1986-05-27 166
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS
MAY 27, 1986
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS
Mrs. Frances Walter —Supervisor
Mr. George Kurosaka - Councilman
Mr. Stephen Borgos - Councilman
Mr. Ronald Montesi - Councilman
Mrs. Betty Monahan - Councilman _
Mr. Wilson Mathias - Town Counsel
PRESS: Glens Falls Post Star,
GUESTS: Merritt Scoville, Carl Krebs, Ellen Sanderspree, Joan Robertson, Judy
Weatherbee, Jack Slopey, Patricia Collier, Attorney Robert Nolan, Attorney David
Krogmann, Bill Morton, Frank Shortell,Keith Underwood, Jim Ingles, Phil Harris,
Mr. Adamson
TOWN OFFICIALS: Mr. Paul Naylor
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY . Councilman Borgos-follow by moment of silence in
memory of our veterans.
MEETING OPENED: 7:35 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed Local Law - No Parking on Cleverdale Road - Extension from 1200 to 9370
feet. . .Letters on file. Notice Shown
SUPERVISOR WALTER - Noted that the no parking zone was requested by the residents
of Cleverdale. Stated letters of support from Mr. Naylor, Highway Superintendent,
Sheriff Lamey, and North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co. , on file. . . Stated that
the no parking would be for the entire length of Cleverdale Road, 9370 feet.
MERRITT SCOVILLE - President of Lake Side Chapel - Noted that the way the proposal
is written, no parking from 9:30 till 11:30 on Sunday, the Chapel operates during
July and August only as a church but they also have weddings on Saturdays. . . there
would be problems with the proposal. . . Suggested that parking be limited to one
side of the street, the west side. The area adjacent to the pavement next to the
chapel is about eight feet beyond the pavement leaving parking space off the
pavement and there is parking space along several of the properties along the
east side but none on the west side in that area. Stated that parking on one
side only would give fire trucks, ambulances etc. room to get through. The church
has an attendant there Sunday mornings to make sure the way is kept clear. . .
CARL KREBS - Resident of Cleverdale - Stated that there were some 29 people who
signed a petition proposing no parking on both sides of the road, about 1200 feet,
but noted that the resolution stated over 9000 feet. Asked why the Board changed
from what they requested. . .
SUPERVISOR WALTER - Stated that the Town Board took a look at the situation and
noted that it was the opinion of the Board that any parking along the Cleverdale
Road regarding emergency vehicles passing through was hazardous.
BETTY MONHAHAN - Noted that after talking to some of the people, the Board might
want to take another look at the road and in some areas make it no parking on
one side and other areas have no parking on both sides.
RONALD MONTESI - Stated that the Board did take a tour on their annual road
inspection, noted that there would be a degree of unfairness involved as to where
the 1200 feet should begin and end.
ELLEN SANDERSPREE - Asked same question as Mr. Krebs but also wanted to know where
the Board measured 9000 something feet from where to where?
SUPERVISOR WALTER - Noted that it was the length of the Cleverdale Road. . .from
Rte. 9L to the end of the public road in Cleverdale.
167
ELLEN SANDERSPREE - Did the Board include in the 9000 feet Mason Road which is
a side road off Cleverdale Road.
SUPERVISOR WALTER- No, stated that this was the straight stretch.
BETTY MONAHAN- Noted that this was one of the concerns facing the board right
now, that if all of Cleverdale Road becomes no parking on both sides, will the
cars then park on the side roads creating a problem for the people living off
on these roads and not to be able to use your own parking. Stated that the Board
might have to take a second look at the situation.
JOAN ROBERTSON - Cleverdale - Stated that she did not live in the 1200 feet, but
parking is congested particularly in the boat area, she would like to see no
parking along both sides of the road in that area. Noted that most of the people
have their own off the road parking for their own vehicles.
JUDY WEATHERBEE - Cleverdale - Stated that she thought the proposal would create
problems with parking especially since her mother lives across the road from the
Post Office and asked how will people park to get their mail or would they have
to walk to get their mail?
PAUL NAYLOR - Highway Superintendent. . .Noted that the road was too narrow, its
20 feet wide, no room for traffic parking on the road, for the safety of all there
should be no parking on either side of the road.
COUNCILMAN BORGOS - The way the proposal is written there is a distinction between
the vehicle being parked or standing, and this law is for the purpose of no parking.
Does this permit parking at the Post Office momentarily to get mail etc?
TOWN COUNSEL - Stated that the proposal clearly says no parking or standing.
SUPERVISOR WALTER - Read letter sent to Board by Mr. James Mooney, President of
North Queensbury Fire Dept. Stated that Mr. Mooney did not put any distances
on the no parking on the Cleverdale and Assembly Point Roads.
PATRICIA COLLIER - Asked if the problem would be solved if there were no parking
on both sides of the road except for church in the summer?
r
TOWN COUNSEL -Stated that the Post Office parking made sense but the question
of State and Church and the problem how to define the prohibition so it wouldn't
interfere with the Churches operation was difficult to do. . .stated that he didn't
think we should have a statute saying . . .you can park there whenever the church
is having a function.
JACK SLOPEY - Cleverdale - Stated that he agreed with the Highway Dept.
Superintendent, Mr. Naylor. . . the Cleverdale Road is too narrow for parking.
CARL KREBS - Stated that he is not objecting to the extension of the 1200 feet
to 9000 feet proposed by the Board but if parking on one side serves the needs
of safety for the people then he agreed to that also. Stated that he did not
know of anyone on the Cleverdale Road who couldn't pull their car off the road
onto the grass.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - Asked Mr. Krebs if there had been any feed back from the
people who signed the petition regarding the extension to 9000?
CARL KREBS - Answered that he did and they were very surprised,why when this
petition was advertised wasn't it stated that the extension was made? The people
who came to the public hearing tonight thought it was for approval of what they
petitioned.
Stated that none of the people he talked to objected to the extension
i
of the 9000 feet.
SUPERVISOR WALTER-Asked for further input, hearing none the public hearing was
closed.
PUBLIC HEARING
Relative to Round Pond-Critical Environmental Concern-Notice Shown
168
SUPERVISOR WALTER - Stated that this public hearing was to get input from the
public regarding the Round Pond area and the area within 500 feet of the high
water line of Round Pond.
ROBERT NOLAN - Attorney - representing Mr. & Mrs. Russo. Stated that they were
known to most of the Board as they have lived in Queensbury for some 48 years.
In 1938 the Russo's purchased property from the O'Brien estate and contrary to
Mr. Kurosaka's inability to get into the pond at that time, the water was fine
then and it still is. The Russo' s have labored long and hard through the years
trying to make a good restaurant and good motel, a good resort area. They have
been a credit to the Queensbury and to the area. Now with the inevitable aging
process comes time for them to slow down a little bit. All of you are aware of
the many, many hours of negotiations days, months, actually a year and a half
of his attempts to find a willing buyer who would be suitable to handle it
financially. Someone who would be beneficial to them as owner of the property,
and beneficial to the town in which they have made their home for twenty years.
As a private person I was interested in the Country Club and I know they negotiated
in an attempt to see if they could acquire it and as a summer resident of Queensbury
and property owner in Queensbury I was very interested in Queensbury and thought
that that was a good possibility. I was not privy to the negotiations but I
read them with interest and certainly the Russo' s took a long and hard look at
the offers that were made and as their right declined on the basis that the amount
was not satisfactory. Now comes the stranger or third party to the banquet if
you will, who is for my own knowledge, a successful builder and business man.
