1988-09-08 SP 207
SPECIAL TONN BOARD MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1988
4:35 P.N.
i
HOMERS PRESENT
Stephen Borgos-Supervisor
Marilyn Potenza-Councilman
Ronald Montesi-Councilman
Betty Monahan-Councilman
Paul Dusek-Town Attorney
MEIBERS ABSENT:
George Kurosaka-Town Councilman
�-- PRESS: G.F. Post Star, WBZA
GUESTS: Mr. Dennis McElroy-EDP
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN POTENZA
Supervisor Borgos-Due to a clerical error the wrong Article 15 was in in the
proposed zoning ordinance, to correct the situation I am requesting that another
public hearing be held on September 19, 1988 on Article 15 of the Zoning Ordinance.
RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC NEARING ON CORRECTED ARTICLE 15 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
RESOLUTION NO. 366, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi:
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, by resolution dated September
6, 1988, authorized and directed the publication of a correction notice indicating:
1) that a previous notice of a public hearing on the adoption of a new toning ordinance
for the Town of Queensbury was incorrect to the extent that it related to Article
15 - Planned Unit Development Zoning Regulations and also erroneous in as much as
copies of the zoning ordinance on file with the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury
and referred to in the original notice did not contain a correct statement of Article
15, 2) the correct summary of Article 15, and 3) advising the general public that
the proposed Article 15 is available for review and,
WHEREAS, the Town Attorney for the Town of Queensbury has advised that a public
hearing on the correct Article 15 is also necessary,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that a public hearing be held by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury,
on the corrected version of Article 15 of the proposed zoning ordinance for the
Town of Queensbury, entitled: Planned Unit Development, on September 19, 1988, at
7:00 P.M, in the Auditorium of the Queensbury High School, Aviation Road, Queensbury,
Warren County, New York at which hearing, parties in interest and citizens shall
have an opportunity to be heard as to whether a proposed Article 15 - Planned Unit
Development - of the zoning ordinance for the entire Town of Queensbury should be
adopted and the present Article 15 - Planned Unit Development - repealed.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
�. Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka
Supervisor Borgos-The main purpose of being here tonight is to discuss more fully
I questions related to the EIS of the Earltown Corp, the issue of completeness...I
was handed a letter a few minutes ago from the Big Cedar Swamp Coalition a letter
regarding Earltown's EIS...
Councilman Monahan-Ltr, dated June 13, 1988 from EDP in which you raised questions,
can you tell us how they have been answered?
Dennis McElroy-EDP-To give a little history of the progression of documents, we
/by start with the supplement from which this report that I hold dated June 13,
ne Betty referred to with the review of. The supplement document was submitted
rltown representatives in response to the original EIS that was additional
mation that had been requested. The major topic areas were as discussed here
e introduction of environmental settings, significant environmental impacts,
litigation measures, alternatives and cumulative impacts. That documents supplement
was submitted and addressed those particular issues as a result of that submittal
there were comments that had been made in the June 13th document. Those comments
contained within this review report were they taken by Earltown and responded to
as k1 l as other public comments from the public hearing, those-that were written
and submitted to the Town. The response to those comments took the form of the
FEIS and that ultimately is the job of the FEIS the final document is to respond
to public comment and some outstanding issues. We had met on several occasions
and I will have to refer back to my notes to give you the dates and times. We met
with Earltown representatives as well as DOT officials, Warren County Public Safety
Officials, Fred Austin specifically related to traffic and ...Engineers our consultants
on the traffic issue. We made certain comments related to environmental settings,
significant environmental impacts mitigation measures alternatives and cumulative
impacts. Earltown's form of response took two shapes a topical response and specific
question responses, those were. found not only in the supplement documents but naturally
in the FEIS. The format of the FEIS again took the form of topical responses which
were general responses to the more wide spreay issues, those of the wetland impacts,
chemical residues from the golf course, traffic alternatives mitigations and that
type of thing the broad issues that were responded to and that, their response took
the form of a topical response. It wasn't specific who ask a question because so
many questions had come in that was their form of a response. In addition there
were some specific responses and you will have 'hat in another section of the final
document. Upon reviewing that document and it wias submitted to my office back in
July, for our review, just to informally review l t and see if there was anything
that was needed to be brushed up needed to be added to. This was one the series
of meetings between Ed and myself and other pertinent people as the case required,
occurred during the course of mid July through the end of August. We discussed"
certain issues that still needed to be addressed, those specifically were discussed
in a letter that I wrote on the 25th issues related to traffic, chemical use and
land use intensity, wetlands impacts in the format of the document itself. How
these questions were addressed, how the responses°sere dealt with. The information
that was submitted within the FEIS and we can refex to the table of contents, under
Chapter 6 Response to comments, biological in that section they referred to the
environmental setting and the functional analysis or'the wetlands and those were
issues that were brought up in the June 13th report. Chapter B, 6B dealt with chemical
use of potential and build up potential and that particular section consisted of
a report from Cornell Professor PHD at Cornell, the coiTment was from, there as a
review comment from Robert Trent Jones Turff Management Study, I guess that's to
be correct about that. It was to be presented in that particular section, their
recommendation from Turff management people and then a review of that recommendation.
