Loading...
1989-08-22 219 TOWN BOARD MEETING AUGUST 22, 1989 4:39 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN B OR G OS-S UPER VISOR GEORGE KUROSAKA-COUNCILMAN MARIL YN POTENZA-COUNCILMAN RONALD MONTESI-COUNCILMAN BETTY MONAHAN-COUNCILMAN (entered meeting at 5:30 p.m.) TOWN ATTORNEY PA UL D USEK TOWN OFFICIALS RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 455, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Kurosaka. RESOL VED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1989, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan RESOLUTION TO ENTER REGULAR SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 456, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Kurosaka. RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourn from Executive Session and move into Regular Session of the Town Board. Duly adopted thi$ 22nd day of August, 1989, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurost�ka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mrs. Monahan PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY SUPERVISOR BORGOS i PUBLIC HEARING - CRITICAL ENVIRON ENTAL AREA - GLEN LAKE 5:25 P.M. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The First item of b siness is a public hearing dealing with the critical environmental area proposed at Glen Lake., 1'// ask the Clerk, has this been properly advertised? TOWN CLERK DOUGHER-Yes it has. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. I have a hunch, as 1 look around, this might be the issue. Which is fine, that's how we find out about everybody's opinion. It has been proposed, as you know, to designate an area around Glen Lake as a critical environmental area. Specifically fthose areas described in great detail by I believe GF 15 and GF 18. Is that correct? I'm pretty sure. Lee York is nodding her head. if that is the case, bottom line, any development in that area, any proposed development in that area, would be more subject to, more apt to be subject to more extensive environmental review. Not necessarily, I understand, but would be more apt to be subject to more detail. This comes as a request that has been around for many months on the part of the residences and or neighbors from the Glen Lake area. That is how the proposal got to this stage. We're anxious now to here from the public, see what the public wants to say about this and to take appropriate action if that's the case. A t this point the hearing is open. I'd ask you please to come to the microphone, identify yourself with name and address and say whatever you'd like for or against or neutral. We don't want to have a war but you might• want to raise some questions that we haven't considered. 220 MIKE O'CONNOR-Mr. Supervisor, Mrs. Potenza, gentleman, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little and O'Connor. I have been spokesman for the Glen Lake Association with regards to the issue that is before the Board this evening. I would like to begin by thanking the Board for bringing this issue to a public hearing: I look upon the subject that'is on the table today as being step number 3 or at least formal step number 3 in the attempt by your Board to help us protect the quality of water and life on Glen Lake. I by no means look upon it as being the final step. There is much else that can be done and should be done and I hope that we can work together and accomplish other items as well as what is on your agenda tonight. I refer you to your own recollection and maybe for purposes of the public that are not aware of other documents that might be involved with what we're to/king about tonight with the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act that was adopted in 1976 by this Board. That in essence does slot of what we're to,�king about tonight except that the areas there in defined words 1 of wetlands as described l °)elieve by the Department of Environmental Conservation and the upland area if you will of one hundred feet. I would also refer the Board and the public y to the minutes of the meeting of January 27th, 1987, where the area of Rush Pond and the area immediately surrounding Rush Pond were also designated Environmentally Critical Sensitive areas. At that point or that time, the Board resolved that Rush Pond was a unique pond and wetland area of undisturbed natural beauty which I think applies also to the areas that we're talking about tonight. Rush Pond serves as the head waters of Glen Lake which is a prized residential area for residents of the Town of O,ueensbury. That finding also applies to the areas that we're talking about tonight. It is true these wetlands that we're speaking of that the water passes from Rush Pond and that pond is in one of the wetlands. There is also a tributary that passes through the second wetland or designated wetland area. That meeting you also found that Rush Pond to be adversely affected by any change in use or tendency of use and I think that is also true of the areas that we're speaking of. There were a couple other findings there which are also applicable to the areas that we're speaking of. In addition to that I have in my possession and I can make copies and send them to the Board for its record, a copy of a letter of November 23rd, 1988 from Carol Reschke who is the community ecologist that's in charge, l guess, of the Natural Heritage Program of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. In that she gives an inventory if you will of the unique habitats that is found in the wetlands that we're asking you to protect this evening. We also have a letter from Alan Koech/ein who is the Senior Wildlife Biologist, that was dated December 1st, it was subskquent to a letter of November 21st from him, both 1988, which Indicate the significance of'the wetlands that we're talking about. We have also a letter from Ann E. Williams, the Ekecutive Director of-the,Nature Conservancy with regard to an inventory of the unique and very,-veFy rare items that are found in the wetlands that we are asking you to protect or designate protection for. We have a study of the Glen Lake Fen itself which is dated in pen of July 7th, 1982 by Richard E. Andrus which again details in full if you will the rare items that are found through the wetlands. Lastly we have a copy of the Glen Lake Technical Water Study which I think Mrs. Monahan ,asked for with regard to another project that is also before the Board. We'll make these ovc jlable for part of the record for the Board. I'd like to get these originals back. If you could make copies or I'll make copies... SUPERVISOR BOR GOS-Thank you. We'll ask the clerk to do that for you. He'd like to have the originals back after the copies are made. MR. O'CONNOR-Basically what we're talking about as I understand, is designating the areas surrounding the wetlands and the lands lying immediately adjacent to, up lands, of those as being environmentally critical sensitive areas. What this will require is for any person who wishes to develop those lands or making any changes on those lands to file a long form environmental statement with whatever body is a permitting body for the action that is being taken. If you review that affidavit you will find in honesty it does not effect in many, many instances a single family residence, but it does give us some control. It will give the Board abetter idea of what is going on and what possible impacts actions might have upon quality of water either in the lake or in the ground, by the activity that is being undertaken. This designation is simpler if you will to the designation that was made by the Lake George Park Commission I believe, except that it is the same designation, they in fact have designated as I understand the entire shoreline of Lake George. I would think that that would be the natural next step that this Board would undertake, would be a review of that possibility. It is one which I would welcome and I hope to stress that to anybody who thinks that we're trying to purposely piece meal this, we are not. It's simply is, we've been working I think since last October, making different presentations, trying to get different definitions and we now have a point of beginning that we can begin with, it's like the Rush Pond designation. When you made that you didn't make it with the idea that was the end, it was the idea that that was the beginning, that you were going to look at other areas and designate them also. We do think it is a step.in the right direction. We think that it is going to help us provide better protection because we are going to have a better inventory of what is going on in the areas that are going to directly effect this. Thank you. WA YNE JUDGE-My name is Wayne Judge and I represent attraction's land which is the target of this legislation. Also some of the concerned property owners who own land within the effected area, none of whom, as far as I know, are components of this legislation. You find humor in the stangest places. We had a meeting atone of the property owner's house the other night and one of the Town Planners was explaining the statue, you said, in the short run this is probably going to mean more legal fees and delays for you property owners if you want to do anything with your house and might effect your ability to resell it but in the long run you're going to have a Glean Glen Lake. At that point the retired person who was in the group said, at my point in life l can only think in the short run. But the issue here is simply this, there are three wetlands that filter water flowing into Glen Lake, that filter the water. There is GF 15, GF 18 and GF21. The prepons of this legislation have proposed that only GF 15 and GF 18 be included in the legislation. Because if you look at your map, you'll see GF 21 impact`on alot of members of the Glen Lake Protective Association. There are alot of houses that would be effected and alot of homeowners that would be effected if included GF21 within this critical environmental area. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Where is 21, is that to the east? MR. JUDGE-If you have the map I could show you. MR. O'CONNOR-The east end of Glen Lake. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The east end of Glen Lake, thank you. MR. JUDGE-The east end of Glen Lake and it serves the some exact purposes as, that's a fen just like this is a fen and GF 18 is a fen. It serves the some exact environmental purposes but politically it is inadvisable to include at this point GF21 within the proposal. Ogsicolly what we're talking about here is not solely protecting the environment. Because after all, when you talk about protecting the environment, all we're really talking about is how much sacrifice every individual is going to make for a cleaner world. That's basically what it comes down to. We'll take it at the most basic level. If the waters of Glen Lake were being fed directly with effluent and indirectly with water and effluent through a filter, which would be the most critical, the most critical problem to attack from a legislation point of view. You would attack that effluent that was going directly into the lake unfiltered. You wouldn't attack,;first attack the water that was going into the lake through the filter of a wetlands. That is the whole purpose why God put wetlands here, to filter the water that is going into the lake. All around Glen Lake there are properties according to the study, the technical survey, that are contributing nutrients to Glen Lake. This is the most critical environmental problem on Glen Lake at this moment. it is the critical environmental problem on Lake George at this moment. But all of the people who own property around Lake George, including myself, wouldsay, let's have Lake George put in a sewer system, let's have Hulett's Landing put in a sewer system and let's have somebody else regulate it, but don't regulate me because my leach field, as for as I know, the last time I looked five years ago seemed to be okay. That's what is happening here. Everyone got hysterical when the Great Escape decided to put in a water slide. They didn't realize, for example, that the water slide never got off the ground because of all the regulations that are presently in place without this legislation. You can't do anything within a hundred feet of a wetland right now without this legislation, anywhere, anywhere in the State, because its regulated by the Department of Environmental Conservation. It doesn't cost the Town of Queensbury or the tax payers of Queensbury one nickel to enforce that statue because its being enforced by State Government. However if you pass this legislation, every time a homeowner in the effected area and there are only thirty or forty of them, want to put an addition on their house or want to put in a garage, you're going to have to designate a lead agency, you're going to have to get your Town Attorney involved, you're going to have to get your planners involved. Maybe you'll have to put another addition on that building and get a couple more planners for that. You'll have to have coordinated agency review. Now you say, just fill out a little simple form. It's not a question of filling out a simple form, you know what is involved because you've been involved in it yourself. Lead agency has to be designated and from that point on there has to be coordinated agency review. True there's not always an environmental impact statement required. But alot of times there is. And to somebody like I VC Corporation or for the A ttraction's L and Corporation, they'll hire me, pay me by the hour and I'll come here and rant and rave like I'm doing now. But what does the average homeowner do? Can he afford to pay me an hourly rate to come out? No, he probably will not be able to afford it. He'll probably try to stumble through the procedures himself. He'll probably won't get it right and he'll probably have a hard time selling his house. _ It seems to me that if you want to address critical environmental problems than base it on the studies that have been made. Not on hysterical responses to development that never happened and do it in a thoughtful way. That's the way to solve the environmental problems on Glen Lake, not by jumping into this kind of hysterical legislation that doesn't even include all three wetlands that service the area. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you very much. All of you should realize that just because this is in front of us doesn't mean we're all in favor of it. The only way to be able to process something like this is to bring it, in a form to a public audience, then take comments and then the Board would deliberate. So this is by no means an accomplished fact but this is the only way to discuss it properly. Name and address please. CHARt,IE.YQRKrMy name_is�Gh.airlia •Yvr k., I i m one-o'f"t ie effected residents or this,proposal. Last week we did sit down with the Planning Department and the Zoning Administrator and a group of people who were concerned about this. As a group we have no specific problems with this. It's a good concept and it's necessary sooner or later. But the lake is a drinking water source for a couple of hundred residences. As Michael O'Connor knows and as a reservoir it deserves to have a certain level of protection. The wetlands provide a cleansing'filtration actually but once the water gets into the lake, if it gets polluted from lake side sources, its polluted all the way down, from one end to the other. It doesn't really seem to make much sense to me that you're going to restrict the activities of thirty to forty people on the lake when the lake is in affect the water intake and outlet for about four hundred people out there. Let's do this if we must. But if we must, let's let everybody whose impacting on the lake. play the same game by the some rules. That's it. I've got the proposals that will recommend it from the last Glen Lake Water Study. I'll pass copies'of that out to the Board for your review. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Mr. York; is it your considered opinion that GF21 that Mr. Judge referred to should be included in the environmental impact area? MR. YORK-1 think the entire lakeside should, two hundred fifty foot from the main water level. BILL MORTON-My name is Bill-Morton, (live at 9 Meadow Drive and I represent the Queensbury's Citizen's Committee on Environmental Issues. The Queensbury's Citizen Committee on Environmental Issues wishes to go on record as supporting the proposal to designate Glen Lake Wetlands as critical environmental areas. Protection of the wetlands is a very important aspect of protecting Glen Lake. Therefore we feel that all wetlands on Glen Lake should, they deserve all protection that can be afforded to them. Further we believe that a false sense of security will emanate by designating only the wetlands as sensitive environmental areas. We feel that this is not enough. We would encourage that the entire lakeshore be designated as a critical environmental area, similar to what has been done in the Lake George Park but still this is not enough. It is our perception and judgement that the water quality and scenic resources surrounding Glen Lake are in jeopardy, indeed they are in declined. We note, increased weed growth over the years, decreasing water clarity. The occurrences of Swimmer's Itch. Unnecessary scars on hillsides that are abandoned, unreclaimed brattle mines. ... total linear or strict, development of the shoreline of very little undeveloped shoreland remaining as open space. Every increasing urban runoff emanating or coming from the miracle half mile along Route 9 and the 149, near the 149 intersection. We feel that an aggressive lake management program should be initiated for Glen Lake. In addition to seeing the critical environmental area designation ive feel that a water quality monitoring program should be initiated if one does not now exist. It's monitoring effort should be geared towards determining water quality protection and enhancement needs. It also should include an unbiased on going survey of septic systems around the lake. We think there should be a program for acquiring and preserving remaining undeveloped shorelands and the undeveloped island either in fee or through easement as needed. We also think that there should be a stepped up program for controlling urban runoff in the Glen Lake watershed. Appropriate practices for treating and reducing contaminates in urban runoff before the runoff and contaminates get to the lake, is needed. Particularly from Route 9, 149 area. Arid by all means there is a need to revisit the Glen Lake Technical Study and begin implementing the numerous recommendations therein. These are issues that which need to be addressed if Glen Lake is to remain a vital and splendid resource. We encourage the residents of Glen Lake working with the Town of Queensbury to initiate a planning process forth to begin to address these critical issues. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. DR. HOROWITZ-Dr. Horowitz of the Glen Lake Association. I'm a resident of Glen Lake. I'd just like to reiterate a few points. First, at a meeting of the Glen Lake Bodrd, I believe it was in May, the Board did vote to support wholeheartedly this piece of legislation. We see that this is, as Mike said, just the beginning, certainly not the end. For those that feel _ that this unduly tough on their sale of their property or whatever, we feel two things. One, we certainly intend to include the whole lake eventually and two, we're not aware of any difficulties selling homes on Lake George. Certainly the average home there looks like it's in the million dollar bracket just about. I don't think any of us here have to worry about their properties. In terms of the lake purity as this Board well, well knows the Glen Lake Association has at least very strongly recently taken stand in time to police it's own members and residents. Toward that end we have tried, in fact this year to employ the services of Mr. Olson to get a mapping of all septic systems around the lake in that there was a man power problem and it should be done by next year when college interns will be more available. Nevertheless, 223 the Board, I know is well aware of our ethics. And certainly thirty or forty people using the lake in an injudicious way we can get a hold of and eventually curve their actions. However an ongoing minute to minute flow of water through the lake should be at all times policed. That is why we stand upon this effort. Thank you. NEAL FITZGERALD-My name is Neal Fitzgerald, I live on Farm to Market Road. I listen to people saying that this was the first step. If this is the first step and this automatically designate two areas, why not in the first step designate the whole lake? I mean it doesn't seem to mean to take any more time or effort to do now. One thing that bothers me is that all of sudden we jump to the conclusion that a hundred feet is no good I don't know of any evidence that gives us anything to say that a hundred feet is less than good than two-fifty or vise versa, that two-fifty is better than one hundred. So you know you could go out say well, will move a thousand feet away from the thing. Pretty soon