Loading...
1993-09-13-S SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 13,1993 5:00 p.m. MTG.#66 RES#506 TOWN BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Michel Brandt Councilman Betty Monahan Councilman Susan Goetz Councilman Nick Caimano Councilman Pliney Tucker PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN SUSAN GOETZ PUBLIC HEARING SEQRA HEARING HUDSON POINTE PUD NOTICE SHOWN Supervisor Brandt-The public hearing on the Environmental Impact Statement that correct? Attorney Dusek-That is correct. Supervisor Brandt-And we are meeting early at 5:00 O'Clock to accommodate this and this is a chance for everybody to give us input. I am not going to restrict it. We do have a couple of problems, the problem is at 6:4 5 we have to bug out of here for a few minutes and then we can come back, and if it goes on and on it will go on and on in as far as you want to go. Then we have to convene the regular Town Board Meeting to conduct our other business and we will do that as soon as everybody has had a chance to say what they want to say. If we understand that we will get started. Is there anybody that would like to speak on this, at this time? Come on right up because it is an official record I would like to ask you to give your name for the record and then go ahead and present your comments. Mr. Ronald Akins-I am Roland Akins, Corinth Road,Glens Falls, Queensbury. First of all I would like to ask you people for an extension. Tim is not here tonight his wife had emergency surgery today and he asked me to ask you that I was going to mention it anyway. For three reasons, as you see that thickness of that book is pretty complex I just feel we do not have the time to go through it, it was drawn up by experts and I do not know, whether you people went thorough the whole thing yet either. One other reason is in a letter in there it stated that Dr. Irion would have a copy of this and as of today he has not received a copy. I still do not think the Michaels Group has lived up to their agreement, although they did supply this ...for us to have for our thirty days and they did agree and I thought they agreed at the last meeting that the book would be picked up and delivered back here by Friday which would be distributed it was not back until Monday or Tuesday I do not think it was picked up till Friday. It just took three more days away from us. A few months ago I stated that I felt that the Town should go back to their master plan of three acres on the bluffs providing the EIS did not prove that this was, it could not handle it. As of now I do not there is a lot of likely's maybe's and I probably could look up some examples for you and I really do not believe that they have proved that the bluffs and the river banks will handle this development. I would like to say as far as the ground water they mentioned practically every other page in there that ground water is over fifty feet up here and I am sure Mike and Pliney as well knows that is not true. You look at their borings in there the borings were all done on the west side of the property one on the River Bank was fifty two feet they did not . .any water. The others they stopped short of that, eight feet, ten feet one was twenty four feet there was another one thirty six feet but that was out near the bank. There was no borings done on the east side of the property along the brook or the bluffs. I would like to have that done over. I do not think I have anything else to say right now, I will pass it on to somebody else. Councilman Caimano-I think Mr. Akins though, correct me ifl am wrong Mike, he brings up. Mr. Roland Akins-But I would really like to have you consider an extension on it. Councilman Caimano- That is the point, you know, if we are going to consider an extension then the rest of it is mute until we come back, if we are going to have an extension and the rest of the problems are mute until we come back, that is the question before the house is are we going to have an extension? Mr. Roland Akins-Just on that one point alone the Dr. Irion did not receive a copy they said the last time he had not commented on it there is nothing to comment on. Councilman Goetz-Could I just ask a question on what you just mentioned about Dr. Irion not having the copy. If I understand it correctly it would possible that we were going to have resolution today accepting the DEIS as complete right? Councilman Caimano-No. All the comments are not due until September 30th. Mr. Roland Akins-September 30th Councilman Goetz-I am referring to this letter August 18th from the Saratoga Associates, C.R.E. explained that Dr. Irion would be receiving a copy of the DEIS once it is determined complete by the Town. Councilman Monahan-It has been determined complete. Councilman Goetz-That is what I am just verifying that. Mr. Ronald Akins-That was determined at the last meeting. Councilman Monahan-You determined that... Mr. Ronald Akins-So he should have received a copy at that time I would say. Councilman Caimano-I have no idea why he did not receive it or if he did not receive it. Mr. Ronald Akins-I checked with him today he had not received it. Councilman Goetz-Is it up to Saratoga Associates to get it there? Councilman Caimano-I would think so. Mr. Ronald Akins-And that was a strong point they had the last time that he had not comments on. Councilman Caimano-I say again the question is are we going to extend it? Because there is not sense going into a protracted meeting if in fact we are going to grant Mr. Akins his extension. At least I do not see it, I see it that way. Supervisor Brandt-That process is open until the 30th is that correct? Councilman Caimano-Yea, that is what I see. I do not see why we cannot extend it with the process is open until the 30th. Councilman Monahan-Keep the public hearing open. Councilman Caimano-Keep the public hearing open and Councilman Monahan-And hear what people have to say tonight and then Mr. Ronald Akins-It is open until the 30th for comments anyway. Councilman Caimano- That is correct. Councilman Monahan-But, then keep the part where those are written comments, but keep the part where they can make verbal comments open also. Councilman Caimano-I guess what I do not like though is to have public hearing, my personnel feeling, you guys can do whatever you want, my personnel feeling is to have public hearings that extend over multiply nights especially if you are separated by a week or more leads to repeats, forgets, whatever it all ought to happen in one night if we have to be here for five hours it ought to happen at one time in one place as far as I am concerned. That is me talking. Mr. Ronald Akins-I do not think that is necessary but I think you should leave that comment period open for another at least the fifteen days which he has lost. Councilman Caimano-It is staying open until the 30th. Councilman Monahan-The written comments. Councilman Caimano- The written. Mr. Ronald Akins-The written comments. Supervisor Brandt-I have no problem with, I mean, I would think anybody that wants to comment, got all the time in the world to comment here I mean this is the oral. I will stay here as late as anybody wants to stay here and hear out everybody and if somebody feels they were not heard and they want to give us input why not in writing. I do not see that, that is a hardship. Mr. Ronald Akins-We have to the 30th in writing now but, will you extend that period for another fifteen days? Supervisor Brandt-That is another question. Councilman Caimano- That is another question. My impression was that you are asking, you were asking for this oral open hearing to be extended or postphoned to another time because Tim could not be here. Mr. Ronald Akins-Either way but I think the 30 days should be extended at least 45 considering he has not received his information to comment on. Councilman Caimano- That is another. Supervisor Brandt-Who would like to speak to us next? Ms. Ann Ruchalski-Hi, I am Ann Ruchalski, I live on the Corinth Road in Queensbury, my last name is Ruchalski, I have three things that I just want to mention very briefly. One is that I got a phone call just this past week from a man who is not a resident of Queensbury he is a resident of Glens Falls and his name is Dave Williams and he lived in Queensbury along this area growing up. He remembers a time when there, Nimo was dumping PCB's on the land and he draw up a map of the sites as he remembers them. And he said that he feels that this land, these particular site should be tested for PCB's and he also feels that if Nimo has nothing to hide they shouldn't have any problems with the testing being done. So, I have just a very rough scale here, he did say he would be willing to walk the land with whomever would do the testing to show exactly where he remembers these sights to be. He did not come, he is not a resident of Queensbury however he obviously felt enough about the property to give me a call and mention these sights and he did drop off a map for me. So, I do not know where we would go with that or, I feel that if there are PCB's that yes, the soil does need to be tested. One of the sites that he mentioned was the one trial that heads down to the wetlands which he calls Pollywog bay that is what they called it as kids, but that is the actual wetland area. There is a dump that is already there of rubbish that is either I assume Queensbury residents who do not want to use the landfill or whatever it is quite old there is not too many new things. But he believes that the PCB's are lying underneath that. He also mentioned that there was a time when Nimo did some filling and filled in some of the areas. So, once again I have not walked it I have not seen it I am right now giving you second hand information, I realize that, but I do feel concerned about this. So, that is one the second is, I had just recently written a letter to the editor mentioning that I still strongly believe this project is much too large for the parcel of land and I would strongly believe that a subdivision be reconsidered rather than a PUD. I know that we are pretty much heading for a PUD I personally would like to see the land totally undeveloped but I realize that is unrealistic that Nimo does have the right to decide what to do with their land if they chose to sell it but I still think that the environmental impact on this land if it is a PUD is extremely you know strong and the lands very fragile and it might be more acceptable if it was a subdivision. The last is what Mr. Akins said in fact I really agree with him and want to back him up on what he was just up here saying about the fact that Dr. Irion has not had thirty days to respond he has not received it yet and he is the public and we were all told that we have thirty days and he has not had the thirty days. So, as of the 30th it will not be thirty days for him. Thank you. Councilman Monahan-Could I suggest that she give that map to Darleen so it becomes part of the official record and then maybe Darleen you make a copy for Dick Morse please. Ms. Ruchalski-It is a rough sketch. (Gave map to Town Clerk) Supervisor Brandt-Try and talk, can you hear us alright, the next person would just go up and test it to see if it was working tap on it. Who would like to be next? Can you tap on that