The URL can be used to link to this page

1993-02-02 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 2, 1993 7:00 P.M. MTG#12 RES#1l2 TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Supervisor Michel Brandt Councilman Pliney Tucker Councilman Nick Caimano Councilman Susan Goetz Councilman Betty Monahan TOWN OFFICIALS Jim Martin, Scott Harlicker, Harry Hansen REPRESENT A TIVES FOR HUDSON POINTE PUD Attorney Michael O'Connor, Alan Oppenheim, Rob Sutherland WORKSHOP HELD REGARDING HUDSON POINTE PUD Supervisor Brandt-This is slated as a workshop on Hudson Pointe. Jim, do you want to lead this? Mr. Martin-Yeah. As, I understand the purpose of the meeting tonight is to have the Board go through any outstanding issues they see prior to actually getting into the Environmental Assessment. The end of the public hearing last week it was such a late hour we really couldn't get into most of the discussion so that's the reason why we came back tonight. I think the best thing to do if we could pick up where we left off last week and see what the concerns are of the Board. If we can attempt to undertake the environmental assessment or at least get in position to do so. Supervisor Brandt-Anyone on the Board that wants to lead off? Councilman Caimano-We started on the conversation regarding a couple of things and maybe we should get zeroed in on them. One of the things we were talking about was the ownership on the bluff because of our concerns. There was some discussion about the fact that there maybe an alternative to having each lot owner own the property on the top of the bluff. Another thing was brought up and we talked about and really kind of goes hand in hand with that was three acre zoning. Mrs. Monahan, also talked about electromagnetic.. . Mr. Martin-I have some information to report on that. Councilman Monahan-Excuse me Jim, could we just make the list first and then go back to each one. Mr. Martin-Okay. We have the bluffs and the three acre zoning. Councilman Caimano- The isolation of critical archeological areas from any ownership of land. Supervisor Brandt-I think we said that there seemed to be a consensus developing that ninety something acre parcel that was detached was not seen as a major obstacle. Basically that seemed to be the consensus. Councilman Tucker-The ninety four acres on the side of the mountain your talking about? Supervisor Brandt -Yeah. Delete that from the project it doesn't seem to be a major stumbling block. Councilman Tucker-No. Supervisor Brandt-There was a lot of discussion about the Kamer Blue, but it was my understanding the Kamer Blue would be studied again at any rate and that appropriate measures would have to be taken for whatever was found. Councilman Caimano- There seemed to be just as much mitigation as there was concern over the Kamer Blue. Councilman Monahan-I think it was not only the Kamer Blue, but some other species that might be in there. Councilman Caimano-But, there seemed to be mitigation because of it. Councilman Monahan-But, that mitigation would have to be written into a SEQRA. Councilman Caimano-Sure. Supervisor Brandt-Right. Councilman Monahan- I also have the concern Jim of where the change of the McDonald subdivision fits into this timing. I've gotten some letters that aren't to happy with the traffic patterns that have been developed. I'm sure that you've gotten copies in your office too. Councilman Caimano- Traffic seemed to be low on the list though. Councilman Monahan-It's very low, but since it's been brought up we do have to address it. Councilman Caimano-I think a very broad issue and I address this to you Paul is just exactly what we have to do now? It seems as if in the reading of the PUD that there are actually two steps if we wanted to take them. One is to consent to this being a PUD with certain stipulations. One of those stipulations being the passing of the SEQRA on a negative DEC or absent that an EIS, am I correct on that? Attorney Dusek-I think that's a pretty accurate statement except that I would just say the SEQRA part of it would be done first and then you do the PUD. Councilman Caimano-Is it necessary? Attorney Dusek-Absolutely. Councilman Caimano-Don't misunderstand my question. I know the SEQRA is necessary. For this Board to say that it consents to a PUD designation of this particular piece of development prior to isn't that a possibility? Attorney Dusek-I would recommend against it. Councilman Caimano-It's a possibility, but you recommend against it? Attorney Dusek-The way the laws are structures is that the SEQRA analysis, maybe it's a difference in terms. The initial thing that's before the board right now is whether really the project has no environmental impacts or may have a positive declaration. After you've made that determination your course of action will be determined by that determination. If you say for instance, the project has no significant impacts then you would move on to the PUD the conditioning and voting on whether your going to grant or not grant that PUD status to this project. If, however, you were to determine that the project warrants a positive declaration then you would not proceed at all to the PUD part of it until you have finished an environmental impact statement which is a process in and of itself to complete. I might add, I think the Board when your going through and identifying these areas your actually doing a part of SEQRA. If I may, I can just outline for you that phase. What your up against here in terms of SEQRA is that your very early in the stages. The project as you know has been declared to be a Type I. A Type I, action means that it's more than likely that a impact statement may be required. However, it doesn't mean one has to be required, but it elevates it's status from that of an unlisted action. You have been named lead agency so your the agency responsible now to consider all of the comments including those furnished to you by the other agencies. As you consider the comments from the other agencies all the materials that were furnished to you by the developer as well as the comments that came from the public. When you had the public hearing your going to be doing what the courts call taking a hard look at this thing in terms of it's environmental effects. Just to go over some of the things that they traditionally, courts have identified what you must do. They have indicated that you first must identify the areas of relevant environmental concern. You are already doing that by identifying these different areas. Then once you do that you have to take a hard look, you investigate as much as you think is necessary. You examine whatever documents you deem necessary. Not only do you examine the documents for content you examine them for accuracy as well, whether you feel comfortable with the information that has been provided. You should look at all of the evidence, if you will that's been presented before you and determine whether there is enough or not enough, whether you need more information. After you've done all of that and sized this thing up you will then start to get a feel, first of all whether you feel you have enough information to make a decision on a negative or positive dee, that's the first threshold that you would reach. If you feel you have enough information then comes the second big test and that is if it should be given a negative or a positive dec what you want to do is analysis each one of those areas. The courts require that you have a reason elaboration, as they put it of the basis, why you feel each one of those items would be not significant or warrant a negative declaration. I'll give you an example, there is examples on both sides of the fence this one just happened to be somewhat interesting, I thought. There was an authority case, but they were looking at doing a project. The authority took a look at the impact on the soil stabilization phase of the project and the drilling of wells and what not. They looked at is as how it would compare to the aquifer, wetlands, and the lake. They looked at the studies of documentation, they looked at the EAF, looked at everything and came to the conclusion that the soil stabilization including the drilling would not introduce contaminants into the aquifer or the lake. They also noted that there was mitigation that even if there was going to be an impact by the project alone the mitigation efforts warranted a negative declaration. They also looked at additional information that had been furnished in this case because it was a law suit as you might had guess, that's why I was reading it. The petitioners that had started the law suit had furnished the board information and they had looked at that as well and considered that. The authority had furnished the supplementary documents and they had looked at all of this information. After that they had concluded that it would be mitigation measures accounted that it should be warranted a negative dec. Now, I can also go through another example were a project did not warrant a negative dee, but as you can imagine it just basically, it just really turns on that information and whether or not you feel there may be an impact. Not that there has to be, but there may be one and you feel that you need more study and information. That's what an impact statement is designed to do, give you information, give you alternatives, let you decide whether or not it's necessary, but that's where your trying to get to. I think you've already done a good start getting off on naming the items and your going to want to evaluate each one of those items with the help of Jim, of course, and any other information you may need from any other member the public or the developer's team. Councilman Monahan-Jim, I would also say that the letter from DEC has to be addressed. There are several points that they bring out, if you remember that did us in on Earltown. Mr. Martin-Yes. Councilman Monahan-I don't have the minutes from that meeting with me so I'm not sure if we covered everything the general public has raised or not in our list here they all have to be addressed. Supervisor Brandt-There is another issue that was addressed by the public which was the wildlife areas and traffic was brought up specifically. Councilman Tucker-My question is for Paul. If we determine a positive dec on this what are the requirements of the developer? Attorney Dusek-If you determine a positive declaration which means you feel there may be an environmental impact the next step in the process would be to schedule a scoping session. The scoping session is designed to identify those areas that you feel the developer must provide further information by way of an environmental impact statement. It could be one or all the areas that you identify in your listing. It doesn't have to be all, it just has to be the ones that you feel are the ones that should be addressed in such a statement. Obviously other agencies and members of the public will ultimately have an input in that as well. But, the very next stage should you determine it would be to simply sit down and say, okay what areas are you going to discuss, provide technological data, what areas area, we going to go to a public hearing on the environment, does that answer? Councilman Goetz-If we required a full EIS where would that fall in the sequence? Attorney Dusek-If that were required, as I mentioned the first thing you make that determination. The second thing you go through the scoping session. Then the developer goes back and creates the document and present it to the board whenever it's ready. The board will review it for completeness in accordance with the SEQRA regulations. Of course, at that point I would be helping you with that part of the process, Jim as well and any other consultants that you would feel appropriate. Councilman Monahan-Doesn't that also set another round of public hearings that the public has an input once the applicant comes in with their information? It would be open to the public we have to do another public hearing, comment period etc? Attorney Dusek-Part of the process if you did go that route would entail a public hearing and a comment period, that is correct. Supervisor brandt-There again, we handle all of that as a Town Board? Attorney Dusek -Correct. Councilman Monahan-Jim was there also a question brought up, I'm trying to think about the land around the mouth of the Clendon Brook the sensitivity of that area? Mr. Martin-I believe that is probably what Mike was referring to the wildlife area. The other major issue seemed to be the soils and the capability to deal with the septic and the erosive quality of the soils. Councilman Caimano-Although that kind of ties back into the original thing about the bluffs. Councilman Monahan-Except, I think some of this information I've been reading from people are not calling just the soils on the bluff sensitive they are calling the soils on a lot of the project sensitive. Supervisor Brandt-High percolation rates was the issue. Councilman Caimano- The builder says that. He is mitigating it by introducing different soils to mix into the... Councilman Monahan-As far as the septic systems. But, I think also as far as damage to the soils during construction a different type of thing because of the fertility of the soils. Supervisor Brandt-Okay, how do you want to proceed? We've identified areas of concern why don't we take one at a time and see what we want to do with them if we think there is enough information or if there isn't. Councilman Caimano-Actually there are two things. One came up last week and Betty has brought this up from time to time and that's the use of an outside consultant. There is a shortcut to this whole process and that's the Town would spend some amount of money turn over all we've seen to an outside consultant. Give that consultant a deadline and say, report back to us so that we can absorb all that and make a decision. Absent that there are couple of things that are already here, I'm hoping Betty will look at it this way preclude having to use an outside consultant on this small a project. A couple of things, I can think of are the issues of the ownership of the bluff and the three acre zones. If, in fact the developer can see his way clear to having a financially successful project by changing those around then there is a possibility that we can keep moving forward. That's my own thought, I don't know if that's so. If we can get those out of the way an EMF out of the way, I think the other things we can handle here by ourselfs. Councilman Monahan-I think you've picked on the two most critical points facing us. Supervisor Brandt -Do you guys want to address any of this? Your starting to see our concerns. I think certainly we all agree the point with the three acre zoning and the bluff stabilization. We're talking about erosion concerns, we're talking about the disturbance of any of the area on those bluffs. I think it came up as how do we prevent people from cutting trees. How do we prevent people from building staircases down to the water. How do we define something that properly addresses that so that it's enforceable and workable. Councilman Caimano-Mr. Supervisor, maybe we ought to do something else too, and that is to set some ground rules for this thing. As we all well know the public hearing is over and it's our responsibility to ask question from people and all people will be asked questions. We're not looking at one side verses the other. Supervisor Brandt-Right. Michael O'Connor- I'm Michael O'Connor from Little and O'Connor. With me is Alan Oppenheim and that's Rob Sutherland part of the developing team. We did attend the public hearing listened to the comments and had considered the comments and think that many of the comments warrant some serious consideration not just listened to and passed on. Your in inter process is a little unique because we are here in the first instance looking for something that's discretionary we're asking for a PUD determination. If you look at the PUD regulations you'll see that you can either approve as is, deny or approve with conditions. You have really the tools before you to address the concerns that were raised. Our...orders are to see if we can also address those concerns with you not to make this an adversary proceeding of us against neighbors, neighbors against us. We have amended our submittal by asking to withdrawal the ninety four acres. We can amend our submittal in other areas which I think the board will find satisfactory. But, we have to know someplace along the line where the ball stops bouncing to some degree, there is a bottom line. I think Mr. Caimano touched on it briefly by saying, can they do this and still see that this would be a successful project that is the bottom line that we have. This is a stand alone project it doesn't fall within the rate structure...specifically in regard to the letter to the editor of Niagara Mohawk. It has to be a project that can stand on it's own. It's own merits, it's cost, it's own expensive, it's own income flow. The changes that you are suggesting are changes that would greatly reduce the scope of our project. They are very serious changes, I think if I understand what is being suggested. I say that specifically because Paul and I talked about... where there was a question about changing your application and whether you were changing your application simply to circumvent SEQRA or not. There was no change of scope we changed the density along the bluff area as, I think Mrs. Robinson and a couple of other speakers suggested the other night. We are changing the scope of this project significantly even if we change the ownership of those bluffs. I take the position that we're changing the scope significantly. We talked about it and with an idea that we would try and put forth something that would be acceptable. We've got a couple suggestions for conditions that you could impose upon your PUD destination. Those conditions, I think you are entitled to consider when your making your SEQRA determinations. Supervisor Brandt -Your saying rather than change the submittal your suggesting that we might make these conditions so it's not a change of scope it's just conditions that we impose. Am I understanding that correctly? Mr. O'Connor-No. This is a way of you seeing that they are enforceable by making them actual conditions of the project. The area of the bluff the point if you will, I think our rendering on our plans we've shown sixteen one acre lots this was an area of great concern to everybody. The ownership that we showed that ran down to the waters actually right through the river we would be amiable to a provision or condition that the bluffs themselves should not be included within the individual lots and must be owned by the homeowners association. I've written some of this up if you want to, I'll submit it to you. The bluffs we've addressed in paragraphs one through four, I think. I'm not trying to have to read the front part of this I'm just trying to get you to where we're talking about. That area that points to where we show some residential lots we would be willing to reconfigure that. We would ask that the reconfiguration allow us to consider the whole land mass of the area that's shown develop two lots....we would then create only that number of lots which dividing that land mass by three to get us back to the three acre zone it would allow. We've done a preliminary on it and it looks like instead of sixteen we would be able to do eight lots. basically we've done that in the preliminary phase. What we're talking about for the public's purpose is this area here which is the sensitive area out on the point which is above the bluffs. We have sixteen lots shown there and we would make a one side service road we would end up with eight lots in there they would be the prime lots, at least from my point of view as to the whole subdivision. It changes significantly the scope, but it makes the density much greater, much less in the sensitive areas that many people spoke of and they spoke of the three acre zone that should be preserved. Councilman Monahan-Mike, would you leave that road where it is or where would you configure that road? Mr. O'Connor-The road would be moved more to the northeast. It would be setback fifty feet from the top of this bluff, actually fifty feet from the buffer zone at the top of that bluff? Mr. Sutherland-We haven't worked it to that