by Cornell professor. What was presented there was satisfactory as far as the golf
course, pesticide, herbicide use we had additional questions related to residential
use and information related to that was ...submitted as part of the final document.
Traffic Section C, that was one of the bigger issues that �e had more meetings on
as we referenced before, we had meetings with DOT with Grinder and with Warren County,
shortly after the time Warren County announced that they woul.1 proceed with improvements
to Quaker Road and that in effect had a significant impact on ,the responsibilities,
I suppose, of the developer to make improvements, basically 'a big chunk of those
improvements that he would have had to participate in is now being taken care of
by Warren County. We have gone through the issues that our consultant Grinder had
on the nuts and bolts of the traffic report, some of the numbers did not quite jive
and that has been corrected to Grinders satisfaction to DOT's satisfaction. DOT
had requested information regarding additional intersections they basically in addition
to what was already provided from Ridge Road all the way to the Northway in those
intersections as requested by DOT have been addressed in numbers related to those
and supplied as part of the FEIS, as to the satisfaction of our review.
Councilman Montesi-It is important that this does not get distorted. The comment
you made that a lot of the things that Earltown might have had to do will be handled
by the County now, in all fairness I think, I hope what you are-saying is that the
County is not doing this because of Earltown or for Earltown it is _doing it as a
necessary part of growth of Quaker Road which just happens to be good timing to
be able to be coordinated.
Dennis McElroy-That is an important point. The traffic study showed that Quaker
Road would require an improvement without the project and certainly with it. The
County now has proceeded to find the revenues required to make the improvements
to that, Earltown would have had that not occurred would, I anticipate that Earltown
would have participated in the costs of those improvements in some pro-rata share.
Councilman Montesi-There is some cost sharing that they would be doing now anyway.
Dennis McElroy-That is true. ...the intersections from the project, improvements
to the Ridge Road intersection, those are directives that are part of the FEIS and
eventually would become part of the findings statement if the project proceeds in
that fashion. The next is alternatives and that is certainly ,a sensitive issue
and I will give you a little history on ,this, the first presertItation the first document
submitted was deficient in alternatives, that was recognized early on. The supplement
addressed that deficiency by proposing a series of alternatives which had been discussed
with us during the process in various informal workshops in December and January.
It was noted at that time to Earltown that we understood the alternative that were
being presented that they procedurally to be determined to be proper because they
covered a reasonable alternative which complied with the project sponsors goals
and objectives. But, that those alternatives may be lacking to the Town Board in
not presenting an alternative that goes far enough. I think that was understood
early on and the alternatives processed and the project sponsor as he could do and
has done has presented those alternatives, those that are part' of this document
does not include an alternative which preserves fifty percent of the wetland or
twenty five percent of the wetland area. That was recognized I think the project
sponsor had his eyes opened to that and we certainly did and ,I would assume the
Town Board as well was aware of that. Ultimately, what I have stated before and
what it comes down to is that procedurally the alternatives presented are in keeping
with the SEQRA requirements but that in fact those alternatives may not be acceptable
to the Town as they would like to see the project proceed. The issues discussed
in the alternative section of the FEIS do address that, that DEC has requested that
certain alternatives be discussed, the Cedar Swamp Coalition has proposed certain
alternatives and Earltown has a response within the FEIS which basically says that
the alternatives presented are procedurally in compliance and that they are reasonable
alternatives to comply with the goals and objectives of the developer. The other
issues, land use intensity I had some comments related to the way the densities
were presented in the document there was no real assignment of a density related
to the hotel or to the Inns as they were presented, really on the residences were
addressed that has been corrected. It follows along with Queensbury regulations
related to principal buildings there is a certain formula that a hotel room, ten
hotel rooms are equivalent to one residential density. Those are, as it turns out
not real significant numbers in the over all scheme of things that somethings that
none the less should have been addressed and now ha;,been. The other issue is related
to commercial and retail square footages and what has been projected by the project.
