2004-09-13 MTG42
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 224
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEEETING MTG#42
SEPTEMBER 13, 2004 RES#436-455
7:00 P.M. B.H. 21-22
L.L. #7
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC
COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR
COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH
COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER
TOWN COUNSEL
ROBERT HAFNER
TOWN OFFICIALS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, MARILYN
RYBA
WATER SUPERINTENDENT, RALPH VAN DUSEN
TOWN BUDGET OFFICER, JENNIFER SWITZER
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES, DAVE HATIN
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH
SUPERVISOR STEC-Opened meeting.
RESOLUTION ENTERING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH
RESOLUTION NO. 436, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns
from Regular Session and moves into the Queensbury Board of Health.
th
Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2004, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Boor, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
Noes: None
Absent:Mr. Turner
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON SEWAGE DISPOSAL
VARIANCE APPLICATION OF HERBERT BUNTING
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 225
RESOLUTION NO.: BOH 21, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board serves as the Town’s Local Board of Health and
is authorized by Town Code Chapter 136 to issues variances from the Town’s On-Site Sewage
Disposal Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, Herbert Bunting has applied to the Local Board of Health for a variance from
Chapter 136, 136-11, which requires applicants to obtain a variance for holding tanks, and the
§
applicant wishes to replace the existing 500 gallon holding tank by installing a new 500 gallon
holding tank, in lieu of the required 3,500 gallon holding tank, in the same location, and
WHEREAS, Mr. Bunting has also applied to the Local Board of Health for an additional
variance from Chapter 136 to allow placement of the holding tank 25’ from the well in lieu of the
required 50’ setback, on property located at 2021 Bay Road across from Dunham’s Bay in the Town
of Queensbury,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health will hold a public
th
hearing on September 27, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road,
Queensbury, to consider Herbert Bunting’s sewage disposal variance application concerning
property located at 2021 Bay Road in the Town of Queensbury and bearing Tax Map No.: 252-1-
64 and at that time all interested persons will be heard, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town
Clerk to publish the Notice of Public Hearing presented at this meeting and send a copy of the
Notice to neighbors located within 500 feet of the property as required by law.
th
Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES: None
ABSENT:Mr. Turner
DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE:
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Questioned the location of the holding tank and why
only five hundred gallons? It says it is going to replace a five hundred gallon
holding tank in lieu of the required three thousand five hundred gallon holding tank
required noting this is a big jump.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 226
SUPERVISOR STEC-Asked Executive Director, Ryba to have these questions
answered before the public hearing.
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON SEWAGE DISPOSAL
VARIANCE APPLICATION OF JOHN AND JUDITH SHAFER
RESOLUTION NO.: BOH 22, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board serves as the Town’s Local Board of Health and
is authorized by Town Code Chapter 136 to issue variances from the Town’s On-Site Sewage
Disposal Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, John and Judith Shafer have applied to the Local Board of Health for a
variance from Chapter 136 to place their replacement septic system 75’ from their neighbor’s well
instead of the required 100’ setback and 3’ from their property line instead of the required 10’
setback on property located at 21 Hannaford Road, Queensbury,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury will hold a public
th
hearing on September 27, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road,
Queensbury, to consider John and Judith Shafer’s sewage disposal variance application concerning
property located at 21 Hannaford Road, Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 240.6-1-18) and at that time all
interested persons will be heard, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town
Clerk to publish the Notice of Public Hearing presented at this meeting and send a copy of the
Notice to neighbors located within 500 feet of Mr. and Mrs. Shafer’s property as required by law.
th
Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Strough
NOES : Noes
ABSENT:Mr. Turner
RESOLUTION ADJOURNING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH
RESOLUTION NO. 23, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 227
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns from session
and moves back into the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury.
th
Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2004, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
Noes: None
Absent:Mr. Brewer
PUBLIC HEARINGS
NORTH QUEENSBURY FIRE COMPANY – PURCHASE OF SCOTT AIR PACKS
CHIEF, DAN DAVIES AND ASSISTANT CHIEF, JEFF BAERTSCHI PRESENT
OPENED 7:10 P.M.
NOTICE SHOWN
SUPERVISOR STEC-We had at least two Workshop Meetings with the Town
Board. Briefly update us on what you are talking about doing. The Town’s plan
was and remains that we were going to finance this over the next couple of three
years, with that I will turn this over to Dan Davies.
DAN DAVIES, ASSISTANT CHIEF-We are here today to present the purchase of
nineteen Scott 4.5 Air Packs with nineteen spare bottles. A RIT Pack and a Bauer
Air Compressor System. We are replacing our fifteen-year-old Scott 2.2 Air Packs
that we have taken to the very end of their allowed useful life. We are downsizing
the number of total bottles from fifty-three to thirty eight. The proposed cost of
these items will be a hundred and thirteen thousand. This has gone through the
formal bid process and will be awarded to low bidder, which is lower than the
State Contract price. For financing we contacted six lending institutions and
determined that Bank North is the most competitive lease purchase program. The
purchase proposal is as follows. North Queensbury Fire to use the existing air
pack fund totaling thirty one thousand. Finance the remaining eighty two thousand
through Bank North Leasing Corporation at the FHLBB daily advance rates at the
time the lease request is funded. Our approximate annual air pack payment for
three years based on current rates will be thirty thousand two fifty. The proposal is
part of our long-term capital plan that will enable our company to be completely
debt free in the fall of 2007. We are not asking for any increase in our budget and
feel that we can hold the line at its existing level for many years to come. We are
asking for your approval on the proposal.
SUPERVISOR STEC-It should be noted that the law limits the use of the life of air
packs the fifteen years and you did get the full fifteen years.
MR. DAVIES-Correct. It depends on the type of air pack that you buy. The new
ones that we will have they will have twenty-year life on them. The current ones
that we have are fifteen and we used them for all fifteen we didn’t stop in the
middle and switch fiscally we wanted to be responsible.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Anything else before I open the public hearing? With that
I’ll open the public hearing. If there are any members of the public present tonight
that would like to ask any questions or express concerns regarding the North
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 228
Queensbury Fire Company request to purchase nineteen Scott Air Packs, please
raise your hand and come forward?
PAT GREEN-I just got here so I didn’t hear the whole thing so maybe they said
this. What model Air Pack are they purchasing?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Scott 4.5.
MR. GREEN-What model?
MR. DAVIES-The Next Generation.
MR. GREEN-I do have a concern with that. I support them getting the Air Packs; I
think that’s great, I’m in fire service also. My concern with NGS 2 is they have a
quick connect bottle no one else in the Town has that so when these people go
Mutual Aid no one else will be able to use this bottle without adapting Air Packs in
these bottles. They do make a Scott 50, which everybody else would be adaptable
to.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I understand what you are saying, but as other companies
upgrade is everything going direct connect?
MR. GREEN-They still make the Scott Fifty.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Is there an advantage to the quick connects?
MR. GREEN-Just a quick disconnect to changing the bottle. The fifteen-year isn’t
the pack it’s the bottle. The pack can still be used as long as the pack is expected
for.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Would anyone else like to speak? North Queensbury could
you please answer the question?
MR. DAVIES-There is a couple advantages. The Next Generation is new
technology it has come out in the fire service this year by Scott. There are a couple
big advantages there is a substantial price savings between the two. Probably what
Scott is doing they are offering incentives to get their new product out on the line.
It is the wave of the future it is what a lot of the big city departments are going too.
For this bid the difference in price is almost seven thousand dollars. If we go to
the old packs, old technology it is seven thousand more for the Pack Fifties. The
main reason that they do that is to try to get them out there. The big advantage
rather than unscrewing the pack these are rapid disconnect. Scott is going to really
offer big incentives to get these new models out there and it really is going to
become what the future in air packs are. You will probably see the other
manufacturers switch to that eventually. That’s why we had them come up and do
a formal presentation to our department, all forty-five guys. We looked at the Pack
Fifty and looked at the Next Generation. The Next Generation is cheaper and there
are a lot of pluses to it. As far as filling them and things like that we generally
don’t use other departments packs. We won’t wear their pack and they don’t wear
ours. The nice thing South Queensbury has a mobile air center we will pay for
them to have that so that they can fill our bottles. It really is not going to be a big
issue with the cascade systems that are out there now.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Any other questions or comments from the public? Any
questions from the Town Board?
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 229
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Would you know if any of the other companies are
going to these or have gone to these?
MR. DAVIES-We currently have 2.2 packs. Our surrounding departments Lake
George, Bay Ridge Central they all use 4.5 so we’re not compatible with them now
because they are on newer technology packs.
MR. BAERTSCHI-It has been for ten years.
MR. DAVIES-We have stayed with the old technology and the older heavier pack.
I think what you will see is over time as they go to start to replace them that they
may go to this. There are a lot of advantages to the Next Generation its new
technology.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Any other questions?
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Is the quick disconnect from the pack to the tank is
that what they are talking about?
MR. DAVIES-Yes.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-So he is saying you wouldn’t be able to interchange?
MR. DAVIES-We can’t now because our packs are different than our mutual aid
departments. We don’t use their air pack that’s the big thing. I think eventually in
our Town, Bay Ridge was one of the first to have 4.5 and Central switched. Lake
George they all had old technology 2.2 packs they went to 4.5. You’ll see as they
start to replace 4.5’s as their useful life’s come to an end they will probably go to
Next Generation.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-There won’t be any problem with refilling the tanks
etc.?
MR. DAVIES-No, it’s just an adapter.
MR. BAERTSCHI-Actually it’s not even an adapter they fill the same way. They
have a fitting on them for the fill station to fill them. The only thing you can’t do
is you wouldn’t be able to take the new bottles and put them on the old packs and
vice versa. Our policy our SPO in our station is that we don’t do that anyway
because we’re not going to be responsible for the maintenance i.e., hydro-testing
and what not that the other departments do. I’m not going to take someone else’s
bottle and strap it on my guys back.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Then again the quick disconnects are just that they
are quick disconnects.
MR. BAERTSCHI-The reason for the quick disconnect is we can go in twice. In
other words we can go in and use a bottle of air a firefighter can come out get a
drink of water snap another bottle on his pack and go back in that’s the purpose for
having a spar bottle with each pack. Other than that if it is that big of a fire where
we have mutual aid the mutual aid companies come in they have their own air
packs.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-You have the upgraded technology that eventually
they will be getting too.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 230
MR. DAVIES-Hopefully it’s not a guarantee.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Right. If they do have to go new they will probably
go with the quick disconnect.
MR. DAVIES-It’s a lot easier in changing the bottles out.
MR. BAERTSCHI-It’s not only the quick disconnect it is also the electronic
technology in the past devices. The heads up display that is all NFPA required
now that you can see what your air pressure is without having to find a gage it’s up
in your viewpoint things like that. There are a lot of things that are built into the
New Generation Packs.
MR. DAVIES-They are also are much easier to breath in. It is like twenty percent
less restrictive as far as breathing with the Next Generation Pack, which is why a
lot of them are switching.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Any other questions?
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-You are taking out a loan for these right?
MR. DAVIES-We are taking a lease purchase.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-It is a lease purchase. I see the leasing, Banknorth
Leasing Corporation.
MR. DAVIES-What we did is we contacted most of the local lending institutions
and a couple national ones. They came in with the most competitive rate. Our
proposal is actually less than what we had talked to you guys at the workshops we
are a couple thousand dollars less a year or maybe a thousand because the rate was
a little bit more competitive.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Anything else?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I just want to question if we should maybe think about
are any of the other companies due for new packs. If that is so would it be better
for us to buy if you guys are buying forty, if the company is due for packs next
year why go through this all again and buy everybody so we’re compatible does
that make sense or no?
MR. BAERTSCHI-I don’t think anybody else in the Town is due for several years
actually.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Can we find that out?
MR. BAERTSCHI-We can, but I’m quite sure that they are not. They are all
running 4.5’s. They are running the newer technology.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-It wasn’t available fifteen years ago.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I understand that. I’m saying if Central or Bay Ridge
or whatever is due for packs next year would it be smart for us to buy all of them at
once and maybe get a better deal?
MR. DAVIES-It might be South or West. Central and Bay Ridge have just gone
through within the last eight years have gone through their conversions.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 231
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Would it make sense to look at that would we get a
better deal?
MR. DAVIES-I don’t think as far as State Contract…
COUNCILMAN BREWER-If this is the top of the line technology or are they
going to come in and tell us that they found the better technology and these are
what we should buy, I don’t know.
MR. DAVIES-We’re staying with the Scott type of pack. There are Survive Air,
Scott, and MSA; there are many different manufacturers of air packs that are out
there. I think you will see because the way each department did them was a little
different. Not all of them came up at once some of them had them come in two at a
time or four at a time things like that. The way the bid process went out I think we
did get probably a substantial discount because we did them all at once and didn’t
phase them in two at a time the price is substantially lower than State Contract.
That’s really going to be their decision and to try and get all five departments to
agree on everything.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I’m not saying we can get all five departments to
agree. I’m just thinking in the scheme of things we’re trying to trim back, save
where we can. If it make sense to have two companies buy them rather than just
one the benefit to the Town maybe better than it is right now with one company
buying them.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Tim what I was hearing them say and Dan and Jeff certainly
correct me if I misspeak. There is not a significant operational disadvantage to
having more than one flavor of these running around because you don’t share them
anyway.
MR. DAVIES-Correct.
SUPERVISOR STEC-It’s….on the Cascade it’s just a matter of which fitting that
you go to. There is not a user advantage to force somebody to spend a hundred
and thirteen thousand dollars or more to change over even if they are not due for
two or three years.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-The other thing is you are not getting the utility out of the
end years of what they got now so really the cost would be considerably more.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Just throwing the question out there.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Your point is a good one in that we may never get everyone
at the same technology at the same time. What I’m hearing is that’s not critical at
least today with the options out there.
MR. BAERTSCHI-I understand with what Tim is saying if someone else was due
or going to be due in six months or something like that.
SUPERVISOR STEC-If somebody else is going to come in here next year and say,
hey we want to do this too.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-That’s what my question is.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 232
MR. BAERTSCHI-Our biggest problem is I believe it’s the middle of January
sometime in January our bottles get drilled we don’t fight fires anymore period.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right, we wouldn’t make you wait.
MR. BAERTSCHI-The other thing is if we get our approval we need to order they
are probably two to three months out we’re not sure. It’s not go to the store and
buy them and get what you want.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Any other questions for the Town Board? Any other
questions or comments from the public?
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION APPROVING NORTH QUEENSBURY VOLUNTEER FIRE
COMPANY, INC.’S PROPOSAL TO PURCHASE SCOTT AIR PACKS AND
NECESSARY, ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT AND AUTHORIZING
INCURRENCE OF DEBT FOR SUCH PURCHASE
RESOLUTION NO.: 437, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury and the North Queensbury Volunteer Fire
Company, Inc. (Fire Company) have entered into an Agreement for fire protection services,
which Agreement sets forth a number of terms and conditions including a condition that the Fire
Company will not purchase or enter into any binding contract to purchase any piece of apparatus,
equipment, vehicles, real property, or make any improvements that would require the Fire
Company to acquire a loan or mortgage or use money placed in a “vehicles fund” without prior
approval of the Queensbury Town Board, and
WHEREAS, the Fire Company has advised the Town Board that it wishes to purchase 19
Scott Air Packs with the necessary, associated equipment (Air Packs) for a sum not to exceed
$113,000, such purchase already included in the scheduled Fire Company’s five (5) year capital
plan that forecasts future capital needs and expenditures, including anticipated vehicles, equipment,
tools, other apparatus, facilities or improvements to facilities to be used for firematic purposes, and
WHEREAS, the Fire Company plans on paying for the Air Packs by using approximately
$31,000 in funds from its Restricted Air Pack Fund and entering into three (3) year tax-exempt
lease-purchase agreement with Banknorth Leasing Corp., for the balance of $82,000, and
th
WHEREAS, on September 13, 2004, the Town Board held a public hearing concerning
the Fire Company’s proposed purchase and debt incurrence and heard all interested persons, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board feels that these new Air Packs will provide additional safety
protection for the Fire Company’s firefighters and the Town and therefore the Town Board wishes
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 233
to adopt a Resolution authorizing the purchase of the Air Packs and incurrence of debt by the
Fire Company,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the North
Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company, Inc.’s proposal to purchase 19 Scott Air Packs and the
associated, necessary equipment for a sum not to exceed $113,000, such purchase already
included in the scheduled Fire Company’s five (5) year capital plan that forecasts future capital
needs and expenditures, including anticipated vehicles, equipment, tools, other apparatus, facilities
or improvements to facilities to be used for firematic purposes, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes the Fire Company to
use approximately $31,000 in funds from its Restricted Air Pack Fund toward the
purchase, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further approves of the incurrence of approximately
$82,000 in debt by the North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. for such purchase with
the understanding that the Town Board is relying upon the Fire Company’s assurances that the
Air Packs are serviceable and suitable for their long-term intended use, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury does not guarantee the debt with Banknorth
Leasing Corp., on behalf of the Fire Company nor does the Town Board create or intend to
create any assumption on the part of the Town of Queensbury of any obligation or liability for
the financing, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor
and/or Town Budget Officer to take any action necessary to effectuate all terms of this
Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2004 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES: None
ABSENT:Mr. Turner
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 234
PUBLIC HEARING LOCAL LAW TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN
CODE BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 68 ENTITLED
PROHIBITION OF DIESEL VEHICLES IDLING IN RESIDENTIAL
ZONES
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
OPENED 7:25 P.M.
NOTICE SHOWN
SUPERVISOR STEC-This is a continuation of a public hearing that we had a few
weeks ago back in August. We wanted to take a little bit more time to consider
and leave the public hearing open. The hearing is still open there have been a
couple of minor changes that were made actually just one that I’m aware of that
was suggested by the Director of Building and Codes, Dave Hatin. He added
language at the end of Section 3, under Definitions; I apologize if the public
doesn’t have it in front of them. We are talking about delivery vehicles while
making deliveries. The change now reads emergency or delivery vehicles while
making deliveries or making pick-ups at places of businesses. It defines both the
going and coming end of the diesel truck stopping. Essentially just to recap what
we’re talking about here. The intent here the concerns about diesel vehicles in
residential zones has raised a health and safety concern. We are looking to prohibit
the idling of diesel vehicles that require a commercial drivers license. The
example that has been used in the past that the Town is aware of a handful or more
of situations where a diesel truck will be parked in a driveway idling all night
during a cold winter night as diesel sometimes do. Obviously that is a concern to
neighbors with the noise and the fumes and the emissions so we are looking to
prohibit that in residential zones. With that the public hearing is still opened, if
there are any other members of the public that would like to comment or question
the proposed local law regarding Idling of Diesel Vehicles, anything new or
anything that anyone would like to point out?
DAN OLSON-29 Carlton Drive, Queensbury-We just have been going over this,
this evening the local law that you written up and amended. It covers the fact of
the problem of the diesel trucks idling and that’s taken care of with a use of a block
heater to keep the engine warm that would take care of that problem. I have a
problem and I don’t quite understand the enforcement how the Town would work
on the enforcement of this law when there is a violation? It seems to me if you
went a step further; this is a good step and good beginning it will solve the problem
that’s there, but it won’t solve the whole problem of the enforcement. If these
vehicles, which you describe here diesel vehicles needing a special drivers license
to operate and everything, were not allowed to be stored, parked, maintained,
repaired in residential zones that would eliminate a big problem. I was always
under the understanding that when I lived in a residential zone the zoning that goes
along with a residential subdivision or residential housing development prohibits
any commercial development or any commercial use or storing of commercial
equipment in that area. It seems to me that this is infringing on the residential
zoning in a residential use. This is better than what we’ve been looking at and
what we’ve had in the past. Again, I brought this up on the zoning in a residential
area. I don’t want to see other people start other businesses or other types of
industry going on in a residential area because somebody has their foot into it now
and it’s starts to mushroom into a real mess. I thought the Ordinances would
protect residences from that happening. I guess the enforcement of this is that the
person whoever happens to witness this violation according to your Ordinance here
has to notify the Town and the Town takes the enforcement if that’s the way it is
step up, I guess I have to go with that at this point.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 235
SUPERVISOR STEC-Like many other code issues.
MR. OLSON-I’m done with my comments.
MRS. OLSON-I just have one question and this is because, I don’t understand. I
understand the block heater to keep the engine warm, but then when the person
goes to turn the truck on and leave how many minutes is he going to have to have
the truck running?
SUPERVISOR STEC-It says unattended. It means where the properly license
driver is not in the diesel vehicle drivers seat and awake. If he’s in the drivers seat
and awake if he wants to sit there I suppose he could sit there.
MRS. OLSON-For how long?
SUPERVISOR STEC-As long as his body will allow.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-As long as he’s in it.
MRS. OLSON-That means he still can idle it as long as he’s in it.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-The way this law is written, correct.
MRS. OLSON-We could still have a situation where it is being idled for hours.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I would like to think that in Queensbury we wouldn’t run
into that being an issue. I would like to believe that about my Town that somebody
wouldn’t sit there just to drive you bananas or anyone bananas. We try to put a
little bit of common sense into these laws, but you are right I suppose the way this
is written I don’t know if there is a better way to write it.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Who is going to time it if you put a timer on it?
MR. OLSON-The complainant is going to have to time it. The complainant is the
person who is making the complaint to the Town is going to have to be the timer.
DEC sets a temperature range.
SUPERVISOR STEC-This is more restrictive than DEC. DEC allows you to run
it.
MR. OLSON-Below twenty five degrees they can run constantly.
MRS. OLSON-For weeks at a time.
SUPERVISOR STEC-We’re changing that we’re stopping that. We are making
ours more restrictive.
MR. OLSON-I think I mentioned before you need a thermometer that’s been
calibrated by the National Weather Bureau.
SUPERVISOR STEC-We are trying to avoid that we’re trying to regulate the
activity. This is…to the whole Noise Ordinance are you qualified to calibrate
decibel meter. This bypasses that and its enforcement it is an activity it is either
occurring or not occurring so it makes it simplier to enforce.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 236
MRS. OLSON-A suggestion if the truck is idling for ten minutes, fifteen minutes
in the winter and supposedly has had the block heater we can call the Town after
ten, fifteen minutes?
SUPERVISOR STEC-If it’s not attended. If it is running and there is no one
present with the vehicle it’s a violation.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-If he starts the truck gets out to brush the snow off
certainly you are not going to….
MRS. OLSON-You do that with a car, but this again is diesel fuel it’s not gasoline.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-If this law turns out to be a problem and it may be
for unforeseen things we can always amend it.
SUPERVISOR STEC-We can always make it better.
MRS. OLSON-Thank you for the start.
MR. OLSON-I’m finished, thanks for your time.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Anyone else like to speak on the diesel, yes ma'am.
DIANE BREAN, 18 CARLTON DRIVE, QUEENSBURY-My husband is not the
mean kind of person where he’ll sit in the truck for hours and do it. He is not
home twenty four to thirty six hours she says to keep the truck going, cause he
works like, I said seventy to ninety hours a week. He’s not home that much; I see
him once and a great while. They are talking about winter, like I said the smell is
from the chimney smoke. She is talking about her health hazards. Her husband
smokes cigarettes that’s a health hazard.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Let me interrupt you just for a second here. We are talking
about a problem or an issue that’s throughout the Town not a specific situation. I
know it’s a very specific situation for you.
MRS. BREAN-I don’t see anybody else up here complaining about their neighbors
trucks. I don’t see one person in here other than them how come they are not in
here?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Just so you are aware two years ago somebody in my
Ward registered the same complaint. I didn’t get as far with it as we have on this
so it is not an isolated incident. You are not being singled out I just wanted you to
understand that.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And I have had the same complaints on Zenas Drive.
MRS. BREAN-How come they are not in here?
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I don’t know anything about your case at all.
MRS. BREAN-They have been harassing me for four years this is really
ridiculous.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-This isn’t you. This has been an issue that has come
to us from many different directions. I didn’t even know you were involved at all.
My interest came from my complaints from my constituents on Zenus Drive about
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 237
the same kind of situation that’s going on over there. They said the person is a
really nice person they really hate to say anything to them, but this is really
annoying to them.
MRS. BREAN-Like I said, they don’t live right next-door, they live across the
street where I live. Wal-Mart is right behind us then you have smoke because
people burn their wood in their house they heat it twenty four seven. How can that
smoke and diesel smoke together just go into their house, you know what I’m
saying? It’s like what the diesel fumes are just going into their house not anybody
else’s in the neighborhood. How come nobody else is complaining about it? It’s
only this one person and she’s not complaining about the whole neighborhood she
is only complaining about herself and her husband. I could see if there was
another neighbor, my next-door neighbor. They live right next-door from here to
where that wall is and I asked her and she said she never even hears the truck. She
never even smells the truck because she has a wood burning stove now that is
twenty-four seven, seven days out of the week. My husband is not even home he’s
home maybe one day or two days. Twenty four to thirty six hours no, I’m sorry
you can come and video camera my house he’s not home.
SUPERVISOR STEC-We don’t want to do that.
MRS. BREAN-I’m just trying to say my piece then.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you Mrs. Brean. Is there anyone else that would like
to speak about this proposed local law, anyone else at all? Any questions or
comments from the Town Board?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I have one for Counsel. Section 5. Enforcement.
Typically on a legal issue would we be going after the Company that owns the
truck or the driver with regards to the fine?
TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-Enforcement we will work with the Town Board
with the Town Code Enforcement on what we think is most likely to enforce this
law and to get the results that you are looking for.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-So it’s discretionary.
SUPERVISOR STEC-It may vary from case to case.
TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-What this last version was in there was someone
saying it’s not me that’s doing it we can go after either the person who owns the
truck or the person who drives the truck.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-So it’s either/or.
TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-It’s either/or.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Any other questions or comments from the board?
Anything else from the public with that I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:40 P.M.
