1996-08-19
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING
AUGUST 19,1996
7:09 P.M.
Mtg #34
Res. 346-365
BOH 20-22
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
SUPERVISOR FRED CHAMPAGNE
COUNCILMAN BETTY MONAHAN
COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER
COUNCILMAN CONNIE GOEDERT
COUNCILMAN CAROL PULVER
TOWN COUNSEL
MARK SCHACHNER
TOWN OFFICIALS
James Martin, Executive Director of Community Development
Sue Cipperly, Planning Assistant
William Burns, Comptroller
Mike Shaw, Deputy Director of Wastewater
PRESS: G.F. Post Star, The Chronicle
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE
Supervisor Champagne called meeting to order ...
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PROPOSED CENTRAL QUEENSBURY QUAKER RD SEWER DIST. EXT. NO 3
NOTICE SHOWN
7:10 P.M.
SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE- The first public hearing is the proposed Central Queensbury Quaker Road
Sewer District Ext. Number 3 and I'll open that. Mike Shaw I heard, somewhere I saw you here, do you
want to just explain that to us please, if you will?
DIRECTOR OF WASTEWATER, MR. SHAW-This proposed sewer district extension number 3 is to the
Quaker Road Sewer District. The parcels are located on Route 9. The two parcels are owned by Meadow
Run and Storytown U. S.A. and it's just basically a district border change, the addition of two parcels.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, really the public hearing here allows for the extension of the sewer
district in the Queensbury Quaker Road area. Actually there's two parcels that the sewer went by during
the time Wal-Mart was installing the sewer and now the owners are interested in coming into the district.
Can you hear me back there?
AUDIENCE-No, not very well.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, we'll try that again. This sewer district, the public hearing tonight is
for the purposes of establishing two property or one property, owner of two different properties to become
part of the district, the sewer district that goes up Quaker, or goes up Route 9. When the Wal-Mart put that
extension in, the property owner at that point, as I understand it, Mike decided not to come into the district.
They have changed their minds since then and now they're are asking to come in. So, is there anyone here
this evening to speak either for or against the extension of the sewer plan? Hearing from now, seeing now,
I'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
7:11 P.M.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin lead the Town Board through the Short Environmental Assessment Form,
Part II.
A, Does action exceed any type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.12?
NO
B, Will action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?
NO
C, Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following:
Cl, Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic
patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?
NO, BUT COULD BE FAVORABLE ACTION BECAUSE OF SEWER EXTENSION
C2, aesthetic, agriculture, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or
community or neighborhood character?
NO
C3, Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or
endangered species?
NO
C4, A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use of intensity of
use of land or other natural resources?
NO, POSITIVE GOAL MET BY EXTENDING SEWER SYSTEM
C5, Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed
action?
NO
C6, Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C l-C5?
NO
C7, Other impacts?
NO
D, Will the project have an impact on the Environmental Characteristics that caused the establishment of a
CEA?
NO
E, Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?
NO
Reasons Supporting the Determination:
AFTER REVIEW OF INFORMATION PROVIDED THE TOWN BOARD FOUND NO
NEGATIVE EFFECTS, ONLY POSITIVE EFFECTS
RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
CENTRAL QUEENSBURY QUAKER ROAD SEWER DISTRICT
EXTENSION NO.3
RESOLUTION NO. 346, 96
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering the action of adopting a
resolution establishing an extension to the existing Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District, to be
known as the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District Extension No.3, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified to conduct
environmental review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) which requires
environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is an unlisted action pursuant to the rules and regulations of
SEQRA,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, after considering the action
proposed herein, reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form, reviewing the criteria contained in
Section 617.7, and thoroughly analyzing the said action with respect to potential environmental concerns,
determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to complete and execute
the said Environmental Assessment Form and to check the box thereon indicating that the proposed action
will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and complete such other information as may be necessary
to indicate such, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section 617.7, the Negative Declaration presented at this meeting is
hereby approved and the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to file the same in accordance
with the provisions of the general regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation.
Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES : Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver,
Mr. Champagne
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
CENTRAL QUEENSBURY QUAKER ROAD SEWER DISTRICT EXTENSION NO.3
RESOLUTION NO. 347,96
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of establishing an extension
to the existing Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District, to be known as the Central Queensbury
Quaker Road Sewer District Extension No.3, and
WHEREAS, a District Extension Map has been prepared regarding the said proposed extension to
the existing Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District, such extension on Route 9, to include lands
of Meadow Run Development Corp. (Tax Map No.: 72-6-26) and Storytown USA, Inc. (Tax Map No.: 72-
6-27.2) with the boundaries of the proposed extension being more fully set forth herein and on the District
Extension Map, and
WHEREAS, the District Extension Map, prepared by VanDusen & Steves Land Surveyors, has
been filed in the Town Clerk's Office in the Town of Queensbury and is available for public inspection, and
WHEREAS, said District Extension Map shows the boundaries of the proposed extension to the
Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District with it also being set forth further that the sewage
disposal plant is proposed to be the City of Glens Falls Sewage Disposal Plant, to be used in accordance
with the terms and provisions of an Agreement and the transmission mains of the Central Queensbury
Quaker Road Sewer District shall also be used to transport the sewage from the said extension to the City
Plant, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury desires to establish the said proposed
sewer extension pursuant to Town Law, Article 12A, and consolidate the same with the Central
Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District pursuant to Town Law, ~206A, and
WHEREAS, the said Town Board has considered the establishment of said extension in
accordance with the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and has adopted a negative
declaration concerning environmental impacts,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS
RESOLVED, that it is the determination of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, that:
1. notice of said public hearing was published and posted as required by law and is
otherwise sufficient;
2. it is in the public interest to establish, authorize, and approve the Central Queensbury
Quaker Road Sewer District Extension No.3, as the same has been described in the District Extension Map
on file with the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury and as more specifically described herein;
3. all property and property owners within said extension are benefitted thereby;
4. all property and property owners benefitted are included within the limits of said
extension;
5. pursuant to ~206A of the Town Law of the State of New York, it is in the public interest
to assess all expenses of the district, including all extensions heretofore or hereafter established as a charge
against the entire area of the district as extended and it is in the public interest to extend the district only if
all expenses of the district shall be assessed against the entire district as extended; and
IT IS FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that:
1. The Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District NO.3 be and the same is hereby
authorized, approved and established in accordance with the boundaries and descriptions set forth herein
and in the previously described District Extension Map, and construction of the improvement may proceed
and service provided and subject to the following;
a.
of Health;
the obtaining of any necessary permits or approvals from the New York State Department
b. the obtaining of any necessary permits or approvals from the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation;
c. a permissive referendum in the manner provided in Article 7 of the Town Law of the
State of New York;
d.
the adoption of a final Order by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury;
2.
follows:
The boundaries of the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District NO.3 are as
All that certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the Town of
Queensbury, County of Warren and the State of New York, more particularly bounded and described as
follows;
BEGINNING at a point in the westerly bounds of New York State Highway Route 9 at the
southeasterly corner of the lands conveyed to Storytown USA, Inc. by deed dated August 18, 1989 and
recorded in book 766 of deeds at page 216; running thence southerly along the westerly bounds of said
Route 9 the following two courses and distances;
(1) South 25 degrees, 07 minutes and 44 seconds East, a distance of 150.25 feet;
(2) South 34 degrees, 16 minutes and 52 seconds East, a distance of 50.95 feet to the
northeast corner of lands now or formerly of I. Charles Lebowitz; thence running South 39 degrees, 31
minutes and 11 seconds West along the northerly bounds of said lands of Lebowitz, a distance of 140.41
feet; thence running North 32 degrees, 41 minutes and 49 seconds West, a distance of 166.72 feet; thence
running North 23 degrees, 24 minutes and 05 seconds West, a distance of 29.00 feet to the southwesterly
corner of said lands of Storytown USA, Inc.; thence running along said lands North 39 degrees, 31 minutes
and 14 seconds East, a distance of 155.13 feet to the point and place of beginning, containing 0.62 acres of
land, to be the same more or less.
Bearings given in the above description refer to magnetic North.
SUBJECT to easements of record.
AND
All that certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the Town of
Queensbury, County of Warren and the State of New York, more particularly bounded and described as
follows;
BEGINNING at the southeast corner of the lands of the grantor herein in the westerly bounds of
New York State Highway Route 9; running thence South 39 degrees, 23 minutes and 36 seconds West
along the lands of Meadow Run Development Corp., a distance of 27.69 feet; thence running through the
lands of the grantor herein the following three courses and distances:
(1) North 25 degrees, 07 minutes and 44 seconds West, a distance of 17.31 feet;
(2) North 64 degrees, 52 minutes and 16 seconds East, a distance of 5.00 feet;
(3) North 25 degrees, 07 minutes and 44 seconds West, a distance of 42.50 feet to the lands
of Bodenweiser; thence running North 57 degrees, 52 minutes and 03 seconds East along said lands of
Bodenweiser, a distance of 20.15 feet to the southeast corner of said lands of Bodenweiser in the westerly
bounds of said Route 9; thence running South 25 degrees, 07 minutes and 44 seconds East along said Route
9, a distance of 50.36 feet to the point and place of beginning, containing 0.02 acres ofland, to be the same
more or less.
Bearings given in the above description refer to the magnetic meridian as of February 1966.
and
3. There will be no financing of the construction or installation cost for the proposed sewer
extension and no amount shall be paid therefor by the extension, the Town of Queensbury or the Central
Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District, the owners of the Meadow Run Development Corporation and
Storytown USA, Inc., being responsible for the same, as well as the charge payable to the City at the time
of the initial connection of the sewer district;
4. In accordance with Town Law, ~206A, all expenses of the Central Queensbury Quaker Road
Sewer District, including all extensions included heretofore or hereafter established, shall be a charge
against the entire area of the district as extended;
5. Expenses occasioned after the creation of the extension shall be assessed, levied, and/or
collected from the several lots and parcels of land within the extension on the same basis as the
assessments, levies, and/or collections are made in the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District
and such assessments shall be made on a benefit basis and/or user charge basis;
6. The District Extension Map describing the improvements and area involved is on file with the
Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury and available for public inspection;
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that this resolution is subject to a permissive referendum in the manner provided the
provisions of Article 7 and Article 12-A of the Town Law of the State of New York and the Town Clerk is
hereby authorized and directed to file, post, and publish such notice of this Resolution as may be required
by law.
Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan,
Mr. Champagne
NOES
None
ABSENT
None
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED LOCAL LAW - "RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM"
NOTICE SHOWN
7:15 P.M.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I'll open the public hearing now on the local law, Retirement Incentive
Program. This is the state incentive program for those who choose to retire early and we think we may
have one or two people falling under this plan. So, the town, basically we've discussed this and I guess
we're ready to do the SEQRA on this one Jim.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Okay.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Unless we, do we have anyone, first of all, do we have anyone here to
speak for or against this law? Okay, I'm sorry Jim.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I've been advised by Counsel, if you want to, does anybody see
any objections to any of the questions on this particular local law, or any environmental impacts with this
law?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-No.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-NO.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Okay, if you feel comfortable then just moving on the form?
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yes, let's do it.
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, PART II
A, Does action exceed any type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.12?
NO
B, Will action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?
NO
C, Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following:
Cl, Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic
patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?
NO
C2, aesthetic, agriculture, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or
community or neighborhood character?
NO
C3, Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or
endangered species?
NO
C4, A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use of intensity of
use of land or other natural resources?
NO
C5, Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed
action?
NO
C6, Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C l-C5?
NO
C7, Other impacts?
NO
D, Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?
NO
Reasons Supporting the Determination:
NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT
RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF
LOCAL LAW NUMBER 3 , 1996
A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 34 TO BE ENTITLED,
"RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM"
WHICH CHAPTER SHALL AUTHORIZE A RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM
FOR ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
RESOLUTION NO. 348, 96
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of enacting a Local Law to
amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury by adding a new Chapter 34 to be entitled "Retirement
Incentive Program," which Chapter shall authorize a retirement incentive program for eligible employees of
the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified to conduct compliance
with SEQRA which requires environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is an unlisted action pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the
State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board after considering the action proposed herein, reviewing the
Environmental Assessment Form, and thoroughly analyzing the said action with respect to potential
environmental concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment,
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to complete and execute
Part III of the said Environmental Assessment Form and to check the box thereon indicating that the
proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the annexed Negative Declaration is hereby approved and the Town Clerk's
Office is hereby authorized and directed to file the same in accordance with the provisions of the general
regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation.
Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES
Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner,
Mr. Champagne
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
7:16 P.M.
RESOLUTION TO ENACT LOCAL LAW NUMBER 3 , 1996
A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 34 TO BE ENTITLED,
"RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM"
WHICH CHAPTER SHALL AUTHORIZE A RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM
FOR ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
RESOLUTION NO. 349,96
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of enacting a Local Law to
amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury by adding a new Chapter 34 to be entitled, "Retirement
Incentive Program," which Chapter shall authorize a retirement incentive program for eligible employees of
the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Local Law has been presented at this meeting, a copy of said
Local Law also having been previously given to the Town Board at the time the Resolution was adopted
which set a date and time for a public hearing, and
WHEREAS, on August 19, 1996, a public hearing with regard to this Local Law was duly
conducted,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby enacts the proposed Local
Law to Amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury by adding a new Chapter 34 thereof, entitled,
"Retirement Incentive Program," to be known as Local Law Number
3 , 1996, the same to be titled and contain such provisions as are set forth in a copy of the proposed Law
presented at this meeting, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to file the said
Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal
Home Rule Law and that said Local Law will take effect immediately and as soon as allowable under law.
Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES : Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert,
Mr. Champagne
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
LOCAL LAW NO. 3, 1996
A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY BY
ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 34 TO BE ENTITLED,
"RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM" WHICH CHAPTER SHALL AUTHORIZE
A RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM FOR
ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Code of the Town of Queensbury is hereby amended by adding thereto a new
Chapter to be Chapter 34, to read as follows:
~34-1. Title.
This Chapter shall be titled, "Retirement Incentive Program. "
~34-2. Statutory Authority.
The authority for this Chapter is Section 10 of the Municipal Home Rule Law and Chapter 30,
Laws of 1996 of the New York State and Local Retirement System.
~34-3. Legislative History and Purpose.
The New York State and Local Retirement Systems, pursuant to Chapter 30 of the Laws of 1996,
effective March 29, 1996, made available a Retirement Incentive Program to local governments, public
authorities and community colleges. This legislation permits employers that participate in the New York
State and Local Employees' Retirement System to provide special retirement incentive benefits to their
regular retirement plan members who are at least age 50 with ten years of service credit (not including
incentive credit). Eligible employees participating in a special twenty-five year plan providing for
retirement without regard to age are eligible to participate in the incentive program if they have earned
twenty-five (25) years of service credit (including incentive service) necessary to retire prior to their
effective date of retirement. Certain employees covered under Section 89-a, Section 89-b and Section 89-d
may also be eligible for the incentive program.
~34-4. Enactment.
The Town of Queensbury hereby elects to provide all of its eligible employees with a retirement
incentive program authorized by Chapter 30, Laws of 1996.
~34-5. Commencement Date.
The commencement date of the retirement incentive program shall be October 3, 1996.
~34-6. Open Period.
The open period during which eligible employees may retire and receive the additional retirement
benefit, shall be ninety (90) days in length commencing on October 3, 1996.
~34-7. Value and Payment of Additional Retirement Benefits.
The actuarial present value of the additional retirement benefits payable pursuant to the provisions
of this Local Law shall be paid as one (1) lump sum or in five (5) annual installments. The amount of the
annual payment shall be determined by the Actuary of the New York State and Local Employees'
Retirement System and it shall be paid by the Town of Queensbury for each employee who receives the
retirement benefits payable under this Local Law.
SECTION 2.
Severability .
In the event that any provision of this law should be deemed invalid or illegal by a court oflaw,
the remaining portions of the law shall be read to the extent possible, as if said provision was stricken
therefrom and not a part thereof.
SECTION 3.
Effective Date.
This Local Law shall take effect upon proper filing initially with the New York State Secretary of
State and subsequently with the New York State and Local Retirement System (in accordance with the
terms and provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law of the State of New York).
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED LOCAL LAW, "ELECTIONS"
NOTICE SHOWN
7:18 P.M.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I'll open the public hearing on the Resolution Adopting the Non-
Significance of a Local Law Number, whatever the Local Law number shall be, a Local Law to Amend the
Code of to the Town of Queensbury by repealing Chapter 11, thereof, entitled, "Elections". So, do you
want to explain that one to us?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mark?
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Mark, is that your's?
TOWN COUNSEL MARK SCHACHNER-It's really your's but I can give it a stab if you like. This is the
local law that would repeal the law that was enacted by the Town Board many years ago that required
voters in special elections to, in addition to being property owners in the affected districts, to also be locally
registered voters here in Warren County. The proposed local law would repeal that law so that in a special
election anyone who owned property and was eligible to vote by virtue of that ownership, could vote in the
special election regardless of where they were registered to vote, whether it was locally or otherwise, or
even whether they were registered to vote.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, the purpose I guess behind this process is to allow voters in North
Queensbury to vote on the, as you hopefully, we plan to put a sewer in the North Queensbury area and in
doing so we need, or at least we would hope to give everybody the opportunity that owns property up there
to vote on that resolution. So, that's the purpose of the law. So now is there anyone here to speak for or
against the law? Yes, Barbara.
BARBARA BENNETT, Queensbury-Barbara Bennett, Queensbury. I was just wondered if you were able
to get a copy of the state laws that remains in effect if you repeal this law?
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I didn't get a copy of that today, unfortunately, I wasn't able to get a copy
of that. But basically what that law, help me with this Mark, what the law says is as you just indicated.
TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-There's no, first off, there's not one specific state law governing all
special elections. There are a whole slue of state law provisions that govern special elections. What they
generally say as Fred said, I indicated earlier, is that if there's a special election affecting property, or
certain groups of properties in a certain area, the property owners that own those properties are allowed to
participate in those special elections. The local law that was enacted by the Queensbury Town Board
several years ago limited that right only to locally registered voters. The current proposed local law that's
the subject of this hearing would eliminate that requirement.
MS. BENNETT -Yea, I understand that and you do have a copy of the one you're repealing here. Basically
I'm objecting to the way you've done this. It was entered for the first time at the last board meeting and all
it said is that you set a public hearing, you wanted to, to repeal the law. There was no copy of the law
provided. Apparently, it's supposed to be given to the public first. It is here now and at no time has there
been a copy of the state law provided and I haven't been able to get one. I've asked Darleen, I've asked
Schachner, I've asked you over the two week period and this was on the very next board meeting. If it's
mandatory that you submit it the public, then I think you've got to submit to us a copy of the law you're
repealing and the copy of the one that's to replace it. Otherwise, how are we going to say anything at a
public meeting at a public hearing?
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Do you have a problem with that?
TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-There is no such thing. There is no specific state statute that governs
all these situations. There are a whole, I mean there are a whole separate sections of different state statutes
governing the various types of special elections you can have. Our obligation under law is actually only to
provide a copy of the proposed local law which we certainly did do at the last meeting. We went a step
beyond that and also provided a copy of the chapter in the code that this seeks to repeal. I don't know what
more we could have done. There is no such thing. There is no one specific state statute that will now come
into effect and in fact, all the state statutes that govern this remained in effect during the ten or so years
time that our local law remained in effect. All that happened was the local law added an additional
restriction.
MS. BENNETT -So what do you do, look up the state law every time there's a special election to see what
applies?
TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Actually, that is what we do.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That's what we have to do.
MS. BENNETT-And the majority of the time it would probably come under a specific section of the state
law.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That's correct.
MS. BENNETT-That's all I was trying to get. I want to know what law we're going to be under.
TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-All different ones depending upon what type of special election, and
there are a whole slue of provisions. I don't know how else to explain it.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-What really happens Barbara in this situation is that the town has to draw up
a list of eligible voters as a voting list to be checked against when people come into vote for these, that
comply with the different state laws that govern whatever kind of election it is. If you remember that was
done when there was a sewer referendum years and years ago, that special list of voters of people who
could vote on that, had to be drawn up for that election.
MS. BENNETT -Yea, but now you don't have to be a registered voter.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You didn't have to be a registered voter for that election, you had to be a
property owner and that's why a special list of people eligible to vote had to be drawn for that.
Corporations got one vote, who ever the deed's name was in got a chance to vote but you had to be a
property owner to vote on that sewer referendum.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-We believe this has some real benefits going back to the original law rather
then preventing those people who may own property who live in Virginia and were not given the privilege
to vote and that's why we're opening it up at this point.
MS. BENNETT-Yea I think every property owner should be able to vote.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay.
MS. BENNETT -And as far as this goes, that, I don't think that was a proper law anyway, the one you want
to repeal because anybody in Warren County could vote, that way it's stated. But I just wanted to know if
you're going to repeal something, what you're going to replace it with. That was all.
SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE-I apologize. I suppose we could have got the specific law that deals just
with the sewer district.
TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Well yea, although again I think it's important to point out for
everyone's benefit that although your explanation of the principal purpose of the local law at this time
relates to that project, the local law is by no means tied to that project.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Right, right we understand that.
COUNCILMAN GOEDERT -I have a question. If I'm understanding Ms. Bennett correctly, are we just
removing a restriction that we ourself have put on the law?
TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-That's precisely correct.
MS. BENNETT-Yea, back in 1985.
TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-We, ourselves meaning a previous Town Board but yes.
COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Right and we're not replacing it with anything.
TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-That's exactly right.
COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-We're just going to the follow the law.
TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-That's exactly right.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you Barbara. Anyone else care to speak? We're going to close that
public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
7:25 P.M.
Town Board agreed to act as a whole and the following was agreed upon:
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, PART II
A, Does action exceed any type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.12?
NO
B, Will action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?
NO
C, Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following:
Cl, Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic
patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?
NO
C2, aesthetic, agriculture, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or
community or neighborhood character?
NO
C3, Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or
endangered species?
NO
C4, A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use of intensity of
use of land or other natural resources?
NO
C5, Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed
action?
NO
C6, Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C l-C5?
NO
C7, Other impacts?
NO
D, Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?
NO
Reasons Supporting this Determination:
NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT
RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF
LOCAL LAW NUMBER 4, 1996
A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
BY REPEALING CHAPTER 11 THEREOF, ENTITLED, "ELECTIONS"
RESOLUTION NO. 350, 96
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of enacting a Local Law to
amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury by Repealing Chapter 11 thereof, entitled "Elections" which
Chapter presently requires that to vote in any special election held in and for the Town of Queensbury
pursuant to the provisions of the Town Law, persons must be registered to vote with the Warren County
Board of Elections, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified to conduct compliance
with SEQRA which requires environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is an unlisted action pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the
State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board after considering the action proposed herein, reviewing the
Environmental Assessment Form, and thoroughly analyzing the said action with respect to potential
environmental concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment,
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to complete and execute
Part III of the said Environmental Assessment Form and to check the box thereon indicating that the
proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the annexed Negative Declaration is hereby approved and the Town Clerk's
Office is hereby authorized and directed to file the same in accordance with the provisions of the general
regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation.
Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES
Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver,
Mr. Champagne
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION TO ENACT LOCAL LAW NUMBER 4, 1996
A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
BY REPEALING CHAPTER 11 THEREOF, ENTITLED, "ELECTIONS"
RESOLUTION NO. 351,96
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of enacting a Local Law to
amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury by Repealing Chapter 11 thereof, entitled, "Elections," which
Chapter presently requires that to vote in any special election held in and for the Town of Queensbury
pursuant to the provisions of the Town law, persons must be registered to vote with the Warren County
Board of Elections, and
WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Local Law has been presented at this meeting, a copy of said
Local Law also having been previously given to the Town Board at the time the Resolution was adopted
which set a date and time for a public hearing, and
WHEREAS, on August 19, 1996, a public hearing with regard to this Local Law was duly
conducted,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby enacts the proposed Local
Law to Amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury by Repealing Chapter 11 thereof, entitled,
"Elections," to be known as Local Law Number 4, 1996, the same to be titled and contain such provisions
as are set forth in a copy of the proposed Law presented at this meeting, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to file the said
Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal
Home Rule Law and that said Local Law will take effect immediately and as soon as allowable under law.
Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan,
Mr. Champagne
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
LOCAL LAW NO.: 4,1996
A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
BY REPEALING CHAPTER 11 THEREOF ENTITLED, "ELECTIONS"
BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The Code of the Town of Queensbury is hereby amended by repealing Chapter
11 thereof, entitled, "Elections."
SECTION II.
Effective Date.
This Local Law shall become effective immediately upon filing as provided by the Municipal
Home Rule Law of the State of New York.
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED LOCAL LAW, "RECREATION FEES"
NOTICE SHOWN
7:28 P.M.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, now we can open the public hearing on Recreation Fees. Jim, do
you want to give us some background?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-The purpose of this law, or change to the law in terms of
recreation fee payment, the fee would remain the same, however, we have had some input in the past that it
was really quite an unfair position to place on a developer or somebody who is faced with paying this fee.
The individual maybe who subdivides some family property of three or four lots and so on, or has a site
plan before us, to pay the entire fee in bulk, up front, all at once. The change will allow for payment of the
fee as the development itself happens. In other words, when someone applies for a building permit, the fee
would have to be paid at that time rather in bulk, all up front. So, in the case of say a subdivision for
example if you have a ten lot subdivision the old method would have been five thousand dollar payment
because the fee is five hundred dollars per lot, a five thousand dollar payment at the time of the Planning
Board final approval. Meaning before the Planning Board Chairman signs the plat. Under the new
approach, the subdivision would be allowed to be approved and filed with the county and at the time the
individual comes into build a house on that lot, it maybe that developer or whom ever is the owner of the
lot, at that time they propose to build a house on that lot, then the fee would be paid. And it seemed to
make sense because that's when the real need for recreational facilities occurs, is when the resident
occupies the lot. That was the reason behind the change.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. Now is there anyone to speak for or against this change?
MR. PLINEY TUCKER, Queensbury-Pliney Tucker, Queensbury. How big a problem is this Jim?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-From an administrative standpoint?
MR. TUCKER-No, I mean, how many folks out there that want the town to go in partners with them while
they develop the land?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I'm not sure I understand the question, go in partners?
MR. TUCKER-Well, at the present time if someone comes in here with plans to develop a piece of land
they have to pay it up front.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. TUCKER-Therefore, if they go bankrupt, the town doesn't get stuck for the recreation fees.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Not unless I'm misunderstanding, we would not get stuck in
any event because it's not just, it's not a requirement of the sole individual, it's a requirement of whoever
occupies the lot.
MR. TUCKER-But there's a possibility that we'll get stuck.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I don't think so.
MR. TUCKER-Hiland Park, we had certified letters of credit from a bank on roads over there. The Town
Attorney, Mr. Dusek was to look after it. All of a sudden we found out that they had lapsed and the
taxpayers had to put the second coat on the roads over in Hiland Park. I know you think that this thing will
work perfect but there's just a possibility that you might not be there forever.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I think that's a distinct possibility.
MR. TUCKER-Oh yea. I'd just like to know who brought this forward to your department or to the Town
Board or who brought it forward?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-We had several requests from builders across town.
COUNCILMAN PULVER-Property owners.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Property owners. It's, as the office that takes the fee and breaks
the news to the people, it's not exactly the most well received news in the world.
MR. TUCKER-But that's what you get the big bucks for buddy. If you want to be liked, you're in the
wrong business.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-It's not a question of me being liked, it's a question of, what I
feel the question is anyhow, how can we be the fairest to people because I'm not the one who is paying the
fee, the people are.
MR. TUCKER-The landowners are.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yea, that's correct.
MR. TUCKER-The people that wind up owning the homes are the ones that are paying the fees.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-That's right.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-It's all in the price.
SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE- That's not going to change. I mean, that piece doesn't change a bit.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-That's not going to change but I mean if, it just strikes me, if
someone only has to pay for a lot or two because that's the only thing that's going to be developed, it seems
a lot more fair approach to then have to pay for all ten lots that may sit there vacant for x number of years.
MR. TUCKER-That's the chance you take when you decide to develop your land. I just don't
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-There is no letter of credit here or anything like that, it's not a
credit type of a thing. It's an apples and oranges comparison.
MR. TUCKER-If you take the ten house subdivision, right and you collect the money as the houses are
built, the recreation that is needed for those ten houses is not provided until the town gets the money so it
can spend it on recreation. I know that we have a fund that is quite substantial but it appears to me that
you're making it easier and easier for the people that want to come in here and develop the town and I've sat
here for years and years and heard about open space and green space, it just
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-To me the reaction that I've seen is the worst, is not from the
big developer. The thing that in my estimation where this has the most pain, or the most difficulty for
people is usually the family subdivision. A family wants to subdivide some property that's held in the
family for a long time and they want to give it on to their kids, and they have three or four lots they want to
carve out and there's a fifteen hundred or two thousand dollar bill to pay, that's where I see the most
anguish in their eyes. Not the
MR. TUCKER-But the big guys are going to benefit from this, aren't they?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Anybody who develops will benefit from this.
COUNCILMAN PULVER-Well they still have to pay.
MR. TUCKER-Provided it's collected.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-It will be collected.
COUNCILMAN PULVER-Well, they can't build until they pay, so it's got to be collected.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-They can't get a building permit.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-The requirement Pliney is that it be paid before a building permit is issued.
A building permit may not be issued until that fee is paid.
MR. TUCKER-I know that's the requirement. Does everything always work the way you think it's going
to? You bet your life it does not.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We hope it's getting better and better.
MR. TUCKER-We had a partnership over here, Hiland Park, it's been out of bankruptcy how long Fred?
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-A year maybe.
MR. TUCKER-How much money has this town got?
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well not the whole park, the whole park isn't out yet, we're still attached to
that.
MR. TUCKER-Pardon?
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-We're still attached to partial bankruptcy over there. I mean, well, we don't
want to get into that Pliney really. The question that you asked is
MR. TUCKER-The bank bought it didn't they?
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Right.
MR. TUCKER-Well, they're out of bankruptcy and they still owe the town alot of money.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well that's your opinion.
MR. TUCKER-They don't? Did you get paid the seventy-five thousand dollars you got coming?
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-We're working on it.
MR. TUCKER-Huh?
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-We're working on it.
MR. TUCKER-Oh, my opinion then.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, anyone else care to speak? Somebody in the back?
MR. MICHAEL CRA YFORD-My name is Michael Crayford, I'm president of the Local Home Builder's
Association of Northern New York. I'm the one that requested the Town Board to look at the Recreation
Fee and to amend the Town Law to change it the fact that the fee would be paid when the building permit
was applied for. And it was November when I applied for this, or the Association asked for this, requested
this from the Town Board and I believe since that time the Recreation Department Board has also reviewed
our request and they've also agreed and submitted okay to go ahead and pass this revision of the Town
Law. But, obviously, I'm in favor of this unnecessary burden on developers and builders and homeowners
alike. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. Yes sir.
