Loading...
1987-03-31 SP 97 SPECIAL TOWN BOA RD MARCH 31, 1987 3:31 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS Mrs. Frances Walter-Supervisor Mr. George Kurosaka-Councilman Mr. Stephen Borgos-Councilman Mr. Ronald Montesi-Councilman . Mrs. Betty Monahan-Councilman i TOWN COUNSEL-Mr. Wilson Mathias PRESS: W WSC, WBZA, G.F. Post Star TOWN OFFICIALS: Mr. Stuart Mesinger, Mr. Paul Naylor, GUESTS: Mr. Gary Bowen, Mr. Jim Bowen, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY TOWN CLERK DARLEEN M. DOUGHER RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION TO APPOINT ADDITIONAL MEMBERS TO THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW RESOLUTION NO. 103, Introduced by Mr. Stephen Borgos who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: WHEREAS, the Town Board by Resolution #67 of 1987 expanded the Board of Assessment Review to five members, and WHEREAS, the Town Board is desirous of filling these new positions to enable the expanded Assessment Review Board to participate in 1987 reviews, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, to appoint Joyce E. Eggleston of Twin Channels Road, Queensbury to a term expiring September 30, 1988 and to appoint Patrick S.A. Flood of Linden Avenue, Queensbury to a term expiring September 30, 1989. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes:Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter N oes:N one Absent:None SUPERVISOR WALTER-We had response from the community to serve on the Assessment Review Board, the Board in looking at the qualifications also looked at the geographic area so that the Town would be fairly well covered with representation... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Thanked all the people that volunteered for these positions. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Requested that the following letter be read into the minutes. March 31, 1987 Queensbury Town Board Bay at Haviland Road Queensbury, New York 12801 Dear Members of the Town Board: As you are aware the Town of Queensbury is experiencing substantial growth in the form of residential developments. After observing the increasing density throughout the Town over the past several years, I am extremely concerned that the matter of current " allowable density" be addressed immediately. 9S I am fully aware that the Town Planner has been charged by us, the Board, to explore this matter. However, in examining the workload of the new department; particularly the amount of time spent on administering two items on the Planning and Zoning agendas, it will be a while before Mr. Mesinger can devote the desired time to such a project as reviewing densities. This is also a matter to be studied by the Planning Board and as volunteers meeting as often as they have been required to do lately, I would find it difficult to ask them to devote additional time to workshops on density review. Therefore, I submit to the Board that they impose a six month moratorium on new subdivision applications and site plans (in excess of four units) for approval. This moratorium would not affect those projects currently under review. They would follow `r the normal procedure for review. The moratorium would, however, offer the necessary time for the Town individuals involved to review and recommend to the Town Board any amendments they feel are necessary to preserve the environment and quality of life in Queensbury. Your consideration of this "agenda" moratorium is urgently requested. Sincerely, /s/ Frances J. Walter Supervisor SUPERVISOR WALTER-I would like to say that in taking a look at what Stuart is doing and in looking at what we are currently having in front of us, and what will be coming in, I am formerly asking the Board to have some discussions. This is an item that needs immediate attention, and if we do not do this we should have an alternative. COUNCILMAN MONHAN-I have been pushing this for many months, I feel we have to give Stuart time to sit back and look at the overall Town picture. The amount of work that has been piled on him since he came has not allowed him to do the job we hired him for. I will support this issue. COUNCILMAN BORGOS-I understand the problem, I think the word moratorium and the impact of a moratorium is a great concern to me, sometimes that means a stop to everything although it has been carefully explained, what you would like to continue to go. I would like to see a different kind of solution to solve the same problem. I am sympathetic, I see some projects that are too dense, but I am concerned over the short construction season, I feel a moratorium would be the wrong way to go. Some other mechanism would be advisable, I would like to think about it. SUPERVISOR WALTER-If a moratorium was placed on new projects coming before the Town right now, they would not be ready for construction this season because the length of time is just a three month minimum and most possibly four or five for complete approval. Those people coming in for construction seasons would most likely have come in last fall and gotten through the procedures for construction this spring. If we were going to impose a moratorium it would probably be the time to do it, I would not want to do it in the fall where they would be getting ready for the next construction season. If you have some other ideas on how to do this I am open to those. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-This will not slow down construction because we have so many lots approved right now to be built on, that there is no problem. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I think Fran is right if you were going to look at a six month period you ask for a stoppage of subdivision applications. If we were to stop on May 1st., a developer would be coming back in October, that would give them the winter to do their filings with the Planing Board. Before I could support something like this, I would like to see a detailed organizational picture of what we will be doing in the next six months. I could support something of this nature realizing the problems that the Town has, we are trying to make this more organize(z-- and a better place to live. SUPERVISOR WALTER-I want to again state this is not a moratorium on building. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-If you hold them up until October, you will have a lot of people that cannot do anything until next spring, that would mean that we would loose the whole construction season in getting the lot all done and the roads paved and fixed and drainage, it would hold them up two seasons not just one...moratorium to me is a dirty word. f�C3 COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-They will not be at that stage if they have not come in for approval now... SUPERVISOR WALTER-This is a situation that the Town Board should be addressing, I have had more comments from the residents in the community relative to the growth in Queensbury and the development as far as density...The Board will now speak to the Hiland Park Developer...Mr. Lemery (Attorney for Hiland Park) has supplied the Board members with a list of items that the Developer wished to discuss. Item I-Timing of the SEQRA findings and the PUD approval...there was a question as to whether we could move up the schedule that the Planner had made...can we move up the April 14th date where the Town was to decide if the EIS was complete enough for public review and sets the comment period? MR. LEMERY-We have presented the Board with a resolution which would determine that the Draft EIS has been completed and accepted for the purpose of accepting comments, not that you have accepted it for any other purpose than that...or that it is necessarily complete in final form and not that the Town Board Members or others that have access to it wouldn't have comments... but you will find that the Draft EIS has been completed and accepted for the purpose of a comment period. Requested that the Board accept comments on the EIS until April 30th and held a public hearing on the Draft EIS on April 15th. SUPERVISOR WALTER-I would propose that we have an April 28th hearing, as you know the comments period must be two weeks after the hearing and two weeks after we have accepted it...I am looking at a sixty day comment period...These are my reasons-we can accept an EIS complete today...we do not retain an engineer to even look at the EIS until the 14th of April, there is no way but to push that up. They need to be reviewed after they are here to see whom we are going to accept. The Board will need to retain the consultants and know the fee...If we have a 45 day comment period it would only give the engineer 30 days to review it...we have also hired an engineer to do a transmission analysis of our system to see if we can in fact supply your PUD with proper water from our plant, that is to be completed by May 15th. That analysis will impact on your water district. I would also call to the Board's attention that it will be late April when negotiations will begin on what sewer capacities we will be able to purchase from the City of Glens Falls which will impact on your project. A hearing on April 15th will not let us take into account those findings from those other dates...we are saying the hearing should be the 28th of April...if accepted as of April 28th the sixty day comment period would start today. MR. LEMERY-Our concern is the ability to get started on the golf course. — COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Regarding the Golf Course-are you willing to gamble somewhat -can you start the golf course earlier without all the final approvals? MR. LEMERY-I would not want Mr. Bowen to do anything that would subject this approval process to attack. I want to make sure that we proceed in an orderly fashion. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-What I am saying is that the one thing that I cannot control is that there are only 3-4 months of growing season...is this an issue that this Town Board would give some...due consideration. MR. LEMERY-I think we will be all right with Fran's time table, the burden is on us to answer the comments to the Draft EIS and answer all the issues that are raised, assuming we can do that then if I am right you could make a finding by the end of May... MR. MESINGER-No...the comment period does not close until the end of May... SUPERVISOR WALTER-The comment period is sixty days...this will allow all of the items to be in our possession to make a decision. MR. LEMERY-Can there be an accommodation made where the golf course can be started without prejudicing the application? COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Speaking for myself I do not think that would harm anything. s MR. LEMERY-By the next Town Board Meeting on the 14th of April could we come back to the Board with something together on the golf course... MR. BOWEN-Review the time table of the project relative to the golf course... SUPERVISOR WALTER-The approval is for the whole PUD, just for the sake of a golf course I do not think we can push the project so that we do not have all the other parts. Perhaps something can be worked out regarding the golf course while all the other things are going on. Questioned if there was agreement to set the public hearing and let the comment period begin? MR. LEMERY-Yes SUPERVISOR WALTER-Item B The Water Dist. Formation - The Town Board has taken appropriate action to retain an engineer for the preparation of a map, plan and report with much of the developers base information to be utilized...the Town is also doing a review of transmission and feeder facilities to assure the developer that the Town can provide adequate water to the PUD, both are being done at the same time. The date of completion is May 15th...since review findings may impact on the district formation that date should be no later than the 1st week in June... MR. BOWEN-My only question is, can our engineers be in contact with yours along the way? SUPERVISOR WALTER-Yes. MR. LEMERY-That is agreeable with us. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Item C.