point. But, it would be a minimum of fifty feet from the top of the bluff. Councilman Monahan-But, you have to worry about your stormwater management as far as runoff on a road in a sensitive area like that. Mr. O'Connor-We're keeping it back anyway fifty feet from the top of the bluff. If you had to do something to convert the water going the other way you would convert it going the other way. Councilman Monahan-The building lots would be on just one side of the road then? Mr. O'Connor-Yes. That's something we would be agreeable to. The one acre lots along this area people spoke of. I guess one area in here, also I'll just mention there is an archeological site that would be removed from that lot it would not be within the lot ownership of the homeowners association. Any of the archeological sites there that are eligible for registration in the national registration whatever it is will be removed from the individual lots. That would require the reconfiguration of a couple of these lots here. I'm not sure not, we aren't sure yet, whether we would lose a lot by doing that. Councilman Monahan-Mike, there has been some talk and I'm not talking about step one, step two, that type of thing, but not enough area of that land has been investigated enough archaeologically. Mr. O'Connor-All the area that we are developing has been investigated fully. Supervisor Brandt-I think the point was made archeological significance might be down in the lower wetlands down along closer to the river where Indians may have lived before the river was flooded. More likely they lived down there, I think that's what I heard from the public side. Mr. Oppenheim-The only thing down there is that in our development plan we are not proposing any type of use along that bluff area that would involve any excavation. We wouldn't be disturbing anything which I think is a key eliminate from the standpoint of archeological. Supervisor Brandt -So that is still preserved and your really not changing it. Mr. Oppenheim-That is part of our plan. Passive use on the bluff recreation, walking paths, picnic areas. Mr. O'Connor-The areas of the bluff within fifty feet adjacent to the bluff will still be subject to the enforceable conservation easement that is proposed. It would be enforceable by the Town, assigned to the Town, lot owners within the development and by the Homeowners Association. Supervisor Brandt-The Homeowners Association would not have the right to build anything on those bluffs? In otherwords no stairs, no nothing? Mr. O'Connor-The conservation easement would be strictly no disturb. Supervisor Brandt-Okay. Mr. O'Connor-Also no putting of pesticides or fertilizer it would be as is. Mr. Martin-What did Alan just mean then when he was talking about walking paths and that type of thing where would they be located? Mr. O'Connor-We confused the area. There is the existing roadway down to this point. We will allow the point to be used for passive recreation. I'm not sure Rob, is that the access that is proposed that existing roadway. Mr. Sutherland-Correct. Councilman Monahan-You would walk up the bluffs by way of that road that is there right now? Mr. Sutherland-Correct. Councilman Monahan-As more people use that walkway as we found in the National Park you have a problem from compaction and erosion. What steps would you propose so you wouldn't have that problem here? Supervisor Brandt-It's all ready a vehicle road. Councilman Monahan-Yeah, but it's not being used Mike that much right now. Mr. Oppenheim-I think if you went out there and walked, it has been used for vehicle purposes. Councilman Monahan-Your going to leave the blacktop there? I have been out there. Mr. Oppenheim-I think that we would come up with something that may be more aesthetically pleasing, but structurally it will be equally sound. Do we have our final plan for what is going to be in that narrow right-a-way, no. I am sure that we will work with the Town to come up with something that is going to be satisfactory . Mr. O'Connor-1 think the Planning Board could impose upon us whatever they thought we would be suitable.... Councilman Monahan-As I said, we got to make sure that we cover everything we need to do now. Mr. O'Connor-That might be a condition that you might want to put in your designation. That subject to the Planning Board addressing this issue during site plan review. You will see I have proposed something else as far as your input to the Planning Board as we go along here. We talked about the bluffs, we talked about the conservation easement, the ownership of the bluffs.... Supervisor Brandt-Archeological areas. Mr. O'Connor-The total density of the project we would ask to remain as submitted at one hundred sixty three residential units. But, the density that is in the WR-zone would be limited as we just discussed. Councilman Caimano-How are you going to pick that up? Mr. O'Connor-Possible we might pick it up. We may not pick it up we would just like that option when we actual do the actual engineering plans and what not. We will not pick up any additional lots here. We will have eight lots here and whatever else remains as we reconfigure these. Back in this area we are talking about possible picking.... Supervisor Brandt-Picking up eight lots back in there. Mr. O'Connor-Maybe nine, maybe ten. I don't know if we're going to lose one, Mr. Brandt when we take this site out and that site out. We would like to do that we're not saying we can it's going to be up to the Planning Board to take a look at and determine whether or not we disturb anything. We have a couple of areas say at the end of different areas that maybe you could get a lot out of, I don't know. Supervisor Brandt -You could test that and that would be site specific. Mr. O'Connor-The development of the lower point we've already talked about limiting the existing cottages. I saw one map a mobile home would be removed and access there would be by walking trails only, except for provisions of the handicapped. I put that in there specifically because I think we have to make provisions for occasional vehicles to go down there for handicapped people. I don't think you can exclude if you have it opened to your homeowners association. Recreation use would be passive, except we're talking perhaps picnic facilities maybe considered the existing cottage sites. These are sites that area already built on, constructed on down there. We're not talking about taking on anymore green area than what's there. Docks, if any would be limited to homeowners use, docks would require site plan approval. We're not talking about a marina we have no intentions of a marina of any nature and we may even be talking about just canoes. Councilman Caimano-As a matter of fact the legislation of a PUD, if we pass it we can write, that is there, correct? Mr. O'Connor-You can. There are some docks that are used, I think on a seasonal basis that have been used on a seasonal basis. Certainly that land would be developed on a seasonal basis even as a conventional subdivision with some docks. We don't have that type of frontage which people don't want to have some use of it. My actual thought of that if you had an area down there where we would encourage the use it would probably discourage people of trying to get their own way down to the water along the bluffs and other areas where you don't want them going across. Mr. Martin-Where specifically would the docks be located if there were to be docks? Mr. O'Connor-Where the existing campsites are. Mr. Oppenheim-You've got two existing camps... Supervisor Brandt -You've got two of them right? Mr. Oppenheim-Right, down in those areas. Again what we're talking about is seasonal type docks, really for canoes. Mr. Martin-Do you have any idea of what quantity or number? Mr. Oppenheim-If you want to limit it, I don't see us having more than two dock locations. It might only end up being just one, but, I think at this point we would like to retain the flexibility of having a dock locations where you have existing structures. Mr. Martin-So, two docks with two slips a piece? I just want to know? Councilman Monahan-We need a dimension. Supervisor Brandt-We talked about hand power boats we were concerned about motorized craft. I don't think anyone is going to get to excited about a three horse power motor, electric motor, in a boat. I think we're concerned about putting large motor boats on there. Mr. Martin-The reason why, I asked is if it's two slips or sixteen that is going to have an impact on the number of people going down to the point and the magnitude of the uses. Supervisor Brandt-As you get out on that point it gets pretty sensitive. Again, your getting into an area that floods and recedes according to high water table. Mr. O'Connor-1 think we could live with not more than two docks. Councilman Monahan-And size of the two docks. Mr. O'Connor-1 think the ordinance already has a limitation, Betty on docks. Councilman Monahan-How big? Mr. Martin-Forty feet long eight feet wide, I believe. Mr. O'Connor-That's a standard camp dock. Councilman Monahan-You know there is another thing that has occurred to me and that's jet skis and that type of thing. The noise of those the waves that they create the erosion they create. That's so sensitive, I think maybe we should write something in about it. Supervisor Brandt-I agree with you especially with the wildlife down there. Mr. Oppenheim-I agree with that. Councilman Caimano- Y ou agree with it and we all agree with it, but let's remember what we're doing here now we can't play god. If you put two docks there we can regulate what goes off of those docks and what gets owns by those docks. But there is no way we can regulate some clown coming up river with a boat and tying up there because there is a dock there, I don't know how we can do that, short of a shot gun. Supervisor Brandt -You can you do have the law between Saratoga County and Warren County to pass such a law, but boy it would be tough. That area already does have some large boats on it and what we're really doing is trying to restrict additional boats. I don't think we can stop someone from coming up, like you said. The law it can be done, but boy that would be a tough one to regulate. Councilman Caimano- Trying to catch air in a bottle. Once you allow docks there the rest of it is supposition and ouija board. Mr. O'Connor-You could put within the homeowners you could require that within the homeowners declaration members be prohibiting from launching from the site, whatever the proper terminology is. Councilman Monahan-There is an all inclusive term, isn't there? Councilman Tucker-Can I make a comment here. It seems to me that your trying to restrict things on this and you do not have control of only just a tiny bit of this river. Your on the upper end of about four miles of water that there is boats allover all the time. People do just about what they want out there if they want to ride jet skis they ride them. Councilman Monahan-That might be Pliney, but your bringing a concentrated amount of population into a small area. If you start in a very sensitive area like this bluff having a big concentration of every homeowner that's got kids, two jet skis, per family say, you can do a heck of a lot of damage plus a lot of noise and stuff and it's become a very much of a problem on a lot of lakes around. Councilman Tucker-I don't want to argue the point with you Betty. Along that river the density is just as much as it can be camps are all over the place. Councilman Monahan-Here is a chance where we have a chance to do something and maybe better the situation. I think we should take our responsibilities and take that. Supervisor Brandt-I think we've said it. Councilman Tucker-You can do it, but your going to have a tough time enforcing it. Councilman Monahan-That may be, but you make a stab. Mr. O'Connor-You talked about in your listing that you had your ownership of bluffs, your three acre zone, the isolation of the archeological area. The ninety four acre issue, I guess you've already addressed probably somewhere along the line we will have to formally address that. That you do not believe that it is a significant amendment or change as the proposal require any further action. The Kamer Blue we were told that to date there has been no data...presented showing the site to be the habitat of endanger species of wildlife or plant. I think it is a fair statement for the documentation that has been presented to you even that of Mr. Koechlein. In his letter, I think he indicates that he would like to see a study, but he doesn't really say that he has any information that there is a Kamer Blue or Blue Lupine on the site. I think there is another letter by the department that is directly in charge of this issue that supersedes his letter by Laura Summers. However, there has been considerable correspondence and discussion concerning the survey that was made on the Blue Lupine and the Kamer Blue butterfly. The applicant shall cause a second survey to be made in the spring of 1993, at a time coordinated by the Zoning Administrator and Laura A. Summers, Senior Wildlife Biologist of DEC. The findings will be incorporated into site plan review with appropriate mitigation's. Supervisor Brandt-From my viewpoint, I think that covers it. Councilman Caimano-I don't know how much more you can do. Councilman Monahan-I have a little problem that you restrict it to just the Blue Lupine and the Kamer Blue butterfly because you really haven't done a good survey from any other species that are on the endangered or protected list. I think at the appropriate time of year you should so do that. Mr. O'Connor-1 think we have Betty as Rob can answer that better than I can. It is my understanding when you do one of these studies the first thing you do is the literature study to find out if there has ever been a registration of anything that should be looked for further. In this instance that study was included in the submittal that was submitted to the Board indicated that there were no findings. Mr. Sutherland-That's correct. We did in the correspondence to the planning staff suggest that...at a appropriate time in the spring. Councilman Monahan-Some of those you can only find in the spring. Councilman Caimano-It's hard for me to imagine that someone as much as an advocate as the Senior Wildlife Biologist for DEC would only look for those things which are on a list. I have to think because she is in that job she is going to be looking for every single thing. This is not a paid advocate of the applicant it's somebody who works for DEe. Councilman Monahan-Unless we require it they don't have to do it that's the whole point, Nick. Mr. O'Connor-If you want to broaden that language. Councilman Monahan-Maybe who knows the best of what's there is the people in the neighborhood. I found that out from other areas that I visited. Supervisor Brandt-Revisit the issue. Councilman Caimano-Sure. Supervisor Brandt-And look for another examination. Mr. O'Connor-Apparently and everybody has agreed they had an actual meeting with Laura Summers, the applicant. They also had a meeting with Mr. Koechlein, after Mr. Koechlein's letter. We agreed that we would do that. The other question you had specifically was the timing of change of the McDonald's subdivision. I would suggest that you condition your PUD determination with the condition that the developer simultaneously with the site plan submittal for phase one of the project should also submit an application to amend the McDonald subdivision and an application for road abandonment within the McDonald subdivision and for a portion of the Sherman Island Road. Everything would be looked at one time and come through at one time. Councilman Monahan-Jim there is something I would like to clear up. The McDonald subdivision that will be coming back in really as a new application because there is significant changes in that subdivision. I would say that subdivision now has to comply with all the regulations that are on the books right now that it's not grandfathered back in to when it first came in. Mr. O'Connor-1 disagree with you whole heartily. Councilman Monahan-The Zoning Administrator agrees with me. Mr. O'Connor-1 would like to have him visit this subject and think about it. Councilman Caimano-Say it again. Mr. O'Connor-What we're talking about is reconfiguring the road layout within the McDonald subdivision. How he loses any grandfather rights as to existing lots that are not affected by the road change would be beyond my imagination. Supervisor Brandt-Mine too. I think already he's going to lose some lots. I don't want to revisit that over this item. I think you've got to be complimented on what you've done and put together in working out what you have with him. I think it's good for everybody involved for the public out of that process. I don't want to go back in there and beat up on him over this application. I don't think that's reasonable or fair. Councilman Monahan-I think there is a legal question there Mike. It now becomes a new subdivision it's not a minor lot line change which you are allowed to do. Your making some major changes within that subdivision and therefore your losing those rights to grandfather and they have to comply with the zoning that's there today. Supervisor Brandt-I don't agree with you. I say if we make a determination and somebody see's it's wrong, prove it in court. Councilman Monahan-It's not our determination to make it's the zoning administrator. Supervisor Brandt-I think it is our determination. Councilman Monahan-No it's not. Supervisor Brandt-We're here doing it. We're the law let's do it. Mr. O'Connor-The whole issue of traffic here we attempted even before I was involved with the project to handle it differently by coming down Sherman Island Road and have a secondary access different than what we are presently using. We still have the strong feeling that it is the consensus of the neighborhood that is what they prefer. They are appreciative of the fact that we area eliminating the traffic that could possibly be generated from the McDonald subdivision in it's present form. They are appreciative of the fact we are eliminating the entire Niagara Mohawk traffic. To go back and revisit that by having a road block to be honest with you of utilizing the McDonald subdivision is contour to what we've been told is the feeling of the majority of the people who live there. I think I can work through with Mr. Martin and Mr. Dusek with whatever requirements we have. I really feel that we are talking about changing the road configuration. We are not talking about the..Jots that remain in the same configuration as the lots presently are. Some of them will have something added to them by nature of size. I think that about it and some will be eliminated because we're running a road through. Mr. Oppenheim-Again, we're going down from thirty three to twenty six lots. Mr. Martin-I just like some time to research that. I've gotten into trouble before already by responding off the cuff and I don't want to do that again. I at least leamed that much. Supervisor Brandt-That's a legal issue and look at it. From my viewpoint you responded to the request of the neighborhood and the request of this board in that issue already, I can't see making a new issue out of it. If it's a legal issue identify it as a legal issue and see how to get around it. But, from my viewpoint they've addressed the issue. Mr. O'Connor-You raised an issue on the wildlife area. We would specifically not have an objection to a position that the intrusion of a walking trail and bridges of drainage within the wetlands must be by wetlands permits and construction must be performed in accordance with conditions attached to such a permit and that was the area we were speaking of. The only intrusion we propose there is a walking trail with a bridge. Supervisor Brandt -Your suggestion is fairly good. I've walked that and there is a trail along that bluff and it's probably just from game deer and what have you and it's formed a little erosion pattern. For the most part it's pretty stable, but there are some places where it's very narrow and it would have to be made as a walkway to be stable. I think that's an important consideration otherwise you would have a stability problem there, I think. Councilman Goetz-In going back to the traffic in your print out here number nine, I have a question. Traffic plan as submitted