Loading...
1990-02-14 SP 107 SPECIAL TOWN BbARD MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 1990 4:10 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT Supervisor Stephen Borgos Councilman George Kurosaka Councilman Marilyn Potenza Councilman Ronald Montesi Councilman Betty Monahan TOWN ATTORNEY-Paul Dusek TOWN OFFICIALS Kathleen Kathe PRESS G.F. Post Star, W WSC WEST MOUNTAIN DISCUSSION Supervisor Borgos-Opened meeting introduced representatives from West Mountain and Lake Luzerne. The purpose of this meeting as I understand it is to review the proposal and counter proposals that have come out of the meetings between the Town of Lake Luzerne and the West Mountain Project Developers and further meetings held, I believe it was last week between myself and our Town Attorney, the Town Attorney for Luzerne, and the developers. All of the Town Board members should have in front of them the propose language, I believe with revisions is that correct Paul, I think the most recent document was with the revised language. Attorney Dusek-The most recent document actually included all of the revisions that had been added as an addendum included in the document as well, plus, the additional changes that have been most recently propose so this is a complete document now. Supervisor Borgos-That's what I wanted to be sure of. Again, legal counsel is here I'll ask for advise or recommendations. How would you propose we go through this in the most efficient way? Should we begin with the document we worked with when we met with the Developers last week item by item the propose changes from that which was previously approved which might make more sense? Attorney Dusek-I think that as I reviewed this, if I may just offer this as a recommendation to the Board, it seems to me that probably the most major issue in this agreement the most major change is in reference to Improvement Schedule appearing on Page 5, whereby the Developer in essence is asking to change or modify the phases in the project I think this seems to be the most serious one that has to be addressed. The other ones I think can be handled relatively quickly not to say that there is not going to be some questions or problems with the rest of the agreement, but while Dave is here this seems to be the biggest one. Attorney Persico-I think the first thing that we would point out is that I don't have it right in front of me, but Dana Broadway can pull it out, but the F.E.I.S. in the statement of the phasing does not engrave that in stone. It's a propose tentative phasing schedule it wasn't something that we're locked on. Attorney Dusek-Maybe we should address that point, I don't mean to interrupt you Dick. As you recall when we met I indicated I would research that issue which I have. For the Board's information as well as discussing it with you Dick, as I reviewed this matter I find that in our PUD Ordinance, 15.087 it says; that if the applicant wishes to stage his development and he has so indicated as per Section 15 whatever then he may submit only those stages he wishes to develop for site plan approval in accordance with his staging plan. Now, what the other section essentially refers to is that at the time you refer to your application it indicates that you will indicate whether or not it's going to be staged. When you read Section 15.087, it seems to indicate that this is the way it is to proceed under this law as I read it. I went back to your application to check it and there is a distinct phasing infact, it was added in the second supplement to the application where the distinct phasing plan was set forth in the application. It seems to me at this point there are two ways that this could be handled. One is that an amendment to the application could be conducted in which case you would have to go back through some of the proceedings if not all of them depending upon how SERRA falls into play. The second possibility is another section of the Ordinance 15.084 allows you at the time you go before the Planning Board for sketch plan to set forth a modification to the sketch plan proposal. If the the Planning Board at that point decides that the modification is a major 108 modification and not in keeping with the intent of the zoning resolution then they would reject it then you would still have to go back for the amendment. It would be their call in the first instance whether it's a minor or major amendment at that point that is my interpretation of this. The only other way this Board could address it, it would seem to me would be to treat it as an amendment and follow the procedure. Mr. Krzys-Just taking what you've just said in terms of how the zoning is we wouldn't be in for any difference in zoning, any difference in use, it's just the difference in timing so consequently if we were to go back to the Planning Board for that it seems to me that we're not changing anything we don't need variances or anything like that, our timing is different for economic reasons. It also says, it is my understanding of our contract, is that we built flexibility into the language specifically for problems like this so I'm just wondering based on that that we wouldn't be changing what we had approved under the PUD how this effects anything other than the Ordinance. _ Attorney Dusek-The problem I see is that in that case if your position is, which I think your perfectly allowed to take that position, to say that we feel it is not a significant change the problem with that is that you won't know the answer to that until you get before the Planning Board and they make the judgement call as to whether or not it is infact a major change. If they feel a difference in phasing is a major change then they are going to reject your sketch plan at that point. Attorney Krogmann-Let's remember we're crossing over two Town boundaries here. The staging in Queensbury may always remain the same, but you may as I understood the comments made when you appeared before Lake Luzerne choose to move into Lake Luzerne first or at a different time than contemplated now to construct some aspect of your project in Lake Luzerne before Queensbury, but your staging in Queensbury may remain the same. Attorney Persico-Paul, did you address that part in your research? Attorney Dusek-I'm looking from Queensbury prospective. Attorney Persico-Your not talking SEQRA your talking about a provision in your PUD Ordinance. Attorney Dusek-Correct. Attorney Persico-I think if we had intended to go out of sequence from the schedule as provided in the Town of Queensbury at some subsequent date and we came in before the Planning Board for a phase out of sequence let's accept your interpretation at this point the Planning Board would at that stage make the determination of whether or not amendments had to be made, otherwise they would accept it as minor and proceed with it. I think David's point is well taken, however, if we choose to do so in Luzerne then we would work under their rules and not necessarily under the Queensbury PUD Ordinance would that be understood? Attorney Dusek-I think the only issue now is whether SEQRA in some fashion would restrict us because of the studies that have been done and whether that has enforced that proposition. Attorney Persico-We said, if the need be this, is a language we proposed on that point. We brought it to that point and all we said is, we would comply with whatever SEQRA requirements must be complied with. Attorney Krogmann-Which means if you did that you may have to go not just to Lake Luzerne to site specific, but all the way back to a generic. Attorney Persico-We indicated that we may have to do that. Attorney Krogmann-Which then figures the agreement between the two municipalities and all those other things and it's just like we are right now maybe a year or two from now. Maybe we should give a little background to those who were not present at the Lake Luzerne meeting. What we really are talking about is there was a thought that came up that we all have this thing in line one through five in development and it might not necessarily go one through five. Four and five maybe Lake Luzerne's development and they may choose to take Phase 4 which might be development in Luzerne and make that one because the market conditions or whatever the case may be and it started to make Lake Luzerne think and we looked in the agreement and that's why the subject was discussed at that joint meeting Steve and Paul was at. Mr. Krzys-I think some of the history on this is that we started planning our next stage assuming we got approvals to get that funded and it's a very big next phase. It includes a large cost for infrastructure, well as you know the northeast is being wacked in the real estate market and dollars are very scarce right now. On the other hand, we started talking about what we had in Lake Luzerne and we started talking to some of the sources we've been talking too there was a sense that if the timing is bad now and that change is typical why don't you start something ln9 small that is easy Ito get to right off the main road in Lake Luzerne and fund something like that, that has some potential. This is more of an economic situation based on what happened to be the times right now which are pretty poor in terms of raising money for real estate projects. When we were at the Lake Luzerne meeting they started talking about this and we said, maybe we should put this on the table that this may be a better possibility or easier possibility to get funded today then trying to do this big thing up front that we really wanted to do. As we talked about it among ourselves we said, part of that would require that we would have to go after a different approach to sewer and water for example, run the sewer line all the way to Glens Falls to do 200 units of housing in Lake Luzerne would never fly, the numbers would never work financially so we would have to go back through SEQRA again, because that's different than what we proposed so we put into the language that we would have to back through the SEQRA process with Queensbury as lead agency so we would have to comeback here for that. Secondly, if we were to come in with something that was acceptable under SEQRA say, a . . .treatment plant that dropped water into a pond that we used for irrigation then dropped it into the Hudson River as an example, we don't know what the solution would be but, let's say a solution that would be acceptable under SEQRA that we would design the distribution system for water and sewer so it would tie in to what we already propose which is to go into Glens Falls and to do that at the point in time where the financing can be put together for that purpose. Otherwise, we're in a situation where as Mike has stated he has a piece of land that could never be developed until we develop Queensbury first with this tremendous infrastructure cost and when the times are bad economically it can't be developed. By the documents we have that would tend to be true if we go to strict interpretation of that so this is why we came up with this language based on what was discussed in Lake Luzerne as an alternative based upon economic conditions with the idea that we would still tie into the Glens Falls Sewer Treatment Plant still tie into the Water Plant as far as the distributions systems are done then we have to go back to the SEQRA process which means coming back to Queensbury as a lead agent and propose basically a different phasing plan and satisfy the conditions I think, the only conditions we have to satisfy are water, sewer, fire, and emergency services, and how do we address those to do something first in Lake Luzerne? Supervisor Borgos-Okay. The only thing I like to say at this point to clarify what happened at the meeting that all those items we're talking about now particularly this concept of change in phasing are brand new to us. The Town of Queensbury has not ever reacted officially to these proposals. It's not like we've said, no you can't do this