed what we did and said that they told him that they thought that we were following the preferred method of treatment, non disturbance as opposed to digging them up and trying to find a museum. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-The only, it was indicated to me, you only do that in the event that the disturbance can not be avoided. Like you have to put the foundation there or whatever, then you have to dig up and do a thorough dig and retrieval of any artifacts. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Okay. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-But, I think you should talk to Marilyn. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-The other issue which we would try to address even if we could informally, is that Mrs. Goetz has mentioned an area of concerned is wetlands as pertaining to land disturbance. In some place or other I got a side note of drainage and erosion. We are not proposing to drain into the wetlands. We are not proposing any construction within the wetlands. So I don't know what truthfully you would be looking for us to submit. As we've indicated throughout that we will follow all the rules and regulations with regard to erosion control during construction and our actual construction will be of a nature that it will not create future erosion either into the wetlands or along the bluffs which Mr. Brandt raised. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-From my view point, it's a matter of in, you know on heavy runoffs, making sure that they're properly taken care of so that they don't go over the bank because they would erode and I think that's, you know, as long as that's addressed and reviewed, that's all I, that's my thought on it. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-And from my point, I want to make sure that he looks at what you're going to do to make sure that it is, again it's belt and suspenders. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-My reservation is that we have submitted the engineering that we are going to submit or think that we should have to submit at this stage. This is not site plan review, this is not actual subdivision approval that will be done later by the Planning Board once we get passed the designation. And there is a distinction in there as to the engineering requirements of what should be submitted and what should not be submitted. And I just want to make sure that you're telling ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I want our engineer to tell us that the ... MR. MORSE-The only question that I have on wetlands Mike is the mapping that was shown wetlands looks to be an enlargement of the DEC mapping. Is that true or was it a field actual determination by DEC? Do you know? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I personally don't know. MR. OPPENHEIM-Let me just, while we have everyone here. John Behan, he's with Saratoga Associates and also Tom Nace with Haanan Engineering is working with us on the soil side of things. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-The other point I would make is now that we're at the point of an EIS, engineering may have to get more specific and is not limited to just the PUD review as opposed to a site plan review. I mean in response to a EIS concern, it may in fact get very detailed at this point. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Are we getting into scoping? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Yea. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Isn't this what the scoping session is really about? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I was hoping that based upon the information that's going to be submitted and what not, that Mr. Morse will have some type of rough outline of scoping document. That's what I've done, we've done in the past when we've come to a scoping session. The consultant offers a document which he believes to be the scoping document there for comment. And I've seen it happen even for here within this Town, it's not simply when we get together at time of scoping session and go back through step by step as we're kind of doing this evening. That's the purpose of tonight is to give Mr. Morse's firm some type of direction as to what you think you're concerns are so that he frames his document that we're going to have to respond to as far as the DEIS. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Right but he is now asking very specific questions and as Mike points out, we're getting into specific questions and answers and I don't know if we want to do that tonight. But anyway, go ahead. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Keep going, let's go for a while and see if we can get through. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Can I ask a question before we go any further? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Didn't the Michael Group agree when we talked about this, of paying for an engineer to represent the Town as far as the drainage was concerned to make sure it was doing what we wanted it to do? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Yes. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That's it. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Okay, thank you. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-The one point that I make though and I don't, I contradict a little bit what Jim Martin is saying, until we know where the roads are going to be with some specifics, we're not going to be able to design a drainage plan. We can tell you what the system is going to compose of. We can tell you the type soils that's going to be put in and then, but then we have to get into the next step before we get to the other ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT -But you're going to tell us that you have certain number of area feet of absorption and that it will do the job. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Yes. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That's all we need. MR. OPPENHEIM-... obviously you need to hear from your consultant but we believe that without going into detail engineering that we can provide you on a professional, technical level enough comfort with the site and the level of infiltration, that it's going to fall short of detailed engineering and that's something ... MR. MORSE-I concur with that, I don't have a problem with that. I ask, the only question I asked was how did we generate the drawing for the wetland determination. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Oh, didn't you get that answered yet? MR. MORSE-And all I need is an answer. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-And I honestly didn't know the answer so we've been doing alot of dancing. John, go ahead. MR. JOHN BEHAN-That was done early on when we first looked at the site project so, to try and look at one of the constraints and I believe that, that is the State wetland map as regulated by the DEe. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-But you're going to want something more? MR. MORSE-Well, I'm not sure, Ijust, I wanted to ask the question and then we'll look at that in reference to the accuracy of their mapping. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Okay. MR. MORSE-And the only point I bring this up is, if we go through this whole process, they come out and flag an additional twenty acres of wetland that might impact on your proposal, then maybe it would be prudent to do that mapping at this point. That's all I'm suggesting. Because from here if your successful in this determination, then you go to site plan review where that is going to be a very, very specific thing and we're going to probably from this process, generate some setbacks that you've already eluded to. I think you've eluded to a hundred and fifty foot setback instead of the traditional hundred. MR. OPPENHEIM-Let me, yea ... I mean your points well taken and we should know the wetland areas ahead time and know how they really work on the face of the earth. I think based upon where the wetlands are, below the bluff area, that proposed construction is really way, over a couple hundred feet away and that's something that ... MR. MORSE-And I don't have a problem moving the process ahead based on that but there will be some determination eventually, at final there will be some standard set on that. MR. OPPENHEIM-Right and I understand that. MR. MORSE-Does the Board understand the ...? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I think I do. Alright, any other questions or...? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Looking at the comments that have been submitted I honestly, I didn't have any other question at this point. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-See you on the 13th. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Jim, I have a question of you. There's a letter in here from DEC, March 16th to Mike Brandt and members of the Town Board. There's a reply to DEC from Little and O'Connor. Have you been in contact with DEC about the letter? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-No, no I have not. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I would like you to. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Okay. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Okay, thank you. DISCUSSION - BAY RIDGE RESCUE SQUAD 8:25 P.M. Mr. Rick France, President of the Bay Ridge Rescue Squad gave the Town Board an update on preliminary plans for a proposed new building on their recently purchased property. Noted that the property is approximately three hundred feet south of the intersection of Sunnyside and Ridge Road, on the west side of Ridge, formerly known as Mountain View Farms. Noted that it's a sixty by sixty-five foot metal building, approximate peak height will be twenty feet of the ground. The setback from the road to the front of the building will be approximately sixty feet. Financially, our intent is to keep the building along with the property right around two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. We presently have an agreement with the Town, a Town contract of a hundred and twenty thousand dollars. I've calculated a mortgage which would start in September of 1993 at approximately six and a half percent. I've been told by both Glens Falls National and First National that we would receive that rate presently, obviously a flow variable rate. Approximately thirteen thousand dollars will be required to make the payments this year on a mortgage of two hundred thousand dollars which would be spread over a fifteen year period. That would then leave us approximately twenty thousand one hundred dollars a year. (Also present, Mr. Chris Granger-Chairman of Building Committee) RESOLUTIONS Executive Director, Mr. Martin lead Town Board through the Environmental Assessment Part II short form. A, Does action exceed any Type I threshold in 5 NYCRR, Part 617.l2? Answer - NO B, Will action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 5 NYCRR, Part 6l7.67? Answer - NO C, Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following; Cl, existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential of erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Answer - NO C2, Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Answer - NO (it could be aesthetic, going to the pole mounted and the roof mounted) C3, Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Answer - NO C4, A Community's existing plans or goals as to officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Answer - NO C5, Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Answer - NO C6, Long term, short term, cumulative, or other affects not identified in Cl through C5? Answer - NO C7, Any other impacts? Answer - NO D, Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? Answer -NO Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Again, we have language for the negative declaration, the notice that goes out, reasons for supporting the negative declaration on page 