Loading...
1996-08-12 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING AUGUST 12,1996 4:30 p.m. MTG.#33 RES. 342-345 TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Supervisor Fred Champagne Councilman Betty Monahan Councilman Theodore Turner Councilman Connie Goedert Councilman Carol Pulver PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE PUBLIC HEARING LOCAL LAW-FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION NOTICE SHOWN Supervisor Champagne-The first order of business today is a public hearing on a proposed local law on flood damage prevention, the Board should have received that information, we need to go through a SEQRA. Executive Director Martin-A, Does action exceed any type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.12? NO B, Will action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?MM NO C, Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: Cl, Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? NO C2, aesthetic, agriculture, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? NO C3, Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? NO C4, A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use of intensity of use of land or other natural resources? NO C5, Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? NO C6, Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in CI-C5? NO C7, Other impacts? NO D, Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? NO REASONS FOR SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION AFTER REVIEW OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACTS THE BOARD FOUND NONE. Supervisor Champagne-Just for your information what this is basically is a flood damage prevention, I think this happens every five years, where we have to go thorough and the federal government has to re- designate flood plans, flood areas and its part of boiler plate operation here I guess. We have a neg dec. RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF LOCAL LAW NUMBER 2, 1996 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY BY REPEALING EXISTING CHAPTER 91 THEREOF, ENTITLED, "FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION" AND REPLACING IT WITH A NEW CHAPTER 91 ENTITLED, "FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION" RESOLUTION NO.: 342,96 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of enacting a Local Law to amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury by Repealing Existing Chapter 91 thereof, entitled "Flood Damage Prevention" and replacing it with a new Chapter 91 entitled, "Flood Damage Prevention," which new Chapter 91 incorporates changes made by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the existing floodplain management regulations, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified to act as lead agency with respect to compliance with SEQRA which requires environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is an unlisted action pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board after considering the action proposed herein, reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form, and thoroughly analyzing the said action with respect to potential environmental concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to complete and execute Part III of the said 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 approved and the Town Clerk's Office 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 12th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Champagne NOES None ABSENT: None Supervisor Champagne-Opened the public hearing, anyone here for or against? Yes, Sir. Unknown-I would like to make a couple of comments. Supervisor Champagne-Would you come up please to the mic? Unknown-Sure. Alton Knapp-My name is Alton Knapp I am currently a flood plain management national flood insurance program consultant, I have been in that capacity since late May of this year. Prior to that I served for twenty two years with New York State DEC's flood protection bureau as a program coordinator for this program. I came up here to basically just review your regulation to make sure that it complied with the current criteria for continued participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. I had corresponded as a State Agent to the Town of Queensbury back in February relative to the adoption of the amendment and the changes in the regulation. Upon getting here today, I picked up a copy and I find that Section 3.2 requires a modification and I know that the Town has received the replacement panels which affected some of the lakes where new elevation information was produced and the Town has incorporated the new panels into their flood insurance rate map. What appears to be missing not only within the regulation but also upon talking with Mr. Hatin, he indicates that he does not have a copy of the Town flood boundary floodway maps. Those if you look and you do not have a copy of the eighty seven regulation with me but if you look in section 3.2 of the eighty seven regulation you will note that at that time there was a reference to flood boundary floodway maps which were companion maps for the flood insurance rate maps. Those must be included in this section 3.2 for the regulation to be acceptable to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. I can provide the Town with the specific reference to those maps to be included. Supervisor Champagne-I guess I would have to refer that back to Jim or Town Council Schachner-I am not sure exactly what Mr. Knapp's point is other than to say that I think he is right, the maps are part and parcel of this proposal. I understand him to have said that we have the maps though Dave Hatin may not have the maps. Mr. Knapp-You have the flood insurance rate maps you do not have or have not referenced the flood boundary floodway maps. Unfortunately I did not bring my floodway maps with me because I felt the Town would probably have a set here. Executive Director Martin-What is the difference? Mr. Knapp-The difference is that the floodway maps which go as a companion to the firm panels that were produced in eighty four that were not replaced show the delineated floodway where restrictions are much more restrictive in those areas. They also show the cross sections that can be referenced to the engineering