is acceptable the development does not negatively impact upon Sherman Island Road. My question is on the next part and it's closure is not a condition of approval. Mr. O'Connor-Maybe it should be closure at the intersection of Corinth Road is not a condition of approval. Councilman Goetz-I don't understand that why wouldn't we? Mr. O'Connor-It's been suggested to you that you close Sherman Island at Corinth Road and have all of the traffic that exists on Sherman Island now exit through our development. Councilman Goetz-I think my question is not a condition of approval. Mr. O'Connor-I'm trying to be sure that your not requiring that Sherman Island be closed at it's connection with Corinth Road. Councilman Monahan-What your saying is that you don't want us to make that a condition of approval? Councilman Goetz-That's what I questioned. Mr. O'Connor-It's not properly worded? Councilman Goetz-I thought it was going to be a condition of the approval. Mr. O'Connor-There are two parts of Sherman Island Road that we are talking about. We are talking about closing Sherman Island Road here, it actually extends down so that they get to the Niagara Mohawk facilities down here. I don't know how much of that is town road, but apparently quite a bit of it is town road now. So, we're talking about closing this portion of Sherman Island Road. Mr. Brewer has suggested that you close Sherman Island Road some place up here and we object to that. Our feeling is that the neighbors who are involved with this don't want that. Supervisor Brandt-Many neighbors that live up in there desire that it be kept opened can it be closed? I think the legal process of closing a road everybody has got certain rights. I think it would be very hard to close a road if somebody objected to that. Attorney Dusek-It's not an easy thing to close a road. The Highway Superintendent is involved, the Town Board is involved. Usually what we do when we typically close a road it's been my advise to get releases from the affected property owners just to have it nice and clean. Now, whether or not you could go ahead and close in spite of that if you put another access, I can't say that it couldn't be done right now that may be possible. But, it's not the typical way that we handled them in the past. Usually we get releases from everybody involved and close it so we don't have any problem. Supervisor Brandt -You have to go through hearings if I remember right with the County the County Highway Superintendent has a say. Attorney Dusek-I don't think that's any longer required. Although, now I take that back a little bit because that does intersect the County roads. The County Highway Superintendent probably would have some say. Supervisor Brandt -You have to show that nobody has used it in a period of time or the release would do that. If somebody's been using it in the last year and they objected, I think they could stop you. Attorney Dusek-If it is a course of action the board would want to check out we would want to investigate it further. Supervisor Brandt-It would be very difficult my impression. Councilman Monahan-Paul, when you say get a release are you talking about just from adjoining property owners because a lot of people using that road wouldn't necessarily be adjoining property owners to it? Attorney Dusek-What we've done in the past, the one road that comes to mind there was a road down off of Western Avenue in Queensbury, Paul Street, I think is the name of it. That road was an example where we went up and down the street and got the releases from everybody who was adjoining property owners all the way around before the Town closed the road. It was our feeling if one person objected to it that could cause us some problems so we decided not to do that. Councilman Monahan-What, I'm trying to say is where you would be closing it the people affected wouldn't necessarily be the property owner adjoining the part that your closing. Attorney Dusek-Right, that puts another wrinkle into it. Councilman Monahan-You know what I'm trying to say. Attorney Dusek-That puts another wrinkle into it. Here again, I'm not going to report to give you an absolute legal answer that you can't close or you can close it tonight. I know it is going to be a bit of a procedure and it's something we would have to look into. It may turn out that you can't close it if there are to many objections. On the other hand it may if you provide another access that you can go ahead and force the issue, but I would want to check that out if the Board was interested in pursuing that as an option before you took action. Mr. O'Connor-This portion of Sherman Island Road so I don't confuse myself to here serves no one except the present developer. There are no private residences beyond this point. Councilman Monahan-Are people using that from that area up above? Mr. O'Connor-To go where Betty? Councilman Monahan-I don't know, I just asked you a question. Mr. O'Connor-There is no place to go. Councilman Tucker-It just goes down to a gate. Councilman Monahan-That just goes to Nimo. They can't get on to any other road from there? Mr. O'Connor-No. Supervisor Brandt-They trespass if they do and they do that, but it's a trespass. Councilman Monahan-That we don't have to worry about. Attorney Dusek-The latter part of the road that runs over Niagara Mohawk's property only that doesn't trouble me at all because they would in essence release the Town and it's not like your abandoning the rest of the road where several other people are affected. As, Mike points out as far as I know that road goes no where and I don't think that would be a legal problem. What might be a problem is to try and abandon the other way. Councilman Monahan-Right, the upper part. Mr. O'Connor-If you try to close up here you may have somebody in here object to it. Probably if your going to adopt this and with a condition you should end the first sentence after the word Sherman Island Road and eliminate the rest of that sentence. I admit that it's very confusing. The traffic pattern as shown is acceptable. The second sentence says, in fact it has a positive impact on Sherman Island Road. The next thing that you talked about maybe we handle in paragraphs eleven and twelve. You talked about the soil condition and it's erosion capacity. Besides preserving and putting aside use of the bluffs we're saying this is, I think probably a proper condition of your approval of your understanding of it that all drainage calculations, proposed drainage system, plans for stormwater management must be reviewed by an engineering consultant of the Town or to the Town at site plan review at the expensive of the developer and must be approved by the consultant. That is typically what happens anyway on a subdivision application with the Town. I wanted to put it in there specifically because people have raised it as possibly an issue. If you make it as a condition, I think you then remove that issue of.....with you on your SEQRA review. The same thing that all sanitary sewer designs must be review by an engineering consultant retained by the Town at site plan review at developers expense and must be approved by that consultant as well as other involved agencies. Councilman Tucker-I got a question on that. Why would a consultant have to look at that when the State of New York has the final say on whatever you do as far.... Mr. O'Connor-We've always done that Mr. Tucker. Councilman Tucker-I was just wondering. I mean it's New York State Health Department that says this is what you can do. Mr. Martin-I think the primary reason is that in certain instances there are several approved methods and in certain instances some methods may be more appropriate than others. I sat in meetings where I've seen engineers you have two methods that would solve the problem and just one has a preference over the other and at that point it's up to the Board. I was on the Planning Board, I think Nick recalls we had Tom Yarmowich and Jim Weller going the rounds on an approach to a drainage basin issue, each would of worked it just... Councilman Caimano- Weller won. Supervisor Brandt-What's being proposed here solves it for all of us. Mr. Martin-Right. In this case, I think your limited. You have sandy soils and the typical design is a modified system that's pretty much your only alternative. Councilman Monahan-I think for mitigation's to you should also put in that some soils may have to be, what the word I want to use Jim when you bring in other soils and mix them in? Mr. Martin-Modified. Councilman Monahan-Modified. Mr. O'Connor-Betty isn't that what your consultant is going to tell us. Councilman Monahan-Yeah, but, usually we put that in the mitigation. We went round and round on this in Inspiration Park and even one of their engineers told us we ought to put that in the mitigation and I think it should be there. Councilman Caimano- What difference does it make? It's going to be there if it's belts and suspenders it's belts and suspenders. Mr. Oppenheim-It's in every document that we've submitted. Councilman Monahan-I know. But, when you do your SEQRA your suppose to bring all that stuff together. Mr. Oppenheim-That's fine we know that's going to be done. Mr. O'Connor-The other issue that you didn't raised, but I thought of what my notes were from the public hearing your comment the other night was that the Town Board wanted to stay involved with the project and not simply give it hopefully a negative declaration, PUD designation and then be out of the project. This is probably unusually, but the developer has no objections to you adding a condition to your approval saying that the developer shall give final approval at the final stage and keep the Town Board apprized of all submittal to the Planning Board. If at any time the substance of those submittal is not in compliance with the intent or express conditions of the Town Board approval the Town Board reserves to itself the right to reconsider it's PUD's determination on notice of the developer and amend or further condition it's approval. There is also specifically a section within the PUD regulations that talks about any amendment or change. It specifically says that the Planning Board will also give you notice so your going to have two different parties giving you notice. We will keep you apprize of all submittal that we make you can look at them to see if they are in accordance with what you think your approval was. The Planning Board if they see that there is any change from what we have submitted or any....forms, or map forms they are required to give you notice if they are going to approve the change ahead of time. The other issue which I did not address in my notes here was the electronic magnetic fields. I would refer to the Board to what was submitted as part of the narrative form of the various booklets that I given to this board. Councilman Monahan-Mike, I've read it and I don't buy it according to research that has been done now. I think there has to be some precautions put into this. Mr. O'Connor-Basically what we had submitted was a policy statement by Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation and a review by the New York State Department of Health as to this subject, I believe their review was dated September, 1991. If you read the State's review you will see that they have no dimensional type requirements at this point as far as the subject matter. As of about five thirty or six o'clock tonight the operating department of Niagara Mohawk has indicated to us that they will give us a complete run down of the lines that we have in question and what measurements you will find at the edge of the right-a-way that's proposed to the developer. They take a company position that the right-a-way as designed on this line in this particular development throughout the Town and throughout the State so as to not impose a health hazard on anybody who is adjacent to that right-a-way. I don't know if we have any other information that is concrete that it is not in fact the truth. Mr. Oppenheim-To just add to that we have in our plan we've gone one step beyond that by adding a seventy-five foot buffer to the plan. That doesn't even account for a setback that the house is going to have from the rear or front lot line. Councilman Monahan-The setback really isn't important because children will be playing on those lands. Where those lands are in relation to the EMF field is important because children they have found are one of the most vulnerable to this field. Now, Jim has some information on that. Jim has also asked Nimo to furnish him some information. We are also collecting some more data from another person that I have found in the field also. Councilman Caimano-Can I just say something here. I certainly agree with Mrs. Monahan that this is an important item. There are two things that I think are floating around in my mind. Number one, of course, is anything that Nimo has to say about it might very well be self serving. I would tend to look at that with a grain of salt. But, absent that this is not the only place in the whole Town where Niagara Mohawk right -a- ways are going through. Whatever children are going to be endangered here are going to be endangered as a matter off act behind my neighborhood because I have a 345KB line that goes behind Heimick Circle. Let's just be wary of the fact that this we are not isolating all the world's EMF problems in this one little spot. We should solve the problems, we should help the problem, but this is not the only place that Nimo has power lines going through. Councilman Monahan-Nick, I entirely agree with you, but I'm looking at it from this standpoint. As your knowledge about certain things get greater as our knowledge about landfills get greater we wish we've taken advantage of some preventive measures we could take. Councilman Caimano- That's a good point. Councilman Monahan-If they were not building houses they are changing the use in there, you know there is no way anybody's going to say to Nimo, move lines that you already through developed areas because it's to expensive. But, the thing is now you try to be sensible and say, let's not do an exposure, again you don't want to be rabid about this and make an overkill type of thing. But you do the sensible precaution and that's the kind of information that were gathering and asking from Nimo. We're not asking them for anything to elaborate really. Mr. Martin-I think what Mike is getting at is the same thing I'm going to be getting. These fields are measured in what is called milligauff. Typically along the edge of the right-a-way it's twenty-five milligauffs is the reading you'll get. I don't know what it will be specifically here. But, it's been indicated by some experts in this field that you want to try and drop that reading down to one or two if you can. What, I'd like to know how quickly does this drop? Is the seventy-five feet sufficient where you can get it down into a preferred range or not? Mr. O'Connor-1 guess my point is that I'm not an expert on that either. I do know just from reading the Health Department Regulations they are talking about a new line. The new lines will have an interim magnetic field standards of two-hundred milligotes. That's the Public Service Commission of the State of New York current regulations for high tension power lines. If your saying you think the average reading is twenty five under the existing lines your well within those standards. I think it is something you can have a concern you can certainly say it is something that you wish to have the Planning Board address in it's site plan review and make it as strong as you want as to the extent to which they must address it. Then, I think you also at the same time have to do that with every subdivision of land going through the Town of Queensbury every site plan review that's going to take place in the Town of Queensbury. You may then be putting the Town of Queensbury into a different area than the whole State. Supervisor Brandt-I have a big problem with this. We're sitting here and saying that EMF is a bigger problem along these power lines than anywhere else. Probably the biggest problem with EMF is in the home next to the television set, us sitting here next to these danm things. Councilman Monahan-Actually a television set isn't that dangerous, I found out. Supervisor Brandt-There are a lot of things that are in the home where you use the electricity where you do expose people to EMF and a lot of it. Councilman Monahan-That's true and it's the amount of exposure and the length of time. What, I'm saying if what we know today which is very basic in this field if we knowingly expose this Town to risks that we don't need to we're subject to a great good lawsuit coming down the pike. Supervisor Brandt-I don't worry about it. Councilman Monahan-I know you don't Mike, I'm well aware of that. Supervisor Brandt-My god, it's not because I'm stupid. Councilman Monahan-No, it just that you have a lot of contempt for the law. Supervisor Brandt-Betty, I think you could be stupid in chasing something to the... degree. If your talking about EMF on power lines and ignoring EMF in homes then your really not looking at the problem. You can't just say, it's just the corridor. Address the corridor put some studies on it, but we aren't the Department of Health, Department of Energy. I think you could sit here and debate this till hell freezes over and you won't define it. You can have the best expert in the world argue about this and I don't think that's the big factor here. Councilman Monahan-I think precautions are a factor. I'm also a little bit concerned about the road layout that goes underneath these power lines so much. Councilman Caimano- The important thing is that what was said here at the table. That is the fact that the Planning Department can take whatever data that is available today apply it as we know it we certainly can't apply standards we don't know. Councilman Monahan-That's right and we should only apply minimum standards. Councilman Caimano-Certainly, you all know that the distance is expediential to the problem that's been document, expediential and reverse. Let's find out what the numbers are if we're going to pass this PUD so we can apply them. Then when they come through site plan review they must comply and if they don't the place doesn't get built. Mr. Martin-That's the point, I was trying to make. Mr. O'Connor-Can they be applied? I guess at site plan review as the planning staff develops this knowledge they will apply that knowledge to this development any other development that comes forth? Councilman Monahan-You can't just apply it to one and not the other that's discrimination. Councilman Caimano- Y our question is could we go on with the PUD and put the monkey on the Planning Board's back the answer is yes. Supervisor Brandt -Are we going to set a standard now that's higher than any other standard in New York State or the United States of America. Councilman Caimano-I think the numbers have got to be relevant to the standards that are set nationally and state wide. I think we've got to be very careful here we got to be responsible you got to look at science not emotions. You've got a Department of Health, you've got a Federal Department that's working with this. You got a lot of universities working with this let them tell us what to do and use the going standards, don't set a new standard. Councilman Monahan-And that's where this information is coming from, Mike. Supervisor Brandt-I heard things talking about one standard the standard is two-hundred. The next we're saying that we want to set it to twenty-five, maybe we ought to set it at one. There is a hell of a difference between one and two-hundred. What we ought to do is go by the law whatever the law is for the State stick with it. If the State sees that it's wrong they've got the responsibility of addressing it. Nobody has yet shown that this is absolutely a problem. There is some evidence, there is some evidence both ways. To me we ought to stick with State standards that's as good as you can get at this point. Sure you can say, eliminate it, but we would have a tough time eliminating it in this world. Councilman Monahan-Nobody's even talked about that. People are talking about taking the sensible minimum precaution that you should take. I'm saying the State Law provides that sensible minimum. Councilman Monahan-No it doesn't. Supervisor