Loading...
1986-05-27 166 TOWN BOARD MEMBERS MAY 27, 1986 TOWN BOARD MEMBERS 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: Glens Falls Post Star, GUESTS: Merritt Scoville, Carl Krebs, Ellen Sanderspree, Joan Robertson, Judy Weatherbee, Jack Slopey, Patricia Collier, Attorney Robert Nolan, Attorney David Krogmann, Bill Morton, Frank Shortell,Keith Underwood, Jim Ingles, Phil Harris, Mr. Adamson TOWN OFFICIALS: Mr. Paul Naylor PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY . Councilman Borgos-follow by moment of silence in memory of our veterans. MEETING OPENED: 7:35 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING Proposed Local Law - No Parking on Cleverdale Road - Extension from 1200 to 9370 feet. . .Letters on file. Notice Shown SUPERVISOR WALTER - Noted that the no parking zone was requested by the residents of Cleverdale. Stated letters of support from Mr. Naylor, Highway Superintendent, Sheriff Lamey, and North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co. , on file. . . Stated that the no parking would be for the entire length of Cleverdale Road, 9370 feet. MERRITT SCOVILLE - President of Lake Side Chapel - Noted that the way the proposal is written, no parking from 9:30 till 11:30 on Sunday, the Chapel operates during July and August only as a church but they also have weddings on Saturdays. . . there would be problems with the proposal. . . Suggested that parking be limited to one side of the street, the west side. The area adjacent to the pavement next to the chapel is about eight feet beyond the pavement leaving parking space off the pavement and there is parking space along several of the properties along the east side but none on the west side in that area. Stated that parking on one side only would give fire trucks, ambulances etc. room to get through. The church has an attendant there Sunday mornings to make sure the way is kept clear. . . CARL KREBS - Resident of Cleverdale - Stated that there were some 29 people who signed a petition proposing no parking on both sides of the road, about 1200 feet, but noted that the resolution stated over 9000 feet. Asked why the Board changed from what they requested. . . SUPERVISOR WALTER - Stated that the Town Board took a look at the situation and noted that it was the opinion of the Board that any parking along the Cleverdale Road regarding emergency vehicles passing through was hazardous. BETTY MONHAHAN - Noted that after talking to some of the people, the Board might want to take another look at the road and in some areas make it no parking on one side and other areas have no parking on both sides. RONALD MONTESI - Stated that the Board did take a tour on their annual road inspection, noted that there would be a degree of unfairness involved as to where the 1200 feet should begin and end. ELLEN SANDERSPREE - Asked same question as Mr. Krebs but also wanted to know where the Board measured 9000 something feet from where to where? SUPERVISOR WALTER - Noted that it was the length of the Cleverdale Road. . .from Rte. 9L to the end of the public road in Cleverdale. 167 ELLEN SANDERSPREE - Did the Board include in the 9000 feet Mason Road which is a side road off Cleverdale Road. SUPERVISOR WALTER- No, stated that this was the straight stretch. BETTY MONAHAN- Noted that this was one of the concerns facing the board right now, that if all of Cleverdale Road becomes no parking on both sides, will the cars then park on the side roads creating a problem for the people living off on these roads and not to be able to use your own parking. Stated that the Board might have to take a second look at the situation. JOAN ROBERTSON - Cleverdale - Stated that she did not live in the 1200 feet, but parking is congested particularly in the boat area, she would like to see no parking along both sides of the road in that area. Noted that most of the people have their own off the road parking for their own vehicles. JUDY WEATHERBEE - Cleverdale - Stated that she thought the proposal would create problems with parking especially since her mother lives across the road from the Post Office and asked how will people park to get their mail or would they have to walk to get their mail? PAUL NAYLOR - Highway Superintendent. . .Noted that the road was too narrow, its 20 feet wide, no room for traffic parking on the road, for the safety of all there should be no parking on either side of the road. COUNCILMAN BORGOS - The way the proposal is written there is a distinction between the vehicle being parked or standing, and this law is for the purpose of no parking. Does this permit parking at the Post Office momentarily to get mail etc? TOWN COUNSEL - Stated that the proposal clearly says no parking or standing. SUPERVISOR WALTER - Read letter sent to Board by Mr. James Mooney, President of North Queensbury Fire Dept. Stated that Mr. Mooney did not put any distances on the no parking on the Cleverdale and Assembly Point Roads. PATRICIA COLLIER - Asked if the problem would be solved if there were no parking on both sides of the road except for church in the summer? r TOWN COUNSEL -Stated that the Post Office parking made sense but the question of State and Church and the problem how to define the prohibition so it wouldn't interfere with the Churches operation was difficult to do. . .stated that he didn't think we should have a statute saying . . .you can park there whenever the church is having a function. JACK SLOPEY - Cleverdale - Stated that he agreed with the Highway Dept. Superintendent, Mr. Naylor. . . the Cleverdale Road is too narrow for parking. CARL KREBS - Stated that he is not objecting to the extension of the 1200 feet to 9000 feet proposed by the Board but if parking on one side serves the needs of safety for the people then he agreed to that also. Stated that he did not know of anyone on the Cleverdale Road who couldn't pull their car off the road onto the grass. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - Asked Mr. Krebs if there had been any feed back from the people who signed the petition regarding the extension to 9000? CARL KREBS - Answered that he did and they were very surprised,why when this petition was advertised wasn't it stated that the extension was made? The people who came to the public hearing tonight thought it was for approval of what they petitioned. Stated that none of the people he talked to objected to the extension i of the 9000 feet. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Asked for further input, hearing none the public hearing was closed. PUBLIC HEARING Relative to Round Pond-Critical Environmental Concern-Notice Shown 168 SUPERVISOR WALTER - Stated that this public hearing was to get input from the public regarding the Round Pond area and the area within 500 feet of the high water line of Round Pond. ROBERT NOLAN - Attorney - representing Mr. & Mrs. Russo. Stated that they were known to most of the Board as they have lived in Queensbury for some 48 years. In 1938 the Russo's purchased property from the O'Brien estate and contrary to Mr. Kurosaka's inability to get into the pond at that time, the water was fine then and it still is. The Russo' s have labored long and hard through the years trying to make a good restaurant and good motel, a good resort area. They have been a credit to the Queensbury and to the area. Now with the inevitable aging process comes time for them to slow down a little bit. All of you are aware of the many, many hours of negotiations days, months, actually a year and a half of his attempts to find a willing buyer who would be suitable to handle it financially. Someone who would be beneficial to them as owner of the property, and beneficial to the town in which they have made their home for twenty years. As a private person I was interested in the Country Club and I know they negotiated in an attempt to see if they could acquire it and as a summer resident of Queensbury and property owner in Queensbury I was very interested in Queensbury and thought that that was a good possibility. I was not privy to the negotiations but I read them with interest and certainly the Russo' s took a long and hard look at the offers that were made and as their right declined on the basis that the amount was not satisfactory. Now comes the stranger or third party to the banquet if you will, who is for my own knowledge, a successful builder and business man. He has roots in Lake Luzerne, a business in Warren County and made what in the final analysis was considered to be a fair and reasonable offer. The Russo' s accepted, they reserved five acres for their own use because it is their intent to build a one story home to occupy in their golden years. Being what seems to be a satisfactory financial transaction of some magnitude for a town of this size then it would appear at that point to an objective observer, myself, that the Town Board seemed to have a negative reaction, unseemingly haste.The realestate transaction was closed on May 3, now on May 13, or 10 days later, it was agreed that this property was to be singled out as the first and only critical environmental concern ever done in the Town of Queensbury.When I first read the notice I was thinking this is the most critical, the deliberation on Sandy Bay, as a resident of Glen Lake the intake from Rush Pond is of great concern to me as I presume it is to the Board. The development of the old Sullivan pasture on Dix and Quaker Roads is or should be of concern to all of us as citizens of Queensbury but these were not mentioned, these were ignored. To what I considered, to be a hasty decision to impose another layer of bureaucracy on the development of the land. Mr. Krogman is here and he is going to tell what he can, with limitations, of the plans of the developer, whom I know. It would