microphone a little bit to see if it works? Pull it at little closer to you if you would to see if that helps. Mrs. Emily Akins-Like this. Supervisor Brandt-Does that work for everybody? Mrs. Emily Akins-I do not know how well I can talk into it though? Councilman Caimano-Bend it down. Mrs. Emily Akins-Like this? When you first, the last two years, two years ago Mike, your campaign was run all on environmental just about. I would say the biggest percent of it was. You know how sensitive that land is the bluff is, and I am just talking about the point we are talking about Potters point and the Polly wog you got the trails back in there now again they were taken off the but they are back. I think the conservation easements they won't to me they cannot they cannot protect what you are saying they are going to protect. What the Michels group is saying, it is going to protect it all, it isn't going to protect it all it is too sensitive down in there you can draw back a little bit you can get off that water and stay back away from it. I had to hurry tonight, I guess I am, but I really don't, the docks are there I don't believe in it I do not really go, I mean can't. You have a dock down in where the wetlands are you are wrong, I mean you are very wrong. It is not going to be on my conscious when that is gone when it is all gone you laugh maybe a few months ago about it well the pollution will be out in the Atlantic pretty soon. It will be gone and washed away. To me the whole wetlands are going to be washed and gone away if you build on them bluffs. I do not want to be remembered for that. I know I am doing what I can to protect them. I do not care if the other parts developed go ahead and develop all you want down in there but stay away from that posed point. I do not want them on there. A lot of people do not want them on there. A lot more than just six of us. I hope you really think it over good, before they are gone. Did I give my name? Councilman Goetz-I am not sure. Town Clerk Darleen Dougher-No you did not. Mrs. Emily Akins-Emily Akins. But, please think about it before you make a vote on this. Supervisor Brandt -Ok. Mrs. Emily Akins-Remember you last campaign. Remember it. Supervisor Brandt-I think I remember it quite well. Mrs. Emily Akins-I do not know if you do. Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you Emily. Mr. Peter Imperial-Peter Imperial, Morningside Circle I had a friend come down with a EMF tester and fifty feet off the pole lines was reading a point three on the .... about one hundred feet it was reading two point seven about one hundred fifty feet it was one point I forget the numbers but that is in the area where it is at and it was constant, it was not fluctuating it was constant, it was not done on a heavy surge day when you have the electric going through the wires and also I would like to say this too, I do not mind them building over there but in the right fashion. Also, if this is a hearing for the Town's people of Queensbury five o'clock is not the right time to start this seven o'clock at night and then stay here to two o'clock in the morning I am lucky I work for myself I was able to get off. Notices should be set up even this is such a big operation going on notices should be sent out saying we are having a meeting not put it in the newspaper get all the people involved on the streets over there send them out notices saying seven o'clock we are having a public meeting and have everybody here not just a few individuals that can take off work. Thank you. Supervisor Brandt -Someone else. Mr. Jeffrey Friedland-For the record I am Jeff Friedland, I represent the Brewers and the Akins as I am sure you know by now. We have reviewed the DEIS and our review shows that the DEIS is incomplete and inconsistent and it would require a supplemental EIS at the very least. It also suggest that the project is way too big for the site. I guess the first problem or actual error actual legal error in the EIS is that the EIS assumes that a PUD is permitted in this zone. A PUD is not permitted on almost half the project area in the zone the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance expressly says what uses are permitted in what zones it is right there in the ordinance. The project has about one hundred and eighteen acres on suburban residentiallA and about ninety acres on waterfront residential3A, three acres. PUD is allowed in the SRIA zone it is not allowed in a WR3A zone it is not a listed permitted use. It seems to be that is a major problem the DEIS does not address this does not explain this discrepancy. Even if you get past this problem and somehow assume the Town Board could legally approve a PUD here I do not think it can the zoning ordinance set forth certain standards that a PUD has to meet before it can be approved. One of the standards is a PUD must be in harmony with the Town Land Use Plan. But the Town Land Use Plan designates this area as I indicated three acres and one acre and characterizes it as low development suitability and low densities. Presumably that is why a PUD is not allowed in the zone because it is supposed to have low densities and low development suitability. The project is clearly not in harmony with the landuse plan and the EIS does not explain this discrepancy. The PUD is also supposed to provide more open space and recreational areas but a great deal of the open space on this project is in a sensitive environmental area on the bluffs in the buffer zone there is a wetland there it is not usable open space and the project does not meet that standard either. The EIS is also deficient in a number of other specific areas. For example in this treatment of ground and surface water the EIS acknowledges that this is a ground water recharge area and it is potential aquifer recharge area and it acknowledges that the Town has said this is important to ground water quality. But at that same time the DEIS says all this it admits that heavy metals, oil, grease, chloride, herbicides, fertilizers and nitrite will enter the ground water and will go to the Hudson River and will go to Clendon Brook and cause what it calls minor contamination. The DEIS does not appear to have any way to mitigate a stop this quote unquote minor contamination. There is also no discussion in the DEIS as how the nitrates might cause a nutrient upset of the wetland, it is a DEC designated wetland there is no analysis of discussion of whether the minor contamination might contaminate any near by wells. There is also in incomplete and what appears to be inconsistent discussion regarding the septic system, as obviously connected to the ground water problem. One place it says that the on site soil are sufficient to treat the effluent and other places it says it may need to import soils of course the on site soils are not good enough. So, we need a supplemental EIS again to clear this up and to straighten this out. It is also missing a description or a design plan for the septic systems it is not in the EIS at all. The EIS does however admit that two variances from the New York State Dept. of Health are required. One because the soil percolation rate is less than one minute per inch and the second variance because there is more than forty nine lots here and DOH regs say you have more than forty nine lots you need a central collection system. They want a waiver or variance from that requirement also. The fact that they are acknowledging they need two variances suggest to me that this project is too big, not appropriate for the soils or at the least it should hook into the existing Town Sewer System. It is also inconsistent the EIS is inconsistent in its treatment of the wetlands. In some places it says the wetlands will be marked and protected from use but it does not say how it will be protected. In other places it expressly says they will not be delineated. So that needs to be straightened out also. The DEIS acknowledge other people that residents will explore the site it cannot be prevented from exploring the site if the wetland is not marked it does not explain how the wetland will be protected for people who don't know there the wetland is. The EIS also appears to assume that the Army Corp. of Engineers has not wetland jurisdiction here. But there is no analysis in that there is no letter from the Army Corp. without that the analysis of the wetlands is also incomplete. The EIS treatment that the bluffs and the buffer zone is also incomplete and inconsistent. The EIS does acknowledge that these areas must be preserved to mitigate erosion and that erosion increases on the steepest slope. But the preservation and mitigation measurers are inconsistent in one place in the EIS it says there will be no cutting in the buffer and in the bluffs other places it says there will be restrictive cutting allowed. Still other places it clearly says that cutting can occur and vegetation can be removed. I think the sponsor needs to figure out what it is doing here and needs to set this forth in a supplemental EIS. The bluffs and the buffer is supposed to be protected by conservation easements but the EIS is also inconsistent there. At one place it says it will be maintained by either the HOA or deeded to the Town another place it says it will be deeded to the Town. There is no discussion of how the conservation easements will be enforced or is there any effective way to enforce them. This project will generate over four hundred residents over a hundred children and there is no discussion or analysis of how just simply putting these sensitive environmental areas in a conservation easement will protect them. The projects own consultants said that is difficult to police posted areas when the only effective manner is to put barriers up there. The projects own consultant and there is no analysis in the EIS of why not, why they are not putting barriers up around these sensitive areas. The EIS does acknowledge that this area, that the Town is designated this area as a view shed but it also says the views will be filtered and that the probably will not be seen from the river. If this is a valuable view shed it seems to make sense to require a denser screen on the bluffs and the buffer they are restricted no cutting at all on the bluffs and buffer and try and make it so the view shed it not destroyed. The EIS is also somewhat inconsistent in its treatment of flora and fauna it acknowledges for one that some protected plants may be not preserved and will be lost to development. It also says that some plants may not be identified yet so that we do not even know if any of these plants are endangered or threatened species. Until we have this information the EIS is even not complete or we need a supplemental EIS to analysis this. The EIS is also not complete in its discussion of alternatives, there is not discussion of alternative sites the SEQRA regulations expressly say that site alternatives may be limited to parcels owned by or under control of the project sponsor. The EIS acknowledges that NIMO owns or controls other sites but there is no discussion in here at all of these other sites. Likewise there is no discussion at all of alternative uses. Again we need a supplemental EIS to address these missing issues. The EIS is also somewhat incomplete in its treatment