MR. MARK HOFFMAN-Mark Hoffman, Fox Hollow Lane. My understanding that one of the purposes
behind this whole process was to encourage developers to donate park land as part of their projects. It
would seem to me if the developer can pass along the recreation fee to the homeowner at the time the
building permit is approved, it eliminates the incentive to donate park land. Also, if we're really concerned,
if the main concern is about the small family who is trying to subdivide, why don't we just put a limit, say
no more then four lots, something like that. That way we could, we would encourage the bigger
developments to proceed with protecting open space, as the intent would appear to be.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-My only response to that is that, that's what is occurring now.
The fee, the cost of the fee is being passed through in the lot cost as it is now.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, anyone else care to speak for or against?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Fred, I think there's a clarification. The Recreation Law was not intended to
encourage developers to donate open space. The final say is in the hands of the Town Board whether that
land is something the town wants to take for recreation or for a specified reason. It isn't really, you know
the purpose was not to encourage the donation of land. The purpose of the Recreation Law was to
recognize the fact that these developments do have an impact on the recreation capabilities that we can
furnish to the residents of this town.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-So it's really secondary.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-In fact the Town Board has turned down considerable space that had been
given in lieu of the recreation fee and held to the fee only.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And that we didn't feel was appropriate.
MR. MIKE NELSON-My name is Mike Nelson, I'm from Queensbury. I just have one question, is this,
Jim, I guess this question is for you, is the a scenario that we could expect a developer to come in and then
make these lots available and then what if these lots don't sell? I've not seen that circumstance in
Queensbury but I've seen that circumstance in other areas around Queensbury. Is this something where, all
of a sudden we have a lot of lots with no recreation fee and no means by which to make them green again.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Once lots are developed and platted, you know that lot exists
and not unless the lots come under joint ownership, say several lots contiguous and for whatever reason
somebody would like to consolidate those, they always have that option, who ever the property owner is.
In terms of the recreation fee, I think as Betty indicated, that the purpose was to try and supplement the
recreation budget as the needs come on this fund would be in existence to equip parks as demand is created
and obviously demand is created when the lot is occupied. And that was the reason behind the fee.
MR. NELSON-Okay, thanks.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Anyone else?
MR. ED BAERTSCHI-Ed Baertschi from Assembly Point and there's just a question in my mind I'd like to
have answered. On large tracts of land that a developer comes in to develop, what we're saying here is, if
the developer sells a piece of ground or a lot on that piece of tract, we're going to be able to collect a fee,
the recreational fee.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Wait a minute now.
MR. BAERTSCHI-From the owner who buys the lot. Am I correct?
COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-If they build on it.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Only when they apply for a building permit.
MR. BAERTSCHI-Correct.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Who ever applies for the building permit.
MR. BAERTSCHI-Now what happens in the event where a developer comes in and he builds four or five
houses or ten houses with the intent to sell these houses, will he pay that fee up front?
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yes.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. BAERTSCHI-He will pay that?
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-As soon as that building permit is issued.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Before it's issued.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well before it's issued, yes. Before it's issued, that recreation fee is paid.
MR. BAER TSCHI -Then automatically that recreational fee will then pass onto the owner if they sell.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, no, I mean that will be
MR. BAERTSCHI-Well it will be in the price of the lot.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That will be what the developer does, but the town is out of that.
MR. BAERTSCHI-Right, right they have gotten their money already.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea.
MR. BAERTSCHI-Okay, now one more question in regard to this same thing is, in regard to tracts ofland
which are owned by people in the town as numerous parcels of land anywhere from forty acres to two,
three, four hundred acres of land. I can see where its a very, very difficult thing for a property owner or
say, someone that owns this amount of land to all of a sudden to have to pay this fee up front, if he decides
that he wants to give a piece of land to his relatives or his family. I think it's a good idea that it should be
up to the individual who applies for the building permit to pay that so that burden is off of the property
owner. Because some of these property owners are land rich but poor in the pocketbook. That's all I have
to say. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. Yes, sir.
MR. BERNARD RA YHILL-My name is Bernard Rayhill from the Town of Queensbury. I have just one
question with regard to this concept. If I were to build a hundred and ten houses, does that mean that I
would have to pay fifty-five thousand dollars up front?
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-No.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-No.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Again, it's when you got issued a building permit for how many you ever
wanted to build at one time. If you wanted to build five of them, you would pay for five. If you wanted to
build ten, if you were going to start three hundred houses at one time, yes you would pay that recreation fee
as soon as you applied for your
MR. RA YHILL-A hundred and ten houses, would be fifty-five thousand dollars. Is that correct?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-As soon as you apply for the building permit for each one of those houses.
MR. RA YHILL- I see. Well as a strong proponent of recreation in this community and seeing the lack of
recreation infrastructure, I'm strongly in favor of creating a situation which we have revenues for recreation
in the future and that there is a clear stream between the owner of the property, whether it be a hundred and
ten units or ten units and the town government. And I think the town government has the obligation to
collect taxes and also to collect levies or finds and this is a levy. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. Anyone else, for or against?
MR. DEMARS-My name is Mr. DeMars and Mark, if I might ask you, are there restrictions wrote into this
whereas these people that come in here with a PUD, will they have to comply with this also as one unit, no
write offs over seven year period, no write offs over ten year on the PUD?
TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Yea, it applies to Planned Unit Development as well as standard
subdivisions.
MR. DEMARS-Well in other words what you're saying is, what Mrs. Monahanjust said is that if they
come in and they're going to build three hundred houses, we're going to collect that amount of money, not
over a seven year period, are we going to get it up front or are we going to get it over seven years?
TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-It depends. The town would recoup the money when the building
permits are applied for. If the building permits are applied for all on the same day, none of them would be
issued until each and every recreation fee for each unit is paid. If the building permits are applied for one
per year for seven years, then each building permit would be issued one year, one payment, one building
permit, one year. It totally depends on when the building permits are applied for and issued.
MR. DEMARS-How does the existing law differ from which you propose,
other then the fact it doesn't protect from a builder coming into town, and erecting three hundred to five
hundred houses as they wish?
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Mr. DeMars, let me try to explain this. Let's take ten houses. The
developer wants to build ten houses and he's going to build five a year. Okay, so it's going to take him two
years to build out the ten houses. He will pay right up front when he gets the first five permits. He goes in,
I want five building permits to start my project tomorrow. He gets five building permits, he pays five times
five hundred dollars. Then next year is going to do the second phase. He goes in with five more houses to
be built, he's going to ask for five building permits and he's going to pay for five recreation fees and that
can be stretched out. As soon as you go in that door to apply for a building permit, you then pay that
recreation fee. Now the PUD that you're talking about, I can understand how you're confused here, that
PUD does not encompass those ten houses for the ten fees or the ten recreation fees up front. That's not the
way it works. It's as you apply for the permit, that's when you pay the fee.
MR. DEMARS-Well then it's advantageous to come into this town buy a lot oflots, submit a PUD to the
Town of Queensbury Board and build as I want to with that protection. That I don't have to come up with
fifty-five thousand dollars, I only have to come up with five thousand dollars.
COUNCILMAN PULVER-No.
MR. DEMARS-How many small people within the town are worried about that? There aren't too many.
That's my, that's my thinking. Why change the existing law? Because one person came forth from Albany
and presented his case to you?
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-No, that's not
MR. DEMARS-That they wanted to change because he felt that it was not advantageous for him.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That's not the case at all.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-No.
MR. DEMARS-Well where are your letters? Where are the letters asking for the change?
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-The letters, I guess I have to say that in my own estimation where I know
that there are people out there that are sitting on the five or seven or ten lots, lets say in a twenty-five lot
subdivision, they still own those ten lots because they have not sold. This is not the 1985's and 88's when
Queensbury development was going rapidly and there were build outs within these developments within
two to three years. That's not the case now. These people are having to pay that five hundred dollars up
front, they sit on that lot for who knows how long and it's my opinion that in order to avoid that because it
does get transferred back to the buyer when the buyer makes the deal for the house, no question about that
and if we're looking at our ability here in the town to not necessarily do the affordable housing piece but
certainly to keep the prices of houses within the reason, then that's what encouraged me to move in this
direction.
MR. DEMARS-Well it really protects the person that has the lots within the Town of Queensbury right
now.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well yea, I
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I don't, I think there's a
MR. DEMARS-It's not the people, it's not so much the people that have the for sale signs, if you go up and
down the roads in the Town of Queensbury, I'll guarantee you, you can see four or five for sale signs on
every single road. The bottom line is, you haven't got to be a Phi Beta Kappa to figure this one out. Whose
advantage is it? The Town of Queensbury or the people that are going to do the building? Thank you.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir.
CRAIG EMBLIDGE-Hi, I'm Craig Emblidge from the Town of Queensbury. I just have a quick comment
and a quick request for you. With a group this size, it's going to be impossible to hear from all of us tonight
and we're just hearing individual opinions here. As representatives of all of us, I'm sure you're curious
about the silent majority, I certainly am and I would request of you a simple courtesy. Before we take a
vote on this issue and also the discussion on the planned unit development of Indian Ridge, I would ask that
you simply ask for a show of hands from everyone here as to whether we favor it or disfavor it and then
you take your own vote.
SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE- Thank you for your information.
MR. EMBLIDGE- That would certainly reflect perhaps our wishes as I'm sure you would like to know as
our representatives. Thanks.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. Anyone else care to speak? I'll close the public hearing.
COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Fred, I have a question?
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I'm sorry, go ahead.
COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Does this involve the agencies that have already paid their rec fees and have
not required building permits at this time? Or is this an effective time at such and such and that's when it
starts?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-This is effective, should you enact it those who have already
paid, the funds will remain in place.
COUNCILMAN GOEDERT -And what happens in the case, how are they going to, if somebody from
Hudson Pointe comes in and wants a building permit, they've already paid their rec fee up front.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-That's correct.
COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-How, ten years from now, are they going to know that that's been taking care
of?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN -Yes, should this be enacted we'll start keeping records in our
office of those projects that are approved after this date and those projects would be effective under the new
system. Those approved prior to, have already paid and will not be required to pay the fee obviously a
second time and that money is already in the account.
COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-And last, we have from the Rec Commission a statement in favor of this, that
we have all received. You've received it, yes?
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yes.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Connie, actually the Rec Commission signified their approval of this quite
some time ago and this local law held up until we were sure that the Community Development Department
could set up a mechanism to separate those lots who have had the fee already paid and those that will be
paying in the future and that's one reason for the delay of this law for, I would say probably a couple of
months. Wouldn't you Jim, until we made sure of that?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yes.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, any other discussion. Close the public hearing.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And I think we should also say that and I think Mr. Crayford did say that
the builders in this town, the Building Association came forth with this request many, many, many months
ago. In fact I first heard request of that from individual builders long before that when I attended an
Association meeting which was a long time ago.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
7:52 p.m.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin lead the Town Board through the Short Environmental Assessment Form,
Part II:
A, Does action exceed any type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.12?
NO
B, Will action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?
NO
C, Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following:
Cl, Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic
patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?
NO
C2, aesthetic, agriculture, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or
community or neighborhood character?
NO
C3, Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or
endangered species?
NO
C4, A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use of intensity of
use of land or other natural resources?
NO
C5, Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed
action?
NO
C6, Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C l-C5?
NO
C7, Other impacts?
NO
D, Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?
NO
DISCUSSION:
Councilman Monahan referred to the process involved when the fee is now collected, noting that it is not
when the whole project get's conceptual approval but it's when each phase get's final approval. Is that
correct?
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-That's correct and there's a maximum in the Subdivision Regulations that
allows thirty-five lots in one phase.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF
LOCAL LAW NUMBER 5, 1996
A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
CHAPTER 124 THEREOF ENTITLED "PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS"
TO AMEND SECTIONS 124-6C, 7C AND 8C RELATIVE TO PAYMENT
OF RECREATION FEES
RESOLUTION NO. 352, 96
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of enacting a Local Law to
amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury Chapter 124 thereof entitled "Parks and Recreation Areas," to
generally provide that payment of recreation fees will be paid at the time that a building permit application
is submitted rather than at the time of final site plan approval, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified to conduct compliance
with SEQRA which requires environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is an unlisted action pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the
State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board after considering the action proposed herein, reviewing the
Environmental Assessment Form, and thoroughly analyzing the said action with respect to potential
environmental concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment,
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to complete and execute
Part III of the said Environmental Assessment Form and to check the box thereon indicating that the
proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the annexed Negative Declaration is hereby approved and the Town Clerk's
Office is hereby authorized and directed to file the same in accordance with the provisions of the general
regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation.
Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES
Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner,
Mr. Champagne
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION TO ENACT LOCAL LAW NUMBER 5, 1996
A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
CHAPTER 124 THEREOF ENTITLED "PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS"
TO AMEND SECTIONS 124-6C, 7C AND 8C RELATIVE TO PAYMENT
OF RECREATION FEES
RESOLUTION NO. 353, 96
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of enacting a Local Law to
amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury Chapter 124 thereof entitled, "Parks and Recreation Areas," to
amend Sections 124-6C, 7C and 8C to generally provide that payment of recreation fees will be paid at the
time that a building permit application is submitted rather than at the time of final site plan approval, and
WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Local Law has been presented at this meeting, a copy of said
Local Law also having been previously given to the Town Board at the time the Resolution was adopted
which set a date and time for a public hearing, and
WHEREAS, on August 19, 1996, a public hearing with regard to this Local Law was duly
conducted,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby enacts the proposed Local
Law to Amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury Chapter 124 thereof, entitled, "Parks and Recreation
Areas," to be known as Local Law Number 5, 1996, the same to be titled and contain such provisions as
are set forth in a copy of the proposed Law presented at this meeting, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to file the said
Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal
Home Rule Law and that said Local Law will take effect immediately and as soon as allowable under law.
Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES : Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert,
Mr. Champagne
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
LOCAL LAW NO. 5, 1996
A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY,
CHAPTER 124 THEREOF ENTITLED, "PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS"
TO AMEND SECTIONS 124-6C, 7C AND 8C RELATIVE TO
PAYMENT OF RECREATION FEES
BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 124 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Section 124-6C is hereby amended to
read as follows:
~ 124-6C. Any amounts paid pursuant to this article shall be paid to the Town Board of the Town
of Queensbury at the time that a building permit application is submitted for construction of the principal
building(s) which contain the assessable dwelling units. At no time shall a building permit be issued for
construction of a principal building containing assessable dwelling units without payment of the recreation
fee as required by this article.
SECTION 2. Chapter 124 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Section 124-7C is hereby amended to
read as follows:
~ 124-7C. Any amounts paid pursuant to this Article shall be paid to the Town Board of the Town
of Queensbury at the time that a building permit application is submitted for construction of the principal
building on each assessable lot. At no time shall a building permit be issued for construction of a principal
building on an assessable lot without payment of the recreation fee as required by this article.
SECTION 3. Chapter 124 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Section 124-8C is hereby amended to
read as follows:
~ 124-8C. Any amounts paid pursuant to this Article shall be paid to the Town Board of the Town
of Queensbury at the time that a building permit application is submitted for construction of the principal
building on each assessable lot; or the construction of a principal building containing assessable dwelling
units within an approved planned unit development. At no time shall a building permit be issued for
construction of a principal building on an assessable lot or construction of a principal building containing
assessable dwelling units within an approved planned unit developmelnt without payment of the recreation
fee as required by this article.
SECTION 4. Effective Date: This local law shall become effective as soon after filing with the Secretary
of State as is permissible by law.
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED LOCAL LA W, "WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONING"
NOTICE SHOWN
7:55 P.M.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Waterfront Residential Zoning, I'll open the public hearing. Jim, do you
want
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I wanted to go through a brief
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yes, please.
(Mr. Martin gave presentation using various visual aids)
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I'll provide a brief summary of the original changes to the law
and then a little more detailed explanation of what's been done as a result of our last public hearing which I
believe was in May. We've gone back a second time and went through to try and make some further
adjustments in light of the comments received. Okay, to speak to the original reasons behind the change in
the Waterfront Residential Zoning was, here is a representation of a fairly typical lot in the Lake George
area. Okay this lot is sixty feet wide and about a hundred and sixty feet deep, it has an overall square
footage in area at that size of about ninety-six hundred square feet and what you have on here is a
representation of what the current zoning would allow on this particular lot. We have a seventy-five foot
shoreline setback. We have side yard setbacks which require right now a fifty foot total, this representation
has them at forty-five foot each but it's a fifty foot total with a twenty foot minimum down one side. And
then the rear setback along here would be twenty feet. Now, you can see the orange area here due to the
zoning that's in place right now allows for six hundred and fifty square foot, foot print or buildable area
that's ten feet wide. So when you have this kind of restriction you're really tieing the hands of the Zoning
Board because they have really no reasonable standard on which to vary from. So it creates a need for a
variance right off the back and then even worse when we get to the variance hearing, you know this is
placing such an unreasonable scenario, it almost, you know a variance is likely. Also shown here in green
is, what is in place is a thirty-five no cut zone as it's been referred to from the shoreline back. Okay, so
that's a representation of the existing and I leave that there and show you what this would allow on that
same lot under the proposed changes. Okay, again the same lot, we have the lake down here, the road way
up here. Okay now on this lot under the current regulations we would shrink the shoreline setback
requirement to fifty feet and not deviate from the thirty-five foot no cut zone, that would stay in place as is.
It would be fifty feet back from the shoreline, thirty feet back from the road, we would widen that a little bit
to acknowledge that we do have a, virtually a second front yard there with the road in place there and then a
close reading of the side yard requirements in the proposal graduates the side yard requirements as the lot
gets narrower, the side requirements get narrower. As the lot widens, the side yard lot requirements widen.
Now, in this case given the fact you have a sixty foot lot, the resulting setback on fifteen feet from each
side would and what we showed here is not meant to necessarily the entire building area, this is referred to
as like a building envelope or an area in which a house could be placed and this allows thirty feet of
buildable area which is a little bit more of a reasonable area to work in and that's what we're looking for
here. That was the intention, to develop a reasonable size structure given the size of the lot that we have in
place here. So, that really is an explanation of the side yard changes and so on and a representation of how
those would take, what they would like and the shoreline as well. Now one of the comments we had from
the May hearing because one of the additional changes was lowering the building height from twenty-eight
feet to thirty-five feet and that thought, and there was comment given that, that was too restrictive given the
fact we have sloping lots on many of the shorelines in town, sloping to the water. Okay, so we looked at
that and it was a tough issue to deal with because there was certainly alot of sentiment and we hear at
Zoning Board hearings, we hear at the public informational meetings we've had and we've had three of
them across town is that in many instances there were a lot of people who felt that the thirty-five foot high
building height was too liberal and that often times when you got out into the water and saw the resulting
affect of the thirty-five foot high wall, it was having an impact on the visual character or the natural
character of the shoreline. So, and a lot of these areas are in the designated Critical Environmental Areas
and again, these tall structures were viewed as a visual impact. So we didn't really want to give up on the
idea of lowering the height so we looked at a possibility of changing how we measure the height. We still
keep the twenty-eight feet but here in this lower representation, we have the how the height is currently
figured. We go from the lowest point on the grade to the highest point on the structure. So at thirty-five
feet we get this resulting, in many instances it turns out to be a flat wall that has the appearance of being
three stories high. You have an exposed basement, a first floor and second floor. Now, under the proposal,
the height would be measured from any point on the structure as you go up the grade. So whatever point
you're on at the structure, that's where you would measure for the height. So we don't lose the effect of a
lowered thirty-five foot, or the lowering to the twenty-eight feet but we do allow some more flexibility in
design and what actually, we're hopeful it will give some more interesting architecture along these areas to
break up that appearance of just the thirty-five foot high wall. Under this allowance there's a stepped
design to the structure here, again it would break up the effect of that and again, keep the appearance for
that first wall, or the first wall of the structure at twenty-eight feet. So that was the thinking in terms of the
comment on building height. Now, in terms of shoreline setback, there were some comments that the fifty
feet was too much of a relaxation and what we have here is a representation, we did make an adjustment to
that a little bit, rather then just being fifty feet and that it. The current proposal as it's written is a fifty foot
minimum setback or the average of the two corresponding lots. We got this comment from our
Comprehensive Land Use Advisory Board. So that's what this shows here in this representation. Ifwe
have for example say a lot on the shoreline with a structure that's pre-existing at a forty-five foot setback,
we have a structure that was built say for the conforming setback at seventy-five feet and we have new
structure proposed on this middle lot, the resulting setback average in this case would be sixty feet. The
back line indicates a fifty foot setback. So that's the effect of a minor adjustment to the lot, or an
adjustment to the shoreline setback, an averaging of the adjoining lots with a fifty foot minimum. Okay
and that's all I had in terms of presentation. I was going to go over a few more points over at the desk.
Going right through the law in terms of changes since last May, page one and two remain unchanged. Page
3, there was a comment given that under the purpose section it was stated and this was from the existing
law as it now reads, the purpose of Waterfront Residential zones is to protect the delicate ecological
balance of all lakes and the Hudson River while providing adequate opportunities for development that
would not detrimental to the visual character of the shoreline. There was a comment made, as to what is
visual character and how can we really define that. So we made a proposal to change that to read natural
appearance as opposed to visual character. Page 5 of the proposed law, again the shoreline setback now,
instead of just being a fifty foot minimum setback, it would be an average of the two adjoining lots as a
second consideration. Okay, again on page 5
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Jim, excuse me but don't forget there is a difference in shoreline setbacks
between the one acre and the three acre Waterfront Residential.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yes, and I should say that in the three acre Waterfront
Residential, the seventy-five foot shoreline setback is currently in place and there is no proposal to change
that. The thinking being that Waterfront Residential three acre is obviously asking for a larger lot sizes, so
it should be easier to accommodate the seventy-five foot.
COUNCILMAN GOEDERT -Jim, can I ask a question here?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Sure.
COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-If this is to alleviate variances on a small lot, how do one acre and three acre
lots get involved in it?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Well, that's the overlying zoning in the code that came from the
change in 88. It's obviously trying to encourage the development or the consolidation of lots into larger
lots. We saw no reason to deviate from that because these are environmentally sensitive areas along the
shorelines. So we didn't want to make any changes to the lot size requirement.
COUNCILMAN GOEDERT -So, you still are requiring in a WRIA, you're still requiring one acre.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-If someone was going to develop a new lot. If it's a pre-
existing non-conforming lot, then it has a right to be developed in it's pre-existing state. In other words, the
lots pre-dates zoning, it was in existence prior to zoning being in effect.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-If there's a lot of record there already.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Existing lots.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And there's not an adjoining lot owned by the same person, they have a
right to build on that lot of record at the size, what ever size it is now but they will have to comply with the
setbacks in what ever zone they are in.
COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-So I don't understand the purpose of this. I, for some reason I'm getting a
blank here because I'm seeing one acre, through the whole thing when I read it, I see one acre or three acre
and when we're talking, we're talking about a non-conforming lot except pre-existing but all the changes
are pertained to one acre or three acre lots.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Right, there are some cases where we have had subdivisions on
parcels that are large enough to support two, three, four, five acre, you know one acre lots or five one acre
lots. In that case then, obviously lot size has been imposed and adhered to. But in many of the shorelines
in town, the lots are already, the lot pattern is already set. The development pattern is set, it predates
zoning. Many lots date back to the early or mid part of the century.
COUNCILMAN PUL VER-I think where her confusion is, is most of the lots can not conform to our
current zoning because they are not one acre. This new law is going to make it so that, the majority of the
lots are there will be able to conform to this zoning although they are not one acre or larger.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-They won't conform to the zoning Connie but they will be, most of, a good
many more then what can now, will be able to conform to the setbacks.
COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-I understand that but what I see here in front of me on page 5, I see two
headers, la and 3a.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Right.
COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-And I see nothing for non-conforming lots.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Non-conforming, you don't.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You don't, that's why
COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-So, would you still require a variance?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, not if they're a lot of record. If they can meet the setbacks, they can get
a building permit and it's making easier for them to meet the setbacks and get a building permit without
going to the ZBA. If they do have to go to the ZBA, it gives the ZBA more of a standard to work from then
they ever had before about the least required variance.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Connie, I think if you read 179-76 of the Zoning Code, general
exceptions to minimum lot requirements, I think that will give you some guidance as to what happens in
often times throughout the town when we have a pre-existing lot that is lawfully in existence on the date of
the Zoning Ordinance adoption, that lot, it's except from the lot area requirement.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-So that if, when someone wants to go in and tear down that building that's
on that lot down and build a new building on that lot, does that building still conform to the original
footprint of the original building?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-No.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-They have to meet the new requirements.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And they always have had to.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. That's where the hang up has been.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-They always have had to do that.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-If someone consciously tears down the structure and this
happens in many instances on the shoreline because, I think, in my opinion by far the most amount of
development we see along our shorelines are conversions from seasonal structures or structures that are of a
substandard condition. People will tear them down and rebuild a newer and usually larger structure in it's
place but when they tear down that structure and if it's non-conforming and they've done that consciencely,
they've lost their grandfathered right to that footprint.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That happened before this.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Does that help at all, Connie?
COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Yea we'll go on, maybe it will come to me. I just have a blockage.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Just forget about the one and three acre.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Try being Zoning Administrator for a week. Okay, now
getting back on page 5 down at the bottom, lot width, and I think Connie this will help answer your
question a little bit. See, the side setbacks in a conforming situation are at twenty-five feet. If someone
happens to have a one acre lot or larger in a WRl acre zone, they have to conform to a twenty-five foot
setback. We're not giving any relief to that situation. Now, the asterisk and I'll read it verbatim. Lot width
of fifty feet or less, a twelve foot side and rear setback. For lots of fifty up to and including sixty feet,
fifteen foot side and rear setbacks. Greater then sixty feet and less then a hundred and fifty, twenty foot
side and rear setback and if you're greater then a hundred and fifty then you have to conform to the twenty-
five foot minimum.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Jim, I think I made this comment before. You're talking about lot width, not
lot depth and yet you're going by the rear setback. I could have a lot fifty feet wide but I could have it two
hundred feet deep. Now, according to this you're giving me a fifteen foot rear setback and I thought we had
discussed that before, that we need to have some depth requirement there for if they're going to get relief
from the depth.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Often times on these lots when they're narrower in width, they
are also shallower in depth.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You're assuming though. You've heard of railroad lots and they're are some
around.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Well if you wanted to strike the rear from that, then that would
be the change.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I certainly would or else I would have some kind of a minimum that, that
would apply to.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Sue, raises a good point, the reason why we have the side and
the rear matching, and we often times have lots between two roads also. So they have two front yards and
in the case where they have two front yards and they have no side yards and two rear yards.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Figure that one out.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Wait a minute, what did you just say Jim? I don't think you meant what you
said.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-If you have a lot with frontage on two streets, or in this case,
this is complicated.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-The lake and the street.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Because we're considering the lake side, the shoreline side a
front yard and we're considering the road, the yard that faces the front yard, a front yard. Okay?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Okay, so you've got two front yards?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-So you've got two front yards, the ordinance reads when you
have that situation, then you have two front yards and two rear yards, for the sake of determination and no
side yards.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Two rear yards or two side yards?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Two rear yards and no side yards. So, therefore, that's why,
that's why it's the same.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Then if you're going to stick with that, you've got to put an asterisk with
your rear setback that you haven't got on here like you've got it on the side setback.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-We're only talking about the full one acre, is that where we are now?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, we're talking about, actually this is going to apply to non-conforming
lots.
SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE- The hundred, but if it's greater then a hundred and fifty.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, no. The lot width of fifty feet or less, it's one standard and then you've
got a lot of sixty feet and less then a hundred and fifty feet, you've got another standard.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I see that.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Now that's width, it doesn't talk about, it doesn't talk about the depth of it at
all. But what I'm saying is, if we agree with what Jim has got there, then he's got to have an asterisk up by
the rear setback too as well as your side setback.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yes, that's true, you're right about that.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I'm still a little uncomfortable not having a maximum depth that this applies
to.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Okay, moving along. Okay, building height, I already went
through that as to the change for measurement of building height. On page 6, septic regulations
compliance, this language reflects the language that was discussed in the workshop session and I'll read it
verbatim. Any increase in the floor area of an existing structure serviced by sanitary facilities which
requires a building permit shall conform with the requirements of Chapter 136. And I believe that's pretty
much the highlight of the changes that were suggested. We've had a copy of this available, or copies
available in our office to pick up as well as the clerk's office for the last couple of weeks and we made a
presentation to the East Property Association meeting in early August.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think the other thing, Jim, well you kind of eluded to it, maybe you didn't
say it exactly as that, the setback which can be either the fifty feet minimum or the average of the two
houses adjoining it. It will be the greater of that number is the one that will govern.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-That's correct.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, are you set Jim?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-And the only other thing I would like to stress and I think this
got lost a little bit in the last time this was looked at, is that this is meant to be an interim change. There are
other issues being discussed by the Comprehensive Land Use Advisory Board. This is not meant to be all
inclusive of changes that they're going to be suggesting for waterfront but to really meet some of the
immediate needs as we've identified in the zoning, the variance hearings with the Zoning Board.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, public hearing still open. Anyone care to speak for or against?
MR. ED BAERTSCHI-Ed Baertschi, Assembly Point-I've got a couple of concerns and number one is, in
the last three or four months and I believe John knows the situation that I've run into. In regard to the thirty-
five feet height, in the area where I live, I don't have, where my home is, is not on the lake and my neighbor
across the road is proposing to build a home. Is home now is at twenty-one feet and he's going to be
allowed to go up anywhere from twenty-six to thirty-five feet to build this new one. I've been up to the
lake there since 1953, my wife has been there since God created the earth.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You may be in trouble, Ed.
MR. BAERTSCHI-And Betty knows this too.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Mr. Baertschi, is your wife with you tonight?
MR. BAER TSCHI -Yes, she is, she is and I think she'll agree with it but the point that I'm getting is the fact
that there are people on the other side where we live, if we have these heights of thirty-five feet, we don't
see the lake anymore. We're looking at houses and roofs. What's happening up there and Betty knows this,
people are coming up from the big cities, they're from Albany, New York, wherever the case may be and
we're buying undersized lots and we're building Taj Mahals. I've gone through three or four months now to
the Zoning Board of Appeal's meetings and I don't know how many cases that come in there where they
want variances. One to build a covered walk sixty some odd feet long so that their guests won't get wet if it
rains. Some of these things are really ridiculous. But my point is, if we go higher and we go closer to the
lake, it's going to affect not only the people who are living away from the lake in the back but also from the
lake view, from the front. If you're on the lake and you're out there, what are you going to see? You're
going to see these huge homes which are closer to the lake and they're like castles sitting there. What's
happened and I think you people know this, especially right where the area where I live in. There's a place
up there, they completely, I believe the law said thirty-five percent of the trees had to stand. There isn't,
there isn't a natural twig that was grown by mother nature herself that's standing. It's gone, it's, they're
completely gone and this is what's happening. All of a sudden now, we're saying well, it was supposed to
have the natural beauty of the lake frontage. This is not what's happening and I'm very, very concerned
with this and I know what's going to happen to me. I've lost mine, I'm going to be losing within the next
year my lake view, it's gone.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-That's why we didn't want to deviate off of the twenty-eight
feet and we kept it in, for many of those reasons.