you've got to come the other way. You came to use initially with your phasing, ideas, concepts, and that has been approved by the Town of Queensbury. We're faced with I think asking some questions and some discussion now what we did talk about the other day and I don't know if it's in here I don't see it the fact that if this started to be a piece meal project even though it's in Luzerne again, here is where the legal people have to get involved it came under one PUD, one SEQRA review. If it were to be 200 houses this year, and 200 houses next year, and then each year go 200 houses thereby avoiding the intent of the PUD that's a problem. If on the otherhand your going to talk 200 houses which would have been there anyway as part of your PUD and perhaps another segment of up to 200 houses so perhaps not more than 400 houses following the general plan that you've proposed before it really hasn't come before us before and I personally would have no problem with that. Councilman Kurosaka-I would just say, go ahead and make the change. Mr. Krzys-We're not talking about changing anything. Supervisor Borgos-Where it becomes a major change if you start to get up to 1,000 houses and we don't have the sewer line. Attorney Persico-Steve, we couldn't do that actually that's illegal segmentation and we wouldn't suggest doing anything like that. Supervisor Borgos-I think we reached that agreement the other day or that understanding but, the Board wasn't here and I think for their information they have to know that. I don't know and I have to rely on the legal people because undoubtedly the people on the outside will take something to court they always find something. If the language as proposed here is legal and appropriate if it is and is something we can respond to simply at a meeting like this or does this have to go back to public hearing because it's a revision of some of the intent perhaps of the original PUD or does it simply go to a regular public meeting with notice, I don't know? Attorney Dusek-I think we have a couple of issues that kind of all relate. I think Mr. Persico, Attorney for the Developer, has made a good point. I don't, there is anything really prohibiting them for starting their development in Luzerne providing that they cover their basis with SEQRA which he has done with this language. From a legal prospective I would have to say, I think it's workable in that instance. However, when they come into Queensbury depending upon how they decide to go with the phases if they want to stay with the same or whether they want to change that will be an issue that will have to someday be addressed. If they choose before the Planning Board or if they want they can always comeback and make an amendment Ito to their application and ask this Board to consider it. I think that, that is one element of this and I think that this fits in to the SEQRA process and I think it covers itself as far as not needing any further public hearings etc. There is a second part though in this language that was added which I was just talking to Dave briefly on. I would like to draw to the Board's attention that this language also says essentially that if it's financially impractical and it doesn't say who makes this determination or anything, but if it's financially impractical they get to use alternative systems for water and wastewater. I don't know how we get to that point, how it's determined, there are some questions there and I just want to bring that to the Board's attention. At this point I don't know if I can give you any solid advise as to what this really means and who makes these determinations. Supervisor Borgos-It says that they shall propose alternative methods. Does it imply that they will be permitted to use one or more? Councilman Monahan-That was my whole problem because I think the way this is worded it gives them a blank check. I don't know if the "shall" should be a "may" but, I think the whole thing gives them very much of a blank check and regardless of where they start to develop if it get much beyond the 200 houses or the 400 houses the impact is going to be on Queensbury's roads and on Queensbury's citizens and you can't take that away and they'll have half of the construction trucks going too. Supervisor Borgos-That's why I was anxious to have some kind of a limit. Mr. Persico pointed out that under the law your not permitted to do this segmented of development which would be a way around the PUD legislation. Mr. Krzys-We're not saying, Betty to have a waiver on what we have in the F.E.I.S. relative to traffic for example, we still have to satisfy all the things we talked about in traffic whether we start in Lake Luzerne or Queensbury we have a whole process set up where it's being monitored by a third party we're not saying we want to get around it those are things we already agreed on so from that standpoint I don't think that happens, I don't think our language suggests that. I think the other part is where the two things in all honestly that really get affected out of everything we've done are water and sewer not roads. Again, it's this tremendous infrastructure you've got 15 million dollars between just water and sewer to start a development of one house for example and that in someways impractical if the times aren't right to fund an 85 million dollar. . . In order to cover that so we're not in violation of any agreements we have with anyone for the purposes of water and sewer specifically which we outlined here because they are the big issues that we still have to go back through to Queensbury as a lead agent for SEQRA. �- Attorney Persico-And comply with any of your local ordinances. In otherwords your still in control of it. Even assuming we're going to do an early small phase for financial reasons therefore, we're not going to go through the expense of hooking up to Glens Falls obviously which has been the point Joe has made and we're going to do just a small system for waste disposal. At that point there is nothing in here that says in this language that you contracted to allow us to do that in any fashion that we want to do it. All it says is that we would come back to you propose that we want to do it differently and then we would have to comply with SEQRA to do it and we would have to comply with your Local Laws and Ordinances. Attorney Krogmann-The first hurdle would be the financial impracticality let's assume you get over that then you have to get a plan that the Town or Towns find acceptable. I'm not so sure I'm willing to consider the first or the second. Paul and I were discussing it, it seems to me what you may determine to be financially impractical may not be what the Town of Lake Luzerne feels is financially impractical. Do you feel that you could agree to language that the determination would be made by the municipalities based upon the financial information supplied by the project developer because the whole thing could stop right there? Mr. Krzys-How do you do that. I've contacted 75 financing institutions a year ago a whole bunch of them were interested, today they say their not touching anything in the real estate is that satisfactory? Attorney Krogmann-To me yes. Attorney Persico-What if we did suggest without consulting first it's difficult to say these things, but what if we had language in here to the effect that if we could demonstrate to your satisfaction that we have suffered impractical financial difficulties the project sponsor would come forth and has to demonstrate to your satisfaction. That's not like saying you have to make the decision in a sense you are based upon what we would come forth and show you the problems we're having. Attorney Krogmann-But, if you don't make that demonstration then we don't even get to the point of making alternative proposals you've got to make that demonstration before you get to the second door. Attorney Persico-That's the request that I had. Attorney Krogmann-That would be all right with me as Long as the Town has made a determination. Mr. Krzys-Having been there I already know who we contacted and I know what their reaction would be. Attorney Persico-We're not looking at just an arbitrary way that we could say, let's change the whole portion of the project by just telling these guys we got a practical problem with money we wouldn't get away with doing that. The process would be that we would have to tome forth and demonstrate to you and satisfy you that this is infact the case. I think we would do that as a matter of course. Supervisor Borgos-Let me just raise a practical concern and question maybe it could be addressed in language at this point. In such an event in order for the developer to be able to demonstrate this they would have to obviously show names and discuss contacts. I know if I were the developer I wouldn't want the world to know who I've been talking too or what dollars we're talking about that's confidential propriety information. My concern is under the freedom of information law and open meetings and so forth is there a way to safe guard that specific kind of material and assure the confidentiality of it? I know the public is obviously concern because to a large extent the public will be impacted by development or no development and the public is entitled to know with some assurance that what was presented is really good information. How can that be accommodated and still keep some confidentially because if things like that leak out. Attorney Persico-For one thing you don't put it in writing. Attorney Krogmann-I think it can be. I think the confidential information is in their possession and they're releasing it under certain conditions that's contractual to be bound by that. Supervisor Borgos-If possible I like to see us bound and everybody bound by that. Attorney Persico-I'm not worried that we can demonstrate that this kind of financial matter n the form of a trade secret concept is excluded from the open meetings. >upervisor Borgos-Somehow I like some assurance so you don't destroy your project by having somebody in the audience and say, prove it to us. Attorney Persico-I think most agencies even the Adirondack Park Agency honors that confidentiality on the project sponsors, financial resources. Supervisor Borgos-I just wanted to raise that issue because I can see it coming up. Attorney Dusek-I agree that I can see some language put in. It is my recollection to a section of the law that covers that and are exemptions to that. Councilman Kurosaka-Without being a lawyer reading it, it sort of covers it. But, I do want to clarify that financial impracticality. Attorney Krogmann-I could go along with the. . .of showing of financial impracticality. Attorney Persico-What if we said, it would be financially impractical to the satisfaction of the Town Boards based upon information provided by the project sponsor and shall be treated confidentially to the extent allowable under the laws. Supervisor Borgos-That sounds good to me. Councilman Monahan-We have this inter-municipal agreement between us and the Town of ,uzerne this is going to happen in Luzerne they may be entirely in agreement we may see t lot of problems coming down the road as far as Queensbury and where do we stand with that nter-municipal agreement if we want to throw a monkey wrench into things to put it very bluntly? Supervisor Borgos-We have to hear from the attorney's. Attorney Persico-That's what the SEQRA process is for. Supervisor Borgos-If it gets to that point the SERRA process kicks in automatically we trigger it. 112 Councilman Monahan-And the SEQRA process kicks in, but I still wonder if were protecting our Town enough. Supervisor Borgos-I have to leave it to the three attorney's in the room. Councilman Monahan-That is something that they are going to have to look at very closely. Mr. Krzys-My sense is that SEQRA takes for both Towns with one Master Plan. The Master Plan is not changing we're not saying we're going to have different uses, different densities, we're not saying were