of the impact of social and community services, somebody mentioned before the fact that the school superintendent has not had a chance to look at the EIS. He is quoted in the EIS saying that he has commented on Phase I or the project but he has not made any comment on the rest of the project that clearly is an illegal segmentation the EIS has to include or view the entire project it cannot segment it and just look at Phase I. There is also no fiscal analysis at all of the negative impacts of the cost of any of these community services. For example the cost of Fire, Police the Highway Maintenance the School there is simply no fiscal analysis in there at all. Again you need supplemental EIS to cover these areas. Almost finally we need a supplemental EIS for one other reason and that this the issue of the Karner Blue Butterfly. As I think the Board knows the Karner Blue Butterfly is listed as an endangered species by New York State and last December it was listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act. The Federal Law provides after two years after listing of an Endangered Species which the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service can designate critical habitats for a listed Endangered Species. The Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated the will look at this area. This is an area that they will examine there is not discussion at all i the EIS that the likelihood of them designating this area as critical habitat or what the impact that would have on the project. The last thing I would like to address is referral of this project to the County Planning Board we believe that is required by both SEQRA and the General Municipal Law. When the County Planning Board had this before it was before there was a pos dec and before there was a Draft Environmental Impact Statement accepted. The General Municipal Law says that the referring agency has to submit all materials to the County that the referring agency accepted as a complete application. Everything the Town gets the County is supposed to get. SEQRA says that the application here is not complete until the DEIS is accepted to the County by law it is supposed to get a copy of the DEIS before it makes its recommendation. That never happened. Therefore this has to go back there to the County Planning Board and any decision by the Town Board before that happened is clearly invalid. I guess to sum up our feeling is that first of all the PUD is not even prohibited in this zone secondly there are a host of areas that are missing information inconsistent information in the EIS that needs to be fixed by a supplemental EIS. I guess that is it and I thank you for your time and patience. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you for your input. Councilman Caimano-Just a question for Paul Dusek. Mr. Friedlander mentions what appears to be a Catch 22 in that last statement, that the County has to have the DEIS and yet before they can make their recommendation but there would not be a DEIS unless the County made a recommendation to us and then we made a pos dec which cause the DEIS to happen and it I am a little confused there. Attorney Dusek-Well,the County typically makes the recommendation very early on because usually projects of course move through very quickly and you don't want to be hung up waiting, in fact it happened to us on one of our zoning ordinance matters, if you will recall, that we ended up having to to wait because it was not timed right with the County. But the issue actually that Mr. Freidland raises is ah actually goes to the wording actually used in the general municipal law when it talks about an application that has to be given to the County as compared to the wording in the SEQRA law which says that no application is complete obviously until the SEQRA is complete, finished review. You combine that with the thought the General Municipal Law was really set up to provide the County with an advisory opinion which is non binding on the Board accept that in certain instances of course it can require a super majority of the Town Board. With all that being said I think what I am leading to I really want to go back re-read those and perhaps do a little research to see if I can come to some particular conclusion on that because I cannot right now just off the top of my head. I do see what he is saying and I also recognize you know what that agency is all about I recognize of course what you have just said in terms of your comment and how it is placed before them I will just have to go back and study it. Councilman Tucker-Mr. Chairman, it appears this gentleman is shot our procedure full of holes. It seems like everything that we have done here for what the last fifteen or sixteen months or whatever don't amount to a danm if he's right. Attorney Dusek-I do not think that is necessarily true, I think that even if he was right what it would mean is that you might have to pay you know before you finally come to your final resolution on this you may have to go back to the Warren County Planning for their comments. You would still, you wouldn't mean starting the entire process over again. Councilman Tucker-Well, I mean he mentioned the fact about the bluffs and about conservation easement. Maybe I was at the wrong place at the wrong time but I think a year ago it was agreed upon all the principals that the Town would have these conservation easements and there would be no cutting in any of them. Now he brings out the point that there is cutting I do not know, it just seems like we are batting our head against the wall here. Attorney Dusek-In that particular issue though I think is a factual issue at this point that you may want to hear from applicant on. Supervisor Brandt-I assume what we are doing here is hearing out everybody's concerns and then all those concerns have to be addressed. Attorney Dusek-That is correct. Councilman Tucker-But haven't we heard these a thousand times? Supervisor Brandt-Well we have heard some of them before but there is always a chance of other ones or a chance of something we have all missed. I think the process is just lets hear it and lets address everyone of them and look at each one and see if they have been or have not been address, some of these are legal questions, I certainly cannot answer them. We are going to have to rely on help, some of them are engineering questions and we have an engineer aboard on our side of it. I think all we can do is keep going, lets hear it out. Hear all the concerns. Who is next. Mr. Ray Storms-My name is Ray Storms, I live on the Hudson River and previous to owning a house on the Hudson River I was the Pastor of a Church that owned a hundred acres on the Hudson River that had bluff and wetlands, and was told by Government Officials that they had decided to control our wetlands and tell us what to do with them what they couldn't do with them and was a little bit concerned about that and my perspective where I am coming from is I believe in property rights. I am here to just express by concern I live on the River I have a Golden Retriever who considers it his responsibility to retrieve things that are coming floating down the river, bear cans, fisherman's hats, gas cans, and all kinds of things and bring them to me for my attention. I am a little bit concerned about one hundred and sixty three new homes on rather sensitive land or insensitive areas and having had some experience with these bluffs and these wetlands they are very hard to keep curious people off of. We had our bluffs trashed by people, neighborhood kids thinking that they could dig into them and build forts and thereby causing erosion. On our property our church property we had one of the oldest if not the oldest cemetery in the County completely trashed by people who felt it was their responsibility to take hunting rifles and shoot head stones and blow them all apart and the government was not able to protect that. The Town Government, the Sheriff the Police were not able to protect that. So, my concern is now you are going to take these sensitive areas that erode that can be polluted very easily as the wetlands can, we saw people doing all kinds of things in our wetlands and the Government said they are under their control they will tell us what we can do with them what we can't do with them but they were not able to protect them from people polluting them and throwing trash in them and fifty five gallon drums and all kinds of other things. So I am here to say that it is awfully hard to protect something like these bluffs and this wetland. Apparently the issue is at least thought about it has been addressed some kind of policy is being considered. I am just new at finding out some of these things what kind of protection is going to be available for to keep people from doing these kinds of things. How is that issue going to be addressed? If in this day of dirt bikes and these A TV's it does not take too many trips up and down a bluff to get erosion started. Has this been discussed, have regulations been considered how they apply to this or how they will be enforced? Just very tempting, its a very tempting curiosity these kind of wetlands. Has there been anything discussed about that? Supervisor Brandt-Well, these are all things that have to be addressed. That is what you are putting on the record so they are going to have to be addressed and you know, your comments about kids digging tunnels? That is an interesting comment, how do you prevent that. Mr. Raymond Storms-We had the control of one hundred acres with twenty eight hundred feet offrontage on the Hudson River and we could not stop this, we asked help from the Town we asked help from the Sheriff. We could not stop people from we had cabins they completely torn everything they could out of the cabins. These were cabins that were on the property when it was owned by Camp Jadamada and just absolutely trashed these things and threw the things down the bluffs and that was a big kick apparently to take stuff out and throw it down the bluffs. I am concerned that these are very tempting things kids get a lot of fun apparently it seemed to get a lot of fun out of throwing things down fifty foot bluffs...so I thing that, that should be very carefully considered how these restricted areas these protected areas are going to be protected. I think it is well nie impossible to complete protect them. We found it impossible in our case. I mean I only have three hundred feet of frontage on the Hudson River at my home now and people that come along there think that they own that that they have a right to do some things on there that I do not want them to do. So, I cannot even protect my three hundred feet of bluff on the Hudson River. So, I think it is something that I needs to be very seriously, we ought to have a serious concern for these areas. Supervisor Brandt-Ok. Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Steve Chagnon-My name is Steve Chagnon and I have property up on Palmer Drive on the Hudson River it has been in the family for sixty some years. I haven't really had an opportunity to go through this four inch thick impact study it is not readily, its not, I know it is available at the Public Library and a couple of other places but it is a matter of timing to get there when it is available. The first thing I would ask is that we have at least one more session at least a month from now just so that I, somebody here can get and the public can get a chance to read what this, what is in this document and to be able to comment on it with some knowledge of it. So, I have done the best I could to go through the first inch and a half of it and I can you that the two weeks time that the way this is set up is to expect somebody to reply intelligently to what is out there and comment on it to be helpful with it is just not realistic. However, from what I have seen I will be glad to show you the comments that I have. The first thing that I see is that the reason for this, I asked myself the question why did they go through all the trouble to do this in the first place and what they want to do is they want to put in a Planned Unit Development verses what it is already zoned for. I think that, that is what all this debate is about. In looking at it I think that if we consider what it is zoned for and to say ok, you can do what it is zoned for or to start to look at that is the maximum you can do then I think the idea of a Planned Unit Development goes right out the window and I also think that most of the negative impacts that they are trying to circumvent with words are really would be handled quite well. However, in looking at what I have looked at I do not see any impact so far mentioned of what I read I could be real wrong could be done in the other two inches or so whatever is in that pulp. There is no impact for the increased use of the river. Like no boating impact use no impact on the increased bank erosion from wake works from the wakes of boats of the increased boat traffic. I have asked several organizations that do get involved with things like this and they said this is, so far we have not been able to find somebody who would, that's had the time where there would be access to this document to give us back an intelligent comment on this and I would ask, that is one of the reasons I am asking for more time to look at this. The thing is that would the requesting for one hundred and sixty three homes I do not know what it could be zoned for now because I have not had access to a map to do the count up of what the normal lot, what the zoned lot sizes would be and what the population would be. But, I know it would be considerably less than one hundred and sixty three. Even if it was half of that at eighty houses or eighty homes, you know yourself any homeowner I do not care what you say about home owners associations or anything else and I think Mr. Tucker addressed that quite well at an earlier meeting, when he was saying that home owners association are not necessarily that reliable because they come and go. I kind of go along with that one myself. But the thing is that there is no way that I know of there is no legislation that I know of that restricts a homeowners use of a boat on water. The thing is that if what we have to do is kind oflook at the one of the worst case seniors..if it was zoned for eighty homes I am just, I would just have to say one hundred and sixty three homes and every home owner put a boat out there with a twenty five horse motor we have got, what you are doing effectively increasing the boat traffic on that river by about five hundred percent. I did a kind of a quick survey of the number of boats that are between the bluff and the northway bridge which is a puddle of water that we get most of the traffic and does get most of the traffic on in the river in this area. There is around forty boats on from homeowners or what ever it is the property owners on the river there is about forty boats that are on there and on the weekends there is an additional amount of boats that are put in through public access sites. Right now we are having a problem with banks erosion and things like this from the increased wakes of these big motored boats, opening a door to a potential of one hundred and sixty three more of these boats and it would be for a full year around use on there and of course you do not run boats ordinarily when there is ice on the river but you have as a home owner along there on the river with access to the water you usually leave your boat in probably four or five months out of the year. Usually the boats go in somewhere around April or May and they will come out the most part September, October and some as late as November. With all that, increasing that boat traffic by five hundred percent that is a significant impact and I do not think that it should be over looked and I think it should be addressed very seriously. Also the policing of that area by the municipalities involved is very poor on a good day. We have situations out there that are extremely dangerous for boaters, water skiers, and swimmers. There is so far we have not been able to find any municipality that will be responsible and respond to conditions that come up right now just from normal usage on that river. When we call, and there are people sitting behind me who have called Warren County Police and they are referred to the Saratoga County Police and you call the Saratoga County Police and we are referred back to the Warren County Police and of course this is going on right then and you need to have some kind of a response. Nothing happens we just get ping ponged around. I do not know if it is going to take some kid getting run over by a Boat or some tragedy like we had up on the Lake George happening on our ballywick but we do not want it and this is an opportunity right now to put a, to stop that. I think that has to be considered and addressed. I have not seen it so far in that inch and a half of paper that I have read. What I did read in that piece of paper though was the filtering of the ground and the test borings that did go on and what it appears that the ground that they want to build on is extremely porus and that water flows through it very well. It may make for some good places to put septic tanks because they won't have, the won't have a build up things will leach away very rapidly and be handled by nature. But as its pointed out in this study and as anybody who's been involved with this before that nitrogen is not necessarily worked away by the normal filtration, this normal filtration and what we are looking at is to put all the sudden a big source of nitrogen and leach into the river and that will cause eutrophication it does not take any kind of a rocket scientist to work that one out. I do not know how you tell a homeowner you say hey you can't put fertilizer on your lawn because it is going to leach into the river in two years. I have not figured that one out yet and I do not know any legislation that there is about that. I think that, I think this is one of the reasons why we have the low density requirements for our zoning as it is, but there's been no study done that was, there hasn't been any study in the pulp so far that I have read that would address that well. The other thing is the comment that I wanted to make or two other ones one I wanted to re-inforce Mr. Storms comments about the kids on the bluffs and the erosion. Kids love to dig, I was a kid and I dug holes in the banks the same as every other kid has done, banks do cave in and some kids do get caught in those holes sometimes, we have not had any recently that I know of but I remember when I was a kid two people did and they died. In those days it was not unusual to have cave ins with people dying in them and also adults. The other thing is that just kids running up and down the bank. Kids are going to run through the woods and your, in that impact study it says they are anticipating with that population to have one hundred and six kids move in there. You turn one hundred and six kids loose on that fifty foot bluff running up and down and it does not take a rocket scientist again to figure out that they are going to do some real serious damage to the plant life that is holding that bank together. Also to a lot of the conservation easements, it just can't take foot traffic and what are we doing we are going to say we are going to put us some kind of an iron fence or something like that it just create a nuisance and then the kids are going to go over the fence anyway so I think that the request to put in one hundred and sixty three homes is excessive and I think also that its just to point out the fact that and they say this in that bit of paper that I read so far that the reason they are doing is for profit. They are not doing this for any other reason now, they are saying that they are taking a risk, I do not know what the risk is but the thing is that they are doing it just for a substantial return. What I am looking at is a substantial return at our expense. I do not mind somebody going along with what's normally planned for an area and it would be compatible with everybody there, but this is not compatible with the rest of the development that has gone on along with the whole, this whole Hudson River impoundment or basin on the bluffs on either side. This is completely a different change it is a radical change from the way the development has gone so far. Most of the time the way the development has gone these houses are put up randomly and usually not more than one, two maybe the max ten a year so that the impact on the environment and on the animals that live there is minimal when you talk about walking in there and putting up one hundred and sixty three houses I do not think it takes any rocket scientist to know that the first thing you are going to do is run a bunch of bull dozers through there to cut some roads then you are going to start clearing a whole lot of ground to start to have some work area. I used to work as an on lot builder and I built thousands, and thousands and thousands of homes east of the Mississippi up and down the coast way and I know that when start a project of this size you are going to have to clear a lot of ground real quick and you are going to have to do a lot of digging and you are going to have to a lot of disruption to the environment and that is not the way that things had been built along the river ever and this is something radically new and entirely different than the way things have been done. The other thing is that did address some of the, they tried to minimize the impact of the newly created road traffic on the Corinth Road and if we are talking about one hundred and sixty three homes and the average homes have two cars to it now because you have both people are working in the homes usually and you are living out in a rural area so that cars are necessary, you are talking about the addition of three hundred and what ever it is three hundred and thirty some or three hundred and twenty some new cars being put out on that road traveling up and down it. If each car goes into town once a day and comes back once a day that is six hundred and forty some trips more that is going to be put on that Corinth Road, and that Corinth Road right now is like a full balloon and how much more can you shove into a balloon to keep it from popping. I mean right now during the peak traffic hours in the morning and the afternoon it is bumper to bumper from I do not know, as far down the road as I can see toward