He has roots in Lake Luzerne, a business in Warren County and made what in the
final analysis was considered to be a fair and reasonable offer. The Russo' s
accepted, they reserved five acres for their own use because it is their intent
to build a one story home to occupy in their golden years. Being what seems to
be a satisfactory financial transaction of some magnitude for a town of this size
then it would appear at that point to an objective observer, myself, that the
Town Board seemed to have a negative reaction, unseemingly haste.The realestate
transaction was closed on May 3, now on May 13, or 10 days later, it was agreed
that this property was to be singled out as the first and only critical
environmental concern ever done in the Town of Queensbury.When I first read the
notice I was thinking this is the most critical, the deliberation on Sandy Bay,
as a resident of Glen Lake the intake from Rush Pond is of great concern to me
as I presume it is to the Board. The development of the old Sullivan pasture
on Dix and Quaker Roads is or should be of concern to all of us as citizens of
Queensbury but these were not mentioned, these were ignored. To what I considered,
to be a hasty decision to impose another layer of bureaucracy on the development
of the land. Mr. Krogman is here and he is going to tell what he can, with
limitations, of the plans of the developer, whom I know. It would appear to
me that because negotiations failed this could have been what I consider a drastic
step. We got our zoning ordinance which is a good one, we've got your subdivision
regulations which are strong to abide by but are good basically for the commmunity
as a whole, we've got a planning board with site plan review already placed in
force to review what ever Mr. Passarelli or Mr. Russo plans to do or what the
Country Club plans to do in the future. It is would seem that these bodies and
your bodies would constitute sufficient safeguards to maintain the integrity of
the Town and keep it beneficial to everyone concern. It's in conqress to me that
the Town is seeking to preserve the property for a recreation area which would
have been, I submit, a frustrated burden on this body of water or its environment,
then one family residential homes with the use of the lake if this is to be the
final plan regulated to the owner of those homes. I submit to you the question
of fairness and I know that you are people of good will and I know that you wanted
this property but possibly in your disappointment in not acquiring it, I think
you have taken a preconeous,
step here bringing in the necessity of environmental impact papers, I've prepared
a lot of them, they are time consuming, and depending on the questions asked they
are expensive and it is a burden which I don't think the purchaser of this
particular piece of property should be put through because basically the Town
cannot get together and negotiate a contract to buy the property.
SUPERVISOR WALTER -First off, I don't believe that the closing on a piece of
property is public knowledge and I don't think this board was aware of any date
of closing as you've indicated very close to the time that we set the public
hearing. I would have to tell you and I don't know whether this is quite the
time to announce it that this Town Board is extremely interested in creating a
new full time position in the Town of Queensbury and that is that of a Planner,
so that we can have here and for a full work week for the benefit of our Zoning
and Planning Boards and for our staff during the day. The expertise of someone
in an area that knows such problems as come with development and one of the things
169
they are going to be looking into is our sub-division regulations, our zoning
ordinance and exactly how site plans work. You have indicated they are good,they
are as good as have been now, but I think they can be better. They certainly can
be strengthened and I think you are going to see that in the future. I would
also say, although Betty and I are here we do have a new board and they are taking
a different look than the personnel we had on our previous board.
DAVID KROGMANN - Attorney, partner with Bacas & Krogmann, Glens Falls. . . I appear
this evening on behalf of Mr. Passarelli who is the purchaser of Mr. Russo's
property, commonly known as the Paradise Beach Resort. I came tonight first to
thank you on behalf of Mr. Passarelli for the opportunity to address the situation
and second to talk to you about two things. . .Environmental quality and environmental
review and to talk about fairness. Now that term was used by Mr. Nolan in his
comments and I can say to you tonight I believe that Bob will confirm this but
he and I have not discussed the subject of this public hearing before this evening.
Our comments are independent of one another and perhaps we will sound somewhat
familiar but I speak to you on behalf of the concerns of my client, Mr. Passarelli
on the two items I mentioned. I believe that a case could be made and hopefully
will not have to be made,that there has been an initial attempt to single out
the Round Pond property for the purposes of environmental review. On behalf of
Mr. Passarelli I am not saying that that is necessarily bad and in all likelihood
could be good, but that gets us into the second area and that is one of fairness.
The closing did in fact take place on May 3 after many many hours of negotiations
with this gentlemen and his counsel. An agreement was forged which was there
for both the seller and the purchaser. That closing was indeed a matter of public
record since the deeds were recorded a few days after May 3, in less then two
weeks upon that closing a notice of a public hearing for tonights' proceedings
appeared in the Post Star. I believe that there is an attempt here an initial
first step to place upon Mr. Passarelli and the plans he may have regarding the
development of this property,burdens that are not at this time placed upon others.
It is easy to say that this may be the first public hearing of many but that doesn't
help and that doesn't soothe my clients feelings regarding these proceedings and
indeed if this is the first attempt and I believe that factually it is and I believe
it is the first attempt in Warren County, Washington County, Saratoga County,
in fact if one was to look at the records of the Dept. of Environmental
Conservation, one would find the only designation anywhere close to this area
designating property of critical environmental concern is in the Town of Easton.
If indeed this is the first step, then I would hope the first step wouldn't be
unfair to my client but would indentify those properties that are on my mind that
I hope are on your mind, that are of similar nature and should be treated in a
similar fashion. If indeed you should make the designation that is the subject
of this hearing. Where is the concern for areas such as the Glen Lake area which
in fact borders to a certain extent perhaps very small, Round Pond and which is
within the 500 foot area. Where is the concern as Mr. Nolan said for certain
areas of Lake George as being critical areas of environmental concern or the
properties adjoining Halfway Brook or the properties adjoining Hovey Pond or perhaps
we should look at the Drellos property on the other side of the Northway and the
area of water there, and what is being placed there. Perhaps we should look at
the properties adjoining the Reservoir off Dixon Road as being an area of critical
environmental concern, why aren't these areas and perhaps many others being
concerned at the same time. Are we just talking about areas that contain water
bodies as being areas of critical environmental concern or are we talking all
the areas that I am sure many of you are familiar with, are contained environmental
assessment form that just doesn't deal with water problems or development such
as noise, how things look, effect up surrounding property owners. The history
of the negotiations as far as the Town is concerned are well known to you, they
are not as well known to me. I have talked with your counsel many times about
this property. We have shared to the extent that we have been able, certain aspects
of our individual negotiations but certainly not while they were on going.
Certainly I think the Town of Queensbury began its negotiations well in advance
of negotiations Mr. Passarelli authorized with Mr. Russo. Mr. Passarelli became
L— the successful purchaser. He has, if one would check the records of this county
a major financial investment in this property and that was made with the rules
as they are now. Now what is accomplished by this designation, my understanding
of the law is certainly that if there is ever to be a future profession in the
law, we've got to have disagreement but my understanding of the law of not only
the State Environmental Quality Act, but also of the commmissioners regulations
promilgated as a result of that legislation, is that you have the authority to
make that designation if you make the findings that are necessary. But that
designation doesn't require environmental impact statement. The statute doesn't
say that the regulation, the rules don't say that. What they do say is, that
170
if this area is designated or any area is designated as an area of critical
environmental concern that it is more likely that the preparation of an
environmental impact statement will be required. I think there is a misconception
about the process as it is right now. It has been stated to me by one of you,
that one of the reasons that this designation is necessary is that Mr. Passarelli
may have a project, we will call it project A, and he will file a short form or
a long form environmental assessment form so that the Lead Agency will make what
ever approvals or consider what- ever approvals have to be granted can make a
decision as to what is going to be an impact on the environment. The Town official
that I talk to said the reason we need this designation is that Mr. Passarelli
could put anything he wants on this assessment form and we have to accept whatever
he says. Thats' simply not true and not what the law says. If you do not or
what-ever body is the Lead Agency does not agree with what Mr. Passarelli puts
on his environmental assessment form, short form or long form whichever he chooses '
to file or which ever is required of him, if you don't agree with him or as project
A is concerned, we will require an environmental impact statement. That can be
done now, that can be done in accordance with the statute as it exists now in
accordance with the rules and regulations, so what is accomplished by this
designation? I would submit to you very little is accomplished by this designation
other than that to single out the Round Pond property And single out Mr. Passarelli,
and there are certain important issues here on the constitutional nature such
as equal protection of the law that everyone is entitled and be treated equally.