Certainly the project is not just the eight hundred and forty or eighty residential
units, there are other densities which are assigned, to the project. Cumulative
impacts, those related to sewer and water and traffic have been discussed in additional
documentation letters from various community service organizations, police, fire,
and what not that have addressed the projection of'needs related to this project.
Drainage that related to ground water control has been addressed within the document
specifically addressing issues that were brought'up and the Cedar Swamps Coalitions
letters. In Section H. the misc. issues which*
go into some of the non topical if
you will questions that are specifically addressed in that section. As a result
of this document the meetings that we had the issues that have been re-addressed
and revised additional information supplemented to this document before it was formally
submitted to the Town, that was the basis of the letter of the 25th. Specifically
the letter did not address each and every comment and why there were deficiencies
and how they have been rectified but comments that referred to the meetings that
we have had the issues that were, the questions still and the fact that information
has been provided to satisfy the concerns that were on that document.
Councilman Monahan-Dennis, I guess now I am going to get specific. In your comments
on the environmental study, question and analysis of the intra wetland community
relationship, I gather that what I am reading in there and the reply to that is
that the wetland is going to cease to exist, there will be all kinds of changes
_ in the plants the fauna, animals whatever, if the red shoulder hawk is there it
will disappear, if we have protected plants there they will disappear.
Dennis McElroy-Yes. But I think that the...Section 6A of the document addresses
the functional analysis.
Councilman Monahan-That is what I read and that is what I got out of it.
Supervisor Borgos-You just asked if the red shoulder hawk is going to disappear
if it is there and he said yes. Is it may disappear or will disappear?
Dennis McElroy-I do not think it has been established that it is there.
Supervisor Borgos-Are you saying it absolutely will disappear or it may disappear?
Councilman Monahan-That is what Earltown in their response said.
Supervisor Borgos-They said the character is going to change...
Councilman Monahan-Most of the smaller animals should also remain but larger animals
such as the large predatory birds namely the hawks and owls with extensive home
changes will almost certainly be lost.
i
Dennis McElroy-That is the statement, specifically the red shoulder hawk I do not
know if that was ever...that one in particular is of interest being on the protected
list. That has been an issue that has been resolved in some minds but possibly
not in others.
Councilman Monahan-I think maybe it is time for those that have seen it to come
forward and state that they have seen it, when and where.
Supervisor Borgos-I think there is only one report of that in history as far as
I am aware of, that was Mr. Ketchline of DEC I believe.
Councilman Monahan- I know...telling of people she saw who thought that they had
seen it, in years past.
Supervisor Borgos-I am totally unaware of anyone other than Mr. and Mrs. Ketchline...
Dennis McElroy-That is my understanding...
Councilman Monahan-So, basically that is what the answer that we are accepting there
will be a loss...
Dennis McElroy-I suppose in a nut shell the volume of documents and I think maybe
I can read from my letter of the 25th. The volume of supporting information on
this project determine that various impacts will occur. i.e. wetlands, traffic
and that several measures=will be implemented to mitigate these impacts. It is
now the Town Board's responsibility to approve a findings and decision statement
that reflects their determination of the proposed projects acceptability to the
Town of Queensbury. I would add that, that is under the assumption that the process
proceeds to that point the findings and decision. We are not yet at that point,
what you are discussing now is an acceptance or determination I should say of completeness
of the FEIS that does not mean it does not define an approval of the project it
is a procedural issue that would allow the process to continue, but not specifically
an approval of the project as presented.
Councilman Monahan-Environmental Impact, this comparison should address more than
the wrong hydrological functions or engineering functions it should also address
ecological functions to omit such a discussion of potential significant impacts
to the sight and surrounding areas leaves only to speculate as to the extent and
significance, potential impacts associated with development projects...and cannot
be omitted because they may not be well defined by engineering principals. Again
I think we are talking about the fact that the ecological ... we are talking about
the disappearance of the wetlands.
Dennis McElroy-Correct and I would refer to that Section 6 A of the FEIS.