the Mountain all the way into Glens Falls. This stream of traffic does not stop it is continuous, it is like a continuous conveyor belt, they say in here it is going to be a minimal impact and they mention three percent well if you cup is already full and you put in three percent more volume what happens it just runs over. Where is it going to run over on the Corinth Road I think that, that traffic pattern has to be very seriously addressed and I do not think it is very well addressed so far in what I have read. The last comment I have in the zoning ordinances normally what the State recommends and Jim will get me on this one but, the State says the profit it not a consideration to grant changes in zoning ordinances but it says that you consider changes to zoning ordinances when the way the zoning ordinance is written inhibits the use of the, it creates a condition where the person who, that persons ground where they cannot comply with the zoning ordinance to do a normal thing and that's not the case here, this is not what this is about at all. This is about how people can put more stuff on ground that would normally be used you can use this ground for single family residences now the way it is zoned and the way the ground is and it will have an impact but it will be far, far less and probably far, far more acceptable to the, not only the area but to the people living in the area the environment. The thing is the conditions for granting, as I say they do not meet the criteria that the State sets up for just granting a normal zoning variance. They are saying you want to do this, they are asking us to do this, they are asking the board to approve this just so they can make more profit and the thing is what we do not realize is the profit that they are making and that they are going to be gone with is really our quality of life and the quality of the environment that where they are working right now. I really ask the Board in all their considerations when they finally get done if this is not addressed then I ask the Board to go back to tell these people to go back and change all their plans and put it the way it was zoned originally. Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Who would like to come up next? Don't be shy come on. Mr. Sterling Akins- I just got done, Sterling Akins, on the Corinth Road and I just got three or four things I would like to mention. First the ground water level that is mentioned in these papers is somewhere below fifty feet and the people that live on the Corinth Road always had shallow wells, I had a well at eight teen feet when I built my house and later it went down to about twenty two so I am pretty sure the ground level isn't or the water level isn't below fifty feet down there. There is a brook comes out in Steven's gully which is opposite us the Town owns that at one time they were going to put a landfill on it we got an injunction against the Town through the Hudson River Valley Commission that stopped that now they, I understand that we may use it for a park or something like that which is great. But, there is a brook that comes out of there in the bottom of that gully and that gully is not fifty foot deep so I am sure that the ground level or the water level is a lot higher than fifty feet. I am not satisfied with the study done on the EMF yet. As far as Niagara Mohawk is concerned, I have looked at the papers I have trouble understanding them and I realize that there is no hard and fast rules as far as EMF is concerned yet but everybody is working on it. Sweden has accepted the fact that there is a problem with it they have changed schools they have changed power lines and everything else over there to get away from it and maybe we should have a little foresight and consider farther setbacks at least on this property as far as the power lines are concerned. I have found in what little I have read in the papers I found a lot of contradiction as far as the bluffs are concerned that was mentioned here before tonight as far as the cutting that can be done on them. One place they say no cutting and in another place they say that the smaller shrubs and so on can be removed if they do that you are going to destroy the bluffs anyway. The only other thing I have got to mention is I feel this five o'clock meeting was the wrong time for this public meeting to be held. Many of the people are still working at five o'clock there is no way they are going to get here. I realize they can make written comments but you know as well as I do a lot of people will not do that and I would like to see another meeting at another time before the thirty days are up or the forty five if we go to that. Thank you. Supervisor Brandt -Ok. Thank you sir. Anyone else? Ms. Dorothy Hull-My name is Dorothy Hull I live on the West Mountain Road. I can't offer any of these comments that have been made but mine are just sort of general. First of all is the traffic, the traffic, I own a home on Corinth Road and traffic is very, very bad there. It is also becoming increasingly heavy on the West Mt. Road. We have two chairs set out in our front yard and all the time we have been there we never had chairs out front and you just sit out there and the cars go wiz, wiz back and forth there is just an awful lot of traffic and you have to watch out for your life to cross the road and to teach the children to make sure that they are careful crossing the road because we have the Carriage House across from our home. Way back when I was first married my husband was taking courses at Albany on Economics, and at that time we were young, very young but he was so concerned with over population that all through the years we have seen it go you know just become worse and worse. Here in Queensbury five or six years ago or when they you know, started having a lot of development we were told yes, more houses less taxes for the people and what have you. So, what do you get, you get everything built up the developers come in here and develop area, after areas and what happens, well we have to have more roads to maintain so your taxes go up for various reasons. We had to build a bigger school we have to have more teachers, so your taxes have to become you know more, higher taxes and so on and right now it seems that Queensbury is so saturated with people and developers and developers coming in here and leaving and where will we be in another, this is only happened on in thirty nine years. What have we got to look forward to in say another ten years. Right now you go around, anywhere you go everything is all built up. There just is no space for the future generation to have a piece of land that they can buy that they can build a home on that has not already got a home built on it. It is just in general it is sad to see a beautiful Town become so over grown with projects. Like this morning in the paper with this Walmart going in at the end there they offered some sort of a study for the business people to go and see how they can hang onto their business because when Walmart comes in here they will just crowd out all the little business guys so they have got to somehow learn how to find their little nitch in the Town to conduct their business. So, we did have a nice area up there we had nice little stores, Electorlux we all went up there at least we did and the Ames store, the first thing we know Ames will be going out because they cannot afford to compete with them. So, then what is going to happen there? It is just sad, real sad. This development that you are talking about now, as they say with all the two hundred and sixty three houses or whatever it will make a difference it will erode the land but the minute you start doing something you cannot stop it. I do not know, I did not intend to get up here and speak tonight but, I guess that is about all I can say is that after you guys get done there will not be any room for, more room for the new people sitting up where you are sitting to have anything to do you can close up your office and go home. Thank you. Supervisor Brandt -You are welcome. Anyone else that would like to speak to us? Would you like to speak? Mr. Mike O'Connor-For the purpose of the record I am Mike O'Connor for the Law Firm of Little and O'Connor I represent the sponsor for this particular project. I would like to thank the Board and the people for coming out. I think the input is good we will consider it and we will respond to it I do not intend to try and respond specifically to any of the issues or any of the statements that were made tonight. I would like to leave, maybe though with some of the people that are brand new to the project a little bit different than maybe what they have already heard. PUD designation, Planned Unit Designation, is a tool that's within our Zoning Ordinance and it is provided for people who can assembly a certain size of a parcel of land. I take the position that it is there for the benefit of the Town as well as the developers it allows a great deal of flexibility it allows a developer to perhaps a signature type development as opposed to a cookie type development. It allows some flexibility in the size of lots, layout of lots and over all it is a tool that if it is properly used will end up to the benefit of everybody. We are talking here tonight about a project that in total has one hundred and sixty three units. Of those one hundred and sixty three units there are seven that are already in an area that are designated as individual single family lots. So you are talking about a total of one hundred and fifty seven units. With the cookie cutter type being very conservative you could build one hundred and twenty single family units, so if you are looking at the total over all possible impact of the project because we are looking for a PUD designation you are talking about a potential thirty seven additional units. With the combination or the flexibility that is allowed under the PUD designation, of the one hundred and sixty three and I know it is going to get confusing before we get done throwing numbers at you, but you are talking forty townhouses that will be in a very small area. So, if you take those out of the calculation and take a look at the balance of the project you are talking about perhaps single family housing on a lot less area a lot more open space than what you would have certainly with cookie cutter type project. I make the comments simply in the sense that we from the very beginning have been told to be cooperative with the Town be cooperative with the Boards of the Town see what their concerns were and see if we could meet them. We still have that direction from the sponsor and we are here with that attitude. We think that we have put together a quality type project, we think that when your engineers and your consultants take a look at what is within the DEIS as submitted they will find that they are satisfied with what we proposed for the particular project in the area. Councilman Monahan-Mike can I ask you just a question please? What do you feel that you can accomplish with the PUD that you cannot accomplish with a regular subdivision that you used the clustering principal? Mr. Mike O'Connor-One, I do not think that we could afford to assemble the land that we have assembled particularly for the