What are the alternatives, there would be no environmental review if Mr. Passarelli
chcm a to continue the resort and motel, which includes a bar which includes eating
over the lake, motels, cottages, rental units, he could continue that, as Mr.
Russo's conducted the property, and there would be no reviews as long as the
continuation was in similar nature. Everyone has decided already, or at least
many people, I shouldn't say everybody, that's not fair, many people have already
decided for Mr. Passarelli his project. I can state to you tonight that Mr.
Passarelli hasn't decided his project, and who's Mr. Passarelli? Mr. Passarelli
is a contractor in Staten Island area, he is involved in commercial construction
as well as residential. He is involved in apartment construction in addition
to that. He has a major construction firm which is based in Staten Island but
he happens to love this area and he purchased his home in Lake Luzerne, which
he comes to almost every weekend. He now conducts two businesses in Lake Luzerne
and he wants to develop in this area, but has he made definite plans in his mind
as far as Round Pond, is no. Other than it is his inclination at this time, his i
plan at this time, not to continue the present use, although that is a possibility
but he is more favorably inclined to construct residential structures on the --+
property. Who could be more concerned at this point given his financial investment
of the quality of that area then Mr. Passarelli. Prior to our signing of the
contract at the closing, perhaps Mr. Russo doesn't even know this, we conducted,
in the extent we could, a great deal of engineering work of quality of that
property, the quality of Round Pond. Why would he do that, obviously he wanted
to make sure that quality was as is the general notion in this community. I will
be happy to show this information to the Board, the quality is excellent. The
water is pure. The fish that are in the pond are not threatened, at least based
upon the information that we have been able to ascertain. So Mr. Passarelli's
interest in the quality and integrity of Round Pond are what I think the same
as this governing body. What are the implications of such a designation, if you
talk to someone from Encon, they talk like I used to talk when I was in the Army,
in decimals, you never use words you use initial, and they call them CAE - Critical
Area Environmental concern, what are the implications of that designation. Mr.
Passarelli isn't the only owner of property on Round Pond. Who is concerned,
who has been concerned, in this community regarding what herbicides or what
fertilizers are being applied and have been applied to the fairways and greens
of the Glens Falls Country Club. Who is concerned or has been concerned when
the first Tee at the Glens Falls Country Club or the eighteenth green was
reconstructed and there was fill put in that pond, where was the designation of
critical environmental concern, where was the review of those projects and who
is concerned at this time or in the future regarding the removal of tens of
thousands of gallons of water from Round Pond on a daily basis. Perhaps I should
say weekly because I don't have the figures and I don't want to misquote or
mis-state fact, to water the greens and fairways at the Glens Falls Country Club.
That is the water source, and in fact in our investigation the wells were drilled
at some point in time, Mr. Russo can speak to this, by the Glens Falls Country
Club to pump back water into the pond because of the extraction of water from
the pond. Lets look at the notice of the public hearing, you talk about the
criteria contained in section 14.4J title 6 and thats part of the rules and
regulations of the department promigated pursuant to State Environmental Review
Act. You say critical, as a benefit to the public health and safety, the natural
setting, the inherent ecological and hydrological sensitivity to change which
could be adversely affected by any change. There are other land owner who may
be affected by this legislation or this designation.Certainly the Great Escape
which has property adjoining the pond or within 500 feet. The history of
negotiations were lengthy, I think it is not fair to make this designation, to
single out this property, I think it is not fair that this designation was not
made when this Town Board was negotiating for this property to be used as potential
area or for that subject to be considered. I don't think it is fair for this
designation to be consummated at this time while there are at least informal
negotiations pending between my client and this town regarding this property.
I think that perhaps one could make a case that the potentiality of this designation
is being used as a sword which is not what we are talking about or what we should
j be talking about. We should be talking about critical areas of environmental
concern. Unfortunately I must think in these terms on behalf of my client.
Unfortunately, it has been told to me by a town official that this town could
make it very difficult for Mr. Passarelli to develop this property, that was
said to me. What other conclusion can I draw that perhaps the proceedings tonight
is not the first step in that regard and I will say again so the record is clear
that statement was not said by Mrs. Walter or by any member of this board. I think
the areas of consideration should be looked at as far as part 617. You rely upon
three areas as outlined in the statute, there are four. The first area is as
far as designation is concerned, identifies an area should have an exceptional
or unique character covering one or more of the following. . .one or more of the
following should be able to be applied and a determination made by you in a positive
way before you make this determination. . . (one) the area is a benefit to the public
health or public safety, that is in your notice of public hearing. . . (two) it
is a natural setting, the regulations (eg. fish and wild life habitant, forest
and vegetation open space and esthetics). . . (three) is not used as a basis for
your consideration or at least not in the notice of public hearing. . . (four)
an inherent ecological, geological, or hydrological sensitivity to change which
could be adversely affected by any change,that is certainly in the notice and
I just read it to you. This is heavy stuff, I would submit to you that the
designation such as this in reliance on any one of these areas can't be made because
I think or someone else has said, or on conclusive statement, it has to be based
on fact and whether this has inherent ecological geographical hydrological
sensitivities in this area, I think can only be made upon on expert advice to
you or some data upon which you can rely in making that determination. This is
the first step, I would ask this Board to take a step back. Mr. Passarelli will
_ respond at the appropriate time to the concerns of the appropriate body, to
environmental quality review. He is not going to damage this property, it is
a gem in his mind,it is in fact a gem. He is very fortunate at least in his mind
to be the current owner of the property as Mr. & Mrs. Russo have been very
fortunate for many many years to have been the owner of this property. If an
environmental review is required, Mr. Passarelli will respond and will comply
in full with the zoning regulations of this town or as they may be amended from
time to time. The only additional question that I would have for you is whether
during your public meetings, do you intend to take any action upon this resolution.
I believe Mrs. Walter indicated that it is traditionally the policy of the board
not to do that at the night of the Public Hearing, unless I misunderstood your
comment.
SUPERVISOR WALTER - Stated that as a general rule we do not vote after a public
hearing on a resolution, that evening, however we have done so when there has
been no public comment or no dealing adverse to the resolution.
WILLIAM MORTON - Representing Queensbury Association for outdoor recreation and
environment - read a prepared statement. . . We should like to go on record as firmly
supporting the Local Law that would designate Round Pond and its surrounding
environment as a critical area of environmental concern. Under such designation
we understand that an environmental impact statement will be required for most
1 developmental activities within 500 feet within the high water level of Round
? Pond. We note that Round Pond is a splendid natural resource in Queensbury that
every effort should be made to insure its protection, prepetuation of an outstanding
resource. We are very concerned how Round Pond will be developed in the future.
In the light of the very uncertain nature of the development of Round Pond and
the potential for this development to adversely affect Round Pond that we see
the proposed Local Law as being an appropriate measure to insure the proper
information is made available so a through analysis in the evaluation of the impacts
of any development on Round Pond and the community can be made. We strongly favor
adoption of the proposed Local Law and I would like to echo the sentiments of
the two gentlemen who spoke before me that I concur very much with them that we
should be looking at other areas in the town to apply the same to.