MR. BAERTSCHI-But you're going to allow the thirty-five feet?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-No we're not.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, no, no. No.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-The proposal is for twenty-eight feet.
MR. BAERTSCHI-Even that particular case. One of the things and I believe over the years, if you look
into the Lake George, Assembly Point, Cleverdale area, most of the homes that are built there are on the
average of, anywhere from eighteen to twenty-one, to twenty-five feet tall. Am I correct in saying that?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Alright.
MR. BAERTSCHI-The average but now what's happening is, we're getting up into these much higher
houses and bigger houses and there are cases, and in regard to I believe the marina over on Cleverdale that
ran into that situation where the view is going to be blocked and this is what's happening. And this is my
concern. I feel that the variance laws that are in effect, the ordinances which area in effect right now,
should be abided by unless it's a situation where it's something that can not, a situation where it can't be
helped by the homeowner. In other words, if it's a case, if it's a real small lot and he's within reason, then I
can see the Zoning Board of Appeals looking at it very, very closely and applying maybe a variance toward
it. But when you buy a lot knowing that the lot is not within standards of what the zoning law should be
and you're going to build these huge, monstrous houses on, what's the sense of having it?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-The other standard that remains in place, I highlighted the
changes from May but the other standard that remains in place under the proposal would be the proposal
for a building lot area ratio and the percentage remains at twenty-two percent and that includes all floors of
all buildings.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-So that's going to keep, you know on a small lot, certainly that's going to
keep the size of the building down.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Because as of right now, one of the problems that the Zoning
Board has is they really have no standard to judge against what is a adequately sized structure given a lot
and this would provide direct guidance.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-If that Taj Mahaj that we're talking about here, if you had applied these
new regulations to that building, that would be considerably smaller then what it is existing there?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yea, that building is thirty-five feet in height.
SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE- That's right, plus the floor area. I don't know how large this lot is?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-There's quite a bit ofland that goes with it.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Well, he's got a two acre lot.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-He's got a two acre lot there?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Is that count across the road too?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yes.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-There's not much there but there is some.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yea, that does count across the road.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Ed, actually these new regulations bring down the maximum building
height. They have been thirty-five feet that were allowable and it's bringing them down to twenty-eight
feet which is seven feet lower. So it's a step in the right direction.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-The other thing is, it establishes for the first time a separate
height for secondary structures at sixteen feet.
MR. BAERTSCHI-But still there are, like I say in my situation, the house, the existing house that is there
now and I'm not just trying to zero in on myself, the existing house is at twenty-one feet. I do, I'm able to
see the mountains or I can see across the lake and I can see the mountains. At twenty-six feet it's gone.
Now and that's my case and there are lots to the south of me and there's lots to the north of me.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well right now that same person has a right to go thirty
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Thirty-five feet.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thirty-five feet.
MR. BAERTSCHI-Correct.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, but we've brought it down seven feet.
COUNCILMAN PULVER-This is going to shorten it to twenty-eight feet.
MR. BAERTSCHI-Right, but that's why I'm, that was one of my concerns.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yea I understand your situation.
MR. BAERTSCHI-But I know I'm going to lose, there's no question about it. This house is going to go up,
I believe it's going to be twenty-eight feet and I've lost it, you know and there's no question about it.
COUNCILMAN PULVER-Are they adding onto it right now?
MR. BAERTSCHI-No, they're going to build a brand new one. They're going to build a brand new home.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-It's a tear down, rebuild.
MR. BAERTSCHI-Right but what I'm getting at is, it's going to affect people across the road. Not just
myself but to the north of me and to the south of me and if anyone of these places who are on the lake side
decides to sell and these people come in and buy and then tear the place down, it's going to affect those
people across the road. Now, to the south of me I believe there's four or five lots down through that area
that are vacant at this time. A lot to the south of me is owned by my sister-in-law who hopes some day to
retire and build. Now, what she's going to have to do if she wants to see the lake, is she's going to have to
build something way up in the air and have a ladder to get up there to look at the lake.
COUNCILMAN PULVER-One of the, whoever is building this house has to have site plan review so you'll
have an opportunity to go before the Planning Board.
MR. BAERTSCHI-Well this is already, this is, it's been approved.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But that wouldn't do any good Carol.
COUNCILMAN PUL VER-Oh, it's already done.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It wouldn't do any good if it's a legal requirement, the Planning Board can't
pull them down. Now, unless we put some kind of a clause in there, Jim, and I've been thinking about this,
that and it may be hard to word but something about no replacement structure on the lake will be allowed to
block the view of the houses behind it, if it doesn't block the view presently and I don't know how you
would enforce anything like that.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-I don't think you're going to regulate that, Betty.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But that's the only way you could really tackle that.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-You could never, in the eyes of the
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, it's an actual measurement type of thing and I don't know if something
like that could be worked out or not.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-And then you're going to get a variance for that.
MR. BAERTSCHI-I mean these are just my concerns, and I mean it's not just going to be on Assembly
Point, it's going to be on Cleverdale or Warner Bay or any of these other areas.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's true with almost any lake unless there's a slope.
MR. BAERTSCHI-Right. Thank you.
2SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. Yes sir.
MR. MIKE SEAGLE-I'm Mike Seagle, Chairman of the Land Use Committee of the Lake George
Association. We sent a letter to you in the past on this issue and I'd like to just go over some of the points
to refresh your memory if you did read it and to let you know our feelings if you did not. The Lake George
Association wishes to express it's appreciation to the town and to the committees for all the hard work and
time and effort that has been put into trying to find the best way to ease the development pressures along
the shores of Lake George. It's a difficult task, especially in today's anti-environment climate to develop a
workable zoning ordinance fair to residents who live along the shore front and also provide the best
possible protection to Lake George water quality. Overall the proposed changes seem to accomplish this
goal. The LGA applauds limiting building height for principal and accessory structures to twenty-eight feet
and to sixteen feet respectively. Substituting natural appearances for visual character when describing the
purpose of the Waterfront Residential Zone is a positive approach to protect the visual integrity of the
shore. Limiting the occupancy of one dwelling to a family and adding it to the list of principal uses, is a
major step to curb the eight families living together in a small cottage syndrome so prevalent and frequently
complained about in sununers enforced efficiently. It will also help limit over use of aged and undersized
septic systems. However, the LGA has a few comments on the amendments and their impact to the Lake
George. We hope the town considers our comments with an eye towards better protection for the lake. The
LGA strongly opposes the change in shoreline setback in the WRIA zoning district from seventy-five feet
to fifty feet until the zoning ordinance incorporates regulations for stormwater management. The land
along the shore in the town consists mostly of shallow soils, high groundwater. Many areas have steep
slopes allowing buildings to be placed closer to the shore by way of a building permit without the benefit of
stormwater management to handle increase runoff will mean more pollution to Lake George water quality.
The LGA urges the town to re-think this proposed change. Perhaps what is really needed is for the Zoning
Board of Appeals to deny more shoreline area variances. The proposed floor area ratio is excessive.
Current amendments would allow a structure more then four thousand square feet on a lot that is less then
half an acre. The twenty-two percent floor area ratio is more then double the ten percent floor area ratio
reviewed last year. Increasing the percentage of floor area on a small lot will have a negative impact on
Lake George water quality and on the visual character of the shore. It makes no sense to limit the building
height along the shore but allow expansion in width, all without stormwater controls. LGA suggests
instead increasing the percentage of lot to remain permeable from sixty-five percent to seventy percent to
be consistent with shoreline areas in other towns. The LGA applauds the town for adopting the concern
that with an increase in the size of a structure, be it the addition of bedrooms, bathrooms, dens, etcetera
comes more use of septic system. Because much of the land around Lake George is sensitive to building
pressures, the LGA suggests the town set up a permitting system to ensure a septic system is fully capable
of handling any increase in sewage before permit to increase the size of a structure is granted. On clear
cutting, the amendments call for site plan review for clear cutting along the lake shore of an area greater
then one acre. This means someone with a twenty thousand square foot lot can clear cut the entire lot, wipe
out all the trees and every bit of vegetation without review by the Planning Board. The LGA's position on
this issue remains the same as it was last year. No amount of clear cutting should be permitted along the
shore without site plan review. Owner's of shore front lots should be allowed to selectively cut only.
There's no need for shore front lots to cut more then what is required for a house, driveway and septic. As
to the use regulations, the amendments to the use regulations in residential zones limits one family dwelling
to one lot regardless of size. The definition of lot however, in LGA's opinion is open to interpretation and
could include lots created by other then a subdivision. For instance, by deeds. What is to prevent the
creation by deed of small lots that with the adoption of this change will be allowed to contain a principal
building. LGA suggests omitting the words, regardless of lot size and clearly specify that the lot needs to
be legally existing at the time it's proposed to be built on. That is in areas zoned for single family
dwellings, a maximum of one single family dwelling may be constructed per lawfully existing lot providing
all setback and yard requirements are met. As to the docks and wharfs, etcetera does the town plan to adopt
the same regulations as the Lake George Park Commission as to the docks, wharfs, and moorings? The
differences between the town's regulations and the commission's regulations are significant. The Park
Commission regulations do not allow docks on less that forty-five feet of shore but the town's Zoning
Ordinance does. The commission limits one dock and one mooring to one hundred and fifty feet of shore
front whereas the town permits two docks and two moorings on the same footage. The commission
regulates heights to sixteen feet but the town says eighteen feet is okay for boat houses. It doesn't make any
planning sense to have two sets of regulations that town residents need to review to put in a dock on Lake
George. Understanding the town has other waterfront areas to regulate besides Lake George, LGA
suggests implementing a shore front overlay zone for Lake George shore front. A shore front overlay zone
would allow elimination of the dock regulations for Lake George shore front only and still allow the town
to control over other lakes like Glen Lake, Lake Sunnyside, etcetera. A shore front overlay zone will allow
molding of the zoning ordinance to fit the special needs for protection that Lake George has. It will allow
greater protection of Lake George that some smaller lakes may not want or need. And we thank you in
advance for any opportunity to allow our comments. I hope you do not vote on this until you really
reconsider some of your moves. Thank you very much.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Jim, would you care to comment on some of those points?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN -Yes I drafted a response with the assistance of Sue Cipperly
our planner. In terms of the shoreline setback, the first issue addressed. Stormwater management is being
addressed right now by the Stormwater Advisory Board established by the Town Board. A plan has been
put out for public viewing. We've had a public information meeting on that earlier this month. We've been
trying to get the word out that we're excepting public comment on that document through Labor Day.
Copies of the document are available in the Planning Office to pick up. The second point on the shoreline
setback is we see no evidence to date that an additional twenty-five feet of distance from the shoreline has
any impact on stormwater runoff, either positively or negatively. So, given the fact that a fifty foot setback
would allow for more room of a conforming septic system to the rear of the lot, meeting the distance from
the shoreline, that strikes me as being an overriding consideration especially given the strong language in
the proposal about needing to come on line with the conforming septic system. In order to do that, you're
going to have to allow space for that and that's typically has to be at the rear of the lot to get the separation
distance from the lake. The Adirondack Park Agency has designated the Lake George shoreline and inland
areas in the Town of Queensbury as the moderate intensity use area. The shoreline setbacks for these areas
is fifty feet so we would be coming into compliance with the AP A regulations. In terms of the floor area
ratio, it is excessive in terms of the ten percent proposed but there was a lot of public comment received
about the harshness often percent and it's unworkable. That was from many people at the informational
meeting held up in the North Queensbury firehouse as well as at the Bay Ridge firehouse for the Glen Lake
area and at the Hudson River meeting October of last year. The twenty-two percent figure was one that
was heavily discussed by the Comprehensive Land Use Advisory Board as well as the staff. As a matter of
fact, the recommendation that came out of that board was twenty-four percent and we did lower it down
two percent in the proposal to the board and I think the Town Board has looked at that consciencely and
recognize that as a better figure when compared to the twenty-four percent. Now, when you actually apply
that on one quarter acre lot, which is pretty typical in the Lake George area for example, that would allow
for a structure of twenty-three hundred square feet in size and this would include all floors of all buildings
including the garage. That seems, again, going back to my opening statement, this seems to be a
reasonable size structure given the size of the lot that you have to work within. And bear in mind right now
there is no limit at all on building size so we're imposing something for the first time in an effort to give to
the Zoning Board some guidance when they are faced with a task of deciding what is minimum relief. We
have no disagreement with the permeability, that seems to be a good suggestion, to change that up to
seventy percent. Septic regulations, I think we're both on the same page with that. In terms of clear
cutting, the statement is made that you can clear cut an entire lot. That's not true. The thirty-five foot
distance back from the shoreline is a no cut zone already, that's already in the existing regulations and any
cutting in that area requires site plan review from the Planning Board. The use regulations, it is already
unlawful to simply file a deed at the county to create a lot. That just isn't, it's illegal to do that. You have
to come to the local township for subdivision approval from the Planning Board. A lot needs to be in
existence according to the town's Zoning Ordinance at the time of the proposed building, that is already the
case. In terms of the docks and wharfs, speaking from me personally I think it would be a good idea if the
Lake George Park Commission was the sole entity to review docks but there is some sentiment that the
local jurisdiction should continue to do that. Again, that's another part of our ordinance that docks are
outside of it's reference as an allowed use, it's not a part of the Waterfront Residential zoning. That's, the
regulations outlining docks are in the supplementary provisions, it's not a focus of these changes. I said
that at that outset, these weren't meant to be all encompassing. Those are changes that can be looked at and
I don't necessarily, I don't think the staff has any problems with the reduction to sixteen feet in height for a
boat house say, that would be consistent with out accessory structures already. You know, those are things
that will be looked at in the future. We're trying to concentrate just on the zoning district itself with the
proposes that are being made. Create a special zone for Lake George and develop higher standards. All
water front areas of the town are considered to be important to protect. Any regulations propagated for
development criteria, stormwater regulations, etcetera will be as appropriate on Glen Lake or Lake
Sunnyside or the Hudson River as they are on Lake George. The smaller lakes often need more
consideration as they have less water circulation and narrower lots. An additional overlay zone for Lake
George would add to another review and more regulation. The waterfront zone is tailored to meet the
unique situation for that development in the vicinity of the shorelines. We didn't really see the need for yet
another overlay district. Again, we appreciate the comments and I think we're in agreement on some of
them and on some of them, you know we have some additional thoughts.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thanks Jim. Yes sir.
MR. KARL KROETZ-My name is Karl Kroetz, I live on Cleverdale. I've lived there a long time. I have
two comments to make. One is on shoreline setback. Changing the present seventy-five foot shoreline
setback to fifty feet seems reasonable with the inclusion of the restrictive clause of neighbor setbacks that
Jim spoke about. However, it does bring stormwater runoff from roof drainage twenty-five feet closer to
the lakeshore. To protect the lake it suggested that the reduced lake front setback only be granted if the
stormwater from the roof drainage be directed to suitable dry wells or leach fields on the property. That's
the comment I have on shoreline setback. On maximum percentage floor area ratio, the suggested change
of a maximum floor area ratio from ten to twenty-two percent would be detrimental to Lake George from
both a visual and water quality aspect. Many of the lots on Cleverdale are only sixty foot wide and a
hundred and fifty feet deep. Some are even smaller then that. Even with a fifty foot setback from the lake,
a twenty-two foot floor area on a sixty foot by a hundred and fifty foot lot, would permit building a two
thousand square foot house on that lot. That's a big house. This would only leave thirty-four feet in back
of the house which is too small, not enough room for a septic tank and leach field, roof drainage for a
drywell, roof drainage drywells and car parking and so forth. It's just not enough room when you grant a
twenty-two foot ratio which is much too large for such a small lot. It is therefore recommended that a
compromise of fifteen percent maximum floor area be adopted instead of the overly generous ratio of
twenty-two percent. Those conclude my comments. I'll be glad to answer any questions of anything that
I've said.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Jim, on the overall square footage, we took into consideration garage, as I
recall.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yes.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-And what was the standard for the garage, nine hundred square feet?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-No, well the largest allowed is nine hundred but usually your
typical garage is say, twenty-four by twenty-four, around six hundred square feet.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Six hundred square feet. Okay, so that, I almost think we'd have to lop that
six hundred plus off from the two thousand.
MR. KROETZ-I made a sketch here for fifteen percent land use ratio. If you put the house fifty foot back,
you can build and have your setbacks fifteen foot on each side, I'm talking about a lot that's sixty foot wide,
a hundred and fifty feet deep, which is typical. Typical, alot of them are smaller but this is a small lot.
Now, on a small lot, you must expect not to get a mansion built. You must expect a small house on a small
lot. Now this is a small lot. So here's what it results to. If it's fifty foot back which I approve, of going
back the fifty foot to put more room on the other end. Alright, the house would be thirteen hundred and
fifty square feet. Thirteen hundred and fifty square feet which would leave fifty-five feet to the back side,
room for a septic tank, room for the dry wells or leach fields from roof stormwater drainage which is what
we're all concerned with. We're concerned with stormwater. So, you've got a good size house, a thirteen
hundred and fifty square foot house and it's fifty foot from the lake. You've got fifteen foot side setback on
each side and you've got fifty-five feet for a parking lot, for all these things, including a garage, no you
can't put a garage in. But it's a small lot, you can't have all these things on a small lot. That's why we're
trying to reduce all these things that are being crowded on these small lots in Cleverdale. Those are my
comments.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. Yes sir.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Excuse me. Karl, those figures you gave us was with fifteen percent ratio?
MR. KROETZ-Fifteen percent ratio and that's a nine thousand square foot lot. I used sixty times a hundred
and fifty. It's a nine thousand square foot lot. If you take fifteen percent of nine thousand, it comes out to
thirteen hundred and fifty square feet for the house.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Thank you.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thanks Karl. Yes sir.
MR. TED ARNSTEIN-My name is Ted Arnstein, I'm the President of the East Side Property Owner's
Association, a two hundred and eighty-four member group of property owners on the shores of Lake
George. To back up what Karl said. I really think, I respectfully request this committee to take advantage
of a lot of the work that Jim Martin did and get a copy of it. I'll be glad to give you a copy of what I have
but he has the great big ones, and review the ten percent, the fifteen percent that Karl and I must say we
agree with and a twenty-two percent that you seem to favor at this stage of the game. I think you'll quickly
see if you look at these numbers and perhaps you have, that twenty-two percent is really stretching it.
Fifteen percent is much more of a fair size building. And I also would like to comment on, probably you
know this but you're talking about lots, sixty foot lots that are going now for two hundred thousand dollars,
minimum. I don't care of there's nothing on it, there's a shack on it, or if there's anything. And the
comment of which you said Connie, there's virtually no one, two, three acre places left. There's a few if
you search high and low but there's very, very few of those. We're talking about sixty foot lots whether
there's already a building there. What we all want is to protect two or three different things. Number one,
the people who have owned that property for many years, been in their family and is valuable, they want to
be able to sell it so that the person that buys it can put a fair size house. Jim has worked very hard on this
but at the same time, we don't want to have any Taj Macalls as we have over there and there's many others.
We'll be glad to take this body, I talked to Betty about this, take you out in the boats, probably you've
already done this, take you along at any speed you want and show you what is happening. But I
particularly urge you to get him to show you these graphs so that you can quickly see. We happen to agree,
this is one of the very few points I disagree with my learned friend, Mike Seagel of the LGA of which I
happen to be on the Executive Committee too. The fifty foot setback because of the suggestions that Karl
made and as a matter of fact so did Kathy Vilmore from the LGA, if you take care of the runoff which I
happen to think is the biggest problem we have on that lake, and you would then have enough room, I
reiterate what Karl said, on the back to put a decent size septic system. If you do that, I think you'll reach
what you want to do and be successful. But again, in closing say, please take a look at all these different
ones, ten, fifteen that we favor, twenty-two. Some people would have you go twenty-five and more and
that doesn't do a thing to help Lake George and that's what we all want. Thank you very much.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. Yes sir.
MR. TOM MAYER-My name is Tom Mayer, I live on Glen Lake. I would like to, just a short statement. I
think the proposal as it is set up now answers many of the objections that have come up over a period of
years in terms of variances and things being required. It allows for the use oflots of varying sizes, it may
not allow some of us to build some of the giant houses we would like to. It does allow for usable dwellings
on most lots and it keeps the wooded character of the lakes and the water quality consistently, or
consistently the same or improved. I'd like to thank Jim and all of the people that have been involved on
this. I think this is a good and I want to use Jim's own term, interim solution that continues looking at it but
I think this is a good starting point and I'd like to support it very strongly. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Tom, do you have any reaction to the suggestion that perhaps twenty-two
percent is too great and we should drop it to fifteen percent?
MR. MAYER-The, if the numbers that I'm seeing, as I'm hearing this real quick and I maybe totally off
there, people are talking about a twenty-three hundred foot house on the twenty-two percent. Is that
correct?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yea and on that lot it's shown as an example there, the sixty by
one fifty.
MR. MA YER-Ifyou include a garage of six hundred feet which you said was probably minimum?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Well, that's average, I don't say minimum. Obviously a one car
garage is minimum but typically we see requests for two car garages and they in the neighborhood, twenty
to twenty-four, twenty by twenty-four or twenty-four by twenty-four.
MR. MAYER-Anyway, quick math, twenty-three hundred minus six hundred brings you down to a
seventeen hundred square foot living area. Okay, which is pretty close to what the fifteen percent living
area that the people have been talking about.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-That's what it comes down and then if you take that seventeen
hundred square feet and you divide it over two floors, you know that's
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yea, you're down to a house size of what, thirty by thirty-five?
MR. MAYER -You're pretty close to the fifteen percent that people are talking about. Thank you very
much, I appreciate it.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. Yes sir.
MR. JOE ROULIER-I'm Joe Roulier and I'm a member of the Queensbury Land Use Advisory Board and I
would just like to make a couple of comments. Every comment that you've heard so far has certainly been
a valid comment and a I think the general idea of what we have tried to do as a committee is to come up
with a envelope whereas the majority of people that will come in front of the town regardless of what board
it is, will fall within the constraints of that envelope. We will never at any given time be able to satisfy
every applicant because there will be people with lots that are generally too small or lots that are generally
hilly or much too large, but for the most part the twenty-two percent that we have currently adopted, seems
to be the best average to work within the envelope given the constraints of the size both regarding the side
line setback requirements and also the height of the proposed structures. I can tell you that we have run
many, many numbers at all hours of the night on many meetings and we started actually with a higher. It's
been reduced down to the twenty-two percent now which is inclusive of garages and other accessory
buildings that may be included into there, and we currently feel that the twenty-two percent is a reasonable
figure, like I say that will now please everyone but for the most part, should fit well within the Waterfront
Residential area of our area. I'm here to hopefully answer some questions that you may have for us?
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I don't know, does any of the board have any questions of Joe? I know I
can remember meeting at seven o'clock in the morning Jim, with the Chairman of the Planning Board and
the Chairman of the Zoning Board on many occasions to try to come to some reasonable number that
would work in terms of square footage of floor space and I think at one time we were at twenty-eight.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-There were all, the numbers all over the lot, anywhere from
ten to twenty-eight percent. We were looking at all scenarios and this is what we settled out at.
MR. ROULIER-Right, when you take into consideration that the, that includes the garage area and you
reduce that from the calculation either, let's take for example a one car garage which would be two hundred
and fifty square feet up to anywhere a two car to two and a half car garage which is six hundred square feet
and reduce that from the twenty-two percent calculation, it immediately, significantly knocks down the
square foot liveable area of the house. A couple of other issues quickly. Karl Kroetz brought up about the
gutters. Certainly, allowing the setback to go to fifty feet is in conformity with the AP A current regulation.
The seventy-five foot was our regulation but the AP A has stayed at fifty foot and we're only bringing our
zoning law into conformity with that. There is certainly an impact regarding the stormwater management
and we all know the study that's currently going on but in addition to a gutter system that can easily and
cheaply be installed on these new homes that are being constructed. We've also discussed possible berming
along the shoreline area which would significantly reduce any torrential down pour impact on the lake.
What it really boils down at this stage of the game is if we want to maintain the aesthetics and the natural
beauty of the shoreline area and we feel as though putting constraints on the overall size of the building,
both in the height and the square footage and depending on the particular lot size which will make the
house conform to the envelope that we've established, will over a longer period of time enhance what,
enhance the beauty of our area and maintain the beauty of our area. I really strongly feel that if these
restrictions are not put into place and I think that, I don't like to look at them as a restriction because we're
actually increasing the envelope in certain applications as well as reducing it, but if we don't, we'll see three
story buildings, end to end along Lake George and I hate to say this but it will look like a Clifton Park
development and it's not something that when I moved up here several years ago that I wanted to see and at
this stage of the game, I'm not prepared to go ahead and see that. So, unless you have any questions, thank
you.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you Joe.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I would like to ask Karl another question, please. Karl when you did your
example, did you put that thirteen fifty square feet all on one floor or did you make that a two story house
so that it would be six seventy-five per floor?
MR. KROETZ- The fifteen percent, no that's one floor, one story.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That's one story. So if that house went two stories then it could conform
and get the proper septic system and everything?
MR. KROETZ-Yes. Well, with the fifteen percent.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea.
MR. KROETZ-With the fifteen percent, you see you've got fifty-five feet to fool around with on the back.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But even if we left say at twenty-two percent, if that house became a two
story house then it would work well. Well, it would be more then thirteen fifty, excuse me but if, the larger
house going two stories would still at twenty-two percent, I hope Jim, because you did have your paper doll
here at one time, allow the proper setbacks and allow the proper septic system in there.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yes. Yes, that's a fundamental given that they have to meet all
the requirements, not just the twenty
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So nobody is going out there, thank you.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-They have to meet all the requirements, the yard setbacks,
shoreline setback as well as the floor area ratio requirement.
MR. KROETZ-You make a good point, Betty. You can double, these areas, thirteen fifty square feet, it's
either on one floor or half of it on the bottom floor and half on the top. So you can get more room. You've
got a good point. But the other point that I wanted to make, now, these are small lots and there's very few
lots this small that have, you know fourteen hundred square foot houses with garages on them now. See
this is the thing we're trying to avoid, where you have houses backed up to houses, you can't put a step
ladder between them. Now I know we've got room on the side there but we're trying to eliminate some of
these large houses with two car garages on a small lot. But Betty, you make a good point. Now, you take
that fifteen percent land house ratio with thirteen hundred and fifty square foot of house on one floor, if you
put on two floors then you would gain another twenty-two and a half feet of space from the end of the
house to the road, to put in the things that are required or somebody might want. Such as, well you can't
put in a garage, if it's fifteen percent no but you can have the room to put in a decent septic tank system and
what I recommended in order to conform with stormwater regulations that are pending for the Town of
Queensbury, we might want to catch that roof drainage that comes from stormwater and put it back into the
ground which is very easy to do when it's planned for. And people who are willing to spend this kind of
money for property and building, they won't resist collecting some of that rain water and putting it into a
drywell.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you Karl. Anyone else care to speak? Yes sir, John.
COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Can I ask a question while John is coming up here? Jim where does the
second septic system go on this piece of property?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-The second septic system?
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Do you mean the drywells?
COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Yes, because don't we at some point or other, deal with variances because the
septics have failed and they've got to put in a new system?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Well they take out the old ones and in that scenario all the
contaminated soil is removed and they usually replace it back where it was but they've brought in new soil
and new gravel.
COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-And that's going to be the standard with this, that it goes back in the same
place?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-It would have to be a conforming system.
(Councilman Monahan temporarily left meeting room)
MR. JOHN SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador, I'm a resident in North Queensbury. Mr. Supervisor,
if you could give me your assurance that you will take other's suggestions this evening and table this
matter, I will be very brief?
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I'm only one vote here, John and I can't table it as one vote, as one single
vote.
MR. SALVADOR-Mrs. Goedert?
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I would concur, John.
COUNCILMAN PUL VER-I don't have a problem, John.
MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Turner?
COUNCILMAN TURNER-I don't have a problem, John.
MR. SALVADOR-Mrs. Monahan?
COUNCILMAN PULVER-She's out voted.
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you.
MR. GILBERT BOEHM-Gilbert Boehm, Dunhams Bay. The word family is in here to denote something.
I'd like to know what the definition
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-What page are you on here?
MR. BOEHM-Page 3.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Speak more directly into the mic there, will you for me, please.
MR. BOEHM-I'm on page 3, occupancy of one dwelling by a family. What is the definition offamily?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Family is defined as one or more persons occupying the
premises and living as a single house keeping unit as distinguished from a group occupying a boarding
house, lodging house, club, fraternity or hotel.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That's pretty inclusive, isn't it? One or more.
MR. BOEHM-Yea, that says you could really, in effect, you could have an extended family, three
generations and you could also have a group of people.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Have you got a better idea how we might be able to improve upon that?
You tell us, what
MR. BOEHM -Yea. What is it you really would like to accomplish? It seems to me like you like to restrict
it so that the living spaces are essentially for one residential type unit, namely a kitchen and what ever
bathrooms go with that. But not two kitchens and two independent bathrooms, two independent septic
systems.
SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE-I hear what you're saying.
MR. BOEHM-You know?
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yea.
MR. BOEHM-Then why don't you say that instead of using the word family because family these days
means alot of different things to different people.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Sure. Okay, thanks Gil.
MR. BOEHM-Well, I'm not done yet.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Oh, you're not done yet? Okay.
MR. BOEHM-Relative to the plane
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Now wait a minute, where are we?
MR. BOEHM-On page one. The distance measured along a vertical plane from the highest point of the
house to the finished grade at any given point. I would like to suggest that you make an additional
modifying statement and that is, in the vertical plane, perpendicular to the natural fall line because there's
no indication as to how that plane is drawn. If the plane was drawn parallel to the fall line, that's different
from a plane drawn perpendicular to the fall line.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I
MR. BOEHM-Now, as an example, if it's going down
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Wait a minute, Gil.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I think he makes a good point, we had a similar comment from
Dick Waldron in his letter that, we're going to try and address that.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Good point. Okay, is Betty back yet? We're going to table it from what I
hear.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Is there any more public comment?
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well, yea. Are we going to close this public hearing or are we going to
leave it open. I would assume, what do we do here counsel?
(Councilman Monahan re-entered meeting)
TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Do either one. You can do either one.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I'm going to satisfy Mr. Salvador. What do you want to do, John?
MR. SAL V ADOR-I think you should keep it open.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well not tonight, that will be some other night.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I would say also Fred, that we would be willing to take written comment for
anyone who can't be here in person.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Absolutely. Okay, so we're going to leave the public hearing open. We'll
be hearing again, do we want to set another date or?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Well yes, I'd like to ask or set a date that we could get that
comment by so we know that we have it all or not.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I would too. So do you want to take that third Monday in September, since
we're not meeting the first Monday in September.