RESOLUTION ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO.: 7, OF 2004 TO AMEND
QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE I OF
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 238
CHAPTER 68 ENTITLED "PROHIBITION OF DIESEL VEHICLES
IDLING IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES"
RESOLUTION NO. 438, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.:
7, 2004 to amend the Queensbury Town Code by adding a new Article I of Chapter 68 entitled,
“Prohibition of Diesel Vehicles Idling in Residential Zones” to prohibit diesel vehicles from running
or idling for any length of time in residential zones while the diesel vehicle is unattended as such
activity can produce offensive odors and noise which can harm the health, safety and welfare of
Town residents, and
WHEREAS, such legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State Municipal
Home Rule Law §10, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board duly held public hearings concerning such proposed Local
thth
Law on August 16 and September 13, 2004 and heard all interested persons, and
WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Local Law has been presented at this meeting and is in
form approved by Town Counsel,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby enacts Local Law No.: 7, of 2004
entitled, "A Local Law to Amend the Queensbury Town Code by Adding a New Article I of
Chapter 68 Entitled ‘Prohibition of Diesel Vehicles Idling in Residential Zones,’” as presented at
this meeting, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town
Clerk to file the Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the
provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and acknowledges that the Local Law will take effect
immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State.
th
Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES : None
ABSENT: Mr. Turner
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 239
LOCAL LAW NO.: 7, OF 2004
A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE BY
ADDING A NEW ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 68 ENTITLED
“PROHIBITION OF DIESEL VEHICLES IDLING
IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES”
BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Title and Authority -
The Queensbury Town Code is hereby amended by adding
a new Article I of Chapter 68 entitled “Prohibition of Diesel Vehicles Idling in Residential
Zones.” It is adopted pursuant to Municipal Home Rule Law §10.
Section 2. Legislative Intent –
Concerns have been raised concerning idling of Diesel
Vehicles, particularly in the Town’s residential zones. Such activity can produce offensive odors
and offensive noise which can harm the health, safety and welfare of residents. In addition, the
activities prohibited in this Local Law waste fuel which is a limited resource, causes
environmental harm and are inappropriate in a residential zone. It is the finding of the Town
Board that if a Diesel Vehicle needs to be warmed up or kept warm to run, then the licensed
driver of the Diesel Vehicle shall use a block heater to keep the engine warm.
Section 3. Definitions
– For the purposes of this Local Law, "Diesel Vehicle" shall mean
any diesel-fueled vehicle requiring a CDL or higher license to drive. Notwithstanding the above,
“Diesel Vehicle” shall not include emergency vehicles (e.g., Fire or EMS), Town or other
municipal or state vehicles operating in the course of their duties (including, without limitation,
school buses) or utility company vehicles operating during an emergency or delivery vehicles
while making deliveries or making pick-ups at places of business.
Section 4. Prohibition -
No person shall allow a Diesel Vehicle to run or idle its engine for
any length of time while the Diesel Vehicle is unattended. “Unattended” means where the
properly licensed driver of the Diesel Vehicle is not in the Diesel Vehicle’s driver’s seat and
awake. This prohibition shall be effective in all residential zones of the Town. The driver and
the registered owner of the Diesel Vehicle shall each be responsible for complying with this
Local Law.
Section 5. Enforcement –
Failure to comply with the provisions of this Local Law shall be a
violation and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $100 for
the first offense. The second conviction hereunder shall be punishable by a fine of not more than
$200 or imprisonment for a period of not more than three (3) days, or both. Any subsequent
offense shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $350 or imprisonment for a period of not
more than seven (7) days, or both. Each violation shall constitute a separate offense. The
licensed driver of the Diesel Vehicle and, if different, the person in whose name the Diesel
Vehicle is registered shall each be considered and responsible for each violation of this Local
Law and this Local Law may be enforced against either one or both for each violation.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 240
Section 6. Severability -
The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph or provision of
this Local Law shall not invalidate any other clause, sentence, paragraph or part thereof.
Section 7. Repealer -
All Local Laws or ordinances or parts of Local Laws or ordinances in
conflict with any part of this Local law are hereby repealed.
Section 8. Effective Date -
This Local Law shall take effect upon filing in the office of the
New York State Secretary of State or as otherwise provided by law.
PUBLIC HEARING LOCAL LAW TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN
CODE CHAPTER 179 “ZONING” TO AMEND LANGUAGE
CONCERNING THE PURPOSE AND ESTABLISHMENT OF
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) ZONES AND THE AMENDMENT OF
TOWN CODE TABLES 1, 2, AND 4 CONCERNING RESIDENTIAL USES
OPENED 7:40 P.M.
NOTICE SHOWN
MAP SHOWN
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MARILYN RYBA-The background, I think there has
been discussion about professional offices and setbacks probably since January for
a number of reasons, and a number of aspects, and options that have been proposed
and discussed. What ended up here were proposed clarifications primarily to the
Zoning Ordinance. As the Town Clerk Assistant had mentioned that the
clarifications are such that the Purpose Statement has been changed. There is an
amendment to Tables 1, 2 to require setbacks within the professional office zone to
be sited a minimum of five hundred feet from Bay Road, Sherman Avenue,
Western Avenue or West Mountain Road. An amendment in those same tables to
require nonresidential uses to be sited within a thousand feet. Another amendment
is to provide that personal service businesses would be allowed as accessory and
subordinate to professional office and any service facilities would be housed within
the professional office building so that a service building wouldn’t be a stand
alone, such as a Pharmacy for example. Pharmacy could be included in a medical
office, but it wouldn’t be a stand alone Pharmacy. To clarify the density for multi-
family dwelling units and the floor area ratio requirements, I can read through
those. The amendment to the Purpose Statement, I can read the entire thing. This
is Section 179-3040 Purpose and Establishment of Zoning Districts; Professional
Office comes under other districts. The PO District encompasses areas where
professional offices are encourages. These are located along arterials adjoining
residential areas where compatibility with residential uses is important. The
proposed language to amend this section would state. The Town desires to see
development of high quality offices where structures and faculties are constructed
with particular attention to detail including but not limited to architecture, lighting,
landscaping, signs, streetscape, public amenities, and pedestrian connections. The
PO District can function as a transition zone protecting residential zones from
more intensive commercial uses, while providing convenient professional offices
to residential neighborhoods. Office and residential facilities should be sited and
built to demonstrate compatibility with adjoining uses and to minimize any
negative impacts on adjoining land uses. It is the intent of the PO District to locate
residential uses setback a minimum of 500 ft. from roadways as outlined in the
dimensional tables and behind professional offices. I think earlier it was outlined
fairly clearly about the table changes with Table 4 dimensional requirements
clarifying that to establish a dwelling unit twenty thousand square feet is needed
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 241
for the first dwelling unit and then five thousand square feet per additional
dwelling unit. In terms of the floor area ratio it is 0.3 for office and institutional
uses. This is a Town Board initiated proposal there is a public hearing scheduled.
However, in terms of the process there is a recommended that has been requested
from both the Town Planning Board and the County Planning Board. The County
Planning Board did meet last week on the eighth. The Town Planning Board will
look at this on the twenty-first of this month. Before any action can be taken there
is an SEQRA review that needs to take place. The other thing is typically when
there is a Petition for Zone Change there is an application that is completed and
there are a number of questions that are asked about the application. That is
something that the Town Board would go through before making any final
determinations. I don’t know if you have any other questions. I think, I’ve
explained the process what the amendment is, a tad about the history. I don’t know
what else you would like me to speak about.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I think that’s fine. I will open the public hearing at this
point certainly as we proceed with the public hearing if there are questions that
come up that you can answer we will ask you to do that then. I do know that we
have a few pieces of correspondence pertaining to this that I think are pertinent and
we will have them read into the record now then we will open up to public
comment.
TOWN CLERK O’BRIEN-Read the following documents into the record. All on
file in Town Clerk’s Office.
Protest Petition received in Town Clerks Office September 13, 2004 4:35 p.m.
Re: Proposed Local Law No. of 2004 to Amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter
179 “Zoning” to amend language concerning the purpose and establishment of
Professional Office Zones and the Amendment of Town Code Tables 1, 2, and 4
Concerning Residential uses (Resolution No. 415, 2004)
Dear Darlene:
Attached hereto please find “Protest Petition” signed by a notary, of in excess of
twenty percent of the owners of the area of land along Bay Road included in such
proposed change.
Obviously, these owners/tax payers are the most directly affected by the proposed
change.
In discussing the changes these owners supported the premise that no change in
current regulations is warranted.
Even though the proposed changes will also affect lands on Western Avenue and at
Exit 20, where a proposed zoning amendment affects a number of separate, non
contiguous and disconnected parcels, the validity of a protest should be examined
with respect to each parcel of land and not the entire proposed rezoning. See East
th
30 Street v Town of North Salem. 88, AD 2d, 281, 432 W.Y.S. 2d 292 (2d Dept.
1982)
There are 152.196 acres of land within 500 feet of Bay Road. The owners that
signed this protest petition own 67.599 acres of 44% of that area. If you remove
the lands of the Town of Queensbury and the Adirondack Community Colleges
51.756 acres, the percentage of Protesters rises to 67%. If you make the same
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 242
calculations for the area within 1000 feet of Bay Road, the percentage of protest is
equal or higher.
Pursuant to Town Law Section 265 Subchapter (a) a protest petition is valid if
signed by twenty percent of the owners of the area of land, included in such
proposed changes. To be valid the proposed amendment will require the approval
of at least three fourths of the members of the Town Board.
Please communicate receipt of this petition to Supervisor Daniel Stec and the
Town Attorney, thank you.
Very truly yours,
Little & O’Connor
Michael J. O’Connor
Letter: Dated: September 8, 2004 From: Brian F. Howard, Superintendent,
Queensbury Union Free School District
Dear Mr. Stec
The Board of Education and Superintendent of the Queensbury Union Free School
District are writing to inform you of our serious concern over the direction and
recent trends in residential development in the Town of Queensbury. The Buildout
Study that the Town and School District jointly sponsored documents one trend in
particular that if continued will have a dramatic impact on the school and
community.
Over the last one half century, the Town and School District have grown. Those
who joined the community and school have always been welcomed. A sense of
community founded on neighborhoods of long-term residents has thrived. A large
majority of the residents make a long-term commitment to the community and
school. Queensbury has a distinct character that combines rural Adirondack, small
town, and suburban elements, which creates a unique atmosphere. This
atmosphere has made it a very desirable place to live, raise families and go to
school. The School District has a deep and strong belief that this atmosphere,
which makes Queensbury unique and special, must be preserved.
This atmosphere is on the brink of being destroyed. Over the last few years there
has been a trend away from single family owner occupied homes with long term
residents to high density shorter term residences. Queensbury Union Free School
District’s Board of Education and Superintendent believe that the qualities that
make the school and community unique and a special place to live long term and
raise a family are being eroded and will soon be gone.
For this reason the Queensbury Union Free School District’s Board of Education
and Superintendent have prepared the attached memorandum. We believe it is
necessary to make a clear and strong statement because the recent trends, if
continued, will have a very negative effect on the qualities that we value.
Sincerely,
Brian F. Howard Ed. D.
Superintendent
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 243
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Queensbury Town Board, Queensbury Community
Development Department, Queensbury Planning Board and Queensbury Zoning
Board
FROM: Dr. Brain F. Howard, Superintendent
RE: QUFSD’s Response to the Buildout Study
DATE: September 8, 2004
QUFSD and the Town of Queensbury jointly funded a buildout study. Its purpose
was to gather information that would help both entities to plan for the future. This
effort is an extension of the twenty-five year cooperative relationship between the
district and the town. A draft of the study was presented to Board of Education
and the Town Board on August 3, 2004. Since that time the Board of Education
has carefully and thoughtfully reviewed the findings. This position paper is a
statement of the QUFSD Board of Education’s conclusions and positions.
Findings from the Town of Queensbury Population Projection and Buildout Study
have made it clear that the recent trend away from single family homes to high
density temporary residences needs to be addressed immediately. There are
fundamental questions that must be answered. What type of community and
school do we want in Queensbury in the coming decade? What traditions and local
culture do we want to maintain? Answers to these two questions must come from
the community and school.
The Board of Education has spent time considering these questions and offers the
following. There is a special culture with many fine traditions that are worth
preserving. Growth in population and commerce is evident in our vibrant
community; however, laws, regulations and guidelines that determine the rate and
type of growth must reflect the culture and traditions of the community and school.
If the present trend continues, the culture and traditions of the community and
school will be lost.
The dramatic increase, since 2000, in the number of townhouses and apartments
may have met a need and created a balance in housing and that is a good thing.
However, the QUFSD believes that to continue to build townhouses and
apartments will result in a major change in the community. This type of high
density, shorter term residences will erode the current culture of the community
and school. There will be an ever increasing percentage of residents and students
who are transients (moving in and out every few years). The sense of community,
the strong supportive networks of neighbors and friends, and the hometown
atmosphere that exist is built on a foundation of neighborhoods of single family
owner occupied homes. Residents stay for longer periods of time and raise
children. There is a greater commitment to the community and school when
residents know that this is their home for the long term. The QUFSD strongly
recommends that the Town of Queensbury make changes to its rules and
regulations that encourage the building of neighborhoods with the single
family/owner occupies homes and discourages the further development of
townhouses and apartment buildings. Here are the reasons for this
recommendation.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 244
1. We value the program and services that can be offered to our students
because we will have a large majority of them for all or at least most of their
K-12 education.
2. We believe that positive relationships between the school and the
community it serves require long term commitment.
3. We believe that QUFSD now has an ideal balance in each of the following.
(short term residents/long term residents, special needs/average/accelerated
students) Please allow us to maintain this balance because we believe that
this is best for our students and the community we serve.
LETTER: FROM: John V. and Lara Mehr Currie, Currie Associates
Dear Mr. Boor:
We apologize for not being able to attend the September 13 Town Board Meeting
but we will be out of town on business travel. We are the owners and principals of
a small consulting firm and provide management services to two international trade
associations. We are residents of Queensbury and own a home on Bay Road. We
are also in the process of building a professional office building on Hunter Brook
Lane adjacent to the property under discussion.
In addition to paying our fair share of taxes, our business including the two trade
associates that we headquarter and manage contribute to the local economy in the
following manner:
We purchase tens of thousands of dollars worth of office equipment, office
furniture, printing supplies, banking services and office supplies from our local
vendors.
We employ an office staff of local professionals and contract with several other
local firms for accounting work, internet web site design, management consulting
and other services.
We offer job diversity to the Queensbury area since our business is international in
scope and quite unique to the local area.
We bring the Board of Directors of the two trade associations that we manage to
town for meetings on a regular basis. There are mid and upper level managers
from large international companies from throughout North America, Asia, and
Europe. We have recently held meetings of several days duration at the Fort
William Henry Hotel and Conference Center and at the Sagamore Hotel. We often
lodge our guests at local hotels including the Queensbury, the Sleep Inn, and the
Ramada.
Common sense dictates that removing professional office space from the tax roles
denies job opportunities throughout the community in a far-reaching ways. In
addition, please consider that the addition of professional office buildings
substantially increase our tax base while not burdening our schools and the
highway infrastructure of our community that would result from multiple housing
units.
As both residents and business owners located on Bay Rd. we are well aware of the
heavy traffic and the associated dangers that currently exist at peak travel times.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 245
The intersection of Bay Rd. and Blind Rock Rd. is just one of many examples of
intersections along this corridor that already present safety considerations that can
not be ignored. The traffic that would be introduced by a construction of a large
number of closely clustered residential units of the magnitude now proposed would
only exacerbate the current situation.
Zoning currently in place along the Bay Road corridor including the parcel at
issue, is reportedly based on sound planning practices that have identified areas
where professional offices would be a benefit to the community. The area
surrounding Adirondack Community College has come to be recognized as a
professional office park area and several medical and professional businesses,
including our business, have chosen to locate here.
Having recently gone through the “red tape” of the Town of Queensbury planning
and approval process over the past five months, with our plans to construct a
professional office on a parcel which was already approved and zoned for such
use, we are extremely resentful that political influence could “fast track” this
proposal.
After having searched the Town of Queensbury and surrounding area for a suitable
building site for our professional office building for the past two years, we feel that
the demand and availability of such property should not be “swept under the rug”
by those who now state that they see greater profit in residential rentals than in
professional offices. There are other properties that may already be zoned for
multiple family dwellings and we see no need to arbitrarily exempt the zoning of
this parcel to meet the personal desire of developers who now seek greater profits
at the expense of the integrity of our overall town plan now in place.
We urge the Board to reject this proposal in the interest of our Town and its
residents.
Thank you for your consideration of our position.
Sincerely,
John V. Currie
Lara Mehr Currie
Currie Associates, Inc.
LETTER DATED: August 30, 2004 From: Adirondack Radiology Associates,
P.C. Received in Town Clerk Office September 13, 2004
Dear Supervisor Stec:
As you may be aware, Adirondack Radiology and Glens Falls Hospital have jointly
contracted with Schermerhorn Construction to build a state of the art 10,000 sq. ft.
Medical Imaging and Diagnostic Center in the new Bay Brook Professional Office
Park, located on Willowbrook Drive, opposite the new Glens Falls Hospital/North
Country Sports Medicine Rehabilitation Center. We are on an aggressive fast track
schedule and anticipate opening our facility in the fall of this year.
Surely, you can appreciate that many factors were considered in our decision to
locate a new facility in Bay Brook Professional Office Park, not the least of which
is the very desirable campus like environment the Bay Road corridor affords
Medical Arts facilities such as ours. A predominance of Medical Arts facilities
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 246
along with a complement of professional offices already exist in the Bay wood
Drive Office Park and the recently renovated conversion of the College Apartment
complex to Bay Road Professional Park. As you can imagine there are many
benefits to the Medical Arts community when campus clustering, such as this
occurs.
In our preliminary planning discussions with Mr. Schermerhorn, we were very
pleased at what he described as the Town of Queensbury’s vision and commitment
toward what has already taken hold. We are also aware that this vision is
supported in a Comprehensive Land Use Plan adopted by the town a few years
ago. The uniqueness of the Bay Road corridor is obvious to those who have or
those who would consider locating here. It would not be hard to imagine, with day
to day visits by hundreds if not thousands, of patients, clients, consultants,
pharmaceutical sales representatives, professional staff etc., for this corridor to
become our area’s preeminent /Professional Office development destination. Part
of this uniqueness is the finite suitability of available space throughout the area.
It is of concern to us that this uniqueness may take a change in direction, away
from what is already established as Medical Arts/Professional Office campus, with
what we understand as a proposal to introduce a large apartment complex fronting
on Bay Road. We favor maintaining the established professional corridor along
the Bay Road frontage but would support a proposal that would permit residential
development beyond the first 250-500 feet from Bay Road.
Please share our concern with other public officials, and would also ask you to
include this correspondence as part of the public record, regarding this proposal.
Sincerely,
David R. Kelly, M.D.
President, Adirondack Radiology Associates, P.C.
SUPERVISOR STEC-The public hearing is opened. If anyone would like to
address the board on this matter we just ask that you raise your hand. I’ll recognize
you, just step to the microphone state your name and address for the record, please.
KATHLEEN SONNABEND, 55 CEDAR COURT, QUEENSBURY-I have to
apologize because I haven’t been following the situation closely enough to
understand. I thought it might be helpful to clarify for those people in the audience
that are in my position. I thought it might be helpful if we clarify what the
situation is because it was a little confusing listening to this. Do we have zoning
currently in place that requires only professional office on that property?
SUPERVISOR STEC-No. I asked Marilyn, she kind of brought us up to date a
st
little bit just maybe a broader overview. Prior to April 1, 2002 this corridor was
st
zoned mutli-family residential it was zoned apartments only. April 1 2002 the
Town Board, several of us were on this Town Board at the time passed the Zoning
Ordinance that cleaned up some other things throughout the Town Zoning Code,
but specifically pertinent to this here it did create the professional office zone. The
professional office zone that was created added to the multi-family residential uses
office uses. So, currently as it is zoned now you can put either offices, or
apartments, or a mix, or all of one of the other on this corridor. The Town is
considering right now changing that and modifying it. We have debated over the
last several months how far to go as far as the number where we want to consider
putting offices on the front portion, on the frontage portion of Bay Road only and
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 247
prohibit apartments from being in the first the number that is in here is five
hundred feet that may or may not change depending on how the pubic hearing goes
and the mindset of the board at the time that we vote. As it currently stands the
entire parcel up and down Bay Road there is a little parcel over on Western
Avenue and there is a small parcel that we just created a few months ago over near
Exit 20, near Gurney Lane. The frontage on the main roads West Mountain Road,
Western Avenue, and Bay Road the first five hundred feet would be limited to only
offices. Right now as the law currently stands hundred percent offices are allowed,
hundred percent apartments are allowed or any mixture in between. So we’re
looking to create setback footage where the first x hundred feet would be offices
only and no residential.
MS. SONNABEND-So where you have those doctor offices they have been there
for quite a while on Bay Road…
SUPERVISOR STEC-Volunteer.
MS. SONNABEND-That was voluntary it could have been….
SUPERVISOR STEC-Voluntary slash through the work of the site plan review
process with the Town Planning Board.
MS. SONNABEND-It could have been mostly family dwellings there?
SUPERVISOR STEC-It could have been.
MS. SONNABEND-I’m a little confused because my understanding was that there
was a developer that wants to put a lot of apartment units on that corner and is
asking for a variance?
SUPERVISOR STEC-He is not asking for a variance.
MS. SONNABEND-He is asking for permission?
SUPERVISOR STEC-No.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-He is asking for an exemption.
SUPERVISOR STEC-No, not at all. I think in fairness to everyone in theory this
is not about one parcel. It is about the hot pink color that you see on that map in
the center of Town on Bay Road. We are talking about that zoning and what we
want the rules to be. There is no application before this Town Board; I think that’s
important for the public to understand that. I think that’s the question, I’m hearing
you ask. We are not ruling on a single application. We are not the Planning
Board. This is not the site plan review process. What we have is a Town Board
initiated suggestion to modify the Zoning Ordinance for this particular class of
zoning professional office zone. That would change the rules to make the first x
hundred feet, five hundred is proposal only offices and no residences regardless of
whether or not there is an application out there or ten applications out there or zero
applications.
MS. SONNABEND-Didn’t you say it is currently zoned for multi-family
residences it is not professional offices?
SUPERVISOR STEC-The history was before 2002 it was zoned multi-family
residential. In 2002 Roger, Mr. Brower, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Turner, and myself went
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 248
through this process that we are going through now. We had a public hearing we
changed the Town Zoning Ordinance and we created from nothing there was no
st
professional office zone at the time we created a professional office zone April 1,
2002. What did we use to build that off of multi-family residential both sides of
the streets were zoned for apartments and we took that…
MS. SONNABEND-It was multi-family, but now it zoned…
SUPERVISOR STEC-Multi-family plus offices to simplify.
MS. SONNABEND-It’s not zoned just professional offices?
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-The intent and I’ll get to that because that’s what this
is for. The intent whether you look at a Comprehensive Land Use Plan or you look
at the Zoning Ordinance was for professional offices.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-And that is clearly stated.
MS. SONNABEND-I’m just one of many people from homes very close by. I was
listening to the letter from the Little and O’Connor and they seemed to indicate
that something like sixty six percent of the people affected voted for it or signed
the petition. I never saw the petition and I can tell you there are a lot of people that
are very close that would be affected too, that wouldn’t agree.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Not that, I want to get into this petition because our
Attorney hasn’t had the chance to review it yet. In layman’s terms and in a
nutshell, and I’m sure there will be people in the room that will correct me if I
misspeak. There is a legal mechanism for this petition that the only people that
could sign this petition are people that own professional office zoned property.
MS. SONNABEND-In the hot pink.
SUPERVISOR STEC-The hot pink. If the people in the hot pink say we are
opposed to this as I understand the letter and our Attorney hasn’t verified
everything in the letter yet. What the letter says was if a certain percentage of
people that own the hot pink say we are opposed to this change the letter says, and
our Attorney will certainly verify in the next few days that it would require an
action of three fourths of this board or four of us.
MS. SONNABEND-It doesn’t matter what the people that are right next to the hot
pink thinks?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Certainly it matters.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Dan it was the office professional on Bay Road not
Western, Sherman, so it’s not all the hot pink, it’s only the hot pink on Bay Road
that this petition was….
SUPERVISOR STEC-The hot pink you can see from where you are sitting.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-We haven’t seen it we don’t know who signed it so.
MS. SONNABEND-I think I’m in the blue the turquoise or whatever right next to
it. A lot of us have a lot of concerns about….
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 249
SUPERVISOR STEC-In a nutshell the law as it currently stands the law allows all
apartments. We are looking to consider changing that to not allow all apartments
that is what is before the board, is changing the law. Right now the law allows
pure apartments and we are looking to change that.
MS. SONNABEND-Maybe this will be clarified later.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I think changing is not a good word clarifying was
already there.
MS. SONNABEND-It sounds like it was all apartments now it is suppose to be
office…
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-It’s already there it is very clear.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-We will read it later and it will be very clear what this
corridor is supposed to look like.
MS. SONNABEND-Just briefly what my concerns are and I know I missed the last
meeting on the traffic. The traffic is horrendous and dangerous now. You can sit
through a couple cycles of the light trying to left onto Bay Road from Blind Rock.