172
FRANK SHORTELL - Courthouse Dr. - President of Glens Falls Country Club - There
is no other organization or body of people, I think that is more interested in
the environmental part of Round Pond then the Glens Falls Country Club. According
to the maps we own 75 to 85 % of the shoreline, the rest at this time is owned
by Mr. Passarelli. I think that everything Mr. Krogmann stated early is true,
we do draw out of the pond for watering purposes but we do put back in the pond
through artian wells. We did work on the first Tee just to shore it up so we
wouldn't have any erosion. All the work we have done on Round Pond or around
the shoreline has enhanced the beauty of the area.The biggest thing is that we
use Round Pond for swimming. We have our own beach at the club,we pay particular
attention to the cleanliness of the water in the pond. We have it tested on a
regular basis,we do not want to see anything happen to Round Pond. I only became
involved in this when I saw the advertisement in the paper tonight. The Glens
Falls Country Club has been on its present location, the center of the building
particularly since 1912, 74 years, I am wondering how this 500 feet around Round
Pond is going to affect us in the future. We are presently in the long range
planning. Perhaps a major reconstruction of the building itself within the next
three or four years. We don't want to lose the club, we want to keep it right
where it is but do a major ove&ul on it. We spent, a year ago, $70,000.00 plus
putting in a new septic system away from the pond, which is, I can't honestly
say, outside the 500 foot limit, but I surmise it may not be. We spent a lot
of money doing it. We wouldn't want to have to move that. I think what I would
be asking for this evening is that whatever decision you might come to eventually,
is to ask that the Glens Falls Country Club be grandfathered as being there for
74 years,thats' my basic concern.
WALTER MEDWID - Laurel Lane - I would first like to commend the Town Board in
terms of the reports I am reading in the newspaper. I think there seems to be
somewhat of a different look at concerns regarding the environment. I think the
decision that the board made in light of very very difficult pressure that were
presented to them in regard to the development fees in new areas and again the
issue of looking at Round Pond in a different way, I look at that as perhaps
a new view of the future of trying to shepherd the resources and plan for the
future. I think to say that because a property was bought or sold traded or
whatever, that all of a sudden all rules should be held in abeyance, I am not
sure I understand that. I think that whenever a decision is made by this Town '
Board that impacts, the people of the town or the developers, somebody is going
to get caught at that particular point in time. If no one was caught, if the
town couldn't react because a property was in the midst of a transfer while the
town was implementing a regulation, nothing would happen, laws that existed a
hundred years ago would exist today. I don't think any of us want that. I think
we've got to look ahead. I am looking at the towns view on Round Pond as being
a progressive look ahead, to look and protect those environmental resources.
I think Round Pond should be one of the beginning of a long list of properties
and areas that need to be looked at. I think Round Pond is one of them, Rush
Pond is another, Glen Lake, the Glens Falls City Water Shed area, all those areas
need to be identified. Whether Round Pond has been sold or has not been sold
is an immaterial issue. I think what we are seeing again in my view is a new
view at looking at our resources. I don't think as we move ahead in making those
environmental decisions anyone's investment should be threatened. A fair market
value should never be an issue that is questioned as we make those decisions.
So I would also like to think that in the event that regulations were promilgated
that prevented certain development that the investment made by the new buyer,
is certainly protected by whatever the town might do in establishing a fair market
value to that area. Again I applaud the Town Board in moving ahead in this
direction.
KEITH UNDERWOOD - General Manager of the Glens Falls Country Club I just wanted ..�
to add to Mr. Shortells' comments, that we have been here since 1912 and one of
our major concerns, in the three years I have been at the Glens Falls Country
Club is the environmental protection within that region. Since I have been here
we have started having a private firm do testing of the waters and as a ,
representative to the contractor out of Staten Island said, it is a pearl, one
of the cleanness in the region. We were also asked to participate last year in
a study for acid rain with the DEC and they also came in and it was very negative
from the stand point of the acid rain position. Any projects we have done have
been to improve the quality and improve the ambiance in the region. I don't
understand how this particular law you may have passed affects the Glens Falls
Country Club or the new buyer. Perhaps I should have gotten together with DEC,
but I have tried talking with them before and it takes months to get an answer.
My main reason for concern is that we have been here since 1912, we are within
173
500 feet of the water in many cases with our building and I am not sure how it
affects us. If it affects us to the point where we can't do anything there, you
are talking about a couple of million dollar facility that would be fairly useless,
if we improve it or change it to make it a better environment and a better place
in the community.
TOWN COUNSEL - If the town decides to make this designation, file it with Encon,
what my understanding of the rules and regulations is that any action proposed
by anybody, and they have talked about different interpretations, on what is an
action and what isn't, but any action that would be required would have to have
an environmental review and because of this designation it would be a type one
action. The likelihood would be that before doing whatever you proposed to do
at the Country Club, you would have to complete an environmental impact statement.
Now depending on the type of project envisioned by the Glens Falls Country Club
or by Mr. Passarelli or anybody else falling within that 500 feet,if this Town
Board were giving a permit, the Planning Board if it were making site plan review,
Zoning Board if it was giving a variance could make a determination and say. . .we
take a look at this, you are not talking about doing anything significant in our
judgment and we are going to make a determination and say that whatever it is
you propose doesn't have any impact on the environment. There is a resolution
before the board this evening with the Town Board considering doing just that,
in the steam of things, isn't going to have an impact on the environment,so it
isn't anything that is going to prevent anyone from doing anything. All it means
is that the review prior to approval for any action is going to be extremely
thorough, certainly on large scale projects.
JIM INGLELS - Cleverdale - There would be an impropriety to accuse this board
of unfairness as if it were the same board that were carrying out negotiations
last year,. h,ecause it isn't.
PHIL HARRIS - I would like to commend the new Town Board as Mrs. Walter mentioned
because it is a new Town Board and from what I have seen so far this year and
especially the work that you did on establishing the way of raising revenue for
recreation areas the board should be commended. I know, I have talked with Betty
and there is engineering studies being done at the landfill and many areas of
vital concern. I would like to go on record as commending the board for this
step they are taking in proposing the environmental statement for this Round Pond
area and even as Mr. Krogmann mentioned, it might even be helpful to his client.
—` I have been in favor of recreation in that area for the whole town but I am pleased
with the steps and as Mrs. Walter mentioned that there will be other hearings
in the future of which you are doing now.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI - Stated that he would like to address a few issues that have
been raised. . . why haven't we taken a stand on Rush Pond or on Lake George or
on the property on Quaker Road,two of these properties are pretty well taken care
of at this point. The property on Quaker Road whether that is a wetland or not,
I believe is still litigated by the Encon. Our input into that at this particular
time would only tend to confuse the issue. Lake George, all of us here know that
we have DEC, the Adirondack Park Agency, the Lake George Association which is
part of DEC and the County working in unison hopefully to solve a milfoil problem
and now we are addressing the septic problem on Lake George where someone has
been assigned in the County. So that some of those areas . . .we know they are
critical, the State knows they are critical, I guess maybe the Federal Government
knows they are critical. Rush Pond is an area that I do have some concerns about,
it is the head waters of Lake George. The only problem there, is we haven't had
someone come in and buy a chunk of that where it is zoned commercially, where
it is zoned multi-family residential and look at the potentially major development
that could take place around Rush Pond. On Round Pond we have that, the property
has been sold now. It happens to be zoned for multi-family and or commercial,
I think that would have a severe impact on what goes on, on the pond as far as
swimming, as far as everything else, I think we are taking a stand in saying
that we are going to have to take a long hard look at what's
g g g going to happen to
Rush Pond down the line. Stated that last year he was in favor of buying Round
Pond for the Town as a park for our community,if the Town Board really wanted
to get tough and single out Round Pond, they could re-zone it or condemn it but
that is not what they are doing, we are saying its environmentally sensitive and
we want to look at it long and hard. Ultimately this board could sit here and
name Round Pond a necessary parcel of land for us to buy as a recreational facility
and take it by eminent domain and I am sure that is within the grasp of any
community, We haven't done that and I don't think we are trying to use gestapo
tactics but what we are concerned is what can happen down the line at Round Pond.