text, particularly the floodway table and the profile. It is a fimer requirement that those floodway maps be referenced in this section 3.2. Town Council Schachner-As far as that last part goes where I think we are confused, Jim Martin and I is that the local law including section 3.2 that the Board is considering this evening or this afternoon, is literally what was sent to us by DEC, I think by yourself actually.. Mr. Knapp-That is what I want to check because if that's true then that was not prepared correctly. Town Council Schachner-I can assure you that this is in fact an actual copy of what we received from DEC Mr. Knapp-OK. Town Council Schachner-And that all that has happened is that the staff has literally filled in the blanks. Mr. Knapp-Ok, then that is in error and that is what I want to correct. Because it is important and it is required that those floodway maps be included in the official regulation and I Executive Director Martin-I guess I am still not understanding because, my understanding of those maps that we have down stairs do delineate where the floodway is based on its rating and the boundaries of those to scale. Mr. Knapp-They do the flood plain but not the floodway. All I am asking is that and I will acquire a set of floodway maps for you or at least bring my copy up for you to look at and before you adopt this I would ask that you look at those and include those. Supervisor Champagne-I do not know that we have a lot of choice here we have a timing problem. Town Council Schachner-As you are probably much better aware then we are Mr. Knapp-I am very aware well aware of your date, Town Council Schachner-I guess I would suggest, what I guess I would suggest is if you have what I understand you to be suggesting and correct me if I am wrong, is that we add for example under section 3.2 which currently has item 1, flood insurance rate map and then a reference and item 2, a scientific and engineering report and then a reference am I correct in understanding that you would be proposing that we should include an item 3, and then Mr. Knapp-Yes. Town Council Schachner-What I would suggest that if you could assist us by telling us right now as we sit here what the language that you would recommend for item 3 be I would recommend to the Board that we include that it is clearly not a material amendment it doesn't have, we have no problem doing that as we sit here today but in light of the time constraints which you of course are well aware of I would recommend that the Board could then go ahead if they choose to adopt the proposed local law with the modification that you indicate. Mr. Knapp-That is fine, if the Town does not have a copy of those map Town Council Schachner-You can get them for us. Mr. Knapp-then I will make sure that you get them. Town Council Schachner-Ok, that sounds fine. Mr. Knapp-I would propose then that item 3 of section 3.2 be worded Flood boundary floodway map (multiple panels) index number 3608790001-0035 whose effective date is July 16, 1984. Town Council Schachner-Could you just repeat the very beginning did you say flood boundary or flood? Mr. Knapp-Flood boundary floodway map. Town Councilman Monahan-Mark I might say that is a part of our present law that is on the books. Town Council Schachner-Right, but we should include it in this Councilman Monahan-I am not saying that, but I am saying it was in the present law that we had on the books. Mr. Knapp-That should have been brought up.. Town Council Schachner-Evidently DEC did not include it in the form that was Mr. Knapp-Apparently not. That is why I wanted to check it. Other than that I have no additional comments. Supervisor Champagne-I appreciate that, thank you. Anyone else care to speak? Closed the Public Hearing. Councilman Monahan-requested that the resolution reflect that the law was amended... Councilman Goedert-Mark is it acceptable the change? Town Council Schachner-Yes. RESOLUTION TO ENACT LOCAL LAW NUMBER 2, 1996 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY BY REPEALING EXISTING CHAPTER 91 THEREOF, ENTITLED, "FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION" AND REPLACING IT WITH A NEW CHAPTER 91 ENTITLED, "FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION" RESOLUTION NO. 343, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of enacting a Local Law to amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury by Repealing Existing Chapter 91 thereof, entitled, "Flood Damage Prevention," and replacing it with a new Chapter 91 entitled, "Flood Damage Prevention," which new Chapter 91 incorporates changes made by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the existing floodplain management regulations, and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Local Law has been presented at this meeting, a copy of said Local Law also having been previously given to the Town Board at the time the Resolution was adopted which set a date and time for a public hearing, and WHEREAS, on August 12, 1996, a public hearing with regard to this Local Law was duly conducted, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby enacts the proposed Local Law as amended to Amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury by Repealing Existing Chapter 91 thereof, entitled, "Flood Damage Prevention," and replacing it with a new Chapter 91 entitled "Flood Damage Prevention" to be known as Local Law Number 2,1996, the same to be titled and contain such provisions as are set forth in a copy of the proposed Law presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to file the said Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and that said Local Law will take effect immediately and as soon as allowable under law. Duly adopted this 12th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Champagne NOES None ABSENT: None (Local Law #2 of 1996 will be found at the end of these minutes) ATTORNEY MATTERS QEDC Subgrantee agreement with AMG Council Schachner-There were some proposed modifications made several months ago, there is still one minor modification to be made...to be ready for the next meeting or the first meeting in September. TRANSIENT MERCHANT LAW Supervisor Champagne-read the following Resolved that Warren County Board of Supervisors hereby request that the Town of Queensbury review and if possible