going to have any of that it's the same Master Plan that's already been scrutinized by the public under the SEQRA Law. We're saying that if we're going to modify any of that let's say we were to come into Queensbury forget that we're going to go into Lake Luzerne. . . T Councilman Monahan-I'm more concerned if you go into Lake Luzerne because I think we can control Queensbury, but what you do in Luzerne is going to affect Queensbury and your going to affect the future of the project. Mr. Krzys-But, I think Betty what we're trying to do is to anticipate the fact that we have an impact on Queensbury by what we do in Lake Luzerne and that's why we put in you as lead agency to have another chance at review of the project by us having to comeback to you if we modify anything at all that's in the SEQRA process that's already been accepted. To be honest about it the one thing we're talking about is traffic, I think the rest of the other things that's where we'd go in for changes for it would be water and sewer all the rest of the things aren't changing it's just the order in which we're doing things. As a matter of fact if we were to build the whole project starting in Lake Luzerne and go backwards by some reason if that happened we'd end up with the same project and we already investigated all the impacts on that other than the order in which we're doing it for water and sewer when you really get down to the practicality of it. We have to comeback on anything if we came back and started generating more traffic than we talked about you've have a shot at us with the SEQRA process all over again. Supervisor Borgos-Water and sewer are two major issues. I believe you said to us at the meeting the other day when you for instance did a 200 lot subdivision early if you continued to build out pass that it would always be designed so that could then be hooked up into the sewer system as originally planned? Attorney Persico-Sure. --- Supervisor Borgos-Same with the water. The water is suppose to come from Queensbury the sewer is suppose to go to Glens Falls that would still be the concept. I think Mrs. Monahan has said that when you reach that magic number probably 400 it sounds like a good enough number as any after that you're going to have to for the sewer and the water there just wouldn't be exemptions pass that point. But, your saying when you get at that point your probably pretty comfortable the economy is in good shape probably long before that point. Mr. Krzys-If you look at a couple of things Steve, what we're attempting to do in Queensbury is unusual from a development standpoint. You have your commercial developers and you've got combination commercial inter-tangled with residential, a ski area, golf course all those are tied into one building. There are only a handful of people in the United Stated that would fund something like that and they are right now saying, let's see how the economy changes. That's part of the difficulty in the Queensbury thing is that there are only a handful of people in the United States that know how to fund that. We've talked to foreign parties they're are a lot of those their sort of staying back and saying let's see what happens in the northeast if this was California it would be a different ball game and it's not California. The other thing is because it's unusual it's hard to do in the first place and we have interest. But, also if we start the other way part of what makes the whole thing work that large body of land you don't know how many residential units in it is a fact that this other thing is in place we will be trying to sell houses and lots there for fifty years without putting this other piece in place. The whole thing works because we came in with a PUD where everything feeds everything else and makes it all work as one huge entity. (taped turned) -- Councilman Montesi-With economic times in mind if you are looking at starting a project and having a certain number as you pointed out Steve two, three, four hundred living units, whatever that number is that would be built without water and sewer connections wouldn't that in essence wouldn't that rear as evidence and let's say you've based your whole SEQRA on not putting any effluent into the ground not putting any wells into the ground and you've changed that for four hundred units now doesn't that trigger something? One of my concerns was that we are dealing with 48 inches of topsoil and then we're on rock I don't remember it geologically, but there is a lot of justification for going municipal. 113 Mr. Krzys-I don't think we're talking about septic systems now because they won't allow us to do anything else with the septic systems either. Councilman Montesi-I'm saying anything that you do and I'm not arguing for or against it, but I'm saying anything that you do other than water and sewer we've pretty much said in our SEQRA that we're not going to put any effluent into the ground here to speak of and we're not going to take anything out of the ground if we change that doesn't that change the whole SEQRA concept? Supervisor Borgos-That's what we've been asking the attorney's to look at. I think I hear them saying no, because if they do change that they've got to comeback to us and go through the public hearing process making that adjustment and they may not get the approval. Councilman Montesi-If they have to do that then it does change something. Supervisor Borgos-It's not an automatic approval. Councilman Monahan-What your saying is if they go to the two or four hundred and phase it other than we approved they've got to start amending the SEQRA document right off the bat. Supervisor Borgos-Right. Attorney Persico-If that is going to occur in Luzerne that's what continues to give this Town over here Queensbury a continuing handle on that. Attorney Dusek-There are two points here. One, is to change phasing sequence, the other point is dealing with the water and sewer primarily. If the Developer is saying essentially that before he did any changes to the sewer or water improvements that are planned under this development as they now stand which our aimed going to Glens Falls and taking from the Queensbury Water Plant which the developer is saying that he'll do two things before we ever do that. One, is comeback to the Board and demonstrate some sort of financial hardship and second, put in a proposal for a change. In otherwords if he is going to go through those two stages then the Board at that point will have an opportunity to review it and review the SEQRA impact in which case I think that will also have some affect on their ability to start in on any phase anyway so you might have enough protection there if that was the case. Supervisor Borgos-Do you feel comfortable with the language as written. Attorney Dusek-No. One of the changes I guess that they want to propose is that it's saying that if it would be financially impractical to the extent or demonstrated to the satisfaction. Attorney Persico-I would propose it would read, if in the event of such modified staging of the project it would be financially impractical, as demonstrated by the Developer to the satisfaction of the Town involved, to implement and then continue. Supervisor Borgos-How about to the parties hereto. If we have the parties hereto then both Town Boards know what's going on. Attorney Krogmann-The first thing you said I think sounded better. Here's what I think you said. It would be financially impractical, as demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Town Board supplied by the project Developer which information shall be treated as confidential the extent allowable by law and then pick up the language. Supervisor Borgos-I think you just said Town Board singular rather. . . Attorney Perscio-I said to the Town involved. Supervisor Borgos-I think it should be plural or parties hereto, so if there is a concern so that nobody thinks that anybody else is doing anything. It may be ten years from now and we won't be here that both Town Boards find out about it and treat it confidential and things can be handled to the next step which would then become very public. Councilman Montesi-Obviously maybe it sounds to simple or maybe I'm being naive, but is an impractical situation one where nobody would give you a loan? Supervisor Borgos-Yes. Councilman Montesi-Does that mean impractical or does that mean impossible? Supervisor Borgos-I think you would have to demonstrate through some correspondence or something that you indeed did contact you just can't sit back there and say, well we don't think 114 anyone has money. , Councilman Montesi-If the rates started being 18 and 19 percent that impractical because of the return on the investment. Supervisor Borgos-It would take less evidence in my mind under that scenario then if the rates went down and you have a 6 percent interest rate and then you comeback and say you can't fund it then I would need a little more evidence. My question even if and I hope we can resolve some language here in a minute if we can resolve the language Paul, is that enough for us to resolve it to our satisfaction today and accept this by some kind of resolution or does this become something of a larger issue that has to go to a public hearing? Attorney Dusek-I think depending upon how this is exactly worded in the end here when we're done I believe you will not need a public hearing as I sense the way it's going. What their saying is that if and when we want to do something we have to comeback to you to get your permission and we have to do such and such well at that time that would trigger all public hearings because this would not effectively change the project until they did that. Supervisor Borgos-So were really just clarifying language. Attorney Persico-Let me bring on a procedure here Paul, based upon a contingency in the future and if that contingency comes into play then we will as you just said have to go through all the appropriate and required processes at that time. All we're doing now is agreeing to a contingency plan of action should it occur, but we're not saying that is going to happen therefore why would everyone go back and re-invent the wheel. Councilman Monahan-I think maybe we should give Paul and Dave a little time to work on this language and perhaps not try to do it all today. Supervisor Borgos-We obviously don't want to vote on anything or do anything without being sure for everybody's sake. But, if I had assurances from the attorney's that their prepared I'd be willing to move ahead. Mr. Krzys-Paul, what is your other language besides that. Supervisor Borgos-What else would you recommend in this section. Attorney Dusek-Well, I guess as I'm thinking this out as we speak right here, I wonder if the entire clause ought to be rewritten in essence to indicate that this is a procedure that will be followed in the event that such and such arises. In otherwords, the way it's framed now maybe make it clear that there will be a two step procedure which you can probably do if we take five or ten minutes to rewrite it. Attorney Persico-I think we're very close to saying that right now actually. Attorney Dusek-I think so too. Supervisor Borgos-Do you want to take the five or ten minutes now and have that done with and see how much discussion there is on others rather than have to comeback to it in 2 hour from now and try to remember what we're talking about? Attorney Krogmann-It sounds good to me. Attorney Dusek-I think this is the major issue. Supervisor Borgos-Do you three guys want to go to another room? Why don't we just take a break because I rather have you here for anything we discuss very honestly related to West Mountain and we promised West Mountain up front these issues. (Recess called for so Attorney's Dusek, Persico, and Krogmann to do revisions) Supervisor Borgos-Ready to go back on the record. Have you reached a decision on what the language might possibility sound like? Attorney Krogmann-If I may I guess I was the ascriber. I think