Councilman Monahan-Mitigation measures-where you say in the last paragraph under
mitigation measurers, but obviously this topic can cover great latitudes it really
becomes a question of whether the Town Board is satisfied with the level of mitigation.
This ties directly to the alternative section to the document where the same situation --
occurs, procedural compliance exists but is it satisfactory in concept, please refer
to the alternative comments. So what you are really saying is, you have two alternatives
to look at we can be satisfied with that or we can say that we think there are some
alternatives in between that should be looked at.
Dennis McElroy-Correct.
Councilman Monahan-These requirements under Alternatives, the first paragraph, these
requirements and you have- just talked about SEQRA regulations state that the applicant
should in quote discuss the reasonable alternatives to the project or portions thereof,
Oil
/any chieve the same or similar objectives of the project sponsor have relatively
me or reduced adverse environmental impacts and can be implemented in a time
similar to that of the proposed action. The question remains as to whether
f the alternatives presented as satisfactory to the Town Board as a concept
for developing and preserving the land in question. Certainly options exists which
would lesson the impacts on the wetland acreage. The applicant choose to put forth
the alternatives presented the Town Board will eventually determine it satisfaction
with the concepts as presented. So really what has been presented to us is no development
at all, ..but levels of development...
Dennis McElroy-That is a requirement of a Seqra to have a no action...
Councilman Monahan-But, there is also reasonable alternatives to me would be something
in between also. That is my interpretation. The other thing that 1 was concerned
about...that is when we talk about pumping a million gallons of water out of that
area and I realize this is a small drainage basin that we are talking about but
I still wonder what kind of documentation really has been done to survey the wells
in the area to find out how deep they are, and I am not only talking about the Town
of Queensbury because this project borders the Town of Kingsbury and it borders
Washington County. What kind of a survey has been done, what kind of wells are
there, what the depth of them are whether or not they are going to be now or shortly
on municipal water systems in either one town or the other. How can we say to these
people if there are people involved anything that is done to this project will not
have an effect on your water system and what you rely on, and that we may be saying
go out and put in a five to six thousand dollar water system to compensate for any
effect that may be on your present system.
Dennis McElroy-I would refer to some information that was given to me related to
that issue of wells. It is a reference to various sections of the documents from
the DEIS, the Supplement which refer to that specific issue of impact on water source.
Councilman Monahan-Do you feel that from that information any survey was actually
s
done on wells and the property involved?
i
Dennis McElroy-As you ask me that question right now, I would have to refresh my
memory as to to the specifics.
Supervisor Borgos-There is another document here in addition to the Big Cedar Swamp
Coalition, another document that came from Earltorm...well water impact...
'i Dennis McElroy-The Dunn Geo. Science...I have not had an opportunity to re-check
those references as to whether they address specific questions that he has...
jl Supervisor Borgos-It says, Volumn II Technical Data Report B1 page 9...
Dennis McElroy-I received that this afternoon myself again I have not had an opportunity
to double check those issues. I want to say to you yes that information is presented
and that its a reasonable presentation of the findings that the impacts were the
statements that Earltown has made within the document that impacts will not occur.
{ Because of the timing of the question and what not the issue I want to double check
those particular references and refer to that again to be able to give you a positive
answer on that.
iI Councilman Monahan-I am really asking you this Dennis, because of living in the
Country I have seen the results of what somebodies done on a well when three or
} five regular wells have gone in, in the area and there has been some trouble.
j Dennis McElroy-Various reports have been done we could study this extensively and
if more is required then I feel confident that Earltown would probably do the work
that was necessary to ...
Councilman Monahan-But at the present time you have not had a chance to check the
data to that you really can answer..
Dennis McElroy-Not to re-check those references and I would want to do that to be
j confident to give you an answer standing here right now.
3
I Councilman Montesi-On an over all conceptual level can we assume the Earltown property,
the Quaker Ridge Property is not an aquifer recharge area?
I
Dennis McElroy-It is a small drainage area and again I would want to refer to that
Dunn report.
Councilman Montesi-One of the articles I read specifically addresses a drainage
area and it specifically referred to it not as a aquifer recharge area that is
not necessarily to say that some well that is in the ground somewhere around the
parameter of that property would not be affected. Hopefully if you were side the
parameter of the property the Quaker Ridge other
sar that shomeonetshould be
think we are on water on three sides. T hat is
deprived of their right of having their own well water.