TOWN CLERK DARLEEN DOUGHER-The sixteenth.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, let's plan it that way.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And I think any written comments should be in, say five days before that so
we have a chance to review it.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yea, if we could have it like that, Monday the ninth, for written
comment.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That's good.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Jim, when do you think you might have the stormwater regulations ready to
go to public hearing?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-We have a public comment period open on the Stormwater
Management Plan that will close with Labor Day and then the Advisory Board has to take those comments
and work it into the plan. I think they were hoping to get that plan to you as a draft document by the end of
September.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Maybe they could hurry it up a little bit, trying to meet some of these times
here.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN - We just didn't want to rush the public because people wanted,
it's a rather lengthy document and they wanted time to
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, but I mean once you close that comment period, perhaps you can
shorten up that period in between there, please?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yes, okay.
PUBLIC HEARING LEFT OPEN
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH
RESOLUTION NO. 354, 96
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourn Regular Session
and enter as the Queensbury Board of Health.
Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH
PUBLIC HEARING
SEWER VARIANCE - STEPHEN MILLER
9: 10 P.M.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I'll open the public hearing first for the Steven Miller variance. Anyone
here to speak on behalf of that application? Your name, please.
MR. STEVEN MILLER-Steve Miller.
UNKNOWN-Can't hear.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yea, you need to speak into the mic there Mr. Miller, if you will please.
MR. MILLER-Yes, Steve Miller.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, you're applying for the property owner's Harley and Rita Dewey. Is
that correct?
MR. MILLER-That's correct sir.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Mr. Hatin has presented us with a letter with his opinion.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN -Yes, Dave had to teach a class tonight but he is available over
the phone if we have a question that he needs to address. I can call him over the phone, I have his phone
number where he's teaching. I think he's over at West Glens Falls, teaching tonight.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Would you like Darleen to read this letter into the record.
SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE- That's probably a good idea. Would you do that for us Darleen, please?
TOWN CLERK DOUGHER-This is from Dave Hatin, Director of Building and Codes. The variance you
have before you is to allow Mr. Miller to place a seepage pit closer then a mandated one hundred fifty feet
from four wells, three of which are the neighbors and one of which is located on the property owned by the
Deweys. You currently have a letter before you from the Andrews who do not wish to sign the
neighbor/tenant waiver form. Also, the neighbor to the south, Ms. Russell, does not wish to sign a waiver
form, however has stated she is not opposed to the project and may speak before you during the public
hearing. With the seepage pit being placed in the proposed location, it will be approximately fifteen feet
farther from the Andrews well to the east, and Ms. Russell's well to the south. It will also be fifteen feet
closer to the Bartis well to the west and the Dewey's well to the north. If the Board has reservations about
whether or not to allow the seepage pit to be placed in the proposed location, I would make a suggestion
that you consider allowing placement of the seepage pit in the current location that it now exists, as you did
with the Shearer septic variance last month. A leach field cannot be built on this property due to a future
addition and driveway location which as been approved by the Zoning Board. If the Board still has
reservations after all these considerations, I can make myself available for this meeting later this evening.
Jim Martin has a phone number where I can be reached. I apologize for not being able to attend this
meeting due to a prior commitment. Thank you for your time and consideration.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Do you have any problems putting it in the old location and removing the old
one?
MR. MILLER-No, I don't.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Okay, that will solve the problem.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. So, what I hear you said then is, we'll allow him to put the new one
in to replace the old one in the same location without having to go in any other direction?
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yes.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-And that's permissible our ordinance?
TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Well, no it's still a variance.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yea but I mean it's still
COUNCILMAN PULVER-We would be allowing him to do that.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-It's a variance because of the one that he has right now is
TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-It's a variance because it would still not comply with the current code
but it would be putting it at the same location, as I understand it, as the existing system.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-That's correct.
COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Excuse me but Darleen didn't, was there a question in Dave's letter about if it
goes in the same location it's not possible due to additions or something?
TOWN CLERK DOUGHER-A leach field can't be built on the property.
COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-A leach field can not be built on the property?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-They're talking about putting a seepage pit.
COUNCILMAN GOEDERT -Okay.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And I wonder the Zoning Board allowing the addition and the driveway
where it goes in an area where maybe a leach pit should have gone, a leach field. I also wonder and I don't
have the plan in front of me.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-I've got it right here.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But the Andrews did not want this to go forth but from Dave's letter, they're
going to be in a better situation if it did go forth.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-That's the existing. (referred to plan)
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea. Which one is the Andrews?
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Right here.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's proposed though, right, not current?
MR. MILLER-The Andrews are to the east of the proposed lot. The Andrews are to the east.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Obviously, we're not going to get the neighbors to sign off on this so I
don't think we have much choice, as I sense it.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, I know and I agree with you, Fred. I just wonder why when according
to Dave's letter, the distance would be further from them then it is the proposed, then keeping it right where
it is now.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well, I don't know.
TOWN CLERK DOUGHER-I have two letters, Fred, that came in on this.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Oh, you do?
TOWN CLERK DOUGHER-Yes. The first one. I live at 26 Marley Way, directly across the road from
the site of Mr. Miller's requested variance. At this location, my property includes the road itself and
approximately ten feet of land on the side of the road where Mr. Miller's site is located. My well is located
approximately one hundred and fifteen feet from Mr. Miller's proposed seepage pit. Although my well was
not included in the Notice of Public Hearing for this variance, I have no objection to the hearing taking
place on August 19th as originally scheduled. I have discussed Mr. Miller's proposed project with him and
with John O'Brien and Dave Hatin. It appears from these discussions that there is not enough room on the
site for a leach field and that this is a reasonable location for the seepage pit. The location of the proposed
system will be farther from my well than the existing dry well. In addition, it is my understanding that the
proposed system will be better than the existing system. Although I would certainly prefer that the seepage
pit be located the required distance from my well, I recognize that this is not practical. Therefore, in light
of all of the above, I am not opposed to Mr. Miller's requested variance. I am not an engineer and have
very little understanding of septic systems. As a result, I depend on the Town Board to make an informed
decision based on expert advice provided by staff and consultants. Therefore, I am reluctant to completely
release the town from any responsibility for the consequences of that decision and I choose not to sign the
Release Statement. Mr. Miller has been very responsive to concerns that I expressed at the public hearing
held by the Zoning Board of Appeals and appears to be making every effort to ensure that this project is
acceptable to the town and his neighbors. His proposal for upgrading the septic system is an integral part
of the overall plan which I hope will be acceptable to the Town Board. Very truly yours, E. Ann Russell.
A second letter to Board Members. As I will not be available to attend the public hearing on August 19,
1996 regarding the above referenced sewage variance application, I would request that you please consider
the comments expressed in this letter in your deliberations and make this letter part of the record of the
proceedings in this matter. I am the owner of premises located at 113 Birdsall Road, Queensbury, New
York, which is across the private right-of-way from the premises owned by the applicant. While I do not
believe the relief which the applicant requests directly affects the well on my property, there are several
concerns which I have in allowing the applicant to depart from existing requirements. Initially, the area
surrounding the lake is an ecologically and environmentally sensitive area. The need to ensure against
further pollution and deterioration of this delicate area is of the utmost importance. Therefore, applicants
who are seeking to develop or renovate properties around the lake should be required to utilize the safest
and most sophisticated systems for sewage disposal. I am not convinced that a seepage pit proposed by the
applicant here is such a method since it is my understanding that the waste is absorbed into the ground,
rather than evaporated into the air as in the case with a leach field system. My concern with absorption into
the ground is there may be a potential for groundwater contamination and pollution of the lake. My
concern for groundwater contamination is especially prominent in view of the applicant's proposal to locate
the seepage pit sixty-four, ninety-two and one hundred and forty-five feet from various neighbor's wells.
While I am not aware of the alternatives available to the applicant based on layout of the parcel, I believe
further inquiry should be made into this matter to ensure that the safest and most environmentally
appropriate system is installed. If another system is more appropriate, this variance would not be needed. I
am also concerned with the potential precedent-setting effect the granting of the applicant's variance could
have on future property owners seeking to renovate or expand existing properties. If this applicant's
variance is granted, and the required distance between a seepage pit and neighboring well is substantially
reduced, other property owners will no longer feel bound by existing requirements. Indeed, this may cause
them to opt for a seepage pit method of sewage disposal over a more environmentally appropriate, and
perhaps costlier, system because they may conclude that they can always get a variance in the event they
can not comply with the required distances. If a substantial number of people started to do this, this could
have a potentially disastrous effect upon the lake and the surrounding area. In view of the above, I urge the
board to carefully evaluate the applicant's proposal and to explore alternative systems of sewage disposal.
Whether the variance should be granted or denied must turn on what is environmentally best for the lake
and the surrounding area. Paula P. Fitz, esquire. And excuse me, there's a third one. Having received by
registered mail from Susan Vannier, a request to sign a waiver allowing the existing septic system to be
relocated, we have discussed this thoroughly with the members of our family who may be involved with
our property in the future. As our existing well water has been tested and found to be of a very high quality
and the flow exceptional, there is a concern about any conditions that could effect it. We feel that because
of this concern we cannot comply with the request. We will hold all those involved with such changes
responsible if there should be any change in the quality or quantity of our existing well. This notification
will not only hold for the immediate owners, Adele and William Andrews, but also for the future owners of
our property. This letter is your notification that we will hold responsible the owners who cause the
changes, and the Town of Queensbury for allowing the changes, should any problem ever occur. Adele T
and William C. Andrews. That's it.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Jim, is the seepage pit a recognized method, under our today's sanitary
ordinance?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yes, but it does require a greater separation distance from well
points, fifty extra feet and I think the only time, and you know I'm not the one versed in the septic code but
I think the only time that it is allowed is when the leaching type system can not be supplied.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, I just wonder why the leach field system can not be supplied. Again,
if we've got a too small of lot here, that we're trying to get too much onto it when you know, the Zoning
Board approved an addition and a driveway location that precluded the leach field. I haven't seen the
minutes from their meeting and I don't know when that meeting was, unfortunately it was not enclosed in
our packet.
COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Is this system in a failed state at this time?
MR. MILLER-As far as I know it's operational. It is twenty-six years old though.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-How many bedrooms?
MR. MILLER-Currently it's three, the proposed plan would take that to two. So, it would be reduced by
one bedroom.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well, it just appears to me that with the neighbors not willing to sign off,
I'm not sure that I want to expose the town to that liability.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And I agree with you Fred, I'm just wondering, you know, one person here
just raised the concern about the seepage pit, period, no matter where it's placed. Jim, had Dave thought or
discussed that perhaps a holding tank was necessary in this situation?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I think that would be the next step, should this be, I would
imagine, that would be the next step if this were denied.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Is this seasonal use or full time?
MR. MILLER-This would be full time use.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-It's going to be full time.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-So if what's there, it's a seepage pit that's there right now?
MR. MILLER-Yes, it's a metal tank, an oil drum that was buried in 1970 and the seepage pit was
constructed of cinder blocks, typical of it's era. So this would be a
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Lasted twenty-six years. Has this house been full time?
MR. MILLER-On and off full time. Primarily seasonal but it has been full time in the last few years.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That seepage pit, as it is right now can't be all that large?
MR. MILLER-I'm not sure. All I know is what the owner who put it in has told me and it didn't sound very
large.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well, I'm going to have to ask Mr. Hatin to go back and take a second look
and see if it can be replaced in the location it's in right at this point. Does that make sense?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I think it can be. Special measures would have to be taken,
given the fact it's in a driveway. I think they have to put a little thicker cover on it and that type of the
thing.
MR. MILLER-Which is possible. Most covers are resilient enough to withstand traffic in today's design
criteria.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Do we want to have a resolution to that effect? Or how does that work,
Counsel?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Who engineered the proposed system?
MR. MILLER-It was put together by myself and Mr. O'Brien and also upon recommendation of contractor.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So no engineer has looked at this system.
MR. MILLER-I'm an engineer.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Oh, excuse me, I'm sorry.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well, what I'm looking at here is Mr. Hatin's letter to us that says, I would
make a suggestion that you consider allowing placement of the seepage pit in the current location that it
now exists as you did with the Shearer septic variance last month.
COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-I'm not in favor of any of this. I think that, I realize he needs a variance to
correct a system that he needs to update but since he's not in the failed state, why are we rushing this
through without answers to our questions. So I would request that we postpone until we can, Dave can be
here to answer the questions number one, or another idea can be brought forward because he's not a failed
state, so it's not a case of emergency. And I'm more interested in the fact that he's allowed a variance, or
the ZBA rulings to add to this property that you can't put a septic system and since I don't have that
information in front of me.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-It's fine with me.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Would you like a copy of the ZBA minutes?
COUNCILMAN TURNER-What does he have to have for a leach field, Jim? A hundred and twenty feet
for each bedroom?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I couldn't tell you. I know the length of the tile field is
MR. MILLER-Excuse me, the requirement for linear footage of a leach field basically filled the back part
of the lot. So what is now, it is not, the driveway proposed is not a new driveway, it's a parking area. So as
it exists now, the entire parking area would have to be changed over to a leach field.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-You're saying you can get one on there though?
MR. MILLER-No, there's just not enough square footage to do the leach field.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-There isn't, okay.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-This lot is sixty-four deep by eighty-six point one-six wide, is that right?
MR. MILLER-That's correct.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Why does this say
COUNCILMAN TURNER-I don't know, what have you got there?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Oh, I see, it's the distance of the drywell, excuse me. So we've got a
hundred by eighty-six roughly.
MR. MILLER-The proposed on print you have in front of you was done basically because it moved, it
naturally upgraded the system to as close as what we could afford space wide to today's standards plus it
did move the system away from as many wells as we could. So at the time that we all put this together it
was the best scenario we could put in the property as given.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It wouldn't make any difference if you changed the location of the garage or
anything like that, that doesn't help anything?
MR. MILLER-That was really the only place to put it, actually.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Why don't we send it back to Dave and have Dave appear with us and with
you.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-I don't even think you've got to.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-It's a done deal?
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yea. Where else is he going to do, what's he going to do?
SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE-I don't know.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Here's is old drywell right there. It's going to put a septic tank right here. He's
going to come out of here and go into the new drywell. He's going to get take this drywell out, replace it
with a new concrete drywell, probably bigger capacity.
MR. MILLER-Much greater capacity.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You're saying put it right back.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Put it right back where the old drywell was and update it.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Only update it.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, anyone else care to speak for or against? Do we have anyone else in
the audience interested in this drywell? If not, I guess we're ready to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
9:28 P.M.
Town Board held discussion and Town Counsel agreed to amend resolution. Resolution so amended and
proposed as follows:
RESOLUTION APPROVING SANIT ARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCES
FOR STEPHEN C. MILLER, APPLICANT FOR PROPERTY OWNERS,
HARLEY & RITA DEWEY
RESOLUTION NO. 20, 96
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHEREAS, Stephen Miller, applicant for property owners Harley and Rita Dewey, previously
filed a request for three (3) variances from certain provisions of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage
Disposal Ordinance, such provisions being more specifically those requiring that there be a 150' separation
between the seepage pit and a well or suction line, and
WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was given in the official newspaper of the Town of
Queensbury and a public hearing was held in connection with the variance requests on August 19, 1996,
and
WHEREAS, the Town Clerk advises that property owners within 500 feet of the subject property
have been duly notified,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED,
a) that due to the nature of the variances, it is felt that the variations will not be materially
detrimental to the purposes and objectives of this Ordinance or to other adjoining properties or otherwise
conflict with the purpose and objectives of any plan or policy of the Town of Queensbury;
b) that the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variances is necessary for the
reasonable use of
the land and that the variances are granted as the minimum variances which would
alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the applicant; and
c) that the Local Board of Health imposes a condition upon the applicant that he must also
secure the approval of the New York State Department of Health;
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health hereby grants the variances to
Stephen Miller, as applicant for property owners Harley & Rita Dewey, to allow placement of the seepage
pit at the existing location rather than placing it at the mandated 150' distance(s), on property situated on
Birdsall Road, Town of Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax Map #: Section 40, Block 1, Lot 19.2.
Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Turner, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Champagne
NOES : Mrs. Goedert
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR
VARIANCES FROM SANITARY SEW AGE DISPOSAL ORDINANCE FOR
SARAH ROSS (SERAFINI)
RESOLUTION NO. 21, 96
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is, by operation of Law, the Local
Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury and, as such, is authorized under Chapter 136 of the Town of
Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance to issue variances from such Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, Sarah Ross Serafini has applied to the Local Board of Health of the Town of
Queensbury for five (5) variances from certain standards of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage
Disposal Ordinance set forth in Chapter 136, such application requesting that:
1. there be a 5' separation between leach lines rather than the required 6' separation (Chapter
136 - Appendix E);
2. part of the leach field will be located under the driveway rather than no part of the leach
field being located under a driveway (~136-8 B);
3. there be a 61' distance between the absorption field and the owner's well, rather than the
required 100' distance (Chapter 136, Appendix A);
4. there be a 2' distance between the absorption field and the property line, rather than the
required 10' distance (Chapter 136, Appendix A);
5. there be 160 linear feet of leach field, rather than the required 250 linear feet of leach
field (Chapter 136, Table 4);
and
WHEREAS, Sarah Ross Serafini has also applied to the Local Board of Health of the Town of
Queensbury for a variance from Appendix 75A, Table 3 of the Waste Treatment Handbook - Individual
Household Systems, New York State Department of Health, such application requesting that there be a
1,000 gallon septic tank for the four bedroom house, rather than the required 1,250 gallon septic tank,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury will hold a public
hearing on September 16th, 1996, at 7:00 p.m., at the Queensbury Activities Center, (reasonably accessible
to persons with mobility impairment) 742 Bay Road, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, to
consider Sarah Ross Serafini's application for the variances referred to in the preambles herein, on property
situated on 28 North Lane, Assembly Point, Town of Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax Map No.:
Section 8, Block 2, Lot 8, and, at that time, all persons interested in the subject thereof will be heard, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury be and is hereby directed and
authorized, when in receipt of a list of neighbors within 500 feet of the subject property, to publish and
provide Notice of said Public Hearing as may be required by law, and authorized to mail copies of said
Public Hearing Notice to the adjoining neighbors.
Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES : Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner,
Mr. Champagne
NOES : None
2ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION ADJOURNING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH
RESOLUTION NO. 22, 96
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert
WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns as the Queensbury
Board of Health and enters Regular Session of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury.
Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD
CORRESPONDENCE
9:32 P.M.
Town Clerk Dougher read petition from Hidden Hills into the record:
It is out of concern for the safety and welfare of our residents that we the residents of the Hidden Hills
Development are presenting this petition to the Town of Queensbury. Our development is comprised of
153 homes which currently have blank children with more on the way. We have the following concerns:
One, the speed at which people drive through our development, 30 miles per hour is too fast for a
development that has blank children and has streets as narrow as ours. Two, the lack of stop signs which
may deter motorists from, one, plowing down mailboxes, driving recklessly, especially down Hidden Hills
Drive where the only stop sign exists at the end of the street at Dixon Road when coming from Sherman
Avenue, driving across people's property, documented by the Sheriffs Department, running of stop signs,
where only one side has to stop while the other is free to drive on. It is because of these concerns that we,
the residents of Hidden Hills Development are requesting the following: One, a 25 mile per hour signs
instead of 30 mile per hour, posted at Dixon Road and Sherman Avenue entranceways. Two, caution signs
both ways on the sharp turn of Hidden Hills Drive. Three, four way stop at the corner of Maple Drive and
Hidden Hills Drive, Dixon Road end. Four, a four way stop at the intersection of Maple Drive and Oak
Tree Circle, Sherman Avenue end. Five, a three way stop at Hidden Hills Drive and Maple Drive, Sherman
Avenue end with current stop sign on Hidden Hills Drive moved to the other side of the driveway on 57
Hidden Hills Drive and a white stop line painted on the street to show motorists where to stop. On behalf
of our families of Hidden Hills Development, thank you for giving this crucial matter your prompt
attention.
Councilman Pulver requested Connie to take that up at the Highway Committee meeting and also would
like matter to be placed on the workshop agenda. Noted that a video has also been placed on file.
RECESS
9:35 P.M.
RESOLUTIONS
9:42 P.M.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
OF REZONING AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT -
MICHAEL 1. V ASILIOU, INC./INDIAN RIDGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
RESOLUTION NO.: 355.96
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, on or about March 29, 1996, Michael 1. Vasiliou, Inc., submitted a letter of intent
together with an Environmental Assessment Form with exhibits, and requested that certain parcels of land,
bearing tax map numbers: 73-1-22.1, 73-1-22.3, 73-1-22.4, 73-1-22.5, 73-1-22.6, 73-1-22.7, and a portion
of73-1-21, located in the vicinity of Aviation Road and the Queensbury Union Free School District
(hereinafter referred to as the "Project Site") be rezoned and designated a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) in accordance with, and by virtue of, the provisions of Article 8 of the Zoning Laws of the Town of
Queensbury, the same being a part of Chapter 179 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, the rezoning would allow for the PUD, which as proposed, would generally consist
of a maximum of 111 single family lots, 9 multi-family lots (18 duplex units), 7.1 acres for senior
apartments (61 units), and a 1 acre site for limited commercial uses, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury feels that it would be appropriate to
consider modification of the zone in the area (Project Site) to allow the Project, provided that the Project is
developed as an appropriately conditioned Planned Unit Development, in accordance with the provisions of
the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined that the rezoning
proposal is worthwhile to consider since:
1. The project would initially appear compatible with the area;
2. The project as proposed appears to be in conformance with stated goals of the Town
Comprehensive Land Use Plan;
3. The project would appear to cause or further development in the area that is positive;
4. Public and private utilities and facilities are available in the area to service the project;
5. The school would appear to be benefitted by the project; and
6. Aviation Road will soon be widened as part of an effort by New York State to widen the
bridge over the Adirondack Northway, and available to serve the area;
and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with the following goals and strategies from the
Town Comprehensive Land Use Plan dated May, 1989, which makes reference to encouraging expansion
of the regional water service, encouraging the provision of open space through the use of a clustered
subdivision design, encouraging increased density where municipal service is available, the need for the
provision of senior housing, and
WHEREAS, on or about the 27th day of December, 1995, the Town Board of the Town of
Queensbury adopted a resolution indicating its desire to be lead agency for SEQRA purposes and
authorizing notification of all other involved agencies that the aforesaid letter of intent and application had
been made, and
WHEREAS, on or about April 15, 1996, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury adopted a
resolution authorizing the submission of the aforesaid request concerning the Rezoning and Planned Unit
Development, to be submitted to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board for a report and
recommendation, and
WHEREAS, on or about the 14th day of May, 1996, the Planning Board for the Town of
Queensbury adopted a resolution whereby it
recommended a favorable report for the PUD to the Town Board with the condition that the single family
lots be sized at a minimum of one-half acre, and
WHEREAS, the Warren County Planning Board has reviewed the project, consented to the Town
Board of the Town of Queensbury being the lead agency for SEQRA review purposes, and recommended
approval of the rezoning and PUD, and
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted as part of the PUD application, a site plan bearing a
revision date of June 28, 1996, which indicates a Town Open Space of 8.79 acres in area which is to be
conveyed to the Town, and
WHEREAS, the site plan revised on June 28, 1996 indicates that 52.76 acres of land will be
preserved as a conservation area in order to restrict further development and protect its ecological qualities,
and
WHEREAS, the site plan revised on June 28, 1996 indicates that portions of lots 12-17, 18-24,51-
63, 65-70, 93-96, and III will include deed references to cutting restrictions, and
WHEREAS, lots 71-85 as shown on the site plan bearing a revision date of June 28, 1996 will
have a "no build" area in the rear-yard of each lot which measures at least forty feet (40') in depth, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type I Action pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the
State Environmental Quality Review Act, and
WHEREAS, in view of the foregoing, and in accordance with ~179-57 D. of the Code of the
Town of Queensbury, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury held a public hearing on June 17, 1996
on the proposed rezoning and Planned Unit Development, and
WHEREAS, following the aforesaid public hearing, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury
convened and discussed and took a hard look at the areas of environmental concern raised by virtue of
written communications, documents submitted by the developer, involved or interested agencies and others,
the public hearing, Town staff comments, historical data regarding other PUD's, and the Town Board
members themselves, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury also considered and discussed proposed
mitigation measures, zoning conditions, and future Planning Board reviews that would be required for the
Planned Unit Development prior to any construction occurring in connection therewith, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has reviewed the project's potential
environmental impacts, both small and large, and has reviewed Parts II and III of the Long Environmental
Assessment Form for the RezoningIPlanned Unit Development, and the Town Board has inserted certain
responses therein, and
WHEREAS, careful review of the Long Environmental Assessment Form resulted in Town Board
identification of several potential environmental impacts, some deemed to be "small to moderate" and some
deemed to be "potentially large." In some instances, a potential environmental impact was identified as
meeting a threshold which might generally lead to classification as "potentially large," but when carefully
considered by the Town Board in the context of this specific project and recognizing that the instructions
for completion of the Environmental Assessment Form are general guidelines subject to specific
application by lead agencies in specific situations, was classified by the Town Board as "small to
moderate." The Town Board then prepared an Environmental Assessment Form Part III to evaluate the
importance of all potential environmental impacts, not just those identified as "potentially large," but also
those identified as "small to moderate" as well, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has carefully considered the proposed
Rezoning and Planned Unit Development, reviewed the Environmental Assessment Form and the criteria
set forth in Section 617.7 of 6 NYCRR, Part 617, and other information received and thoroughly analyzed
the identified relevant areas of environmental concern to determine if the action may have a significant
effect on the environment, and has taken a hard look at potential environmental impacts with detailed
consideration and due deliberation,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby recognizes the action
proposed by the developer is classified as a Type I Action under the rules and regulations promulgated
under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adopts the Environmental
Assessment Form Parts II and III and determines that, after careful analysis, the potential environmental
impacts identified in the Environmental Assessment Form Part II and analyzed, discussed and evaluated in
Environmental Assessment Form Part III are not sufficiently important to require preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury recognizes the importance of
carefully examining, from an environmental standpoint, any development of an area near or adjacent to the
wetland and particularly this site, as a result of the various areas of environmental concern that have been
raised either in the documents presented by the developers, other agencies, members of the public, and the
Town Board members themselves, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, after examining relevant areas of
environmental concern, the mitigation measures proposed, and the conditions that may be imposed since
the project requires legislative zoning action, determines that no significant effect on the environment will
occur if the project is developed in accordance with proposed mitigation measures and conditions, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, in view of the foregoing and all of
the evidence considered in connection with this project, hereby determines that the Rezoning and Planned
Unit Development as proposed, with mitigation measures and legislative conditions, will not have
significant environmental effects and therefore does not require the preparation of a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that a Negative Declaration is hereby approved and that the Executive Director is
hereby authorized and directed to file the same in accordance with the provisions of the General
Regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized to execute and complete any parts of
the Environmental Assessment Form or Negative Declaration consistent with the terms and provisions of
this resolution, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Executive Director shall file a copy of the Negative Declaration and this
resolution, if necessary, with any appropriate interested or involved agencies in accordance with the Rules
and Regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and mail a copy of this
determination to all involved agencies.
Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES
Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver,
Mr. Champagne
NOES
None
ABSENT:
None
AFTER INTRODUCING RESOLUTION, THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE:
Supervisor Champagne-Our next step here is to complete Part II, as I understand it?
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes, that's correct. You had, as a result of your initial go through of the
Part II, there were two questions that were left unanswered. I draw your attention to page 7, under question
number 5, proposed action will adversely affect groundwater and then on question 6 at the top of page 8,
second bullet, proposed action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Those two questions were
left unanswered until you had heard from Rist-Frost.
Councilman Monahan-Fred, before we get into this and relative to the SEQRA, I have a statement I'd like
to read, if that's okay with you?
Supervisor Champagne-Does the rest of the Board agree with that?
Councilman Turner-Yea, go ahead.
Councilman Monahan-I think the public needs to know how I, at least arrived at some of the considerations
that I gave this SEQRA review and I'd like to share my methodology with you. I have always considered
the preparation of a SEQRA determination one of the most important documents with which a Town Board
member is charged. In preparation of which, I do my homework, research and try to come to a reasoned,
objective answer. Part of what I am about to say applies to Indian Ridge specifically and planning
generally. There is no question that this project will result in a physical change to the project site or that
part of the project is within a CEA adjacent to Rush Pond and that Rush Pond and its wetlands need to be
protected; also, that this project will have an effect, to whatever degree, on traffic and on the growth and
character of the community or neighborhood. There is no development in this Town but what has this
effect to some extent. There has been comments from the public that this developer should prepare an EIS.
In effect, this developer has already prepared most of the documentation that is required by an EIS, traffic
study, archeological studies, soil analysis. The one step that is not there formally is the consideration of
alternatives. Let's look at alternatives. In the first place, if the owner decides to clear cut this land, the only
control this Town has is the Planning Board may determine that this land may not be subdivided for 5
years. However, they may waive this requirement. Personally, I do not believe the present 3 acre zoning is
defensible. I have reviewed the records relative to this zoning and the reason given is "high perc soils".
The depth to bedrock and water table is not discussed. These are the mitigating factors that should have
been discussed at that time. I don't believe it can be argued that a conventional 3A subdivision would have
less impact on the land. It is only through the PUD mechanism that the Town Board can put conditions on
this site and, incidentally, I have insisted from the first that the only way I would consider rezoning this
land is to tie that rezoning to a legal signed PUD document citing all the conditions to which the developer
must adhere. I refuse to give anyone a blank check on this rezoning. With 3A zoning, there is the
possibility of more trees being cut, wide expanses of green lawn, and land in the wetlands being in private
ownership as part of these lots instead of being transferred to the Town for protection. What are the
advantages to the community with this plan? At the opening of Solomon Heights, the complex for seniors
built and operated by National Church Residents, I said my aim was to start working on another grant
because this complex filled such a need in this area. Everyone thought I was having a pipe dream, but now
we see a real opportunity for this to happen. I have heard no opposition to having another complex for
seniors. The need is certainly there with a waiting list of seventy. The proposed owners of this complex
have also, agreed to try and reestablish on their land a habitat for the Blue Karner Butterfly, a federally
protected species. (2) The LC area including Rush Pond Wetlands will be deeded to the Town. This will
allow for this area to be protected forever. The archeological site will, also, be protected by being included
in this land. (3) An eight plus acres parcel will be deeded to the Town that will remain essentially as is.
