Loading...
1988-06-27 SP SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, .1988 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT Mr. Stephen Borgos-Supervisor Mrs. Marilyn Potenza-Councilman Mr. Ronald Montesi-Councilman Mrs. Betty Monahan-Councilman Mr. Paul Dusek-Town Attorney j MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. George Kurosaka-Councilman Town Officials-Members of the Queensbury Advisory Committee, Mrs. Lee York, Mr. Fred Holman PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY TOWN CLERK DARLEEN M. DOUGHER PUBLIC HEARING-ZONING PROPOSAL SUPERVISOR BORGOS Good Evening Ladies and Gentlemen, Welcome to the two hundred and twenty second public hearing in the last three weeks. I think that we are at the Queensbury Elementary School Cafeteria at the moment, but we move around so much that we really do not know for sure. The purpose of tonights special Town Board Meeting is to conduct a public hearing relative to the rezoning of the Town of Queensbury. As we indicated at the last meeting which was three weeks ago tonight, thanks to the efforts of many citizens working on the Citizens Master Plan Advisory Committee and the rest of the title or what ever it is many of whom are represented here this evening we go this far in our progress toward new zoning rules and regulations toward a master plan and toward building for the future of the Town of Queensbury. I say we got this far because I know we are not there all the way yet. During the past three weeks there has been a great deal of time for public comment and the public has responded. We have gotten phone calls we have gotten written statements we got people to attend meetings and in fact in recent days the pace of the comments seemed to have picked up. Tonight was the official end at 5:00 P.M. to receive any written comments and tonights meeting is the official end of the public comment period. However. I attended a meeting on Thursday as did our Town Attorney, as did Mrs. York, a meeting with many representatives from the Warren County Bar Association and I think it is the real property committee is the official title of it. The meeting was called on a very short notice and an urgent basis to indicate to us that, that committee had found many serious deficiencies of defect in the proposed rules and regulations. They indicated that those were so critical in nature that they felt they absolutely had to tell us at this point. We reviewed them, with them for about two hours, just today I received a synopsis from them indicating in writing what the recommended changes should be. They also indicated that they haven't really begun to get through all the work yet, that they have much to do. They indicated that the earliest they could possibly get this completed is July 15th. If that is true and we believe it to be, getting that information July 15th and then trying to come out of our moratorium on July 30th with what ever public hearings would have to take place after those other revisions were made even though many of those are technical it was discussed at the meeting that perhaps there should be a further postponement in the adoption of the rules and regulations. This is something that I personally do not like to see and I have really been uncomfortable for the last year, putting everyones plans on hold. It appears to me at least to be the only reasonable approach. Tomorrow night I will propose to the Board, to the Town Board that we further extend the moratorium and further extend the adoption of the rules and regulations for two additional months. That would take us into September 30th or take us through the rest of the summer after Labor Day into the fall. It is very, very difficult position for me to take and actually I fought against a couple of the extensions because I think we have to get on with business. The deficiencies rG , I am convinced are so serious at this moment that we really truly need more time. I asked my secretary during the day today to contact each of the Town Board Members to indicate that this was my feeling I have not had time to talk to any of them except Mr. Montesi who I saw this afternoon. I haven't had time to talk to them about their feelings related to this. I wanted to let you know that certainly this Town Board is not rushing things through it is not ramroding anything that the comirent has been good and sufficient and that tomorrow night at the regular Town Board Meeting there will be a resolution to propose an extension through the moratorium' until September 30th.Our position here this evening is to receive additional comment based on what has been released to the public so far, you do have everything that we have. We had hoped to have more changes for you we have not gotten those changes because of all of the input. We still are absorbing all the input we received some recommendations from the Citizens Advisory Committee but I am sure that they are not finished yet either. I would ask that as you make your comments this evening, please indicate you name, address, if you represent _. a particular group indicate what that group is. Try to keep your comments reasonably short if you have a written statement, you certainly may read it we would like you to turn it in at the end so the Clerk would have it for her records. We would ask that if you spoke at the meeting three weeks ago and you wish to comment about the same subject and wish to say the same words please don't unless you actually feel compelled to because it is really part of the same meeting it is going to be added into the same packet of information. In other words there is no sense wasting time repeating exactly what you said before. If however you heard someone else say something last time and you would like to 'say it this time and didn't before, by all means do it, your name will be on the record and your comments will be there. We are not going to stop anybody from saying anything they would like very honestly but we just ask in consideration of others try to restrain your comments. I do expect some new types of comments this evening, based on what I have heard In the last couple of weeks. I expect some new issues to be raised. As before we are willing to accept comments from anyone and everyone we ask that everyone be allowed to speak once before we recognize anyone for the second time. We are here not to debate rather to receive comments. If the question arises and we can have a short simple answer, the simple is not intended to be an insult to anyone, --� simple means just straight forward we will see if we can get that answer for you. If it is a long involved answer we will take your comments and ask that someone contact you either after the meeting or in the next few days to give you that answer. OK, I think we are ready to start, please raise your hand and I will recognize you and we will get going. Yes, Sir in the back. MR. SILVERNEL My name is Mr. Silvernel, 93 Main Street, West. Glens Falls. I have been in West Glens Falls area since I came home in WWII, 1946. From what I read in the paper and from looking at your draft plan you are talking one acre lots 150xl50 in the West Glens Falls area. I think that the people in West Glens Falls and I think that everybody in this room realized that we are now practically a main highway. The part being residential is gone you cannot get in or out of your driveway, so take these lots which are normally 55' x 300' deep and changing them to 150' road frontage. You had a closed meeting and at the meeting you said the reason that you had a closed meeting was that you did not want realtors to be grabbing up property that was going to be rezoned. I think the way you rezoned the situation, everyone with a 55' lot become prey for every commercial realtor in this area. All he has to do is buy one property and sit there until the other people given in. I think of that the rezoning or West Glens Falls should be given quite a bit more thought and quite a bit more planning. I agree with your rezoning I am not saying that it shouldn't be done I do think that certain elements as you Just said before had to be gone through. I am in a very bad position as well as Mr. Fredella is, we are both between two businesses one which the Board allowed to go in there just very recently the Pizza Hut. On a 110 front foot frontage now the traffic is unbelievable there are next to a cemetery. In my way of looking at that, that was poor planning, but that has nothing to do with it. The basic condition that I am talking about is a lot a people along these fifty 3 five foot lots are going to become prey. There is no way they are going gable to compete with the ;:Zoning Laws that you people are putting forward. Their property is not residential. They cannot live in it practically right now. I wish you would give a little more thought and a little more consideration. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS Thank you very much. That was precisely one of the subject that I would expect to have been brought up tonight. That has become a major issue in the last week or so. Maybe someone here can address that, again as a brief answer. That is something that we 'did not have an answer to at the last meeting as far as whether the currently existing lots would be permitted or proposed to be permitted or whether the combining of would still have to be done? Does anyone have an answer? The currently existing lots as proposed would still be -- permitted for residential or office use for other use they would have to be combined? Is that correct? At least that is an interpretation that is what is intended as a group. MR. SILVERNEL ...but these people do not own a hundred foot frontage they do not own a hundred and fifty foot frontage. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- I think what our consultant is indicating that the preexisting size what ever it is would still be permitted if it is fifty or what ever, is that correct? That is what he is indicating. That is the proposal, we do not know and I still do not have a good legal opinion on that. UNKNOWN- Permitted for what? We do not understand, permitted for what? SUPERVISOR BORGOS- This is the mixed zone between residential and commercial. As the, consultant has just indicated to me the residential use would still be permitted on that smaller lot currently existing and office use would still be permitted, other commercial uses as I understand it watching Fred. would not be permitted, most other uses. (Please use the mic) MR. SILVERNEL Is the consultant telling us that they are going to allow the people to use the fifty five foot lot for office or what ever they want to use it for or do they have to have one hundred foot? (Tape did not pick up Consultants comments) SUPERVISOR BORGOS In the existing building. MR. SILVERNEL Let me point out one thing. I put one of the first commercial buildings in West Glens Falls. ` I had a business in my house, I built an office and a warehouse along side my house, in 1947 or 1948. We people here own a fifty five foot lot, these people are asking you if they have a chance to sell it to somebody who wants to run to make a beauty shop out of it or make a hairdresser or what ever are they going to be allowed or are they going to have to have to go to their neighbor and say to their neighbor I have to have your lot and they still cannot put it in. You are saying put an office building in there. Are you going to allow hairdressers and these people to occupy offices? SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Would you use the microphone, Mr. Fred Holman, our Consultant from Rochester. MR. SILVERNEL Good I am very familiar with Rochester. SUPERVISOR BORGOS I have flown over it and I like to drive around it. MR. SILVERNEL I am very familiar with Rochester Pure Waters, he should understand who they are. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- While he is looking for some references, you indicated a moment ago we did some things at our closed meeting. We had an executive session as reported however... MR. SILVERNEL I did not mean any comment to be derogatory, I am saying I read a 4 statement where it said the reason was that the land people would gobble up land that was going to be rezoned. SUPERVISOR BORGOS That is correct. MR. SILVERNEL What I am saying is now, you come out with this and the people who own a fifty five foot lot are going to suffer. Someone will come . in and buy them up. SUPERVISOR BORGOS Please be assured that, that particular stretch of road and that zone was not discussed in any of those meetings. MR. SILVERNEL That is a very hot potato in that area. i SUPERVISOR BORGOS That was not discussed in any way at the meeting. FRED HOLMAN- We are very much aware of the problem with the commercial development along the street and you in fact indicated the problem where you said, I think, Pizza Hut came in and bought 100' MR. SILVERNEL 110' FRED HOLMAN- 110' and they opened up a business and there are all kinds of problems with this. MR. SILVERNEL I did not say there was any problems. FRED HOLMAN- Where there is traffic problems with it. MR. SILVERNEL There are going to be traffic problems with any building you ,put up. FRED HOLMAN- The concern of the Advisory Committee was to understand that, that is a changing neighborhood. It can be changed to commercial on 1500 sq. foot lots as a major entrance into the City. MR. SILVERNEL Could I gust hold you for just one minute. I have a lot 35'x306' approximately 16500' I cannot build on it I do not have 100' frontage I haven't got 150' frontage. I have the square footage you people require, I haven't got the frontage you are talking about. That frontage is not available in that area. FRED HOLMAN- On one lot. MR. SILVERNEL Name one up there, show me one...most of the lots up there are fifty five foot, I do not know if the people are here or not, I do not know what there lots size area Is there anyone here with a lot in West Glens Falls 150'footage front or 100' footage front? Well ninety four, you probably can get a she probably can get under the law. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Excuse me Sir, we cannot hear you for purposes of the record, if you wish to speak come to the microphone. J would certainly encourage you to do that. MR. SILVERNEL I will not take up any more of your time I think that I have gotten my point across and I think that the people in this area that are from West Glens Falls are thinking the way I am thinking. I think you people are, from what you are just telling me. I . think a lot of attention has to be paid to this before the rezoning is committed as to the final. -- SUPERVISOR BORGOS This is one of the big reasons why we are holding off and why I am going to recommend tomorrow that we are holding off. MR. SILVERNEL Thank you. There was another hand in the back first and then I will let you speak. Yes, Sir, with the beard and the dark jacket. MR. BOB WALSH- Bob Walsh, I am here with Bob Lent who is a property owner up in the Moon Hill Bay Road Area and also a contractor. Mr. Lent purchased the first portion of this property back in the early 1970's with intent of developing it according to the residential zone at that time. In the early 1980's he purchased a second parcel to create J a twenty five acre parcel which he now owns. The zoning at the time and currently is SR-30 and Mr. Lent did prepare a concept plan for submission ="to 'the Board which would ``generate 25 single family lots which would be a little over an acre lots each. We have taken soil tests and found that the soil conditions are excellent for subsurface tile fields systems which are necessary in that area. Now with the proposed rezoning of RR3A would require that Mr. Lent develop this property twenty five acre parcel into' eight lots. This is not at all in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Imrediately to the South of this project we have a subdivision known as Sherwood Acres which basically the homes are all developed on 1800 to 20000 sq. ft. We do feel that we have an exceptional hardship in this case because we do have a twenty five acre parcel which was intended to be developed we will say approximately twenty five acres and now with the rezoning put in place as it is proposed we would end up with eight lots. This really seems to be an economic hardship on my partner and friend and we do feel that this is unrealistic. SUPERVISOR BORGOS Could you tell me Sir, gust quickly, what are the contours of this property, is it flat or hilly? MR. WALSH- It is a hillside a hilly type of parcel, yes it is Sir, but it is all good gravel, we have taken soil tests and boring, it has excellent soil conditions and it is all gravel. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you very much. Yes, Sir. MARK SCHACHNER- Members of the Town Board, I am Mark Schachner, from the Glens Falls Law Firm of Miller, Mannix and Pratt of One, Broad Street Plaza. I did appear at your prior hearing on behalf of the same group that I am here for now but I will make a few brief points that are new on believe. The group of people that I represent is a group of property owners I Garrison Road, principally and North Road as well, that own property abutting and contiguous to property owned by Ted Zoii. The nine and a half approximately acre parcel in question that also is contiguous to land currently owned by USCI or CR BARD. I know that the Board is familiar with the property I am speak of and there has been some discussion as you are well aware of behalf of the entire group of each and every contiguous property owner and the property owner himself we have requested that the property be rezoned single family residential to be in keeping with the existing character of the neighborhood and not light industrial. All the points that I mentioned earlier it is our understanding that there is in fact a new proposal by the Advisory Committee if I understand it correctly to zone both of the properties as we asked single family residential but to have a small fifty foot strip closest to the existing property of USCI be zoned light industrial. On behalf of that large group of neighborhood residents I am here to commend the Advisory Committee for seeking some solution that at least preserves the bulk of the property as single family residential. On behalf of that large group of neighborhood owners we do not see the need for a split zone and we would urge the Town Board to make the entire nine and a half acres parcel single family residential but we certainly appreciate the Advisory Committee recommendation that at least the vast majority of that property be zoned' single family residential. The only other two points I wanted' to make quickly and I will not take any more of the Boards time is please understand it is not just the property owner himself but each and every contiguous property owner that makes this request and lastly there was some discussion I believe that formally that perhaps there was no need to rezone the property that the private property owner or owners themselves could take care of this situation through the imposition of private deed restrictions. On behalf of the'entire group we very vehemently do not find that to be an adequate solution it is definitely is not a good solution simply because that is one of the reasons that zoning exists. It is because private deed restrictions do not do the job. Private Deed restrictions can be waived in certain instances can be over come in a variety of instances and can be redrafted and ignored. That is why zoning, one of the reasons that zoning exists because private restrictions don't do the job. We do not want to be subject to the whims and fancies of any subsequent property owners we urge that the Board zone the parcel as single family residential 6 to preserve the essential and valuable residential neighborhood character. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you Sir.Yes, Sir Mr. Holmes. MR. LEE REEVES- Good Evening, My name is Lee Reeves. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Excuse me, I confused you with someone else. MR. LEE REEVES- I am Lee Reeves anyway. I own a couple of properties on Upper Sherman Avenue. To begin with I would like to state that I am in general agreement with one major aspect of rezoning in reducing the densities of Queensbury parcels to help retain some of the natural beauty of Queensbury, which we so much enjoy. So if the details do need more — work one particular that I am concerned about is on Upper Sherman Avenue. It is presently, completely residential both sides all the way the length of it. The rezoning changes a major portion of that to light industrial. This was done by moving the boundaries from being a five hundred foot buffer zone along the southern side over to apparently mid road, it is hard to tell from the maps but that is the way it appears. This essentially put light industrial on the south side of the road, residential on the north side which seems like not the way to go and also in doing this it changes the residential character of the southern side of Upper Sherman- which in the present zoning called for residential which would be protected forever. Since it has only been six years I thought forever was longer than that. So mainly I would like to see and I am Sure many, of my neighbors would the five hundred foot residential buffer zone retained and the light industrial continued from five hundred foot back from Upper Sherman over to Luzerne Road, which is the way it is presently done. It would make very little over all difference in the areas of those zones but the main aspect would be retaining residential for Upper Sherman both sides the complete length of that. Which I think changing to light industrial is a major, major change. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR BORGOS Thank you. That is a good point that I hadn't seen before. One in the back first and then I will come forward. Yes, Sir. DR. ROGER BRASSEL- My name is Dr. Robert Brassel, I live on Rockwell Road in Queensbury and maintain an office on Bay Road. I wish to address the concept of three acre zoning, and what I believe you referred to as the Ridge Road area. In my opinion that is such a restriction, a restriction of three acres per house is unreasonable and in the extreme, for several reasons. First, the financial impact for such a restriction would limit severely the number of people that could live there, which obviously is the intention, and the quality of people that could live in acreage that is restricted to three acres. There are lots in this town presently under an acre in size that have been sold for over forty thousand dollars and close packed dark pinewoods. The area that I live is extraordinarily beautiful and a three acre piece of land up there is going to cost considerably more than forty thousand dollars, much, much more as such it will restrict the type of person who can conceive of living in our town. It is discriminatory against middle income hard working people. Even two income families there is no way a husband and wife can raise their children on a three acre home site in the Town of Queensbury unless they are extraordinarily wealthy. On that basis I think it is unreasonable and discriminatory, it has a social impact and the social impact is that the blend of different people that live in Queensbury will be restricted. No low income or minority person could dream of obtaining such a goal at this time in this country. I think that the Town Board which overruled the : Planning Board recommendation in that respect is remiss severely. The social complex or content that will develop, the high income people that clip coupons or have extreme incomes typical and nonsense. A hard working man ought to be able to live in the Town of Queensbury and there is no reason why he cannot live in the North end as well as in the West end or the South end or the East end. The present restriction to one acre per family seems quite reasonable and my particular piece of land immediately across the road there will be thirty four families on MR. WALTER FISHER- My name is Walter Fisher I live at Nottingham Drive in Glens Falls. 1, a little over two years ago I purchased 19 acres of property south of the Airport and West of County Line Road. It is in a little pocket right by the North South runway, and East West Runway. Your proposed, at the time I purchased it, it was a light industrial and that is the reason why, light industrial one acre, your proposed line splits my property in half, land locking my light industrial and making the other part single resident one acre, which the property isn't conducive to residential living at all. j SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Would you take a minute and show us on the map where your's is? Supposedly we were not supposed to split any properties. MR. WALTER FISHER- I presume that was a mistake, because the area is really not conducive, again, to residential living. It would totally destroy my light industrial property because it would land lock it. The two sides would be on the Airport direct property and the other side would be on the 250' right of way. I just request that the property not be split and zoned as Light Industrial One Acre. SUPERVISOR,BORGOS- Thank you, we will take a close look at that. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Mr. Fisher, could I borrow you map for a minute. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- We are getting close on this, we are getting to refine all these things. It is our understanding that all the, any decision for zones were based on property lines so it comes as a1 surprise each time we discover these, it is better to discover them now rather than later. Yes, first, we will go back and forth. DEBBIE COLLINS- My name is Debbie Collins and I live at 10 Carlton Drive and I am here to draw your attention to sheet five. I do not know if you guys have this in front of you. Carlton Drive has been before it was zoned UR something I am not sure, Urban Residential now you have proposed to change it to MR5 which is multi residence 5000 sq. ft. instead of SR1A. I raise this question because I noticed that the Cottage Hill Area and the John Burke Area is to be proposed as SR1A. - Seeing that I live in what I call the affordable area of Glens, Queensbury, excuse me, I have lived in this area all my life I would like you to preserve this single family residence. There are no duplexes over there right now, we do border up against Robert Gardens which is lovely but as I understand MR5 you have to have 5000 sq. ft. to put up a multi residence. Our average size lots are 11,000 sq. ft. I guess what I see is an eventual creeping in if someone sells their house to someone who would like to put up a multi dwelling and all of a sudden because they have got that zoning in there my neighbor has got five families living next to me because�he has the right amount of acreage. Now, maybe that would not happen, but I would like to be treated like the Cottage Hill Area is being treated. I do not know if you are familiar, I can point it out on the map. It might be an oversight and I am not asking for spot zoning I am just asking for a single family resident area to be kept single family. OK, I also agree with Dr. Brassel, Right on Brother. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you. Yes, Sir. MR. JOHN CLIFFORD- My name is John Clifford, I live over on Main Street, West Glens Falls. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- I saw your picture in the paper. f MR. JOHN CLIFFORD- 1 have a question, I have noticed now that on the maps that CR15 calls for 15000 sq. ft. minimum. what happen to the acre that I saw a month or so ago, did that disappear? SUPERVISOR BORGOS- I do not believe that any changes have been made yet. Let me check. It is still one acre. MR. JOHN CLIFFORD- I would like to address myself to that right now. MR. FRED HOLMAN- Could I clarify that for just a second. You can have a 15000 sq. nine acres of land. There is no geological reason what so ever that only three family could live on nine acres of land. There is a good deal more to this but I direct your attention to the moral impact of what you are about to do, In this country traditionally a man could work for his keep, raise a family and leave something for his children. If a man should happen to own five acres of land and have two children he couldn't leave each of them a home site, if you restrict it to three acres, and that is unreasonable. I challenge any member of this Board or any employee of the Town of Queensbury ' or any Planning person anyplace in the World to deny that. •1 think you have to go back to the original concept to one home per acre which is quite reasonable. 'Developments in the West side of Town are considerably more dense than that and I think that if you don't I am going to make you, by one means or another. That is all I have to say. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you Doctor. DR. BRASSEL- One additional thing, what you about doing is extremely complex no one would deny that. There are forces all over the place governing what you have to decide but moratorium after moratorium after moratorium after moratorium is in fact not functional, you' are not doing your job, however difficult it is if you just keep extending this moratorium. Now, at some point in time you have got to act, you got to say, ok, we will do the best job we can and do it. ' SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you Doctor, you are certainly welcome to review all the comments that have come in, the written comments we have many comments almost exclusively supporting your position. (Taped turned) Does anyone know how to turn on the air handling system in here, it will be nosey but it will help to cool off a bit. BARBARA EGGLESTON- My name is Barbara Eggleston and I own property over on the VanDusen Road. I may not be reading this map right but from what I can see when I bought our property back in the early 60's I have two large lots over there, now we have a big housing development that is going out behind us and I lost some property in that deal and now I do not have two building lots anymore. I think that there should be _ some kind of grandfather clause so that people that have owned their property for over twenty some odd years the way I have and my neighbor Mr. Alden has over there. I know a acre of property for a lot of these places but my sons are grown now and they would like to build there and with out the extra land that was taken from me, we do not have but 1.84 acres of property over there now, which would only allow us to have one building lot. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you very much. Would you please see me after, I have not seen you for a couple of years, I would like to talk to you about something. AUDREY KIERNAN My name is Audrey Kiernan, and I am a little bit concerned with the West Glens Falls area. I happen to buy a house on Big Bay Road three or four years ago, I have lived in Glens Falls all my life and Corinth Road is an absolute mess. You have made a mess out of Big Boom and Big Bay is coming right behind it with low industry zoning there is heavy equipment trucks all the time up and down the road, they do not care about anybody, they pull out in front of them and it is an absolute mess. There are people that have had their houses there for ions that are selling out because of the low industry and its turning into just what Big Boom turned into and if anybody has never been down in that area which I had never been. in the thirty years that I have lived here. Its the Hudson River it is gorgeous piece of property all through there it is highly used by people of i West Glens Falls, Queensbury whoever, Glens Falls for recreation and boating and swimming. It is turning into an absolute mess. Corinth Road is a mess already and you know 1 would like to see some kind of „. that is on that low industry, fine I understand that commercial property on Corinth Road is highly valuable and they are putting in big business and that kind of thing but you know you are saving the pond by Woodbury's for trout and all that lets save the Hudson River and Big Bay and Big Boom Road. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you very much. Yes, Sir. ft. lot-0--py- have a residence or ,if ,..you have, if you sell your , property to an office and they locate tw"your,residence ...the purpose behind the one acre is the realization 'to develop a major business a Highway Commercial business on 15000 sq. ft. would create, in the future would create havoc in that area and already is. The lots are too small and the Advisory Committee realized that therefore to accommodate business, Highway Commercial Businesses the zoning board is proposed that you have at least one acre. So that you can have the proper ingress and egress, parking and the business on 'the lot. MR. JOHN CLIFFORD- I have 18000 sq. ft. right now, but that is not 43,550 sq. ft. which is ....is but if you have seen Main Street you have to realize that ...would take in four or five property owners right now. You would have to be IBM or someone to move in that place and put a business. Even if you are one acre and the thing goes through here, you are talking about roughly two hundred and some odd..most of those buildings are fifty five or what ever they are frontage. If a fellow wanted to put a business in there, by the way that is why I bought the place two years ago a year and a half ago to put a little business in there. But if you want to do that now you would have to get five people to agree to sell to you, so you better come up with about three hundred thousand dollars to put your business in. My thinking along that line is that you are going from twelve thousand square feet to forty three thousand five hundred fifty sq. ft. that is hard to conceive of if you know a little bit about Main Street, West Glens Falls. That is where I will leave it right now, Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you Sir, we are looking at that area very closely. Yes, Sir In front. MR. WILLIAM NEALON- My name is William Nealon, I am an Attorney in Glens Falls and I am here on behalf of Barbara and- Charles Seeley who own property on Glenwood Boulevard. They were recently before the Zoning Board in connection with a business that has been operated there for a number of years, they have been property owners there since the late 60's excuse me early 70's. The property in question was according to the zoning map that was in place at the time they bought it which - was in 1967 zoning map, a light industrial zone. Since then and I offer this map which was obtained from the Clerk's Office last week, ...the property now is bordered by what is said to be highway commercial on reviewing the existing use schedule what we have is light industry in the sense of the Saw Horse being a lumber and supply yard it is classed in your proposed zone continuing as Highway Commercial. It is not Highway Commercial it is light industrial. We watch, the Seeley's rather watch heavy pallotized trucks, flat beds and so on go in and out of the property immediately adjacent to theirs on a daily basis. They have operated that business there a welding and light manufacturing operation fabrication operation for a number of years. Across the street are additional retail enterprises we would ask that recognition be paid in the new zoning to what has been there in the past under your existing zoning as it existed when these folks acquired the property and to the use that is made now with the property that immediately adjoins them. The side set backs in the light industrial zone could be and would be maintained by the Seeleys if they are permitted to continue the operation that they have had there over the course of many years. This particular property is in our estimation being singled out unfairly by this existing zoning. We now immediately across the street property that has been carefully carved out to- permit it's existing use, and yet this property has been thrown into a residential zone whereas the property immediately adjacent to it is said to be a highway commercial use and it is not, it is light industrial. We ask that the Seeley's property be considered given its existing use. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Just two questions, one, what you are asking us to do is to reclassify what a lumber yard is in our zoning ordinance or a retail what ever we want to call Northern Homes or Woodbury from a lumber yard or retail lumber yard to a light industrial, that is the first thing we have to do. 10 MR. WILLIAM NEALON- I am looking at the existing use schedule and actually I take that back I miss spoke, the existing 'use, is' not light industrial it is heavy industrial. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- You want us to classify the lumber industrial or heavy industrial MR. WILLIAM NEALON- That is what your existing use schedule shows, heavy industry, I am sorry I misspoke. COUNCILMAN MONIESI- Rezone Quaker Road light industrial to include the Seeley's property. now, the question I have is the barn that the Seeley's is using for a welding shop which is built about a year and a half ago so I have to assume that this is MR. WILLIAM NEALON- It was built in 1979. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- The barn MR. WILLIAM NEALON- The barn COUNCILMAN MONTESI- With the welding, that originally was a car restoration shop, will that be able to maintain a fifty foot buffer zone between the residential side and rear settings? MR. WILLIAM NEALON- Yes. No problem. The existing, the prior set back in that light Industrial zone was five hundred feet - from Quaker Road virtually all of the Seeley's property is within that five hundred foot zone. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- I am taking about their adjacent neighbor. MR. WILLIAM NEALON- The adjacent neighbor is a business by the way. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- The other side. MR. WILLIAM NEALON- Yes. SUPERVISOR BORGOS We received the paper work on this, -,Friday, 'I believe I read this morning and we will look at this closely. ? You have given us good documentation to go back to the 1967 maps for grandfathering and we will bring that forward and see where that leads us. Yes, Sir. MR. RON CHARTRAND- My name is Ron Chartrand, I represent Air On Industrial Corp. SUPERVISOR BORGOS Where do you live? MR. RON CHARTRAND- I live at 217 Bay Street. SUPERVISOR BORGOS Thank you. MR. RON CHARTRAND- We have a hundred plus acres up by the Airport and we are the neighbors of Mr. Fisher who just spoke here a short time ago. I would like to ask a question before I go into why I am here and everything. The question is why was that land up there, that it is zoned right now L1A changed or proposed to be changed to Suburban Residential 1A? That is my question. MR. FRED HOLMAN- Right now it isn't. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- I do not think it is at this moment. MR. RON CHARTRAND- According to the map unless I am blind SUPERVISOR BORGOS- It depends on which side, there is SR1A and LIIA are you on the east side of County Line Road? (Mr. Chartrand showed the Board a map of the area) You are correct based on what shows here. MR. FRED HOLMAN- I will have to go back and check the notes. MR. RON CHARTRAND Can I assume that this is an error? t MR. FRED HOLMAN- No. MR. RON CHARTRAND- Have you looked at the map? MR. FRED HOLMAN- What I am saying is. MR. RON CHARTRAND- Would you answer my question, why was it zoned SRIa instead of leaving It the way it was? MR. FRED HOLMAN- I cannot tell you that right now. MR. RON CHARTRAND- Why not. MR. FRED HOLMAN- Because I do not recollect, it was done a long time ago. I will have to go back and check. I will go back and check the minutes and the notes that we have on that particular... MR. RON CHARTRAND- When can I hear anything about this? MR. FRED HOLMAN- I will not be back in my office until Thursday, so I do not know what Lee's schedule is. The committee is meeting on Wednesday, we can discuss it Wednesday evening and get back to you, probably by the end of this week. MR. RON CHARTRAND- Since I am here I might just as well give you some more information. There has not been any houses built up there in fifty years. The land is flat if I threw a stone I would hit an airplane. I do not think people would want to have a house that close to the airport. There is a lot of traffic up there with the Warren Washington County Industrial Park, there is trucks that go by there that I can tell the time by, they go by several times during the day and I think that, that area in my own opinion would never be used or be suitable for residential use. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- The property that you are talking about the old Stevens place? MR. RON CHARTRAND- No. Not that I know of, it is the Reilly place and the Broderick Place. Since I am here tonight I would just like to mention one other thing, it is hard to get to talk to you, you are quite busy and everything. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- I got no message from you, have you been trying? MR. RON CHARTRAND- I did not leave a message I just asked for you and you were busy. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- I try and call back as soon as possible. MR. RON CHARTRAND- About the sewage on County Line Road I am 100% in favor of it going thorough, and I hope that this can be resolved and I will not say anymore until we hear more. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you. Yes, Sir. MR. MONSOUR- My name is Mr. ... Monsour, I live at 95 Main Street, West Glens Falls I am adjacent to the Pizza Hut. I understand the present commercial is 100' frontage with a fifty foot set back which Pizza Hut moved in under those circumstances. We have buffer zones, they waived my buffer zone on my residence because I figure it is going to be commercial. Now you are talking 150' frontage with a 75' set back that messes my ideas up a little bit. I would like you to leave it alone, Commercial at 110' with my neighbor Mr. Silvernel we would have 110'x approximately 306' deep and I would like to leave it that way Commercial because be are hem in by Burgers of Beagles and Pizza Hut. I do not think any residential or any professional office would go in there. On the other hand most of your fast food places require an acre of land, approximately 200' front maybe 150' front that's , the bigger ones like McDonalds and Burger King but some of your smaller ones can't afford it and they will squeeze in at 100 plus what ever they can get by with, Pizza Hut did that, they were satisfied they were looking for more land they wanted mine but we couldn't talk business. I would like to leave it and not ask for a variance when I do try to sell it to somebody, I would like it put in the records right now that it is commercial and they can build on it we have approximately 34000 sq. ft. there with the two pieces of property. Maybe three quarters of an acre.' I 'would like to know what your thoughts are on it. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- We are still thinking sir, I know your property exactly. I am sure none of us are happy with the appearance of the Cemetery next to the Pizza Hut but we will have to wait and see how this all comes out, we will discuss all this in the days and weeks ahead and i,t will be open for everyone to listen to. MR. MONSOUR- The zoning, when is the zoning, your new zoning going into effect. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- It was scheduled to go in by July 30th we are going to propose tomorrow that, that be extended by September 30th so we can take care of the technical legal questions. MR. MONSOUR- There will be some more discussions about this? SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Yes. We cannot give you a date yet because we haven't agreed to extend yet but when we do we will have another public hearing. MR. MONSOUR- Let me ask you another question. What do we have to do to put a stop to this? In other words. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Appear at meetings like this Sir in large numbers and tell us you do not like it and we will certainly listen to you. MR. MONSOUR- In a hundred foot of commercial frontage it is quite a bit of property. I know your bigger corporation want many be 150 to 200' many be 300' but they have the money to do it, but now that I am hemned in who am I going to sell it to? No Doctor is going to go in there or lawyer you are talking professional. Let me ask you a questions if I can get it sold before then is there going to be any problems? SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Sir, at the moment, it is zoned the way it is and the changes have not taken place, I might be out of order if I told you to care of it before hand. What is there now is what is there now, there will not be any changes made for a while. - MR. MONSOUR- OK, Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- You are welcome. MORTON BATCHELDER- My name is Morton Batchelder, I live on Wintergreen Road up in Queensbury. Again, as Lee stated there we would like to go over this possible rezoning. We took a petition around to the local members, we have about a hundred and thirty signatures that say, "We the undersigned residents of the Sherman Avenue Area object to the proposed zoning change of the south side of Sherman Avenue from a residential to a light industrial, we prefer that the five hundred foot residential zone on the south side remain." we took this around up there and throughout the area of this localized area as we had done once before to keep the five hundred feet residential on the other side of our homes. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you, may we have the petition? MORTON BATCHELDER- I have a couple more people who want to sign... SUPERVISOR BORGOS- that is a compelling endorsement from the area, we can not ignore that for sure. Lets go to the right, then go right and left, Eleanor, it looks like you. ELEANOR OUDEKERK Eleanor Oudekerk, I live on Bay Road. I jointly own property with my brother at this time, since the death of my mother about 100 acres of farm land and I think we are part of an endangered species. We still own property which has some agricultural use. It has been in my family since 1867 and has been farmed to one degree or another since then. I have a couple of questions mainly of clarification perhaps one is under agricultural uses, farm classifications. Its 13 specifies that farms are classified in four categories, Class A,B,C, and D. My question is if you opt for one use or if you are permitted on use and I assume having been agricultural we will be is another use also permitted are mix uses permitted? A Class A is a parcel of land use for raising for agricultural products and keeping of animals etc. Class C would be ...Class C would be in excess of five acres for the production of agricultural products and I would suggest that there is no farm around that doesn't have mixed uses. I cannot see that there would be any parcel of 100 acres or more that probably doesn't have mixed uses. So that is my question. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- For clarification you are talking about mixed agricultural... ELEANOR OUDEKERK- Mixed agricultural uses such as some of A and some of C so that may be a matter which you may wish to deal with and I would like to know whether that will be permitted.. Another very small point... SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Excuse me, would you like an answer? FRED HOLMAN- Do you want to answer that or do you want me to? SUPERVISOR BORGOS- I will let you answer it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- I think that I know the answer but these are your rules and regulations I guess is that if you qualify for the highest use like that is A and you could also do B, C and D. FRED HOLMAN- The classifications of farm land are related to more intense zones, it was a transitional kind of classification so that if you are in an area that is large lot zoning that, for agriculture and you don't have neighbors on 5000 sq. ft. lots you could do anything to the farming. As you got into the more populated zones then there are restrictions placed on the point where you could have a garden but you couldn't have hogs, and that is where the classifications come in. ELEANOR OUDEKERK- It is surrounding it of course, it is becoming quite populated. FRED HOLMAN- That is a problem. (tape turned) Class A obviously you could have a Class D it is a lesser impact. ELEANOR OUDEKERK- I was not sure I understood that. The other point is has to do with the definition of subdivider or subdivision and this has just come to me recently sense this situation, the estate settlement and so forth. My reading is that a subdivision is means the division of the land into two or more lots. Well, it is conceivable that since the passing of my mother the parcel that was conveyed to my brother and me might be split, do you call this a subdivision? If it a result of an estate matter? It is dividing a parcel into two lots. FRED HOLMAN- The only time it becomes a subdivision is if you want to sell part of that property, or if you wanted to develop that property with two uses, two or more uses. ELEANOR OUDEKERK- That is what I wanted to know if your definition applies strictly to any kind of division of property or if there were situations such as a matter of willing parcels to family members or estate settlements or other kind of settlements that might have to be undertaken where property would have to be divided although maybe the essential purpose wasn't for a subdivision. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- We will check on that legal ... FRED HOLMAN- The purpose behind a subdivision is if you want to have defined parcels that you are going to sell or management differently not as a partnership with your brother, yes it has to be subdivided. If you are going to sell off part of that land it has to be a subdivided. If you are just saying your mother gave you a big chunk of land and she is giving half of it to you and half to your brother but it will be operated the same and functioning the same as it is now you do not have to subdivide it. 14 ELEANOR OUDEKERK I did not know how transfers of that nature would figure in. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- We will still check on the legal ramifications of that and have an answer for you. Mr. Nelson, I will try and work from the front to the back then I don't have the hand covering from the front. MR. GARRY NELSON- My name is Garry Nelson, Thunderbird Drive. We are presently zoned for three acres and we sold a parcel of five acres to a good friend of ours and the new zoning which is ten acres to be ten acres I havq no problem with but what I am asking is can this person still build? SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Yes. The sale has already consummated? MR. GARRY NELSON- Yes. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Yes, because we are still under the current zoning, being a preexisting nonconforming use or nonconforming lot size, you will be grandfathered. That is a quick easy one and I am not even an attorney. Yes, in the back, please. MR. JACK MANNIX- My name is Jack Mannix, my partner Mark Schachner was here earlier, I am here not with respect to any particular zone or any problems like that I am here, I represent Edward Howe who owns the Satellite TV Business on Sweet Road. First of all this is the first attempt as far as we are aware that Satellite tv receiving antennas are intended to be regulated under town zoning. We are disappointed that nobody came and asked us for any input what so ever until the proposed regulations came out. Following that I wrote a lengthy letter analyzing it the best I am able to do to the new Town Attorney under date of June 16th. I had a conference with Paul last Thursday so far we have not been asked to sit down to determine whether or not there is some way we can resolve what we feel are serious legal problems with respect to that which you propose. The fundamental problem is that the Federal Communications Commission has back in the early part of 1986 passed its own ruling that local municipalities, have very, very limited rights to regulate satellite tv receivers. At the risk of taking a couple of minutes I want to get it on the record because I want you to know how strongly we feel about" this and it is something that we intend to see to it that the ultimate ordinance comports in every respect with the FCC rule. This has not gotten any publicity up until this point I am not here for the purpose of publicity but I want to make sure that the Town Board understands that its powers have been limited by the FCC so that the rules and regulations throughout the country with respect to satellite tv receivers are uniform and it is not done piece meal. The FCC said that the State and Local Zoning or other regulations that differentiate between Satellite Receive only antennas and other types of antenna facilities are preempted unless such regulations, A. Have a reasonable and clearly defined Health, Safety or aesthetic Objective and B. and it says and B. do not operate to impose unreasonable limitation on or prevent reception of Satellite delivered signals and receive only antennas or to impose costs on the users of such antennas that are excessive in light of the purchase and installation cost of the equipment. Regulations of Satellite transmitting antenna is preempted we don't have an transmitting antennas so I will not go on with that. I have gone done each one of the proposed regulations I do not proposed to do that tonight, your Attorney Paul Dusek has my letter which I would hope that he would circulate to the Town Board with his own interpretation of the FCC ruling. One of the proposed regulations here just to call your attention to it by calling your attention to it we don't mean to say we are not really quite concerned with all of the rest of it, there is a requirement that a landscaped evergreen planting screen be established with would screen the antenna from the view of the adjacent lots and public view. That means of course that it would not work because a satellite TV receiving antenna has to have a direct line of sight to various geocentratic communication satellites in the air. If you screen it so that nobody and see it, it can't see the orbiting satellite and you might as well not have it. It is akin to telling people who have solar heat that they have to put the panels in the shade. We are very concerned about this I do not want to go on at great or emotional lengths about it, we made our 5 point I thl k'` to the Town, Attorney, °`t4se are questions of law, fundamentally but I do want the Town Board to know how concerned we are about this and how strongly we feel that the proposed regulations far exceed that which the FCC says that the local authorities have the power to impose. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you, Sir. We begin to get some idea. everyone in the audience the complexity of what we are doing and it does take a while to get through all of this. Yes, Sir. MR. BERNARD RAIHILL- My name is Bernard Raihill, I have no specific property that I am referring to at the present time, I am just asking some questions about the philosophy of what is going on. I appreciated Mr. Brassel comments and the fact that the economics of what is going on in Queensbury refers to planning and is not only Town planning but Regional planning. I have some friends that come up the lakes here quite frequently, as a matter of fact they were up to Indian Lake, when they do their shopping for groceries they shop in Queensbury which is quite a distance away from Indian Lake. Queensbury at the present time is the center of everything for everybody. When we are young children or when we are teaching our children we say to them share with one another as brothers and sisters, I am wondering how much Queensbury has said, we are going to share with Whitehall or with Fort Ann or with the other communities in letting them develop lands rather than have Queensbury develop everything and magnify the value of the real estate in Queensbury. I know that there are people who make a great deal of money from this but at the same time we are making the price of property increase in Queensbury so high that some people will not be able to move into Queensbury. I think that there should be some Regional Planning in relation to Corinth in relation to all of the towns in Saratoga County, Washington County and in Bolton as well as Lake George to see how we can share the wealth spread out the development and not keep it all here so that the property in Queensbury becomes too valuable to live in. That is my statement, Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you for your comments. Yes, Sir. DR. JOHN CORDES- My name is Doctor John Cordes I would like to hand my support to the opposition of omitting the buffer zone on Sherman Avenue. As you know right across there is the new development Hidden Hills and there are 150 new homes going in there a lot of them are going to be first time home owners and they are going to see their dream just shot down with light industry adjacent to it or across the street, that is all I want to say. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you Sir. Tonight is the first night that, this has been brought to my attention and perhaps the others will certainly look at that. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- One of the things, just a question, are we mandating industrial complexes, light industrial to be internalized to so that if you will, if you happen to live across the street, and I am not advocating living across the street from this situation, but will the industrial complexes internalized, just as subdivisions are now? What I am referring to one of the new rules that we have proposed is that subdivision will not longer front on a road, the houses will all front internally and I thought there was some concern about adding the industrial complexes too, so if you were driving down a street and it happened to be zoned light industrial you wouldn't see a mass of industry, what you would see is an entrance to a complex. FRED HOLMAN- Let me give you some philosophy behind that particular change, we have thought about this for quite a bit, and maybe we made the wrong decision, I don't know. The traffic on Sherman Avenue is one of the big issues that was brought up during the meetings. With the five hundred foot residential set back it was essentially with the density and lot size, it would essentially mean strip residential along Sherman Avenue which would have meant a number of driveways.We tried to avoid that. in order to do that we either had to widen the residential strip to take all the industrial land or to try to get as little development as possible along Sherman Ave. The way that we finally ecided to do that was to expand the Industrial Zone u Y P P to Sherman. Ave. and require a buffer strip between Sherman Ave. and any industrial development that would occur. Yes, there would be no industrial activity on Sherman Ave. It would be internalized. The internalization is for all development, not just residential. It's a subdivision requirement so that the internalization would be inside, not on Sherman Ave. That was the thought of the Advisory Committee. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- I'm not raising that issue to justify the position. I wanted people to know that if Sherman Ave. was to stay the same that you would not look out if you lived directly on Sherman Ave. on an industrial complex. I thought that was the case. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Excuse me Sir, If you wish to speak Sir, come up to the microphone„ _ Just for the record. JOHN CORDES- My name is John Cordes. I live at 36 Clark Street. In the same T would like to talk about the same thing, that 500 foot strip. When that was originally zoned I thought it was a real good idea because of a lot of property being developed residential on that street. j I know three of my children are going to be living in Hidden Hills, j five grandchildren. One of the things that we looked at was the zoning when we decided to let them buy in there. They decided to buy in there, and now they are going to change it. One thing that I would like to point out that that ' is going to be a main route from most of Hidden Hills to the Glens Falls High School, where the kids are going to be walking down. If you look at the access to that street from the Northway Exit 18, you have got to go all the way down to the Corinth Road or cut to Luzerne, go down to the Veteran's highway, come back down to get in any entrance on that for a Light Industrial, which is very poor planning. We don't want any more exits off the Northway in Queensbury, we have too many now. We could have more development and more of this junk Ilk* Pizza Hut out there. I think it was very poor planning, the original concept was excellent. Now if you look at Luzerne Road, we have Drellos's Septic Tank business there. There is a big hole there where junk has been thrown in, it's a lake now from when the Northway was built which it probably was polluted. I think there is a RV Park, not RV but a trailer park of homes there. There isn't much land left there for the Light Industrial in back of this section we are talking about. So now it looks to me like there is an opportunity to make more Light Industrial in this 500 foot strip cause the other is not available. You have to go quite a ways out Luzerne Road before it becomes available. Some nice homes, a log home have been put across where George Kurosak:a lives on the south side of Sherman in the last year. I just think it is atrocious, there is another development off there, a residential development, I don't know the name of it, I did not know it existed till a short time ago. It is a loop affair and it has got a lot of nice houses in it. I just hope you put it back and leave it the way it was. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you. Mr. Munoff in the back of the room, you had your hand up. Appreciate your patience. FRANK MUNOFF- Frank Munoff, just too tall for a little guy. I live on upper 9L Ridge Road. I appreciate the opportunity to come here and speak. I think I have more questions than I do complaints. I am a little confused. When we bought our property which is adjacent to the Cleverdale store it was zoned WR IA by your records. I did the best research that I could from the people that we bought it, William and Linda Curran, according to them and I tried as much as I could today to get it verified at the office, so I do not have proof. When they sold the property to us they were under the assumption it was -- neighborhood commercial. We traced it back as far as Leander Dickinson, before 1955. We were told again by the family that 'it was Neighborhood Commercial. It was sold in 1955 to Betty Smith, which would be Mrs. Curran's mom. Again, the family told us it was Neighborhood Commercial. We ended up WR IA and I did not have any complaints at the time cause my purpose was to build a house and it is to have my residence and I am there. Since living there I am finding out that I am stuck with one parcel of our property that 17 I feel is vA ry. ,inappropriate for residential use. It is adjacent � to Cleverdale 'store which runs an excd'Ilant establishment and me being here tonight is in no reference to ;=them whatsoever, they do a fine job. What I am talking about is the:,traffic that goes in and out of the Cleverdale store which _I guess there are six or seven businesses operating on that corner out of the Cleverdale piece of property. If you can see the traffic going in and out, I think it it very very, I feel I am unique, we are the only resident next to Cleverdale store, there is no other residence. There is not a one, next to the Cleverdale store besides us and an acre of land that 1 I have next to the Cleverdale store, I feel .is highly inappropriate for residential use, and I feel that it is an unique situation, I feel it is somewhat of a hardship, and I know that you do not ,like to split property lines, I understand that. As far as dividing the line, most of your lines are drawn up on . Zoning as far as property lines, is that correct? SUPERVISOR BORGOS- That is correct. FRANK MUNOFF- I am asking the Board in an unique situation to please take a look at it. I would to like to take a look at the history as to how it. did get changed, did it get changed by accident or was the line out of place or whatever. The parcel of land in front of my house between us where we live and Cleverdale store, I can't imagine anyone wanting to live there. Not that Cleverdale store, they run a top flight business.What I am saying is, just the commercial use of the property, it is highly inappropriate for residential use, highly inappropriate. So I ask the Board if they would look at that and any answers that I could get on the history, I would appreciate it. If you do have a set rule of dividing property lines as far as commercial and residential for a financial point of _view ,and from an investment point of view. I would of never thought that I would say this, cause I have no intentions of ever developing any of it commercially. That piece of property is useless for residential and I would rather be commercial. The whole shot if I have to because I know that at least I can sell my property and move somewhere else_or whatever. Thanks for the time. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you for your comments, we do have your detailed letter on file. ROBERT STEWART- Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the Board. I don't mean to f yell or be offensive but I think I should speak very loud to overcome this noise. For the record my name is Bob Stewart, I am a lawyer with offices in Glens Falls and I am here tonight to speak on behalf of C.R. Bard. The Bard companies interest. is that to that particular piece of property approximately 9 acres westerly of Bay Road and which is zoned, I believe for over 20. years as Light Industrial. The Planning commission as I understand it has recommended that it continue to be, to carry that zoning and that of course would be the desire of C.R. Bard. I understand that Mr. Zoli and some other neighbors in the area have suggested the possibility of rezoning it to a single family residential. I want to make clear that this is not and should not be a question of personalities. I know Mr* Zoli, he is a very fine gentleman, very successful business man, big asset to this community. C.R. Bard of course is a fine corporate citizen and is probably the type of an industrial use that most schools would kill to get their hands on. You don't get a chance to have this type of industry that often and I believe it is probably the single largest employer in the Town of Queensbury. So it the good guys against bad guys or white hats and bad hats or anything like that, just thoughtful long range land planning, what should we really do in connection to the land. First of all I feel I have to say that I have gone out and I have looked at the land, although I certainly have not made any engineering study on it and it is extremely low and wet, the groundwater table is very, high in that area and I do not know whether it has been declared a wetlands but it is close to it. The ability to develop much of that land in any category is quite limited in my opinion. The idea of zoning it single family residential doesn't seem to be particularly wise. On two sides it has existing industrial use, it has a railroad track which traverses along northeast to southwest, it has been zoned industrial for many years, in view of those issues plus a water table where I doubt if 18 you could ever get a cellar doww`in"'`the 'grounds I don't think it has much prime use as residential. As industrial°it makes a bit more sense because it does have industry''on`"two sides, it is benefited by the railroad track. My comment here 'is that =if you look at the proposed zoning map in Queensbury you have an enormous amount of proposed residential zones and many of them `�one, three, five and ten acre. Possibly the great question is going to be who can ever afford to own one of those lots if it is developed that way, There is on the other hand very very little light industrial zones left, you have some bit you don't have a great deal and with this community looking ahead ten or twenty years is going to develop in an organized fashion, you've got to provide some base of jobs and support for all of those homes, it is honestly important to keep industrial land available. This is industrial, it has been for over twenty years, it is the only industrial spot in the town that is serviced by a railroad spur, there are no others and things being as they are it is very doubtful that you will ever see others develop in this area so that gives it one advantage. There is underlining problems here that planners and zoners and Town Boards and anybody involved in this type of work absolutely dreads and that is the problem that you have with industry right tight to 'a residential use. In this case we would be talking about rezoning industrial land residential and then having lots and homes built next to the existing Catheter plant. It doesn't make any difference who was there first and whether the mountain came to Mohammed or not I will guarantee that any planner who you will talk to will guarantee you will have nothing but•a litany of complaints from that point forward. The plant is too noisy, the trucks arrive too early in the morning,the trucks leave 'too late at night, they are running too many shifts, there are too many cars in the parking lot, you will have nothing but constant complaints. You must keep these zones seperated if you are ever going to have any peace in your community. You can well ask, what difference does it make whether the industry moves-'toward the residential, if we keep it light industrial and someone does want to come and develop there or whether the residential moves toward the industry. The difference is this, if you rezone it residential and they can nave up to the industrial sites, there are no buffers required, there is no safety, no protection required' under your ordinance.: If' on other hand industry wants to move toward residential there are several safeguards built in. One is that your ordinance, Section '7.074, something fancy like that, only an industrial use must maintain a 50 foot buffer between it and any residential use and buffered is not like a side yard in a residential'zone. It is to be landscaped, treed, wooded, you can not drive over it, you can not park a car on it, you may walk on it but that is it, you can not store any materials on it, you can do nothing, that is a fifteen foot strip. In this particular case along the column boundary line between Catheter and this area that these neighbors would like to see changed to residential is 750 feet long and 50 feet wide, you are talking at least an acre of land that from this point on could never be touched by Catheter even though they own it and worked on it and it is their property. In addition to that you have a` little room. If Catheter for example wanted to enter on to this nine or ten acre parcel that is in question tonight and get permission to develop it, Catheter is already over ten acres and this development would get into more than ten acres your ordinance says that there must be a full site plan review of whatever Catheter proposes to do before the Queensbury Planning Board. That means that Planning' Board within reason can impose any restrictions and limitations they want to protect the private residences nearby. They can say stay back 50 feet, 100 feet, 200 feet, go left, go right, go up, go down, they have enormous controls if a company like Catheter wanted to develop this area. On the other side of the coin, if it was made residential and the -- developer wanted to go in and build lots and sell homes there is no such restriction and they can move right in tight to Catheter's existing development and prohibit any further development by Catheter even on it's own property and certainly prohibit any dream that Catheter might over the years wish to develop even further in this community. So for those reasons I respectfully submit to you that I think thoughtful land management indicates that the Planning Commission to study this thing was right in the first instance and I request that you follow their recommendation and keep this light 19 industrial as it has been for over twenty years and not suddenly change. Finally as a matter of fairness (tape turned) the last twenty years knew exactly what they were buying next to. Catheter by the same token had embarked on a multi million dollar expansion as we all know a beautiful piece of work down there also relying on the fact that this was zoned light industrial and all of a sudden residential wouldn't be moved up next to them making their life very difficult. So, just in terms of fairness I think that both sides should be allowed to rely on what they knew when they bought and what they knew when they expended and that the zoning should not be changed. Thank you very much for your time. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Bob, it is refreshing to see you without your collar, I know you will be playing football in September. BOB STEWART- You are welcome, Sir. I am sorry that there is a man in the room that still has to wear one. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- You could borrow mine if you like. BOB STEWART- No thank you. , SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Dr. Glendening. DR. GLENDENING- Dr. Glendening, 374 Ridge (toad. I have two comments one is that 1 think there is a couple of areas that are a little bit unfair, the zoning that goes up the lower parts of Ridge Road that changes to three acres areas which are more densely populated than that, that seems that this is too restrictive and unfair to the owners of that property. ...I have spent the last past couple of"years' going over Earltown and the Quaker Ridge Project and the rest of those things and watching that but a piece of property, there are' lots of buildable workable areas on 'there, every other LC-42 area that we have drains into a lake, Lake George, Round Pond, Glen Lake and I just wish...what is planned for that piece of property who is going to own it, how is going to use it, what is going to be' done with It when we change it suddenly to LC-42. Does, is there a plan for that property are we going to make a park out of it? What is planned. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- There is no plan that I am aware of. DR. GLENDENING- It seems unfair to change that zoning when there is processes in that are in the works on that. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you Sir. Let me take a quick survey, how many of you wish to speak this evening? Why don't we take one more the Gentleman so patient in the back and then we will take a quick break, we always try and make them quick and we will come back again. GEORGE LUBER- My name is George Luber, Garrison Road. I would like to read a short statement from all of the residents on Garrison as well as North Road and we would like to add our support to the statements made by other residents at the last meeting who's property abuts the 9.5 acres owned by Ted Zoli that is currently zoned light industrial. We only recently became aware of this and as a united group we recommend that this be rezoned as residential. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you, Sir, that certainly was brief. We will now call for a five minute recess, I am sure it will 'be ten, we will call you back in just a few minutes. Thank you. (Recess) We are ready for number 25. We are trying to get rid of the people in the front first, so the hands don't block the view of the ones in the back. Name, Address and what ever please. 20 JOE ROULIER My name is Joe Roulier, from Seelye Road, Cleverdale. I would like to direct your attention to the County�Line Road area again. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- You talked about that the last time. JOE ROULIER That is correct. I was proposing that the instead of an SR-IA going down to an MR5 for reasons that I have indicated earlier, I think there are a couple of concerns that I have, that I would like if at all possible for you to answer for me tonight. Under the old, when that was zoned SR-30 for Duplexes you were able to have one and a half times the land mass and under the new zoning you can only have one time. I was wondering why that was? SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Let me ask our consultant to answer that, that is fairly a straight forward question. The question is under the new zoning in the SR-1A JOE ROULIER That is correct. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- zone the Duplex requirement seems to have been somewhat,, changed, would you explain that please? FRED HOLMAN- The duplex requirement has changed to reflect' the same density so I think under the original ordinance you had a duplex you didn't need twice the lots size and you do now. JOE ROULIER- Okay, I was wondering if it remains at SR30 that it would be ht times. FRED HOLMAN- It would be 45,000 square feet. JOE ROULIER That is correct, so that there seems to be some kind of contradiction, why it it than if you go to one acre why can't, why won't they leave it one and a half times? FRED HOLMAN Because the Advisory Committee felt that an established residence is twice the impact. JOE ROULIER But it is not necessarily, if I were to construct for example a twenty five hundred square foot home on one acre it is significantly greater than if I were to construct two nine hundred to one thousand sq.. ft. apartments, and I cannot see how they can come up with that type of rational for this. FRED HOLMAN- A duplex is two one family residences. JOE ROULIER That is correct, but they are generally smaller, the 'total square footage is generally smaller than most homes that would be built on one acre size lots. FRED HOLMAN- I am not necessarily sure that that is a requirement for duplex. JOE ROULIER No, I'm not, but I am just making that point, to you. Because I personally feel that with a duplex you should go back regardless of whether its a twenty or thirty or one acre, at least should be maintained but its that one and a half times has a significant effect on the development of that property. I would also like to point out that I am in favor of sewer lines in that particular area but _ also through the entire Town of Queensbury I think it is a tremendous benefit, but there is a lot of ambiguity now regarding if densities would change if sewer lines were put into certain areas. I talked to some people that have indicated that if a sewer line were to be constructed for example in the County Line Road area that it may change the densities. I was wondering if anyone clarify that for me. FRED HOLMAN- That is not one of the areas that we have discussed. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- I can address that, I think. One of the things that I understand that was brought to my attention on County Line Road specifically the area you are referring to is an extremely high clay content and that septic tanks do not work really efficiently in that kind of environment":''p`��'t tsf the Justificatitm-`fbi° that I was lead to believe by the Advisory Committee was considering that there are sewers there now if they really looked at the land first and what the land would absorb or take and they zoned it accordingly,and base the density on that use then I think the remark that I might have made to is if that road were sewered to accommodate the light industrial complex that is down at one end. To accommodate- the county airport and also to come up County Line Road and open up that area to some development, easier type of development certainly that would be an area that the Town Board would want to look at and say, has this sewer effectively changed the make up of the land. Yes, it has, it will not be putting any effluent into the clay and therefore a consideration will be ° given. I guess that consideration would start right from the landowner yourself or themselves as a group saying we would like to see this . rezoned. That is not to be considered spot zoning I think that is something the government would respond to. I think that all we are saying up front on that in terms of a plan, a good plan is we see the land as having limitations and we tried to zone it accordingly and we are also saying if the future changes that by the adoption of sewers that we would like to be informed by you that you would like to see a change in there to. Obviously the change would be, we would like to see more density. The land would be able to afford more, I think that is a reasonable argument for both ways. JOE ROULIER The particular piece of property that I own,` I own eight acres over there and we did approximately seven or eight test holes on there and we did not, there was no clay found in any one of those test holes and the percolations tests were quite good. That is at the top of the hill, as you come up the hill from County Line Road and I understand that down at the bottom of the hill that of course is probably clay. I do not know how significant it should be in the determination of what the zoning should bei because if there were any problems. lots say if someone wanted lto 'develop a particular piece of property if there were to be problems I would think that they would be ironed out with the building dept. saying at that time what type of septic system would be have be installed to accommodate what ever you may or may not want to build. I just wanted to know for the record, really, if they do have any, there are in the process of studying the sewer line, ok, and at this time instead of the proposal in SRI if they do have in fact' a determination that they may be able to go to it, if the sewer line is put in if it will go to an SR20, something along those F lines. Is there definite considerations along those lines? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN It is my understanding if that the Advisory Board was going to recommend to the Town Board where the sewer line should be extended and make their own recommendations, what they are going to be I do not know yet. JOE ROULIER One other thing that I would like to point out is that a couple of gentlemen that spoke earlier had indicated how their property had been rezoned and I almost wonder, I'was just looking at the original zoning map, perhaps we should go back to the area of the water tower zone it to the south either back to the SR30 and then let it go back to the north the way it was, I think that should be a consideration rather than just a carte blanche for the entire corridor there. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you Sir. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- The sewer line will probably effect you at both ends of the strata because part of it may be the Lake George Sewer Project at Seelye Road and also on County Line Road, we are looking at County Line Road as an alternate route to try and justify the cost of that sewer line. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Mr. Medwid next and then we will go back to this side... WALTER MEDWID- My name is Walter Medwid, I live on Laurel Lane in Queensbury. There are three items that I would like to comment on, one is the Hudson River issue I noticed that most of it was zoned one acre I did notice that certain sections were three acres and I guess the concern that 22 I raise is just a matter of the so called hundred year flood whether in a three acre zoning at least there is .some potential for upland areas to be available for setting a house. With one acre zoning I wonder whether if either resource truly should allow unit per acre. Again that may have been addressed in the topographic studies but I simply raise that as the so called one hundred year flood issue. The other issue relates to the amount of building, t e Imount recently f development the town is able to absorb in any given read a few things, obviously the Great Escape Issue has been reported. widely SUPERVISOR BORGOS- I heard about it. WALTER MEDWID- The other issue that I read about is the Town of Saratoga I understand that they have controls_ that essentially say that we will allow as much development as we are employees our Town Boards, the Town Board of the Town of Saratoga are able to deal with.. if the developments starts to reach a point where they are really no longer able to really deal effectively with each and every project we are saying, we are going to halt it until we can catch up and I wonder if when the moratorium ends when ever that will be whether the Town should at least give some consideration to at least retaining the control of its ability to oversee that development rather than the development applications controlling the town and its employees and elected officials etc., etc., again I ask for that to be given some consideration. My third issues relates to the, request by Earltown officials to be exempted from this process of the rezoning. . As i understand it Earltown is grandfathered essentially and they can do with that property what they will but they are asking the Town to be exempted from the process so that when they apply to the State of New York for Wet lands permit this proposed zoning the 42 acre zoning will not necessarily harm them, at least that is my understanding. I would like to offer, I think that the Town should have uniform standards that apply to all residences it seems to treat everyone in this room with one set of ,standards and suggests that another individual or investors be treated separate from that. I just question the fairness of that. I understand further that the decision to zone the wetland area forty two acres was not a political decision it was truly based on the resource. I understand many of the decisions that have been made have been based not on who owned what or where the land fell but on the ability of the resource to absorb that development. It seems that an objective standard like that should be used for every owner of land and not exempted. I think what you have done the countless hours that you gone over the bodies have done in bring this plan to the Town the integrity of that process and that plan should not be jeopardized by an individual or a corporate issue that seeks to be apart from the democratic rocess. Again, I think that the integrity of the Zoning p to important for that to be allowed to be subverted. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you for your comments. Mrs. Dobert, _I apologize for missing you twice in a row. JOAN DOBERT- That is ok, my name if Joan soer and Sunnysideon IakeVie woDrive in th the Town of Queensbury i uP near to clarify one thing, the Advisory Board was appointed by whom? SUPERVISOR BORGOS- By the Town Board. JOAN DOBERT- By the Town Board, I commend you for the quality of people that you have chosen to be on the Advisory Board obviously you believed that their political persuasion and their self gain was nothing that would interfere with SUPERVISOR BORGOS We had no idea how most of them are registered, to very honest with you. JOAN DOBERT- ...That is the way it should be. My next comment I will direct toward the Advisory Board and I wish you to know how sincerely I thank you as a private citizen for all of your efforts the hundreds of countless hours that you have put into this project which I know is not easy. I can't even imagine doing it myself and being objective about all of these_.:things and I think that.,you=;have done an excellent job. I do want to digress a little bit and tell you a little bit about what I was doing last week. I was at a regional, Northeast Regional Mid-Atlantic Audobon Convention Council and you probably do not know too much about the Audobon Society but there were fifty two chapters represented and this is a grass routes organization, that is run chapter wise by people like you and myself that are concerned with environmental issues. Without a doubt the overwhelming concern throughout the eastern part of the United States to the Midwest Was the environmental issues of wetlands. Absolutely, they are being definimated right and left. I commend the Board for recommending the LC42 of the Earltown lands and I also recommend to the Town Board that you accept the recommendation of the Advisory Board. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you very much. Yes... DAWN CLIFFORD- My name is Dawn Clifford and I live at 34 Main Street in Queensbury and I have a comment and question. We are concerned about the traffic on Main Street, I believe this traffic to and from the Northway to and from the Civic Center it is not generated by the businesses that are on Main Street. My question is I see in the proposal that you plan to widen Main Street and I was wondering if there is a time table for that and when you plan to do it and how wide you anticipate it to be. Something about how that will effect the property owners in terms of their front yards. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Good question, to my knowledge there is no time, table for widening any of the roads in Town, there is some thought being given to that process, I do not think anyone even knows who is going to pay for anything or how that 1s going to be done, but certainly that is a consideration. DAWN CLIFFORD- Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- That particular strip is a County Road, which means we still pay for it under the queues of County taxes, other than State Taxes. Way in the back. WILLIAM MONTGOMERY- I am not a resident of the Town of Queensbury but I am a property owner and I ...some of the property that is located on Main Street between the City of Glens Falls and Exit 18. I was reviewing with interest the proposed zoning which will in the future require that to be zoned one acre per structure. Presently that area of Main Street consists of fairly small lots older buildings the road probably consists now of at least forty percent of it would be smaller.,. businesses. There are several issues . that I think the Planning Commission needs to take a closer look at and that is the traffic, I really do not think that the traffic that is presently existing on Main Street as it goes from Route.87 to the City of Glens Falls can really be contributed to any large extent to the small businesses that are located on Main Street, rather I think it is more of traffic that goes from Route 87 into the City of Glens Falls in the Town of Queensbury. Therefore I really don't see the future development of these smaller businesses adding significantly to increase traffic on this road. I would further submit that in the event that there are to be these service oriented industries or businesses. it is probably much wiser to locate them close to Route 87 as opposed to in the City of Glens Falls or the other side of the Town of Queensbury, because either way you are going to have the traffic. The closer these service oriented business are located to Route 87 the less traffic you have going through the City of Glens Falls and also the Town of Queensbury. The permitted use as proposed now is that for single family residences or duplexes, in other words you tear down a building you have there now and you can build the single family residence or duplex. I would suggest to the planning commission that nobody in their right mind would build either one of the two on Main Street between the City of Glens Falls and Route 87, that is precisely why people are moving out of that area it is not conducive to that sort of use. The third issue I would really like to take a serious look at is the effect of the current proposed zone, to encourage, the current zoning would encourage the continued use of 24 r the buildings as they exist on Main Street because in order to build otherwise you would have to own an -acre,, So everyone that owns it building there now would be continuing to' use that building and when you look at the reasons set forth for the proposed zoning one is that the permit would permit the widening of the road the current structures are located very close to the road on both sides. To encourage the permitted use of those structures would not be to facilitate the widening of the road in the future. Another reason is that it is aesthetically and environmentally pleasing that is the reason for the proposed use to encourage the use of a lot of these buildings would not fulfill that criteria. Much of them are much older, smaller, rundown buildings. As far as safety to encourage single family residences to continue there or the construction of new single family residences or duplexes you are not going to get that. The safety of the families, the safety of the children would not be facilitated by encouraging that sort of development on Main Street between, or in that area. Finally I would suggest that one acre many be necessary for some of the more major types of developments but it certainly isn't necessary for smaller service oriented business. The former use of 100' or 15,000 sq. ft. or a 15,000 sq. ft. lot probably much more appropriate, I am an Attorney in the City of Glens Falls I am self employed there are several others in our building but I sure do not need an acre of land to locate one of our offices off from Main Street, I would suggest that most of the businesses located off from Main Street do not require an acre of land, in order to promote the orderly growth along that corridor and I would ask that you take a good look at really considering the one acre zoning in that area. Thank you. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- Bill, I would like to comment, I think you have ignored what is allowed under site plan review and of course the purpose of site plan review is any commercial establishment in the Town of Queensbury will now come under site plan review. It think you know you have to add that to your permitted uses, permitted with Site Plan Review.`'"They are taking ...of the fact that that area will probably be going commercial, one reason for asking for that size lots the hazard along Main' Street with too many ingresses and egresses coming in and out of that street for commercial use. WILLIAM MONTGOMERY- Well we would just suggest that one acre is considerably`larger 'than what many of those uses, what ever require. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- That may be but you also have to look at the safety if very many people are going in and out of those ingresses and egresses. WILLIAM MONTGOMERY- But I would suggest that there are just as many in's and out's if not more now with the zoning as it presently exists would call for any future construction to have considerably more frontage on the road as it would exist now, the proposed zoning requires not only a lot more but it requires four or five times the amount of frontage that any of the lots presently have. I am not quarreling with your statement that somehow you have to control the number of driveways you might have along that strip of the road what I am saying is that the proposed use is probably four times more than what should be required. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Bill, I have one question to, and as a landowner you probably can help me with it. One of the questions that I raised at the Advisory Committee at one point was if we are really looking at potentially someday the State or the County widening Main Street so that it truly serves as an ingress or egress to really the City of Glens Falls in a professional way and I say professional I mean widen it say it is safer shouldn't we have addressed that and made the setbacks seventyfive feet instead of fifty. Now, then we would have had, or did we, COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- We did. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- so, we did push it back, now that was because,...I didn't catch that, that at least acknowledges the fact that we are saying that no one can be closer to seventy five feet, now what does that do, that effectively puts any new building development whether it is on an 25 acre or on>_111W-4 lot bick seventy i`fivefeet so that if we do have to make that ...road wider in the future the takings will probably be less severe. WILLIAM MONTGOMERY- Well, yes and no. I agree with your philosophy of saying that the new buildings have to be seventy five feet back however the effect of the new zoning is that any new building has to have an acre of land so the effect of that is saying to myself and the fifty other landowners down that road don't take your buildings down, just renovate them, in ... with the permitted use., ie professional office building, tenants, or residential. The effect of that if to keep those buildings right there, very close to the street. FRED HOLMAN- We are running into a little problem because we took the existing lots about fifteen thousand and in your case you said twelve thousand which is what you have and put a seventy five foot set back and said ok you can build your building on 15 or 12,000 sq. ft. with a seventy five foot setback there really would not be any room for the, building and the parking and all the things that are required. WILLIAM MONTGOMERY- Not necessarily true (tape turned) The seventy five foot set back is as much of a hardship as it would seem and it still be conceivable there that a person can buy two adjoining lots and have 100, 120 feet of road frontage with 300 foot in depth. ...Less than half of one acre would be sufficient for providing in a rather good way for a small office building, the volume of traffic that goes into an office building or one of the service oriented industries is very much less than several other types of industries or shopping centers. It is very low volume, a service type business. Right now the zoning says anyone that owns a single family residence there or house leave it there because nobody owns an acre on that road and by leaving it there it will be more expensive when the Town or County goes to take that land because all of those residences or structures as they are now, are going to be improved. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you very much. We are listening and we are making notes, yes, Sir. DON FARLEIGH I am Don Farleigh, and the property I am talking about it on the corner of Glenwood and Glen. Currently there is a Sunoco Station directly on the corner it is zoned PC1A currently and the proposal will go to lA residential basically, and our concern is this as you stand in the back yard where my shop currently is located you see Price Chopper you see Jo Jo's Rest. part of the property actually sits adjacent to State Land which is right on the Half-Way Brook and Glen Street and we have been there, my parents bought the property twenty years ago, my father deceased four years after purchasing the property and my mother and I have run a business for a few years and then I went into the wood working business there. As it stands now any kind of expansion I would need fifty foot set back from a residential property if that would go to residential. With a PC1A I would only need a thirty foot setback I am not saying I am going to go expand it but all of these lots along there, there is not a lot there they are just one acre lots. It think to go to a residential zoning there is going to devalue the property for my mother or for myself as future purchaser. COUNCILMAN POTENZA- Exactly where are you, on the corner of Glen and Glenwood, I know where the Sunoco is. DON FARLEIGH As you drive down Glenwood the first driveway directly behind where the Sunoco Station. COUNCILMAN POTENZA- You are a brown house, like a two story brown house? DON FARLEIGH Right COUNCILMAN POTENZA- It was Plaza Commercial? DON FARLEY- Right, it is Plaza Commercial currently, two lots farther down the Martin property is Plaza Commercial ok, that is on the market right now, the line splits the next property over and goes over in back 26 of the pond. COUNCILMAN POTENZA- It is split now, behind the Sunoco Station, is that what you are telling me? DON FARLEIGH That is where it is going to go to, yes. Directly behind the Sunoco. Do you understand? COUNCILMAN POTENZA- Yes. DON FARLEIGH Basically, when you look out the property in the winter time I am not knocking the guy with the Sunoco Station he has to make a living but you look at eight to ten junk cars sitting there all winter long that is not prime residential property. COUNCILMAN POTENZA- Is your property multi unit? DON FARLEIGH Yes. The next property to us is proposed multiple unit too, I believe. I just would like to see the zoning stay basically the way it is in that area. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you, Sir. Way in the back on the left. REGGI ALDEN- My name is Reggi Alden I live on the VanDusen Road, I own two lots, one directly behind the other and I would like to go on record in opposition to this one acre per building lot, because of various reasons. One of them being Dr. whatever here, Dr. Brassel stated I am of the lower income, I am on a fixed income at the present time, retired on disability SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Would you speak into the microphone a bit more. REGGI ALDEN- Anyway I would like to go on record as in opposition to the one acre per building at the present time and when I bought it I did have intentions eventually to building a house on the lot but when it is the one acre zoning I am out of luck. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- You already own your lot, is that correct? REGGI ALDEN- I owned it since 1959. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- As long as the lot is in existance it is a preexisting lot and you would still be able to build your home, on that same lot even if the zoning changes. REGGI ALDEN- I already have one home in front of that lot., But this would be a second. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- We have a technical question but I think that you are all right. REGGI ALDEN- For a quick clarification I am talking about two different lots now, each 200 x 200 one directly behind the other. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- Do they adjoin, do they have a mutual property line? REGGI ALDEN- I beg you pardon? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- Do they have a mutual property line? REGGI ALDEN- Oh, yes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- Do you have a building on either property? _. REGGI ALDEN- Yes, I do. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- I think he falls under the same where it would become one property, two nonconforming lots adjoining each other to become one conforming lot. REGGI ALDEN- I have two separate deeds. 27 i I COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- It does not latter, two nonconforming lots; that are in the name of the same owner adjoining each other become one conforming lot. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- I am not aware of that, is that correct? We will have to check that one out too. I see a lot of heads nodding. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- That is true. REGGI ALDEN- I question the fairness of it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- It is New York State Law. REGGI ALDEN- Because a developer has bought property behind which now will be Harold Square in the near future and most of his lots are building up into in the vicinity of twenty thousand square feet. Where is the fairness, he is perhaps a millionaire, I am just a little guy, he can do it, why can't I do it? SUPERVISOR BORGOS- I think is that particular situation, I know in that particular situation all the permits were issued prior to the rezoning, this zoning don't forget is only proposed it will not take effect until it appears now until the end of September so anything that has 'taken effect already or takes effect before or happens before September 30th is under the current or the older rules, after that date it will be under the new rules. REGGI ALDEN- Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- You are welcome. ... GARFIELD RAYMOND- My name is Garfield Raymond and I here not, well,as an Attorney but I am also here on my own property, I am talking about property that is located on Bay Road and runt all the way through the County Club Road. I own approximately thirty four acres there and it is presently zoned UR5 and in the proposed changes it seems that what you did you took any property that was not developed and did not have any plans and said, well, lets grab on to that and make that a URIA. That is basically what you have done I would like to point out that to begin with you cut my property, one portion of it is SFR and I have four contiguous pieces of property, perhaps you followed the different tax map numbers when you went through there, but we do run all the way through to Country Club Road. We bought that property with the sole purpose behind that was that it was zoned UR5 for the purposes of development. The whole idea is that if you look to the south of me you would have Woodbury's project, Woodbury's project butts right up to my property you have a number of multi families going in there. If you look again to the south it is highway commercial if you look to the east it is highway commercial which is extended again right up to my property, on Bay Road. Gary Poster, I sold him a lot which again is adjacent to my property that has a zoning variance for putting a dance studio in there. If you look across the road again you are looking at highway commercial property you go to the north you have the BayBridge Development up there which again is multi family. The whole concept, all of that whole area up through there on the west side of Bay Road is to be multi family development, at least that seems to be the indication. You have a number of major developments going up through there. I would think that you probably picked on my parcel because we are adjacent to some of the wetlands, as you go up Bay Road you have a gully that is to the left which is comprised of designated wetlands however my property is not a wetland, we are to the south of that. If you look again another parcel that you rezoned was for property that was adjacent to Glenwood Country Club which was on the corner which was a field, you go by there and you see that it is all opened up. There is no difference in the I say the topographical map ...for the area, that area, my land and Woodbury's land or any other land along that area. Additionally, I think, if you went up to BayBridge or if you crossed over you will see that the water table is extremely high in that area so it doesn't matter where you go, if you look at the streams you are changing the BayBridge Area to an MR5 that has streams running through it, we have some tributaries on our property but it seems like you just kind of isolated our properties 28 and I have not found another UR1A parcel in the whole Town of queensbury. What I understand the UR1A. according to your proposed legisyou proposed zoning change is areas which are going to be high density which are in older establishment neighborhoods, something that the UR10 would normally apply, but there are environmental restrictions or limitations. We are not an old established neighborhood we are just growing, we are just starting out and whatever it is going to be a high density area we do have the sewer lines up there and I think the proposed sewers will be coming up through there. you are going to have to be servicing the new buildings that. the Town is building the college, you have BayBridge you have all that development. I don't really see the need or the reasons why of a change from a UR5 to a UR1A. Especially I do not see the change splitting up of my property to do different designated zones. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you, we will take a close look at that. Mrs. Glendening, sorry I haven't been looking over that way. BONNIE GLENDENING- My name is Bonnie I live at Ridge Road in Glens Falls, A couple of issues I would just like to clarify my husband and I are still speaking to one another, we are on the same side of this issue. I also feel that the Ridge Road ...lake R4 is a little much down close to the Glens Falls area, the more populated parts of the Town. ' We have a fairly large house we live on one acre of land and it is plenty big enough for our family to take care of, I think it does wreck the tax base...really ...with three children at home it is hard to keep the lawn mowed with that much acreage. From spring to fall we cannot see any of our neighbors. I think an acre is a very good piece of property. I also sort of ...want is being done, my husband and I have spent the last year reading volumes of books that...on Earltown Development, I have learned a lot. It think that we have to take this on ...LC42 zone....Earltown....I know myself after the amount of reading that we have done and what other people have done, take a look at it and possibly put a PUD on it. take it on its merits...Where do we stand as I understand it with the Earltown project if a vote by the Board allows ...does that mean it goes in as a PUD development and after that ...change on that, where are we? SUPERVISOR BORGOS- There are a whole bunch of questions that you have raised, very simply if and when it comes to a vote of the Town Board after the final environmental impact statement is submitted and I think it probably will come to a vote at some point, if it were to be approved by the Town Board it would be then designated as Planned Unit Development for our purposes the project itself, however would not be able to get started until it then gets the State Permits needed to develop in the designated wetland. A failure to do that the property then would revert to some state and that is the question we have to resolve, what state would be if is doesn't indeed get the final permits from the State. If it doesn't get our permission I do not know where we are going to be, somewhere out there in never, never land. BONNIE GLENDENING- That is where we have been. Could you clarify that, I do not mean to put you on this but, you handle it very well, ok, where is the chicken where is the egg. Do we continue this with Earltown until September and if at September 30th the zoning goes through where does that leave anything, do we start all over, I mean. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Mr. Montesi gave me a note a little while ago and indicated that tie prays that all the other agencies take their action before we come out of this moratorium, so we do not have to address that question. My guess is that there will be some resolution of this at least some level of resolution prior to the end of the moratorium, that is not why we are thinking of extending it. My guess is Earltowns latest proposal is late June within the next couple of days or I would guess early July we will see a final environmental impact statement we must wait at least ten days after receiving that before we take action. In all probability we are looking at August sometime for that vote, I think, and that is just I think situation. So you know where that stands as far as the Town Board is concerned, what happens with the State I do not know, it could take another year or more. BONNIE GLENDENING- ...I guess it still isn't an answer for me...V realize it is` up to the State at that point what happens but ok, the State makes its recommendations and it comes back and it says you have to alter this or that in the mean time the zoning proposals have gone through where does that all stand? Is it going to go thru...? SUPERVISOR BORGOS- That is an interesting question we have looked at the possibility of the legality of zoning this entire parcel as a Planned Unit Development regardless of how it finally turns out, in other'words if the Earltown project as currently proposed fizzles for some reason that is such an immense area of land it could still be a planned unit development reworked by; another developer. But apparently that is not legal, apparently the designation of a PUD can only to assigned to a specific approved project, that would have been a nice easy out for us but apparently we cannot do .that, so at the,,moment_ it, is zoned COUNCILMAN MONTESI- There is an interesting point on numbers, if we, if you took the scenario that there are those that want to see this LC42 for, there are two reasons one of them maybe to politically charge DEG with the ammunition that all the Town is deemed it a wetland on top of your designation how could anybody develop there and that is one scenario you could look at. The other one is that if you really, really think that it is a wetland and you want to protect it in case Earltown fails what would happen is, you would have one acre for every, one unit for every forty-two acres, well : if there are five hundred and eighty acres that the State has deemed a wetland and you divide that by forty-two theoretically any developer could put at least fifteen buildings in that area. Now, it is a wetland I suppose but there is a distinct possibility that fifteen buildings could still be developed in that area, LC-42. What we ere concerned with is just a scenario you raised, we say yes, it goes onto'the State, the State says, well you do not like all of it we are going to give you part of it, part of it might be significantly enough change that the Town Board has to re-look at this and have some more public hearings is there a group out there that will legally say that is significantly enough change to start all over again. When they go to start all over again the zoning.is changed. That is the unfairness of this situation that exists today. BONNIE GLENDENING- Will you go out there and walk through the woods that it is lovely except the bugs will get you and the airplane come in a little low and, I guess, if this seems like we are creating almost a Catch 22 issue for everyone that has any interest be it pro or con and if no one is going to get any satisfaction out of it, if that kind of a designation is put on it by the town, it does not seem like we are progressing here at all. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- Mrs. Glendening, don't confuse the rezoning or the moratorium with Earltown PUD, Earltown's PUD goes in under the old rules and regulations and will be evaluated that way. The fact that in the future the zoning is LC-42 has nothing to do with the project as it is before us now. So do not confuse the two please. BONNIE GLENDENING But if there is, from what I understand the ramifications it seems like the issue could change greatly in a very short period of time as Mr. Borgos... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- But I think, you know with being able to put out supplements onto the original DEIS they probably could be accommodated under a supplement under the original DEIS would be my feeling, as another alternative. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- We will give further thought to, our Consultant has raised his eyebrows when we mentioned the zoning as a PUD possibility, I was earlier told it wasn't possible but perhaps with some more research it would be possible and then wait for the right combination of PUD ideas if this other one fails that might do it. BONNIE GLENDENING- If you wait for the right ...of PUD ideas to come along in the interim u if the zoning was passed for LC42 it would change... SUPERVISOR BORGOS- What I am saying is that perhaps the idea that we mentioned several months ago which apparently did not get to Fred, perhaps it' is legal and we could call it a PUB so it would be PUB zoned if that is legal and that is where there seems to be some difference of opinion. Then it would sit there an either Earltown create a PUB that would be acceptable or somebody else would come in and use it as a PUB that would be acceptable. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Probably that is, a PUB has to be based on the density and the density is based on what it is zoned at, if you made it a PUB what is the density? SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Except under the new laws, COUNCILMAN MONTESI- You would have to define that. ' SUPERVISOR BORGOS- new rules as proposed get rid of the underlying density, for a PUB, so... COUNCILMAN MONTESI- And lastly Bonnie the final issue is that if you really zone it forty two acres LC and the State of New York limits it completely 1s there a taking of that land is there some compensation that has to be paid for those of us that feel we want to see it as forever wild land are we then obligated to purchase that Iland and keep it forever wild? I think one of the developers in town said it very applicable, Mike Brandt said we should have the right to use our land and if we don't, if you want me to keep it forever wild buy it. I am not obligating that, I am saying that is another argument. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- You have to make sure that the use you' make is not a detriment to the community. If you do something on your land that wrecks my land you have another problem. BONNIE GLENDENING- ..I think everyone wants to make sure it is better than where we were at, where we essentially are we going it seem to me to be a little uncomfortable from what I heard this evening to buy property in this area because it seems like it could change and that is not fair either. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- Well, Bonnie, any zoning is not set in concrete any planner will tell you that any municipality should look at its zoning every five years to see if it is serving the needs of the community. No more as you in a business the laws that govern you business, your income tax returns as not set in concrete as you well know they do change. BONNIE GLENDENING- And they are complicated also. I wish you all good luck. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you. Yes, Sir. PAUL WASSERMAN- Supervisor, Members of the Board, my name is Paul Wasserman„ I am an Attorney with an office in Glens Falls and I represent Mr. George Sicard. Mr. Sicard is a long time member of the community he owns approximately Thirty-three acres of land in an area called the Lake Shore Acres. His family and he has owned the property for approximately forty years. The area that I am going to speak about is a little difficult to describe, ' its location. It is north of Glen Lake Road and it is south of Route 149 there is if you are familiar a fire house that is currently being built,` I got and I have blocked it off here on a portion of the map.. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- I am thoroughly familiar with this, I discussed this on the phone, this afternoon. Ok, we have got it (map used) PAUL WASSERMAN- The current zoning is recreational commercial 15, the current usage is consistent with that zoning, the proposed zoning would be changed to rural residential 3A, now, the change ...substantial impact on how the area can be used, not the least of which is the value of the property to the landowner based upon the changed uses as we will 31 discuss, mil , gat to a . I ittle further>. on. Currently Mr.Sicard has approximately twelve trailers' on''-the property and every year since the 1960's he has obtained permits for as many as twenty-five trailers to be kept on the property. This use of the property is the same as a neighbor,, land almost contiguous to Mr. Sicard's which ` is known as the King property.. The difference between the King property and the Sicard Property is while they are currently zoned the same when or if this changes goes into effect Mr. Kings property remains the same in zoning and Mr. Sicards` property changes. The land conditions are precisely the same the soil is rock and sand, geologically the property could sustain the density that it is currently zoned for. The problems that Mr. Sicard views is two fold, one is a density problem (tape changed) that exists on the property as zoned. The proposed change would limit the density to one house " for every three acres, it is almost a ten fold change in density. The explanation or the reason for the change frankly is unknown. '' Because right next, right near by with this other property which is doing precisely the same kind of commercial activity, yet that is not going to be changed under the current proposed plan.'' Now, with the respect to the change in use, currently the uses permit for amusement centers of less than twenty five hundred square feet motels of less than ten uses single family homes, boat houses and shed for storage of boats and restaurants. The new usage under the revised zoning would permit a single family dwellings, timber harvesting, and hunting and IF camps of less than three hundred square feet. With the loss as the result of the change or what I should say, will be lost as a result of the change is all of the above uses, with the exception of single family homes. The area currently is used heavily for recreational use it is just north of Glen Lake, there is heavy boating activity, there is heavy fishing activity. Under the proposed change for instance a boat' yard or storage facility for boats would not be permitted. None of the uses to which this property has naturally been developing over the years ` would any longer be permitted. Yet, when you look at the two properties that I mentioned Mr. Sicards and Mr. Kings there is no difference in the property and there is very little difference in the distance between the properties. As I' have mentioned earlier the geography of the properties are the same they would and do stand the larger - density. The rural residential 3A is really not conducive to the development of the community as it has been developing, nor is it conducive to the property, or condition of the property which would permit the density. As a result, of that we would request that the zoning change that is currently proposed, be revised and it be proposal be changed to reflect the current zoning in the area. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Mr. Wasserman, there is one question that puzzles me, you said there were twelve campers or trailers or mobile homes sites, those are year around sites? PAUL WASSERMAN Yes, they can be, some of the trailers are temporary summer time use site and others are permanent. '` COUNCILMAN MONTESI- So there are some mobile home park there or sorts... PAUL WASSERMAN- It is hard to see, for instance if you have driven by the property to take a look at it in the course of attempting to zone or come up with the proposed changes you would not have seen the mobile homes they are deeply hidden in the woods, you cannot see them from the roadway at all. Over the years Mr. Sicard has been developing the property it is conducive to the recreational commercial use that currently exists. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- That is what happens in the summer time it expands to an additional twenty five sites for summer campers? PAUL WASSERMAN- No, Sir, he has yearly since the 60's obtained a license to put that many mobile homes on the property COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Seasonal PAUL WASSERMAN- Seasonal, but presently and I do not think there has ever been more than twelve, perhaps thirteen on the property. 32 FRED HOLMAN- Do you have a more accurate map, because this' shows your property in the middle of a wetland. PAUL WASSERMAN- The map, well of course the map is the zoning board map in fact the property is not in a. wetland, I have spoken to the people with respect to that, even if it were, which' it isn't, we could, Mr. Sicard could live with the requirements of a wetland but by the same token still be given the opportunity to develop the property as it is currently znned. FRED HOLMAN- We can maybe look at it later. PAUL WASSERMAN- It is not, all I am trying to say is. FRED HOLMAN- It is dust that this map shows it in the middle of the wetlands and this obviously is not the right location... PAUL WASSERMAN- Well, it is, the map in incorrect, I was on the property today other attorneys for Mrs. Sicard have been on the property and in face there is not a wetland area there. ... SUPERVISOR BORGOS- We know the property that you are speaking of. PAUL WASSERMAN- ..questions I have nothing further to say. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you. Way in the back please. TRACY TABOR- Are you guys getting tired? SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Yes. TRACY TABOR- My name is Tracy Tabor and I am a resident of Queensbury. First of all my own. I was just going to explain to this gentlemen I do not believe that lawyers determine wetlands so if its on there it is because DEC or some State Regulation Committee, it wasn't the lawyers that did it...tonight I am here representing the Queensbury Association, the Queensbury Association has 'a membership of about fifty people and although they may not ... everything I say as their true opinion they do hold strongly to most everything I will say. We have submitted this document to the Town Board, I believe that there are copies for you we dust want to come here tonight and touch on a couple of points that we feel are the most critical. One would be the Ridge Road area. We fully support the proposal made by the Board to increase the zoning in the Ridge Road 'Sunnyside area three acres from one acre. Most of this area is unsuitable for development in our opinion and the bottom lands along half-way brook have``a high ` water table and especially between Cronin and Hay.iland Roads and the area around Ridge and Haviland. The region also contains important wildlife habitat which is a wetland or stream life habitat and it has important wetlands. We feel that the headways of Half-way Brook' would be protected by the 3 Acre zoning, the downstream areas should not be left vulnerable. At the very least these areas should be protected even if the high dry areas are not...the board position to be supported by the communities development suitability maps. the second point that I want to make tonight for the-Queensbury Association is on PUD's the proposed amendments to the PUD rules article 15 represent a serious threat to the integrity of the entire zoning plan as we feel. The current ordinance' amended only one and a half years ago ties the density of the PUD to the existing zoning with an appropriate bonus of an additional density in return for preserving open space. This fulfills a' wide planning concept. The proposed section 15.040 would virtually...this requirement and allow almost unlimited density, if the developer can supply information to support the increase. If these weakening amendments, I think this is our strongest point here, we feel that these weakening amendments are adopted you may as well throw away the`new" zoning map because we are leaving it very vulnerable. We feel that there will be negative effects and I will dust hit upon a couple of them because it is getting late. One of them is that it `would be unfair to the developers of the current PUDS as well as conventional subdividers who are required with existing density rules. ..high 33 density nCoffiKtitors would have a cost=advantage over them, even Earitown with all of its faults, the Queensbury Association has not be praising them, but they are trying to 'comply with this rule. Also the Town Board would be flooded with applications rather then submitting subdivision applications the Planning Board developers would go directly to the Town Board with the PUD application in hopes of getting higher density. This would burden the town with numerous hearings and of course you already are over burden with numerous hearings. We got areas which are supposed to be protected by the low density zoning of the new plan one fact not being protected and being vulnerable to excessive development. Even though individual projects may be able to prove that the land in question would support the density increase the overall effect of many such developments to exceed the capacity of the land and road systems thereby negating the benefits of this plan. Going, onto another issue, one ` is the Big Cedar Swamp. I do not think that the Queensbury Association is trying to politically charge DEC with any ammunition what we are trying to make a point here is that if Earltown can be exempt from this why can't everybody else. It does not seem fair to exempt Earltown from a hearing that is covering the whole town. That part of the wetland is included in Queensbury and should be included in the rezoning. The Queensbury Association hole heartily endorses the proposal to rezone the Big Cedar Swamp to LC42, in order to preserve this unique eco system if this is consistency with the zoning, it is consistent with the zoning with other major wetlands such as Dunhams Bay, etc. We do however the some...improvement should be made, one is the rezoning of the entire wetland including the portions along Quaker Road another one ...are an important part of the eco system and a five hundred foot buffer zone around the wetland should also be protected, excepting certain places around Ridge Road where we feel they are more important for the non wetland is more important for commercial lands. That is where we stand on the Cedar Swamp. The four point is Round Pond and we support the proposed rezoning of this area to a three acre minimum. We feel an important' parcel of this has been left out and that is the parcel between Birdsall Road and the Great Escape Camp ground. This has been left RC15 the Queensbury Association feels that this is a error that would allow high density commerical development in an otherwise residential area. It is in a location that is much too close to Round Pond. This parcel is in the Town's critical environmental area and we hope that you would take a further look at that. The fifth point is the side effects in upgrading the zoning we endorse the general reduction of density which will limit traffic growth and the demand for services there wider pollution and destruction of open space however there may be a negative side effects which mitigated. The big one is clustering, open space would naturally be lost to provide the same amount of housing more land will be needed, most homeowners will turn an entire one acre lot into land thereby destroying the natural vegetation and wildlife habitat. We have measures that we feel offset this they are in this document, I will not read them if you would just take the time to look through it. I think there are some good ideas here. The seventh...getting to the last couple is enforcement, it was brought up to Mike that the town has grown very fast and that maybe we are not going to have the employees and the people to enforce these, subdivision and lots and developments that are going to happen the minute the moratorium stops. We feel that the enforcement already is noticeable we view stresses in areas of erosion control, vegetation, preservation of other resources, protection that is and to remedy this problem we feel that there are a couple here I will just mention one of them should be adopted. Before a certificate of occupancy is issued the Town should inspect the site for compliance with these conditions and not just the buildings, if violations are found the CO should be withheld until the situation is corrected. That is about all we have to say tonight we feel that these are the most important issues that we wrote on...that are critically important and again we do not want to take all your time it is late we feel that this is a worthwhile document to review and there are some good ideas in here. We hope that you take these into consideration and take a good long look at them we feel putting our heads together is better than just not doing it. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you very much we will consider all of that, you do have copies 34 for us? TRACY TABOR- The copies are being filed with the Town everybody should have them... it was left up to the Secretary of the Association and it should have been done. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- If the Clerk has it I am sure we will have it. TRACY TABOR- If it is not done please call us, we do have copies that we can make and do want them submitted for review. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you. Is there anyone else? Yes, Sir, come back again. LEE REEVES- My name is still Lee Reeves, I still live at Upper Sherman Avenue at least until the light industrial zoning forces me out, that was a joke. I would just like to speak about some comments made by your consultant regarding the buffer zone on upper Sherman again. One of the important considerations was adding several more driveways directly unto Sherman of course presently a vast majority of properties there do have individual driveways and admittedly sometimes it is difficult pulling out unto 55 MPH traffic but I do not think that pulling out into lanes of 55 MPH light industrial trucks would make it any easier. Also, along that same line, I would think that in an area that is building up in a full residential allotment as Upper Sherman is the proper trend would be to reduce the speed limits to ensure the safety of our children waiting for school busses etc. and not making them dodge the industrial trucks. Again going 55 mph, enough on that point. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- We have already requested the reduced speed limit the State has the only authority in that area. LEE REEVES- Yes. I am familiar with that. that is very good. My lest comment I would just like to confirm some statements made by Mr. Mannix in the area of Satellite Television. My expertise in this area comes from being in electronic all my life and working that last thirteen years in electronic communications the last six of which I have installed several satellite t.v. systems and I have one at home myself and I can attest to the fact that the screening and so forth will seriously degrade signals. Being up to date on Satellite Industry News I understand that there have been several precedents where a town restricted ordinances have been overridden where they were overly restrictive. In my case in particular I know I got no signal from my rear yard nor my side yard by alternative under the new proposed, zoning would be to put the dish on the roof and I would have no signal by keeping the satellite dish below the ridge line which is outlined, so I would be left out in the cold in that particular case. You are doing a good job and thank you very much. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you, Sir. Is there anyone else, if not do any Town Board Members wish to speak tonight? Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Montesi, this is somewhat of a record here, Mrs. Potenza. COUNCILMAN POTENZA- No Thanks. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- I will do you all a favor and be quiet. Meeting adjourned. Thank you very much for coming out. (All letter received placed on file) RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Miss Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk-Town of Queensbury