1993-12-06
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING
DECEMBER 6, 1993
7:05 P.M.
MTG#88
RES#731-745
B.R. 58-59
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Deputy Supervisor Pliney Tucker
Councilman Nick Caimano
Councilman Susan Goetz
Councilman Betty Monahan
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Supervisor Michel Brandt
TOWN ATTORNEY
Paul Dusek
TOWN OFFICIALS
Paul Naylor, Mike Shaw
PRESS
Post Star
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN CAIMANO
Deputy Supervisor Tucker-Called meeting to order.
RESOLUTION ENTERING BOARD OF HEALTH
RESOLUTION NO. 731, 93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and
enters into the Queensbury Board of Health.
Duly adopted this 6th day of December, 1993, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker
Noes: None
Absent:Mr. Brandt
PUBLIC HEARING - SANIT ARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE RICHARD DOTY
NOTICE SHOWN
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Deputy Supervisor Tucker-Has this been advertised properly?
Deputy Town Clerk O'Brien- Yes.
Deputy Supervisor Tucker-Is there anyone here to talk on this in favor or against?
Councilman Goetz-There is a letter from Dave Hatin.
Deputy Town Clerk O'Brien-Read following letter into the record. To: Town Board Members From: Dave
Hatin, Director of Building and Code Enforcement
Dear Town Board Members:
I have reviewed the septic layout for the Doty residence on Rainbow Trail with Mr. Doty and have found
that his is the only reasonable alternative for placement of this system. I would ask the Board to approve
this system as submitted. Sincerely, David Hatin, Director Building & Code Enforcement
Deputy Supervisor Tucker-Any comments from the Board?
Councilman Monahan-Pliney, I just want to check the neighbors well here.
Councilman Goetz-It's close to the neighbors well isn't it?
UnKnown-It is at least a 100 feet from every neighbors well.
Councilman Caimano- This is a public record could we get your name on the record, please.
Unknown-My name is Mr. Doty.
Councilman Caimano-I guess the question is, is there anyone here to speak against it?
Deputy Supervisor Tucker-Is there anyone here to speak against this application? Any comments from the
Board members, Betty, Sue? Then I declare the public hearing closed.
RESOLUTION APPROVING A SANITARY SEW AGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE
FOR MR. RICHARD A. DOTY
RESOLUTION NO.: 58, 93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker
WHEREAS, Mr. Richard A. Doty previously filed a request for a variance from certain provisions
of the Sanitary Sewage Disposal Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, such provisions being more
specifically those requiring that there be a 100' separation between the well or suction line and the
absorption field, and that there be a 20' separation between the dwelling and the absorption field, and
WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was given in the official newspaper of the Town of
Queensbury and a public hearing was held in connection with the variance request on December 6, 1993,
and
WHEREAS, the Town Clerk advises that property owners within 500 feet of the subject property
have been duly notified,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED,
a) that due to the nature of the variances, it is felt that the variations will not be materially
detrimental to the purposes and objectives of this Ordinance or to other adjoining properties or otherwise
conflict with the purpose and objectives of any plan or policy of the Town of Queensbury;
b) that the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variance is necessary for the
reasonable use of
the land and that the variance is granted as the minimum variance which would alleviate
the specific unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the applicant; and
c) that the Local Board of Health imposes a condition upon the applicant that (s)he must
also secure the approval of the New York State Department of Health, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health grants the variance to Mr.
Richard A. Doty, allowing the placement of the absorption field 72' from the well, rather than placing it at
the mandated 100' distance, and allowing the placement of the absorption field 11' from the dwelling
(foundation), rather than placing it at the mandated 20' distance, on property situated at 17 Rainbow Trail,
Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax Map #: Section 52, Block 3, Lot 5.1.
Duly adopted this 6th day of December, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Tucker
NOES: None
ABSENT:Mr. Brandt
DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE
Councilman Monahan-Questioned the distance of the septic from the property owners well if it is required
that they will hold the Town harmless from any pollution that might happen from their own system?
Attorney Dusek-Noted he doesn't think the Board has a problem since they are acting in a governmental
capacity. The property owner has caused the problem and has come forward with the variance.
RESOLUTION ADJOURNING BOARD OF HEALTH
RESOLUTION NO. 59, 1993
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns as the Queensbury Board
of Health and moves back into Regular Session.
Duly adopted this 6th day of December, 1993 by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Tucker
Noes: None
Absent:Mr. Brandt
PUBLIC HEARING - MOBILE HOME/ROBERT SANDERS
NOTICE SHOWN
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Deputy Supervisor Tucker-Has this been properly advertised?
Deputy Town Clerk O'Brien-Yes.
Deputy Supervisor Tucker-Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this? Anyone to speak against?
Linda Phillips-The Sanders are basically starting over. They have the opportunity to replace an old mobile
home with a newer model and everyone in the neighborhood thinks they should be allowed to do it.
Councilman Caimano- Thank you.
Deputy Supervisor Tucker-Thank you very much. Anyone else from the public, board members?
Councilman Monahan-I think this is the one we discussed before Pliney. When they applied that it was a
real upgrade from the mobile home that was there.
Deputy Supervisor Tucker-I declare the public hearing closed.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVOCABLE PERMIT TO LOCATE A MOBILE HOME
OUTSIDE OF A MOBILE HOME COURT FOR ROBERT SANDERS, JR.
RESOLUTION NO.: 732, 93
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury regulates mobile homes outside of mobile home parks
pursuant to ~ 113 -12 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, Mr. Robert Sanders, Jr. has filed an application to replace his old mobile home with a
new mobile home at property situated at 538 Sanders Road, Queensbury, New York, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury held a public hearing with regard to the
aforesaid permit,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the issuance ofa
revocable permit in accordance with the terms and provisions of ~113-12 of the Code of the Town of
Queensbury.
Duly adopted this 6th day of December, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker
NOES:None
ABSENT:Mr. Brandt
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION APPROVING MINUTES
RESOLUTION NO. 733, 93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the minutes of October
18th, 1993 and November 1st, 4th, and 18th, 1993.
Duly adopted this 6th day of December, 1993, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Tucker
Noes: None
Absent:Mr. Brandt
RESOLUTION TO AMEND 1993 BUDGET
RESOLUTION NO.: 734, 93
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz
WHEREAS, certain departments have requested transfers of funds for the 1993 Budget, and
WHEREAS, said requests have been approved by the Chief Fiscal Officer,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the funds be transferred as follows, for the 1993 budget:
SUPERVISOR:
FROM:
TO:
AMOUNT:
1-1990-4400
(General Fund
Contingency)
1-10 10-4090
(Town Board
Conference Expense)
$ 20.00
1-1310-4050
70.00
(Accounting
JUSTICE:
FROM:
01-1110-2010
(Office Equipment)
WATER DEPARTMENT:
FROM:
40-8310-4400
(Misc. Contractual)
40-8310-4400
(Misc. Contractual)
and
BE IT FURTHER,
Books & Publications)
1-1440-4400
(Engineering
Misc. Contractual)
1-1470-4400
(Board of Ethics
Misc. Contractual)
1-1670-4030
(Shared Mailing)
1-1680-4070
(Data Processing
Equipment Repair)
1-1920-4400
(Municipal Assoc. Dues)
1-1930-4400
(Judgment & Claims)
1-6410-4400
(Publicity)
1-7550-4400
(Celebrations)
1-9010-8010
(NYS Retirement)
1-9795-7095
(Interfund Loan Interest)
TO:
01-1110-1720
(Officer PT)
TO:
40-8310-4820
(Uniforms)
40-8310-4190
(Administrative Refunds)
$ 1,500.00
288.00
402.00
3,750.00
850.00
300.00
10.00
525.00
9)00.00
675.00
1,200.00
3,400.00
230.00
AMOUNT:
AMOUNT:
RESOLVED, that the 1993 Town Budget is hereby amended accordingly.