appear to me that because negotiations failed this could have been what I consider a drastic step. We got our zoning ordinance which is a good one, we've got your subdivision regulations which are strong to abide by but are good basically for the commmunity as a whole, we've got a planning board with site plan review already placed in force to review what ever Mr. Passarelli or Mr. Russo plans to do or what the Country Club plans to do in the future. It is would seem that these bodies and your bodies would constitute sufficient safeguards to maintain the integrity of the Town and keep it beneficial to everyone concern. It's in conqress to me that the Town is seeking to preserve the property for a recreation area which would have been, I submit, a frustrated burden on this body of water or its environment, then one family residential homes with the use of the lake if this is to be the final plan regulated to the owner of those homes. I submit to you the question of fairness and I know that you are people of good will and I know that you wanted this property but possibly in your disappointment in not acquiring it, I think you have taken a preconeous, step here bringing in the necessity of environmental impact papers, I've prepared a lot of them, they are time consuming, and depending on the questions asked they are expensive and it is a burden which I don't think the purchaser of this particular piece of property should be put through because basically the Town cannot get together and negotiate a contract to buy the property. SUPERVISOR WALTER -First off, I don't believe that the closing on a piece of property is public knowledge and I don't think this board was aware of any date of closing as you've indicated very close to the time that we set the public hearing. I would have to tell you and I don't know whether this is quite the time to announce it that this Town Board is extremely interested in creating a new full time position in the Town of Queensbury and that is that of a Planner, so that we can have here and for a full work week for the benefit of our Zoning and Planning Boards and for our staff during the day. The expertise of someone in an area that knows such problems as come with development and one of the things 169 they are going to be looking into is our sub-division regulations, our zoning ordinance and exactly how site plans work. You have indicated they are good,they are as good as have been now, but I think they can be better. They certainly can be strengthened and I think you are going to see that in the future. I would also say, although Betty and I are here we do have a new board and they are taking a different look than the personnel we had on our previous board. DAVID KROGMANN - Attorney, partner with Bacas & Krogmann, Glens Falls. . . I appear this evening on behalf of Mr. Passarelli who is the purchaser of Mr. Russo's property, commonly known as the Paradise Beach Resort. I came tonight first to thank you on behalf of Mr. Passarelli for the opportunity to address the situation and second to talk to you about two things. . .Environmental quality and environmental review and to talk about fairness. Now that term was used by Mr. Nolan in his comments and I can say to you tonight I believe that Bob will confirm this but he and I have not discussed the subject of this public hearing before this evening. Our comments are independent of one another and perhaps we will sound somewhat familiar but I speak to you on behalf of the concerns of my client, Mr. Passarelli on the two items I mentioned. I believe that a case could be made and hopefully will not have to be made,that there has been an initial attempt to single out the Round Pond property for the purposes of environmental review. On behalf of Mr. Passarelli I am not saying that that is necessarily bad and in all likelihood could be good, but that gets us into the second area and that is one of fairness. The closing did in fact take place on May 3 after many many hours of negotiations with this gentlemen and his counsel. An agreement was forged which was there for both the seller and the purchaser. That closing was indeed a matter of public record since the deeds were recorded a few days after May 3, in less then two weeks upon that closing a notice of a public hearing for tonights' proceedings appeared in the Post Star. I believe that there is an attempt here an initial first step to place upon Mr. Passarelli and the plans he may have regarding the development of this property,burdens that are not at this time placed upon others. It is easy to say that this may be the first public hearing of many but that doesn't help and that doesn't soothe my clients feelings regarding these proceedings and indeed if this is the first attempt and I believe that factually it is and I believe it is the first attempt in Warren County, Washington County, Saratoga County, in fact if one was to look at the records of the Dept. of Environmental Conservation, one would find the only designation anywhere close to this area designating property of critical environmental concern is in the Town of Easton. If indeed this is the first step, then I would hope the first step wouldn't be unfair to my client but would indentify those properties that are on my mind that I hope are on your mind, that are of similar nature and should be treated in a similar fashion. If indeed you should make the designation that is the subject of this hearing. Where is the concern for areas such as the Glen Lake area which in fact borders to a certain extent perhaps very small, Round Pond and which is within the 500 foot area. Where is the concern as Mr. Nolan said for certain areas of Lake George as being critical areas of environmental concern or the properties adjoining Halfway Brook or the properties adjoining Hovey Pond or perhaps we should look at the Drellos property on the other side of the Northway and the area of water there, and what is being placed there. Perhaps we should look at the properties adjoining the Reservoir off Dixon Road as being an area of critical environmental concern, why aren't these areas and perhaps many others being concerned at the same time. Are we just talking about areas that contain water bodies as being areas of critical environmental concern or are we talking all the areas that I am sure many of you are familiar with, are contained environmental assessment form that just doesn't deal with water problems or development such as noise, how things look, effect up surrounding property owners. The history of the negotiations as far as the Town is concerned are well known to you, they are not as well known to me. I have talked with your counsel many times about this property. We have shared to the extent that we have been able, certain aspects of our individual negotiations but certainly not while they were on going. Certainly I think the Town of Queensbury began its negotiations well in advance of negotiations Mr. Passarelli authorized with Mr. Russo. Mr. Passarelli became L— the successful purchaser. He has, if one would check the records of this county a major financial investment in this property and that was made with the rules as they are now. Now what is accomplished by this designation, my understanding of the law is certainly that if there is ever to be a future profession in the law, we've got to have disagreement but my understanding of the law of not only the State Environmental Quality Act, but also of the commmissioners regulations promilgated as a result of that legislation, is that you have the authority to make that designation if you make the findings that are necessary. But that designation doesn't require environmental impact statement. The statute doesn't say that the regulation, the rules don't say that. What they do say is, that 170 if this area is designated or any area is designated as an area of critical environmental concern that it is more likely that the preparation of an environmental impact statement will be required. I think there is a misconception about the process as it is right now. It has been stated to me by one of you, that one of the reasons that this designation is necessary is that Mr. Passarelli may have a project, we will call it project A, and he will file a short form or a long form environmental assessment form so that the Lead Agency will make what ever approvals or consider what- ever approvals have to be granted can make a decision as to what is going to be an impact on the environment. The Town official that I talk to said the reason we need this designation is that Mr. Passarelli could put anything he wants on this assessment form and we have to accept whatever he says. Thats' simply not true and not what the law says. If you do not or what-ever body is the Lead Agency does not agree with what Mr. Passarelli puts on his environmental assessment form, short form or long form whichever he chooses ' to file or which ever is required of him, if you don't agree with him or as project A is concerned, we will require an environmental impact statement. That can be done now, that can be done in accordance with the statute as it exists now in accordance with the rules and regulations, so what is accomplished by this designation? I would submit to you very little is accomplished by this designation other than that to single out the Round Pond property And single out Mr. Passarelli, and there are certain important issues here on the constitutional nature such as equal protection of the law that everyone is entitled and be treated equally. What are the alternatives, there would be no environmental review if Mr. Passarelli chcm a to continue the resort and motel, which includes a bar which includes eating over the lake, motels, cottages, rental units, he could continue that, as