we'll have nobody around the lake at all and that would make it very simple. Take GF18, 1 happen to be in that area. Mike Barber and I probably pollute the thing tremendously, doing nothing. You know it's absolutely ridiculous and it doesn't make any difference whether I'm a hundred feet or two hundred and fifty feet, we're still the same two people. Unless of course you're going to get down to St. Marys Bay at the end and include people that are on the lake front within that jurisdiction, two hundred fifty feet, both sides of it, wherever that point happens to be, I don't know where it is on the map. But it kind of looks to me like when you talk about a first step, that you know, it's a long time until you get to the second and third step. I may not be around here long enough to see the final step either. (tape turned) ROBERT CANTEBERRY, Canteberry Drive-...five thousand feet of lake frontage, seems to me that he ought to have them. My thought was by means of comparison, the big issue may not be accurate, completely accurate, but it is my opinion and I'm certain, the opinion of many, that are on the lake, that if we are going to have a proper, the lake protected properly, we're going to have to go all the way and protect the entire area of Glen Lake. Not only the wetlands but those who are on the lake. Population there is growing around the lake, there's alot of boats that are on there, as you can see sometimes, some coming in from outside. But the main thing is, I believe, around the entire lake. if part of the lake isn't good enough.. I would believe that the best thing is to include it all. There's a/ot of work they put into this and I'm sure the members of the Board are certainly to be commended for this effort. But our main concern is that it does not go far enough., The whole lake ought to be protected. If we are interested enough to spend money to protect the lake as much as we possibly can and I personally am going to put clot of money into trying to see that there are no sewer backup from our area. I'm sure that others are that much concerned too. But I think it should go all the way around the lake and those areas that are concerned in particular... Thank you. SUPERVISOR BOR GOS-Thank you. JOHN WHALEN-My name.is John Whalen, I live on Farm to Market Road. I'd like to go on record as objecting to designating /ands within 250 feet of the Glen Lake Wetlands as a critical environmental area. I have land that borders the Glen Lake Wetlands for about 2300 feet. I feel that.a distance of 100 feet from the wetlands would be a more reasonable figure. This 100 foot figure would also be consistent with DEC wetland regulations which require the some information as a full Environmental Assessment Form within 100 feet of a Class 1 Wetland. Since DEC has the wetland expertise, I feel that including anything more than 100 feet has no technical basis and is purely arbitrary. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you very much. You're the second or third person to make that comment tonight. It's interesting. Anyone else wish to speak before we ask for people for the second time? MAR Y SICARD-I'm Mary Sicard and I live at Glen Lake. I happen to agree with the people who say that 100 feet is enough of the wetlands. I think 250 feet is far too much. If it's a round area, it's 250 one way, 250 another, 250 another, 250 another and that takes a considerable amount of land as for as I'm concerned. The other thing that i feel is if things aren't broken don't fix them. Let's get at things that are wrong. But why shake up everybody with things that are not wrong? That's all I've got to say. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Your point is well made. Thank you. Anyone else for the first time? FRED NICHOLSON-Fred Nicholson, I live on Canteberry Drive. Everybody is concentrating on sewers and that sort of thing. 1 don't know why people from a higher ground can just as well have sewer trouble and pollute the lake as well as jast the wetlands. As for as the wetlands is considered, it makes you wonder sometimes, especially when you see over on Route 9, the State comes through and they put a ditch concrete trough down along side of Route 9 all the way in front of those business places up through there and they bring they all down from the road and all and dump it into the brook that comes from Rush Pond in through Glen Lake. You've got the salt and you've got everything from the parking and everything else, that all goes down Route 9 and up into this culvert down there and goes into the ditch and comes 224 down here and yet the State, different departments in the State are hollering because the people are living on a wetland. I don't think the people in the wetlands are creating half as much pollution as you have off of Route 9, that particular section. There's other things that sort of make you wonder and sort of makes you bitter because we went up there and bought this property and built a house and nobody said anything about wetlands. Nobody said about anything. We went to the Town and got the building permit, we built our house and now it seems like everybody is, we're the culprits on the whole thing, on the whole lake and nobody else. Just because you're not a residing wetland, you can live on a brook or*anything coming into a lake, but that's not a wetland because it wasn't pointed out by two or three people that they send around and they write something in the book and then that's the law to them and l don't go for that. I don't see why we-have to get caught in a thing like this. We try to do the best we can and I don't believe we're actually polluting the lake. I think we've cleaned it up alot. I don't know why we have to be singled out. I think it's like the man says, I think this should go all the way around the lake and if it stops here, when they put this one or two designated areas, that's where it's going to be for another ten or fifteen years. I don't go for that at all. I think if we're going into it, let's all get into it. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you very much. Anybody else for the first time before Mr. O'Connor comes back? DON BEADLESTON-Just a quick comment. I'm Don Beadleston up on Birdsill Road. I've been around the lake since 54. The swamp is getting smaller. The wetlands, slowly being filled in. Nobody is kidding anybody and it's dying, the lake is dying, there's no fish left in it. That's all. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. HAROLD RATHBUN-Harold Rathbun from Moon Hill Road. I've been authorized to represent my son, Hal Rathbun who has property on Glen Lake. I believe he has a letter ... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We have several letters, I believe. MR. RATHBUN-He wanted his support to the Association ... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-1 couldn't hear, he wants to support the designation? MR. RATHBUN-Support for the designation of the wetlands as a critical environmental area. It's in the letter. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. Yes, we do have several letters. I think you have the originals, copies should have gone to the Board. Anyone else for the first time? Yes sir. If you ever wanted to speak about this subject, tonight is the night. ROY TONNESON-I'm Roy Tonneson from Burch Road. I am an owner of the property that would be effected by this. As an owner of the property I would resent it if I were singled out without having the whole lake singled out. I support protecting Glen Lake and strict regulations but even the planners don't support this. So I ask you to be fair and check the lake if you really want to protect the lake. My property has a lot less impact then some of the other properties that we should be controlling. I say control it all. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. I see no other hands at the moment. Mr. O'Connor. Before • whole bunch of you leave and you're welcome to stay as long you want but before we have • mass exit, we want to take a little show of hands. Mr. Montesi has given me some questions. COUNCILMAN MONA HA N-Steve, I hope that Darleen will have a chance to read those letters into the record, we haven't seen some of them. TOWN CLERK DOUGHER-1 just got them. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Yes. They were prepared just before we came inhere, so you may not have gotten them. MR. O'CONNOR-Maybe 1 haven't done a sufficient sales job on exactly how we got to where we are at. I began writing letters to the Town Board, to the Town Supervisor, 1 think in October of 1988, with responses coming from Lee York's Office as Planner for the Town. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Just before you get off on the wrong track again. You and I went -- through this once before. To make it perfectly clear. You were corresponding, not with the Town Supervisor or the Town Board, but with Mrs. York and I was getting some copies. Mrs. York was responding for herself. Sometimes I knew about it and sometimes I didn't. MR. O'CONNOR-Some of the responses came directly from your office. r 225 SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Sometimes I responded to the copy. That is correct. AIR. O'CONNOR-You were passing on those letters to other Board members. I don't think there is any intent here by anybody to divide and conquer. I think the objectives of everyone is to protect the lake. I think what we can do is ask the Board when they close this public hearing to set a date for a public hearing for designation of a balance of the shore as an environmentall critical area and also if the Board wishes Glen Lake or GF wetland are 21. Those are areas that were reviewed with staff and at that time until maybe two weeks ago, staff was not suggesting that we go beyond what we have tried to go beyond tonight. There are a couple of different reasons. When we talk 250 feet, you go back to the 1987 resolution that this Board passed for Rush Pond, there they talked 500 feet. They put in affect legislation that protected the Rush Pond Wetland and 500 feet lying adjacent to it. I kind of thought that , that was beyond and too for and we got it back to 250. That is kind of how we arrived at 250. We also have some particular areas that are critical contrary to what Mr. Fitzgerald maybe thinks, that lie outside of 100 foot zone. in particular at the intersection of Glen Lake Road and Route 9, there is a borough pit that is operated in some manner in some times, that unfortunately lies outside of the 100 foot zone but &is directly up land of that corner of the wetland. That was one of the