174
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA - Commented to Mr. Nolan about his comments about Round Pond
when he was running for office. . .about swimming in Round Pond. . . I grew up in
Lake George and I like a cold lake, going to Round Pond is too warm, its like
taking a bath, thats what I don't like about it not the quality of the water.
Noted that when a piece of land is developed commercially or residentially you
start using fertilizers, pesticides, thats why I don't think we can grandfather
the Country Club to using some sort of pesticide that might be harmful to it.
Fertilizer by itself is ecologically detrimental to water sheds but it is the
quantity and quality you are using. Everyone talks like an environmental statement
is a detonal on anything. If you are going to do everything by the book then
you are not going to hurt the ecology and the environmental statement will not
stop it, it will just control it so it will go in the right direction.
STEPHEN BORGOS - Noted that he was pleased to hear from the Queensbury outdoor
people that at least they like the way the Board is going now at this point.
Although we haven't made up our minds yet about who, what, how . Stated that
two things bothered him. . .Mr. Krogmann, mentioned that somebody somewhere stated
that the town could make development very difficult for his client, I think you
made it clear that nobody on this board said that. . .Mr. Montesi eluded to at least
the potentiality of taking Round Pond or any other property by eminent domain,
and I wouldn't use the term gestapo tactics and certainly in this instance could
never support eminent domain for Round Pond. I would be hard pressed to support
eminent domain for anything except for a foot of highway. Anything that the town
would look for in the area of environmental impact statement or concern, would
apply not only to your client but to any other person equally, whether the town
owned it or somebody else owned it. Noted that some legal opinions and
interpretations were made that he would like to check out with the Town Counsel.
Stated that perhaps we do have enough protection with current legislation, perhaps
we don't need this extra step. If the environmental impact statement could be
required with current procedures then maybe we don't need the extra step on top
of it. . .perhaps we just want to make sure we do have an option to look at the
environmental impact.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - If you followed the work of this board through various
meetings, I think certain things would be clear, at least as far as my position
on this board. My position as a board member has always been that this board
must start to accept some responsibilities to the impact on various actions on
the environmental quality of the Town of Queensbury. Stated that we have tightened --'
up some of our regulations. I think when I made my statement environmental quality
during the recreation fee hearing and the open space hearing, that there were
a lot of things the Town of Queensbury needed to protect and a lot of things we
needed to do to protect this town. Also stated when a group that wanted to pressure
very hard for the town to buy Round Pond, one of the statements that was made
by this board was that they could not think of Round Pond as being unlimited use
as a recreation area that it was a small body of water and it would have to be
protected. Noted that they were not talking about the town using it one way and
a private developer being allowed to use it another way. Also pointed out that
we have had some places in the Town of Queensbury that we have some problems with,
because of the development. Stated that she personally thought very hard to
increase the amount of acreage to be allowed in a lot on West Mountain, because
the land could not support it. These are the kind of situations we are looking
at and are trying to prevent happening in the town,we do have a responsibility
on this board to protect this town, to make sure that all of our natural resources
stay usable natural resources. Stated that she objected to the inferences that
this town is doing this because of the transaction or what you people are telling
us, is taking place.
MR. KROGMANN - Addressed Mrs. Monahan comments. . .asking who could argue against
what you just said, stated that he was not here to do that,all he wanted to say ..,�
was make the rules of the game the same for everyone in the same situation.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - responded they intended to. . .noted that they had to start
somewhere and asked if Mr. Krogmann was suggesting that they not start with Round
Pond but start after Round Pond was done.
MR. KROGMANN-Responded that he was suggesting that the board start with everyone
who is in the same boat and treat them equally. Responded to Mr. Medwid's comment
that perhaps his comments were interpreted that they don't want the rules to apply
to them, stated that in fact the rules should apply to them but they should also
apply to everyone who is similarly situated and not to exact more for Mr. Passarelli
as related to Round Pond. Noted that Mr. Borgos' comments were well taken and
thought that when he did consult with counsel that counsel would advise him that
175
right now the appropriate agency called the Lead Agency can make two declarations
on environmental quality,they can make a negative declaration or a positive
declaration. Apparently you are prepared tonight to make a negative declaration
on some projects. It means that the project in your mind based on the information
you have, will not have a negative impact on the environment. Positive is just
the oppsite that there is a possibility that it may and a full EIS should be filed,
Environmental Impact Statement. . . Thats the law as it is now in the Town of
Queensbury. If that is what you want a full Environmental Quality Review, then
you already have that statue why single out this property anymore differently.
Stated that it was said that it would be helpful to his client, he was not sure
he said that, he thought it was going to be helpful to the Town of Queensbury
that the town have more intensified Environmental Quality Review when it is
necessary. Stated that they subjected themselves to that and that's the law.
Certainly that is what Mrs. Monahan has been talking about. Addressed Mr.
Montesi. . .the law is very clear, you can't rezone by using State Environmental
Quality Review Act, it is not proper. Stated that his client has been threatened
`- with eminent domain, threatened with condemnation, he has been threatened with
a lot of things and I will submit that those are not proper ways of proceeding
that they would not be successful in this situation legally and the bottom line
is money, that if those processes were attempted or successful it would involve
the payment of money to my client for the damages. Addressed Mr. Kurosaka. . .I
am not sure I said you, meaning you, you, I said you meaning the Town Board and
whoever sat in those positions. Stated that he was not signaling out any one
board member but he was speaking in terms of where was everyone when other things
were happening and the designations were not made as to other areas. We never
said we don't want to file an Environmental Impact Statement, if it is required
we will file it.
COUNCILMAN BORGOS - Noted in the area of the Country Clubs' new septic systems
is already in and would not have to be disturbed.
SUPERVISOR WALTER - Asked if there were any other comments - hearing none the
public hearing was closed, 9:18 P.M.
OPEN FORUM
MR. MORTON - Queensbury Association for Outdoor Recreation. . .wishes to applaud
the Town Board for amending the subdivision regulations requiring land for park
development purposes or money in lieu of reservation. We think this is good
legislation, a ood piece of work. We only note that the fee of $250.00 should
not remain static,it should increase in relation to the increase in land values.
Also we suggest that sometime the approach used by Niskayuna be considered.
Niskayuna has a fee schedule from $200.00 to $600.00 based on lot size that is
the larger the lot the greater the fee. Councilman Montesi has a copy of the
Niskayuna schedule. We only point it out at this time for future consideration,
again we commend you for this fine piece of work.
GLEN GREGORY - West Glens Falls, wondered if the board was aware of the potential
problem they have in West Glens Falls regarding Richardson Street and.' . Main
Street. . .everynight there is something going on at the Civic Center, they turn
that light on blinker and Richardson Street being the main artery or Luzerne
and Sherman Road area, you cannot get on the Corinth Road going North or South
because the people going to the Civic Center will not slow down at that light.
Stated that it is a main artery for a fire company and emergency squad and if
they had to get out of Richardson Street, with that blinker light going, it would
be impossible during Civic Center operations. Stated that he didn't know who
owned the light but suggested something be changed and have a red and green light
so people could get out onto the Corinth Road.
SUPERVISOR WALTER - Responded that she thought it was our light and stated that
she would check on it.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - Noted that the State is going to install a new light on Dix
Avenue in front of the South Queensbury Fire House and when they do that, they
are going to make arrangements for South Queensbury to be able to regulate that
light in case of emergencies. Stated that this same thing might be done in the
Richardson and Main St. areas.