This will, also, give the Town an opportunity to put a bike path there if necessary. (4) Access paths to
Rush Pond and to Queensbury School will be deeded to the town. (5) One of these pathways will, also,
include an emergency bus ingress and egress to and from the Queensbury School. (6) Everyone is
concerned about the congestion of Aviation Road for children in the area that want to bike or walk to
Queensbury School. The streets and pathways of this development will provide a much safer access. (7)
Many of the current trees and planting will remain because of the land deeded to the Town and the no cut
areas on lots that will be enforced by deed restrictions and by conditions of the PUD. (8) Lots closest to
the wetlands will have development conditions relative to grading, placement of septic systems and
stormwater drainage into the roadway drainage system. (9) The minutes from the Land Use Committee
meetings in 1988 talk about preserving the views from the Northway relative to our lakes and wetlands, this
project will help to do that. (10) Planning references today talk about present day zoning, namely large lot
sizes, etc., contributing to urban sprawl. If green space and trees are going to be preserved and
infrastructure maintenance costs are going to be cut, bring your houses closer together. This project is
designed to require that a lot of the trees be preserved; the roads have been shortened, which will mean
other utilities will be, also; it will be close to the schools thereby cutting down the length and time of bus
runs resulting in economy and less pollution. The developer will have to extend the Town water mains;
and septic systems have to be placed so that it will be a simple matter to hook them to a sewer line in the
future. (11) The closeness to a neighborhood commercial area that can cut down on traffic and attendant
pollution. The above is an outline of how I came to some of my conclusions and answers to some of the
questions raised by the public. The question has been raised about the impact on the school system. Any
development in this Town will have an impact on the schools unless it is geared strictly towards senior
citizens.
The question has been raised about the impact on Rush Pond. Part of that has been answered above. In
addition, the geohydrologic and soil studies done show that the water flows away from Rush Pond. The
Town engineer concurs with that evaluation. Should further studies be done? There is certainly nothing
precluding the Planning Board or the Town Board in the PUD Agreement requiring that in the future when
phases in different areas are done, requiring more testing. Why not now? Because it was deemed better
not to disturb more land and effect more trees at this time. As a condition of the DOH Permit for septic
systems, the developer will be required to do perc tests at each individual site. Also the Glen Lake
Watershed Committee is doing testing in the area of Glen Lake and the Glen Lake Wetlands, and will
extend that testing into the Rush Pond Wetlands. The question has been raised about development in a
CEA. A CEA does not mean that there can be no development; it requires a careful study and proper
precautions be taken. I believe those conditions have been met. Many of the comments about the CEA
have come from the residents of Fox Hollow Lane, yet many of the houses in that development are in the
CEA and at an elevation that is much closer to the elevation of the wetlands. According to our Community
Development Department, no septic system at Indian Ridge will be closer than 300 feet and at a higher
elevation. The question has been raised about fairness to people in the area in changing the zoning. In the
first place, many people bought when the project area was zoned UR-5, as it was in 1982 until sometime in
1988. In the second place, many conditions have been placed on this project to cut down the visual impact
on the surrounding areas. The question of traffic has been raised. There is no doubt that Aviation Road
and the northway bridge are one of the problem areas in this Town. The Town Board and the State have
both recognized this in the work and the studies that are being done. The fact that this project is being
phased will help mitigate some of this impact, and perhaps the approval of some of these phases should be
tied to certain traffic improvements being made and also certain number of lots per phase, not to be
exceeded during each year. I hope I have answered some of the public's questions and concerns and shared
with you the process by which I reached some of my conclusions. All the valid concerns that have been
raised I have certainly taken into consideration during this lengthy process. Thank you.
Supervisor Champagne-Thank you, Betty. The public hearing, we have held the public hearing, the board
now has the privilege of finishing up Part II of the SEQRA and then responding to Part III that was raised,
questions from the public hearing that was raised during the Part III. So we will be doing that. Back to
you Jim.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay, getting back to the questions left unanswered. Page 7, under
question 5, propose action will adversely affect groundwater.
Supervisor Champagne-And we said then
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-We were waiting to hear from the engineer.
Supervisor Champagne-Right.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-You have that response. Is there any consensus on any potential impact?
Councilman Monahan-I think, Jim according to what I have here we marked yes because of the bullet
question, proposed action.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes. The question itself has been responded to as yes, I'm looking for this
one specific bullet.
Councilman Monahan-But I think that my answer to that would be, not can project, can impact be mitigated
by project change but that the design of the project already has mitigated that effect. I don't know if other
board members agree with me.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-That's a response to that one bullet, right Betty? Proposed action will
adversely affect groundwater?
Councilman Monahan-Yes.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay.
Supervisor Champagne-Yea, in excess of the twenty thousand gallons which we recognize.
Councilman Pulver-That's where we said, small to moderate.
Supervisor Champagne-Right.
Councilman Turner-Yea.
Councilman Goedert-I don't have any large impacts on that colunm on mine.
Councilman Pulver-I don't either.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-No, we didn't. I'mjust saying, this one bullet was left unanswered and I
was looking if you do, you don't have to give one or you do, whatever your thoughts are on it. If there is
no, if you don't view it as an impact or small to moderate or potentially large.
Supervisor Champagne-Well we said that even with the small to moderate, we were going to
Councilman Monahan-Give an answer.
Supervisor Champagne-Clarify it.
Councilman Monahan-Yea.
Supervisor Champagne-Try to respond to it.
Councilman Monahan-And I think we also wanted the assurance from our town engineer that the
conclusions that were reached by the applicant's engineer were logical conclusions and he did give us that
assurance.
Supervisor Champagne-Yes.
Councilman Monahan-At a public meeting.
Supervisor Champagne-Okay, item number 6.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay, say you're saying on that question then, just an asterisk to be placed
by and we'll say, design of project has already addressed this concern. Would that be sufficient or you want
Councilman Monahan-That's what I would put.
Supervisor Champagne-That's fair enough with me.
Councilman Turner-Yea.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay, alright. Top of page 8, second bullet item was left unanswered.
Proposed action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Again, no answer, no impact, or small to
moderate impact, or potentially large?
Councilman Monahan-We had a check, Jim there, proposed action may cause
Supervisor Champagne-May cause substantial erosion, was the one that we were looking at.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-No, I understand that, I'm saying this one was left unanswered.
Councilman Monahan-Okay. Proposed action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Again,
since our engineer concurred with the applicant's engineer that the drainage goes away from Rush Pond and
my suggestion would be also that in the PUD Agreement, we do arrange for further testing when it gets into
other phases that moves out of the area and what the tests holes were done, that, that would be any
mitigation and any possibility of any groundwater impact.
Councilman Goedert -We asked for the engineer to confer that the, we were reading the testing right and
accurately.
Unknown-Talk into the microphone.
Councilman Goedert-I'm sorry. We asked our engineer to confirm that what we were reading in reference
to the drainage and erosion and everything was accurate. We got a response from that, we got a response
from another gentleman and I don't have the letter sitting in front of me, the hydrologist, concurred that
those things were correct and accurate. Can we, just not to mitigate this, can we not attach those things to
this document?
Supervisor Champagne-Sure.
Town Counsel Schachner-Certainly the letter, I believe it was a letter that you received from Rist-Frost, the
town engineers, is certainly part of the official record of your review and deliberation and should be and I
believe is included as part of the environmental review and should be attached certainly to the EAF.
Councilman Goedert-In response to these questions, is that we had a large impact on, the engineer and the
letters that we received on that, null and voided that. Correct?
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Well yea, you don't have to list an impact, or small to moderate, or
potentially large, those are your three options. If you feel in light of the information there is no impact,
that's a response. Or if you feel that there's a small to moderate, or potentially large. Anyone of those
three.
Councilman Monahan-Connie, are you referring perhaps the letter from Nace Engineering that's a new
letter that you would like to see attached and made part of the record?
Councilman Goedert-That is one of them.
Councilman Pulver-The one as of August 16th?
Councilman Monahan-And I would suggest perhaps that, that letter be read into the record and I also think
we should
Councilman Goedert-There's also a second letter that came approximately the same time that this one did.
Councilman Monahan-Yea, the change, the amount of water being used up to fifty-eight thousand.
Councilman Goedert-And whether it, how it goes through the soil and that.
Councilman Monahan-Yea, and that's the other letter. Yea, I think those two letters should be made a part
of the record. Do you have them there because if you don't I've got two copies?
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes, I have them. I have the Rist-Frost letter dated August 9th, and two
letters from Nace Engineering dated August 16th. Those are the three you want as part of the record?
Supervisor Champagne-Yes.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay, in light of that, what is the response given to that bullet question?
Supervisor Champagne-I think it's been mitigated.
Councilman Goedert-Mitigated.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-So no impact?
Councilman Goedert-No impact.
Councilman Monahan-Do you want to see further testing as this gets to another phase?
Supervisor Champagne-Yea, that's another question.
Councilman Goedert -But that would go in the Planned Unit Development Agreement if we get that far.
Councilman Monahan-But I think it should also be in the SEQRA too.
Supervisor Champagne-So, what we're asking for here is that the, further testing be done between each
phase to verify and to validate the
Town Counsel Schachner-Maybe I'm the only one, but I'm a little confused. Right now, all you're doing is
evaluated, I don't mean to minimize it, not all you're doing but what you're doing is evaluating potential
environmental impacts. So that the threshold issue is whether you feel that there are potential
environmental impacts specifically at the moment in terms of compatibility with existing drainage patterns
and as Jim just said, if you feel there are potential environmental impacts from that, then the question is, in
your opinion, are those potential environmental impacts small to moderate or potentially large. I think
you're a step ahead of yourselves if you're now talking about things that you may require. I think Connie
was correct in stating if you're talking about things you may require by virtue of further mitigation or
anything like that, that would be left to any resolution of approval or PUD agreement if you get that far.
Supervisor Champagne-Okay.
Councilman Goedert-But what I'm saying is, the reason that, that question was not answered was because
we didn't feel we had the information to answer it so we requested the letter from the engineer.
Town Counsel Schachner-I think that's very appropriate. No, I think attaching and including the letters
from Rist-Frost as the town's consulting engineer and any other engineering letters you want to include,
that's totally appropriate. My comment was addressed to the what I understood the board to be going
further with talking about possible measures that would be incorporated in the PUD agreement. That I
think should be left for that if we reach that.
Supervisor Champagne-I understand, okay.
Councilman Monahan-Fred, I would ask that those two letters, you know for the public that is here and
very interested in this project, that those two letters be read now so that the public may hear those letters.
Supervisor Champagne-That's fine.
Town Counsel Schachner-We have three letters.
Councilman Monahan-Three letters, I'm sorry, yes.
Town Clerk Dougher-Okay the first letter.
As you requested we have reviewed the following documents submitted to us for the above referent project:
Traffic Impact Study, Revised May 8, 1996, Summary of Soils Investigation for Fox Farm/Subdivision
(Not Dated), Geohydrological Investigation Fox Farm/Indian Ridge Development. August 20, 1996
Drawings:
Master Plan
Typical Site Section
Typical Site Plans
Overall Drainage System Schematic
April 1, 1996
April 1, 1996
March 3, 1996
April 15, 1996
These documents have been reviewed in order that we may offer our opinion on the adequacy of the
investigations performed and the technical conclusions reached, as they pertain to the traffic study, soils
and groundwater investigations, proposed stormwater system and proposed sewage systems. We have also
reviewed two letters received regarding these same technical issues.
TRAFFIC STUDY This study appears to have been performed in accordance with customary professional
methods and I believe the traffic impacts have been reasonably projected. It is my opinion that the
selection of October 30 and 31, 1995 for on-site traffic counts at the key intersections was also a reasonable
one. I have lived near the project area for 27 years and I do not believe the summer recreation traffic is
heavier than the normal school/commuting traffic during the school year.
SOILS AND GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATIONS Extensive surface (up to 16' deep) test pits and
other investigations have been conducted at numerous times over the entire site. In addition three deep soil
borings were recently performed to determine deep soil conditions and groundwater depths. All of the data
confirms the presence of permeable granular materials from the surface to depths in excess of 60 feet. The
Geohydrological Investigation concludes that the groundwater table at the project site is generally down
50'-60' and slopes away from the wetland. I concur with that conclusion. It has been suggested that three
borings generally located on the southern portion of the site are not sufficient to accurately define present
conditions and that additional borings and monitoring wells might prove that conclusion to be in error. In
fact the groundwater level in the wetland all along the west side of the project is also an accurate
determination of the groundwater level. That information along with knowledge of other borings and
surface water elevations in the area support my conclusion that the groundwater data presented is reliable.
One of the letters pointed out impermeable layers that slope back to the wetland are present in the boring
logs and have the potential to direct percolating water to flow back toward the wetland. I see no evidence
of such layers in the logs. All soils reported appear to be very permeable. With the soil characteristics and
depths to groundwater, I do not see a need to repeat these investigations during the phased build out of the
project.
STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM The data submitted indicates the soil conditions and groundwater levels
are ideal for on-site subsurface storm water recharge systems as conceptually proposed. Typical lots are
graded to drain toward the roads where practical, particularly those nearest the wetland. The conceptual
systems proposed appear to be in accordance with Town standards. This would be confirmed during
detailed site plan review. No open basins are proposed. No substantial changes to existing drainage
patterns are proposed. The proposed design concept would not preclude conformance with more stringent
future Town storm drainage criteria if enacted. Development activities on slopes tributary to the wetlands
are restricted.
SEW AGE SYSTEMS The soil conditions and groundwater levels appear suitable for the on-site
treatment systems proposed. The NYS DOH in their letter of July 19, 1995 granted a variance for up to
125 single-family lots for individual sewage treatment systems if the project was served by the Queensbury
Water District and that each lot was shown to have suitable subsurface conditions. If the perc rate falls
outside of the required criteria, soil modification would be required. The systems proposed appear to be in
accordance with state and local regulatory requirements. This would be confirmed during detailed site plan
reVIew.
GENERAL The investigations submitted by the applicant regarding the technical issues discussed in this
letter appear to be adequate in scope. Our review has not identified any items that would require further
investigation. I agree with the general technical conclusions regarding storm drainage, sewage disposal,
traffic impact, soils and groundwater conditions, I am not aware of any unidentified potential significant
impacts regarding these technical areas. If there are further questions please advise.
Very truly yours,
William 1. Levandowski, P.E., RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES
2nd letter
We have been informed that opponents of this development claim that the EAF is in error regarding item B.
23 which states that the anticipated water use is 51,600 gallons per day. The opponents information claims
that the use should be 80,000+ gallons per day.
I have reviewed the water use projections based on the current mix of uses proposed for the development
and find that the estimated daily water use is 58,265. This is based on the NYS Dept. of Health
requirements of 130 gallons per day per bedroom for houses and 75 gallons per day per unit for the senior
citizens housing based upon actual flow records from similar facilities. The total daily use was determined
as follows:
III single family homes
assume 44 of these are 4 bedroom houses
then 67 are 3 bedroom houses
18 duplex units
assume all 2 bedroom units
176 bedrooms
201 bedrooms
36 bedrooms
total 413 bedrooms
X
130
gal/day/bdrm.
= 53,690GPD
61 unit senior citizens housing
61 units X 75 gal/day/unit
TOTAL daily use = 58,265 GPD
4,575 GPD
This is slightly more than the original EAF indicated due to the fact that the development mix has been
modified. However, this is not a significant change.
Sincerely,
Thomas W. Nace, P.E.
3 rd letter
I have reviewed a copy of Mr. John Salvador's letter to you dated Aug. 13, 1996. He states that he has
continuing concerns regarding groundwater flows and potential pollution of Rush Pond resulting from
septic systems in the proposed development. He also suggests that further studies are necessary to
determine the eventual surface water flow patterns.
I have discussed Mr. Salvador's letter with Mr. Fred Dente who performed the subsurface investigation and
geohydrologic evaluation for this project. Both Mr. Dente and I believe that there are several facts which
need to be kept in mind when reviewing Mr. Salvador's letter.
The borings which Mr. Dente performed show that the groundwater level at the top of the bluff
adjacent to, and approximately 600 feet away from the wetland is only 0.67 feet below the surface water
level in the wetland. The groundwater level in two other wells is 7.67 to 7.97 feet below the surface water
level of the wetland. These two wells are on the side of the development opposite the wetland and are
approximately 1,700 to 1,800 feet from the wetland. This shows, without question, that the groundwater
table under the site slopes away from the wetland and that the surface waters in the wetland have a direct
hydraulic connection with the groundwater (as evidenced by the fact that the groundwater table in the
boring at the top of the bluff is only 0.67 feet below the surface water in the wetland).
Based upon the soil materials encountered in the three borings and numerous test pits on the site I
can confidently state that there are not any soils present which could possibly impede the downward
movement of water sufficiently to create a "future perched water table" given the nominal amount of water
provided by the addition of the proposed septic systems in the development.
The proposed development will add an estimated 58,265 gallons of water per day (estimated water
use at project build-out) to the existing amount of stormwater filtering into the soils. When distributed over
the developed portion of the site this amounts to only 0.027 inches of water per day. Without exception all
of the soils encountered in the borings will allow the downward and lateral movement of this small
additional amount of water without creating a perched water table or creating significant mounding of the
existing water table.
The facts here are clear:
1. The surface water of the wetland is hydraulically connected and a part of the groundwater under
the development site.
2. There is a significant groundwater gradient under the site sloping away from the wetland.
3. There is no reason to expect a perched water table or significant mounding of the existing water
table as a result of the proposed development.
In conclusion I do not believe there is any factual basis to the concerns raised in Mr. Salvador's letter nor
sufficient reason to perform additional geohydrologic studies for this development. Please call me if you
have any questions or further concerns regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Thomas W. Nace, P.E.
Councilman Monahan-Thank you Darleen.
Supervisor Champagne-Thank you.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-The final conclusion then would be to the, proposed action is incompatible
with existing drainage patterns, the response?
Councilman Monahan-No.
Councilman Turner-No.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-No?
Councilman Monahan-Yes.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Consensus opinion?
Supervisor Champagne-That's it.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay. That would complete Part II. You have been provided a copy of a
draft Part III which reflects the discussions of the board and we have gone, what is presented is an
accounting of each impact identified as either small to moderate or as potentially large and the questions
provided in Part III have been posed to each one of those impacts and I'll go through them. Part III must be
prepared if one or more impacts is considered to be potentially large even if the impact maybe mitigated.
Instructions, discuss the following for each impact identified in colunm two of Part II. The first thing to be
done is briefly describe the impact. Secondly describe, if applicable how the impact could be mitigated or
reduced to a small to moderate impact by project changes. Three, based on the information available,
decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance,
consider the following: the probability of the impact occurring, the duration of the impact, it's
irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value, whether the impact can or will be controlled,
the regional consequence of the impact, it's potential divergence from local needs and goals, whether
known objections to the project relate to this impact. Continue on with attachments. And provided is a
narrative, thirteen pages long which goes into the answers to each one of those questions. Did you want to
go through and begin to take up the levels of importance?
Supervisor Champagne-I would think so.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay. Long Form Environmental Impact Statement: 1, WILL THE
PROPOSED ACTION RESULT IN A CHANGE TO THE PROJECT SITE? The answer provided was
yes. Construction that will continue for more than one year or involve more than one phase or stage. It
was identified as, Small to moderate impact. You have the response there. Do you want the response read?
Supervisor Champagne-I'm not sure.
Councilman Monahan-I think for the sake of the public it should be read.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-RESPONSE TO PART III: This project is projected to take at least seven
to ten years to achieve build-out and will span seven (7) phases. Developed area will be permanent and
encompass approximately 75 acres. Probability is high, irreversible, and controllable. Regional
consequences are low, little or no divergence from local needs and goals. No objections regarding this
issue. Based on the information available, it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important, slash,
not important.
Councilman Monahan-It's our turn now. You have to make your evaluation.
Councilman Turner-Yea.
Councilman Goedert-It's got to be important.
Councilman Monahan-I think it's not important.
Supervisor Champagne-I think it's not important.
Unknown-Can you speak into the microphone, please?
Supervisor Champagne-I'm sorry. I guess we just need to read out here our positions.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Right.
Supervisor Champagne-Betty, you're saying it's not important?
Councilman Monahan-I'm saying that it's not important.
Unknown-What's not important?
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Construction that will continue for more then one year or involve more
then one phase or stage and the response that was provided was small to moderate.
Supervisor Champagne-So, we're saying that over a ten year or seven year span, it's not important, negative
impact. That's we're saying. That's what I'm saying, spreading it out over that period of time.
Councilman Goedert-I'll concur with that.
Supervisor Champagne-Betty, you're saying no?
Councilman Turner-No.
Councilman Monahan-I'm saying, it's not important.
Supervisor Champagne-Not important. Not important?
Councilman Pulver-Not important.
Councilman Goedert-It's not important.
Councilman Pulver-It will only be about ten houses a year, that's not, we build a lot more houses then that.
Supervisor Champagne-Ten houses a year, that's correct. Okay.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay, 5. WILL PROPOSED ACTION AFFECT SURF ACE OR
GROUNDWATER? The response provided was yes. The proposed action would use water in excess of
20,000 gallons per day (GPD). The response given was small to moderate. RESPONSE TO PART III:
The project is projected to use, and we have revised figures now from the applicant of 58,265 GPD at full
build-out. Probability is high. Duration will be daily and irreversible. Water as a resource is renewable.
Impact is limited to consumption of water by the residents of the project. Regional consequences are low.
Connection to municipal water is in accordance with local goals. Some comment has been received that
water consumption may be as high as 80,000 GPD.
Councilman Monahan-I think Jim, you could also add to that, that our Water Department and our Water
Plant is prepared to take this extra that will have no impact on the plant.
Councilman Pulver-I have adequate water supply provided.
Councilman Monahan-And we have plenty of it. So it's no impact on our water supply. It doesn't mean
because they get it, somebody else is going to have to be rationed or anything.
Supervisor Champagne-So not important.
Councilman Monahan-That's right.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I've got it as an additional sentence, Water Department has indicated supply
is adequate.
Supervisor Champagne-Yes.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay. Consensus opinion, is not important?
Supervisor Champagne-Not important.
Councilman Monahan-Yes.
CONCLUSION: Based on the information available, it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is not
important.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay, the next bullet under question 5 was, Proposed action will allow
residential uses in areas without sewer services. Small to moderate impact was the response given.
RESPONSE TO PART III: The project will discharge approximately 58,265 GPD of septic effluent
through the use of individual septic systems. Probability is high. Duration will be daily and irreversible.
Little or no loss of resources. Impact is limited to septic discharge from the project. Regional consequences
are low. Little divergence from local goals. Objections regarding this potential impact have been made.
Councilman Monahan-And I think also you should put on that, engineering studies have shown that this
will not have an adverse impact. Does the rest of the board agree with that?
Councilman Turner-I agree with that.
Supervisor Champagne-Yes. Not important.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay, I'll add it. The sentence to be added would be, engineering studies
show no adverse impact. Okay.
CONCLUSION: Based on the information available, it is reasonable to conclude that the impact is?
Supervisor Champagne-Not important.
Councilman Turner-Not important.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-6. WILL PROPOSED ACTION ALTER DRAINAGE FLOW OR
PATTERNS, OR SURF ACE WATER RUNOFF? The response given was, yes. Proposed action may
cause substantial erosion. The response, it was indicated a, small to moderate. RESPONSE TO PART III:
Erosion may occur during disturbance of the area for road construction and individual lot development.
The potential impact from permanent erosion has been mitigated by a project change to the conceptual
grading plan which directs drainage to dry wells along the road. Probability is low due to changes made.
Duration of the impact will be minimal. Some sedimentation may result in lost soil. Impact can be
controlled by referenced project change as well as temporary erosion control measures. There is no
regional consequences. The change made is consistent with local goals. There has been some concern
raised over potential for erosion.
Supervisor Champagne-I say, not important.
Councilman Turner-Not important.
Councilman Monahan-I'd say not important but again, I wonder why don't we refer to the engineering
studies as far as the groundwater and as far as erosion, we have methodology on the books that it's
supposed to be followed to control that erosion.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-That would come at site plan.
Councilman Monahan-Yea.
Councilman Goedert-What did you say Jim, that would come under site plan?
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes.
Councilman Monahan-But isn't that something that we consider in responding to this?
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes.
Councilman Monahan-The controls that we have?
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes. Okay, so I have as an add on sentence, engineering studies show no
impact, further controls to be applied at site plan review by Planning Board.
Supervisor Champagne-That's fine.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay then consensus is not important?
Councilman Monahan-Yes.
Supervisor Champagne-Not important.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the information available, it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is not important.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay, 14. WILL PROPOSED ACTION IMPACT THE EXCEPTIONAL
OR UNIQUE CHARACTERISTIC OF A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA (CEA)
ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION 6NYCRR
Part 617.14(g)? The response given was yes. Proposed action to locate within the CEA? Small to
moderate. RESPONSE TO PART III:
The proposed design calls for development of thirty (30) single family homes partially or wholly within a
Critical Environmental Area. Probability is high, duration is permanent and irreversible. Resources lost
include vegetation to be cleared for home sites and roadway. Impact will be controlled through limits of
clearing, no build zone, grading and stormwater infiltration. Regional consequence is low. Control
methods imposed are consistent with goals to preserve the characteristics of the CEA. Objections have
been received in regards to this potential impact.
Councilman Monahan-Again, Jim, I would think that the conditions of the DOH permit should go in there
and also, again the groundwater studies that show the groundwater flowing away from Rush Pond.
Councilman Pulver-I was just going to say, the drainage flow should be in there.
Supervisor Champagne-Jim, should we also note in there that the line that identifies the Critical
Environmental Area does in fact encompass already a number of homes, especially along Fox Hollow
Road? Is that justification or is that any
Councilman Monahan-No.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I think the focus is this action.
Councilman Monahan-You've got to stay on this one.
Supervisor Champagne-Okay.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay, just getting back to that. I want to make sure I have the right, New
York State DOH has granted a septic system variance. Engineering studies, what was your thought, Betty?
Councilman Monahan-Well wait a minute, I think you have to put that condition that's on that variance
also.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay. Alright, New York State DOH has granted a septic system variance
conditioned on site review of each lot to be developed.
Councilman Monahan-Yes.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-And I didn't catch all that rest.
Councilman Monahan-The engineering studies that show the groundwater flows away from Rush Pond, the
drainage pattern.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay, the final sentence would be, engineering studies indicate ground
water flow away from the CEA.
Okay, the conclusion on that? Consensus of opinion as to level of importance?
Councilman Monahan-Not.
Councilman Turner-Not.
Supervisor Champagne-Not important.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the information available, it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is not important.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-15. WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO EXISTING
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS? The response provided was, yes.
Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. Small to moderate impact. The
RESPONSE TO PART III: The proposed design calls for extension of the Town highway system in
connection to Farr Lane and Fox Farm Road. The probability is high with duration being daily and
permanent. The potential impact is irreversible with approximately 5.1 acres of land to be dedicated to use
as a road. The impact can be controlled as the design will be in compliance with Town design
specifications. Regional consequences are low and the proposed highway design and transportation pattern
in consistent with local goals. There has been objection to this potential impact.
Councilman Monahan-There's a typo in that Jim, did you catch that?
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yea, that's where I got hang up. Did you get that Dar? Okay, any
additional comments or statements to be added? The conclusion on the level of importance?
Supervisor Champagne-Well Jim, the next one we go into, proposed action that will result in major traffic
problems.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Well we've got to, we still have to finish this one.
Councilman Monahan-You've got to answer this one first.
Supervisor Champagne-I understand that.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Consensus.
Councilman Monahan-Not important. Excuse me, we're just talking about the building of a new road.
We're not talking about the traffic concerns that you have voiced.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the information available, it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is not important.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay, next one. Proposed action will result in major traffic problems.
Potential large impact was the response provided. This was one of the two identified as potentially large.
Okay, number 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE IMP ACT:
The applicant prepared and submitted a traffic study on November 16, 1995 and revised the study on May
8, 1996. The study described the existing condition of the roadways, traffic volume, and level of service at
each intersection providing service to the project.
The traffic study then provides information on trip distribution generated by the project at full build-out
during the morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) peak traffic hour. These distributions are applied to the
existing conditions as a means of projecting impact on future traffic volume and level of service. The
project is projected to generate III additional trips during the AM peak hour and 156 additional trips
during the PM peak hour. The impact on level of service is documented by means rating the change on the
theoretical volume of vehicles that an intersection can be expected to move as compared to the actual
volume of vehicles in the field. The difference is referred to as reserve capacity. Vehicles will experience
greater delay as the reserve capacity is diminished. A level of service rated at A means little or no delay
with average delay of less than five (5) seconds. A level of service rated at F means long traffic delays
with an average delay of greater than forty-five (45) seconds. The traffic study provided projects the
following impacts to the level of service as a result of combining the background growth of traffic through
the area with the projected increase in trips generated by the project at full build-out. Aviation Road/Dixon
Road/Farr Lane Intersection During the AM peak hour the reserve capacity will drop by 39 cars from 102
to 63 for northbound traffic on Dixon Road. The resulting impact will be a drop in level of service from
grade D (delay from 20 to 30 seconds) to grade E (delay from 30 to 45 seconds); a projected increase of
potentially 15 seconds. During the AM peak hour the reserve capacity will drop by 143 cars from 183 to
40 for southbound traffic on Farr Lane. The resulting impact on the level of service is projected to drop
from a grade D (delays ranging from 20 to 30 seconds) to grade E (delays ranging from 30 to 45 seconds).
During the PM peak hour the reserve capacity will drop by 140 cars from 331 to 191 for southbound traffic
on Farr Lane. The resulting impact on the level of service is projected to drop from grade B (delays
ranging from 5 to 10 seconds) to grade D (delays ranging from 20 to 30 seconds). The level of service at
the Aviation Road approaches to this intersection during the AM and PM peak hour are projected to
maintain a grade A (delays ofless than 5 seconds). Aviation Road/Potter Road/Fox Farm Road
Intersection The study projects that there will be no change in the level of service from any approach to
this intersection due to minor drops in the reserve capacity. The Potter Road northbound traffic during PM
peak hour and both approaches along Aviation Road during the AM and PM peak hour will maintain a
level of service grade A (delay ofless than 5 second). 2. DESCRIBE (IF APPLICABLE) HOW THE
IMPACT COULD BE MITIGATED OR REDUCED TO A SMALL TO MODERATE IMPACT BY
PROJECT CHANGE(S)> One, reduce the density of the project. Secondly, place a traffic signal at one of
the referenced intersections. Thirdly, further distribute the traffic by changing the connection to Fox Farm
Road from one-way to two-way traffic. **Potential Impact can and will be controlled by phasing and
widening of Aviation Road Bridge and widening of a section of Aviation Road itself and further
improvements. ** 3. BASED ON THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE, DECIDE IF IT IS
REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THIS IMPACT IS IMPORTANT.
The probability of the impact recurring. The probability is high due to the need for the residents of the
proposed project to travel to and from their residence. The duration of the impact. The duration of the
impact will be primarily during the AM and PM peak hours of each day. Essentially, two hours per day.
It's irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value.