ideas of coming into 250 feet. If you take a look, I think there are other areas particularly if you go onto the lake itself that 250 feet might be more appropriate than 100 feet. Particularly on my side of the lake where you have high rising land. I Jive on the, what I call the south side of the lake. I come in from Fitzgerald Road, Mannis Road. If you're going to protect the vista, that you're going to protect the view and what not, those hills behind those camps, you probably don't reach the top of them until you're at 250 or maybe even better. So if you're going to prevent scarring, which Mr. Morton has indicated, where people did some excavation and pavement of road, maybe we've got to go to 250 feet there. I think there's justification for it. I don't think we can be too broad. I speak individually on that. I've tried very careful to spedk only on behalf of the Association as to what the Association at regular meetings have authorized me to do. This isn't a one man show or three or four people that are involved where the Board of Directors chose. We had two different Board of Directors meetings who authorized it. We had one meeting at the Bay Ridge new firehouse where the general membership of those who were in attendance and it was a good number of people authorized what we're talking about._ I think we've got to begin some place. I have no problem with you not taking action on the particular proposal that is before you, if you don't let it lie for another year before we get to the other areas. I would say, if you can, once you get into regular session, set another public hearing. Maybe you've saved us a lot of communication among ourselves. We have not had a meeting that I could attend of the Association since the last Board meeting, when this meeting was set. A t that time the Planner started talking about doing the whole Lakeshore for the first time. Even that is contrary to the motion, the written resolution that had been submitted to you. 1 have been trying to be very careful to speak only on behalf of the Association with the authority of the Association because I think that could create a problem if we don't do it that way. Secondly and let me just say this, I don't know of anybody who has had a problem selling a piece of property in an area where you have this designation. If you talk about hysteria, those are comments that would maybe create hysteria. There is nothing involved with this designation, with this overlay on your particular property that will create a problem with the sale of that property. As I indicated to you, maybe you haven't taken the time to read through the environmental impact statement that is required if you fall within that area. Most activities for a single family residence is excluded. You've got to get beyond certain square footages. You've got to get beyond certain gallonages, gallonages of septic and all other thresholds that you have to get to before you're going to really be heavily involved with that statement. I would also bring out another point to that staff talked about before and which I talked about too. Much of the development that's around the lake is within Lakeshore designation and much of the lots, most of the lots now are nonconforming. There is very little land on the lake that is there for development without site plan review at the minimum, a variance in most variances. Even if you alter, enlarge or change a nonconforming use, you need site plan review. That's going to be alot more intensive. You're kidding yourself if you think that it is not going to be more intensive then filling out a ten or twelve page certificate. Among the minimums that they are going to ask for, is for you to produce an engineers study of your septic system. Is it capable of taking core of the property as it sits at that time, as the property will be developed as whatever you request? You are going to have to show the septic systems of the adjoining property owners. You are going to have show the well supplies, the water supplies of the adjoining property owners. So the lake itself has some built in controls already. But I'm not saying that I advocate a position, that no they shouldn't be included in this designation. It just took us from October of 1988 to try to get to this point with some definition. I think it's a welcome step. If you want to include the balance of the shore, include all land lying 250 feet above it, include Glen Lake, GF 21 and GF 21 isn't a filtery to the lake, that is the outlet of the lake. But it does make alot of sense, I'm not arguing that. Take a look at it on the map... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Is that a map that would show? 226 MR. O'CONNOR-It's not on here by designation. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-But it generally shows where that is? MR. O'CONNOR-It's down in this area here. (demonstrates on map)This is the east end of the lake, this end over here would be Route 9, this over here would be Teehill Road. It goes out through Dream Lake, eventually to Halfway Brook and then to Lake Champlain. So it is an important probably area to maybe other parts of the Town, not necessarily to Glen Lake. But again, I don't think there's anyone in the Association that is saying, do this to somebody else but don't do it to me. I haven't heard anybody stand here and speak that this evening. I know in our discussions that if we can get a broader brush application, we'd be glad to. What I'd like to have you do, if you find it appropriate sometime after you close the public hearing is to set immediately a public hearing on consideration of designating the balance of the shoreline of Glen Lake to the same designation along with if you so desire GF 21. We will circulate that among our members. We hope that staff gives it the same attention that they gave circulating notices of this particular designation, everybody who is on the tax map and everybody who is effected. Then we come forward and see if we can take that big step all at one time. We don't have any problems with that. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. Maybe we'll take our little vote at the request of the members of the Board just to see how the public feels here. It's not scientific but it will be... AIR. YORK-1 have some questions about the site plan review. If I could direct them to John Goralski. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-John Goralski, our Assistant Planner. Excuse me, our Planner, I've got to get the title there. Planner and Senior Planner, we've got to hire an assistant. John, you might want a microphone for your responses. MR. YORK-John, if I'm building a hypothetical wood shed on the backside of my property, after this resolution passes, am I going to be required to do an environmental impact statement and if requested by the Board, an environmental assessment? JOHN GORALSKI, Planner-Okay you will have to fill out, if you need site plan review, which is at the determination of the Zoning Administrator, you will have to fill out a long environmental assessment form. That form will be used by the Planning Board to determine if they feel there is any significant environmental impact with respect to the action you're taking. If they feel there is a significant environmental impact, then yes, you would have to prepare a environmental impact statement. MR. YORK-Alright, that same wood shed going up on lake front property, what would be required? MR. GORALSKI-If it would require site plan review, they would fill out a short environmental assessment form which is a one page form. The Board would use that to determine if there is any environmental significance. They may request a long environmental assessment form. MR. YORK-At their discretion? MR. GORALSKI-At their discretion. MR. O'CONNOR-In addition though... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Hold it just a minute. If you want to say something, we'll have to get you to a microphone. MR. GORALSKI-And after they review that long environmental assessment form, certainly it's possible that they could require an environmental impact statement. SUPERVISOR BOR COS-Is it on the issue? MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, on the issue, you're talking as to the environmental impact statement only and the environmental short form affidavit as opposed to the long form affidavit. At the same time you submitted that site plan review, don't you have to submit additional information as to septics, as to wells, as to improvement? MR. GORALSKI-We have a check list on our residential site plan review. What it requires basically is to show all existing structures on the site, the existing septic system, the location of that septic system and all the set backs, all the neighboring property owners, their wells and septic systems as they relate to the property. That's the minimum requirement for a residential site plan review. The Board may request at their discretion further information 227. and very often they do when it is concerned with lakeshore property. SUPERVISOR BOR GOS-Thank you. Mr. Judge. MR. JUDGE-1 know we've been here for a long time. I'd just like to make one comparison. When the Town considers adding additional legislation, make regulations of this kind, I always in favor of... I think you should do it in ... of existing regulations which effect the property. First of all you can't do anything within 100 feet of wetlands now essentially without getting approval from the Department of Environmental Conservation. In answer to the objection that the man made about the wetlands are getting smaller, anybody in this room knows of anyone that is filling in a wetland, that is a crime. There are regulations on the books to regulate that right now. There's no reason why the Town should have to hire staff and put out money and put more laws on it's books to regulate filling in wetlands. That's against the law right now. So I strongly urge the Town to figure out what regulation are applicable now and then when you know what that is, then you'll know whether there is a necessity for adding more. Whatever attraction's land does on that property, if it's a major project, we're going to need a long form environmental impact statement and what probably ...an environmental impact statement anyway and not with standing the fact that the attraction's land was the target of this whole legislation, it seems to me that it would probably impact less on attraction's land then alot of these smaller people that came up here and tried to explain to you what their problems were. ...smaller taxes... Supervisor Borgos-Let the record show that Mr. Judge has explained more fully what he intended to say, just so it is on the record, the girls will be taking this from the tape in a few days. MR. JUDGE-1 meant smaller taxes. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-You ought to submit a supplemental statement ...We've been requested to ask the Town Clerk to read the letters that have come in. Would you do that please? We didn't get a chance to read all of them. I did see them come in. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-...very long. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Can you synopsis them? TOWN CLERK DOUGHER-I've never read them before. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-They are part of the public record and I think the people here have a right to know what's in them. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Okay let's do two or three things at one time because some people might opt to leave because of the hour. First let's see what the audience feels, what the public feels about hearing all these letters. I understand that it may take fifteen or twenty minutes. How many of you will be in favor of hearing all the letters? Just raise your hands if you would please. Okay, we've got more than half. Now, let me just ask this. Not a scientific vote, we're not going to copy your name or anything. How many of you at the moment would be in favor of retaining the legislation as it currently exists without the new proposal, hands-off policy, keep the hundred feet as is currently designated by law? COUNCILMAN MONA HA N-Steve, wait a minute, do you want to have only the people vote that are in the effected parcels or do you want anybody here vote, some who are not in the effected parcels? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I would think anybody here... How many would favor just the hands-off policy as part of the Town, leave it the hundred feet the way it is? Okay, I see a few. How many would favor a 250 foot policy all the way around the lake? Okay, let's try this one, how many would favor a 100 foot policy all the way around the lake? Based on some of the information we've heard before. That's interesting. How many would be in favor of the proposal we have before us today? How many want to go home, Mrs. Potenza says? ....-As step one or just in total? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You've got to explain that better. SUPERVISOR'BORGOS-Okay, how many would favor, we could never guarantee a step two. How many would favor the proposal as presented today as a first step? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Or do you want to say, with no guarantee that anything... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-With no guarantee that anything more would come because there would be no guarantee. 22 8 RESPONSE FROM A UDIENCE-Start now. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. Now we'll ask the Town Clerk to read the letters, please. TOWN CLERK DOUGHER Ladies and Gentleman, I would like to take this opportunity to express some concerns relative to the classification of Glen Lake and all properties within 250 feet as critical environmental areas. Unfortunately I am unable to attend the August 22 public hearing. Since my educational training is in the field of environmental resource management, I believe I have a working knowledge of many concerns relevant to this situation. Does this apply to all properties within 250 feet in their entirety or to only that portion within the boundary? In my specific case, this is a critical question since I live on Rte. 149 and am in no way directly related to the lake. A small portion of our property apparently lies within the 250 foot boundary based on proximity to a northerly estuary. it would seem somewhat unrealistic to me if my property is impacted by this ruling unless it is applied to the entire watershed. l am also concerned that any standards be uniform throughout the entire area and that violating conditions be corrected in an expedient manger. As a person who has been treated as an interloper when canoeing Glen Lake, I am reluctant to have the Glen Lake Protective Association establish standards which may impact the value of my property. There is no question that the Town of Queensbury is confronting a :serious growth problem. However, it is necessary for standards to uniform and well thought ou,` prior to implementation. The implementation of rulings in a seemingly capricious mann:?r at the request of special interest groups will serve only to spawn more demands such as the recent Round Pond incident. Regardless of one's opinion in that situation, it was the result of conflicting special interest groups. It is my opinion that the implementation of this or any other ruling concerning Glen Lake must be the result of a comprehensive land use plan rather than a piecemeal collection of special interest. Wayne A. Getman. Dear Mr. Borgos, I am writing to support the designation of the Glen Lake Wetlands as a critical environmental area. My husband and I cannot attend the Town Board meeting this Tuesday, August 22nd, my husband is currently at Fort Drum with the National Guard for two weeks duty, and I will be in Maine with my mother and daughter. My husband and I are residents of Glen Lake and believe the natural beauty and peace of the wetlands and this freshwater lake are facing extinction. The wetlands have been infringed upon over the years, causing environmental damage that may never be repaired. The Town of Queensbury must take action now to stop the destruction of this natural beauty nature has given us. We ask your support in designating the wetlands a critical environmental area at the Town Board meeting. Thank you. Sincerely yours, John and Dianne Brown. Town Supervisor. I am unable to attend this meeting of the designation of the wetland as a critical environmental area. Therefore I would like to express my opinion on this matter. -- I have been a land owner on Glen Lake for the past 35 years. My sons, my daughter, my grandsons all enjoyed it along with my wife and 1. We enjoyed it along with everybody else who lives on or around the Glen Lake region. We have here an area of clean air and uncontaminated waters. It is like a Shangrala or a Paradise to come to for rest and clean living. I along with all of said residents would like to maintain this atmosphere. Therefore / strongly oppose any zoning laws to permit commercial developments of any type that would put our area in jeopardy. I also see no advantage to commercialize our wetlands. To me this would be for financial purpose for the individual only. It certainly would be of no benefit for all of us in the Glen Lake region other than a catastrophe. In hopes that the above be taken in serious consideration, I remain yours truly, Peter J. Accardi, Jay Road, Glen Lake. Town Clerk noted that letter received from Mr. Whalen was read into record by Mr. Whalen. I reviewed the proposal for a critical environmental area around the Glen Lake wetlands with Pat Collard the Zoning Administrator and John Goralski the Planner. I have no problems with the creation of a CEA around the wetlands. My concern, however, is that this is not going to be sufficient to insure a clean lake. The lake is a drinking water source for 100 - 200 residences, as Michael O'Connor has formally stated. As a reservoir it deserves to have a certain level of protection. The wetlands provide a cleansing for the waters which flow through them, however, when that water gets to the lake it is polluted by chemicals from the roadway maintenance in winter and fertilizers used on lawns. There are people who have washing machines and dishwashers which discharge into the lake and as you are aware, many of the septic systems along the lake are antiquated. Lake degradation is further exasperated by siltation from development and recreational boating. . The Glen Lake Association had a r technical study done which indicates that the eutrophacation of the lake is becoming more J rapid. This study of the lake quality only refers to the wetlands in passing. The recommendations in the study start out with, "The problems that exist on Glen Lake are very real and very serious." It goes on to discuss the caring capacity of land and it's sensitivity. The recommendations focus in on what the Town and the lakeshore residents should be doing to insure water quality. Most of these recommendations such as an unbiased sanitary survey of each residence around 229 the lake, are not being followed. My problem with the Association's proposal to protect the wetlands is that it does little to protect water quality, if that is in fact the goal. If the Association in reality is concerned about the lake they should be requesting that there a 250 foot critical environmental area designation along the entire lakeshore from the mean high water mark. My property which is not on the lake is approximately l and J acres and it has a three bedroom home on it. This CEA proposal means that I will do a long environmental assessment form providing detailed information for certain projects on my lot. A t the same time the lake front residents who are on lots of 50 feet by 80 feet will not have to provide this information. This seems to be totally inconsistent with the intent of the protection association. Residents of Glen Lake are commenting more and more on the siltation In the lake and the increased weed growth. This is an indication of the accelerating eutrophication. My request to the Town Board is that you recognize the need for protection on the lake and hold the present application in abayance until you can set another public hearing on including the lake shore in this critical environmental area. My reasons for this request is that I feel certain that if the resolution before you is passed, the Association will not pursue any other protective measures. Furthermore, the technical study indicates that there are "real and serious problems." You al/ are aware of what happened on Saratoga Lake and Glen Lake is following the same ain be facing the Glen path. My feeling in this matter is that in a few years you will once ag Lake Association members, only they will be asking the Town to pay for a clean up of the lake. I resent that as a tax payer and a resident, when we have the opportunity now to do something about it. That is from Charlie York, Burch Road, Glen Lake. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Is that it? TOWN CLERK DOUGHER-That is it. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. Those letters all into the record now. Anyone else who wishes to speak? Any Board member wish to speak? COUNCILMAN MONTESI spoke on the probability of supplying water to the residents of Glen L ake. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Any other Board members who wish to talk about specifically the public hearing? Don't see any other. Any other member of the public? Last chance. MR. YORK-Town water sounds good but it's not going to stop the weed growth or the eutrophication of the lake. It's a symptom and it's not going to cure the disease. f COUNCILMAN MONTESI-My intent on explaining tonight was just that I had an audience from Glen Lake and l wanted people to know that we're involved in it. AIR. NICHOLSON-I've been listening to the water, it sounds like a good idea. But what about a sewer? I think we need sewer more than we do water. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We're hoping, I won't go too much outside this public hearing but we're hoping that once the Lake George proposal is approved and 1 really, truly believe that is going to be built in the not too distant future, then we can look at little lines coming off that. So that Glen Lake can come in and many other areas that want to need the service could come in. I think you're going to see that. I hope we do. MR. NICHOLSON-We had a questionnaire or someone come around a few years ago and they wanted to know what the people thought around Glen Lake. They gave us some kind of figure, I forgot what it was, it was high but, it would be worth it. They used our petition that they have up there in front of them, they used our list of names when they put the water in on Lake George Road. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We're looking for a substantial amount of it comes through for Lake George would greatly benefit everyone else because thathwould if be the main line on the pump stations. MR. NICHOLSON-The water would be nice but it doesn't help the pollution in Glen Lake. i SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Sewer would be very nice. MR. NICHOLSON-Sewer is the thing that we need. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Steve, I think the reason we didn't address the sewer first was because we know unless we can put this other package together, the cost to the people in Glen Lake would be way out of consideration even. So it's going to be a case of whether or not we can put this other package together before we can even think about sewers for you because the cost would be so very, very high. It's much cheaper to put in a water line than it is a sewer line and we did want you to have purer water to drink. 230 MR. O'CONNOR-On behalf of the Association I would like to thank the Board for their consideration Of our concern. I also maybe would like to use the form that Mr. Montesi did just to go a little bit astray. If I could pick up on just two comments. It's been spoken of before and I think it is a problem the fact that the State of New York has engineered a good portion of Route 9 to direct, dump directly into the inlet to the lake. If there is anyway that this Board can ask the State of New York to review that and maybe set up some type of filtration of that dumping and it probably would be one step more towards helping us. Secondly I saw in the paper the other day that Dan Olson has as part of his budget request asked the Counng on ty to approve some funding which would also allow him to do more extensive water testi Glen Lake and we would welcome that if it's possible and ask this Board and yourself n support that. I've asked other members of the Association maybe to speak to others who are County Board of Supervisors to also ask them to support that a on the nd maybe we can go a little further in that area as well. We realize there are a/ot of things to do. I wasn't go or I wasn't trying to make light of it, saying that this is step one. I thank you for facetious COUNCILMAN MONA HA N-Mike while your up I'd like to ask you a question. Is the Glen Lake Association doing anything to educate the residences around there about the problems they're creating if they use fertilizer on their lawns? What you're doing actually is fertilizing the lake and fertilizing the weeds there when you start to fertilize your lawn. MR. O'CONNOR-1 think we've talked about it among ourselves at meetings and we have tried to get something put together. We've got a bunch of areas that we'd like to get the members actively involved in, that being one. We really want to get into septic testing and we've got ...from Dan Olson at the County's expense, I think with Mr. Borgos's assistance and some of the other supervisors, and they're trying to get into that on a voluntary basis and do that also. COUNCILMAN MONA HA N-People tend to say that septic systems as being the only culprit and I think they need to realize that is only a small part of the whole problem. MR. O'CONNOR-Anything that goes into the lake that's not from the sky, I think is a problem. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes and maybe not from the sky necessarily... MR. O'CONNOR-Well that I can't control. MR. FITZGERALD-I'd just like to make sure that we understand that we don't have any objection to step one, as long as step one and step x happen concurrently. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Interesting point. Thank you. Seeing no other hands, I'll call this public hearing to a conclusion. (letters received after time of public hearing - on file) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Board members agreed to take no action now but at the next Regular Board meeting passing a resolution setting a public hearing to consider designating the entire lakeshore of Glen Lake. OPEN FORUM ELEANOR BACKON, 331 Ridge Street-Would like to petition the Board to grant on extension of time for the sewer hookup on four of her properties which are presently vacant and for sale, until which time they are sold. Noted that the property in question is 200 feet back. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-We would need to get specific and look at 331 Ridge Street and find out when they were allowed to hookup and if she is back 200 feet, when her time clock runs out and at that point can we give an extension. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Requested Kathleen Kathe to contact Mrs. Backon next week with the information, what the legislation says, where her properties are and then we can get an answer as to whether we can do it without amending the entire legislation and if this is the right body to give your request to. MR. BACKON-The properties that I'm concerned with are 333, 335, 337 and 339. My property, 331 Ridge Road, I will hook up. OPEN FORUM CLOSED RESOLUTIONS t RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MINUTES _RE_SOLUTION NO. 457, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by C:eorge Kurosaka. 18-ISdmt' ,rhotatnt-rrdwtrgb q or the Tagp,of Queensburytherebya approve the Minutes of August.1411 dnd 1:7t�h.of..I9819. r _.. ._ ►t,r. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1989, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos yNoes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION ADOPTING OFTF_RMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF ROAN) DEDICATION _RESOLUTION NO. 458, introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Montesi. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering the acceptance of Dorlon Drive in the Baybridge Subdivision offered for dedication by Valente Builders, Inc., and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified to act as lead agency with respect to compliance with SEQRA which requires environmental review of certain actions uwiertaken by local governments, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is an unlisted action pursuant to the Rules and Regulations or the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, TIiEREFORE BE IT R/:SOLVF.D, that ilia Town Board, after considering the action proposed herein, reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form, reviewing the criteria contained in Section 617. 11, and thoroughly analyzing the project with respect to potential environmental concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and BE IT FURTHER RESOI_VF_D, that the Town Board hereby finds that the proposed responses inserted in Part 11 of the said Environmental Assessment Form are satisfactory and approved, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to complete and execute Part 111 of the said Environmental Assessment Form and to check the box thereon indicating that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and BE iT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the annexed Negative Declaration is hereby approved and the Town (Clerk) is hereby authorized and directed to file the some in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1989, by the following vote: Ayes: Air. Kurosaka, Airs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF DORLON DRIVE IN BAYBRIDGE SUBDIVISION _RESO_L UTIO_N NO. 459, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Betty Monahan. WHEREAS, Valente Buildings, Inc. has offered a deed to dedicate to the Town of Queensbury Dorlon Drive in the Baybridge Subdivision which is more particularly described in the survey rnop presented at this meeting and the original deed being presented to this meeting, and WHEREAS, Paul H. Naylor, Superintendent of Highways of the Town of Queensbury has advised that he has reviewed inspection reports concerning the construction of and specifications of the said road proposed to be dedicated to the Town of Queensbury and he has raised no objection to acceptance of the same, and WHEREAS, Thomas K. Flaherty, Superintendent of. Water of the Town of Queensbury, has advised that he has made an inspection of water mains and appurtenances along said road proposed for dedication and finds that the installation is in accordance with the requirements of the Town of Queensbury Water Department, and that said installation is approved, and WHEREAS, the form of the deed and title to the road offered for dedication have been reviewed and approved by Paul B. Dusek, Town Attorney for the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has considered the environmental effects of the proposed action by previous resolution and issued a negative declaration pursuant to the State Environmental Quality RevieW,:act, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED, that the aforementioned deed for dedication of the said road be and the some is hereby accepted and approved and that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause said deed to be recorded in the Warren County Clerk's Office after which said deed shall be properly filed and maintained in the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the road be hereby added to the official inventory of Town Highways, to be described as follows: Road Number: 464 Description: A loop road extending southerly form Baybridge Drive, a road previously accepted for dedication Name: Dohlon Drive Feet: 690 Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1989, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RETURN OF BID BONDS RESOLUTION NO. 460, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenza. RESOLVED, that al/ bid bonds for the State Police Building except for the two lowest bids on each contract be returned. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1989, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION REJECTING GENERAL CONTRACTING BIDS FOR STATE POLICE SATELLITE OFFICE RESOLUTION NO. 461, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Betty Monahan. WHEREAS, bids have been previously solicited and received for the construction of a building to house a State Police Satellite Office, and 233 WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury desires to reject those bids submitted for the contract proposed to be let for general construction and not take any action at this time with respect to the bids received for contracts proposed to be let for plumbing, heating, air-conditioning and ventilation and electrical contracts, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that, due to the fact that the bid amounts for general construction were higher than anticipated and, due to a desire of the said Town Board to redraft the specifications and bid separately for a panalized package building and erection of the same, the bids for the contracts to be let for general construction, only, are hereby rejected. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1989, by the following vote: `— Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT OF BIDS FOR NEW YORK STATE POLICE SATELLITE OFFICE RESOLUTION NO. 462, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption,,seconded by Marilyn Potenza. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of purchasing a panelized building package for the construction of a New York State Police Satellite Office and contracting for the erection of the same in accordance with the two sets of bidding documents presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 103 of the General Municipal Law, it is necessary to advertise for bids and award the said proposed contract and purchase to the lowest responsible bidders meeting New York State Statutory Requirements, and the requirements set forth in the bid documents presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that an advertisement for bids for the purchase of the said panelized building package and the contract for erection of the same be published in the official newspaper for the Town of Queensbury and that such advertisement indicate that bids will be received at the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, at any time, until, but not later than September 11 th, 1989, at 2:00 p.m., and that the bids will be publicly opened and read at 2:05 p.m., by the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, and such advertisement shall indicate that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall have the right, at its discretion, to reject all bids and re-advertise for new bids as provided by laws of the State of New York, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Miss Darleen M. Dougher, Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, is hereby authorized to open all bids received at the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, at 2:05 p.m., September 11th, 1989, read the some aloud, and make record of the some as is customarily done, and present the bids to the next regular or special meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1989, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION RATIFYING SUPERVISOR'S SIGNATURE RESOLUTION NO. 463, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved fOr its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenza. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, on behalf of the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, is desirous of commencing work on the installation of the transmission main on Ridge Road, and 234 WHEREAS, it is necessary to obtain a permit from the New York State Department of Transportation in order to commence work, and WHEREAS, the Town Supervisor signed said permit and forwarded it to the Department of Transportation, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby ratifies the Supervisor's signature, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized to sign any and all future permits, contracts and bills in connection with the installation of this transmission main. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1989,"by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION AND FINAL ORDER ESTABLISHING QUEENSBURY WATER DISTRICT- BEDFORD CLOSE -SECTION NO. 6 RESOLUTION NO. 464, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Montesi. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of establishing an extension to the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, and WHEREAS, a map, plan and report has been prepared regarding the said extension of the existing Queensbury Consolidated Water District, such extension to serve an area to the north of Corinth road, and to the east of West Mountain Road, near a high density residential development known as Bedford Close, such area consisting of approximately 18.27 acres and being a further development of said Bedford Close Subdivision, and WHEREAS, the proposed water district extension will include a portion of Bedford Close known as Section No. 6 that is not located in the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, and WHEREAS, the map, plan and report have been filed in the Town Clerk's Office in the Town and are available for public inspection, and WHEREAS, the map, plan and report were prepared by Kestner Engineers, P.C., One Kestner Lane, Troy, New York 12180, a competent engineering firm, licensed by the State of New York, showing the boundaries of the proposed extension of the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, and a general plan of the water system, and a report of the proposed water system and method of operation, and WHEREAS, the map shows the water mains, gate valves, and hydrants, together with the location and a general description of all public works existing or required, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury held a public hearing on July 11, 1989 concerning the establishment of said water district extension at which time all persons interested were afforded an opportunity to be heard, and WHEREAS, notice of such public hearing was duly published and posted as required by law, and posted as required bylaw, and WHEREAS, the said Town Board has considered the establishment of said district extension in accordance with the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review act and has adopted a negative declaration concerning environmental impacts, and WHEREAS, after said public hearing and consideration of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, the said Town Board duly adopted a resolution on the 11th day of July, 1989, determining to create said district extension, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury has reported that petitions requesting a referendum have not been filed, and WHEREAS, the State Comptroller approval is not necessary, NOW, THEREFORE IT IS RESOL VED, that it is the final determination of.the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, that 1) notice of said public hearing was published and posted as required by law and is otherwise sufficient, 2) it is in the public interest to establish, authorize, and aprove Consolidated Water District - Bedford Close Extension as the same has beentdescribed inury the map, plan and report on file with the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury and as more specifically described herein; 3) all property, property owners, and interested pers ons within property owners benefited are included said extension are benefited thereby; 4) all property and in said extension; and 5)pursuant to Section 206.a of the Town Law of the State of New York, it is in the public interest to assess all expenses of the district, including all extensions heretofore or hereafter established as a charge against the entire area of the district as extended and it is in the public interest to extend the district only if all expenses of the district shall be assessed against the entire district as extended, and IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that: 1. The Queensbury Consolidated Water District - Bedford Close Extension be and the same is hereby authorized, approved and established in accordance with the boundaries and and descriptions set forth in the previously described map, plan and report, and construction of the improvement may proceed and service provided and subject to the following: a) the obtaining of necessary permits or approvals from the New York State Department of Health; b) the obtaining of the necessary permits from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; 2. The boundaries of the extension of the Queensbury Consolidated Water District are as follows: f BEGINNING at a point where the North East corner of the Bedford Close Water District I( intersects the existing line of the Queensbury Consolidated Water District on the North side of Corinth Road. Said point beginning N77°-22'-40"W; 205.83' from the intersection with the North right-of-way line of Corinth Road; Thence running S42°-50'-20"W; 293.31' to a point; Thence S420-50'-20"W, 798.75' to a point; Thence S430-21'-50"W; 701.09' to a point; Thence N800-26'-49"W; 770.38' to a point; Thence N040-08'-30"W; 207.39' to a point; Thence N840-28'-70"W, 59.51' to a poin t; Thence N050-181-20"E; 92.35' to a point; Thence N770-27'-20 11W; 89.05' to a point; Thence N000-04'-50 11W; 125.00' to a point; Thence N770-21'-20"W; 22.00' to a point; Thence N12°-42'-10"E; 97.56' to a point; Thence N350-58'-29"E; 230. 