Duly adopted this 6th day of December, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Tucker
NOES: None
ABSENT:Mr. Brandt
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT WITH EMPIRE BLUE CROSS
BLUE SHIELD CONCERNING RENEWAL OFFER OF BENEFITS AND RATES
FOR TOWN OF QUEENSBURY EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1994
RESOLUTION NO.: 735,93
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHEREAS, the Town's health insurance carrier, Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, has offered a
Group Benefit Contract Renewal for the Town of Queensbury and a proposal for HealthNet, renewing the
benefits provided to the Town of Queensbury employees effective January 1, 1994, and to continue for a
period of one year, said renewal offer set forth in a letter-form agreement and Remittance Agreement
presented at this meeting,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the letter-form
agreements and Remittance Agreement presented at this meeting, and hereby further authorizes and directs
the Town Supervisor to execute the same on behalf of the Town of Queensbury, and further authorizes and
directs the Town Supervisor to take all steps and actions that may be necessary to carry out the terms and
provisions of these agreements, including the execution of any further forms that may be necessary in the
future.
Duly adopted this 6th day of December, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz
NOES: None
ABSENT:Mr. Brandt
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF OVERAGE TO
MORSE ENGINEERING, P.C. REGARDING ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
ROAD IMPROVEMENT WORK AT PEGGY ANN ROAD/RESERVOIR DRIVE
RESOLUTION NO.: 736,93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, by resolution no. 501,93, authorized
the retention of services of Morse Engineering, P.C., to perform engineering services in conjunction with
the road improvement work in the area of Peggy Ann Road/Reservoir Drive, in an amount not to exceed
$5,000.00, and
WHEREAS, Morse Engineering, P.c., per letter to the Town Supervisor dated November 10,
1993, has informed the Town that it was necessary to perform additional services on the aforesaid project
over and above the previously authorized amount of $5,000.00, in the amount of $4,739.18
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the payment of
overage to Morse Engineering, P.c., in the amount of $4,739.18 to be paid forfrom Account No.: 01-1440-
4400-9001.
Duly adopted this 6th day of December, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker
NOES: None
ABSENT:Mr. Brandt
DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE:
Councilman Caimano-Questioned how much this would cover of the Peggy Ann Road project?
Dick Morse-Probably 800 feet west of Clark Road. Noted Paul Naylor has expressed a desire to have it
extended in the Spring down to the fence, which is the City's fence down along the Reservoir property.
Noted if the Town wanted to continue with the project or with us, there would be an additional expense.
Councilman Caimano-Asked what the estimate would be?
Mr. Morse-Between $5,000 and $8,000, it depends on the PCB program that we enter into or what is found.
Noted the PCB testing the $5,000 was charged to their account should make sure that the Hudson
Environmental charges are covered in the resolution.
Councilman Monahan-Questioned the amount in the vouchers that were pulled from accounting, one in the
amount $3101.58 and one for $6,637.60. Questioned if she was missing one?
Mr. Morse-Noted they were the only two vouchers from him.
Councilman Caimano-Noted then the resolution doesn't have to be increased by $6,000.
Mr. Morse-The total bill would have been $9,0000.
Councilman Monahan-Noted the resolution would read for over $11,000.
Deputy Supervisor Tucker-There is a bill to Hudson Environmental.
Mr. Morse-That should be charged to this fund, it was either $1,200 or $1,800.
Councilman Caimano- That's the difference.
Councilman Monahan-That the resolution presented is incorrect.
Councilman Caimano-The correct figure in the resolution should read $4,739.18 which would give you the
$9,739.18.
Attorney Dusek-Recommended to change the figure to read $4,739.18 in the resolution.
Councilman Goetz-Questioned the status of the letter that was received indicating the additional expense
for Clark Street that it was to be included in the first quote?
Mr. Morse-This covers the drawings that were reviewed, it is basically still centered on the curve.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
CITY OF GLENS FALLS CONCERNING THE LANDFILL
RESOLUTION NO.: 737,93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker
WHEREAS, a proposed agreement has been presented at this meeting, which agreement addresses
the Town of Queensbury and City of Glens Falls legal and financial relationship concerning the Ridge
Road Landfill and the two Transfer Stations operated within the Town of Queensbury for solid waste
disposal,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the agreement
presented at this meeting, and authorizes the Town Supervisor to execute the agreement and forward the
same to the City of Glens Falls for its approval.
Duly adopted this 6th day of December, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Tucker
NOES: None
ABSENT:Mr. Brandt
DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE:
Attorney Dusek-Reviewed with Town Board members the Agreement between the Town of Queensbury
and City of Glens Falls regarding the landfill.
Councilman Caimano- Thanked Supervisor Brandt for the letter he wrote to the City regarding the landfill,
noting that it played a huge part in getting this resolved.
RESOLUTION TO SEND PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE - REGARDING
PETITION CHANGE OF ZONE ROBERT & CAROLYN MARTINDALE TO PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. 738, 93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz
To send back to the Queensbury Town Planning Board for a more definitive recommendation.
Duly adopted this 6th day of December, 1993, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Tucker
Noes: None
Absent:Mr. Brandt
DISCUSSION HELD
Mrs. Martindale requested to postpone the action regarding petition for change of zone until a full majority
was present. After further discussion it was the Town Boards decision to send this back to the Planning
Board for a more definitive recommendation.
ATTORNEY MATTERS
Attorney Dusek-Noted he has three matters for Executive Session. Also, needs to discuss the Water
Treatment Plant with Board members.
DISCUSSION - HUDSON POINTE PRESENTATION OF NEW PROPOSED PLAN MADE TO
MEMBERS AND PUBLIC
Attorney Michael O'Connor-My intention tonight would be to give you an introduction of who is here, and
then give you some overview of what we propose to do, and to also file with the Board a final
Environmental Impact Statement. First, let me begin by introducing Kurt Forbach who is the Director of
Land Management and Development for Niagara Mohawk who has been involved in the planning process.