take such action as to exempt Warren County property lying and existing in the Town of Queensbury from application of the Transient Merchant Law and Zoning Laws. Discussion held-Councilman Goedert-I think we have to be very aware of the fact that if we make them exempt and force it onto other residents of the Town there is something not right with the fact that we are going to make our people follow certain laws but our other government party doesn't want to. Supervisor Champagne-Noted that this came in because of the need at the airport...car sales out there...should we narrow the request to just the airport? Councilman Pulver-requested that the County present the Town with a plan.. .not just a blank check... Councilman Monahan-there is no backing up of this except the single statement. Supervisor Champagne-I will take that back to the County. COMMITTEE REPORTS Councilman Pulver-Water Meeting 1:30 P.M. this Thursday. Executive Director Martin-Passed out to the Town Board a draft of a Local Law regarding Special Events that would allow off site sales... Councilman Goedert-Requested that Highway Supt. Mr. Naylor report on the Aviation Road traffic light. Highway Supt. Naylor-Announced that the light should be in operation by the time school starts..noted Niagara Mohawk has installed the pole... Councilman Monahan-Reported back to the Town Board regard a meeting with the Greater Glens Falls Transit Committee...budget was discussed for the coming year and the municipality share will remain the same... PLANNED DISCUSSION ITEMS 5.01 INDIAN RIDGE Supervisor Champagne-We left the meeting last Monday night with the understanding that we would go back and take a look at Part III bring Part III have the staff prepare report and responses to the Part III questions and also to ask our Town Engineer to further explain in more detail fashion some of the findings and his response to the findings by the other engineering firms. So, that is where we are and with that I guess I would open that up to the Board it is going to be a board discussion and we have Mr. Levendowski with us this afternoon from Rist Frost the Towns firm and we can ask him some questions and any other questions that you might choose to ask. So, we are open for discussion. Any discussion relative to the Engineer Letter or anything else that Mr. Martin's staff put together relative to the Part III? Councilman Monahan-Bill do you see anything now would you consider that those soils are perking too fast or on the edge so that there is a need for soils amendment at this time or would you say that something that would be followed during the phasing in of the project? Mr. Levendowski -If, I do not know if part of the record is the Department of Health approval of a variance for on site sanitary disposal systems but part of their variance is predicated on the basis that each lot will be evaluated to see that the soils do conform with those percolation rates and if they don't they will have to be modified. Executive Director Martin-Just for the Board's information we currently do that now at the Hudson Pointe Development, with each building permit that comes in a perk test is done at each proposed location of a septic system to check for the percolation rate. If it falls below standard then the soils are modified. Mr. Levendowski-So, far all of the soil data that has been submitted shows a very, very consistent uniform percolation rate, but it is possible that there may be individual lots that do not conform. Councilman Pulver-Is that part of the PUD agreement about the soils? Executive Director Martin- I cannot recall I think DOH issued a similar type of letter for Hudson Pointe and there was probably in reaction to that, but I know we have done that as a matter of course out there with every building permit. I would suspect that it came about by the same course of events. Councilman Monahan-Bill you agree with the analysis that this water drains away from the Rush Pond area? Mr. Levendowski-The ground water? Councilman Monahan-Yes. Mr. Levendowski-Yes, I do. Councilman Monahan-And do you see any merit in a statement that was made during the public hearing perhaps we have not tested enough or the applicant has not tested enough or in the right areas to preclude the fact that there could be two drainage patterns in there? Mr. Levendowski-In addition to the three tests wells that are data points and monitoring wells the open water surface at the wetland which extends across the entire north end of the property is in fact the water table. So, in addition to the three test wells that you have you actually have an unlimited line along that side which taken in combination with the tests wells that we do have and the general knowledge of the area from other soil borings for other projects I think are pretty indicative that we can rely on that, that determination that it flows away. Councilman Monahan-Do you feel that the drainage system that has been proposed and putting the drainage into the storm water drainage system in the roadways will take care of any storms as heavy as some of those that we have had this year and last year? Mr. Levendowski-We have not performed the detailed review of the specific design it has not really been submitted for site plan review yet kind of a thing, but conceptually it appears that the system proposed plus the natural soil conditions are really represent an ideal situation for getting rid of storm drainage in compliance with the Town's standards and preferences for subsurface infiltration without using retention basins or whatnot. Councilman Monahan-So, the precise sizing of it really should wait for site plan review of the phases as they come along. Mr. Levendowski-I would say so, yes. Councilman Monahan-Thank you Bill. Do you see any problem with fertilizers on lawns or any other thing that may be used on the lawns filtrating down to the Rush Pond wetlands or do you feel that will just flow away with the drainage pattern that is going in the other direction? Mr. Levendowski-It appears that the typical lot grading particularly along the embankment will have most of the storm drainage flowing toward the road and then in turn into the storm system that we just described then in turn will percolate vertically down until it hits the water table and then flow with the