Loading...
1988-07-13 SP .-' QUBBII8BUaY 'l'OIfII PLUBIIIG BOARD3 SPECIAL Scheduled Meeting Wednesday, July 13, 1988 at 7.30 p.m. PLAllllBD tJIU'l' DBVBLOJIItBH JlUMBBlt 2 QVADR RIDCØC (JWtL'l'OIIIf) Present. Richard Roberts, Peter Cartier Frank Desantis Joseph Dybas TRANSCRIPT Key. *.* Unintelligible Chairman Hilda Mann, Secretary Susan Levandowski Victor Macri R. Case Prime, Counsel Paul Dusek, Counsel Mary Jane F. Moeller, Stenographer OLD BUSIDSS There will be a special meeting of the Planning Board to make a recom- mendation to the Town Board on information pertinent to the Planned Unit Development of the Quaker Ridge project (Earl town). Mr. Roberts. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to our spe- cial Planning Board meeting, a continuance of our previous meeting on the Earltown Planned Unit Development. The Planning Board is to make a recom- mendation to the Town Board pursuant to Article 15 of our Zoning Ordin- ance. We put this over to tonight, as I recall, for three reasons. 1) be- cause maybe we were all tired and wanted to think about it, 2) I think that, on the advise of Counsel, we wanted an opportunity to write Resolu- tions for or against, which we have on hand, and 3) also also 1 think we wanted to clarify, if we could, the newly-surfaced Environmental Regula- tions and how they fit in, if at all, with this review process. And, Paul, do you want to address that? Mr. Prime. Is it an issue? Mr. Roberts. No, I think we had decided that it is not an issue to be dealt with at this time, but it's just a point we wanted to make, it's apparently a viable law that is on the books. The Planning Board will be expecting an application for a Wetlands Permit, apparently on their own. In the meantime, the fine print of the law tells us that we can pass that along to DEC and vice versa. Those are the only questions I think that are here, but the main thing to understand tonight is that that is not applicable at this point in our review process. Same thing is with the Wetlands Permit with DEC, it would be a little premature for them to apply for a Wetlands permit at this stage of the game, because they have not 1 decided what they would be applying for. So, at some point in time at their convenience, I guess it would seem to be, and once we get some forms that the law says we are supposed to have and we don't yet have, we will address the Queensbury Wetlands Ordinance down the road. Is that your (Counsel) understanding, do you want to embelish on that? Mr. Dusekl That is satisfactory. Mr. Roberts. I think the only thing that it points out in my mind, at least, at least is that the planning Board apparently has responsibility to the wetlands in the Town, and that I would certainly... legitimately be in the back of our minds that there is a wetlands as part of this project. I do not know how we could quite ignore it, or should we? But, generally speaking, we are to be looking at this under the Planned Unit Development regulations and in the conceptual manner. I think that's all the background we need before we get into this. Tonight is, again, we are not having any presentations, we have had those, we have had public hear- ings. I don't expect really any audience participation tonight, other than if some of the members want to ask questions of anyone here, cer- tainly they are free to do so. And, maybe that is the first thing we should open it up to. Does somebody has a strong feeling, or wants to start the discussion, or want to make a statement, or ask a question? I guess we are certainly free to ask them. It seems to me we have been around on this enough, we should know pretty much what we are going to know about the project. Mr. Prime. Mr. Chairman, I just think you ought to make it clear to the audience here that this is not a pUblic hearing, and this is really a dialogue between the planning Board and the applicant, with respect to the concept. So we are not really looking for public input, at this point. Certainly, if the Board has any questions in their mind, we need to ex- plore those. I think it goes from this direction out to the people who are involved, and not a public hearing. Mr. Roberts I I guess I did not make that clear. It is the same as it was at the last meeting, as far as I am concerned. This is a continua- tion. We really met here tonight... the Board has met here to make their decision, based on the Resolution. Is there anyone who cares to comment or raise any questions? Mr. Dybas I correct? The questions would be mostly in regard to PUD, is that Mr. Roberts I I would think so. (Pause) Everybody seems to be run- ning a little gun-shy here. perhaps by way of putting something on the table, I will take my life in my hands and try to do just that. (Mr. Roberts distributed to the Board members a statement regarding his feelings on the subject PUD entitled -POSITION STATEMENT ON EARLTOWN'S QUAKER RIDGE PUD.