It is likely that impact will be irreversible. The traveling needs, methods of transportation and traffic
patterns associated with residential development of the type proposed is not expected to change. Resources
of value lost as a result of the projected traffic are low. The roads are projected to consume an additional
5.1 acres (222,156 sq. ft.) ofland with an overall length of7,934 ft. It should be noted that the clustered
design alternative used has resulted in an estimated shortening of the road by 2,641 ft. A conventional
subdivision design previously submitted indicated a road length totaling 10,575 linear feet. The clustered
design reduced land used for road by 73,948 sq. ft. or 1.69 acres or 24.9 percent. Whether the impact can
or will be controlled. The impact on the Aviation Road, Farr Lane can be controlled by realigning the
intersection ofFarr Lane, Dixon Road, and Aviation. Further control can be realized from installation of a
traffic signal at the intersection. The likelihood that controls will be installed is high. The Town as a
separate action has contracted with Harza Northeast Engineers to design and plan various improvements to
the Aviation Road corridor. The first phase of this process is nearly completed as a third lane has been
installed along Aviation Road in front of the Queensbury School. Plans are currently in development for
improvement to the Dixon Road, Farr Lane, Aviation Road intersection. It is anticipated that these
improvements will be constructed in the Spring of 1997. Additionally, controls on the Aviation Road, Fox
Farm Road, and Potter Road intersection are not warranted as the level of service at this intersection is not
projected to be impacted by the project. The regional consequences of the impact. Two sources were
referenced in order to address the consideration of Regional Impact. The Town Zoning Code and
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Zoning Code, Section 179-30B(2) designates this section of Aviation
Road as a local arterial.
The "Street Hierarchy" map prepared in conjunction with the adopted Town Land Use Plan indicates this
section of Aviation Road as a local arterial. Potter Road is also referred to as local arterial. Dixon Road is
referred to as a "collector street." The remaining roads, Farr Lane and Fox Farm Road directly effected by
the projected are Town roads but carry no designation. Definition for local arterials and collector streets
outlined in the Town Land Use Plan are consistent with the definition as listed within the Zoning Code.
The regional consequences of the impact are limited. None of the roads to be directly impacted by the
project are designated as regional. The drop in the level of service occurs on local roads as they approach
Aviation Road. The highest traffic volume street servicing the traffic associated with the proposed project
is Aviation Road which is designated as a local arterial. The level of service on both approaches along
Aviation Road at both intersections remain at an A rating both in the AM and PM peak hour. It's potential
divergence from local needs and goals. A review of the adopted Town Land Use Plan provides little
guidance as to potential conformity or divergence with local needs and
goals relating to transportation. Part III (pp. 26-29) was reviewed. Reference was made to the development
of a local arterial road from Aviation Road at the intersection with Potter Road to run southerly from
Aviation Road through the Rush Pond wetlands across 1-87 and intersect with Route 9 in the vicinity of
Round Pond Road.
Given the practical difficulty and impact to the wetland area to develop such a road, the divergence from
this strategy is of minimal concern. Furthermore, the plan references a strategy to encourage the
improvement of major arterial and collector roads and encourage their use thereby maintaining rural and
residential character on other locally controlled streets. The plan sets forth goals and policies which state
the desire to maintain rural character on locally controlled roads. Given the varying nature of the policies
and goals set forth in the plan, the potential divergence is inconclusive. Whether known objection to the
project relates to this impact. The record documenting the objections to this project clearly and consistently
reference traffic impact as a principal concern. Based on the information available, is it reasonable to
conclude that this impact is important, slash not important.
Unknown-Why don't you look into our faces when you make your decision. You all got your heads down.
Can you get eye contact with us?
Supervisor Champagne-Sure. Would you like to have me stand up?
Unknown-Yes. Keep your heads up, we can't
Councilman Goedert-We're reading.
Unknown-Look us in the face.
Supervisor Champagne-Obviously, we're reading some of the material that's here.
Councilman Monahan-Jim, should mention be made in here of the proposed widening of the Aviation Road
Bridge by the State over the northway because that bridge is one of the bottle necks. That's part of the
problem there and I would think that that's far enough down the pike now so that we know it's going
forward. Am I correct in saying that?
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-The State has recently completed their Environmental Assessment of that
project.
Councilman Monahan-It seems to me that, that would have quite a bit of bearing on this. That is one of the
big bottle necks there. I don't know how the rest of the board feels about this?
Supervisor Champagne-Let there be no doubt in anyone's mind and I think everyone of us here at this table
recognize, certainly traffic as being a major, you know, as a serious problem there. What we also are
looking at obviously, is some of the mitigating features that we're trying to build into the program to reduce
some of the congestion and some of the experience that you folks are having. I mean certainly we've all
driven Aviation Road. Now, you know, this project certainly will have some impact. However, you
already are suffering. Okay, you're already experiencing some of the problems that are evident up there.
This town, this town is going to have to take some action in order to correct that. Whether this project
goes, or doesn't go, we still have a problem up there that we're facing and I think what we're trying to tell
you, what we're trying to tell you in this response, a couple of things. One is, we're saying that, you know,
we have widened in front of the school. There is an engineering study underway at the present time. Jim,
correct me if I'm wrong, Harza has been under contract?
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes.
Supervisor Champagne-Harza Engineering, to continue the engineering study through West Mountain
Road. We, hopefully with a little luck and funds available, we will certainly widen Aviation Road.
Looking forward to this in the spring of 97 to Potter. Now, other alternatives there that we're looking at are
some turning lanes so that if you're coming off from Potter Road, you actually would keep into a turning
lane to get you onto to Dixon. There are some other options that we may be able to connect Dixon Road
and Potter Road, as another possibility. We're taking a real hard look at how we can take that traffic off
from Aviation Road, off that particular area in order to make it work better for everyone. Now, the
question remains, can we do all of that over a ten year period, by the time this project is built out to
mitigate the problems that go with it? I don't have an answer to that. I don't believe I have an answer to
that. I'm sorry sir, we're not into an open hearing. I just made that presentation and certainly we'll hear
from the rest of the board on that one. Are there any other comments?
Councilman Goedert-I think it comes down to voting on what the impact is.
Supervisor Champagne-Okay.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Is everybody in agreement that Betty's additional statement concerning the
bridge should be included?
Councilman Goedert -Yes.
Supervisor Champagne-I would definitely put that in there.
Councilman Turner-Yea.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay, I have and it would be placed under, as a last paragraph to whether
the impact can be controlled. Additionally, the New York State DOT has committed to funding and
constructing a wider bridge along Aviation Road over 187.
Councilman Monahan-And I wonder if we also should say on this, that since those traffic studies were
done, improvement has been done in front of the Queensbury School on Aviation Road by the town as a
first phase of their work on Aviation Road.
Unknown-There's no place for the kids to walk.
Unknown-What about the safety issue of it?
Supervisor Champagne-Yea, there is by the way and I probably need to make this known, we are underway
for sidewalks up there. The plan does call for, in front of the school from the bridge connection through to
the other side of the high school, a five foot concrete sidewalk. Our Highway Department will be
continuing with that. With a little luck, Connie, some time
Councilman Goedert-He didn't give me a date but it's within this time span.
Supervisor Champagne-We would like to try to get that in there
Councilman Goedert-It's not going to make opening of school but within the time that you stop putting
down concrete.
Supervisor Champagne-We're looking at a second one on the southerly side of Aviation Road also from
John Burke Apartments roadway up to the other side of the Catholic Church.
Councilman Goedert-The Lady of Annunciation.
Supervisor Champagne-Right.
Unknown-What about the kids that have to walk ...
Supervisor Champagne-Okay, any other comments from the board?
Councilman Goedert-They're going to be bused.
Unknown-High School?
Councilman Goedert-I don't know, call me tomorrow.
Unknown-Yea, yea.
Supervisor Champagne-Any other comments relative to traffic?
Unknown-yea....
Councilman Goedert -Wait a minute, there, first of all there is a sidewalk going in. Where the kids would
cross to go to the high school, there is a crossing guard.
Unknown-She does nothing...
Councilman Goedert-No actually that was done by John Burke, where she got hit. That was not at Helen,
or at Midnight.
Unknown-.....
Councilman Goedert-Then we'll take care of that with the crossing guard. Also, with the sidewalk going
through there, if you've gone past there in the last couple of days, where the light is, there is a thing where
the kids that are going to cross, they're going to control the light to cross to the school campus. I don't
know, you know, I don't know what grades your kids are in.
Unknown-No, any kids in the high school anywhere around Helen Drive, we have to have our kids walk.
We have no sidewalks on Dixon or Aviation. So my kids now have to cross the two roads that you're going
to enlarge with no sidewalks and no traffic controls.
Supervisor Champagne-Okay, I understand your concern, Ma'am and certainly we would like to get
something on the record to that effect and if we have an unsafe situation up there, would you please put that
in writing and this board would definitely want to take a look at it. I appreciate that. Okay, any other
concerns here from the board relative to this impact? Are you ready to do it?
Councilman Turner-Yes.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay, a conclusion on to the level of importance?
Councilman Monahan-I think it's important but it can be mitigated.
Supervisor Champagne-What does that do?
Councilman Monahan-But you can mitigate it down to small or moderate.
Supervisor Champagne-Well, I don't know. We're beyond that.
Councilman Monahan-Wait a minute, I read the directions back here when this started. It says whether or
not, wait a minute, whether the impact can or will be controlled.
Town Counsel Schachner-Right.
Councilman Monahan-I'm saying it can and will be controlled.
Town Counsel Schachner-Okay, that's fine.
Councilman Monahan-Alright. So, I recognize the importance of the impact but I'm saying it can be, can
and will be controlled.
Town Counsel Schachner-Okay.
Councilman Monahan-So what else do you want me to do? And I can list the reasons. Do you want me to
list the reasons?
Supervisor Champagne-Okay, do we have any, how about it Connie?
Councilman Goedert-I say it's a large impact.
Councilman Pulver-I said it was a large impact but it can be controlled.
Supervisor Champagne-Okay.
Councilman Goedert-I say it's a large impact.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay, so far I have potential impact can and will be controlled and the
conclusion.
Councilman Monahan-How it will be controlled?
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Potential impact can and will be controlled. Do you want to add to that or
do you want to come to the conclusion based on that? You still have to come to a conclusion as to whether
it's important or not important.
Councilman Monahan-The phasing in of the development.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay, potential impact can and will be controlled by phasing.
Councilman Monahan-And the widening of the bridge on the northway. The improvements to Aviation
Road that are already underway.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay Fred, have you got a consensus on the important or not important?
Supervisor Champagne-Well, I have Betty saying that it's important with some mitigated potential. I hear
Ted saying?
Councilman Turner-The same thing. It can be mitigated. It's going to be mitigated.
Supervisor Champagne-I heard Carol say
Councilman Pulver-I said it's going to be mitigated. If we can't mitigate it for fifteen cars a year for ten
years, we all better move.
Supervisor Champagne-It's important, can be mitigated. I have three votes, I believe we have three votes
that says, it's important Jim but it can be mitigated. Counsel?
Town Counsel Schachner-I'm not sure if the board may be mixing some apples and oranges here and this
SEQRA Review is a fairly complicated undertaking, especially at this level. But I just wanted to make sure
that the board understand that the issue of whether or not potential environmental impacts can be mitigated
is certainly relevant and it's certainly one of the things that was discussed when we went through the Part II
EAF at a previous meeting and it's also certainly one of the things that's discussed in the Part III that you're
going through now. But the guidelines for preparation of the EAF, including Part III of the EAF and for
ultimately making what's called your SEQRA Determination of Significance, indicate that regardless of
whether the potentially large environmental impact can be mitigated or not, you're supposed to reach a,
what I'll call a, for lack of a better term, a punch line conclusion on each of these potential impacts as to
whether or not it is important. I'm not making up the word important, I don't think that word gives you a lot
of guidance but that's the word that's in the guidelines.
Councilman Monahan-Mark, I think what I'm doing, I'm going back to the information of impact on
transportation and I'm looking at small to moderate, potential large impact and where it says, can impact be
mitigated by project change.
Town Counsel Schachner-In your box three, right?
Councilman Monahan-Yea and I'm saying by requiring this phasing in, making it part of the PUD
Agreement so we're not getting hit with all those cars all at once, then I think that throws it down to the
small to moderate impact category.
Town Counsel Schachner-Okay. You'll still, the way, it will still be my recommendation that you reach a
conclusion as to importance because we've done, if you'll recall, one of the things we've done or that you've
done in the Part III is, you've evaluated thus far the potential, forget I said potential, the importance of each
of the potential environmental impacts whether it was labeled as a small to moderate or a potentially large.
So I'm certainly not suggesting that you should not discuss whether it can be mitigated. I'm just making
sure that we understand that you should still reach a conclusion on each issue as to whether, taking into
account mitigation measures and taking into account what ever else you've analyzed, that potential
environmental impact is important or not important.
Councilman Monahan-Okay and you're telling me to reach that after I take the mitigation factors
Town Counsel-Take everything into account.
Councilman Monahan-Into consideration.
Town Counsel Schachner-Oh absolutely, take everything into account.
Councilman Monahan-Okay.
Councilman Goedert -So what you're saying is, our answer should either be important or not important and
forget the word mitigation which is the same thing that they're saying, say yes or no? Important or not
important, leave out the word mitigation and we've got it made.
Councilman Monahan-Yea but I think what Mark is saying, you reach that conclusion after you look at
whether or not the impact can be mitigated.
Supervisor Champagne-Is that correct, Mark?
Town Counsel Schachner-Yea. Connie, I'm not saying don't discuss mitigation. So to that extent, I don't
think I agree with your statement but I do agree with your statement that you then need to reach a, what I
call a punch line, important, not important.
Supervisor Champagne-We can say not important if we believe that the mitigation over the course of time
will correct the problem. That's what we're
Town Counsel Schachner -Yes, you certainly can.
Supervisor Champagne-Okay, that can be said. Let's go back.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Alright, I just want to make sure I'm clear on the mitigation statement.
Okay? Betty had it, that potential impact can and will be controlled by phasing, widening of Aviation Road
bridge and widening of Aviation Road itself. Is that a correct statement?
Councilman Monahan-I didn't, well the, I don't want to say, well, widening has already been done in one
area but the further, how do I want to say this
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-You said improvements.
Councilman Monahan-Improvements on Aviation Road, that have already being engineered.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Then you want that indicated under item 2, describe how impact can be
mitigated? Under consideration number 2?
Supervisor Champagne-Yea.
Councilman Monahan-That would be my feeling. I don't know how the other board members feel?
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Is that alright?
Councilman Turner-Yea.
Councilman Pulver-What, I didn't hear.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Put that statement under question number 2, describe how the impact could
be mitigated.
Town Counsel Schachner-On page 6.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-On page 6, at the top of page 6.
Councilman Monahan-On the form itself. He's going back to the form itself.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Not the form, the narrative. The narrative given, page 6 of the narrative.
Councilman Monahan-Oh wait a minute, 6 of the narrative?
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes. It says number 2 at the top, describe if applicable.
Councilman Monahan-Wait a minute until I get there.
Councilman Turner-Yes.
Councilman Monahan-Okay, yes.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Describe, if applicable how the impact will be mitigated or reduced to a
small to moderate impact by project changes and you're saying potential impact can and will be controlled
by phasing, widening of Aviation Road bridge, widening of Aviation Road itself and further improvements.
Councilman Monahan-Widening of a section of Aviation Road that's, you know, you got to be careful how
you word that.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay.
Councilman Monahan-That's spot they've already done.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay.
Supervisor Champagne-Okay, we're back to start.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay, alright. So, again then, getting back to the, taking all that into
consideration
Councilman Monahan-And you're adding that to your points?
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes, yes, it will be in addition.
Councilman Monahan-Yes.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Taking all of that into consideration now, what is the level of importance
that you're arriving at?
Unknown-Speak into the microphone.
Supervisor Champagne-You got it. Back to you Betty, where do you come in on this one?
Councilman Monahan-I think
Unknown-Can't hear you.
Councilman Monahan-I think in view of the information we've put under that, that I can go with not
important.
Supervisor Champagne-Okay, Ted?
Councilman Turner-Not important.
Supervisor Champagne-Connie?
Councilman Goedert-I say it's important because we haven't proven the fact that that's going to work.
Supervisor Champagne-Carol?
Councilman Pulver-Not important.
Supervisor Champagne-You got it.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the information available, it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is not important.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-l 6. WILL PROPOSED ACTION AFFECT THE COMMUNITY'S
SOURCE OF FUEL OR ENERGY SUPPL Y? Yes was the answer provided. Proposed action will require
the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single to two-
family residences. Small to moderate impact was the answer given. RESPONSE TO PART III: The
proposed project will be connected to the existing natural gas and electric utility. Probability is high, with
duration being continuous. The potential impact is irreversible with little or no known resource lost. The
potential impact is limited to the proposed development and does not have a regional consequence. The
proposed project is consistent with local goals relating to utility service. There is no known objections to
this potential impact. Consensus on level of importance?
Supervisor Champagne-Not important.
Councilman Monahan-Not important.
Councilman Turner-Not important.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the information available, it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is not important.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay, 17. WILL THERE BE OBJECTIONABLE ODORS, NOISE, OR
VIBRATION AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION? The response given was, yes. Proposed
action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. The response provided was small to
moderate. RESPONSE TO PART III: Project proposal calls for clearing of existing vegetation to
accommodate development of III single family homes, 18 duplex units and 61 units of senior housing.
Probability is high, duration will be permanent. The potential is largely irreversible. It is anticipated that
some replanting will occur with the landscaping of individual lots. Limits of clearing and designation of no
build and conservation areas serve to control the potential impact. Regional consequence is limited. The
controls imposed with the project design are consistent with local goals. There has been some objection
related to this impact.
Councilman Monahan-Jim, I would like to change one part of your answer.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay. Not my answer, the answer.
Councilman Monahan-The answer, I'm sorry. Staffs answer. In front of the 111 single family homes,
etcetera, I would like to write the word maximum.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Development of a maximum of?
Councilman Monahan-Yes.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I've got it. Okay, with that correction made, determination of significance?
Supervisor Champagne-Not important.
Councilman Monahan-Not important.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Everyone agree?
Councilman Turner-Yea, you've got it.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the information available, it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is not important.
Executive Director, Martin-19. WILL PROPOSED ACTION AFFECT THE CHARACTER OF THE
EXISTING COMMUNITY? The response provided was, yes. Proposed action will cause a change in the
density ofland use and the answer given to this particular question was, potentially large. Okay, 1.
BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE IMP ACT:
The existing zone classification over the project area is split between Rural Residential-three acre (RR-3A)
and Land Conservation-forty two acre (LC-42A). The resulting density allowed under the current zoning
equates to approximately twenty-six (26) dwelling units. The proposed project will allow for construction
of one hundred and ninety (190) dwelling units. The breakdown according to housing types is as follows:
III single family, detached dwellings, 18 duplex dwelling, and 61 units restricted to a senior citizen multi-
unit building.
Councilman Monahan-Again Jim, I would like to add the word maximum before 190 and I would like to
add the word maximum before your break down, III single family, detached dwellings, etcetera.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Got it. Okay, 2. DESCRIBE (IF APPLICABLE) HOW THE IMP ACT
COULD BE MITIGATED OR REDUCED TO A SMALL TO MODERATE IMPACT BY PROJECT
CHANGE(S). The response provided, Reduce the density of the project. 3. BASED ON THE
INFORMATION AVAILABLE, DECIDE IF IT IS REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THIS
IMPACT IS IMPORTANT. The probability of the impact occurring. The probability of the impact
occurring is based on the demand for housing of the types offered in the project proposal. The type,
location, and cost are among the factors which affect the probability of the project achieving completion.
Given the demand for senior housing and historical nature of new home construction in the Town, the
probability of the project being completely built out as planned is high. The duration of the impact. Once
completed, the duration of the impact is permanent. It's irreversibility, including permanently lost
resources of value.
The Town Zoning Code does mandate regular assessment of the performance of approved planned unit
developments (Section 179-59 B & C). If the development fails to comply with the section of the code, the
Town Board may rescind the PUD approval leaving the approved plan null and void. Lost resources would
include some further clearing of existing vegetation to accommodate the increased number of home sites
and associated septic systems. However, the sprawling nature of the large lot zoning will not result in any
significant savings for roadways needed to access a development consisting of larger lots. Whether the
impact can be controlled. The project as proposed limits the density to a certain area of the project site.
The housing is to be clustered on 78.45 acres with the remaining 61.66 acres to be left as open space and
conservation area. The project is proposed to be implemented over seven (7) phases. Lot sizes and
restrictions on clearing have been noted on the proposed master plan. A written agreement has been
presented for consideration which verifies the project design and sets forth limits on clearing, lot size, lot
numbers, land use and building setbacks. The regional consequences of the project. The proposed project
is projected to provide housing for an additional 517 persons. This figure is based on the proposed density
and type of housing and the average household size for the Town from the 1990 census (2.72
person/household). The water superintendent, school superintendent, fire department have been contacted
in order to learn of any potential impact in these respective areas. The project is projected to utilize 51,600
gallons per day of water
Councilman Pulver -Corrected.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-That needs to be corrected to
Councilman Pulver-58,265.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-58,265 gallons per day of water at full build-out. The projected population
of school age children (under 18) is projected to be 134 persons. The Town Water Superintendent and Fire
Department Chief have indicated that the project will not negatively impact their respective functions and
can be adequately serviced. The school superintendent could make no firm projection as to the impact of
the project. The population of the project at the proposed density will represent two percent (2%) of the
overall Town population from the 1990 census. The regional consequences of the impact is limited. It's
potential divergence from local needs and goals. The Town Planning staff, in an effort to assist the Town
Board in its review of the proposed project, prepared a memo with attached narrative analysis of several
issues concerning the project dated August 1, 1996. Topics covered in the memo included conformance of
the proposed project with the Town Land Use Plan, the goals and objectives of the PUD section of the
Zoning Code and the proposed project's conformity with neighborhood character. The referenced passages
from this memo are attached to this document. In consideration of the analysis performed, the divergence
from local needs and goals is considered to be minimal. Whether known objections to the project relate to
this impact. The record of the public comment clearly establishes that objections have been made to the
density as proposed. Conclusion, based on the information available, it is reasonable to conclude that the
impact is important, slash, not important?
Supervisor Champagne-Carol, we want to start over on your side this time?
Councilman Pulver-I would say, not important.
Supervisor Champagne-Density?
Councilman Pulver-Not important and I have, development will create a demand for additional community
services as small.
Councilman Goedert-At this point in time, the density does not matter.
Supervisor Champagne-Okay, we've got two not important on density. Ted?
Councilman Turner-Not important.
Supervisor Champagne-Betty?
Councilman Monahan-I agree. We have shown that the land can carry the density and the density is in
keeping with surrounding area.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Not important?
Supervisor Champagne-Not important.
Councilman Turner-Not important.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the information available, it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is not important.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay finally, Development will create a demand for additional community
services. The answer provided was, small to moderate. RESPONSE TO PART III: The population which
will live within the project will require services from the Town Highway, Water Department as well as fire
protection and emergency medical services and educational services. The probability is high that demand
for these services will increase and the duration will be permanent. The potential impact will likely be
irreversible with some effect on resources. The impact will be controlled by virtue of the defined number
of dwelling units to be built. The regional consequence and the divergence from local goals is limited.
There have been objections made specifically on potential impact on the school system. Conclusion, based
on the information available, it is reasonable to conclude that the this potential impact is important or not
important?
Councilman Monahan-There needs to be a correction in that word there.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes.
Councilman Pulver-I said not.
Councilman Turner-Not important.
Supervisor Champagne-Not important. Not important?
Councilman Turner-Not important.
Supervisor Champagne-Not important. Betty?
Councilman Monahan-Yea.
Supervisor Champagne-Not important. Okay, Jim you've got that.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the information available, it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is not important.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay, and just for the record, attached is the excerpt from the 8/1/96 staff
memo and I think that's already part of the record but it's noted that it is attached.
(Completed staff notes as completion of this meeting)
ATTACHMENT: EXCERPT FROM 8-1-96 MEMO
ISSUE: 2
2. The proposed development is not in conformance with the existing comprehensive land use.
COMMENT:
2. The basic support for the issue raised is that the proposed project due to its density and
resulting impact to environment puts the project in "conflict" with selected passages of the comprehensive
land use plan of May 1989.
Staff does not concur with the allegation that the proposed project is in conflict with the
comprehensive land use plan.
The following information is provided in support of the staff position:
2. A. P.6 of the plan states "Areas with percolation rates greater than 20 inches per hour provide
little cleansing properties for septic or chemical discharge." Further down the page the statement continues
"It should be noted that within an area designation there may be soils with characteristics of better soil
conditions i.e. within an area designated as unsuitable there may be small pockets of soils where
characteristics are developable. When this occurs construction within these larger areas should be
concentrated on these smaller pockets with better soil conditions. "
On p.6 under "Depth to High Water Table" the plan states "Areas where the water table is greater
than 72 inches below the surface are best suited for development. "
On p. 8 of the plan it is stated that "Land with 3-8% slope is best suited for development... Areas
with this slope characteristic... stretches diagonally across the town from West Mountain to just north of
Oneida Corners. "
The above three references to soil permeability, depth to water table and slope are made because
the total relationship between these three elements is key to determining development suitability.
In the chapter identified as "Use and Management of the Soils" in the Soil Survey of Warren
County prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service under the heading of
"Septic Tank Absorption Fields" the following is stated: "Only that part of the soil between 24 and 72
inches is evaluated. The ratings are based on soil properties, site features and observed performance of
soils.. Groundwater can be polluted if highly permeable sand and gravel or fractured bedrock is less than 4
feet below the base of absorption field, if slope is excessive or if the water table is near the surface. "
The relationship between soil permeability, slope, depth to water table and depth to bedrock in the
specific area to be developed have been documented to be suitable for development. Although the soil
percolation has been documented to be rapid the favorable slope, excessive distance to the water table (54
feet below the surface) and lack of bedrock at up to a depth of 55 feet compensate for rapid percolation
according to the standards as set forth by the Soil Conservation Service.
Therefore, the proposed development is consistent with
the first three (3) goals as listed on p. 8 of the plan (see attached) and the first, second and fourth strategy
as listed on p. 9 of the plan under Geology Goals and Strategies (see attached).
2.B. The issue has been raised that the proposed project is in conflict with the comprehensive plan
as higher density housing should be located in areas where water and sewer service is available.
The staff does not agree that density at a level of one dwelling per .48 acres is high density. This
is especially true in light of the clustered design and cutting restrictions which exist with the design as
proposed.
High density housing is traditionally considered to be development which yields multiple units per
acre (see page 64 section 6 of Comprehensive Land Use Plan attached). For example, lots containing
detached or attached units with an area of 10,000 square feet or less is typically considered to be high
density.
If the logic of labeling half-acre density as "high" and therefore is in need of municipal sewering is
taken at face value then a significant area of the Town as well as areas within many of the suburban and
rural communities in upstate New York would require municipal sewer.
It is the opinion of the staff that half acre density is most
accurately defined as moderate.
2.C. Lastly, after conducting a thorough review of the comprehensive plan in preparation of this
outline and in consideration of the fact that the comprehensive plan was adopted eight (8) months after the
adoption of the current
zoning ordinance and its changes to the zoning map it is conceivable that associated the RR-3A zoning
designation for this particular area is in conflict with the comprehensive land use plan.
ISSUE: 3
3. The development is not in conformance with the goals and objectives of a PUD as outlined in
the Zoning Ordinance.
COMMENT:
3. The Ordinance spells out five (5) objectives to be achieved by a PUD. They are as follows:
~ 179-5IB(1). A maximum choice in housing environment and type, occupancy tenure (e.g.,
cooperatives, individual ownership or condominium leasing), lot sizes and common facilities.
~ 179-5IB(2). More usable open space and recreation areas and, if permitted as part of a project,
more convenient locations of accessory, commercial and service uses.
~ 179-5IB(3). A development pattern which preserves outstanding natural topography and
geological features, scenic vistas, trees and historical sites and prevents the disruption of natural drainage
patterns.
~ 179-5IB( 4). An efficient use of land resulting in small networks of utilities and streets.
~ 179-5IB(5). A development pattern in harmony with the land use intensity, transportation
facilities and community facilities objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Staff comments regarding each objective are as follows:
1. The proposal will offer III single family lots; 18 duplex units and 61 senior apartments for a
total of 190 dwelling units. This yields 58% detached units and 42% attached units. Of the total 68% will
be owner occupied with unrestricted occupancy; 32% will be rented and restricted to senior citizens.
The overall average lot size is 21,079 sq. ft.
The lots are broken down into five (5) varying sizes:
77(63%) - .4 - .5 acres
39(32%) - .51 - .74 acres
4 (3%) - .75 - .93 acres
1(1%) -one (1) acre lot
1 (1%) -7.1 acre lot
122 Total lots
The one (1) acre lot will be restricted and zoned for use as community services or professional
offices. The 7.1 acre lot should be restricted to senior citizen housing.
Staff feels that given the mix of housing type, tenure, and lot sizes that the first objective is
fulfilled.
Of the overall project area, approximately 17.07 (12%) would be considered as usable open space,
48.58 (34%) acres of the open space area is wetland or severely sloped.
The design includes a one (1) acre parcel for community service or professional office related
uses.
In consideration of the proposed breakdown of developed areas, open space areas, conservation
areas; and the statutory limit on recreation land dedication staff feels the second objective is fulfilled.
3. The proposed design will preserve the ecologically important wetland and the sensitive sloped
area. The clustered nature allows for positioning of a centrally located open space area. The unique
geological formation which exists with the slope and archeological sensitive areas will not be disturbed.
The drainage design which is based on infiltration does not alter the naturally occurring drainage
system.
In light of the above facts, staff feels that the third objective has been fulfilled.
4. The clustered nature of the design has shortened the length of road and water line to be
maintained. Staff feels the fourth objective has been fulfilled.
5. The land use pattern occurring in the area of the proposed project involves predominantly
residential uses. The institutional use of the centralized school system exists to the immediate eastern side
of the project. A small pocket of "neighborhood based" commercial and office uses exist in an area to the
south.
The nature of housing in the area is mixed ranging from apartments on Manor Drive and Helen
Drive, senior citizen apartments on Farr Lane to single family homes. Lots by use span from one-third of
an acre to one and a half acres within 3,000 linear feet of this project location.
6. Staff would recommend participation in the transportation system planning currently in process
for Aviation Road.
In light of the above facts, staff feels the fifth objective has been fulfilled.
ISSUE: 4
4. The proposed development would effect groundwater due to high percolation soils and use of
lawn fertilizers, etc.
COMMENT:
4.A. The response to issue #2 makes relevant points concerning the overall relationship
between soil permeability, slope, depth to water table and depth to bedrock.
4.B. The applicant has received a variance from the N.Y.S. Department of Health concerning
the use of individual septic systems under the specific conditions related to this site (see copy attached).