general pattern which essentially is away from the pond. Councilman Monahan-So, you do not see an impact on the Rush Pond wetlands from that type of material. Mr. Levendowski-No, I do not believe so, no I don't. Councilman Monahan-Thank you. Supervisor Champagne-I think as I reviewed your statements Bill, pretty much it substantiates what we have been hearing from the engineering studies including traffic study where you indicate that and there was some concern here that we needed to do a summer time traffic count and I guess I read where you say, I do not believe that a sununer recreation traffic is heavier than the normal school year traffic so, Councilman Goedert-Actually it is lighter. Supervisor Champagne-It would be lighter. Councilman Pulver-I hope so, I have a letter from Transportation concepts that also concurs with that...the traffic study done at the time it was done was the correct time for that area and that tourist traffic would not affect over there. I have one question Bill, I have a letter and I do not know if I what day exactly I got it or who gave it to me but they had suggested possibly that the Board repeat I am going to use your words, these investigations during the build out and your statement here says, with the soil characteristics and depth to ground water I do not see a need to repeat these investigations during the phase build out of the project. Mr. Levendowski-That is correct. Councilman Pulver-And all studies and everything that you have seen support that. Mr. Levendowski -Yes. The depth of ground water could fluxate several feet but it is still down over fifty feet. Councilman Pulver-It says fifty to sixty feet. Mr. Levendowski-Correct. Councilman Monahan-I guess this Board is a little gun shy Bill because of another development that you are well aware of in this Town. Mr. Levendowski -Yes, I am. This is, just to discuss the two, the depth of ground water is substantially different between the two developments, that is the level of comfort that I feel with this. Councilman Monahan-And you do not feel that the amount, while we have tried to be careful the number of trees that will come down you do not feel that the type of clearing that will happen over there will have any substantial affect on this? Mr. Levendowski-Not on the wetland, I believe Councilman Monahan-I am talking about the drainage pattern or the amount of water that is able to be absorb or anything like that. Mr. Levendowski-No, I do not see that as a significant problem. Councilman Goedert-Dropping an intersection down from a B rating to a D rating or what was the other one, we dropped one down into an F rating Supervisor Champagne-Is there one going to F? Councilman Pulver-It is five seconds for every rating, right? Mr. Levendowski-My comments regarding the traffic study is that I agree with their projection of the changes in service, it is left up to you folks to decide whether that is significant. I, it is not my position to tell you whether or not that change in service is a major significant impact. Councilman Goedert-The five to ten seconds changes, what changes the grey level though is that the same concept that you use? Mr. Levendowski-I believe that description that they are talking about changes from I think on goes from D to E or B to E one goes from I think the worst movement as I recall were turning movements from Farr Lane and I think Dixon Road turning left onto Aviation Road when I think the worst impact was from a long delay at times to a very long delay at times. Executive Director Martin-Just for the record here the graduations are A is less than five seconds, B is five to ten C is ten to twenty D is twenty to thirty and E if from thirty to forty five and F is forty five seconds and longer, those are break downs. And those from what I read of the description and this was from information that we got from Harza as we were looking at the planning for the upper section of Aviation Road those are a result of the take up and the reserve capacity at a given intersection. The more reserved and I stated that there in the description of the impact the difference is referred to as reserved capacity, vehicles will experience greater delay as the reserved capacity is diminished. So, the more trips that are generated and added into an intersection the reserve capacity falls and that result in a longer delay. Councilman Pulver-But is says the level of service on the Aviation road approaches to this intersection during the morning and evening peak hours are projected to maintain a grade A that is a delay of less than five seconds with or without the development, correct? Executive Director Martin-That is what the study showed along Aviation Road both approaches to Aviation Road at each intersection. Councilman Pulver-And the Potter Road north bound traffic will be no delay there either? Executive Director Martin-The way it primarily come I believe that Farr Lane and Dixon Road that is where the level of service drops. Councilman Goedert-That is one intersection technically. Executive Director Martin-Right. Supervisor Champagne-That is without any mitigation. Executive Director Martin-That is also assuming the one way access along Fox Farm Road. Councilman Monahan-Jim, explain something to me please, and on page two of your report when you are talking about traffic, and under Aviation Road, Dixon Road etc. the last sentence, the resulting impact on the level of services projected to drop from grade D to grade E. Alright, lets say we got five cars waiting on Farr Lane to get out, ok, now I am the third car in line am I going to wait just forty five seconds or am I going to wait forty five seconds the first car had to wait the second car another forty five in other words is it cumulative? Am I going to be there for three forty five seconds in the worst case scenario? Executive Director Martin-No, my understanding is any car in that line up if you are the fifth car the longest delay could be potentially forty five seconds. Councilman Monahan-It does not make sense, it just doesn't make sense, I do not think that could be right. I have sat over there with one car and been longer than that. Councilman Goedert-I think it has got to be each car is forty five seconds. Councilman Monahan-I think I have waited for what the car in front has to be