Mr. Forbach is on my far left, two over is Jay Culter who is the Project Manager for Hudson Pointe for
Niagara Mohawk. Also, here with me at the table is Alan Oppenheim of the Michaels Group. Behind me
from Saratoga Associates is Rob Sutherland and Chris Einstein, from Haanen Engineering is Tom Nace. I
think that's basically who we have here on behalf of the developer this evening. At this point, I would like
to make a general comment. The general comment would be is that I think that the system that we have
works. Basically we began with an offering for a planned unit designation. This Board determined a
positive declaration under SEQRA. There was a lot of public comment put in after we filed a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. We at this point are responding to that comment, I think responding in a
very positive manner. We have before the Boards consideration tonight the FEIS (Final Environmental
Impact Statement). There are two avenues that we follow simultaneously one is the SEQRA and the other
is the PUD designation. I think with the FEIS we simply are filing it with the Board tonight. We would like
to if possible have the Board consider it over the next week and maybe as an agenda item next Monday
night, if it finds it to be complete make that determination so that the time table and time clock on that
filing can begin to run. What we have done within that FEIS, I will go to the zoning issue is taken into
consideration many of the comments that were made and try to down size, if you will the proposal so that
we satisfied the concerns that were raised by members of the public and by neighbors. Basically we have
changed this site into a 96 unit single family home development as opposed to what was proposed one time
as a 163 units or as 157 units. We have eliminated entirely the townhouses and what we have left is 14 lots
on one acre sites which are the areas in the light brown right through here. We have twenty eight lots on
half acre lots which is this greenish yellow in this area. We have 53 lots on l/3rd acre lots which is this
area in here for the most part with a couple of lots there and one lot up in here. We have one three acre lot
which is right on this site here. We have not claimed any bonus for density under the PUD regulations. In
fact, the density is less than we would be entitled to under simple cluster zoning. I believe under cluster
zoning in the SR-IA zone we have a 116 acres and we would subtract from that the 14 acres for roadways
which would leave us a 102 units we basically are planning 95 or 96 units, 95 in the SR-l, one in the WR-3
zone. That's what we have done as far as density goes. Probably as great importance with density is the
reconfiguration of the subdivision. We have if you remember historically at times proposed lots out on this
point. We began with 13 lots we changed that to 8 lots. Under this present proposal we are eliminating all
lots on the pointe. We have also considered the bluffs and there is a lot of discussion in the DEIS and in
the comments of the DEIS as to cutting on the bluffs and on the buffer area of the bluffs. So, that there is
no issue there what we have done is extended the buffer area at the top of the bluffs from 50 feet to 150
foot setback to the back of any building lot line. What we have also offered and different than what we had
before is to propose that the entire pointe and the buffer area up above the top of the bluff will be put in a
third party ownership subject to approval of this Board and subject to final approval by the developer. But,
it will be a joint venture with this Board having the final say. That third party will be in a position to offer
to this Board a proposal as to any particular use that they may put off the point. It's something that I think
that the existing neighborhood and neighborhood to be created can work out with the Town Board and with
the third party. We would as developer condition our conveyance that there be no active development of
that site so that we would put what we consider minimum restrictions on there the Town Board can add to
those restrictions. We would also put a restriction on there that the archeological sites would remain intact
and be undisturb. In our first proposal even in coming back to the FEIS we had a question as to whether or
not these two archeological sites would be included in the area that would go to a third party. We have
now amended that and Rob Sutherland is here he can walk you around the line if you want on the site they
are included. In fact, pursuant to some discussion with some of the immediate neighbors we are even
talking about changing this line a little bit more to have it coincide. We a little space in between the line in
the area that would be taken by the third party between the lots and that line. We are talking about making
this coincide with the back of the lot line so there is no question. On the map that's here and on the map
that's in your FEIS the heavily broken line is the demarcation between the two zones. If you look below
that there is another broken line which is the line which is 150 feet back from the top of the bluffs. On this
rendering here we have submitted a line that's in red which somewhat follows the 150 foot marker line
except at this point it becomes more conservative than the 150. At this point it follows the lot line or the
zoning line demarcation going to the north there and around the archeological site, around the back of the
lot lines, around the back of these lots lines, around that archeological site over to John Clendon Brook.
We're talking about everything this side of that line including the whole pointe even the top part of the
pointe as being the conveyance which would go to the third party.
Councilman Monahan-Mike just a question because it's hard to see the red dotted line from here. Are you
talking everything that's in the green in that area is going to go to the third party?
Attorney O'Connor-Rob why don't you give us a little assistance.
Rob Sutherland-I think the best way to describe it is starting right at the Ball pit near the Sherman Island
Plant. That would really follow a line that's a 150 feet back from the top of the bluff. As Mike just
discussed we're going to propose that the rear lot line of this lot which is a three acre lot, you would come
around to the rear lot line of these lots which are one acre. You would come around to these lots which are
half acre and then come back to this point which is near Clendon Brook. The idea with that is that the rear
lot lines would represent the boundary between land that would be going to a third party such as some kind
of land conservancy group. It would also protect the Clendon Brook bluffs as well as the wetlands, the
bluffs from the Hudson River, the point and in the lower area that Mike described.
Councilman Caimano-So that red line really has nothing to do with it.
Mr. Sutherland-This red line has essentially just been kind of brought back to simplify this so it's the rear
lot line in all cases as it wraps around.
Attorney O'Connor-The red line was good as of six thirty, seven o'clock. But, after our brief meeting out in
the hallway the question to me can we move it another 30 to 50 feet and have the line coincide so there
wouldn't be confusion. Niagara Mohawk has been cooperative, I think this Board is aware of that
throughout the whole process. Kurt Forbach indicated it is something that could be accomplished so that
will be our next dressing up of that map.
Councilman Monahan-So there would be no Homeowners Association involved in that particular area of
the project that would all be this third party conservancy?
Attorney O'Connor-That's correct. What we have done by reconfiguring the subdivision is taken the
sensitive areas which this Board and the neighbors, and others have expressed an interest in and removed
them from the areas of development. There isn't a question as to how much we cut or what we cut, we
aren't going to be doing any cutting on the bluffs. We aren't going to do any cutting on the buffer area
above the bluffs. It will be up to this Board to determine with the third party as to what actually will
happen to that parcel of land. Beyond density and the sensitive areas we also have reconfigured, if you
will, not reconfigured, but added too, I think the proposal for access. We had a single lane road for the
main access to the development through what has been referred to as the McDonald subdivision. We are
now talking about making that into a boulevard so it is a two lane entrance way and it will be the main
entrance, it will be the character setting drive that will allow access to the subdivision. We've had some
complaint and historically this Board is aware of it, I don't know if there is anyone in the audience that is
maybe not aware of the history but, we've had complaint before because the initial project proposal had no
access except along Sherman Island Road. This initially was conceived because of that to eliminate
Sherman Island Road as an access way. Apparently there are strong feelings among some that Sherman
Island Road does not want to be entirely eliminated from the possibility of access. We've gone back a step
from some other alternatives that we've had and said that in the reconfiguration of the McDonald
subdivision we would not change the connection for Kimberly Lane or this is McDonald Drive, I guess and
Kimberly Lane we would leave them as they presently exist and not change it. That would allow those
parties that are within the Sherman Island Road subdivision if they want to come out through our
subdivision to go onto Corinth Road. If you take a look at the configuration you have here it's unlikely that
the people coming along the boulevard are going to take a right hand turn and take these different terms to
come out through Sherman Island Road and make the entrance to Corinth Road on this intersection which
has been termed not very favorable for traffic. I think very practically and very reasonably our traffic will
continue to use the main boulevard for point of entrance or exit from the subdivision. But, this will allow
these people another feature it will allow them a secondary access even for emergency vehicles that they
don't presently have. They are on a one way dead end street, not one way, but a dead end street presently.
It also will allow even school bus traffic to come through this entrance way our entrance way and go into
Sherman Island pick up kids and come back out. There are a lot of pluses built into what has been put to us
as being the best plan for access to our site with a combination of the existing traffic patterns that we
presently have.
Councilman Caimano-Where would Sherman Island Road end?
Attorney O'Connor-We talked about Sherman Island Road ending past the last house which is owned by I
think Phil Whittemore pass this point. The actual travel portion of the road would end.
Councilman Caimano-So everybody would have access to Sherman Island Road outward bound?