2. I would say, AFTER A THOROUGH ASSESSMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACTS, THERE WAS FOUND TO BE NO IMP ACT OR VERY LITTLE, MAYBE A MARGINAL AESTHETIe. RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF LOCAL LAW NUMBER 9, 1993 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, CHAPTER 179 THEREOF, ENTITLED, "ZONING" RESOLUTION NO. 267, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering the action of the adoption of a Local Law which would amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179 thereof, entitled, "Zoning," to amend and revise certain provisions thereof, delete some provisions thereto, and add new provisions thereto, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified to act as lead agency with respect to compliance with SEQRA which requires environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is an unlisted action pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board after considering the action proposed herein, reviewing the Short Environmental Assessment Form, reviewing the criteria contained in Section 617.11, and thoroughly analyzing the said action with respect to potential environmental concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to complete and execute Part III of the said Short Environmental Assessment Form and to check the box thereon indicating that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section 617.15, the annexed Negative Declaration is hereby approved and the Town Attorney's Office is hereby authorized and directed to file the same in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Duly adopted this 3rd day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: Mrs. Goetz RESOLUTION TO ENACT LOCAL LAW NUMBER 9, 1993 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, CHAPTER 179 THEREOF, ENTITLED "ZONING." RESOLUTION NO. 268, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of enacting a Local Law to amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179 thereof, entitled, "Zoning," to amend and revise certain provisions thereof, delete some provisions thereto, and add new provisions thereto, and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Local Law has been presented at this meeting, a copy of said Local Law also having been previously given to the Town Board at the time the Resolution was adopted which set a date and time for a public hearing, and WHEREAS, on April 19, 1993, a public hearing with regard to this Local Law was duly conducted, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby enacts the proposed Local Law to amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179 thereof, entitled, "Zoning," to be known as Local Law Number 9, 1993, the same to be titled and contain such provisions as are set forth in a copy of the proposed Law presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to file the said Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and that said Local Law will take effect immediately and as soon as allowable under law. Duly adopted this 3rd day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: Mrs. Goetz RESOLUTION APPOINTING MEMBERS TO QUEENSBURY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RESOLUTION NO. 269, 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 received notice from the Queensbury Economic Development Corporation (QED C) that there are vacancies on the Board of Directors for the QEDC, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, after giving due consideration does hereby appoint Mr. Hans Hoenck and Mr. James M. Martin as Directors to the Queensbury Economic Development Corporation effective immediately, said terms to run to the end of December of this year. Duly adopted this 3rd day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: Mrs. Goetz RESOLUTION TO APPOINT MEMBER TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION NO. 270, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has previously established the Zoning Board of Appeals, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby appoints Ms. Linda Hauser to serve as a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals, said term to expire on December 31, 1998. Duly adopted this 3rd day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: Mrs. Goetz RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE PERMIT TO LOCATE A MOBILE HOME OUTSIDE OF MOBILE HOME COURT FOR GLENN & MARILYN GREGORY RESOLUTION NO. 271, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is authorized pursuant to ~1l3-l2 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, to issue permits for mobile homes to be located outside of mobile home courts under certain circumstances, and WHEREAS, Glenn & Marilyn Gregory have filed an application for a "Mobile Home Outside a Mobile Home Court" Revocable Permit, in accordance with said ~1l3-l2 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, to locate a mobile home at property situated at Sanders Road, Queensbury, New York, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury determines it to be appropriate to hold a public hearing regarding said permit, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on May 17th, 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 by Glenn & Marilyn Gregory for a "Mobile Home Outside a Mobile Home Court" Revocable Permit on property situated at Sanders Road, Queensbury, New York, 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 to publish and provide notice of said public hearing in the official newspaper of the Town of Queensbury, to post a copy thereof on the bulletin board of the Office of the Town Clerk, and to mail a copy thereof to the Town Planning Board, at least 10 days prior to said hearing. Duly adopted this 3rd day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: Mrs. Goetz Councilman Caimano-I had a call and I think other people had a call from Charlie's Office Furniture regarding a chair that one of our employees bought and we canned it. Unfortunately the chair never went back and this man would like to know why he hasn't been paid. We need to pay this guy. Several things are wrong. Number one, we have a system that allows a purchase order to go out and then when the audits get here and we turn it down, there has to be a system because this gentleman took a purchase order in good faith and we canned it. However, it was done in a timely fashion, unfortunately the chair is still sitting here and he hasn't been paid. Supervisor Brandt-There's another employee in that same office with a bad back problem and that chair would be wonderful for that person. I suggest we buy it, we give it to the person with the bad back and take care of it all at once. Councilman Monahan-How much was that chair? Councilman Caimano-Four hundred and some odd dollars. Councilman Monahan-Just went under the five hundred dollars. Councilman Tucker-One of the big problems here, the gentleman told me that he wasn't notified why he wasn't getting paid. Councilman Caimano- Yea, we shouldn't do that. Supervisor Brandt -Yea, but we did say return the chair. What happened, somebody didn't return the chair. So let's pay the bill and give it to the person. Councilman Caimano-Are you serious, there is somebody who could use that chair? Supervisor Brandt -Yes, absolutely, somebody that's been out of work for several weeks with a bad back. Councilman Caimano-Alright I suggest then that we get that bill and pay it. Supervisor Brandt-Let's do that as a motion. Attorney Dusek-If the Board agrees, I believe a motion would be appropriate. You could do a Supervisor's audit of it or whatever and it will still be submitted to the Board the next time but he can pay it before the next meeting. Town Board agreed and the following resolution was proposed: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PAYMENT RESOLUTION NO. 272, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano RESOLVED, the Town Board hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to take whatever steps maybe necessary to arrange for the immediate payment to Charlie's Office Furniture for the cost of one chair. Duly adopted this 3rd day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: Mrs. Goetz Councilman Caimano-Referred to letter from Darleen, Town Clerk regarding the poles on Quaker and Bay needing repair. Weren't they just put up last year? Supervisor Brandt -Yes. I don't know who designed the system but they certainly needed guide wires and they weren't put in. Councilman Monahan-I understand that they may have been hit by a vehicle but nobody can prove it. Councilman Caimano-Both of them? Supervisor Brandt-Well, I think the wind would do it. Let me tell you, with the wind constant force on it, that will pull them right over. Guide wires would be a good answer for a starter, I'm sure of that and recast the base. Councilman Tucker-I wonder if anybody else would be interested in looking at them and giving us a quote along with the one that we've got. Councilman Caimano-I think if we're going to do it, we ought to do it right, the money we paid is a sham. Supervisor Brandt-What do you want to do? There's two recommendations, one was three hundred and fifty dollars and the other was six hundred dollars. Do you want to go look for bids on that? Councilman Tucker-There was three of them, four twenty, three fifteen and six hundred. Supervisor Brandt -Six hundred was with a third pole and guide wires. Councilman Caimano- What I don't want to do is pick the person who put them up the first time. Councilman Tucker-Well, this is the person. I'd like to get another quote.2 Councilman Monahan-Do you want Darleen to check some other firm? Supervisor Brandt -Yes, let's try it. Councilman Caimano-Yea, let's check somebody who knows how to put poles up that last more than one year. Supervisor Brandt-And guide wires. Councilman Tucker-I'll tell you else bid on this at the time was Mike Baird signs. Supervisor Brandt-Well, let's get him to give us a quote too. Councilman Caimano-Lastly, do we have an update on Hovey Pond? Supervisor Brandt-Hovey Pond, as far as I know we were ordering the bridge. I don't think I signed the PO yet but the next thing is ordering the bridge and putting it in and beyond that, I don't know a great deal. Councilman Caimano-I assume the friends are working along with Harry? Supervisor Brandt -Yea, there have been meetings between the Hovey Pond group and the recreation group and I think they're resolving all of their differences or whatever and they're moving ahead. Councilman Caimano-Okay, thanks. Supervisor Brandt-That's my information. Councilman Monahan-I just want to say, as a Town Board member that I'm committed personally to seeing this park handicapped accessible from the first work being done on it and I hope the rest of the Board feels the same way. Supervisor Brandt-I think that was part of the initial plan. I think that's the original plan. Councilman Caimano-Good. Yes, the answer to your question is yes. OPEN FORUM 9:00 P.M. Mr. Tim Olesky-With me are the residents of Applehouse Lane and the surrounding area. (submitted statement to the Town Board, read into the record) We the residents of Applehouse Lane are here to ask the Town of Queensbury for help with a water problem that we are experiencing due to a normal winter snowfall. To maintain the high level of integrity of the neighborhood and to protect a small tax base of the Town, we would like to suggest some ideas to correct the situation. These are merely suggestions but we would appreciate any input from the Town that you may have. If I may ask, if you would refer to the map. This is a map of the current system that's in place on Applehouse Lane. What we're suggesting is to lower the perforated pipe on the south side of Applehouse Lane below the foundation floor level of the houses. Currently the pipe is higher coming underneath the road and the water is having to fill the catch basin and it's instead of flowing through the system like it should, it's saturating the area and creating some problems