-) See Exhibit A. If you would care to read along with 2 me, this is just my statement, my feelings at the moment. This is my way of, again, putting my feelings down, and getting the discussion sta~ted he~e. (Hr. Robe~ts ~ead his ~epo~t.) M~. Roberts I I think I would add one more thing to that, that I fo~- got to address. There is concern as to ... Pete~ asked the question at the last meeting ... the chemicals, pesticides and he~bicides and so fo~th that a~e used on the golf cou~ses, and whethe~ o~ not they might, in fact, pollute the g~ound wate~. If you talk to people serving on greens keeping duties at golf courses o~ greens keepers, you would find today that the rest~ictions of use of ihese chemicals is really ve~y, very strict and getting st~icter all the time. I think we can take some solace in that they are making it difficult fo~ golf cou~ses - the~e is some protection there. Pe~haps. .. that is my feeling at the moment. Mrs. Levandowski I I think we could also ... or I would like to add that the phasing of this particula~ development is so much less than some of the subdivisions we have been dealing with in the past. I think it is very positive. And I think, too, that we a~e wo~king with a, as you said, qualified g~oup of people, and I think perhaps this project will not affo~d a disappoint that we have seen. Mr. Dybas I I have to agree with you, Dick, in my eleven years on the Board, we have come ac~oss many developers with g~eat p~omises. Howeve~, when the p~oject is finally completed, it in no way ~esembles what was o~iginally said at those meetings. However, we do have an oppo~tunity to view f~om the past that the developer has provided in this community and, without saying so, everyone knows that they have first class p~ojects. I think that is a very definite plus. M~. Robe~tsl To those of you who have been following this, in response to this and so fo~th, you will remembe~ one very a~ticulate, outspoken opponent, who has ~aised a lot of questions is Dr. Jim Glendenning. I knew that he had made a ~athe~ exhaustive study of this fo~ the last couple of years. And I talked to him and asked him to give us a lette~. I ~espected his opinion, and a lot of my thinking is the same as his. I almost feel like attaching his lette~ to my thinking. Maybe it is worth reading his letter (Exhibit B). Mr. Roberts I I guess *.* in the best interests of Dr. Glendenning and myself. As I stated he~e, we ~eally won't have to keep pumps running for- ever and evar to safeguard people's homes from being flooded. If that is not the case, I guess I will come back to get somebody in the futu~e. M~. Ca~tie~1 I guess I am going to play devil's advocate he~e a little bit. I still have a very se~ious problem with this, in terms of being in compliance with the Ordinance, in terms of wetlands construction. Pa~ticula~ly, when you look at a development of this size, it seems to me you have to be very, very sure that it complies with every single aspect of the Ordinance. I can only repeat what I said at the p~evious meeting, 3 that it certainly is not in compliance with 15.011 in termø of conserving outstanding features, so on and so forth. There is a further ... Page 1, Paragraph c) ... I can't put my finger on it right now, wish I could. Mrs. Manna topography...· ·A development pattern which preserves outstanding natural It doesn't say never to be disturbed. Mr. Cartier a There is a golf course out west *.*, Mrs. Manna Not necessarily. Furthermore, most of this land is tot- ally developable and there is nothing to say that, if every bit of it is developed as zoned, there will not be a long-term effect. Just building houses and disturbing it over ... at least this way everything is going to be controlled. Mr. Cartier a I guess we are going to find ourselves in a position, if we appr~ve this, down the line we are going to look rather foolish because I strongly suspect that the State is going to shoot it down. Mrs. Levandowski a Well, that is all right. Mr. Cartier a Well, I am not here to convince everybody, just inter- ested in stating the other side. Mrs. Levandowski a I think also we have to rely on the other organiza- tions, that are involved with this project. Mr. DeSantis a I would like to suggest that we give the other organiza- tions some guidance. I know they have given us a lot of letters, namely ENCON. I specifically refer to Mr. Hall, whose most recent more corres- pondence, and I specifically asked the Board members if they had a recent letter, more recent than his of June 10 (Exhibit C). And, I am disturbed by their position, Peter, quite honestly and I think we should talk with them in the future, and I recommend to the Town Board that they talk to DEC. The reason I am disturbed is that what they are now referring to is a Class I wetland that they recently classified, I believe it was about four years ago. It disturbs me that either they didn't take the steps at that time and, to this date, have not taken the steps to know why they so classified this property. The reason that I come to that conclusion is the reference I would like to make to Mr. Hall's letter of June 10 wherein he states on the first page in referring to Chapter II of the revised or referred to differ- ent items of the Environmental Impact Statement, by discussion suggesting in fact that the applicant ·describe why this is a Class I wetland, to describe its functions and values,· and describe why it was so classified and what it does. I think it would be more useful to DEC, if they believe