COUNCILMAN BORGOS - Commented on the history of the Civil War Monument down in
the middle of the City of Glens Falls, it is potentially deteriorating. Stated
that he had learned it was built there by the Town of Queensbury and it commemorated
22 people in Queensbury who died during the Civil War while fighting for the Country
176
and at that time according to his notes, represented 2% of the total population
of the town. Mr. Borgos thought if the Town had not already taken some steps
they should perhaps form a joint committee with the City of Glens Falls and look
at this.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - Noted that it was worked on during the Bi-centennial.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI - Stated that occasionally some of the businesses in our
community find that renting space via trailers is a very convenient way of taking
care of their seasonal operation. Noted that he was specifically looking at
retailing so that in some cases one can drive down Quaker Road and see three or
four trailer trucks out there which are stock rooms. Stated that they cost $75.00
a month which is cheap but also unsitely, and after the Board goes through the
process of review and site plan review, beautification review and everything else
then to allow trailers there? He pointed out that there are 17 of them up behind
Zayers,the people who live in Robert Gardens certainly knew they were abutting
a retail operation but did not have any inclination that there would not only
be the daily traffic but these 17 trailers back there. Mr. Montesi suggest that
the Town Board and the Planning Board should be looking into that ordinance.
COUNCILMAN BORGOS - Questioned if there was any legislation to take care of that
kind of thing, if these 17 trailers were there permanently?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - Asked what difference it would make if they were permanent
or temporary. . . one moves and another moves in to take its place, the business
is not meeting its responsibility of storage requirements.
SUPERVISOR WALTER - Stated that the Board would have to review the legislation
and see where it could be amended to prevent that situation.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - Stated that the Board is concerned about the quality of Lake
George and are trying to do something to alleviate that. . .looking at sewers in
that area of the community and would like to announce that the Board has received
the bill 8936 that is in the Senate, introduced by Senator Stafford relative to
the inbasin and outbasin discharges sewage in Lake George and they are going to
study this.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI - Noted that a discussion up at the County Center by Mr.
Hennessey on milfoil, and stated that some of the people in Lake George asked
if they should write Mr. Hennessey or leave this in the hands of Mr. Stafford.
SUPERVISOR WALTER - Stated that this particular Senate bill 8936 was introduced
by Senator Stafford and went to the committee but it is not moving in the committee
because there is a problem with it with the Department of Environmental
Conservation. Stated that she thought of those members of the board who have
not read it they should take a good look at it. Mrs. Walter noted that she
could not support it in the form it is currently in. There had been some changes
made and perhaps there needs to be a few more. Stated that she thought that
the law should give to the commissioner of Environmental Conservation the authority
to promilgate rules and regulations so that new technology and new standards can
be set that do not have to go in front of the legislature everytime. Stated that
she had asked for the latest revised copy of the bill and plans to get it out
to the board so they can take a look at it and then they can make a determination
as to whether they wish to support it as it is written or perhaps a few amendments
made before presenting it to Senator Stafford.
MR. ADAMSON - Stated that he supported the Town Boards position and asked that
the law be amended so the town could go ahead with feasible studies.
SUPERVISOR WALTER - Stated that the holdup has not been from any political
subdivision, it has been from the Dept. of Environmental Conservation.
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA - Introduced a motion the Board stand on record that legislation
passed the 1978 either be rescinded or repealed.
JIM INGLES - Cleverdale. . .Commended Mr. Kurosaka.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MINUTES
RESOLUTION NO. 141, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos:
177
RESOLVED, that the Town Board minutes of April 29 and May 5, 1986 be and hereby
are approved.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
Noes: None
Absent: None
1 i
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE BINGO LICENSE
RESOLUTION NO. 142, Introduced by Mr. Stephen Borgos who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi:
RESOLVED, that Bingo License No. 2704 be and hereby is approved allowing V.F.W.
Post 6196 to hold Bingo Occasions from June 3rd. through September 30th, 1986.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. gos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
f
Noes: None
Absent: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUPERVISOR TO SIGN AGREEMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 143, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr. Steven Borgos.
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury wishes to provide a fireworks display in observance
of Fourth of July, and
N
WHEREAS, the Town Board has determined to incorporate such a display with Town
of Queensbury/West Glens Falls Fire Company Celebration 86,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes the supervisor to enter into an agreement
with Galaxy Fireworks, Inc. of Malone, New York to provide a fireworks display
on June 29, 1986 at the West Glens Falls Firemen's Field for an amount not exceeding
$4,100.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
Noes: None
Absent: None
Letters submitted by the Water Department, Highway Department, and Town Counsel
regarding the accepting of deed for lands for Town Highways to be known as Pinion
Pine Lane, White Pine Road and Willow Road on file.
RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT DEED TO TOWN OF
QUEENSBIIRY FOR LANDS FOR TOWN HIGHWAYS TO
BE KNOWN AS PINION PINE LANE, WHITE PINE ROAD AND WILLOW ROAD
i
RESOLUTION NO. 144, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption
and seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan:
WHEREAS, Michael G. Woodbury and Ralph B. Woodbury have executed and offered a
deed for Town Roadways not less than fifty (50) feet in width together with an
easement agreement for drainage purposes which are more particularly described
in Schedule "A" and "B" annexed hereto and made a part hereof, and
WHEREAS, Paul H. Naylor, Superintendent of Highways of the Town of Queensbury,
has advised that he has made the necessary inspection of the right of way clearing,
sub-base preparation, drainage implementation, and surface treatment and finds
178
that such work has been performed in accordance with the standards and requirements
of the Town of Queensbury, and he recommends that the Town Board accept this land
for highway purposes into the Town Highway System, and
WHEREAS, Thomas K. Flaherty, Superintendent of Water of the Town of Queensbury,
has advised that he has made the necessary inspection of Water Line Installation
in the proposed highways which are located within the geographical boundaries
of the Queensbury Consolidated Water district and finds that said installation
has been made in accordance with the standards and requirements of the Town of
Queensbury and that he recommends that the Town Board accept this land insofar
as the water line installation is concerned, and
WHEREAS, the title to the land proposed to be conveyed has been approved b Wilson
WH , P P Y PP Y
S. Mathias, Esq. , Counsel to the Board,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized to execute the aforesaid
drainage easement agreement, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the aforementioned deed be and the same is hereby accepted and
approved and that the Town Clerk be hereby authorized and directed to cause said
deed to be recorded in the Warren County Clerk's Office after which said deed
sahll be properly filed and maintained in the Office of the Town Clerk of the
Town of Queensbury, and be it further
RESOLVED, that these roads be hereby added to the official inventory of Town
Highways, to be described as follows:
Road No. 415 , Description: North/South
Name: Pinion Pine Lane, Feet: 725
Road No. 406 , Description: East/West
Name: Whte Pine Road, Feet: 320
ROAD No. 407, Description: East/West and North/South
Name: Willow Road, Feet: 1604
Duly adopted this 27th day of May 1986, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
Noes: None
Absent: None
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING LEAD AGENCY AND ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
OF ESTABLISHMENT OF SHERMAN AVENUE WATER DISTRICT EXTENSION NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 145, Introduced by Mr. Stephen Borgos, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka:
Whereas, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law established the State
Environmental Quality Review Act, and
WHEREAS, such act requires environmental review of certain actions undertaken
by local governments, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury recognizes the need for the
extension of the Sherman Avenue Water District to serve the current residents
and to meet the needs of future residents in an area of increasing growth and
development in the westerly portion of the Town of Queensbury and has conducted
a public hearing on the establishment of an improvement district in that area
of the Town, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified as lead agency
with respect to the creation and establishment of said district;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is hereby designated lead
V
agency for purposes of SEQRA compliance in the creation and establishment of the
Sherman Avenue Water District Extension No. 1, and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury adopt the annexed
notice of determination of non-significance and that copies of this resolution
be forwarded to the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation
and the Region 5 offices of the D.E.C. , Department of Health, Department of
Transportation and the Warren County Planning Department.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walte
4
-- Noes: None
Absent: None
�`- SEQRA
Negative declaration
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations
pertaining to Article 8 ( State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental
Conservation Law.
The Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined that the proposed
action described below will not have significant effect on the environment.
1. Title of Action : Sherman Avenue Water District Extension No.l
2. SEQRA Status: Unlisted action.
3. Description of Action: Installation of 1,000 +- feet of 12 inch water
main plus 2 hydrants.
4. Reasons Supporting Determination: In response to request for water service
from developers and in light of current pending proposals before the Planning
Board, the Town Board wishes to extend municipal water service to the proposed
district to serve future residents and to strengthen the hydraulic capacity of
the Town water system. Future development in the area must conform to SEQRA and
site specific impacts of such projects would be addressed in the future.
5. For further information:
Contact Person: Frances J. Walter
Town Supervisor
Town of Queensbury
Bay & Haviland Rds.
Queensbury, N.Y. 12801
(518) 792-5832
6. The Town of Queensbury maintains a file of its proceedings and determination
and the supporting reasons therein, which file is available for public inspection.
Dated: May 27, 1986 Town Board
Town of Queensbury
Bay & Haviland Rds.
Queensbury, N.Y. 12801
RESOLUTION MAKING DETERMINATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 209e OF THE TOWN LAW OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK IN RELATION TO THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF A WATER DISTRICT
EXTENSION IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, WARREN COUNTY, NEW YORK TO BE KNOWN AS THE
SHERMAN AVENUE WATER DISTRICT EXTENSION NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 146, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan, who moved its adoption
seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka:
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York has
heretofore duly caused a general map, plan and report to be prepared and filed
in the office of the Town Clerk of the said Town in relation to the establishment
of a proposed water district extension in said Town, to be known as the Sherman
180
Avenue Water District Extension No. 1. , and
WHEREAS, an order was duly adopted by the said Town Board on April 27, 1986 reciting
a description of the boundaries of said proposed district, the improvements
proposed, the maximum amount proposed to be expended for said improvements, the
proposed method of financing to be employed, the fact that said map and plan were
on file in the Town Clerk's Office for public inspection, and specifying the 13th
day of May 1986, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the Town Office Building, Town of
Queensbury, Bay & Haviland Roads, in said Town as the time when and the place
where said Town Board would meet for the purpose of holding a public hearing to
hear all persons interested in the subject thereof concerning the same; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held at the time and place set forth in
said order, as aforesaid, at which all persons desiring to be heard were duly
heard, and
WHEREAS, said Town Board has duly considered said map and plan and the evidence
given at said public hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York
as follows:
Section 1. Upon the evidence given at the aforesaid public hearing, it is
hereby found and determined as follows:
A. The notice of the aforesaid public hearing was published and posted as
required by law and is otherwise sufficient;
B. All the property and property owners within said proposed district are
benefited thereby;
C. All the property and property owners benefited are included within the
limits of said proposed district; and
D. The establishment of said proposed district is in the public interest. 1 .
Section 2. The resolution shall take effect immediately.
The question of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly put to a vote
on roll call, which resulted as follows:
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
Noes: None
Absent: None
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A WATER DISTRICT EXTENSION IN THE TOWN
OF QUEENSBURY, WARREN COUNTY,NEW YORK, TO BE KNOWN AS THE SHERMAN AVENUE WATER
DISTRICT EXTENSION NO. 1, AND FURTHER APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED THEREFORE
RESOLUTION NO. 147, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan:
J
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York has
heretofore duly caused a general map, plan and report to be prepared and filed }
in the Office of the Town Clerk of said Town in relation to the establishment
of a proposed water district extension in said Town, to be known as the Sherman
Avenue Water District Extension No. 1, and
WHEREAS, an order was duly adopted by said Town Board on April 22, 1986 reciting
a description of the boundaries of said proposed district extension, the
improvements proposed, the maximum amount proposed to be expended for said
improvements, the proposed method of financing to be employed, the fact that said
map and plan were on file in the Town Clerk's Office for public inspection, and
specifying the 13th day of May, 1986 at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the Queensbury Town
Office Building, Bay and Haviland Roads in said Town, as the time when and the
181
place where said Town Board would meet for the purpose of holding a public hearing
to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof concerning the same, and
WHEREAS, such order was duly published and posted in the manner and within the
time prescribed by Section 209-d of the Town Law and proof of said publication
and posting has been duly presented to said Town Board, and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held at the time and place set forth in
said order, as aforesaid, at which all persons desiring to be heard were duly
heard,
WHEREAS, the Town Board as duly designated lead agency has adopted a determination
of non-significance of the proposed action in accordance with the provisions of
the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and
WHEREAS, following said public hearing, and based upon the evidence given thereat,
said Town Board duly adopted a resolution determining in the affirmative all of
the questions set forth in Subdivision 1 of Section 209-e of the Town Law, and
WHEREAS, it is now desired to adopt a further resolution pursuant to Subdivision
3 of Section 209-e of the Town Law, approving the establishment of said district
and the construction of the improvements proposed therefore;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York
as follows:
Section 1. The establishment of a water district extension in the Town of
Queensbury, Warren County, New York to be known as the Sherman Avenue Water District
Extension No. 1 to be bounded and described as hereinafter set forth, and the
installation and construction of 1000 f feet 12 inch water main and two hydrants
in said district at a maximum estimated cost of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars
($25,000.00) is hereby approved and authorized. The method of financing the cost
of said improvement shall be by surplus funds not otherwise appropriated, payable
y, in the first instance from the several lots and parcels of land within the water
district extension in the same manner and at the same as other town charges and
as guaranteed by Cobe, Inc. pursuant to Section 277 of the Town Law.
Section 2. Said water district extension shall be bounded and described
as is set forth in Schedule "A" annexed hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 3. This resolution is subject to a permissive referendum as provided
by Section 209-e of the Town Law.
Section 4. If after the expiration of the time for filing a petition
requisitioning that the matter be submitted to a referendum of eligible voters
within the proposed extended district, no such petition is timely filed with the
Town Clerk, she shall file a certificate stating such fact in the Office of the
Warren County Clerk.
Description of the Sherman Avenue Water District Extension #1
All that certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the Town
of Queensbury, County of Warren and the State of New York, more particularly bounded
and described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of the lands of Martnot
Investing Company, Incorporated and the southwest corner of the lands of Ray Cowen
III and H. Gerald Beres being on the westerly bounds of Great lot 62 of the first
sub-division of the Queensbury Patent and the easterly bounds of Great Lot 69
of said Patent in the easterly bounds of the lands of Ernest and Doreen Centerbar
and the northwest corner of the existing Clendon Brook Water District; running
thence northerly along the great lot line between said lots 62 and 69 to the
northwest corner of said lot 62 and the northeast corner of said lot 69 and the
southwest corner of great lot 63 of said first sub-division of the Queensbury
Patent, being also the northwest corner of the lands of LeRoy and Patricia Reeves;
thence running easterly along the northerly bounds of said great lot number 62
and the southerly bounds of said great lot number 63 to the northwest corner of
the Sherman Avenue Water District and the northwest corner of the lees of Ralph
and Geneva K. Elmore; thence running southerly along the westerly bounds of said
Sherman Avenue Water District and the lands of said Ralph and Geneva K. Elmore,
182
the westerly bounds of the lands of the Queensbury Better Homes Volunteers, Inc.