I am also surprised that the school’s letter didn’t allude to the fact that when you
have apartment buildings, which tend to have a lot more children in them that puts
a heavier burden on the school system and the taxpayers of the Town. If you get
professional office buildings in there, there are no kids in those office buildings
they pay taxes that supports the school district. My daughter is a freshman now at
Queensbury High School her class is bursting at the seams even with the new
construction that is just being completed now. They have something like a dozen
teachers that are on carts they don’t have rooms of their own. To me, there is a
taxpayer issue here in not encouraging more professional office buildings and
instead encouraging more apartment buildings. I agreed, when I first moved here
in 1988 there weren’t enough decent apartment buildings we did need that. I’m
one of those homeowners that is in a town home, obviously having a town home is
important to me as a divorce Mom. I agree with the letter from Queensbury. I
think we have a pretty good balance now and to continue going in the trend of
more and more apartment buildings is not a good thing for our community, for the
tax base, for the school district, and for the traffic problems. We need to be
addressing these roads if we are going to be putting this much more density in this
area.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Anyone else like to address the Town Board on this public
hearing tonight?
MARY LEE GOSLINE, BLINDROCK ROAD-My understanding is that you in
2002 wanted to make this a professional corridor down Bay Road, right?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Correct.
MRS. GOSLINE-Why? Was it for the betterment of the Town?
SUPERVISOR STEC-We believe so.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yes.
MRS. GOSLINE-I can see that it would be a betterment of the Town. I agree with
the letters from the school busting at the seams. I’m zoned three acres residential
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 250
right next to this five thousand square foot multi dwelling. I subdivided, I didn’t
ask for an acre because I’m under three acres; I gave three acres to my daughter. It
seems to me that any changes would be for the betterment of the owners and they
have owned that property for a long time. I don’t see where it is for the betterment
of the Town. I do believe that if you stay with the professional offices and if they
can fit some apartments in there fine. The traffic, the school, I just don’t think it’s
a good thing.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you. Anyone else like to speak this evening anyone
at all?
WARREN COUNTY TREASURER FRANK O’KEEKE-Surrey Fields- Speaking
as a resident. I live in Surrey Field Subdivision, single homes. Whether we’re in
the pink or the brown we rarely contribute to the school system of this area.
Correct me if I’m wrong, I thought I read in the Chronicle where this proposal was
for a hundred and forty seven units am I right?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-A hundred and seventy four.
MR. O’KEEFE-Is that still on the table?
SUPERVISOR STEC-That is before the Planning Board later this month.
MR. O’KEEFE-That is before the Planning Board.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Depending upon our decision, depending upon this
board’s decision. If we decide not to give the exemption it doesn’t go to the
Planning Board.
MR. O’KEEFE-Has anybody addressed the sewer in this area?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes.
MR. O’KEEFE-Supposing it’s a hundred and forty seven or a hundred and seventy
four whatever it is are they required to have sewers?
SUPERVISOR STEC-That is a site plan issue it is not for the Town Board. I can
tell you that a study has been done conducted and paid for by the Town to identify
capacity that is remaining on Bay Road. There would be if desired there would be
just enough capacity to sewer them if it goes forward as planned.
MR. O’KEEFE-I’ll direct my question to the new Community Development
Officer; correct me if I’m wrong. The Senior Citizen Development that is just
south of there right now that has a complete one unit, very nice if they wanted to
develop another unit I have been told by people in your administration that before
they develop another unit they would require sewer?
SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s not entirely accurate. Actually, I might be able to
answer better than Marilyn. I don’t know if Mike Shaw is present tonight, but I
see Ralph Van Dusen is. Ralph throw something at me if I misspeak. There is an
approved Phase II to the Cedars that’s been approved for sometime mirroring
what’s currently there, sixty-eight that number jumps off the page at me?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MARILYN RYBA-Fifty-two for the second phase.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 251
SUPERVISOR STEC-Phase II is fifty-two additional and they have a waiting list
of more than fifty-two seniors to go into the Phase II. They need to address their
sewage issue. The options before them are they can tie in, but they don’t have to
tie in. They could tie into the sewer line or an on site septic system. The last, I
heard that they hadn’t made a firm decision. They have two options before them
they can tie into the public sewer or they can do an on site disposal.
MR. O’KEEFE-The pubic sewer from where?
SUPERVISOR STEC-There are public sewers currently at Walker Lane. The
study that we had done that was just completed about a month ago projects coming
up Bay Road to this intersection right out here. There is just enough its tight, I
think that’s a fair word to use, it’s tight but there is just enough identified to sewer
up to this intersection plus or minus maybe a little further north.
MR. O’KEEFE-That would be a requirement?
SUPERVISOR STEC-The Cedars could build their own if they could get the
permitting they could build their own on site disposal, I know that is an option that
is available to them. The last conversation, I had with the ownership with the
Cedars they weren’t sure when they were going to start construction because they
had some funding issues, grant issues pending they still hadn’t decided what they
wanted to do for sewer.
MR. O’KEEFE-My other question is as other people have alluded to the Bay Road
corridor is a professionally developed corridor right. There are a lot of accidents on
Blind Rock Road, I’m sure that you are aware of. If there is a development going
in there it would be a professional and/or a hundred or plus units of housing, how
many curb cuts are you going to have on Bay Road? Have many curb cuts are you
going to have on Blind Rock Road when you already have curb cuts on Blind Rock
Road going into the development of Hunterbrook?
SUPERVISOR STEC-It’s a Planning Board issue.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I think Dan that everybody doesn’t understand and I
don’t mean to interrupt. This local law that we’re talking about is not to approve
Mr. Boyle and Mr. O’Connor’s project; it is not to allow him to do it. This law
what it essentially says is we’re going to draw a line in the sand. What is proposed
that in front of that line the only thing that can be built are professional offices. As
the zoning is today that imaginary line professional office or residential units can
be built in that area. What this law essentially would do it would say; you couldn’t
put any apartments in there as the law is today. Mr. O’Connor or whoever is
developing that parcel does not come before this board has an application pending
right now before the Planning Board. There would be a site plan review. There
would be a public hearing. The Planning Board would go thoroughly through that
proposal. They would take input from the public, would take input from our
engineers, from our staff, this board has nothing to do with that. This law is not
about Mr. O’Connor’s project that’s from my eyes.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-It’s been made into that. Essentially what the
argument is here Frank is that there is an application pending right now before the
Planning Board. The argument that has been fought in the newspaper is do we let
that application go forward as we have done in the past? I have been a member of
this board since 2000 and history shows that pending applications whether we
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 252
agree with them or we don’t agree with them they have been left alone and allowed
to go through the process that’s the intent in our Zoning Ordinance. We’re not
trying to stop anybody or be in favor of anybody doing a project that’s not my
position and I think that’s not Dan’s position. Roger has said that it’s not his
intention to stop Mr. O’Connor, I don’t know if it is or it isn’t. I just want to
clearly have everybody understand this is not about a project on the corner here.
This is about a law allowing or not allowing apartments in that first thousand feet
or five hundred feet or whatever the number might be back from Bay Road. So,
it’s not about a project in particular from this board.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I’m sorry I thought you were done. Do you want to
handle this or should I?
SUPERVISOR STEC-I was kind of hoping to continue with the public hearing.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I think if Tim’s going to have his say.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-We have to make something clear to Mr. O’Keefe.
Mr. O’Keefe there are two version of this resolution. Yes, Mr. Brewer’s right it
speaks to clarify the intent that was already there, which is pretty clear. To make it
more clear that professional office zoning is meant primarily for professional
offices. Now, there are two versions in this resolution that may or may not get
looked at and approved today. One version is that if there is a pending application
we will allow them to go the direction that they are already applied to go.
MR. O’KEEFE-That’s a grand fathered version am I correct?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Correct.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Depending on what wordage you want to use.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-That’s your word exemption, John.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Excuse me, I’m not done Tim. The other version of
this is that all properties within a zoning regardless of whether they have an
application or not are going to have to abide by the intent of the professional office
zoning.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-The intent is already written very clearly. We will get to
that later so that there will be no mistake what the intent was, what the look was
suppose to be, what the character was suppose to be, and what the intention was
suppose to be.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And there is only one application.
SUPERVISOR STEC-There is only one application.
MR. O’KEEFE-I think you have me totally confused.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-This board does have an affect on Mr. O’Connor’s project
because we can say we are not going to exempt you from this law so it does affect
that application that is a Town Board decision not a Planning Board decision.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 253
MR. O’KEEFE-I may have misinterpreted something. I watched part of the Town
Board; I don’t know what meeting it was at it was in between the Notre Dame
football game last Saturday.
TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-That was a sad for a Michigan fan.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-The game was probably better wasn’t it?
MR. O’KEEFE-I probably misinterpreted, but I thought it was all about the
grandfather law. I thought that there were three gentlemen here that were ready to
vote on the grandfather law and two were ready to vote against it so we we’re
defeated three to two. Correct me if I’m wrong. I go back to the grandfather law
again is the grandfather law part of this proposal?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yes. You need to be corrected on one thing there is no
grandfather law. There is a history of how we have dealt with this, but the law
clearly says that we could stop this project anywhere along the line. We are not
obligated because they have an application in place to honor it.
SUPERVISOR STEC-And Roger said that many times and I’ve agreed with him
many times that the law as I understand based on what our Attorney has told us;
the law allows us to do either/or in this situation. Roger pointed out and correctly
so that the Town’s long history has been that we have in the past grandfathered
applications when considering a change like this. Although there are other things
that may get discussed and debated by the Town Board it is my understanding is
the same as yours that this grandfathering issue is probably the biggest bone of
contention. Although, I think that there are other parts out there that other board
members are not thrilled with and it may or may not come out this evening.
MR. O’KEEFE-I appreciate you listening to me. I would like a copy of that letter
that Darleen is it?
DEPUTY CLERK, O’BRIEN-Karen
MR. O’KEEFE-Karen from Little and O’Connor because I really didn’t understand
what they said. From a standpoint of my residency in Surrey Field and we have
two more individuals here that I’m allowed to speak for we’re totally against this
grandfathered law. We are totally against a possible multi-unit development in that
area, I thank you.
FORMER SUPERVISOR DENNIS BROWER-33 Stonehurst Drive, Queensbury.
Speaking as a resident. I see the dilemma the Town Board is in, but I think you all
are very aware of the reason we changed the zoning it was to enable professional
office buildings along the Bay Road corridor. Part of the reason we put sewers in
was to enable professional offices along the Bay Road corridor as well as assisting
high volume residential dwellings that needed it. The vision clearly was
professional offices along the road there is no doubt about it to create jobs
primarily for people to work in that lived in that neighborhood ideally. I know an
idea that often isn’t meant in Queensbury, but the board did have the vision, I think
that’s why we changed that zoning. However, I also recognize and understand that
the long history has been that applications before the board have been honored.
That being said, I think the important matter for this board to really consider is
how important is the vision of the professional office status to you. You really
have to envision that because this is really the start of the business area of the
corridor this building right here this complex, I submit to you the property across
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 254
the street. You have a difficult decision, but frankly to be consistent with the
vision you may have to go against past practice.
SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s exactly the dilemma.
MR. BROWER-That’s why you are hired to make the tough decisions.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I agree with what you just said you were on the Town Board
in April 2002 when we did the Town wide rezoning.
MR. BROWER-Yes, I was.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I don’t think you were here when we last discussed it a little
bit you may or may not recall. That resolution in April of 2002 did two things.
One, it created the professional zone it basically built off with the multi-family
residential. I’m hearing two board members saying they didn’t think that it was
our intention. You were a yes vote on that resolution as were Tim and I. That also
grandfathered right in our resolution; it did to use a common term it did honor in
that very resolution preexisting. You are absolutely right there is the vision and
there is the past practice that’s the dilemma that we’re in.
MR. BROWER-It sounds from the description Marilyn indicated this still has a
ways to go.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yeah it does.
MR. BROWER-It went to the County Planning Board, but not our own Planning
Board?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Not yet. Our own Planning Board on the twenty-first. It
has gone to the County Planning Board they said no County impact. Marilyn, I
don’t know if you have that handy in front of you they said no County impact, but
they had some recommendations, but the County Planning Board did say no
County impact.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MARILYN RYBA-I have that, however, you should
note that it is not signed yet. It is not valid until the Chairman of the County
Planning Board signs it.
MR. BROWER-What bothers me a little bit, but I understand how timing works on
these issues. I wish the Planning Board had chimed in on this prior to the public
hearing. I would encourage you probably to leave the public hearing open. I
assume you are not going to take action prior to….
SUPERVISOR STEC-That will be the pleasure of the board. Whatever the board
would like to do tonight.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-You can almost be assured we won’t.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I agree, you understand.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-One tends to believe that it might be a two, two vote if we
were to vote tonight.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-You think that might happen Roger?
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 255
SUPERVISOR STEC-Maybe you can vote on two different versions, but I suspect
that the result may be the same so Ted will get a lot of phone calls.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Again going along with what you say. I disagree
with this conversation about grandfathering. If I wanted to put a gravel pit up by
the Harvest Restaurant and I put an application in for that it’s the wrong thing for
the zoning.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Zoning wouldn’t allow you to do that in the first place
John.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Exactly what I’m saying the zoning shouldn’t allow
this either and I’m going to make that clear.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-It allows it right now the argument you are making is
wrong.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Did you research the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
and your Zoning Book on this Tim?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yeah, I did John. It allows it today as we sit here.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I’m going to refresh your memory on it.
MR. BROWER-The Town Board has great power and it should be exercised
wisely. The truth is until the shovel is in the ground really you can change
everything.
SUPERVISOR STEC-We could take property by eminent domain we try not, too.
You are absolutely right the Town Board has a great deal of authority and these are
important decisions.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Let me follow up on what you said because certainly the
law would indicate that until a shovel goes into the ground… I would remind
those of you who may not be familiar with in Long Island or very close to Long
Island a Nuclear Power Plant was built it was problematic from the beginning. It
was a multi-billion dollar project that was completed and Governor Cuomo did not
let that thing go on line. He said there was no way they could feasible enact an
evacuation in the event of a catastrophe. A project can actually get completed and
not be allowed. There is a lot of law out there that would suggest what some
people may be to be correct is in fact not correct.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Anything else Dennis?
MR. BROWER-No, thank you.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Anyone else?
BILL MORTON-Resided in the Town over the past thirty years, but currently
reside in Lake George Village. Regarding a proposal to amend the zoning code as
it relates to Bay Road. I am particularly interested in zoning changes relative to
the Bay Road, Blind Rock Road intersection; I wish to offer the following. From
my perspective this intersection in conjunction with the surrounding lands is a very
strategic intersection and vitally important to the Town of Queensbury. The seed
of Town government resides on the northeast corner there is a loose as semblance
of buildings including a Church, some offices, and apartments on the northwest
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 256
corner possibility on the northwest corner a little bit more infill development.
Then on the southeast corner are a couple of houses, but mainly a large
undeveloped track owned by the College. The southwest corner where a hundred
and seventy four apartments are proposed is currently undeveloped. The Town has
evolved as a bedroom community to Glens Falls and increasingly to the Capital
District Region. It is also has become a Regional Shopping Center. Nowhere in
the Town is there a well-defined Town Center; that is a center that contains a
mixture of buildings including shops, eateries, office space, and residential units all
within five minutes walking distance from one another. I’m thinking of a Town
Center that has a distinct form structure and shape as in a Village sense. The Bay
Road, Blind Rock Road intersection say for a hundred and fifty acres around that
intersection quite possibly is the last opportunity for establishing a Town Center in
Queensbury. One might envision that the Town Center could be established as a
quaint Village that is carefully integrated with a future expansion of the College so
that there would be an imminent connection between the Town Center the College
Campus and the activity of the students. For any of you who may have visited
Princeton, New Jersey you will know what I am talking about. The Town’s
“Village Center” could be carefully crafted so as to be pedestrian friendly and it
could have carefully crafted parks or a commons all within walking distance of the
shops, offices, and residences. So as not to be seen as a sea of asphalt all parking
would be behind buildings and would hardly be noticeable from Bay and Blind
Rock Roads. Trails could link developments on Meadowbrook Road and
elsewhere-upper Bay Road to the Village. If done properly the Village could be a
destination for visitors to the region. One might also envision employing a transfer
of development rights approach to acquire development rights northward between
Bay and Ridge Road so as to increase the density of allowable uses in the Village
this would ensure the preservation of open space to the north. At the present time a
quaint Village setting as I’ve described cannot be built in Queensbury the zoning
code will simply not allow it to happen, but that does not mean that it cannot
happen. It can happen with appropriate changes to the zoning code changes that
would provide for mix use development and architectural review. There can be no
doubt that the kind of mix use neighborhood, which I have described, would
require careful planning. Just as in times past when our best communities were
built, for example the communities we’ve come to love Woodstock, Vermont,
Providence Town, Massachusetts, Cooperstown, and Middleburgh, New York.
These communities were carefully planned and developed interestingly at a time
when there was no zoning. We have entrusted the development of our communities
to developers the kind of development, which I have outlined for the above
intersection of Bay Road and Blind Rock Road could be highly lucrative to
developers. Interestingly the Town of Malta a bedroom community to the Capital
District Region is attempting to establish a Town Center before it is too late; that is
before sprawl envelopes the remainder of that community. The future of this
intersection in relationship to its immediate surroundings and its relationship to the
expansion of the College is in your hands. In light of the above scenario and other
development options that may surface, I don’t believe that the construction of a
hundred and seventy four apartments buildings on the southwest corner of the
intersection necessarily serves the best interest of the Town of Queensbury.
Whether you agree or disagree with the scenario that I have laid out, I think the
important point is that we’re talking about a strategic intersection in the Town of
Queensbury the future, which needs careful thought, deliberation, and planning.
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Anyone else that would like to address the board?
DR. MARK HOFFMAN-32 Fox Hollow Lane, Queensbury. I got nervous nobody
was raising their hand so I decided to step up. I have just a couple of observations.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 257
The point was made well some of the questions that were raised regarding sewer,
and curb cuts, and traffic, and so forth that those are Planning Board issues. All of
those are going to be fundamentally impacted by how the property is zoned
especially about the amount of residential units that would be allowed in that area.
I think to just say, oh that’s the Planning Board is really passing the buck. I heard
the Planning Board say the same thing. You go to the Planning Board and they say
that’s the Zoning Board or a Town Board issue. I think we need to step up to the
plate and say, what we do tonight is going to impact all of those issues and we
have to take responsibility for it. In terms of this issue about exemptions there are
always pros and cons. In this particular situation my concern would be that sure it
would have been nice if this issue was addressed to clarify the Zoning Ordinance a
while ago rather than right now. However, it is a plain fact of the matter that
sometimes it takes a particularly large and Regis development to raise people
antenna’s to the point where they say okay, something needs to be done. My
concern is that if we go ahead and grant exemptions that it will be kind of like
trying to close the barn door after the cow has left because of the magnitude and
impact of this particular exemption. The other issue in terms of exemptions is the
problem that it creates in terms of setting precedent. It’s true that the zoning would
be changed for future developments, but developers could then go to the ZBA or
go to whatever appropriate board there is and say look this is the current character
of the neighborhood, look at how many units that were just put up. I’ve seen this
happen and they’ll say okay even though it doesn’t meet the Zoning Ordinance if
we go ahead and grant this exemption it will create a precedent. People will go
ahead and say, even though our development doesn’t meet the Ordinance we
should be granted this exemption because it fits into the character of the
neighborhood. Those are my comments.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you, sir. Anyone else like to address the board this
evening.
DOUG AUER, 16 OAKWOOD DRIVE, QUEENSBURY-Good evening. I want
to just make sure everybody is aware of something folks may not be aware of this
so I just want to hold this up so folks who maybe watching this at home can see
this. This was a plan that was approved for this same property back in 2000 its
professional office it was approved then perfectly good plan twelve lot subdivision.
To someone who was very involved with the design for the sewer for Bay Road let
me say that we never took into consideration a hundred and seventy four
apartments units. The design criteria were based on existing residential properties
and a build out of professional office. That was the design criteria we never
considered any significant increase in the number of residential units. To say that
there is capacity, I don’t really believe there is.
SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s what the engineer told us.
MR. AUER-If there is you are taking whatever cushion there might have been in
the design so there is not much left. Back sometime ago, I had asked about the
status of the build out report and analysis that still as I understand hasn’t come to
public fruition yet. People, I understand have asked for it still is not available is
that correct?
SUPERVISOR STEC-That is my understanding.
MR. AUER-At the time you characterized my concern about it as making a
mountain out of a molehill is that correct?
SUPERVISOR STEC-I don’t think I would use those words.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 258
MR. AUER-I think you did.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Maybe I did.
MR. AUER-You did it was at a meeting just like this.
SUPERVISOR STEC-You asked the question three times and I answered it the
same way.
MR. AUER- Tim do you agree with that my concern is we’re making a mountain
out of a molehill?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Your concern about what?
SUPERVISOR STEC-The build out study?
MR. AUER-Right.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-About it not being available?
MR. AUER-Yes.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-It’s not finalized. We’ve had many documents that
aren’t to the public because they are not finalized, Doug. I don’t know what your
concern is you’ve read the document.
MR. AUER-Right. I would just like other people to be able to read that because I
think it does have a very significant bearing on what we’re talking about here.
SUPERVISOR STEC-There is literally a couple of dozens copies of that floating
around apparently you saw a copy.
MR. AUER-The general public doesn’t have it and that’s the point.
SUPERVISOR STEC-As soon as we get back from the professionals that we hired
then it will be available. I can’t produce something that the Town doesn’t have yet.
MR. AUER-Essentially Tim it doesn’t trouble you that it’s not available then?
TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-Wait, Tim you don’t have to answer these
questions he seems sort of hostile he gets a chance to talk.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don’t know why you are drilling me.
MR. AUER-Counsel, I do have something that is germane to this if you don’t
mind.
TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-You have a chance to talk it’s not a question and
answer.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I’ll ask you to address the board.
MR. AUER-Can you deny that you suggested to someone that I was making us
look bad and that perhaps they could do something about that, do you deny that?
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 259
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don’t know what you are talking about.
MR. AUER-You don’t, okay.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Absolutely not.
MR. AUER-What about you Dan?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Doug, I have no idea where you are going or what you are
talking about.
MR. AUER-That’s fine. You essentially deny that.
TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-You are putting words in his mouth. You get a
chance to speak it is not a question/answer.
MR. AUER-It does when I have a concern that when I come before this board and
I bring a valid concern about the availability of a very, very, important report that
are things that happen relative to that. Do you deny that Tim?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Essentially the report says there is moderate growth in
the Town of Queensbury. What’s the problem I don’t understand what your
problem is?
MR. AUER-Relative to the release of that do you deny that you contacted someone
and suggested that perhaps they could do something about it that I was making you
look bad?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-You weren’t making me look bad because I didn’t
make the report Doug. I didn’t write the report, I didn’t author the report so I….
SUPERVISOR STEC-Although, I do think you are trying to embarrass us this
evening, Doug.
MR. AUER-What I’m trying to do is get you off dead center is what I’m trying to
do.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Doug get to the point, please we have a long night tonight.
MR. AUER-I realize that my wife is at a school board meeting also tonight that’s
why they are not here and she will probably be there until twelve o’clock as she
has for the past fifteen years three or four nights a month okay Dan, so I know all
about long night meetings believe me, okay. I just like to say that I think the delay
of the release of this is a disgrace. It’s absolutely unconscionable for this thing to
be delayed as long as it has been. I think this thing should be out and people
should be able to see it and understand what we’re talking about here. This is a
present and significant danger to the Town of Queensbury.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Doug, I don’t know what else to tell you. I will convey
your concerns to Chazen.
MR. AUER-What’s the delay?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Marilyn do you know what the delay is?
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 260
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MS. RYBA-I can tell you the delay very easily. In the
first day on my job I had a person leave for emergency medical surgery. I’ve had a
Family Medical Leave Act person I am it, I have no one to delegate, too.
MR. AUER-I know that Marilyn. Believe me it’s unfortunate. You have a
yeoman’s job down there believe me I full well know it. It would just be nice if
some other folks put their shoulder to the wheel and I don’t mean the paid staff, I
mean the elected officials.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Anyone else like to speak to the board tonight in the back,
Mr. O’Connor.
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, MEMBER OF THE BRB PARTNERSHIP –
ATTORNEY FOR THE BRB PARTNERSHIP- (Presented map to board) It is my
intention to speak against the proposed zoning changes as they affect the lands on
Bay Road and even the lands on Western Avenue and at Exit 20. It is my opinion
that there is no legitimate municipal purpose for the changes. The changes are but a
valid attempt and I think its come through tonight to shut down the possibility and
only the possibility of residential growth in Queensbury and particularly
apartments in Queensbury. Your action tonight or following this public hearing
could have an affect upon a stretch, which presently right now you are allowed to
build apartments on. If you did enact this proposed law there would be a stretch of
land five hundred feet wide along both sides of the main corridors that you have
spoken of that you would no longer be able to build apartments. I don’t know if
everybody understands that presently you could build apartments or offices, I think
you tried to clarify that. I think that this is a momentum that began will a call for a
moratorium on all residential construction. That did not get off the ground because
the supporters thought it would supported by a study as to the build out for the
Town of Queensbury. The preliminary report not the final report clearly did not
support that. The preliminary report indicated that there was only moderate
growth. The study itself from the point of view that some people are pushing
really is not necessarily the answer. I don’t think there was a corresponding study
of the actual growth or the proportion of growth of commercial properties as
opposed to residential, which is important as to the burden of paying school taxes
in the whole Town. The study was done, I think with the idea that it would show
an explosion of housing, but that’s not what it showed. In fact, if you look at the
study and you look at the report of building permits and particularly the report as it
stated the building permits for apartments it shows that there was and has been no
explosion of apartments in the last three years. If you take out even with the
figures the building permits that were issued for the Cedars, which is sixty-two
units of senior housing. You take out the building permits for the Eddie Group,
which is over at Hiland Park you will find an actual down trend other than
specialty type apartments. The County Planning Board did discuss this application
this past week they did report no County impact. If you look at their minutes and
their minutes weren’t done today or I would have brought them for you. It showed
questioning as to the rationale or justification of the propose zoning changes with
them recognizing that probably ninety percent of the land that you are talking
about zoning is already fully developed. What you are doing is perhaps affecting
one or two parcels at most. Laura Moore spoke, I think to Marilyn and Marilyn’s
answer was asked to justify that it was a resolution as she reported to you that
came out of the Town Board didn’t go through the ordinary process that typically
comes through the Planning Board and what not. I don’t think any studies have
actually been done and typically they are done when you create a new zone or you
restrict an existing zone as to what the communities needs are for the uses that are
permitted in the propose zone. I don’t think there is any study at all that you’ve
done as to what is the available space in the Town for professional offices other
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 261
than that first five hundred feet. There are three buildings just south of Bay and
Blind Rock Road that were recently changed from student housing to office space
they’ve been on the market for sometime they are vacant. Cool Insurance is
moving out of one half of the Troy’s Savings Bank building on Quaker Road.