Dennis McElroy-The studies can be done to reach a certain level of satisfaction
that the impacts will not be there ultimately that responsibility will lie with
the developer and should be made to lie with the developer within the findings statement
that, that responsibility is, that there is.something that there is certain concern
about. All the reports and alleviate
the findings statement can define that responsibility
if they do turn up then it could be addressed by the project sponsor.
Supervisor Borgos-In researching this I went back to the maps that we had prepared }
for the new rezoning of the Town I looked very carefully at that section, there -•+
were two critical areas of water one was an aquifer and one was a water recharge
area and neither of those two classifications was included in the area that this
is, this was neither of those two based on our own current studies that were just
used by the Citizens Advisory Committee.
Councilman Monahan-I agree with you as far as the aquifer recharge but there is
also the fact that when you sink a well in bedrock and sink it deep enough to bring
up a million gallons a day you maybe tapping a stream that is way away from there
when you come right down to brass tacks you know how fishers run in bed rock.
Supervisor Borgos-On the other hand we have been sitting in on a lot of meetings
related to sighting of landfills throughout the state and the new thinking there
is that we will go to clay because of it impermeable nature rather than the sand
and gravel as was the preliminary thinking. This indeed is clay and I do not think
anybody disputes that. The State now accepts that as the impermeable source we
have X number of feet of clay there so if you are thinking about water not going
down through that.
Councilman Monahan-I am saying if you tap an underground stream...
Councilman Montesi-Back to the alternative statements, there were five more alternatives
presented one of those was the developers preferred alternatives, he said of these
various presentations this is the one that I would like to see and I am going to
go with. There are probably, Betty said there are a lot in between, there is no
use of the 500 acres of wetlands there is half the use of the wetland there is a
quarter of the use of the wetland. I presume that there are multitude more that
can be presented one of them is obviously is mandated and that is no development
another one is zoned as Industrial Reserve but in no case is the developer, that
is one scenario and I do not mean this as the defense of the developer but one of
the alternatives wasn't presented too is total use of the wetland with houses.
As far reaching as that might be...
Dennis McElroy-There are alternatives on either side of intensity.
Councilman Montesi-We can argue that three or four or five or six more alternatives
could be presented and to what end I am not sure ultimately what this developer
has said. Economically and physically and within the framework of working with
the land this is the one that I want to present, I have presented others but this
is the one that I want to go. That does not mean that there aren't more that could
be asked.
Dennis McElroy-Correct. To explain that scenario as I understand it and discussed
with Seqra people in Albany, if there is concern about the alternatives that have
lternative that has been presented and -is proposed
not been presented or basically the a
the process will allow either at this point before you issue a determination of
' completeness a re-gathering of thinking with the project sponsor an indication that,that
alternative is not acceptable you can also determine a document to be complete to
go into the findings and"decision statement and issue either a positive statement
saying that you are for the alternative as presented or a statement which determines
that you are not satisfied with the alternative that presented a denial without
prejudice is the term and then precede to indicate that another alternative could
be considered by the Town Board. You have various options, its certainly late in
the process but those options have always been available to you and at this time
is no different than early on.
Supervisor Borgos-You have referred to the findings statement several times this
afternoon at the last meeting we talked about the findings being totally separate
from this statement of completeness and that you had requested that you be in on
the preparation of the findings statements as you were not with Hiland Park Development
and hopefully you would be in the future. At that time is there room in the findings
for not only a good question of all these things but either in the findings or in
the eventual approval that would come out of specific requirements that must be
followed. If the findings says this is a negative kind of thing however it may
be mitigated by then,... that mitigation measure be this that is the place for that.
Dennis McElroy-That is one of the purposes of the findings is to state those conditions
j that will come out in that particular case an approval.
Councilman Monahan-What would be the impact on the approval that this is final and
then you are saying, but you still must give additional information?
Dennis McElroy-Once the document is accepted as complete it is the Town's document,
the decision that comes out of that could be positive or negative to use those terms
but the document becomes the Town's upon the determination of completion.
Councilman Monahan-Once we determine this as complete there is nothing else we really
can request.
Dennis McElroy-From the project sponsor,I would agree with that.
Councilman Monahan-I would like to point out to the Board but I am sure everyone
on the Board is aware of it, Section 4 of the Final Draft where DEC in there comments
on June..1988 did ask for two other alternatives, that is page 3 of their letter,
they have titled Chapter 6.