Brandt-Well if you know that it doesn't then you better educate the world. Councilman Monahan-The laws for that haven't been written yet this is a new field. Councilman Caimano-Before we get way off field and your absolutely right let's make sure we know what we're talking about. This is from the New York State Department of Health and it is not definitive it is just suspicious. The question is can electric and magnetic fields cause cancer? The answer is the Power Lines Project which is a project that they talk about here funded two cancer studies one involving cancer in adults the other cancer in children. The adult study conducted in Seattle showed no relationship between cancer cases and low level magnetic fields from the power distribution lines in the neighborhood. The childhood study in Denver showed a statistical relationship between childhood cancer cases all types combined and proximity of the power lines. Preliminary results from a recent study of childhood leukemia in Los Angeles showed similar findings. Some studies of workers exposed to EMF as part of their jobs have also shown an increase risk of cancer. The next question is even more apropos. Does the childhood cancer study prove that electromagnetic fields cause cancer, remember this comes from New York State Department of Health, no. The study shows a correlation between proximity to the power lines and higher childhood cancer rates, it goes on further. Clearly there is nothing definitive there is suspicion and certainly the reason says, we ought to be careful. Councilman Monahan-Some of the studies I've looked at said that to read from this one article. Over the last several years the medical community lead mostly by epidemiologist has raised a caution flag about electromagnetic fields as possible promoters of cancer especially among children. Promoters do not directly cause cancer, but may inhibit the bodies immune system from preventing it which is a little different. Supervisor Brandt-But, it says may inhibit. Councilman Caimano-Right, there are always mays. Councilman Monahan-Dr. Driscoll said, one school of thought is that what it does that if you have cancer and get exposed to this it makes it take off at a gallup. This is a new field we're trying to get some information on it and to use that information sensibly not go overboard, but not ignore it. Supervisor Brandt-Fine. So, it's state standards is that what we want to do? Councilman Caimano-I don't think we have any choice. The best standards to have available, I don't know what else we can go by. Councilman Monahan-Jim has some information from two or three studies that have been done and we're collecting a few more too that we got some information on. Supervisor Brandt-But, humbly I submit that our Planning Department is not an expert in this and they can study this literature to hell freezes over again. They are not going to know an awful lot more than they know today. They are not qualified to look at this and to come to a determination. I think you've got to go with the people who are qualified which is the Department of Health of New York State or the federal people. I don't want to get into it other than that. Councilman Monahan-The State Department that is concerned with this and it's your Public Service Office of Energy Efficiency and Environment and that is the....that seems to have done a little bit more with it than I would say than the Department of Health. Supervisor Brandt -You can go into DEC and you can find factions that tell you one thing and you can find factions that tell you something else and I don't want to get into that debate either. They have to go through a process and make that determination and whatever that determination is, I want to live under that law and live by it and ask these people to live by it and the rest of our society. If we find that's an error and then it gets change we will all change. Councilman Caimano-Or die. Supervisor Brandt -Or die and we will do that to in time so it's just a matter of timing. Mr. O'Connor-1 really think this is a non-issue towards this particular development. If the planning staff has some particular knowledge or standard and they want to impose it at that time of site plan review we would be glad to look at it. Councilman Caimano- That's the point. Mr. Martin-We are not going to impose it we can recommend, but that's up to the Planning Board or this Board. Councilman Monahan-I think what we do is try to collect all the knowledge that we possible can all of a sudden a lot of its flooding in. Try to find from that the minimum standards that there are not maximum, but minimum. Mr. O'Connor-1 have given you, just roughly, just an answer and without...the list that you came up with yourself tonight as to conditions that we would suggest that you might impose upon your PUD determination. If you do impose those conditions upon your PUD determination and you think you've come to a point where you can feel comfortable or should feel comfortable giving a negative declaration to the project that's before you. I ask for, as Paul has said a responsible approach to it. I would think it would probably be a very lengthy resolution and maybe not something your going to draw by dictation. It's something that your going to be direct to be drawn considering all the documents that have been submitted to you with some inclusion therein of findings of fact as to the various elements that you've discussed. Supervisor Brandt-There was another issue that was raised and it's raised commonly and that is in high percolation soils pollution of the groundwater table by fertilizer or fertility and pesticides that was mentioned as one of things. I know that we just had an article from Cornell University which I sent to the Planning Department concerning that. It basically was a study that Cornell concluded that typically in housing and where there are lawns that's not the case that it does not happen. That groundwater contamination with nitrates and chemicals typically happens in fields that are devoid of growth, that is no grass and farmers fields where they are over fertilizing and over dosing then it does contaminate the ground. Where there are turfs Cornell concluded that there was a lot of evidence that the turfs themselves stop the material from percolating through. From my judgement from what I read there that's probably not a major issue. Plus, the other thing is that there is a pretty good flow of groundwater here. If you look at those bluffs that's where the groundwater is coming out back to the river. The groundwater table for that whole area probably flows into the direction of the river and comes out along the bluffs. I guess you've got a pretty good movement of water from my viewpoint, I don't think that's much of an issue. Mr. O'Connor-Mr. Brandt, also you received a letter from the Open Space Institute dated January 20th, 1993, which congratulated Niagara Mohawk on their design on the cluster development as opposed to large lots cookie cut cutter type subdivision. I presume that it is part of the record? Supervisor Brandt-It should be if it's not. Councilman Monahan-Mike has anybody done any tests for PCB's on that property? I only say that because it's been raised as a concern by people who know the area when individuals were taking the capacitors and striping them and them dumping everything that was left. Mr. O'Connor-1 think there has been an environmental site assessment and it's called a phase one assessment. There was no finding of anything that would be significant or require further site assessment. Councilman Monahan-Do we have that in our documentation? Mr. Oppenheim-Yes. Mr. Martin-That was submitted with our first report and that issue was dealt with then. Councilman Monahan-Jim, I think that you have to look at Al Koechlein's letter. I've been rereading it here to make sure that we have addressed all of, since we are the lead agency we have to be very responsive to these other agencies and to make sure everyone of those have been properly addressed. I kind of look at that last paragraph his third point and then the paragraph, it continues on the back. Mr. O'Connor-1 like to address that letter specifically paragraph by paragraph. My understanding is that Rob Sutherland met with Mr. Koechlein? Mr. Sutherland-That's correct. Mr. O'Connor-After this letter. Councilman Monahan-But, do we have any documentation from Mr. Koechlein after that meeting? Mr. O'Connor-You note that the letter is copied to Laura Summers. You have her letter from DEC after this date. Councilman Monahan-But, she was only dealing in certain phases not all the things that Al dealt with. She is a biologist he wasn't looking at it just from that viewpoint. Mr. Sutherland-Let me respond. I meet with Mr. Koechlein actually the day before the public hearing. I had a number of purposes in mind. One we had just received a copy of this letter and I wanted just to sit down with him on a one to one basis and review with him the status of the.... In the first instance with the Kamer Blue butterfly he was not aware that we had met with Laura Summers from DEC. I explained to him that she was actually in the process of sending correspondence which has subsequently been sent to the Board in regard to that issue. He seemed more than satisfied that she was on top of that and didn't realize... The second one was stormwater management plans. I had explained to him that is one issue that is going to be taken into account during site plan review process a full stormwater management plan is developed. That soils are going to be sandy the need for an infiltration system that was the concept at this point in time....written for a PUD we weren't actually planning a full plan for that. That is certainly something when the consultants meet it could be resolved at the later part of the project. The third one was mentioned that part of the property has been excluded from SEQRA review and we spent quite a bit of time on that. The issue was the lower part of the point. He was not aware at all of the extent of what was proposed as far as the project development. He didn't know if there was going to be a marina, cabins clustered there, if there was going to be a roadway he had no idea the magnitude. Councilman Monahan-He hadn't seen the plan the actual plan itself? Mr. Sutherland-He might have seen a copy of the plan, but there is no description in the plan as to what we proposed there. I think its a fair question of anybody as to what the extent of the development is. I explained to him the issue there was a total passive recreation use of the space. There would be some canoe type launching, hiking trails, picnic tables. His comment was that was certainly something that was not significant as far as the development as long as it's considered passive recreation. He is also concerned with the wetlands at the mouth of Clendon Brook. I described to him that the concept of this plan is to create an opportunity in the Town to go through hiking paths or walking paths an opportunity to.... I explained to him that any development of that trail would be consistent with DEC guidelines and protection of the wetlands is also required. If it was to be located in part of the wetlands....we spoke to DEC in regards to that. Again, it is to create an opportunity for the Town for recreation purposes they seemed more than satisfied with project. I think long and short of it he has been briefed on the plan by a number of residents. In my opinion he hadn't really seen the full extent of the project. Councilman Monahan-Has he attended any of the hearings on this plan? I haven't seen him, but I just wondered if he had? Mr. Sutherland-He said he was not able to attend the public hearings. Again, he was given a certain amount of information for what it's worth we spent at least an hour an a half. Councilman Monahan-When you talk about the trail that goes to Clendon Brook and the mouth of it, we may have gone over this before and I've forgotten, if we have pardon me. Is that brook going to be open to fishing by the general public as it has been in the past? I know they trespass to do it, but now your going to have a trail in that area is that going to be open to fishing or what? Mr. O'Connor-1 would have to probably say not by advertisement. If you do that you get into an area of where are you going to have parking areas. Councilman Monahan-True. I'm talking about the kids that wander in there with their fish poles and stuff like that. Mr. O'Connor-1 think there is even some law on that isn't there Paul about fishing in brooks? Attorney Dusek-If your thinking about doing traveling down the bed of a stream or walking down the bed of a stream, I think my understanding is that they can do that type of thing it's not trespassing then. But, if they walk on the banks or private property then it becomes trespassing then it causes a problem. Mr. O'Connor-There is no proposal to include that advertise it or whatever because with it comes more use. Councilman Monahan-I agree. Mr. O'Connor-Then you get into questions of more possible impact. Everybody that had talked to us said that they would like to see that stay as wild as you can make it wild. I would say that we have no proposal. Mr. Oppenheim-I don't think we want to encourage. That's not the activity that neither we or I think the Town wants to encourage. Mr. O'Connor-1 think you are in a position, I'm sure you want to talk to everyone else that's here although the public hearing was closed. We just tried to fairly comment on those concerns that we heard the other evening. I think if you go through with all the whereas's that you typically put on a resolution as to all the filings, all documents, all the recommendations by the Town Planning Board, County Planning Board, by everybody else that's been involved by it you will end up with a very lengthy, I hope comprehensive type of resolution. We would have no objection to you including as part of the terms of the final resolution in making that designation those conditions that we set forth and other conditions that you thought were reasonable that you would like to have input in the additional conditions that you might be imposing. I know one thing that Mr. Tucker mentioned and I mention it some place in there. The bluffs and the archeological areas would be surveyed....would be in place. Councilman Tucker-I see that. I have another question and it's to do with the bluffs. You've got the Town, lot owners within the development and by the homeowners association, I just get the feeling that all three of these can enforce the use of the bluffs, keeping the bluff in it's natural state. I'm just wondering if well the Town says, the lot owners will enforce it and the lot owners say the homeowners association will enforce it that it might get misused. What was your reasoning behind.... Mr. O'Connor-The idea was that everybody would have their own interest. Everybody should have equal standing that's the idea you give people standing to enforce it if they thought that something was going wrong there. I said the Town and its assigns. I don't know if the Town can actually assign this conservation easement to somebody like Nature Conservancy or Adirondack Conservancy or Northeastern New York Conservancy. I think there might be a question as to where their jurisdiction ends and begins. I also don't know if the parcel is large enough. I talked to a couple of different people that are involved with it. In fact, I gave I think at the last meeting a copy of a prototype conservation easement that I would presume would be required which has very extensive enforcement rights spelled out in it which I gathered from one of those groups. The deal was to give everybody an opportunity to enforce it wasn't to make it on an alternative basis. Supervisor Brandt-Another thing that might happen in that open space group that wrote us a letter obviously that's a group statewide who is looking at possibly going in or putting some kind of a green belt together upstream of all of this in which case maybe you can tie them into it if and when that happens. Then you would get the critical mass to where somebody would really be watching over this other than just the Town. Mr. O'Connor-1 don't think we have a conservation trust in the Town. Supervisor Brandt-It's something that we have to leam a lot more about and it's something that we've got to leam how to use. Certainly you can see it on the State level developing faster. This particular piece of river upstream of where you are could come to play in it. Mr. O'Connor-If you just read the newspaper Wilton just apparently took in a conservation easement. One of the first for a residential subdivision. Supervisor Brandt -Certainly if we're going to reserve greenbelt in the Town we're going to have to find ways of doing it and this maybe one of the mechanism's. Councilman Tucker-I guess my concern homeowners association we've had them here in the Town and they failed. You know, tenants change people thought's change. I had conversations with Jim about this and in my own mind if the Town was responsible for these bluffs the Town itself we could set up some kind of inspection through the building department two or three times a year they could take a look at this and see that it isn't getting misused. Mr. O'Connor-We're using the belt and suspender approach here. The Town is responsible it has the right to enforce it as it's written. In addition to them you've got lot owners having that right because the guy next door doesn't like what somebody else is doing. In addition to that you've got somebody else within the entire development if they don't like what's going on. You have three different parties to enforce it as opposed to just one. Councilman Monahan-The people that are there are going to be the first ones to know that something's going on that might be months before the Town ever knew that something is going on. Mr. O'Connor-As Mr. Tucker said that maybe you get into a habit of having some regular.... Councilman Monahan-It still won't work Mike. Councilman Caimano- That's umealistic. Councilman Tucker-I don't know if that's umealistic or not. These things get written up and they sound great and everything else and then a couple years down the road you try to enforce these and somebody comes along and says the lot owner can enforce this, the homeowners association can enforce this, before you know it it isn't getting enforced. Mr. Oppenheim-I think the one thing that you want to remember here though too, is that we have agreed all land beneath the bluff will be owned in deed by any of the land owners. I think that is significant on the impact. From a practical standpoint Pliney, I think within the fifty foot buffer zone you would perhaps have more concern. But, below the bluff if somebody doesn't have ownership down there it's very unlikely that somebody's going to go down and impact that land. I think in that instance, Pliney the homeowners association does have a vested interest in wanting to maintain the integrity of that. Supervisor Brandt-They are leaving them a player. They don't have to, but they can. Likewise the Town can it doesn't have to, but it can. They can assign that to someone else if they see that it makes sense to do that as it develops. So, really what you've said is that these are duplicate you've given standing to all these people so they can all do it anyone of them and all of them. Mr. O'Connor-1 think that it makes it more enforceable. Supervisor Brandt-I would think so. Councilman Tucker-Okay. Councilman Caimano-I wonder if Sandy wants to talk to her people and have some kind of comment? Supervisor Brandt-I don't have any problem with that. Councilman Caimano-Sandy, do you want to gather the people around and talk about this for a few minutes and then have a say? We can't have a whole public hearing we'll be here until Thursday morning. Supervisor Brandt-Let's take a break for five minutes. FIVE MINUTE RECESS Attorney Sandy Allen-We're going to try to have this somewhat organized. I guess our major points are two things. The first thing is that we don't see that there is anyway possible that this project can receive a negative declaration. We think that the threshold for SEQRA requires that we have a positive declaration and that we do a full environmental impact statement. As your probably aware the criteria for determining environmental significance