traffic patterns that we are trying to develop. If you were going to have a cookie cutter type thing you could not afford to make the investment that you are making to have the alternative primary entrance off of Sherman Island Road. That has been a big factor here initially with the people they were concerned about having a significant amount of traffic on Sherman Island Road that is one of the big differences. The other difference is without the PUD designation you would have to live by square footage of lots you would not be able to have a flexible lot design. Councilman Monahan-You can have flexibility with clustering. Mr. Mike O'Connor-In some of the area you could have clustering some of the area you cannot have clustering in the more sensitive area you would not be able to have clustering. With what we have proposed I think we have accomplished quite a bit of that, maybe PUD designation is a fancy clustering to some degree. But it allows us to give a different range of housing as opposed to simply all of one range of housing because if you break up the lots all in one size your infrastructure generally is associated on a parallel basis and the allocation are all about the same your costs are all the same. If we have some of the lots on the west side of Sherman Island Road less than about a third of an acre we can put less expensive, or it will still be expensive housing in todays but it will not be the most expensive in there. We can give a good flexibility. Councilman Monahan-But you can still do that with clustering... Mr. Mike O'Connor-1 do not think you could on this particular site. I don't think it would work with the same type of success that we are trying to do. Councilman Monahan-Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Anyone else that would like to speak to us on this? Come on up it is an official record we really need it on the record. Ms. Michel Burch-My name is Michel Burch and I live on Goldfinch Road offfrom Corinth, I was just wondering if this goes through what roads are you going to use for access to this development? Supervisor Brandt-Do you want to answer that? Mr. Mike O'Connor-There are, the proposal before the Board is to establish a brand new primary access through part of what has been referred to as the McDonald Subdivision. There will be a secondary access through property of Rozell, Foothills Drive and we talked about emergency access by some connection with the remainder of Sherman Island Road. I do not think it is anywhere near this ... Ms. Michel Burch-Yes it is, Foothills is the one before Goldfinch. Is that owned by Nimo in back of Foothills or don't? Mr. Mike O'Connor-(showed map) This is Corinth Road right here this if Foothills Drive this is the primary new access right through here and this is Sherman Island Road. Now where is Goldfinch? Ms. Michel Burch-This way going toward West Mt. Road. Mr. Mike O'Connor-ok. There is no connection behind that development and this project. Ms. Michel Burch-Ok. Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Anyone else who would like to comment on this? Mr. Barry White-My name is Barry White I am a resident of the Sherman Island Road. I finally heard something that really concerned me and that is traffic on the Sherman Island Road. When all the neighbors assembled when we first started out that was our concern. The concern. It has drifted on from there, and the other concerns are important. I have got a good education here I learned a lot of things that I did not know. But I also learned that I also know that one developer that you can control and you know exactly what he is going to do and you can mitigate every circumstance in which he is going to perform makes a lot more sense then getting twelve or fifteen developers in there doing their own thing and then running as has happened many other places around this state. The traffic problem on Sherman Island Road was paramount in everybodies mind I do not know how many neighbors here or so called neighbors are really going to be effected by this. I live on the Sherman Island Road, people who do not live on the Sherman Island Road will not be effected in any way, shape manner or form with the traffic going past their homes as we will. This is of real concern to me and all of the other residences that live on the Sherman Island Road. The Michaels Group has addressed this and I think has addressed this very well the other things I am not smart enough to figure them out. The traffic I think they have done a wonderful job with that. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Anyone else who would like to speak. Mr. Harold Rist-My name is Harold Rist I am also a resident of Sherman Island Road and like Mr. White I have been coming to these meetings many months ago and I was surprised a couple of days to find out that they were still going on. I had thought all of the problems that we had run into were settled many months ago the only problem that I had was traffic and the Michael Group did more than bend over backwards with that problem. They not only took care of the potential problem of added cars on the road on Sherman Island Road but they took away the undeveloped what we call McDonald's Group from that and also removed all of the Niagara Mohawk line trucks from the road so we actually came out better than we started. I have no problem with this development I think the, I am not for it or against it I think the Board should be able to handle any problems that come up with it. Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Unknown-Can I just ask a question? Supervisor Brandt -Come on up. Unknown-I got here late, ...my problem is because I live offfrom Corinth Road Councilman Caimano-Put your name on the record. Supervisor Brandt -Give us your name if you would. Mr. John Moribito-I am worried about the traffic on Corinth Road. How much is Corinth Road going to be effected by these one hundred and sixty three houses. How many people are going to exit off onto Corinth Road. Right now, Corinth Road has the capability of becoming another fantastic Aviation Road and that is not something that I think Town residents really appreciate we might solve the problem of Aviation Road in some century but probably not this one. Traffic on Corinth Road already is increasing and increasing and increasing and with the traffic at 55 miles an hour I do not know how much traffic it can handle and again I am not quite sure exactly how much of this traffic is going to exit or enter off Corinth, maybe someone could answer that question. Supervisor Brandt-We are really not here as advocates we are here listening. Mr. John Moribito-Ok, Maybe someone could answer that question as to what they foresee as .. Mr. Mike O'Connor-The traffic study was included John in the supplemental report it does answer that they say the effect on Corinth Road would be minimum. Mr. John Moribito-If it has to go onto Corinth Road and you have one hundred and sixty three houses with one point some odd cars per household you are talking about two hundred to three hundred more cars traveling Corinth Road just in this one development and the question is what kind of traffic patterns are going to develop and what kind you know, are we going to get twenty two more stop lights on Corinth Road to control the traffic pattern because that seems to be the solution in most towns around is if you have a problem put in a traffic light. That is one problem and I would think we would learn through the history of the Town of Queensbury that you know we better make dam sure before we go ahead with any type of project that results are what we are looking for. The hap hazard growth along Quaker Road, Aviation Road you know we people made a lot of different mistakes back then and if we learn by our mistakes I would think we would take a real close look at you know what the impact of three hundred cars a day have added to whatever else is planned sometime in the near future along Corinth Road so we do not come up with the same problems. That was my question. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Come on right up. Mr. David Hamel-lam David Hamel resident of Queensbury I was wondering with one hundred and sixty three housing that is going in there what kind of benefit is that actually going to bring to Queensbury? We do not have the economic structure now to bring another one hundred and sixty three families in and take care of them, as far as business wise goes. I do not understand why we are going to sacrifice our wetlands and these bluffs to develop housing that we are not even sure we can get families to live in. We do not have the economic structure to take care of them. That is all I would like to know. Supervisor Brandt -Ok. I can tell you it is amazing to me that we are seeing in Queensbury almost three hundred new units of housing every year even through these slow times and there is a lot of houses on the market that are still that aren't selling. Mr. David Hamel-That are vacant. Supervisor Brandt -But it's still goes on and the Town is growing. You got to scratch you head and wonder why. I do not know, I do not know the answer to that but it is going on. Mr. David Hamel-Ok. Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Who else would like to speak to us? Ms. Ann Ruchalski-Can I re-speak yet? Supervisor Brandt -Come on right back nobody else is asking. Mrs. Ann Ruchalski-I am Ann Ruchalski I spoke earlier. Just one other point that was brought up about the school and the fact that Dr. Irion has not gotten his report and what not and I have not gotten through the whole report either it is quite long but I did remember seeing there was a prediction about how many children would be proposed and I thought that was kind of ludicrous that you could predict how many you know what kind, how big a family is that are going to be buying these homes. But, however, I am a teacher in Glens Falls and I know right now how the budget crunches are and I know how there is lack of desks in the beginning of the school year teachers are running back and forth saying do you have a spare desk or there is a new program out and you get books and there is not enough books to go around for the kids and the little boy that lives in front of me in Queensbury last year told me a story how during one of his classes he actually had to sit on a windowsill and share a book this is during a regular class. Now, I know we talked about economics and where are town is right now, I mean Glens Falls is at the bottom of the barrel as far as jobs and economics and what not and we are right next door and I really think that if you are talking about a hundred and some odd children moving in you better start things about our school system and whether we could support that many kids do we have the books do we have the desks teachers are losing their jobs left and right, are we going to be offering these children the best education possible? That is just something I feel as a teacher is very, very important, thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Anyone else that would like to speak? Mr. Sterling Akins-In going through the book there, when I started coming to these meetings last year there was talk that there was going to be no development down on the point, that is down on