and by the time I am the forth or fifth car I have got it built up. Councilman Goedert-Which you have with any intersection. Councilman Monahan-I am not saying that, I am just trying to interpret this correctly. Unknown-I have a copy of the traffic table in the traffic manual if you want to see...intersection what grade... Councilman Monahan-It is not the grading Supervisor Champagne-Does that clarify the? Unknown-It will not tell you, I am not sure it tells you about the number of seconds. Councilman Monahan-We have the number of seconds, I am just trying to find if that is cumulative and I think it has to be cumulative. Councilman Pulver-My question is this is at complete build out? Executive Director Martin-Yes. Supervisor Champagne-Jim, if the turning lane coming off from Aviation Road onto the entrance into the site wouldn't that reduce this? Aren't we analyzing what we have here based on todays configuration of that intersection, with a turning lane going north off Aviation and another coming south on Aviation .... Executive Director Martin-In all honesty the installation of a turning lane will do little to benefit the level of service. Councilman Monahan-Because they want to come out onto Aviation Road and go. Supervisor Champagne-It would be getting rid of some cars that would be otherwise backed up. Councilman Monahan-It would not be that much though. Executive Director Martin-But the cars are still there I do not think it is going to do that much for you in terms of improvement. Councilman Monahan-The worst thing is that we have an off site corner there, off set, excuse me. Executive Director Martin- I think the off set may affect the safety of the movements, but... Councilman Monahan-It also affects the delay because I have been over there and its who grabs it first, Dixon Road or Farr Lane. If Dixon Road grabs it first you sit and sit and sit and sit. Then I think you get into the accident part because people get frustrated and decide not to sit any longer and they pull out. These people who famously say I been here long enough. Councilman Goedert-Well how many accidents have been over there? Councilman Monahan-There should not have been very many now, because there are only the Seniors in there, they are not out at peak time most of them. Supervisor Champagne-Further control can be realized by installing of traffic signal at the intersection. That is still not going to reduce the delay or is it? Executive Director Martin-I think after you consider Betty's question I think she is probably correct because I have gotten some information from Haarza regarding the improvements to that intersection that we were planning for last spring and, that we started planning for last spring, and if a signal was inserted then it improves the level of service to a B and C range. Councilman Monahan-But where would you put that signal if we cannot change the configuration that is there right now where would you put that signal at Dixon Road where they come out? Executive Director Martin-That would be my opinion. Councilman Monahan-Hold them and let Farr Lane get out. You are holding them but you are not holding Aviation. Executive Director Martin-That would be the busier intersection of the two. Councilman Monahan-You are holding Dixon and Aviation is going and you are trying to get out ofFarr Lane so it is not really helping that situation. Executive Director Martin-In my opinion whether this project is approved or not if that land stays totally vacant I think you will find a need for a traffic signal there in the coming years. Councilman Monahan-lam not sure if it is a traffic signal it is an improved configuration to my mind is the most important thing. Executive Director Martin-I think the combination of both. Councilman Monahan-I think with improved configuration you may go by for awhile without a need for a traffic signal. Executive Director Martin-I think the improved configuration will help in the short term but in the long term the volume of traffic is going to be coming through that intersection, with or without the project. Councilman Monahan-The main reason because it is I am not sure Jim, officially it is either a collector or arterial road but is the one that is supposed to be carrying the heavy traffic. Executive Director Martin-We have it classified as a local arterial. Councilman Monahan-So it is supposed to be carrying the heavy traffic, that is the purpose of that road. Unfortunately the infrastructure itself is not up to the designation of which we gave it and which it has to be, really has to be that. Executive Director Martin-Given the physical layout of our township the Northway represents a man made barrier and there is limited points of which you cross that barrier and as a house is built on the west side or any activity there is limited points at which you cross that barrier and those points are going to become very popular for traffic. Councilman Monahan-It isn't only that it is also building in the vicinity of the Lake George Road they want to go to the mall or something, they do not have much choices, it is a long round about way for them to move around into that area of town. Councilman Goedert-I have a question for Mark. Mark how come I have to take the impact of this project built out completely for a SEQRA review when I cannot take in the changes to the bridge and Aviation Road that are not done into my findings also? Council Schachner-I think the shortest and best answer to that is because and applicants proposing a project and the guidance that the SEQRA law rules, regulations and cases that have been decided under SEQRA give us is that we are supposed to take whatever the applicant is proposing and review as if the entire nine yards gets accomplished. I think the traffic mitigation type stuff that you are talking about is stuff that is neither in the applicants control nor our control and I think is, is perfectly acceptable to include an evaluation assuming that the traffic mitigation things happen but I think we also to be fair have to include an evaluation or discussion or evaluation in case they don't happen because they are totally beyond our control and they are totally beyond the applicants control. I do not think that they need to be ignored the mitigations measures I think it is ok to evaluate them under