Attorney O'Connor-Yes. There will be no connection for day to day traffic from our development to
Sherman Island Road. If we have that open then we're back into the argument of the people along Sherman
Island Road who said they didn't want the additional traffic from the people that were just stubborn enough
to take a shortcut even though it might have not been the best entrance or exit onto Corinth Road. We still
as part of this proposal will eliminate from even this portion of Sherman Island Road and we won't
introduce it to our own subdivision the truck traffic for the facilities of Niagara Mohawk. That truck traffic
will enter and exit on a company road along this way here to the Sherman Island facilities it will not be part
of the subdivision so there are two pluses or even a better entrance to Corinth Road. The existing traffic
we're going to eliminate that truck traffic and the impact probably eliminate the potential of some of the
traffic that would of gone that way when the McDonald subdivision was developed by having that come
out through our entrance way. Throughout the development you will see a concept change in open space
the area now shown in open space and I'm talking even of the area that's in the SR-IA zone. Your talking
about good usable quality land. We more than meet the requirement of the Ordinance, I believe we have 39
acres in the SR -1 acre zone. We're talking about allowing the development of some inter development
pathway utilizing the open space. We are proposing formal walkways or pathways, but we are going to
have an area so that people can go from one neighborhood within the development to another neighborhood
within the development. With the reconfiguration we have maybe made that more meaningful by setting of
independent neighborhoods. If you take a look at them, I think it's a very unique utilization of some of the
cul-de-sac's that are here to establish independent type neighborhoods. We've added at the suggestion of
Town Planning Staff a potential area for neighborhood development, neighborhood commercial
development at the far end of the development on Corinth Road. This was asked for with the potential that
it might serve our development it may also serve maybe the continue expansion of Bedford Close maybe
even Herald Square Development and some of the other areas that have been developed in there. It's not
something that we have any proposal for it would be subject to site plan review. It would be subject to the
typical and the standard buffer requirements for any development on a commercial piece that adjoins a
residential piece. There are a lot of safeguards built into it, but it allows a potential. Basically that would
be presentation we would be willing to answer any questions that you have. We are asking the Board to
adopt a resolution setting a public hearing on the PUD designation. We believe that it's appropriate that
maybe as part of that discussion in setting that resolution this Board discuss publicly whether or not they
have any feelings as to whether or not this should be referred to the County Planning Board or to the Town
Planning Board as a requirement. I take a position that as part of the PUD process that is not the proper
procedure to follow. That this is an evolution of the development based upon our PUD regulations. We've
gone over this one time before, but I just want to be sure that it's not something we get a public hearing set
that it becomes an issue at time of public hearing that it becomes a road block for us.
Councilman Caimano-I have two questions. First question is the five acre public park. You could not use
any lands to come up with your numbers of ninety six, right? There are no trade offs of recreation lands
that's just a given that public park, we can do whatever we want with it?
Attorney O'Connor-We want as part of our consideration for being able to develop this scheme some
consideration and acknowledgement that we're asking for the conveyance of the 87 acres here and the 5
acres here in lieu of recreation fees. We think that we offered a significant offering for potential recreation
use for our parcel and for adjoining parcels particularly by this piece out here.
Councilman Caimano-But, all of that land mayor not be used as a part is that correct? We don't have to
use it as all as a park?
Attorney Dusek-If your asking if you take it as park land do you have options as to what you do with it, yes
you do.
Councilman Caimano-Okay.
Councilman Monahan-I think we have a regulation we can protect sensitive areas, I mean that's part of our
planning.
Attorney Dusek-There are regular parks, passive parks, there are a number of different things you can with
that.
Mr. Brewer-You mean you can do something with the whole ninety some odd acres?
Mr. Oppenheim-Let me just comment. I think the 87 acres it's our intent that it be used for passive
recreation, I think that's the Towns intent as well. Those are restrictions that we will establish together, but
that's the clear intent of both parties.
Councilman Caimano-Okay.
Attorney O'Connor-This does not restrict and we are cognizant of a letter in our file from the Town Water
Department as to adjoining to the present water facility. As I understand it they on their letter outline
Parcel A, B, C. Purposely the design of this was put not to include anything that would infringed upon
potential Town desires.
Councilman Caimano-I think and it's easy to handle but, I think a part of A infringes in that triangle of
green. But, that's okay we'll work that out that's not a deal breaker so to speak. It does infringe on that area
that we looked at for expansion of the Water Treatment Plant, but that's okay.
Attorney O'Connor-This configuration if the Town has other thoughts on it, I think we're open.
Councilman Caimano-My other question since this is not a public hearing we're just setting the ground
rules for the next public hearing is it your intent to answer Mr. Friedland's letter by letter or are you going
to take these points, what are you going to do?
Attorney O'Connor-I think the FEIS answers those points.
Councilman Caimano-Okay. Can we do the public hearing next week?
Attorney Dusek-You need ten days.
Councilman Monahan-I talked to Jim Martin he said his staff would need to the twenty seventh to respond
to this and get their act together. That would give him a chance to find out about our Planning Board and
Warren County Planning Board.
Councilman Caimano-I'll move this resolution for the twenty seventh. Let's get a second here for this
resolution if we're going to have one.
Councilman Monahan-Fine. He also said that he could delay this resolution, he and Darleen even until next
week. They could still get it advertised for the twenty seventh if there is any question.
Councilman Caimano-Do you second me?
Councilman Monahan-I did.
Attorney Dusek-Our preference would be to do it sooner in the event if there is something that comes up
with the public hearing technical of nature that we haven't complied with. If there is a window sooner as of
the twentieth if that's a possibility. I heard some discussion of what was proposed for the twentieth may not
be on the agenda for the twentieth if it is then fine, I understand where your going. If its not if there is a
window earlier than the twentieth seventh we would appreciate that consideration.
Councilman Monahan-After talking to Jim today I would not want to do it any sooner than that.
Attorney O'Connor-My understanding from Jim was he would accommodate what ever this Board wanted.
I think it's up to your agenda as to what you've got on dates.
Councilman Monahan-I talked to Jim about noon time today.
Attorney Dusek - I just asked Karen and she said there are no public hearings currently scheduled for the
twentieth or twenty seventh.
Councilman Caimano-Let's try and accommodate everybody and let's move it to the twentieth, we can't do
that.
Councilman Monahan-You can put it the twenty seventh and if Jim feels he can do it earlier then you could
change it next week.
Attorney Dusek-No.
Attorney O'Connor-You can set it tonight for the twentieth and if you can't do it in the next couple of days
you can change it.
Councilman Caimano-We would have to be able to get the Board together again.
Councilman Monahan-I think your safer the twenty seventh.
Deputy Supervisor Tucker-Let me ask you question. I was at a meeting last week and we were discussing
water plant. We were discussing setting a public hearing the twenty seventh.
Attorney Dusek-Later on tonight I will be recommending that you consider a date in January for that.
Attorney O'Connor-You have no public hearing sets for the twentieth?
Councilman Caimano-Not that I know of, Karen?
Deputy Town Clerk O'Brien-No.
Attorney O'Connor-I would ask for your consideration of scheduling it that evening. As I understand you
might not be talking about a night that your going to take action. Your talking about public input on the
question of rezoning. You've had all kinds of public input. There is even a question to whether or not you
need a second public hearing. We're trying to be conservative by saying let's set a public hearing. It would
just give the Board that much more time to react. I don't think we're talking about setting by your date of
your public hearing a date that this Board will or will not act.
Councilman Caimano-I think if we can get through the public hearing in a positive way we can do
everything that night, we did it last time.
Attorney Dusek-You have one other time table that's running here which we'll have to check on and that's
the SEQRA time table. I think after the document has been accepted there is a 10 day time frame that has
to be complied with that as well.
Councilman Caimano- Y ou mean we have to wait 10 days?
Attorney Dusek-Yes. There is a waiting period once SEQRA is finalized.
Attorney O'Connor-Which is why I'm saying I would like to have that deemed complete next Monday
night. Which would give us the thirteenth that would get us to the twenty third. The twenty seventh is
probably going to be the date of final action.
Councilman Monahan-You've got to have somebody look this over and see if it is complete with all the
other stuff that's on it. Dick Morse has got to look at you've got an awful tight schedule.
Attorney O'Connor-With due respect Mrs. Monahan not for the purpose of setting the public hearing. The
setting of the public hearing is simply the date for the public comment period of the rezoning issue.
Councilman Monahan-The other alternative is we're meeting Thursday afternoon. Jim will be there
Thursday and Jim can tell us which date he can work the best with, for what he has to do from his end.
Councilman Tucker-Why can't we set it and if he can't do it all we have to do it change it to the twenty
seventh.
Councilman Caimano-I'll change my motion to the twentieth.