is considered basically a low threshold criteria. Once you start meeting any of the criteria that starts talking about significant impact you have to start thinking about declaring a positive declaration. Some of the reasons that we think that this project should be pos dec include the density of the development on this fragile piece area includes concerns about the archeological sites and the potential for adverse impact to wildlife. The construction and what it is going to case to the soils and drainage of the soils. The destruction of the mature forest, let me go to my other list. At least a piece of the construction that's within five hundred feet of a hundred year storm area. There are the bluffs that have to be protected as a unique archeological site. There is talk about a trail that would be going through title lands and wetlands. There are individual septic systems in an area with soils that are inadequate for individual septic systems. There are lots of concerns about groundwater. Let me just make sure I get all of them. We think it is going to have an adverse impact on the aesthetic resources of the area. It's going to change the development pattern of the area considerably. Councilman Caimano-Development pattern? Attorney Allen-The development pattern in that area that's an undeveloped piece of property it's going to now have one hundred sixty three units of housing on it. Councilman Caimano-Not a hundred sixty three houses, but a hundred sixty dwelling units. Attorney Allen-Dwelling units. We think that it's conflict with the officially adopted plans and goals as we've discussed in reference of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. It will cause a change in density on the land. We think, perhaps one of the things that the neighbors are most concerned about is the proposed action will set an important precedent for future projects. Finally, as you can probably see we believe that there is large public controversy in relation to this project. For those reasons, I've actually typed them out for you so I think I'll just give them to you because I've kind of given them scattered to you. For those reasons, we believe that this project has to have a positive declaration. Going back to the basic premise of this project it's a very large project and a very large project for Queensbury. While we've had some large projects in Queensbury this is certainly one of them. We think that this is the time right now when the Town Board is looking at this with its initial review and initially has to make a SEQRA determination this is the time to get expert advise and to get an expert consultant involved. Don't want until to get to Planning Board issues that there are things that should of been resolved at this point at the Town Board level. In particular we have concerns about the archeological reports still. We're getting some conflicting information from other archeologist's we've talked to and none of us in the neighborhood group are archeologist's and I don't believe you are either and I think that it's very important that we get some outside information about this. The Town Historian has expressed some concerns about this. We've heard that the point area which is to me the area below the bluff did not have any research done on it we think that area should have research. Again, if you get an outside archeologist to give you this information we could be sure that this is being done correctly. Again, the ongoing issue about the biologist and the expert in the wildlife and biology review. It's true that DEC will be looking at the site in reference to butterfly's. From what I understand from some people who are much more educated in this than I am just because your looking for Kamer Blue butterfly's or Lupine does not mean that you are going to spot some other rare and endangered species and there should be a full inventory of this property done. Again, another reason to get an outside consultant involved at this point. I think it's very very important in the PUD review not to allow any sort of motor boats along this property. In fact, there is a great concern that just allowing docks will encourage this. This is not a good area for people necessarily to be boating and swimming even in canoes it's right near the dam's the level of the water in that area changes very quickly with no prior notice. We just don't think that it's a good idea to encourage recreation down there we certainly don't think it's a good idea to encourage any motorized recreation down there. By changing the road layout up along this bluff and by placing that by what I'll call the northeastern coast of the bluff by doing that and by moving that road over there now you've got the problem of runoff coming off that road and going right down the bluffs and going right down into the water not necessarily a whole lot better situation than right now. The neighbors just really feel that it's a real environmentally sensitive area and there just should not be any development on that point now, I'm including the bluff area on that point. They've been cutting down the density on that why don't we just take the density off of that. Councilman Caimano-During the public hearing time after time people that you represent who are not for this project and I've talked to them too have said that they have no problem with the project if only. This list that I just wrote down unnecessarily it turns out because your going to give me the list anyway seems to indicate that you don't want the project at all. If that's the case, I think you should say so. Attorney Allen-I don't think that's correct to characterize that we don't want the project at all. The first list that we talked about was whether there should be a positive declaration for SEQRA and we think that there should be a positive declaration for SEQRA. We think that the environmental review should be thorough and extensive and we should make sure that all the T's are crossed and all the I's are dotted because we are only lay people we are not the experts, we're not Saratoga Associates, we can't go on that site and say, gee there are all these concerns that should be addressed. We need an expert consultant for the Town to tell us these things and we need to go through this and make sure those issues are addressed. I think that it's fair to say that if the issues are addressed adequately in the EIS that they are not issues any longer that's one part of this. The other part of this is what the neighbors still have concerns about this project period with or without talking about the SEQRA review. Those concerns remain the density along the water and the impact on the river, impact on the wetlands, you know stormwater runoff that kind of concern. Again, a big portion of this goes back to, you know you have a developer who obviously has lots of consultants and gets lots of information and we as lay people look at this and these are still our concerns and we just like you to make sure they get addressed. I guess, that's basically it. Our final concern is just that point area and how important it is. By shifting that road over to that side of the road we're probably just going to get runoff and down in the water that way. I think it's very important to keep any development off of that area that's a sandy bluff with all kinds of potential environmental problems. Councilman Caimano-What if the expert, what if we were to hire an expert, just play what ifs with me a minute. Attorney Allen-Okay. Councilman Caimano-And the expert came in who was not paid by the developer and he agreed with developer? Attorney Allen-I guess we would feel more comfortable, I really believe that. I think that if we had an expert that was not having a bias and really double checking these things unlike the lay people, I think the people would be more comfortable. Tim Brewer-On the same hand Nick, what if he came back and said there shouldn't be any development on the point? Councilman Caimano- Then all you guy got to move then right? Mr. Brewer-Pardon me. Councilman Caimano- Then everybody would have to move from that area? Mr. Brewer-I said on the point. Councilman Caimano- There are people that live out there by the way, I want to tell you while I sympathize with your points. There are people that live out there who want this project you have to understand that. Mr. Brewer-I'm not saying there is not. I don't have a problem with them developing land. But, I'm just saying exactly what Sandy said there are problems out there and we think that they should be looked at. I get the impression that the Board is kind of going like this. Councilman Caimano-Kind of going like what? Mr. Brewer-Kind of like turning your heads that's my opinion, Nick. Councilman Caimano-It's certainly an uninformed opinion. Mr. Brewer-Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Councilman Caimano-It is. We've been sitting here for hours listening to this stuff. Mr. Brewer-Bullshit. Councilman Caimano-Fine. Mr. O'Connor-My comment was, I thought the public hearing was closed at the point where we have everybody commenting. I question, I guess I have to question on the record whom Mrs. Allen is representing if she is going to speak and then everybody she also represents speaks. Councilman Caimano-We're trying to get everybody their chance. Supervisor Brandt -Sandy you did tell us that you represent the neighbors and only the neighbors. Attorney Allen-Correct. Supervisor Brandt-That is residential neighbors. Councilman Caimano-In the proposed action in setting a precedent was your concern there? Attorney Allen-Our concern that by allowing this kind of development allowing the density to be shifted down to the river front area which we discussed last week in the public hearing. By doing that and allowing that kind of development and by allowing developers to avoid going through a full EIS that your setting precedent so the next developer like Hiland will come back a year from year and say, by the way you let the Hudson Pointe PUD go through this so now we don't have to do this either. Councilman Caimano- The biggest concern is only the point area that's your concern? Attorney Allen-That's there. Councilman Caimano-And that's why you would feel more comfortable with the expert? Attorney Allen-Correct. Supervisor Brandt-Sandy, for the record I do want to ask you do you represent just the homeowners, neighbors there or do you also by chance represent a competing developer? Attorney Allen-We represent the homeowners and I think, I even specifically said the Brewers and the Akins. I think that's in all my correspondence. Supervisor Brandt -Okay, I just wanted to make sure. Thank you. Attorney Dusek-If I may Sandy, I just have a question. You made some comments about the need for another expert. Is there anything particular in the project sponsors expert reports that you find troublesome or conflicting? Attorney Allen-One of the reports is the archeological report. We get back to that and again we are lay people talking to other experts and they've expressed concerns about the archeological report about the perimeter of the area that was investigated and about where development is going to occur in relationship to that. We are lay people these are concerns that have been expressed to us by other people who are in the field. We just like to get a non-bias opinion and make sure it's preserved. Attorney Dusek-Have you had other experts that have in fact indicated that there is a problem with the archeological study? Attorney Allen-We've had other experts, however, we haven't retained one or have one that will come and speak in front of you. So, we're in kind of a awkward situation we'd like somebody to make sure that it got reviewed. Attorney Dusek-When you say experts your talking about archeological experts? Attorney Allen-Yes. Attorney Dusek-Any other areas of concern? Attorney Allen-The whole wildlife report and the whole endangered and threaten species area it's gone back and forth. I hear from one group that finding Blue Lupine and Kamer Blue's is not that difficult. I hear from other people that are just as experienced that it's very difficult. Attorney Dusek-Have you had any report of any other wildlife or endangered species on the property? Attorney Allen-I believe in my letter last week there were two plant species that we were concerned about that the neighbors just normal lay people, neighbors have seen. As far as I know there was a literature review done, but my understanding is that there has not been an any sort of site investigation done in reference to any other plant or species. We just like to have that done. Attorney Dusek-You don't know of any other ones other than the two that you mentioned then? Supervisor Brandt -You guys talk to each other and then tell us. Councilman Caimano- This is what Mike objects to and I think he is right the public hearing is over. Councilman Monahan-My concern is if you don't hear this all out and you don't do a FEIS this Town can be in deep trouble. Councilman Caimano- Then ask the questions. Attorney Allen-I guess we've heard from the Adirondack Mountain Club and I believe you have a copy of that letter. That there is significant wildlife habitat down in the wetland area of this. The developer, of course, claims that's not going to be interfered with and we like to have somebody who has the expertise to investigate that and assure that it's not going to be interfered with. Attorney Dusek - I just have one more question. As far as the project sponsors, expert reports, you've mentioned archeological and wildlife are there any other concerns with the reports? I mean other areas of concern besides that you have information that would indicate that they are in some fashion in need for further development or conflicting? Attorney Allen-No, for right now those are probably are two primary concerns. Attorney Dusek-For the Board, I don't know if you heard the response those are the two significant areas. Attorney Allen-Those are the two areas we think that there should be a consultant involved with now. Supervisor Brandt -Go through them again. Attorney Dusek-Wildlife and archeological would be their criticism of the project sponsor expert reports as I understand it. Attorney Allen-We would just like them investigated further. Supervisor Brandt-I have a feeling that we as a Town are contributing to one of those problems. If you take this thing from the beginning. The very early part of the process we said we would like to put a walking trail along the project. I'm not sure that it serves any purpose whatsoever. It was one of these things where we said, well what if. When you look at it that trail as it's shown on that map does go through an area where I have to say to myself it could affect wildlife. I think maybe we be smart to look at that and say, why on earth are we asking for it if certainly the developer doesn't want it they've never asked for it. Harry Hansen is in back of the room you want to talk of that comment. Mr. Hansen-When we talked about it initially. There is a fake fallacy in that walking trail plan in that it dead ends at the end of their property and a piece of property that doesn't belong to the Town. We would have to get a third party besides the Michaels Group, Niagara Mohawk and the Town to negotiate for that in-between parcel it would never end up as our own parcel. Supervisor Brandt-And there is evidence that this is where the wildlife is. We would be doing the most harm by being in there maybe we ought to the ones that say drop that. Mr. O'Connor-The developer would have no problem with dropping that in total if that's the Town Boards desire and they think that it eliminates the issue. I think that was what the Adirondack Mountain Club was talking about the wildlife area was down in the wetlands area. Supervisor Brandt-Right. Mr. O'Connor-Specifically it was offered as an opportunity to the Town to maybe connect in the future. Maybe the Town doesn't want to tell us to eliminate it entirely. Maybe the Town wants to have an easement that it could exercise in the future if they ever get the connecting piece that Mr. Hansen talks about. Supervisor Brandt-But, even if we did maybe we do more harm by connecting that all together than if we just stayed out of it. Mr. O'Connor-If you wanted to stay out of that it's fine. Supervisor Brandt-My intuition is maybe we caused part of the problem there and maybe we'd be smart to back off and leave it wildlife. Attorney Allen-Mike, there is a bigger concern than that. If your going to have even passive recreation down along that point your going to have people swimming, people going in and out of that area, your going to have people walking around that area along the river. The more people you get down there the more.... Mr. Oppenheim-We're talking about two different areas. The area that we're talking about having passive recreation is not the area where the walking path would be. Supervisor Brandt-I think also to characterize the area. The release of water actually comes through here and comes out of here. It doesn't come down this way except in the big floods. The normal flow of driven water is this way and you have a high speed flow along here. Then as you come around this point this is all...and this is why you've got wetlands. If you say that this is an area along here where swimming takes place it really isn't conducive to swimming it's gravely and very high speed of water. There are two cabins there and an old cabin here and something that is called a trailer, but I'd call it less than that. If each of those had access to the river and each of them were using it and if you limited it to those sites it's already been done. I think, also that's why we we're asking to limit the amount of dock in here. I think we ought to severely limit that. I think that's a reasonable request. Then, I think it would also eliminate the potential use of back in there which is very much a wetland and wildlife. Councilman Caimano-For one second let's talk about the docks. Is that important to you? Mr. O'Connor-We would like to have that option. Councilman Caimano-I buy and I said it before Sandy spoke. I buy the theory that's a moth and a flame type of thing. If you put the docks there there is no way in the world we're going to stop people from the other side of the river, up river, down river from boating up and docking there. It's just a moth and a flame. Mr. O'Connor-Aren't you better off and I think most conservationist will tell you this having a dock there for them to tie up as opposed to having them try to tie up to shore without any proper mooring... Supervisor Brandt -Can that be a canoe launch dock? Mr. O'Connor-If you had a picnic area down there and you had an attraction they've got to be stopping for some reason. Supervisor Brandt-Right now you've got one that's cement that goes right out to the water as I remember it maybe it's broken up right now. Councilman Caimano- What did you say Alan, what are you proposing? Mr. Oppenheim-What we are proposing is a dock that is suitable for canoe's only. Supervisor Brandt-If you limit it to that it would take a lot of pressure of that Town land as far as I'm concerned. Mr. Oppenheim-We said that when we met two months ago. Councilman Caimano-What's that? Mr. Oppenheim-That it would be a dock area suitable for canoe use only. Councilman Caimano- Tell me how do you do that? Mr. Oppenheim-You can set it up. First of all, you can set it up in the restrictions that go with the project those are the types of boats that homeowners can use. Supervisor Brandt -You can do it fairly shallow water inside so you don't have a lot of tie up space. Mr. Martin-It would have to be a relatively short dock. Councilman Caimano- W e could do that. Councilman Monahan-Your talking about shorter than the forty feet? Mr. Martin-Yes. Councilman Monahan-When, I asked you the size and you said what we allow in the Ordinance and that's a forty foot dock and you can do a lot with a forty foot dock. Mr. O'Connor-1 don't know the depth of the water off that point. Councilman Caimano-Is that a mitigating circumstance? Councilman Tucker-It varies, a lot. Mr. O'Connor-Your going to have a floating dock aren't you Pliney? Attorney Allen-There are two issues involved. I think there is a concern about the dock and your attempting to address it, I think that's good. There is a second concern and that is there's going to be any adverse