both scenarios and under some partial scenarios where some of the mitigation happen and but perhaps not all of them. Councilman Goedert-Do you have a copy of the part II SEQRA Review Jim, I left mine over... Executive Director Martin-I have the one I did that night, my written Councilman Goedert-I just want to ask you a question and I want you to go on the record answering for me. Executive Director Martin-Do you want it over there? Supervisor Champagne-You have got it? Executive Director Martin-I have it from the other night. Councilman Goedert-Under each, what I call the header questions, Jim, it says examples that would apply to column II, I will take the traffic one since that's the one that we all, that is the easiest actually. We answered that there will be an impact on the traffic system and then right underneath that it says examples and then after the word examples it says that would apply to column II which means potentially large impact so does that mean that any yes answer there automatically gives us a potentially large impact? Executive Director Martin-I believe it does, yes, once you consider a question, yea the thing that you actually I think responding yes to, as potentially large is the leading question, like for example in the case of fifteen, will there be an affect to existing transportation system, yes and the impact is potentially large to that question, in response to that question and your provided by means of the form, an example of why that is the case. But, you are saying in response to question fifteen there is a potentially large impact to existing transportation systems. Ok, is that correct? Council Schachner-It is correct but I am not sure it is answering Connie's question. I think there may be some mis-understanding here. I do not know, is that answering your question? Councilman Goedert-No it is not. I think you, Executive Director Martin-I did not understand it then. Councilman Goedert-Maybe it is easier to do one that we did not get a potentially large impact on but we answered yes to the question. Number six, will proposed action alter drainage flows or patterns or surface water run-off, we answered yes, then we went through and we answered yes to the bullet question on proposed action is incapable or incompatible with existing drainage patterns. I have a question mark by that, proposed action may cause substantial erosion, we answered small to moderate on that, but we because we answered yes to it that doesn't automatically because it says examples that would apply to town too, it does not automatically put it in the potentially large impact colunm. Executive Director Martin-I would say no. Mark has been raising the same point with me, maybe he can better address the question. Council Schachner-Why don't I try that. I think that, I think we have to sort oflapse for a minute into some SEQRA history, and I do not mean to bore the board but there is a statue called the State Environmental Quality Review Act that is the law itself SEQRA, there are then regulations which are this part 617 of the New York State Code of Rules and Regulations when you read at the beginning of an EAF will something or other trigger a part 617. something or other thing, those are the SEQRA regulations. So, we have law, we have regulation, and under neath that we also have a bunch of guide lines and cases that have been decided under SEQRA. The EAF language or the instructions that you are referring to are not law and they are not even rules or regulations they are guidelines for preparing environmental assessment forms. There is language in cases and elsewhere that says, just that, they are guidelines, that in some cases EAF the language does not lend itself perfectly to environmental review but you use the form and you use their instructions as guidelines in order to ful-fill your legal requirement which is to take a hard look at the environmental impacts or possible environmental impacts of a project. That was my short history speech to get to your specific question, most SEQRA lead agencies when they go through part II's of long form EAF's which is what we have done, treat the bullet items, what I call the bullet items the listed things as potential environmental impacts to trigger another hard look and say, ok, we do have one of those do we think we have it as a small to moderate impact or do we think we have it as potentially large impact. So, I guess what I am saying Connie, is many if not most SEQRA Lead Agencies don't take that language where it says examples that would trigger colunm II they tend not to take that specific language literally and that language is not part of a law or a rule or a regulation, so there are not any courts that I am aware of that have said that you have to take that language literally. What Courts often say is that you do not have to take some of those guidelines literally but you need to get to the right result and the way to get to the right result is to make sure that you took a hard look at the potential environmental impact. One of the things that Jim and I have talked about since our meeting a week ago is in addition to the part III draft that the staff has prepared focusing on just potentially large impacts also including in some draft part III language for you perhaps in a shorter version some of the things that you checked off as small, potentially small to moderate impacts and enabling you or assisting you in evaluating the importance of the things that you checked off in box I and from the perspective fulfilling your legal requirements under SEQRA, what you need to do is to make sure that you have evaluated the potential environmental impacts and evaluated the importance and it does not matter so much whether you checked box I or box II or box III what matters is whether you have taken a hard look at the potential environmental impacts and evaluated their importance. I apologize for being so long winded but I could not think of a shorter answer. Supervisor Champagne-As far as the examples are concerned we could write our own examples. Council Schachner-That is absolutely correct. Executive Director Martin-That is why in every case there is other impacts. Council Schachner-There is no question about that, you could use your own examples you could decide that some of the examples