with the houses there. Number 2, removing the existing pipe between lots llA and 13 and to install a larger perforated pipe below the basement floor level to collect and carry the water away at a faster rate. Again, the system is handling the water and it's saturating the area. Number 3, remove catch basin on lot number 4 to alleviate water saturation unto lot number 13. The pipe under the road from lot number 4 to lot 13 leads to a non functioning drain that was filled in by the Town in 1990. The catch basin on lot number 4 was piped into the non-functioning drain onto lot 13 in the Summer of 1992. Councilman Caimano-Is that the dotted line right there? Mr. Olesky-Yes. The last, also we feel that there is a need to install a large catch basin behind the houses on the north side of Applehouse Lane, try to catch the main water that enters the neighborhood and connect it to the existing drainage system. Councilman Monahan-Excuse me, who owns that land? You said, beginning at the back of lot number 6, are you talking right within lot number 6 or behind lot number 6? Mr. Olesky-In that specific area, Eric Wiley owns the property right behind lot 6. Just some notes, lot number 14 is approximately the lowest lot in the subdivision and it has always had water problems in the past. This year it had no water what so ever which we feel that it's not the water table that has come up, if the water table had come up, this particular lot would be, would experience a water problem as we are and they are not. The catch basin between lots llA and 13 has water leaching out instead ofleaching in, thus saturating lot number 13. There's such a great force of water coming through on the north side of the road that the catch basin on the south side can't collect water. It's actually leaching water out, causing some problems there. Supervisor Brandt-As I remember the area, water flows from the north towards the south there, right? Mr. Olesky-Yes. The existing system just isn't handling the volume of water that flows there onto the Lester Drive and on, there's a pond beyond Lester Drive. In closing, we're asking you for your help. Supervisor Brandt-It's a legal question. You're not the first people to come and ask for help on drainage problems, especially after this winter and I hope you're right, it is a normal winter. Attorney Dusek-From the comments that I see made in this two page letter and also, just from some personal recollection, I think the Town as an easement up in that area and has regulated these pipes. Am I right? Mr. Olesky-It's between lots llA and 13, there is an easement there. Attorney Dusek-So this may be a situation where the Town can do something. Sometimes in drainage situation if they're following natural forces or if it's not caused by the Town, the Town can't get into the drainage problem. That's why Mike raised the issue because we have had some of them come to us that you can't do anything with and it's unfortunate but they can't expend taxpayer's dollars to correct something that the Town didn't cause. On the other hand, if it is Town which I think this may be, we would have to check the records on this but I think it may be and you may have some latitude to check it out and see what can be done. Councilman Monahan-Have you talked to Paul Naylor about this at all? Mr. Olesky-Yes. Well, at this point we were recommended to come in front of the Board. Supervisor Brandt-We'll have to research, look at the law, look at what we can learn about easements, talk to Paul. How do we get back to you? Councilman Caimano-Can we get to this relatively quickly? Attorney Dusek-These are easy to take a look at, it's just a matter of pulling out the easements and checking them. I should say easy, easy if the easements are in place and I'm right. It's more difficult if we don't find any written easements. But I may even have a file on some of the work they did in the past, so I'll be happy to pull it out tomorrow and see what we've got on it. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-And I can check the subdivision plat. Councilman Caimano-Are you going to be the person to communicate with? Mr. Olesky-Yes. (gave the Supervisor his telephone number) What will be the next step from the Board's standpoint. Supervisor Brandt -You can communicate with my office any time you want to and we'll keep you up to date. I'll ask my secretary, Barbara to keep track of it and we'll coordinate with you and tell you what we've learned and see what we can learn about how to solve the problem, and probably come out and look at the site. OPEN FORUM CLOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS RESOLUTION NO. 273, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker RESOLVED, that the Audit of Bills appearing on Abstract May 3 rd, 1993, numbering from 93- 1509 through 93-1645 and totalling $89,542.92 be and hereby is approved. Duly adopted this 3rd day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: Mrs. Monahan (page 50, Hudson Environmental because we've resolution) never authorized that by ABSENT: Mrs. Goetz ABSTAIN: Mrs. Monahan, page 11, CWI Mr. Caimano, Vendor # 000127 DISCUSSION AFTER VOTE: Supervisor Brandt -On landfill matters, we have to take these tests under DEC regulations. Councilman Monahan-I realize that Mike. In the first one, we never had a resolution because you said it was an emergency. We've had plenty of time to have a resolution authorizing that firm to do the work or checking prices with other firms. So we've never done that. Supervisor Brandt-We have done that but I don't know what the most recent time was. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 274, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session to enter Executive Session to discuss Potential Litigation. Duly adopted this 3rd day of May, 1993, by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: Ayes ALL THOSE OPPOSED: None ABSENT: Mrs. Goetz No further action was taken. On motion, the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK-QUEENSBURY