Deputy Supervisor Tucker-Who seconded it?
Councilman Caimano-Betty did.
Deputy Supervisor Tucker-Betty will you...
Councilman Monahan-No.
Deputy Supervisor Tucker-Then I'll second your motion, can I do that?
Attorney Dusek-I think proper rules of order you do have one motion that was on the floor which I think
you need to dispose of first.
Councilman Goetz-What was it?
Councilman Caimano-For the twenty seventh. Call the roll.
Councilman Monahan-What are we doing?
Councilman Caimano-We're voting on a public hearing on the twenty seventh? I'll withdraw the twenty
seven.
Attorney Dusek-Maybe at this point the better thing to do would be make a new resolution.
Councilman Caimano-I withdraw it and I'll go with the twentieth.
Deputy Supervisor Tucker-I'll second it.
The following resolutions were passed.
RESOLUTION SETTING FURTHER PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
HUDSON POINTE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
RESOLUTION NO.: 739, 93 (DEFEATED)
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker
WHEREAS, on or about June 15, 1992, the Michaels Group, acting as the Project Sponsor on
behalf of the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (hereinafter the parties are referred to jointly or
commonly as "developer"), submitted a letter of intent together with an Environmental Assessment Form
with exhibits, and requested that certain parcels ofland, bearing tax map numbers: 148-1-2.1, and 151-1-
7.1, consisting of a total of approximately 307 acres, and existing, generally, southerly of Corinth Road and
west of Sherman Island Road in the Town of Queensbury, be designated a Planned Unit Development, to
be known as the Hudson Pointe PUD (hereinafter referred to as the "Planned Unit Development"), in
accordance with, and by virtue of, the provisions of Article 8 of the Zoning Laws of the Town of
Queensbury, the same being a part of Chapter 179 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, the proposal presented requested that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury
legislate and rezone the aforesaid area to allow the establishment of a Planned Unit Development consisting
of a maximum of 163 dwelling units consisting of 123 single family dwellings and 40 townhouses, and
WHEREAS, on or about the 31st day of August, 1992, the Town Board of the Town of
Queensbury adopted a resolution indicating its desire to be lead agent for SEQRA purposes and authorizing
notification of all other involved agencies that the aforesaid letter of intent and application for the Planned
Unit Development had been made, and that a coordinated SEQRA review was desired to be undertaken,
and
WHEREAS, on or about the 24th day of September, 1992, the Planning Board for the Town of
Queensbury reviewed a Sketch Plan and related documents concerning the Planned Unit Development as
presented to the Board at said meeting, and adopted a resolution indicating it was rendering a favorable
report to the Town Board with certain stipulations and comments including a recommendation that the
Town Board proceed to a public hearing, and
WHEREAS, on or about November 18, 1992, the Warren County Planning Board reviewed the
Planned Unit Development and consented to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury being the lead
agent for SEQRA review purposes, and also approved the Planned Unit Development as presented at said
meeting, and
WHEREAS, on or about December 21, 1992, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury
acknowledged that as a result of previous notification of agencies ascertained to be involved in the project,
there was no objection to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury being lead agent for purposes of
SEQRA review and assumed lead agency status and set a date for a public hearing on the Planned Unit
Development, and
WHEREAS, on or about January 18, 1993, the developer, by letter, amended the Planned Unit
Development Application by withdrawing therefrom a parcel previously included in the Planned Unit
Development Application documents and known as Parcel A, consisting of approximately 94 acres, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with ~ 179-57 D. of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, the Town
Board of the Town of Queensbury held a public hearing on the proposed Planned Unit Development on
January 25, 1993, and
WHEREAS, following the aforesaid public hearing and on February 2, 1993, the Town Board of
the Town of Queensbury convened and discussed the areas of environmental concern raised by virtue of
written communications, documents submitted by the developer, involved or interested agencies and others,
the public hearing, Town staff comments, and the Town Board members themselves, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, after due deliberation by resolution no.
149, 1993, determined that a Positive Declaration should be issued under the New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act with respect to the proposed Hudson Pointe Planned Unit
Development, and
WHEREAS, on or about March 22, 1993, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury approved
the content and attachments to a Positive Declaration and authorized the filing and publication of the same
as required by the SEQRA rules and regulations, and
WHEREAS, on or about the 1st day of June, 1993, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury,
as lead agent for the Hudson Pointe Planned Unit Development SEQRA review, and after considering all of
the information received and after considering all comments received from involved agencies, the
applicant, the planning staff, Morse Engineering, P.c., and other interested parties, including members of
the public, adopted and approved a scoping document and requested that the applicant use the same as a
basis for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), and
WHEREAS, the Michaels Group, as applicant on behalf of the Hudson Pointe Planned Unit
Development, previously presented to the Town Board, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
and the Town Board determined that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was satisfactory
with respect to its scope, content, and adequacy for purposes of commencing public review, established a
public comment period and held a public hearing on the same on September 13, 1993, and
WHEREAS, the developer has responded to comments received by developing a refined plan and
plan narrative, and presented this in a Final Environmental Impact Statement. This plan is referred to as the
"Low Density PUD Alternative." It reduces the dwelling unit count to 96 single family units and provides
additional open space along the Hudson River, bluffs and point area. A small neighborhood commercial
area is located on Corinth Road and an area for a community center/day care center is located within the
site. The primary vehicular site access is a boulevard that connects to Corinth Road. Sherman Island Road
is terminated at the project border with a turn-around that provides for emergency vehicle access only.
McDonald Drive and Kimberly Lane remain connected to Sherman Island Road and will connect to the
Boulevard Road, and
WHEREAS, in consideration of the degree of interest and the action shown by the public, the
environmental issues that have been raised and will be affected by the amendments proposed by the
developer, and legislative, procedural requirements, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is
desirous of holding a further public hearing before taking any further action with regard to the proposed
Planned Unit Development,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby determines that it would be
appropriate to hold a further public hearing and hereby establishes and sets the date for the public hearing
to be held on December 20th, 1993 at 7 :00 p.m., in the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road,
Queensbury, Warren County, New York, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the further public hearing is be held for purposes of entertaining comments with
regard to the Planned Unit Development Project and matters relating to any potential environmental
impacts of the amended project, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that it is the intent of the Town Board to satisfy any requirements that may exist for
a further public hearing as the result of the application of any Town Law and/or Zoning Ordinance
requirement, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the public hearing authorized herein shall be preceded by notice which must be
published at least 10 days in advance of the public hearing, in a newspaper of general circulation in the area
of the Town of Queensbury, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Notice of Public Hearing presented at this meeting is hereby approved and
the Town Clerk is hereby authorized to publish the same in the official newspaper for the Town of
Queensbury and post the same on the Town Clerk's bulletin board, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Attorney's Office of the Town of Queensbury is also hereby
authorized and directed to give written notice of the public hearing on the proposed Planned Unit
Development in accordance with the written notice presented at this meeting, to be delivered at least 10
days prior to the following: Warren County, by service upon the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, and
such other communities or agencies that it is necessary to give written notice to pursuant to ~264 or ~265 of
the Town Law of the State of New York, the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Queensbury, and the Laws
of the State of New York.
