The URL can be used to link to this page

1990-08-09 SP SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING AUGUST 9, 1990 7:05 p.m. TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Supervisor Stephen Borgos Councilman George Kurosaka Councilman Marilyn Potenza Councilman Ronald Montesi Councilman Betty Monahan Town Attorney Paul Dusek Supervisor Borgos-Called the meeting to order. . . RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 465 , 1990 , Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi : RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into Executive Session to discuss Personnel . Duly adopted this 9th day of August, 1990 by the following vote: Ayes : Mr. Kurosaka,Mr. Montesi ,Mr. Borgos Noes : None Absent:Mrs . Potenza, Mrs . Monahan k RESOLUTION MOVING BACK INTO SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 466, 1990, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves back into regular session. Duly adopted this 9th day of August, 1990 , by the following vote : Ayes : Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Montesi , Mr. Borgos Noes : None Absent: Mrs . Potenza, Mrs . Monahan (Counciman Monahan and Potenza entered meeting during workshop) SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The Town Board will now conduct a workshop session with the Volunteer Fire Companies —regarding - service award program. . .This is a special meeting of the i Town Board in a workshop session to hear from the committee ` that was estabished under the terms of the last contract we entered into with the five fire companies . During the last year or so Les Hillis, one of the older firemen in Town agreed to Chair this committee and with the rest of the people put in a great deal of time and effort to put a presentation together for us . I think you have all gotten these packets, under the new New York State Law it is now available in New York State a so called service award program to volunteer fire fighters it is not yet available to my knowledge to rescue squad people . Some people term this a retirement program, it is officially known as a service award program, primarily because of the rules and regulations that are attached to it. It does not just go to people who have been members for years there are a lot of stipulations . The Board will have to decide whether or not we want this to go to referendum, zn order for this to be adopted by any Town it must go , it is a mandatory referendum item. Town Attorney Dusek-Reviewed the various ways this can be brought to referendum. . .recommended using a Local Law. . . Les Hillis-Introduced the Committee and Planners . . .Mr. Brown, Glens Falls National Bank, Chuck Ogden, Bay Ridge Fire Dept. , Pete Carr, North Queensbury Fire Co . , John Shea, No . Queensbury Fire Company, Mike Palmer , West Glens Falls , Jack Cushing, Queensbury Central , Ben Bardin, Bay Ridge, Bill Mellon, Bay Ridge , Dave Irons, Queensbury Central , Ed Houlihan Actuarium for the administration of the proposed program, Joe Duprey, So . Queensbury , . . . turned meeting over to Mr. Mike Palmer to make the next presentation. . . Mr. Mike Palmer-Reviewed the proposal with the Board. . .Define Benefit Plan or Define Contribution Plan. . .requested that the Define Contribution Plan be considered by the Board. . . Mr. Dave Irons-_Spoke to the Board in regard to the facts and figures of the proposed plan, Define Contribution Plan—using various charts . . . Discussion held by Town Board it was decided to meet on Thursday, August 16th 1990 4:00 p.m. in workshop session to iron out details for the possibility of going to Local Law and referendum in November on Define Contribution Plan for Volunteer Fire Fighters . . . RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION TO APPOINT MEMBER TO PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO . 467, 1990, Introduced by The Entire Town Board WHEREAS , the Town Board of the Town of Queenbury has previously established the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby appoints Mr. James M. Martin to serve as a member of the Planning Board, said term to begin immediately and to expire on December 31 , 1995 . Duly adopted this 9th day of August , 1990 , by the following vote: Aves : Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs . Potenza, Mr. Montesi , Mrs . Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes : None Absent:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REMOVAL AND REPLANTING OF TREES RESOLUTION NO. 468 , 1990, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs . Marilyn Potenza: WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Highway Department is currently making improvements to Dixon Road, and WHEREAS, the said Highway Department has found it necessary to remove three (3) large , maple trees as a part of its improvement program, and the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury finds that it is appropriate to plant new trees 4 n the vicinity of the area where the other trees were ow removed, NOW , THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the Town 2up1treesonearaDixonoRoade purchase and planting of two ( ) new in the vicinity where the previous trees were removed, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that payment for said trees and planting thereof shall be made from the Beautification Account, A 235 851 ►� 0440 . Duly adopted this 9th day of August, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes : Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs . Potenza, Mr. Montesi , Mrs . Monahan, Mr . Borgos Noes: None Absent:None RESOLUTION REGARDING C.H. I .P.S . FUND RESOLUTION NO. 469, 1990, Introduced by Mr . Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: WHEREAS , the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has been informed that a portion of C .H. I .P.S . moneys which have not been spent during the past three (3) years has been carried over in the Unreserved Fund Balance Account of the Highway Fund, and i WHEREAS . the C.H. I .P.S . moneys should have been retained in the C .H. I .P .S . Reserve Account of the Highway Fund, Account No. : D 99 2-0879, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby amends the Town of Queensbury and Town Highway Department 1990 Budget to increase appropriations in account no . : D 16 5 5110 463 (C .H. I .P.S . Expense) in the amount of $30, 000 .00, and increase C.H. I .P.S . Reserve Account NO. : D 99 2 0879 in the amount of $30, 000 .00, and increase estimated revenue in account no . : D 16 3 3501 (C .H. I .P. S . Revenue) , and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to amend the Town and Highway Departments , budgets in accordance with this resolution, of entries this b resolution. be Y Duly adopted this 9th day of August, 1990, by the following vote: f i Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs . Potenza, Mr. Montesi , Mrs . Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes : None Absent:None RESOLUTION AMENDING 1990 LANDFILL FUND BUDGET RESOLUTION i seoebbMM Potenza who moved for its adoption, cnddyMrs Marilyn Monahan: 3.0 WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury previously estabished within the General Town Fund, a budget for the Landfill , and also seperately estabished a Closure Fees Account, and WHEREAS , said closure fees , rather than being deposited in the Landfill (J-1) Fund, have been deposited directly into the Landfill Closure Reserve Fund, and the Town Board of the Town of Queensbuy desires to maintain this practice and therefore amend the budget accordingly, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby reduces the appropriations in J1-26 5 9950 900 (Transfer to Capital Reserve) from $520, 475 . 00 to $20, 475 . 00, and reduces estimated revenues in J1 26 3 2131 (Closure Fees) in the amount of $500, 000.00, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the 1990 Town Budget and General Fund Budget are hereby amended in accordance with the terms of this resolution, and the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized to take such action, make such entries, and otherwise transfer such funds as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of this resolution. Duly adopted this 9th day of August, 1990 , by the following vote: Ayes : Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs . Potenza, Mr. Montesi , Mrs . Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes : None Absent:None RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE RESOLUTION NO. 471 , 1990 , Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: WHEREAS , the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering amending the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, to add Article 8 , Section 8 .030 (General Exemption from all Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations for Property Constituting Less than One Hundred ( 100) Acres to be Purchased by the Town of Queensbury) as follows : SECTION 8 . 030 GENERAL EXEMPTION FROM ALL ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR PROPERTY CONSTITUTING LESS THAN ONE HUNDRED (100) ACRES TO BE PURCHASED BY THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY. Notwithstanding all other provisions of this Ordinance, all property constituting less than one hundred ( 100) acres for which the Town of Queensbury is under a valid, executed contract to purchase shall be exempt from all provisions of this Ordinance, including Subdivision Regulations . Such exemption shall expire if said contract is terminated prior to closing of title . This exemption shall not apply to those transactions which result in Seller' s remaining adjacent property being in violation of the relevant area and/or setback requirements of Section 4. 020 of this Ordinance . This section shall not apply to any land division which constitutes a Class A or B regional project under the Adirondack Park Agency Act or any action which requires a permit under the Freshwater Wetlands Act or the Wild, Scenic 31 or Recreational Rivers System Act. In addition, all land uses and development which are related to the jurisdictional subdivision or which are independently Class A or B regional projects shall require a permit from the Adirondack Park Agency or the Town, respectively. In every case , the shoreline restrictions of this ordinance shall apply. and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified to act a 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 Environmental Assessment Form, reviewing the criteria contained in Section 617 . 11 , and thoroughly analyzing the project 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 Environmental Assessment Form and to check the box thereon indicating that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts , and �i BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, pursuant to Section 617 . 15, the annexed Negative Declaration is hereby approved and the Town Clerk, Darleen M. Dougher, is hereby authorized and directed to file the same in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Duly adopted this 9th day of August, 1990 by the following vote : Ayes : Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs . Potenza, Mr. Montesi , Mrs . Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes : None Absent: None RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS RESOLUTION NO. 472, 1990, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the following transfers : FROM TO AMOUNT A2057310. 136 A2057310.440 $6, 000.00 Duly adopted this 9th day of August, 1990 by the following vote: Ayes : Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs . Potenza, Mr. Montesi , Mrs . Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes : None 32 Absent : None The Town Board moved into Qsby. Center to discuss Ricciardelli Rezoning. . . Supervisor Borgos-This is the continuation mode of an earlier Special Meeting that this Board called last week to hear a presentation from different fire companies , from a group representing the fire companies in the Town of Queensbury related to a service award program. It is a committee that has been working for more than a year and tonight was designated as the night for them to make their presentation. It was also announced the other day that this meeting would be, such other business that may come before the board and we finally probably would have some resolutions and we just did take care of three or four housekeeping type of resolutions all in public session. Also it came to our attention after we set the meeting the other night of course we had the rest of the meeting and some things did not go as anticipated, it came to our attention today that perhaps the Homefront organization sponsoring the request for a change in zone and there were a number of names on the request for the applicant, but, whatever, would possibly have some information available this evening that would respond to the concerns expressed on the environmental information form that were distributed the other evening. I said fine, I have no problem with that, Mrs . Monahan came in this afternoon and said that she would have no problem with that . We said fine, we are willing to accept new information, this evening from an engineer that would respond to the concerns that were expressed the other night . It is my understanding that the Homefront organization or people representing them contacted a couple members of the Board at least, to ask specifically what concerns there were related to those environmental concerns and it is my understanding that most if not all the concerns were related to the soils information on that site and it is further my understanding that someone an Engineer named Tom Nacy would be here this evening to make a presentation to US . I would request that