Dennis McElroy-The one thing that I would say to that is that further on in the
response to comments in Section D. Earltown does respond to that.
Councilman Potenza-The question was answered maybe not to your liking.
Dennis McElroy-It was responded to.
i
Councilman Monahan-But what DEC asked to be responded to was not specific...
I would also like you to go on with DEC letter please on page 4 it is part way down
the first paragraph, with this in mind DEC will reiterate its recomnendation, EIS
including the discussion on projects compatibility with the N.Y.St. Freshwater Wetland.
Law and the Freshwater WetLands Permit requirements. In particular the regulations
pertaining to wetland permits require among other things that the Earltown Corp.
demonstrate that its preferred alternative is the only practical alternative that
could accomplish the applicants objective. Two, has no practical alternative on
the site that is not a fresh water wetland or adjacent area. Three satisfied that
the compelling economic or social need that clearly and substantially outweighs
the loss of...to the benefits of the wetlands. Do you feel that, that comment has
been responded to?
Dennis McElroy-In a form, yes, in that those particular comments deal with the N.Y.
State Fresh Water Wetlands law and the wetlands permit, which is not the issue at
this particular stage, those requirements are there and whatever form this project
takes shape, whatever form it progresses to the State Level at DEC filing for that
permit it would have to satisfy those requirements.
Councilman Montesi-That is the overriding issue, that I guess I wanted to ask you
about, the completeness of ... the reasonable completeness of this EIS, the interpretation
of the Town Board we may deem it complete. We may go through the findings,statement
with some corrections with some specific dialogue that addresses specific areas.
When that is complete then it goes through a process of DEC at that point if DEC
1 feels that the Town Board in all of its infinite wisdom has not addressed all of
L.... the alternatives or.issues or wetlands permitting processes they will be requiring
that the developer in their process is ultimately the final process because they
either they, issue or do not issue a wetlands permit for use of that property, is
that pretty much correct?
Dennis McElroy-As I understand it, that is correct, that there is fresh water wetlands
disturbance permit would be required, to obtain that permit you have to demonstrate
certain conditions and that is in the future of this project assuming that it proceeds
it has been stated previously that it would be nice if that step was taken before
the Town makes some judgement on it. That is not as I understand it, again, is
not a specific requirement and that is my source from the SEQRA Office in Albany.
Councilman Montesi-Part of the concerns to is I as a Town Board Member I wanted
to be the Lead Agency, this project and any PUD's in my community because I wanted
to have the input, economically, ecologically, of the growth of my community. I
want to control that I did not want to go beyond to a State. I realize that the
StAte has a major input in this but I want to face my community or the Board and
that is the reason that we are the lead agency. If we decided 'to shirk our responsibility
and give the lead agency to DEC they would say Aye or Nay to this development by
giving them a permit and then all we would have had to have done is said if you
can only use that as wetlands you issue the project and we are done. Life would
have been a lot easier. I think that the hard part of this is to try and mold this
project or any PUD in my community and make it workable and balanced, I know at
sometimes it is frustrating. I guess the alternatives that, we could go on and
on with that. As it stands my consultant...you feel comfortable that the alternatives
are reasonable and procedurally correct.
Dennis McElroy-Yes.
Supervisor Borgos-As I indicated, I received this letter from the Big Cedar Swamp
Coalition as I was walking in before, a number of the comments that they have made
have been covered in tonights meeting let me just ask a couple of questions again.
It is outside the public comments period but...It indicates that, this is a letter
form Mr. Caffry that supplemental information allegedly provided to EDP in August
is missing, is that required to be in the document?
Dennis McElroy- I am not sure what is being referred to here...
Councilman Monahan-I would think that probably that referred to your responses to
your comments of your letter of June 13th.
Supervisor Borgos-But whether they need to be there or not...
Dennis McElroy-They take the form of the FEIS.
Supervisor Borgos-The other question, re: endangered plant I only talked with Mrs.
Monahan briefly about this and I guess we still do not know what it is, Mrs. Monahan
still does not want to say what it is, perhaps it is better so it won't be touched
if we do not know it, is that something that can be. If this is deemed to be complete
and we go to the next step, Mrs. Monahan would you be willing to meet with the developer
to let the developer or let us know what this is so that someone can address this
privately to your satisfaction.
Councilman Monahan-I have had permission to release this information to DEC I have
not had permission to release this information to anyone else. I will release the
information to DEC.