Glens Falls Electric just gave up two thirds of its building at the corner of Quaker
Road and Country Club and one third of that space is vacant without a tenant.
How long has the office space at the AMG building on Dix Avenue been vacant,
many, many years? There is rumor that it is a local CPA firm will soon relocate
there, but what about the CPA space at Northway Mall? What about the other
vacant office spaces at Northway Mall and the other strip malls that are in
existence? What about the space that was vacated at Mark Plaza by TV8 on
Quaker Road when it moved to Glens Falls? That’s really just the tip of the
iceberg if you are going to go by an off cuff study as to, is there a need to preserve
a space for professional office space. I don’t think there has been any study either
of what is the need for apartments. The average price of new construction in 2003
what two hundred and forty seven thousand dollars per house. The average sales
price of new and old housing in the first six months of 2004 was a hundred and
eighty thousand plus. Not everybody can afford to pay those prices. We’ve got a
lot of good people that live in the community that live in apartments. The
Chamber of Commerce and the Warren Washington County Office of Economic
Development is proud to site that over the last few years we’ve created two
thousand jobs in our area. Where are those workers going to work or live? Are
they all going to be able to pay the two hundred and forty seven thousand or the
hundred and eighty thousand plus for a single family home? You’ve got to look at
the global picture of everything and all the needs of the community when you start
saying you are either restricts something or you are create a new zone. Has the
Town actually studied a sub-set of apartments? I know that the proposal tonight is
not to talk about a specific project. If somebody came into the Town as a young
professional, or a couple with two incomes, or somebody who is retired and they
wanted up scale living where would you send them? John Hughes years ago built
upscale apartments and they are know owned by Mundy and Frances Leombruno,
they are located within five hundred feet of Bay Road. They have had a very long,
long history of wait list. Surrey Fields and Waverly Place those aren’t apartments,
but they are smaller living accommodations where there is a community that takes
care of the exterior and what not they are similar to an apartment. Those projects
went up and sold out much faster than I think the developers expected. This
proposal is not based upon a study of need. I think it should be looked at as
whether it is actually needed. It is a blanket attempt to zone out a fear; I think a
fear that is not justified. If there is a legitimate fear of apartments the Planning
Board presently has the tools to look at these issues and require that they be
satisfied. I think you referred to that in the past and I think they attempt to do a
decent job. I don’t think anybody has actually looked at the land parcel by parcel.
I don’t have maps of the area of Western Avenue, but that’s occupied for the most
part by a Nursing Home. What is the threat of apartments there? What is the fear
of apartments there? What is the likelihood of professional offices there? There is
probably less than a half-acre of vacant land in that whole strip on that particular
part that you are rezoning. The developer at Exit 20, which was recently, rezoned
professional office stipulated as I understand it from Mr. Boor not to have
residential in there. That was the tradeoff that he made when you did agree to
change it to professional office, which would allow him offices. On Bay Road, if
you actually look at the parcels, I don’t mean to filibuster, but I think it’s
worthwhile. The professional office space begins above Blind Rock Road and
Haviland Road. The Town Office Complex is on the east side of the road. On the
west side of the road there are three offices in here and two offices in here. There
are no vacant lots the rest of it is occupied by apartments. It’s not until to get down
below Haviland Road or Blind Rock Road that you are actually talking about
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 262
impact. There are three small lots at the corner Haviland Road and Bay Road.
Two of those are occupied by single-family homes; one is occupied as an office.
None of those three lots actually meet the threshold the existing threshold for an
apartment complex. The existing threshold as I understand how density has been
worked out is that you have to have twenty thousand square feet on the site and
then five thousand for your first unit. Apparently you are going to change that and
you are going to have with the twenty thousand you get one unit and then an
additional unit for every five thousand after they are not going to go to apartments.
Adirondack Community College owns this whole stretch of Bay Road we realize
that a few months ago they refused to give up ten acres to create a Recreational
Center. The likiehood of them building apartments there or professional offices is
beyond my recollection or my understanding. You come down to this piece of
property presently there is eight point six acres it’s owned by John Hughes. It’s
the entrance way into Bayberry Court. During the process within the last month, I
guess John has contracted to sell that as part of the residence his principal
residence was there. The purchaser of that is Dan Mannix and his wife. Both John
Hughes and his wife, both Dan Mannix and his wife have also said they do not
want to have the zoning changed. My understanding from Mr. Mannix and I don’t
know if he is here tonight is that he intends to keep that as his front lawn, which I
think should be of some comfort to the people that are on Bayberry Court.
Presently there is a stream in there that restricts the development it would make it
difficult to do a project maybe of any particular big size. I’ve seen and you drive
by tonight when you go down Bay Road there are a couple of new offices down
there take a look at the lighting would that fit here or would maybe the potential of
some small apartments? I know John Hughes went through the rings not to long
ago when he tried to get a variance in there. You can’t build a single family home
in professional office space, which I think is something that should be corrected.
He tried to build a home on part of that for his daughter and had to get a use
variance, as I understand it. Go down and take a look at it may be unfairly, but in
my own mind look at the Wal-Mart affect of all the lighting of the parking lots that
come with big professional offices. I don’t think that they are good transition for
immediate adjacent housing. You go further down the front of this property has
been all developed and it is professional offices, you can see them as you drive
down there is not going to be residential in there. Immediately behind that is land
that is owned by Mr. Passarelli, he has also said that he does not believe that the
propose regulations are justified and so did two of these owners up here Mr.
Britton and Glenn Batease. If you are starting back up Bay Road the PO zone
doesn’t go all the way to Quaker Road people have inferred it does. It is my
understanding it begins at the southerly end of what I refer to as the Valente parcel
it comes up to Walker Lane. That’s all one parcel except for one very small piece
that is owned by the mother and father Valente this parcel could go either way.
As, I understand it within the last couple years there was an application before the
Planning Board since the professional office zone was created to have professional
offices in there and it was turned down. I don’t necessarily know whether we’ve
got the ship rocking to the left or the ship rocking to the right. Immediately
adjacent to that they also protest the change of zoning. Immediately adjacent to
that is an office that was built by Worlco Management in the eighties. A well
landscaped, maintain office, Ed Boyle is the President of that, he objects to the
proposed zoning. These lots as you are going to see as you start to go up are about
two hundred feet deep. Where somebody came up with the idea of five hundred
feet and said that it was necessary to protect Bay Road I’m not necessarily sure. A
lot of the existing lots are in the two hundred foot area. The one is the one that is
occupied by Brassel and Hite for the Eye Office they object to any propose zoning
change. The next one immediately to that is Dr. Bannon’s Office he objects to any
proposed change. The next one is owned by Mike Homenick and his partner they
object to propose zoning. These are the people who have made investments over
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 263
the last ten to fifteen years on Bay Road. What you are talking about is their
property rights as well as property rights of the partnership that I happen to be a
member of. You come north that is what is the former, I call them up class
apartments that were built by John Hughes these are now owned by the
Leombruno’s. They have an accounting office in one of the front buildings the rest
is residential. Some of those buildings that are residential have been there for a
number of years will be made nonconforming if you stretch this thing back five
hundred feet. All the way from here down to there, there really is no possibility of
any explosion that I see. I don’t understand the logic of why this was not
approved. I think Mr. Strough was on the Planning Board at that time, I think you
favored it.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I under no time in history of the Planning Board that
I’ve been on in the last four years and the zoning code is only two years old have
we reject professional office zoning on Bay Road.
MR. O’CONNOR-Mr. Valente is here maybe he can speak to that. I’m just telling
you what’s been reported to me. Jim Marshall owns the next parcel and Tina
Marshall they have a horse farm on there this is pastureland. They need that
pastureland to support their horse farm they are not going to turn it into something
else. The very front of that property has a stream that goes through it; it has
wetland so there is a natural barrier that is going to put any development of any
nature back from Bay Road it is not going to be immediately on Bay Road. The
next property is owned by Dr. Jung and his wife. As, I go along all these people
have signed a Petition of Protest saying, they do not favor change. They have the
same opinion here they have an office in the front they have residential in the back.
I will also go back down here this; I thought was interesting. I stopped once, I
really didn’t go to everybody, but I stopped where I could. I did get to the third
duplex on Walker Lane that’s within the five hundred feet or a portion of it is
within the five hundred feet and said; what would you want to see across the street
from you? Would you rather see residential or would you rather see offices? They
said they do not want large, large parking lots they would rather have residential.
When I came up to here there is a small strip that is owned by Cedar One, this is
the development. I didn’t color in the whole section that these people own. I tried
to give you an idea of scale as to those that are within five hundred feet whose
property rights would be affected by this as to whether or not they would favor the
propose change. There is a small strip here that’s owned by Cedar One LP, which
owns the complex for senior citizens. That is a senior citizens complex that was
built it has fifty-five units in it right now. There is a Phase II they are waiting for
funding and approval, which I think has another sixty-two in it they have a waiting
this. This again when you get into a question of need they have a waiting list of
ninety families or ninety persons that want to get into this type of housing. There
are no children in that housing. If I can go back down to Mundy Leombruno’s
property here in his history of ownership this is up scale apartments there have
never been any school children in any of those apartments in the entire time he has
owned that property. The idea that we are going to put a burden on the school and
over crowd the classes or not pay a fair share of the taxes, I think is something that
really needs to be looked at. The only children have gone to school out of that
whole complex are his children. The next property to the north is owned by the
Church. I did approach them, I thought that they would take a very neutral
position and say, do what you are going to do their property is fully developed.
They actually took it to their board, as I understand it the board said they wanted
the Church and the Church properties to be adjacent to residential as opposed to an
office complex. I think that’s a question that you have to consider when you are
figuring out what impact you are having with the change you are making. You
can’t just broad brush things and say this is what I’m going to create a vision. The
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 264
upper property, which is this property here, is the property that is owned by BRB
Group. It’s thirty-four acres there is presently an application pending. That’s is
not an application by the BRB Group it’s an application by a proposed purchaser.
I’m not going to get into that I don’t think it’s appropriate to get into that. I tried to
speed up my notes.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-It didn’t work.
MR. O’CONNOR-You’d be surprised if I read them how long it would take me. I
would like very much to not make this personal; I will purposely try to do that.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Should I leave?
MR. O’CONNOR-Roger, I’m not trying to make it personal or confrontational.
I became a partner in 1987, seventeen years ago in the BRB Group. That is long
before, I volunteered and probably crazily volunteered to fulfill a non-paying
political job that everybody wants to make a big deal out of. I am not necessarily a
developer by nature. This was a piece of property I made an investment in a long,
long time ago. I probably would not be trying to sell it actively now if I actually
thought we could rely upon densities being maintained.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Can, I interrupt with a quick question? There was made
mention of not to long ago by a previous speaker with reference made to the
subdivision for professional offices that you already had approved a few years ago
do you care to comment on what the status of that is? I don’t know if that’s in your
notes or not?
MR. O’CONNOR-That’s in my notes, page 4. Over the last seventeen years, I
think it’s important just to get a flavor. The BRB Partnership has paid its fair share
of Town, County, and School taxes. We paid thousand and thousand of dollars
since 1987 on that property. The BRB Partnership has never asked for any Town
services of any nature. They would get the Fire, the Police; I think they actually
had a Police Department back when it was first purchased. There has been no
impact upon the Town. There has been no impact over those seventeen years on
the School District. I think this year the school bill on that parcel is around thirteen
thousand eight hundred dollars the combined school taxes. That is part of the cost
of owning the property. The idea here that somebody is trying to make a fast buck
or take an unfair advantage, I think needs to be addressed. We paid our fair share
all the way through. We aren’t asking for any special treatment and I’ll get to that
in just a minute. Somebody has quoted me as saying; I can’t make money on the
property except if it’s developed for apartments. If that statement was made, I
don’t recall it. This property was put on the market there was a sales price. The
sales price was negotiated and met. It was not the seller that determined what the
use of the property would be. We would expect the same selling price if somebody
was going to build the Nuclear Waste Plant that Roger spoke of earlier or
professional offices.
SUPERVISOR STEC-For the public’s benefit that is not on the table this evening.
There will be no Nuclear Waste Plants built in Queensbury.
MR. O’CONNOR-But, that’s your background.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Trust me, I don’t want it here.
MR. O’CONNOR-The selling price was the same regardless of who bought it or
what they are going to use it for. When the property was purchased it was zoned
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 265
MR-5 or multi-family residential. In 2002 when the zone name was changed we
specifically asked whether or not the densities were going to be changed. The
Town of Queensbury put out a summary of major proposed changes to the Town
of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. At paragraph seventeen they said, densities
within the zoning districts have not been modified. When you look at the
newspaper report that summarized the zoning changes…
SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s not a newspaper that is the Town Newsletter.
MR. O’CONNOR-The Town Newsletter Fall of 2001, Volume 3, Issue 2. Chris
Round talked about redrafting the Ordinance was a monumental undertaking that
required countless meetings of volunteer group the help of an expert consultant and
a thousand of person hours of work including that of Town staff and volunteers. I
am confident the effort was put forth is evident in the quality of the document we
produced, I want to thank all involved. That was an impartial group that didn’t
have a special interest one-way or another. They did not do anything about the
density that was permitted for residential development of this property. In the
notes on the neighborhood and I won’t read them they are lengthily. Part of it is PO
district requires twenty thousand square feet lot sizes plus five thousand square feet
for each additional dwelling unit. The existing MR zone requires five thousand
square feet for each dwelling unit with a minimum lot size of ten thousand. The
larger lot sizes are needed to assure that the scenic corridor is maintained new to
this corridor are the Bay Road design guidelines. Those guidelines, I thought the
effort was put into it by the group to make sure that the Bay Road corridor looked
like a presentable corridor. Whether it is going to be an office or whether it is
going to be residential it’s suppose to be architecturally different than simple
construction. It is supposed to have an architecturally theme to it. It is supposed to
be landscaped. It is supposed to be set back seventy-five feet from Bay Road the
structures themselves. I’ve looked at the notes that Marilyn attached when the
Master Plan was revised. Those notes are not specific as to removal of apartments
or anything of that nature from that zone. They do talk about a concern for the
many projects that had been built with an understanding or hope that sewers would
go up Bay Road some of those are there and still in existence. I think, when I went
to Adirondack Manor they are in the process of replacing their septic they wanted
to know are sewers going to come up the road. Unrelated to what’s before you, I
think and somebody asked the question, I would simply answer this project is
dependent upon the developer-bringing sewer up Bay Road. It would be available
to Adirondack Manor. It would be available to the other housing from Walker
Lane north. In September of 1990 as Mr. Auer indicated the Queensbury Planning
Board did approve a twelve-lot subdivision of the BRB property at the corner of
Bay and Blind Rock Road. On the approval there was and I have a copy of it here
if anybody wants to look at it a density set forth. That density said permissible
residential units at five thousand feet, one hundred and seventy four. Permissible
number lots residential or professional office at ten thousand square feet per lot
eighty-seven. Presumably you could have eighty-seven ten thousand square foot
offices on that track or you could have a hundred and seventy four residential units.
There are minutes, I’m sure of the presentations that were made and somebody can
go back and look at them. I’ve have gone back and looked at them. I do know that
we had lengthily discussion because I think that at that time the Bay Road corridor
design standards hadn’t been adopted. The question was whether or not they
would be applicable when site plan came in. Residential units on this site should
be no surprise. I will ask again why five hundred feet? All you need is to look at
the subdivision that was approved in two thousand. Clearly there was a design that
was approved by the Planning Board that picked intersections with Blind Rock
Road that gave the best visibility and that had a depth of about three hundred feet.
Some of the lots are a little bit above and a little bit below that. If you were going
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 266
to adopt this zone and it was going to be five hundred feet you would throw out the
possibility of using the best exit point that you could have on Bay Road. You also
would totally destroy even the two thousand subdivision because then the first
hundred and thirty feet of the lots on the back would be in this zone where you
would be prohibited from having residential. It’s my own feeling that if you are
going to have an up scale residential you are not going to have offices directly in
front of it. If you want perhaps lesser housing then you are going to put offices in
front of it. I think you can take a look and see what’s been built here and there it
will bear it out. As to grandfathering if this zoning is to pass BRB Group has
asked for no special treatment. In fact, grandfathering is probably the improper
term because grandfathering indicates that you are grandfathering the property, I
think. I think the present developer who is distinct and different from BRB would
ask for the same treatment that have been afforded to other applicants in the past
and allow that applications its day before the Planning Board, and allow that
application to be judge on the merits. It’s clearly documented in the past and I
think you read a statement as to some of the instances at one of the last few board
meetings. That this board or the predecessors of this board by resolution and in
some case by actual Town Statue and by letter the Town has said it is not fair or
appropriate to change the rules for a pending application. Pending application
have been grandfathered and allowed to process based upon the rules that were in
place at the time that the applications were made. Again, I don’t think we need to
get into an issue of personalities, I hope that we don’t. I hope that we stay away
from the favorite conspiracy theories and look at the property rights. I think
basically what we are asking is that we be treated fairly and evenly as others have
been treated in the past. I have one comment and it probably violates my own rule,
but I just don’t understand the letter from the Superintendent of Schools. I didn’t
think we were promoting and I hope that the letter was not made with the blessings
of the School Board that we’re promoting two classes of students within the Town.
I don’t think that you can read any other inference from this that basically there is
something wrong or that people who live in apartments detract from the quality of
education that is in the school. I have a serious problem with that maybe it could
be said better or said differently. It’s smacks on its face to not be appropriate for a
School Superintendent to be taking that position. As to the letter of Adirondack
Radiology Associates, I think there is an unfair inference there that it is also on
behalf of the Glens Falls Hospital. I have spoken with David Kruczlnicki who is
the President of Glens Falls Hospital he is going to take that issue up with that
writer; their project is half a mile or better away from this project. That’s my
comments do you have questions of me, I would be glad to answer.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak on this
proposed local law change?
DONALD SIPP, COURTHOUSE DRIVE-I promise, I will not be as long as the
previous speaker.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Take as long as it takes.
MR. SIPP-I would like to complement the board on this proposal taking into
account Bay Road, Sherman Avenue, Western Avenue, and West Mountain Road;
I think it’s a good idea. There is, however, of course, one caveat that comes up the
exemption of the previous speakers group. In the past Bay Road has been
developed in kind of a gentlemen’s agreement with the developers in which the
professional offices were close to Bay Road while the residential was behind it.
This exemption would allow the group to go forward with a hundred and seventy
four apartments and no professional offices on this particular piece of ground. One
of these owners of this parcel is a politically important person. I would hope that
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 267
the Queensbury Town Board would have the courage to decide this matter on the
best interest of the Town regardless of the power and influence of the exempted
group. If the Town’s accepts the amending zoning law with this exemption it
would not be in the best interest of the Town. It would alter the present character
of Bay Road. It would alter its character and its uniqueness. It would increase
traffic in the area and to this I wonder at a hundred and seventy four apartments are
we looking at more than two hundred to two hundred fifty cars? How can the
County not say that this will not have an impact when Bay Road is a County Road,
which most of these cars would probably empty onto. This would also like my
predecessor here put pressure on the school district. I don’t think if he reads what
was said by the Superintendent or if he even speaks to the Superintendent as I did
that, that’s what he meant what he is meaning is he would like to see a
continuation. The people that live in apartments tend to move in and out of the
district therefore they do not get the quality education for all of their schooling
from the Queensbury District that hurts people who live in single-family
residences. As to why this is being done, I can only say that people buy land to
either put up a house or put up a building; but there are other people who buy land
for speculation. As has been known we have some good swampland in Florida it
used to be a joke, it is no longer a joke because there are a lot of high-class
apartments, condos, and buildings on top of that swampland now. So, I see this as a
land speculation deal in which somebody has decided they can get a good price for
their money for that land. I feel that if you go forward with this as stated without
the exemption for this piece of property I think the Town residents will be best
served. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Anyone else like to speak?
BRUCE SCHNITZ - Representing Albany Partners, one of the developers for the
application for the hundred and seventy-four units. While, I’ve heard a great deal
this evening that I like to respond to and could respond, too; I think a lot of it
would be in appropriate to first of all be unprepared to respond appropriately.
Two, a lot, I think belongs within the application with the Planning Board process.
I am reluctant to respond to a lot of it, but on the surface, I can tell you a lot of the
concerns and a lot of the comments might be looked at differently once we have a
chance to go through that process. All, I like to ask of this body tonight is that in
making your decision after this public hearing I’d like you to take one thing into
consideration. When we contracted to buy this land one of the first things we did
in checking title was also to have our professionals looked at your zoning. To lay
out a rough draft site plan do a calculation to determine what we felt we could
develop within the confines of the parcel we were buying. Take into considerations
site backs, and buffer zone, DEC, and the current use as allowed. We doubled
checked our opinion with members of the Town we got in writing from them that
yes, that which we were proposing was within the zoning and allowed on that basis
we proceeded. We at this point as you might well imagine have spent substantial
dollars getting to the application process it is not an inexpensive process. As you
know we were postponed at the last hearing and we’re hoping to get in front of the
twenty eighth to go through our proposal for what we’re proposing to develop on
this piece of land. We’d like an opportunity to complete that process within the
rules, as we understand them. At the same time, I realize this body may have to
make a decision prior to that time. I would like you to take into account the fact
that yes, we did look, we did check, we got confirmation from the Town before
proceeding to spend these dollars. We feel somewhat at risk right now in the event
that as the applicant were not granted an exemption should you chose to go
forward. Thank you.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-One question.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 268
MR. SCHNITZ-Yes, sir?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-How did you come up with the figure that these hundred
and seventy-four apartments would only generate sixteen students in the school
system?
MR. SCHNITZ-I did not come up with that calculation. I can tell you from my
other projects that we have in the capital district we average about point one six
students per unit. Maybe the sixteen is something that got miss-transcribed, but as
of right now we operate six hundred and twenty two apartments in three different
complexes in the capital district our average is point one six students per apartment
unit.
SUPERVISOR STEC-That number to me seems for apartments low. Why is your
number, if you would care?
MR. SCHNITZ-I can only give you my opinion. We obviously have done no
significant studies as to interviewing all of our residents and ask them why they
chose there, why they don’t have children, and that sort of thing. I can tell you that
our resident mix number one, we have a fairly significant number of young
professionals without children. We have a significant number of empty nesters
that have chosen to live there as opposed to continuing to the maintenance issues
of a single family home. We have a number of young people who are actually
building homes within the community and are staying there for eight to ten months
while the home is being built. We also have a number professional people that are
being employed based upon short-term stay, short-term jobs, in those cases you are
usually talking about one professional as opposed to a couple. They have come
into Town for a six-month stay at RPI or a six-month stay at the Medical Center,
something along those lines.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-The two developments you have done are located where?
MR. SCHNITZ-We have two hundred and thirty two units located in Delmar,
Town of Bethlehem. We have three hundred and ninety units within the City of
Rensselaer. They were built as two separate projects with two separate ownerships
one for two hundred and fifty units and the other for a hundred and forty units.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Any other questions?
MR. SCHNITZ-Thank you.
JOANN BRAMLEY-TWICWOOD LANE, QUEENBURY-Could you tell me
how what we listened to from Mr. O’Connor differs from an application?
SUPERVISOR STEC-This whole discussion has been a lot like a site plan review,
which we started before you got here this evening. It is not the purpose of what
we’re trying to accomplish tonight.
TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-The Town Board has said many times that this is a
public hearing. People have the right to speak even if they sometimes go a field
from the issue that is before the Town Board.
MS. BRAMLEY-The same materials and the same presentation prepare as if you
would be presenting an application.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 269
SUPERVISOR STEC-You can speak, however, you like Joann.
MS. BRAMLEY-Okay just wanted to clarify that. I’d like to say you have listened
to a wide variety of comments tonight from residents, school system, medical
community, private businesses, former political leaders, none of whom have any
financial gain. The only person that has spoken that has a financial interest in this
is obviously Mr. O’Connor.
SUPERVISOR STEC-And the gentlemen before you.
MS. BRAMLEY-Yes. I take exception to Mr. O’Connor’s theory that there are a
lot of other places in Town that are available for office professional. That really
doesn’t speak to the fact that we still need to keep the Bay Road corridor in light
with the vision that it is intended to be regardless of what is available in the rest of
the places in Town. I would like echo the sentiments of the people who spoke
before not wanting to see this type of development happen on Bay Road.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Would anyone else like to speak?
FORMER COUNCILMAN BETTY MONAHAN-SUNNYSIDE ROAD-To start
off with I’d like to say in response to something I believe Mr. O’Connor said. I
don’t think you are trying to zone out something as much as you are trying to zone
in something that’s the impression I have from the work that’s gone on for several
meetings on this. I would ask you to look in your own Code in your Purposes and
Objects under Section 179-1020, Section A. The purpose of this chapter is to
promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the community to provide for a
variety of housing opportunities, and densities, and protect the property values, and
aesthetics of the community by challenging and directing growth. I won’t go on
with the rest of it that’s the idea; I think that is how we have to look at this
proposed rezoning. What does it do for the health, safety, general welfare of the
community, and also we’re looking at property rights. I do not believe that the
property rights of an individual or development company can out weigh the rights
of a whole community. Years ago, I attended a planning seminar at New Paltz
Community College the gentlemen conducting it made some very good points.
