The URL can be used to link to this page

2006-01-23 MTG3 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 352 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 RD JANUARY 23, 2006 RES#56-70 7:05 P.M. B.H. 3-4 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR COUNCILMAN RICHARD SANFORD COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER TOWN COUNSEL ROBERT HAFNER TOWN OFFICIALS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, MARILYN RYBA BUDGET OFFICER, JENNIFER SWITZER DEPUTY WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, MIKE SHAW PRESS POST STAR, TV 8 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN RICHARD SANFORD SUPERVISOR STEC-Opened meeting. RESOLUTION ENTERING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 56, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns and moves into the Queensbury Board of Health. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of January, 2006, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec Noes: None Absent:None REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 353 BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE APPLICATION OF MARGARET COLACINO RESOLUTION NO.: BOH 3, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board serves as the Town’s Local Board of Health and is authorized by Town Code Chapter 136 to issue variances from the Town’s On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, and WHEREAS, Margaret Colacino has applied to the Local Board of Health for a § variance from Chapter 136, 136-11, which requires an applicant to obtain a variance for a holding tank and the applicant has requested a new, Code-compliant holding tank to replace the existing non-conforming holding tank on property located at 49 Rockhurst Road in the Town of Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health will hold a public th hearing on Monday, February 6, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, to consider Margaret Colacino’s sewage disposal variance application concerning property located at 49 Rockhurst Road in the Town of Queensbury and bearing Tax Map No.: 227.13-2-23 and at that time all interested persons will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish the Notice of Public Hearing presented at this meeting and send a copy of the Notice to neighbors located within 500 feet of the property as required by law. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of January, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: None REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 354 RESOLUTION ADJOURNING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. BOH 4, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns and moves back into the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of January, 2006, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford Noes: None Absent:None REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED LOCAL LAW TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 179 ENTITLED “ZONING” CONCERNING THE PURPOSE AND ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE PO ZONE NOTICE SHOWN OPENED SUPERVISOR STEC-Marilyn, I don’t know if you want to make any perambulatory kind of additions or discussion here before we start taking public comment or if you have any prepared remarks. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MARILYN RYBA-I don’t have any prepared remarks other than what the proposed law states, which is there will some amended language in the Zoning Code to do a number of things. I think probably the clearest way to described this is reading right off of the Short Environmental Assessment Form. Setbacks for residential uses in the PO zone shall be a minimum of 1,000 feet from Bay Road, Sherman Avenue, Western Avenue, and West Mountain Road. Non-residential uses shall be within 1000 feet from Bay Road, Sherman Avenue, Western Avenue or West Mountain Road. Floor Area Ratios for office/institutional uses is 0.3. Personal service businesses are accessory uses allowed within the professional office building. Clarification for lot size 20,000 square feet to establish the first use (first dwelling unit) plus 5,000 square feet for each additional unit additional clarification of the purpose statement as per the proposed Local Law. What this would do is modify the existing professional office zone. It doesn’t change the zone but it does change the REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 355 language within that zone. It would affect approximately five hundred and fifty eight acres total in that zone. What the local law states and I can read that or the proposed local law. Under the purpose and establishment of zoning districts. Professional Office PO. The PO District encompasses areas where professional offices are encouraged. These are located along arterials. For the public’s sake arterials is a type of road definition. Adjoining residential areas where compatibility with residential uses is important. This is the new language or the new proposed language. The Town desires to see development of high quality offices where structures and facilities are constructed with particular attention to detail including but not limited to architecture, lighting, landscaping, signs, streetscape, public amenities, and pedestrian connection. The PO District can function as a transition zone protecting residential zones from more intensive commercial uses, while providing convenient professional services to residential neighborhoods. Office and residential facilities should be sited and built to demonstrate compatibility with adjoining uses and to minimize any negative impacts on adjoining land uses. It is the intent of the PO District to locate residential uses setback a minimum of 1, 000 feet from roadways as outlined in the dimensional tables and behind professional offices. It is further the intent to locate all non-residential uses only within 1,000 feet of roadways. There is an additional language in another section of this Section 3. I’m skipping over Section 2, unless you want me to read that directly just because there aren’t any proposed changes there. Section 3. Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179, ‘Zoning” Table 2 entitled “Summary of Allowed Uses in Commercial Districts” is hereby amended as attached and made part of this Local Law, to require setbacks for residential uses within the PO Zone to be sited a minimum of 1,000 feet from Bay Road, Sherman Avenue, Western Avenue or West Mountain Road. This is the new inserted word all professional office/office building shall be located here is another new word only within 1,000 feet of the arterial roadway, personal service businesses are allowed as accessory and subordinate to a professional office and any personal service facilities shall be located/housed within the professional office building. I don’t really have anything else to add. SUPERVISOR STEC-All right. I will declare the public hearing opened. If there are any members of the public that want to speak, I’m guessing there are. I’ll just ask please raise your hand we will call you up one at a time. We ask you to state your name and address for the microphone please and with that, the public hearing is opened. BOB FALLMAN, GURNEY LANE-I brought with me tonight a petition from two hundred people in the Gurney Lane, West Mountain, Courthouse Estate area concerning this wording. I’d like to take a minute just to read this to you if I may. We the residents of Gurney Lane, West Mountain Road area, Old West Mountain Road, Courthouse Estates, Bell Mountain Road, Buckbee Road and Lewis Road strongly and respectfully encourage the Queensbury Town Board to approve clarification in the Professional Office Space zoning language so that it would prohibit residential development within 1,000 feet of the arterial. We are seriously concerned that the construction of a townhouse complex situated in such close proximity to the Gurney Lane, West Mountain Road, Old West Mountain Road, Rte 149, I- 87, Exit 20 and Route 9 interchange will only serve to exacerbate the growing problem of traffic congestion. This congestion has resulted in REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 356 recent years from the increasing and unrelenting amount of traffic generated by interstate travel, the Route 9 Factory Outlet Stores and the continued expansion and on-going construction of The Great Escape & Splashwater Kingdom. We are also concerned that the construction of multi-family residential units in this area of Queensbury will violate the intended use of this property; property originally designated single family residential. The construction of a large, townhouse apartment complex certainly does not support the purpose this property was intended to serve when it was rezoned Professional Office Space as recently as 2002. Furthermore, we are gravely concerned that the construction and existence of 92 townhouse apartments at the intersection of Gurney Lane and West Mountain Road will alter for all time the distinctly scenic and rural character of this section of Queensbury. There are few sections remaining in the Town of Queensbury, which have retained this character and Exit 20 of the Adirondack Northway is the only one of three exits within the Town of Queensbury, which has not been developed. We feel that it is not only in our best interests, but in the interest of all Queensbury residents to protect and preserve this section of Queensbury from the unchecked construction of apartment complexes, which is spreading inexorably across the town’s landscape. Thank you. Do you want this? (Presented petition to Clerk on record Town Clerk’s Office) SUPERVISOR STEC-If you want to give it to the Clerk please she will take that for the record. MR. FALLMAN-Can I just ask one more thing. SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes, sir. MR. FALLMAN-That the people that are in support of this if they could just stand up here. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you. RICHARD LINKE-GURNEY LANE-I have a under five minute presentation, but I have to get rolling. (Power Point presentation) COUNCILMAN BREWER-Dan you got to tell him to take the microphone. SUPERVISOR STEC-Sir, you need to use our microphone, please. COUNCILMAN BOOR-You can remove it. MR. LINKE-Please bear with me because these kinds of things usually don’t work when you want them to. I spent a good part of the weekend trying to get this up and running. We should be rolling in about thirty seconds. Now, I know the Town loves studies so I went out and did a little study of my own. Let me just say that I am a Professor of Art at Skidmore College. I am very concerned with the visual resources of our area so that’s what I would like to speak about tonight. COUNCILMAN BOOR-That microphone comes out of there if you don’t want to…. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 357 MR. LINKE-All right here we go. I know I’m in the way of a few people pardon me you want me to scrunch this way. We are going to go on a whirlwind tour of the Town of Queensbury. Usually people come up the Northway and Exit 18, of course, Queensbury, but usually people don’t associate that they think of back door to Glens Falls we will leave that alone. We are going up to Exit 19, looking pretty good I like the bridge. We see the first hint of nice mountains the Foothills of the Adirondacks. Please look at this image very, very; very carefully, we are going to come back to this image at the end. So looking at Queensbury’s web page here lets take a look at Queensbury. We will jump down to Exit 19 start at the south end of Route 9. Just take a little tour this was come on with me Saturday morning just thinking about what we have here on Route 9 in terms of development and facilities. I love donuts we all go there we probably rent; we probably need to get our oil changed. Those chalupas are good. We need toys. We need all of these things. They don’t look pretty I’m not going to say yes, Queensbury’s going to the dogs we need these things. There is not too much we can do to change this, this doesn’t look very good but we’re stuck with it. Maybe as this sprawl goes further, further and further, we may find sometime that this part of Queensbury is no longer as attractive as the urban sprawl moves forward so let’s go up the road a little bit further. No let’s not go down Quaker Road that’s a mess. Oh no, oh man that guy just cut me off. Let’s not go up here either all right. Aviation Road we will leave that alone for tonight I’m talking about Route 9. Oh the good life in Queensbury and we’re rolling along. Again, I’m not blaming anybody I’m not really making a judgment I love to go to all of these stores, but the point I’m trying, no stopping Wal-Mart that’s all right. Well I’ve been there too, you probably have. My point is that Route 9 is highly, oh they cut down a whole bunch of trees for that one did you see that. All right, so we need our cars washed some people like to go to the bakery. Let’s roll up the road even further because we’ve only got five minutes, oh that’s quaint. Rolling up a little bit further oh, our cash cow, oh man we love the Great Escape it brings in lots of money and lots of development, but they are going to clean this up they say they are going to stop someday. They do their best at landscaping here I don’t think so. Let’s keep going, oh wait a minute I saw some green trees, but they are not the Town of Queensbury that’s Warren County if they were Queensbury they would probably be gone by now. Let’s go up to our miracle strip. This is very exciting we love to shop wait a minute everybody look here’s Queensbury’s open space plan here is an open space right here. I don’t know what the people of Gurney Lane are complaining about I found one right there. Oh gee whiz it’s a good think snow comes and covers things up its getting up on Route 9 to the point where we’re getting closer and closer to Lake Honkey Tonk up the road. Let’s turn around here at Queensbury. Let’s go back towards those trees; of course, we cannot go back in time. This is Route 9 and 149 about 1875 could they have imagined well they couldn’t, but we can. We have government. We have the County we have the Town. We have the ability to make plans and alter things for the future. Now here we are going across the Northway at Exit 20 the Gurney Lane exit. I see some mountains things are looking good, but stop the development here at the Northway. Once you go across the Northway there was a firestorm of development on that other side and look at that dot that particular dot happens to be the particular piece of property everybody is talking about tonight. It is a perfect example of spot zoning it was never intended. At least I’ve been coming to these meetings for forty years I think REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 358 and it was never intended to be dense development. So, what do we have a little bit of spot somebody has changed this. None of the residents knew that it got changed and proposed. I heard that maybe somebody wanted some office buildings, but now it’s turned into high-density apartment buildings. Right between Gurney Lane Recreation area and Rush Pond unbelievable smack right in-between. You have ninety-two sites ninety-two apartments all with their own septic systems Mr. Schermerhorn told us and it’s all down hill three tenths of a mile to Rush Pond. Now, I’m not a hydrologist but I know water goes down hill and twenty years from now, you are going to have troubles. So, the Northway is your key the Northway is already ruined so to speak on that east side. This summer we had some new surprises with the Great Escape. Well they wiped out a few more trees, but hey, they bring in a lot of money. If we allow it to go over on to the west side here, we’re going to be stuck having the only piece of green in our lives in the median of the Northway. In fact, Queensbury put in their proud Town sign here the only place they could find was in the median of the Northway at Exit 20. You certainly don’t want to put that sign any further towards the development. Now this is an example of some high density, high density apartment buildings. Everybody here is familiar there is an aerial view of Town Hall with some high-density apartments. Let me just take those for a minute and super impose onto this zone of land right here. I’m not saying that this is what it is going to look like, but this is what it could look like. We heard some talk at meetings just a few days ago, that gee if the Town won’t allow him to build ninety well then maybe he will build even more because he has the right. Now, this patch right here this is what the Great Escape demolished this summer it is on the east side there. This spot zoning someone mentioned the other day that it looked like the tip of a match and yes, it is. I don’t want to see this get ignited we don’t need development on this side. Now here is the clincher everybody look very carefully at this. I wonder how many of the Town planners or the County planners realize that this is the spot we’re talking about right here this is it. This is a world-class view this is so beautiful. Millions of people come up the Northway and ah some green mountains this Queensbury a nice place to live. Look at what you are going to do right smack dead in the middle of one of the nicest views anybody could want. In fact, our open space in Queensbury is mostly Northway views. Now, home of Natural Beauty let’s not destroy it. A Good Place to Live. I don’t think that too many people would really like to live in this kind of high density living right next to the Northway at this particular point where the trucks are coming down the hill 80 mph shifting gears. Nobody is going to want to live in this apartment complex once they find this out it is going to turn into an undesirable spot in the future. Do not wreck this beautiful piece of land whether it be for office buildings or apartment’s buildings don’t do it. If anybody would like me to speak at any other community meetings if we like to get a website going I’d be glad to support that. I know how to do it, but let’s stop. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR STEC-Next please. JOHN DAVIS, GURNEY LANE-I’m not going to try to top Professor Linke with his presentation. My name is John Davis. I live on Gurney Lane; I have for almost twenty-nine years now. I prepared a one-page statement that I won’t read to you, but I do want say, that I was a signatory to the petition. I would like to if you do see it necessary to proceed with this thousand-foot REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 359 setback requirement I would like to offer a suggestion. Although were strongly in favor of the thousand foot setback we’re not in favor of the proposed development in concert with what Professor Linke just stated. I like to suggest you consider modifying the original resolution to have a hundred and fifty foot setback for professional office buildings. Right now, there is basically a fifty-foot setback, as I understand it. I went down and paced it off on Bay Road today; I think Mr. Schermerhorn’s buildings down there are about seventy-five feet off the right-a-way. We start building these taller buildings you kind of get this walled in effect. I think that a hundred and fifty feet wouldn’t be too much to ask to set back future professional office buildings whether it be on Gurney Lane or elsewhere within the Town that you might want to consider that to expand that fifty-foot setback that is now on the books. With that, I will just turn this statement into the record. Thank you. Following letter submitted. We support the Board’s proposal to amend the Town Code to establish a minimum of 1,000-foot setback from roadways for residential uses within PO zones as outlined in Town Board Resolution 015, 2006. Further, we support the language in the resolution that states that, “Office and residential facilities should be sited and built to demonstrate compatibility with adjoining uses and to minimize impacts on adjoining land uses.” In particular, we are concerned about the deterioration in the quality of life we have witnesses taking place in the Town of Queensbury. First, the proliferation and visual impact of look-a-like professional and apartment buildings that have been constructed very close to major arterials throughout the Town in recent years detracts from the natural beauty and open space feel we used to enjoy. As residents of Gurney Lane for nearly 29 years, we are concerned about the proposal before the Town Planning Board to construct 92 apartment units in the Professional Office Zone at the intersection of West Mountain Road and Gurney Lane. If the Town Code is modified as proposed to incorporate the 1000-foot setback requirement, it would reduce the visual impact of these apartment buildings in what is primarily a single-family residential neighborhood. Also, we not only meet the minimum 1000-foot setback from arterial roadways for residential development in PO Zones is desirable, but that a setback of at least 150 feet should be considered for professional office buildings proper to prevent the imposing feel and undesirable visual impact these frequently tall structures create when they are constructed close to roadways. Currently this setback requirement is only 50 feet. In particular, this is important in areas that are primarily single family residential as opposed to highly trafficked commercial areas such as Bay Road. This is also important to the concept of improving the gateway appearance to the Town that we applaud the Town Board for trying to accomplish in the vicinity of the three Northway exits in Queensbury. It should be noted that the west side of the Northway in the vicinity of Exit 20 southbound is the only remaining exit are in the Town that has not been subject to intense, mostly commercial development. The setback requirements we propose would be mitigating measures to improve the appearance of this area should the current or future development proposals come to fruition. If the past approach to development continues to be allowed, the Town will no longer be able to in good conscience promote its motto, “Home of Natural Beauty… A Good Place to Live.” Consequently, we encourage the Board to act quickly to modify the resolution and Town Code to require a minimum 1000 foot setback not only for residential units in Professional Office Zones, but to incorporate a provision for a minimum 150 foot setback for professional REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 360 office buildings themselves in these zones. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. John and Susan Davis KATHLEEN SONNABEND-55 CEDAR COURT-It a little tough following Professor Linke because I can really see the concern about that particular piece of property. My prepared statements though are specifically with the intent of the original existing professional office zoning language that many of us do support. Obviously, we love to keep more open space, but to the extent that we have land that is appropriately zoned professional office. I represent more than eight hundred Queensbury voters who support the original intention of the current professional office zoning. Only professional offices may be built within the first thousand feet. I can’t understand how any reasonable person could assume that professional office zoning means that you can build multi-family residences within it especially if that’s the only thing that you are planning to build there it is called professional office zone not residential zoning. We want to see leadership from you Dan to bring this resolution to a Town Board vote. It has been over a year that we’ve been coming repeatedly to numerous Town Board and Planning Board Meetings over and over again presenting the same concerns and nothing has happened don’t make us wait another year. Over eight hundred people signed our petition supporting professional office zoning for professional offices only in the first thousand feet. We want our elected officials to look out for the long-term best interest of all our citizens to keep taxes down and job opportunities up. Turning existing professional office zones or even commercial and light industrial zones into residential areas just gives quick profits for developers at the expense of the rest of us. We expect our Town Board to vote in our best interest not for special interests. I have a letter from Michael O’Connor that was sent to property owners in the professional office zones throughout Queensbury. It was given to me by one of my neighbors who is in that zone and they were not happy with it. The letter is very confusing it appears not to be an accurate presentation of the facts it’s a scare tactic. The reality is that the proposed resolution will not devalue property within the zone. It only clarifies the existing professional office zone language. It will maintain and even possibly strengthen property values because it reinforces standards so that all property owners within that zone know what can be built adjacent to their property. Except for certain environmental or legal restrictions property owners do have the right to develop their land, but they don’t have the right to squeeze out maximum value to the determent of their neighbors. Without Town wide zoning and it needs to be appropriate zoning property owners could find industrial plants, junkyards, or big box stores right next to them when clustering of uses is more favorable to the environment the economy and to the livability of a Town. Finally, every other property owner, developer in the Bay Road Professional Office corridor has complied with the vision for Bay Road since the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Now, we have Michael O’Connor expecting special treatment for Blind Rock and Bay followed by a new townhouse project proposed for the West Mountain Road and Gurney Lane. We need to stop this nonsense now bring the resolution to a Town Board vote and vote yes. We don’t want to see special favors done to people that are politically connected. At this point, I would like everyone in the room who has concerns about this that supports clarifying the resolution so that high-density residential developments cannot be made within the first thousand feet of a professional office zone to please stand. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 361 SUPERVISOR STEC-We did that before you got here. Thank you. Anybody else. MATTHEW DENERO, 68 SARA-JEN DRIVE-This is my first Town meeting that I’ve ever really been too. I love like development I think that our Town is doing really well with developing and all that stuff. We are one of the fastest growing Town’s in the country I think that’s great. I just think that building this high density in that area I don’t think it would fit very well considering I live in the area and I’ve been there for a long time. I just could never imagine looking at those types of buildings in that area it just doesn’t really seem to fit. Not only that I go to Lake George School District the population there is already really high and it’s growing every single year. I think with the addition to this building or this townhouse it would really increase the population at our school. I don’t know if that would be too good there are already a lot of kids there it just would be really crowded over there the Elementary School would have to be expanded a lot more so those are my concerns about it. However, I believe that building commercial office building I think that would be all right there, but still I think that the spot looks fine the way it is. We have all this other land I think around the area; I think that a townhouse would look much better closer towards Glens Falls or any other open areas around there. I think right around that area with all the low residential buildings there I think that a townhouse would look kind of big so that’s all I have to say. SUPERVISOR STEC-Any one else this evening. BOB SEARS-RESIDENT OF QUEENSBURY AND COMMERCIAL BROKER IN QUEENSBURY AND THE GLENS FALLS SURROUNDING AREA-I like to speak about Bay Road and the Bay Road Corridor. I know under professional office zoning you are looking at a thousand foot setback. That is a very large setback to promote professional office use. If it doesn’t allow for any other use there should be some auxiliary services there. You should allow for at least some retail in that zoning. I mean by retail I don’t mean Dunkin Donuts or heavy retail, but maybe perhaps a service-orientated retail that would compliment the professional office use. It could be something like a clothing store for hospitals that might be some auxiliary use that could go into that zone under retail. I don’t know it could be any number of uses that might compliment office use. The other issue is when you start putting a thousand foot setback along the Bay Road corridor you are looking at massive infrastructure that has to go back beyond that thousand feet to deal with residential use. My thoughts would be that maybe if you allow for a four hundred foot setback and then allow for at least some kind of a residential use behind that. I’m not saying apartments but at least maybe some townhouses with perhaps full time residents, individual townhouses. At least have a mix instead of having the whole thousand foot zoned professional offices. Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you sir. Anyone else this evening in the back. ATTORNEY MICHAEL O’CONNOR-Thank you Mr. Stec, Gentlemen. I am Mike O’Connor, I am part of a partnership called BRB and I speak on behalf of that partnership we own property on Bay Road. I do not speak for REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 362 anybody that has an application pending with regard to that property. Our interest in that property at this time is simply as owner. I opposed the proposed change of zoning for professional office zone. Some will argue that they simply are trying to clarify the present zoning not change it. One only needs to look at the proposal though to see that there is no basis for this statement. At present subject to approval by the Planning Board, which they have been reluctant to give on any application which comes in with solely residential on a case by case basis an applicant can apply for approval for either residential or office use on any portion of the parcel. By this proposal, a line is drawn in the sand no residential uses will be permitted within a thousand feet of Bay Road, Sherman Avenue, Western Avenue, or West Mountain Road. At present there is not a specific setback even inferred for Sherman Avenue and Western Avenue other than the normal building setbacks. By this proposal, Sherman Avenue and Western Avenue are added to the list of streets to which the thousand-foot setback is added. At present, there is no floor area ratio restriction in the professional office zone. This propose change gives a thirty percent floor area ratio for office and institutional uses within a thousand feet of Sherman Avenue, Western Avenue, West Mountain Road, and Bay Road. Town Counsel at an October 2004 meeting when referring to a similar proposal for a five hundred foot setback for residential use said this is a zone change. Marilyn Ryba the Executive Director has also recognized this as a zoning change in her comments to the Planning Board and Town Board. Betty Monahan also in a September 2004 meeting stated we have to look at this proposal rezoning. Dr. Mark Hoffman also at that same September 2004 meeting said it’s true that the zoning would be changed for future development. Bob Vollaro spoke and said when a zoning change and this is to a zoning change it usually comes to the Planning Board for a recommendation. Councilman Strough said there are seven changes being offered in the professional zoning code he went through and listed the seven different changes. One of the main reasons that I oppose these changes is the manner by which we got here. This board has not formally involved the principal stakeholders in this proceeding the present landholders of professional office property. In October 2004, Mrs. Ryba said there are about two hundred and forty four parcels consisting of five hundred and fifty seven acres and a Protest Petition was filed by some of those owners who owned a hundred and seventy one acres. If you subtract the Town’s thirty plus acres and the Adirondack Community College hundred and thirty acres from the five fifty seven you have three ninety seven. With a hundred and seventy one protesting that’s almost fifty percent of the landowners saying wait a minute we want to be considered, we want our rights to be considered, however, they never were. th Councilman Strough in the October 4 meeting admitted or referred to questions. Does the five hundred foot setback include parking areas, building, other amenities? From where do you measure the five hundred or the thousand feet? The County Planning Board when it reviewed it in 2004 also had questions or concerns. I don’t think any of those questions are answered by the proposal before you tonight you are just creating more issues for us down the road. I question the timing when we have an effort to revise the Master Plan well underway. In 2004, we were just beginning to restudy the Master Plan. Mrs. Monahan in the 2004 meeting at the pointed question. Why when you have just appointed a committee to look at planning throughout this Town and to look at all the impact what should influence planning why is this board all of a sudden doing bit-by-bit REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 363 rezoning and not giving them a time to do their job. You are making their job much harder than it needs to be. I noticed that on your agenda tonight you’ve got a resolution later to defer all rezoning issues until the fall. Although, I don’t know if you intended to include this issue in that motion or not I don’t know if there are specific projects that are in that motion. I would urge you to include that and let this committee do what’s it is trying to do. There have been no neighborhood meetings every time we’ve come to speak its been in kind of this confrontational type setting. Typically, when you do a rezoning you do a neighborhood meeting. You try and find out exactly what the owners goals are, what the Town’s goals are, what their neighbor’s goals are, and you try to come out with some type of compromise in this particular instance you haven’t. You’ve accepted blindly the allegations that residential creates more traffic than office. I think it’s well accepted among traffic engineers that office space creates at least twenty- five additional percent traffic trips as opposed to residential. I know that on one particular property one propose tenant ask for four hundred parking spots for his employees. That same spot would occupy six acres, six acres under our regulations transfers to forty-eight residential units. I don’t think you can believe that those propose four hundred employees are less than the tenants out of forty-eight residential units. My request is to let this proposition go through the normal rezoning procedure. The Planning Board has protected the Town throughout this process throughout this discussion by saying what they think their goals are and what they will approve or not approve there is no crisis before you. In fact, at the September 2004 Planning Board Meeting a resolution by Mr. MacEwan seconded by Councilman Sanford the Planning Board adopted the following. At the request of their recommendation, which is a reference to the Town to revise the professional office zone our recommendation was that we don’t feel that it needs to be changed at this time. We feel the way to zone is written adequately and serves the need of the planning issues, which are for professional office zones in the Town. If you look at the three different areas that are zoned professional office and you try to apply these changes to it I think you will see where there is a lack of planning with what you have proposed I understand what you are trying to propose. My understanding is that Town and the neighbors have three goals. Protect our school size particularly Queensbury Central by limiting the number of apartments thus new children. Fulfilling a Bay Road corridor vision in accordance with the Bay Road design guidelines. Protecting our tax base by preserving space for offices, which has less impact on Town services and school, but still have a tax return. One of the three areas is Sherman Avenue and Western Avenue. As to protecting, our school size referring to Queensbury Central that point is not applicable that area is in the Glens Falls School District. Glens Falls has infrastructure in place for more children in fact they are looking for children. There was a proposed development on Dixon Road and they offered to have potential buyers come through the school to entice them to go into that development. They have everything in place and I think maybe this is part of our problem nobody ever wants to look at school district lines we should encourage not discourage children in the Western Avenue, Sherman Avenue. As to a cohesive design, there is no design there is no corridor design for that area. The only place there is a corridor design suggested in the code is on Bay Road. You have two other areas, somebody spoke about it on West Mountain Road, and Western and Sherman there is no design so you have half a cake here at best for some of the areas that we REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 364 are talking about. As to protecting tax base most of these lots are small most of the area is already developed. This proposal does little for tax base it really doesn’t infringe upon any potential of tax base. In the first block, you have the Nursing Home you have three single-family homes and three small vacant lots. They all signed a Protest Peitition and basically said leave us alone. In the second block, you have an office under construction a small office and three or four small single homes. The market is driving this area you don’t need additional regulations. Maybe that needs to be taken out and made into a special professional office zone, professional office (A), then you are going to have professional office (B), professional office (C). You need to look at each area separately you can’t broad brush this issue all the way through all three areas that you have. I spoke the other day with one woman she is eighty-eight years old she was very happy that she had watched the floors in her house dry when it was constructed many many years ago. She didn’t understand why the Town was pushing for a change of the character of the neighborhood from residential to office. She lived on the backside of those single-family houses on Western Avenue. She thought she was being pushed out of her residential neighborhood by the promotion of offices only in that zone. I spoke with one other family in that neighborhood and they said they had known one other single family house in that neighborhood they said they have no intention of moving and were hopeful to build a home for their daughter on their vacant lots, I explained to them that they would even now need a variance. This area does not need additional restrictions particularly the floor area ratio proposed and should be removed from the present proposal. The second professional office area is West Mountain and Gurney Lane parcels. A Glen Lake Road parcel and a Glen Street parcel. I know how some of these parcels were created professional office and I have a map that I can put up so everybody can see it if you want. The West Mountain and Glen Lake parcels are in the Lake George School Districts so they pose no threat to the Queensbury Central School. The Glen Lake parcel and the Glen Street parcel are so small that under every consideration they really are inconsequential they simply don’t need a floor area ration overlay. The West Mountain Road parcels were zoned professional office on the imitative of this board when the owner was seeking a cluster development for fourteen homes. For that area, the support of the zoning change proposal is I believe shortsighted and unnecessary. I say shortsighted because they ought to be looking at ultimately what is going to happen to that property. I say unnecessary because I don’t believe under any circumstances the Planning Board is going to approve the application that is before them now. I can’t believe that the Planning Board would treat that application differently than it had treated the application by the Albany Partners application on Bay Road. If this proposal passes the developer at least by the paper says I’ll build offices. What do the neighbors think of the offices built by this developer on Bay Road. There won’t be less traffic that’s a myth that can easily…out if they talk to anybody who is a traffic engineer. What about the outdoor lighting have any of them driven up Bay Road at night? I don’t think that that’s attractive. It may appear to be nice offices, but I don’t think it’s a good transition into a residential zone. The residential zones along Bay Road or the residential zones along West Mountain Road. Would this not be a better issue to be treated by the Master Plan Group with perhaps going to single family homes as originally requested? This is probably the best example of a need for long term planning. This area also for offices lacks any corridor designs. What REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 365 problems are you creating by requiring offices without standards? Wouldn’t the neighbors agree that the least impact would be created by what the developer wanted in the first place fourteen single-family homes? Why not make this stakeholder that property owner part of the process as opposed to just subject to it. The largest professional office zone is the Bay Road corridor just below Walker Lane to just above Blind Rock Road on the west just above Bay Meadows on the east to the Town property. This professional zone is supposed to be transitional zoned from office to residential. Looking at the parcels on Bay Road this is typically, what you do when you rezone you look at your actual inventory you look at the parcels that you are affecting. The thousand-foot distance leaves very little to transition too; in fact, that is probably the depth of the parcels. There isn’t a lot of professional zone behind the thousand foot there is some down on Walker Lane, but very very little. A thousand feet is not reasonable if the principal goal is to satisfy a vision by having a corridor effect a much shorter distance would work. We in 2004 said that five hundred feet is also too much. Dr. Kelly who was a new tenant in the Schermerhorn Office Park spoke on behalf of Adirondack Radiology Associates in the September 2004 meeting. He as one of the tenants was held out as being an example. He said he would support a proposal that would permit residential development beyond the first two hundred up to five hundred feet his distance of two hundred fifty feet is reasonable. This is something that should be worked out in a Workshop with stakeholders from both for and against this proposal. If you demand offices only within a thousand feet of Sherman Avenue, Western Avenue, West Mountain Road, and Bay Road what is the potential of office build out. On Bay Road, only BRB has twelve lots. Valente has the potential for ten or better. Mannix has three or four lots. Dr. Jung has the potential for ten lots. Jim Marshall and Tina Marshall have the potential for ten lots. Are we really going to see fifty new offices in Queensbury that’s just Bay Road. I think it is unrealistic what you are painting this area with the restrictions that you are putting on it. I think you are going to do serious damage to the present landowners. Even at two hundred feet, you might have a glut on the market, but I’m willing to agree there needs to be a balance that may be the place that you are going to start. If you are afraid of apartments on the remainder because I also understand that it is one of the underlying goals here why don’t you look at that land and do a build out analysis again look at the inventory that’s not that big a task much of that land might not even qualify. Why don’t you think of adding single family with an agreeable density back there in the back part of the land? I know one person who owns three parcels in the PO zone would rather build a single family home on it than a group of apartments. I think he would have eighteen apartments if