this was subject to everyone's final review and review of the Board members here is the general language I think that we propose to you. First of all, we're creating a new paragraph 5 (a) and we're going to call if Re-Phasing. That paragraph as pi, pose will read as follows: If for financial reasons and good cause shown as demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Town Boards based upon information supplied by the Project Developer the sponsor may undertake 115 subject to compliance with all local laws, regulations, and ordinances, the project in a phase sequence that is the modification of the phases described in the project application and the F.E.I.S. It is understood that the sponsor may proceed to do so subject further to appropriate modification of the F.E.I.S. as may be required by law. The approval of the Town Boards shall not be unreasonably withheld and all financial informations supplied by the sponsor shall be treated as confidential to the extend allowable by law. If in the event of such modified phasing of the project it would be financially impractical to implement any of the improvements or infrastructure described herein particularly with respect to the water supply and wastewater disposal systems which impracticality shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Town Boards the Developer shall propose alternative methods with regard to such improvements subject to compliance of all local law, regulations, and ordinances, to serve the propose phase and the sponsor shall be required to comply with all SEQRA requirements and all other State and Local requirements. The approvals of the Town Boards shall not be unreasonably withheld and all financial information supplied by the sponsor shall be treated as confidential to the extent allowable by law. Supervisor Borgos-The only thing that's missing there and I don't know if you want to put in a real limit of the ultimate number of structure let's say, four hundred that could under any circumstance be built this way. Councilman Montesi-You might be superseding yourself there because I think the State Law mandates that you can't have more than fifty units in a subdivision without reasonable water. Supervisor Borgos-They've already said that their going to have to go to a private central water supply to do their two hundred units. We're concerned that when you get to four hundred you get concerned about more than the water and sewer then you get really at the limit where traffic kicks in. Mr. Krzys-I think to maybe give an example to something relative to this. There is a point in time and I don't know what the number is and your putting in your own private system if that is the way it should proceed and we get through all the approvals if there is a sufficient number of houses that are on line with the system that is designed to tie into say, Glens Falls for sewer when you hit that number of houses that will trigger enough carry costs because that many houses have been in to pay off any bonds that would be required in order to fund something like that. The number four hundred may be to low, maybe to high, I don't know what the number is, but financially to take that piece of development and tie all the way into Glens Falls is going to be based on what are the numbers at the time, what is the cost at the _. time, and how much debt can that carry in terms of the fundings from bonds. Supervisor Borgos-That's why it made sense to start from the Queensbury side where the water is the shortest and then as you keep going you would do it. I think the reverse now is going to be a little hard to measure. Mr. Krzys-My sense is what will happen either the financing mechanisms will determine what that is because when we start to design this system we have to say; at what point in time do we trigger going into Glens Falls for example, and how many units do we have to have on line and I don't know what that is we haven't figured out all the numbers. I think to pick a number and limit it. . . Supervisor Borgos-I think you would find the number 1,500 would sound good. Mr. Krzys-If your looking to put it in what is it going to take for example in the bondings. Under any kind of bonding they give you a certain number of years where all your doing is paying interest only and your not really advertising anything. Basically the interest is built into the bond itself so your really not funding anything while you get started. There is a number, but I don't know what the number is that says right now you can start to amortize and carry a bond without having that grace period. Supervisor Borgos-That's the financing side of it. The other side is the environmental impact and the mitigation of the traffic. Mr. Krzys-That's already covered by SEQRA. Attorney Persico-I don't see what we're saying here is really a lot more than just pointing out in advance that we may have to do some amendments down the road. All we wanted to do is get a recognize of that, that this contingency could happen and is not precluded. If that contingency should occur and we decide we have to do some rephasing and reworking of the improvements we have to go :.hrough the way it's all been reworded, all the process of SEQRA, local laws, state laws, and ev, thing. There is ordinarily no number restriction on that except to the extent the laws may ini;,ose them. All we're saying is that we would be subject to all the rules and regulations. . . its r Supervisor Borgos-Let me ask the members of the Queensbury Board first. Do you have any concerns about that and if not we'll ask the members of the Lake Luzerne Board? Councilman Monahan-I've got a question. Knowing how we change our local laws and ordinances a lot as we get smarter about environment and a few things like that if they comeback in for rephasing are any new laws and ordinances we pass going to hold? Attorney Krogmann-We've discussed that. Attorney Dusek-We have a whole paragraph in there that says; except as to density. Councilman Monahan-All right, but we're changing the ball game here so I want to make sure that we're not doing anything. Attorney Dusek-It would be my opinion Betty, for the record that even if they came in on a phasing and changed it in that fashion the local laws and etc. would apply to the same extent that they currently applied to as a whole. Supervisor Borgos-Any other member of the Queensbury Board have a concern? Councilman Montesi-When we start this process PUD the first thing that we have to deal with is do we like the concept and are we going to rezone. Both we and Luzerne have to deal with that, do we like the idea of what we're doing here. Once we got through the conceptual thing we went through this SEQRA process and we studied phasing and stuff like and I understand that things are subject to change. But, we're actually making changes now and I'm not saying I'm opposed to it I'm just offering it for discussion we're actually making changes on what are the marketing conditions going to be. Do we really need to deal with that is this part of what should be our problem you come in and we like the concept and we say, gee your going to put water lines in , sewer lines in, your going to do this within the framework of that concept we liked everything and we went through a whole process. One of the kickers that's coming out of this meeting tonight appears to me and it's an unfortunate thing is that market conditions have changed and therefore when we have to change a lot of these potentially have to change a lot of the thoughts that we had about this project right here and now we're doing that tonight. It's conceivable that if no funding is available we may have a four hundred unit subdivision sitting in Luzerne just single family houses. Mr. Krzys-That is still consistent with what we gave to Lake Luzerne in terms of the use and _ density it's not inconsistent. We're still going with the same plan, the same concept, we're not asking for a shift in the concept of the plan we're just saying that within that concept we may have to do things in a difference basis for the timing standpoint. Supervisor Borgos-We're not here tonight or even when we adopt this agreeing in advance to any particular kind of sewer system or water or anything else. All we're saying is that if something happens, I think market conditions will be April 1st, if something happens they can come in and make some changes. I guess I'm coming up with a fast answer because we spent hours with this last week. Attorney Krogmann-I think the answer is also that we're trying to create a document that is going to have enough flexibility to guide a lot of people for twenty years and most of the people sitting here will not be here for the majority of those twenty years. Supervisor Borgos-Hope fully your correct. Attorney Krogmann-It's almost trying to draw a draft or constitution or bylaw, you want to make it tight enough, but have enough flexibility to accommodate any changes. Attorney Persico-We have a provision actually that contemplates that this is a long term project to be built out of a long period of time there is apt to be changes we can't anticipate everything in advance. In a sense I was just whispering to Joe, this provision we're talking about now would of really of flowed right in that context that your putting it. This is just recognizing that things can change over that long period of time. Attorney Krogmann-What I like as far as Lake Luzerne is there is a lot of "subject to approvals of Town Boards" in there it not only helps us, but helps your subsequent Boards whoever those fortunate people are to serve in your position. Supervisor Borgos-How about Lake Luzerne Supervisor, Board members, any comments about this section? Does that language look good at this point so we could proceed to something else? Supervisor Grant-I would have to believe that David is comfortable with it we will be i17 comfortable with it. Supervisor Borgos-Your taking the same position I'm taking. Councilman Potenza-I think the checks and balances are here, I don't have a problem with the wording. Councilman Kurosaka-I don't have a problem with it either. Attorney Dusek-I think it is important to note that the way it's now worded as Dave has mentioned it now comes back again. Nothing is just all of a sudden happened, it does, however, open the door to the issue of rephasing and it does if they prove their case and follow the rules - and regulations it does put you in a position or the subsequent Boards in the position that your going to have to make some adjustments. I guess the other, which has been kind of said, is that PUD such as this over a period of twenty years, has gotten document elsewhere, that flexibility is needed and whether I guess we like it or not there is somewhat of a marriage going on here between the Town and the Developer and although the Town Board wants to protect the Town as much as it can to make sure that it doesn't somehow lose out in the process the Developer also has like concerns and this is where we kind of come together on the terms. Supervisor Grant-How do you feel, do you feel comfortable? Lake Luzerne Board member-I'm with you we have an attorney there that says it's alright that's good. Councilman Deihl-I think the key word in my mind is phasing that doesn't change anything whether you start here or there in any process whether it's this one or another one I think the key word is "phasing". I think we have a lot of language here that covers that word and I'm happy with what they've reached. Supervisor Borgos-Okay. We have fifteen minutes left which other one or two topics would you want to hit we obviously are not going to get through this tonight. Supervisor Grant-Let's just talk about the firehouse. Supervisor Borgos-Remember what page? Councilman Potenza-Page 18, M. Supervisor Grant-If this project continues and we all hope it will continue. We feel very strongly Steve, that this fire station should be in the Town of Lake Luzerne. We say this for the