impact on the river or the wetland. Every time you encourage somebody to go down there and even get in their canoe and go back around that area is probably where they are going to go because the water's running faster. Your encouraging a potential problem the habitat of the wetlands.... Councilman Caimano-But, your presuming that nobody does that now. Attorney Allen-No, I'm not presuming that. I'm saying your going to have a hundred and sixty three more families or household units who are that much more likely to use that. Councilman Caimano-But, aren't you making a great leap of faith here? Your assuming that all hundred and sixty three living units are going to be water sport lovers, how about the rest of the neighborhood. Attorney Allen-How about half of them. Councilman Caimano-How about one of them. It just as easy to presume one. Attorney Allen-My own perception is that I wouldn't think you would be purchasing a house along the Hudson River or in a development along the Hudson River without having an intention to use Hudson River or to have contact with the river. Mr. O'Connor-You have a dock on your parcel? Attorney Allen-No, I do not. Mr. O'Connor-You bought a piece along the river. Attorney Allen-That's true and my reason is to use the water. Mr. O'Connor-But, you don't have a dock. Attorney Allen-No, I do not. Mr. O'Connor-1 really don't know the issue of two docks. Two forty foot docks on two hundred acres of land upland of water. I don't know of any other parcel in the Town of Queensbury whether it be on the Hudson River, Glen Lake, Lake George, any body of water that we have that is near that restriction of any nature. That's two hundred acres ofland upland of water for them to think that you are going to have less than two docks there is totally umealistic. I've got some comments, I guess that's my opinion and you have your own opinion to form and make. Take a look at it in comparison to other pieces. Supervisor Brandt-In the end what we have to do now is take this list of things that have been brought to us and come to a determination between us of what the consensus is of this board. What I like to do is take these one at a time and see how we feel about them. If we think there is a major issue or minor issue or no Issue. Mr. O'Connor-Specifically if I might, I don't mean to prolong your meeting. I like to address the two questions that have been raised as far as the experts that have been offered by the developer. One was as to the archeological sites and the means that have been offered for preservation of them. You will find in your packet a letter dated December 30th, 1992, from the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, that letter goes on to say. The office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation has reviewed the archeological site avoidance plan you provided on the project which included Mr. Curtains report to them. Mr. Curtain, I note is on the approved list of archeologist. As the State Agency responsible for the coordination of the State Historic Preservation Program including the encouragement and assistance of low preservation programs we offer the following comments. Based upon this review it is the opinion of, and they use the ackernim for their operation, that the avoidance plan is acceptable. In addition to providing long term protection of the Sherman Island number 1,2,3,6, and 7 sites by placing them under conservation easement. The site should be protected during construction phase other project through the use of temporary fencing. We have no problem with what's proposed there. We actually ahead of time, ahead of schedule, put everything together and presented it to them so you would have and outside review of our archeological study that we gave to you. We're not asking you to accept our study on faith it has been reviewed by an outside consultant. The other issue that was raised was drainage on the point perhaps drainage concerns because the shifting of the road, although we cut down the density of the lots by half. If you notice in the conditions that we have suggested all drainage calculations, proposed drainage systems, and plans for stormwater management must be reviewed by engineering consultants to the Town at site plan review at the expensive of the developer and must be approved by the consultant. Those are the two issues that were raised that maybe you need some outside expertise on. You already have outside expertise on the archeological site. You are offered to get your outside expertise on the drainage, road configuration, the septic systems and even more the entire design the engineering of the development as it's built. This is not a request for you to act in good faith. We're saying that we will abide by standards that will not have a negative impact. I think you have before you the answer to every possible impact and that is the reason that your in a position that you can make a negative declaration. Typically, at this time when your determining whether or not you want to go forward with an EIS you don't have all these studies, all these booklets, all this information, all the letters from the State, from DEC in front of you. You have probably almost as much information maybe put together different than it would be in a EIS. If you consider all the studies the traffic study, the archeological study, the wildlife study, the soils analysis, everything that you have in front of you is probably what you would end up with in a EIS. The difference might be six months to a year and a lot of dollars wasted on behalf of future residences of this Town, people that actually would do into this development. Councilman Caimano-Sandy you shook your head on the archeological you didn't agree with Mike since the State sent the letter. Attorney Allen-The State sent a letter my understanding is that the state is okaying the basic premise of how they did this research. But, we've just heard numerous concerns from other archeologist's with concerns about how this research was done. Councilman Caimano- The other side of the question, of course, is if the State has said they did a lousy job then we would be looking at that as the final.... We have to have some kind of standard we can't do what we do, you know what you guys do in court with psychiatrist's. You get a psychiatrist to say, I'm crazy and he says no, we have to have some kind of standard. What's the standard going to be is it going to be the State, something has to be the standard so you tell us otherwise we can't make a determination. Attorney Allen-Basically, my understanding of the State Office Parks and Recreation is that they are a registration organization and they review things, organize things, categorize things. All, I'm saying and I am in a very frustrating situation cause, I can't tell you who the archeologist is and I can't give his credentials tonight, all, I'm saying is that it is certainly a concern. We have been told numerous times that this investigation should have been thorough and that's why we're bringing up this concern and we're bringing it up to the Board. Mr. O'Connor-1 think it was Mr. Martin's suggestion that we submit this to the State Office of Park, Recreation and Historic Preservation as soon as we could so he would have their input. I think your planning staff looks upon this not just being as a registration agency, but actually as being a review agency. Councilman Caimano-But, is it? Mr. Martin-No, you have to have an accepted plan or it cannot proceed that's my understanding. Supervisor Brandt -Can we go onto this issues and see where this Board stands? Councilman Monahan-I've come across a document that we've had in our packet and I just like to review this to make sure we've taken care of all these. I remember another question that came up the other night was the impact on the school system also. I'm just going to read this and this was written it's dated back in a packet that came to us August 24th, 1992. It's talking about the full EAF for Hudson Pointe, Part III. The project is a creation of a planned unit development involving three hundred seven acres, we know that isn't true anymore. The project is adjacent to the Hudson River portions of the project area contain steep slopes, erosive soils, wetland, flood plains, fast percolating soils, aquifer recharge areas, and stream corridors. In addition, some of the land areas may have important habitats as well as being archaeologically significant. The project is planned in an area where existing residence have testified that traffic and neighborhood impacts are likely to occur. Impacts on existing municipal services the school system the fire and emergency services has not been identified. Significant amounts of fill will have to be imported for construction and septic development how this will be accomplished without neighborhood disturbance has to be addressed. That question was raised to me and we don't know how many trucks are going to be bringing stuff in for how long, what the hours, and etc. It appears that during development and construction impacts to the land areas and existing neighborhoods the roadways, and the community will occur. The project is proposed to last from five to seven years with one hundred six acres of land ultimately affected. At this juncture it is difficult to determine if the indicated impacts are reversible, controllable or will involve permanent loss of valuable resources. It may be possible to mitigate or control possible impacts. The consequences of the impacts especially regarding the traffic and the identified archeological finds may be regional in nature. Until an EIS is prepared and all the potential impacts are evaluated a positive declaration has to be made that's the end of those comments. Councilman Caimano-Actually, I think there is an even more basic point we just kind of discussed as a side line here. I can't think hearing you read that letter, I can't think of too many places in this Town that don't apply to that letter. I wonder if we ought not to as a Board very quickly, I mean quickly decided whether or not we're going to have PUD's. We have talked about the fact that PUD's are the way to go because it allows us the flexibility to do what we want to do and make sure the neighbors are taken care of. But, every time we get involved with a PUD and we get into this stuff, I'm not saying this is wrong, don't get me wrong, I'm not making a moral judgement. All, I'm saying what you just read could apply with the exception of the wideness of the body of water to where I live. It could apply to where Mike lives, it could apply to where anyone lives in the Town of Queensbury we live in that environment. We better make a determination as a government of this Town where we're going. Councilman Monahan-Nick that's the whole reason that you have the SEQRA review regardless of what your doing. Regardless whether you were doing business of a PUD or subdivision. Councilman Caimano-I think the PUD's get us into trouble and they have every time. Councilman Monahan-I think PUD's done well can be very much of a benefit in this Town. Councilman Caimano- Y ou made a moral judgement, if you will done well, what is done well. If we know what's done well then we ought to tell everybody so we can have them come up here and do it well for us. Councilman Monahan-When, I say done well, if we do our job going through the SEQRA application answer the questions correctly and thoroughly then we should end up with a good product. Councilman Caimano-I submit to you that those are very subjective. The people in the audience here, Mr. Brewer and his people have some very very good points. The applicant is trying very hard to accommodate those people, but every time we accommodate there is more questions. This is all very subjective and I for one don't like being put here without having some kind of guidelines. I think that our PUD designations are pretty poor. Supervisor Brandt-One of the first meetings we had in this Board we talked about PUD's. We talked about encouraging them so as to save greenbelt and that's the point you are making actually, to me it's a major point. If we're going to do PUD's and then we're going to use PUD's to set standards that are totally different than any other development any other way your never gonna have a sole come through a PUD. I mean you can talk about archeological significance further up that creek. I believe there is a development maybe a mile up the creek of a hundred forty units of housing that we just did. Did we do an archeological study, hell no. Did we look for Kamer Blue's, hell no. Councilman Monahan-Where are you, Inspiration Park? Inspiration Park had to do an archeological study. Supervisor Brandt-I'm talking about the stream up near VanDusen Road. Councilman Tucker-Herald Square. Councilman Monahan-If the Planning Board did their job properly they should of done a SEQRA review with them that was a proper review. Mr. Brewer-The Town Board was the lead agent. Councilman Monahan-For Herald Square? Councilman Caimano- That's right the Town Board was lead agent. Supervisor Brandt-I'm sure there were Indians allover here. I'm sure that you will find more of them closer to the river than away from the river. The higher on the Mountain the less you will find them they weren't skiers they hunted and fished and where do you find them right by the water. Most of where the water was in those days is now inundated by dams. If we really want to dig it up tear out all the dams get rid of the hydro bring the water back out and look for indian relic's. My god is that what we're trying to do here, I mean we can carry this out to the nth degree. I like to get a sense of where we're going with this, I think the Board has got to make that. I think what we need to do now is look at everyone of these take them one at a time and talk to our Planner, Attorney, and give them a sense of whether we feel we've properly addressed these or whether we haven't. I don't know the sense of the Board on it so let's take them one at a time and do it. Councilman Goetz-Tonight? Supervisor Brandt -Yeah, let's start. Councilman Goetz-We've only been going since five thirty. Supervisor Brandt-We could talk ten hours more if we want to babble on it's time to get to the vote. Councilman Caimano-We have another alternative and that's the fact that we could take these questions and we could have that expert give him or her two weeks and find out if that independent expert feels that these questions are answered properly. Mr. Oppenheim-What's the outstanding question? Councilman Caimano- There is about thirty six of them. Mr. O'Connor-But, that's like reading an August 12th, letter before we submitted anything. Councilman Caimano-I'm not saying they are right and your wrong and I'm not saying you are right and they are wrong. Supervisor Brandt-I've been through that with my own company and I know how that does the expert sure is hell going to bring up you give him two weeks to write a list and he'll have it. Mr. O'Connor-The procedure law is that you should not give us a negative declaration if you think that there are significant impacts that there maybe significant impacts that cannot be mitigated. Supervisor Brandt-Right. Mr. O'Connor-1 think that's clear what the laws says. Councilman Caimano-Sandy's talking about the threshold's that she wants to narrow the threshold's on them. Mr. O'Connor-If hear-say were admissible we could listen to what she said. So far we've done nothing, but go back to an August 12th, outline and say these are issues. Supervisor Brandt-Right. Mr. O'Connor-You have letters from the school district that had two different reviews of this. Councilman Monahan-Except they didn't do any impact on the classroom they just did bus stops. Mr. O'Connor-Don't you think they raised those if they had a concern in their response. Councilman Monahan-No. Mr. O'Connor-The project was sent to them way back in August by Lee York. Councilman Monahan-Mike, all I can say is that we have specific questions here that we have to answer. I think that's what we have to do is answer these specific questions. Mr. O'Connor-Jim, do you have the letter that went to the School Board from Lee York. I think that issue was in that letter that went to him. Supervisor Brandt-This is a whole Board it's not one person, it's five people. What, I'd like to take these issues one, two, three through thirty six and poll us. Okay, let's go. Mr. Martin-I've only got thirteen maybe I missed something. Supervisor Brandt-Maybe we only have thirteen that would be delightful. Councilman Caimano- Y ou missed several. Mr. Martin-I'll go through my thirteen. Supervisor Brandt-Jim let's take your thirteen and if we have more we'll throw them in. Mr. Martin-Number one bluffs. The concern was erosion and passive recreation even on the bluffs resulting from private landownership. My understanding is the applicant is offering that the bluffs be under Homeowner Association ownership through a conservation easement with no disturbance required and that is equally enforceable by either the homeowner association or the Town. Supervisor Brandt -Or the lot owners. Mr. Martin-Or the lot owners. That's it in a nutshell. Supervisor Brandt-Let me ask the Board is that mitigated? To me this is a major issue from my viewpoint it's addressed it's adequate. Councilman Caimano-It appears to be. Councilman Tucker-It appears to be. Councilman Caimano-It appears to be that put it that way. Supervisor Brandt-There is three, Sue you agree, Betty? Councilman Monahan-For that particular point, but that's not a SEQRA review. Councilman Caimano- We're not saying it is we're just going through. Mr. Martin-Number two the density along the point area. The original application was for essentially one acre lots, how many of them, sixteen, I believe. There was a concern that the density there is inappropriate due to the original three acre zoning that was called for as the zoning district is laid out. This stems from stormwater runoff concerns and so on and so forth. The applicant proposes a mitigating measure conforming with the three acre zoning along the point realigning the road that would yield eight three acre lots as opposed to sixteen one acre lots. Supervisor Brandt-Eight lots. The density requirement is there, but in fact they may not deed off three acres because we're restricting them from the bluff. Mr. Oppenheim-The clarification is we currently have where there are sixteen lots it's approximately twenty five acres in land. So what we've done is reproduce that sixteen lots to eight lots so that it averages out to approximately three acres per lot. Included in that three acres is land area below the bluff for example that we now made the decision that we be willing to deed that off to a separate entity. Councilman Caimano-So the owner may not own three acres. Mr. Martin-That there may not actually be a three acre lot. Mr. Oppenheim-Correct. Supervisor Brandt-The density would meet the three acre original underlying density, but you may not deed off three acres. Councilman Caimano-It seems to me at the night of the public hearing that came out loud and clear. Correct me, If I'm wrong Mr. Akins, but I thought you stood up front and said three acres, three acres. Mr. Akins-Minimum. I also said to you with your environmental impact statement. Councilman Caimano-But, one thing at a time. As far as the three acres is concerned at least that issue has appeared to be addressed. Attorney Allen-For that particular point it's waterfront three acre all the way. Councilman Caimano-Just one step at a time. Mr. Martin-The third. Supervisor Brandt-Before you go to that on that three acre point I thought a point was made that concerned me and that was when you move the road close to one of bluffs there is a chance for runoff erosion but, that was also addressed. In my estimation it's subject to engineering review at the Planning Board that they must pay for and something like that has to be specifically addressed. Mr. Martin-There is no comparison between the two. You had sixteen lots before with sixteen homes, sixteen rooftops, with a road now, you have eight rooftops with a road. That to me is a mitigating factor you are reducing the impermeable area. Supervisor Brandt-And you have an engineering study that has to be provided to check that they must pay for to me that's an important factor. Mr. Oppenheim-I just want to add