and again the westerly bounds of the lands of Ralph and Geneva K. Elmore, crossing
Sherman Avenue on a line being the projection southerly of the westerly bounds
of said lands of Elmore to the southwest corner of the said Sherman Avenue Water
District; thence running easterly on a line parallel to the southerly bounds of
Sherman Avenue and along the southerly bounds of said Sherman Avenue Water District
to the southwest corner of lot 23 of the N. F. Ripley sub-division and the northwest
corner of the Clendon Brook Water District and the northwest corner of the lands
of Harold W. Katz; thence running southerly along the westerly bounds of said
Katz and the Clendon Brook Water District to the southwest corner of said Katz
and the southeast corner of the lands of said Cowen III and Beres; running thence
westerly along their southerly bounds and then northerly bounds of the land of
said Martnot Investing Company, Incorporated being also the northerly bounds of
said Clendon Brook Water District to the point and place of beginning.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
Noes: None
Absent: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUPERVISOR TO EXECUTE DOCUMENTS WITH CITY OF GLENS FALLS
RELATIVE TO WESTERN AVENUE WATER EASEMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 148, Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption
seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi:
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has requested an easement from the City of Glens
Falls along Western Avenue (lying within the City limits) for the purpose of
installation and maintenance of water mains and,
WHEREAS, the Common Council by Resolution 78 of 1986, the City of Glens Falls
has authorized such an easement on Western Avenue for the sum of $2,000. , NOW,
THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Supervisor is hereby authorized to execute the necessary
documents and make fullpayment of $2,000. to effect the water easement with the �. -
City of Glens Falls.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
Noes: None
Absent: None
DISCUSSION - Held by the Board Members, regarding no parking on Cleverdale as
more information was needed to make a resolution. . .put on agenda for next meeting,
June 10, 1986.
RESOLUTION SETTING SECOND PUBLIC HEARING DESIGNATING ROUND POND AND ADJOINING
LANDS AS CRITICAL AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
RESOLUTION NO 149, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos:
WHEREAS, the Town Board is authorized to designate specific geographic areas within
its boundaries as critical areas of environmental concern, and
i
WHEREAS, Round Pond and the area within 500 feet of the high h water line of
Round P nd a pp ear to be of exceptional and unique character, and
WHEREAS, the aforesaid area may meet the criteria contained in Section 617.4 (J)
of Title 6 of the New York Code Rules and Regulations as a benefit to the public
health and safety, natural setting and an inherent ecological and hydrological
sensitivity to change which could be adversely affected by any change, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board seeks additional public comment regarding the designation
of this area as a critical area of environmental concern,
.tuv
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that a meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall be
held at the Town Office Building at Bay & Haviland Roads in the Town of Queensbury
on the 10th day of June 1986 at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of conducting a public
hearing on the proposal to designate Round Pond and certain adjoining lands as
critical areas of environmental concern, and to hear all persons interested in
the subject thereof, concerning the same, and to take action as may be required
and authorized by law, and it is further
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and
directed to publish a copy of this resolution in the official newspaper of the
j— Town of Queensbury and to post a copy of this order on the sign board of the Town
of Queensbury.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
Noes: Mr. Kurosaka
Absent: None
DISCUSSION - Held by the Board Members, regarding the Critical areas of
environmental concern on Round Pond:
COUNCILMAN BORGOS - One of the specifics he understood Mr. Krogmann raised is
that even if they make this designation it still would not require automatically
full EIS, if that's true, and if this new declaration could be gone around the
same way the other ones probably have, then we are no further ahead with this
one. Stated that if this designation would make it so it must be, that is one
thing or if it was optional and if this is the case then the Board should go
back and enforce what they already have, and have the Planning Board act on these
things.
TOWN COUNSEL - The Board would not have any way of enforcin g they've got
what the 'Y
unless its something like rezoning in which case they would be the Lead Agency.
You would then make the determination whether or not anybody would be required
to go through this procedure. The Planning Board is going to be its only agency.
So the designation such as this that the likelihood is far greater that the Planning
Board would use the full EIS process much more frequently than it does now. There
is no question that Mr. Krogmann is right, the procedure is there right now and
what this is proposed to do is to encourage the use of that procedure by boards
to whom you have delegated your authority. One of the proposed changes in the
regulations is to allow DEC to make this decision and the local municipality which
is a lot closer to what is going on in these areas take, the initiative rather
than having the State acting for you.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - Stated that what they were doing was making a strong statement
to the Boards involved that they must consider the environment much more than
it has been done in the past.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI - Noted that that was the statement made by Mr. Krogmann tonight
- some form of residential buildings that can take the form of condominiums—stated
that they would then want to know what does the critical area want. . . class one
or class two.
TOWN COUNSEL - Noted that it is his opinion we should have two public hearings
considering the way the notice was written.
i
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA - Stated that they would get the same comments they got today.
TOWN COUNSEL - Stated that it wouldn't hurt to do it because it takes 30 days
once the designation is made. It may be more prudent to discuss this one more
time.
RESOLUTION REQUESTING STATE LEGISLATURE TO REPEAL PORTIONS OF 17-1709 ENVIRONMENTAL
184
LAW KNOWN AS "THE LAKE GEORGE LAW"
RESOLUTION NO 150, Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi:
WHEREAS, the New York State Legislature enacted Paragraph 3 of §17-1709 of the
Environmental Conservation Law which became effective July 10, 1979, which
prohibited the discharge of sewage or treated sewage effluent from municipal sewage
treatment plants into the Lake George drainage basin, and
WHEREAS, the United States Environmental Protection Agency adopted the Final
Environmental Im act Statement Wastewater Collection and Treatment 'Facilities,
Lake George-Upper Hudson Region, New York dated December 1983 which F.E.I.S.
recommended, in part, the construction of small, localized waste water treatment -.
facilities with in-basin disposal for the Assembly Point, Cleverdale, Rockhurst,
and other designated areas of Queensbury located on the shores of Lake George,
and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury recognizes the critical importance
of establishing municipal waste water treatment facilities to serve those areas
described in the F.E.I.S. , and
WHEREAS, Paragraph 3 of §17-1709 of the Environmental Conservation Law, as amended,
currently prohibits the implementation of the recommendations detailed in the
F.E.I.S. , and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to commence the process of creating a sewer district
in portions of the area designated in the F.E.I.S. , and to engage the services
of a licensed engineer pursuant to provisions of the Town Law regarding the
establishment of a special district
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board, in order to implement the recommendations made
by the E.P.A. in the environmental impact statement regarding the sewering of
areas of the Town of Queensbury located on Lake George, requests the New York
State Legislature to repeal Paragraph 3 of §17-1709 of the Environmental
Conservation Law as added by Chapter 599 of the Laws of 1979 and as amended by
Chapter 600 of the Laws of 1984, and it is further
RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution be forwarded to
New York State Assembly
New York State Senate
Warren County Board of Supervisors
Washington County Board of Supervisors
Essex County Board of Supervisors
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
Noes: None
Absent:None
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - Asked if they could discuss philosophy first regarding the
Lake George Law. Asked Town Counsel and Supervisor Walter since they had been
down there, which way they should go. . .
SUPERVISOR WALTER - The best action right now was to go with the repeal of the
original Lake George Law, but added that she did not have the date on it. It ;
was stated that copies of this should be sent to Senator Stafford, Warren County
Board of Supervisors, Rep. DeAndrea
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AUDIT OF BILLS
RESOLUTION NO. 151, Introduced by Mr. Stephen Borgos who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi:
RESOLVED, that Audit of Bills as appears on May 27, 1986 Abstract and numbered
1440 and 1490 and totaling $70,500,32.00 be and hereby is approved.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
Noes: None
Absent: None
ON MOTION THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
h-- DARLEEN DOUGHER, TOWN CLERK