reasons of there is a mountain between you and I, and we are on the other side of the mountain, and we are there. Now, if the one time only that there should be a horrendous storm and if this station was in Queensbury and maned by Queensbury Fire Department there could be a problem in the past it has shown that it was a problem. That one time instance only could be a matter of survival or not survival and we feel very strongly that there will be and can be good cooperation between our fire districts and your fire districts, but we also feel with the input of our own people in the Hadley Luzerne Fire District that should be there first. Supervisor Borgos-Let me say this, I guess we've said it in public a hundred times and certainly with the Developer. We've said since the first day since the first phase was going to be in Queensbury and sense it was at the top of the mountain just to be sure that response could be there quickly and to the right magnitude we've said there must be a fire station we've said it should be in Queensbury because that is where the development is going to be. We said in recognition of the fact that the mountain is there and knowing that we can't get people from down below up to the top fast enough that the Developer should be required to have their own people trained to the level of satisfaction to the fire department and rescue squad to responsed quickly and much like an industrial fire brigade that was all agreed too. It was further stated in the contract that at such time as the development reached the right magnitude in the Town of Lake Luzerne the Developer has agreed to put in a satisfactory fire station and rescue squad in Luzerne. I would have no problem if the development indeed starts in Luzerne have them build the first station there and as soon as they start in Queensbury come in here. We're covered already as I pointed out at the meeting last week and handed out copies of under the Warren County Mutual Aid Plan all of these fire companies and districts already subscribe to that so if the fire stations in Queensbury regardless of where the alarm comes there is automatic mutual aid response would cover at no cost to the Town of Lake Luzerne all the calls up there until your people get there and take over. Supervisor Grant-I understand that, but at the same time to be realistic if two hundred homes were started in the Town of Lake Luzerne and if that station was built in the Town of Lake Luzerne it would not be feasible for a? firehouse to be built in the Town of Queensbury under 118 those circumstapces being that there is adequate service there for both communities. But, I'm not saying that within the twenty year time of this development or whatever the time is completed by the Developer there shall maybe not be two stations I don't know that. Supervisor Borgos-I think everybody has said up front that at full buildout there should be two stations. Supervisor Grant-I can understand that. I'm just saying that for the safety of the project and for the safety of Queensbury and the Town of Lake Luzerne, I think at first we would be in a better situation to man that mountain than the Town of Queensbury. Supervisor Borgos-I know from response point of view it would probably take the same amount of time. Supervisor Grant-It no doubt would, but I'm just using that one scenario of that one time that you can't get up Cormus Road. Supervisor Borgos-I lived through that at one time my neighbor died and the whole bit. Supervisor Grant-That's what I'm saying in that one scenario should be enough to say. . . Supervisor Borgos-That's what brought that to my concern that's why we insisted. . . Supervisor Grant-We feel very strongly about that. Supervisor Borgos-We do too. There has to be a station up there where the fire load is and if it starts in Luzerne first and there are two hundred houses and Luzerne feels that two hundred houses need another firehouse that's up to you to work out with the Developer. I think that provided for in the contract already certainly if the hotels are in Queensbury your going to need one in Queensbury for response. Councilman Montesi-We have a Queensbury Central Fire Company and it covers "x" amount of square miles and "x" amount of population. Obviously we have two Town lines to deal with, but isn't one firehouse enough on top of the mountain to cover it. Councilman Kurosaka-It's West Glens Falls Fire Company. Councilman Montesi-I know that, but I'm saying is one firehouse on top of the mountain no matter where it is enough to cover the needs of a 2,700 unit village? Supervisor Borgos-It depends on the configuration. Councilman Montesi-Your asking the contractor the Developer to build two. Would you the community go out and spend money to build two we're spending the Developers money. Councilman Monahan-It's not the number of houses it's the area. Mike how much area is that land in square miles? Mr. Brandt-4-21 square miles. If you have 72 square miles in Queensbury and you have it covered by five departments. Supervisor Borgos-With about nine fire stations say about 8 square miles. Mr. Brandt-So we're half of that. Supervisor Borgos-But, you also have different uses. Councilman Monahan-Terrain too. Supervisor Borgos-You have proposed concentrations of hotels and downtown amusement development. Councilman Montesi-You might have them sprinkled so that's one of the things he wouldn't have. Supervisor Borgos-I think we pointed out and the Developer has agreed already to retain a fire consultant and that's in the language to help that. We did agree already that if the demand is there in Luzerne they'll build another station we didn't specify any sizes on that or the other one. I believe this was hashed out a couple years ago certainly it would be foolish and I go on record saying that to build a fire station in Queensbury day one with no development in Queensbury with the only development in Luzerne that doesn't make any sense at all. The 119 development may never come to Queensbury, but as soon as development starts in Queensbury there should be a station right there near those hotels, near those major concentrations of people and burnable material called a fire load. Councilman Montesi-Let me just ask a question. Let's, assuming that the phasing is such that they put a vehicular and hotel up first and we follow the scenario that Luzerne has some very strong feelings about the very first station should be in Luzerne. Let's say it is within a L" mile if the Town line is there and that station be built in Luzerne could Luzerne contract with that portion of the Town of Queensbury for fire? Supervisor Borgos-That's covered under Mutual Aid Plan. Luzerne would be required automatically if requested by the Chief of West Glens Falls automatically every alarm would have to be a mutual aid response. Councilman Montesi-Would they pay a tax to the Town? Supervisor Borgos-No. Councilman Montesi-What I'm saying is if they build the firehouse there in Luzerne their going to be the primary source of protection. How do you pay these people? Supervisor Borgos-The taxpayers in each Town. . . Supervisor Grant-That's contracted between the fire district. Supervisor Borgos-No. Supervisor Grant-I have to think so with us it is. Supervisor Borgos-Under the mutual aid plan anybody who calls in the County and that's covered under State Agreement (taped turned) so that, that the full time 24 hours a day year round there is no charge. Councilman Montesi-How would the Luzerne Mountain Fire Company whichever fire company if there is only one maintain the building on top of West Mountain if the development is in the Town of Queensbury they have to provide protection for that by mutual aid their tax base there is nothing that is going on because Phase I is all in the Town of Queensbury. — Supervisor Borgos-Thais right they- would have trouble because the Luzerne taxpayers would have to pay for it. Councilman Montesi-I'm not being argumentative I'm just saying if I wanted to go with Vic and say, okay let's put the fire company there it doesn't matter to me, I don't see how we could do it. Supervisor Borgos-That's again, why it made sense if the development is in Queensbury that extra tax base supports that station then automatically provide the service to Lake Luzerne at no charge. Councilman Potenza-When you say, "that development", how much of that development are you talking about. Are you talking about two hundred homes to be considered that development are your talking about the funicular and a hotel being a part of that development? Supervisor Borgos-This is where we go back to the phasing when it was presented to us we were talking about a hotel or two hotels with a big downtown development with maybe two hundred houses all in Queensbury the firehouse has to be there right at the beginning of construction so that you can respond. Councilman Potenza-Now because of economic conditions the phasing has changed? Councilman Kurosaka-It hasn't changed. Councilman Potenza-It may. Councilman Montesi-You may have nothing in Queensbury and four hundred houses in Luzerne. Supervisor Borgos-Then it's up to Luzerne to tell us under the terms of this agreement if a fire station is needed by their recommendations. Councilman Potenza-It's hard for me to understand why a development of 2,700 homes or units would require two fire stations. To me conceptual I have a hard time handling that. I know you talk about terrain, I know you start about everything else, but your looking at 72 square 120 miles in the Town of Queensbury and we certainly have mountains. We go from A to Z and types of homes, styles of homes, location of homes, and then terrain. I think that a well-manned fire station and emergency station can handled 2,700 units. I think where we're boiling down to now is where is this fire station going to be and from what I understand with the discussion it depends on where the first phasing is going to occur and they can't tell us and we can't tell them so maybe something should be written in the document that says, upon the acceptance of where Phase I begins be it Phase A-Z or whatever perhaps that should be the consideration to where the firehouse goes. Supervisor Borgos-I'm not going to play the role of a fire consultant at this moment, but if you build two hundred homes in Luzerne on normal terrain you probably don't need a new station except maybe a satellite. Councilman Potenza-That's right. Councilman Montesi-Steve, just back me up with something because you know this better than I do. But, if I remember my history right a Queensbury Central Fire Company the reason they wanted the additional firehouse up on Aviation Road was so they could get to the mall where they thought there was a congestion of people more quickly than they could from down here on Foster Avenue. Supervisor Borgos-When that was built the mall wasn't known then, but the Northway was the divider and the concentration of traffic around the Northway was the problem and it's work out with the satellite theory. West Glens Falls is working with a satellite, Bay Ridge now has a satellite. Councilman Monahan-I know that Bay Ridge wanted the satellite at Glen Lake because those places over there are on unusually small lots and if one of them catches on fire they were worrying about a whole neighborhood going. It is isn't just the area that your looking at or the number of homes your looking at the conditions within a certain area. Supervisor Borgos-That's why you need a consultant. Supervisor Grant-Let's go back to the phase of listening to this consultant and then I think we can talk about it again. Supervisor Borgos-I understand and with this new phasing in mind I'm personally very flexible with this phasing concept in mind. Mr. Krzys-I think a couple things are that Mike's and my concerns are probably somewhat the same as everybody's else's. Marilyn we met with the two fire departments the chiefs came down Glens Falls brought. . .with them to talk about this. What the big concern was is that if there was a fire and the firehouse is in Queensbury and Lake Luzerne gets there first they can't take the fire engines out because they don't have any legal authority to do so. Mike and my concern is, so we're going to let some house burn down while we're waiting for Glens Falls to show up if Lake Luzerne gets there first. That's where he identified the fact that we're going to have trained fire fighters that we already agreed to do and we agreed to that because it made sense that they would be part of that fire department which had jurisdiction where the building is so they could drive the trucks regardless who got there first and get to the fire fist. Then whatever fire department shows up by the mutual aid my understanding is that Fire Chief who gets there first through by . . . controls what happens at that point until the other one shows up. The second thing has to do with the rephasing that your talking about. Supervisor Grant-Yes. Mr. Krzys-I think we just put language in that says, that if we do something differently than we anticipated we have to go back through SEQRA the SEQRA thing right now says we're going to put a fire station in Queensbury and there is a fire consultant and we have to change it anyway. I think the consultant as Steve suggested it is the way to have him/she suggest where it's going to go and I don't think it's inconsistent. . . Supervisor Grant-Our area has to leave. Councilman Potenza-We met with the Queensbury Recreation Department on Monday night, and they have a concern with the 20 acres. Councilman Monahan-Before we do that can I do something about the fire company first? Supervisor Grant-We're not going to do anything about it. Supervisor Borgos-I don't think we want to talk about that without their attorney present. 