listed in your opinion even though they are listed in a list that says these examples should lead to checking offbox II, you can as long as you are taking a hard well reasoned, educated look at these things you can reach the conclusion that even something on that list is not a potentially large impact if it is going to happen it is a small to moderate impact and for example that is what you did although you have not voted on this yet, when you went through and put the part II EAF at last weeks meeting there were a number of instances I think seven or eight or nine of them where you found something that did reach the threshold indicated in what I call the bullet item or the list but you felt that even though it is on that list or a majority of you felt that even though it is on that list is, in this particular case of this particular project it did not constitute a potentially large impact it only constituted a small to moderate impact. Councilman Goedert-Thank you. Council Schachner-I think the important summary is the instructions to the EAF are guidelines, they are not laws, rules or regulations and you have to intreperate them as they pertain to a particular project in the manner that you feel makes the most sense. Supervisor Champagne-Ok, with that are there any other questions from the Board, next Monday night you will be prepared to vote on it. Councilman Pulver-Did you put a summary with the review form the part III... Supervisor Champagne-In back of it... Councilman Pulver-That is included. Councilman Monahan-But I gather from what Mark is saying he feel that this should be amplified with answered to some other things ... Council Schachner -Correct. Executive Director Martin-We had that same detail conversation this after noon and I was going to do that for each small to moderate one also. Council Schachner-I do not think those require as much attention perhaps because you have found them to be small to moderate but I think it is important that they be evaluated ultimately in terms of their importance. Supervisor Champagne-So, is that something we should run through now? Councilman Monahan-You also have to look at Jim's answers because of what we have got here already. Executive Director Martin-Again, I do not mean to be nit picky but they are not my answers they are answers for you to consider ... Councilman Monahan-That is what I tried to say, that we need to consider those and see you know, ... Supervisor Champagne-I understand that. Councilman Monahan-I think we need right now Executive Director Martin-If it is something that you feel comfortable with if you do not like any of it I will go back a second time if you like parts of it and not others. Councilman Monahan-I am not asking to do those things which we should be doing in the public meeting, as a continuation, what I am saying is if there is anything in there that we feel that we need more information from Jim or needs amplification, or that we think is a mis-statement as the way we see it, Jim needs to see it to correct it right now so he can work on it in the coming week. Executive Director Martin-That is what I am looking for if there is a statement in there that you want stricken or more research done on that is what we are looking for. Councilman Monahan-Jim, how do we evaluate the maybe's and I am going to what Mark is saying you know that we can take and do, they are not true mitigation but we also have scenarios of some of these traffic things come down the pike, how are you able to judge and maybe you can't in a substantial way what the impact would be in the widening of the bridge and getting the turn lanes in there and all of that type of thing. We do not really have the ability to say what this does to trips generated and all that type of, I mean the time value or do we with things that are out there? Executive Director Martin-A traffic engineer would have that means to project the impact of a third lane or a signal in a certain location or a widened bridge or something like that, you could evaluate the impact of that you could make a project as to what. Councilman Monahan-So that is something that we would really say to the applicant, have your traffic consultant, if we are interested in considering the possible affects of this happening that is something their traffic engineer would probably work up for us. Executive Director Martin-Yes, I have seen cases where that has been done. Now if you think it is relevant I do have analysis from Haarza that was done in conjunction with our planning effort that we have them under contract to do for some modification to the Dixon Road, Farr Lane intersection and what would happen if you were to signalize that or not signalize it, I do have that already. Speaking of some of the things that you were speaking about Betty, correcting some of the geometry of the intersection and so on, I do have that already with a project of impact. Councilman Goedert-Done by an engineer? Executive Director Martin-Yes. Councilman Monahan-Done by Harza. Executive Director Martin-Done by Harza. Councilman Monahan-When they are looking at what we should be doing on Aviation Road. Executive Director Martin-Now, if you think that is something you would like to see I can, it is very short, it is not, it is not terribly technical I can supply that to you. Councilman Monahan-I think that would be ... I am going to ask the Board, is everybody comfortable with the time of the year the traffic study was done, because that would lay another facet to rest. Councilman Goedert-It was done when School was in session and that is what, I live up there also and I do not fore, I do not have a problem with it. I think the traffic issue has been answered. Supervisor Champagne-Any other concerns? Recess 5 Minutes... Reconvene at the Supervisor's Conference Room... 5.08 AVIATION ROAD SIDEWALKS This is part of the Aviation Road project, the side walk in front of the school from the east end to the west end and in front of Burke Drive past the Lady of Annunciation. Councilman Monahan-Who will maintain them after they are completed? Councilman Goedert- The school will take care of theirs and the church will take care of their's except that we will have to repair the church, not in favor ofthis...Executive Director Martin-recommended that the Town Highway Dept. build the sidewalks...2000 liner feet... Supervisor Champagne-Noted that we will be asking for an easement from the Church 10' wide...when it is done they will own and maintain it and have the liability and we will repair it.. Councilman Goedert-questioned if we are going to repair all other sidewalks that are not on the Town of Queensbury property? Supervisor Champagne-We are doing that right now. Councilman Goedert-As long as we play fair with everybody, then fine. Councilman Turner-It is important that we have a standard and policy on these sidewalks. Board agreed to ask the Highway Dept. to put in the sidewalks. 