we should be involved in the process, as Mr. Hall goes on to say in this letter, to describe to us why DEC thinks it should be a Class I wetland and why it would be important to preserve more of it rather than less of 4 it. It seems to be plainly their position. What we are faced with here, quite honestly, is DEC saying that the applicant should tell us more several times over, and I have looked t~ough all this and yet DEC won't tell us what it is they find so important about this. And that concerned me sufficiently that I visited the site and, other than one area, did not see what obviously is, so a -layman- would call, a wetland. And I don't see in any of the letters from DEe a unique feature other than the -Marl Fen,- which they refer to, which is a geological feature which is under- ground which no one can use and which, although it is rare, they do not attribute any specific asset value to, in terms of something it does in terms of flood water retention or water purification. It is there. It is a tall peak or mountain within, but it is invisible to us. Those sorts of things concern me, with DEC having such an aggressive position and defend- ing this area, yet I still don't know quite why. I know that they have had an opportunity to address it, but every time they address it they simply say that the applicant has not supplied enough information. So I am recommending to them, when they review this or when it goes be- fore the Town Board, that the inventory the reasons why I had a difficult time just saying four years ago this is a Class I wetland, so it should never be violated. prior to that it was of no concern to the State; today they still cannot give us or have not given us the reasons why it should prese~ed oth~ than the classification, which they could change tomorrow for all I know. I mean I don't recall that they held public hearings in this town on that specific designation of a large area, such as this; the Town still doesn't have a wetland map; they have not gone to the Town and said you must adopt the wetland map and adopt specific regulations to save this area. I think, when you balance that against the mitigation measures that the applicant has offered with regard to the areas that I think are truly wetlands, there are some on this property, it is a large piece of property and there are some, and it is an opportunity to plan a large area, which I think that it is apparent to us that the larger pieces of property that we can address at any single time it benefits our community. If we could have a clean slate and the whole Town had a Master plan without anything in the way, we probably would do a much better job than what we are doing, but unfortunately we have to take existing conditions into account. I think that we have seen this with other planned commun- ities before us and we have approved two, I think at this point in time, but to give us the opportunity to treat a large parcel at one time and to do a better job than what we dOt internalizing traffic; addressing commer- cial locations as opposed to residential areas; developing sewered areas in one stroke as opposed to what we now do in many parts of town, which is extend everything bit by bit and hope that we can tie it altogether and it is all sized properly down the road; and it also gives us the opportunity to really evaluate traffic impacts. We have sat on this Board and we always say, ·Well what is the last developer we blame for our problems?- Well, here we are able to address a very large area, a project that is going to take, by the applicant's estimation, I believe 25+ years to develop. I am just balancing that, it is not a reason to ignore the 5 wetland, but I say that it is not just this Boa~d's responsibility to go out and find the reasons why DEe classified it this way. I have looked fo~ those, it is not in anything the DEC has given us, and I know Mr. aall has been to ou~ meetings and has been asked those questions. If it i~ of that impo~tance, I would think they would have gone through an invento~y of the p~ope~ty when they classified it fou~ years ago, otherwise on what basis did they classify it? ADd, I would ask them that question today. If they can b~ing that information to the Town Board, I recommend that they do and that the Towm Board have that in f~ont of them when they conside~ it. Just addressing it as a PUD, I would support it and recommend it to the Town Board. M~. Roberts. Is it fair to state ... in reference to protection of the wetlands is it fair to state that wetlands o~dinances ... don't say you can't do anything in the wetlands, you need a permit. Mr. Desantis. I think that is true, but I think that before you can I guess I come f~om an a~ea whe~e, if the Gover.Dment says you can't do something, they need to have at least a plausible ~eason. M~. Robe~ts. No, I don't disagree ... M~. Desantis. ADd I am just saying that, if there is a reason, then the applicant o~ whoever wants the permit says ~I should be allowed in light of this ~eason to do what I want because I am addressing this reason this way.- Just to call something black or white and then ask the appli- cant to explain why it is black or white, I don't think that is the way things should be done, quite candidly. I am not just using this as an ex- ample but, when you inventory something and I recommend to the Town that, when they take and set up their f~eshwater wetlands map and they pick an area and they decide it to be wetland, they should have specific reasons for each a~ea. Then, if someone wants to do something in the wetland and they can come up with an innovative way o~ technology should improve where- by he can address those specific ~easons, and benefits and maintain them, then we have facts. And I think, sadly, like here we really don't have a lot of facts as to why this is a Class I wetland. I admit it is, but I have not been able to find out why it is. Mr. Robe~ts. Anyone else have any ideas? Mr. Dybas. No, but I like the idea of one developer, rather than hav- ing a half-dozen developers in there, and propose to leave the wetland by itself *.* would end up as a junkya~d someday. You have to think around it, we are going down the line fo~ 20-odd yea~s, 25 years, and I am sure there a~e going to be dozens of p~oblems and dozens of questions asked. I don't think anybody right now thinks five o~ ten yea~s is going to answer them all. That is why we have competent people and technology to address those p~oblems, and I think they will be addressed. 6 Mrs. Mann. Each phase will be reviewed. Mr. Dybas. Absolutely. You have four phases extending to year 2008. Mr. Roberts. Peter, you *.* the other side of this. You have very valid reasons. Do you want to say how you feel? Mr. cartier. Actually, I am at a loss for words. I cannot support the present proposal, based on reasons I have already stated. I hope somewhere down the line the wetlands are going to be protected. Mr. Roberts. Well, if there are no further questions or comments, I think ..., we do have the need ..., it seems to me that perhaps we should first vote on whether we're talking ·yes· or ·no·, and then we will worry about drafting the appropriate Resolution. We have a couple before us, for and against, we may want to evaluate or add to it, or whatever. We first find out which one we are talking about, for or against. Mr. Dybas. We vote right now, is that what you are saying? Mr. Roberts. If that is what you are feeling. Mr. Dybas 1 approved All right. You just want a motion that the project be Mrs. Mann. We have the motions here. Mr. Dybas 1 You don't want ·yes· or ·no,· is that what you want? the motion, you just want a voice vote Then worry about the motions later. Mr. Roberts. We are talking ·yes· or ·no.· Mr. Prime. I think your procedure should be that either approve the project and recommend it to the Town Board or disapprove it, and then we can review the appropriate report and add or subtract from that and adopt the report. Mr. Desantis. *.* approve the Resolution, the form to be decided later to be presented to the Town Board. Mr. Dybas moved APPROVAL of Planned Unit Development Number 2, Quaker Ridge (Earltown), and recommend that it be sent to the Town Board. Seconded by Mrs. Levandowski. Mr. Roberts. You didn't say a couple of things. Mr. Prime. That's all right, the Resolution will come later. Mr. Roberts. There is confusion as to the correct PUD Number. 7 M~s. Moeller I I will find out the co~rect one. (Notel PUD Number 2 is correct fo~ this p~oject.) M~. Roberts. call the ~oll. If the~e a~e no fu~ther questions or comments, let's passe41 5 Yes (Levandowski, Dybas, Mann, Roberts, DeSantis) 1 No (Cartier) 1 Abstain (Macri) M~. Robertsl Counsel. Now we do have the Resolution fo~ app~oval, as drawn by *.* concerning which Resolution and co~~ect voting p~ocedure. M~. Robertsl Resolution. Yes, I guess the next p~ocedure is to read the prepared Mrs. MannI Read the Resolution to be app~oved by the Planning Board. M~. prime I This is based on the Ordinance as you can tell so, unless you want to add something to it, it is what the Ordinance requires. Mr. Roberts I Should we add Frank's recommendation to the Town Board, as pa~t of this motion? Mr. DeSantis I I refer to Counsel, I don't want to clutter up. I would ~ecommend to the Town Board that they review the minutes of this meeting, rather than just read the report that will have the planning Board's comments available to them. Mr. Primel Why don't you make this . . . M~. DeSantis I *.* I think it does the job, with everybody... that's all I'm seeking to avoid. But I do think that is an important issue, and I know a g~eat many members of the community a~e sensitive to that issue, and I think it would be beneficial to the whole discussion of review, if ... that information is out there, that the applicant and DEC bring it for- ward to the reviewing party. We don't have it at our hands. Mr. Roberts I This is going to be a p~etty sho~t meeting, and I don't think it would be unreasonable to expect the Town Board members to read a verbatim of the meeting. Mr. DeSantis I I think so. I recommend that they do that. Mx'. P~imel Do you want to make it a part of the report? Mr. DeSantisl That they read the minutes? Yes, I think that would say it all, ~athe~ than somebody's specific position. It would be better. 8 - Mr. Prime. You can say -to forward a copy of this report to the Queensbury Town Board, together with a copy of the minutes of this meet- ing, with the recommendation that the Town Board accept the minutes as part of the report.- Mrs. Moeller. Are you talking about verbatim or just minutes? Mr. Prime. Complete transcript. *.* - regarding transcript. Mr. Prime. Say -The minutes of this meeting be a part of this report and forward to the Town Board for their action.- (Mr. ROberts. perusal.) Mr. Roberts. Do you want to make that a motion? We are voting again on this specific vote. I'll entertain another motion. Mr. DeSantis moved ADOPTION of the report submitted by the Planning Board's Counsel and as read by the Planning Board's Secretary, with the addition that was recommended by Counsel. Seconded by Mrs. Mann. pa.sed 5 Yes (Levandowski, Dybas, Mann, DeSantis, Roberts) 1 No (Cartier) I Abstain (Macri) Meeting was adjourned at 8.15 p.m. This is to verify that, to the best of my abilities, the minutes have been accurately transcribed, despite unavoidable sound conditions. 7c.:ö .JiY 9 - POSITION STATEMENT ON EARLTOWN'S QUAKER RIDGE PUD by Richard Roberts For many months I, like so many others I suspect, have been agonizing over this proposed Planned Unit Development of the Earl town Corporation. I have vacillated widely from day to day in my thinking on this matter and, only this past Sunday morning while lying in bed in Duxbury, MA, did I come to a decision. I must say it feels good to have made a decision, be it right or wrong. We are told that our recommendation to the Town Board be conceptual in nature, and we need not be confused by a lot of details at this part of the review process. I don't buy that, nor do I know how to do that. We are also told that the wetlands issue should not be a prime concern at this time that this will be more closely addressed later. I don't buy that either, since the very concept of this project will significantly alter a sizeable wetland, and the 1976 Town Board charged the Planning Board with the task of protecting the Queensbury Wetlands. (Reference I Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands Ordinance and Permitting Process.) Therefore, my personal recommendation is based on everything I have been able to learn about the project, without limitations. From a procedural standpoint, it is my understanding we must recommend for or against the rezoning of this land for the Planned Unit Developmept, described as Preferred Alternative '4 in the amended DEIS. Although I was disappointed that the applicant did not provide us with an alternative that would have been easier to support, I will, nevertheless, lend my support to this proposed alternative. In order to come to this conclusion, I make a number of assumptions I EXHIBIT A ~ POSITION STATEMENT ON EARLTOWN'S QUAKER RIDGE PUD Page 2 1) I believe the steps that have been taken to protect the airport from future harassment are sufficient to do just that. I believe long-term protection of the airport is more important to this area, than any benefits to be derived from the Quaker Ridge project. 2) I believe the air quality of this part of town is improving and will continue, so as not to become a detriment to the project. 3) I believe the traffic in this part of town, although not what some old-timers would like to see, will be manageable. 4) I believe all utilities are or will be available in a practical manner. 5) I believe that, although the taxing districts prove to be awkward and not to Queensbury's best interest (iel the higher profit taxes going to the City of Glens Falls, whereas the higher school impact is felt by Queensbury), this is not problem enough to kill the project. 6) I believe that, although a large portion of a major wetland will be significantly altered and some of its properties and attributes forever lost, some existing properties will remain and new uses and benefits will accrue. Most of the peat will remain (albeit under the golf course) to continue to perform some of its hydrological duties. - POSITION STATEMENT ON EARLTOWN'S QUAKER RIDGE PUD Page 3 The golf courses, ponds and swales, while being of much greater utilization by man than currently is the case, will still be shared with animal, bird and plant life. 7) I believe that no roads and very little other construction will be built on any significant depth of peat that would create engineering and maintenance problems that might come back to haunt the town in the future. 8) I believe that, when Quaker Ridge is allowed to drain and shape the wetland, danger of flooding of homes' or other significant structures or roads will be eliminated. Flooding can be contained within the ponds and swales of the golf courses. The property will drain without pumps to the extent of protecting the health, safety and welfare of its residents and their property. 9) I believe the amount of commercial and particularly light industrial acreage being proposed should be considered a plus and be encouraged, rather than be stifled, by the language of the PUD regulations. 10) I believe that developing large blocks of the town by PUD's !sa planning concept to be promoted. No two groups of people would ever envision, design and complete a project of this magnitude quite the people willing suggest that, when we have a known, qualified group of to tackle this project, perhaps they should be given same way. I POSITION STATEMENT ON EARLTOWN'S QUAKER RIDGE PUD Page 4 some discretion. They have deemed this, the Preferred Alternative 14, to be the highest and best use of this land. After due consideration, I am willing to agree. On the days that my conscience bothers me that I was willing to sacrifice a wetland in this manner, I console myself with the thought that soon they may find that AIDS is spread by mosquitoes. It works for me I July 13, 1988 -- Adirondack Animal II osp ital 395 RJdge Road, Glens falls, New York 12801 (518) 793-6663 .June 29, 1988 Mr. Richard Roberts, Chairman Queensbury Town Planning Board Queensbury Town Office Building Bay Road Glens Falls, New York 12801 Dear Dick: I have devoted a significant amount of time and energy to understanding the Quaker Ridge project. I have come to the conclusion that wi~hin this PUD framework lies suitable use for the property. Many questions remain regarding site development, but my main issue has been failsafe low maintenance drainage in the lowest areas. Earltown's representatives have provided reasonable solutions to most of my drainage concerns. Ove~ two years of time they have been cooperative and reasonable people to deal with and I believe that should continue as they proceed with the project. I would advise you that my concerns remain, but that I believe solutions can be found as the final engineering studies and plans are detailed. Approval of the PUD concept is encouraged as long as site plan review al- lows modification or elimination of housing placement on the lowest areas. If I can be of any assistance, please don't hesitate to call. .JRG/ki EXHIBIT B James R. Olendenlng. D.V.M. . Allen U. r:dwards. D.V.M. . ChrlsUne Annao. D.V.M. ~. - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Regulatory Affairs P.O. Box 220, Hudson Street Warrens burg, New York 12885 Telephone: (518) 623-3671 or 668-5441 ~ ...., ~ HAND DELIVERED Thomas C. Jorllng Commissioner June 10, 1988 Re: Quaker Ridge Development by Earltown Corporation Queensbury (T), Warren (Co.) Stephen J. Borgos, Supervisor Town of Queensbury Bay at Haviland Roads Glens Falls, New York 12801 Dear Mr. Borgos: The following comments pertain to the Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the Earltown Corporation for the Quaker Ridge Planned Unit Dev~lopment (PUD). For purposes of clarity, our comments have been arranged according to the Chapters of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Chapter II - Environmental Setting While this'Chapter has been significantly revised, the r~visions consist primarily of removing information from the technical appendices and inserting the same information into Chapter II. Unfortunately, this has done little to improve the fundamental deficiency in this Chapter - that is, it still lacks any meaningful discussion of the wetland (HF-3) that occupies at least 60% of the project site. Moreover, the'entire Chapter seems overly complex and technical which unfortunately obscures the Chapter's intent - which is to clearly describe the existing environmental conditions at the site. DEC suggests that the lead agency require that Chapter II be revised to include a description of the wetland that dominates the project site. DEC suggests that the wetland be discussed in the context of its Class I status - Le. describe why it is a Class I wetland, describe its functions and values, describe the vegetative cover types in and around the wetland, describe their relative proportions and how this feature relates to habitat diversity and/or wetland uniqueness. In addition, there is no discussion in this Chapter of the "Marl Fen" that is known to occupy a portion of the site. As you may be aware, marl fens are a rare occurrence in New York State - i.e. only four others are known to exist. In conclusion, the chapter does not require additional tables, charts or species lists. Instead, the chapter requires a description of the en,vironmental setting that represents an analysis and summary of these tabular data. DEC EXHIBIT C ~ (2) requests that the Town Board require this information as part of the DEIS. Chapter III - Significant Environmental Impacts In general, the intent of this chapter is to enable the Lead Agency, involved agencies and the public to assess the impact of a proposed project on the existing environment - a process that requires a comparative assessment of Chapters I and II of the DEIS. However, with respect to wetland impacts, it is DEC's contention that Chapter III of the Quaker Ridge DEIS does not provide this analysis. As a result, the DEIS is deficient. For example, at page 3A-5, the DEIS notes that the "preferred alternative" will utilize 44.3% of the wetland area. This statement does little to reveal anything about significant wetland impacts, yet it is essentially the only statement that is made in this Chapter relative to wetland impacts. We suggest Chapter III be amended to include a description of the wetland that would exist after construction of the "preferred alternative". That is, what portion of wetland HF-3 will remain after ground and surface water flows are altered, would the marl fen be affected or unaffected, what functions and values would the resulting wetland have and what would its tentative classification be? Only in this manner can the reader be in a position to judge the significance of the wetland impacts and offer relevant comments. In addition, DEC would appreciate clarification of the following: 1. on page 3A-4, at the section '~ntitled "Site-Specific Ecological Value Enhancement", what is the relevance and meaning of paragraph '1. 2. on page 3A-5, what is the derivation of the terms type I, type II and type III that appear in the second paragraph. Chapter IV - Mitigation This major chapter is generally intended to be a discussion of reasonable measures that can be taken to minimize or offset the ~ignificant environmental impacts of a project. Without question, the Supplement is noticeably improved over the discussion of mitigation that was offered in the original DEIS. That is, the Supplement includes a discussion of mitigation that at least acknowledges certain wetland functions and values and an effort is made to offset their loss. However, to effectively mitigate wetland losses, it is necessary to know more about the off-site parcels that have been offered by Earltown. For example, what is the total acreage of 'wetland that has or would be acquired, what are the characteristics of these wetland areas in structural and functional terms, what would their tentative classification be? Only with this kind of information can the Town, DEC and the public determine if mitigation is a "good deal" - i.e. that there is a reasonable balance between what is being offered as an offset and the resources that will be irreversibly lost. ~ (3) Chapter V - Adverse Environmental Impacts The next major chapter in an EIS typically focuses on a discussion of unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. The Supplement to the DEIS for the Quaker Ridge PUD devotes one page to a discussion of relevant wetland impacts. Perhaps one page is sufficient, but the information provided on that one page (5A-1) is not. Most of the page is devoted to a description of impacts that will be "buffered" or "prevented" and faunal inhabitants that will "adapt" or "relocate". There is little that describes adverse environmental impacts - wetland or otherwise. With respect to wetland impacts, DEC suggests that Chapter V be revised to include a comparative discussion of the functions and values of the existing wetland and the functions and values of wetland HF-3 that will either remain or be compensated through mitigation. Chapter VI - Alternatives In this Chapter, the EIS is meant to focus on a discussion of reasonable alternatives that will accomplish the sponsor's objective. In the Supplement to the EIS, this Chapter represents a significant improvement over the "Alternatives" chapter in the original EIS. However, on three occasions since May, 1987, DEC-Region 5 has requested that the Town Board, as lead agency, require discussion of two specific alternatives: ' " 1. a project that would result in no wetland losses - that is development would be confined to areas of the site that are upland of the boundary of wetland HF-3¡ and 2. a project that would result in development of 25-50% of the onsite wetland areas. In view of the fact that the preferred alternative would eliminate somewhere between 60% and 100% of a 600+ acre wetland, DEC contends that both represent reasonable alternatives that should be discussed and compared with the preferred alternative. It is understood that discussion of these two alternatives would not obligate the sponsors to make any ,concessions with respect to their preferred alternative. As an involved agency, DEC is puzzled by the fact that while no one has disputed the reasonableness of either alternative, neither has been discussed in the original or Supplemental EIS. DEC requests that the Town Board, as lead agency, require discussion of these alternatives in the DEIS. As a final comment on Chapter VI, the 'discussion of Alternatives 1-5 in the Supplement would benefit from a description of the wetlands that would remain as a result of each proposal. This description should include the size of the remaining wetland, its residual functions and values and its tentative classification. General Comments: Following DEC comments at the public hearing on May 16, 1988, the Town Board noted that the sponsors of the Quaker Ridge Project will '- (4) - require a wetlands permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. As a result of this comment, staff was left with the impression that the lead agency might regard certain of DEC's comments as "deferrable" on the basis, perhaps, that the comments could be addressed during DEC's project review process. If this impression is correct, DEC staff want to assert that DEC's jurisdiction with respect to wetlands should not affect the'Lead Agency's decisions with respect to the scope, content or adequacy of the EIS. That is to say, the EIS should be a decision-making document for all agencies, not just the lead agency. As such, a deficiency in the discussion of environmental setting, wetland impacts, alternatives and/or mitigation should be corrected now rather than via yet another Supplement to the EIS. Were DEC lead agency, staff would feel compelled to require discussion in the EIS of any issues of concern to the Town such as traffic, community character, utilities or public schools. With this in mind, DEC will reiterate its recommendation that the EIS include á discussion of the project's compatibility with the the New York State Freshwater Wetlands Law and the Freshwater Wetlands permit requirements. In particular, the regulations pertaining to wetland permits require, among other things, that the Earltown Corporation demonstrate that its preferred alternative: 1. is the only practicable alternative that could accomplish the applicant's objective; 2. has no practicable alternative on a site that is not a freshwater wetland or adjacent area; and 3. satisfies a compelling economic or social need that clearly and substantially outweighs the loss of or detriment to the benefits of the wetland. While these standards do relate to wetland permit requirements, more importantly, they require the discussion of information that is clearly at the heart of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and Environmental Impact Statements. DEC requests the Lead Agency's assistance to insure that the EIS provides a proper foundation for making decisions of compatibility and permitability with respect to DEC's laws and regulations. As was mentioned at the public hearing, DEC staff remain available to provide further explanation of this issue. For that matter, staff is available to discuss any of the written and oral comments that we have provided during the past year. Finally, DEC staff will reiterate that a "show of hands" should not be used to determine whether the Supplement to the DElS is sufficient. Instead, the decision should be based on an evaluation of the content of the ElS. And while it is ou~ oþjective to produce ElS's that are brief and analytical, it is our contention that most of the comments provided by our Department at the public scoping meeting and public hearing have yet to be addressed in the DElS. In fact, the "Responses to Comments" provided in the Supplement to the DEIS leaves DEC with the impression that the project sponsors have been left to pick and choose the comments for which a response is required. As a result, DEC will also reiterate its req~est that the Town Board require a response to all reasonable comments on the DEIS and its .. ~ (5) Supplement. Until these responses are provided, DEC will continue'to regard the EIS as deficient and, therefore, ai a draft document. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Region 5 looks forward to continuing our cooperative review of the Quaker Ridge project. Should you have any questions, please contact me at the Warrensburg office. . Sincerely, .-J,-, lu\, \-Tt~L( Thomas W. Hall Associate Environmental Analyst THW/cg cc: Terry Healey Alan Koechlein Richard Wild '. QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD REPORT ON THE EARLTOWN CORP. APPLICATION FOR PUD DISTRICTING UNDER ARTICLE 15 OF THE QUEENS BURY ZONING ORDINANCE Whereas, EarltoWÐ Corp. has filed an application with the Town of Queens bury for PUD redistricting under Article 15 of the Queens bury Ordin- ance, and Whereas, pursuant to said Ordinance, the Queens bury Planning Board has reviewed the Earltown Sketch Plan and supporting documents, including the EIS, and finds the documentation complete and in compliance with the re- quirements of Article 15 and in particular Section 15.020 of said ordin- ance, and Whereas, the Queens bury planniag Board met with the applicant on June 30, 1988, at the Queeasbury Town Hall in an open discus.ioa of the pur- poses and objectives of the ordinaace and the applicant's proposals and concepts with respect to the proposed rezoning of the desigaated PUD area, and after due consideration, the Planning Board finds A. That the proposal meets the intent and objectives of Article 15 of the Queens bury Zoning Ordiaaace, and B. That the proposal is conceptually acceptable as meetiag a community need and conforms to accepted design principals as set forth in said Article 15, and C. That adequate services and utilities can be made available in the development of the PUD, and Therefore, the Queensbury planning Board recommends the establishment of the proposed PUD to the Queensbury Town Board and that the said Town Board proceed with the rezoning of the PUD area in accordance with QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD REPORT ON THE EARLTOIfN CORP. APPLICATION FOR PUD DISTRICTING UNDER ARTICLE 15 OF THE QUEENS BURY ZONING ORDINANCE PAGE 2 Article 15 of the Queensbury Ordinance, and directs the Chairman of the PlanBing Board to forward a copy of this report to the Queensbury Town Board, and the Minutes of this meeting be a part of this report and be forwarded to the Queensbury Town Board for their perusal. DA'l'EDa July 13, 1988 VOTE OF THE BOARD a YES NO Richard Roberts, ChairmaB ~ Hildegarde Mann, Secretary V' Susan Levandowski ~. Joseph Dybas / Victor Macri .A- Frank DeSantis ~ Peter Cartier ~ I hereby certify the within report this /3 day of July, 1988. 71u~F~.~~ Hildegarde E. Mann, Secretary