121 Councilman Monahan-This is just some words to clean up things. Supervisor Borgos-Again, I think I'd rather have the attorney here for that and Mrs. Potenza may also get into that situation and we'll stop her. But, let's see how deep it is what page. Councilman Potenza-Page 24 (3). Lake Luzerne will exempt the parcel from the payment of taxes subject to review by the Town of Lake Luzerne and the Developer of proposed plans for development of said 20 acre parcel, which development shall be for recreational purposes only. Our Recreation Commission is concerned that there is no paved roads on these 20 acres. When we sat with you and talked with you the conceptual idea was that we would have walking paths there would indeed be a parking lot for perhaps 10 to 15 cars not necessarily blacktopped we thought some sort of permeable stone or whatever it may be, but we wanted to keep the characteristics up top of the mountain as much in God's nature as there has been and I think everybody agreed to that. Somehow there has been some discussion the emergency road exiting out onto this twenty acre parcel and the Recreation Commission was adamant in the fact that they do not want blacktop on this 20 acre recreational area. Mr. Krzys-I. . . when we gave the 20 acres I think there was an understanding that there was an agreement that we had to put an emergency road in. Councilman Potenza-Through the 20 acres? Mr. Krzys-We didn't lock in the 20 acres. Councilman Potenza-I want the 20 acres without the emergency road through my 20 acres. Mr. Krzys-Because there is a road already in there that's through the A.P.A it's an acceptable road. Councilman Potenza-There is a road it's like a logging road, but they want to keep that logging road a logging road. Mr. Krzys-My sense is the two Towns are telling us what to do about the emergency road. Councilman Monahan-I'm not even sure if you want the emergency road brought in through that recreation. If I have someone in there recreating I don't want some guy going in there with his blue light flashing and hitting a few kids. Supervisor Grant I would envision it being next to in that same general area, but not through your 20 acres. Councilman Potenza-That's the point I'm trying to make. We may have 20 acres and out of that 20 acres we may have 15 or 2,000 foot of road frontage we have no idea of the frontage that we want with this 20 acres on Luzerne Mountain Road except that we do want enough obviously so that cars can pull in and have at least enough room for 10 or 15 cars to park. Obviously we want frontage on Luzerne Mountain Road for parking area, but we may just take 200 feet and then go back and go out to the 20 acres. Supervisor .Grant -you got 20 acres and we've got 100 acres. Councilman Potenza-I know Vic, that was brought to my attention too. Supervisor Grant-I don't know where it is going to be located, but let just say the 20 acres that the Town of Queensbury would have does not have anything to do with the emergency road let's say that for now. What is your question? Councilman Potenza-You answered it. Councilman Monahan-I wanted to clear up something else on that page Steve. It says the parking is limited to 20 cars or less. I hope we realize that's only going to serve our recreational area it can't serve the whole 120 acres for that parking. Councilman Potenza-Why? Councilman Monahan-Because you can't possibly, we were figuring we needed 20 for the part that Queensbury was going to develop as a part and your certainly are not going to be able to serve 120 acres. Councilman Potenza-Is this 100 acres going to be adjacent to or next to the 20 acres? Councilman Monahan-I don't know. It says limited to 20 acres and it doesn't make any provision for the parking on the other 100 acres. 122 Councilman DeihlAiaybe we won't do anything with the other 100 acres maybe we'll always leave it just as is forever wild and not do one thing to it. We have no plans for it whatsoever at this time you have plans for a recreational area. Councilman Potenza-Passive recreation to get over to the summit. Supervisor Borgos-I remember fighting for a limit of some sort because I'm very concern that we would encourage hundreds of cars using that mountain road. Mr. Krzys-My understanding of this whole thing is that we said you could pick your 20 acres. My sense is also is that where the emergency road is suggested and it was drawn on the map because that where there is a road and I think to do a different road being in the park is going to be much more difficult than to use the existing road. _ Councilman Potenza-I'll tell you what the problem is. The problem is that when the Recreation Commission went up and walked it they walked what they thought was going to be the 20 acres. I think what they walked was that logging road. Supervisor Grant-They may not be at the 20 acres. Councilman Montesi-The 20 acres half that roadway happens to be pretty much in the center of 120 acres. What they looked at and said, if you take this roadway at 20 acres that gives Luzerne 50 acres on this side and 50 acres on that side. One of the things that we talked about here though is that we sort of forced West Mountain into using the road through the 120 acre parcel as an emergency access road because we didn't want to see them to go up Cormus Road. If they go up Cormus Road with some degree of improvement they end up with 120 acres being forever wild. Is going up Cormus Road at least a viable option? Supervisor Borgos-I think we've talked about that before and it would be my position it's not because of the curves involved, engineering cost, and the construction cost. The very last curve is the tough one you'd have to take somebody's front yards. Councilman Kurosaka-It's all ledge up there. Councilman Montesi-You have to remember a 120 acre parcel is pretty much disected right through the middle by this roadway that's a fact of life. That doesn't say that West Mountain can't rub out a roadway at the northern end or southern end of this 120 acre parcel to make everybody happy. But, I don't think the Town of Queensbury, and I know we walked that road and everybody said, isn't this wonderful that wasn't the 20 acres that was in the middle of 120 acres. Councilman Potenza-But, don't you think that's what the Recreation Commission thinks. Councilman Montesi-What they've said is that they would not like to see that paved. But, to be very honest with you if we're going to get 20 out of 120 acres if you start from the southern end and go up you'll find that we'll own a strip of land that might by 200 x 1000 feet long and that's the 20 acres we're going to get. Luzerne is going to have 100 acres and through the 100 acres that Luzerne has is this road whether they want it paved or not is their determination. Dana Broadway-In the contract it says, that the emergency access road is going to be paved and wide enough to allow. . . Supervisor Borgos-Will be paved and wide enough for passing vehicles. Councilman Montesi-It may not even be our 20 acres Lynn, as we're talking now I'm starting to recall that they we're very adamant at the Recreation meeting night and told us to carry this now I'm thinking about it that may not even be our 20 acres. Supervisor Grant-It might not be a part of it. Councilman Monahan-Except it is right by the pond and all that kind of stuff. Councilman Montesi-Don't forget there are 120 acres here and I certainly wouldn't want to advocate that we'd be in the middle and Luzerne have 100 acres on south. Supervisor Borgos-That's why we talked way back about trying to resolve those issues early and now it's kind of later and there not resolved and we're starting to see some of the discussion. Mr. Krzys-It seems to me that we're getting into design things. What we've agreed is for an emergency road, to pave it, to allow trucks to go in either direction, to give you 20 acres of your choice, 100 acres to Luzerne and all that. My sense is the Recreation Department doesn't 123 like what the Town ,Board passed they got to change a little bit and maybe modify something. Supervisor Grant-And all we ask is on the 20 acres that you people would like to develop for recreation we like to know and see what you like to do. I think that's only reasonable. Councilman Monahan-It's strictly passive. Supervisor Grant-We were concerned about kids raising hell and having police protection. Mr. Deihl-We're looking at limited access. +upervisor Borgos-There ought to be a way to close it off. Mr. Deihl-That's the kind of thing we want to review because it's in our Town. Supervisor Grant-I think we're all looking for the same thing. Councilman Monahan-I just have a question and it's really none of my business because the Town of Lake Luzerne is going to get impacted by this, but sense we're lead agency I thought I should bring it up. That's at the top of Page 5, where it says; the Developer shall also retain easements and the right to construct. I have no problem with it and I know Mike talked about that type of thing it's a nice idea, but I wonder if you want to put a clause in there about those liabilities that's going to be connected to all of this. Mr. Krzys-I think we already talked about this. Councilman Monahan-I wondered if it needed to go in the agreement that's what I'm saying. That's something you may want to talk to Dave about Vic. Discussion was held on next West Mountain meeting. A tentative meeting date was scheduled for February 22, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. with an alternative date of March 1, 1990 at 6:00 p.m. 124 RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 106 of 1990,Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza: WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to increase APPROPRIATIONS in Account No. CS-23-3-5031 from $0.00 to $5,965.00 and also increase ESTIMATED REVENUES in Account No. CS-23-3-5031 from $0.00 to $5,965.00, with the source of the estimated revenue to be a transfer from the General Fund, Account #A23-5-9950-913, and accordingly amend the 1989 Budget, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as follows: 1) Increase APPROPRIATIONS IN CS-23-3-5031: WAS: $0.00 ADD: 52965.00 NEW: $5,965.00 2) Increase