Supervisor Borgos-That still will not let the developer respond to it.
Dennis McElroy-The document has responded to species that have been found on the
site there is not a presentation of endangered plant not to say what Mrs. Monahan
has found some bearing but the timing of getting an answer on that, if the document
is accepted as complete as I understand it you do not really have the ability to
request additional information.
Supervisor Borgos-Perhaps to make everyone happy if it were to be discovered and
what ever between now and the findings statement could something be included in
the findings statement indicating that A. an endangered species was found and it
will be protected or whatever?
Dennis McElroy- A simple statement like that yes that sounds real simple but you {
do not know what the magnitude of that is.
Supervisor Borgos-I do not know what the plant is, ...it is possible that there
is something out there in those hundreds of acres ...I do not know if it is a plant,
is it a plant?
Councilman Monahan-Yes.
Supervisor Borgos-It is a plant. We all want to protect those but all the same
somehow without divulging it, if Mrs. Monahan could contact the developer I would
guess that they would be a little more than cooperative in trying to do whatever
could be done. The other question that was raised the promised information of the
wetlands classification this
8? ... is missing, Mr. Caffry what do you mean by number
Mr. Caffrey-(tape not audible)...that information is not...
Dennis McElroy-I can remember referring to the State Check list characteristics
of the wetlands and the fact that this became a class I wetlands.
Supervisor Borgos-My only other comment here and again we are really going above
and beyond what is required now, because there comments were not in but this says
that the document does not reproduce all of the public comments such as our April
25th letter our letters the Planning Board nor does it have a record of the proceedings
--- of the Town and County Planning Boards. Does the Seqra regulations require that
all of the documentations of their entirely be included?
Dennis McElroy-I do not have an answer for you on that specifically. I can check
on that, I do not know of that specifically myself, I will pursue that and get the
answer to that but I do not know that.
Supervisor Borgos-It was my understanding that a summary of some sort was re uired
from the one Seqra training session I attended. I have to o with the q
Dennis McElroy-That question is part of this document which we just received, just
before the meeting so that...
Supervisor Borgos-Legally it is out of sequence, but I just wonder if you had an
answer? Maybe Mr. Bartholomew has an answer?
ATTORNEY BARTHOLOMEW-I think you will find that is incorporated into the document....
Dennis McElroy-The record of proceedings of the Town and County Planning Boards...
Supervisor Borgos-The verbatim record of the proceedings of all of the Boards that
have reviewed that as well as the entire content of each and every letter of response,
to your knowledge has all of that specifically required or...
Attorney Bartholomew-Reviewed what documents were included in the FEIS...
Supervisor Borgos-Does anyone have any, any member of the Board have any other questions
or any questions for our consultant or for the developers, again related to the
completeness of the document.
Councilman Monahan-Dennis I just have a question and I do not even now if it belongs
here or not, Eartown did mention a drainage system in here which would become the
property of the Town. Do we have to comment on that particularly for any reason
now?
Dennis McElroy-Obviously that is the presentation of the project sponsor for that
particular maintenance issue. Obviously that would be something that the town should
recognize and be concerned about in the additional maintenance the Town would have
to absorb, they should be aware of and satisfied with as far as how that was constructed.
Councilman Monahan-Is this something you would put in a findings statement? I do
not know yet if we want to take over a system like that...
Dennis McElroy-I do not think that this statement requires you to do so either.
Councilman Montesi-We had some discussion on that Dennis and I presume my feeling
was that we would have to address that in a findings statement, because I thought
Betty raised some good issues and probably Paul Naylor the Supt. of Highways would
have some concerns about the burden or responsibility of maintaining that drainage
.- system as he is of any subdivision drainage system, but I think in essence the developer
might of been error to do any other thing. I think both of these drainage systems
we are talking about are either under or in the roadway, in most cases. In order
to say anything else that the Town would take it over would be to assume, they would
be deeding roads to the Town and not underneath the roads and that legally would
not work. At this juncture they are saying what is legally fits and if we are going
to dedicate roads to you and all of the utilities to all of those roads one of the
utilities or transportation districts that your are going to inherit is the drainage
216
&think ther we want to or not will be in the Final DEIS or the final findings
ylor puts his input in and says I may but there may be a cost that I
eloper incur or I want to make sure there is no....I think I am and
aware of some of the input that Paul might want to have in that and
of that comes in the finds nailing it down. In the findings we are
going to say the cost of a seventy five thousand light this corner 25%intersection
the impact based on our engineering findings an d y
cost of that light will be on the developer and I think that is how you treat this
drainage. I gave that a lot of serious thought h because I wondered ative,it seemed
at first a casual statement but legally that
Dennis McElroy-I suppose there are several other options to this if you have it
within your right of way certainly you want to have the responsibility for control
over that, the maintenance of that. The cost of doing that could be passed along
to the project sponsor or to the residentiialdistrict. design wise ption could mbe
to keep it out of the right of way that y not be
better for hbeTth alternatives, the one
parteofethe
to you would
town maintenance.