that from a practical standpoint, I think everyone should understand that it doesn't make any sense to look at stormwater impact before you've got a design to deal with. Councilman Caimano-Let us go through these. Councilman Monahan-I would like to know how you measured that land that's along the bluff? There are two ways of measuring lands that are on the slopes, but I would just like to know what method you used. Mr. Sutherland-The acreage that we're talking about involves where this property line was on this plan down to the high water marks of the river the bottom of the bluff around here and back along the river where it is proposed. Councilman Monahan-I realize that. I'm asking you how you measured your slope? Mr. Sutherland-The percentage slope your talking about. Councilman Monahan-If, I stood up high some place and drooped a straight line down that's one measurement. If you measure it linear along the bluff itself that's another measurement. That's how I'm asking you how you arrived at your measurement. Supervisor Brandt-Are you looking straight down aerial view or are you looking at the slope area? Councilman Monahan-It does make a difference on the amount that we're talking about. Councilman Caimano-No, it doesn't. Councilman Monahan-Yes, it does. Councilman Caimano-It's fifty feet back from the edge of the bluffs. Councilman Monahan-He is including that land when he is talking about three acres. Councilman Tucker-An acre of land is an acre of land whether it's like that,like that, like that, or like that. Councilman Monahan-Again, it depends on how you measure it and that's the technical question. Supervisor Brandt-It's standard surveying methods which is straight. Mr. O'Connor-Mrs. Monahan he went around the perimeter. Councilman Monahan-That's what I wanted to know. Supervisor Brandt-Next. Mr. Martin-Electromagnetic fields. I think there has been conflicting information brought out here. I think it was agreed that the planning staff would further investigate the problem. At site plan review if a minimum standard for a separation distance from the corridor easement can be established that appears to be reasonable and will significantly reduce the fall out from the field that would be appropriate. Councilman Caimano-By minimum you are talking about the best chance for the resident the lease likelihood of danger. Mr. Martin-It may work out, I don't know. It may work out that the seventy five foot that they are proposing is adequate, I don't know that's a soft issue. Supervisor Brandt-We also said State standards. We're not setting a new standard here in Queensbury different than the State or National standards. Mr. Martin-That needs to be clarified, I think. Councilman Caimano-State or National is different than State alone. I want to do the best standard we can get, but standard. Supervisor Brandt-Does that seem agreeable to you guys? Mr. Oppenheim-Which standard are we.... Councilman Caimano-State or Federal, whichever is the tightest. Supervisor Brandt -Or if Niagara Mohawk has a lower threshold we'll accept that. Mr. O'Connor-We're willing to listen to whatever input that you have to it and we will respond to that. Councilman Monahan-I don't know that's kind of like the tobacco company and whether or not dangerous to smoke Mike. Councilman Caimano-I agree with you. But, if Nimo has a tighter threshold than State or Federal what he is saying is that we will go with the tightest threshold. Councilman Monahan-I thought he was saying if they had a loser one. Supervisor Brandt-Let me ask is that agreeable are we all agreeing to that, Pliney? Councilman Tucker -Yeah, the best standard. Councilman Caimano- Yes. Councilman Goetz-Yes. Supervisor Brandt-Betty? Councilman Monahan-I'm reserving my comment. Supervisor Brandt -You can reserve it forever because we're moving on. Mr. O'Connor-Mr. Brandt how about the question of density at the point moving the road the engineering review of moving the road. Supervisor Brandt-We agreed with it. Mr. O'Connor-1 don't think you went through your exercise. Councilman Caimano-It's fine with me right now. Councilman Goetz-Mitigated. Councilman Tucker-Yes. Councilman Monahan-I want to go back to that sixteen lots just a minute. Because what we're saying sixteen lots, I like what you put in your proposal here Mike. The developer at site plan review must provide us a surveyors certified calculation the area involved and may not develop more lots on this point than would be permitted if his total area is divided by three. Mr. O'Connor-That's what we've done. Councilman Monahan- I just want to put that part in because we hadn't talked about it. Mr. Martin-Number four isolation of critical archeological areas. The developer has proposed that these be put into homeowners association ownership. These would be marked with permanent marks and bounds by the surveyor and no development and disturbance would occur in these areas. Supervisor Brandt-None of them would be deeded off. Mr. Martin-Right. Councilman Caimano-Here is the only area where, I think we can do better in a sense. I believe we have the State standards. I believe your letter, I read your letter, but this is a subjective field. You have agreed that you would listen to most anybody who is a reasonable expert, have you not? Mr. O'Connor-Yes. Councilman Caimano-Ifwe find that there is a reasonable expert that can advise us we should do so, I think it's very important. Of all the things we've talked about the Kamer Blue, the trees, the sky, the moon, this is the most important. It is our heritage and is extremely important in this part of the country. So, I think we should go the extra mile whoever the expert is and their willing to listen to that expert. Mr. O'Connor-Let me not qualify that. I think your going to add probably to that as part of the mitigation that during construction those areas will be fenced off with temporary fencing which was part of that letter. The problem with simply saying that we will listen to your expert there are different means of mitigation. We have chosen to leave the sites undisturbed and intact and we've talked even general terms in our literature that we will have some type of education program within the homeowners association as to the significance of the sites and maybe to try to encourage the homeowners association to development the significance of the sites. Others might come along and say the only way you might preserve that site is to have a dig and take everything away from the site we would not be agreeable to that it's a different school of philosophy. Councilman Caimano-But, I use the word listen. I think we should listen to other experts that's all. Mr. Oppenheim-Who are the other experts. Councilman Caimano-I don't know it's our decision. We may listen to the other expert and say, he's really cracked, that's crazy or say that's reasonable and we all may agree. I don't think we know it's a subjective field. Supervisor Brandt -So, what your saying your suggesting to the Board that we ask for another opinion. Councilman Caimano- That's right. Mr. O'Connor-1 can't agree with that. If you look at the State letter it says, that if you have any questions please call Robert Cohn of our project review unit at such and such. Councilman Caimano-Let's start there. Mr. O'Connor-That's an offer to the State without expense to the Town. Supervisor Brandt-I think that's reasonable. Councilman Caimano-Start there and let's see what they have to say. Mr. Martin-My impression was that there is a procedure involved here. You setup a grid you go through and do soil borings on that grid what your soil borings show you that's where you go back for your next phase of dig and that's what was done. Councilman Caimano-Go back to the guy and make the telephone call tell him there are some serious concerns and get into more in-depth and then we'll go ahead from there. Mr. Martin-I will go ahead and call this guy. Mr. O'Connor-Your talking about at site plan review? Councilman Caimano-As soon as possible. I'd like to have it done before SEQRA. Supervisor Brandt-Before we neg dec that issue. Councilman Caimano-Before we look at neg dee, I mean call him. Supervisor Brandt-Do we agree to that. Let's call tomorrow and see what we can leam on that one, next. Mr. Martin-The ninety four acre parcel is out and considered not a major factor. Supervisor Brandt-Does everyone agree with that? Councilman Tucker-Agree. Councilman Goetz-Agree. Councilman Caimano-Agree. Mr. O'Connor-Can I get back to the historic thing because I think I'm touching it lightly and maybe I don't understand in full what was done. You should be appreciate of the fact that it took a full year to do this study that you have in front of you. Councilman Caimano-Fine. Mr. O'Connor-That if somebody else were to go on site and do another study it would not be before May before they would even start and it might take them a year to do the same study the same amount of holes that were dug that the fellow testified to at the public hearing. Councilman Caimano-But, I'm not suggesting that. Mr. O'Connor-1 guess your feeling is that if this fellow is satisfied with what is submitted that's the end of the issue? Supervisor Brandt-I think so. Councilman Caimano- What I want to know is the system that we went through as good a system that we can expect for given the state of art today. Councilman Monahan-Was it adequate. Mr. O'Connor-Is that what we're talking about? Supervisor Brandt-Is that adequate is that what we're all saying. One, two, I agree, three four, unanimous how about that. Mr. Martin-The Kamer Blue butterfly. There has been some dispute that the walk-thru was done two weeks to late. The applicant has met with the Nature Conservancy and DEC and has proposed mitigation of doing another walk over at a time to be determined by DEC. Supervisor Brandt-Mitigation suggested by them. Mr. Martin-Right. Supervisor Brandt-Do we agree to that. Councilman Caimano-I don't know how you can do anymore than what the applicant has said he is going to do. Supervisor Brandt-One, two, three, four, Betty, five, unanimous, go. Councilman Monahan-Jim I would also add to that we should be looking for trailing arbutus there. That was brought up earlier even when it came in front of the Planning Board. I think that was the other species we were talking about because that is such an endangered plant. Councilman Monahan-I go back to my point. Laura Sununers who is a Senior Wildlife Biologist for DEC is going to be doing this tell her to look for everything. Mr. Martin-The McDonald subdivision. The plan indicates now that the subdivision would have to be reconfigured. I have to do some research as to whether or not that would require a full subdivision or in fact, the previous subdivision regulations under which it was approved would apply and it can simply be reconfigured. Councilman Caimano-How long has this approval been for that subdivision? Supervisor Brandt -Didn't we just go back and grandfather all these? Councilman Monahan-But, now you have changed it see you have made a major change in it. Mr. O'Connor-It was reconfirmed by the Planning Board, I believe in 1991, because somebody filed a question of interpretation or a question of issuance of the grandfathering. It's been reconfirmed by the Planning Board in it's present status since 1988 which is our present regulations. Supervisor Brandt-And we reconfirmed it as all existing.... Mr. O'Connor-This Board accepted a road within that subdivision within the last three years, I don't have the dates in front of me. Supervisor Brandt-Is what's being proposed acceptable to the Board have we mitigated the traffic problem? The real question is are we going to accept this answer without challenging the whole subdivision again. Mr. Martin-In either case it's going to have to go back before the Board for approval even if it's just simply reconfiguring. .. Councilman Caimano-Because your reconfiguring the road? Mr. Martin-Anytime you shift a lot line like that in a major way... Supervisor Brandt-I want to see as SEQRA do we think that's the right answer? Councilman Caimano- Y our right. Councilman Monahan-There is another problem, I think too, Jim that's been brought up. Part of the McDonald subdivision is going to require closing some roads and opening some roads and then it gets to can we close roads. I'm not quite sure what I'm talking about, but remember it was explained to you because I don't know the area well enough. Mr. Martin-We already talked about tonight that closing a road requires consent of the neighboring property owners. In this case this plan as it's shown is calling for closing of two roads which currently exit out onto Sherman Island Road. I think the applicant is making the statement that the only consent that is required is of the property owner of the subdivision since there are no other houses in the subdivision the subdivision is totally vacant so he is saying that is adequate consent. Councilman Monahan-Have these roads been turned over to the Town? Mr. O'Connor-Yes. Councilman Monahan-Are other people using those roads? Mr. Martin-No, they service just the vacant subdivision. Councilman Monahan-So there is not a connecter road between any other roads? Mr. Martin-No. Supervisor Brandt-Is that agreeable? Councilman Caimano- What Jim said. Supervisor Brandt -One, two, three, Sue, Betty? Councilman Monahan-We still have one road or part of a road that we don't know if it can be closed or not. Supervisor Brandt-They will research that. Attorney Dusek-There is no question they can close off that part of the Sherman Island Road that dead ends on Niagara Mohawk property. Councilman Monahan-The other part we're talking about. Supervisor Brandt-The other part being within McDonald subdivision? Attorney Dusek-That one I don't have a problem with either because that one we can close off. Councilman Monahan-Remember where you said north of where it just goes to the Nimo project that there is another part north of that was going to be closed that you said we might have a problem with. Attorney Dusek-I didn't think the Board wanted to close it. Councilman Caimano-We don't want to close that. Councilman Monahan-That's part of their proposal isn't it Jim? Mr. Martin-No. It's been asked for by the neighbors is what they were saying. Councilman Caimano- The proposal wants to go through. Councilman Monahan-I hope we know what we're doing with all of these roads around here. Mr. O'Connor-We're talking about this project is closing off Sherman Island Road at this point here. The developer will build at his expense a cul-de-sac for a turn around to return traffic back up Sherman Island Road. Councilman Caimano- To. Mr. O'Connor-To Corinth Road. This road that's being closed down here serves no other owner other than Niagara Mohawk. Supervisor Brandt-No problem there. Councilman Monahan-Where are those people going that are now going to use the cul-de-sac? Mr. O'Connor-To visit Niagara Mohawk. Councilman Monahan-That's what I was getting at. That road doesn't go through and connect to any other road. Mr. O'Connor-It doesn't connect to any other road system. Councilman Monahan-When we talked about this before you thought maybe we were going to have a problem with one of those road closing's. Mr. O'Connor-The only roads that will be closed will be a portion of the road within the McDonald subdivision which is shown here in dots and a portion of the road here. Beyond the point of closure on both of those roads there are no individual lot owners other than the McDonalds and the McDonalds will consent they are part of this project. The present McDonald road actually has a cul-de-sac here it doesn't connect over the Corinth Road or anything else. That was like a moon shape internal road system that had a tail on it right here. I don't think Paul has any problem with closing the McDonald Road subdivision, closing this portion of Sherman Island Road. The question that Mr. Brewer brought up was why can't you close this road up here the Town and force everybody here and everybody in this subdivision over here to come down and come out our road system. Supervisor Brandt-That, I take is what's being proposed is acceptable is that correct Pliney? Councilman Tucker-It is at this point in time. Supervisor Brandt-Nick. Councilman Caimano- Yeah. Supervisor Brandt-Yep, Yep. Councilman Monahan-As long as we got all our legal basis covered. Mr. Martin-Traffic issue. I think that pretty much dove tails of what we were talking about. There was some concern and this issue was over shutting down Sherman Island Road where it exists out onto the Corinth Road right now. I think it can be viewed that the amount of traffic going down Sherman Island Road should this project occurr as designed there will be a actual net decrease in traffic on Sherman Island Road. Supervisor Brandt-Especially because Niagara Mohawk will not go down through there anymore. Mr. Martin-That will result in the net decrease. Supervisor Brandt-Is that acceptable? Councilman Caimano- Yes. Councilman Goetz-Yes. Supervisor Brandt -Yes, Betty? Councilman Monahan-Yes. Supervisor Brandt -Unanimous. Councilman Monahan-Is Sherman Island Road that road we were just talking about that only leads to Nimo. Councilman Caimano-Right. Mr. Martin-Wildlife areas. I think this was talking about the areas around the mouth of Clendon Brook. Supervisor Brandt-There, I think its very important we withdrawal our request to put pedestrian access down there because I think we're going to cause the damage. Councilman Monahan-I wonder if we're doing a major impact on this plan. Councilman Caimano-We haven't approved a plan yet. Councilman Monahan-If you do a major impact then you got to go through a whole mess of steps again. Supervisor Brandt-I don't agree. Does anyone think it's major lets ask? No, no, no, no. Councilman Tucker-It's a concern to these people and we're going to eliminate hopefully that concern. Supervisor Brandt-Four to one we're going. Mr. Martin-Soils. The septic system this has two points to it. The erosion qualities of the sandy nature of the soils and also their ability to handle the septic system or the sewage. The developer is proposing two items of mitigation. One is obviously the deeding of the bluffs to cut down on the erosion from any foot traffic. The second relates to the septic system is modifying the soils bringing in soils of better quality to meet the standards of modified system. Supervisor Brandt -Acceptable. Councilman Caimano- That's what we're paying the engineer for. I don't know if we can do any better than that other than cancel the project. Mr. Martin-Again, the other item to mention is that these will all be reviewed by Rist Frost obviously. Supervisor Brandt -Mitigated. Councilman Goetz-Mitigated. Supervisor Brandt-Betty? Councilman Monahan-Yes. Supervisor Brandt -Unanimous. Mr. Martin-Number eleven involvement of the Town Board. This is something that the applicant raised tonight. I think this is fairly significant. Councilman Caimano-I think it is too. There is something that it really does is that something that happens many many times, I don't what Paul's going to say about the legal aspect of it. As this thing gets going...drift out. If the neighbors have concerns there is never a focal point and this gives you the focal point and that focal point is this Town Board. Mr. Martin-What I think is important here is the way the regulations are currently written. Yes, there is a mechanism by which this can come back to the Board, but that's at the discretion of the Planning Board and we all know how sometimes the Planning Board.... Councilman Monahan-Yes we do Jim, yes we do. People who deliberately thwart the will of the Town Board and reread things into rezoning that were not there. Councilman Caimano-Is it legally a problem, Paul. Mr. Martin-What the applicant is proposing is that the Town Board would also have discretion in this particular case to... Supervisor Brandt-It's paralleling. We're not taking any power away that they legally have we're holding some power back in case we want it, right? Councilman Caimano-It's a responsible pressure point that's what it is. Attorney Dusek-What's passing through my mind is that you have general laws that set up the guidance for the PUD. On the other hand what you seem to be doing is supplementing in this particular case for particular reasons that would justify it, I guess if the applicant