ESTIMATED REVENUES IN CS-23-3-5031: WAS: $0.00 ADD: 5965.00 NEW: $5965.00, with the source of the estimated revenue to be a transfer from the General Fund, Account #A23-5-9950-913 and accordingly amend the 1989 Budget. Duly adopted this 14th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS FOR 1989 ACCOUNTS RESOLUTION NO. 107 of 1990,Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos: WHEREAS, certain Departments in the Town of Queensbury wish to transfer funds because of a lack of funds in certain accounts, and WHEREAS, the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury has reviewed the Departments' requests for transfers to certain funds and has approved the same, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following funds be transferred in the following manner and the 1989 Budget as amended is hereby amended accordingly. FROM TO AMOUNT A-22-5-8020-473 A-04-5-1220-440 MASTER PLAN MISC. CONTRACTUAL 85.00 A-22-5-8020-473 A-06-5-1330-403 MASTER PLAN POSTAGE 165.00 A-06-5-1330-412 A-06-5-133-408 PRINTING ADVERTISING 30.00 A-22-5-8020-473 A-09-5-1355-300 MASTER PLAN RE-VAL PROJECT 140.00 A-22-5-8020-473 A-11-5-1420-401 125 MASTER PLAN , OFFICE SUPPLIES 25.00 A-22-5-8020-473 A-11-5-1420-440 MASTER PLAN ATTY. CONTRACTUAL 6,465.00 A-22-5-8020-473 A-14-5-1620-153 MASTER PLAN BUILDG. MAINTENANCE 475.00 A-22-5-8020-473 A-14-5-1620-201 MASTER PLAN OFFICE EQUIPMENT 215.00 A-22-5-8020-473 A-14-5-1622-410 MASTER PLAN TOB. TELEPHONE 485.00 f A-23-5-5630-440 A-14-5-1622-430 BUSINESS OPERATIONS TOB. UTILITIES 1,365.00 A-23-5-5630-440 A-17-5-3410-410 BUSINESS OPERATIONS TELEPHONE USE 30.00 A-23-5-5630-440 A-17-5-3410-420 BUSINESS OPERATIONS INSURANCE 45.00 A-23-5-5630-440 A-18-5-3510-475 BUSINESS OPERATIONS PAGER RENTAL 30.00 A-23-5-5630-440 A-20-5-7310-134 BUSINESS OPERATIONS REC. SPECIALISTS. PT 65.00 A-23-5-5630-440 A-20-5-7310-410 BUSINESS OPERATIONS YOUTH PROG., TELEPHONE 80.00 A-22-5-8020-472 A-22-5-8020-406 CONSULTANT'S FEES SERVICE CONTRACTS 65.00 A-22-5-8020-472 A-23-9055-800 CONSULTANT'S FEES DISABILITY BENEFITS 2,240.00 . I A-22-5-8020-472 A-32-5-5010-406 - CONSULTANT'S FEES SERVICE CONTRACTS 135.00 A-21-5-8010-137 A-23-5-9950-913 ASSIST BUILDG. INSP. UNEMP. INS. RESERVE 5,965.00 UMEMPLOYMENT RESV. A-23-5-9950-913 CS-23-5-9050-800 TRANSFER TO U.I. INS UNEMP. INS. EXP. 5,965.00 CEMETERY FUND C-24-5-8810-140 C-24-5-8810-430 LABORER A UTILITIES 135.00 HILAND PARK SEWER FUND 56-38-5-8130-440 56-38-5-9795-700 MISC. CONTRACTUAL INTERFUND LOAN. INT. 10.00 QUEENSBURY WATER FUND W1-27-5-8310-177 W1-27-5-8310-201 BS DATA ENTRY ADMIN. OFFICE EQIP. 25.00 W1-27-5-8310-177 W1-27-5-8310-405 BS DATA ENTRY F ')KS, PUBS., 3UBSC. 105.00 W1-27-5-8310-177 tV1-27-5-8310-419 BS DATA ENTRY ADMIN. REFUNDS 30.00 W1-27-5-8310-177 W1-27-5-8310-420 BS DATA ENTRY ADMIN. INSURANCE 1,040.00 126 r W1-27-5-8310-177 W1-27-5-8310-440 BS DATA ENTRY ADMIN. MISC. CONTRAC. 100.00 W1-27-5-8310-177 W1-27-5-8320-151 BS DATA ENTRY WATER PLANT OP. II 105.00 W1-27-5-8310-177 W1-27-5-8320-430 BS DATA ENTRY P & S. UTILITIES 1,460.00 W1-27-5-8310-177 W1-27-5-9055-800 BS DATA ENTRY DISABILITY BENEFITS 885.00 W1-27-5-8310-177 W1-27-5-9060-800 BS DATA ENTRY HOSPITALIZATION 110.00 W1-27-5-8310-177 W1-27-5-9710-700 BS DATA ENTRY SERIAL BOND INTEREST 175.00 QUAKER ROAD SEWER S4-38-5-8130-176 S4-38-5-8130-440 WASTEWATER TECH. CONTRACTUAL 750.00 S4-38-5-8130-183 S4-38-5-8130-440 SUPT. WASTE WATER CONTRACTUAL 600.00 S4-38-5-8130-206 S4-38-5-8130-440 TOOLS CONTRACTUAL 700.00 S4-38-5-8130-401 S4-38-5-8130-440 OFFICE SUPPLIES CONTRACTUAL 1,350.00 S4-38-5-8130-410 S4-38-5-8130-440 TELEPHONE CONTRACTUAL 1,400.00 S4-38-5-9030-800 S4-38-5-8130-440 SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRACTUAL 1,500.00 S4-38-5-9060-800 S4-38-5-8130-440 HOSPITALIZATION CONTRACTUAL 6,950.00 S4-38-5-8130-410 S4-38-5-8130-420 TELEPHONE INSURANCE 65.00 S4-38-5-8130-410 S4-38-5-8130-430 TELEPHONE UTILITIES 50.00 Duly adopted this 14th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AMENDING QUEENSBURY CENTER FEE SCHEDULE RESOLUTION NO. 108, OF 1990,Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: WHEREAS, by Town Board Resolution No.: 439, dated October 12, 1988, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury adopted a building use fee schedule for the Queensbury Activities Center, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Center Advisory Committee has requested modifications to said fee schedule, said, proposed, modified fee schedule being presented to this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the proposed, modified building use fee schedule presented at this meeting be and the same hereby is adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, and the 127 fees for use of said building are established as set forth in the building use fee schedule, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury shall annex a copy of the said building use fee schedule to the minutes of this meeting. Duly adopted this 14th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DISCUSSION HELD Supervisor Borgos-Noted that this was discussed previously and the new fees have been recommended. Town Clerk-Asked if there was an effective date on the Fee Schedule? Supervisor Borgos-Effective immediately. Town Clerk-Asked about ones that have already been scheduled and paid for? Supervisor Borgos-Suggested going with the date of March 1st, 1990 except for those meetings schedules shall be excluded. Stated some have already been accepted for the future with a dollar commitment. Asked council if language should be included? Attorney Dusek-Asked if any groups used these things on a regular basis? Wondered if they should check on this first. Supervisor Borgos-Stated they could wait until February 26, 1990 to act on this. Councilman Monahan-Noted that they might want to consider whether or not to have just a commitment or accept a deposit because it could make a difference. RESOLUTION TO TABLE RESOLUTION NO. 108 OF 1990 RESOLUTION NO.109, OF 1990,Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves to table Resolution No. 108 of 1990 to be brought back on the floor February 26, 1990. Duly adopted this 14th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION TO RETAIN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OF VAN DUSEN do STEVES RESOLUTION NO. 110, OF 1990,Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined that it is necessary to acquire professional surveying services to update and recertify the survey map of the Town of Queensbury Water Treatment Plant on Corinth Road, including the adjacent parcel to be _.. conveyed to the Town of Queensbury by the Champlain District of the Wesleyan Church, and WHEREAS, VanDusen & Steves has offered to render such professional surveying work for an amount not to exceed $800.00, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury to retain the services of VanDusen & Steves for professional surveying services to update and recertify the survey map of the Queensbury 128 Water Treatment yPlant located on Corinth Road, including the adjacent parcel to be conveyed to the Town of Queensbury by the Champlain District of the Wesleyan Church, at a total amount not to exceed $800.00, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized to sign and forward for processing any and all bills for services rendered, up to the maximum limit set by this resolution, upon the receipt of properly completed vouchers, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the expenditures shall be paid for from Account No. W1-275-9951-900. Duly adopted this 14th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.:87, 1990 TO RE-SET PUBLIC HEARING RESOLUTION NO. 111, OF 1990,Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury previously passed Resolution No. 87, 1990 on January 30, 1990 setting the public hearing and designating the Town as lead agency .regarding proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Article 4, Sections 4.032 and 4.033 (Travel Corridor Overlay Zone), Section 4.052 (Designated Streets) and Article 8, Section 8.010 (General Exception to Minimum Lot Area Requirement), and WHEREAS, the Town Board is desirous of amending said Resolution to re-set the date of the public hearing to February 26, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in the Queensbury Activities Center, Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Resolution No. 87, 1990, dated January 30, 1990, is hereby amended to re-set the date of public hearing to February 26, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in the Queensbury Activities Center, Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all other terms of Resolution No. 87, 1990 shall remain unchanged. Duly adopted this 14th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT BIDS FOR CHEMICALS RESOLUTION NO. 112, OF, 1990,Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, the Director of Purchasing for the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, duly advertised for bids for liquid chlorine, liquid caustic soda, and liquid alum pursuant to Town of Queensbury Water Department Specifications, and WHEREAS, the firm of K.A. Steel Chemicals, Inc., has submitted the lowest bid for the liquid chlorine the firm of Monarch Chemicals, Inc., has submitted the lowest bid for the liquid caustic soda, and the firm of Holland Company, Inc., has submitted the lowest bid for the liquid alum, a copy of the bid tabulation sheet being attached hereto, and WHEREAS, Thomas K. Flaherty, Town Water Superintendent, has recommended that the bids be awarded to the aforesaid bidders, 129 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, hereby awards the bid for liquid chlorine to K.A. Steel Chemicals, Inc., the bid for liquid caustic soda to Monarch Chemicals, Inc., and the bid for liquid alum to Holland Company, Inc., and that said chemicals be paid from the appropriate Water Department account. Duly adopted this 14th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos TOES: None .--.-.�BSENT:None (Bids on file) RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 99, 1990 RESOLUTION NO. 113, OF 1990,Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that resolution no. 99, 1990, adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury on the 5th day of February, 1990, is hereby amended such that the amount to be transferred from the General Fund to the Landfill fund of $29,975.68 is hereby increased and amended to be an amount of $31,982.39, and all references in said resolution to the amount of $29,975.68 are hereby amended to refer to the amount of $31,982.39, and any other amounts relating to this transfer amount shall be likewise adjusted. Duly adopted this 14th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ,BSENT:None DISCUSSION HELD Supervisor Borgos-Noted there was some discussion previously on what they couldn't or wouldn't do with the section of Corinth Road where the residents requested a rezoning to light industrial. An issue was raised that this didn't impact on all light industrial zone throughout the Town. Asked Attorney Dusek, to explain to Board members this issue. Attorney Dusek-Stated that this Local Law has been slightly revised since it was sent out. The revision is a revision that was added which deals with truck repair facilities. Explained to the Board that his reaction was that a moratorium was something that could be implemented in this particular case which was suggested by Councilman Kurosaka. I wasn't completely sure of all the legal points and what would be allowed and when I left the meeting I was under the impression that the moratorium would be for that selected area only, but that it was also being talked about or at least considered a moratorium for all industrial areas. In any event, as I did some research I felt that the strongest case could be made for a moratorium in that limited area only. Councilman Potenza-Stated that she has been contacted by area residents with concerns to an asphalt