the lower level. The did not do any archeology, I cannot pronounce that, any studies down there now we are talking about putting a forty foot canoe shelter or whatever down there, we are just inviting more people to go down there and use that, that flat that supposedly is very sensitive and not supposed to have any development on it. Two forty foot docks are mentioned in there I do not know what kind of permits they have got to have for, to put docks in now I know that at one item the Army Corp. of Engineers had some say about it but I do not know whether they have got to permit for them or not. I do, I hate to see development start down on that flat without more studies done down there. Thank you. Supervisor Brandt -Ok. Ms. Dorothy Hull-All right, Dorothy Hull again. This is just sort of interesting. I spoke before that we have three hundred acres this spring on the West Mountain Road this spring we had to put in a septic system to replace our septic system and Dan Drellos was the one who put it in and he got the permits and everything and right down between the two houses there is sort of a run off from the Mountain it is not a real brook its as you know Mike it is just we mow it in the middle of the summer to keep the willow trees down. But, Dan had the bid septic tank and the big what do you call it the dry wells delivered to the place it was all set to work and I believe Hatkins was the one that came up and said oh no you can't do this you are a hundred feet, you have got to be at least a hundred feet away from where the water comes down. Dan was pretty upset about it he said good lord he says look at all the land you have got here and you cannot put in one septic system. Well, we were made to take the dry wells back and we had to run pipes up toward the mountain and as they went deeper as they went up hill they had to go deeper and deeper and deeper to put in the proper lines and everything. Now, with all that space and good sandy soil and we have not got a real brook beside us anyways how about septic tanks and dry wells for so many houses in a small area. Supervisor Brandt-It certainly is a question and it has to be answered. Mrs. Dorothy Hull-That is a good question, isn't it? Supervisor Brandt -Yea. Mrs. Dorothy Hull-Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Anybody else? Unknown-One of the things that I did not mention when I was talking about the impact on the river was also consider the addition of personnel water craft. Water skies or jet skies or whatever personnel water craft that is a new device that is out and it is making its impact on the river now. It was not too long ago in August one Sunday afternoon I looked out on the River and there was six water skiers, ten boats and three of these personnel water craft out there and I was just waiting for the collusion, but it did not happen. However the personnel water craft your having a potential here of you are going to have kids, kids, this seems to be a device that kids or younger people like to use and not that I am saying that I am an old person or that we are all old people but the thing is it is like a motorcycle for water you know. What's the impact of this going to be and how many of these things can be expect out there because right now I do not think that study addresses it and I know that that is going to be an ecological issue that has to be addressed when you start to look at the impact on the river. Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Anyone else? Mr. DeMars-My name is Mr. DeMars, and I would like to address this issue on how wonderful it is to have homeowners participation. I see that there is a tremendous amount of people here we do have a homeowners association it is alive and well so I really would take and really want to take and stick up and for a homeowners association it has not been dissolved since 1980 it was established 79 or 1980 and we are still working we go under the Big Boom Road Homeowners Association. After taking with some of the Homeowners today we have received in our Post Star box a complementary letter I guess for everybody to attend this meeting. It was a note that we need you. We were a little unable to take and spread this type of wanting help when we needed help from people because we have been designated a dumping ground for several different projects that the Town did not want in any other ward. So, we were unable to address this, this way and our Homeowners Association has been offended by this we really feel that they have touched on something as far as the putting them in the Post Star box it is a little offensive on our part we were offended by this tactic I am not for the project, I am not against the project but I have been in the building industry for a long time and I am sure Mr. Pliney Tucker has been there also I have never seen during my time in the Town of Queensbury such commotion over one particular project its just, these are a class a outfit that is trying to do a project within the Town but I have never seen such commotion brought on behalf of stopping such a project. We never had this type of participation when the Woodbury's the Carusones and miscellaneous, and miscellaneous, etc. and etc. were building within the Town I just feel that the Town is setting the wrong precedent for this particular application. Fifteen months, twelve to fifteen months is a long time for a project. I really feel that there are being unjustified I feel that we have treated these people wrong. That should be something that is addressed to. We are also setting a precedent as far as other establishments not only within out town but other builders from outside we are telling them that if you come on our turf we set all ground rules we do everything. Well with a presentable project like this I have read it I have looked it over and I just say that I only wish that I had that type of money and I have also looked at other West Mt. big projects that came in front of the Town of Queensbury Board and I just feel that this project is being singled out for an example setting. I guess the only other thing we want to bring up is the fact that we did get this in a Post Star box I pay for my Post Star it was not put in my PO it was not put in my mail box because that is government, it does not belong to me and I just do not like that type of solicitation I think it is wrong I think if we were able to solicit the people within that particular given area when our project came before this Board I feel that we would have been able to saturate and look for markets that would help us in our problem. Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Anybody else? Ms. Madeline Cloutier-I am Madeline Cloutier and I live on Sherman Island Road I kind of take exception because this does effect us. So, that is one of the reasons why we are here and I said it before and I am going to say it again I am very concerned with the traffic. I am still not sure how this is all going to work I am sure that they have got good answers to our questions if we can have the right questions. I am very concerned about the traffic. I think we should all be concerned about everything here. Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Anybody else who would like to speak to us. Unknown-I would just like to comment on I think it was Mr. DeMarsh's statement I am glad the Town takes a close look at these developments I am not so sure this one was singled out for any particular reason I would hope that they would take a close look at every development that comes into the Town of Queensbury and if we cannot set the ground rules for all the developments that come in here then we do not need a town government. We do not need a Town government. We need someone who is going to set some ground rules and some rules and regulations that any developer has to abide by in order to build a better town. Maybe if we did this twenty years ago we would not have the problems in the Town of Queensbury that we are experiencing today. I cannot say anything, I found mine in my mail box the one about the meeting I certainly appreciate whoever passed these out that they informed us of a meeting because I was not aware of it through the newspaper I am sure it was in there but I was not aware of it one way or the other. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Anybody else who would like to speak on this? Executive Director Jim Martin-I just want to say for the record that was not an official notice of the Town. If there is any question about that. Councilman Monahan-I think it is neighborhood groups trying to make government work. Supervisor Brandt-Sure. Councilman Monahan-Community participation, we need more of that. Unknown-I live on the Sherman Island Road I did not get one. Councilman Caimano-We have got to make a decision whether to keep this open I was going to request to keep this open. Supervisor Brandt-What do you want to do? Councilman Caimano-I think that if we are going to be fair and we have been I think unscrupulously fair I don't, since it gone to September 30th anyway I don't mind having another hour or so of oral participation before the September 30th deadline. That way we can... Supervisor Brandt-Don't limit it to an hour if we are going to do it. Councilman Caimano- I am not limiting it... Supervisor Brandt-Let people come in and speak. Mr. Mike O'Connor-On behalf of the sponsor, I would object to that but that may not be heard. There is a rule that you have ten days afterwords automatically to have more comment even though the public hearing has been closed so the next couple of town board meetings that people have additional comments they could actually make comments as part of the oral record. Councilman Caimano-And that is why I said the hour, I did not mean to make a time limit but I think that is so we certainly have at least two board meetings before now and then where comments could be made regarding Hudson Pointe. Mr. Mike O'Connor-My problem is that if you do it by extension then you actually extend the extension period. Councilman Caimano-He makes a good point. Unknown-I got a point to say on this and I am really upside with this right now. The thing is that they have had months and years to make that four inch thick document and the thing is they put out two that I can get access to and I had to take time off from work to get access to it. I have had two weeks to get access to it and to read that thing and I will tell you what you can read that thing in two weeks do nothing but reading that thing you are doing better than I am I got to make a living and I think we ought to have more time to read the stuff that is available and have more time to come back and comment on it. This thing of making it convenient for people to make a lot of money off our backs and off our investment I do not like it and I like to have the ability and have the time at least the consideration that they have had to read what they have written and to be able to comment on it intelligently. I think by shortening it or doing anything else or less review than what we have now it not going t to help us out at all. Supervisor Brandt-There are some misconceptions here that under the law there are certain periods of time that you have to leave things open and it will be left upon