Mr. Russo's conducted the property, and there would be no reviews as long as the continuation was in similar nature. Everyone has decided already, or at least many people, I shouldn't say everybody, that's not fair, many people have already decided for Mr. Passarelli his project. I can state to you tonight that Mr. Passarelli hasn't decided his project, and who's Mr. Passarelli? Mr. Passarelli is a contractor in Staten Island area, he is involved in commercial construction as well as residential. He is involved in apartment construction in addition to that. He has a major construction firm which is based in Staten Island but he happens to love this area and he purchased his home in Lake Luzerne, which he comes to almost every weekend. He now conducts two businesses in Lake Luzerne and he wants to develop in this area, but has he made definite plans in his mind as far as Round Pond, is no. Other than it is his inclination at this time, his i plan at this time, not to continue the present use, although that is a possibility but he is more favorably inclined to construct residential structures on the --+ property. Who could be more concerned at this point given his financial investment of the quality of that area then Mr. Passarelli. Prior to our signing of the contract at the closing, perhaps Mr. Russo doesn't even know this, we conducted, in the extent we could, a great deal of engineering work of quality of that property, the quality of Round Pond. Why would he do that, obviously he wanted to make sure that quality was as is the general notion in this community. I will be happy to show this information to the Board, the quality is excellent. The water is pure. The fish that are in the pond are not threatened, at least based upon the information that we have been able to ascertain. So Mr. Passarelli's interest in the quality and integrity of Round Pond are what I think the same as this governing body. What are the implications of such a designation, if you talk to someone from Encon, they talk like I used to talk when I was in the Army, in decimals, you never use words you use initial, and they call them CAE - Critical Area Environmental concern, what are the implications of that designation. Mr. Passarelli isn't the only owner of property on Round Pond. Who is concerned, who has been concerned, in this community regarding what herbicides or what fertilizers are being applied and have been applied to the fairways and greens of the Glens Falls Country Club. Who is concerned or has been concerned when the first Tee at the Glens Falls Country Club or the eighteenth green was reconstructed and there was fill put in that pond, where was the designation of critical environmental concern, where was the review of those projects and who is concerned at this time or in the future regarding the removal of tens of thousands of gallons of water from Round Pond on a daily basis. Perhaps I should say weekly because I don't have the figures and I don't want to misquote or mis-state fact, to water the greens and fairways at the Glens Falls Country Club. That is the water source, and in fact in our investigation the wells were drilled at some point in time, Mr. Russo can speak to this, by the Glens Falls Country Club to pump back water into the pond because of the extraction of water from the pond. Lets look at the notice of the public hearing, you talk about the criteria contained in section 14.4J title 6 and thats part of the rules and regulations of the department promigated pursuant to State Environmental Review Act. You say critical, as a benefit to the public health and safety, the natural setting, the inherent ecological and hydrological sensitivity to change which could be adversely affected by any change. There are other land owner who may be affected by this legislation or this designation.Certainly the Great Escape which has property adjoining the pond or within 500 feet. The history of negotiations were lengthy, I think it is not fair to make this designation, to single out this property, I think it is not fair that this designation was not made when this Town Board was negotiating for this property to be used as potential area or for that subject to be considered. I don't think it is fair for this designation to be consummated at this time while there are at least informal negotiations pending between my client and this town regarding this property. I think that perhaps one could make a case that the potentiality of this designation is being used as a sword which is not what we are talking about or what we should j be talking about. We should be talking about critical areas of environmental concern. Unfortunately I must think in these terms on behalf of my client. Unfortunately, it has been told to me by a town official that this town could make it very difficult for Mr. Passarelli to develop this property, that was said to me. What other conclusion can I draw that perhaps the proceedings tonight is not the first step in that regard and I will say again so the record is clear that statement was not said by Mrs. Walter or by any member of this board. I think the areas of consideration should be looked at as far as part 617. You rely upon three areas as outlined in the statute, there are four. The first area is as far as designation is concerned, identifies an area should have an exceptional or unique character covering one or more of the following. . .one or more of the following should be able to be applied and a determination made by you in a positive way before you make this determination. . . (one) the area is a benefit to the public health or public safety, that is in your notice of public hearing. . . (two) it is a natural setting, the regulations (eg. fish and wild life habitant, forest and vegetation open space and esthetics). . . (three) is not used as a basis for your consideration or at least not in the notice of public hearing. . . (four) an inherent ecological, geological, or hydrological sensitivity to change which could be adversely affected by any change,that is certainly in the notice and I just read it to you. This is heavy stuff, I would submit to you that the designation such as this in reliance on any one of these areas can't be made because I think or someone else has said, or on conclusive statement, it has to be based on fact and whether this has inherent ecological geographical hydrological sensitivities in this area, I think can only be made upon on expert advice to you or some data upon which you can rely in making that determination. This is the first step, I would ask this Board to take a step back. Mr. Passarelli will _ respond at the appropriate time to the concerns of the appropriate body, to environmental quality review. He is not going to damage this property, it is a gem in his mind,it is in fact a gem. He is very fortunate at least in his mind to be the current owner of the property as Mr. & Mrs. Russo have been very fortunate for many many years to have been the owner of this property. If an environmental review is required, Mr. Passarelli will respond and will comply in full with the zoning regulations of this town or as they may be amended from time to time. The only additional question that I would have for you is whether during your public meetings, do you intend to take any action upon this resolution. I believe Mrs. Walter indicated that it is traditionally the policy of the board not to do that at the night of the Public Hearing, unless I misunderstood your comment. SUPERVISOR WALTER - Stated that as a general rule we do not vote after a public hearing on a resolution, that evening, however we have done so when there has been no public comment or no dealing adverse to the resolution. WILLIAM MORTON - Representing Queensbury Association for outdoor recreation and environment - read a prepared statement. . . We should like to go on record as firmly supporting the Local Law that would designate Round Pond and its surrounding environment as a critical area of environmental concern. Under such designation we understand that an environmental impact statement will be required for most 1 developmental activities within 500 feet within the high water level of Round ? Pond. We note that Round Pond is a splendid natural resource in Queensbury that every effort should be made to insure its protection, prepetuation of an outstanding resource. We are very concerned how Round Pond will be developed in the future. In the light of the very uncertain nature of the development of Round Pond and the potential for this development to adversely affect Round Pond that we see the proposed Local Law as being an appropriate measure to insure the proper information is made available so a through analysis in the evaluation of the impacts of any development on Round Pond and the community can be made. We strongly favor adoption of the proposed Local Law and I would like to echo the sentiments of the two gentlemen who spoke before me that I concur very much with them that we should be looking at other areas in the town to apply the same to. 172 FRANK SHORTELL - Courthouse Dr. - President of Glens Falls Country Club - There is no other organization or body of people, I think that is more interested in the environmental part of Round Pond then the Glens Falls Country Club. According to the maps we own 75 to 85 % of the shoreline, the rest at this time is owned by Mr. Passarelli. I think that everything Mr. Krogmann stated early is true, we do draw out of the pond for watering purposes but we do put back in the pond through artian wells. We did work on the first Tee just to shore it up so we wouldn't have any erosion. All the work we have done on Round Pond or around the shoreline has enhanced the beauty of the area.The biggest thing is that we use Round Pond