also agrees with it, I don't see how it's really going to be a problem. Mr. O'Connor-We've agreed to it because we knew it was a concern. Attorney Dusek-I do a little bit more thought on it before it comes back to you, but initially I think it will work. Supervisor Brandt-Agreed, everyone agrees? Councilman Tucker-I agree. Supervisor Brandt-Unanimous, again. Mr. Martin-Item twelve. Pollution resulting from fertilizers. The point was just made that fertilizers due to some recent studies that have been made to that in fact result in pollution to groundwater in most cases the phosphorus are absorb by the plant matter the lawns. It's only in the cases of animal excrement in a farm or something like that where there is such a load that they do in fact leach down into the groundwater. Councilman Caimano-I got to tell you this. I heard what Mike said before my only concern with this is that the science on the leaching of pesticides, fertilizers and their carriers is every bit as nebulous is that on EMF. I think we should take it all with the same grain of salt. Councilman Caimano- Y ou didn't mention pesticides or herbicides and they don't dissolve. Supervisor Brandt-Look it, argue with Cornell it was their publication not mine, I just read it. Councilman Monahan-I know that's the thought of why the grass didn't take on Ridge Jenkinsville because of what was used on that farm land over there. Councilman Monahan-The point is that we have the same kind of concern there. I think we should take the same kind of attitude and that is whatever are the basic followed standards then we should use them. Mr. Martin-The standard of the Town is that we simply restrict them. Supervisor Brandt-Are we mitigated there. Councilman Monahan-Your saying restricted then. I think it has to be restricted. Mr. Martin-I would say don't deviate from what we've done in the past it's never been a problem. Councilman Caimano-We have to do what we've done in the past with in the Town. Supervisor Brandt-We're sticking with that is that agreeable? Attorney Dusek-What is it that we've done in the past? Mr. Martin-The Planning Board has stipulated that development along lake shores or shorelines be restricted from the use of herbicides, pesticides, chemical fertilizers. Organic fertilizer are exempted from that. Mr. Oppenheim-What if your setback fifty feet from the edge of the road along lake shores if there a distinction? Supervisor Brandt-That might be the worst thing you could do with these soils. I mean, I hate to tell you that was my major, I did a lot of ag work. These are sand soils they don't hold fertility well the best thing you can do is fertilize them very lightly and quite often. If they had organic matter you'd be all set, but you 've got to establish that organic matter. Gee, I hate like hell to say we're soil scientist because it doesn't sound like it to me. I think best we leave it to the soil scientist and stay the hell out of it. Councilman Monahan-Jim is there already in our rules and regulations about that too. Mr. Martin-I thought that there was. Councilman Caimano-We do have something already in there that's why the golf courses are doing what they are doing. Councilman Monahan-I think you need to check that and see what we've already got in there. Mr. Oppenheim-I think what we will agree to do is whatever the Town regulations are we'll go with the Town regulations. 2 Supervisor Brandt-Let's reexamine the regulations cause they might not make sense. Mr. Martin-We've agreed on that one. Councilman Caimano- W e agree to go by the standards that are set. Mr. Martin-Thirteen, this is my last one impact on the school system. The Superintendent of Schools has been approached, I know of twice specifically on this project regarding the bus stops. I had assumed as the applicant did that at that point they would have mentioned any problem with potential growth impact. As a matter of fact when I was Chairman of the Planning Board, I ask you originally to go talked to the Superintendent of Schools for that very reason. Mr. O'Connor-If you look in your file, I think you will find a letter from Lee York to Dr. Irion which I think touches on that issue in the very beginning, I just have recollection of seeing it. I know in the general discussions that we had with him, I had a general discussion with him before the first meeting that Rob Sutherland had with him. He asked about what would be the mix of the housing. I said it was going to be on all ranges so you would probably have starter families, families in the middle of bringing up children and some retirement. It would not be a soul type of development. I don't know what the national average is, I remember in discussion with him the average number of children per family. He quickly went through something in his head and said it's going to be over seven years, I know we discussed it, I know we never seen it in a letter. Mr. Martin-What I might suggest is that we confirm it. Councilman Monahan-It's going to have an impact and there is no since in kidding that there isn't. When you figure those number of units even if you only figure half of them and one child per, your talking two to three classrooms that it's going to impact that school. Councilman Tucker-Get the answer from the school. Councilman Monahan-And the school is bursting at the seams right now. It will have an impact, I mean we can't very well say it won't. Supervisor Brandt -Of course it will. Councilman Monahan-Unless we make everyone moving in take an oath not to have children. Mr. Martin-That's the only thirteen I had. Councilman Monahan-Jim you didn't pull in one, maybe you did this is from Mike's stuff. Proposed drainage systems and plans for stormwater management must be reviewed by engineering consultant to the Town at site plan review at the expense of the developer and must be, did you pull that in to your report? Mr. Martin-I didn't site that specifically. I may assume that under the soils issue. Councilman Monahan-In fact maybe all this could be made part of the record really Mike's presentation here. Supervisor Brandt-Mike being O'Connor? Councilman Monahan-Yes. Supervisor Brandt-Okay. Councilman Tucker-Have you got some more that he didn't ask? Councilman Caimano- There are a lot here that he didn't ask that Sandy brought up. Supervisor Brandt-Bring it up. Councilman Caimano-Most of them are subjective. I'm trying to read through these and try to see how we can answer these. Things like thresholds to low and density to high are so subjective, I don't know how to answer those. Archeological sites we're taking care of that. Councilman Monahan-May I make a suggestion? Councilman Caimano-Sure. Councilman Monahan-That one where they said they be allowed a hundred sixty three units. I think since some this soil has to be investigated that should have a little kicker in it and I don't know how to word that exactly providing all engineering studies or something... Supervisor Brandt-That's a given. Mr. O'Connor-That is there because when you go back to the other two we have to show each septic system and show that we will have a significant area to put in septic systems for all units that are built up to one sixty three. Councilman Monahan-I guess what I'm saying Mike, if you can't get the density where you plan and your going to shove it someplace else a lot of it. I'm not concern over a few units, but a lot of it that could have a major impact on this project. Mr. O'Connor-Your talking right now approximately eight units. Mr. Oppenheim-Spread over one seventy five acres. Councilman Monahan-I'm saying that some of these engineering studies show that you've got some major soil problems that might cut you down in a certain area. Councilman Tucker-Then it can't happen can it? Mr. O'Connor-We've done numerous test pits. You have the information in some of the documents that have been submitted to you. We have done preliminary discussions with the Health Department. We have told them the type of system that we will come in with in the design and they said they will accept it and that it will work. Supervisor Brandt-If for some reason you find other limiting factors then your going to have to down size accordingly. Mr. O'Connor-Yes. Councilman Monahan-That's what I want to be understood that is hundred and sixty three isn't a magic number cast in concrete. Mr. O'Connor-This is why we said everything will be per engineer, Town consultant, review and approval. We could conceivable have two single family homes sharing one unit. That sometimes works better than two individual units if it's side by side. You have easement that cross lines and stuff like that. We will have only what is engineering approved not by our design, but by the Town consultants. Mr. Oppenheim-As well as the State. Mr. Martin-Do you think there is any chance that given, you have to add in these other eight somewhere else in the parcel that your going to have to get into shared septic systems or anything like that? Mr. O'Connor-No. I shouldn't have thrown that out, I don't mean to confuse you. Also, on the septic on the multi-family housing that will be reviewed by DEC. The septic on the individual single family homes will be reviewed by the Department of Health. there is a lot of cross jurisdictions here. Supervisor Brandt-We basically as a Board have asked and we polled ourselves and we've come to a sense of this. Now, can you two guys as our professionals help us put together a long form determination of what we've just said? Councilman Monahan-I'd like to ask Jim something just a minute first, please. With this change in plan do you have to re-scale the open space or anything like that? Mr. Martin-Not that I can see. I think it's compensated for by the reduction in the density along the point. Councilman Monahan- I just want to make sure. I think Paul has to have time enough to do some mitigation type of things. Mr. Martin-I have a couple calls to make and a couple items to report back to the Board on. Supervisor Brandt-Bring all this together and if they show a problem we will have to look at that again. If they don't show a problem then we, tell me what we do, please? Attorney Dusek-There are two next steps as part of the SEQRA process. The first would be to review that part two of the long EAF go through the questions. I think your in fairly good position to go through those tonight or you could wait until your next meeting to do that. Councilman Monahan-We have to do the mitigation.... Attorney Dusek-The mitigation measures have been identified tonight. Councilman Monahan-They need to be written in concrete with the kind of whereas and all that kind of stuff that needs to be done. Attorney Dusek-That's the second part that I was about to describe to you. Once you get through the Part II form then you will review the mitigation measures the full outline of the negative dec proposal or positive dec whatever it may be that will be your call. Supervisor Brandt-The sense so far unless those phone calls that we've asked to be made have got a problem the sense is we're looking at that it's mitigated so it would be negative dec. Attorney Dusek-Right. Supervisor Brandt-That's what we just did the exercise for. It means we have to put into hard language all of the things we've just said. Attorney Dusek-What's going to happen is I'm actually going to prepare two separate documents for you. One will be the SEQRA part of it where we identify all these things. You will do the Part II then you'll review that. There will be a draft and you'll work on the draft to make it satisfactory to you. Then there will be another document which is actually the planned unit development document which again lists all of the conditions as part of the planned unit development as well as requiring certain other things that would normally go with the rezoning. There will be three more steps to take here conceivably if it went along the way the Boards seems to be going unless something else turns up here on these phone calls. Councilman Monahan-Nick, it's very interesting. One of the impact questions they ask is application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year other than for agricultural purposes. Councilman Caimano-And they've answered no that's interesting. Impact on public health the long form BAF here is answered no, I'm surprised at that. Supervisor Brandt-Wasn't there a discussion on who filled this out? Councilman Caimano-Sandy didn't you fill this out? Attorney Allen-I filled out the one I just gave you. Councilman Monahan-We've got two or three of them floating around. Councilman Caimano- The one she just gave us is the one that you guys filled out. Supervisor Brandt-I think they might have filled one out and I think we took exception to that long ago. Mr. Sutherland-When we first met with the Planning staff and that was last January and we talked procedurally how to do that. In working with Lee York the recommendation was that we develop part II and III we we're working with the Town's guidance the planning staff guidance. The second planner this summer Mr. Parisi took exception to that after we were instructed, advised to proceed in that manner. At this point in time we resubmitted part one without parts two and three. Throughout the process for the last twelve months we've been working in concurrence with the planning staff as far their recommendations as to how to proceed we didn't do that on our own. Supervisor Brandt-Right. Mr. Sutherland-I think that needs to be clear. During the public hearing there were a number of comments about that it was something that we had done and it was irregular to do that. Councilman Monahan-Without Lee here, I don't want to responded to that. I can only say once I worked with Lee and the staff had always done it the developer had never done that section. Supervisor Brandt-We've since then said, we're going to do it. Mr. Martin-I've indicated to the applicant if they want to fill out part two and three on their copy it really doesn't matter. He would still have to go through it anyhow. We're going to use a blank form your going to provide the check marks and your going to sign off on it. It doesn't matter what they do if they take a copy and fill in some answers. Councilman Caimano-It doesn't make anymore difference than Sandy filling this one out. Mr. Martin-It happens all the time we get them all the time in long form submitted with applications for subdivisions or whatever. It is just simply disregarded because the Boards always go through and do their own review and the Chairman in this case the Supervisor signs off on the form. Supervisor Brandt - I think we just handed you guys a whole bunch of work. I think we're done with this workshop tonight. Mr. Martin-I just want to summarize. I'm going to call State Historic Preservation Office was the procedure adequate. Supervisor Brandt-Right. Mr. Martin-I'm going to check the Ordinance regarding the McDonald subdivision. I'm going to check the Ordinance for standards for pesticides and so on. I'm going to call the Superintendent of Schools regarding any impacts on the schools and that's my list. Councilman Monahan-Will you please call Dr. Carpenter for anymore information that he has, please. Councilman Caimano-Can we set a date as to when we might be looking at doing this SEQRA? Supervisor Brandt-How fast can you guys be ready with all of this? Attorney Dusek -January? Mr. Martin-They are waiting for you to laugh, Paul. Attorney Dusek-Realistically, from my end of it it's not going to take that long to prepare. This is nothing more than a draft resolution based upon the record. I'm not claiming that it will be perfect the first time around, but I'm going to give you a draft from which we all can work from. Supervisor Brandt-Then we can set another workshop as soon as you see what that look's like. Councilman Caimano-We can do that at a meeting. Councilman Tucker-It makes me nervous when he says his time. I've been working with this guy for thirteen months what is your time definitely. Councilman Caimano-Slow. Councilman Tucker-Yeah, I know. Mr. Martin-Depending on how people get back to me I can be done in a couple days. Attorney Dusek-I think to keep it going as long as its in everybody's mind if you want to deal with it on Monday that's fine with me. Mr. Martin-I should be ready by then no problem. Councilman Tucker-That's next Monday, right? Mr. O'Connor-I'll ask you to make sure not to confuse part two with my file or submittal. Supervisor Brandt-We will close that out. WORKSHOP CLOSED Supervisor Brandt-We had talked about last night when you came up with a reason to not be there to look at your priorities in planning. I think there is only one thing that was said last night that should be resaid tonight and that is this Board polled itself and said top priority move with that 149, corridor study. Councilman Caimano-Do you need me for this? Supervisor Brandt-No, bye. Mr. Martin-I know everybody is tired and they want to go home so I'll come back with the rest of my list, but I'll just deal with that one issue. I just want to go through what my approach was like I did with you Betty the other day in the office. As part of the update of the Master Plan this was the best place to start and it was certainly the mandate that came out the other night. What we've done is we actually began the process. We started inventorying the land uses along the road we started gathering the data regarding building permits up and down the road. The next step that I wanted to go over with the Board is the actual methodology of getting public input. I think it's best serviced in doing it two ways. One is a direct mail- out survey to every property owner on the road and the second is two public meetings. The first one would be an informational gathering session to simply leam what people want to see happen with that corridor. Then we go back take all the data we gather in terms of the public input, the surveys, the physical characteristic of the road and so on an so forth and come up with a land use plan for the road. Then we have a second public meeting where we tell the people what we've learned and what our recommendations are. Councilman Caimano-Where are you going to have the public hearings here? Mr. Martin-Yeah. Councilman Monahan-Those aren't really public hearings they will be public information meetings. Councilman Caimano-Can we do it over there? Mr. Martin-Over where? Councilman Caimano-Over in the 149, corridor. Mr. Martin-I thought this was just as close as any place. Supervisor Brandt-We are agreeing to do the mailing, we're agreeing to your procedure. Mr. Martin-What I'm saying is that I'm planning to have this done April 1st. Your going to have a document in your hand a land use plan with all this information summarized in it. I think given what we're going to find your going to have a draft of a new zoning district in there as well ready to insert.... Councilman Monahan-A different zoning district. Mr. Martin-A different zoning district that will be ready for insertion right into the Ordinance should the Board see fit. But, I'm on a April 1st time clock, I'm talking less than eight weeks. Councilman Monahan-We're talking about a zoning district with different objectives to it. Mr. Martin-Right. But, I also just as a side note written a letter to the Ethics Board explaining my involvement and that I'm a property owner on the road and whatever they tell me to do I will do. Councilman Caimano- Thank you. Supervisor Brandt -Any other business to come before this Board? RESOLUTION DELEGATE ASSOCIATION OF TOWNS RESOLUTION NO. 112, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz Attorney Dusek-On the issue of the delegate for Association of Towns. Did you happen to decide tonight who it is going to be. Councilman Caimano-One of us will do it. Supervisor Brandt-I'll move that we make Nick our official delegate. We went through the whole form tonight earlier and we gave all our positions. Councilman Goetz-I'll second the motion. Duly adopted this 2nd day February, 1993, by the following vote: All Those In Favor: Ayes All Those Opposed: None Absent: None Supervisor Brandt -You guys change whatever has to be change. Motion to adjourn. Councilman Caimano-So moved. Supervisor Brandt-I'll second it. No further action taken. On motion, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, Miss Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk Town of Queensbury