10' to a point; Thence N060-34'-20"E; 317.25' to a point; Thence S77°-00'-10"E; 387.59' to a point; Thence S 120-59'-50"W; 269.30' to a point, Thence S77°-22'-40"E; 244.83' to a point; Thence S 12°-37'-20"W; 197.97' to a point; Thence S770-22'-40"E; 648.57' to the point of beginning and containing 18.27 acres; 3. The improvements proposed are generally water distribution facilities for the above described parcel, said improvements to include water mains, gate valves and hydrants and said improvements are more fully set forth in the map, plan and report on file with the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury; 4. All proposed new water mains and appurtenances shall be installed by the subdivision developer and turned over to the Town of Queensbury; 236 5. All proposed water mains and appurtenances shall be installed in full accordance with the Town of Queensbury specifications anr.'r..-•r'irances and in accordance with approved plans and specifications and under competent engineering supervision; 6. The maximum amount proposed to be expanded for the said improvement is estimated to be $176,500.00; 7. The method of apportioning the costs is such that the developer of area where the water district will be situated will pay the costs of installing the watermains and appurtenances necessary to be installed in the district, and the developer will pay all engineering costs associated with the engineering of the map, plan and report; 8. There will be no financing of the establishment of the water improvements and district by the Town of Queensbury or the Queensbury Consolidated Water District. The developer will contribute toward existing debt of the consolidated water district as herein set forth 9. The map, plan and report describing the improvements are on file in the Town Clerk's Office, for public inspection, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. that a certified copy of this resolution and order be further filed and reworded in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Warren; 2. that the Town Clerk, as required by law, file a certificate with the Clerk of the County of Warren that no petitions for ref&rendum have been filed, 3. that any other filings of this resolution mandated by law be completed by the Town Attorney's Office, and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED, that a consolidated assessment bill shall be prepared for next year in which assessments are levied against the extended district, 07d BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED, that this Order is a Final Order and shall take effect immediately. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1989, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: Mr. Kurosaka RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS _R_ESOLUTION NO. 465, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Kurosaka. WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Dog Control Officer wishes to transfer funds because of the need to replace the engine in the Town of Queensbury Dog Control Van, and WHEREAS, sufficient funds do no exist in the Miscellaneous Contractual Fund, Account No. A 18353510440 for the replacement of said engine, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, to transfer $1,000.00 from the Dog Control Officer, PT Fund, Account No. A 1853510165 to the Miscellaneous Contractual Fund, Account No. A 1853510440 to cover the cost of replacing the engine in the Town of Queensbury Dog Control Van. ' Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1989, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None 237 Absent: None RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS RESOLUTION NO. 466, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Kurosaka. WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Building and Grounds Department wishes to transfer funds because of the need to repair the telephone system at the Town of Queensbury Office Building, and WHEREAS, sufficient funds do not exist in the TOB, Phone Repairs Fund, Account No. A 1451622467 for the repair of said system, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, to transfer $1,737.20 from the Contingent Account No. A2351990440 to the TOB Phone Repairs Fund, Account No. A 1451622467 to cover the cost of repairing the Town of Queensbury telephone system. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1989, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS RESOLUTION NO. 467, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Kurosaka. WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 436, 1989, dated August 8, 1989, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury resolved to transfer $4,000.00 from the Service Contracts and Warranties Fund, Account No. A 1451622.406, to the Office Equipment Account No. A 1451627.201, and WHEREAS, said transfer request was incorrect, in that the account numbers were reversed, and WHEREAS, the Building and Grounds Department still wishes to transfer funds, as sufficient funds do not exist in the Service Contracts and Warranties Fund, Account No. A 1451622.406, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED, to transfer $4,000.00 from the Office Equipment Fund, Account No. A 1451627.201, to the Service Contracts & Warranties Fund, Account No. A 1451622.406, and resolution no. 436, 1989 is hereby rescinded. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1989, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 468, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Montesi. RESOL VED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby move into Executive Session to discuss Land Acquisition, Litigation and Professional Services. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1989, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None 238 RESOLUTION TO ENTER REGULAR SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 469, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Kurosaka. RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourn from Executive Session and enter into Regular Session of the Town Board. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1989, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos i Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF CENTRAL QUEENSBURY QUAKER ROAD SEWER DISTRICT WITH GLENS FALLS BALLET CENTER RESOLUTION NO. 470, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Kurosaka WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has heretofore established a Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District, and WHEREAS, there is certain property owned by the Glens Falls Ballet Center, situated on Bay Road, in the Town of Queensbury, and further identified as that parcel appearing in Section 61, Block 1, Parcel 41. 1, on the Warren County Tax Map, which is adjacent to, but outside the northern boundary of the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District, and WHEREAS, Dr. Gary D. and Carlene J. Poster have petitioned the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury to permit a sewer lateral connection from the property upon which the Ballet Center Is located to the service pipes of the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, on behalf of the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District, has considered the request and has determined that it would be appropriate to enter into a contractual agreement with the Glens Falls Ballet Center, and WHEREAS, a proposed Agreement has been presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Law, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, on behalf of the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District, may enter into contracts to provide sewage service, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves and authorizes the Agreement presented at this meeting and hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Town of Queensbury and to place the corporate seal thereon and do such other acts as may be necessary to finalize the Agreement and provide sewage service to the Glens Falls Ballet Center. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1989, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION APPOINTING PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 471, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Kurosaka. WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury desires pursuant to Town Law to create the position of Principal Account Clerk in the Accounting Department of the Town of Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT '4_1'3 9 RESOL VED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby creates the position of Principal Account Clerk, and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby appoints Kathleen DuBois as a provisional Principal Account Clerk with a salary to be equivalent to that of $18,500.00 per year, and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED, that the salary shall be paid from the Payroll Account for the Accounting Department. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1989, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION RETAINING THE SERVICES OF THE SEAR BROWN GROUP, INC. RESOLUTION NO. 472, Introduced by Marilyn Potenzo, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Montesi. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is ldesirous of retaining the engineering services of the Sear Brown Group, Inc. in connection with the replacement of the Quaker Road waterline from Star Route 9 to East of Route 9L in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Sear Brown Group, Inc. has indicated that it would provide said engineering services for the sum of $70,000, and WHEREAS, a proposed written contract between the Town of Queensbury and Sear Brown Group, Inc. has presented at this meeting, which contract provides for professional engineering services and which contract has been approved by the Town Attorney, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby retains the services of the Sear Brown Group, Inc., for the purpose of replacing the waterline along Route 9, at an amount not to exceed $70,000, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury be and hereby is authorized to contract with Sear Brown Group, Inc., for the services provided herein, and the Supervisor is hereby directed to execute the contract on behalf of the Town and a copy of such contract, duly executed, shall be filed with the Town Clerk, and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED, that the services be paid for by funds to be acquired through a Bond Anticipation No te. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1989, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None On motion, the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK TOWN OF QUEENSBUR Y