for swimming. We have our own beach at the club,we pay particular attention to the cleanliness of the water in the pond. We have it tested on a regular basis,we do not want to see anything happen to Round Pond. I only became involved in this when I saw the advertisement in the paper tonight. The Glens Falls Country Club has been on its present location, the center of the building particularly since 1912, 74 years, I am wondering how this 500 feet around Round Pond is going to affect us in the future. We are presently in the long range planning. Perhaps a major reconstruction of the building itself within the next three or four years. We don't want to lose the club, we want to keep it right where it is but do a major ove&ul on it. We spent, a year ago, $70,000.00 plus putting in a new septic system away from the pond, which is, I can't honestly say, outside the 500 foot limit, but I surmise it may not be. We spent a lot of money doing it. We wouldn't want to have to move that. I think what I would be asking for this evening is that whatever decision you might come to eventually, is to ask that the Glens Falls Country Club be grandfathered as being there for 74 years,thats' my basic concern. WALTER MEDWID - Laurel Lane - I would first like to commend the Town Board in terms of the reports I am reading in the newspaper. I think there seems to be somewhat of a different look at concerns regarding the environment. I think the decision that the board made in light of very very difficult pressure that were presented to them in regard to the development fees in new areas and again the issue of looking at Round Pond in a different way, I look at that as perhaps a new view of the future of trying to shepherd the resources and plan for the future. I think to say that because a property was bought or sold traded or whatever, that all of a sudden all rules should be held in abeyance, I am not sure I understand that. I think that whenever a decision is made by this Town ' Board that impacts, the people of the town or the developers, somebody is going to get caught at that particular point in time. If no one was caught, if the town couldn't react because a property was in the midst of a transfer while the town was implementing a regulation, nothing would happen, laws that existed a hundred years ago would exist today. I don't think any of us want that. I think we've got to look ahead. I am looking at the towns view on Round Pond as being a progressive look ahead, to look and protect those environmental resources. I think Round Pond should be one of the beginning of a long list of properties and areas that need to be looked at. I think Round Pond is one of them, Rush Pond is another, Glen Lake, the Glens Falls City Water Shed area, all those areas need to be identified. Whether Round Pond has been sold or has not been sold is an immaterial issue. I think what we are seeing again in my view is a new view at looking at our resources. I don't think as we move ahead in making those environmental decisions anyone's investment should be threatened. A fair market value should never be an issue that is questioned as we make those decisions. So I would also like to think that in the event that regulations were promilgated that prevented certain development that the investment made by the new buyer, is certainly protected by whatever the town might do in establishing a fair market value to that area. Again I applaud the Town Board in moving ahead in this direction. KEITH UNDERWOOD - General Manager of the Glens Falls Country Club I just wanted ..� to add to Mr. Shortells' comments, that we have been here since 1912 and one of our major concerns, in the three years I have been at the Glens Falls Country Club is the environmental protection within that region. Since I have been here we have started having a private firm do testing of the waters and as a , representative to the contractor out of Staten Island said, it is a pearl, one of the cleanness in the region. We were also asked to participate last year in a study for acid rain with the DEC and they also came in and it was very negative from the stand point of the acid rain position. Any projects we have done have been to improve the quality and improve the ambiance in the region. I don't understand how this particular law you may have passed affects the Glens Falls Country Club or the new buyer. Perhaps I should have gotten together with DEC, but I have tried talking with them before and it takes months to get an answer. My main reason for concern is that we have been here since 1912, we are within 173 500 feet of the water in many cases with our building and I am not sure how it affects us. If it affects us to the point where we can't do anything there, you are talking about a couple of million dollar facility that would be fairly useless, if we improve it or change it to make it a better environment and a better place in the community. TOWN COUNSEL - If the town decides to make this designation, file it with Encon, what my understanding of the rules and regulations is that any action proposed by anybody, and they have talked about different interpretations, on what is an action and what isn't, but any action that would be required would have to have an environmental review and because of this designation it would be a type one action. The likelihood would be that before doing whatever you proposed to do at the Country Club, you would have to complete an environmental impact statement. Now depending on the type of project envisioned by the Glens Falls Country Club or by Mr. Passarelli or anybody else falling within that 500 feet,if this Town Board were giving a permit, the Planning Board if it were making site plan review, Zoning Board if it was giving a variance could make a determination and say. . .we take a look at this, you are not talking about doing anything significant in our judgment and we are going to make a determination and say that whatever it is you propose doesn't have any impact on the environment. There is a resolution before the board this evening with the Town Board considering doing just that, in the steam of things, isn't going to have an impact on the environment,so it isn't anything that is going to prevent anyone from doing anything. All it means is that the review prior to approval for any action is going to be extremely thorough, certainly on large scale projects. JIM INGLELS - Cleverdale - There would be an impropriety to accuse this board of unfairness as if it were the same board that were carrying out negotiations last year,. h,ecause it isn't. PHIL HARRIS - I would like to commend the new Town Board as Mrs. Walter mentioned because it is a new Town Board and from what I have seen so far this year and especially the work that you did on establishing the way of raising revenue for recreation areas the board should be commended. I know, I have talked with Betty and there is engineering studies being done at the landfill and many areas of vital concern. I would like to go on record as commending the board for this step they are taking in proposing the environmental statement for this Round Pond area and even as Mr. Krogmann mentioned, it might even be helpful to his client. —` I have been in favor of recreation in that area for the whole town but I am pleased with the steps and as Mrs. Walter mentioned that there will be other hearings in the future of which you are doing now. COUNCILMAN MONTESI - Stated that he would like to address a few issues that have been raised. . . why haven't we taken a stand on Rush Pond or on Lake George or on the property on Quaker Road,two of these properties are pretty well taken care of at this point. The property on Quaker Road whether that is a wetland or not, I believe is still litigated by the Encon. Our input into that at this particular time would only tend to confuse the issue. Lake George, all of us here know that we have DEC, the Adirondack Park Agency, the Lake George Association which is part of DEC and the County working in unison hopefully to solve a milfoil problem and now we are addressing the septic problem on Lake George where someone has been assigned in the County. So that some of those areas . . .we know they are critical, the State knows they are critical, I guess maybe the Federal Government knows they are critical. Rush Pond is an area that I do have some concerns about, it is the head waters of Lake George. The only problem there, is we haven't had someone come in and buy a chunk of that where it is zoned commercially, where it is zoned multi-family residential and look at the potentially major development that could take place around Rush Pond. On Round Pond we have that, the property has been sold now. It happens to be zoned for multi-family and or commercial, I think that would have a severe impact on what goes on, on the pond as far as swimming, as far as everything else, I think we are taking a stand in saying that we are going to have to take a long hard look at what's g g g going to happen to Rush Pond down the line. Stated that last year he was in favor of buying Round Pond for the Town as a park for our community,if the Town Board really wanted to get tough and single out Round Pond, they could re-zone it or condemn it but that is not what they are doing, we are saying its environmentally sensitive and we want to look at it long and hard. Ultimately this board could sit here and name Round Pond a necessary parcel of land for us to buy as a recreational facility and take it by eminent domain and I am sure that is within the grasp of any community, We haven't done that and I don't think we are trying to use gestapo tactics but what we are concerned is what can happen down the line at Round Pond. 174 COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA - Commented to Mr. Nolan about his comments about Round Pond when he was running for office. . .about swimming in Round Pond. . . I grew up in Lake George and I like a cold lake, going to Round Pond is too warm, its like taking a bath, thats what I don't like about it not the quality of the water. Noted that when a piece of land is developed commercially or residentially you start using fertilizers, pesticides, thats why I don't think we can grandfather the Country Club to using some sort of pesticide that might be harmful to it. Fertilizer by itself is ecologically detrimental to water sheds but it is the quantity and quality you are using. Everyone talks like an environmental statement is a detonal on anything. If you are going to do everything by the book then you are not going to hurt the ecology and the environmental statement will not stop it, it will just control it so it will go in the right direction. STEPHEN BORGOS - Noted that he was pleased to hear from the Queensbury outdoor people that at least they like the way the Board is going now at this point. Although we haven't made up our minds yet about who, what, how . Stated that two things bothered him. . .Mr. Krogmann, mentioned that somebody somewhere stated that the town could make development very difficult for his client, I think you made it clear that nobody on this board said that. . .Mr. Montesi eluded to at least the potentiality of taking Round Pond or any other property by eminent domain, and I wouldn't use the term gestapo tactics and certainly in this instance could never support eminent domain for Round Pond. I would be hard pressed to support eminent domain for anything except for a foot of highway. Anything that the town would look for in the area of environmental impact statement or concern, would apply not only to your client but to any other person equally, whether the town owned it or somebody else owned it. Noted that some legal opinions and interpretations were made that he would like to check out with the Town Counsel. Stated that perhaps we do have enough protection with current legislation, perhaps we don't need this extra step. If the environmental impact statement could be required with current procedures then maybe we don't need the extra step on top of it. . .perhaps we just want to make sure we do have an option to look at the environmental impact. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - If you followed the work of this board through various meetings, I think certain things would be clear, at least as far as my position on this board. My position as a board member has always been that this board must start to accept some responsibilities to the impact on various actions on the environmental quality of the Town of Queensbury. Stated that we have tightened --' up some of our regulations. I think when I made my statement environmental quality during the recreation fee hearing and the open space hearing, that there were a lot of things the Town of Queensbury needed to protect and a lot of things we needed to do to protect this town. Also stated when a group that wanted to pressure very hard for the town to buy Round Pond, one of the statements that was made by this board was that they could not think of Round Pond as being unlimited use as a recreation area that it was a small body of water and it would have to be protected. Noted that they were not talking about the town using it one way and a private developer being allowed to use it another way. Also pointed out that we have had some places in the Town of Queensbury that we have some problems with, because of the development. Stated that she personally thought very hard to increase the amount of acreage to be allowed in a lot on West Mountain, because the land could not support it. These are the kind of situations we are looking at and are trying to prevent happening in the town,we do have a responsibility on this board to protect this town, to make sure that all of our natural resources stay usable natural resources. Stated that she objected to the inferences that this town is doing this because of the transaction or what you people are telling us, is taking place. MR. KROGMANN - Addressed Mrs. Monahan comments. . .asking who could argue against what you just said, stated that he was not here to do that,all he wanted to say ..,� was make the rules of the game the same for everyone in the same situation. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - responded they intended to. . .noted that they had to start somewhere and asked if Mr. Krogmann was suggesting that they not start with Round Pond but start after Round Pond was done. MR. KROGMANN-Responded that he was suggesting that the board start with everyone who is in the same boat and treat them equally. Responded to Mr. Medwid's comment that perhaps his comments were interpreted that they don't want the rules to apply to them, stated that in fact the rules should apply to them but they should also apply to everyone who is similarly situated and not to exact more for Mr. Passarelli as related to Round Pond. Noted that Mr. Borgos' comments were well taken and thought that when he did consult with counsel that counsel would advise him that 175 right now the appropriate agency called the Lead Agency can make two declarations on environmental quality,they can make a negative declaration or a positive declaration. Apparently you are prepared tonight to make a negative declaration on some projects. It means that the project in your mind based on the information you have, will not have a negative impact on the environment. Positive is just the oppsite that there is a possibility that it may and a full EIS should be filed, Environmental Impact Statement. . . Thats the law as it is now in the Town of Queensbury. If that is what you want a full Environmental Quality Review, then you already have that statue why single out this property anymore differently. Stated that it was said that it would be helpful to his client, he was not sure he said that, he thought it was going to be helpful to the Town of Queensbury that the town have more intensified Environmental Quality Review when it is necessary. Stated that they subjected themselves to that and that's the law. Certainly that is what Mrs. Monahan has been talking about. Addressed Mr. Montesi. . .the law is very clear, you can't rezone by using State Environmental Quality Review Act, it is not proper. Stated that his client has been threatened `- with eminent domain, threatened with condemnation, he has been threatened with a lot of things and I will submit that those are not proper ways of proceeding that they would not be successful in this situation legally and the bottom line is money, that if those processes were attempted or successful it would involve the payment of money to my client for the damages. Addressed Mr. Kurosaka. . .I am not sure I said you, meaning you, you, I said you meaning the Town Board and whoever sat in those positions. Stated that he was not signaling out any one board member but he was speaking in terms of where was everyone when other things were happening and the designations were not made as to other areas. We never said we don't want to file an Environmental Impact Statement, if it is required we will file it. COUNCILMAN BORGOS - Noted in the area of the Country Clubs' new septic systems is already in and would not have to be disturbed. SUPERVISOR WALTER - Asked if there were any other comments - hearing none the public hearing was closed, 9:18 P.M. OPEN FORUM MR. MORTON - Queensbury Association for Outdoor Recreation. . .wishes to applaud the Town Board for amending the subdivision regulations requiring land for park development purposes or money in lieu of reservation. We think this is good legislation, a ood piece of work. We only note that the fee of $250.00 should not remain static,it should increase in relation to the increase in land values. Also we suggest that sometime the approach used by Niskayuna be considered. Niskayuna has a fee schedule from $200.00 to $600.00 based on lot size that is the larger the lot the greater the fee. Councilman Montesi has a copy of the Niskayuna schedule. We only point it out at this time for future consideration, again we commend you for this fine piece of work. GLEN GREGORY - West Glens Falls, wondered if the board was aware of the potential problem they have in West Glens Falls regarding Richardson Street and.' . Main Street. . .everynight there is something going on at the Civic Center, they turn that light on blinker and Richardson Street being the main artery or Luzerne and Sherman Road area, you cannot get on the Corinth Road going North or South because the people going to the Civic Center will not slow down at that light. Stated that it is a main artery for a fire company and emergency squad and if they had to get out of Richardson Street, with that blinker light going, it would be impossible during Civic Center operations. Stated that he didn't know who owned the light but suggested something be changed and have a red and green light so people could get out onto the Corinth Road. SUPERVISOR WALTER - Responded that she thought it was our light and stated that she would check on it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - Noted that the State is going to install a new light on Dix Avenue in front of the South Queensbury Fire House and when they do that, they are going to make arrangements for South Queensbury to be able to regulate that light in case of emergencies. Stated that this same thing might be done in the Richardson and Main St. areas. COUNCILMAN BORGOS - Commented on the history of the Civil War Monument down in the middle of the City of Glens Falls, it is potentially deteriorating. Stated that he had learned it was built there by the Town of Queensbury and it commemorated 22 people in Queensbury who died during the Civil War while fighting for the Country 176 and at that time according to his notes, represented 2% of the total population of the town. Mr. Borgos thought if the Town had not already taken some steps they should perhaps form a joint committee with the City of Glens Falls and look at this. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - Noted that it was worked on during the Bi-centennial. COUNCILMAN MONTESI - Stated that occasionally some of the businesses in our community find that renting space via trailers is a very convenient way of taking care of their seasonal operation. Noted that he was specifically looking at retailing so that in some cases one can drive down Quaker Road and see three or four trailer trucks out there which are stock rooms. Stated that they cost $75.00 a month which is cheap but also unsitely, and after the Board goes through the process of review and site plan review, beautification review and everything else then to allow trailers there? He pointed out that there are 17 of them up behind Zayers,the people who live in Robert Gardens certainly knew they were abutting a retail operation but did not have any inclination that there would not only be the daily traffic but these 17 trailers back there. Mr. Montesi suggest that the Town Board and the Planning Board should be looking into that ordinance. COUNCILMAN BORGOS - Questioned if there was any legislation to take care of that kind of thing, if these 17 trailers were there permanently? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - Asked what difference it would make if they were permanent or temporary. . . one moves and another moves in to take its place, the business is not meeting its responsibility of storage requirements. SUPERVISOR WALTER - Stated that the Board would have to review the legislation and see where it could be amended to prevent that situation. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - Stated that the Board is concerned about the quality of Lake George and are trying to do something to alleviate that. . .looking at sewers in that area of the community and would like to announce that the Board has received the bill 8936 that is in the Senate, introduced by Senator Stafford relative to the inbasin and outbasin discharges sewage in Lake George and they are going to study this. COUNCILMAN MONTESI - Noted that a discussion up at the County Center by Mr. Hennessey on milfoil, and stated that some of the people in Lake George asked if they should write Mr. Hennessey or leave this in the hands of Mr. Stafford. SUPERVISOR WALTER - Stated that this particular Senate bill 8936 was introduced by Senator Stafford and went to the committee but it is not moving in the committee because there is a problem with it with the Department of Environmental Conservation. Stated that she thought of those members of the board who have not read it they should take a good look at it. Mrs. Walter noted that she could not support it in the form it is currently in. There had been some changes made and perhaps there needs to be a few more. Stated that she thought that the law should give to the commissioner of Environmental Conservation the authority to promilgate rules and regulations so that new technology and new standards can be set that do not have to go in front of the legislature everytime. Stated that she had asked for the latest revised copy of the bill and plans to get it out to the board so they can take a look at it and then they can make a determination as to whether they wish to support it as it is written or perhaps a few amendments made before presenting it to Senator Stafford. MR. ADAMSON - Stated that he supported the Town Boards position and asked that the law be amended so the town could go ahead with feasible studies. SUPERVISOR WALTER - Stated that the holdup has not been from any political subdivision, it has been from the Dept. of Environmental Conservation. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA - Introduced a motion the Board stand on record that legislation passed the 1978 either be rescinded or repealed. JIM INGLES - Cleverdale. . .Commended Mr. Kurosaka. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MINUTES RESOLUTION NO. 141, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos: 177 RESOLVED, that the Town Board minutes of April 29 and May 5, 1986 be and hereby are approved. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: None 1 i RESOLUTION TO APPROVE BINGO LICENSE RESOLUTION NO. 142, Introduced by Mr. Stephen Borgos who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: RESOLVED, that Bingo License No. 2704 be and hereby is approved allowing V.F.W. Post 6196 to hold Bingo Occasions from June 3rd. through September 30th, 1986. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. gos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter f Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUPERVISOR TO SIGN AGREEMENT RESOLUTION NO. 143, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Steven Borgos. WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury wishes to provide a fireworks display in observance of Fourth of July, and N WHEREAS, the Town Board has determined to incorporate such a display with Town of Queensbury/West Glens Falls Fire Company Celebration 86, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes the supervisor to enter into an agreement with Galaxy Fireworks, Inc. of Malone, New York to provide a fireworks display on June 29, 1986 at the West Glens Falls Firemen's Field for an amount not exceeding $4,100. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: None Letters submitted by the Water Department, Highway Department, and Town Counsel regarding the accepting of deed for lands for Town Highways to be known as Pinion Pine Lane, White Pine Road and Willow Road on file. RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT DEED TO TOWN OF QUEENSBIIRY FOR LANDS FOR TOWN HIGHWAYS TO BE KNOWN AS PINION PINE LANE, WHITE PINE ROAD AND WILLOW ROAD i RESOLUTION NO. 144, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption and seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan: WHEREAS, Michael G. Woodbury and Ralph B. Woodbury have executed and offered a deed for Town Roadways not less than fifty (50) feet in width together with an easement agreement for drainage purposes which are more particularly described in Schedule "A" and "B" annexed hereto and made a part hereof, and WHEREAS, Paul H. Naylor, Superintendent of Highways of the Town of Queensbury, has advised that he has made the necessary inspection of the right of way clearing, sub-base preparation, drainage implementation, and surface treatment and finds 178 that such work has been performed in accordance with the standards and requirements of the Town of Queensbury, and he recommends that the Town Board accept this land for highway purposes into the Town Highway System, and WHEREAS, Thomas K. Flaherty, Superintendent of Water of the Town of Queensbury, has advised that he has made the necessary inspection of Water Line Installation in the proposed highways which are located within the geographical boundaries of the Queensbury Consolidated Water district and finds that said installation has been made in accordance with the standards and requirements of the Town of Queensbury and that he recommends that the Town Board accept this land insofar as the water line installation is concerned, and WHEREAS, the title to the land proposed to be conveyed has been approved b Wilson WH , P P Y PP Y S. Mathias, Esq. , Counsel to the Board, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized to execute the aforesaid drainage easement agreement, and be it further, RESOLVED, that the aforementioned deed be and the same is hereby accepted and approved and that the Town Clerk be hereby authorized and directed to cause said deed to be recorded in the Warren County Clerk's Office after which said deed sahll be properly filed and maintained in the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, and be it further RESOLVED, that these roads be hereby added to the official inventory of Town Highways, to be described as follows: Road No. 415 , Description: North/South Name: Pinion Pine Lane, Feet: 725 Road No. 406 , Description: East/West Name: Whte Pine Road, Feet: 320 ROAD No. 407, Description: East/West and North/South Name: Willow Road, Feet: 1604 Duly adopted this 27th day of May 1986, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING LEAD AGENCY AND ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF ESTABLISHMENT OF SHERMAN AVENUE WATER DISTRICT EXTENSION NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 145, Introduced by Mr. Stephen Borgos, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: Whereas, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law established the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and WHEREAS, such act requires environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury recognizes the need for the extension of the Sherman Avenue Water District to serve the current residents and to meet the needs of future residents in an area of increasing growth and development in the westerly portion of the Town of Queensbury and has conducted a public hearing on the establishment of an improvement district in that area of the Town, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified as lead agency with respect to the creation and establishment of said district; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is hereby designated lead V agency for purposes of SEQRA compliance in the creation and establishment of the Sherman Avenue Water District Extension No. 1, and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury adopt the annexed notice of determination of non-significance and that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Region 5 offices of the D.E.C. , Department of Health, Department of Transportation and the Warren County Planning Department. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walte 4 -- Noes: None Absent: None �`- SEQRA Negative declaration Notice of Determination of Non-Significance This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 ( State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined that the proposed action described below will not have significant effect on the environment. 1. Title of Action : Sherman Avenue Water District Extension No.l 2. SEQRA Status: Unlisted action. 3. Description of Action: Installation of 1,000 +- feet of 12 inch water main plus 2 hydrants. 4. Reasons Supporting Determination: In response to request for water service from developers and in light of current pending proposals before the Planning Board, the Town Board wishes to extend municipal water service to the proposed district to serve future residents and to strengthen the hydraulic capacity of the Town water system. Future development in the area must conform to SEQRA and site specific impacts of such projects would be addressed in the future. 5. For further information: Contact Person: Frances J. Walter Town Supervisor Town of Queensbury Bay & Haviland Rds. Queensbury, N.Y. 12801 (518) 792-5832 6. The Town of Queensbury maintains a file of its proceedings and determination and the supporting reasons therein, which file is available for public inspection. Dated: May 27, 1986 Town Board Town of Queensbury Bay & Haviland Rds. Queensbury, N.Y. 12801 RESOLUTION MAKING DETERMINATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 209e OF THE TOWN LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK IN RELATION TO THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF A WATER DISTRICT EXTENSION IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, WARREN COUNTY, NEW YORK TO BE KNOWN AS THE SHERMAN AVENUE WATER DISTRICT EXTENSION NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 146, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan, who moved its adoption seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York has heretofore duly caused a general map, plan and report to be prepared and filed in the office of the Town Clerk of the said Town in relation to the establishment of a proposed water district extension in said Town, to be known as the Sherman 180 Avenue Water District Extension No. 1. , and WHEREAS, an order was duly adopted by the said Town Board on April 27, 1986 reciting a description of the boundaries of said proposed district, the improvements proposed, the maximum amount proposed to be expended for said improvements, the proposed method of financing to be employed, the fact that said map and plan were on file in the Town Clerk's Office for public inspection, and specifying the 13th day of May 1986, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the Town Office Building, Town of Queensbury, Bay & Haviland Roads, in said Town as the time when and the place where said Town Board would meet for the purpose of holding a public hearing to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof concerning the same; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held at the time and place set forth in said order, as aforesaid, at which all persons desiring to be heard were duly heard, and WHEREAS, said Town Board has duly considered said map and plan and the evidence given at said public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York as follows: Section 1. Upon the evidence given at the aforesaid public hearing, it is hereby found and determined as follows: A. The notice of the aforesaid public hearing was published and posted as required by law and is otherwise sufficient; B. All the property and property owners within said proposed district are benefited thereby; C. All the property and property owners benefited are included within the limits of said proposed district; and D. The establishment of said proposed district is in the public interest. 1 . Section 2. The resolution shall take effect immediately. The question of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly put to a vote on roll call, which resulted as follows: Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A WATER DISTRICT EXTENSION IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, WARREN COUNTY,NEW YORK, TO BE KNOWN AS THE SHERMAN AVENUE WATER DISTRICT EXTENSION NO. 1, AND FURTHER APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED THEREFORE RESOLUTION NO. 147, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan: J WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York has heretofore duly caused a general map, plan and report to be prepared and filed } in the Office of the Town Clerk of said Town in relation to the establishment of a proposed water district extension in said Town, to be known as the Sherman Avenue Water District Extension No. 1, and WHEREAS, an order was duly adopted by said Town Board on April 22, 1986 reciting a description of the boundaries of said proposed district extension, the improvements proposed, the maximum amount proposed to be expended for said improvements, the proposed method of financing to be employed, the fact that said map and plan were on file in the Town Clerk's Office for public inspection, and specifying the 13th day of May, 1986 at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the Queensbury Town Office Building, Bay and Haviland Roads in said Town, as the time when and the 181 place where said Town Board would meet for the purpose of holding a public hearing to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof concerning the same, and WHEREAS, such order was duly published and posted in the manner and within the time prescribed by Section 209-d of the Town Law and proof of said publication and posting has been duly presented to said Town Board, and WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held at the time and place set forth in said order, as aforesaid, at which all persons desiring to be heard were duly heard, WHEREAS, the Town Board as duly designated lead agency has adopted a determination of non-significance of the proposed action in accordance with the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and WHEREAS, following said public hearing, and based upon the evidence given thereat, said Town Board duly adopted a resolution determining in the affirmative all of the questions set forth in Subdivision 1 of Section 209-e of the Town Law, and WHEREAS, it is now desired to adopt a further resolution pursuant to Subdivision 3 of Section 209-e of the Town Law, approving the establishment of said district and the construction of the improvements proposed therefore; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York as follows: Section 1. The establishment of a water district extension in the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York to be known as the Sherman Avenue Water District Extension No. 1 to be bounded and described as hereinafter set forth, and the installation and construction of 1000 f feet 12 inch water main and two hydrants in said district at a maximum estimated cost of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) is hereby approved and authorized. The method of financing the cost of said improvement shall be by surplus funds not otherwise appropriated, payable y, in the first instance from the several lots and parcels of land within the water district extension in the same manner and at the same as other town charges and as guaranteed by Cobe, Inc. pursuant to Section 277 of the Town Law. Section 2. Said water district extension shall be bounded and described as is set forth in Schedule "A" annexed hereto and made a part hereof. Section 3. This resolution is subject to a permissive referendum as provided by Section 209-e of the Town Law. Section 4. If after the expiration of the time for filing a petition requisitioning that the matter be submitted to a referendum of eligible voters within the proposed extended district, no such petition is timely filed with the Town Clerk, she shall file a certificate stating such fact in the Office of the Warren County Clerk. Description of the Sherman Avenue Water District Extension #1 All that certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the Town of Queensbury, County of Warren and the State of New York, more particularly bounded and described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of the lands of Martnot Investing Company, Incorporated and the southwest corner of the lands of Ray Cowen III and H. Gerald Beres being on the westerly bounds of Great lot 62 of the first sub-division of the Queensbury Patent and the easterly bounds of Great Lot 69 of said Patent in the easterly bounds of the lands of Ernest and Doreen Centerbar and the northwest corner of the existing Clendon Brook Water District; running thence northerly along the great lot line between said lots 62 and 69 to the northwest corner of said lot 62 and the northeast corner of said lot 69 and the southwest corner of great lot 63 of said first sub-division of the Queensbury Patent, being also the northwest corner of the lands of LeRoy and Patricia Reeves; thence running easterly along the northerly bounds of said great lot number 62 and the southerly bounds of said great lot number 63 to the northwest corner of the Sherman Avenue Water District and the northwest corner of the lees of Ralph and Geneva K. Elmore; thence running southerly along the westerly bounds of said Sherman Avenue Water District and the lands of said Ralph and Geneva K. Elmore, 182 the westerly bounds of the lands of the Queensbury Better Homes Volunteers, Inc. and again the westerly bounds of the lands of Ralph and Geneva K. Elmore, crossing Sherman Avenue on a line being the projection southerly of the westerly bounds of said lands of Elmore to the southwest corner of the said Sherman Avenue Water District; thence running easterly on a line parallel to the southerly bounds of Sherman Avenue and along the southerly bounds of said Sherman Avenue Water District to the southwest corner of lot 23 of the N. F. Ripley sub-division and the northwest corner of the Clendon Brook Water District and the northwest corner of the lands of Harold W. Katz; thence running southerly along the westerly bounds of said Katz and the Clendon Brook Water District to the southwest corner of said Katz and the southeast corner of the lands of said Cowen III and Beres; running thence westerly along their southerly bounds and then northerly bounds of the land of said Martnot Investing Company, Incorporated being also the northerly bounds of said Clendon Brook Water District to the point and place of beginning. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUPERVISOR TO EXECUTE DOCUMENTS WITH CITY OF GLENS FALLS RELATIVE TO WESTERN AVENUE WATER EASEMENT RESOLUTION NO. 148, Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has requested an easement from the City of Glens Falls along Western Avenue (lying within the City limits) for the purpose of installation and maintenance of water mains and, WHEREAS, the Common Council by Resolution 78 of 1986, the City of Glens Falls has authorized such an easement on Western Avenue for the sum of $2,000. , NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Supervisor is hereby authorized to execute the necessary documents and make fullpayment of $2,000. to effect the water easement with the �. - City of Glens Falls. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: None DISCUSSION - Held by the Board Members, regarding no parking on Cleverdale as more information was needed to make a resolution. . .put on agenda for next meeting, June 10, 1986. RESOLUTION SETTING SECOND PUBLIC HEARING DESIGNATING ROUND POND AND ADJOINING LANDS AS CRITICAL AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN RESOLUTION NO 149, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos: WHEREAS, the Town Board is authorized to designate specific geographic areas within its boundaries as critical areas of environmental concern, and i WHEREAS, Round Pond and the area within 500 feet of the high h water line of Round P nd a pp ear to be of exceptional and unique character, and WHEREAS, the aforesaid area may meet the criteria contained in Section 617.4 (J) of Title 6 of the New York Code Rules and Regulations as a benefit to the public health and safety, natural setting and an inherent ecological and hydrological sensitivity to change which could be adversely affected by any change, and WHEREAS, the Town Board seeks additional public comment regarding the designation of this area as a critical area of environmental concern, .tuv NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that a meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall be held at the Town Office Building at Bay & Haviland Roads in the Town of Queensbury on the 10th day of June 1986 at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of conducting a public hearing on the proposal to designate Round Pond and certain adjoining lands as critical areas of environmental concern, and to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof, concerning the same, and to take action as may be required and authorized by law, and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed to publish a copy of this resolution in the official newspaper of the j— Town of Queensbury and to post a copy of this order on the sign board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: Mr. Kurosaka Absent: None DISCUSSION - Held by the Board Members, regarding the Critical areas of environmental concern on Round Pond: COUNCILMAN BORGOS - One of the specifics he understood Mr. Krogmann raised is that even if they make this designation it still would not require automatically full EIS, if that's true, and if this new declaration could be gone around the same way the other ones probably have, then we are no further ahead with this one. Stated that if this designation would make it so it must be, that is one thing or if it was optional and if this is the case then the Board should go back and enforce what they already have, and have the Planning Board act on these things. TOWN COUNSEL - The Board would not have any way of enforcin g they've got what the 'Y unless its something like rezoning in which case they would be the Lead Agency. You would then make the determination whether or not anybody would be required to go through this procedure. The Planning Board is going to be its only agency. So the designation such as this that the likelihood is far greater that the Planning Board would use the full EIS process much more frequently than it does now. There is no question that Mr. Krogmann is right, the procedure is there right now and what this is proposed to do is to encourage the use of that procedure by boards to whom you have delegated your authority. One of the proposed changes in the regulations is to allow DEC to make this decision and the local municipality which is a lot closer to what is going on in these areas take, the initiative rather than having the State acting for you. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - Stated that what they were doing was making a strong statement to the Boards involved that they must consider the environment much more than it has been done in the past. COUNCILMAN MONTESI - Noted that that was the statement made by Mr. Krogmann tonight - some form of residential buildings that can take the form of condominiums—stated that they would then want to know what does the critical area want. . . class one or class two. TOWN COUNSEL - Noted that it is his opinion we should have two public hearings considering the way the notice was written. i COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA - Stated that they would get the same comments they got today. TOWN COUNSEL - Stated that it wouldn't hurt to do it because it takes 30 days once the designation is made. It may be more prudent to discuss this one more time. RESOLUTION REQUESTING STATE LEGISLATURE TO REPEAL PORTIONS OF 17-1709 ENVIRONMENTAL 184 LAW KNOWN AS "THE LAKE GEORGE LAW" RESOLUTION NO 150, Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, the New York State Legislature enacted Paragraph 3 of §17-1709 of the Environmental Conservation Law which became effective July 10, 1979, which prohibited the discharge of sewage or treated sewage effluent from municipal sewage treatment plants into the Lake George drainage basin, and WHEREAS, the United States Environmental Protection Agency adopted the Final Environmental Im act Statement Wastewater Collection and Treatment 'Facilities, Lake George-Upper Hudson Region, New York dated December 1983 which F.E.I.S. recommended, in part, the construction of small, localized waste water treatment -. facilities with in-basin disposal for the Assembly Point, Cleverdale, Rockhurst, and other designated areas of Queensbury located on the shores of Lake George, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury recognizes the critical importance of establishing municipal waste water treatment facilities to serve those areas described in the F.E.I.S. , and WHEREAS, Paragraph 3 of §17-1709 of the Environmental Conservation Law, as amended, currently prohibits the implementation of the recommendations detailed in the F.E.I.S. , and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to commence the process of creating a sewer district in portions of the area designated in the F.E.I.S. , and to engage the services of a licensed engineer pursuant to provisions of the Town Law regarding the establishment of a special district NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board, in order to implement the recommendations made by the E.P.A. in the environmental impact statement regarding the sewering of areas of the Town of Queensbury located on Lake George, requests the New York State Legislature to repeal Paragraph 3 of §17-1709 of the Environmental Conservation Law as added by Chapter 599 of the Laws of 1979 and as amended by Chapter 600 of the Laws of 1984, and it is further RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution be forwarded to New York State Assembly New York State Senate Warren County Board of Supervisors Washington County Board of Supervisors Essex County Board of Supervisors Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent:None COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - Asked if they could discuss philosophy first regarding the Lake George Law. Asked Town Counsel and Supervisor Walter since they had been down there, which way they should go. . . SUPERVISOR WALTER - The best action right now was to go with the repeal of the original Lake George Law, but added that she did not have the date on it. It ; was stated that copies of this should be sent to Senator Stafford, Warren County Board of Supervisors, Rep. DeAndrea RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AUDIT OF BILLS RESOLUTION NO. 151, Introduced by Mr. Stephen Borgos who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: RESOLVED, that Audit of Bills as appears on May 27, 1986 Abstract and numbered 1440 and 1490 and totaling $70,500,32.00 be and hereby is approved. 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. h-- DARLEEN DOUGHER, TOWN CLERK