Duly adopted this 6th day of December, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker
NOES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz
ABSENT:Mr. Brandt
RESOLUTION SETTING FURTHER PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
HUDSON POINTE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
RESOLUTION NO.: 740, 93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan
WHEREAS, on or about June 15, 1992, the Michaels Group, acting as the Project Sponsor on
behalf of the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (hereinafter the parties are referred to jointly or
commonly as "developer"), submitted a letter of intent together with an Environmental Assessment Form
with exhibits, and requested that certain parcels ofland, bearing tax map numbers: 148-1-2.1, and 151-1-
7.1, consisting of a total of approximately 307 acres, and existing, generally, southerly of Corinth Road and
west of Sherman Island Road in the Town of Queensbury, be designated a Planned Unit Development, to
be known as the Hudson Pointe PUD (hereinafter referred to as the "Planned Unit Development"), in
accordance with, and by virtue of, the provisions of Article 8 of the Zoning Laws of the Town of
Queensbury, the same being a part of Chapter 179 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, the proposal presented requested that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury
legislate and rezone the aforesaid area to allow the establishment of a Planned Unit Development consisting
of a maximum of 163 dwelling units consisting of 123 single family dwellings and 40 townhouses, and
WHEREAS, on or about the 31st day of August, 1992, the Town Board of the Town of
Queensbury adopted a resolution indicating its desire to be lead agent for SEQRA purposes and authorizing
notification of all other involved agencies that the aforesaid letter of intent and application for the Planned
Unit Development had been made, and that a coordinated SEQRA review was desired to be undertaken,
and
WHEREAS, on or about the 24th day of September, 1992, the Planning Board for the Town of
Queensbury reviewed a Sketch Plan and related documents concerning the Planned Unit Development as
presented to the Board at said meeting, and adopted a resolution indicating it was rendering a favorable
report to the Town Board with certain stipulations and comments including a recommendation that the
Town Board proceed to a public hearing, and
WHEREAS, on or about November 18, 1992, the Warren County Planning Board reviewed the
Planned Unit Development and consented to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury being the lead
agent for SEQRA review purposes, and also approved the Planned Unit Development as presented at said
meeting, and
WHEREAS, on or about December 21, 1992, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury
acknowledged that as a result of previous notification of agencies ascertained to be involved in the project,
there was no objection to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury being lead agent for purposes of
SEQRA review and assumed lead agency status and set a date for a public hearing on the Planned Unit
Development, and
WHEREAS, on or about January 18, 1993, the developer, by letter, amended the Planned Unit
Development Application by withdrawing therefrom a parcel previously included in the Planned Unit
Development Application documents and known as Parcel A, consisting of approximately 94 acres, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with ~ 179-57 D. of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, the Town
Board of the Town of Queensbury held a public hearing on the proposed Planned Unit Development on
January 25, 1993, and
WHEREAS, following the aforesaid public hearing and on February 2, 1993, the Town Board of
the Town of Queensbury convened and discussed the areas of environmental concern raised by virtue of
written communications, documents submitted by the developer, involved or interested agencies and others,
the public hearing, Town staff comments, and the Town Board members themselves, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, after due deliberation by resolution no.
149, 1993, determined that a Positive Declaration should be issued under the New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act with respect to the proposed Hudson Pointe Planned Unit
Development, and
WHEREAS, on or about March 22, 1993, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury approved
the content and attachments to a Positive Declaration and authorized the filing and publication of the same
as required by the SEQRA rules and regulations, and
WHEREAS, on or about the 1st day of June, 1993, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury,
as lead agent for the Hudson Pointe Planned Unit Development SEQRA review, and after considering all of
the information received and after considering all comments received from involved agencies, the
applicant, the planning staff, Morse Engineering, P.c., and other interested parties, including members of
the public, adopted and approved a scoping document and requested that the applicant use the same as a
basis for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), and
WHEREAS, the Michaels Group, as applicant on behalf of the Hudson Pointe Planned Unit
Development, previously presented to the Town Board, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
and the Town Board determined that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was satisfactory
with respect to its scope, content, and adequacy for purposes of commencing public review, established a
public comment period and held a public hearing on the same on September 13, 1993, and
WHEREAS, the developer has responded to comments received by developing a refined plan and
plan narrative, and presented this in a Final Environmental Impact Statement. This plan is referred to as the
"Low Density PUD Alternative." It reduces the dwelling unit count to 96 single family units and provides
additional open space along the Hudson River, bluffs and point area. A small neighborhood commercial
area is located on Corinth Road and an area for a community center/day care center is located within the
site. The primary vehicular site access is a boulevard that connects to Corinth Road. Sherman Island Road
is terminated at the project border with a turn-around that provides for emergency vehicle access only.
McDonald Drive and Kimberly Lane remain connected to Sherman Island Road and will connect to the
Boulevard Road, and
WHEREAS, in consideration of the degree of interest and the action shown by the public, the
environmental issues that have been raised and will be affected by the amendments proposed by the
developer, and legislative, procedural requirements, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is
desirous of holding a further public hearing before taking any further action with regard to the proposed
Planned Unit Development,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby determines that it would be
appropriate to hold a further public hearing and hereby establishes and sets the date for the public hearing
to be held on December 27th, 1993 at 7:00 p.m., in the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road,
Queensbury, Warren County, New York, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the further public hearing is be held for purposes of entertaining comments with
regard to the Planned Unit Development Project and matters relating to any potential environmental
impacts of the amended project, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that it is the intent of the Town Board to satisfy any requirements that may exist for
a further public hearing as the result of the application of any Town Law and/or Zoning Ordinance
requirement, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the public hearing authorized herein shall be preceded by notice which must be
published at least 10 days in advance of the public hearing, in a newspaper of general circulation in the area
of the Town of Queensbury, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Notice of Public Hearing presented at this meeting is hereby approved and
the Town Clerk is hereby authorized to publish the same in the official newspaper for the Town of
Queensbury and post the same on the Town Clerk's bulletin board, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Attorney's Office of the Town of Queensbury is also hereby
authorized and directed to give written notice of the public hearing on the proposed Planned Unit
Development in accordance with the written notice presented at this meeting, to be delivered at least 10
days prior to the following: Warren County, by service upon the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, and
such other communities or agencies that it is necessary to give written notice to pursuant to ~264 or ~265 of
the Town Law of the State of New York, the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Queensbury, and the Laws
of the State of New York.
Duly adopted this 6th day of December, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Monahan
NOES: Mr. Tucker
ABSENT:Mr. Brandt
DISCUSSION HELD
Attorney O'Connor-Was that motion made with full understanding that this application as it has been
amended by the FEIS and by the submittal here and what's included in this document need not be referred
to the County Planning Board or the Town Planning Board as has been the prior rulings of this Board.
Councilman Monahan-I can't answer that. That's one thing Jim was going to think about a little bit. I'm not
going to give you an answer on that frankly.
Attorney O'Connor-I would ask Paul whether he has any position on that. I think it is a position of this
Board to take, not necessarily of the Zoning Administrator.
Councilman Caimano-It is also not the position of the Town Attorney it's this Board.
Attorney O'Connor-I would ask for his input for you for it.
Councilman Caimano-As much as I might not sound like it I tend to agree with you. I think, first of all it
doesn't make any difference whether it goes back to any of the Boards they are recommendations we have
to make the final decision anyway. The only thing that could possibly happen is that we would have to
have a super majority if the County did their...ifthey turned it down. That's the only thing that could
change the whole thing.
Attorney O'Connor-The problem that you have is the procedure that we have under the PUD regulations
really don't provide for re-referral every time there is a change in the project. If you adopt a precedent to
that affect your going to create your own problems down the road because every time this project changes
your going to talk about starting over again.....
Councilman Caimano- That doesn't make any logical sense. The Board's have had their chance to look at it
they've sent it to the one Board that's going to make the decision. During the course of our decision making
there are going to be some changes that's what this is all about so logically there are going to be some
changes. If we went back to the previous Boards every time we made a change we would be here till you
got old and that's not the point of this.
Deputy Supervisor Tucker-But, Nick that's what happen with the first trip on this thing. It went to all the
Board's it went to our Planning Board and they came back and said we approved a project all together
different than they approved.
Councilman Caimano- I understand that.
Councilman Monahan-There is that word of substantial change in there. That's why I want to get a little bit
more background.
Attorney O'Connor-I don't believe there is a word of substantial change in the referral process.
Attorney Dusek-If you look at the criteria for the Warren County Planning Board which is under the
General Municipal Law and you look at our own Planning Board criteria they provide for a referral of the
project. I think there are two ways you could look at that. One way you could say once the project itself
has been referred it's done and over with. A good example might be like with your own budget
proceedings that you just went through. Once you went through the public hearing even after you changed
the budget there was no need to do because the issue was for a recommendation or in the case of a budget
input from the public. I think there is a strong argument to be made that once that happens that's all you
need to do. If this was coming back as a subdivision and not as a planned unit development it was a
different creature, I think you would have a problem.
Councilman Caimano-I agree.
Attorney Dusek-But, I think what I see here is a project that has been basically shrunk. The nature of the
project the PUD is still there it's still the same. Both Boards, my understanding were recommending
approval of a larger project this has actual been shrunken in size. The other issue I was going to mention, I
think that's one thing going in your favor as far as not having to go back. The second issue is that even if
there is a decision to be made by the Board it would be in terms of, is it such a drastic change is it so
substantial that you feel that it has to go back through the process. I see a shrinking unless you see
something different than I see, I don't see a substantial issue here, but that, of course, I would defer to the
Board on.
Deputy Supervisor Tucker-What are you looking for Mike?
Attorney O'Connor-I want to have that consensus so we don't get to the twenty seventh and all of a sudden
have a road block that we don't anticipate. Unfortunately this Wednesday night is the meeting for the
County Planning Board the time for filing and submittal has already passed. Probably the first Town
Planning Board meeting that you would get on an agenda if they gave special consideration would be the
twenty first.
Councilman Caimano-I don't think your going to get a consensus. What you got was some reasons,
explanations. You had a reasoned opinion from the Attorney and I think that's about the best you can
expect. I don't think your going to get a consensus and I'd be afraid you wouldn't get it tonight.
Attorney O'Connor-That is my position, I want to be open with it at this point.
Councilman Caimano-And that's mine. I don't know what to tell you.
Attorney O'Connor-The other items on this subject that we have for your consideration is we do have
copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement can we be put on next Monday night's agenda for the
purposes of having it deemed complete or incomplete so that the time clock which is a ten day period can
begin to run.
Councilman Caimano-I don't see why not.
Attorney Dusek-I don't have any problem with that. It's just a matter of reviewing the document and you
can pass on it next week as to whether you feel its complete or not.
Councilman Caimano- When are we going to have it in our hands?
Attorney O'Connor-This evening. The other thing, I would like to begin is discussion with the Board as to
acceptance of the 87 acres and the 5 acre park or whatever portion of the 5 acre park the Board deems to be
satisfactory for its purposes as an offering in lieu of recreation fees.
Councilman Monahan-I'm not prepared to comment at this time. Those are the things that you sit down
with the Planning Department and you talk to them about. Frankly, off the top of my head I don't see any
problem, but I'm going to still talk to the Planning Department that's what we got one for.
Attorney O'Connor-The purpose is to begin discussion so that you understand where we're coming from.
That's part of the basis for this offering for this down sizing and density and what not is an avoidance of
those fees. Weare offering, I think a very significant parcel of land that has some unique features to it that
is not reproducible in other areas of the Town and we think it is worthy of this Boards consideration of
acceptance of that for that purpose.
Councilman Caimano-My opinion is that Mrs. Monahan's answer is a good one.
Attorney O'Connor-I think it actually goes to the Planning Board when we get to site plan review.
Councilman Caimano-Planning Department.
Councilman Monahan-I think you know Mike that I think this is a very good plan compared to the other. I
am very pleased that we have chance to preserve that space. But, I'm not prepared to give you those
concrete answers tonight without consulting with the professional people that we hire to consult with.
Attorney O'Connor-Okay. Any other questions that you have of myself or anyone else or that you want me
to address?
Councilman Caimano- No.
Attorney O'Connor-Thank you.
Submitted Final copies of FE IS to Deputy Town Clerk O'Brien.
OPEN FORUM
Dave Kinney-Queensbury. Requested that the Town Board look into the possibility of getting lights for the
area regarding the Factory Outlet area, noted they are already in a lighting district. It was the decision of
the Town Board to have Councilman Tucker look into this.
Attorney Dusek-Spoke to the Board in regard to the landfill closure. Noted Dick Morse was present to
speak to the Board regarding the closure and that one of the requirements is that it be addressed in public
seSSIOn.
Dick Morse-Spoke to the Town Board regarding landfill variances he has received in regard to the landfill
closure. The Department of Environmental Conservation came out with a program entitled, Mandated
Relief. Proceeded to try and come under the mandated relief clauses, but were informed by the State
because the Town is the Consolidated Landfill that Queensbury was not eligible, but could apply for
variances. The two variances that we applied for were obtained. Had a tight spec under DEC Part 3-60 for
topsoil which is just a growing media to establish the turf to stabilize the landfill cap. They said they would
waive the topsoil and allow us to use "growing media", a product that would support vegetative growth
received relief on that. The next item that we were successful in obtaining relief from was, if you can
remember from previous discussion we talked on several options about whether to use a clay liner or a, an
artificial membrane of 40 mill. If you were using the 40 mill membrane the State felt it was appropriate to
thin down the barrier protection layer from 24 inches to 12 inches. The reason it was based upon was that
you needed the frost protection that the deeper lens gave you to protect he clay layer because if the frost got
into the clay layer it tended to heave it, split it, open it up. By using the synthetic geo-membrane which is
an artificial membrane which I've showed you samples of previously you could minimize that barrier
protection layer and take 12 inches off of that have applied and received that variances. Did petition the
State of the gas vent layer which was one of the mandated relief issues, but they did not allow us to proceed
with that variance they would not recommend that to Albany. The others were on sampling and prodigal in
the sampling procedure they said because of the size of Queensbury that we shouldn't consider applying for
those. Noted the Town is about to submit the total package. Did received back 17 comments about four to
five weeks ago this was one of the comments that these two issues had to be discussed in public forum and
this material will be going out tomorrow morning to DEC.
Attorney Dusek-It is my understanding other than the variances you have received the plan was to design
the cap in accordance with the 1988 regulations.
Mr. Morse-Correct.
Attorney Dusek-If people want to see what you are doing there are maps on file at DEC, but also
regulations. What you have described are the two changes you've made or variances from those
regulations.
Mr. Morse-Correct.
Councilman Monahan-Questioned if they have to be approved?
Mr. Morse-Did receive approval from DEC on those variances. But, one of the prodigal issues with that is
that it had to be brought forward in public forum that the public is made aware of this change is that
specification. Haven't received final approval because they came back with the 17 comments this being
one. There were a number of technical questions and clarifications that they required in the specifications
and plans. We have made that and they will be going back to Mt. Pleasant and assume that final approval
will be in the next few weeks on the cap. Once that is received then we can look at quantifying the
volumes and going out to bid on the cap.
Councilman Monahan-Questioned if the Town is in place on how they are going to do it, but have to go
through the approval process?
Mr. Morse-Basically just formalities now.
Councilman Monahan-Questioned the tentative time of going out to bid for closure?
Mr. Morse-Anticipate getting the project out in mid-winter, February. To bid it for 30 days with breaking
ground in the Spring.
Fred Champagne-Questioned if Mr. Morse was saying that by December 31, 1994 the landfill will be
closed completely?
Mr. Morse-Noted that he would envision a cape being on and that we would have put the turf bed down and
that we would be in a stabilization turf establishment period. Calling for this to last one year, noting the
contractor will be responsible for bringing the turf in.
Councilman Monahan-Questioned what it was going to cost per year post closure to met all DEC
regulations?
Mr. Morse-Noted that this is being worked on.
Councilman Tucker-Questioned if Mr. Threw was awarded his permit for demolition.
Attorney Dusek-Yes.
Councilman Tucker-Understands that Mr. Threw has to go through a permitting process in the Town.
Attorney Dusek-Noted that Mr. Threw was notified of that probably six, seven months ago.
Councilman Tucker-Questioned if he has to come before the Board before he can use the permit?
Attorney Dusek-Yes.
Councilman Tucker-Questioned if he had been notified?
Attorney Dusek-Not officially, received his information from Mr. Naylor.
Mr. Naylor-Noted he has a permit processed from the State.
Councilman Tucker-Asked Attorney Dusek when he gets notified could he notify Mr. Threw that he has to
come before the Board?
Attorney Dusek-Will send a letter to Mr. Threw notifying him that we have received notice of the permit
and suggest that he immediately come before the Town Board before he undertakes any operations.
RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS
RESOLUTION NO. 741, 93
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the Abstract appearing on
December 6th, 1993 numbering 93444200 through 93469800 and totaling $200,818.27 is hereby approved,
and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that Vendor number #0407, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation and Vendor # 1802 Potter
Fence Construction was pulled for further approval by the Town Board.
Duly adopted this 6th day of December, 1993, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Tucker
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Brandt
Abstain: Mr. Caimano (#000127 GF Post Star)
DISCUSSION HELD WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION
Attorney Dusek-Spoke to the Board regarding the Water Treatment Plant. Noted about a week ago
received the Map, Plan, and Report on the O'Brien and Gere Water Treatment Plant. The Board had
indicated the urgency for a public hearing to be set for the twentieth or twenty seventh. Has began the
process of reviewing the Map, Plan, and Report, preparing the necessary resolutions to noting some things
that need to be addressed before you can move ahead with the project. Some of the issues are substantial
enough that you may wish to consider postponing the public hearing at least until the first or second week
of January. The issues, I've seen according to the Map, Plan, and Report there is a figure given for the
project, but that figure does not include the acquisition of any necessary lands for the project. Have spoken
with the Engineer and questioned if the lands had to be acquired for the project whether the project can
survive without the lands? His answer as I understand it is you could do the project without the lands, but
if you did it would require a reconfiguration of the project perhaps a change in the amount of money that's
being estimated for the project and it would also cause some additional problems. Concerned if the Board
goes with the 202B proceeding without having anything at all earmarked for the lands your really kind of
going off without having that part of the project completed. The second issue was in regard to the SEQRA
aspects. It is my opinion that although not absolutely necessary the better way to handle the SEQRA
process is that at the time you pass the resolution that sets the public hearing that you also at that point
declare yourself lead agent and authorize the transmission of the SEQRA documents as well as the Map,
Plan, and Report to the Department of Health and also to the Department of Environmental Conservation
because they are necessary permitting agencies in this process. I was told that the SEQRA forms won't be
ready until this Wednesday. The third issue that needs to be discussed to make sure everyone is in
agreement is that the Water Treatment Plant Map, Plan, and Report provides for a spreading of the cost
over the various districts in Town and only those districts in Town. There has been previous talk about the
Village of Hudson Falls being one of the parties that would share in the facilities or be under a subsequent
contract. In my opinion the way the Map, Plan, and Report is set up you could still contract with Hudson
Falls after you do the plant expansion, however, the contract would be limited to sale of water. You may
require that they put in their own piping facilities, but they would not be making a contribution towards the
plant as at one time had been thought. The problem they are going to have is unless they own a piece of
the plant they are going to have a very big difficulty trying to bond something. The contract that you have
would be just a supply contract unless we can structure something in the nature of a lease or a definite
contractual right that they could somehow bond, but that could be tricky because it is not the normal way
you would do that. The normal way would be is that they would join in a contract and actually share in the
cost and be liable for that and have a vested interest in the plant, noted either way works. If it stays the way
it is with the variety of districts you have in Town there appears to be a number of ways it can be structured
legally as far as how you set it up. The most logical way is the 202B proceeding which we had discussed.
What you would do in essence is a multiple 202B proceedings for each one of the districts because they
would each have to have a proceeding and have a right to a hearing, I think we can combine those. When
you do the multiple proceedings you will do a joint resolution that splits apart the cost. The way it is
currently set up in the Map, Plan, and Report your basically splitting the cost on a advalorem basis sharing
the total amount. You take the value of all the districts divide it into the cost of the project and come up
with a price per thousand which everyone will pay. Noted another way of structuring it might be to do a
General Municipal Law 5-C proceeding which is basically letting one district pay for the whole thing and
doing an excess type of arrangement. However, in the end your contract will be structured the same way.
Stated that the future for the Town will ultimately be to consolidate in all the other districts that are out
there, noting it seems that the Multiple 202B Proceeding is probably the best avenue to go leaving Hudson
Falls out of the process until after the plant is authorized. At that point entering into some kind of a
contract, noting that you could wait until after the cost were done the plant built. Then contracting with the
Village of Hudson Falls with providing them with water on a so many year basis. Stated not to start the
proceedings until the issue of the land has been addressed and SEQRA, which could be addressed within
the next few weeks with a public hearing to be held in January.
Councilman Monahan-Questioned the payment of the plant itself will it be based on assessed value not
water usage?
Attorney Dusek-Noted that you will have an advalorem for your capital improvement and a water meter
rate that covers 0 & M.
Councilman Monahan-Questioned if the actual plant itself will be based on access value?
Attorney Dusek -Correct.
Councilman Monahan-Questioned if the Village of Hudson Falls came in at a later date would not serve
reduce that tax that the people would be paying or would you give a credit against the advalorem tax?
Attorney Dusek-Noted the Board will have to make a decision as to what percentage of the money goes to
o & M and what percentage goes to capital.
Deputy Supervisor Tucker-Questioned if the plant was being operated on the original permit from DEC?
Attorney Dusek-Noted that the Town will have to go through another permitting process with DEC and
DOH at which time those issues will be addressed. Attorney Dusek to report back to the Board with further
information on Thursday.
RESOLUTION ENTERING EXECUTIVE SESSION
RESOLUTION NO. 742, 93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and
moves into Executive Session to discuss one matter of litigation, one matter attorney/client privilege, one
matter of active litigation.
Duly adopted this 6th day of December, 1993, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker
Noes: None
Absent:Mr. Brandt
RESOLUTION ADJOURNING EXECUTIVE SESSION
RESOLUTION NO. 743, 93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Executive Session
and moves back into Regular Session.
Duly adopted this 6th day of December, 1993, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Tucker
Noes: None
Absent:Mr. Brandt
RESOLUTION REGARDING APPEAL - BARRY AND ROBERTA A. CONVERSE
RESOLUTION NO. 744, 93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz
WHEREAS, there has been pending in Supreme Court the matter of Barry Converse and Roberta A.
Converse against the Town of Queensbury and members of the Town Board constituting the Town Board
of the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, a decision has been rendered by the Honorable John G. Dier, Supreme Court Justice in that
action, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury after discussing the decision with the Town
Attorney has been advised that it has the right to appeal, but does not wish to take that right to appeal to
appeal the decision,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the Town Attorney to settle
the matter and not take an appeal of the action any further at this point.
Duly adopted this 6th day of December, 1993, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Tucker
Noes: None
Absent:Mr. Brandt
RESOLUTION ENTERING EXECUTIVE SESSION
RESOLUTION NO. 745, 93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and
moves back into Executive Session to continue discussion of attorney/client privilege matters.
No further action taken.
On motion, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully Submitted,
Darleen M. Dougher
Town Clerk
Town of Queensbury