That is the infrastructure of a Town is like bank accounts you can only draw them
down so much. When you look at something that comes in front of a Town you
have to look at what its impact is on the schools, fire districts, traffic, recreation,
etc. I can see with a hundred and seventy four apartments figuring if there are two
cars per apartments and they each make two round trips a day to work or whatever
you are going to have a big impact on the roads over there. You are certainly
going to have an impact on the school system and we’re certainly going to have an
impact on the school taxes. As we well know no residential building pays its way
in taxes that’s a well-known fact. Also in this area we’re having apartment
complexes go up and this is regrettable where there is no land for parks, or
playgrounds, or green space for people to use. As you know; I’ve suggested to you
many times you look at whether or not it would be economically feasible for the
Town to buy this property and not have the impact of development. You are going
to have to have spaces for Town services you are going to have to have more parks
in this area, I still would suggest that you do that. Whenever we talk about
development in this Town we act as though we have to build out immediately
within the next five years so we tend to lose fact of the vision. There are a lot
changes made in zoning. We gave up a lot of our industrial land for immediate
commercial entity and so on and so forth. I think what you really need to do is
have to look at a vision and what you want some of these corridors to look like and
you have to make the tough decisions about them. Then, I looked at our present
Ordinance and I started to take it apart as the way I was given guidance many years
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 270
ago that you don’t just look at one part of the Ordinance. If you look on Page
18079, Table 2, Note 3.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Wait a minute Betty.
MRS. MONAHAN-Okay.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-1809?
MRS. MONAHAN-18079, Table 2. Note 3, down at the bottom. It says that
professional office; office buildings shall be located within one thousand feet of
the arterial roadway as identified in Section 179-19-0208. I want you to note that
the word is shall, not can, or may. If you go back to Page 17907, look at
Definitions and Word Uses, which is Article 2. It says words not defined by this
chapter shall have a common meaning as defined by the most recent version of
Webster Abridge Dictionary. Shall, in Webster Dictionary is a command it is a
direction or requirement. Then if you look in the Ordinance on Page 17906,
Section 179-1-030-Compliance more Restrictive Provisions to Prevail, you all
know what that is if there is a question about which prevails the most restrictive.
I’m going to raise a question right now the way this Ordinance is presently written
the word shall is in there does that say that professional offices shall be built within
that first thousand feet, I think it’s something to look at. Dan you know who used
to guide me in going through these Ordinances. I don’t want you to answer that
now; I want you to think about it.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Going along with what you said I just want to
continue this thought process while we’re on the Town Zoning Code. You
mentioned some very good ones you were my community-planning mentor. On
Page 17943, which is in the Section 179.4-010.
MRS. MONAHAN-Wait a minute let me get there.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-It speaks to professional office 17943 the PO District
encompasses areas where professional offices are encouraged.
MRS. MONAHAN-I agree with you. In the table it says, shall and the most
restrictive shall apply.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Let’s not listen to that let’s put all the pieces together
and you have one nice big puzzle; I’m agreeing with you entirely. Then on Page
17961, it talks about fencing for commercial zones. You think when we put
fencing up for whatever project might be located along Bay Road that we would be
looking at residential fencing or commercial fencing but here’s the kicker. It’s
17993, Page 17993.
MRS. MONAHAN-17993?
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-It’s on Page 17993.
MRS. MONAHAN-Wait a minute, okay I’m with you.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-It’s the Town Code 179-7-10 talking about the Bay
Road corridor.
MRS. MONAHAN-Wait a minute I’m not with you.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 271
COUNCILMAN BOOR-What page have you got John?
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-17993.
MRS. MONAHAN-17993?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s not the right page. Characteristics-A.
MRS. MONAHAN-A. Characteristics okay.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I’m at the top of the page and its talking about the
Bay Road corridor, but here’s the kicker. It talks about development has extended
north form Quaker Road.
MRS. MONAHAN-Wait a minute where are you?
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Right at the top of the page.
MRS. MONAHAN-At the very top before we get into A?
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I’m going right to the sentence that really talks to
what I have been trying to say. Development has extended north from Quaker
Road in a generally desirable pattern of professional offices. It speaks to the
desirable pattern of professional offices including and incorporating a residential
feel and look. It is the intent of the guidelines for this corridor to continue this
professional office theme to the north. That’s the kicker it says it in the code.
MRS. MONAHAN-I think it’s all-together there.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-We really don’t have to do anything. It says in the
code we are expecting professional office in a professional zone.
MRS. MONAHAN-I would like to leave you with another thought not necessarily
for this but as you look at planning in the Town this is a Native American saying.
Only after the last tree has been cut down. Only after the last river has been
poisoned. Only after the last fish has been caught. Only then will mankind find
that money cannot be eaten.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Would anyone else like to speak?
BOB VOLLARO-7 Glen Court, Queensbury. I happen to be a member of the
Planning Board and I will not be sitting in on this application because I have other
commitments for that night so I feel I can possibly talk to this a little bit. One
tradition has had it in the Town of Queensbury that when a zoning change and this
is ….to a zoning change it usually comes to the Planning Board for a
recommendation back to the Town Board we have never seen that.
SUPERVISOR STEC-It’s coming the twenty-first, I believe.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
SUPERVISOR STEC-We covered that earlier. Unless these three guys beside me
want to act tonight we won’t be acting tonight.
MR. VOLLARO-Until you get some sort of….
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 272
SUPERVISOR STEC-We’re going to wait for recommendation we’re going to
wait for a fifth member.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I wouldn’t be opposed to a….vote.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I wouldn’t either.
MR. VOLLARO-The other thing is I’ve heard a lot tonight about the zoning and
the planning and the vision and so that was all nicely stated. I happen to be a
member of this committee the so-called super committee that’s been formed to
look at this. If a lot of stuff is put into place before that committee gets a chance to
really look this thing over, I don’t know how successful we’re going to be. There
are pros and cons out there that say the committee of which I’ve been appointed, as
a member will not be successful, I’ve read that in the press.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I disagree with the press, I think it will be very successful. I
think we’ve got really good people on that committee.
MR. VOLLARO-The thing I can see, however, is that this is not a short-term
activity for this committee. I don’t think we can do this job in a couple of months.
I think it’s more like possibly ten months to complete this job as I see it. The first
that is in my vision I want to get the 179, Zoning Code to line up with our
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. When these documents are in balance we will
have a better look at what’s going on. Right now the Comprehensive Use Plan is
not a very good document at all for the comprehensive use of the land in
Queensbury. If you read it from cover to cover it really doesn’t say a whole lot
about that. The next thing I’d like to do and just get out real quickly here. I’ve
talked to some people in school about the present campus that we have in
Queensbury. How many buildings or building can that campus currently house?
Another building, another two, how does that translate into rooms? How does that
translate into students? The build out analysis talks about two hundred and seventy
three over five years. Some of us have read the build out analysis thank you; I got
a copy of it. I think everybody that goes into this committee that we’re talking
about has to study that document and has to understand it. It is not something you
can pick a page out of and say this says this, and this says that. You have got to
really take a look at comprehensively what it has to say. I would like to be able to
take a look at what the school can furnish in terms of classrooms and then try to
backfill that into our growth in Queensbury so that we don’t have to get off the
campus. Once you get off the campus, I think we’ve got some serious problems in
terms of school taxes that is the one thing that will drive people out of this Town.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Just so the public understands it when you say off campus
you are talking about not a centralized school system anymore. I think it is
important that people understand that you are talking about a campus elsewhere.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s right. What we have now on Aviation Road where the
school is located is called the campus by those folks that worked there; John
understands that, I believe. If we grow past that capability of that ground to service
students then we got to go off the campus and that splits the school that gives you a
new bus situation. This is what I’m trying to look at on this committee to see what
this growth factor looks like. I don’t think we can predict anything on that
committee better than five years. I think you go ten years out and your reliability
of the predictions begins to fall off rapidly. Just so you know we need a chance to
take a look at some of the same issues that we’ve been talking about here tonight.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 273
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I have a couple questions. One is yes I have several
pages of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and it speaks to the Bay Road corridor
I’m going to share that in a minute, but in the meantime my question is this. The
Planning Board should deal with this issue or the Planning Ordinance Review
Committee….
MR. VOLLARO-Love that name.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Should review this. What happens to the application
in the meantime the application that is before the Planning Board is at the end of
this month?
MR. VOLLARO-Correct. I am going to have to draw a distinction there to say
we’re going to have to deal with this application outside the view of this committee
unless this board decides to withhold that until this committee gets an opportunity
to look at it.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I think it’s only appropriate that you take a look at
the issues. We don’t want to upset the integrity of the Bay Road corridor if that’s
the way that you go.
MR. VOLLARO-I agree with that John. What I’m just trying to say here is that I
think Betty put her finger on it. If you look at the code and you read very, very
carefully; I got the same page that she’s has here. I underlined exactly the same
word professional office building shall be located within a thousand feet of the
arterial roadway as defined in 1719-b, that puts the Bay Road as an arterial. There
is a vision there has got to be a vision of how we want Bay Road to look. There is
no reason why you can’t have professional offices up front and some residential in
the rear.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-To add to that too, we often hear in these discussions
about property rights. I have to wonder about the property rights of those
individuals already vested in this corridor who read this understood what the vision
was; understood the importance in the value of locating their business where other
professional offices would be located because it has a look, a feel, it’s where
people feel comfortable doing types of business that this environment affords.
What about their properties rights now when we start making exceptions and
basically change the character and the vision that is clearly defined in the zoning?
This notion that it doesn’t give a vision is incorrect, I’m sure we’ll get to that as we
go on. I’m concerned about those property rights of people who have made
considerable investment not speculative investment, but real investment.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure, no question about that. That’s all I have to say. I hope our
committee is successful but I don’t think it is going to be quick.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Anyone else like to speak on this application tonight?
PAUL DERBY-86 ASH DRIVE-I’m also very concerned with increased traffic
and what Queensbury is becoming. It is already extremely difficult for us at Glen
Lake to get out onto Route 9 and travel that way. If you allow this kind of hyper
intense development on Bay Road it will be difficult to go that way as well. I
believe the Town of Queensbury is at a crisis point now. You cannot change and
make your residences more squash together, and pressured, and make a Long
Island like community with status quo short-term development. Or you have the
opportunity to begin to create thoughtful long term controlled and responsible
development, which I think you, could do here. I’m in favor of the proposed
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 274
zoning changes on Bay and Western etc., without grand fathering or exemptions. I
think that’s what we should do it will be too late if we wait for this to go through
because the character of Bay Road will have already changed. Thanks.
PAT SEEYLE-ReMax Broker, 357 Bay Road. Just want to give some stats up
here so people have an idea of what’s out there in regards to property for
professional office. I did a little survey in the last few days driving around doing
searches. There is about forty thousand square feet of vacant professional office
space at this point. That doesn’t include strip malls, that doesn’t include the land
that hasn’t been developed on. My biggest concern is down the road more of this
happening. The only thing that we do need in real estate is property for people to
live in. We get calls every single day looking for rentals those rentals usually turn
into people staying here building that’s usually why they want the rental mainly.
Those are the two main concerns that these buildings just become vacant if you
turn professional office into that corner. Multi-family project they are trying to do
is a beautiful project residential corner it will look very beautiful that’s pretty much
it.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Pat, when you plan a community you….
MR. SEEYLE-The only major concern I have with selling real estate down the
road….
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Selling real estate is something you are interested
and what’s going on right now.
MR. SEEYLE-Right.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-We’re interested in ten years, twenty, and thirty
years from now.
MR. SEEYLE-Right.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Luther Forest has got approval we need all the light
industrial, industrial, and commercial zoning we can possibly get. It adds to the
tax base and doesn’t burden the community.
MR. SEEYLE-Where are you going to put it, are you going to put it on that
corner?
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-When you don’t zone for it Pat you ain’t going to put
it nowhere.
MR. SEEYLE-The other problem down the road would be with no land to put the
light industrial, I don’t get that at all. Professional office space, I forgot where I
was headed with that. One of my major concerns was not just this project as
people buying property, me selling property to somebody zoned one thing and
have it changed down the road. Make an investment in property as I do myself and
have that changed down the road and changing the value of that property.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-You know what I think Pat. I think in a couple of
years from now the owner of this property will be very happy he didn’t developed
it the way he is proposing if he would just wait, I think he’ll find his return.
MR. SEEYLE-Thank you.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 275
KAREN ANGLESON-1 GREENWOOD LANE-I’ll be very brief because people
have said a lot of what I’ve thought. I just would like to commend Betty Monahan
for reading the rules and regulations as thoroughly as she does. I would like to
encourage the board to stay with the vision on Bay Road currently professional
office building they way it is. We have an opportunity here and so many people
have said to continue the growth in the Town and to give a nice presentation to the
Town. We really need to take into consideration the traffic, school system, and
services in the Town, the sewer a little bit of everything. I think this is a
tremendous opportunity for good growth in the Town and that’s what we want
Queensbury to be a nice place to live.
SUPERVISOR STEC-We all do, thank you.
EILEEN MURPHY, 3 WAVERLY PLACE, QUEENSBURY-I live on 3 Waverly
Place, which is the new Michaels Group. I live directly across the street from the
Schermerhorn Apartments. What that gentlemen said is bull. You get an
apartment complex there are many, many children. Sit outside my window and
look at the traffic that comes in and out. I can tell you that each apartment has two
cars. Those cars don’t make two trips a day they make about ten to twelve trips a
days starting at six thirty in the morning it is non-stop one car after another. It kind
of dwindles between one and four then it starts until midnight. Car after car in and
out, in and out, I don’t know where everybody goes they don’t sleep they travel.
The buses now have started, I just moved in about six weeks ago the buses are
there in the morning. I haven’t counted every busload, but this morning the bus at
seven thirty had about twenty-five kids that was the high school maybe or the
middle school; I believe there are two or three more buses that come. There are
many children in there it is a very nice up scale apartment, but the traffic on that
road is horrendous. It is a road that comes through from Quaker going to either
Lake George or its coming out right here it is avoiding all these traffic lights that
are coming through unbelievable traffic. I don’t know how many apartments are in
there, I haven’t gone in and counted them but boy I know the amount of cars that
come out of there. The impact that you are talking about here is very; very intense
that’s all I have to say. What that man was saying sixteen kids no way that’s all, I
have to say.
DAN VALENTE-VALENTE HOMES-I do believe, I’m probably the only other
significant landowner on Bay Road that this will impact directly in a major way. I
have twenty-six acres that front on Bay. A couple of my concerns naturally we
talked about property owner’s rights. This is not the first time that zone has been
changed. Years ago you were able to put single-family homes in that corridor and
that zone was changed, I don’t know if you remember that or not.
SUPERVISOR STEC-From single-family to multi dwelling?
MR. VALENTE-It was a multi use type of zone they eliminated. You were able to
do multi-family or single-family homes in that zone, which was changed to the
current zone. Over the years if you are a long time property owner you’ve been
through this before. The rights of the owners obviously have to be looked at. Yes,
the community has to be looked at too. Naturally this community is growing we’re
going to do it in a controlled fashion we don’t want it to go amuck that’s
paramount. We all love this community that’s why it’s so popular. Naturally one
of my concerns with this issue is being told how far I have to go. If you want to
have professional offices on Bay Road why establish a definite setback? The
check and balances are in place you have a Planning Board let them take control
and say when the applicant comes forward that we want to see professional offices
on Bay Road not necessarily establish a five hundred foot setback. I told this
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 276
board before that I thought that was aggressive. I know a thousand feet is probably
the norm.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-So we’re cutting it in half.
MR. VALENTE-I do think that it restricts certain parcels significantly and you
need to take a look at each parcel individually. That’s why I hate to have a
restriction of five hundred feet and that’s the end of it. Maybe there can be some
flexibility in that and some compromise. Again, the Planning Board has to be
allowed to do its job. When the applicant comes forward yes maybe he is
proposing a hundred and seventy four units maybe he gets a hundred and seventy
four units. They don’t have to give him a hundred and seventy four units we know
that I’ve seen it happen before. I’ve been before the board with a fourteen-lot
professional park subdivision on Bay Road, which I was denied.
SUPERVISOR STEC-When was that Dan?
MR. VALENTE-To clarify Mr. Strough was in favor of it.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Also it was not a vote against professional office
such as the previous talker had said.
MR. VALENTE-No.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-It was a vote against they way the thought it was laid
out. It was not a vote against professional office zoning.
MR. VALENTE-Right. I believe naturally you can’t deny me on the layout, but
I’m sure the political wheels were turning behind the scene on that one.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I did vote in favor of it.
MR. VALENTE-Yes, you did and I appreciated that. Nevertheless, I think that
there should be some compromise. People that have invested significant amounts
of money and have held these parcels for many years do have some rights and
should be allowed to develop somewhat to what they are thinking to do. One other
issue that I haven’t heard anybody bring up and I know, I won’t make any friends
bringing this up tonight, but I’ve never tried to be popular.
SUPERVISOR STEC-It’s working.
MR. VALENTE-Is the institution of a landlord tax maybe a per unit annual fee for
every apartment owned. I can’t imagine if this Town is that well received by all
these individuals coming in I’m glad to see progress being made and I’m
welcomed to apartments being built, but I would like to see them carry their share.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Dan, it’s a great idea there is real logistic problems with
that. Renters you can’t lien anything they don’t own anything. If they take off you
got nothing to attach.
MR. VALENTE-You get it from the property owners itself.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Who wants to own property where who they rent to
determines their liability with taxes?
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 277
MR. VALENTE-None. If you own eight apartments and you charge them an
annual fee of two hundred and fifty dollars per apartment per year that landlord
pays that fee to the Town, which is directed to the school to help carry the cost of
the individual.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-So the Town would create a school tax? No way, I
don’t want any part of that.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-What Dan is saying, I’ve come across a matter of
fact recently when I was doing my studying for professional office zoning I came
across that idea, but I didn’t have the guts that you did to bring it up.
MR. VALENTE-I’m throwing it out here.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-It is probably worth looking at.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-It is an idea that other communities are pursing. I
didn’t think that would fly here, but you brought it up.
MR. VALENTE-The landlord is going to pass it on to the renter naturally. If it
cost twenty dollars more a month for that renter to be there even though the
landlord is responsible for that fee that’s the cost of doing business in this Town.
If you want to do that then that’s what is going to be. I don’t think it’s detrimental
to the property owner, but then I think it helps offset some of the cost. If the rent
fees go up then maybe it curtails a little bit of the development in the apartment
field. I don’t know it’s open to discussion, throwing it out.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-To go along with what you are saying Dan if you
don’t mind me interrupting. If the community wants to type in a search google or
whatever COCS, it’s a Cost of Community Services you’ll find good studies being
done at Ohio University, Penn State, Wisconsin, they’ve all come to the same
conclusions by the way even New Hampshire has a couple nice studies. You’ll
find a ton of stuff its COCS, Cost of Community Services it is speaking to kind of
what Dan is speaking to because residential for example for every residence built it
cost the taxpayers a dollar fifty, but the resident only contributes a dollar. In other
words there is fifty cent loss up to a fifty-cent lost. In other words it goes from one
fifteen to fifty cent loss for every dollar it contributes in revenue. Commercial and
industrial land however goes in the reverse. They have what they call a ratio of
point three five to point six five; which means for every dollar collected only about
thirty five to sixty five cents of services are provided. In other words you could go
onto open space, which is even better. Residential does not pay for itself and that’s
what you are saying Dan it probably should pay for itself.
MR. VALENTE-We all know that residential homes do not carry the burden of the
Town. They will not cover the cost of each child put into that district. If I build a
three hundred thousand dollar home and they put two kids into the school district
and you have an eight-apartment complex that is valued at three hundred thousand
dollars and they put eight kids into the school district obviously there is a
significant difference.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-It is a public school system so you get into a lot of issues.
MR. VALENTE-I’m sure there are a lot of issues I’m throwing it out there for
what its worth. Thank you for your time. Congratulations Marilyn on your post.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 278
SUPERVISOR STEC-Anyone else like to speak on this public hearing? Anyone
at all don’t be shy? Town Board?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Dan did you close the public hearing?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-We’ll leave it open because we’re going to get
comment.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Do you want to take a five-minute break or
something?
FIVE-MINUTE BREAK
SUPERVISOR STEC-I’ll call us back to order we took a brief minute, which
turned into a ten minutes recess, it’s about quarter after ten on the thirteenth.
Actually, I had closed the public hearing, but I’m going to reopen the public
hearing and leave it open. Unless there is anyone else in the audience that wants to
address this thing the Town Board is ready to start its discussion.
PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yeah, I’d like to go get it out of the way. This whole
three-ring binder deals with this topic and I’ve had some thoughts. First of all you
have to keep in mind the whole purpose to zoning to begin with. The number one
goal is to adhere to a balanced desirable pattern of land use within our Town
desirable and balanced. Communities that have planned for sustainable economic
growth are more likely to realize that type of economic growth that objective. A
healthily community is one that has a heterogeneous economy. No one specific
turndown in any particular economic sector is going to affect the whole community
you want diversification. A responsible community means planning and designing
community for sustain future economic growth. The development of Malta’s
Luther Forest Technology Park recently approved is going to offer great economic
opportunities for this area if you are zoned appropriately for it. You need lands
zoned light industrial. You need them zoned heavy industrial. You need
professional offices to accommodate this economic growth. Any community that
allows immediate interest like residential developers to chew up industrial and
commercial zoning is doomed or destined to bear the burden of high taxation that a
lack of community planning ultimately and historically will lead to. Does
residential development have an economic multiplier effect? Yes it does. It tends
to be transient and short-term. Retail and service industries benefit from the added
population so it does have an economic multiplier effect. The jobs offered usually
don’t pay well and there is few if any benefits. How does the economic multiplier
of residential compare to that of commercial? The effect of commercial economic
multiplier is to provide long-term jobs, higher paying jobs; jobs that tend to give
benefits. The multiplier effect and you can look at this on line you don’t have to
trust me you can find this evidence on line. The multiplier effect is much grander
for a community longer lasting for a community. So what I’m getting at is you
want to preserve the zoning that you have. If you’ve got commercial zoning you
don’t want to give it in to the forces of residential development, which is
happening here in Queensbury. I just want to go on and show you that the
evidence is clear, it’s convincing, and it’s compelling that the intent of PO zoning
was to be professional office. When a realtor advertises, I could of called Pat back
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 279
up here or Dave. When a realtor offers PO zoning what does the buyer think that
they are getting? We started this discussion on professional office zoning in
January of 2004 I have it documented. First of all we had concerns over, I had
concerns is the wording appropriately enough in professional office zoning to get
the high quality architectural styles, design standards, and landscaping standards
that this community should be getting? I want on and I have several pages of it, I
talk about how the dumpsters should look I went into great detail. Now, Richard
Schermerhorn was one of the developers that first came before us in a big way on
Bay Road. I said to Richard and I’ve got it documented so I’ll repeat it. I’m
talking about Baybrook and he went in accord with this he went along with this
and still does. Baybrook could be a show place development an example for others
an aesthetic asset to our total community. I, as one Planning Board member would
like to see Baybrook as a total comprehensive cohesive concept. A design
development that appears consistent and congruent gives a presence of sense a feel
of being a village. The design concept…schemes, building forms, relationship
should appear designed pleasing in order. Appear to be intergraded, coordinated
and in harmony and so forth I could go on, you get the idea. He went along with
that and he did a very good job. He did a very good job, but you know what his
understanding was that professional office was going to be located adjacent to Bay
Road. Now if he could have developed that for apartments I think he could have
probably put five or six hundred apartments in where he has professional office.
Where does the community gain from having five or six hundred apartments or
having professional offices? That leads me to my next discussion, which I’ve
already introduced the cost of community services. Professional offices,
commercial endeavors will come in will be enticed to come into your community if
you’ve got it zoned accordingly. Yeah, sure everybody can make a fast buck by
building residential right now in Queensbury it’s hot. We could sell every single
bit of property we’ve got let’s take all the light industrial, heavy industrial, and
professional office and rezone it residential so we can build residential because
that’s what a lot of developers would love to do. The money now, but that’s not
planning for your communities future though that’s what we’re suppose to be
doing up here all five of us and the Planning Board, Zoning Board, and Planning
Department are all working to plan our community so that the future is going to be
healthy for all of us. Let’s take a look at what’s happening in Queensbury. If you
take a look at the Supervisors Report dated August 31, 2004 we built in this Town
to date starting from January to date this year one hundred and twenty six dwelling
units. Eighty-two were single-family; forty were apartments. Almost fifty percent
of the residential development so far this year has been apartments. Do we have
our fair share of apartments, yes?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Fifty percent it is actually about thirty.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-There is eighty-two single-family homes and forty
apartments.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-It is about a third.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Thirty three percent.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-We have more than our fair share of apartment
housing. The letter from Dr. Howard, Superintendent of Queensbury Union Free
School District, I think brought out some great points. He is wondering if the
atmosphere is on the brink of being destroyed here in Town. Over the past year
there has been a trend away from single-family homeowner occupied homes and
tendencies toward shorter-term residences. If you take a look at the history and
I’ve already kind of mentioned the history because, I mentioned Richard
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 280
Schermerhorn. You have Mr. Hughes when he came in for a rezoning of his
property he wanted some single family that used to be single family and got it
zoned professional office, you couldn’t build single family. We understood those
preexisting lots and we zoned that but the understanding was adjacent to Bay Road
was going to be professional office. We talk about across the street here. What do
you see next to Bay Road, professional offices? Mr. Valente talked about an
application he had what did he have next to Bay Road, professional offices.