-Sewage Disposal Update-We need some discussion since there are no technical people here we can only talk about dates...The first thing that the Town needs to do is to make sure the City of Glens Falls will take us into the plant, we need to buy additional capacity. Under the situation that has recently occurred I do not think that, that will be a problem. MR. LEMERY-You can reach a quick agreement on that. SUPERVISOR WALTER-What we would be doing with the interfacing, what our capacity is and where you can connect as Ron has indicated if the lower portion was sewered we would be happy, I think I would be too...I do not know if that is the consensus of the Board. COUNCILMAN BORGOS-When the Sewer Dist. was formed the Engineer indicated that it was developed with a certain geographical boundary some people at that time came in and asked if that could be extended, I recall that there were some legal problems in that would there be a new district formed for a fee paid to extend it...questioned if this should be addressed? SUPERVISOR WALTER-They have done the engineering work...having made some gentlemens agreement with other people when we were forming our original sewer district those agreements were...you will be considered for the next available capacity...we are negotiating for all of that capacity. What we have agreed to...up the Bay Road-Up Route 9 and also the Hiland j Project—in talking with Mr. Bowen we indicated that he could be unto himself his own district -- so that any kind of referendum that might come up we could say he is district ext. 1, and the others are extension 2...they would be at the same time. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Questioned if the sewer line will handle the additional capacity? MR. LEMERY-Have you retained Engineers for this? SUPERVISOR WALTER-Yes. MR. BOWEN-At the phase we are at now, is it felt by the Board that the outcome of the sewage proposal is necessary for a PUD decision or would that fall after the site plan review stage? Reviewed where he felt the sewers would be most effective in his project. Reviewed the option of having their own sewer treatment plant... SUPERVISOR WALTER-Noted that the Board may indicate that we want your project on a municipal system...(sewage system)...I do not feel a package plant is the way to go... MR. LEMERY-The real question is what will the developer have to bear, beyond his own line? SUPERVISOR WALTER-In the design, where it will be used by other people that they will be paying for that, but if there are other kinds of things that we need to do for Hiland that we would not ordinarily be doing, I would think that, that would be the developers cost. If he has to pick up certain items it would have to be pro-rated. MR. LEMERY-If I understand you, you want this at Town Board level not under site plan review? SUPERVISOR WALTER-It is the consensus to keep it at the Town Board level. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Everyone would be more comfortable if everything fell in line cost wise and you hooked up to the municipal system, the intent of the Board is to work towards that...it may come in too high and we will have to pull back and look at it as it goes... MR. LEMERY-What is the timing on that, is it within the 60 days? 101 COUNCILMAN MONTESI-There are things we must do, like talking with the City and our Engineer...it is my intention that we would do that within the 60 days. MR. BOWEN-I want to go on record that this developer does not want to handle its own sewage...we want a municipal system... SUPERVISOR WALTER-I do want to clarify something, you did ask me if we had retained an engineer for the sewer, we have not...if the Town Board does this, we will do it on the 14th. I do know that Kestner has been talking to the City basically because I ask them what our existing sewer can handle...that will be charged to our sewer district... j ITEM GIFT OF RECREATION LAND-Since a gift or money in lieu of is a requirement before approval the Town Board is interested in your proposal, which they will take into consideration. It is my thought that it is premature to spend much time on this item because we have to agree on the water and sewer and site issues first... MR. LEMERY-According to Article 15, this has to be resolved before PUD designation, whether recreation fee or land-we have heard some conflicting stories and we would like to have this resolved. If the Town Board is not interested in the gift of the land then we have to budget for the recreation fee, this may also affect the development because there is an additional 40 acres over and above what has been designated as wet lands as part of the gift, if that is not acceptable Hiland can go back and look at utilizing that land for additional uses. We are assuming that the Water and Sewer issues will be resolved it is a furtherance of the whole concept of a planned unit development... COUNCILMAN MONTESI-If we have done our figuring correctly the size of the Hiland Park Development, we were going to take land based on the number of units, we would be entitled to...twenty six and a half acres. SUPERVISOR WALTER-In talking with some members of the Recreation Commission, I think there has been further development relative to where there might be other lands that might be gifted other than what you have previously given out publicly, am I wrong or right? That hinged on the purchase of other lands... MR. LEMERY-I have heard about that, but what I would like to get resolved , is what we proposed. MRS. MONAHAN-There a few unanswered things here, I am not prepared to bring them into a public discussion... MR. LEMERY-That is not what is before the Board, we have 77 acres of land that we have offered to the Town as recreation areas. Thirty Acres are in a wet land, wet lands can be crossed, can be utilized in all kinds of different ways, by the town taking title to this ...it would in effect take the wet lands out of private domain for as long as the Town wanted to have it. The additional forty acres it seems to us...made sense... SUPERVISOR WALTER-I would like to reserve judgement on this until after the public hearing... I understand that we probably will be looking for a gift of land...what he is proposing as a developer blends itself into the kind of thing we want to do for recreation in the Town and that is not only to build but to provide the open space. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Noted that the gift of land has restraints to it, and that the deed is in escrow and will not be turned over to us right away. MR. BOWEN-We thought about the fees for a long time...noted that when we were working on the Golf Course it showed a dividing line...golf course, buffer, wet land and lands on the other side of it, with all of our engineers looking at it, if in fact the wetland proposal would be a good issue to stay public domain...referring to Local Law...over a period of time we would give the town twenty-six and a half acres...as we are building and establishing we want to put those deeds into an escrow...when everyone is happy the deeds would go over to the Town or at the latest in ten years...so it is not a string, it is just that that area is a quiet neighbor for us right now we want to leave it as a quiet neighbor and that is how the gift was proposed --- and at the level of three times of what the footage was. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I apologize for using the word string...I do want to say because I attend the Recreation Department meetings, the other point you brought out that there might be some negotiating of fees for some of your other recreation so let me read you exactly how they passed their recommendation—Therefore after further review and discussion of the Highland Park project, Commissioner Lemery moved to recommend to the town Board that " We the Recreation Commission recommend to the The Town Board that we do accept this property that the Higland Park Development Unit for the Town's recreation uses...Commissioner Tati 4-02 second the motion and requested that it be amended to include...in the contract where he gives us the land that we are going to be able to in the future negotiate with him on other matters relating to the Highland Park and those other matters are the ones you brought up that night about the ski trails etc...so that's how it stands with the Recreation Commission. MR. BOWEN-So basically it is the same as I received on the 17th...except it is taken out in lieu of... TOWN COUNSEL-It doesn't seem to me at this point appropriate to get a Town Board vote on whether or not they are going to be accepting this property or not and I don't think you ought to vote at this point. I think it is clear that the developer is receiving an indication that land as opposed to fees is what's look for here and he certainly made a proposal in terms { of what property you are talking about which is spelled out in the DEIS. I will look at the proposal 1 from the legal point of view and be able to provide the Board with some input. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Noted that the land gift was the way to go and it seems reasonable. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Asked Town Board if they wanted to act on the DEIS impact statement and the setting of a Public Hearing? RESOLUTION APPROVING HILAND PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT RESOLUTION NO. 104, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi. WHEREAS, A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been completed and accepted for the proposed action described below and WHEREAS, Comments on the Draft EIS will be accepted by the contact person until May 29, 1987, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT and redistricting for PUD RESOLVED, A public hearing on the Draft EISAwill be held on April 28, 1987 at 7:00 P.M. at the Queensbury Town Hall. The purpose of the hearing is to solicit comments from the public on the Draft EIS. i I Title of Action: Hiland Park Planned Unit Development DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Approval of Planned Unit Development of 713 acres including 1,157 dewelling units consisting of a retirement village, single family housing, multiple family housing, and Commerical space, technical park, extensive recreational areas and facilities and open space. LOCATION: Lands bordered by Haviland, Sunnyside, Meadowbrook and Rockwell Roads in the Town of Queensbury, County of Warren. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Water supply and consumption, sewage conveyance and disposal, traffic congestion and improvements, open space preservation, recreational amenities, surface water quality, municipal service and finances, Copies of the Draft EIS may be obtained from: Contact Person: Frances J. Walter, Town Supervisor Address: Town of Queensbury, Town Hall Bay and Haviland Roads Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone No. (518) 792-5832 I Copies of this Notice sent to: (Attached Distribution List) on file. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None ��1 S Absent: None DISCUSSION GARY BOWEN-Presented the Town Board with packet including the information requested by the Town Board on February 17th. SUPERVISOR WALTER-I definitely want to see a market study of the retirement village and retirement facility. I am particularly interested in who you are going to sell these units to. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I have some concerns about the market analysis...the higher the cost that you project...the lower the cost is to the town...so maybe some accompanying market study will help us to understand that concept...the other thing we talked about is the 15,000 cars a day finally built out of this project...is that a true figure and if it is we have to take a look at it. GARY BOWEN-That is way too high...the maximum trend is around 4000 and Quaker Road is like 21000 at the time of the traffic study. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Suggested giving this to Stuart Mesinger to look into. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- I am concerned as to where you are coming out on Sunnyside...I am also concerned that in many years to come when other land up there is developed... that there is no way we are tying this together with others... so we may have to be putting access roads out on the Sunnyside which I definitely know can't stand it. Noted that this has to be addressed also...not to land lock in those other properties so that they have to build more roads out onto a road like Sunnyside. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Asked for further input, hearing none Public Hearing declared closed. 5:00 P.M. On motion the meeting was adjourned RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED DARLEEN DOUGHER, TOWN CLERK ;y