and September 30th you have got until then to give comments. I think if you want to come to one of our Town Board Meetings and make comments on this we are probably going to listen to you. I cannot imagine us not we have never shut anyone down yet except for one Attorney who tried to abruptly take over a meeting I shut him down no question of that. Mr. Mike O'Connor-Was that me? Supervisor Brandt-Other than that when the public speaks they are welcome to speak and we have tried to keep it that way, and I think we always will. ...official question under the law and I think that is the question do we want to extend this period, for you know and extend the law and force these people into a longer period. Councilman Monahan-I think want they are hearing from the public and believe me I can understand where they are coming from because I have been going through this word by word, sentence by sentence and underlining everything, that they with the amount of copies available and the time frame we have given then there is no way those who want to be informed so they can make intelligent comments so they know what is in it are going to have the time to do it unless this is extended. I think we are here to serve the people so I leave it up to the Board whether you want to serve the people or serve the developer. Councilman Tucker-What does the law say Paul? Attorney Dusek-You have the option to set the time frames as you choose the time frame of the 30th I think was done in calculation of everything else but you certainly have the right under the law to extend the comment period. Councilman Goetz-There was a request for fifteen additional days, Mr. Akins? Mr. Akins-There was, they made a big issue of it at the last meeting about Dr. Irion not getting his comments, he has not received the book as of today, that is fifteen days after he should have. That is the comment I have to say on it, we should have that extension. Supervisor Brandt-What do you want and how do you want to handle it, first of all we are still in a public hearing, so that is really a separate issue. Unknown-I would offer right now just as at least another sixty days for us to get because we only had, I do not know how many people live in this area but there is at least 1500 people that live in that area and they have got two rinky dink copies out there for them to read I do not think that that is fair. I do not think sixty days is even being very kind and very modest a request. Mr. Mike O'Connor-1 want to make a point for the record we are not asking the Board to shorten the time, we are asking the Board to follow the time that is statutory. We believe that we have complied we have provided extra copies I am not sure how many extra copies we have I know we had some discussion in the beginning I think in addition to what copies that went to the libraries there were some copies that were place in your office to make them available for the public for review purposes I heard Board Members say that if somebody had a particular interest in looking at it you would make your copy available on a some type of basis for those member of the public. I go back to a discussion I had maybe six months ago maybe eight months ago as to whether or not there is in fact public controversy over this issue, over this project. If you listen to what has been generated here I think there is substantial evidence that there isn't public controversy You have one family with four members that have spoken with regard to this project and that is the real basis for what you have heard most of the comment of. They and I am not sure how broad an area in addition to the legal advertisement put an advertisement or notice of the meeting in mail boxes or newspaper boxes for most of the entire 4th Ward I understand, I have had a couple different calls on that. That is fine, if that is there intention, but if this is the number of people that don't think that the Board with its consultants is doing its job, I think you have answered in part what I said six months ago there really, this is not out of the ordinary size housing project that you have had come along. It is not as big as Bedford Close which is immediately across the street. It is not any place near any of the other PUD's that you have had again this is again within your providence we would like to have the Board stay within its time period that is set by the SEQRA regulations. Unknown-Those other units that you are talking about are not on the Hudson River either. Supervisor Brandt-Wait a minute, lets keep order. Councilman Goetz-Excuse me I would like to say something. I need to go over there is somebody waiting for us, don't vote until I get back. Councilman Caimano- Weare not going to vote on anything. Supervisor Brandt-The whole Board is supposed to go over there. Councilman Goetz-I have to go over there as a courtesy. Supervisor Brandt-First is there anyone else that would like to speak on the issues and the environmental impact statement? Unknown-The whole thing is what Mike O'Connor refers to when he talks about the other developments none of the other developments around there are on the river bank. They are all off the river bank by at least a half mile. They are on other side of the Corinth Road or someplace else they are not there and the impact is entirely different and this is what is unique about this about this development is that when it is on the river bank and they are trying to take and they are trying to take and create a population density that is like a city in a very rural area and this is what we have to consider. By smoothing it over and flem flaming it as good attorneys do I not think that is doing everybody any justice its just making a lot of money for people who are paying him that is all we have to consider that very carefully. Thank you. Mr. Jeffrey Friedland-I was not going to speak again but I guess I take exception to something that was said before just a minute ago by the applicants council, there is no, that is there is no controversy generated by this project. This is a meeting that was held at five o'clock on a Monday and you look around there is fifty or sixty people here and out of those people by my count about fifteen people spoke and about three quarters of them spoke against the project. You and I all know that, that signifies a significant controversy about this project. I guess secondly the only thing I want to say is that I have had plenty of time to read the EIS that is my job to read it but evidently a lot of other people including the School Superintendent have not had time to read it and they are requesting two additional weeks from the formal closing date of I think September 30th or another two weeks to give them a chance to read it. I do not think that is unreasonable and I would request that the Board grant their request and extend the formal thirty day comment period to forty five days two additional weeks. Thanks. Councilman Caimano-I do not think that is unreasonable either, I do think it is unreasonable if Mr. Shagnon if you are fifteen hundred if right it would take us five years to get through this at the current amount of copies, so I do not think two weeks is unreasonable. Councilman Monahan-I agree with you Nick. Councilman Goetz-Has everybody given their opinion? Councilman Caimano-No Councilman Goetz-I think fifteen days is reasonable.o Supervisor Brandt-That is a clear majority already on the Board. Councilman Caimano-I think one of the biggest reasons I think the idea that Jack has not had a chance to read it is a important one. Councilman Monahan-Well this is a very complicated document and it has ..that contradict itself and you do have to trace them down, and you do have to do a lot of research when you read it and I will say for any PUD's that we have done that is not an exorbitant amount of time... Mr. Mike O'Connor-Mr. Irion is not an involved agency in the project, extra copies were provided whether they have gone to him or not I do not particularity know. Councilman Goetz-But the burden was on Saratoga Associates to do it, I am sorry that I missed some of the conversation. Mr. Mike O'Connor-The burden is not on Saratoga Associates...obligation to pass it on... Councilman Goetz-There seems to be a letter to that fact that was incorrect? About the burden being on Saratoga Associates? Mr. Mike O'Connor-There is no burden to do... Councilman Goetz-There isn't? Mr. Mike O'Connor-1 do not believe that there is. Councilman Goetz-Then I wonder why their person said that there was? Mr. Mike O'Connor-...not an involved agency. Councilman Goetz-Could I just say something, I am sorry I apologize, if you have already said things that I am going to say. But, I think the business about the Warren County Planning Board is important, and you are going to be researching that. Attorney Dusek-I am going to take a look at that because there is some language twist there that have to be examined. Councilman Goetz-And then enforcement on the conservation easements, Pliney you have always been concerned about that as well as many of the rest of us. I am interested in the contradictions about removing shrubbery etc. and trees as well as other things. Supervisor Brandt -Clearly the Board a majority has already said that they would like to extend this fifteen days we are still in a public hearing do we after we, we can leave the public hearing open and how do you want, how do you want to proceed, what. Attorney Dusek-My recommendation to you would be that first of all you would close this public hearing if you have heard everybody because the public hearing and the comment period are two different things. If you were to continue to hold the public hearing open you would have to give notice so it would really make no difference if you held it open or held another public hearing. So, I would recommend that you close that first because you could always reschedule another one if you want to and then you second entertain the comment period question. Supervisor Brandt -Ok. All right is there anyone else that would like to speak that has not had a chance to yet? Ok then I am going to close the public hearing, this public hearing and entertain a motion to extend the hearing period for written comments for another fifteen days, is that what's. Attorney Dusek -Could I recommend you give a date it just so happens fifteen days I believe comes to October 15th which is also a Friday, so if you made it October 15th at 5 o'clock so there is no misunderstanding. RESOLUTION TO EXTEND WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD FOR HUDSON POINTE PUD RESOLUTION NO. 506, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt Supervisor Brandt-I would entertain a motion to extend the hearing period for written comments for another 15 days. Attorney Dusek -Could I recommend you give a date it just so happens fifteen day I believe comes to October 15th which also is a Friday, so if you made it to October 15th at 5:00 P.M. so there is no misunderstanding. Duly adopted this 13th day of September, 1993 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None Supervisor Brandt -We are going to take a little break and come back to a regular board Meeting. Respectfully submitted, Miss Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk-Queensbury