plant. Councilman Kurosaka-Explained that this is a asphalt batching plant which is not a permitted --se in that area. upervisor Borgos-Stated this would be excluded under the moratorium. Councilman Potenza-The residents do not want an asphalt plant up there. Attorney Dusek-Noted there is a specific definition for asphalt plant, however, that is allowed only in heavy industrial zone and is not allowed in any event with site plan review in a light industrial zone. It's not listed and is already excluded under the ordinance. RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON LOCAL LAW TO ESTABLISH MORATORIUM 130 RESOLUTION NO.1114, OF 1990, ntroduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has heretofore directed its Town Attorney to draft a proposed Local Law which would establish a moratorium with regard to certain uses currently allowed under the light industrial zoning classification of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, when a specific area of the Town of Queensbury is re-zoned, and WHEREAS, the Town Attorney has prepared a draft Local Law for consideration of the Town Board, and a copy of the same is presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of conducting a public hearing on said proposed Local Law and publishing and posting notice thereof, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall meet and hold a public hearing at the Queensbury Activities Center, Bay at Ilaviland Road, Queensbury, New York, at 7:30 o'clock p.m., on the 26th day of February, 1990, to consider said proposed Local Law and to hear all persons interested on the subject matter thereof concerning the same, and to take such action thereon as is required or authorized by law. Duly adopted this 14th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION REGARDING SEQRA REVIEW REGARDING PROPOSED LOCAL LAW ON MORATORIUM RESOLUTION NO. 1151 OF 1990,Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has by Resolution No. 114 on the 14th _ day of February, 1990 established that a Public Hearing will be held with reference to a certain proposed Local Law which Local Law would establish a moratorium with regard to certain uses currently allowed under the light industrial zoning classification in the Town of Queensbury when a specific area of Queensbury is rezoned and WHEREAS, it is necessary in connection with the matter to undergo a review pursuant to the State Environmental Review Act and WHEREAS, from a preliminary review of this matter, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is of the impression that this is an unlisted action under SEQRA NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby directs the Town Attorney on behalf of the Town shall notify all necessary agencies an publish such other notices as may be necessary under SEQRA and complete such forms as may be necessary including a short environmental assessment form with the assistance of the Planning Dept. of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 14th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:None BID FOR VAN DOG/CONTROL OFFICER Maltbie's Garage Co. Inc. 1990 Chev. Van 2 ton Model P.O. Box 311 Rt. 9 2 wheel drive $13,999.00 Lake George, NY 12845 NC Attached Wicker Ford Inc. 1990 Econoline Van 2 ton 15,113.00 131 55 Wicker Street (alter bid) 1989 Econoline 12,749.10 Ticonderoga, NY 12883 2 ton Automatic (in stock) RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FOR VAN RESOLUTION NO. 116, OF 1990,Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan: WHEREAS, the Director for Purchasing for the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, duly advertised for bids for a van 2 ton, and WHEREAS, Maltbie's Garage Company, Inc., of Lake George, New York, was the low bidder for a 1990 van with a bid at $13,999.00, and WHEREAS, Richard Willett, Dog Control Officer, has recommended that the bid be awarded to the aforesaid bidder, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, hereby awards the bid for a 1990 van to Maltbie's Garage Company Inc., of Lake George, New York, to be paid from the appropriate account. Duly adopted this 14th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:None Discussion held requesting traffic signal at the intersection of Western and Main Street. RESOLUTION REQUESTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL RESOLUTION NO. 117, OF 1990,Introduced by the Entire Town Board: RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby directs the Town Supervisor to contact New York State D.O.T., Warren County and the City of Glens Falls regarding the request for a traffic signal at the intersection of Western and Main Street. Duly adopted this 14th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 8 OF 1990 RESOLUTION NO. 118, OF 1990,Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby amends Resolution No. 8 of 1990 entitled Resolution Authorizing Attendance at Annual Meeting of the Association of Towns to add Helen Thomson, Town Assessor to the list of those going to the Association of Towns. Duly adopted this 14th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:None DISCUSSION HELD HIGHWAY BIDS Supervisor Borgos-Noted that the Highway Superintendent contacted him asking him to clarify the position when the Town Board requested seeing bids 10 days ahead of time. Asked if this included highway vehicles? 132 Town Clerk-Stated it says all town vehicles. Supervisor Borgos-Asked if the Board wanted the 10 day period for the highway trucks that were budgeted. Councilman Monahan-As long as we're notified that's enough. Supervisor Borgos-Asked the Board if they had a problem with letting them go the way they are? Board-No. Discussion held on "No Parking" zones to be created along Main Street and Corinth Road and _ the area East of the Adirondack Northway to approximately Pine Street. More recent requests from the Sheriff Department are along Corinth Road from. the Northway all the way into the City line no parking on both sides of the road. It was decided that Kathleen Kathe would contact Rev. Wonderland to find out when services are held and what the parking situation is there. Supervisor Borgos-Called to the Board attention another "No Parking" zone along Round Pond Road east from it's intersection with Route 9, believes this is to extend all the way to the Country Club Road. Just called this issue to the Board's attention to think about. Councilman Potenza-Also mentioned Aviation Road from the Northway west to West Mountain Road. Supervisor Borgos-Recommended the attorney to take a look at setting a public hearing for West Glens Falls in regard to the church. Then for Aviation Road in front of the Northway all the way to West Mountain Road on both sides of the road. RESOLUTION SPECIAL AUDIT OF BILLS RESOLUTION NO. 119, OF 1990,Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza: RESOLVED, that abstract appearing on February 14th, 1989 numbering 90-0682, 90-0706, 90-0708, 90-0701 and numbering 90-0759-90-0801 (1989 bills) and totaling $36,758.25 is hereby approved. _ Duly adopted this 14th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:None Discussion held concerning Homefront Development Corporation. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 120, OF 1990,Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into Executive Session to discuss the following labor negotiations, professional services, personnel, litigation, and real property acquisition matters. Duly adopted this 14th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION TO RECONVENE RESOLUTION NO. 121, OF 1990,Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan: RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves back into Regular 133 Session. Duly adopted this 14th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE SETTLEMENT OF A CERTAIN PENDING ARTICLE 7 TAX ASSESSMENT REVIEW CASE RESOLUTION NO. 122 OF 1990,Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, a certain Article 7 Real Property Tax Assessment Review Case has been commenced against the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed the tax assessment review case with the legal counsel for the Town of Queensbury, such counsel having made a recommendation to the Town Board, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following case be settled with respect to the 1989 assessment roll as indicated and as follows: 36-2-10 0 - Attractions Land, Inc. (Swamp Area North of Great Escape) - to be assessed at $25,000.00 (1989). Duly adopted this 14th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:None _ RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE SETTLEMENT OF A CERTAIN PENDING ARTICLE 7 TAX ASSESSMENT REVIEW CASE RESOLUTION NO. 123, OF 1990,Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, a certain Article 7 Real Property Tax Assessment Review Case has been commenced against the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed the tax assessment review case with the legal counsel for the Town of Queensbury, such counsel having made a recommendation to the Town Board, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following case be settled with respect to the 1988 and 1989 assessment rolls as indicated and as follows: 59-2-14 - Walter Dombek - to be assessed at $200,000.00 (1988 and 1989). Duly adopted this 14th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE SETTLEMENT OF A CERTAIN PENDING ARTICLE 7 TAX ASSESSMENT REVIEW CASE RESOLUTION NO. 124 OF 1990,Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: 134 WHEREAS, a certain Article 7 Real Property Tax Assessment Review Case have been commenced against the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed the tax assessment review case with the legal counsel for the Town of Queensbury, such counsel having made a recommendation to the Town Board, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following case be settled with respect to the 1989 assessment roll as indicated and as follows: 36-2-18 - Attractions Land Inc. (so. Side Glen Lake Road) - to be assessed at $50,000.00 (1989). -� Duly adopted this 14th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION TO AMEND DENTAL COVERAGE RESOLUTION NO. 125, OF 1990,Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has previously negotiated a Labor Contract with the Union in the Town of Queensbury and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has reviewed the terms and provisions of that contract and also has reviewed the insurance coverage provided for under that contract, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has also reviewed the agreements and commitments made under that contract and the Town Supervisor has reported that he has heard from employees relative to that insurance agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to modify the insurance benefits provided for pursuant to the terms of that contract to the extent the dental coverage in that contract shall be modified to provide that a paragraph dealing with prosthetic dental services be deleted and therefore coverage will be provided for the initial replacement to tooth missing at the time coverage begins at an increase cost of 47 cents per month per employee the same to be paid out of the appropriate budgeted account, with the composite rate to be $31.65 for the period 1-1-90 to 12-31-1991 and the total number of employees in the plan may vary from time to time as in accordance with Town Policy. Duly adopted this 14th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 125A OF 1990,Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: �.. RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into Executive Session to discuss the following labor negotiations, professional services, personnel, litigation, and real property acquisition matters. Duly adopted this 14th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos 135 NOES: None ABSENT:None RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, MISS DARLEEN DOUGHER TOWN CLERK TOWN OF RUEENSBURY