Somewhere everyone got the very clear idea that adjacent to the Bay Road arterial
you are to have professional offices. I could give you more examples and I have
the approvals, okay. This discussion and I’m going to summarize here I have
highlighted the resolutions, memorandums, and the minutes they all say the same
thing since January. This entire board has a consensus has an agreement that is
next to any arterial Bay Road specifically it should be professional offices. There
was a general consensus I ask you to read the minutes. I’ll give you the dates of
the minutes in a minute. The minutes will bear me out that there was a consensus
amongst the Town Board that whatever goes next to Bay Road or any arterial
professional office zoning should be professional offices. There is no talk of any
exception read the minutes. Now, before I get to the minutes because they are in
another chapter we have to talk about the Town of Queensbury and our
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. It says the challenge for the future is to
accommodate projected growth in a manner that will preserve the qualities, which
make people want to live in Queensbury. Protect open space sensitive ecological
and land use areas provide opportunities for increase tax revenues and
employment. The task of planning for the future will become increasingly more
difficult and more important as our land resources diminish, boy did they hit the
nail on the head. In the vision for Queensbury and this is in the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan economic development is locally based and diverse so that the
community is not dependent on a few large employers. Didn’t I mention that
before because that is community planning common sense? Local economic
development polices should create a positive business environment that will attract
and encourage new small business offering quality employment. This type of
development is more likely to cycle revenue into the local area and be compatible
with the community setting. Designating industrial lands needs to have the
necessary infrastructures needs to have the necessary infrastructures such as sewer,
utilities, and roads. A consolidated and coordinated regional economic
development strategy is needed. Here we’re about to give up part of our economic
strategy to residential. Goal eight; this is in the vision for Queensbury and our
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. It says the Bay Road Corridor should have a
development plan this area has potential as a Town Center, but needs both
infrastructure and an overall plan to accomplish it successfully. Do you think
when they were talking about we could make Bay Road a Town Center they were
talking that we needed to make Bay Road a Residential Center, I don’t think so?
On T. 6.9, Section 2, talking about the town- wide plan, it talks about Bay Road.
For instance Bay Road is currently zoned multi-family residential. I know a lot of
people refer to well it was zoned multi-family. At one time it wasn’t zoned
anything so how far back do you want to go? Hopefully we made progress that
what we’ve done is better than what we had before and we should take advantage
of that. This area has developed as offices; gee how many times in the Town code
in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan do we come across the same concept.
Talking about the Bay Road corridor talking about developing it in terms of
professional offices, you could go on. It talks about neighborhoods, Section 4 the
Bay Road Corridor. It talks about the use of commercial, office, cultural, and
educational uses should be created on the Bay Road corridor. It didn’t say
anything about residential. A matter of fact, I didn’t see anything in here where it
says we should encourage residential on the Bay Road corridor we’re talking from
the Quaker Road to Blind Rock Road. That was already brought up so I’ll skip it.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 281
I think it merits repeating in our Town Code talking about the Bay Road corridor.
Development has extended north from Quaker Road in a generally desirable
pattern of professional offices incorporating a residential feel and look. It did say
incorporating residences. It says like to incorporate the residential feel and look.
It is the intent of the guidelines of this corridor to continue this professional office
theme to the north. Then it talks about design objectives. They weren’t talking
about design objectives for residential. They were talking about design objectives
for the commercial for the professional offices. The first step of meetings where
we first had a discussion about the needs of professional office zoning date back to
th
January 28, take a look at the Town Board Meeting. It talks in specifically about
a piece of property on West Mountain Road on the corner of West Mountain and
Gurney Lane. It talks about how the Town Board in general had a consensus feel
that we didn’t want to see residential go there so let’s zone it professional office,
th
what we’re they thinking? If you look at March 29, 2004 Town Board minutes
you will find a discussion, don’t trust me go and check it for yourself. You’ll find
a discussion that says it conveys a consensus concern about allowing residential in
th
a professional office zone. You can read May 17. You will find some of the very
people up here that would like to vote and allow this project to occur speak quite
differently. I’m going to skip it because of time I hear the awe hums. Professional
th
office zoning May 24, 2004 a really good meeting it talks about Councilman
Strough, Chris Round was there. It talks about professional office zoning and our
th
problems with allowing residential in it. July 7, Town Board Meeting, I do not
think we want to have professional office zoning for high-density housing,
Councilman Boor said that. Councilman Brewer it goes right back to what we
have said when we changed this Roger. You change a piece of property now you
allow what you change it to now you are going to change the zone that is why I
wanted to change the zone before we changed the property. He wanted to change
the zone to clarify it, okay. Councilman Brewer it goes on read it for yourself.
th
July 19, interesting discussion on professional office zoning Chris Round spoke
to us. You are seeing a growth of multi family housing we’re not seeing a lot of
professional office being built knowing it was a concern for the community that’s
why we’re here tonight. He questioned what is the goal for professional office
zoning? Do we want to reduce residential density? Yeah, we’ve had these
thth
discussions on, and on, and on, okay. August 16. August 16 is funny. It’s a
Monday, of course, up until that weekend we were all on the same page. There
was never any; check the minutes there was never any discussion of any exemption
any grandfathering, or anything. There was a general agreement that housing
should be limited in professional office zone, it was a general agreement. I said at
the meeting it’s funny all of a sudden a weekend happens and a couple people have
changed their mind we want to allow exception for one person, one project. The
next section. I have professional office zoning in other communities, okay and they
have the definition of it. They do not speak on the professional office zoning about
developing residences. Let’s go back even further Jim Martin when he was on the
Town Board and he’s a Community Planner as well talked about a Bay Road
corridor with lighting and sidewalks, okay. Landscaping, design standards, that
wasn’t for residential that was for a Town Center that was for commercial. Then
you have the various letter my point is this then I can conclude here, I did cut it
short.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-We appreciate that.
SUPERVISOR STEC-We appreciate that.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-That’s it is already established in practice and people
keep referring to history. You know we have a history of giving applicants breaks
here and there. The history here is that this is professional office zoning. Mr.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 282
Valente, Mr. Schermerhorn, everyone along Bay Road corridor has abided by it.
We have an establish history that history shouldn’t be changed it shouldn’t be
changed for anybody. I don’t care if it’s Mike O’Connor and I don’t care if it’s Joe
Schmoe it shouldn’t be changed. That concept and the integrity of the concept for
the benefit of the community and the community’s future should stay the way it is
no exceptions.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-John the history you are talking about just for the
record is a short two years that we have a PO zone in this Town. I didn’t interrupt
you, please. This Town Board I think should be consistent with history we’ve
been talking about the zoning code. You talk about preserving professional zone.
You talk about light industrial, heavy industrial. This Town Board your part of it
we rezoned industrial land on Sherman Avenue for a soccer field that’s smart
thinking planning. I was part of that, I’ll admit to that but I thought it was the right
thing to do at that time everything is not written in stone. The reference you talked
to me about changing zone. My contention was that we took a piece of property
that was zoned SR for thirteen acres and changed the zone to PO so now the person
can build eighty units on there that’s smart planning also. There was mentioned
that the guy said he wasn’t going to build houses on there but there are no
guarantees and if there is a guarantee, I haven’t seen it. I have no dispute that we
all said that we should have professional office on professional office zone
property but let’s be fair about what we’re talking about. What we’re talking about
is something that’s been in the Zoning Ordinance for seventeen years not a short
two years you are talking about. If you want to read it, it’s 105-2 the Purpose of
Land Use Procedures. It says if you don’t mind, and then I’ll end because I want
to be short because of the essence of time. It is the purpose of this article to
establish procedures and substantive guidelines for the review of applications of
site plan, planned unit development, subdivision (except and not include those
subdivision applications stayed by the moratorium) and building permit approvals
that were submitted prior to the time that the new, amended and revise Zoning
Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations were in effect for the Town of
Queensbury, such effective date being October 1, 1988. A number of applications
submitted for approval have been submitted after the applicants have spent
considerable time and money for the development of proposed projects. The
development of projects, and information a part of the applications, has been based
on Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Queensbury, as
they existed prior to being revised and amended. It would appear unfair now to
force the applicant to redraft applications and extend further funds now to comply
with the new and amended Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. Also,
some of the matters are already under review by the various departments and
agencies of the Town of Queensbury it was cause undue confusion in the handling
of applications if the Ordinances and regulations were now to change. Also, was
not the intent of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, when approving and
passing the new, amended and revised Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision
Regulations, to create such a condition. This article will establish that the Zoning
Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations in effect at the time that the applications
were filed or submitted shall govern the procedure and substantive law applicable
to such applications. I think Mrs. Monahan might have been on the Town Board
when that was written I’m not sure. The other short things I want to say. This
rezoning Roger brought it up and I have no problem with drawing a line in the
sand, but the law exists today and I think that’s what runs this country is the law in
fairness and this has become an argument about a persons project. The Planning
Board and the Zoning Board has done a job over the years including the nine years
I was on it previous to the five years, I have been on the Town Board and has
developed Bay Road with the Ordinance in existence. I have all the faith in the
world that the Planning Board will continue to do that. In my own mind do I think
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 283
the Planning Board will approve a hundred and seventy four units across the street,
not in anybody’s wildest dreams. If they do, you know that’s their prerogative
they have the law, they have the zoning ordinance, and they have their conscious.
I don’t care if Mr. O’Connor gets it approved or doesn’t I have no interest in it. I
think in fairness to an applicant we shouldn’t pick one person out and make a
zoning change to benefit or be a detriment to anyone person and that’s all I’ll say.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-We’re not picking on a person.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yeah you are because that’s what it has become too.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-All, I’m saying is no we stay in accord with what
we’ve been doing you’re the big man on staying with the history.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-You are right. In the last eighteen years the zoning
code that everybody reads and talks about and takes quotes out of never tells me
where they are John. I’m not going to debate this because it’s ten forty right now
there are other people that would like to speak.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-The last two years on Bay Road and I could go
before that. We’re not talking about seventeen years ago….
COUNCILMAN BREWER-You made your case. I made my case let’s move on.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Quite honestly, I don’t think I could have done as good a
job as John did. He always does a lot of research does more homework than this
board combined and I’m not embarrassed to say that. What, I will say is that I’m
going to be very brief because there is no sense repeating what has been said
several times. We all took an oath of office as elected officials and the essence of
that oath is that we are going to look out for the health and welfare of this
community and that’s what I intend to do. The notion that because an applicant
has had an application submitted guarantees that it should go through the process is
ludicrous at best. If we really want to do that let’s just tell the applicant to go back
to this project that has already been before, he can just resubmit…
COUNCILMAN BREWER-That’s the difference Roger.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s my turn.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-You are looking at projects and I’m not.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s my turn, please.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-You are insinuating to me.
SUPERVISOR STEC-It’s Roger’s turn.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Right.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I am responding to when an application goes in. He’s got
one here that was submitted in two thousand for professional office. It is in accord
with everything else that Mr. Schermerhorn did that any other developer has done
on that corridor. If he wants to continue with that he’s got my blessing because it
goes with what the code says, it goes with what the zoning says, and it’s
appropriate.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 284
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Where did he ever get the idea that it should be
professional office?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I am going to do one little political barb here why not.
For anybody that follows TV that has been to a Town Board meeting that knows
the individual players at this table I’ve got to ask this rhetorical question.
Application is put in right? If this application was submitted by John Salvador we
wouldn’t be here tonight trust me. He would not be getting the treatment that this
other individual is getting and I’ll leave it at that. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR STEC-My five years on the Town Board, I try not to question other
peoples motivation and I resent it when other people question those of other board
members I won’t do that tonight although, I think its been done by others. I also
scratch my head and figure out how anybody other than perhaps my lovely wife
could tell somebody what my intention was two years ago when I did something.
There are four people that voted yes on something that created the professional
office zone in two thousand two, two of them are sitting at the table tonight myself
and Tim Brewer. The way the rezoning works historically and the way that a lot of
these zoning changes occur is that before we go and trounce through and change
something we look at what’s there already, we consider what’s there already, and
we try to work with what’s there already. What do I believe the intention of the
board was or what was my intention in two thousand two when I created the
professional office zone along with three other members of the Town Board. My
intention was that it was zoned multi-family residential. The Town did not want to
take rights away that existed to those property owners at the time. Professional
office was an addendum an addition to what was allowed before. Right or wrong,
wise or not wise that’s how we got to where we are. I agree John; I think that the
Town Board is willing to make this change. I don’t think it’s very fair to say that
the Town Board isn’t. You’re correct that the Town Board, I think is comfortable
in trying to codify what is not codified because it isn’t codified it is a change, it is
not in my opinion a clarification. You said not to long ago that there was enough
in the blue book that we really didn’t need to do this. If that’s the case, I apologize
to the Town Staff. By memo they told us that they put over a hundred hours into
this application the public that we spent a lot time on this….
COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s not an application.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you. The public that we’ve got all running scared
and convinced that somehow there is some sort of conspiracy to black top the
Town and that the majority of the Town Board doesn’t care what the future of the
Town has in store for us. We’re talking about a very small section of Town
potentially significant impact that I have every faith in the Planning Board as well
that they’ve heard a lot of very, very difficult things. They managed without us
codifying what we’re talking about codifying, which I’m not opposed to codifying.
They managed to get it right on Bay Road so far without the Town Board holding
their hand or micro-managing their deliberations. With that said, why out of the
blue in August did we come up with a suggestion for wanting to change the course
that you say with respect to this whole grandfathering business. Frankly John, I
think a lot of people on the Town Board this change wasn’t the most important
thing facing the Town. I still don’t think that this change is the most important
thing facing this Town. I think that over the course of many months the Town
Board has involved its own level of research, it’s only level of involvement. We
started finding out things maybe in August. We reached the point of clarity where
this whole question of we have an application out there one out of two properties
that are really affected because they are not developed what are we going to do
with this? The other thing that was going on then was that you and Roger were
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 285
very proactive and gung-ho about the change. I was skittish but willing to pursue,
I was trying to build the consensus amongst the entire board. I was talking as I told
you I would to Roger and Ted. They had concerns they thought that five hundred
feet was still pretty restrictive as it was. I was trying to build a compromise on the
board. The compromise that I started to reach we were there a few weeks ago. I
don’t know if we are there tonight because a lot has happened with respect to this
discussion that surrounded this in the last few weeks. There was a willingness of
the rest of the board to go along with five hundred feet but in the mix of this the
question of what’s the right thing to do with an existing application? We
mentioned it a few weeks ago. We mentioned it a couple weeks more where I read
a more detailed defense of the case to grandfather or not to grandfather. I’m also
going to cut my comments short although I prepared a great deal more. I just want
to comment I’m not going to comment on Dr. Howard’s letter. There is a lot in
that letter that concerns me and I’ll leave it at that. What did I learn tonight? Was
this a waste of three and a half hours drill, I don’t think so. I learned tonight more
than half of the property owners in the proposed zone not just one property owner
in the proposed zone is opposed to any change. I’m comfortable with the change
and I can tell those property owners I disagree with them and I’m ready to do the
change. Am, I going to settle on five hundred? Obviously we’re going to continue
this over we will have another board member back here we will listen a little bit
more think a little bit more. Maybe it will be five hundred maybe it won’t be five
hundred feet. It gets my attention that half of the property owners some of the
property owners whose property is built out is opposed to the change. I’m not
going to get into a long discussion about the grandfathering. Although, I will point
th
out that I’ll just reiterate a little bit that May 13, 2004 in the middle of paintball
discussion the Zoning Board asked that the Town Board to weigh in on whether or
not paintball was a firearm. They wanted us to change the code; they wanted us to
clarify the code. We told them no. It said and everyone on the Town Board read
that letter before I signed it. I asked every single person on the Town Board to
read it and all four of you said, yes go ahead and sign it. I said the Town Board is
unanimous in its opinion that it is not neither fair, reasonable, nor appropriate for
the Town Board to consider amending our legislation while the current application
st
is pending. I read a couple weeks ago we’ve been talking about this April 1,
resolution from two thousand and two. That’s the resolution that created the
professional office zone that everyone is so quick to tell us what we intended to do
when we did it. It also specifically said that we were going to grandfather
everybody. I asked Town Counsel Office is Queensbury the wing nut in the bunch
what’s par for the course in the State. The par for the course in the State almost
everybody grandfathers in these situations that’s almost. What are the exceptions
to the rules? Are the exceptions to the rules a hundred and fifty apartment units?
The exception to the rule that used out there is adult uses where there is an adult
use its allowed in zoning and the public screams we don’t want adult uses here
that’s when the Town’s say we don’t have to grandfather. I’ll say it again, and I’ve
said it several times over the week, but I’ll say it again. No one is saying we have
to grandfather. The law is in our favor that we don’t have to grandfather so I want
to make sure that’s crystal clear. This resolution of two thousand two was
introduced by Tim Brewer and Seconded by me, Ted Turner and Dennis Brower
also voted yes. That was what defined professional office at the time and that’s
what continued the saga of grandfathering existing applications. I asked the Town
Counsel’s Office to do a little more digging; Councilman Brewer already read it to
you. Before two thousand two the previous zoning change was nineteen eighty-
eight that was changed in October of nineteen eighty-eight by Local Law No. 6. If
you look at the book then it was clarified in November of nineteen eighty-eight.
They added a change, which Tim Brewer read was Local Law No. 7. That’s what
he read its Chapter 105; it’s been in the codebook for sixteen years. It didn’t just
say we grandfathered it laid out the rationale the Town Board at the time said it
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 286
wouldn’t be fair it’s not grandfathered. The point, I’m making here is that the rule
and this is important because this hasn’t been brought out in the press yet. It has
been stated in this room on camera and in front of the public, but it hasn’t been
printed yet. That the rule has been that we grandfather so the exception that we are
talking about when people talk about exceptions isn’t an exception to grant
additional rights to one applicant it’s to protect the rule is that we grandfather. I
would do it for John Salvador. I would do it for Frank O’Keefe. I would do it for
anyone else that walked through the room. The rights of the little guy the
individual some little guys are bigger than other guys. I’ve said no before to the
powers that be and I lived to tell the tale. I’m not afraid of saying no. I’m afraid
of saying yes. The easy route here is to say no, why because that’s what the mob
wants. Perhaps the more difficult thing is to say that the rationale here is that
we’ve always grandfathered there is fairness in consistency so that’s where we’re
coming from. I don’t think that the board is opposed to saying that we want to
encourage, encourage isn’t mandatory. We’re comfortable encouraging we’re
comfortable even changing the code to require some professional office. We are
trying to build a consensus on the Town Board. You are trying to build a
compromise. You are trying to find a happy medium not everyone is going to be
happy. You got one application that’s in there you either grandfather or you don’t
grandfather it. I go to what have we done in the past? What has Dan Stec done?
Dan Stec said no on changing the rules in the middle of the game on paintball
along with everyone else on the board. Dan Stec said we’re going to grandfather
in two thousand and two just like Dennis Brower, Tim Brewer, and Ted Turner
did. Although, I was still kicking around up in St. Lawrence County in nineteen
eighty-eight previous Town Boards when faced with this they’ve chose to
grandfather. To single someone out and say we’re not going to grandfather now is
the exception not the rule. I don’t have a problem making the change. I think a lot
more of this has been made than needed to be a lot more. We have made a
mountain out of a molehill on this.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Couldn’t agree with you more.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I couldn’t agree with you more either John.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-So let’s move on.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Since I’m hearing everyone that they agree with that. I just
want to say that we need to get this chapter behind us. We’re going to resolve this
not tonight we’re going to resolve this probably in October. Maybe somebody will
change their mind, maybe somebody won’t we’re going to move on we’re going to
set this behind us when we move on. We’re going to get budget done, five fire
company contracts, three rescue squad contracts, and we have a lot of work to do.
When we finish this we need to get on with the rest of the Town’s work. Anyways
that’s all I had to say. The public hearing is still open.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I take it you didn’t change your vote?
SUPERVISOR STEC-No, I haven’t changed my vote. I’m hearing that we want to
wait until the Planning Board gives us their recommendation. I think, I can
venture a guess of what they are going to say. I think we want to wait until our
fifth member is back because I think we are going to need him.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Bob has research to do anyway.
SUPERVISOR STEC-What I would prefer to do is leave the public hearing
opened. Take this up again in October when we’re ready when we have all our
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 287
research done when we find out what this Petition of Protest is about and what it
means for us so that we know whether we’re counting to three or counting to four.
We will look to vote on this sometime in early October, hopefully.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-My only concern is what legally since this is in
limbo the Planning Board shouldn’t even deal with it until we get some
clarifications from them, some guidance from them.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I would second that.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-What do you mean?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Why would you turn this in to a more convoluted
process? If you have a Planning Board that is over burdened, has a lot of work to
do why would you send them something….
COUNCILMAN BREWER-That’s the way the procedure has always been. It is
always set up that way it always gets a recommendation from the Planning Board.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I know that the application is going before the
Planning Board. What I’m saying is maybe we ought to get their recommendation
and then whatever that may be we will take on the application.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-We’re not taking that application on.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-The Planning Board. We’re not the Planning Board
is taking….
SUPERVISOR STEC-We got in trouble before where a Town Board dictated to
the Planning Board.
TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-If they want to do that. It’s not something that the
Town Board can direct them to do. If the Planning Board wants it is within their
power to do so. If they don’t you proceed with the application. That’s up to them
what things they want to rely on before they go through the application.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I guess that’s what I was asking, okay?
TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-Right.
SUPERVISOR STEC-The public hearing will remain open.
PUBLIC HEARING TO REMAIN OPEN
CORRESPONDENCE
DEPUTY CLERK, O’BRIEN-Received E-mail from June Maxam regarding a
court case. (on file in Town Clerk’s Office) Monthly Report for August – Landfill
(on file Town Clerk’s Office) Town Clerk’s August Monthly Report (on file Town
Clerk’s Office)
COUNTY SUPERVISOR MONTHLY REPORT – MICHAEL BARODY
COUNTY SUPERVISOR MICHAEL BARODY, SUPERVISOR VAN
NESS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY KATE HOGAN, YOUTH COURT
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 288
DIRECTOR, DAN BOUCHER, MARGARET SING SMITH, CHRIS
TOWERS, SENIOR AT QUEENSBURY HIGH SCHOOL
Discussion held regarding the Warren County Youth Court Program.
Representatives spoke to the board regarding the program noting it is not a County
run program it is non-profit program. Asked the Town Board for annual funding
of $15,000 to continue this program.
OPEN FORUM
DR. MARK HOFFMAN, 32 FOX HOLLOW LANE-Spoke to the board
Resolution Authorizing Agreement Between Town of Queensbury and Richard
Sears for Wood Yard Waste Disposal concerned that they may be creating a new
entitlement.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Virtually zero money out of the Town.
DR. HOFFMAN-Spoke to the board regarding Resolution Authorizing
Engagement of Stantec Consulting Group concerned with the cavalier attitude of
the person who made the presentation at a Town Board Workshop regarding Route
9 and Aviation Road regarding the bicycle and pedestrian issue.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Is assured that is not a cavalier attitude he has they are going
to make improvements there. Pointed out that it needs to be engineered noting
there is more engineering work to be done. Assured Dr. Hoffman that bicycle and
pedestrian safety will be a key component of that improvement.
DR. HOFFMAN-Spoke to the board regarding Resolution Setting Public Hearing
to Convert All Parkland Recreation Zones. Encouraged the Town Board to
educate the public as well as themselves as to exactly what areas are currently
zoned. If they are ten acre and what would be changed. What areas are currently at
forty-two. It would help the community to have a broad perspective of exactly
what’s being changed to what. It is something that should be visually
demonstrated.
SUPERVISOR STEC-That is why that map is there tonight.
DR. HOFFMAN-Spoke to the board regarding Resolution Authorizing Revisions
to the Queensbury Ethics Law wants to make sure that the independence of this
board is not in anyway infringed.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-It reduces from a unanimous vote of this board to
appointment someone; it reduces that vote down to four.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Spoke to the board noting he had to recluse himself
because he has a complaint he is going to be registering, thought it would be
inappropriate for him to be in the selection process or reappointment process of the
board with which he was going to be submitting an ethics charge.
BETTY MONAHAN-Spoke to the board regarding the Warren County Youth
Court noting that Queensbury is sitting on a good batch of sales tax money not of
all which was paid in by our people. It is time we step up to the plate not just think
of the Youth Court as how it helps the Town of Queensbury, but how it helps the
area. It is time we go back to being a leader in the area and do some things for the
area.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 289
SUPERVISOR STEC-We are trying.
DENNIS BROWER, 33 STONEHURST DRIVE, QUEENSBURY-Spoke to the
board commended them for passing the Resolution Supporting Legislation
Providing for Repeal of Exemption from Tax on Admission Charges at
Amusement or Theme Parks and Urging Governor George Pataki to Sign Such
Legislation assumes the County will have a similar resolution.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Attached to our resolution there is a resolution that we
already moved unanimously. Asked the board to move this resolution
unanimously.
MR. BROWER-Asked what action the board has taken to try to extend coverage of
the TV8 coverage of Town Board Meetings regarding the time limits noting about
three hours into it, it cuts off.
SUPERVISOR STEC-We are only allotted three hours will contact TV8 about
this.
MR. BROWER-Asked who is the sponsor?
SUPERVISOR STEC-We are sponsored for approximately another year by Glens
Falls National Bank.
MR. BROWER-Asked the board to consider extending the time allotted to people
in open forum. Congratulated Marilyn Ryba for her promotion to Executive
Director of Community Development noting she has done an outstanding job.
JOANNE BRAMLEY, TWICWOOD LANE-Spoke to the board as one who
comes and speaks often at these meeting appreciated Mr. Brower’s comments
regarding appreciating the participation of the public noting they all come from the
same position in terms of how much we believe and care. Noted it was extremely
disappointing to hear you refer to the huge number of people that were in this room
tonight from all venues coming to express their concerns about tonight’s issue to
hear you refer to us as the mob.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Apologized that it was interpreted the way it was, it wasn’t
intended that way.