In consideration of the fact that the applicant is within the acceptable statutory percolation rate as
dictated by N.Y.S. D.O.H. regulations; the applicant has obtained a variance from the 125 single family lot
limitation from N. Y. S. D. O.H; the documented characteristics of the soil in terms of slope, depth to water
table, depth to bedrock and percolation rate; and drainage concept based on infiltration and directing
surface runoff away from the critical environmental area staff feels that potential impact to the groundwater
has been mitigated and minimized.
ISSUE: 5
The project does not reduce densities in an environmentally sensitive area.
COMMENT:
5.A. Of the 190 dwelling units proposed; 30 are located wholly or partially within the Rush
Pond critical environmental area (CEA).
5.B. The Town Board by resolution (see copy attached) designated Rush Pond and the area
west of the Northway and below contour 430 feet and all land within 500 feet thereof as a critical
environmental area due to five (5) findings:
1. Natural beauty.
2. Headwaters for Glen Lake.
3. The area described above could be adversely affected by any change in intensity of use.
4. Preservation of water quality in Rush Pond.
5. Preservation of water quality with Glen Lake.
In light of the factual documentation submitted concerning location and dedication of the
conservation area, the location of designated areas which will contain clearing and building restrictions; the
conceptual drainage plan which will divert surface drainage away from the critical environmental area and
infiltrate it as it is now occurring naturally; and the subsurface water flow is away from the critical
environmental area; staff
feels that the proposed design and development approach is in keeping with the findings listed above.
ISSUE: 6
The local economy cannot support this level of development and the housing market is already
saturated.
COMMENT:
The Planning Staff in the review of the project proposals does not perceive this to be a relevant
Issue.
ISSUE: 7
The removal of vegetation associated with the development.
COMMENT:
The proposal utilizes a cluster design directing development away from environmentally sensitive
areas of steep slope and wetland. The clustered design concentrates lots where physical constraints are less
prevalent and incorporate a centrally located open space area of 8.79 acres. Clearing restrictions are
proposed for an additional four (4) acres within the proposed lots.
Staff feel the above design concepts will adequately minimize the tree removal from the site.
ISSUE: 8
Need for additional test pit or deep well information.
COMMENT:
The soil boring and testing information have been sent along to Rist Frost. In a letter of May 14,
1996 Rist-Frost stated that all soil study information was gathered in accordance with usual professional
standards.
Staff will defer to the Rist-Frost comment concerning the adequacy of the technical information
submitted.
ISSUE: 9
Will senior housing actually be developed?
COMMENT:
Staff feels that the senior housing component is a fundamental consideration in meeting the
objectives of the PUD ordinance.
Staff feels that the senior housing component as proposed should be a permanent component to the
project.
ISSUE: 10
Proposed development is out of character with neighborhood.
COMMENT:
The reference made to lot sizes within a 3,000 ft. radius of the project indicates that the lot size
ranges proposed are consistent with those already in existence. The clustered design incorporating a
centrally located open space area, preserved environmentally sensitive areas and cutting restrictions
contribute to a more rural character when compared to a conventionally designed subdivision utilizing a
grid style development pattern.
ISSUE: 11
The Town Comprehensive Land Use Plan defines high density as less than one (1) acre.
COMMENT:
11.A. On page 64 (see copy attached) of the plan high density is referred to as less than one (1)
acre.
This section goes on to list "Aviation Road and Dixon Road area" as well as "areas north and
south of Aviation Road" as suitable for high density development.
11.B. Additionally, this section appears to identify nine (9) areas as suitable for high density. The
zoning designation adopted eight months earlier over these areas include MR-5 (one dwelling unit per
5,000 sq. ft.); UR-1O (one (1) dwelling unit per 10,000 sq. ft.); SR-15 (one dwelling unit per 15,000 sq. ft.)
and all five (5) mobile home overlay zones occur in these areas. The zoning designations are consistent
with the staff comment as stated in item #2.B.
11. C. The Small Town Planning Handbook published by the American Planning Association
(AP A) defines low density as development which has few buildings or housing units per acre. (see copy of
definition attached). This is consistent with the staff comment in item #2.B.
(changes made during meeting reflected in the above document)
Councilman Monahan-Jim, I have some comments on your staff notes, okay, before it goes in here?
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay.
Councilman Monahan-You compare what they would need to give the town for recreational purposes and
you compare it to that 8.79 acres. I wonder if that's relevant because it was said if, you know, that, that is
going to be open space land.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-That's correct.
Councilman Monahan-It's not park and you know, and we are not going to take that in lieu of the recreation
fee. So, I don't know if that paragraph is relevant in there.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-We can have it stricken from the
Councilman Monahan-I would suggest we do because I think it might come back to bite us later when we
talk about the recreation fee.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Just so that I'm clear, Betty, and I want to make sure that we're, let me since
it's one, two, three, the fourth page in, the second paragraph, right? The proposal is to convey 8.79 acres?
Councilman Monahan-Yea and it's down further, it's the paragraph that starts additionally.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay.
Councilman Monahan-And then, in the next paragraph where you call it a park area, I think maybe that is
either open space areas or park like areas rather then a park area because it's not going to be
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I'll just strike the phase.
Councilman Monahan-Yea.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Park, because those two things are there, open space areas and conservation
areas.
Councilman Monahan-Yea and then in three, the clustered nature allows for positioning of a centrally
located, again, I
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Conservation area?
Councilman Monahan-Yea, or open space. I'd rather have an open space area because conservation sounds
like we couldn't even put a bike path in. And then down at the bottom, your last sentence, lots span from
one-third of an acre, I think that should read, I remember asking you this question, lots by use. That's not
by zoning.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes.
Councilman Monahan-On the next page Jim, issue number 5a, of the 190 dwelling units proposed, 31 are
located wholly or partially within the Rush Pond Critical Environmental Area. Earlier tonight we talked
about 30, there's a discrepancy in the numbers.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes, 30 is correct and also Betty, on the bottom of that previous page,
when you were saying lots span, lots by use, that should also be point 4 acre. The one-third acre lots have
been eliminated.
Councilman Monahan-Again, on issue 10 comment.
Town Counsel Schachner-Yea, that's not right.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-No, you leave the one-third acre comment in there. Mark is correct.
Councilman Monahan-Okay, alright. On issue 10 comment, again you reference a park, I think that should
be open space.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Centrally located, open space area.
Councilman Monahan-Yes and I think that's it, or green area, what ever you prefer to call it.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay, I'll just say open space to keep it consistent.
Supervisor Champagne-Okay, we're ready now for the resolution.
Town Counsel Schachner-There are a number of proposed revisions to it, relatively minor to be consistent
with what you've just discussed. We can go through those when ever you like.
Supervisor Champagne-Right, let's do it.
Town Counsel Schachner-On page 1, the title of the resolution would include, in each instance, without
obviously knowing what the board was going to do with the determination, there are options about seven or
eight times for significance or non-significance. The title of the resolution, you would keep in non-
significance and cross out significance. Page 2, would remain unchanged.
Councilman Monahan-Page 1, the second whereas, would generally consist of a III single, can we please
put in the word maximum which sends a message?
Town Counsel Schachner-A maximum of.
Councilman Monahan-Yes.
Town Counsel Schachner-Okay. Page 2 would remain unchanged. Page 3, the third whereas, in reference
to the Warren County Planning Board, the proposed modification would simply be to change the final
phrase from, and consented to the approval to, and recommended approval. Page 4 would remain
Councilman Monahan-Wait a minute Mark, please. The next paragraph whereas, change the word park to
open space.
Town Counsel Schachner-Yea, there may be a number of those.
Councilman Monahan-And I don't know then if the word should be dedicated or deeded, since it will not be
a park.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Conveyed to, which is to be conveyed.
Town Counsel Schachner-Okay. Page 4, as far as I know would remain as is. Page 5, in the middle
paragraph, the whereas in the fourth line, the reference to Section 617.11 of 6 NYCRR, should be 617.7 as
a result of the recodification of the SEQRA regulations. Page 6, the top paragraph, the first resolved, the
second to last line, you would keep, you would circle, I'm sorry, you would keep in, are not and cross out
are. Similarly in the second to last resolve on that page you would keep the word no, cross out the word a
and over on page 7 there are four or five of these right on page 7. The top line you would cross out will
and keep in will not. On the next line you would cross out does and keep in does not. In the first full
resolved, you would keep in negative declaration and cross out positive declaration. In the next resolved,
you would keep in negative and cross out positive and the same in the final resolved, keep in negative and
cross out positive.
Councilman Monahan-Mark, in any where, in the first page you have whereas, the rezoning would allow
for the PUD, let's see, wait a minute, do we need to say that not only would it be allowed but would be
conditioned on a signed PUD agreement. Should that need to go in there or not?
Town Counsel Schachner-I don't think it needs to go in your determination of significance. I think it
definitely would need to go into any approval of a rezoning and the draft resolution does have an expressed
provision to that effect.
Councilman Monahan-Okay, I saw that.
Supervisor Champagne-Are we ready to vote? Do I hear a motion?
Councilman Pulver-I'm sorry, I'll introduce it.
Town Clerk Dougher-It's already been introduced.
Supervisor Champagne-It's already been introduced. You're right, excuse me. Okay, I guess, any further
discussion? Mark, is it necessary to re-introduce as modified or are we okay?
Town Counsel Schachner-You can re-introduce as modified, that's fine.
Town Clerk Dougher-Carol introduced and Ted seconded it.
Councilman Pulver-I'll introduce as amended.
Councilman Turner-As amended, yes. So move.
Supervisor Champagne-Now, any further discussion? Let's vote.
(vote taken)
DISCUSSION PRIOR TO INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTION REGARDING CHANGE OF ZONING:
Councilman Monahan-Excuse me but do we need to mention the LC42 part that's part of that? We're not
changing it or anything but does it need to be mentioned at all?
Town Counsel Schachner-It's not being rezoned?
Councilman Monahan-No, it's not on the rezoning part of it.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-No.
Town Counsel Schachner-It doesn't matter. I think Jim, Jim seems to be indicating to me that we're not
sure that Mr. or that the corporation actually owns the property. If it does not and I have no idea
Supervisor Champagne-I think the question has got to be asked.
Town Counsel Schachner-Does not own the property? If the corporation doesn't own the property, I think
we should just change the title of the resolution, that's all. We could say property controlled by, you could
say who does own the property, I don't know the facts.
Unknown-It's under contract.
Town Counsel Schachner-You could say, property under contract by the corporation if you'd like.
Supervisor Champagne-That should work.
Town Counsel Schachner-As long as who ever shouted out from the crowd is correct, that would work.
Unknown-That's correct.
Town Counsel Schachner-Okay and there's also a proposed change in this resolution on page 4 in the
lengthy paragraph at the top of the page in the ninth line, it starts with the word until and the proposed
modification is simply to add the words after until, and unless.
Councilman Monahan requested time to re-read the resolution. Questioned whether the second resolved on
page 3 had strong enough language to make sure that the PUD, the town has a signed agreement before the
rezoning is in effect.
Town Counsel Schachner noted the words, until and unless those entities obtain a PUD designation in
accordance with a PUD agreement. The specific phrase that would cover that would be the one that said,
subject to the conditions that the new zoning designation shall not take effect, and then it says the other
stuff and then it says, until and unless.
RESOLUTION AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE
THE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY UNDER CONTRACT BY MICHAEL J.
V ASILIOU, INC.,
(TAX MAP NO.'S: 73-1-22.1, 73-1-22.3, 73-1-22.4,
73-1-22.5,73-1-22.6,73-1-22.7, AND A PORTION OF 73-1-21),
FROM THE CURRENT ZONING OF RR-3A TO SR-20 AND MR-5
RESOLUTION NO. 356, 96
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan
WHEREAS, Michael J. Vasiliou, Inc., petitioned the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury for
a zoning change of the property known as Town of Queensbury Tax Map No.'s: 73-1-22.1, 73-1-22.3, 73-1-
22.4, 73-1-22.5, 73-1-22.6, 73-1-22.7, and a portion of73-1-21, from RR-3A (Rural Residential- 3 Acres)
to SR-20 (Suburban Residential- 20,000 Square Feet) and MR-5 (Multi-Family Residential- 5,000 Square
Feet) as part of a proposal for the Indian Ridge Planned Unit Development (PUD), and
WHEREAS, on or about the 14th day of May, 1996, the Planning Board for the Town of
Queensbury adopted a resolution whereby it recommended a favorable report for the rezoning and PUD to
the Town Board with the condition that the single family lots be sized at a minimum of one-half acre, and
WHEREAS, on or about the 14th day of February, 1996, the Warren County Planning Board also
recommended approval of said rezoning and PUD, concurring with local conditions, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on this matter on June 17, 1996, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has made a determination that the
rezoning will have no significant environmental impact, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has considered the conditions and
circumstances of the area affected by the rezoning, and determines that, assuming that the development
occurs as proposed, the rezoning proposal is worthwhile to consider since:
1. The project would initially appear compatible with the area;
2. The project as proposed appears to be in conformance with stated goals of the Town
Comprehensive Land Use Plan;
3. The project would appear to cause or further development in the area that is positive;
4. Public and private utilities and facilities are available in the area to service the project;
5. The Queensbury Union Free School District would appear to be benefitted by the project;
and
6. Aviation Road will soon be widened as part of an effort by New York State to widen the
bridge over the Adirondack Northway, and will be available to serve the area;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to rezone the
property owned by Michael 1. Vasiliou, Inc., identified as Town of Queensbury Tax Map No. 's: 73-1-22.4,
73-1-22.5,73-1-22.6, a portion of73-1-22.7, and a portion of73-1-21) to SR-20 (Suburban Residential-
20,000 Square Feet) and the property identified as Town of Queensbury Tax Map No. 's: 73-1-22.1, 73-1-
22.3, and a portion of73-1-22.7 to MR-5 (Multi-Family Residential- 5,000 Square Feet), and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby determines that the
appropriate manner in which to implement the rezoning, in consideration of the Project, is to amend,
supplement, change, and/or modify the existing RR-3A (Rural Residential- 3 Acres) zoning of the project
site to SR-20 (Suburban Residential - 20,000 Square Feet) and MR-5 (Multi-Family Residential - 5,000
Square Feet) as more particularly described above, subject to the conditions that the new zoning
designations shall not take effect, and that no building permit shall be issued and no construction shall
occur as may be allowed under or in an SR-20 (Suburban Residential- 20,000 Square Feet) zone or MR-5
(Multi-Family Residential- 5,000 Square Feet) zone of the Town of Queensbury, until and unless the
developers, owner(s) or other persons or companies with a legal or equitable interest in the project site, and
in any or all of the parcels subject to the rezoning obtain a Planned Unit Development designation for the
entire project site (all parcels ofland covered by the rezoning) in accordance with the process set forth in
the Zoning Ordinance for the Town of Queensbury and develop the project in accordance with a PUD
Agreement to be entered into by the project owners/developers and the Town of Queensbury, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Executive Director is hereby directed to mail or send a copy of this
Resolution Amending the Zoning Ordinance with a letter advising that the Town of Queensbury Zoning
Ordinance has been amended as set forth herein to the applicant, Warren County Planning Board, the Town
of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, the Director of
Building & Codes, the Town Surveyor, any agency which was an involved agency for SEQRA purposes
and any other agency required by law, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that pursuant to the requirements of Article II of the Town of Queensbury Zoning
Ordinance and ~265 of the Town Law, the Town Clerk shall, within five (5) days, direct that a certified
copy of said changes be published in the Glens Falls Post -Star and obtain an Affidavit of Publication, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that this amendment take effect upon filing of the same in the Office of Town Clerk.
Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES Mr. Turner, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Champagne
NOES Mrs. Goedert
ABSENT: None
AFTER INTRODUCTION OF THE RESOLUTION AND BEFORE VOTE WAS TAKEN,
COUNCILMAN GOEDERT GAVE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT:
Councilman Goedert - I have something that I want to say and I'm making this statement technically to the
people I see left out in the audience. I live at 11 Centennial which I have had alot of visitors to my
residence in the last three weeks or so. I've had alot of phone calls, I've had alot of letters. I've gotten alot
of comments because I've had alot of conversation and I believe that unfortunately we deal with two issues
here. We deal with an emotional issue and a factual issue. I think that the SEQRA Review which I'm not
real fond of because I think it should be black and white and it's not black and white. It leaves room for
opinions and assumptions and people to tell you or prove to you that the facts that we see there are there
and therefore change your answer to what your question is. Unfortunately, that opinion is left up to us as
board members. I felt that I've been here a year, I came on board, this project was in the works then. I
think that this project is a good project. I think this project should go where it's going but I am, in the last
few months or last month, have learned that I am quite the minority. I did not seek this position to
represent myself. I did seek this position to represent the people because I'm not, I'm the person who said, I
didn't feel I was getting the answers I wanted and that's why I ran for this seat. And that's what I will do
tonight. I will represent the people of Ward 3 but I also feel, in all fairness to these people with this project,
I think it's a nice project. I think it's a good project. I think we have a problem with traffic on Aviation
Road and that's where we're at. So, unfortunately the number of people that were here tonight are not here
now. But when ever you're ready, I would like to vote.
(vote was taken)
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PUD RESOLUTION:
Councilman Monahan-On page 1, I'm going to suggest a change in the second whereas, again, that put a
maximum in front of the number of units. Also on page 3, at the bottom, third line up, again a maximum in
front of the number of units.
Town Counsel Schachner-There are two proposed changes on page 3. They are on the top of the second
resolved, the reference should be to Article 8 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, rather then
Article 15. It's sort of a joint proposal, Jim Martin and I are proposing to add, at the very bottom, after the
description that Betty just referenced add, that's the description of the developed area of 78.45 acres, and it
would seem to us to be appropriate to add a similarly brief description of the undeveloped area. And
proposed language for your consideration would be, I'll read it first, and undeveloped areas consisting
generally of approximately 61.55 acres to be set aside for conservation, passive recreation and buffer areas.
Town Board agreed to additional language.
Councilman Monahan-I think again, we need to say that, while this resolution approves the Indian Ridge
Planned Unit Development, the resolution does not take effect until we have a signed document of
agreement between the developer and the town.
Town Counsel Schachner-And that's reflected in the resolved on the top of page 4.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INDIAN RIDGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 357,96
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, on or about March 29, 1996, Michael 1. Vasiliou, Inc., submitted a letter of intent
together with an Environmental Assessment Form with exhibits and requested that certain parcels of land
bearing tax map numbers: 73-1-22.1, 73-1-22.3, 73-1-22.4, 73-1-22.5, 73-1-22.6, 73-1-22.7, and a portion
of73-1-21, located in the vicinity of Aviation Road and the Queensbury Union Free School District be
designated a Planned Unit Development, to be known as the Indian Ridge PUD (hereinafter referred to as
the "Planned Unit Development"), in accordance with, and by virtue of, the provisions of Article 8 of the
Zoning Laws of the Town of Queensbury, the same being a part of Chapter 179 of the Code of the Town of
Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, the proposal presented requested that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury
legislate and rezone the aforesaid area to allow the establishment of a Planned Unit Development which
would generally consist of a maximum of III single family lots, 9 multi-family lots (18 duplex units), 7.1
acres for senior apartments (61 units), and a 1 acre site for limited commercial uses, and
WHEREAS, on or about the 27th day of December, 1995, the Town Board of the Town of
Queensbury adopted a resolution indicating its desire to be lead agency for SEQRA purposes and
authorizing notification of all other involved agencies that the aforesaid letter of intent and application for
the Planned Unit Development had been made, and
WHEREAS, on or about the 14th day of May, 1996, the Planning Board for the Town of
Queensbury adopted a resolution whereby it
recommended a favorable report for the PUD to the Town Board with the condition that the single family
lots be sized at a minimum of one-half acre, and
WHEREAS, on or about February 14, 1996, the Warren County Planning Board reviewed the
Planned Unit Development and consented to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury being the lead
agency for SEQRA review purposes, and also recommended approval of the Planned Unit Development,
and
WHEREAS, in accordance with ~ 179-57 D. of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, the Town
Board of the Town of Queensbury held a public hearing on the proposed Planned Unit Development on
June 17, 1996, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the proposed Indian Ridge Planned Unit Development meets the purposes and
objectives and all of the provisions and requirements of Article 15 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning
Ordinance, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, pursuant to Article 8 of the Town
of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and legislative authority, and subject to the specific conditions and
requirements set forth herein below, hereby approves, enacts, adopts, and creates the Indian Ridge Planned
Unit Development District on approximately 140 acres of land in the Town of Queensbury, the boundaries
of which are set forth on a map and plan prepared by Miller Associates Landscape Architects and
VanDusen & Steves, Land Surveyors, entitled, "Master Plan" dated and last revised on June 28, 1996, the
same being presented at this meeting, directed to be filed in the Town Clerk's Office, and being
incorporated herein for all purposes. The Planned Unit Development is generally described as a developed
area of approximately 78.45 acres consisting of a maximum of one-hundred and eleven (Ill) single family
lots, nine (9) duplex lots, sixty-one (61) senior apartments, and a one (1) acre limited commercial site, and
undeveloped areas consisting generally of approximately 61.55 acres to be set aside for conservation,
passive recreation and buffer areas.
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that this resolution shall not take effect until the final execution of a Planned Unit
Development Agreement by Michael 1. Vasiliou, Inc., and the Town of Queensbury, which Agreement
shall incorporate all elements of this Resolution and set forth such other and further details and restrictions
of development of the Planned Unit Development as shall be required by the Town Board, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that this resolution and the rezoning of subject property shall be subject to the filing
and recording in the Warren County Clerk's Office of a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions setting
forth all conditions hereof and executed by an authorized official of the Developer and the Town of
Queensbury, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Zoning Map of the Town of Queensbury is hereby amended to provide for
the creation and redistricting of the lands contained and set forth as the Indian Ridge Planned Unit
Development, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk shall, within five days, cause a summary of this legislation to
be published in the Glens Falls Post -Star, obtain an affidavit of such publication, and post the same upon
the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that this Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and Laws of the Town of Queensbury
shall take after publication of a summary of this legislation in the Post -Star as indicated above and such
later date as is required by the terms and provisions of this authorizing resolution and legislation.
Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES : Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner,
Mr. Champagne
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
(Councilman Pulver temporarily left meeting)
RESOLUTION TO AMEND 1996 BUDGET
RESOLUTION NO. 358, 96
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan
WHEREAS, certain Town Departments have requested fund transfers for the 1996 Budget and the
Chief Fiscal Officer has approved said requests,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the funds be transferred as follows for the
1996 budget:
HIGHWAY:
FROM:
TO:
$ AMOUNT:
04-5110-1440-0002
(H.E.O. - O.T.)
04-5130-4400
(Misc. Contractual)
$ 1,000.
04-5110-1470
(W.F.)
04-5130-4400
(Misc. Contractual)
9,700.
04-5110-1470-0002
(W.F. - O.T.)
04-5130-4400
(Misc. Contractual)
2,500.
04-5110-1400
(Laborer A.)
04-5130-4400
(Misc. Contractual)
5,500.
04-5110-1400-0002
(Laborer A - O.T.)
04-5130-4400
(Misc. Contractual)
500.
04-5110-1440
(H.E.O.)
04-5130-4400
(Misc. Contractual)
9,700.
04-5142-1002
(Misc. Payroll)
04-5130-2060
4,500.
(Tools)
SUPERVISOR:
FROM:
TO:
$ AMOUNT:
01-1680-2032-1680
(Computer Software)
01-1680-4400-1680
(Computer-Misc. Contractual)
104.
01-1680-2032-1680
(Computer Software)
01-1430-4400
(Personnel-Misc.
Contractual)
199.
WATER:
FROM:
TO:
$ AMOUNT:
40-8320-4500
(Fuel Oil)
40-8330-4285
(Soda Ash)
3,000.
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the 1996 Town Budget is hereby amended accordingly.
Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mr. Champagne
NOES None
ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND LAVERNE B. F AGEL
RESOLUTION NO. 359,96
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury and LaVerne B. Fagel previously entered into a Consulting
Services Agreement, which Agreement provided for a termination date of August 31, 1994 (The
"Agreement"), and
WHEREAS, the Agreement was extended two times, the first time to extend the termination date
from the original August 31, 1994 to August 31, 1995, and the second time to extend the termination date
from 1995 to August 31, 1996, and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to extend the term of the Agreement to August 1, 1997, retaining,
however, the right of either party to cancel or terminate the Agreement upon 30 days, prior written notice,
with all other provisions of the Agreement to remain in full force and effect, including the limitation that
the total charges incurred under the Agreement, as extended, shall not exceed the amount provided for in
the Agreement ($10,000.), and
WHEREAS, a Consulting Services Extension Agreement NO.3 has been presented at this
meeting, said agreement being in a form acceptable to Town Counsel,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves of the Consulting
Services Extension Agreement NO.3 presented at this meeting and hereby authorizes and directs the Town
Supervisor to execute the same on behalf of the Town of Queensbury and hereby further authorizes the
Supervisor to take such other and further action as may be necessary to implement the terms and provisions
of the Agreement.
Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mr. Champagne
NOES None
ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver
Discussion Before Vote:
Councilman Monahan recommended to change date in the resolution and contract to August 1, 1997.
Town Board agreed to changes, vote was taken.
(Councilman Pulver re-entered meeting)
RESOLUTION OF INTENT CONCERNING RENOVATION AND
ADDITION TO THE FIREHOUSE FOR THE
WEST GLENS FALLS VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC.
RESOLUTION NO. 360, 96
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHEREAS, the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., has presented to the Town Board of
the Town of Queensbury, a proposal to renovate and construct an addition to its firehouse,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, after considering the presentation
of the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., determines that it would be in the best interest of the Fire
Company and the Town of Queensbury residents to renovate and add to the firehouse at a cost not to
exceed $1,200,000., and the Town Board hereby states its intent to undertake whatever steps may be
necessary, including that of public hearings or referendums to amend the current agreement to allow for the
necessary increase of funds to help finance such construction, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby indicates that by adopting this Resolution of Intent, the
Fire Company is not authorized to enter into a contract based solely on this Resolution of Intent, but rather,
the necessary public hearings will need to be held and a vote will then have to be taken concerning the
financing of the project.
Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 1996 by the following vote:
AYES Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan,
Mr. Champagne
NOES None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON FINANCIAL OBLIGATION OF
WEST GLENS FALLS VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC.
RESOLUTION NO. 361, 96
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury presently has a contract with the West Glens Falls
Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Company") dated December 29, 1995,
wherein the Company has agreed to provide fire protection services for a certain area of the fire protection
district located within the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, by resolution no. 152, 96, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury modified said
agreement to increase the dollar figure in the agreement by $81,000. in anticipation of the Company's
proposal to renovate and add to the firehouse, and
WHEREAS, the Company is desirous of now securing financing for the construction at the
firehouse on real property situate on Luzerne Road in the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New
York, and
WHEREAS, the Company has obtained a Resolution of Intent from this Board for such
construction at said firehouse upon the Company's said property, and
WHEREAS, Evergreen Bank is agreeable to issuing to the Company a loan in the principal
amount of $1,200,000. upon certain terms and conditions, and
WHEREAS, in order for the interest paid on the loan to be tax exempt thus enabling the Company
to obtain a lower rate of interest on the loan, certain public approval requirements as set forth in ~ 147 of the
Internal Revenue Code must be followed, including the requirement of an approval of the loan by this
Board after a public hearing upon notice,
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, it is
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall conduct a public hearing to
consider approval of the loan from the Evergreen Bank to the Company, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that said hearing shall take place at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay
Road, Queensbury, New York on the 16th day of September, 1996 at 7:00 p.m., and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury shall forthwith have notice of said
hearing be published in the Post Star Newspaper no fewer than 14 days before said hearing, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that such notice shall be in substantially the following form:
"NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Queensbury Town Board shall conduct a public hearing
at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, New York on the 16th day of September,
1996, at 7 :00 p.rn. The public hearing shall be for the purpose of considering the adoption of a resolution
approving a loan between the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., and Evergreen Bank in the
principal amount of $1,200,000. the purpose of which loan is to finance firehouse renovation and the
construction of an 8,200 square foot addition to the firehouse for the housing and administration of the
equipment and activities of the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., as related to its obligation
under the contract with the Town of Queensbury dated December 29, 1995. The maximum aggregate face
amount of the loan to be approved with respect to the facility being $1,200,000. The facility shall be
owned, operated, and managed by the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., and the location of
the facility shall be on Luzerne Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York."
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury will, after said public hearing,
consider the adoption of a resolution approving the Company's incurrance of financial obligations for the
construction at said firehouse, with the understanding that the Town of Queensbury shall not, by the
adoption of any resolution, create or intend to create, any assumption on the part of the Town of
Queensbury, of any obligation or liability for said financing, other than that which may exist by virtue of
the contract dated December 29, 1995, entered into between the Town of Queensbury and the Company for
fire protection services.
Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES : Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner,
Mr. Champagne
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TO CONTINUE THE RETENTION OF THE SERVICES OF
LEMERY & REID, P.c. - JONATHAN C. LAPPER, OF COUNSEL
RESOLUTION NO. 362, 96
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHEREAS, by resolution no. 524,95, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury authorized the
Zoning Board of Appeals to retain the services of Lemery & Reid, P.c., Jonathan C. Lapper, of Counsel, to
represent the ZBA concerning an application for a variance filed by Mr. John Brock of the Mooring Post
Marina, said services notto exceed the amount of $7,500., and
WHEREAS, the Executive Director of Community Development has advised that it is necessary
to increase the moneys to be expended for legal services by an additional $2,500.,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the Zoning
Board of Appeals to continue retaining the services of Lemery & Reid, P.c., Jonathan C. Lapper, Esq., of
Counsel for an additional cost not to exceed $2,500., to be paid for from Account No.: 01-8010-4130.
Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES : Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Goedert,
Mr. Champagne
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUB GRANTEE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND THE QUEENSBURY
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
RESOLUTION NO. 363, 96
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Fred Champagne
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has received Federal grant assistance from the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (RUD) through the Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Program for the purpose of assisting businesses within the Town of Queensbury in
expanding or retaining employment opportunities, and
WHEREAS, the Town has received and expects to continue to receive CDBG income in the form
of loan repayments and other income, and
WHEREAS, the Town may, from time to time, receive additional CDBG funding from RUD (or
from New York State should the State take over the CDBG Small Cities Program from HUD) for the
purpose of assisting businesses within the Town in expanding or retaining employment opportunities, and
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Economic Development Corporation (QED C) has the capacity to
administer the use of such CDBG funding in the best interests of the Town, and
WHEREAS, a copy of a proposed Subgrantee Agreement Between the Town and QEDC has been
presented at this meeting and said Agreement has been reviewed and is in a form approved by Town
Counsel,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves of the Subgrantee
Agreement presented at this meeting, and hereby further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor of the
Town of Queensbury to execute the same on behalf of the Town Board, and take such other and further
steps as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of the Sub grantee Agreement.
Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES : Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver,
Mr. Champagne
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION RETAINING HAANEN ENGINEERING
FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES (PHASE II) - SPECIFICATIONS
CREATION FOR HIGHWAY GARAGE RE-ROOFING
RESOLUTION NO. 364, 96
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of proceeding with
professional engineering services to create specifications regarding roofing upgrades to the Highway
Garage, and
WHEREAS, Haanen Engineering has submitted a letter form proposal dated March 20, 1996
outlining Phase II consisting of the creation of construction specifications and assistance to put out to bid
this project,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the
Town Supervisor to retain the professional engineering service of Haanen Engineering to perform Phase II
services as outlined in the letter dated March 20, 1996, the same being presented at this meeting, at a sum
not to exceed $4,000.00, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized to enter into an agreement with
Haanen Engineering in form approved by Town Counsel and consistent with the terms and provisions of
this resolution, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the costs associated with this resolution shall be paid for from the Highway
Garage Improvement Miscellaneous Capital Construction Account #089-5132-2899.
Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Pulver,
Mr. Champagne
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
TOWN BOARD MATTERS
Councilman Pulver will review Water Committee report at next Town Board workshop.
Councilman Goedert noted Highway Committee meeting scheduled for this Thursday at 10:00 a.rn.
OPEN FORUM
11:35 P.M.
Mr. Mark Hoffman-Obviously the votes have been casted and I'm not going to bore you with tedious reply
to the various comments that were made today. I do want to make sure that the official record does
include the letter dated August 19th from LA Group relating to the, and also that my letter to Mr.
Champagne is also in the official record from today. If not, maybe Mr. Champagne can supply it.
Supervisor Champagne-I have that, I thought Kim also, yea, that's it.
Councilman Monahan-Yea, we have copies of it.
Councilman Goedert -Yes.
Mr. Hoffman-Just a general philosophical statement. I really feel that I've made many statements in public
hearings and else where. I've written to the board members on multiple occasions in great detail. I have
personally refrained from calling you at home although I recognize that many residents did. I felt I could
express ideas as well or better in writing without bothering you at home. I do have to say though, it's
apparent after all of the above, that I really don't feel I've been speaking the same language and I really
don't feel that the current Town Board has the sensitivity to quality of life that it should. I feel there's an
obvious divergence from the principals and specific items discussed in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
and it's very unfortunate and I don't see any potential resolution to this problem because the view points are
just so diametrically opposed here, I don't see any room and I think it's important that the record show and
that the public be aware that our group submit a compromised proposal which would have provided the
developer with most of what he was asking for. It would have moved the development out of the critical
environmental area. It would have provided a modest reduction in density of, you know, perhaps fifteen
percent of his total units and this was explicitly and totally rejected by the developer and it's obvious now,
it was obvious before based on press reports and so forth, and it's become obvious now the reason for that is
simply that he knew very well that he had the Town Board's support in that his PUD was going to pass.
Supervisor Champagne-Well obviously I'm not here to draw straws, Doctor but, now, this does move now
to the Planning Board. The Planning Board will have an opportunity to carve it up in what ever way they
chose. It isn't that they have to accept our III plus 9 plus 61. Their action could be something different
then where we are going in.
Mr. Hoffman-I strongly doubt it. Thanks.
August 19, 1996
Hon. Fred Champagne
Supervisor
Town of Queensbury
742 Bay Road
Queensbury,NY 12804
RE: Indian Ridge PUD
Dear Supervisor Champagne:
Reference is made to the letters of August 12, 1996 from Michael O'Connor, August 9, 1996 from Shelly
R. Johnston, and August 9, 1996 from William Levandowski in response to our August 8 letter regarding
the above project. It is our opinion that the responses in these letters do not address the important technical
questions we have raised.
With respect to the direction of groundwater flow, the assertion is made that the elevation of water in the
wetland relative to that in the monitoring wells is determinative of the direction of groundwater flow. The
response continues by stating the absence of impermeable layers in the groundwater wells demonstrates
there is no potential to direct percolating water back toward the wetland. This response acknowledges the
fact that conditions could exist which would cause groundwater to flow to the wetlands in some locations,
but not in others, and substantiates our fundamental point, which is that the wells were not drilled in
locations which are representative of conditions across the entire site. Only one well was drilled adjacent
to the slope and this at the extreme southern end of the property. In our opinion, the direction of
groundwater flow across the entire property can only be conclusively determined by a testing program
which is representative of conditions across the entire property, rather than in one limited area. SEQRA
clearly requires the Town Board to take a hard look at this potential significant adverse impact, and the
Board should do so by requiring further study through the environmental impact statement process.
With respect to seasonal fluctuations in traffic counts, the assertion is made that Aviation Road is likely to
experience higher peak hours of traffic volume in October rather than August. The assertion is further
made that since the important characteristic is the peak hour, not the season, the season of the count does
not matter. The second assertion can be dismissed out of hand, since peak hour volumes will necessarily
fluctuate and change with the season. That is, the peak hour count will obviously be higher on days and in
seasons when there are more cars on the road. With respect to the first assertion, and notwithstanding the
printed professional and technical evidence to the contrary, the applicant asserts that Aviation Road is not
subject to seasonal fluctuations in traffic counts. However, the applicant has submitted no evidence to
support his assertion that October counts are higher than August counts, and furthermore, please note Table
9-26 from The Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook which illustrates the existence of
seasonal traffic count fluctuation on all types of roads in the State of New York. Absent actual count data,
and given standard published engineering texts which reference the common use of a seasonal adjustment
factor, the Board's clear obligation under SEQRA is to use the EIS process to explore this and other issues
in more detail. In particular, where uncertainty exists, as it does here, the board is obligated to take a hard
look at the project and its potential significant adverse impacts and require the applicant to recompute the
traffic calculations using established published seasonal variation factors.
Sincerely,
/s/
Sarah A. Clarkin
for
The LA Group, P.c.
cc: Mark Hoffman
William Levandowski
Jim Martin
Michael O'Connor
John Caffrey
32 Fox Hollow Lane
Queensbury, NY 12804
August 18, 1996
Honorable Frederick Champagne
Supervisor, Town of Queensbury
742 Bay Road
Queensbury, NY 12804
Dear Fred:
As you know, I have written several detailed letters to yourself and the Town Board relative to the
Indian Ridge Planned Unit Development. Frankly, this has been a learning process for me. Although time
constraints and logistic problems have limited the depth of my analysis, I felt it imperative to provide some
additional input to you and your colleagues on the Board prior to any impending votes tomorrow.
I have not been able to obtain a draft of the responses to part 3 of the environmental assessment
form, but would like to respond to some of the issues raised at various times by Town Board members and
by Jim Martin in the draft analysis he submitted at the workshop about a month ago.
With regard to traffic, I believe we have shown beyond any reasonable doubt that, based on the
developers own data, there will be a significant deterioration at the Farr Lane, Dixon and Aviation
intersections. I had difficulty understanding Jim Martin's draft analysis regarding traffic, except to the
extent that he appears to confirm an overall deterioration in the Aviation road traffic corridor following
build out.
Based on a review of the recommendations in the traffic studies and comments made at the Town
Board meetings and workshops, it appears that the only way to adequately control both traffic delays and
traffic safety at the key intersection is a combination of road realignment and traffic signal. I have
previously expressed concerns about the impact of an additional traffic signal on the character of the
neighborhood, the proximity of such a signal to the other new signal being installed in front of the school,
about the projected decline in level of service on Aviation which would result from a signal and about
increased noise and pollution from stopping and starting vehicles. Increased traffic may also result on
residential streets through signal avoidance maneuvers.
In addition to the above considerations, I have measured the distance from the Dixon-Aviation
intersection to the Potter-Aviation intersection and found this to be approximately 0.15 miles. Since traffic
on Aviation is nearly a continuous stream during peak hours, it appears likely that stopped traffic at the
Dixon signal could back up to the Potter intersection, essentially crippling an already stressed intersection
there.
One could then attempt to solve this problem by placing another light at the Potter intersection,
hopefully timed properly with the Dixon signal. However, you can see that we can get into a cascade of
negative impacts through these technological approaches, which don't necessarily control for that most
difficult variable, human behavior. I think this illustrates a recurrent problem with our approach to this
development. The developer insists on emphasizing his ability to engineer problems away when these
problems could be more easily and inexpensively addressed through reductions in density.
On this related matter, I would like to address a question raised by Betty Monahan about the
designation of Aviation Road as an "Arterial". At the last Town Board workshop, Jim Martin confirmed
this classification for Aviation Road, which led Mrs. Monahan to question whether Aviation was indeed
functioning at an intensity below its designation.
Reference to both the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the Code of the Town of Queensbury
clarify this matter. Section 179-30, amended 7-29-91 of the Zoning Code classifies Aviation Road from 1-
87 east to Route 9 as a regional arterial road. However, Aviation Road from West Mountain Road to 1-87
is classified as a local arterial road. Comparable roads with this designation include Country Club Road,
Potter Road, Mountain View Lane and Haviland Drive. Are we to conclude that these are all functioning
below their designated intensity? Apparently, the planners who prepared this designation were sensitive to
the character of the neighborhood in classifying this part of Aviation differently from the eastern section.
In support of this, I would comment that even the commercial entities on this section of Aviation are of a
neighborhood rather than regional type. The school is a regional institution, but hardly of the type that one
would wish to place on a busy thoroughfare.
Mr. Martin asserts in the draft analysis that the current three acre zoning is in conflict with the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan because, among other reasons, it was adopted prior to the official adoption
of the master plan in May of 1989. A careful review of the Comprehensive Land Use plan would indicate
that this conclusion is largely based on several individual sentences taken out of context, without regard to
the overall intent of the master plan.
Specifically, the formulators of the plan clearly demonstrate that they are aware of the importance
of multiple factors in determining suitability for development. These include soil percolation rates, depth
to high water table, status as aquifer recharge areas, proximity to wetland, aesthetic considerations, slope,
availability of water and sewer service and open space considerations and animal habitats. After
consideration of all of these factors, the plan specifically recommends three acre zoning for "land just west
ofI-87 and north of Aviation Road" in addition to the LC 42 acre designation for the wetland itself. The
fact that this corresponds exactly to the zoning adopted shortly before publication of the master plan
suggests that the zoning was adopted during the same planning process and using the same principles.
The Comprehensive Land Use Plan also recommends lower densities in areas not served by
municipal water and sewer. Mr. Martin contends that half acre zoning should not be considered high
density. However, the master plan specifically defines "high density residential" in this context as "less than
one acre".
With regard to sewer service, Mrs. Monahan stated at the Town Board workshop last month that
the development would provide as base for bringing sewer service to the area. Is Mrs. Monahan prepared
to provide us with concrete plans for sewer service, complete with financial analysis and amount of
increased taxes that will result? If not, we should be careful about embarking on major new developments
predicated on such conjectural assumptions.
With regard to the PUD application, the applicant lists six needs being met by the PUD. We have
already demonstrated that the first need, affordable housing, is not addressed by this development since the
price ranges for these units are typical of those generally available throughout Queensbury. I was surprised
to see "emergency access to school property" listed as a second need. My impression is that the school
board is not overly thrilled with this development and one could certainly imagine other ways of providing
increased access to the school, if such access is indeed necessary, or becomes necessary due to the
increased traffic generated by the development.
We have demonstrated that a third need, preservation of open space, is not met by the PUD, since
nearly all of the developable property will be developed, with the exception of an eight acre "park"
surrounded by backyards, which Betty Monahan has described as "redundant". If the applicant was serious
about providing and protecting open space, he would have removed development from the critical
environmental area, adjacent to the ridge and wetlands, through which scenic trails now pass.
Unfortunately, the fourth need, a bike trail, is not currently funded. It would be desirable to
restore this feature to any future PUD should funding become available for the previously planned trail.
The fifth need, a community mix of housing, has been addressed by the planned duplexes and
senior housing. It appears, however, based on some of Mike O'Connor's comments, that the developer does
not really expect a large market for these duplexes and seems to be including them merely to satisfy the
ordinance. As previously stated, we support the addition of senior housing. It is not clear, however, why
this senior housing must be held hostage to the negative impacts of this PUD, since Solomon Heights
appears to have been successfully completed as a separate development.
The argument has been raised verbally that, although it's unfortunate that many residents will be
adversely affected by the proposed rezoning, the owners of the property in question bought it when it was
zoned at a higher density. I would point out, however, that one of the two land owners recouped nearly all
his investment when he sold off part of the parcel for the Solomon Heights project. The other spent
approximately $2,000 per acre for his part of the property. We know a family which had a contract to
purchase a lot within the Indian Ridge properties for approximately $36,000 before the owner decided to
proceed with this PUD. This would appear to be a reasonable return on investment, particularly when
additional profits from construction are factored in.
In addition, keep in mind that the owners are holding this property as a speculative investment,
subject to speculative risk. By contrast, many neighboring homeowners purchased their property with
knowledge of the zoning in place since 1988 and have invested their life savings in their homes. More
importantly, they are impacted not only by financial considerations, but by the effects of this project on
their daily lives.
Other residents have raised specific objections to the way the long form was completed at the
Town Board meeting August 5. I would simply comment that I believe many questions were answered as
"no impact" or "small to moderate" impact when "potentially large impacts" would have been appropriate.
Examples of the former include impact on non-threatened species, impact on aesthetic resources (see Town
Board resolution on CEA), and impact on open space and recreation. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan
makes reference to maintaining "the rural character so important to the town". While this may no longer be
entirely feasible in this part of Queensbury, we should attempt to save some vestiges of rural character, like
the deer that frequent my backyard and which will undoubtedly disappear if this project goes through as
proposed.
Finally, let me say that I don't think we need to prove that this project will produce an ecological
or public health disaster like Chernobyl in order to reject it. We should have a higher standard of what we
think our town should look and feel like. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan frequently refers to a
deterioration in quality of life from inappropriate development and I think that we shouldn't lose site of that
warnmg.
Sincerely,
/s/
Mark Hoffman
Mr. Astrom-I'll be brief but the few times I've joined here, I have noticed how you for instance, especially
now in the SEQRA process, all efforts really were made and your judgement was based on the fact that the
board had already decided. You wanted to pass this project. You even negotiated an agreement with
developer in advance and I think it's highly unethical. Your performance as to the impact statement, I think
is not up to the level we should expect here.
Mr. John Schriner, DunlIam's Bay wanted to thank Fred and Jim for meeting with him and the boat
company. Noted, though, the situation remains the same and the light is still present. Would like the board
to consider a lighting ordinance.
Supervisor Champagne noted that he'll work with him in resolving the situation.
Mr. Gilbert Boehm noted that he's attended meetings on the proposed North Queensbury Sewer District
with the engineers present and have come away with a low impression relative to their credibility...
concerned they're making too many assumptions.
Councilman Monahan agreed with Mr. Boehm noting that she had attended the meeting last Thursday and
personally felt that it was a very disappointing meeting.
Mr. Pliney Tucker questioned the removal of the PCB's.
Supervisor Champagne noted that it's been taken along the shore only.
Mr. Tucker referred to the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed North Queensbury Sewer
District and questioned whether the engineers are continuing their work?
Supervisor Champagne-Yes.
Mr. Tucker-Questioned who pays for this?
Supervisor Champagne-Noted, no matter where it goes, we have approval from the environmental
protection agency to pay the bills that we would have up to a point where it gets voted down or what ever.
The ten percent that's spread county wide will have to be raised locally.
Mr. Tucker referred to the resurfacing of Corinth Road noting an improvement but would like to request
that the road is repaved within the next year.
Mr. Jeff Lynch-Hi, I'm Jeff Lynch and I'm a resident of Queensbury and I've spoken with Fred, he's given
me information and I appreciate that. I've spoken with Carol and I appreciate the time you spent talking
with me. This board meeting tonight was very interesting for me.
Supervisor Champagne-More so from those of us sitting up here.
Mr. Lynch-I can imagine.
Councilman Pulver-We were a little bit out numbered but we do have alot of information on the project if
you don't think you got enough tonight, come on up to the Town Office Building and we'll give you more.
Mr. Lynch-Okay. One reason for me to come up and talk to you as I've spoken with both of you, I have
basically a naive approach to these things that I think that most problems can be resolved by sitting down
and talking with people about thern. If nothing else, then I can find out where they're coming from and at
the end of this, I can understand I guess, if maybe one out of a hundred people ever really does anything
about how they feel about something and you have a hundred people or more show up here tonight, they
got to represent alot of people I would think in this town that would have a concern about this, Indian Ridge
in particular and development in general. In the last ten years and I'm from this area, I've lived here all my
life and it's just phenomenal to me to see everything disappearing. All the open land just disappearing and
access to that and I really fear for the future, what's going to happen with, for example the watershed
property which I know is in Glens Falls, it's Glens Falls owned but I mean just, it's just being paved over.
Everything is being paved over and that seems to be, you talk about mitigating these concerns and that's
seems to be the way that it's going to be mitigated. Well we'll just widen the highways, we'll just pave it
over and I don't know what the solution is but it seems to be that if a hundred or two hundred people show
up then there's got to be thousands in the town that feel that way and I don't, if you vote contrary to the way
their feelings are, then I guess, I mean whose feelings are you supporting? Who is it that's saying I want
this?
Supervisor Champagne-Well, you know, we could get into a philosophical debate. We have letters here
obviously that do support it, I don't know, maybe we ought to read that letter into the record just so that, if
that's
Councilman Goedert -You mean the one.
Mr. Lynch-But I don't see, I don't see hundreds of people showing up here and saying, this is a great thing.
Supervisor Champagne-And you're not going to.
Councilman Goedert-It does never happen that way.
Councilman Pulver-It will never happen. It's only that this is in their area and they're opposed to it. If it
was in another area, we would never see those people tonight.
Councilman Turner-If that area had been developed in the eighties, like it was zoned, you would have alot
more density there then what you're going to have now.
Supervisor Champagne-Jeff, let me try to and just for the record, I've been here for, I guess 1955 we moved
here and in 1988 what we saw, certainly you were here but the building boom was going crazy and the
folks that put together the Comprehensive Plan, they took a look at some of green space, one of which was
Indian Ridge. Another major area was out my way which is Sunnyside, there's about two hundred and
some odd acres out there owned by three families of old standing, you know, coming down from their
relatives, about two hundred acres out there. They too zoned that three acre, no practical reason
whatsoever. The soils are just the same kind of soils as I have on my property and mine was a postage
stamp when I bought it. I've bought some property around it since but
Councilman Turner-The reason then Fred was they wanted it zoned three acres.
Supervisor Champagne-They wanted it zoned three acres?
Councilman Turner-That's why it was zoned three acres.
Councilman Monahan-Yea, and they wanted to keep the agriculture use of it and it's not comparable to
Indian Ridge one bit whatsoever.
Supervisor Champagne-Well okay, all I'm saying is that the soils there would accommodate
Councilman Monahan-But soils are not the only thing you do zoning on.
Supervisor Champagne-And I understand that but other then the family at the time that wanted that three
acre zone and I guess that's what they were asking for at the time, since then, we have come through with a
reval and alot of that open space and alot of those lots that are there now, have been driven out of site by
those people that are having to pay the taxes on a three acre zoned area and in today's world, you can not
afford to put infrastructure in a three acre zoned area. You just can't do it and those folks are back in here
right now with an application, Jim, am I correct, to rezone that area?
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Pending.
Supervisor Champagne-And that's going to happen in Queensbury.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I think there's something else to bear in mind here too, when people look at
the Comprehensive Plan, I'm the director of that department and you say, how can you possibly, in a
responsible fashion in my memo state what I did. And I think you've got to step back and you've got to
look at the broader comprehensive picture of this entire community. Approximately, I'd say a third entire
town and now you're talking in excess of twenty square miles is in the Adirondack Park Agency and a vast
majority of that property is zoned at a minimum Rural Residential five acre if not ten acre and forty-two
acre. You have considerable, huge amounts of property locked away to open space and there comes a point
at which the community has got to be able to support itself and sustain itself and if you keep on taking huge
chunks of, and even in the areas outside of the Adirondack Park, you begin to consider the airport property,
the vast wetlands that come with Earltown, the vast wetlands that occur Rush Pond, you start taking all of
those things out of the mix, and there really isn't that much developable space left to sustain the economy
and I'm not talking about just the town economy, you've got to think about the people who live here and
what kind of quality of life they're going to have to live in. And, a community has got to be able to sustain
some growth or else it will die and that's the larger picture that's got to, you've got to keep your eye on that
ball.
Councilman Pulver-And that particular property that we saw tonight which was three acre zoning, which
the density on that was much more in 1988 when it was changed to three acre. If that, if someone were to
go in, first of all, we don't own it and if you want to keep it as green space, my response is then buy it. But
if you're not going to do that then someone has a right to develop it and he could go through, totally clear it,
have a house every three acres. You would have nothing but widening roads for the town to maintain. You
still have no green space, they could clear every shrub, every tree, everything off every lot. You're worse
off with that density and that zoning then you are with the current zoning, actually it's been changed back
but not even back to what it was originally.
Councilman Monahan-I think when we talk about density and development, there's also, you know, where
in the town is it appropriate from the infrastructure and the services. And that's, but I share your concern,
you know, that we are putting this town under asphalt. Ever since I came on this board, I say we have to
start talking about development rights, paying for them, land conservation, land trust, tax breaks for people
willing to hold green areas. None of this has been done. We can't build a wall around this town, that's
illegal to say, you know, no more further building. We can try, if the people out there are willing and there
will be a cost to it, to implement some of these other ideas but the taxpayers have to be willing to bear some
of the costs for that.
Mr. Lynch-Well I think the taxpayers are bearing the costs for it now and it's in quality oflife and of course
that has to be defined by everybody in their own way.
Councilman Monahan-And I agree with you and believe me, I mean I will tell you that I have lived here,
my family has lived here for generations. If I had my personal druthers, I'd like to see us back in the
1960's. But in order for that to happen and make it legally possible for it to happen, if we're going to take
alot of these big tracts and say no development, we have to find some way of compensating for that.
Mr. Lynch-You talked earlier about assessing a five hundred dollar fee on, whatever, building a house on
these plats of land.
Councilman Monahan-It's a recreation fee.
Mr. Lynch-A recreation fee, what happens to this recreation fee?
Councilman Goedert-It's always been there, it's just been paid, it's going to be paid differently now. It'
always been there.
Mr. Lynch-I mean we talked about the sidewalks in front of Queensbury School that go from, let's say
Sokols down to the Northway bridge but what's that, how does that help somebody that lives over by, in
Ward 2, for example? There are no sidewalks. How does somebody get around? You need an automobile.
I just don't see a Comprehensive Plan for people to recreate because everything is paved essentially. The
only way to get around is in an automobile. There's all these, all these developments were made, there's no
inner connectedness to them. You've got the main arterial, north south is West Mountain Road. There was
a terrible accident on that at five p.rn. today, just when I went home. I live right there. I see, there was a
person killed there last year.
Councilman Monahan-And I think you're completely right about that, that's one reason why we're trying to
get
Mr. Lynch-My son was struck by a car last sununer on his bicycle, right in front of a State Police person.
Councilman Monahan-That's why we're trying to get the bikeway extended. That's why we're trying to get
safe areas for bikes to be used to get from one area in the town to the other. That's why some of the
developments have been approved as a PUD recently, it makes provisions for walkways from one area to
another, pathways and these are some of the things that, you know, attempts are being made to meet some
of those concerns that you have and it should have been done, I grant you, it should have been done when
the first subdivision went in this.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-And it think at some point, there's got to be some acknowledgement made
of the steps that are being done or taken and the results of those steps. I mean, I'll take you down to the
Hudson Point Conservation Area where there's designated walkways and
Mr. Lynch-I've been there. I've been in there.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-And that was a result of the town's planning process. I mean, that just
didn't happen by happenstance or that was
Councilman Monahan-And it wasn't there when the developer brought the project in either.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-That took
Mr. Lynch-Well that's owned by the Open Space Institute though, isn't it?
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yea, but that was a result
Mr. Lynch-It's not owned by the town.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-No, but that was
Councilman Monahan-But that's part of our agreement.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-That whole arrangement, Open Space came to this town by virtue of the
planning process that went into that PUD.
Supervisor Champagne-We wrote that in, Open Space just happened to be the agency that came in and did
that but that was already town
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-And at some point, I'd like to hear some acknowledgement for what's being
done instead of all the catch phrases of, well, we're just paving everything. That's not what's happening,
that is not what is happening. Sit through our Planning Board meetings, hear the staff comments about
expanded landscaping in commercial areas and that. You know, you get kind of tired, you sit in my
position, you try and you try and you try and I don't mind trying but at some point, you'd like a little
acknowledgement for improvements that are being made too.
Mr. Lynch-Well that's why I'm taking the time to sit here and saying this to you instead of walking out
halfway through.
Councilman Pulver-I think tonight was, Connie was right, this is a very emotional issue for alot of people,
tonight was not a particularly good meeting to come and sit and see the Town Board. We do not defend
ourselves when we're attacked, we just don't feel that it's appropriate for us to take on the public when
they're into name calling or whatever it is that they're into and you ask a question about representing the
people and each of us do represent the people but we don't represent personal opinion. We, when we
represent you, we represent you by seeing to it that the rules and procedures and the town's laws are carried
out even handedly. You're treated exactly like everybody else. If you want to do something, here's the
book, if you can comply with it, you can do it. I don't put any particular spin on your project or anybody
else's project but if I start going around representing all the opinions in this room, there's about thirty
thousand of them, I don't think we would get anything done and Lord knows, my opinion would come first
because that's probably who I would end up representing. So, I can't get into that game of personal opinion.
I have to go by the facts and sometimes it's really difficult to sit here as we all know, we've been involved
in this project for twenty months and we've been listening to people call us names and call us at, harass at
home and harass by putting things in our mailbox and everything else. But it's just, it's just something I
guess that you have to deal with and I just wish there was a way for us to convey to them, what it's like
maybe to sit here.
Supervisor Champagne-Jeff, you appear to be a rather interested person, we encourage that. You know, I
would be more then happy to have you come in the office, sit down with Jim and I and take a look at some
of the things we have on record right now as far as zoning ordinances. I have to tell you, I'm very proud of
the town in terms of how we've structured it, how we, you know hold the feet to the fire in terms of what
we expect these developers and others to do and it would be to your benefit, I feel and certainly to our
benefit to have an interested person like yourself come on in and let's share that information. The problem
with alot of what's happening here is that we've been dealing with this for eighteen months. Betty, am I
correct? Hasn't it been about eighteen months?
Councilman Goedert-Longer then that.
Councilman Monahan-Longer then that and actually I will tell you, another developer came to us even
before this and the first comment to him when he came in the door was don't come in with a conventional
subdivision on this property because it's not going to fly.
Supervisor Champagne-So, those are the kinds of things that you know, I more then welcome you to come
in and sit down and chat with me about it so you could go out, you know, the message that we want out
there loud and clear is not the kind of thing that's generated with an overly emotionalize session like we had
here tonight. And I can understand it, I, you know, I try to put my feet in those sneakers of those folks that
suffer the consequences of traffic and all the other conditions up there. We're working, this board I believe
is working real diligently to try to improve that and we will. To the satisfaction of everyone in that crowd
tonight? Probably not but you know, in your case in particular, loved to have you come in and let's talk
about it.
Mr. Lynch-Okay, thank you.
Councilman Monahan-And we also ask that when the neighborhood meetings happen in your area about
the new rezoning plan that's coming down the pike, please attend them and please put your input into thern.
And I will say, that the first neighborhood meeting that took place in the area that Indian Ridge, where the
new rezoning we're in right now, I'm not talking about the Indian Ridge project per say but the whole new
master plan we're doing, very few people from that area attended it. It was the worst attended meeting in
all of the neighborhoods in this town.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-It was very disheartening. Do you know how many people we had at that
meeting, at the Queensbury School on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to discuss these very type of
issues?
Councilman Monahan-Where they want their town to go.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Six.
Councilman Monahan-And most of those, were people who showed up at every meeting, staff and
whatever.
Mr. Lynch-Well, okay this is a good point you're making. Six people showed up.
Councilman Pulver-To discuss how the land was going to be used in their part of town.
Mr. Lynch-But tonight, how many people showed up?
Councilman Monahan-But they were in an emotional issue.
Mr. Lynch-I mean, are you saying it's just too late?
Councilman Monahan-No, I'm saying they were in an emotional issue. What I'm saying is that when we're
looking now at the whole town, the rezoning of the whole town and a whole new master plan, and we've
gone out to different areas to get their impressions and impact and to listen to them, what they want this
town to be like and what they want us to, what's worth saving and what they're willing to see go down the
tubes really.
Councilman Pulver-If they want that green space, that was their opportunity to come and talk about it.
Mr. Lynch-So, there is no more opportunity, are you saying?
Councilman Monahan-Well no, in the new master plan there certainly is because when the committee gets
that plan together, long before the Town Board even sees it and acts on it, it will go back out to the areas
for people's comments and that's why I'm saying, I'm encourage you at that time to show up and do your
input into it.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-It's not an easy task because by far, the two clear issues that came out of all
the neighborhood meetings and we had eight of them, town wide, number one was preservation of open
space but the next thing was the economy in this area is poor, we need more high quality jobs. To some
extent, those two things are diametrically opposed to one another.
Mr. Lynch-But how do you resolve that with the Indian Ridge Development? How does that solve that
problem? How does that solve either of those two problems?
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I think there's alot of, first and foremost, we can not dictate the housing
market or if a property owner wants to develop his property to make money off it. That's not a part, that's
not a part of the review but there's things built into this plan that I don't think should be discounted. There's
sixty-five acres ofland that's going to be forever set aside to open space.
Councilman Monahan-And not only that but protects a sensitive area.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-And what I think, again a disheartening thing is, well, the wetland is
important in these instances because we don't have an impact from groundwater and stormwater runoff and
all that, it's important then but now when we say we're going forever keep it and set it aside forever wild.
Well, that's not important, that's just a swamp. You know, I think it's very important.
Mr. Lynch-I would agree with you and since you bring up the subject that it's not going to be impacted by
this, I can't agree with that. Okay, I can not, I can't agree with that.
Councilman Goedert-Have you read all the results, all the tests and all the
Mr. Lynch-No, I can't. I can't but, I mean
Councilman Goedert-That's, see that's what we have to go on.
Mr. Lynch-I know the topography of the area. I understand that, okay.
Councilman Goedert-But that's all we have to go on.
Mr. Lynch-And time will tell.
Councilman Goedert-I can't go on your opinion.
Mr. Lynch-I know that, I'm not asking you to change your opinion.
Councilman Goedert-And that, you know, that's what's
Mr. Lynch-But since you brought it up
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-If you want to come in, I'll share you the information that's been submitted
and you can make your decision then.
OPEN FORUM CLOSED
12: 15 P.M.
RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN MEETING
RESOLUTION NO. 365, 96
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert
WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Fred Champagne
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns.
Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
No further action taken.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
DARLEEN M. DOUGHER
TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY