1987-09-02 SP SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING
HEARING-QUAKER RIDGE DEVELOPMENT
SEPTEMBER 2, 1987
6:00 P.M.
TOWN BOARD
Mrs. Frances Walter-Supervisor
Mr. George Kurosaka-Councilman
Mr. Stephen Borgos-Councilman
Mr. Ronald Montesi-Councilman
Mrs. Betty Monahan-Councilman
Mr. Wilson Mathias-Town Counsel
PRESS: WWSC, WBZA, G.F. POST STAR, Channel 13 News
GUESTS: Representatives of Earltown, Residents of the Town of Queensbury
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-COUNCILMAN BORGOS
NOTICE SHOWN
SUPERVISOR WALTER-This is a special meeting of the Queensbury Town Board it is concurrent
public hearing, and we are holding it this evening relative to the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and also Article 15 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, which has to
do with Planned Unit Developments. Earltown is the subject this evening, this is a proposed
multi use project of large scale in our Town and the developers are seeking a PUD rezoning
and they have submitted a draft environmental impact statement which we are currently
in the comment period that was filed in July. The Board accepted the DEIS on the 28th of
.July, we are having our public hearing this evening on the second of September, the public
comment period will continue throughout the month of September. To begin this evening
the developers have requested a short time for a brief presentation of some information that
they feel is important as far as your comments this evening.
MR. EDWARD BARTHOLOMEW-I think if the Glens Falls Tigers could draw as well as this
tonight they would be assured of attendance success. We do have some information this evening
that will be presented to membersof the Town Board and members of the public. This information
that is presented tonight for your comment period is done directly i'h response to the Town
of Queensbury Town Board resolution of last month, which requested that we address a few
of these issues with more information. With that understanding we will present this information
and we would like to ask the Town Board to move to allow for better viewing. (slide show)
Certainly we are here this evening and we greatly appreciate and understand the concerns
and also the comments that we are about to receive tonight as we have received throughout
this comment period. I think that our first presentation of the slide show, shows the importance
of Quaker Ridge, the importance that this exists'tonight for Town Government for Environmental
Groups of our area and for Earltown to work together on a planned development, a planned
unit development for the next fifteen to twenty years. The brief agenda this evening will
be highlighted by these three or four points. The key question of course is why should Earltown
be approved. I think it is very important to point out that Earltown began to acquire property
in 1979 and 1980, prior to the official designation of this property as an official wetland over
80% of that property was acquired by Earltown. It is also important to note that the current
zoning on this piece of property is industrial reserve. Meaning that this property can be developed
for warehouses for distribution and other industrial uses. Thirdly and most importantly as
we have indicated in our opening presentation, this indeed is a master plan for this project,
similar to that of what has been expressed by the concerns and the thoughts of the citizens
of Queensbury throughout your town to have a master plan for your town, this is a master
plan for the next fifteen to twenty years on this project. The various components of this
project include single family homes, a cluster of village style condominiums a hotel and over
three hundred acres of this property will be preserved as open space over peat as a golf course
area. Very importantly, along Quaker Road, along the southern portion of the slide a mile
and a quarter access road will be developed by Quaker Road to eliminate and assist the Town
Residents with traffic in the area. Again this map will be available as part of the handout
that we will provide at this end of this evening. As we have indicated this presents an opportunity
for a group to work together in unison. Economically, this project over the next fifteen years
will provide substantial economic positive news for our region in terms of temporary and
in terms of permanent jobs. Most importantly also it will provide a new opportunity for tourism
and conventions in our area to bring people into our area with golfing conventions and business
conventions into our region without putting added strain or burden on the already burdened
Lake George Lake. Initially this will provide for the first time additional public access to
a piece of property which to now has been private. The golf courses will be open to the public,
it will consist of thirty-six holes of a Robert Trent Jones design championship golf course.
31
During the winter cross country skiing will be available. It is the intent of Earltown to donate
some twenty-five acres of land onsite and in a moment to discuss in more detail the acreage
off-site. Also in compliance with Queensbury Law, funding to the Town Recreation area.
Also we believe this will provide better use of the existing property, in terms of recreation
use in terms of accessibility for the first time to this property, and to present a master plan
of a mixture of use. Rather than having warehouses and distribution which it is properly
zoned for we are planning a planned unit development of this particular mixed use. Additionally
a large area, as I have indicated will be preserved and be available as open space over three
hundred and fifty acres of golf course and recreational area will be available on that site.
Most importantly a concern and recognition by Earltown that we must provide on site mitigation
and off-site mitigation and thirdly the establishment of an environmental conservation trust
fund, we will spend in a moment to discuss this in more detail. On site, again you can see -
the location and primarily our plans as spelled out in our impact statement is to provide on-sit
mitigation through open space as a golf course, land scaped buffers that will exist between
the home owners on Ridge Road and our property along Ridge Road and along the entire lengti
of Quaker Road separating our commercial property and our residential areas, along with
creating parks and community gardens. Again, summarizing these points of on-site mitigation,
of having public parks of community gardens and of open space. A very new concept to work
with the Queensbury Beautification Committee to have throughout our public park and to
have through our public golf course area these types of representative scenes of landscaping,
gardens throughout this project. Again, these are being held as the type of community gardens
we are anticipating to develop and put on this particular site through the public parks as well
as through the area. Something innovative that some communities have done is to develop
these community gardens with groups and schools throughout the area is something innovative.
Again, around a golf course layout and public park area, and again to make a very important
point to stress that with the exception of the sighting of a particular red shoulder hawk there
does not exist any rare or endangered species of birds, animals or plants that have been found
on the Earltown site. This is our wild life biologist, Nancy Slack Phd. Wildlife Biologist at
Russell Sage. Off-site mitigation, Earltown in our draft environmental impact statement
recognized the need and the importance not only to provide on site,to provide off-site mitigation
measurers. These measurers include the acquisition by Earltown and the donation to the
Town of Queensbury of forty acres at the intersection of Haviland and Ridge. This property
is presently under sight control by Earltown. A better location shows the Ridge Road, Haviland
Road and the development just north of Haviland Road, this entire green area of forty acres
has been acquired by Earltown and be donated to the Town of Queensbury. The importance
of this particular location as we can see from another shot is providing a buffer zone along
Ridge Road along the south side of the project area and as we travel along Haviland Road
you can see again the outline of this forty acre property, right through that particular area
is the forty acres, in addition to providing this green space and buffer zone area we are not
within seven hundred feet of the other planned unit development. There is one parcel of
property between Earltown and that of Mr. Bowen's project, Highland Park,of some seven
hundred feet. It is the effort and the goal that you can see the end of Mr. Bowen's project
along the area of the right hand side of the slide and our green area, right in that area is
one parcel that Earltown was not able to acquire. In addition to this green space it is very
important and one of the concerns is that citizens have made and the Queensbury Association
is the protection of the Class A Halfway Brook Stream. This is a wetland area it has a large
variety of habitat of plants and animals as demonstrated by these particular pictures here.
Again this represents one particular site. A second site that has been acquired and will be
donated either to the Town of Queensbury or to the Department of Environmental Conservation
or to a land conservation trust fund are two pieces of property totally close to thirty acres
adjacent to the Glen Lake Area. This has been classified by the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation as a wetland area. There are significant variety of plant
life and animal life that exists in this area, because as we can see for this aerial photograph
and we will have outlined with our pointer, through the middle of this property is the warren
County Bike Trail, to the left of that is the area of nineteen acres and to the right of that
area is another eight or nine acres to make up the twenty nine acres that Earltown has under
its sight control. Again, a better example, to preserve the wetland areas that are high quality
nature to provide and protect recreational areas with the bike trail through. Again some
shots from the ground looking again on both sides of the bike trail are properties which will
be donated to one of those organizations of which I have mentioned. Here is another shot
of the area, again an additional photograph representing pictures, this is a lady slipper with
is on this particular site which is a very important plant that is located there. A third area
that Earltown does not have under site control but is a representative area that Earltown
is planning to acquire and which will be donated again to the New York State Dept. of Envirol_ntf
Conservation or to the Adirondack Chapter of the Nature Conservatory is land in the Brant
Lake Chestertown area or other portions of Warren County that are representative of significant
wetland characteristics and are wetland area. Again, this is an aerial view of one of the
sites that is being reviewed and again would be donated as part with our off-site mitigation.
In summary we are providing off-site mitigation forty acres at Haviland and Ridge and nearly
thirty acres at Glen for a total of seventy acres off-site. On site we are providing twenty-five
acres of land and additionally we will be acquiring additional site akin to a Class I wetland
having the characteristics. A third important is recognizing the need, the concerns and goals
3 / 1
the Town of Queensbury and the region to preserve areas not only of green space but as buffer
zones, to plan a master plan for open space. Earltown is proposing on our site the following
concepts. 1. There will be proceeds of a one time payment for the first ten years any land
that is sold each landowner will be paying three hundred and fifty dollars into the land trust
account, any property sold in the final ten years that figure will be seven hundred and fifty
dollars. It is expected by the end of the twenty years there will be at least a half a million
dollars in that particular trust fund. The concept of the trust fund is that those funds would
be turned over on an annual basis either directly to the Town of Queensbury or to a not-for
profit organization trust fund set up with the guide lines and working with the citizens of
the Town of Queensbury. 2. Earltown will create on-site conservation assessment for a period
of twenty years on all units that will be developed, single family homes the hotel the village
style condominiums will be developed an assessment will be based on a unit for a tax rate
of one thousand dollars of assessed valuation per year. We anticipate that, that rage of revenues
annually will be somewhere between twelve and fifteen thousand dollars that will be provided
- into this trust fund. The purpose of this trust fund and this is something that has been done
particularly on the east coast in the State of Maine and Massachusetts is to assist the Town
in developing a maintaining quality and environmentally sensitive areas. Some other points
briefly to discuss as-we have earlier have pointed out that the mile and a quarter access road
parallel to Quaker Road will be develop,to eliminate approximately there exists one hundred
and two curb cuts between Route 9 Aviation Road and all the way down to lower Dix Avenue
on both sides of that road. Through our development on Quaker Road of a mile and a quarter,
approximately there will only be four to five intersections eliminating many unnecessary
curb cuts. Earltown will install where appropriate at Earltown's cost traffic lights we will
further share any expenses for further traffic studies. As the result of those traffic studies
Earltown agrees to pay our pro-rata share of those necessary solutions based on a formula
to be devised by the Town of Queensbury. Services will be provided along the Quaker Road
area in the plaza commercial area that will allow the residents of the project to stay on site
in terms of there groceries and other support services will exist so that it will lesson some
of the having to go off site. Earltown is working with the Greater Glens Falls Queensbury
mass transit system in regard to transportation. In terms of water and sewer, all water and
sewer improvements on site on the location of Earltown will be paid by Earltown, Earltown
has agreed and will pay our fair share costs for necessary on site modifications. Storm water
management one of the key concerns is that in addition to above soil charactics of wetlands
there is also characteristics below the surface. It is our contention through our volumes that
these below surface characteristics will be preserved, these will not be destroyed so that
one of the major benefits that is derived for this particular piece of property will be preserved.
Earltown has site control ownership of nine hundred acres, the entire drainage basin, the
water basin of that area is merely over thirteen hundred acres, it is a small area. The development
will continue to provide those characteristics and effects of what the wetland serves the
needs of the surface. In terms of engineering, to provide detention systems to provide so
that there will be no substantial or negative detrimental effect off-site as far as drainage
goes. In summary these are the points that we are responding to as the basis of the information
request, as to why the Earltown project should be approved. As Earltown has done at the
commencement of this project, Earltown has taken the opportunity to listen and work with
the various organizations to listen and to work with the various groups and to work through
this comment period through this project with the assistance of the Town of Queensbury in
terms of making this project presentable and acceptable to the residents of the Town of Queensbury.
In terms of growth, working together in terms of public recreation and better use of existing
lands and again we welcome your comments this evening as well as during the comment period
which the Town of Queensbury has devised.
SUPERVISOR WALTER-Before I loose the thought, there were some items that you presented
in your presentation Mr. Bartholomew that were not included in the draft environmental impact
statement but were specifically related to the Town Board resolution. In view of that and
if you colleagues would agree I would like to suggest that we expand the comment period
from September 28th to the Friday before the Columbus Day Holiday, October 9th. Would
that be acceptable, because there was some other information. Do you have a problem with
that?
MR. BARTHOLOMEW- No, in addition to that we would agree to provide this information
that we have presented tonight to the Town Board and pursuant to our distribution list and
make it available ... no later than the ninth of September so that there still would be a thirty
day comment period.
SUPERVISOR WALTER- If we need to act on a resolution for that we would do that later
on.
Again I will state for those of you that got here a little late, that this a concurrent public
hearing, as we are required to do by SEQRA process we are having that hearing this evening
based on the draft environmental impact statement that has been distributed and made available
to the public by Earltown we also have a zoning ordinance in the Town of Queensbury Article
15 of that Zoning deals with Planned Unit Developments, we require a public hearing and
because we feel that the comments on the project would be covered by both of those documents
3010
we are going to hear from you this evening. There is a large crowd it is an important subject
certainly the Town Board has to take action on this later on down, there will be not action
taken this evening. The purpose of the public hearing is to get the input from the public as
to how you perceive the project. We do have ground rules for our Public Hearings, and before
we get into it I will list them for you. They are not any different than we have for any other
public hearing. Everyone speaking will need to use the microphone, you will have to approach
the front of the room and you will use the microphone so that the girls can get that in the
record of the public hearing. You must give your name and address as far as statements are
concerned, we will allow one statement per organization, association or agencies by an official
of that group. Now if you are here and you are a member of that group and you have something
you want to say on your own, certainly we wish to hear your comments. We would like to _
have a statement by an organization made by an official of that organization and therefore
that would never be in conflict. All of the individuals in the room that will be speaking will
be allowed to speak before you may speak again, again we want to hear from just about everybo-=-
Anyone that has a lengthy statement, I would hope that you synopsize, I don't think anyone
of us would really care to listen of volumns of verbiage we are certainly interested in your
comments, no question and it will help us make a decision down the road, so if you would
just consider all the rest of the people who wish to speak perhaps you would submit your document
to the Town Clerk, it will be made a part of the public hearing record and you will tell us
the salient points that you wish to make. Again, comments should be and as the Chairman
of this hearing I will only allow comments relative to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
and Article 15 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance.
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-You already allowed the sponsor to submit new material?
SUPERVISOR WALTER- Yes.
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA- So why can't the public introduce it, that is what I want to
know?
SUPERVISOR WALTER- Because the hearing is based on the SEQRA Law and the Article
15 of the PUD which says that is what we are doing this evening. In there statements they
may bring forth but they are commenting on the documentation that has already been assemianated
to the public. I hope to hear from everyone, I was going to limit the spokesmen to the Town
of Queensbury but Legal Counsel has told me that that would not be the best thing to do regarding
the SEQRA Law so what I will do is give preference to residents from the Town of Queensbury,
or organizations that are in the Town of Queensbury and you will be allowed to speak first.
Again we are asking for your comments this is not a debate we are wanting to know how you
feel about the project and if you have any comments you wish to make also Earltown will --°
be responding to any questions that you have this,evening in their final environment impact
statement, they are obligated to do that. Essentially, they will be not answering any of you
questions this evening,....
DR. J. R. GLENDENING- 374 Ridge Road- I do not have any slides, I am not a real good public
speaker but bear with me. I wish to present my concerns as a resident of Queensbury who
expects and hopes to remain here permanently. I have sincere questions regarding the wiseness
of some of the concepts surrounding this development. Before I am prejudged as to my motives,
I wish to acknowledge that as business owner, I too, would expect to benefit financially from
the influx of the people and their pets that this proposed development would bring, but that
is not my sole motive for being in Queensbury. First, I feel it is absolutely essential to divorce
one's thoughts regarding this matter from the person of Oliver Laakso. I failed to do this
myself when this plan was first conceived. I found myself looking at his other accomplishments
in this county. I prejudiced my thoughts due to my respect for this man and I was initially
comfortable with the feeling of being awestruck with the magnitude of this venture and not
even being objective about, or questioning, the concept. I found myself making this mental
statement: "If Oliver Laakso is behind this development, it must be okay. He will do a quality
job and we will all benefit from this project"..that is a dangerous feeling. If you, also, feel
that way, then please let my statements through into your mind and be objective about this
concept. You must separate the development's evaluation from Oliver Laakso. We are judging
the merits of a planned unit development, not this fine , respected gentleman. I implore you
to make separation, otherwise you are blinded to the visual and esthetic impact you are deafenec'
to objection. Mrs. Walter and members of the Town Board who ultimately have to judge this
development, please be on guard. Your opinions on this matter will affect so permanently
and this evening you will have a list of concerns that I hope you can evaluate objectively
based on the merits of the development. I have three major areas to address. First, we considering
allowing the development of a swamp. This area is essentially a shallow bowl from which,
historically water does not escape well on its own, and therefore the peat and the lush vegetation
is present. The development of the Airport, County Line Road and Quaker Road has certainly
deepened and raised the sides of that bowl, but it did not form the bowl. The developers
argue that restoring the ditches will provide the drainage that the land historically had. According
to my deed, I have a right of way across that parcel of land to a stream, but that stream
does not appear as their ditches appear, on their drawings. Where is the stream on the drawing
that will be restored? I have sincere concern regarding wet basements of the new land owners,
I am on what is considered a high point at the animal hospital on Ridge Road, we have a need
for a basement sub pump which has been present for a very, very long time. If you are building
twenty feet below me in the bowl, what is your basement going to be like? Are we able to
economically and with good conscience lower the surface water table in that area by nine
feet, that is indicated in the impact statement, without raising havoc with the land and its
vegetation? In the impact statement the term "de-water" is used. In the fine pr recommendations
are that this can be accomplished by ten foot deep trenches, and per Mr. Meyres of Dunn
Geoscience regarding the spacing of the ditches in the peat I quote, "It appears that ditches
should be spaced approximately 150 to 200 feet apart in order to assure a dry ground surface
during wet seasons." And he further states that "In order to accomplish adequate de-watering
at shorter time periods, it may be necessary for ditches to be more closely spaced than 150
to 200 feet." Allow me to add one more quote he continues "However, we understand that
de-watering will also be necessary during project construction in the outer-lying sand and
lacustrine clay deposits. The clay deposits are probably less conducive to de-watering than
the peats." The way I am interpreting that is that he is saying that the ditches will have
' to be closer together than 150 to 200 feet in order to de-water that area. More interesting
comments on the soil characteristics are present in the Geology Section of Volume II. Please
glance at Table 3 which lists the limitations of the soils present in the proposed development.
The categories listed are for shallow, they have a table of the soils and their limitations,
and the categories are shallow escalations, dwellings with basements, dwellings without basements,
roads, streets, fairways and lawns. The table only lists two soil types where the word "slight"
is mentioned. All the rest of the soil types have "Moderate" to "Severe" limitations, for those
uses. Severe is absolutely the limitation that appears most frequently. Aren't you concerned
why they are using this land with all these sever limitations and we are not using it just partially
we are using it totally. All of these added costs of development of this kind of property will
be returned to the purchasers of this property 2 acre lots are planned in these residential
areas selling for twenty to thirty thousand dollars. What if these plans fail? Are we left
with areas free of vegetation with standing water in the ditches? How do we protect ourselves
once this project is approved, regardless of the unsuitability of the land that they are working
with? I would like to bring up my second and third concerns, and they are probably based
in the fact that this may go ahead despite some of this logic. I have questions as to whether
alternate paths for this site might not be found. Basically I am in favor of the concept of
a planned development, and with careful planning, hopefully,we can deep within this community
the type of countryfied atmosphere that many of us moved here for. Personnally, I moved
here to find by city in the country. All the conveyances, business opportunities of an urban
area with a country style of life. I own two pieces of property that directly abut on the margin
of this site, therefore, have a sincere personnel interest in this project. To get to my second
concern. The problems with the proposed residential development along Ridge Road. Quaker
Road as long as the development along Quaker Road is a high density residential complex
that they are planning, the lot sizes are approximately a half acre. They are directly behind
the housing on Ridge Road and those lots are two acres. This direct contact and this extreme
difference in development density is to be separated by fifteen to twenty feet of a buffer,
I do not believe that this is satisfactory. Many of the existing Ridge Road residences are
at or above the level of the highway. That is twenty feet above the site. Consider, if you
will, the visual impact of looking down across your backyard into this high density neighborhood.
Suddenly your house in the country seems in a city. The presence of a fifteen to twenty-five
foot landscaped buffer cannot alter this visual impact unless it is solid lombardy poplars and
then we have built a fence. The future owners of the developments lots opposing these backyards
are sincerely the winners they have a concept of open space, our backyards. The small lot
size and high population density housing proposed there will be conducive to starter homes
for your families, the children in this housing have no recreational areas nearby. I am certain
that they will not be allowed to playon the golf course. The children of this development
have no recreational area, take a moment to consider the concept of one child per house,
where would they play baseball, kickball, etc.? Remember, these are not large lots, they
are half acre. The tennis courts and golf course are by design for the hotel and other paying
guests, not for the residents of this community. My third concern is the automobile traffic
from that residential area, it is being directed out onto Ridge Road. Modification of Ridge
Road at that access point will be required to deal with the significant amount of traffic that
is generated. The future concept of a street light, road widening and turn lanes being placed
at that point for safety reasons on that busy highway creates a visual image of the area of
Bay Road near Stan's Seafood, where residents years have been taken for highway...consider
this visual thought in contrast to the present though to a turn off from Quaker Road going
T up Ridge as a country atmosphere tree lined highway with moderate population density...a
very pleasant suburban appearance. I, personally have no desire to see the lower parts of
Ridge Road become simply more of Quaker Road. I find its present character far too pleasant
to destroy. In contract, the residential area proposed to the east shows much better design.
The children have acres to a proposed town park. The population density and small lot size
in that portion of the development is completely buffered by the golf course, the hotel and
the proposed industrial development. The traffic generated from that development can have
entrance and exit from Quaker Road directly in an area where road widening or a traffic
light would not provide such a drastic change to the residential neighborhood. Through thought
vZ.
and study of the impact statement, I have come to real questions regarding the suitability
of this land, the design of the residential area on Ridge Road and the effect of a major intersection
at that point. We are in a very desirable area to live. Queensbury is going to grow, and a
well conceived development should be welcomed here. A great deal of both money and planning
has been invested in this project once it is started we will have to live with it. Be objective'.
Thank you.
DR. GORDON BLANK-Summit Lane-I am here speaking on behalf of the Adirondack Regional
Chamber of Commerce an organization who's service area includes the Town of Queensbury,
Our Board of Directors had a special meeting last week August 26 to consider the question
of support for this project. Prior to that meeting members of our executive committee and
other members of the Board of Directors walked the acreage reviewed the DEIS and other
pertinent documents relative to the project and at that meeting the board vote unanimously
to endorse and support the project, on the grounds that the project was beneficial to the econc'
of this region by generating tax revenue and generating jobs. It does so in a manner that
we feel is of minimal negative environmental impact. We think it is a good project a well
planned project and we do support it and I would like to give you a copy of the resolution.
There are other members of the Adirondack Regional Chamber of Commerce here but because
of the limitation, they will be planning to speak as individuals citizens. Thank you for the
opportunity to address you.
SUPERVISOR WALTER-All of the statement should be filed with the Town Clerk she will
make sure we get copies of everything, and sometimes in a great semblance of order.
MR. ROBERT ROSOFF-24 Clark Street, Queensbury-Ed gave a very nice presentation and
in respect for the Earltown Corp. the Town Board and the Public. I am requesting that based
on an apparent conflict of interest Mr. Montesi step down andabstain_ from any discussion
of or vote on any matter directly or indirectly dealing with Earltown, the Quaker Ridge Planned
Unit Development.
SUPERVISOR WALTER- Mr. Rosoff, you are out of order, because there is no discussion
this evening, and there is no vote and you will have your opportunity to do that at a time
when this comes to a vote. The purpose of this meeting this evening is to take comments
on the project itself, not on the individuals that are involved or have perhaps a conflict.
We are not dealing with that this evening.
MR. ROSOFF- This does involve the developer which I think is important. If he wishes to
make any statement or participate in any discussion of Earltown, Quaker Ridge, he should
doso... ---
SUPERVISOR WALTER-Mr. Rosoff, please go onto some other aspect of your comments.
MR. ROSOFF-I am making this request basis on the listing of the top janitorial services in
the Capital Dist. Bus. review of March 16 where Mr. Montesi's business which is North Country
Janitorial Inc. listed its principal client as One Broad Street Plaza which is owned and developed
by Earltown, this is conflict of interest.
SUPERVISOR WALTER-Mr. Rosoff, are you making this something political this evening?
MR. ROSOFF- No...
SUPERVISOR WALTER- We are having a discussion, I think that I tried to explain to you
exactly what this public hearing was all about, there are other times when this project will
be discussed. This public hearing is based on the facts that were put forth by the developers
for the public to comment on in the draft environmental impact statement, also the Town
of Queensbury has Article 15 of the Zoning Ordinance which is quite lengthy and has just been
revised. It talks about the kinds of things that we should be considering when we have a project
that wanUPUD approval before us, it is those comments that we are taking this evening.
We are not taking comments about individuals, we are talking about the project and how it
could be developed or maybe should not be developed within the Town of Queensbury. I am
going to ask you once more very politely to please limit your comments to that, if not I am
going to as.: Mr. Donovan to remove you from the microphone. We have a lot of people that
wish to talk and we have a lot of comments that they want to make on the merits or the derr_ts
of this project and we are really here this evening to hear them. So would you please kindly
allow us to. You must have some comments on the project?
MR. ROSOFF- That I do,
SUPERVISOR WALTER- Please get into them and leave the individuals out of it.
MR. ROSOFF- To your wishes, what bothered me the most after reading the EIS which was
-- Da
very lengthy about eight hundred pages long and very detailed in several places I will name
three, Quaker Road is mentioned that it must be upgraded in order to make this project fly.
....In Volume III Section G it talks about this Planners Diversified talks about it, C.T. Male
in his traffic impact studies mentioned that it is all contingent on Quaker Road being improved.
The next to the last letter in Volume I Section 14 from Mr. Fosdick of D.O.T. he writes
to Mrs. Walter saying there is no money to do the Quaker Road upgrade. Quaker Road is
a county road and the county apparently has not indicated that they will upgrade. They have
applied to the State and indicated that they will apply to the State, and Mr. Fosdick f rom
D.O.T. says that there is no money to do that. Thank you.
MR. JIM WELLER-I live on Route 149 in the vicinity of Glen Lake in the Town of Queensbury-I
am a licensed Civil Engineer, I am the owner and general manager of a general construction
firm located in the Town of Queensbury you might say that I live here, I have lived here all
my life and I work here. As an interested citizen in the Town of Queensbury, I have taken
an interest in the proposal of Earltown to develop the land between Quaker Road and County
Line Road. I have tried to learn for myself some of the technical issues and some of the
citizen concerned issues that exist around this. First I have taken the opportunity to go to
Earltown office and study at length with their people the conceptual plans that they developed
for the project. I have reviewed and studied the USGS typographical maps from the early
60's of the lands in question. I reviewed several of the aerial photographs that were done
both in the past and some of the most recent ones, and I took the opportunity recently to '
spend nearly half a day walking what has been estimated as much as three miles of the site
to gain for myself knowledge of what the existing conditions were out there. One of the
things that I learned was that the lands that exist out there actually naturally sloped,the
easterly portion of them are naturally sloped and drained to the east and toward the County
Line Road. The west side of the properties are naturally sloped and have natural drainage
toward Quaker Road and onto the Hudson River. The property and the drainage actually
splits in the middle and goes both easterly and westerly. There is a natural contour to the
land out there, in both directions. I also learned that prior to the construction of the airport
in 1942 that the lands were primarily used for garden farming. I ... learn that the so called
wetlands were probably unintentionally created in recent years by various public works improvemer
projects which resulted in an unintentional restriction of the preexisting drainage that existed
on the site. To be specific the airport was constructed in 1942 and restricted the natural
flow of water to the east and toward the County Line Road. The construction of the Quaker
Road in the early 60's and shortly thereafter the ditch line construction for the curb cuts
for various commercial establishments along Quaker Road restricted the flow of the waters
to the west and to the Hudson River and of course Quaker Road. In 1974 the construction
of the ILS system at the airport at the south end with the Northsouth runway, it was actually
built out there, if you stand under the lighting system you can see a dam four to six feet high
above the preexisting drainage. It blocked the channel and blocked the flow of water. The
dam- . created a pond on the south side of thd'airport and those of us that spent time in the
70's flying in and out of the airport remember the pond at the south end. This was caused
by the ILS system. The pond backed up the waters over most of these lands. I have come
to the conclusion that these so called wetlands were obviously created probably unintentionally
by these various public works projects around the perimeter of the site. Let me get onto
another point, that is what my prospective of the quality of life here is in the Town of Queensbury
I believe if we are going to maintain the quality of life as I know it and in which we enjoy
in the Town of Queensbury we must continue to seek and promote economic growth. Quality
of life as we know it and economic growth go hand in hand, we cannot have one without the
other. This project to me is an opportunity to achieve economic growth in a planned environments
sound and beneficial way. We need this project in the Town of Queensbury and we need other
projects like this one. Projects like this represent our future. It is our opportunity to maintain
our quality of life which we enjoy in Queensbury. Lastly, and I am going to add something
to this I do not think we can separate Mr. Oliver Laasko from Earltown or from this development.
He is behind it, he is responsible for it his sucessess of the past his reputation go hand in
hand with it. I do not question the intent behind the project or the wisdom or foresight of
Earltown or Oliver Laak§d . I think we need only look at the record over the past twenty years
here in Queensbury and the surrounding area and we can go back to the Kamyr complex which
began the vitalization of down town Glens Falls, the soon after purchase of the Queensbury
Hotel which was in a state of disrepair and near bankruptcy and is now a quality facility in
an around our community. We can look at old Orchard Park adjacent to the Country Club
we can look at the Senior Citizens Center on Ridge Street in which they were instrumental
in bring to Glens Falls financing and developing we can thank Mr. Laakso in a great extent
for Continental Insurance Company being in Glens Falls he was instrumental in keeping Continent
here when they made a decision that their existing facility in downtown was no longer usable,a
and he convinced them to build here. Of course the Glens Falls Civic Center....on Pruyns
Island which is an affiliate...
MR. DANIEL GEALT-Is this relevant?
SUPERVISOR WALTER-I would like to keep away from personalities although I think that
those of you who...it is going to be difficult it is an election year.
MR. JIM WELLER-I will skip over Mr. Laakso's projects..I will say I have not seen him do
a bad one yet, over twenty years I have seen them do each and every one of their projects
in such a way that they were beneficial to the communities in which they were done.
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA- You stopped Mr. Rosoff from talking..
SUPERVISOR WALTER- Mr. Kurosaka, you are out of order
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA- I may be out of order but I think I am right.
MR. JIM WELLER- I am for this project and I am for the Town of Queensbury approving it
as soon as possible, I close by saying that if there is any question in anybody's mind about
my involvement in the project, I don't have any. My only interest in the project is as a residen,---
of the Town of Queensbury. Business wise, Earltown is a competitor of my firm we do a lot
of the same type of work here in the Town of Queensbury and I will say that they are damn
good competitors; and we need them here and I hope that this project goes forward. Thank
you.
MR. JOHN CAFFRY-25 Wing Street in the City of Glens Falls-I am appearing on behalf of
the Queensbury Association and I think that every other member of the association does
live in the Town of Queensbury. My comments tonight are also on behalf of the other groups
which are members of the Big Cedar Swamp.. the Southern Adirondack Audobon Society Inc.
and the Glens Falls Chapter of the Adirondack Mountain Club, representatives of those groups
will be speaking on behalf of them as well and their comments will also go for the other coalition
members, but pretending to address different issues, we will split it up so you will not have
to listen to me all night and you can hear from someone else.
SUPERVISOR WALTER- Could I just ask you for a point of information, you said you are
a part of the Big Cedar Swamp and Southern Audobon, but the comments you are going to
make are on behalf of the Queensbury Association?
MR. JOHN CAFFRY- I a member of the Queensbury Association but my comments are also
on behalf of the other groups that are members of the coalition. is
On behalf of all of those groups, it is our conclusion that this projectIgn environmental disaster
and should not be approved in its present form. This is based upon the environmental impacts
of this project which are unmitigatible and will result in great detriment to the Town and
to its environment. These impacts are primarily traffic and the destruction of the wetlands
but there are numerous other impacts as well. Earltown has waged a big publicity campaign
and in the environmental impact statement and we have just heard Mr. Weller reiterate their
party line that this is an artificial wetland. Nothing could be further from the truth, this
wetland has been there since the retreat of the glaciers some ten thousand years ago, maybe
a hundred or so years ago it was artifically drained for farming, the farming was abandoned
apparently in the 1940's and it was the filling in of the ditches and possibly also from the building
of the airport, Quaker Road and other factors the naturaIconditions were restored. What
we have now is a natural condition of the site expect for the illegal drainage that Earltown
has been doing over the last few years has reduced the wetlands benefits that were existing
before they started drainage, I would like to point out two factors that make it undeniable
that this wetland has existed long before anybody ever dreamed up the Warren County Airport.
In the first place there is several foot of peat on the site that underlies most of the wetland
area. It ranges up to fourteen feet deep and the peat did not form over night it forms slowly
over thousands of years, an inch a year or what ever it is, very, very, slowly, it did not
all form since the airport was built. The second piece of evidence, if you look in the environmental
impact statement at the maps that they present, you look in other maps that are available
to the public it shows that by the maps that the extent of the wetlands two hundred years
ago is almost exactly the same as it is today, this is the map in their archeological studies.
Restoration of the wetland to its natural condition after agricultural uses in fact consistent
to the wetlands act in that it allows an exemption for farmers to drain land for farming and
then when the land is no longer in use for farming it is restored to its natural condition and
becomes a wetland again, that is exactly what happened here. All of that side is irrelevant
if this is an artificial wetland, under the wetland act in the statue and the courts have held
that an artificial wetland is just as important as a natural wetland and deserves equal protecti(
with natural wetlands. Natural wetlands are protected, artificial wetlands even beaver ponds
are considered wetlands subject to the environmental protections of the wetlands act. Earltown'
also claims of being unaware of the development of constrains on this project they alleged
that ENCON told them a long time ago there was no project there was not problem with developing
this all we have for that is their word in the EIS. They say that it doesn't matter that it is
a wetland, the wetlands maps were not filed until 1984, however the wetlands act which was
passed in 1975 the land was protected as a wetland under interim regulations that were in
place since 1976. You can tell that they knew it was protected wetland or they would not
have gone and seen ENCON back in 1980 before they bought any land. We know that they
did not buy their first piece of property until 1980 when they got their first option then, there
first deeds were not recorded until January of 1981. There is another issue I would like to
address, in the discussion of alternatives in the impact statement they claim that if this
exact project is not approved with no changes that there will a taking of the value of their
land, that seems to me to be a threat to sue somebody for taking if they do not get what
they want. If this project is not approved it does not necessarily mean that there has been
a taking, according to records at the Warren County Clerk's Office and in the Tax Map Office
at the County, Earltown paid One million two hundred and sixty three thousand five hundred
dollars for the land. According to data from the impact statement and comparable sales
the dry land that they own outside of the wetlands has a market value of approximately four
million dollars, I consider that a very fair return and if they develop it they can make even
more on that, in some alternate form without touching a single square inch of the wetland.
I would like to address some deficiencies in the environmental impact statement, I would
like to say it is not in compliance with the law it should not have been approved as a draft
impact statement, we should not even be here having this hearing tonight. This impact statement
does not contain in it discussion of alternatives adequate to satisfy the law it does not contain
discussion of mitigation measures adequate to satisfy the law. They have held that back
they have pulled a rabbit out of a hat tonight here and these issues now have to be addressed
in supplemental environmental impacts statements, that statement must go through a full
hearing comment process like we are going through now all over again. The discussion of
the alternatives in there is very weak it is only two pages long, according the SEQRA regulations
each alternative must be discussed in sufficient detail to allow the decision makers and the
public to really analyze those alternatives. Those alternatives are mostly dismissed in one
or two sentences at best there is not analysis of these alternatives in there as required by
law. The most important alternative and the one that would reduce the two major impacts
is not even discussed, that is, an alternative plan that does not touch any of the wetlands
and that reduces the impact on the wetland and by scaling down- the size of the project reduces
the traffic impact. Discussion of the mitigation are very inadequate their proposal tonight
to mitigate this by buying up other wetlands does not satisfy the requirements of any law
that I can think of it is...mitigating off site does not prevent the damage that is being done
on this site and proposing to buy up other wetlands, those other wetlands are already protected
by the state wetlands act they are not going to be significantly destroyed in all likely hood
with or without Earltown buying them and giving them up. It is a nicegester but it just does
not work, the law does not work that way, it will not reduce the impact on this site. They
are talking here maybe seventy acres of wetland plus what ever they can pickup up north,
but that is nothing compared with the acres that will be destroyed some four hundred anfifty
acres on this site and another couple acres of wetland that they do not own that will surely
be affected as well there is no discussion of whether or not this will, the benefits provided
by the wetland that they are proposing to buy would be equivalent to those ones that will
be destroyed by their project. I must point out that this is the largest wetland of its type
in all of Warren County we cannot duplicate this habitat elsewhere in the County. You could
not even do it by buying up ten fifty acre wetlands in different places because a lot of wetlands
species need a certain size habitat much larger than these little parcels that they are talking
about buying up. On the question of traffic, I agree with Mr. Rosoff's statement about there
not being enough money available and even if the money was available and Quaker Road is
bad enough now, I do not know of anyone here that would like to see it get worse, if the money
was available and we could fix up Quaker Road and make it work better than Earltown comes
along and makes it worse. Even after all that money it will still make it worse, it is like
throwing money down the sewer, if you are going to fix up the road and then let them make
it worse than it was before, it does not make any sense. They talk about Dix Avenue, Dix
Avenue is already close to what they call a failure level it is just going to get worse. I believe
they use a 2% growth factor in the Hiland Park EIS you required 2.3% personally I think 3
or 4% is a more accurate figure. If you look through their statement I believe in some places
they don't really use the 2.3%. On the question of the archeology, I was very surprised to
see that they found prehistoric Indian sites on their land, their own expert says that these
are significant sites and should be studied further they should be protected they say, maybe-
we will protect them if we can do it. On the wetlands they have pined everything on this
talk that they have not found any rare or endangered species and I will not get into it too
far because there are other people that will be addressing that. You should not let a single
species or the lack of any rare or endangered species, look at the echo system as a whole
the fact that it provides a habitat for dozen and dozens of birds and unusual variety that
you are not going to get anywhere else. Again they have already done damage to this wetland
by draining it without any permits and they have already altered the species that are present
there by doing that and if we are going to analysis the impact and look at whether or not
this project is going to take away habitat for endangered species then look at the situation
as it is now you have to go back five years ago and see what species were there or what could
have been there before the state of the drainage project. As a base line you can look to the
data that was generated when they went through ENCON permit hearings for the peat mine
proposal, there is a lot of data in there and I urge the Town Board to review it, to have their
consultants review it, it should all be on file in DEC in Warrensburg. There is a lot of base
line data there that will show you what the site was like before we began to alter it. At that
hearing I would like to quote the administrative law judge found that this was a tremendously
diverse habitat with abundance of flora and fauna, also their own consultants shows it as
a significant habitat. I would also like to raise the issue of the possibility of pollution coming
through drainage water coming out of this site. There are scientific papers that report that
peat collects and absorbs heavy metals and other pollutants and when you start to drain that
these are carried away in the water. They have attached a couple of water tests to the EIS
but I would not swear that those are accurate, I think you should have your consultants study
those very closely. Not that the tests are not accurate but they maybe are not testing in
the right places, they may not be doing enough testing. On questions of zoning, under SEQRA
in studying zoning changes such as you are doing with your PUD zoning, the requirements
is that you look at the difference between the existing site conditions and the proposed site
conditions in zoning. What Earltown has done basically is to compare the existing zoning
to do what they are proposing, that is not what the law calls for. I also raise the question
about how many acres that Mrs. Walter, I believe we may be functioning under the old SEQRA
regulations, I see you looking at the new ones...
SUPERVISOR WALTER- We are.
MR. JOHN CAFFRY- I have a question about how many acres are present here, in the EIS
they say Nine hundred and five in the environmental assessment they say eight hundred and
ninety one in the PUD application they say eight hundred and eighty two and all that goes
to how much density they can have...according to the tax map they have eight hundred and
eighty three, I think this should be verified so we know exactly what we are dealing with
here. They also say that this will avoid strip development, that is exactly what they are building,
they are building a strip along Quaker Road it is going to look just like Route 9 except that
it will have an access road to reduce the traffic impacts. This project appears to be maximizing
its density to the hilt, unfortunately they are doing that the Highland Park Project right down
the road here was much better on that aspect and that they purposely avoided maximizing
density in order to reduce the environmental impact. As to tthe r posed land gift of lands
along County Line Road, if that is intended to be in lieu of twoKand fifty dollar per unit recreation
fee we would urge the Town to take the money and not this land. This land is way off on
the far edge of town where it is not accessible to very many people, I do not think it meets
any of the towns identified recreation needs the closest neighborhood out side of Earltown
are in the South Queensbury area and I think it is a little far even for them. I think land for
a park in South Queensbury should be found closer to the people so that kids do not have
to walk so far in traffic and all that. I would urge you to take the money and not the land,
I do not think there is anything very special or unique about those land either unlike the lands
donated by Hiland Park. I would also like to point out that within the recent series of town
zoning and master plan hearings people have identified a need to protect wetlands, open space
and avoid heavy traffic at worst. In voting for this project would be directly contrary to
the needs of those people. As to the utility questions all through the Hiland Park process _
one of the big issues was do the sewer and water systems have capacity for Hiland Park and
they found that just the capacity is barely there or it wasn't there and additions will have
to be made this has to be looked at closely to see whether or not there is any capacity to
allow Earltown to come in. Under trash they are relying on the building of the Hudson Falls
Trash Plant, that is by no means assured, I do not.mean to drag that issue in there but that
is something that should be addressed in the EIS. On the issue of energy conservation, in
electricity they say there is no problem with supply, but you look at the need of pumps running
twenty four hours a day, seven days a week just to keep the basements dry, it is one of the
most wasteful ways to build housing in the Town that I can think of. The electricity costs
is going to be outrageous and when electricity bills start to go up, people are going to have
to pay that. Last weekend Mr. Laakso was kind enough to take some of us on a tour of the
wetland, we got out there, we noted that, or he noted that all the pumps had shut down, I
do not know what the cause was, I do not know if it was major or not but it does show the
danger of relying on this technology to keep things dry when it can go down just like that,
if you have a power failure obviously you would have backups but it is something that has
to be examined very closely and decide whether or not you want to burden future town residents
with the problems of maintaining this system to just keep their basements dry. As to the
Warren County Airport, there will be impacts on the airport, in the peat mine hearing the
issue was arised at by the FAA I believe of the effects on airport of the additional water
fowl that will be attracted by this project. You will have large ponds you will have ducks,
geese and large birds much more than you have now, when most of the bird are small birds
and they can interfere with the airplanes taking off and landing at the airport and that is
not addressed in the environmental impact statement or if it is it is just cursively written
off. It also states that FAA approval is needed it does not state what that approval is what
the issue involved are so that the public can examine the impacts on whatever those issues --
are. As to also in the Federal area there is a question of whether or not the Federal Wetland
Act has any jurisdiction here with the Army Corp. of Engineers the Environmental Projection
Agency and if so those permits would be required as well. There is also an issue of whether
or not under federal law you can hook up a project that drains a wetland to a federal funded
sewer plant such as the Glens Falls City Sewer Plant. I think that should be examined because
if you were to approve this project and it turns out that you cannot hook up Earltown to the
sewer plant because of that there is going to be a real mess because all that stuff has to go
somewhere. I would just like to conclude that having taken Mr. Laakso tour last week he
was very courteous in doing that, he answered all of our questions I was even more convinced
of the need to save this wetland. It is a beautiful habitat we saw a great blue Harron out
there we saw deer tracks all over the place, it is a wonderful area and it should not be destroyed.
If they want to increase public access to it then they could develop some of their other lands
and use this as a nature preserve or something that would really benefit the public more than
the golf course where we have golf courses going in all over town. To use an analogy, to
destroy this wetland for a golf course is really the equivalent of melting down the statue
of liberty for the scrap metal, someone will make some money at it but it does not make
it right.
MR. ARTHUR YANNOTTI-4 Centennial Drive, Queensbury, I am a licensed professional civil
engineer. Earltown has made the assertion and we have heard it tonight repeated by Mr.
Weller that this area is an artificial wetland that was created only since 1941 with the construction
of the Warren County Airport. The existence of fourteen feet of peat on the site makes that
contention rather ridiculous, I do not think you should even discuss that further. I have only
had a brief chance to look at the environmental impact statement, I had quite a difficulty
in getting a hold of.a copy. I tried on two occasions at the Town Clerk's Office to obtain
a copy and they were not available. I think I would like to request that the Town Board at
least require these developers to furnish sufficient copies so that the public can obtain them.
I do not know if there are anymore copies available.
SUPERVISOR WALTER-There is always one on file ...
MR. ARTHUR YANNOTTI-I cannot take time off work to come in here and read the thing,
you cannot expect people to come in here and read the thing they have to be able to have
copies to take home and read. I cannot take the time off work and sit in here for six hours
to read the thing, and I don't think a few people can. In briefly looking over the report, I
do not see any discussion on the impact on the Queensbury School System. The obvious influx
of people to the Town of Queensbury is going to create a tremendous population explosion
and what more facilities are we going to require. I sat in this room about two months ago
for the hearing on the Hiland Park Development and at that time the statement was made
that the Hiland Park Development impact said that there was sufficient capacity, excess
capacity in the Queensbury School System. A few weeks ago I read in the paper that we are
considering a bond issue for expansion of the school, what is going on here, I think that is
something that should be addressed.
MR. JOHN CUSHING- I am a resident of Queensbury. I am speaking as a private citizen
who before coming to Queensbury a number of years ago I was Chief Executive Officer of
_ one of the Penna. Burrows that is another name for a town, where I had to analysis and agonize
over and vote on such issue as is the one before this group tonight. I come in favor of the
Quaker Ridge Development, better known as Earltown. I want to say a few words regarding
the environmental issues as well as the economic issues. Last Wednesday evening I attended
oneof the neighborhood meetings on the Queensbury Development held at the Queensbury
Central Vol. Fire Dept. I was appalled at a couple of the statements that were made, one
person said and I quote "Not much sense in living here if there is any more growth at all"
another said "Keep business and industry out all together" These folks had the right to make
these comments but to follow their advise would be that of a death now of our town as we
know it today. I fantasizing for when growth and development ceases stagnation sets in.
Unemployment ...economic development stops houses begin to get boarded up and the Town
slowly at first dies and then it feeds upon itself and it feeds rapidly and it escalates beyond
the hope of recovery. I know some may scoff at my comments but I have seen this happen
across our nation. We are fortunate because we can learn from our past for the past is prologue.
Don't let it happen here, economically we have a very sound economy in Glens Falls and in
the Queensbury area, let us keep it that way. Planned growth is the answer not the hodge
podge growth that we have seen in the past. The growth of Route 9 and Quaker Road have
left something to be desired, good planning, sound planning has been absent and has been
a factor in giving development of any kind a bad name. Earltown however, is a planned unit
development with vision and clear objectives and above all a well designed plan. Over a twenty
year plus period this is not a quick fix, here today gone tomorrow scheme. From an economic
base it will provide over thirtynine hundred construction jobs with an annual payroll of somewhere
around ninety-three million dollars. Later onehundred&fiftysix full time jobs with an annual
payroll of a hundred and sixtythree million dollars. From a business mans point of view it
will be projects such as this well thought out ones with vision that will bring people into this
region and allow business and industry to locate here. In of course industrial and commercially
zoned areas. No one has said anything about the single family homes and the condominiums
there, there occupants and spending power will be extremely high adding to the fullness of
this area. Lastly a few words about the environment, I have personally walked throughout
this acreage if it is wetlands I wonder why my feet didn't get wet, I wonder how many in this
room tonight have taken the time and effort to walk this tract. Please I implore you those
who would speak of environmental concerns do as I did and spend a day walking that land
your point of view may take a turn. God given natural wetlands I do not know in whose judgement?
The farmers who farmed that land in the 1800' and in the 1940's didn't think that so otherwise
they could not have farmed that land, artificial wetlands in my opinion yes, caused by the
Airport Construction, Quaker Road...culverts too high to allow for drainage, all of these created
and helped further an artificial basin and destroy and bottle up the natural drainage. Wildlife
does not abound in this area, sure there are some animals and birds but not the quantity or
quality that some people would like us to believed hoards of mosquitoes perhaps but not the
fish or wildlife and the birds we usually associate with wetlands they are further north in
true wetlands like Dunhams Bay. Lets preserve the areas like Dunhams Bay and left forever
that is true environmental progress. When Earltown's project is through I am sure with the
open spaces planned and the ponds and the wildlife and nature in all its glory will abound
more fully than it is right today. Lets grow in a wise a planned manner, lets not stagnate
in pools of indifference biases that doom our city into mediocrity, remember the cities and
Towns that are no longer with us, let us not become another statistic remember that the
past is prologues.
MR. DREW MONTHIE-I am a life long resident of Queensbury, all my life I have been fortunate
to grow up with a lot of woods around me. The last few years I have been stunned at the
amount of development in the town. I realize that a broad tax base is probably good for our
economy, the impact statement contends that these wetlands were artificially created. I
have a degree in plant science from the University of New York Cobleskill I have done research
on bogs and wetlands, I have a paper here that I will file with the Town Clerk, so people can
get copies of it. Peat moss in that quantity does not occur in a period of forty or fifty years.
Fourteen feet deep probably took about ten thousand years to form, regardless of whether
the airport was built or Quaker Road which blocked water back and created more of a wetland.
Mr. Bartholomew showed you slides this evening, one was a native orchid called the lady slipper
which is very rare in our area. Things like that cannot be replaced, to contend that these
are artificial and to put a golf course over it will preserve the nature of this land as it is,
is totally false. You cannot replace something of this magnitude once it is gone it is gone
forever. In Queensbury we still have areas like Rush Pond I do not know if anyone of you
is familiar with that, it is what you see as you drive along the Northway, that is another wetland.
To get rid of these for the sake of development is just incomprehensible to me. Thank you.
MRS. JOAN DOBERT- I live at 13 Lake View Drive-Queensbury-I am representing the Southern
Adirondack Audubon Society-I would like to preface my remarks with just a few personnel
comments. I walked with Mr. Laakso this weekend over his land and I was amazed on how
wet it was even with all the drainage. We looked at the pumps that were not working at that
time and it was about three feet high, pooled water. Then we went over, walking all the
way through to Quaker Road and at Garden Time the pump was sunk way down in and they
re-routed the water out so they could pump it out. One of the concerns that I have with that
is that today I again walked from Garden Time over to the Industrial Park, the Queensbury
Glens Falls Project, that stream that is pumped.out meanders all the way through there and
goes over beyond that into a swale and then obviously because you can see the underpass
over on Warren Street it has to go down that way. An interesting thing that I found out this
week was that when Earltown started pumping water a couple of years ago some of the residents
on the Boulevard, Warren Street Area all of a sudden had water in his cellar. One man told
this person that I was talking to that the water was so bad that it was gushing out of the windows
of the cellar, perhaps that person is here and would like to make a comment on that, that
would be interesting, I really have not met that person. The amount of water that is being
pumped out there is a great deal the surface water, although they contend that it is surface
water, what is surface water, the pumps are located so far down they are bring the surface
water down to a level that is really not what the swamp area would be, maybe three feet
but not down as far as nine feet. I want to go on and discuss the issues that although we are
concerned about traffic and some of the environmental impact issues I have chosen to talk
about the wetlands as far as the fauna. From the, if I may quote volumne II Section 3 page
33 as Mr. Bartholomew had on the viewer,(Ms. Slack) she states that it seems obvious that
not only will valuable wetlands be completely removed by drainage and subsequent development,
largely golf course but natural upland forest will be destroyed as well as a number of very
old and large pine and Oak Trees. With this forest will not only go the habitats of a great
variety of shrubs and other herbaceous plants including orchards, but the habitats of some
large interesting breeding birds. This is a large acreage that we are talking about this wooded
wetland, a wooded wetland is very different from the wetland that we are talking about that
some people are talking about in Dunhams Bay, both are very valuable. The wooded wetland
is unique according to their own biologist they have identified about eighty one species of
birds in the area. If you convert this to golf course you will reduce the habitat that these
birds are use to and they will become more and more scarce. The problem is that with this --�
explosive development that we had in Queensbury and I am not against development this is
a wonderful place to live we all want to be here, that is why we are here. With this there
aren't going to be places for this habitat for this particular type of fauna that I am talking
about. I feel, the organization feels that a chemically treated golf course is not an acceptable
alternative for this wetland. The wetland is protected by law I think if you were down state
and a developer came in and said he wanted to fill in or destroy this hundreds of acres of
wetland they would be laughed out of the town, I just do not think that would happen. I want
to again say and agree with several of the people that have made this statement, once this
3 Vii,
changed the woodland wetland is irrevocably destroyed. The merits of this development do
not outweight in our organizatiom opinion the destruction of this very valuable wetland. It
is unsuitable for development as a golf course I do want to make the statement that I think
that Mr. Laakso , development along Quaker Road, it is dry land we should not stop him from
developing that. Ou organization is that wetland should not be destroyed and they will be
destroyed with a golf courses that would be put in there. I will confine my statement to that
because other people will be discussing other issues. Thank you.
MR. WALTER MEDWID- Laurel Lane-Queensbury-As a biologist my natural reaction to the
project was to oppose it but I did take the opportunity to visit the site with Mr. Laakso and
spend two hours in his office going over the project to see if there was something was missing,
but again the tour of the site really confirmed to me that this was a remarkable area and
one that I hope the town can do all it can to preserve. I would like to comment specifically
about some of the items in the draft environmental impact statement. In terms of the environmental
assessment form in Volume I Section 13, there is a question asked will project effect threaten
of endangered species, the response is no. Will the project substantially effect non threaten
or endangered species, the response is no. Our slide tonight suggested by Dr. Slack that no
threatened or environmentally sensitive species have been found. Yet Dr. Slack suggested
in Volume II Chapter C Page 2 quote we wish to make it very clear that this is an incomplete
survey. Again I am frustrated in trying to understand how definitive statements about the
lack of environmentally sensitive or threatened species can be made in black in white when
in fact the biologist hired to do the research has stated unequivocally that the survey is an
incomplete survey. I think that the draft environmental impact on the biological survey needs
to be completed. This statement is incomplete and again it must be updated. Let me talk
about two other quotes made by Dr. Slack, two trips were made in March to observe Winter
Birds and in particular to look for red shoulder hawks. I was particularly interested in looking
for evidence of nesting of this species, again much has been made of the red shoulder hawk
whether it is there or not. She says that no red shoulder hawks were seen on three trips in
March however it says it possibly has bred on the site, again that is a quote. What is interesting
about looking for a red shoulder hawk in March is that in a book about the birds of the Adirondacks
there are no winter records of the species occurring during winter, the earliest recording
the date of the red shoulder hawk occurring in the Adirondack is March 26th. That certainly
raises the possibility but that is the realists recorded date ever appearing on site is March
26. Again I think it goes back to the incomplete nature of the survey, it was not done properly
and not done completely. Elsewhere on page 28 she again referred to the amphibians, reptiles
mammals some of which are threatened and endangered it is not a complete list. Earltown,
on page 35, Earltown will provide on site and off site mitigation specifics discussed under
separate headings. I tried to find it under the separate heading under mitigation measurers
which said the same thing, Earltown will provide on site and off site mitigation specifics
discussed under a separate heading. Again, all of us were taken a bit back by tonights' presentation
but I would think in substance that has been documented tonight mitigation measurers proposed
were presented here are in no way mitigating the,loss of the wetland for this area. Professor
Slack the bottom line on the project around the area there would be a significant environmental
impact on the whole property. Again in the environmental assessment statement none of
that is recorded and I question why the foundation for all that we are meeting about that
such statements appeared in the environmental assessment form. Again, Dr. Slack reports
the property is notable for its large variety of habitats and resultant variant of plants and
animal communities. In summary the project will have a significant impact and environmental
impact the project is based on a lack of threatened species but yet no species has yet been
provided by the applicant to confirm this. Therefore the draft environmental impact statement
is incomplete. Let me turn to Volume I page 1 again on the history of the site, a lot has been
said about this continuing issue on whether the wetland is a wetland. I will try and go through
this to again to save time quickly. The fundamental flaw of this project has been the lack
of recognition of the fact, and I emphasize the fact that the area is and has always been a
wetland. This is verified in the references of book entitled the History of the Town of Queensbury,
in ten different sections, I have a map dated 1895 that shows that entire area cross matched
in the wetlands, as wetland indicators. Thirdly let me mention again the issue of the bog.
Professor Charles W. Johnson on a book of bogs in the Northeast, Charles Johnson is the Vermont
State naturalist, he says in his book in regards to how do you gage what is wetlands is it peat
really was it created since the creation of Quaker Road or the Airport. He says on page 177
deposition can be incredibly slow it can take as much as one hundred years to build one inch
of peat. Many of the Northeast peatlands 0-20' a few as deep as 45' and eight thousand to
ten thousand years old we can speculate that below the zone of active decomposition every
one to three inches of peat represents about a century or so of accumulation. Now, again
if you take fourteen feet you multiply that by twelve inches I think at the fourteen foot depth
using Professor Johnson's methods we can come up with a age of fiftysix hundred years old
for the fourteen foot depth. The peat area in average i s six feet in depth, therefore six feet
would translate into twentyfour hundred years. At the very youngest we are talking twenty
four hundred years at the very oldest fiftysix hundred years old. Again I would hope that
the issue of the artificial unnatural wetland be put to bed this evening. It is a natural wetland
it was a natural wetland and will return to a health wetland once the pumping the trenching
and dynamiting has stopped. Little reference has been made to the fact that the wetland
was not designated as wetlands until 1984 which was nearly four years after Earltown paid
options and purchases on land parcels. The land purchases were made based on Town of Queensbury
ordinances and laws in effect on this land in 1980 end quote. What has been omitted in the
above paragraph is the law of the land in the State of New York on September 1, 1975 it has
been indicated that the law protecting low inland wetlands was passed for five years prior
to the purchases prior to the taking of options the land was protected by the State of New
York. To suggest in the draft environmental impact statement that 1984 was a crucial date
at which some magical reference was made as this being a wetland I think is inappropriate
to be maintain in the draft environmental impact statement. On page 2 various references
are made to DEC giving approval to the concept, yet no where in the draft environmental
impact statement is there a letter from any official from the department that provides this
approval to proceed with the project in any way. On page 10 Volume I again it has been discuss(
but I will be as brief as I possibly can, dry basins will be achieved by ground water control
systems they are pumps, drains, ditches, ponds, appendix G. which is included has a cross
section of the drainage. If I can calculate the graph on this I find that the ground water level
on the map is at 3141 feet inelevation the bottom of the footing for the residences is 315'
that is 6" of tolerance of clearance between the ground water and the bottom of the footing
of the house foundation. As was indicated on the visit to the site the pumps that will run
365 days a year twenty four hours a day failed, we got a system that depends on I don't want
to call it a Rude Goldberg system but it is an artificially managed system. If there is a power
outage the residences of that community will pay the price for a power outage in terms of
the ground water presenting a problem to them. I think it is inappropriate for the Town to
conceive or allow a project that would allow homeowners to be faced with the problems of
this. On page 10 it is stated that the wetlands are not a unique nature that makes it'sloss replaceable.,
This wetland is the largest wetland in the county open space has diminished in an incredibly
rapid rate in this Town. When Earltown beg.an-this project in 1980 this situation was dramatically
different these loss is not replaceable and environmentally sterile golf course is not a substitute
for the loss of plant the diversity the open space that will be provided by leaving the wetlands
as they are now. Again going over to mitigation, the documents fail in not providing sufficient
data on mitigation on the loss of wetland. Again tonights presentation does nothing to refute
that the mitigation is totally inadequate in the draft environmental impact statement. In
terms of the adverse environmental impact it is remarkable that a project of this scope has
essentially one page listed Section 5 page 1 it states that the golf course will not attract the
type of birds and animals that currently exist. The statement has been made that the golf
course willsuffice a base for any of the species that exist. I think in terms of understanding
habitats, plants and animals are restricted to habitats, if you create a new habitat plants
and animals that survive in one habitate do not necessarily jump over into the next habitat.
They have strict requirements, that are not met by a golf course. Regarding the removal
of the woods, Earltown, states that the character of the woods areas would be altered, I believe
that the professor hired by Earltown said that quote the mature upland forest would be destroyed.
Possible alternatives, Section 61 the draft environmental impact statement is incomplete
in that all the reasonable alternatives have not been considered. Furthermore I believe that
the draft environmental impact statement is not an appropriate form for a threat to be made
to a town, I believe that it ought to be, the company should be asked to remove that statement
about unless the property is approved as proposed that it will be considered a taking. Again
it is inappropriate for that statement, which I consider a threat to be contained in the documents.
I believe recent Supreme Court decision...about the taking matter which I believe support
that decision. Let me also say that I am very troubled by such statements as the vegetation
echo system will adjust to the phased development. I believe that the vegetation echo system
will be destroyed it also says, quote, the wetland echo system will adjust to the change, I
believe that the wetland echo system will be destroyed. The water features of the golf course
will provide a higher quality wetland with a greater diversity of wildlife and vegetation.
It is not the professiomWho has said that but rather some unnamed person. I would take it
with some grain of reasonableness if the professior had stated that, I believe it is totally
erroneous. I also believe, while it is indicated that only one Federal approval is acquired
by FAA I believe that is a section for a Federal Clean Water Act that is also involved, I would
again ask the Town to check this out and see if it needs Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
is involved, it may require Federal Approval for discharge of water from that site. Let me
also again, make quick reference to the environmental assessment form, I do not believe
it has been properly filled out. Mr. Paul Male states that there is no public controversy, he
indicated further that the project will offer more open space and again I do not understand,
number 1 how the environmental assessment form can be filled out to indicate that there
is number 1 no public controversy and number 2 that there will be a gain in open space in
the development of the project. A final specific comment relates to what DOT has stated
regarding the fact that Quaker Road money does not exist to deal with the resolutions of
those issues. Again let me say in closing that the project before the Town Board is a project
reminiscent of 1950,1960 perhaps 1970 but is not a project for 1987 or any future time. Its
destructive nature represents a strategy no longer appropriate for this or any other community.
I urge the Town Board to reject this environmental impact statement as inadequate and ask
the Town Board of pronounce the project as proposed as unacceptable to the community.
Thank you.
c] 3
MRS. JOYCE THOMPSON- 12 Garrison Road-I am not an engineer I am a housewife, I grew
up on Brooklyn and I have lived in Queensbury since 1965. I love this area, I want to see it
stay the way it is, maybe go back to the way it was twenty years ago, that is my first choice.
All summer I have been jogging and have been around grumbling to all my friends about the
growth the development and all the trees that are disappearing in every corner that you turn
you see another lot, the trees are torn down and things are just marching on, this has upset
me. I decided to take the tour of Earltown property and try to educate myself, and I must
say I was very impressed. I have decided that the two issues are wetlands vs development.
I think that I have been very discouraged with the development that is going on up to date,
and then I see this incredibly beautiful exciting plan or development for the future that I
am torn. Do you save the wetlands and sacrifice quality development or do you maybe go
with the development and sacrifice the wetlands and maybe hopefully because this group
has a good track record they will do something good with this project. I think there are two
big issues here I decided if I have to sacrifice the wetlands for a good quality development
- for the next twenty years instead of what Route 9 looks like now and what Quaker Road could
possible look like without a quality development I probably going to go with the Quaker Ridge
Development and Earltown. It is a hard decision, but I just want to go on record that I am
favor of the project. Thank you.
MR. ROBERT WORLEY-I live in the Town of Queensbury 37 Thomas Street, I have not lived
here very long, only 9i months. I really do not want to be the one that was the last one to
drive up the northway. I think that there is a lot of room here for a lot more people. We
have a lot of empty space here and I am for the Quaker Ridge Development. Most of what
I was going to say, has already been said b Y the pro people, I will not be very long. I do not
think that there is any magic to an echo system of 400 acres or one acre or a million acres.
We have got a multi million acre Adirondack Park just up here and I for one really do not
mind driving a little ways to see some beautiful environments. I do not think that there is
anything magic to that nine hundred acres there or the wet lands. If you want to take it to
the point of extreme you could say the whole earth is a wetland. What are we 2/3rd water
or more. If you want to take it to the opposite extreme in that case we would not build anything
anywhere. If you want to take it to the opposite end of the extreme anyone who has taken
biology in school, freshmen biology in high school knows that a hand full of dirt is an echo
system. You can even take a pinch of dirt and put it under a powerful microscope and you
could say we better not destroy that pinch of dirt because there is a million upon a million
oganisms in it that are alive. There is nothing magic to size just because it is four hundred
acres we got billions of acres on the face of the earth so if you take it to the extreme we
would never build another house and then we would indeed be the last ones in and close the
door to the northway behind us. Also, if we try to stop everything that pollutes in general
and I am an environmentalist, I consider myself an environmentalist always have, ...I am also
pro business...if you try to stop everything that pollutes folks especially for you dyed in the
wool environmentalist, did any of you drive a.car here tonight? One person didn't...if we
stopped everything that was going to pollute we would not have the lights on we would not
have manufactured cloths on our backs and for.those of you that think chemicals on grass
in a golf course is bad I would imagine you should look at the meat that you eat next time
you get it. From and economic standpoint which is my main concern as a businessman, there
are a lot of reasons why we should be concerned for good sound, environmentally sound economic
development projects. They have already been mentioned but they have to be
mentioned again, increase personnel income, I do not imagine anybody here say maybe a couple
who have gotten everything that they want personally and economically, the only way you
are going to get it is if this area continues to grow, unless all of you are completely satisfied
that you got everything you want then you probably ought to take another look at projects
like this, because that is the only way we are going to grow really quality wise. You can
have little things go here and there but if you have a big quality development ...Also this
is going to make more jobs available and broaden the tax base and lessen the tax burden on
those of us who own homes in Queensbury, ty - broadening that tax base. I think the final
thing I am going to say has already been said but it neecbto be emphasized again, the very
definition of an economy says that it cannot stay still. The lady who just spoke said that
she wanted to see things go back the way they were twenty years ago and that is possible,
it is possible to go back, and it is possible to go forward but folks it is not possible by the
very definition of an economy in 1987 for it to stay the same, it cannot do it. It will either
go forward or it will stagnate and this is a good quality development, I have not heard anyone
say tonight that the Earltown Corp. is going to be guilty of not putting quality into this thing.
You have a choice of quality development and go forward and no growth and go backwards.
So a bunch of those reasons, I as a private citizens in Queensbury support the project.
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA- Lets identify Mr. Worley as I believe you are executive director
of the Adirondack Regional Chamber of Commerce.
MR. WORLEY-I am employed by the Adirondack Regional Chamber of Commerce.
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA- Lets identify him properly.
33� .
SUPERVISOR WALTER- Mr. Kurosaka, you do not have the microphone, you are out of line
and there are other people here who have spoken on behalf of a couple of organizations.
What I said on the outset of the meeting was one statement per organization and I know that
you have a lot of people from the organization that can talk as citizens. I do not see that
there is anything wrong with that and I would hope that those of you that are here would
remain considerate of the other people who are speaking, each of you have your own ideas.
MRS. JANICE HENKE- Cormus Road-Rueensbury-I am not an raging environmentalist nor
am I a business associate of any of the people who are for this project as far as I know, although
I have had business dealings with a number of them who I consider my friends. I am concerned
about something which I think has been pretty much over looked in this entire discussion and
that is so far as we have watched the development of this property from the roads that border
it,it has appeared that the Earltown people have been ostensibly developing this property
for agricultural use. We have said well, they are going to drain it to grow corn, there were
some cattle pastured out there and other agricultural uses I presume have been taking place
on this property. However, many people do not realize the probable- reason for this agricultural
use, I am sure it may have created interim income or have been a convenience for local farms
to have additional land available for corn or cattle harboring. In my opinion this have been
a subterfuge, because originally this property was not bought to turn it into agricultural property,
very little land in New York State today is being re-converted f rom. swamp or anything else
into corn fields. It is not an economically thing to do. Our farmers can probably agree with
that. You cannot add more cows and more corn to make more money in todays economy
unless you are some kind of real optimist and expert. My personnel opinion is that the reason
why this land has been drained for agricultural use is to change the very nature of the vegetation
complex upon the land. The reason for this is, wetlands are defined by the complex of vegetation
upon them and this property or number of properties amalgamated was classified as a wetland
based on the vegetation that it contained. It does not matter in the letter of the law whether
this ten years ago whether this property contained this vegetation or five thousand years
ago. Today, N.Y. State recognizes it as a wetland, when the wetlands act went through, people
were told that if they owned wetlands they had the opportunity to make statements and so
forth before the final judgement of wetland mapping and concrete decision on wetlands across
the state was made. This process was duly carried out the whole thing ended up that if it
is a wetland today it is a wetland forever unless it is used for agricultural purposes or unless
there is a special permit given by the conservation department for something else. It looks
to me like when the people bought the Earltown property they knew all of this because they
are very astute people. They certainly would not go into it unaware of the law, or the complexities
of it, perhaps this is what has happened, I offer this as a theory. If the land is used for agricultu
purposes and it is continually drained so that agricultural will be possible then the vegetation
complex of this land will change as the land is dried up, and so after a while you will in fac t
not have the original complex of vegetation which calls it a wetland. The definition will _a
disappear which is in some areas of this property I am sure has happened. A lady called me
one day on another matter and said that, yes there used to be orchids, she used to walk through
all those fields and all that area, and there were orchids and she named a number of them
but now they are gone and I said well, I think they are gone because the land has been drained
and is being drained. She said yes, that's obvious and everything begin to fall into place, in
my own mind and I am sure in the mind of many other people and it seems to me that we
are looking at the beginning of a terrific pre. dent here in the Town of Rueensbury. That
precedent may be that here is a great big track of wetland which everybody has agreed is
wetland and is wetland forever, unless it is agriculture and if the agriculture stops the law
says it has to revert to wetland period, no other use. I am sure when people bought this property
it was cheap because it was wetland and the reason why it was going to provide a whole lot
of jobs and so forth for the communities around it and because these people bought it cheaper
than they could buy any other property in this area and they could spend however many hundred
of thousands of dollars it may take to continually drain this land .and change the definition
of it. I suspect that if after a while when it comes time to do something other than agricultural
with this land that the Conservation Department of the State of New York will say at this
point you are asking for an exemption based on political pressure from business interest in
this area and we have to consider whether or not to allow you to break the law or to give
you an exemption and do away with our belief in the wetlands act. Now sure enough there
may not be fish spawning going on in the Earltown Project, it is a different type of wetland
and sure enough the character of the vegetation has been changed and will continue to change
as long as it is drained. What we are looking at is this, so far apparently no laws have been
broken, Conservation Department hasn't said anything in particular to the people at Earltown
as far as I know because it is being used for agricultural purposes but the intent of it...it shall
become commercial development with a whole lot of changes will political pressure in the
near future force people in the Town of O,ueensbury to give up on keeping this area a wetland,
will we have a precedent for the State of New York and the counties where the wetlands
act was flaunted by business interest. Sure enough swamps are worthless, maybe they should
remain worthless, maybe that is one of their intrinsic values. As for the golf course being
an asset to keeping wetland character to some of the property I can only tell you that my
experience in this is not that it would be beneficial, I am a wildlife rehabs litaniand I am in
contact with the New York State Wild Life Pathologist, Ward Stone. Ward Stone has very
often to me and groups that I am affiliated with that every golf course that he has very known
is a hazardous waste site and for water fowl of any kind which will be attracted to a golf
course especially in a wet area will be a disaster because at the approved levels on the liable
all of those chemicals used to keep a golf course free of weeds and harmful insects are not
beneficial to any wildlife but definitely deadly to most birds even at the approved levels.
This is about all I have to say, I want to be on record as against the Earltown's Project because
I feel eventually its against the law and if the law is to be flaunted for commercial development
then I think that is not right.
RECESS-8:30 P.M.
t•4
THOMAS HALL-Department of Environmental Conservation, and an associated Environmentalist...ess
I would like to make comments on the SEQRA Process, that is like the Town Board, our Department
is in the vocabulary as SEQRA, an involved agency. We like you have decisions that we have
to make where in we are going to be relying on information in the Environmental Statement.
We think this impact statement, although it has a lot of very good information in it, it is
deficient in some areas. We like to bring those deficiencies to your attention and suggest
that they be remedied before you make any decision in accepting the document as a final
Environmental Impact Statement. To set the record straight, it happens that the Environmental
Conservation Department also regards this wetland to be one that is somewhere on the order
of ten thousand years old. In our minds there is no question that with the peat deposits that
exists on the site is at least that old. It in other words did not come into existence with the
construction along Quaker Road and the Airport, simply did to come into existence that way.
Another point I would like to clarify is as some people have mentioned the fresh water wetlands
law came into affect in 1975 with the legislation passed by our own New York State Legislature.
Since 1975, wetlands larger than 12.4 acres have been protected under conservation law. Since
that time in other words this wetland was protected under Conservation Law, in fact our
records indicate that in a mapped form that is on a topographic map this wetland appeared
on our tentative wetland map in at least 1978. Honestly as some people have pointed out
we also went through a permit hearing with a subsidiary of the Earltown Company, that is
the Adirondack Peat Farm in 1982 where upon it was conceded at that time that the area
is in fact a wetland and at that time we spent a great deal of time on that wetlands permit
review process. With respect to the Environmental Impact Statement we really think the
heart and sole of an impact statement is the description of the project, the environmental
study, that that project would be conducted in, the adverse impacts that will result from
that project, the litigations that's built into the project, the adverse impact statement cannot
mitigated they should be identified as well as a discussion of alternatives. These are major
points in the Environmental Impact Statement. I am not making those up, those happen to
be in the regulations, not only that they make good sense. In respect to a discussion of the
project we feel that the discussion found in the impact statement is simply inadequate and
particularly in respect to the Environmental setting this project would exist in, is definitely
deficient. Let me be more specific. The description of the current environmental setting
lacks anything that would describes the functions of this wetland it is simple in essence a
species list. That is strictly qualitative information, there is nothing to quantify assesses
analysis that information, it is like meeting the people who are in this room without collectively
saying what they do together, there is none of that functional approach in the impact statement
having to do with the functions and benefits in particular of this wetland. I'll make no bones
about it, our interest Environmental Conservation is the wetland, we understand you have
some other issues to address but respect to the PUD, our only interest is the wetland. In
that respect the environmental setting as described in the Impact Statement is deficient.
Now with respect to the adverse impacts, these make sense that the environmental setting
isn't up to par, its pretty difficult to expect that the description of the adverse environmental
impacts is in anyway adequate...in fact I don't feel it is adequate, because it is not in the
contents of this wetland as a functional use, incidentally we don't think of a wetland as a
just 640 or 650 whatever the exact total is, it exist with the mixture of cover types around
it, upland areas, it is important to describe that wetland in terms of how it fits in, how it
functions, in relation to everything around it. We think that that simply make logic in this
case. Particularly in the area of environmental setting and the impacts of this project on
that environmental setting the impact statement is deficient. Mitigation isn't in there, we
saw some information tonight that hints that some mitigation is being offered by the developer
and it is terrific and we want to see that. It is not only that it has to be in there but it is
important that we all, the public, our agency, you get an idea of what could be offered to
offset the impact of the project on the wetland, so far we don't see it, everything tonight
is basically tid bits of information, there is nothing hard in the way of information on mitigation
plan. Another what we think is a critical that has to be addressed is alternatives. The scoping
session that I participated in last May, I thought we made it very clear that in the discussion
of alternatives, we weren't looking for an exhaustive list, I don't think you either, but we
were looking for a realistic identification of two,three, four alternatives, in a description
of those alternatives in sufficient detail to allow a Comparative assessment among the alternatives.
We've heard today that some people for economic reasons and environmental reasons are
for or against the project, I haven't heard anybody discuss a different design at the same
site, a different configuration of this development. Back at the scoping session we suggested
as an alternative, we are not saying this is the only way to go, we are saying as an alternative
discuss a project that has zero impact on the wetland or at least disturbes none of the wetland
for discussion purposes at least, that's an item that should in our minds, be in the impact
statement. If you want to carry the steps a few steps further it makes sense to us at Environmental
Conservation to discuss a project that affects 25% of the wetlands that are destined for development
under the current proposal. Maybe one 50%, one 75%, bearing in implicit terms in an array
of alternatives that we feel deserve discussion. It doesn't deserve discussion in that you mention
them and you cast them off as impossible. The information ought to be there in sufficient
detail to allow us to compare an assessment. To us it is crucial in any impact statement
and it ought to be in this one. Now, what are the consequences as far as our agency is concerned.
You recalled with a lot of reservation that we conceded if you will, Lead Agency Status to
the Town and that decision was predicated on certain understandings with regard to the impact
statement. What we are saying is that we do regard the impact statement as insufficient
in several of these key areas and they do relate incidentally and obviously to the wetlands
issues that are going to come up at the permit application that Earltown will file with our
department. They have not filed any applications with us yet. That says if these issues remain
undressed in the Impact Statement, I simply don't see how we will have any choice but to
require a supplemental impact statement and obviously we prefer not to do that, as Lead
Agency the tide is now to address those items that would be regarded by us as not preferred
way to handle it with supplemental impact statement but nonetheless, I don't see where we
have any choice, if some of these issues remain unresolved or are not addressed in the final
Environmental Impact Statement. For that purpose the decision is yours but it would be our
recommendation that the draft not be called a draft, that you require this additional information
and at that point whatever point in time that is, call that a draft, re-notice, go through this
process again, if you will...to us that is a proper SEQRA process and I am sure there are other
alternatives obviously, you are the Lead Agency and the decision truly is yours. Again the
most important item we think is that the Impact Statement be bolstered in the area of describing
of how the wetland functions, that is really what we regard as lacking the most important
feature that lacks in the Impact Statement that has been accepted as a draft so far.
DAN DEALT-Ridge Road, Town of Queensbury, a former Highway Superintendent of Highways
in the Town of Queensbury and there are a number of issues that really need to be carefully
looked at by the Town before they can further consider this project. I don't in anyway say
that this is not a well planned, a well designed project, it is just in the wrong place. I think
it is really important to consider that there a lot of benefits for the Town and for its residents
that have been discussed here and this project has not been undertaken for the benefits of
the residents of the Town of Queensbury or for the benefit of the government of the Town
of Queensbury, its being undertaken very strictly for the profit of the developer, keep that
in mind that that is why they are doing it, they are not doing it just to give us golf courses
and recreations areas, that is certainly not the case. For the Industrial Zoning issue that
was brought up before I think is quite irrelevant and whatever was zoned does not mean that
that is the use that it must be put to or that because it was zoned for use of some kind rather
than zoned as off limits, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be considered for some kind of
use, so the industrial use zoning is something that should be tossed out. Mr. Caffry brought
up some interesting points about the Adirondack Sod and Peat proposals and while that is
not the project being discussed here, I think since a lot of that materials covers the same
area, then you should take the time to look at some of that. The issue of an artificially created
wetland I think was laid to rest in the Adirondack Sod and Peat statements where they specifically
described it as being at least ten thousand years old. They did not say yes for sure this was
artificially created in the last forty or fifty years. Also and I am sorry I don't have any direct
documentation of this moment, when I read through the documents for that particular project,
I noticed that they had a different Environmental Consultant, not the one they are using on
this projects and the statements included at that time were a little strongly worded for the
rare and endangered species that may be present in this particular area and I recall going
through those notes looking at the original documents, that were used to prepare that statement
and a I recall the consultants statement, was much more strongly worded than the way the
final printed document indicated, so you might do some investigation there. I think that maybe
in the last few months if someone has done a study of the species that exist in there, there
certainly has been a change over the last two or three years, I think that you should look
at some of the older documents to. In any case I think that there is another issue that nobody
has mentioned yet, although some people have talked about protecting the prospective property
owner in this planned unit development and I am certainly all for that but I think that there
is another group that need protected and that is the rest of residents of the Town of Queensbury..
As you know there has been instances in the past where developers have built residents in
very inappropriate areas and those residents have been subjected to water damages and while
the town may not have been found strictly liable for damages in that particular case I am
referring to, the town still did pay, not only lawyers fees but a settlement to the particular
home owner and I think that you are leaving yourself and the rest of the residents of the Town
of Queensbury open to tremendous liability cost by allowing development to take place where
pumps must be kept running twenty-four hours a day to keep the property dry and I think
that you have to address this liability question. What are you going to do if twenty-years
down the road, the pumps fail and a number of houses, a large number of houses take on a
lot of water, are you going to say well, the developer is at fault, collect from the developer.
The developer in the case I am referring to obviously had nothing that could be collected
so the town was included in that particular case and the town ended up having to pay something
for it. As respectable as Earltown is and I certainly have the greatest respect for Mr. Laakso
and eventually, inevitably Mr. Laakso will no longer be associated with the project and at
that point you will still have the houses, still have the development, still have everything
else associated with the project in your area of responsibility. It won't be you necessarily
but it will still be the rest of the residents of the Town of Queensbury. I think it is a very
dangerous situation. Comments of Mr. Laakso and Earltown over all their other projects over
the past twenty or thirty years is really not the slightest bit relevant to any discussion of
the project which will last twenty, thirty, fifty or hundred years for the Town of Queensbury.
Another thing to consider is when you look at removing the wetland you have to look at not
just the absorption characteristics of the soil, not that it isn't nice to maintain the sponge
effect as was stated earlier, but that doesn't make up for the fact that you will absolutely
clear a large number of acres to allow people to play golf there, they don't play golf in the
woods, they play golf on cleared open space and everything on that clear open space will
be bulldozed off to make a good golf course. There is no other way to do it, you have to consider
a lot of major earth work has to be done here and to say that this will maintain the character
of the area, I disagree, I strongly disagree...and reserved as open space, I question for who's
use as was questioned earlier, the kids are not going to be allowed to play on the gold course.
I wouldn't have mine playing on a golf course in any case for a lot of reasons, not the least
of what is errant projectiles, but for who's use. Who is going to be invited in to use this open
space. Another question which is not strictly related to the site, but I noticed that there
was a lot of discussion on off site mitigation at the beginning of this evening and it was very
carefully pointed out that these areas that are purchase are class one wetlands or high quality
wetlands and I guess that indicates to me, on acceptance that the area to be destroyed is
a very high quality wetland and there is no question about that. If you buy high quality wetland
in Brant Lake to replace something here, there has got to be a reason for it and its because
you recognize that the area to be destroyed has a lot of intrinsic value. I was pleased to
see the comments made by the man from ENCON about alternative. I think some alternatives
may be sensible in proportions of that site and you can't just say yes- this is a fine plan or
no this is not a good plan at all so we reject it entirely. I think that actually the developer
does deserve to have alternative to consider and it is sad to see that they didn't include them
for consideration until this point. But because of the quality of their projects in the past,
I think that they should be given the chance to submit alternatives as was suggested. Maybe
occupying much less of the wetland area, so there is a lot of alternatives open. I think it
is a little premature to approve this particular project, I don't think it is premature to disapprove
it but I think it would be good to give them a chance to submit something different and go
through this again and evaluate the alternative, so I think that would be reasonable. I guess
it is relatively obvious that I am not in favor of,this project as is currently proposed and rather
than be repetitious I tell you I agree with a lot of the other comments made here tonight
and I support development but proper development not this kind of development, this is not
a proper use of that land.
PETER TARANA-27 Edgewood Drive-I sort of wonder why two more golf courses were being
planned for this area, we've got a lot of golf courses. The other night I went over to Crandall
Library and looked at the three volume set Draft Environmental Impact Statement, I found
that we have two additional courses planned because of the compressability of peat. Have
you ever opened a bag of peat moss, and it sort of expands, well they got it in that bag by
compressing it and from what I gather and there is a statement I have here, so you won't
think I am making this up, the compressibility, and I quote " precludes the use of inexpensive
and normal designing and normal construction and construction tactics, volume one, page
seven of the impact statement, so apparently this decision was made to put through a golf
course on these approximately three hundred acres of land because you couldn't really build
anything there because the foundation would compress the peat underneath and you would
have cracks and crevasses and this is a problem. I also read a little further that any heavy
structure like a hotel that is planned there, and any other structure would require plyings
so that you would have stability for these heavy structures. I also noticed that this land is
zoned industrial reserve, one acre and I couldn't believe that, I had to look it up again as a
matter of fact. Industrial reserve one acre, how could anyone, reasonable logical person
zone this industrial reserve when you can't really build anything on it. You've got a residential
house, a single family house you can't build on it, and with all the big industrial pipe building,
you can't do that, I would propose to the Town Board, this was a mistake, a horribly flawed
zoning provision industrial one acre is crazy and we ought to change that. That of course
presupposes that we refuse this particular element of project that is the construction of anything
including a golf courses on wetland. The wetland, is it a wetland, several people have spoken
regarding this, well, we have the peat deposit, apparently ten of thousands of years old, you
have the deed to keep the cellars dry, with all those people in the area that's going to require
continuous pumping and a whole series of ponds on the golf course. I hate to play this golf
course, I mean there are ponds everywhere, to manage the storm water, it is really sort of
incredible-you have that aspect of it and then you have several pages of indicating the diversity
of wildlife in this area. If it walks like a duck and it quakes like a duck, it must be a duck.
This must be a wetland, that ought to be clear. I think Joyce Thompson, made a statement,
a very good statement of environmental concern, we all have, development versus environment.
It is not either or, we have a quality builder here, a quality developer and I hope he will be
sensitive to these concerns we are having and I hope he can modify along with the Town Board
and the input of several organizations represented here tonight, manage some kind of modification
of this project so we can have a little bit of both, a preserved environment and the jobs etc.
JOE MAILLE-I have an apartment house on lower Warren Street, and in I think it was March
or April, I had to have South Queensbury Fire Department come out and pump the basement
because the water was running right out of the windows. I purchased it from a woman who
had owned it for twenty years, I don't know whether the water is coming from, but I have
five pumps in there and I still can't keep the water out. I have a pond behind the building
that was never there before and somebody brought it to my attention that there was going
to be a nrting here tonight so I thought maybe I would look into it and see where the water
is coming from.
PAT JAMESON-393-Ridge Road-I walked right up this isle until I got to the first four rows
then I had to crowd through, if you had called me three hours ago, I would have walked over
six people before I crowded through these first three and my question is why in a room of
capacity of 102 people are we having this meeting tonight, when you backed up your hearing
time from 7:30 to 6:30 o'clock. I would guess you expected a crowd and because of the small
size of the room many people left and many didn't come and I think it unfair to have a true
hearing of the people of the town in a room this size. I think we are short changed right there.
My next question is does Earltown have a map here tonight that they showed at all their meetings,
I want to see the one you displayed, I wanted you to point out to use the school district lines.
I don't think anybody has brought that subject up.
EDWARD BARTHOLOMEW-If you would open up the EIS.
PAT JAMESON- But everybody doesn't have one, that's my point.
EDWARD BARTHOLOMEW-25%of the project in the western portion is located within the
city of Glens Falls School District and the main portion is located within the Queensbury
School District.
PATRICIA JAMESON-1 know that, I want the people to know that. A week ago one of our
Councilman stood here in this room and said that school taxes that you pay do not cover the
cost to the school district. The commerce, the businesses in the town pay the lions share
of the school tax and I got this at a meeting that Earltown had last week for the people who --.
lived just on the parameter of their property and in here it says, 25% of Earltown is located
in the City School District which means the City School District gets the taxes for 25%, 75%
of the houses are in Queensbury School District, 100% of the business is in the City School
District which means that our tax payers are paying to the City School District. If I was
going to buy a house in this project and I had children, I wouldn't buy in the City School District
where there is no transportation. I wouldn't have my small children walk across Quaker Road
and down Ridge to go to Jackson Heights School in all weather, I would n't have my Junior
High School and High School Students walk down Ridge and over Quaker and all the way through
the city to the far end of town or take a full time job myself being a chauffeur or you could
ask Queensbury School to take your child, they don't have room, I checked with them this
week, they are already over crowded. None of the new housing areas are open yet, they are
going to have to move offices this fall to make additional classrooms for the children that
are already here, so I don't see why anybody would buy a house in the city district that have
children which means that 25% of housing will be for the senior citizens and the ones with
preschool children, so Queensbury will get 95% of the children and the city school district
will get 100% of the commercial taxes. The only place I saw that was in this bulletin that
they handed to us, the people at the meeting that night, I haven't seen it printed anyplace
else and never mind the wetlands and all that, if it goes in your school taxes, are going to
educate those 1350 people, children so that's another consideration. They say it will have
no impact, we received our tax bill yesterday...and they haven't started to build yet, thats
all.
SUPERVISOR WALTER-That information Mrs. Jameson is in the EIS, volume I, page 25.
NICK CAIMANO-11 Heinrick Circle-I don't know what kind of golf you play Dan but I play
in the woods all the time. The meeting that started about three hours ago with a very eloquent
speech by Dr. Glendening probably the one that made the most sense regarding how he wants
to live, how he wanted to live and how he prefers to live in the future. We also had an eloquent
talk by Mr. Cushing, regarding the economic side of this issue but when it comes down to
it, it is going to be the rule of law in your best common sense. Who do we believe, John Caffry
and his interpretation of the law or do we believe Mr. Laakso and his determination of the
law? Thats the bad job and the tough job that faces you folks and we are going to depend
you to make a reasonable decision for us, you and all your successors. I know that you are
going to have some reasonable explanations for your decision, because sure as heck one or
the other is not going to be happy. When I see one of you not being open minded, when I see
one of you so obviously and blatantly one sided through body language and ... comments I
am concerned. I want you to make as reasoned a decision as you can possibly make for all
of us, otherwise Mr. Cushing, Dr. Glendening all of us will not be well served, and all of these
meetings willinothing more than a sham. Thank you.
MR. STEPHEN MACKEY- I am the Conservation Chairman for the Glens Falls Chapter of
the Adirondack Mountain Club. A lot of this stuff has been said already, I hopefully will
be brief and hopefully will bring up a few new points that maybe were missed. Again, there
appears to be some question in some people's mind as to whether this area is really a wetland.
Granted much of it was farmed forty years ago and granted it is dryer than it used to be the
fact remains that in the designated wetlands the peat has an average depth of 6-41 feet and
has been forming for the last six to seven thousand years in shallow water. Also, as it states
in the EIS, presently the ground water table in the central portion of the site exists at or
near the ground surface and in addition the fresh water wetland act allows the draining of
wetlands for agricultural purposes as a legitimate use and does not require a permit. The
reasoning behind this is that ditches and draining are temporary and that ditches require constant
maintenance. The ditches can drain an area of standing water and they can make it accessible
to walk on but the results are short lived. The area is still a depression and water will eventually
accumulate in it. It only takes ore Beaver for one season of neglect to have it returned to
its natural flooded state. Filling the area in on the other hand which does require a permit
leaves the wetland and'its benefits lost forever. It should be mentioned that it remains to
be seen if the draining of this wetland was actually for agricultural. purposes. The law does
not state whether pumps can be used or if it is ok to do draining a year after the livestock
is gone. This area as it states in the EIS has been having ditches cleaned out or created with
backhoes and explosives since the fall of 1981. It contains a approximately 1500 feet of ditches
with two major lift stations,each containing three industrial pumps so that is why some people
might think the area is no longer wetland. Also at the scoping session I brought out some
points that our organization would like to see answered and several points weren't addressed.
Point two we asked if wetland off site would be affected also we could not find the answer
in the EIS. Warren County still owns part of this wetland and there are pieces on the south
side of Quaker Road. We are still curious if wetland benefits will be preserved. In point
four we asked how storm water runoff will be controlled. The EIS contained detailed answers
except they forgot to mention snow melt, in early spring when the ground is still frozen it
is possible to have a couple of months of precipitation melt in a couple of days. How will
this amount of runoff which probably greater then a ten year storm, affect the development
and the airport. In point five, we asked what has been the affect on the wetland of the pumping
- and draining that has already been done. It has now been draining for six years and perhaps
the resulting degradation of why no Red Shoulder Hawk has been found. We are also curious
as to how high the water table was before. Point nine, we said the increasement would mean
more schools would have to be built including whew high school for Queensbury. The EIS
only contained data on the projected new students and the additional property taxes. Point
fifteen, we asked about the affect on the Airport,the waterfowl attracted by the new ponds,
the answer was that the the design implementations have been considered which will be able
to attract waterfowl species which will not be pragmatic to airport use and at the same time
the terminals which can be hazardous to air traffic. That sounds like a joke, could we possible
get a few more details? Some other comments, in the soil section using data contained in
the EIS we would like to point out what we see as flaws in the project. The tree soils that
make up the wetland are called the Madeline Series, the Carlisle Series and the Werham Series.
The properties that limit these soils uses include wetness, slow percolation, low strength,
erosions, caving, frost action, and subsides, there is a table in the section done by the soil
conservation service that list recommended use based on the soil of the properties. These
three soils with the heading dwellings with basements, roads and streams and lawns and fairways,
the limitations for all three were the very worse classification. In the ground water section
it says the series of ditches ten feet deep will connect eleven golf course ponds and that together
they will lower the ground water table and control storm water runoff. We are talking about
a dozen very deep ditches that many water pumps permanently lowering the water table.
The main pump will pump six thousand gallons a minute for a ten year storm and it will pump
a thousand gallons per minute all the time that is twenty-four hours a day forever. It also
interesting to note that even with all this expensive hardware the water table will still be
within six inches of the house foundations. In a biological section their own biologist states
" the wetland is of value in terms of wildlife habitant especially for birds and as a habitant
for a great diversity of plants, some of them unusual in the area, also she said with this forest
will not only go habitants for shrubs, ferns and other urbations of plants including orchids,
habitants for some large and interesting breeding birds. In the traffic section we just have
one fact here, but it will stick in your mind...by the year 2007, twenty years from now, with
this development the traffic on Quaker Road will increase 143 percent, enclosing the size
of land use planning is to develop appropriate areas appropriately, this project is proposed
to be developed as class 1 wetland, the second largest wetland in the heart of Queensbury.
Due to the water table, poor soils, the developers have resorted to all sorts of costly and
complicated proposed solutions. This past Saturday, August 29, we toured the wetland with
Mr. LVso and the three pumps near the airport were broken down. The pumps in this project
have tofnight and day forever, the ditches have to be cleaned and free flowing forever, it
looks to us like a shaky start to a shaky future. We feel the best use of this land is as a freshwater
wetland provides wildlife habitant, erosion and flood control, water purification, ground water
recharge and open space. We would like to see it stay exactly as it is except maybe for the
ditches. Please help us defeat this project. I also just wrote a little something on scrape
paper about the mitigation measures. We anticipate that the Earltown Corporation would
probably buy another wetland or wetlands and offer them to the town as a mitigation measure,
we do not feel that this is adequate because the gift wetland or wetlands is already protected
so in actuality we have not gained anything. The Earltown Corporation wants to propose
a trade we would like to see them create a wetland of comparable size out of an upland.
AUDREY KURIMSKI-121 Ridge Road, and I want to go on record as being against The Earltown.
We moved to Queensbury five years ago because we wanted to get out of Glens Falls. We v
didn't want to raise our kids in a city, I grew up in a small area. My husband grew up in a
small area outside of Pittsburgh so I kind of go along with you. He lived in Pennhill which
is about twenty miles outside Pittsburgh, when we went home seven years ago my husband
couldn't find his way home. What happened on Quaker Road has happened down there to
a point where you don't notice it, if you go back, if you miss a few years going back there
is so much area that has been built up. Also with wetland the pumping and stuff gone on,
there are a lot of people that live out that way that are still on wells and I know myself that
we have noticed a lot more sediment in our water and we talked with a person who drilled
our well and he said the he thinks it is indicative that the water table has dropped to a level
where we are getting low on our well and we are either going to have to hook
into town water or have another well drilled in the future. Already there is somebody else
on our street that has had to have a well drilled because they have already gone out of water.
If what they are pumping is just surface water I'd like to know why our water tables are going
down. I called Mrs. Walter just today to tell her that several months ago I went back there,
actually I have gone back there a lot more than that back when it was county lands and open
to all of us and believe me I did get my feet wet and as a matter of fact Mr. Laakso owns
one of my boots at this time, but I had taken some video pictures and I can show you some
hawks, they are not close enough to identify them but if anybody knows the flight pattern
they would be more than willing to look at it. There is also different plant life that I got
on tape and some of the area on the west side that he is talking of having 1/2 acre lots, its
probably the wettest area that there, you would be walking along and the next minutes you
are up to your knees.
PHILIP HARRIS-Ridge Road-from being in the back and hearing the comments, one of the
interesting things was given by Mrs. Hinkey where she and the people have been wondering
that the Earltown can be pumping this water and doing all this development and it hasn't
been approved yet. The reason why this is taken place because of a provision in the agricultural
law that says if you are going to have farm lands and agricultural lands, there is a provision
that you can drain it. All of us that saw the slide here tonight, and I think we all agree that
Earltown isn't going to have a farm on this development. The other observation was from
the members of the Chamber of Commerce, I talked with a member of the legislative committee
directly after he took the tour with Mr. Laakso and its unfortunate that they didn't take the
tour when the pumps were down, somebody took the tour when the pumps were down and
got their feet wet and some of you went on the other tour where the ground was dry. I would
like to just take and have a show of hands of the older people here that remember...one of
the statement, two members of the Chamber of Commerce that must have been given to
him by Mr. Laakso or his associates was that there was no wetlands until the airport was
built, now I can remember the land before the airport, I was young and I am sure you can
Betty and I am sure you can George, and I wonder how many more here can, there is a lot
of us old people here. I happen to work at those branch of stores, Gwinups Store and I was
pumping gas into the back of a truck, I was a young guy a that time, and this is how the .. .
has developed where the landfill is now, this is all the gravel that was taken out of that gravel
pit, that is how it is created by drawing the gravel to fill in the swamp, it was a swamp and
not a garden like somebody told the members of the Commerce, it was definitely a swamp.
At the time many people questioned and it was a government decision of why the airport
was even put there. Millions and millions of yards of gravel was filled into that to make that
airport, I just wanted to make that observation. I would like to go on record as against the
destruction of the wetlands and there should be some way that the pumping should be stopped.
JOHN HODGINS-Wilson Street, Queensbury, I am going to address the economics, and I would
like to address this basically to the Chamber of Commerce here, one of the assets we have
in this town is our airport. Our airport has been estimated by a gentlemen John Sheehan
from the AOPA to be worth twelve million dollars to this community in that economic growth
and potential. With that we are looking and there is also another fact that was brought up
at a recent meeting of the Glens Falls Pilots and Aircraft Owners Association, that if a development
is put in the flight path of an airport with five years that airport will be closed. This proposal
that is being put out is putting houses along the base leg of the flight path, and also on the
3�l
final flight path of the runway one. There are large jets coming in and we are getting more
and more business coming into this community if we want larger businesses coming in bringing
in economic growth to our area which will not be services oriented as many as these jobs
coming in would be, there are going to want access to this community and they are going
to access through this airport. Also in the Adirondacks this is a major airport to bring people
into the Adirondack, if they are going to fly in, there is nothing more north of here, so anybody
going up to the Sagamore or going up to any of the areas up in that area, this is the way they
are going to come through. If we are to loose this airport because of this airport and that
is a fact if you put in the housing you are talking about, these people will complain and go
to court and they will win, because they are the ones who will win in this process, its been
proven over and over, this is a fact they brought to us.
COUNCILMAN BORGOS-Could you tell me what the law is, you are referring to or whos
authority.
JOHN HODGKINS-John Sheehan and the AirCraft Owners Association AOPA, I can get you
his name.
THOMAS ROSS-15 Helen Drive, I am a certified public accountant and I have no financial
or professional relationship with the Earltown people. I toured and by the way to set the
record straight, I am a vice president of the Chamber of Commerce and I am proud of it;
I am in favor of the project but going back to something Mrs. Thompson said and I don't know
if she was here when the Earltown people contacted us to take a look at their project, I really
hadn't made up my mind, I only had newspaper articles to go by. I spent a great deal of time
at the Earltown Offices looking at maps, I walked the property with the Legislative Committee,
that Mr. Harris referred to, it was in the pouring rain and if you didn't get your feet wet that
day, something was wrong because it never stopped raining the entire tour. I will say that
my feet and I am obviously not a lightweight, did not sink into the ground. There was nothing
more than rain water on my feet and I walked right along with the Legislative Committee
member. I walked the property, I went down to Crandall Library, I looked at the EIS statement,
I have yet to find anything in that documentation that I can look at from the other side, I
can only go by what I have heard from this meeting and what I have read in the newspapers.
If there was something available from the other side I would gladly read it and maybe look
at the whole situation again. I am thoroughly convinced, I am not an environmental person
or expert by any stretch of the imagination, I think I am a semi economical person, financial
person. I am thoroughly convinced that the project and the people behind it, I don't believe
in my mind and I have lived herefor thirteen years and I lived in Whitehall for twenty-one
years before that, Oliver Laakso would buy a piece of property that he knowningly knew was
a wetland and try to get this project through. Thats my opinion, you have yours. I thoroughly
support the project.
ROBERT LARSON-Town of Rueensbury, I had not intended to say anything until this last
exhibition by members of this audience. When Mr. Ross made a favorable comment about
Mr. Laakso, and his motives, and you derighted it, it made me perfectly convinced that those
of you who did this have closed minds and are not willingly to listen. I want to say to Mr.
Hall of the Department of Environmental Conservation that my observation of his organization
is that they live to perpetuate the idea of environmental studies. I think that there have
been many cases where this has been done, some in our own local area so when he comes
here and I am not sure he was in order because he is prejudging. I sometimes wonder why
we had a meeting since his speech but at any rate he comes here and makes that statement,
it just confirms my opinion that they are going to environmental impact this thing to its death
and that's what many people would like and that will be the motive. I am a little bit concerned
with what appears to be a prevailing attitude based on emotion and based on that emotion
insinuations and comments concerning the motivation of an organization and individual which
are not in any way justified by any kind of record other than emotional opposition to something.
I fully sympathize with those people who live in the immediate area of this project. I don't
know that their life will necessarily be adversely affected but I sympathize with their opinion
and their attitude because they are affected by this, the rest of us I believe should be guided
in our evaluation of this process by the question, will our community be better or worse with
or without this project and I submit to you that this project will make this community overall
a better place in which to live then it would be if it were left wild with nobody having any
idea of anything to do with it. Those of you who are so inanimate of the wildlife made me
believe that people traveled there by the thousands. I have never heard of that before and
I have to confess since that I don't know anything about wildlife or bogs and wetlands, that
I didn't even know this was a wetland until all this controversy started and I am not sure that
that is a main point except under certain aspects of the law. Whether it is defined as a wetland
or not it should be our goal, our motive, our judgement what is best for the community and
I submit that nothing better then this has been proposed.
HAROLD BURRELL-26 Lynnfield- I confess that I am a bird watcher. The pictures that
we had on the screen showed a lovely environment before it was contaminated by change
and it also did not show the water level. We are concerned about that. Also I have heard
that there will be new jobs but how many people that move into the Earltown will actually
have jobs there. I have heard that Earltown and other projects would be the bedroom of Albany.
If that is the case we are going to have congestion on our highways.
PETER REGAN-West Mountain Road, I am here to speak for myself as well as represent the
local Chapter of the Sierra Club. There has been a lot of discussion back and forth tonight
and a lot of repeated statements and I think a lot of things that have been said haven't been
very sound, a couple of the arguments did tend to go towards the extremes and I don't think
the environmental groups that have come here have been talking extremes. There has been
a lot of talk about alternative, this is not a debate about having cars or going back to the
horses this is just a debate about a sound development in our community. The Sierra Club
would like to go on record as being opposed to the project for the construction of the wetlands
and of the impact on the traffic of the area. I want to read two quotes from the EIS, one
concerns the quality of the development itself. In reviewing this statement I was very surprised
that this statement on the traffic impact and it says pedestrians will be discouraged from
traveling from part of the development to another, no sidewalks will be constructed along
the boulevard streets or the connecting roadways, walkways will be provided around the building
for safe access. I am told that a development of this nature with no type of sidewalks or
provisions for pedestrians, handicapped is really not within the department of Transportation
policy, I don't think it would be in the interest of Queensbury, approving a development as
large as this without even looking at it. We don't want to everybody get rid of their cars
but we think that walking, bicycling is a very healthy activity for the individuals and well
as the environment itself. The other thing more speaking as a resident is the traffic impact,
as stated before that it is predicted that there would be 143 percent increase on Quaker Road
due totally to the development. This is excluding all other development in the area. The
statement concerning this simply says that this magnitude will have a significant affect upon
the road system. Essentially this new traffic will change the function of Quaker Road within
the study area, instead of being an urban minded arterial it becomes an urban major arterial.
The study goes further to classify the different road classifications the Department of Transportation
gives A thru F and even though it said that the development would require the widening of
the road to two lanes going both directions with a medium in middle, even with this improvement,
the actual traffic flow will be decreased from what it is currently. The Quaker, Aviation
is certainly a very major east, west arterial out of Queensbury. I don't think anyone really
enjoys trying to make the entire gauntlet on the weekend and its just very common sense
that a project of this magnitude is going to seriously affect that. I think the EIS does not
address total solutions and it is directed more to the immediate area, it says it will change
it and I think Queensbury has to really look at their entire master plan and on their idea of
handling the increase traffic if they are ever to approve a project a big as this in this area.
PATRICK FLOOD-I represent the waterfowl Improvement Association, also a resident of
Queensbury. _ The Waterfowl Improvement Association is an active conservation
organization established in 1967 dedicated to the maintenance of waterfowl and waterfowl
habitant in Washington Warren and Saratoga Counties. My first reaction to all that I have
heard tonight is that this is a text book, almost classic case of a land use decision that has
to be made and so far its not lending itself to where a solution in that manner and I think
that rather than read through all my comments I will preface them by saying that we need
to move this in a more organized way towards some kind of solution or perhaps an alternative.
First we need to deal with the respect and understanding from one another and for the objective
of the varying parties that we are dealing with. I frankly think that flippant comments from
would be politicians and statements putting undue pressure on the Board are not really worthy
of my time, frankly, and I think that the way to handle an issue like this is with understanding
for one another. My scope of interest is very limited because I am not going to deal with
some of the very excellent comments made by the other Conservation Organizations and
not going to deal with social economic impacts, but basically to sum up all of our concerns
about waterfowl. Given that the golf course maintenance is relatively pesticide free if that
could be done, the area probably has never been used as a breeding area for waterfowl, perhaps
in a spotty situation, but it does support a staging area which is equally important and a feeding
area. Waterfowl require all three habitats, breeding, staging and feeding. The area has been
prior to the ditching a very important area for feeding, staging of waterfowl, the fact that
it did not supply breeding waterfowl is irrelevant, staging and feeding is just as important.
I review these concerns with the Earltown representative yesterday and toured the site, much
has been said and much has been written about the site and the project and really we have
to start dealing with facts and understanding the facts rather than letting ourselves get swayed
by emotional concerns. Having talked with the Earltown people I trust in what they are saying.
I trust those people even though I very strongly disagree with them. I think that is fair and
that is a good way to approach this whole situation. Their intentions are honorable, they
may be misguided from what our thinking might be but lets listen to them before we criticize
them. I think the fact that the wetland has been discussed, is it an artificial wetland or is
it a man made wetland that I agree with the organizations that has spoken before me, that
point is irrelevant, what is, is that it is a wetland and it has to be treated that way. I believe
that Earltown appears to have done only a fair job not a good job, only a fair job of reviewing
most of the environmental concerns and yet they appear intent on doing a very good job.
They probably made some mistakes, who hasn't, and it needs to be said that some of these
mistakes need correcting. They have drained the wetland, they have reduced its capability
to provide the birds habitat and they should be required to restore this area to some degree,
to a situation which is equal to or better than what they had previously. I believe that most
of.the reasoning behind why the ditching was done and why they apparently violated some
laws deals with misunderstandings with the department and also deals with the fact that the
Earltown people did not do their homework in the late 19701s. Had they done their homework
they would have realized that in 1975 and 1976 laws were promulgated that intact prevented
this type of development in that wetland that they are proposing to do. It is necessary to
remember this. If they have made a mistake to that calibre it would be inappropriate to
continue to exacerbate that type of mistake. The people, the Waterfowl Improvement Association
would not oppose the project provided equivalent,that equivalent habitat is provided throughout
the stages what we must remember is a twenty year development. We would like to see
that they insure continuous production of waterfowl use at the site. There may be yes, deficiencies
in their draft statement, we would not oppose the project provided as I said before that the
golf course, ponds, be provided in an irregular fashion to provide a maximum amount of habitat
that they create some islands within the ponds and do those types of things. These points
I think not as important as some of the others. Additional green space needs to be maintained,
and if it is the wetland that need to be protected we have to work toward that. I hate to
see this kind of hostile environment, I am a resource manager and I find myself within that
type of frame work all the time and really the only way you are going to solve a true and
magnificent,if you will, land use conflict of this type, is to get from the hostile mode to a
cooperative mode. Good points have been raised by all parties who have spoken tonight.
The participants speaking on behalf of economic development have great points and these
are great men who are making these comments and also we are dealing with some acknowledged
experts from the environmental side. Rather than locking horns with one another and taking
every opportunity to take pot shots at one another I think we should dream about what can
be done rather than what we are going to stop. Its important for all of us to remember we
cannot stop growth, we can only guide it. I would suggest to the Board further review be done
on this project, there are obvious flaws and you will get hung if you approve it. Don't accept
the EIS based on what we have before us and I say that because I think a lot of Earltown and
I think they need a chance to do a good project because they can do the best projects for
our town, if this impact statement gets accepted, we will never allow that to happen, you
will be in court for fifteen years and they will be in court for fifteen years and nothing will
become of it. I would suggest that the Board establish an advisory panel to review this matter
before accepting EIS and I would encourage the advisory panel to look at alternative in a
comprising way that would allow for the growth that is so important to this town and the
environmental quality that makes us all want to live here. We must remember we are dealing
with wetland, its protected by law in that we have no choice,we have to protect that .
SUPERVISOR WALTER-When you talked about equivalent habitat, were you talking about
on site or off site?
PATRICK FLOOD-On site.
GEORGE JAMESON-393 Ridge Road-Last week, myself and other neighbors who border onto
the Earltown property were invited to a community meeting to address questions which concerned
us. During that meeting on a couple of occasions the representatives of Earltown were asked
what are your plans if, the if being, if it didn't go through as its presented in the impact statement,
on each occasion the response was we have not addressed that possibility. While I personally
had a lot of concerns relative to the project from the wetland stand point and others those
things have been addressed very well tonight. I am going to address myself and the Board
to a what if, the what if is, if the impact statement or the proposal is accepted as is, I would
like to ask the Board would they review one section of it relative to the control on the single
family dwellings. Specifically in their impact statement, and this is an excerpt from it which
was given to us after the meeting. It is concept of protective competence for single family
homes, specifically, if we allow we to purchase property here for such and such amount of
money and you want to build a home, we will exercise options relative to the size, shape color
etc and the position of it. In addition to that we will tell you when you can build it, when
it must be begun and when it must end, what I am asking the Board to do is when and if you
get a final impact statement and this statement is restated that you ask them how this will
be enforced and thats my question to the Board.
DOLORES CARRUTHERS-21 Orchard Drive-This past year I had an opportunity to see some
planned unit development in Florida, right now Queensbury does not have a planned unit development
concept such as the one I saw down in Florida. I am assuming that Earltown will be similar
to that. When I first heard about Earltown's Development I was quite enthusiastic because
the one I saw in Florida was very very lovely. I don't know that I have changed my mind too
much but some of the things I have heard tonight do concern me. One of the things that
maybe kind of a intrinsic thing is that I am disappointed that they don't want to have sidewalks,
because the developments that I saw in Florida not only had sidewalks but they had nature
3 y�?
trails, they had bike paths, they had opportunities for people to get out and enjoy the environment.
The other things I am concerned about is the lack of alternatives that have been talked about
that have not been presented by Earltown and I see that in the conflict that I keep hearing
in the either-or, and because I basically am a compromiser at heart have learned many communication
skills to negotiate and try to bring about compromise and an agreement between each other
without bitterness. I would like to recommend to the Board that they do, which I gather from
Tom Hall, that you are going to have to do anyway, that Earltown do come up with some
alternatives for this wetlands area and to look at some other options. I am hearing from
some of the people in this room that Earltown is going to have to present it as an either-or
option. I don't believe there is anything that black and white and I would like to recommend
to the Board that you do think about what are some possible alternatives to preserving, if
not all the wetlands but wetland some of it, if that is an environmental aspect. We are walking
on earth that is older than the moss just by walking out this door and walk on that lawn, we
are walking on earth that is older that but there is a very deep awareness of our heritage
when I thought about you all who did walk on it this past week. To think you were walking
on moss that was ten thousand years old, so we need to bring that into consideration when
you make your final decision.
MARY ARTHUR BEEBE•Amherst Road, I would like to make it clear that I am not representing
the Lake George Association where I work and most people think I am speaking when I speak
in public. I am here tonight because I live in Queensbury and have lived in Queensbury for
the whole time that I have lived in the Glens Falls area and I am very concerned about the
way growth will occur in this town. I came here because I have not had the opportunity to
get away from my own work and family to really study the EIS and I felt that I would like
to be convinced that this is a sound project for our town. I am highly concerned to hear what
I have heard tonight when I heard what Tom Hall had to say about the environmental impact
statement that this statement has been considered complete enough to even get to this stage
to have a hearing surprises me. I think that as Lead Agency of the town, I would encourage
you, with the information that Tom has provided heretonight, to reconsider the decision,
that I believe you have already made, that the DEIS.is complete enough for all of us to make
judgement on whether or not this is an environmentally and economically sound development.
I have great respect for the way Mr. Laakso has developed this area, everything I have seen
he has done in this town has been outstanding and I would like to think that the EIS that is
produced for a model project for the town would also be a model and that we will not bypass
the SEQRA process in our interest to move quickly on this project. The SEQRA process requires
that we have complete Environmental Impact Statement before we get to the stage that
we have complete descriptions of the alternatives that we can weigh the pros and cons of
different possibilities for developing the land in question and I don't believe from what I have
heard tonight that is before us now...and I would not like to be in the position of having to
make that decision. I cannot myself make that decision tonight based on what I have heard
here. I think it would be hard for any of the other public to be able to do that. I would like
to be able to speak in favor of this development and so I would like to think urgently request
this hearing be kept open until the additional information_ is provided for the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement that will allow us to consider whether or not the part of the land thats
within the project areas that is knownto be a wetland and has been a wetland for thousands
of years is really an appropriate area to develop at all. Perhaps it would be better to develop
the land around the wetland and not the land that the wetland incorporates itself. I would
like to know that before I decide whether this is a good project environmentally, I don't think
I could say it was economically sound before I knew that. Usually a good project would lend
both economic and environmental interest and one depends on the other so I urgently make
that request, that you keep this hearing open until you have that information.
ERIC-EDWARDS-Bay Road, I really feel it is up to us to let these people know how we feel,
nether we are for it or we are against it. I think it is up to us to write to the Board...
They are suppose to be here to do the job for us, as our representatives and I feel they have
to know our feeling regarding this whole situation.
JOHN CUSHING-1 am terribly sorry to come up here again tonight but I feel that something
happened tonight that I did not particularly appreciate and I thought I came here tonight
to give my point of view and to listen intently to other peoples points of views and not to
say anything during those conservations including the environmentalist conservations because
I am very very much interested in what everybody has to say. The feeling I have is that the
travesty of injustice has been done and that is to allow the DEC representative to come up
here and speak. I have nothing against Mr. Hall but I do feel that it was wrong that he is
in a legal status and that his organization has to vote on this in the end result and I feel that
he was intimidating to the Counsel, to the Supervisor, and that you either do it my way or
DEC's way or its just not going to get approved. I do not feel that this a right thing to have
happened and 1 feel that he should not have been up here and I was disappointed and I want
to make my comments known.
AUDREY KURIMSKI-Ridge Road, This morning I called Senator Hugh Farley's office, since
he is the head over ENCON in New York State. I talked with Peter Crosse and he told me
3 413
because I told him that they were having the Public Hearing, Impact study the Draft form
had already been submitted and he told me to find out or at least try, if someone from ENCON
was going to be here tonight because he said it indeed was important to have someone from
ENCON here.
SUPERVISOR WALTER-This public hearing, for those who came in late, is being held for
discussion and comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement which is required
under the SEQRA laws of the state of New York and also we held a concurrent hearing about
your thoughts and comments on Article 15 of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance which deals
with Planned Unit Developments. We have been in a comment period since July 28 and we
have our Public Hearing this evening, we originally had a public comment period that was
sixty days from July 28 until September 28. This evening early on the Developers of Earltown
presented some information that does not appear in the DEIS as a direct result of a resolution
that was passed by the Town Board in declaring the DEIS as an acceptable draft to go to Public
Hearing with. I have asked the Town Board if they were interested in extending the comment
period longer than sixty days, we are going to have a resolution to do that and the accepted
date was to give at least a month further so the comment period will be extended to October
9, 1987. The developers are now required under SEQRA to address all of your comments this
evening in the final EIS. This is extremely important Public Hearing which I pointed out
on the onset of the evening...the developers were particular interested in what you had to
say because they have to have their people, their staff and professionals now address all of
the concerns that you have mentioned here this evening. They must appear in the final EIS
and the Town Board has an obligation and must vote on determining whether what ever they
put together now after this Public Hearing into a form constitutes a final EIS. We get a
crack one more time to say to Earltown that you have submitted enough information, the
EIS final we will now go on with looking at the project as far as rezoning for the PUD. There
is a lot of work to be done but no means final but extremely important to hear the publics
comments. I think I can speak for my colleagues most of them who really were interested
in hearing what the public had to say. We see you on the street, you are now on tapes and
we can review the transcripts of this, we got our notes and we can use what you had to say.
A lot of new ideas were brought out this evening that quite frankly I hadn't thought of and
I think these people haven't thought of either as putting all together in making the final decision.
Again the comment period will be open, we are going to vote on it, this is a Town Board Meeting,
we can do that as a piece of business. You still can, if you have any thoughts when you go
home tonight, write to me here at the Town Office Building, all of your comments go on
file with the clerk and they also get passed on to Earltown. That means any comments during
the comment period will still have to be addressed, they must address them according to
j SEQRA. So this is a fairly length process and it is in depth. Asked Town Board if they wished
_ to declare this hearing closed or adjourned it to allow the written comments be part of
the process. Asked for further comments. DECLARED ORAL HEARING PART CLOSED,
LEFT COMMENT PERIOD OPEN.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Stated that anyone wanting to make open statements could do
so at any open forum at any Town Board Meeting.
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-I observe that at the early part of this meeting that some wetlands
were offered to us to mitigate what they are taking on the property. What they are giving
us is already a wetland, we don't need it, it doesn't replace what they are taking. The other
thing I run into is Mr. Hall being here from DEC, and I see no objection to that, he is telling
us that basically the DEIS is incomplete and I agree with him, it doesn't address the questions.
You say I've got my mind closed, I've read this and thats what closed my mind, there is nothing
addressed there, there is no solutions, just more questions and some people suggested that
what we as a Town Board think of alternatives, that is not our problem, it is the developers
to develop it in his EIS statements, it should not cost the Town or you people any tax money
to do this.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-In Volume one, page 3, Section 7, no significant impacts regarding
community services have been identified. I have a problem with that statement, how can
you have any development of this size and not have any impact on community services. I
am speaking of Fire and Rescue services, which are run by volunteers, a lot of these developments
and people that come into them aren't interested in joining them, where are we going to get
the personnel to serve. We have the impact on schools that I don't think is that well addressed
our road maintenance, our recreation program our police protection, we also have on our
landfill and you are talking about going into a burning plant, of that burning plant 10% of
the materials going into the burning plant has to come back out and be landfilled and I am
not talking about that which cannot be accepted into the burning plant in the first place,
I am talking about the ash that comes back out. You really haven't addressed where that
ten percent...where are we going to find the space for this. Those are some of the things
that I picked up. I also want to see in there some of insurances, if you have any effect on
neighboring wells, from you blasting, from your taking down the water table, what relief
are you going to give those neighbors. I am also a little concerned...we've heard a lot of talk
in our neighborhood meeting about people listening to construction noises all the while. We
3W
have an area that is going to be under construction for the next fifteen or twenty years, is
there someway that that sound can be buffered. I picked up also as the other lady did, the
roadways are in there but what about walkways to go from one area to another, bicycling
ways, a safe place for pedestrians going from that section, recreation spots for small children.
These are some of the things that I know I would like to see addressed. I have a little information
I would like to run by you, page 33 Planners Diversified and it says, County sales tax receipts
are based on a 1.5% sales tax and that figure has been discounted to 40% based on an estimate
that 60% of the materials would be purchased outside of Warren County. I happen to have
some knowledge of construction materials and sales tax, any material that is incorporated
in a building in a certain area, the sales tax should go to that area, you do that through a
b_P RM certificate and so I have a little problem with the lady who did that sales tax map and
the one who did the one for the town down below. I am also not too satisfied with how school
study has been addressed, I am not too comfortable with some of those figures, I have to
study them a little further and see if I agree with you.
COUNCILMAN BORGOS-My only comment is that I am very much impressed with the quality
of the thinking and the genuine concern that has been shown tonight and delighted that so
many people came here with a real interest an dedication to this community. This is the
only way we know what you people think and give us some ideas of some items to look at.
I want to thank Mr. Flood in particular for reminding all of us that this is a cooperative venture
and prefer not to get into a battle that can probably resolved in an amicably way.
SUPERVISOR WALTER-I have spoken to Earltown about some of my concerns, one of the
ones that I would like to make public and for the record would be the way the sewage would
be handled and the route that would be taken to the city of Glens Falls Plant and that absolutely
what appears in the EIS is a non possibility and so I guess we will have to call what you are
going to do an alternative to that. Again I have addressed that to the principals and would
hope it would be part of their record.
ROBERT WORLEY-37 Thomas Street-If all of the supervisors haven't been out and walked
their land, I would suggest they do. I don't think they can make a proper decision based on
anything I've heard tonight.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED - 10:00 P.M.
RESOLUTION TO EXTE1 d COMMENT PERIOD REGARDING THE EARLTOWN DEIS
RESOLUTION NO.277, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption seconded
by Mrs. Betty Monahan.
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Tnw.n of Queen sbury has determined to extend the comment
period for the purpose of receivingfii 060,. input from the public on the nature and scope
of issues which have to be addressed in the draft environmental impact statement for the
Earltown project,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the comment period will be extended to October 9, 1987 for the purpose
of receiving input from the public on the nature and scope of issues which have to be addressed
in the draft environmental impact statement for the Earltown Project.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
Noes: None
Absent: None
ON MOTION THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
DARLEEN DOUGHER
TOWN CLERK, TOWN OF QUEENSBURY --