Mr. Nace do that specifically then address any questions or concerns that the Board has . If the Board should have other questions that maybe related to this topic certainly the Board would be free to ask any specific individuals particular questions . This is not a public hearing it is a public meeting you are all here to listen and to hear what is said. If there are questions that the Board would have we would address them to specific individuals or perhaps ask if there was anyone who could answer those particular questions . This is not an attempt to shut off debate, because as you know we did have a public hearing a week or so ago that went two hours and forty minutes during which time we said anyone who wanted to talk about any issue could certainly do that . It was open ended we went as long an anyone had anything to say, so we had that part. I would ask Tom, would you like to come up, we do not have a microphone we did not expect so large a crowd, but that is perfectly fine . We apologize again for not having the microphone set up we had no idea how many people might be here . If you would come up and just for the record, Darleen is trying to tape this without the microphones, state your name and qualifications and why you are here . --� MR. TOM NACE-Ok, I am Tom Nace , from Haanen Ena_ . here on behalf of the developer for the Homefront Project . SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Just for the record are you a professional engineer? MR. TOM NACE-For the record I am a professional engineer, registered in the State of New York. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. 3'3 MR. TOM NACE-First of all let me give each of you a letter, that has been prepared for Mr. Adams regarding the issues as I have been told, I was not here Monday, the issues as have been related to me . I will go through the letter with you. The issues as I understand it, preface, is that your rezoning from one acre to half acre and that the Town Master Plan addressed what they felt was an issue of development on lots less than one acre in areas where there were no public water and sewer. For this particular project there is public water there is no public sewer. So, going through the letter, I can read it into the record or you can read it individually whichever way you prefer. Do you have any need for it to be into the record? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I do not think so, I think we can hand it to the Clerk, later. Could you summarize it for us? MR. TOM NACE-Let me summarize, I think what I perceive the problem to be, please correct me if I am wrong. The problem was that at the time the Town Board was asked to address this issue there was not information made available to you regarding the soils on the site, therefore you really had no information to base a decision on. This information has become available, it was made available to me yesterday, percolation tests on the site as well as topo and property survey was preformed by C.T. Male Eng. the percolation tests ranged from 10 seconds on the front end of the site in . . . . .gravelly course sands to 3 minutes I believe it was 3 minutes 50 seconds on the back end of the site. I have a topo of the site with those locations shown. . COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Could I ask a question while you are doing your show? What is acceptable with the soils, I know what fast is I know what slow is , what ' s the meaning. . . MR. TOM NACE-Fast is typically defined as anything less than 1 minute, slow is, some people define it, beyond thirty minutes some people define it beyond 60 minutes, Health Dept. and DEC both say that beyond 60 minutes you have got a problem and you need an extra large system, and extra large distances between systems . DEC has recently within the past couple of years said that if the perk rate is below one minute they are concerned about ground water drinking sources and to protect those then you have to take additional measurers, for DEC . Now, DEC has jurisdiction over systems that are greater than 1000 gallons per day. The Health Dept . who has jurisdiction over subdivisions and housing situations individual residences presently do not have any restriction like that . The proposed new set of regulations that will come in effect at the end of this year those regulations do address the less than one minute soils . . .that would require to either put in additional treatment or to do soil modification, what they call soil modification, . . . given these perk rates(using map of area) I think the test here was about 40 seconds the test here was about ten seconds , and the test back here was three minutes and fifty seconds . This is absolutely and . . .acceptable, it is the ideal range of where you want to be for designing septic systems, theses are rapid. Now, bear in mind rapid, does not in and of itself mean that you are going to contaminate ground water. DEC allows you to build sand — filters which have a rate, a percolation rate if you will , much less than one minute . They allow you to go through two feet of sand filter and discharge and to a stream from drains underneath the sand filter. There is enough surface area to get good contact and good bacterial growth that taken the nutrients in the waste water. So just rapid, the rapid percolation rate in and of itself is not necessarily bad it is just that, that is the only convenient way that the regulations can be set up to start to differentiate . With that said, we recognize the front end of the site does have some limitations and for that area we are suggesting, I think on the tail end of the last paragraph of the first 34 page, maybe it is the second page, I am suggesting that test pits or perk tests be performed at the location of each site . These rates are variable enough where there can be pockets of good and bad soil in there that we need to identify when it comes to the subdivision planning time and approval for the health dept . for subdivision, we need to identify each specific location of the field and take a perk test there where the perk test is less than a minute we need . . . soils , two feet of soil underneath the bed to . . . COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Compacted . . . MR. TOM NACE-Well , there is debate on that issue, that probably should be worked out with the Dept . of Health because they say no, do not compact it, they want it in its natural state for six months . . .there are some steps inbetween, you can compact it with some lighter equipment and they are worried about binding up the soil so you do not perk at all . There is a happy medium inbetween that we can work out with. So, at any rate we are suggesting where we know we have that problem, lets address it take care of it and do the right thing so that we do comply with standards and in reality those standards have been written quote unquote to protect the around water and well , we may not agree with exactly the way they were written it is a good standard to live by. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Tom, if this were, if this rapid percolation, we have a project right down the road that shall be nameless that has had problems with the septic system backing right up into the houses, is there a chance of that if we do not do this properly? MR. TOM NACE-Really no, the soils , first of all we did not encounter and that is one thing that is lacking in my letter I apologize , the ground water is down . . .the ground water is eight feet, lower than eight feet we did not run into any in the test pits that were done . The soils surrounding the system is permeable enough that , that is going to drain away without draining back into the houses . The type of thing you are referring to might occur when the ground water comes up, high enough that the septic systems were very close or sitting in ground water, then that has to go somewhere and it is going to find. . . COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-. . .with your suggestions where necessary, 200 feet under the septic system, MR. TOM NACE-Two feet. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I am sorry, it is getting late after all these figures that we have been tossing around here tonight . Two feet under the septic system and I am going to assume, I know that they would like to put two houses on one septic system but since that is a variance I just got to assume for now there is going to be one house , one septic system. MR. TOM NACE-No, we are still proposing two . COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, but we do not know that. . .maybe it will not make any difference financially, one to one unit, in doing this what would that add to the cost of a unit? MR. TOM NACE-I do not have an answer to that, I have talked to the Contractor who is putting numbers together as far as construction costs so he is aware of what we are proposing. I do not know, Charles, do you have an answer to that? MR. ADAMS-Charles Adams , from Adams and Rich the applicant on this petition. I am afraid we do not have the precise cost on that, there is some controversy about how one purchases the tanks for two houses on one system because that seems to be an odd size tank and one thing or another so costs are kind of fluctuating there . It will cost more, 35. there is no doubt to put one house on one system. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, that was not my question. My question is , . . . MR. TOM NACE- . . . I had talked to the person doing the estimating. . .his verbal comment to me- was he did not think it would cost very much, because they do have suitable material on site, at the back end of the site so it is not like we have to go out and buy material . (Asked to speak into mic) The verbal feed back I got from the person doing the estimating was that it would not be very much, it should not be significant, because, it was coming from on site . As to the exact dollar amount I do not really know. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-I am talking about putting two feet under and boxing. . . MR. TOM NACE-Well , put two feet of good material would extend out beyond the trenches so as the, in the bottom of the trenches would be right in that . . .material so that it has to go down. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Tom, once this site and this site totally this many houses as you well know we have a regulation that says all around must be retained on site . Should there be any problem meeting that regulation? MR. TOM NACE-No , with the rapid permeable soils we will have dry wells to handle the surface run-off with. . .dry well , the typical town road section will have . . . swall on the roads , catch basins . . .and dry well on the side of the pavement. I am sorry. . .Plus with the clustering that is being done, it won't have that great a developed area it is not like a typical half acre zone where somebody is going to take a half an acre and develop it with blacktop and lawn f and a lot of road. With the clustering provision you are minimizing the amount of infrastructure and the amount of increased runoff from that infrastructure . COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But we are assuming that the other board that this has to go in front of is going to permit the clustering, that is not our prerogative . So, if it is not clustered do we have a problem? MR. TOM NACE-No, We still with the soils there will be no problem, that is what is happening to the water that falls there now, with the rapid permeable soils it is not running off anywhere . I have walked the property and there really are no water courses . COUNCILMAN MONTESI-It drops thirty feet the length of the property, . . slopes 300 to 272 . . . so that should not be a problem either because it generally. . . MR. TOM NACE- . . .We will have reasonable grade to the road that we will not have pockets that we are having to deal with on a very flat section. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Does the Board have any other questions of Mr. Nace while he is here? Is there anything you can think of that we did not ask you about, anything that would perhaps cause significant environmental , negative environmental impacts? COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Are there any new pine flowers or Blue Karner Butterflies there? COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-I can tell you there is no Arbutus there . COUNCILMAN MONTESI-We did not ask that question one time and it cost us a month. 36 MR. TOM NACE-That will obviously have to be asked during subdivision review and have to be addressed at that stage . The issue at stake is the rezoning, the planning issues of the actual proposed subdivision and those particular regulations that go, environmental regulations that go with that obviously have to be addressed as we go, forinstance, the Karner Blue is a real issue that has got to be dealt with on every project now days . SUPERVISOR BORGOS-You know if there are so many of them _ they really should not be considered endangered should they, that is my thought . COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Tom, is there any impacts that you see at all from zoning this from one acre to a half acre? MR. TOM NACE-No, you are still only talking about forty houses there are several roads that outlet onto Corinth Road that have many more than that, that they serve . I do not see, no I really don't . SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Any Board Member have any other question? COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Tom answered my questions on the environment . . . SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We had concerns about the comments that said there was insufficient information presented, is the Board satisfied it now has sufficient information. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I do think that we have to put a clause on there that we have recognized the fact that there maybe some problems with the septic systems and each site will have to be analysed at the time of construction and that mitigation measurers, I am taking about through the resolution itself. I think we have to recognize what we have discovered and that mitigation measurers are to be taken. I defer to the Attorney to that to see how we should handle that but there certainly are some environmental impacts . COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Paul , cannot you cover that by including the letter as part of this? COUNCILMAN MONTESI-If you took Tom Nace ' s letter it says I am suggesting that percolation test be performed at the location of each proposed septic system for the subdivision and that those systems with a percolation rate of less than one minute be designed in accordance with the department of environmental standards . COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-What I am saying is we got to take out this , will not have a significant impact on the environment because we have recognized where there may be an impact and mitigation measures be taken. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Let me jump in a minute, we had some data the other night, sections of the law given to us, I think the word significant was critical it was underlined. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Maybe I could ask a question, maybe this would answer, do I understand that what you are saying Tom, is that, for each of the septic systems it is necessary to do this test and it is not that the septic system still couldn't be put there it is just that it is going to have to be re-engineered or re-designed it may be necessary to re-design or re-engineered and it seems to be your opinion that, that can be done, is that a safe? MR. TOM NACE-Yes , that is safe, it is -lust that some of them may require mitigating measurers others may not. ATTORNEY DUSEK-But, do you feel if it is necessary it can be done? 37 MR. TOM NACE-Mitigating measurers are available . ATTORNEY DUSEK-If the Board were to make that as a, take that into consideration and include that as a requirement when it is rezone than I think. . . COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Why don't we also include that in the environmental impact statement it shows that we have recognized that and because I do not think that we can say it will not have a significant effect on the environment we have to recognize there may be an effect. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I think by his answer you are really saying, there again I do not want to put words in the Board' s mouth here but, he seems to be saying that the engineering will take care of it and there will not be an effect. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I realize what he is saying but I am also saying that we need to acknowledge the fact there may have to be engineering work done to mitigate effects that would happen if we do not have something done. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I think we are saying the same thing only maybe differently, I guess what I am saying is that in light of their proposal , if its the applicants proposal to as part of their development undertake mitigation measurers in connection with the septic and thats the plan, if that is the plan then that plan is not going to cause a problem environmentally. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But, I would like to recognize those mitigation measurers . COUNCILMAN MONTESI-OK, just for the sake of discussion and this is in a positive vein Tom, you preformed three pits I here, not everybody realizes what a perk test is , you dig a deep hole, 8 ' or 10 ' or whatever. . . MR. TOM NACE-The actual perk test is 30" deep. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-What kind of an impact is 30 perk tests then, maybe not 30 but at least for the two test holes you found have a problem, maybe 20 houses , ten houses? MR. TOM NACE-How much of an impact is digging the test? Not significant, a couple of days work at best. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-It is not a meaningful significant thing that we are asking. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We got about two thirds of this land effected as I understand what you are saying, and that is why I am having a little problem Paul , saying that there is no significant impact. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Mr. Kurosaka is asking, is, we can include the letter somehow in the environmental statement, I think Mr. Dusek proposed a minute ago that, that be inserted as a clause in the resolution of rezoning, is that what I heard f you say? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I realize what Paul said, I am uncomfortable in saying it does not have an impact . SUPERVISOR BORGOS-She wants it in the environmental assessment form. ATTORNEY DUSEK-If you say it has an impact, then you have to graduate on to the second step and do your long EAF. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We are hearing the engineer saying that it does not have a long term impact, that it is very correctable and very easily corrected. 38 COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-I happen to agree with him. I cannot state this myself, because I am a member of the Board but Tom can say it and I can agree with him. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I guess what I am trying to get over that I want it throughly understood that we are saying that, that we realize that after the mitigation we are not going to have a problem but we may have a problem without the mitigation. I want to make sure we tie down that mitigation. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Well , you cannot do that unless you force it to a class I . COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It is possible. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-No , it is not, we are saying it is a neg. dec . COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It is a type I unlisted. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-It is a type I unlisted Paul? ATTORNEY DUSEK-This is an unlisted action not a type I . COUNCILMAN MONTESI-If you say that there is an impact that has to be mitigated it becomes type I . Is that what you are saying? ATTORNEY DUSEK-No, once it is classified either unlisted type I or type II it always maintains that same classification if you say there is going to have an impact all it means is that you go on to the next level of study which is a long EAF and then if you still find there is an impact then you graduate to your EIS . The classification of unlisted or type I never changes . , SUPERVISOR BORGOS Let. me ask Tom something . You are saying that there is potentially an impact here, in the fact that some soil might have to be moved in depending upon the perk test results , is that? MR. TOM NACE-I am saying that if you did nothing there is a possible impact. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Let me go further with this . When you do any subdivision, is there always some type of possible impact? MR. TOM NACE-Oh, yes , there is always impacts as to whether or not they are significant and whether or not they can be mitigated in your proposal . SUPERVISOR BORGOS-My follow up then logically is then, if that is the case and if we recognize this in the normal course of development if we cut a tree there is an impact on nature , we all know trees will grow back we do not always very seldom in fact require those full blown impact statements, I am just wondering if this is at a degree that is much greater than typical potential impact or this is normal or? MR. TOM NACE-It has been my experience that the escalation of the amount of study required occurs when you cannot agree as the one, whether impact is significant or not or two whether or not you can mitigate it. If you agree that either one is insignificant or two if it does have some significance but you can mitigate it then the issue is taken care of at that stage of the statement. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-If we feel concerned that it is not meaningful but it is mitigationable then what we can do is pass the environmental assessment thing when the next vote 39 comes to do the rezoning we can condition that rezoning with specifically your recommendations from the letter. Then you have said if there is ever a question in my mind before you rezone it I am going to force the developer to do this mitigation. MR. TOM NACE-That is right, that ties down the proposed mitigation to a required action. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-It certainly, I understand it is mitigable I understand that it is not so sever that it cannot be solved and I would think that what I would have to do is address that if and when the rezoning issue comes up. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-We have to address it here because you have a negative comment. . COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I do not want to address it here , if I make it negative then I am going to say. . . COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Paul , lets get to the environmental assessment form, "Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels , " etc . there should we say we recognize the soils that have mitigating steps to take care of that or words to that effect, I do not know how you would word it exactly I am not willing to put a plan no in there. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well , do you feel that any adverse effects , do you feel that there would be any adverse effects if Tom Mace ' s recommendations were taken? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, I am content with his recommendations but without having those recommendations stated here someplace I am not going to put a no there because I have not acknowledged those recommendations . COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-That is what I am asking you why can' t we attach the damn thing to the . . .and get it over with. ATTORNEY DUSEK-The question I want to ask though is your answer going to be no, provided that the steps are taken? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That is right. ATTORNEY DUSEK-You could say that if you wanted to . COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That is what I would be willing to say. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Would that be acceptable to Mr. Kurosaka? Mrs . Monahan said that she would agree to check no, provided that the test pits or the perk test are done at each site, in accordance with Tom' s recommendations . COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Can we say no if the mitigation measurers is carried out and the attached letters are done? There is a place to put it at C1 . SUPERVISOR BORGOS-So, we could attach an exhibit, reference an exhibit which would be that letter? ATTORNEY DUSEK-I do not see why not. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That takes care of your concerns? COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Sure . SUPERVISOR BORGOS-How about the other questions? COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-That is the only question we had on this . . . SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The same question really came up two or three different times I believe on that form. 40 COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I do not think so Steve, the . . . I have got to figure out C-4 Paul , C-4 I just wonder if some kind of an answer rather than a straight no, is indicated there with another explanation? Because we are changing our comprehensive landuse plan and doing an addendum to it really is whats going to end up being happening. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I guess the first question you have to really ask yourself maybe if this would help is whether you really are changing your master plan or not, there are some references to affordable housing in the master plan. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes , but it is very much tie it in with the extension of services to and so maybe we have to say we feel the mitigation methods that have been chosen will answer that within the comprehensive landuse plan that says that this density should wait for sewers . The comprehensive land use plan says they recognize the need for affordable housing but they also recognize the need to sewer an area when we lower the density of what was in the original landuse plan. So, that we do not throw that whole landuse plan open to question I think we should maybe state that those sewers are recommended to lower the density we feel that with the mitigation measures that we are taking for this particular land that we can meet the needs of safe sanitary disposal with this density, the needs with this density of safe sanitary proposal with the mitigation measures or something or other . ATTORNEY DUSEK-The natural question becomes what are those mitigation measurers? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-The ones we are talking about, putting in the septic systems this way. We are going to test every single septic system, the area in which it goes into . If it needs to have fill brought in we are going to bring it in. . . . it is a bible for the zoning within this Town and it is important to keep it that way in case it ever goes to court . COUNCILMAN MONTESI-We had a rezoning request within the year, for 90 acres that was on solid clay we turned the request down, because of the clay because there was no way that they could support a septic system, this particular development has a unique situation that it can accept septic systems , its just the water goes in too fast, we have to slow it down a little bit with clay. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Not Clay. . .he did not say clay. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-That concept of . . . I know he didn't . . .whatever. . .my, I quess what Betty is asking is this thirty acres, twenty two acres is not going to throw the Master Plan off but. . . COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We are recognizing, we are doing it, . . . ATTORNEY DUSEK-Maybe that is the problem, I think the question to ask you is , will this action that you are about to take, this rezoning, will it have an adverse effect on your master plan, I guess that is really the question here. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes, but we are changing the Master Plan so I want to explain why it is not going to have an adverse effect on it . ATTORNEY DUSEK-You are not changing the Master Plan by this action. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes we are because we have already. . . ATTORNEY DUSEK-There is only one way to change the Master Plan is to go through a Public Hearing. . . 41 . , COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, what I am saying we are doing it really because by these amendments that we are doing, this type of thing right here we are going back and changing that generic formula filed with it. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I do not think you are . COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I would like to discuss something with you, that I am not going to discuss right now, where one of our ordinances is in trouble because of that. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-I think what you are talking about Betty r should come up when we talk about rezoning. . . COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I do not know, because I want to make sure that the environment is . . . SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Let me ask the Attorney, the Master Plan is as Mrs . Monahan said, quite important. Legally it is important but the Master Plan is really and truly a guide line because it is so generic in nature, isn't it up to this Board to decide as it looks at each particular project whether it is a dramatic departure from the Master Plan or really relatively consistant? ATTORNEY DUSEK-I think that says it, and I think that when you look at your Master Plan you have to look at all aspects of the Master Plan. The Master Plan not only deals with land densities and ground water but it also deals with social needs and affordable housing issues and everything else . I think you have to take a look this project and say to yourselves this particular project does it still fall within the general perimeter of your Master Plan and I think that is really the issue in that question. If it is a departure from that then you have to offer some explanation but if you feel it is consistent then you would say that. I do not know how else to say it at this point. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-How do you feel Mrs . Monahan about checking no . . . COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I do not feel comfortable. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-How does the rest of the Board feel? As I understand it, we have to be able to check no for all of these is that correct, Paul? In order to declare this insignificant or to say that we have a negative declaration. ATTORNEY DUSEK-You are looking to determine whether or not there is going to be any impacts and if you say yes then you said that you feel there is going to be an impact and you should study it further. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-So, we have to find a way to be comfortable with no for all of these questions . COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Or we can say no, but we mitigated any of these , yes , but we have taken measurers to mitigate it. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Paul , is that possible, we inserted an exhibit under the first one and that satisfied some concerns now, can we either refer to that same exhibit again or refer to the condition attached to the rezoning legislation as our form of mitigation? . . .we want to attach it to there but we also want to put it as a paragraph in the rezoning proposal that these perk test will be taken at each site . I am trying to make sure we could get a vote here so that we have at least three votes that say we can check no . I want to be sure to address all of these questions . COUNCILMAN MONTESI-The bigger issue, that this Board has to deal with and what Betty' s referring to is , that the Master Plan addressed that we should have affordable housing in our Town but they put a kicker in there, they said it ought to 42 be on sewers . It is very hard to find land in the Town of Queensbury on sewers since there is only on Queensbury Central Sewer Dist. the land in the Queensbury Central Dist. is extremely limited for housing and it is really pretty well saturated I do not think there are any open areas to speak of maybe except a parcel on Cline Road that might be suitable but that is probably one of the few in the wet lands that . . . so we have a little conflict in our Master Plan that we said two things, we said we like affordable housing and we ought to make space for it and we also conditioned that with almost an impossibility at this particular time . Now. . i COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So, now what we need to say we are doing the next best thing because we cannot, . . .we cannot wait for the sewers to progress up to some of these areas that are available . COUNCILMAN MONTESI- . . one kicker that we all recognize is that as soon as you say yes on anyone of those lines there you are kicking this project into a very expensive environmental assessment review. ATTORNEY DUSEK-The next step would be a long EAF. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But , I think we can say no , as long as or for our reasons there . I think you have got to do some reasoning. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I say you could say no because services do not exist . SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We also should I think consider the fact that we do have many projects throughout the Town not on sewers with this type of density and there is no history of Droblems with those . COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But , that is not good enough. . . ATTORNEY DUSEK-What if I ask the question of you, that would you think that this project is going to hurt your Master Plan overall? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-My great concern in doing this whole project and I will tell you right down, right up front is that it is going to open the door to a lot of projects . . . COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-That should be on the rezoning not on the environmental . . . COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-If they cannot get the rezoning through they are going to take us to Court unless we protect this action from all what we are doing now, I want to give you all the strength you are ever going to need in a court challenge . ATTORNEY DUSEK-I understand your concern there but my recommendation though would be that that would be a concern that would properly address at the next step, here you are looking at environmental issues only. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Mr . Nace, do you have something. . . MR. TOM NACE-The Master Plan relating to lot size and the availability of sewers is not something based on engineering data, it really cannot be stated across the board that you need one acre lots in order to develop without sewers it is really a sight specific issue, the environmental form maybe and the other issue of rezoning needs to be specifically stated that because you have reviewed this particular site and the soil conditions and the sub-surface disposal conditions on this site then and therefore you are doing the rezoning. , 43 COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That is what I want to stet in there something like that rather than a plain no . Irwant to get some reasoning in there . SUPERVISOR BORGOS-No , based on engineering data presented. . . ATTORNEY DUSEK-Would you like to put in there exactly what Mr. Nace just said. . . if we have it on tape. . . (tape checked) we are on the record, the one thing I would like to draw the Board' s attention to is that statement goes on it says adverse change in use intensity etc . and I assume Mr. Nace ' s response is going to satisfy all of that or am I wrong. . . .We were talking on C-4 primarily about the Master Plan, but there is more to that question, I just want to make sure you are satisfied. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think his question would satisfy all of it, don't you? ATTORNEY DUSEK-That is up to you if you feel satisfied then. . . COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-If you see any legal thing we are doing wrong, I would hope you would at least caution us against not doing it. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I think legally I can tell you are required to take a hard look. I think you are doing that . SUPERVISOR BORGOS-How about the next item? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Growth, subsequent development, or relate activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? I would think this is , my own personnel opinion is that this is a major enough project it is not like 500 families going in there or something and I thought in my own mind the traffic trips even high, be generated I do not really see it is that much of a problem. . .Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified in C1-05? Well I think maybe that' s kind of the question we asked Tom Nace , you know, so I think a no would be OK there. Because I think this is not as unique, we ' re taken care of the characterics so I think we are . . .Other impacts , I do not think we have thought of any other impacts we have all had time to think about it. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Are we satisfied with the no ' s with the explanations attached? COUNCILMAN MONTESI-The perk test were very meaningful and helpful . SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The perk tests were very good. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN -We could not have done this, without that . SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Are we ready to bring this revised environmental form to a vote? i ATTORNEY DUSEK-If you wanted to I would like to take a moment and doctor this resolution up just a little bit to #� include what you just did. DISCUSSION HELD REGARDING WHEN TO REVIEW THE REZONING . . . IT WAS AGREED TO HOLD A WORKSHOP ON AUGUST 20TH AT 4 : 30P.M. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Asked Mr. Adams to research if municipal employees could be moved to the top of the list for affordable housing. . . RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF REZONING 44 RESOLUTION NO. 473 , 1990 , Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi : WHEREAS , the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering rezoning certain property owned by Anthony P. Ricciardelli , Jr. , Carol A. Ricciardelli , and Robert Ricciardelli , Town of Queensbury Tax Map No . : 148-1-7 . 1 , and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly quaified 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 of the Town of Queensbury, after considering the action proposed herein, reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form, reviewing the criteria contained in Section 617 . 11 , and thoroughly analyzing the project 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 Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby finds that the proposed responses inserted in Part II of the said Environmental Assessment Form are satisfactory and approved as supplemented by the remarks made on the record and noted by the Town Board members at this meeting to be incuded in their response , and t BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to complete and execute a new Part II verbally drafted by the Town Board at this meeting, which will include the Environmental Assessment Form response drafted by the Town Board at this meeting, and that the Town Supervissr is hereby authorized and directed thereafter to comuelte Part III of said 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 the annexed negative declaration is hereby supplemented to add the following clause under the section titled, "Reasons Supporting This Determination" : "Based upon the analysis performed by the Town Board and the fact that it would appear that there are no circumstances or environmental issues that cannot be mitigated, the Town Board finds that due to the size, nature, and location of the parcel and houses to be built thereon, there would not be an adverse environmental effect" ; and with this supplemental response, the Town Board hereby approves the said negative declaration and hereby authorizes the Town Clerk 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 9th day of August, 1990 , by the following vote : Ayes : Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs . Potenza, Mr. Montesi , Mrs . Monahan, Mr. Borgos 45 Noes: None Absent: None On motion the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Miss Darleen Dougher-Town Clerk LI