he maximized his density your proposed change is not going to change his right to build those. He still would rather have a single family home there as opposed to that number of apartments. This is a Type I action I’m not sure why you are using the short form. If you look at 617.4 B 2 the adoption of changes in the allowable uses within any zoning district affecting twenty five acres or more of a district is a Type I action. I did not see a full EAF, Environmental Assessment Form in 2004 from what Marilyn read to me earlier apparently she has prepared a short form. I’m not trying to submarine this thing, I’m not trying to play games, I’m trying to tell you to do it and do it right. You should approach this proposal like any of the other proposal you consider. You involve the stakeholders as well as those who adjoin the stakeholders. If, I were a developer coming in with this REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 366 proposal you asked me to do a build out, you would ask me to do traffic studies, you would ask me to do site analysis. I would ask that you adopt rules that can be understood and be followed. Answer the questions that John Strough raised in 2004. Answer the concerns of the County Planning Board decide what roads are subject to guidelines. Go forward professionally not in response to someone’s demand that a project be stopped. I think we already have rules and regulations that will stop inappropriate projects. I do have a Protest Petition it’s not the result of some loophole it is pursuant to Town Law, Section 265. At present, there are more than two hundred out of the privately owned three hundred ninety seven acres represented and we will add more to that before we file it. Basically, that represents about fifty percent or better of the privately held land in PO zones it probably represents forty percent of the total land considering the publicly owned land in the PO zone. We did do a letter to many of the property owners and suggested that they attend tonight’s meeting. We appreciate the comments of the Town staff on that letter and believe that we have addressed the concerns that were raised. I did make a mistake in that letter. First, I would tell you that ninety percent of the signers of the present Protest Petition are existing landowners. They also signed the Protest Petition of 2004 when there was no letter. Secondly, the mistake had to do with whether or not single-family homes are now nonconforming or not nonconforming. There are only three single-family homeowners that signed the Protest Petition. After the error was brought to my attention to be sure that there was no misunderstanding I revisited each of those three owners explained that their single-family homes were already nonconforming and in need of a variance for any expansion. They each said they wish to continue to be part of the Protest Petition and they will be part of the Protest Petition. One other question that needs to be put to drafters or you the drafters need to put to rest is would a variance from this restriction be considered a use variance or an area variance. I think that would be good to address up front. It really would tell what the impact of it is. Area variances are not that hard to obtain if you have good circumstances, Use variances are almost impossible to obtain. I personally obtained, I mention this because last time people questioned whether or not people who knew what they were signing when they signed the Protest Petition. I was particularly careful I actually went to everyone who signed the Protest Petition I know what was said and I know their comments back to me. I fully believe that they all knew well what they were signing and it was their intention to sign document a legal document before a Notary. My other comments as to the letter was that the biggest comment I got was not as to the contents of the letter, but was a thank you for sending the letter to the people because they said otherwise they would not personally know that this was going on. That they would have not heard of it even though I know you legally, advertise it and everything else. That may be something that you want to do in the future when you are going to rezone a particular property. It’s not hard I think for seventy-nine bucks we got a copy of a mailing list of everybody. We got the maps that we have and we do a mailing we got labels. It is something that the Town might want to consider in the future so that you are sure that you cover all your basis. In summary there appears to be no immediate need for a zoning change. There are many questions unanswered SEQRA and other. It would be best to study the true impact and then with the other changes recommended by the Master Plan revision make changes at that time. I would be happy to meet with you in a Workshop REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 367 Meeting or with staff and participate as a stakeholder in the process. Thank you. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Just before you leave. Just a couple questions Dan one of you. Is the public hearing limited to five minutes? SUPERVISOR STEC-No. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Okay. So this is appropriate this length of presentation. Second of all, since I was dragged in by comment I would like to clarify. I was opposed to the rezoning that was presented in 2004 as you stated for the following reasons. I believed and I still believe that the intent was to have a thousand feet rather than the five hundred feet for the professional office zone. Also, that proposal that was in front of us now, I’m talking now at the Planning Board level called for grandfathering specifically grandfathering projects that were already in front of the Planning Board and that would have been your project. I checked with legal and I was told that there is no legal need to grandfather anything in, but at the instance of some of the Town Board members at that time they wanted to have that proposition or resolution include grandfathering, which at the Planning Board I didn’t think was appropriate. So that is just to clarify your comment that you made earlier about Mr. Sanford being opposed to the rezoning in 2004. Okay, thank you. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-You made the motion. My comment to you is I didn’t then have a project before the Planning Board I don’t now have a project before the Planning Board. I don’t take exception to what Mr. Hafner has said that it is optional for this board to recognize existing applications as being exempt from a new law. It is a legislative decision that the board has to make it’s one that has been made for the last fifteen, twenty years. I noticed that this version of the law doesn’t even have it in there I did not raise that as an argument. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I just wanted you to know your statement you said I didn’t support the rezoning in 2004; I wanted you to know why. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-Okay, thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Anybody else. Yes sir, sorry to point. TOM GRAFF, RESIDENT LELAND ESTATES, SARA-JEN DRIVE-I just wanted to say a few words about the Gurney Lane project. That would be a wonderful addition of the Town green space instead of building apartments and/or professional zones. It could tie in with the proposed bike path. My property butts up to Rush Pond wetlands. There are quite a few threatened plants, animal species in that area whether they exist on the proposed Schermerhorn project I don’t know. There is quite a large habitat of Blue Lupine and the Blue Karner Butterfly personally visits the area by my yard. Threatened snake or a snake that is currently on the Notice List the Eastern Hardnosed Snake is prevalent in that area as our thousand of turtles, frogs, etc., that live in the Rush Pond wetlands. I just think that it would be a great addition to a Town Park type thing using that green space tying it all together with a bike path. I think that somebody needs to really look at the REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 368 environmental impact of the apartments and/or office because there is a feeder stream that comes into the pond abutting that project. I just think the Town needs to get out there, have a look around, see actually, what’s out there, and move forward accordingly. Thank you for your time. SUPERVISOR STEC-Anybody else. Mr. Salvador. JOHN SALVADOR-Good evening, my name is John Salvador I’m a resident of North Queensbury. At the risk of sounding like, I agree with Mr. O’Connor, I would like to comment this evening. My comments go to the resolution as Mr. O’Connor mentioned on your agenda tonight resolution 7.8, Resolution Deferring Further Review of or Action on Petitions for Rezoning. I happen to be one of those six petitioners my petition for rezoning has been before this Town since November. I hadn’t heard until I got this agenda a copy of this agenda Friday of last week that my application was being relegated to the dusk bin of the PORC Committee. In any case, as Mr. O’Connor mentions we have a process for handling this sort of thing zoning changes. We have a committee in place right now that is exercising our Comprehensive Land Use Plan and they have an obligation to review all other Ordinances in Town. There is no reason why this can’t be dumped right into that committee in that regard I do agree with Mr. O’Connor. There is no sense singleing out one project and then six others of the same nature are just pushed aside and you can’t take action on them it doesn’t seem to be fair that’s all I have to say, thank you. COUNCILMAN BOOR-John we haven’t voted on that yet, so. I think you are assuming correctly, but… MR. SALVADOR-It’s on your agenda I’m saying. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yes. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you John. DAN VALENTE, 50 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD-I’m obviously more concerned with the Bay Road corridor here being a property owner there. For the first time this evening after all the people that have talked this is the first time right after what Mr. Salvador said the first time I heard the word fair what is fair as a property owner, your rights. When you purchase a piece of property and you make that investment that, you purchase it knowing it’s zoned a certain way. Anybody that knows researches that finds out what you can and what you cannot do. Unfortunately, being still fairly young, I have a lot of history behind a lot more than most people probably in this room. Growing up here being in the construction business with my parents and taking over, over twenty years of history on Bay Road. My mother was even part of developing the Bay Road corridor guidelines to some extent, big part of the community. I care about what this Town looks like, but I also care about what the rights of the property owners that they are upheld. I don’t feel that when somebody buys a piece of property and it’s zoned a certain way, which my property to go back in history was zoned otherwise than it is now. It was a MR-5 zone, which allowed single-family residential at the time there. The zoning was changed without notification to us ever I don’t think that’s fair. I don’t understand the changing of zone, but that’s REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 369 nor here or there. Fairness, I know most of the people are fair they know honestly if you purchase a piece of property that you should be allowed to do what it’s intended uses are I believe that’s the big key here. I know most of the people in this Town are good people we all want to uphold that. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Mr. Valente I was on the Planning Board when you presented a project on your property near Walker Lane. That project didn’t work, didn’t go through for a number of reasons. I would take note that it was bordering Bay Road and it was a professional office project that you proposed. MR. VALENTE-Yes. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-As did many other developers who around your time they presented professional office zones. I have to conclude that the history speaks for it self that the intention and the understanding of all parties concerned was that professional office was to be bordering the road not apartments and you ahear to that, which I respect. MR. VALENTE-Thank you. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-So that was clearly your understanding as it as Rich Schermerhorn’s when he put his professional office buildings on Bay Road as well. I think when you look at this we have to look at the intent of what that zone has been and what we are trying to do is clarify that so there is no uncertainty. Your actions speak volumes because your project was for a professional office not for apartments. Thank you. MR. VALENTE-But, it did get denied. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-You are absolutely right. MR. VALENTE-I agree with you the Bay Road corridor absolutely anything that borders Bay Road should have professional office. I would like not to have a restriction of if you have to go a thousand feet before you can start residential, I don’t think that’s fair. Each parcel needs to be looked at individually. The people obviously the concerns they have on Gurney Lane are warranted and I don’t know the history of that piece. There are a lot of different ways to skin a cat so to speak, but every parcel has its own intricacies. I don’t think it’s that cut and dry I don’t think you can say, hey thousand feet that’s the end of it you can’t put anything inside of that. I don’t think its fair the more restrictions we have here the harder it gets again, you pull rights from the individual I don’t that’s fair. I also think that in looking at the whole scheme of things here everybody looks at larger parcels, larger lot sizes. I believe certain areas in the Town that have the infrastructure being sewer and water should be high density areas so that you try to reduce the sprawl. If you have two people in an area of high density where now you restrict me that I can only get one, well then, that second person is looking elsewhere for a parcel, at least try to control it. Certain areas should be developed high density if you have the infrastructure utilize the pieces that are proper try to minimize that sprawl. I love this area I love the green mountains. You know we have enough agencies that are going to control the development over those mountains and waterways, and all that REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 370 anywhere we have this infrastructure we need to utilize it properly to help minimize that urban sprawl. One other quick note, I don’t know if this is an option. I know there is a lot of opposition to other parcels I’m not going to single out just that Gurney Lane parcel. With these individuals that really feel that strongly against development of a piece there are options of forming land co-ops if everyone is willing to put in a few bucks. You have two hundred people if everyone is willing to put in a few dollars and purchase the piece then you can always donate it to the Towns green space there are options like that, that can be developed. If people are really that concerned about or preserving parcels that is an option take it for what its worth. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Dan just one thing I would concur with Mr. Sanford. You raised a bunch of very relevant issues and I tend to agree with everything you said. With regards to restrictions, restrictions have kind of a negative tone to it. In fairness, I think you being a developer would probably have to agree it would be very beneficial to you and any other developer to know exactly what restrictions are on a property. Exactly how it can be developed so that you don’t languish and spend countless dollars on attorneys, countless trips to the Planning and Zoning Boards because people work around the fringes in the gray areas. I think as a Town Board it is our obligation and our duty to try, specify, and give as much clarity to zoning what’s allowed and what isn’t as we possibly can so that people such as yourself don’t go in going well do they really mean this or is this allowed or is this not allowed. I think we do a service to the community its developers and its populous when we make it very clear and understand what is and what isn’t allowed. MR. VALENTE-It is nice to have everything spelled out, but again each parcel needs to be addressed individually. I don’t think it’s that cut and dry that’s why we have a Planning Board that’s why we have the Town staff they help us through that process and I think they have done a good job. We have intelligent people on this board and the Planning Board everything is progressing well. Everybody loves to live here obviously we have a lot of people that love living here and are concerned about the development. It brings in some good business. We have a lot of great new tax base here because of the people that have come here. Everybody loves those services as we saw earlier but it’s a double edge sword. You want to bring in good businesses for everybody to enjoy and build our tax base. I know we’ve had great sales tax increases in revenues and I know I’m getting astray here, you know it’s tough. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Its refreshing coming from a developer. MR. VALENTE-You know, I’m not just for building every parcel out obviously, you have to be selective, but utilize the pieces you have properly. People say maximize your density there and it is like a dirty word it’s a good thing in the overall scope of the Town. Maximize the use of the lands that should be used properly and try to eliminate that urban sprawl as we heard earlier. Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 371 BERNARD RAHILL, 37 WINCREST DRIVE, QUEENSBURY-The first thing I would like to address with regard to this meeting and I’m very happy that so many people came here and are at the meeting. When Bill Clinton had a conference at Little Rock and he was bringing people from all over to find a consensus and make some decisions as to where he wanted to go everybody was talking, there were an awful lot of people talking. Then the Secretary General of AFLCIO said, you know, I look around here and I see an awful lot of big boats, but I don’t see any little fisheye's, I represent the little fisheye’s. I think there are some little fisheye’s in the room and I think they had better start swimming against the currents because the current is going against them. I’m not talking about the Town Board I’m talking about the philosophy here we have what is known in government as laissez-faire. Mike O’Connor as a Lawyer represents laissez-faire in development and in community development. Laissez-faire means we can do what we want to do specifically because we have the control of the law. As a matter of fact, there was an article in the New York Times about eight months ago about a group of lawyers in Law Schools, I should say, who believe in taking land through law using the law to take land. If anybody wants to take land in Queensbury by suing the Town of Queensbury I think he is in the wrong Town doing the wrong thing, I think the people in this room would concur. We should not have anybody telling us what to do we should have a sane rational environment. The previous speaker who spoke just now a young man who said he’s been in Queensbury for a long time, Mr. Valente. Well, I remember when it was his wife or his mother was on the Comprehensive Plan Use Committee planning this Town. I’m an aphesis and I know that was a conflict of interest. The people who are the Supervisors and the Town Board members in this Town were involved in a conflict of interest because they appointed somebody who was the wife of a developer to work on planning the Town, what do you want planning the Town. Right now, we have Saratoga Associates trying to help us plan the Town that’s there business. They plan the Town through telling us what we are going to do this is the way we should do it, but there is no freedom there, where is the freedom. Freedom is what you are about because liberty is what this Country is about. If we take a look at the basis for our democracy here, we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights among, which are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What does the word liberty mean? The founding fathers of this nation were very well educated men and they knew that liberty meant freewill. You have the choice of the right to choose between right and wrong between what is good and what is evil. I know the people in this audience know the difference between right and wrong they know the difference between what is good and what is evil. There are things that are evil in this room and things that are good in this room. It is up to this Town Board to make a rational decision not an emotional decision based on the wants or desires of specific individuals, but for the common good of this community. Thank you very much gentlemen. DENNIS FRANKLIN, WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD, ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY-That was rezoned by this board, I believe. As Mr. Valente said, I bought my property and relied on the zoning. It was one acre residential. The Town changed it to commercial saying that they needed to increase the tax base. Then what I see when I go and look at the proposal before the Town from Mr. Schermerhorn is a disaster. When, I read the verbiage it says they are only going to re-grade the existing mine face to REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 372 make it safe. People have been skiing and sledding on that hill for as long as I’ve been around Queensbury. It’s been at the angle of repose since it was left. In fact, what it is when you read the grading drawings is a fourteen foot cut right out to the stream. There is not one bit of landscaping behind those apartment buildings. When a developer can come in here and present that kind of plan to this Town, I just think something is wrong there is not one bit of sensitivity there. When, I go look at other buildings it’s always the storefront that gets the treatment. You look at the buildings on Bay Road the fronts are all very nice beautifully landscaped. The sides and the back that face the neighbors there is not one damn tree out there. We got to let people know that were not against development. I wasn’t against the Townhouses that were there and I certainly wouldn’t be against any other development that my neighbors and the Town felt was necessary, but it has to be done properly. I also represent Holtz Properties that own the adjoining fifty-five acres. We’re trying to figure out how we can get our money out of that and give forty acres to the Town, to abut a bear hill. The one plan where there is a mass of fill says to plant perennial rye when it takes plant one-gallon plants. It doesn’t say what the plants are, it doesn’t say how many there are, it doesn’t say anything. It’s a sand hill why does anyone think that they can present that to this Town for approval. There just has to be more guidance. Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you sir. DOUG AUER, 16 OAKWOOD DRIVE-Just as a matter of clarification. Mr. O’Connor had an approved twenty plus lot professional office subdivision on the same piece of property. That’s not that long ago so it’s not lost antiquity. John, I think you were on the Planning Board at the time am I correct in that. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-You are correct. MR. AUER-How is it that he is tossing this out I’m sure he spent a lot of money at the time to have that done why is that. I won’t take, as much time as Mr. O’Connor I’d like him to answer that question. SUPERVISOR STEC-Anybody else this evening. DAN MAN NIX, 552 BAY ROAD-My property sits north of Mr. Schermerhorn’s professional office and south of ACC. It goes east as far as the development there just off Bayberry Drive. My concern is with the changes that are proposed to professional office zoning in as far as that when you come in on Bayberry Drive if you are familiar with the area there is a piece of land just south of ACC just in from the Bay Road corridor that is right now zoned residential. With this change, it will be changed to professional office. COUNCILMAN BOOR-No. MR. MANNIX-It’s more than a thousand feet. COUNCILMAN BOOR-You need to make that destination. We are not changing the zoning. The professional office zoning is staying intact. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 373 MR. MANNIX-What I’m talking about is not zoned professional office. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Then it stays. SUPERVISOR STEC-Then it stays. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Sir we are not expanding the zone. COUNCILMAN BOOR-We are not expanding. If it’s professional office, zoning now it will be professional office zoning when this is done. Nothing is changing adding, deleting, nothing is changing there isn’t a change. I’ll speak to that later after everybody... COUNCILMAN SANFORD-If you are zoned residential now you will remain residential. COUNCILMAN BOOR-You are residential MR. MANNIX-Where my house isn’t it is zoned professional office. The land to the north of my house is zoned residential. It is my understanding you are not expanding the professional office into that… COUNCILMAN BOOR-We are not expanding or contracting. SUPERVISOR STEC-Right. Whatever is currently zoned PO. MR. MANNIX-It is still zoned PO where my house sits and it would still make my house a nonconforming… COUNCILMAN BOOR-Its nonconforming now. MR. MANNIX-It’s going to increase to a thousand feet. COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, it’s nonconforming now. If it’s in the professional office zoning its residential its nonconforming. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-So you are nonconforming now and you will be nonconforming after if this passes. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-It doesn’t impact you a bit. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It is important to know that though because there is a lot of information out there that isn’t correct. You should be cautious when you get it and probably come to Town and check with our Planning Development… SUPERVISOR STEC-I agree with Roger that there is some information out there that is incorrect. MR. MANNIX-Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you. Anyone else. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 374 DAVID BRUNO, 119 GURNEY LANE-Just a few points that I like to make. I’ve been to a PORC Meeting and I’ve been to other Zoning and Planning Board Meetings. I lived here my whole life I grew up here my family grew up here. I am very well aware of Mr. O’Connor and his representation. I think we all understand that we live and die in this Country on democracy the voting public. I understand the hundred and fifty-seven plus or minus landowners certainly represent a significant number of individuals verses the one thousand signatures that we see on the other petitions. I hope that we understand as you said the Pledge that Justice for All does not mean the few we try to make a democracy out of this Country. SUPERVISOR STEC-Right nor does it mean most. MR. BRUNO-That’s true, too. We take our chances, or whatever not chances, but we try to please as much as we can. I’m not against economic development for this Town. I think that we need a good solid base to provide for the residents. Unfortunately, what we have here is a Town that is bounded by lines. The County land is a finite resource how we zone it, protect the residents that live here now is your discretion, your latitude, your discretion to carry on the vision of the public as we come before you and request that. I don’t think that when developers represented by whoever come up here they are asking for something they go to a Zoning Appeals, Planning Board Appeals they are appealing for a change they are asking for something. I think this Town should take back its resource, which is its quality of life and its atmosphere and let the developers know that if they want to make a dollar here they should do it under our guidance, under our rules, and not come in here with the assumption that a variance for whatever reason is their right. If, I can read correctly from Mr. Schermerhorn’s statement that the Town Board certainly could strip his rights to build an apartment complex I do believe that it is zoned professional office not apartment complex we are not stripping any rights from anybody if we go forward with clarifying that zoning, I think we should. I think the Town Board owes it to the voting public to clarify those issues. Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Anybody else. MIKE WILD, 11 BLACKBERRY LANE-I like to state my disagreement with the thousand foot buffer and also at the same time state that I agree with most of the people in this room dislike with the Gurney Lane project. I happen to like the visuals; I like what this Town looks like. I’ve also been very involved with the new Master Plan the PORC Committee and the focus groups. There were discussions in there about protecting the visuals limiting traffic working with interconnectivity between subdivisions and about affordable housing. One thing that I’ve not really heard about is how the Town plans to deal with affordable housing how we allow this community to grow. This community has from the statistics that were mentioned in the PORC Meetings was an average sale price of a house that was out of reach for most of the people that work here. This needs to be addressed for this community to become viable and stay viable so what better place to put the higher density is near the arterials. This one thousand foot buffer effectively eliminates that opportunity for the Town the Town I believe has to address this affordable housing issue. I don’t think that most of the REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 375 residents want it within their neighborhoods. It makes sense to put it where the arterials can handle the traffic and handle the density. Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you, Mr. Wild. Anyone else, yes sir. JOHN SCHWARTZ, 4 GLEN COURT-Relatively new to the area from 2002. I listened to what’s going on at Exit 18 and how they wish to enhance the access to Luzerne, which brings you West Mountain Road. I listen to Mr. Valente talk about infrastructure. I’ve listened to all the comments on West Mountain Road, its status possible bike paths, and other things. You can look at Pitcher, Luzerne, Upper Sherman, Peggy Ann they all have at least a three foot shoulder on both sides. West Mountain Road near where we are the white line is eroded away by the winter the Town has done some work there, but it needs a tremendous amount of work there. SUPERVISOR STEC-County Road. MR. SCHWARTZ-You need infrastructure if you are going to do anything up at Exit 20. No matter what goes in there, I’d rather see homes. I like to see affordable homes go in there. I recently have been working at Target and I hear people talking about they can’t find a place to live up here that they can afford so that’s what’s going on. Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you very much sir. Anyone else this evening. ANNIE BANG, WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD- I went after spending countless hours at these meetings last week I went over and took a look at the plans for this West Mountain, Gurney Lane wish someone has. At the same time, I got the chance to read a letter from what is it the Department of Public Works. That if the complex of Mr. Schermerhorn’s would come in that the traffic on West Mountain Road would be so seriously affected that where we finally got the stop sign, you know down there it would have to be a stop light, which was sitting very quietly there to be read and has never mentioned before. So, I sit here and I think the stretch between that new stop light if this goes through and Prospect School that’s another whole nightmare. Traffic doesn’t go zipping down West Mountain Road traffic goes zipping down West Mountain Road and down, what is it… SUPERVISOR STEC-Mountain View. MS. BANG-Mountain View or whatever. Where the Prospect School is during the winter and snow, with the way their cars are parked and the snow is plowed from the school and from the people who plow the street you can’t see to get out that road without putting the nose of your car right in somebody else’s way. There is a lot of thought that needs to go in before any kinds of decisions are made. The problem is information doesn’t seem to be available. I mean, I work, and I only stayed home because I was coming to this meeting and I was damn well not going to be unprepared, but not everybody can do that so I just thought it was interesting. Thank you. BETTY MONAHAN, SUNNYSIDE-I was surprised to hear Mr. O’Connor do some quotations from me. When you do them out of context, you can do most anything. I want to go back and I’m going back to the Code Book in REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 376 1990 so people realize how long this regulation has been on the books. This regulation was already in place in the Town when we had the laws codified. Now, I’m speaking strictly about Bay Road professional office in the MR5 zone along Bay Road office buildings shall be located within one thousand feet of Bay Road. You all know when I’ve appeared in front of you what I’ve argued is the interpretation of that and that it was the intent. If you watch the development along Bay Road starting way back then you will notice that’s how Bay Road developed with the professional office in front residences in back so that’s all I have to say on that. I’m a little concern when I saw that West Mountain zone tonight over by Gurney Lane because I wonder when that was done or any zoning for that area. How much weight has been given to the fact that we have the biggest park in Queensbury at Gurney Lane? Bicycle traffic to it, bus traffic to it, etc. we also have West Mountain Health Facility. I would like to see in this Town a needs assessment done and I’ve said this at the PORC Committees. We talk about industrial sites the other night. We didn’t have an inventory, we didn’t know what we had, we didn’t know what it looked like. We might need and I feel like I’m playing a game of Monopoly, you know we are just dreaming what we would like without being realistic about what’s there, what we need. I would like to see as a planner suggested many many years ago at a seminar I went to we need to we do an assessment of this Town what we have in the bank. That is what we have in the school systems the capacity. What we have in the infrastructure the roads, water, sewers what we have in police protection our volunteers and how much extra capacity we have right now to service any development. Can we afford the cost right now of increasing our capacity? I’m not seeing that kind of thing happen. I also would like to see what I called when I was on the Town Board that we got into at the very tail end what I call paper doll planning. We found out that a lot of one-acre commercial sites won’t work. If you take the site and actually do a mock up of it put down all the restrictions and requirements the allowed parking etc., you find you don’t have much left for building. I think we need to do more of that realistic planning and I’m not seeing it done. The other thing in this Town we are not thinking of the noise and the light pollution. Now, I live out at Sunnyside I’m still out in the country and I have a lot of vacant land around me, but the light pollution is getting very very bad. Many nights, I have to go hunting for the stars and can barely find them, which is pretty new now. The other thing is and I think the work that the Great Escape did with their hotel brought this home. Somebody has to start realizing when you cut trees down noise pollution spreads through this Town and I don’t think that is being looked. It’s what the wave effects of some of these processes that we’re having go on in this Town right now, what the ultimate effect is. We are looking at stuff tunnel vision a project we need to look at the overall impact on the Town and the citizens that live here. I hear about fairness to people who have bought land for speculation and I also say that we have to have fairness to the people that live in this Town, too that’s a two-way sword, excuse me. Another thing is and we used to do this years ago when we were having another growth spurt. We could do with any of these projects a percentage allowed per year. You get this amount done you come back for your second stage approval instead of this how fast can we gobble up the land. I think, you know as I said, I’ve always argued on Bay Road we have a thousand feet setback for professional offices. I think in the other ones, I don’t know. Sherman Avenue and there you really need to put this down on paper and see once you meet all the restrictions for parking, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 377 setbacks, green space and all that kind of stuff how much land you really got in there what you are talking about. I think you have to look in the Gurney Lane area the sensitivity of that parcel both for the aesthetics as the Professor so well pointed out. I think you also have to look at it for the impact as, I said on your largest recreation area in this Town and on the West Mountain Health Center. Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Anyone else. Hi, Mrs. Nestle how are you. Happy New Year. THELMA NESTLE-I have lived here for forty-five years. I was born and raised in Bolton Landing and I think I can say I revered the mountains I never did not see them. I love the lake. I love the people. I mean Bolton was small and I knew everybody now I don’t know everybody here. When my husband came home from the war, we decided we would like to live in Queensbury why because it was very much like what we had experienced. We had traveled and it was always good to get home. We have something very special here I think and I love it. I am grateful to the Professor from Skidmore who came and put on the presentation I appreciate it. I think he said a lot and showed us a lot. It makes me wonder where we are going and what we are going to do when we get there. I am eighty-four now and I have learned a few things. I have learned that people are very important and I’ve learned that I can love a lot of people. I also think that we must stop and consider what we are going to do with Queensbury because we have a beautiful, beautiful area here. I don’t know how many of you are natives of Queensbury, but I feel that there are quite a few of you here. We do get a lot of people from the City. I don’t know how many people from the City are beginning to filter in, but I think quite a lot because they love it, too, but please we have got to preserve our beauty. My husband and I were up in Alaska in 1980, it’s gorgeous up there absolutely, and those people do not realize what they have. Tourism would be there biggest moneymaker, but I have also learned that money isn’t everything. Thank you. JOHN SKORAK, 1161 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD ON THE CORNER OF OLD WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD AND WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD-I am pretty fortunate because I am one of the few people that can afford low cost housing there. When I bought that lot and put my house on there, it was incredible for what I could put it on compared to the houses around there. There has only been two houses built between that stretch and Mountain View the other houses worth much more than mine. I’m just appalled because we don’t even know what the effect of the Great Escape is going to do on that whole intersection. We haven’t seen anything it hasn’t even opened yet and you are telling me that you want to put in residential housing in that area that’s not even zoned for it. I watch people come down my street, 50, 60 mph up that hill down that hill I’m really concerned very much so. Sometimes the police will sit there and govern it sometimes they won’t. I like the fact that I have absolutely no streetlights. I walk out my door I can sit on my front yard and it is a beautiful piece of property. I am on five and a half acres of land, which is unheard of in Queensbury to be able to buy and do what I did for what I did. I think this piece of land that you are talking about I’ve walked that area before with my granddaughter, my kids it is a beautiful piece of land back there. You guys talk about putting a bike path through there and all of that, but you are going to allow a developer to plop REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 378 something down at the end of it, it is appalling. We haven’t developed any of that other land on the backside its all Rush Pond area it is all going to be bike trails and all that and then you are going to allow someone just to plop that thing down there. Like, I said you haven’t even looked at the Great Escape what its going to do to us. I can’t even get out in the summertime there everybody uses that road to cut through that’s local. I come home from work, I work in Bolton Landing, and I come home off Exit 20, if you are making a left hand turn forget it. You have to take a right hand turn, turn around at the Infirmary come back around to go anywhere down that road it is just amazing. I was grateful when they took the Warren County Center opened it up so you could finally go through traffic through there so you could get to Glen Lake Road because that was another spot that was horrible. I just want to tell you, you are doing an injustice to me for what I bought for. I moved away twenty-seven years ago and moved back and I looked a long time. I looked in Lake George, Hudson Falls; all over, I finally found that piece of land. I walked it everyday for thirty days before I signed the contract on that just to see what it would be like and I love that piece of land. If you put that stuff in there, you are ruining what I paid for. Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you. DEXTER JENKINS, JACQUELINE DRIVE, QUEENSBURY-I lived in this area all my life. I grew up on Bay Road, 1956 I lived on Old Bay Road back when it used to be just a sand pit where now you find the Firehouse, Fire Department. I guess the point I’m trying to make is I know you find yourself in an ambulant situation we do face the pressure of development obviously that’s something that this area brings to it. It draws a number of people here because of its beauty and it’s because of that beauty that I’m here tonight. My daughter had talk to me prior to leaving she is twelve years old and she spent many times many moments sliding down that hill that we were talking about before. I can remember as a kid being able to go to the Country Club and being able to slide down that hill slide down that sand bank that we once used to have on Bay Road. I don’t know Rich Schermerhorn I don’t know a lot of the other people who are involved here. I’ve met with Rich on a few different occasions he’s been with his family he seems like a real reasonable man family man he has values. It all comes down to the fact that he is a businessman and this area is an area that many people wish to come to because of its beauty and its because of that that we find ourselves here today because of the fact that people wish to move here. We as a community and I know Mr. Valente touched on something that to me struck a note. If we are that passionate about this if, we have a thousand people I don’t even know who owns this land. I’m not sure who owns it whether it’s something everyone can purchase. I’m not sure of the entire details I just became aware of the situation two nights ago. The point, I guess I’m trying to make is that I’m sure anyone who has grown up in this area for example Rich could appreciate the fact that we as a community wish to preserve one small spot possibly an area that’s easily assessable. I’m telling you I ask my daughter tonight do you remember going over to West Mountain and sliding down on the tubes where they drag you up the hill she said no, but I do remember that hill we walked up that hill. It was something that was easily accessible there is nothing like it it’s a moment that she will always cherish. We don’t have many of those places left in this area where REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 379 people can access. If it is an option, I heard that there is a thousand different signatures something to that effect. I don’t know what a piece of property like that would be worth, but I know a thousand dollars from a thousand different people is a million dollars. I know for one, I’d be more than willing to donate that to have a piece of property that forever could be used for memories that we as people that are from this area I’m sure most everyone here tonight they are from this area and that’s the beauty of this area when it’s gone its gone. You know we will always have Lake George. We will always have the different departments that Mr. Valente once again talked about that will preserve certain areas. Here is one spot, one spot along that corridor that the Professor of Skidmore was nice enough to point out that certainly could be preserved if indeed it’s an option if it’s something that maybe we as a community can purchase. I’m sure Mr. Schermerhorn would certainly respect that more than just trying to put a stop to something through the form that we have here tonight. I just urge and implore everyone that is here this evening or those who couldn’t attend to possibly consider this alternative. Something that we can leave some type of small piece that could be forever for our children and for the community. Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Anybody else this evening first timers. LENORE GUAY, 1226 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD-Just a little ways down from the property in question with Mr. Schermerhorn on the same side of the road. I have two young children eleven and twelve like others have mentioned they also have been sliding on that hill. We have lived there since 1994. I purchased recently more property right next to mine and I enjoy that area. My concern is this low-income housing coming in directly across from the welfare building. I’ve hearing and its, of course, only hearsay that there has been theft that’s occurred over in Meadowbrook in one of his other apartment complexes and I’m not to comfortable with that coming into my neighborhood, I have a hard time with that. The beauty of the area like everybody else has touched upon is what it is. I believe it was three years ago a moose got hit at Exit 20, we have moose in our backyard we see the prints all the time. I can’t see developing additional property something along those lines that’s going to continue to wipe out the wildlife that we’ve got coming back here. Because we are right at the bottom of the mountain, we are seeing more and more wildlife is a danger with more traffic it is a concern. Professional business, okay if they have to put something there professional I would say is the way to go. I don’t know if I can agree with Mr. O’Connor I believe, it was who said the traffic flow for professional would be more so than residential. Ninety-two to possibly a hundred and thirty eight units is an awful lot of traffic. A hundred and ninety seven too possibly two hundred and six parking spaces that’s a lot of traffic. If its apartments its everyday of the week not just nine to five Monday through Friday, it is a concern. You have West Queensbury Fire that’s their primary emergency route that gets them over to the Great Escape, which has now increased in leaps and bounds. Now you have this new slide wonderful hotel going in how are you going to handle the emergencies if we keep developing more of that area and that’s the access route for those emergency folks to get over to the other side. I think we should keep it accessible as much as possible it’s a concern just consider it. I’m sure you will work fairly with this and consider the residents and enough of the REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 380 people I think have spoken up. I think our views are clear tonight and we hope that you make the best decision. Thanks. SUPERVISOR STEC-Anybody else this evening. Any first timers, second timers? KATHLEEN SONNABEND, 55 CEDAR COURT-I’ll make this brief. I just wanted to correct one of the inaccuracies of Michael O’Connor’s previous testimony. I took the opportunity to call Dr. Kelly because it was a big surprise to me that Mr. O’Connor said that he supported a two hundred foot setback because the whole time I’ve known Dr. Kelly he supported the thousand foot setback that is his current position. I don’t know where the two hundred feet came from he can’t remember it either, but if it did exist, it’s not his current position. He would be very happy to write a letter to the board to confirm that he could not come tonight. Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Anybody else anyone at all. TONYA BRUNO, 119 GURNEY LANE-I am from that area that we’ve been talking about a lot. I would like to speak a little more generally this evening since we are talking town wide. Normally, I would agree that such zoning updates should wait until after the Comprehensive Master Plan is updated such as Mr. O’Connor implied. In this instance, I do not agree with this for Queensbury town wide because of the recent expediential development of the land. We have been forced to put out fires as they happen again throughout the entire Town. I think that’s partially where this evening’s thousand-foot setback comes from. I think the Planning Board everyone has been doing what they can to deal with each fire as it is being set. There was a time when a moratorium was spoken about and I really think that probably would have been the best thing to do I’m still unsure as to why that was voted down. SUPERVISOR STEC-There was no vote taken on that point of clarification we never voted on it you said it was voted down. MRS. BRUNO-All that much more reason to be concerned that something a tool something that would have perhaps alleviated any of these problems or discrepancies could have happened. I personally am working in the design field although it’s very part time because I feel that my children are my primary goal these days. You know, I had no problem somebody would tell me you couldn’t design a house for Queensbury for a year, two years fine I’ll give up my Starbucks or whatever for a year. Dan, I remember when you were canvassing the area my husband and I and the two children were out in the yard maple sugaring. We owned about three acres or so on Gurney Lane when that very quietly got divided up behind us. There was only one offer for the land that was I believe Warren County’s to be bought. We jumped in and tried to add as much as we would such as what Dexter was implying you do what you, you can do protect what you got. Our natural resources it’s the one thing that’s here it can be gone any moment. At that time, I know Dan that you were really saying that you were here for the people and you had been raised on the other side of the mountain. I just hope that everybody takes a moment takes a deep breath. Maybe if this thousand foot thing doesn’t work and I have signed for it, I agree with it REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 381 maybe if that doesn’t work maybe we should try to vote in a moratorium until after this Comprehensive Master Plan is done until we are all familiar with the Open Space Plan until we know what we’ve got until that time. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Just a quick comment on that. We aren’t here to talk about a moratorium, but Marilyn Ryba distributed in October, she went to a Workshop and she presented I was looking at it today in anticipation of this meeting I thought it was very remarkable. When is a moratorium imposed in other words when is it applicable. Here is what the criteria of the Workshop specified. Lack of adequate land use controls. Capacities of public infrastructure in doubt. Events make prior zoning outdated. Future protections needed for fragile areas. SUPERVISOR STEC-Anyone else this evening, Mr. Rahill. BERNARD RAHILL-The last time I spoke at a meeting was at the PORC Meeting. I suggested to the PORC Committee that we submit a questionnaire to the residents of the Town of Queensbury. Dan you and John attend Our Lady of Annunciation Church in Queensbury. The Parish Counsel there three years ago developed a questionnaire they sent it out to each of the residents or the members of the Parish of Queensbury. The Parish members filled out the questionnaire it was very well written very well done. Dr. David Mousaw was the person who was the President of the Parish Counsel at that point in time he was the person who pushed that forward. I thought it was a great idea and I think a lot of good information came from it. When I was in Graduate School studying Political Research, I had to write a questionnaire on the Lindsey Election in New York City. Lindsey verses Behan. This was a long questionnaire we had to write with very precise questions. When, I studied with Jack Irion an administration course, here in Queensbury a number of years ago research and education we had to write a questionnaire to find out specific scientific data with regard to something that is a scientific fact. I’m sure that John Strough being a Social Studies teacher knows exactly what I’m talking about. Now we do this for research all of the time to find out how to do things right its called Social Science. I’m suggesting to you that we have a moratorium and that we present a questionnaire to all of the residents of Queensbury. Every quarter we have a Bulletin you send out to the people of Queensbury. If you send something as large as that Bulletin in a form of a questionnaire, which was developed by the Planning Board, Zoning Board all the people who are the cognoscente here and the Town Board. Somebody that is rationale not influenced by developers not influenced by anybody, but people who want the benefit of the Town of Queensbury in place. I think that you would have meetings in the future where people would be very happy they would say this is the right thing to do. We are talking about reason here not self interest, not desires, not wants, but what the people of Queensbury want as a rationale community and that’s what I’m addressing right now. I hope that we will be rational in the future. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR STEC-Anybody else this evening. Again, I wasn’t going to close the public hearing we are going to leave it open because we won’t be able to act on this evening. The earliest we will be able to act on it at a Regular Meeting will be the second meeting in February, which I believe is th February 27, so we have about a month before we will be acting on REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 382 anything. The public hearing is still open we will take written comment, petitions, anything between now and when we close the public hearing, which, again will be likely that second meeting in February. If there is anyone else that would like to speak on record tonight right now the microphone is still opened if not I’m going to leave the public hearing opened. Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? Any Town Board discussions or comments, John. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Zoning is like a vehicle to try and get your community from A to B. You really do that’s the purpose of where you are driving from A to B. It was over two years ago we realized that there was problems with our professional office zoning. We began to talk about it as individual members that this vehicle had serious engine problems and needed to be repaired. On our way to drive professional office to the service repair station, we had a tire blow out right on the corner of Blind Rock Road and Bay Road. We needed to put the spare on it we realized that so we went to do that, that didn’t happen so we continued driving the vehicle now with three tires. We had another blowout its over on West Mountain Road and Gurney Lane so now we have two flat tires and we are in serious trouble. Mr. O’Connor is right maybe we can do a professional office A, B, what have you. Mr. Valente certainly would like to sit down and talk about individual property needs. Maybe we need different types of professional office zoning for different areas. I think some of the developers pointed out one size doesn’t fit all. One thing the developers have told us over and over again they do want clear direction so we have been trying to do this for two years it’s not new. Should this go to PORC Committee and can this go to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Why are we doing it now, we are not allowing the rezoning’s to take place that some of us what to happen now. Well, yeah we can, but we have two blown out tires and they need immediate attention. Then we will work on getting the rest of the car fixed, but right now, we got to get the two flat tires fixed so that discussion started over two years ago. Now let’s take a look at the intent of professional office zoning. A lot of people have come up and even Dan admitted a lot of misinformation people don’t understand and I’m hoping that by the time I’m done you understand a little bit better than you do now. The New York State Town Law, Article 16, Section 272-A, Paragraph 11, says the effect of adoption of a Town Comprehensive Land Use Plan A., All Town land use regulations must be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. It didn’t say some it said all keep that in mind because that is going to come into play that New York State Law. What was the intent of the Town Board when it proposed to amend professional office zoning? To assure professional zone did what it was primarily intended to do that is attract and accommodate professional offices. We wanted to place language in the zoning to assure that it did that, that it was transitional, and that it would be residential friendly. In accord with that, we will get back to David Kelly, President of the Adirondack Radiology Associates. He refers to the Bay Road corridor in specific as a very campus like environment with many benefits to the medical arts community when you have campus clustering of professional offices like that. This vision he went on to say is supported by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. He went on to say the benefits of this kind of campus clustering are many. This is unique you should work to sustain this and feed this in the available space throughout the Bay Road corridor. Mr. Kelly added we favor maintaining the established professional corridor REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 383 along the Bay Road frontage. After reviewing our Town’s professional office zoning what was the Planning Boards recommendation. The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Town Board in reference to professional office zoning. Yes, like Mr. O’Connor said they recommend don’t change the language. Why did they say that well that wasn’t added why because they said that as they noted professional office buildings shall be located within one thousand feet of the arterial roadway as identified in 179-19-020 the consensus of the Planning Board was as follows. That part of the professional office language clearly meant that professional offices only were to be allowed in the first one thousand feet of the Bay Road corridor. Some members even vocalized they were bothered by the Town Board’s reduction to five hundred feet. What does the Town of Queensbury Comprehensive Land Use Plan say about a Town’s comprehensive, okay and what is the resulting zoning? Keep in mind what I said to you about New York State Law 272, that your zoning has to match your plan all zoning has to match your plan. Here is what our plan says. Our Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Page 8, Section 2. Town wide plan-regulatory recommendations, introduction. One purpose of preparing a Comprehensive Land Use Plan is to provide a basis for our zoning that’s the first thing it says. I’m going to abbreviate some of this if you want the longer version I will give you the sources. This is our Comprehensive Land Use Plan Page 6. We should coordinate development of potential growth areas in the Town keep Bay Road corridor in mind. Strategies. S8.2 Bay Road corridor should have a development plan. Comprehensive Plan Page 11. C6.9 Develop an office services zone they are talking about the Bay Road corridor. This area has developed as offices such a zone would provide a good local business environment this is what our Comprehensive Land Use Plan is saying remember your zoning has to match what your plan is saying. Because some people say that this isn’t a clarification yes, it is a clarification. We are trying to get our zoning to match our Comprehensive Land Use Plan like we are suppose to like the State Law says, too. Section 4, Neighborhoods. The Bay Road corridor has been developing as a mix of office buildings along the road and multi-family residential further from the road, yeah okay further from the road. Furthermore, it goes on to say, Neighborhoods Page 3, R8. Develop the area north of Quaker Road along Bay Road as a Town Center. Some people get hung up on the Town Center forget what I said about the Town Center listen to the next part. A mixture of commercial, office, cultural, educational uses should be created. We are talking about the Bay Road corridor. It dosen’t have to be a Town Center it can be these other things. Cultural educational aspects could include a performance center, museums, training centers, libraries, schools; a general plan for the area needs to be developed. We need to treat it as a more unified entity. These are all things in our Comprehensive Land Use Plan our zoning doesn’t match what our plan says. What does the Comprehensive Land Use Plan say that is important to the West Mountain Road and Gurney Lane Road area? All right, I thought goal number one in a Comprehensive Lane Use Plan was important. Protect and maintain rural character and visual quality of Town on Page 3. Establish standards and specify commercial and industrial areas to maintain a rural look, Page 3. Green space, open space, should be incorporated in all future development plans, Page 5. Rush Pond this shallow depth up to twelve feet twenty-five acre pond is surrounded by associated wetlands that are connected to Glen Lake and its wetlands via culverts under the Northway. Rush Pond is considered important to flood REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 384 and storm water control and as fish and wildlife habitat; Page 27 goes into much more detail on Page 27, I’m giving you the abbreviated version. Archeological resources often exist near wetlands as well. These aspects combined with flood control and quality improvement characters make wetlands an important resource for the community, Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Page 30 more specifically the Rush Pond CEA. The Town has designated five hundred feet from the four hundred and thirty foot contour line in the vicinity of Rush Pond as a critical environmental area not to be built there. Recommendations. ER-1. Review all critical environmental area designations instituted by the Town of Queensbury to clarify exactly what is being protected so that project reviews can address issues more specifically. The Town can designate areas of concern and apply regulations beyond the scope of the State Environmental Quality Review Act in order to protect these areas. Protect the endangered Karner Blue Butterfly. Develop a green belt plan in the Town to protect habitats for use open space passive recreational pursuits this area seems to apply as well as any. On Map 33 shows if you look in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan it shows Rush Pond with the CEA boundary. The lower third of the property in question on the east of West Mountain Road and south of Gurney Lane is in the Rush Pond CEA. Here is one thing people say why did you zone it a professional office here is some of the reason. Keep this in mind and we’ve had other problems with residential areas next to the Northway and Mr. Wild pay attention. Because exposure to noise, pollutants, vibration, dusk, salt, other particulates may cause health, emotional, and developmental problems the Federal Highway Administration recommends that communities do not zone areas adjacent to interstates as residential. You got to balance you don’t want to zone it residential because it’s next to an interstate it won’t be healthy for people living there twenty-four seven. Property owners certainly do have rights, I agree. The community has rights how do we balance all of this. Some of the thinking was that if we zoned it professional office that we could have some kind of development with wide buffers. The office could be in one building or a cluster of buildings in the center of the property. It would be residential in nature well protected visually protected. I, mean if you do have to satisfy an owners need to gain some return for the money and you got to satisfy the communities desire in what it wants maybe a professional office for that particular lot might be the most appropriate thing. If we can include language in our professional office, zoning that would moderate the development so it would be in accord with what all of us want for the Gurney Lane, West Mountain area and at the same time give the landowners some kind of return for their money. So we wanted something with large buffers you want something that’s low moderate nonresidential development. We thought that if we could clarify professional office zoning maybe that would be the best thing for that particular parcel. It would satisfy almost everybody’s interest if we got a change to reword professional office so that it could flow in accord with what we are trying to do we never got there that’s was over two years ago, now we got two flat tires. COUNCILMAN BREWER-You got three because we rezoned that before we straightened out our PO zone. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-You were right you said we ought to change the language first and then rezone it. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 385 COUNCILMAN BREWER-I also said let’s not rezone it remember that the vote four to one. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-It wasn’t four to one. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Three to one to one. You abstained because you thought you might have a conflict because you own across the street. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I own the property across the street. Anyway, I looked at it whatever way I voted woudn’t be good. What does the Town’s Zoning Code say about professional office? I haven’t got to the Zoning Code yet. Everyone says they want to learn you are here to learn there is going to be a test afterwards, too. COUNCILMAN BREWER-We all have to go to work tomorrow though John. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Zoning Code 179-3-040. Purpose and Establishment of Zoning Districts. Professional Office PO. The professional office district encompasses areas where professional offices are encouraged. It didn’t say where multi-family are encouraged it said where professional offices are encouraged. We are talking about clarifying the intent of professional office zoning and we get criticized for it well it’s all right here some people don’t bother to read it and it goes on. 179-7-404 Bay Road corridor. It talks about and I’ll just excerpts out of it I see you are glazing over. Development has extended north from Quaker Road in a generally desirable pattern of professional offices. Incorporating a residential feel and work, it is the intent of the guidelines for this corridor to continue this professional office theme north. How much more clear do you need to get. That’s what we are trying to do some people its not clear enough we got to work and make it a little more clearer for them. Why do we want professional office zoning and why is it so important to maintain professional office zoning that’s another whole discussion. In brief not only does our Comprehensive Land Use Plan if you look on Pages 2, 16, and the Introduction under the Vision it talks about making sure that you develop Queensbury is a sustainable economic way, now how do you do that. For every commercial and nonresidential use for every dollar they pay in taxes, they only require thirty-nine cents on the average. There is a figure there from low to high, but the average of thirty-nine cents for every dollar they pay in taxes they are asking for an average of thirty-nine cents in services. Residential development for every dollar that a residential person pays they ask for a dollar twenty nine to a dollar fifty in services they ask for more than they are paying that’s okay I’m not complaining, but you have to have balance in your community. You have to have enough light industrial, enough industrial, enough commercial; enough professional offices to make sure that your taxes stay low and are manageable because residential doesn’t pay for its way an apartments are even worse. Professional offices do more than pay their own way they also provide good jobs and I could go on I’m going to skip that part. Here is another one lastly and some would argue most importantly a firm historical precedent has been established. All proposed development in professional office zones have been developed as intended and directed by the zoning. Mr. O’Connor understood that until he was offered something it must have been very very good because he REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 386 understood that. I don’t blame him he is going to do what is in his best interest and I don’t blame him one bit, but we as a board have to do what is in the community’s best interest, okay. In summary, yes there is some ambiguity in the professional office zoning code current language. For example if one were solely attentive to the note that professional offices and office buildings shall be located with the one thousand feet of the arterial roadway as identified in 179-19-020. Their conclusion might be that it does not specifically disallow residential uses. However, that would be taking our zoning code out of context that is just one part of the language that describes Town’s professional office zone. If you read the above and you take into account our Comprehensive Land Use Plan, take into account our Open Space Plan, take into account the development history, take into the community desires I think you will have to agree. The evidence of the legislative intent is substantive it’s compelling and herein provided all the evidence one needs for a substantial rationale basis for our Town’s professional office zoning and as such its in the community’s best interest to maintain the integrity of our Town’s professional office zoning. Therefore, exceptions that would degrade the intention of the Town’s professional office zoning shall not be allowed. Closing statement shortened. Real leadership is planning our community for the future. It is forward thinking focuses on the goals and the outcomes and the accomplishments focuses on what needs to happen in our Town. A true leader is able to discern those immediate interests that would be detrimental to the wants and needs of our community so that thirty years from now Queensbury will offer high quality and varied economic opportunities yet remain a Home of Natural Beauty and a Good Place to Live, I’m finished. SUPERVISOR STEC-Any other Town Board comments. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Yeah, I’ll just make a quick comment. I like to talk to the audience a little bit about where I see this going. In late February, we are going to be bringing this to a vote. I think you will have a majority of the board supporting the clarification of the zone. However, I don’t know if we will have a super majority in the event that there is a valid petition, Protest Petition filed to pass the clarification. It was touched upon today by some members of the public that perhaps a moratorium a specific moratorium should be considered. I think that it’s probably not too early for certain people who have an interest on this board to start doing some groundwork on that. As, I mentioned earlier when in terms of Marilyn’s notes when she attended the workshop I would like to explain a little bit about what a moratorium is. A moratorium is a timeout a break. As you all discussed we have the Comprehensive Land Use Plan revisions taking place and in the meantime, everybody is going pell-mell to do a lot of development. We’ve been slow dancing with this issue for over two years. Part of the reason if you are a little bit cynically minded for the purpose of the PORC Committee was to dodged the issue of the moratorium that the Planning Board recommended a couple of years ago. A couple of years have gone by and progress is being made but we don’t know when that will finally end. It could be when that Comprehensive Land Use Plan is finally finalized a whole lot of undesirable events could take place in Queensbury. A moratorium if in fact this zoning clarification does not pass would give the Town the needed timeout to finalize that Comprehensive Land Use Plan. I earlier in comment to a speaker gave the justification for a moratorium what REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 387 are the criteria and I think it’s very compelling. Every one of the stated ones in this Workshop we are living it. Perhaps even more important and more significant based of preliminary legal review a moratorium would not be subject to a super majority of this board. A super majority of this board could pass a moratorium where as in the clarification of the zone it’s likely we are going to need that super majority. So what I’m trying to say we will have probably prepared for the community a backup strategy. Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Anyone else. COUNCILMAN BOOR-First of all, I want to tell you John I thought you did a marvelous job because you did such a good job I’m going to be able to give a somewhat abbreviated talk. It’s almost become expected that when Mr. O’Connor speaks I should give the rebuttal and I certainly don’t want to let anybody down. However, the length of time he spent would preclude me from addressing what I’ll politely call gross inaccuracies. I will start with a couple of them. I’m just going to touch on three or four. He said that it would be appropriate for board members to go out to neighborhoods and have group meetings. I can tell you that the reason at least three people are sitting on this board is because they did that during the fall campaign. I can tell you that the issue that we are talking about tonight was number one and foremost on everybody’s mind it was very clear where the public stands on this. Mr. O’Connor also referred to, I don’t want to characterize the exact words he used, but I think it was abhorrent lighting on Bay Road on how inappropriate that would be for residential and yet he is proposing residential on Bay Road. Probably the one that deserves the most clarification is that he referred to Marilyn as saying that this would be a Type I action because he said we were changing the use. We are not changing the use in professional office zoning. There isn’t one addition or one remission of use the uses stay the same. We are strictly giving clarity to the intent, as everybody here understands it with the thousand-foot setback residential behind professional office in front. I could go on and on I don’t think that’s necessary. One of the more interesting things and I’ll just close on this. I’m going to read a letter it’s relevant for a lot of reasons. One, as Mr. Salvador pointed out we’ve got a resolution tonight let me back up. Every quarter we entertain the possibility of rezoning properties if they are requested. It is an option we do not have to entertain them we can just say no not interested or we can look at them and see if there is merit and a justification for it. As Mr. Salvador appropriately pointed out we have a resolution here tonight that is essentially taking four rezonings that occurred in the fourth quarter and we’re not going to address them because we are in fact reviewing the Comprehensive Land Use Plan we don’t want to make errors. Having said that I find one of the applications that we are going to put on hold as very interesting because it deals with the Bay Road corridor and it is written by the Attorney who is representing the West Mountain project. I would like to read it and I will pause maybe do a little dramatic effect on the highlighted areas. This is to Supervisor Dan Stec it is from Jonathan Lapper and it reads. Dear Mr. Stec: Please be advised that our firm represents Donna St. John with regard to the rezoning request that is being submitted herewith for the property that she owns on Bay Road. At this time the property is zoned SFR-1A the property has a preexisting structure; however, the property is adjacent to nonresidential uses. Moreover the structure is located very close to the road as you know, (highlighted section right here) Bay Road is an REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 388 arterial road in Queensbury and as a result is highly traveled and no longer appropriate for residential use. (It goes on.) Municipal sewer and water are available (again highlighted) it is the applicant’s opinion that this property would serve as a better use if it were zoned professional office. We are including a conceptual site plan showing a potential office development to indicate that the site can support such a use. The professional office zone is located just north of this site. Moreover, the properties across the street are also zoned for commercial uses. (Highlighted). As a result zoning this property would not have an adverse impact on adjacent lands. That is totally contrary to the letter that was passed around by Mr. O’Connor saying that property values would be devalued if we were to take such action as we are proposing tonight. It says and this is the final. It says please start the process for rezoning the application, application fee, site plan are still enclosed blah, blah, blah, blah. The point being we have the Attorney for one recognizes that arterial roads are inappropriate for residential use. They are saying that it is going to improve the property value. I can’t think of a better slam-dunk as to why this board is suggesting that we clarify and move on that’s all Dan. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well. I’m thoroughly confused after two and a half hours of all this debate and confusion. Going back two years, Roger . and I don’t want to cast any...I think the smart thing for us to do is to take the rezonings, this rezoning give them to the PORC Committee give us a recommendation and make our decision. As John mentioned I recommended we didn’t rezone this property because it was SFR and you initiated the development or the rezoning to professional office, which I argued with you back and forth you gave me your reasons I gave you mine nevertheless it got rezoned. The same Attorney that you just read a letter from representing the St. John’s represents Schermerhorn on Gurney Lane, I just think it’s a bunch of mish-mash. We are not suppose to be maybe the word suppose to be is when we do a rezoning in my opinion we should be looking at the lands or the proposals. I heard a lot of emotion a lot of talk about Schermerhorn’s project on Gurney Lane. I don’t agree with it personally that doesn’t have anything to do with what we are doing here. Mike O’Connor’s project in my opinion there are proposals that are on the table or have been on the table. I think we are getting too much emotion with these particular projects and I think we are not looking at the essence of what we should be doing. We should be giving these to the PORC Committee that we created to review give us a recommendation and make a decision. I think it could be done in a reasonable amount of time with nothing happening on those properties. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-You are right about the engine problem, but we got two flat tires. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I know John, but we created the one flat tire. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Now we got two. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yeah, I know three remember. SUPERVISOR STEC-Are you done? REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 389 COUNCILMAN BREWER-I’m done. I just want to wait until we get all the recommendations from everybody including the Warren County Planning Board our Planning Board whatever the recommendations we are going to do and we will make a decision. SUPERVISOR STEC-I’ll try to briefly summarize tonight. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Real short. SUPERVISOR STEC-Again, we won’t act this evening. UNKNOWN-Could you get close to the microphone it’s hard to hear back here. SUPERVISOR STEC-I’ll try to summarize where we are. Again, we won’t be taking action tonight we will likely be taking action at our second meeting in February. Yes, we’ve been discussing this on and off for approximately two years. It did come to a vote sometime ago a slightly different version that it is now. My comments are after listening to tonight and being intimately familiar with all the aspects that we are talking about on both sides of the issues including what the law says and what our past history has been right and wrong. We got into a little bit we were talking a little bit about the Pledge before. I think that actually that’s probably the sole key issue here is that we are trying to balance or at least the struggle that I have if I have one in my mind is to try to balance the individuals rights with the needs and the rights of the community. They are both important and certainly I don’t weigh into something like this where we are going to talk about an individuals rights and taking or changing them or changing the rules in the middle of the game or changing the layout of what the game plan is I don’t take that lightly. Certainly, I know that if any of you are involved and the Town is considering changing the rules on property you own you wouldn’t want us to take that lightly either. How would I characterize the last two years. I think that we’ve been very diligent and very cautious in making sure that we are trying to find that balance between the needs of the community verses the rights of the individual. Then the struggle that the five of us have is where do we draw that line how far is to far how much is too much that’s the struggle. In my prepared comments that I made while I was listening. I don’t think anyone on this Town Board or the previous Town Board argues that offices are desired in front on these places certainly on Bay Road. The Gurney Lane parcel has a different history so the majority of my comments are really geared towards where the lion share of professional office zone is in Town, which is on Bay Road. I don’t think anyone disagrees with that certainly the Comprehensive Land Use Plan reads as exactly as John read about fifty percent of it that it does read that way that is the general direction of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The argument has been two years ago and perhaps will be now what that number should be the setback number that we are talking about. Is a thousand too much is five hundred too much that’s I think where the argument is. I don’t think anyone here is ignoring that hey isn’t there a lot of pluses to encouraging offices in certain areas of Town absolutely. The problem is and this has been deemphasized by some tonight right or wrong or the way it should be or shouldn’t be it is the Zoning Code and not the Comprehensive Land Use Plan that is the governing law over everything we do. The REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 390 Comprehensive Land Use Plan certainly lends itself to making arguments to change the code, but in Court, if our Attorney has to deal with something it is what is in the Zoning Code not what is the underlying document. John’s right the law requires that we have that document and that document is what the code sprouts from, but rubber meets the road it is the Code that matters. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-State Law says that the Zoning Code has to be in accordance…. SUPERVISOR STEC-Let me finish I let you finish. Now additionally under State Law and a lot of people in this room are very familiar with this part of the process. The individual that the Town Board has appointed into this position that when a clarification or a decision about what does the code mean the code is not clear that falls to the feet of the Zoning Administrator that person is Craig Brown. That is the person that the Town Board appoints to do that he makes determinations all the time. He was most notably in the Newspaper for making a controversial determination a couple times on Paintball the word determination that’s where it comes from. An issue here to reconcile and I’m not saying its not reconcilable I’m just educating and also giving background so that people don’t think that three members of the Town Board are sane and two are insane. He did on March 1, of last year almost a year ago, he made a determination, which clarifies and sets the law that says that within a thousand feet you can have multi-family residential apartments. People that are coming here tonight characterizing this that we are trying to change this to allow apartments many of you don’t know better. You don’t know that’s not a true statement some of you should know that’s a true statement…misrepresented that a few times. The law is and it’s my understanding of the law the Attorney’s understanding of the law the Zoning Administrator’s determination of the law that that is the way that our law reads so, what’s my point of saying this. Only that I would take issue and certainly two members on this Town Board voted in 2002 to create professional office so a lot of people are talking about what our intentions were in 2002 when we created it. I’m pretty sure that if there is one thing that I can be certain of is what’s my own personal intentions were. My point of this last few minutes is merely to point out well the history of the professional office on Bay Road before we created professional office in April of 2002 it was all MR5 zoning it was all apartments it was zoned for only apartments. The Town Board at the time in its wisdom recognized that it might not be the ideal way for the Town to go. How did it get that way though is where is it, it is across from ACC. There was a lot of talk there is still some people in some circles that are talking that maybe ACC ought to be someday a four-year school. Student housing, campus housing that’s where they wanted sewer that’s where they wanted the density in the development for residential so that’s the history. I think most people and I can say from my experience on the County that a four year offering at ACC a permanent four year school an upgrade if you will to a four year institution is not in the offering in the near future perhaps ever. So the need for that ACC housing certainly, I think most people would say it’s not going to be there. We knew that in 2002 and that’s when we said look what do we want to do for PO what do we want to do on Bay Road. Let’s create PO, let’s encourage offices and that’s fine. I won’t speak for Tim Brewer or anybody else, but for myself we were looking at something that was zoned purely multi-family residential. Right or wrong, shortsighted or not shortsighted REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 391 what was my intention? My intention was to add an additional use to add offices as an allowed use. I assure you one thing it never occurred to me and I’m not saying that maybe it shouldn’t have it did not occur to me that we also needed to think about removing an allowed activity there. My opinion we did not and the Zoning Administrators opinion we did not. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Point of clarification when you are done. SUPERVISOR STEC-Let me finish I’m almost done. So, now that’s how we got to where we were two years ago because well frankly there was a controversial proposal across the street people were confused is this allowed not allowed. The whole Town got turned around we had a vote here that night. What was a little humorous to me that there were people in the office that I know how they wanted the vote to go that were saying vote no, I know what they meant they meant vote yes. I knew what they wanted they wanted a yes vote, but they were so confused about what was getting voted on that the whole Town was turned around over is this allowed or isn’t this allowed is this a change or is this not a change. My point here is I would argue that what we are talking about is a change and not a clarification. However, I’m not saying that I don’t or can’t support a change. I didn’t say that, I wouldn’t or couldn’t support a change two years ago. Again, I go back to the issue and I’m not going to tip my hand because I want to wait until I hear from the Planning Board and the County Planning Board I want to mull this over some more. I certainly heard you all loud and clear tonight. Hopefully you heard where some of us are coming from. We understand the issue we are trying to balance everybody’s needs here. I think really the main issue was how far should this number be. With that said we may or may not I don’t put votes in anyone else’s mouth I don’t appreciate a vote being placed in my mouth tonight. We may or may not have if we won we may or may not need a super majority we may or may not have one anyways. I just wanted to make sure that everyone is clear that we get what you are saying. We certainly hope that you understand where we are coming from. What we are trying to do is be as respectful as possible in making sure that all people have a voice here all people are represented and everyone hears their concerns are addressed. Again, I think all five of us are trying to do that I think just the question is what weight do we put on various points of view. It is nothing more sinister than that it’s very simple stuff and that’s why there is five of us. We are going to have a month to mull this over I’m sure that we are all going to be getting phone calls. I know that we are going to be reading things in the newspaper and some of it will be accurate and some of it won’t be accurate. I assure that everyone here is trying to figure out what is that right thing to do, I think at the end of the day we will get it. A lot of people made comments tonight its been done for the most part right to this point in the Town’s past that’s why everybody’s wants to live here that’s why we have these problems. We have these problems because we have good school districts and low taxes for New York State and less is always better. We do have low crime, we do have a nice quality of life, and we do have beautiful scenery to live around. That’s why our housing values have gone up that’s why we have an affordable housing issue. All these things the five us elected laymen and a hired professional staff are trying to help us to get to that point. The Gurney Lane thing has a unique and separate history. There might be other alternatives to solving that problem as well some of them were talked about tonight some of them maybe haven’t been REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 392 I’m confident that we will be able to address that too. It was not this board’s intention and it’s nobody’s fault, but we all thought and I think John fairly summarized how we did what we did. There was a proposal for fourteen residential units and there was an outcry from people saying this is ridiculous. I’m sure there are a lot of people that remember that and a lot of them will say you know what maybe we should of grabbed that when we had the chance to grab that as opposed to staring this in the face. We didn’t think we were going to necessarily get to where we are, we heard your concerns, and I think we are going to do our best to address that. I just felt it was important to lay out my understanding of the history and the issues here just to let you know. Hopefully all five of us are considering and maybe some people have considered all of them already and their minds made up and that’s fine, too. That’s what I wanted to say on this tonight so hopefully that sheds a little light on things. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I have one point of clarification regarding Mr. Brown’s determination letter, which he did write. As, I said earlier, I believe that the history of development speaks to the intent that took place. The pattern of development along Bay Road substantiates the setback criteria. Applicants in the past including Rick Schermerhorn were told they needed to build professional office in the first thousand feet a point of clarification Dan. Mr. Brown the Zoning Administrator does write determination letters it is subject to review and could be overruled by the ZBA and the ZBA has done that on a number of occasions. I think this is a prime example of a determination letter to be reviewed by the ZBA so that they can flush out by looking down that corridor looking at the development patterns establishing the history and you guys deciding what the intent was so your statement is not the end outcome here. SUPERVISOR STEC-Correct. Just to clarify what you said and Bob correct me if I’m wrong. What you are saying is you think that he’s wrong and you maybe right. Unfortunately, to bolster what I said is this is long past that review period so now we are to the point where we need to take action it is out of the Zoning Boards hands. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Wait can the Zoning Board of Appeals address this issue of that determination letter by Mr. Brown, Bob. SUPERVISOR STEC-It was March 1, 2005. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-I will have to get back to you on that. I don’t know the answer off the top of my head. SUPERVISOR STEC-It is my understanding and maybe I’m wrong maybe there is something more. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-Usually there is a time period, which would have long, passed. SUPERVISOR STEC-I know you can appeal within thirty or sixty days and again it might be a mute point anyways. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 393 COUNCILMAN BOOR-Dan it might be a mute point because we can certainly ask for another one. In fact I would recommend that we ask that tomorrow of Craig Brown. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And Roger going along with what you said. I wouldn’t be a bit surprise Craig Brown is a very intelligent capable person. I wouldn’t be a bit surprise if Craig read this one sentence about a thousand feet and what’s your determination okay and Craig gave his valid determination based on what he was asked to do. Now go back to Craig and Craig reading the Zoning Code. In light of what the Comprehensive Land Use Plan says, in light of the Open Space Plans intent and what it says, in light of the area’s current characteristics and keep in mind the development history now what is your determination, but I bet you he wasn’t asked it that way. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-He wasn’t. COUNCILMAN BREWER-How do you know did you ask? COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I read the letter. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Get the letter and read it, it is very clear what he was asked. SUPERVISOR STEC-Again, that whole discussion might be mute anyways because we may change the Code. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I didn’t ask the question so I didn’t ask for the clarification you can turn anything anyway you want we are arguing over nothing right now. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Tim, I read the letter that was requested of Mr. Brown and I read Mr. Brown’s request. COUNCILMAN BOOR-A couple things Dan I don’t want to belabor anything. At the beginning of what you just described you said that the five of us struggle I don’t struggle with this at all. SUPERVISOR STEC-All right then well fine. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I don’t struggle with this at all don’t characterize me as struggling I know exactly how I feel on this. SUPERVISOR STEC-You considered it and your consideration may not be a struggle. COUNCILMAN BOOR-People don’t like the term no brainor, but for me this is a no brainor. SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 394 COUNCILMAN BOOR-The other thing is you said under certain circumstances you could support a change of zoning. My question to you would be could you support a clarification of zoning also. SUPERVISOR STEC-Again, I think we were mincing words. COUNCILMAN BOOR-But, could you support a clarification? SUPERVISOR STEC-Again, I think…. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s just a yes or no. SUPERVISOR STEC-I don’t think it’s a yes or no question. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay. Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Is there anything else for this evening. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-True leadership is not taking care of immediate interest it’s the future and having a vision for the future Mr. Stec. SUPERVISOR STEC-I think, I understand leadership John. PUBLIC HEARING TO REMAIN OPEN FIVE MINUTE RECESS CORRESPONDENCE NONE INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTION FROM THE FLOOR NONE PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR JOHN SALVADOR-Spoke to the board regarding his Stipulation of Settlement and Order. The assessment refund has been signed by the Town Attorney will move on to the Court for signature. Read Paragraph 10 from the Stipulation questioned why they are being asked to stipulate to these conditions noting it is grossly unfair and unnecessary. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Questioned how much money is involved? MR. SALVADOR-You appropriated four thousand dollars. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Concerned that they are trying to reduce legal costs. Thinks if we are going to spend, a lot of fees to our own Attorney’s to fight you over a relatively small amount of money don’t know why we would do that. Want to have a better understanding of the type of money we are talking about. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 395 MR. SALVADOR-It may not be that small amount of money. Appraisals cost in the order of three to five thousands dollars depending on the complexity of property. Why do we have to do it again? COUNCILMAN BOOR-Doesn’t have the answer to this will look into this. MR. SALVADOR-Spoke to the board regarding his attendance at the Organizational Meeting on January 1 witnessed all of the board talking an Oath of Office. You took an Oath of Office to uphold and defend the Federal Constitution. SUPERVISOR STEC-Both the Federal and State Constitution. MR. SALVADOR-They are linked together by Fourteenth Amendment. Then you proceeded to pass a series of resolutions granting stipends to organizations. These organizations are what we call not-for-profits they are essentially private clubs. Read Article 8 of the New York Constitution, Section 1. SUPERVISOR STEC-I would disagree. That is a contract for services with those organizations. MR. SALVADOR-What services in this Town getting from these organizations? SUPERVISOR STEC-They are serving the needs of our people. MR. SALVADOR-Spoke to the board regarding the Code Enforcement Officer issuing a temporary CO to the Great Escape the purpose of the temporary CO is to train their personnel noting he has never heard a need for a CO for purposes of training personnel the personnel are not occupying that building. A CO is issued to allow you to occupy the building for the purpose that it was designed for Mr. Hatin’s issuance of that the temporary CO is frustrating the activities of the Planning Board. The Planning Board is now faced with trying to deliberate and determine have they made an honest effort to finish the pedestrian bridge when it comes to safety the pedestrian bridge is every bit a part of that project as the structure. Asked the Fire Marshal what his role was in granting the temporary CO for the Great Escape his answer what temporary CO. SUPERVISOR STEC-There are two Fire Marshal’s and I know that their boss Dave Hatin also issues so there are at least three individuals that I can think of that would issue a temporary CO. The guy you talked to might not be involved in this project. PLINEY TUCKER, 41 DIVISION ROAD-Spoke to the board regarding resolution authorizing contribution toward construction cost of Lake George Village Visitors Center asked what is being done there. SUPERVISOR STEC-That is the business center in Lake George Village. We have been asked along with every other Town in the County and I believe all the rest of the municipalities in the County have already taken action or are about to take action. To contribute towards the cost of one of REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 396 the rooms in this Visitors Center we would be able to use that for advertising the Town of Queensbury. It is an appropriate use of occupancy tax money. The Town Board has a detailed plan that we received late last week. MR. TUCKER-It comes out of the occupancy tax money. SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes. MR. TUCKER-Read in paper that the legal fees to the Attorney was quoted in one article at one seventy-five it was clarified that it was three hundred and seventy five asked for copy of their total bill for last year. SUPERVISOR STEC-You can foil that. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Point of clarification the Post Star kept calling me on this. The first article was not particularly accurate and the correction wasn’t accurate either here is what is accurate. The Town spends as I said to you last month spends about a thousand dollars a day that is roughly three hundred and sixty thousand dollars a year in legal expenditures. Of that, three hundred and sixty thousand approximately three hundred goes to our outside Attorney’s for the services that they provide to the Town. The Town of Queensbury as I mentioned as well has a Confidential Legal Secretary and it has miscellaneous legal expenses in-house that amounts to approximately sixty. Three hundred plus sixty is three hundred and sixty thousand so the correction stated that we pay the law firm three hundred and sixty thousand that’s not accurate. We pay them about three hundred thousand, but we also incur about sixty thousand in-house with our Confidential Legal Secretary and miscellaneous legal expenses. MR. TUCKER-Would like to get the breakdown of the total amount. SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay. PETER BROTHERS, WARD ONE-Spoke to the board regarding Mr. Salvador assessment case noting his concern with the time clock and the interest that might be accruing depending on what the amount is does not think the rest of the Town would want to bear anymore cost than necessary is hopeful this can be settled immediately. Spoke to the board regarding the funding for the West Glens Falls Rescue Squad. SUPERVISOR STEC-Will be considering resolution associated with that project later. MR. BROTHERS-Hopes that the board will look into financing arrangements with the bank. SUPERVISOR STEC-The Town does not finance any of these projects these are all privately funded through banks. I can’t think of an instance where the Town has ever financed any of these projects. BUDGET OFFICER, SWITZER-We can’t it is illegal for us to do that. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 397 SUPERVISOR STEC-We know what the debt is so we acknowledge that debt in their contract by giving them enough money in the contract to cover the debt. We are not responsible for the debt and it isn’t our debt. GEORGE DRELLOS, 27 FOX HOLLOW LANE-Spoke to the board regarding the public hearing and a moratorium. When you sit back and think what Queensbury has, we have the best of everything. Glens Falls would give their right arm for one box store that we don’t like. The sales tax that it generates the taxes that are paid how much money that you gave back to the people we have pretty much the best of both worlds. The main problem seems to be the office rezoning get together get it done if that’s what it takes rezone it. I hear of a moratorium that is ridiculous so many people depend on the building in Queensbury their livelihoods; I don’t know how long you think six months a year that’s wrong you can’t do that. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Any moratorium that would be contemplated would be strictly confined to the Professional Office Zone. MR. DRELLOS-You don’t even need that. There is no reason why you guys cannot get together get this thing settled noting he doesn’t like moratoriums it hurts the Town. SUPERVISOR STEC-I agree. MR. DRELLOS-Its time to sit back and look at what we really have here. I know the growth is there its part of it we have to live with it. We want the benefits of everything we do we have it here. The tax base the sales tax that we generate we are one of the lucky ones. TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS COUNCILMAN BREWER-Received two requests regarding stop signs would like to discuss these in a Workshop and an issue with drainage over at Morse Field would like to set a date to have Rick Missita come in the engineer to address these problems. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Will be meeting Mike Travis tomorrow at ten o’clock if you want to join noting he has three areas he would like to go over with him Homer Avenue, Queensbury Avenue. It looks like all of our concerns have a similar theme. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Thinks we should do it at a full Workshop. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-The Homer Avenue is on the Workshop for next week. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Then I will put mine on. Received letter and petition from residents on Caroline and Fifth Streets asking us to look at putting in a stop sign. The other stop sign is in Hudson Pointe that I would like to address. (Submitted letter to Clerk on record in Town Clerks Office) Asked Marilyn Ryba if they could get an answer from Dave Hatin regarding the issue on Brookwood Drive. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 398 COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s been taken care of they put in a new drywell. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Spoke to the board regarding the washout from Butler Pond, Thunderbird Drive area coming down in a constituent’s driveway noting he had a mound of mud on his driveway. Contacted Highway Superintendent, Rick Missita and Deputy Highway Superintendent, Mike Travis noting the next morning they came and cleaned it up. Spoke to the board regarding a tree falling over behind the State Troopers Office, which is our property onto a neighbor’s house. Contacted Chuck Rice, Superintendent of Building and Grounds the next morning they came over and took care of it appreciates the effort of the Town to back me up when I call for constituents. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Spoke to the board regarding the numerous phone calls he received regarding the flooding that took place with the recent rainstorm. One resident had six feet of water in their basement she has been communicating with me regularly. I think we might have some problems with culverts perhaps on Quaker Road and behind there is a tributary brook to the south of where her home is. Spoke with Dan and have scheduled this for the next Workshop. The Workshops are open to the public they are typically held in the Supervisor’s Conference Room so space can be somewhat limited, but imagine if it was too big and this room was, available we could go here. Any other interested people who are having problems with water flows and things of this nature, storm water problems they might want to attend this workshop. I will be meeting with the Highway Department to go into detail perhaps they will attend and hopefully get on this. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Spoke to the board regarding a recommendation from an individual on Tee Hill believes a stop sign might curtail the straightway speeding that has been taking place. There has been some talk with the Sheriff would like to take a harder look on what we got going there. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thanked TV 8 and Glens Falls National Bank for televising the Town Board Meetings. Spoke regarding the Town’s website www.queensbury.net. Spoke regarding time limit for public hearings noting there was a little confusion. Public Hearings we don’t limit the amount of time for comment. The five-minute rule is something that the Town Board imposes at our Privilege of the Floor. I will point out that the law certainly doesn’t require that we allow the public to speak at our meetings. To my knowledge, there are a lot of area municipalities that don’t allow the public to speak as openly or frequently as the Town of Queensbury does, but we do and we did impose a five-minute limit informally ourselves years ago. The public hearings comments are always transcribed verbatim. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION SETTING HEARING ON THE GLENS FALLS KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS’ APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE/WAIVER REQUEST FROM SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION REQUIREMENT CONCERNING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 989 STATE ROUTE 9 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 399 RESOLUTION NO.: 57, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board is authorized by Town Code Chapter 136 § to issue variances from 136-44 “Connection to sewers required” which requires Town property owners situated within a sewer district and located within 250’ of a public sanitary sewer of the sewer district to connect to the public sewer facilities within one (1) year from the date of notice, and WHEREAS, the Glens Falls Knights of Columbus (K of C) has applied to the Town § one-year extension Board for a variance/waiver from 136-44 for a of the Town’s connection requirements to connect its property to the Town of Queensbury’s Route 9 Sewer District, as the K of C states that it cannot afford the $15,500 expense to connect and the K of C’s current working septic system is relatively new (built in 1997) as more fully set th forth in the K of C’s December 30, 2005 application presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT th RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board will hold a hearing on February 6, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, to consider the Glens Falls Knights of Columbus’ sewer connection variance/waiver 989 State Route 9 application concerning its property located at , Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 296.13-1-22), and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to send the Notice of Hearing presented at this meeting to the Glens Falls Knights of Columbus as required by law. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of January, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING JENNIFER BAERTSCHI AS MEMBER OF TOWN HISTORIAN’S ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 400 RESOLUTION NO. 58, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury previously established and appointed members to the Town Historian’s Advisory Board in accordance with the Queensbury Town Code, and WHEREAS, the term of Advisory Board Member Jennifer Baertschi recently expired and the Town Historian has therefore recommended that the Town Board reappoint Ms. Baertschi to the Advisory Board, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby reappoints Jennifer Baertschi as a member of the Town Historian’s Advisory Board until Ms. Baertschi’s term expires on st December 31, 2006. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of January, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING PAUL DAVIDSON AND JOAN JENKIN TO BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW RESOLUTION NO. 59, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has previously established the Town of Queensbury Board of Assessment Review in accordance with the New York State Real Property Tax Law, and WHEREAS, the terms of Board of Assessment Review Members Paul Davidson and Joan Jenkin recently expired and both members have expressed interest in being re- appointed to the Board, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 401 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby re-appoints Paul Davidson and Joan Jenkin to serve as members of the Queensbury Board of Assessment Review with th terms to expire September 30, 2010 in accordance with New York State Real Property Tax Law §523. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of January, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION TO GRANT AWARD FOR CASE FILE #5072 IN CONNECTION WITH WARD 4 REHABILITATION PROGRAM RESOLUTION NO.: 60, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has established a Housing Rehabilitation Program which provides grants up to 100% of the cost of rehabilitation, up to a maximum of $20,000 per unit whichever is less, and WHEREAS, a single family property, Case File # 5072, has been determined to be eligible for rehabilitation grant assistance and the owner of the property has requested such assistance, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 262,2005, the Queensbury Town Board approved a rehabilitation grant in the amount of thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000) for Case File #5072, and WHEREAS, property rehabilitation specifications have been revised to include additional work, and WHEREAS, the revised cost to complete the work specified is nineteen thousand five hundred sixty dollars ($19,560) and is still the lowest acceptable cost, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 402 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves a grant for Case File #5072, Queensbury, New York, in an amount not to exceed nineteen thousand five hundred sixty dollars ($19,560) and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Executive Director of Community Development to execute a Grant Award Agreement and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of January, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AMENDING 2005 BUDGET TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS AND AMEND FUND BALANCE RESOLUTION NO.: 61, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Hiland Park Sewer District has incurred costs greater than originally budgeted for, and WHEREAS, the Hiland Park Sewer District has sufficient surplus fund balances and has met New York State Comptroller's requirements for the appropriation of fund balance during the fiscal year, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to increase appropriations and appropriated fund balance in the Hiland Park Sewer Fund, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves, authorizes and directs that the 2005 Budget be amended by increasing appropriations and increase Appropriated Fund Balance in the Hiland Park Sewer District Fund - Misc. Equipment Account No.: 34-8130-4425 in the amount of $1,427, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 403 RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town's Budget Officer to make any necessary adjustments, transfers, or prepare any necessary documentation to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of January, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2005 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 62, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the attached Budget Amendment Requests have been duly initiated and justified and are deemed compliant with Town operating procedures and accounting practices by the Town Budget Officer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer’s Office to take all action necessary to transfer funds and amend the 2005 Town Budget as follows: CONTINGENCY: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 001-1990-4400 001-6989-4400 50,000. (Contingency) (Economic Development) WASTEWATER: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 034-8120-2001 034-8130-4425 1,640. (Misc. Equip.) (Sewage Treatment – Glens Falls) WASTEWATER: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 032-8120-2001 032-8110-4300 3,317.80 (Misc. Equip.) (Electricity) REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 404 034-1950-4430 034-8130-4425 12.10 (Property Taxes) (Sewage Treatment – Glens Falls) 032-8120-4800 032-8120-1400-0002 314.37 (Equip. Repair and Service) (Laborer OT) 032-8120-4440 032-9040-8040 956.96 (Sewer Line Maint.) (Workers Comp. Ins.) 035-9710-7010 035-8110-4003 830. (Serial Bond Int.) (Fiscal Agent Fee) 032-9710-7010 032-9060-8060 11,993.63 (Serial Bond Int.) (Health Ins. Prem.) 032-8120-2300 032-8110-4130 321.28 (Metering Devices) (Town Counsel Fees) rd Duly adopted this 23 day of January, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRIBUTION TOWARD CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF LAKE GEORGE VILLAGE VISITORS CENTER ON BEACH ROAD, LAKE GEORGE RESOLUTION NO.: 63, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, by prior Resolution and Agreement the Queensbury Town Board provided in the 2006 Town Budget for the Town’s receipt of occupancy tax revenues from Warren County in accordance with the Local Tourism Promotion and Convention Development Agreement (Agreement) entered into between the Town and Warren County, and WHEREAS, the Agreement provides that specific expenditure of the funds provided under the Agreement are subject to further Resolution of the Queensbury Town Board, and WHEREAS, the Village of Lake George (Village) is constructing a Visitors’ Center (Center) on the corner of Beach Road and Route 9 in Lake George Village, and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Center is to promote, publicize and advertise the history, attractions and events of Warren County, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 405 WHEREAS, the Village has designated space in one of the Center’s rooms for use by all of Warren County’s municipalities, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury realizes the value of participating in the construction of this Center and preparing a presentation in the Center concerning the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to accordingly authorize a contribution of $7,125 toward the Center’s construction costs and the Town’s coinciding space within such Center, such amount to be from the Town’s occupancy tax revenues received from Warren County, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves and authorizes the contribution and expenditure of $7,125 toward the Village of Lake George’s Visitor Center on Beach Road in the Village of Lake George, such amount to be used toward the Center’s construction and preparation of a display about the Town of Queensbury to be erected in the Center’s Warren County Room, such sum to be from Warren County occupancy tax revenues received by the Town and to be paid for from Account No.: 001-6410-4412, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to forward a certified copy of this Resolution along with a letter and the Town’s $7,125 contribution to the Village of Lake George, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Budget Officer and/or Town Historian to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of January, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION DEFERRING FURTHER REVIEW OF OR ACTION ON PETITIONS FOR REZONING REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 406 RESOLUTION NO.:64, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 380,2002 the Queensbury Town Board adopted a policy regarding the processing of rezoning applications, and WHEREAS, approval of rezoning applications are legislative acts subject to the discretion of the Town Board, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 394,2005 the Town Board approved a contract with Saratoga Associates to update the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), Town Zoning Code and Subdivision Regulations, and WHEREAS, the revised CLUP may contain recommendations on future changes to the Zoning Code, including zoning districts, and WHEREAS, New York State Town Law §272-a(11) states that, “All town land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan,” and WHEREAS, the Town received six (6) petitions in November 2005 requesting changes in zoning district designation, and WHEREAS, the current 1998 CLUP does not contain any policy or other advisory language that address the petitioned zoning district changes, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby defers further review and action on the petitions for rezoning received by the Town in November 2005 until such time that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), Town Zoning Code and Subdivision Regulations Update Project is complete, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town of Queensbury’s Executive Director of Community Development and/or Senior Planner to notify the petitioners and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 407 rd Duly adopted this 23 day of January, 2006 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING PROPOSED INCREASE IN WEST GLENS FALLS EMERGENCY SQUAD INC.’S BUDGET FOR NEW SQUAD BUILDING AND AMENDMENT TO EMERGENCY SERVICES AGREEMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 65, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury and the West Glens Falls Emergency Squad, Inc. (Squad) have entered into an Agreement for emergency services, which Agreement sets forth a number of terms and conditions including a condition that the Squad will not purchase or enter into any binding contract to purchase any piece of apparatus, equipment, vehicles, real property, or make any improvements that would require the Squad to acquire a loan or mortgage or use money placed in a “vehicles fund” without prior approval of the Queensbury Town Board, and WHEREAS, the Squad previously presented to the Town Board a proposal to construct a new Squad building on the west side of Luzerne Road in the Town of Queensbury for a principal amount not to exceed $1.7 million and the Squad proposes to finance the construction project by acquiring a mortgage, and WHEREAS, the Squad has notified the Town Board of the need to increase the total project cost from $1.7 million to $1.75 million and the amount to be financed from $1.55 million to $1.6 million, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has determined that it is in the best interest of the Squad and Town residents to conduct a public hearing concerning the proposed amendment to the construction project and its financing, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall conduct a public hearing on th Monday, February 6, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 408 Road, Queensbury to consider the 1) West Glens Falls Emergency Squad, Inc.’s proposal to increase its new Squad Building’s total project cost from $1.7 million to $1.75 million; 2) the amount the Squad wishes to finance from $1.55 million to $1.6 million; and 3) the corresponding amendment to the Squad’s Agreement with the Town of Queensbury for emergency medical services, and at such public hearing the Town Board shall hear all interested persons and take such action required or authorized by law, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to post and publish a Notice of Public Hearing in the Post-Star Newspaper once at least ten (10) days prior to the Public Hearing, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that after such public hearing, the Town Board will consider adoption of a Resolution approving the Squad’s incurrence of financial obligations for the construction of the Squad building with the understanding that the Town shall not, by the adoption of any Resolution, create or intend to create any assumption on the part of the Town of Queensbury of any obligation or liability for such financing and a corresponding amendment to the Agreement between the Town and the Squad. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of January, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING PROPOSAL FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF SOFT COSTS RELATED TO NEW SQUAD BUILDING TO WEST GLENS FALLS EMERGENCY SQUAD INC. AND AMENDMENT TO EMERGENCY SERVICES AGREEMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 66, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury and the West Glens Falls Emergency Squad, Inc. (Squad) have entered into an Agreement for emergency services, which Agreement sets forth a number of terms and conditions including a condition that the Squad will not purchase or enter into any binding contract to purchase any piece of apparatus, equipment, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 409 vehicles, real property, or make any improvements that would require the Squad to acquire a loan or mortgage or use money placed in a “vehicles fund” without prior approval of the Queensbury Town Board, and WHEREAS, the Squad previously presented to the Town Board a proposal to construct a new Squad building on the west side of Luzerne Road in the Town of Queensbury for a principal amount not to exceed $1.75 million and the Squad proposes to finance the construction project by acquiring a mortgage, and WHEREAS, it is important to the Town Board in considering this Resolution that the total cost of the project not exceed $1.75 million and the Town Board hopes that the total cost is actually less than such amount, and WHEREAS, the West Glens Falls Emergency Squad plans on entering into a financing agreement for an amount not to exceed $1.60 million for twenty years at a rate to be determined, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board has determined it necessary and in the public interest to approve such construction contract to improve the provision of emergency services to the Town, and WHEREAS, the West Glens Falls Emergency Squad has spent certain funds towards the project for soft costs and has not yet closed on either its real estate or its financing, and WHEREAS, the West Glens Falls Emergency Squad has spent certain funds included in this $1.75 million project maximum costs and needs these funds to operate until the closings on the real property and on their financing occur, and WHEREAS, such amount shall not exceed $43,582, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to determine whether or not it is in the public interest to have this occur, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby sets a public hearing concerning the proposed amendment of the Town’s Contract with the West Glens Falls Emergency Squad, Inc., to authorize an increase in the Contract amount not to exceed $43,582, provided that such $43,582 is included in the $1.75 million amount and that this amount will be reimbursed when the above closings occur, with such public hearing to be held at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury at 7:00 p.m. on REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 410 th Monday, February 6, 2006 and the Town Board shall hear all interested persons and take such action required or authorized by law, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to post and publish a Notice of Public Hearing in the Post-Star Newspaper once at least ten (10) days prior to the Public Hearing. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of January, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS – TH WARRANT OF JANUARY 24, 2006 RESOLUTION NO.: 67, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve the audit of bills th presented as the Warrant with a run date of January 19, 2006 and a payment date of th January 24, 2006, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Warrant with a thth run date of January 19, 2006 and payment date of January 24, 2006 and totaling $1,759,985.90, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Budget Officer and/or Town Supervisor to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of January, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 411 NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING PROPOSED INCREASE IN STATE POLICE BARRACKS ADDITION CAPITAL PROJECT FUND NO. 155 RESOLUTION NO.: 68, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 538,2005, the Town Board authorized creation of the State Police Barracks Addition Capital Project Fund #155 and transferred into such Fund $80,000 from the Capital Reserve Fund #64, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 539,2005, the Town Board authorized and directed the Town’s Purchasing Agent to publish an advertisement for bids for the construction of such addition consistent with specifications prepared by the Town’s Facilities Manager, and WHEREAS, the Facilities Manager has advised the Town Board that the bids received by the Town thus far are above the original amount anticipated for this Project and therefore the Town Board wishes to withdraw and expend additional moneys from the Capital Improvement Plan Reserve Account in the amount of $6,000 to cover such increased bid amount, and WHEREAS, the total for the State Police Barracks Addition Capital Project Fund #155 after the additional transfer from CIP fund will be $86,000, and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Town’s Capital Improvement Plan Policy (CIP), the Town Board must conduct a public hearing before approving any specific Capital Project or increase in any specific Capital Project listed on the CIP, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall meet and hold a public hearing at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, th February 6, 2006 to hear all interested persons and take any necessary action provided by law concerning the proposed $6,000 increase in the State Police Barracks Addition Capital Project Fund #155, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 412 BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish and post a Notice of Public Hearing concerning the proposed Capital Project in the manner provided by law. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of January, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING VERIZON TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING CHARGES FOR DESIGN OF UNDERGROUND STRUCTURE TO ACCOMMODATE RELOCATION OF AERIAL VERIZON FACILITIES RESOLUTION NO.: 69, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, by previous Resolution(s), the Queensbury Town Board amended Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179 entitled “Zoning,” Article 4 entitled "Schedule of Regulations" by adding a new section 179-4-110 entitled “Underground Utilities Overlay District,” to create an Underground Utilities Overlay District in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town’s Executive Director of Community Development has presented the Town Board with a letter-form agreement from Verizon for engineering charges to design the underground structure to accommodate the relocation of aerial Verizon facilities, and WHEREAS, Verizon has offered to provide these engineering services for an amount not to exceed $8,350 as delineated in the letter-form agreement dated December th 28, 2005 presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs engagement of Verizon for the provision of the engineering and design services referenced REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 413 in the preambles of this Resolution and as delineated in Verizon’s letter-form agreement th dated December 28, 2005 presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes appropriations in the amount not to exceed $8,350 for these engineering services and directs that payment be paid from Engineering Consultant Fees Account No.: 001-1440-4720, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute any agreements or documentation and the Town Supervisor, Executive Director of Community Development and/or Budget Officer to take such other and further action necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of January, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT:None ABSTAIN: Mr. Sanford RESOLUTION ADJOURNING REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO. 70, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Regular Town Board Meeting. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of January, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT:None On motion meeting adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#3 01/23/2006 414 Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk Town of Queensbury