Loading...
2001-05-09 SP SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING MAY 9, 2001 MTG. #20 RES.211A 7:00 p.m. TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DENNIS BROWER COUNCILMAN JAMES MARTIN COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER COUNCILMAN DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER SUPERVISOR DENNIS BROWER OPENED THE MEETING 1.0 DISCUSSION 1.1 DOUBLE H HOLE IN THE WOODS SUPERVISOR DENNIS BROWER-We are here tonight because we had asked Mark Levack to ask the Directors of the Hole in the Woods Ranch which I believe a non profit chartable organization, who is currently the owner of the property on Aviation Road, adjacent to Greenway North to come here this evening to answer some questions some Board Members had posed, and questions that Mark did not feel comfortable answering himself. Mr. Martin you had some questions, would you care to start off? COUNCIMAN MARTIN-As you may have read of heard or heard back from Mark we heard the suggestion for a development of the site and we were informed, I guess there is like, for lack of a better term, a two pronged offer on the table so to speak for a commercial development and if that is not successful due to inappropriate zoning designation then there would be one for a residential development. Obviously, the assumption being that, that would be at a lesser cost due to the widely held expectation that residential development and residential land deal is less of a cost than commercial would. If that was the case and the town by various means that was yet to be determined were to make an offer that would match or would be equalivant to the residential development would that be something that would be entertained as well? REPRESENTATIVE FROM DOUBLE H-Could I just give some background on the property that we are talking about? It was donated to the Double H Hole in the Woods Ranch back in 1995 by Charles R. Wood. The ownership was transferred then and we pay taxes on it since then. It was given as aN item to start an endowment fund for the Hole in the Woods, Double H organization we had never had one prior to that and one is developed since then but this was the first item, assuming you could turn it into cash to put into investments and so forth. As you know when Charlie owned it we went thorough the Red Lobster and then somewhere along the way and I am not sure exactly the timing but that is when the Cracker Barrel came up and that went down. Some valid reasons were brought up we are not questioning those per se we are just giving the history here. We were sitting on it for a while and we say we the Double H. And then I came on the board with the group of other people and then I was elected treasurer here a couple of yars or so back and so I tried to look at this structure. We set budgets within the organization, we did a whole lot of things, business like and one of the things was, here is a piece of real estate we are not in the real estate business as an organization and it was put on our books and I think this question was asked, it is seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars that was the figure that Mr. Wood who was given an appraisal from Alvery and Colvey I think is the firm. So, we as Directors of Double H you know have a fiduciary responsibility here to look at this from a pure and prudent and business like manner on behalf of Double H. What is the property you know, worth in the real world? So, a year ago November I asked Cody do another re-appraisal what is it worth now? He came in with an appraisal they did January I think it was the 20th , 2000 that his estimate it was worth eight hundred thousand as best use basis, which would be COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Assuming a commercial zoning. REPRESENT A TIVE FROM DOUBLE H. -Well recognizing that we as an Organization did not want to embarrass either the people the lived next door to it, the neighborhood the Town Board or anyone else that the Restaurant the Commercial Restaurant was definitely out. Along came the Hayes and they came up with a motel, no food no commercial restaurant, lets put it that way, attached to it. We had some indication that this might fly as a possibly development there would also be an additional buffer that was designed and I think there was a map here that outlines that. This would perhaps get passed. The Hayes pulled, then we had an option for them to purchase Double H with the and put a deposit down and they, it was non- refundable after a six month period which we benefit for that and then they decided that since there was opposition to it that they did not want to pursue that any further. They had an indication it would not fly with Board approval so it was pulled. So, this was like the early part of March, I think he timing here. We looked at it, we have to address this somewhere it just cannot sit here with this piece of property and not do something with it of some kind. So, our approach was to come to the Town Board, because there are several letters to the editor in the paper that I read and clipped out saying, why doesn't this become you know, green space area, recreation they had all various issues. We do not care what it is used for we just need to ascertain what is the most value that we can get on behalf of the Double H Ranch and that would logically say we have served our purpose in pursuing this. Because if someone comes in and says we are going to give you some low ball figure we just take it, we as an organization could be sued because we taken ... of the organization maybe open the window and let it fly because it was worth somewhat more. We are not here to antagonize and I cannot be responsible for it but, I apologize for the editorial not the editorial but the headline that was in the paper, that ws not our approach. If that was the way, you know it came across that was wrong. We just want to sit down and have a hopefully, friendly COUNCILMAN MARTIN-That is how we invited you. REPRESENTATIVE OF DOUBLE H.-How we can approach this and also looking at it that we have a responsibility for the Double H stand point we just cannot give it away per se. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-With that said the concept I had was and the reporting has been fairly accurate that have a community referendum on the idea of a purchase. REPRESENTATIVE DOUBLE H-I was Supervisor for a number of years down in .. County and based on my knowledge and I am not a Lawyer but I for some reason I believe that it was up to the Board you know to take this responsibility it is not just put this thing out for a general vote that would just be my impression based on when I was ...as a supervisor. SUPERVISOR BROWER-One of the things, who exactly is here representing Double H Hole in the Woods Ranch? MR. MAX YURENDA- My name is Max Yurenda, I am CEO Executive Director, Mr. John Forester is our Secretary, Board Member, Mr. Floyd Rourke Treasurer and Board Member. MR. ROURKE-Our Chairman of the Double H. is Neal Gowa SUPERVISOR BROWER-I want to thank you for coming this evening. I will be honest with you when they pulled their application several people from Greenway North came to me and said why doesn't the Town buy the property. My reaction to them was look I think that would be a dangerous precedent personally, I think if you would like you should start a fund raising effort in Queensbury to raise money for the property and approach Double H Hole in the Woods and make an offer. Maybe they would accept something that would be reasonable. I asked Mark when he was here, however what the Hayes Brothers contract price was for the property at the time and I do not think he felt comfortable answering that. I do not know if you would or not. MR. ROURKE-Our asking price is seven hundred thousand and that was a asking price even to them. But, in saying that, that was not the formal price that we agreed on, but we did it in such a way that they have to cover all costs of pursuing the rezoning we are not spending any money so we were going to net out. SUPERVISOR BROWER-What is that amount that you are going to .. MR. ROURKE-In deference to them I do not think since this was below the asking price we should... SUPERVISOR BROWER-I thought it would just give us a basis for where you were financially at the time you do not have to disclose that, that is certainly your prerogative. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DOUBLE H.-Well, that would be something we, if there is interest we can negotiate something but our asking, starting price is seven hundred thousand. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-To finish my thought, I amjust speaking from me as an individual board member, my concept was to put it to referendum we have heard from our Council that it is legal means to do that providing it is for a public use. The public use in this case would be the town wide enjoyment of this as an open space area, passive recreation area. Under that assumption then it could be put forward. The difference here is going to be you have an appraisal assuming a commercial zoning designation REPRESENT A TIVE FROM DOUBLE H -But we are not asking that price. COUCILMAN MARTIN-But that does allow for that higher use that yields a higher income and all that when an appraiser does his income justification or comparable analysis you know I think probably would yield that price. However, if an appraisal is done under its current zoning designation and a commercial zone is not assumed then I think that would impact that appraisal. We would be bound to pay the fair market value and we would have an appraisal done you would have your appraisal the two would be compared and like you say a negotiated figure would be reached. That was the scenario I was hoping could be played out. I understand that I say that with the understanding that, that is some amount less than a commercial or a commercial higher use so to speak is going to yield an appraisal. SUPERVISOR BROWER-When Mark approached us he basically said that he had a buyer that would either develop commercially or residentially and obviously the residential value would be much lower and we said what would that value be, would you consider that and he said no. If the Town wanted it through referendum it would be seven hundred thousand that would be the only way it would be considered. Quite frankly I have done a brief bit of research in the appraised value on the property as of 1993 and Helen Otte indicated to me it would not be much more today, in fact it might be slightly less for residential use would be seventy two thousand three hundred dollars. That is what the last appraisal was in 1993 at the reval, is an estimate of fair market value that we derive from the 1993 sales of land and use and the town wide revaluation. That is both parcels. As our fiduciary responsibility to the tax payers is to pay fair market value for property and you know there is a wide range between seven two thousand hree hundred dollars and for residential property and seven hundred thousand that you market the property as commercial. Plus the other factor, concern that I had is that you know you are supposed to have a public benefit, what is the public benefit by taking the land. In this case I have to say protecting a neighborhood would be the only thing that I could come up with. Jim, mentioned a park like or whatever for people, it is really not ideal for a park situation.. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I am not saying an active recreation park, I amjust saying for the enjoyment in its current state. It does have a, we have heard time and again the visual impact of the parcel and the neighborhood and in that part of town and those types of things qualify according to the memo we got from our Council as public benefit. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I have to admit that I would also have a concern about residential housing being in there. I do not think it would be the ideal situation either, personally. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I am a professional land use planner by trade and so a lot of people in this room think I have a very screwy view of the world but be that as it may, mine is professionally...Ijust think and some neighbors disagree with me and they are, everybody is entitled to their opinion but having sat through, I was a planning board chairman back when the Red Lobster proposal was made, I was a staff to the office here when the second Red Lobster proposal was made; I was a consultant working on behalf of Hole in the Woods when the Cracker Barrel proposal was made; I was here as a Town Board Member to see this as a motel proposal. So, I see this virtually from every perspective you can see it. The record is very clear as to the number of problems experienced by residents in that area in close proximity to commercial development. It is hard to get out of that neighborhood traffic wise, there is noise associated in the hours of the night with commercial development that are not aligned with the noise asociated with a residential neighborhood and there is numerous odors given the particular commercial profile of uses in that area. The Burger King the McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken we had a fish place there. So, when I hear those types of things I do not see the rational and logic in placing another fourteen dwellings in that kind of setting. From my perspective now as a Town Board member I just do not see the logic a rational in that. I am not saying you know those are not nice places to live up there for another whole other range of reasons but when I hear that kind of, time and time and time and time and time again, I had to sit through at least a dozen public meetings on this. What is the point of re-creating that scenario? REPRESENT A TIVE FROM DOUBLE H -But how do we reconcile on half of Double H now? The fact that in 1988 this was rezoned and evidently, I think it was done ..there was no notification given to a number of people that had their property rezoned and some that did become aware of it I understand got it adjusted or it went through but other ones just sit idly by because they did not know it and the property just got zoned down. Now, we come alone and the organization, the unit that reduced this zoning which reduced the value now wants to say to buy it at that much reduced, how do we reconcile that? COUNCILMAN TURNER-Let me just say something? We keep going back to the idea you were not notified, true you might not have been notified but it was in the paper, notification was in the paper about the hearings on the zoning ordinance, and also on the radio. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DOUBLE H-I was not involved with ,..the Double H did not own it back then it was Charles Wood. WARREN CO. SUPY. NICK CAIMANO-My name is Nick Caimano and I am a Warren County Supervisor at Large I was on the Town Board during the Red Lobster situation that Jim was talking about. It is an issue that we should talk about and you started to talk about it and it has to do with the neighborhood itself. That is why we are here today, we are here because of the lack of Planning prior to 1988, the Town of Queensbury unbeknownst to themselves at the time cut off a neighborhood without them having any say so. We had the Northway go through, we had Route 9 build up, we had Aviation Road itself build up. There is an entire neighborhood of one hundred and twenty houses that is now, that has been cut off from the rest of the world. This is an opportunity to redress some of the problems that inadvertently the Town created many, many years ago. I think that the answer to your question however is a negotiated settlement; I think you began that negotiation here just a few minutes ago. Clearly, it is not going tobe seventy three thousand just a clearly it is not going to be nine hundred thousand so ... somewhere in there and that's, if we could ever get to the issue of the fact that many people in this town would just like to see that left the way it is COUNCILMAN MARTIN-We don't disagree with that WARREN CO. SUPY. CAIMANO-I heard you say that I thought that was wonderful, because now it is just a matter of negotiations, it seems to me. SUPERVISOR BROWER-And getting voter approval. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I would just make one correction in Nick's statement it wasn't the Towns doing that got us to this point where we are today, I think it was the realignment of New Aviation Road and actions by the State in terms of the interstate highway going in the interchange being placed at that particular location along that interstate highway and then that yielded the need to realign the 254 approach to Route 9. REPRESENT A TIVE OF DOUBLE H -When you look at the aerial view that Mark has this little island is the only thing that is not commercial, all we want to do is get what. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Your fiduciary responsibility fulfilled. I understand that and I am hopeful, I think Nick pretty well articulated it that there could be some sort of negotiation that these various interests that have been brewing out there for so long can come to a culmination and there will be successfully worked out. It is going to require compromise on either side. COUNCILMAN STEC- To make sure that we cover all the bases, although I want to be up front and say that I support Jim Martin's proposal to put it to public referendum and the reason I can rectify that precedent setting situation in my mind is by a referendum. I agree with what Dennis's concern is that we do not want every neighborhood group or individual residents that has an issue with a specific project going in next door to say, you did it here now buy them out. But, I think that this has been kicked around for so many years, I mean for ten years it is clearly a unique situation of town wide concern, but yet it would set a precedent of sorts but also part of the precedent would be that in this instance we went to public referendum. In the future if somebody says I want the Town to buy this, well this is an extra hoop. The Town as a whole, the whole entire town would have to feel strongly enough to go that route, but then we do get into the question of it is currently zoned residential 73,000 vs. potentialy a possible rezoning at upwards of three quarters of a million dollars. So, obviously there are some issues there but to round out the discussion and this was mentioned last week, and again, I am not necessarily saying I would like to see it go this way, the 1998 comprehensive land use plan does address this situation in this neighborhood. It calls for a rezoning to be taken place to go to something less than highway commercial which is what has been sought over the past ten years but certainly more than residential. So, the comprehensive land use plan recommends a creation of a zone that does not exist in our current zoning ordinance. As you know and it has been in the paper, the Town has been working on it and some would argue we probably should have rapped it up by now. But, for whatever reason on our plate this year is a new zoning ordinance, so if you are looking for an idea the question was put to us, can we ever see this getting zoned off the residential dime and onto something else that will beof more value than residential for your purposes the answer is yes. If you are asking for a time line we certainly could not do it in an evening, or with out an application we could say at some point in year 2000 it is likely that, it was very likely in fact it is imperative, that we pass a new zoning ordinance in that this is likely to be included in a future rezoning off the residential dime onto another location. So, if you are saying we have got to sell this in a month well, you know, you are going to be selling residential property but if you say we want to know if we are going to be able to sell something other than residential property in the next twelve months or twenty four months in the near future and I think there are possibilities there. With that all said I think the correcting to do here if we can reach an agreement on price. REPRESENT A TIVE FROM DOUBLE H -Our real estate expert is Mark Levack ...1 do not know anything about the rezoning and what that does, it certainly ups the value. COUNCILMAN STEC-Right WARREN CO. SUPT. CAIMANO-Wouldn't a good faith bargaining then on the Town's part be, your side is the agreement to rezone to a level where you guys have already had, quotations for something, that seems to be a reason, I am not saying to do that but that would be a reasonable starting point. So, that you would get something out of it and they would start with something on the table. Right now it is still residential, right? So, if the town were to say look as our, I am not putting words in their mouth, because I have no vote, look we will agree that when this is rezoned it will be, pick a zone, whatever that zone is... COUNCILMAN BREWER-We do not have that zone created yet. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-The comprehensive land use plan basically calls for a hi-bred zone like a cultural professional or office professional COUNCILMAN STEC-Doctors offices or whatever, I cannot remember exactly but certainly less than the full blown hey you know if we could squeeze a small enough Wal Mart in here you know highway commercial zone but more than which I think has been on the table that comprehensive land use plan has gone through the paces, the public hearings it was adopted by the Town Board vote. I think the Town, although not this particular Town Board but the previously, the immediately previous Town Board did adopt this officially this comprehensive land use plan. Now are we handcuffed to it? No Has an indication been made that Nick is talking about that hey the Town has indicated a desire to head in this direction. WARREN CO. SUPY. CAIMANO-Jim and Dan in that potential would part of it be what has already been thought about, for example would a motel, non restaurant motel be part of that? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Quite honestly, I think not. I am just working off a recollection without having the actual section here in front of me. I think it was rather specific in its recommendations and I was around for a couple of those meetings when that committee that formulated the current plan addressed this particular parcel and it was clearly the feeling of the group, and I acknowledge that I am speaking on their behalf and from recollection that is was commercial property. But, yet, they wanted to remain sensitive to the neighborhood and in that regard they thought well if we do an office type of a use there is something that occurs generally from eight to five type of hours, generally well traffic generators by comparison to a high turn over restaurant. That would be something lesser, no odors you know, there would be some disturbance and loss of trees but again, again if it was kept to a reasonable density and intensity of development ... WARREN CO. SUPY. CAIMANO- It is a start of negotiations if you put that on the table. MR. LEV ACK-I think there is an inherent problem with going down that road too, I had a conversation with the staff planner here Chris Round and he said he ran the figures and office doesn't work. The Town of Queensbury has an office park that is presently under construction on Bay Road. To say that this should be zoned office again puts the property owner in the quandary of not being able to sell it because they are not going to be competitive you know seller because of the moderately priced more properly located office park on Bay Road. So, I think. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I say these things from the stand point of a land use perspective you are looking at it from a Market perspective and that's WARREN CO. SUPY. CAIMANO- I was looking at it Mark from a start of negotiations standpoint, what is this going to be and what is your best opportunity to sell it. For getting whether it is marketable or not. MR. LEV ACK-That is exactly what I thought I did when I came in here last week, I was asked to show up here by the Board of Directors and I was asked to specifically poll each and every board member and ask them, not demand, not issue an ultimatum accompany by a threat that is you do not sell it to us then there is going to be some negative consequence. I do not think I came in here demanding that you zone it commercial. We came in here and said what is the highest and best use as Mr. Caimano said ultimately if you come to that conclusion you are going to come to that you are going to come to that zone. To say that it is office, to say it is conservation Double H has never been opposed to selling this property as conservation or a preservation parcel. But, the Double H and we went over this, this morning, it feel very strongly as Floyd reiterated here that the Town rezoned this from a Highway Commercial, I think it was called a different designation but it meant the same thing as todays highway commercial one designation and change that through a property accepted town wide land use advisory board recommendation and zone it to residential and in the process devalued it. Isn't the case that if the Town is the ultimate end user or the ultimate beneficiary of that devaluation isn't that in fact a taking. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-There are several things that play here though too, the first zoning ordinance of the Town was 1967, I think this carried, if! am not, I am working off a recollection I did the research, I think it is Cl, designation under that old code. It remained commercial up through 88', there was another rezoning of a minor nature done in 82' essentially gave us our current zoning text that we have today. You have to bear in mind though that a lot of things changed between 1967 and 1988 the development pattern in that section of town shifted dramatically. You have the most intense commercial use now situated and occurring across the street from this parcel and that was the motivation that what I heard from Joe Carusone when he came and spoke during the Red Lobster thing that was, they really wrestled with this parcel. It was not nearly as cut and dry as it was back in the early 70's before the mall was there. So, I think there is some justification where you can at least understand why that commitee wrestled with this as they did. The other influence and this has been brought up in some negative connotation and do not want to do that, but it is a real influence though as there was a road that went through there that was a publicly owned right of way in 88' when the rezoning was done. That was essentially a split parcel it was not four just over four unified acres now. After the rezoning the right of way was sold and brought this parcel together as one cohesive piece now that was marketable. That is also had influence as to what has happened there. Those are influences that you know brought about the rezoning and made this now marketable, because back in 88' it wasn't because it was essentially two little tiny parcels split by a public right of way. WARREN CO. SUPT. CAIMANO-Mark brought up a word that ought to enter into negotiations too, and we are not and nor the Town would be aware of conservancy was the word. We are unaware nor do we want to be aware but they should be part of the negotiations it seems to me what that means to you, there may be some ramifications of that financially which would enter