OPEN FORUM CLOSED
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY AND RICHARD SEARS FOR
WOODY YARD WASTE DISPOSAL
RESOLUTION NO.: 439, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, Richard Sears is engaged in the business of tree removal and has expertise
and equipment necessary to process and remove tree stumps, branches and brush, and
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 290
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury wishes to provide its citizens an opportunity to
dispose of tree stumps, branches and brush at a convenient location and reasonable cost, and
WHEREAS, Richard Sears has offered to bring equipment to the Town’s Transfer
Station and chip/shred/grind woody yard waste into wood chips and remove the wood chips from
the Transfer Station, and
WHEREAS, a proposed Agreement between the Town of Queensbury and Richard Sears is
presented at this meeting, such Agreement providing that Town residents shall dispose of woody
yard waste at the Town’s Transfer Station at a cost of $10 per cubic yard, such amount to be divided
equally between Richard Sears and the Town, and
WHEREAS, such an arrangement would provide additional services to Town residents at no
cost to the Town and also provide some revenue for the Town to help toward the cost of operating
the Town’s Transfer Stations,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the Agreement between
the Town of Queensbury and Richard Sears substantially in the form presented at this meeting and
authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Agreement, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor,
Solid Waste Facilities Operator and Budget Officer to take such other and further action as may be
necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES: None
ABSENT :Mr. Turner
DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE:
TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-Made some amendments apparently they didn’t get in the version
that we all got for tonight’s meeting. These comments were to deal with the concerns that Jim
Coughlin raised in his memo. What they would do is in the contract in Paragraph 2, it would add a
sentence, which would become the second sentence that the Town shall not permit commercial
loads of woody yard waste at the Transfer Station.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Asked if it would be more appropriate if it said we will not accept
commercial loads from anybody?
TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-What we have in our contract with him doesn’t relinquish our
control over what we decide will let happen in our Transfer Station.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 291
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Recommended instead of putting permit put we will not accept?
TOWN COUNSEL-To put accept, also to add the words from anyone. Part II, last sentence to be
added. However, Sears is the person you are going to be contracting with shall leave a small pile of
woodchips at the Transfer Station, which the Town will own and make available for Town
residents. It will continue except for such small pile of woodchips Sears won’t store woodchips
there. Our intention was to stop so that he cleans it up and takes it out so that we are not being used
for as storage for a commercial business.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND AUTHORIZING AWARD OF BID FOR
CONTRACT 3B IN CONNECTION WITH CREATION OF
ROUTE 9 SEWER DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO. 440, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 444,2002, the Queensbury Town Board authorized
engagement of C.T. Male Associates, P.C. (C.T. Male) for design, contract administration and
construction observation services in connection with the creation of the Route 9 Sewer District and
by Resolution No.: 113,2003 the Town Board adopted its Final Order approving creation of the
District, and
WHEREAS, C.T. Male prepared bid documents and specifications and by Resolution(s), the
Town Board authorized the advertisement for bids for Contracts 1, 2 and 3A of the Route 9 Sewer
Project and the subsequent award of those bids, and
WHEREAS, C.T. Male prepared bid documents and specifications and the
Town Board authorized an advertisement for bids for Contract 3B which will
provide sewer service along both sides of US Route 9 from the Warren County
Municipal Center north to Farm-to-Market Road (State Route 149) and will also
provide for installation of conduit for pedestrian walk-lighting along the corridor,
and
WHEREAS, the Town Purchasing Agent and C.T. Male duly followed the proper
procedures for bidding such work on behalf of the Town, and
WHEREAS, the Purchasing Agent duly received and opened all bids, and
WHEREAS, C.T. Male, the Deputy Wastewater Director and Purchasing Agent have
recommended that the Town Board authorize awarding of the bid for Contract No. 3B to the
lowest responsible bidder, Kubricky Construction for an amount not to exceed $722,100,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 292
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby accepts and awards the bid for
Contract No. 3B in connection with the creation of the Route 9 Sewer District from the lowest
responsible bidder, Kubricky Construction, for an amount not to exceed $722,100, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to
execute a contract in form acceptable to the Town Supervisor, Deputy Director of Wastewater,
Budget Officer and Town Counsel, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes an additional appropriation of five-
percent (5%) of the amount of the awarded contract for construction contingencies for this
Contract, not to include fees for engineering or inspection services, all such contingency services
to be pre-approved in accordance with the Town’s Purchasing Policy, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that, upon completion of such work, the Town Board further authorizes
that payment of $622,100 for these services shall be paid from the appropriate Route 9 Sewer
District Capital Project #136 Account(s) and that payment of $100,000 shall be paid from the
appropriate lighting district account, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor,
Purchasing Agent, Wastewater Director, Deputy Director of Wastewater, Town Counsel and/or
Budget Officer to take any and all action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 13day of September, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Strough
NOES : None
ABSENT:Mr. Turner
RESOLUTION INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS AND ESTIMATED
REVENUES AND AMENDING 2004 TOWN BUDGET TO
ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE MATERIALS
RESOLUTION NO.: 441, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 293
WHEREAS, there is a need to amend the 2004 Budget to address the additional amount
of drainage materials to be expended for the remainder of the 2004 fiscal year, and
WHEREAS, the Highway Department has requested a budget amendment,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs amendment
of the Town’s 2004 Budget as follows:
1) Increase Estimated Revenues in Account #004-0004-5031 (Interfund Transfers)
by the amount of $10,000; and
2) Increase Appropriations in Account #004-5110-4441 (Drainage – Construction
Materials) by the amount of $10,000; and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further approves, authorizes and directs the Town
Budget Officer to make any necessary adjustments, transfers or prepare any documentation
necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES : None
ABSENT:Mr. Turner
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL
LAW PROHIBITING PARKING ON SECTION OF CARLTON DRIVE
RESOLUTION NO.: 442, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to consider adoption of a Local Law
which would prohibit parking on a section of the east side of Carlton Drive in the Town of
Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, such legislation is authorized in accordance with Town Law, Vehicle and
Traffic Law 1660(18) and the Municipal Home Rule Law, and
§
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 294
WHEREAS, before the Town Board may act on such a Local Law, it must conduct a public
hearing,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall meet and hold a public hearing at the
th
Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury at 7:00 p.m. on October 4, 2004 to
consider the proposed Local Law presented at this meeting, hear all interested persons and take such
action required or authorized by law, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town
Clerk to publish and post the Notice of Public Hearing presented at this meeting in the manner
provided by law.
th
Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT: Mr. Turner
RESOLUTION SETTING HEARING CONCERNING UNSAFE
STRUCTURE ON PROPERTY OWNED BY MARY SMITH LOCATED AT
46 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE (TAX MAP NO.: 309.9-3-24)
RESOLUTION NO. 443, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury’s Director of Building and Codes Enforcement
(Director) has inspected a structure on property owned by Mary Smith located at 46 Rhode Island
Avenue in the Town of Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 309.9-3-24) and has found that the door at the
rear of the vacant structure is fully open to the public and being used by children as a playground,
creating a potential problem within the neighborhood, and therefore the structure is dangerous and
unsafe, and
WHEREAS, the Director has advised Ms. Smith to take appropriate measures to secure the
structure so that there can be no entry into the structure as more specifically set forth in the
th
Director’s August 10, 2004 letter presented at this meeting, and
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 295
WHEREAS, the Director has advised the Queensbury Town Board that in his opinion the
structure is dangerous and unsafe to the general public and therefore would like the Town Board to
take action if the property owner fails to secure the structure, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Queensbury Town Code Chapter 60 and New York State
Town Law §130(16), the Town Board may, by Resolution, determine whether in its opinion a
structure is unsafe and dangerous, and if so, order that notice be served upon the owner or other
persons interested in the property that the structure must be demolished and removed,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that after reviewing the evidence presented at this time, the Queensbury Town
Board hereby determines that the vacant, open structure at 46 Rhode Island Avenue, Queensbury,
New York appears to be dangerous and unsafe to the public, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Director of Building
and Codes Enforcement and/or the Department of Buildings and Grounds to cause the building to
be secured and/or boarded up to prohibit unauthorized entry and authorizes and directs the
expenditure of a sum not to exceed $1,000 from Account No.: 001-3650-4400 for the purpose of
immediately securing the building, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Accounting Office to take all
action necessary to transfer $500 from Account No.: 001-1990-4400 to Account No.: 001-3650-
4400 and amend the 2004 Town Budget accordingly, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board shall hold a hearing concerning this matter on September
th
27, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Director of Building
and Codes Enforcement to serve a notice setting forth its determinations upon the property owner or
her executor, legal representative, agent, lessee or any person having a vested or contingent interest
in the property, the contents, service and filing of the notice to be in accordance with the provisions
of Queensbury Town Code Chapter 60 and New York State Town Law §130(16).
th
Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2004, by the following vote:
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 296
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES: None
ABSENT:Mr. Turner
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PLACEMENT OF PROPOSITIONS ON
BALLOT REGARDING CRANDALL PUBLIC LIBRARY DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO.: 444, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, the Laws of 1992, Chapter 456 authorized the establishment of the Crandall
Public Library District for the City of Glens Falls in Warren County, the Town of Moreau in
Saratoga County and the Town of Queensbury in Warren County, and
WHEREAS, this legislation provides and the Board of Trustees of Crandall Public Library
has authorized that the propositions relating to the Crandall Public Library District be placed on the
nd
ballot at the General Election to be held on November 2, 2004, and
WHEREAS, the propositions to be determined are as follows:
1. Whether the annual budget for 2005 as proposed by the Board of Trustees of the
Crandall Public Library shall be approved or disapproved; and
2. The election of one (1) trustee from the Town of Queensbury to the Crandall Public
Library District Board for a five (5) year term;
and
WHEREAS, the Crandall Public Library Board of Trustees has requested that the Town of
Queensbury adopt a Resolution authorizing placement of these propositions on the ballot of the
nd
November 2, 2004 General Election for the voters' approval or disapproval,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury approves and authorizes the following two (2)
propositions pertaining to the Crandall Public Library District and requests that they be placed on
the ballot in all Town of Queensbury voting locations on the General Election Day, Tuesday,
nd
November 2, 2004:
[1] BUDGET
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 297
The proposed 2005 budget of the Crandall Public Library District is $2,240,598
to be partially funded by the municipalities comprising the District. The share
of the proposed budget to be raised by an ad valorem assessment upon the real
property within the Town of Queensbury is $715,804. Shall the proposed
budget be approved?
[2] TRUSTEES TO BE ELECTED
For one (1) vacancy upon the Board of Trustees of the Crandall Public Library
District representing the Town of Queensbury to serve a term of five (5) years.
Vote for one : Barbara Caimano
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to transmit
a certified copy of the text of the propositions to the Warren County Board of Elections or other
appropriate officials and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the
terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Strough
NOES : None
ABSENT:Mr. Turner
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING LEGISLATION PROVIDING FOR REPEAL
OF EXEMPTION FROM TAX ON ADMISSION CHARGES AT
AMUSEMENT OR THEME PARKS AND URGING GOVERNOR GEORGE
PATAKI TO SIGN SUCH LEGISLATION
RESOLUTION NO.: 445, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: ENTIRE TOWN BOARD
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: ENTIRE TOWN BOARD
WHEREAS, in accordance with a July 2003 ruling by the New York State Department of
Taxation, amusement or theme parks situated at a permanent location were directed to charge sales
tax on the full price of admission, and therefore, The Great Escape Theme Park in the Town of
Queensbury, Warren County, began charging sales tax on the full $33.99 admission price, and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 331.2004, the Queensbury Town Board urged Governor
George Pataki to veto legislation which imposed sales tax charges on only twenty-five percent
(25%) rather than one-hundred percent (100%) of the admission price to any such amusement or
theme park, and
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 298
th
WHEREAS, on July 27, 2004, Governor Pataki signed into law an act to amend the tax
law to provide that sales tax be imposed on only twenty-five percent (25%) of the charge for
admission to an amusement or theme park situated at a permanent location, and
WHEREAS, as a result of the change in this law, Warren County lost seventy-five percent
(75%) of its revenue from this source, and
WHEREAS, new legislation has been introduced and adopted in the New York State
Legislature (Senate Bill S.7697 and Assembly Bill A.11782) which provides for an amendment to
st
the current law, stipulating that the current law shall expire April 1, 2005 so that on such date the
provisions of the act will be deemed repealed and the New York State Department of Taxation and
Finance will have an opportunity to reexamine the taxing structure for amusement businesses, and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 544 of 2004, the Warren County Board of Supervisors, by
unanimous vote, urged Governor Pataki to sign into law Senate Bill S.7697 and Assembly Bill
A.11782, and
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to support such new legislation,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby urges Governor George Pataki to
sign into law Senate Bill S.7697 and Assembly Bill A.11782, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor’s
Office to forward certified copies of this Resolution to the New York State Association of Towns,
Governor George E. Pataki, Senator Elizabeth O’C. Little, the New York State Senate,
Assemblywoman Theresa Sayward and the New York State Assembly, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board, on behalf of all Town of Queensbury
residents, hereby expresses its sincere appreciation to Senator Little and Assemblywoman Sayward
for their continuing efforts to address the concerns and support the needs of the Town of
Queensbury.
th
Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES : None
ABSENT:Mr. Turner
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 299
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING OF
THE FIRST INSTANCE 100% OF FEDERAL AID AND STATE
“MARCHISELLI” PROGRAM-AID ELIGIBLE COSTS OF ROUTES 9
AND 254 IMPROVEMENTS CAPITAL PROJECT AND APPROPRIATING
FUNDS FOR SUCH CAPITAL PROJECT
RESOLUTION NO.: 446, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 69,2003, the Queensbury Town Board authorized
establishment of the Routes 9 and 254 Traffic Improvements Capital Project and establishment
of the Routes 9 and 254 Traffic Improvements Capital Project Fund #137 to fund expenses
associated with the Project, and
WHEREAS, such Capital Project for the Routes 9 and 254 area congestion
improvements, Town of Queensbury P.I.N. 1753.82 (the “Project”), is eligible for funding under
Title 23 U.S. Code, as amended, that calls for the apportionment of the costs of such program to
be borne at the ratio of 80% Federal funds and 20% non-federal funds, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury wishes to advance the Project by making a
commitment of 100% of the non-federal share of the costs of preliminary engineering,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby reaffirms and authorizes its
establishment of the Routes 9 and 254 Traffic Improvements Capital Project, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Budget
Officer to pay in the first instance 100% of the federal and non-federal share of the cost of
preliminary engineering work for the Project or portions of the Project, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the sum of one-hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) has already been
appropriated from Fund #64 – Capital Reserve Fundand made available to cover the cost of
participation in the above phase of the Project, and
BE IT FURTHER,
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 300
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby appropriates and makes available the
additional sum of one-hundred twenty-four thousand dollars ($124,000) from Fund #64 to cover
the additional cost of participation in the preliminary engineering phase of the Project, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that in the event that the full federal and non-federal share costs of the
Project exceeds the amount appropriated above, the Queensbury Town Board shall convene as
soon as possible to appropriate such excess amount immediately upon the notification by the
New York State Department of Transportation, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED that the Queensbury Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town
Supervisor and/or Executive Director of Community Development to execute all necessary
Agreements, certifications or reimbursement requests for Federal Aid and/or Marchiselli Aid on
behalf of the Town of Queensbury with the New York State Department of Transportation in
connection with the advancement or approval of the Project and providing for the administration of
the Project and the Town’s first instance funding of Project costs and permanent funding of the local
share of federal aid and state-aid eligible Project costs and all Project costs within appropriations
therefore that are not so eligible, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Executive Director
of Community Development to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the New York State
Commissioner of Transportation by attaching it to any necessary agreement in connection with
the Project, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor
and/or Executive Director of Community Development to take all action necessary to effectuate
all terms of this Resolution, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall take effect immediately.
th
Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 301
ABSENT :Mr. Turner
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF STANTEC
CONSULTING GROUP, INC., TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES CONCERNING ROUTES 9 AND 254
TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS CAPITAL PROJECT
RESOLUTION NO.: 447, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 69,2003, the Queensbury Town Board authorized
establishment of the Routes 9 and 254 Traffic Improvements Capital Project and establishment
of the Routes 9 and 254 Traffic Improvements Capital Project Fund #137 to fund expenses
associated with the Project, and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 71.2003, the Queensbury Town Board authorized
engagement of Sear Brown for engineering services in connection with the Project and the
engineering services authorized by such Resolution have been completed, and
WHEREAS, the Town’s Executive Director of Community Development has
recommended that the Town Board engage Stantec Consulting Group, Inc., (Stantec), formerly
known as Sear Brown, to provide the necessary additional engineering services in connection
with the Project, and
WHEREAS, Stantec has offered to provide these services for an amount of $121,022
th
with a maximum amount payable of $124,000 as delineated in Stantec’s letter of June 25, 2004
and Stantec’s proposed Architectural/Engineering Consultant Agreement presented at this
meeting,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the
engagement of Stantec Consulting Group, Inc., for additional engineering services in connection
with the Routes 9 and 254 Traffic Improvements Capital Project for an amount of $121,022 with
a maximum amount payable of $124,000 to be paid for from Capital Project Fund #137, such
Fund to be reimbursed by federal and non-federal funds, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Budget
Officer to take all action necessary to amend the budget of Capital Project #137 to reflect the
additional appropriations and estimated revenue of $124,000, and
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 302
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to
execute the Architectural/Engineering Consultant Agreement between the Town and Stantec
presented at this meeting as well as any other necessary documentation, and authorizes and
directs the Executive Director of Community Development, Budget Officer and/or Town
Supervisor to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of
this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2004 by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES : None
ABSENT: Mr. Turner
RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2004 BUDGET
RESOLUTION NO.: 448, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, the attached Budget Amendment Requests have been duly initiated and
justified and are deemed compliant with Town operating procedures and accounting practices by the
Town Budget Officer,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town
Budget Officer’s Office to take all action necessary to transfer funds and amend the 2004 Town
Budget as follows:
HIGHWAY
FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT:
01-8540-2899 01-9901-9004 10,000.
(Capital Construction) (Transfer to Highway)
th
Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Strough
NOES : None
ABSENT:Mr. Turner
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 303
RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS –
TH
ABSTRACT OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2004
RESOLUTION NO.: 449, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve the audit of bills presented as
th
the Abstract with a run date of September 9, 2004,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Abstract with a run
th
date of September 9, 2004 numbering 24-392800 through 24-415000 and totaling $537,966.16,
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Budget Officer and/or
Town Supervisor to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of
this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES : None
ABSENT:Mr. Turner
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.: 329.2004 REGARDING
HIRING OF TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE IN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
RESOLUTION NO.: 450, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 329.2004 the Queensbury Town Board authorized the
hiring of a temporary employee through Heber Associates to work in the Community Development
ndth
Department from approximately June 22, 2004 through August 6, 2004 or until such time as the
Department’s Office Specialist returned to work, and
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 304
WHEREAS, the Executive Director of Community Development has advised that although
the Office Specialist has returned to work, the Community Development Department remains
understaffed due to, among other things, the unexpected medical leave of the other Office Specialist
in the Department and the vacant Senior Planner position created when the Town Board appointed
the former Senior Planner as the Executive Director of Community Development, and
WHEREAS, the Executive Director has requested that the Town Board amend Resolution
329.2004 such that the temporary employee may remain working at the Town for such time as will
nd
be determined necessary by the Executive Director or through December 22, 2004, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to amend Resolution No. 329.2004 accordingly,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby amends Resolution No.: 329.2004
such that the temporary employee hired through Heber Associates to work in the Community
Development Department is authorized to continue working for such time as will be determined
nd
necessary by the Executive Director or through December 22, 2004, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby affirms and ratifies Resolution No.: 329.2004 in
all other respects.
th
Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT:Mr. Turner
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL
LAW NO. __ OF 2004 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE
CHAPTER 179 “ZONING” TO CONVERT ALL PARKLAND/
RECREATION ZONES – TEN ACRES (PR-10) TO PARKLAND/
RECREATION ZONES – FORTY-TWO ACRES (PR-42)
RESOLUTION NO. 451, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: __ of 2004 to
amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179 entitled “Zoning,” to convert all Parkland/Recreation –
Ten Acre Zones (PR-10) to Parkland/Recreation – Forty-Two Acre Zones (PR-42), and
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 305
WHEREAS, this legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State Municipal
Home Rule Law §10 and Town Law Article 16, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to set a public hearing concerning adoption of this
Local Law,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall meet and hold a public hearing at the
th
Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury at 7:00 p.m. on October 4, 2004 to hear
all interested persons and take any necessary action provided by law concerning proposed Local
Law No.: ___ of 2004, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town
Clerk to publish and post a Notice of Public Hearing concerning proposed Local Law No. __ of
2004 in the manner provided by law and send the Notice of Public Hearing to the Clerk of the
Warren County Board of Supervisors, Warren County Planning Board, Town of Queensbury
Planning Board and other communities or agencies that it is necessary to give written notice to in
accordance with New York State Town Law §265, the Town’s Zoning Regulations and the Laws
of the State of New York, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby refers such proposed Local Law to the Warren
County Planning Board and the Queensbury Planning Board for their advisory recommendations
in accordance with General Municipal Law §239-m and directs the Community Development
Department to take all actions necessary to effect such referrals, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby indicates its wish to be Lead Agency for SEQRA
review of this project and directs the Department of Community Development to notify any other
involved agencies, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board intends to conduct SEQRA review of the proposed
th
Local Law after the public hearing at its October 4, 2004 meeting.
th
Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 306
NOES : None
ABSENT:Mr. Turner
ORDER SETTING PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING PROPOSED
EXTENSION TO QUEENSBURY CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT -
BLACKBERRY CIRCLE SUBDIVISION EXTENSION
RESOLUTION NO.: 452, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury wishes to extend the Queensbury Consolidated
Water District to include the proposed Blackberry Circle Subdivision and one existing residence
adjacent to the proposed Subdivision in accordance with New York Town Law Article 12-A, and
WHEREAS, a Map, Plan and Report (the “Map, Plan and Report”) has been prepared by
Nace Engineering, P.C., professional engineers, concerning the proposed water district extension
to connect the proposed Subdivision to the existing Queensbury Consolidated Water District
water main recently installed along Blind Rock Road, as more specifically set forth and
described in the Map, Plan and Report, and
WHEREAS, the Map, Plan and Report has been filed in the Queensbury Town Clerk's
Office and is available for public inspection, and
WHEREAS, the Map, Plan and Report delineates the boundaries of the
proposed water district extension, a general plan of the proposed system, a report
of the proposed method of operation, the source of water supply and mode of
constructing the proposed water district extension improvements, and
WHEREAS, the Map, Plan and Report included Part I of a Full Environmental
Assessment Form and a coordinated SEQRA review with the Queensbury Town Board as lead
agency is desired,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED:
1. The boundaries of the proposed Water District are as follows:
All that certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the Town of Queensbury,
County of Warren and the State of New York, more particularly bounded and described as
BEGINNING
follows: at a point in the northwesterly bounds of Blind Rock Road at the
southeast corner of lands now or formerly of DelSignore, being also the southeast corner of Lot
10 as shown on a map of Blind Rock Road Estates Subdivision by Coulter and McCormack,
dated July 19, 1965 and revised through August 1, 1972; running thence along said Blind Rock
Road, the following two courses and distances:
(1) South 43 degrees, 08 minutes and 00 seconds West, a distance of 247.43 feet;
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 307
(2) South 34 degrees, 14 minutes and 50 seconds West, a distance of 481.98 feet to the northeast
corner of the lands of Michael Hayes; thence running North 84 degrees, 31 minutes and 50
seconds West, along the northerly bounds of said lands of Hayes, a distance of 300.05 feet to the
northwesterly corner thereof; thence running South 34 degrees, 15 minutes and 20 seconds West,
along the westerly bounds thereof and the westerly bounds of lands now or formerly of Mancinin,
a distance of 200.05 feet to the northeast corner of lands now or formerly of Leland; thence
running along the northerly bounds of the same, North 84 degrees, 32 minutes and 17 seconds
West, along said lands and along the lands now or formerly of Eich, a total distance of 258.50
feet to a point in the easterly bounds of the Glens Falls Country Club; thence running along the
same, North 06 degrees, 42 minutes and 58 seconds East, a distance of 256.94 feet to the
northeasterly corner thereof and the southeasterly corner of lands now or formerly of Swan;
thence running along said lands of Swan, the following two courses and distances:
(1) North 06 degrees, 50 minutes and 58 seconds East, a distance of 552.62 feet;
(2) South 82 degrees, 15 minutes and 48 seconds West, a distance of 516.00 feet to a point in the
center line of Mannis Road; thence running along the center of Mannis Road, the following two
courses and distances:
(1) North 38 degrees, 42 minutes and 32 seconds West, a distance of 95.00 feet;
(2) North 50 degrees, 30 minutes and 32 seconds West, a distance of 50.08 feet to the
southeasterly corner of the lands now or formerly of Tipano; thence running along said lands
North 46 degrees, 25 minutes and 14 seconds East, a distance of 955.14 feet to the
northeasterly corner thereof and the northwest corner of lands now or formerly of Williams;
thence running along said lands of Williams the following three courses and distances:
(1) South 06 degrees, 46 minutes and 30 seconds West, a distance of 592.02 feet;
(2) South 38 degrees, 32 minutes and 40 seconds East, a distance of 151.63 feet;
(3) South 83 degrees, 51 minutes and 50 seconds East, a distance of 200.00 feet to the
southeasterly corner of lands of Williams and the southwest corner of Lot 7 as shown on said
map of Blind Rock Road Estates; thence running along said Lot 7, South 83 degrees, 33
minutes and 30 seconds East, a distance of 200.02 feet to the southeasterly corner thereof;
thence running North 05 degrees, 30 minutes and 00 seconds East, along the easterly bounds
thereof, a distance of 83.61 feet to the southwesterly end of Blackberry Lane; thence crossing
the end of said Blackberry Lane, South 84 degrees, 30 minutes and 00 seconds East, a
distance of 50.00 feet to the westerly bounds of Lot 8 as shown on said map of Blind Rock
Road Estates; thence running South 05 degrees, 30 minutes and 00 seconds West, a distance
of 84.43 feet to the southwest corner of said Lot 8; thence running South 83 degrees, 33
minutes and 30 seconds East, along the southerly bounds of said Blind Rock Road Estates
Subdivision, a total distance of 461.48 feet to the point and place of beginning, containing
18.88 acres of land to be the same more or less.