5.01 INDIAN RIDGE Discussion held regarding National Church Residences.... They will need approval by the 29th of August to meet their deadlines... GARRISON ROAD PETITION Discussion held-Petition given to the Board requesting granite or poured concrete curbing on Garrison Road. Councilman Monahan-If they want something that is not standard in this Town then we can put in a benefit district and they will pay for it. LAKE GEORGE OPERA FESTIVAL RFP Discussion held regarding possible locations-Executive Director Martin-noted that the first best choice would be something with the college..new building or renovating the existing facility...The Lake George Opera has three million ... they are talking a five to eight million dollar project the County is going to throw in a proposal...Executive Director Martin-Cultural resources is the thing that gives identity to a community... 5.03 RED WINGS REQUEST Discussion held - requesting an ad from the Town in the Red Wing magazine Board agreed not to place an ad 5.04 CRANDALL LIBRARY BUDGET Supervisor Champagne-asking for approval to place them on the ballot... Board requested better copy of their budget... 5.05 BOARD 1997 BUDGET Due on the 19th...General Fund expenditures like beautification, etc. Discussed various drainage projects in the Town South Queensbury and North Queensbury... 5.06 ROUTE 149 DOT REPORT Councilman Monahan-Requested more detail on the project... Supervisor Champagne-Contacted DOT and asked where they were on the 149 Plan, they said there are two different options, requested that the Town receive in writing those options...it says that they are going to straighten it out, they do not have a specific plan... Discussion was held regarding the rezoning of the Route 149 area...Councilman Monahan suggested that 149 will be re-looked at the time that the road is done there... 5.09 WEST GLENS FALLS FIRE REQUEST FOR SEWER Councilman Pulver-We have talked about that at water committee and I think we should follow the same process that we followed for CVS we have the resolutions, contingent upon the City inspecting them, the City accepts them and then we let them... Councilman Monahan-Questioned if we were going to ask to have the piped sized so that when we have to run the sewer up there we are not doing that portion over again? Councilman Pulver-If they run the pipe we will have them do that...noted a committee meeting Thursday on that. Councilman Goedert-questioned the estimated amount of 500 gallons... CEMETERY CANOPY Supervisor Champagne-reported to the Board regarding an accident at Pine View Cemetery where a machine ran into the canopy attached to the vault, we had Adirondack Construction go up and shore up the canopy and I have asked Chuck to have an engineer go in and do a review for us and my guess is we will have to pull together some specifications and we are going to bid that out. Councilman Monahan-I think we should check with the Commission. CIBY GEIGY Supervisor Champagne-They are at a point where they requested a permit from DEC to do the clean up at the site and DEC has issued a notice to any interested parties that if we want to have a public hearing we can do that, DEC is Lead Agency, I do not know if it is necessary to have a public hearing or not, noted DEC decision....Councilman Monahan-We would be the interested party to respond... EMS Councilman Goedert - We have been meeting on a regular basis on the EMS advisory board meetings the County Supervisor's have a concern about ambulance in the North part of the County..they are proposing, billing...! am arguing that once again the Town of Queensbury ends up paying the tab, they are quite aware that they are not going to make money and it will fail if we do not participate. Spoke about paid service, noted she did not feel that would be right away...spoke about looking at the future noted that one service has handled an average of six calls a day during this summer...they are trying not to do away with the volunteers, have day paid and night volunteer..Councilman Pulver-If we are going into pay maybe we should be looking at charging... Supervisor Champagne-The issue is, we as the Town of Queensbury need to be more involved and be a part of this whole County undertaking, because if there is a major disaster you will need the Lake George's and Warrensburg and North Creek, I think we need to listen to what they have to say...Councilman Monahan-questioned how the residents will accept being charged and having a tax... Supervisor Champagne-noted that the EMS people in the future will not be able to keep up...Councilman Goedert-Encourage you to take the EMS coordinator position and get him out from under the thumb of the fire coordinator...they are two different issues, you as the County Supervisor need to get an EMS budget for the coordinator the deputy coordinator needs to make as much or more than deputy fire coordinator.. . RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 344.96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION, SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert RESOlVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into Executive Session to discuss two matters on particular personnel, potential litigation. Duly adopted this 12th day of August, 1996 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING EXECUTIVE AND REGULAR SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 345.96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby adjourns is executive and regular session. Duly adopted this 12th day of August, 1996 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT: None Respectfully submitted, Miss Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk-Queensbury