into the negotiations. What is the conservancy and these are the things I think that... UNKNOWN-I would just want to bring up when you brought that up and I know nothing about this all I know is what I see in the paper, that Nature Conservancy or some of these organizations buy up allover the place sometimes hundreds of acres if that any way to help between you people as a Town Board and the Double H to arrive at some mechanism to handle this? COUNCILMAN BREWER-I think you are speaking of OS I and I do not think that OSI would be COUNCILMAN MARTIN-OSI is one Open Space Institute but they, I think they were approached by a private neighbor in the area at one point and they, I have heard them say this because we have other dealings with them in the Town they do not deal with anything less than hundreds or thousand of acres, it is very rare that they get into something of this small. But, with that said there are many other private foundations, charitable institutions, nature conservancies, things like that, that would potentially deal at this level and could be at least approached and see if they want to become involved. That is an option, OSI is not the only option out there. MR. MARK LEV ACK-We have marketed to conservancy groups and it still comes around to the issue of value. It still comes around to the issue of price. Of course an conservancy group would be more interested at seventy one thousand than they would be at seven hundred thousand dollars. It still comes back to the very, very basic fundamental premise here, what is the best use of the property? What is that? Is it a transitionary commercial use that offers up a hundred percent more green space two times the required buffer under a commercial zoning? Is it for ever wild is it, the Double H when they hired me again to sell this property they said and they are a community mined group they said we do not want a commercial restaurant. So, I went forward and out to try to find buyers residentially nobody wanted it, commercially we were able to find a buyer that met the Double H's objective and we felt met the communities objective at large. To offer up more green space then would be required under a commercial zonng. We felt we had that buyer with the Hayes Plan. We felt that this was the most ideal transitionary use that would be able to give this board an optimal value and at the same time maintain an extensive buffer to the community and to the homes on old Aviation Road and to the few homes that this property actually buffers in the Greenway North Subdivision. We thought we had that. It is not an easy thing to surface these buyers they do not come around every day we thought we did our job we thought we were community minded when we found this buyer and it was apparent that this was not going to be approved and you know, the application was withdrawn. So, here we are back to right back to square one again. The property is zoned residential COUNCILMAN MARTIN-See that was the straw that broke this camels back, because the record very clearly shows, I said right after the public hearing, you know I support this as commercial property and that was up for public notice, the hotel, it was roundly talked down in the hearing. When this was withdrawn, I just said then, if this is not going to work with no bar, no restaurant you know, by comparison, very limited traffic flow, then that is it. I said then lets go to the open space plan. MR. LEV ACK-I do not disagree with your position, we felt the same exact way. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-That is where I am coming in my logic to where I am today. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DOUBLE H-And that would help establish the value. MR. LEV ACK-Does it help the Double H sitting here this evening to ask each and every board member what they felt about this plan, if this plan were to go to a vote? Ultimately our goal here again this evening is to get a majority indication from this board on which direction to head and we would like to know, if it isn't as you say the best commercial use that we could come up with then really it has to be conservancy. It has to be green space, or we are subject to just be subject to its present zone and find a buyer that will develop this property as zoned. If this town board feels that developing this property and upholding, I think that was the threat that the Post Star that was mentioned here and the Post Star picked up on the ultimatum well is this threat associated with the demand that we never really demanded but is the threat here to uphold the town zoning? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Again, from my standpoint and speaking from me personally, I think that yes, we should uphold the town zoning now at this point and what I was disappointed to hear last week was is if there has been a negotiated figure for development of the property as residential property a so called fair market value that would match todays zoning. Now, we are in a realm and a range that we can work it as a township. MR. LEV ACK-We can get offfrom that right now, the buyer that had presented this offer has withdrawn their contract because of the controversy again controversy follows anything that comes down this road you know here we are sitting here again asking the Town Board what is the best use. COUNCILMAN BREWER-If you had a contract, if you went out of here last week Mark and we said to you this is going to be residential and we are not changing our mind and you went back to your person and said this is what it is do you accept it and the person said yes.. MR. LEV ACK-I did not say anything Tim, I got word from them. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I understand what you are saying MR. LEV ACK-Don't put me in that direction. COUNCILMAN BREWER-You do not know what I am going to say Mark. I am saying if you left here last week and we told you that is was going to be residential we all know your buyer withdrew that number that you had with that person why wouldn't that be acceptable for the town to give you. I do not think that the Hole in the Woods cares whether its town money or a private investor's money. I do not think that is the issue. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I am hearing something that makes me even more encouraged than I was last week. I was encouraged last week because it appeared that the Hole in the Woods was willing to entertain an offer for purchase based on a residential development. So, that was encouraging, now I am hearing that, that offer is off the table well I would like to, speaking for me, I would like to slide right back into that same position and make you a similar offer and negotiate under that basis and I think that could be done. UNKNOWN-A few minutes ago I heard you say the commercial use that this motel would fit. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I went into that with that thinking and that was soundly UNKNOWN-..ifwe want to use that as a base then maybe we can negotiate. WARREN CO. SUPY. CAIMANO-Mr. Chairman, I must be getting old, I think that fifteen minutes ago there was germ of a deal about to be made and there is no sense there in no value and you know how I like to argue, there is no value to going back and saying what if and we did this. We had the germ over the negotiation it strikes me that one member of this board one member of their board and one member from Mr. Levack's office ought to go in a corner somewhere and hammer something out and see if it can work. You had the basis of MR. LEV ACK-Nick we have always remained ready, willing and able to enter into those negotiations that properties on the market the property is for sale the Town can make an offer we will entertain it. I would like to get right back to Tim's point here real quickly. Tim we came in here saying that we had a proposal ok, and if the Town did not feel that this property should be zoned commercial then we would have no alternative to develop the property as zoned because that is where we were back to, we were reduced to that. So, fundamental difference here I think that has to give credence to the Board's comments, to this Board's comment is that the Town had, the town was the reason rightly, wrongly, correctly was the reason the sole reason why this parcel went from Highway Commercial to Residential. The Town created that event. If the Town is the ultimate beneficiary of that event then isn't that a taking. It is a little different to sell a parcel to a community, it is a privately held property you sell it,free market enterprise, you sell to a private property owner. It is different if the Town Board reduces the value through zoning and then you know might accuse this board of not being community minded if it doesn't sell you know the property to the Town for that reduced price. I think there is a big difference there. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I..exactly what you are saying, but that was not what I was trying to get at Mark, I was saying if we felt this property was to remain residential you had an offer you were prepared to take that offer, why wouldn't that offer be the same thing for us. It would not be, we did not rezone this to residential so that we could buy this twenty five years later, lets face it. MR. LEV ACK-We are not saying that you did but we are saying that if that was the ultimate consequence and that was the ultimate outcome then.. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I disagree because COUNCILMAN BREWER-It is pure residential now, Mark and you have been since eighty eight and you are trying to market it as commercial then where is the justification for the tax rate you have been paying? You have to look at it, you have to weigh things even. COUNCILMAN STEC-Ifthe taking took place who was taken from, the previous landowner that is an issue for Charlie Wood. REPRESENT A TIVE FROM DOUBLE H - It is not my understanding that you people were will in to accept that offer you had it ... COUNCILMAN MARTIN-We had it and it was on the table .... COUNCILMAN STEC-You ought to see the pressure we got Mark. MR. LEV ACK-It was ready to be taken because that was the last consequence. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I want to get back to the positives here. Where should be go from here forward? It is water under the, I do not like the word taking, taking has a connotation to it, it is a ugly word and frankly I disagree because you know, the Town followed the proper public process and in it comprehensive planning an its subsequent zoning that was done... MR. LEV ACK- That is true Jim but, there is no question that event has caused a financial hardship. SUPERVISOR BROWER-To a previous owner. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Well, if that is the case then the other option that has always been there and has never been exercised either is a use variance. If you want to start talking about unique financial difficulties and rates of return and things like that. That option has always been there and never exercised. With that said, I would like to get back to the idea is there a way would you entertain the idea of trying to have some progressive negotiations and see where this could go. Every expectation or, that it could not go anywhere but at least try. MR. LEV ACK-There is no question they are willing to try. REPRESENT A TIVE FROM DOUBLE H -But, you said that this was a use of commercial that you thought was acceptable. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Yes, and entering into that project I thought I saw the differences in it. REPRESENT A TIVE FROM DOUBLE H - If we can use that total value, that was going to be for that project that would benefit the Double H we probably have a place to start. WARREN CO. SUPY. CAIMANO-And you agree that you might not end up there but it is a starting place, is that what you are saying? REPRESENT A TIVE FROM DOUBLE H -No, it should not be any less than that. Our asking price is seven hundred COUNCILMAN MARTIN-But that is some of the large assumption with the rezoning in place and I do not think that is the case. I do not think that is going to happen either. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Realistically though the lower the number that we can agree on the greater the chance the public may accept this. If they view it as too high a price they are never going to support it. REPRESENT A TIVE FROM DOUBLE H -What happens if we cannot reach that and it goes, what happens if we reach a price it goes to referendum and the public decides that they do not feel that this is in the best interest of the town as a whole SUPERVISOR BROWER-And that's a matter of real possibility. COUNCILMAN STEC-For the third time we have on the plate a town wide rezoning that this is going to get looked at because adopted nineteen ninety eight comprehensive land use plan which was adopted in December of nineteen ninety eight, calls for the Town Board to consider rezoning this to something else. It is certainly not of the flavor you would like... MR. LEV ACK-I am just reiterating what you town staff planner had told me when I met with them and we discussed that proposed zone. I never said that this was my final determination I said that this was the staff planners determination, that he ran the figures and he said that the office of sort zone that was proposed doesn't work. COUNCILMAN TURNER-No it doesn't. They did run the figures. COUNCILMAN STEC- Y ou have been trying to poll me for a week I will give you an answer alright because you have been determined to poll me and now you will get it right from the source. I will not support rezoning it to a current highway commercial designation as exists in the Zoning Ordinance. I am prepared to rezone it as called for in the comprehensive land use plan that was adopted to something other than residential but less than what is currently available. MR. LEV ACK-That is a pretty big spectrum, can you be more specific. COUNCILMAN STEC-No, I cannot. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DOUBLE H-Would that have fit this? COUNCILMAN STEC-I do not know, I don't know... COUNCILMAN MARTIN-From what I recall of the language in the comprehensive land use plan no it would not. MR. LEV ACK-It did not call for a hotel. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I remember references to office and that was the extent of it. COUNCILMAN STEC-I am a supporter of the concept of smart growth too andjust as soon pass on this parcel and let who ever what's to come in here go to Glens Falls that is fine. That's smart growth. MR. LEV ACK-Mr. Turner can we ask you what you feel is the best use for this property is? COUNCILMAN TURNER-Being on the steering committee we addressed all the issues that pertain to it and right back to that right there single family residential I think. MR. LEV ACK-You think single family residential is the best use for the property. COUNCILMAN TURNER-You have got some problems, you have to go to the light to get out of there it's the only way out, you have to protect the neighborhood that is there and obviously they have had some great concerns about that, what ever goes there is going to get a high degree of scrutiny as it has in the past. MR. LEV ACK-Mr. Brewer what to you think is the best use of the property is? COUNCILMAN BREWER-If! knew that they would be paying me Mark, I really do not know what the best use is. Out of the uses that I have seen brought to the Board probably the motel is probably the best of the three offour that I have seen I am not willing to say that is the best use for that piece of property. MR. LEV ACK-But of all the uses that you have seen you believe that this one is the seemed to make the most amount of sense in your... COUNCILMAN STEC-He is putting a vote in your mouth. COUNCILMAN BREWER-He is not putting a vote in my mouth....ofthe four proposals that I have sat on as a Planning Board Member that was better than a restaurant. Somebody may come along with a, who knows a dentist office or something like that. I honestly do not know. MR. LEVACK-Ok. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I thought that this was the least intrusive plan that I have seen to date, and it seemed to parallel the neighbors concern for smells and odors. They seemed to have done a nice job in the layout in conjunction of the land. Frankly I would have insisted on a restriction in a rezone that if you limit it to that particular utilization for that specific project, because quite frankly I am concerned with bait and switch. You get the rezone and then gee we are going to market it to somebody else. MR. LEV ACK-It has always been the fear of the board that if you come in for an application for a restaurant and we are asking for a highway commercial zone that ultimately if it is approved then it might be something else under a cloak and mirror or smoking mirror scenario whatever we can do to say that this is the ultimate outcome of the property we will do. You can tie our hands, tie our legs you know I see a majority here this evening saying that they are willing to consider seriously consider this use. COUNCILMAN BREWER-For me out of the four proposals I saw that was the least intrusive to the neighbors. I did not say... MR. LEV ACK-I was not asking you to say that you are willing to vote for it here this evening. SUPERVISOR BROWER.-We never did go to vote. COUNCILMAN BREWER-And also, you know Mark, I thought about that too, the comparison was made that, that motel would be the same size as the Sleep Inn that was just, I cannot fathom that in my mind on that piece of property. I really can't, I mean I can picture it there but it was huge, if you look at the motel the Sleep Inn across from the WalMartjust try to picture that and I mean I went there and drove from there down to Greenway North and I just could not picture it in my mind there. Not saying that it couldn't be put there. MR. LEV ACK- There it is, it is proposed it fits. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I am not saying that it doesn't fit I amjust saying a three story structure on that piece of property even though it is down here and the neighborhood is up here it just, I do not know, I just. MR. LEV ACK-I think we are again back to willing to consider a proposal from the Town of Queensbury and if that wants to be done right here and now if it wants to be done by some member of this board COUNCILMAN STEC-Seventy three thousand dollars tonight, right now. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DOUBLE H-I think the meeting is over; you know I mean that is ridiculous. COUNCILMAN STEC-I was being sarcastic. MR. LEV ACK-How do we get it to the next step. SUPERVISOR BROWER-It is difficult for me to talk about the number to a certain extent because I really do not support the concept of public buying it but if they were to buy it the only way I would allow them to buy it is through a referendum process. So, obviously I have a concern that it be the lowest number we can possibly obtain. As you want the highest number you can possibly obtain for your client. MR. LEV ACK-The converse to that argument WARREN CO. SUPY. CAIMANO- That is always the case isn't it? COUNCILMAN BREWER-Dennis you cannot go to referendum unless you have a number so we have to come to a number before we go to referendum or if you propose it. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Why don't we appoint then a committee to do that and they do the same and they arrange a meeting ... SUPERVISOR BROWER-I think that is fair, I sense that there is support on the board for sending this to referendum I do not know that for a fact. Being that the case Jim and Dan have both expressed interest in this. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I would be happy to serve on that. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Both of you gentlemen. COUNCILMAN STEC-I would be delighted. SUPERVISOR BROWER-to negotiate with the Hole in the Woods. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-If you want to have time to go back to your board and consider that, we are not asking you MR. ROURKE-I am just the treasurer. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I understand that, carry that message back to the board, we are willing to sit down with you in that fashion in a progressive positive spirit and with every realistic knowledge that it may not in fact work out, but maybe it would too. MR. JOHN FORESTER-I am John Forester, I am the Secretary A couple of thoughts, one, I really want to reiterate what has been said about the desire of the Board, all the members of the Board to negotiate on a very positive neighbor friendly, community friendly basis, that has been our directive from the other members of the Board and it has been our directive to Mark. I am sure you will appreciate we are very disappointed of some of the unfortunate comments in the Post Star that characterized the Double H in any other way. That is not our intent and I want to be sure you understand that coming from the Board. Another thought and that is we are non for profit in many corporate situations like this the corporation can donate land either at significantly reduced prices or take not price at all. There are significant tax benefits to a taxable entity; we are not in that position. If we were that would put a whole different slant on our situation. So, we do have a very distinct fiduciary liability, fiduciary esponsibility to maximize the value of this property. We are not in the real estate business when ever we get a gift of any kind stock; we have some real estate we immediately try to sell it. We do not hold stock thinking you know, maybe the market will go up and we turn it into an investment asset as fast as we can. This is the only property we have where we have not been able to do that and again, as I said, we just feel that responsibility to do it. We want to cooperate; I personally like the idea of a negotiated procedure that we have been talking about. I think we want to be open to accept, I like Mr. Caimano's comments about the seeds of a negotiated settlement. I hear that as well as you did. But, I just wanted to reiterate that the Board of the Double H is adamant about working this out in as friendly a manner as we can, we just want you to understand that we do have a fiduciary responsibility and we cannot simply ignore that. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you very much for coming this evening. MR. TUCKER-At the last meeting with Mark the question was raised if Mr. Wood had any interest in this property whatsoever? REPRESENTATIVE FROM DOUBLE H-His interest ended when he donated it in 1995. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-If you would carry that message back and then if you would like to appoint a similar committee from your board a representation? REPRESENTATIVE FROM DOUBLE H-This is the committee right here and we are ready to sit down tomorrow. UNKNOWN-I am not here representing Charlie Wood tonight, I am here on another matter but I think Charlie Wood would support Mr. Forester's comments and try to, hope that you work this out with the ranch, it is something that works for everybody. I think like John said would be if Charlie Wood were here would be his sentiment out for the community in a way that everybody benefits from it. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I had every expectation that was the case. 1.2 CITY OF GLENS FALLS-MEETING SEWER NEGOTIATIONS SUPERVISOR BROWER-Introduced the Mayor of Glens Falls, reminded the Board that they authorized the sewer negotiating committee to represent you interests, the Town Board and Citizens of Queensbury that we have met today and we do have a proposal for the Mayor that he will have in the morning, that I am not willing to share this evening. I do not know what this session is about, but reserve the right to cancel it at any time. It was not advertised that a discussion of this nature would occur. COUNCILMAN BREWER-My only point of agreeing to do this is so that this Board can be brought up to speed as to what the Mayor has done and we have not haD that conversation with anybody, we have not been told what is going on and we want to know. I think Bob is willing to enlighten us on what is going on. SUPERVISOR BROWER-If he wants to share what he presented to us, that is fine. We have evaluated the material that he sent to us, we have a counter proposal that is prepared. I have something for the Board Members after the meeting on this... ATTORNEY LEMERY-Noted that you do not want to negotiate this here and now. Spoke to the Board regarding contract negotiations and how they should be conducted...noted it is a complicated process at be st... COUNCILMAN BREWER-Spoke to the Board regarding the length of negotiations, thought there was an agreement on January 4th at the County Building, it is now May 9th and we have had in my opinion no concrete evidence that is going to happen. MAYOR OF GLENS FALLS REGAN-I want you to know that we have been working hard on this issue, from what I have heard you want a deal as much as we do. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Thanked the Mayor for coming...! have faith in our negotiating team, I did not ask you to come here to undermine that, the team has done an excellent job. Ralph VanDusen is probably one of the most qualified W ater/W astewater Directors in the entire state and we are happy to have him. I have the up-most trust in that man to represent not only the interests in the Town but what is a technically sound and reasonable proposal. My role as a policy maker and legislator is to provide general direction to somebody as skilled as he is. I would like to come away from here tonight is just a reiteration of, we want to work with the City we want to honor that January 4th agreement, I am speaking for myself, but most importantly I want to come away from here tonight with an agreement that by May 22nd or June 1st we are going to have an agreement signed... COUNCILMAN BREWER-I would second that. There is no reason that it takes a year to do something like BayBridge. I am not saying it is the City's fault or our fault; I am just saying things like that shouldn't take so long. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-My perception of both communities is that they are not going to be accepting of two sewer plants... SUPERVISOR BROWER-Noted he was offended that Mr. Martin, Mr. Stec and Mr. Brewer that you did not have the curtsey to tell me that you were doing this. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I told you this morning... SUPERVISOR BROWER-Mr. Mayor, I want you to know I will honor the agreement you will have the proposal first thing tomorrow morning I think you will be pleased, I think we will have a productive meeting on Monday afternoon. ATTORNEY LEMERY-My counsel to you is tell your negotiating teams that they cannot talk to the press. DISCUSSION HELD REGARDING TARGET DATE FOR SEWER AGREEMENT-July 6th or sooner... COUNCILMAN BREWER-Just so you know Dennis, no intention was made to offend you and if you are offended then I sorry for that, but this accomplished something... COUNCILMAN STEC-Spoke about the joint Parade, ... RESOLUTION ADJOURNING TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO. 211A. 2001, INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns it meeting. Duly adopted this 9th day of May, 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES: None ABSENT: None Respectfully submitted, Miss Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk-Queensbury