Bearings given in the above description refer to magnetic North.
SUBJECT to easements of record.
2. The proposed improvements are a new 6” diameter water main to be connected to
the 12” District water main recently installed along Blind Rock Road and running along an
easement to the end of the proposed Blackberry Circle Road cul-de-sac and from there along
Blackberry Circle Road to the northern boundary of the proposed Subdivision where Blackberry
Circle Road will intersect with Blackberry Lane. At that point the new pipe will be capped to
allow for future extension and a hydrant will be installed for fire protection and flushing of the
line.
3. The maximum amount proposed to be expended for such improvements is
approximately $14,860. The improvement costs for the proposed extension are specifically
delineated in the Map, Plan and Report.
4. The developer of the proposed Blackberry Circle Subdivision will pay all costs of
the improvements so there will be no debt service costs to the District. The average estimated
annual cost of the District Extension to each single family home for operation and maintenance
and other charges (assuming an average water usage) is $691.00 and the median estimated
annual cost to each single family home is $660.50. As the homes have not yet been constructed
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 308
or even designed, there is no “typical property” or “ typical one family home” (which would be
the typical property). There will be no hook-up fees and the cost to construct a water service
connection from the new 6” water main to the structure and purchase and install a water meter
would be included in the total cost of each home.
5. A detailed explanation of how the estimated costs of the District Extension were
computed is included in the Map, Plan and Report which has been filed with the Queensbury
Town Clerk and is available for public inspection.
6. The developer of the proposed Blackberry Circle Subdivision will pay all costs of
the improvements so there will be no financing required by the Town on behalf of the District.
7. The proposed improvements shall be constructed and installed as specifically
delineated in the Map, Plan and Report and in full accordance with the Town of Queensbury's
specifications, ordinances or local laws, and any State laws or regulations, and in accordance
with approved plans and specifications and under competent engineering supervision.
8. In accordance with Town Law §206-a, all future expenses of the Queensbury
Consolidated Water District, including all extensions heretofore or hereafter established, shall be
a charge against the entire area of the District as extended.
9. The Town Board shall meet and hold a public hearing at the Queensbury
th
Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, October 18, 2004 to
consider the Map, Plan and Report and to hear all persons interested in the proposal and to take
such other and further action as may be required or authorized by law.
10. The Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Community
Development Department to send a copy of the Part I of the Environmental
Assessment Form and a copy of the Map, Plan and Report to all potentially
involved agencies, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation and the New York State Department of Health together with all
documentation required to be sent along with a letter indicating that the Town
Board will be undertaking consideration of the project identified in this Resolution,
that a coordinated SEQRA review with the Queensbury Town Board as lead
agency is desired and that a lead agency must be agreed upon within 30 days.
11. The Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Community Development
Department to prepare a report on any environmental impacts that should be considered at the
time the SEQRA review is conducted.
12. The Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to
duly publish and post this Order not less than ten (10) days nor more than twenty (20) days
before the public hearing date, as required by Town Law §209-d, and complete or arrange for the
securing of two (2) Affidavits of Publication of Notice and two (2) Affidavits of Posting of
Notice of the Public Hearing required hereby and to file a certified copy of this Order with the
State Comptroller on or about the date of publication.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 309
th
Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Strough
NOES : None
ABSENT:Mr. Turner
ORDER SETTING PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING PROPOSED
INCREASE IN MAXIMUM AMOUNT TO BE EXPENDED
FOR ROUTE 9 SEWER DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO. 453, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, a District Formation Report (Map, Plan and Report) was prepared by C. T.
Male Associates, P.C., professional engineers, concerning the formation of the Route 9 Sewer
District and the construction of sewer facilities along both sides of Route 9 from Weeks Road up
to State Route 149, such area including The Great Escape Theme Park, its proposed hotel and
conference center, as well as the Warren County Municipal Center, the Factory Outlet Stores and
all other properties bordering Route 9, as more specifically set forth and described in the Map,
Plan and Report, and
WHEREAS, the Map, Plan and Report was duly filed in the Queensbury Town Clerk's
Office and made available for public inspection, and
WHEREAS, the Map, Plan and Report included (a) the boundaries of the proposed Sewer
District, (b) a general plan of the proposed sewer system, (c) a report of the proposed method of
operation, and (d) all outlets and the terminus and course of each proposed main sewer or drain
together with the location and a general description of all sewage disposal plants, pumping
stations and other public works, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board was duly designated lead agency for SEQRA review of the
project and determined that the project would not have a significant adverse effect on the
environment and a Negative Declaration was made, and
WHEREAS, the estimated annual cost to the “typical property” was filed with the Town
Clerk and made a part of the Map, Plan and Report, and
WHEREAS, on September 10, 2001 subsequent to the filing of the Map, Plan and Report
with the Town Clerk, the Town Board adopted an Order (the “Public Hearing Order”) reciting
(a) the boundaries of the proposed Sewer District; (b) the proposed improvements; (c) the
maximum amount proposed to be expended for the improvements; (d) the estimated cost of
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 310
hook-up fees (if any) and the cost of the Sewer District to the typical property and the typical one
or two family home (if not the typical property); (e) the proposed method of financing to be
employed; (f) the fact that a Map, Plan and Report describing the improvements is on file in the
Town Clerk’s Office; and (g) the time and place of a public hearing on the proposed Sewer
District, and
WHEREAS, copies of the Public Hearing Order were duly published and posted and
were filed with the Office of the State Comptroller, all as required by law, and
WHEREAS, prior to publication of the Public Hearing Order, a detailed explanation of
how the estimated cost of hook-up fees (if any) and the cost of the Sewer District to the typical
property and typical one or two family home (if not the typical property) were computed was
filed with the Town Clerk for public inspection, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed Sewer District was duly held on October 1,
2001 and the Town Board considered the evidence given together with other information, and
WHEREAS, Edward V. Curtin, Consulting Archaeologist, performed Phase 1 and Phase
2 Archaeological Surveys concerning the proposed Sewer District and has advised that as a result
of the Phase 2 Survey, no significant archaeological or cultural resources would be affected by
the construction of the proposed Sewer District, and
,
WHEREASon November 4, 2002, by Resolution No.: 443,2003, the Queensbury Town
Board determined that (a) the notice of public hearing was published and posted as required by
law and was otherwise sufficient, (b) all of the property and property owners within the proposed
District would be benefited thereby, (c) all of the property and property owners benefited are
included within the boundaries of the proposed District and (d) the establishment of the Sewer
District as therein described is in the public interest, and approved the establishment of the Sewer
District as the boundaries are set forth in the Map, Plan and Report, subject to permissive
referendum in the manner provided in Town Law Article 7; and
,
WHEREAS the Town Clerk duly posted and published the notice required for
Resolutions subject to permissive referendum and no such petition was filed within 30 days after
the date of the Resolution, and the Town Clerk caused a certificate to that effect to be filed in the
office of the County Clerk; and
WHEREAS, the estimated annual cost to the typical property is below the average
estimated cost threshold computed and provided by the New York State Comptroller’s Office, so
the approval of the State Comptroller’s Office was not required for establishment of the proposed
Sewer District, and
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2002 the Town adopted a Final Order creating the District,
and
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 311
WHEREAS, due to additional and unanticipated engineering and constructions costs,
among other things, the cost of the proposed District improvements will be $543,000 more than
originally estimated and there is a possibility of a relatively small additional increase, and
WHEREAS, the Town has received a grant from the Economic Development
Administration in the amount of $910,000 (the “Grant”) to pay a portion of the cost of the
improvements, which grant was not anticipated at the time of formation of the District and
calculation of the cost to the typical property and typical single family home; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to increase the maximum amount authorized to be
expended for the District improvements in accordance with Town Law Section 209-h;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED:
1. The boundaries of the Sewer District are set forth in Exhibit A hereto.
2. The improvements are described in Exhibit B hereto.
3. The maximum amount proposed to be expended for such improvements is
increased from $5,170,000 to $5,847,191.
4. The estimated annual cost of the District for debt service and operation and
maintenance costs to a typical property will not change as established in Town Board Resolution
No.: 113,2003. The estimated annual cost to the typical property is below the average estimated
cost threshold computed and provided by the New York State Comptroller’s Office so approval
of the State Comptroller’s Office is not required for this increase in the maximum amount
§
authorized under Town Law 209-h. There would be no actual hook-up fees. The cost to retain
a private contractor to install a new collection sewer system and/or sewer lateral between a
building and the main Project sewer lines vary significantly depending on the individual
conditions including distance from the line and various subsurface conditions. Typical sewer
lateral installation costs have been at least several thousand dollars; it is impossible to generalize
the costs for collections sewer systems.
5. A detailed explanation of how the estimated costs of the District Extension were
computed is included in the Map, Plan and Report which was filed with the Queensbury Town
Clerk and is available for public inspection.
6. The proposed method of financing the total cost of the Project includes the
following:
A. Economic Development Administration grant in the amount of $910,000; and
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 312
B. issuance of $4,937,191 Town of Queensbury E.F.C. Municipal Water Pollution
Control Facility Note – 2003-A (Route 9 Sewer District Project, 2003).
7. The proposed improvements shall be constructed and installed as specifically
delineated in the Map, Plan and Report and in full accordance with the Town of Queensbury's
specifications, ordinances or local laws, and any State laws or regulations, and in accordance
with approved plans and specifications and under competent engineering supervision.
8. In accordance with Town Law §206-a, all future expenses of the Route 9 Sewer
District, including all extensions heretofore or hereafter established, shall be a charge against the
entire area of the District as extended.
9. The Town Board shall meet and hold a public hearing at the Queensbury
th
Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, September 27, 2004 to
hear all persons interested in the increase of the maximum amount to be expended for the Sewer
District and to take such other and further action as may be required or authorized by law.
10. The Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to
duly publish and post this Order not less than ten (10) days nor more than twenty (20) days
before the public hearing date, as required by Town Law §209-d, and complete or arrange for the
securing of two (2) Affidavits of Publication of Notice and two (2) Affidavits of Posting of
Notice of the Public Hearing required hereby and to file a certified copy of this Order with the
State Comptroller on or about the date of publication.
th
Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2004 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES: None
ABSENT:Mr. Turner
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ROUTE 9 SEWER DISTRICT
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, COUNTY OF WARREN, STATE OF NEW YORK
All that certain tract, piece or parcel of land situate lying and being in the Town of Queensbury,
County of Warren, State of New York, lying along U.S. Route 9 generally Easterly of the Adirondack
Northway and Northerly of Weeks Road and being more particularly bounded and described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point at the intersection of the Southerly boundary of the Town of Queensbury,
County of Warren, Tax Map Section No. 71, Block No. 1, Parcel No. 2 with the Westerly boundary of
said tax map parcel and runs thence from said point of beginning along the Westerly boundary of Tax
±
Map Parcel No. 71-1-2, a distance of 920 feet to its intersection with the Southerly boundary of Weeks
Road; thence in a Westerly direction along the Southerly street boundary 150± feet to its intersection with
the Westerly boundary of Weeks Road; thence in a Northerly direction along the said Westerly street
boundary 110± feet to its intersection with the Northerly boundary of Weeks Road; thence in a generally
Easterly direction along the Northerly boundary of Weeks Road 1,420± feet to its intersection with the
Westerly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No.: 70-1-8; thence in a generally Northerly direction along the
Westerly boundary of said tax map parcel 880± feet to its intersection with the Southerly boundary of Tax
Map Parcel No.: 73-1-13; thence in a generally Westerly direction along the Southerly boundary of said
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 313
tax map parcel 1,040± feet to its intersection with the Westerly boundary of said Tax Map Parcel No. 73-
1-13; thence in a generally Northerly direction along the Westerly boundary of said tax map parcel 690±
feet to its intersection with the Southerly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No.: 73-1-11.3; thence in a
generally Westerly direction along the Southerly boundary of said tax map parcel and the Southerly
boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 73-1-8.1, a distance of 520± feet to its intersection with the Easterly
boundary of the Adirondack Northway (I-87); thence in a generally Northerly direction along the
generally Easterly boundary of the Adirondack Northway (I-87), a distance of 9,290± feet to its
intersection with the Southerly boundary of Gurney Lane; thence in a generally Easterly direction along
the Southerly boundary of Gurney Lane and its Easterly projection crossing U.S. Route 9, a distance of
520± feet to a point on the Easterly boundary of U.S. Route 9; thence in a generally Northerly direction
along the Easterly boundary of U.S. Route 9, a distance of 1,555± feet to its intersection with the Easterly
projection of the Northerly boundary of the Adirondack Northway I-87 (Exit 20); thence in a generally
Westerly direction along the said Easterly projection crossing U.S. Route 9 and along the said Northerly
boundary of the Adirondack Northway I-87, a distance of 460± feet to its intersection with the Easterly
boundary of said Adirondack Northway I-87; thence in a generally Northerly direction along the Easterly
boundary of said highway 2,390± feet to its intersection with the Northerly boundary of Tax Map Parcel
No. 34-1-10; thence in a generally Easterly direction along the Northerly boundary of said tax map parcel
640± feet to its intersection with the Westerly boundary of U.S. Route 9; thence in a generally Southerly
direction along the Westerly boundary of U.S. Route 9, a distance of 230± feet to its intersection with the
Westerly projection of the Southerly boundary of Farm-to-Market Road (NYS Route 149); thence in a
generally Easterly direction along said projection, crossing U.S. Route 9 and along the Southerly
boundary of said Farm-to-Market Road (NYS Route 149), a distance of 290± feet to its intersection with
the Easterly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 36-1-35; thence in a generally Southerly direction along the
Easterly boundary of said tax map parcel, a distance of 310± feet to its intersection with the Northerly
boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 36-1-34.2; thence in a generally Easterly direction along the Northerly
boundary of said tax map parcel and the Northerly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 36-1-34.3, a distance
of 470± feet to its intersection with the Easterly boundary of said Tax Map Parcel No. 36-1-34.3; thence
in a generally Southerly direction along the Easterly boundary of said Tax Map Parcel No. 36-1-34.3, a
distance of 280± feet to its intersection with the Southerly boundary of said map parcel; thence in a
generally Westerly direction along the Southerly boundary of said tax map parcel 400± feet to its
intersection with the Southeasterly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 36-1-33.2; thence in a generally
Southwesterly direction along the Southeasterly boundary of said tax map parcel 330± feet to a point;
thence in a generally Easterly direction through Tax Map Parcel No. 36-1-27.1, a distance of 90± feet to a
point, said point being the Northeasterly corner of Tax Map Parcel No. 36-1-31; thence in a generally
Southerly direction along the Easterly boundary of said Tax Map Parcel No. 36-1-31, a distance of 340±
feet to its intersection with the Southerly boundary of said tax map parcel; thence in a generally Westerly
direction along the Southerly boundary of said tax map parcel 50± feet to its intersection with the Easterly
boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 36-1-29; thence in a generally Southerly direction along the Easterly
boundary of said tax map parcel 400± to its intersection with the Southerly boundary of said Tax Map
Parcel No. 36-1-29; thence in a generally Westerly direction along the Southerly boundary of said tax
map parcel and the Southerly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 36-1-28, a distance of 210± feet to its
intersection with the Easterly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 36-1-27; thence in a generally Southerly
direction along the Easterly boundary of said tax map parcel 290± feet to its intersection with the
Northerly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 36-1-26; thence in a generally Easterly direction along the
Northerly boundary of said tax map parcel 210± feet to its intersection with the Easterly boundary of said
tax map parcel; thence in a generally Southerly direction along the Easterly boundary of said tax map
parcel 130± feet to its intersection with the Southerly boundary of said tax map parcel; thence in a
generally Westerly direction along the Southerly boundary of said tax map parcel 390± feet to its
intersection with the Southeasterly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 36-1-25; thence in a generally
Southwesterly direction along the Southeasterly boundary of said tax map parcel, a distance of 230± feet
to its intersection with the Northerly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 36-1-24; thence in a generally
Easterly direction along the Northerly boundary of said tax map parcel 480± feet to its intersection with
the Easterly boundary of said tax map parcel; thence in a generally Southerly direction along the Easterly
boundary of said tax map parcel 2,230± feet to its intersection with the Northerly boundary of Glen Lake
Road; thence in a generally Westerly direction along the Northerly boundary of Glen Lake Road 880±
feet to its intersection with the Northerly projection of the Easterly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 36-2-
11; thence in a generally Southerly direction crossing Glen Lake Road along said projection and along the
Easterly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 36-2-11, a distance of 880± feet to its intersection with the
Westerly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 36-2-3.1; thence in a generally Northerly direction along the
Easterly boundary of said tax map parcel 650± feet to its intersection with the Southerly boundary of Tax
Map Parcel No. 36-2-13; thence in a generally Easterly direction along the Southerly boundary of said tax
map parcel 117± feet to its intersection with the Easterly boundary of said tax map parcel; thence in a
generally Northerly direction along the Easterly boundary of said tax map parcel 150± feet to its
intersection with the Southerly boundary of Glen Lake Road; thence in a generally Easterly direction
along the Southerly boundary of said road 210± feet to its intersection with the Westerly boundary of Tax
Map Parcel No. 36-2-15; thence in a generally Southerly direction along the Westerly boundary of said
tax map parcel 150± to its intersection with the Southerly boundary of said tax map parcel; thence in a
generally Easterly direction along the Southerly boundary of said tax map parcel and the Southerly
boundary of Tax Map Parcel Nos. 36-2-16 and 36-2-17, a distance of 320± to its intersection with the
Easterly boundary of said Tax Map Parcel No. 36-2-17; thence in a generally Northerly direction along
the Easterly boundary of said tax map parcel 150± feet to its intersection with the Southerly boundary of
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 314
Glen Lake Road; thence in a generally Easterly and Northeasterly direction along the Southerly and
Southeasterly boundary of Glen Lake Road 2,550± feet to its intersection with the Southwesterly
boundary of Ash Drive; thence in a generally Southeasterly direction along the Southwesterly boundary
of Ash Drive 1,550± feet to its intersection with the Westerly boundary of the Niagara Mohawk Power
Corporation right-of-way; thence in a generally Southerly direction along the Westerly boundary of lands
now or formerly of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 750± feet to its intersection with the Northerly
boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 36-2-4.1; thence in a generally Westerly direction along the Northerly
boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 36-2-4.1, a distance of 900± feet to its intersection with the Westerly
boundary of said tax map parcel; thence in a generally Southerly direction along the Westerly boundary of
Tax Map Parcel No. 36-2-4.1, a distance of 1,120± feet to its intersection with the Southerly boundary of
said tax map parcel; thence in a generally Easterly direction along the Southerly boundary of said tax map
parcel 940± feet to its intersection with the Easterly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 36-2-3.1; thence in
a generally Southerly direction along the Easterly boundary of said tax map parcel 1,300± feet to its
intersection with the Northerly boundary of Round Pond Road; thence in a generally Westerly direction
along the Northerly boundary of Round Pond Road 1,270± feet to its intersection with the northwesterly
projection of the Northeasterly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 67-2-1.3; thence in a generally
Southeasterly direction along said projection crossing Round Pond Road and along the Northeasterly
boundary of Tax Map Parcel Nos. 67-2-1.3, 67-2-1.2, 68-1-2 and 68-1-15, a distance of 2,060± feet to its
intersection with the Southerly boundary of said Tax Map Parcel No. 68-1-15; thence in a generally
Southwesterly direction along the Southeasterly boundary of said tax map parcel and Tax Map Parcel No.
68-1-13.1, a distance of 260± feet to its intersection with the Northwesterly projection of the
Northeasterly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 68-1-10; thence through Tax Map Parcel No. 68-1-11
along said projection and along the Northeasterly boundary of Tax Map Parcels Nos. 68-1-10 and 68-1-9
crossing Montray Road, continuing along the Northeasterly boundary of Tax Map Parcel Nos. 69-1-1, 69-
1-29, 69-1-28, 69-1-27, 69-1-26, 69-1-25, 69-1-24, 69-1-20, 69-1-18 and 69-1-17 crossing Kendrick Road
and along the Northeasterly boundary of Tax Map Parcel Nos. 70-2-1, 70-2-2, 70-2-3 and a portion of 70-
2-4, a distance of 2,170 ± feet to its intersection with the Northwesterly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No.
70-2-4; thence in a generally Northeasterly direction along the Northwesterly boundary of said tax map
parcel 160± feet to its intersection with the Easterly boundary of said tax map parcel; thence in a
generally Southerly direction along the Easterly boundary of said Tax Map Parcel No. 70-2-4, a distance
of 180± feet to its intersection with the Southerly boundary of said tax map parcel; thence in a generally
Westerly direction along the Southerly boundary of said tax map parcel 150± feet to intersection with the
Easterly boundary of said tax map parcel; thence in a generally Southerly direction along the Easterly
boundary of said tax map parcel and the Easterly boundary of Tax Map Parcel Nos. 70-2-6, 70-2-8 and
70-2-10, a distance 450± feet to its intersection with the Southerly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 70-2-
10; thence in a generally Westerly direction along the Southerly boundary of said tax map parcel 65 ± feet
to its intersection with the Easterly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 70-2-11; thence in a generally
Southerly direction along the Easterly boundary of said tax map parcel 120± feet to its intersection with
the Northerly boundary of Sweet Road; thence in a generally Easterly direction along the Northerly
boundary of said road 110± feet to its intersection with the Northerly projection of the Easterly boundary
of Tax Map Parcel No. 71-2-1; thence in a generally Southerly direction crossing Sweet Road along said
projection and along the Easterly boundary of said Tax Map Parcel No. 71-2-1, a distance of 150± feet to
its intersection with the Southerly boundary of said tax map parcel; thence in a generally Westerly
direction along the Southerly boundary of said tax map parcel 230± feet to its intersection with the
Easterly boundary of U.S. Route 9; thence from the generally Southwesterly direction crossing U.S.
Route 9, a distance of 190± feet to a point, said point being at the intersection of the Northerly boundary
of Weeks Road with the Westerly boundary of U.S. Route 9; thence in a generally Southerly direction
along the Westerly boundary of U.S. Route 9, a distance of 170± feet to its intersection with the Southerly
boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 71-1-4; thence in a generally Westerly direction along the Southerly
boundary of said tax map parcel 380± feet to its intersection with the Westerly boundary of said Tax Map
Parcel No. 71-1-4; thence in a generally Northerly direction along the Westerly boundary of said tax map
parcel 120± feet to its intersection with the Southerly boundary of Weeks Road; thence in a generally
Westerly direction along the Southerly boundary of Weeks Road 540± feet to its intersection with the
Easterly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 71-1-2; thence in a generally Southerly direction along the
Easterly boundary of said tax map parcel, a distance of 930± feet to its intersection with the Southerly
boundary of said Tax Map Parcel No. 71-1-2; thence in a generally Westerly direction along the
Southerly boundary of said tax map parcel, a distance of 700± feet to the point or place of beginning.
EXHIBIT B
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Currently, properties within the proposed district dispose of their waste through the use of
subsurface disposal systems. These properties employ such disposal methods as septic systems
and injection wells. The impact of these systems to date has been mainly to limit the
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 315
development of individual parcels. As development continues, water quality may be adversely
impacted.
This project proposal is for the installation of a new sanitary sewage system which will
collect the wastewater flow generated by these properties and transport the flow to the Glens
Falls sewage treatment plant. The proposed sanitary sewage system will consist of gravity
collection sewers, a set of pump stations, pressurized force main sewers and a gravity sewer to
transport the flow to the Quaker Road Sewer District and the Meadowbrook Pump Station. The
wastewater is then pumped from the Meadowbrook Pump Station to the City of Glens Falls for
treatment.
This goal of this proposed sewer district is to eliminate any further contamination of the
Glen Lake region that may result from wastewater generated by Route 9 properties. Therefore,
the project intends to reduce environmental impacts on the soil, groundwater and surface water
in the Glen Lake region. The project will also address design concerns related to low flow
conditions as well as consider future expansion of businesses in the district.
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL
LAW NO. __ OF 2004 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE
CHAPTER 14 “CODE OF ETHICS”
RESOLUTION NO. 454, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: ___ of 2004 to
amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 14 entitled “Code of Ethics,” to provide that appointment
of members of the Ethics Board should be by super-majority vote of the Town Board rather than by
unanimous vote, and
WHEREAS, this legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State General
§
Municipal Law 806, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to set a public hearing concerning adoption of this
Local Law,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall meet and hold a public hearing at the
th
Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury at 7:00 p.m. on October 4, 2004 to hear
all interested persons and take any necessary action provided by law concerning proposed Local
Law No.: __ of 2004, and
BE IT FURTHER,
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 316
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town
Clerk to publish and post a Notice of Public Hearing concerning proposed Local Law No. __ of
2004 in the manner provided by law.
th
Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT:Mr. Turner
ATTORNEY MATTERS
TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-Spoke to the board regarding a memo concerning a
tax assessment case. Asked the board to read it and get back to him so they can
prepare a resolution for the next meeting.
RESOLUTION ADJOURING REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING
RESOLUTION NO. 455, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its
Regular Town Board Meeting.
th
Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2004, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
Noes: None
Absent:Mr. Turner
No further action taken.
Respectfully Submitted,
Darleen M. Dougher
Town Clerk
Town of Queensbury
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-13-2004 MTG#42 317