Councilman Monahan-Steve, I would request that not only Paul Naylor look at that
concept but also Kestner Engineer...
Supervisor Borgos-Certainly, those are all the things that we definitely would accomplish.
Any other Board Member with any other question? We certainly got into a number
of very specific details today which is very similar with what we did with the rezoning
issues for the entire town the other night to start out with the big hpicture aand
opportunity
boil it down and make it into the real small nitty g y,
to comment, the developer is here, do you have any comments that you wish to make?
I believe that we have resolutions...
RESOLUTION OF COIpLETION FINAL ENVIRONENTAL IMPACT STATEIENT EARLTOW MAKER RIDGE
RESOLUTION NO. 367, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza:
WHEREAS, Earltown, as Project Developer of Quaker Ridge, submitted a Planned Unit
development application dated March 6, 1987 to the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board established the Town Board as lead agency for the Planned
Unit Development Quaker Ridge Project on March 10, 1987, and
WHEREAS, the Quaker Ridge Planned Unit Development application was referred to the
Queensbury Planning Board on March 10, 1987, and
WHEREAS, a Public Scoping Session on the Quaker Ridge Planned Unit Development Project
was conducted on May 7, 1987, and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact
deemedStatement
completenbyatheoQueensbury Quaker
TownRidge
BoardPlanned
Unit Development was accepted and
July 28, 1988, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Beautification Committee granted Preliminary Plan
Approval for the Quaker Ridge Project on August 10, 1987, and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on September 2, 1988 in accordance with the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and Article 15 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning
Ordinance for the purpose of obtaining public comment on the DEIS and Earltown's
application under Article 15 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, a Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was accepted by
the Town of Queensbury on April 26, 1988, and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on May 16, 1988 in accordance with the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and Article 15 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning
Ordinance for the purpose of obtaining comment on the Supplement to the DEIS and
Ealrtown's application under Artile 15 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,
and
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Planning Board approved a resolution on July 13, 1988 which
recommended the creation of the a Planned Unit Development zone and issued a favorable
report to the Town Board for the Quaker Ridge Planned Unit Development, and
,,r i' 217
WHEREAS, the Warren County Planning Board recommended approval of the creation of
the Planed Unit Development by Quaker Ridge on August 10, 1988, and
WHEREAS, a proposed Final Environmental Impact Statement on Quaker Ridge PUD has
,.1
been submitted for review to the Town Board, and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Design Partnership, consulting engineering firm hired
by the Town of Queensbury to review the DEIS, Supplement to the ,DEIS and FEIS, has
recommended that the Town Board accept the FEIS as complete.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
R
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby accepts as a Final
Environmental Impact Statement the proposed FEIS which was submitted by Earltown,
and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the annexed Notice of Completion of Final EIS is hereby approved
and adopted, and be it further
RESOLVED, that copies of such Notice of Completion and FEIS shall be filed and served
in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act regulations.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Borgos
Noes: Mrs. Monahan
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka
Councilman Monahan-Paul, all this resolution is doing is accepting as final the
information in the EIS it is not saying anything about the PUD project development
Itself being approved.
Paul Dusek-Town Attorney-Right, this is the SEQRA Process which is separate from
the PUD ordinance which travels its own course, but when you do accept this document
You are accepting the document as your own and you are saying that as far as the
environmental analysis is concern it is complete.
Supervisor Borgos-Asked for further comments...vote taken...
Councilman Monahan-I wish to state for the record, when the town took on the burden
of lead agency for this project we took on certain obligations, I do not feel that
we will meet all the obligations by accepting this as a final document.
On,motion the ,meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
MISS DARLEEN M. DOUGHER
TOWN CLERK-TOWN OF QUEENSBURY