Loading...
2000-02-28 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 28, 2000 7:00 P.M. MTG# 12 RES. 84-102 BOH # 6-7 LL#2 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DENNIS BROWER COUNCILMAN JAMES MARTIN COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER COUNCILMAN DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER TOWN COUNSEL BOB HAFNER TOWN OFFICIALS Rick Missita, Highway Superintendent Mike Travis, Deputy Highway Superintendent Chris Round, Executive Director of Community Development Henry Hess, Comptroller PRESS: G.F. Post Star, Chronicle Supervisor Brower called meeting to order. . . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY SUPERVISOR BROWER RESOLUTION CALLING FOR BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 84,2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. James Martin WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and enters as the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES: None ABSENT: None BOARD OF HEALTH PUBLIC HEARING - SEWER VARIANCE - BILL & TERRIE MANSMANN NOTICE SHOWN 7:00 P.M. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Chris is Dave Hatin here? CHRIS ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-No, I was under the impression you spoke to him today that he wouldn't be present. He's given you a memo regarding the project. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yea, we've got a memo right here. COUNCILMAN BREWER-We got a memo from Dave? DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-I attached it to your agenda tonight. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay, I see it. Okay, we have a memo here. It reads, Dear Town Board, the Mansmann have requested two variances to allow an absorption field to be located within a hundred and thirty-nine feet of Glen Lake instead of the required two hundred and ninety-four point seven feet from the neighbor's well in lieu of the hundred foot setbacks. COUNSEL HAFNER-Mr. Supervisor? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Yes. COUNSEL HAFNER-I think that he had a typo there and it's a hundred and thirty-nine feet of Glen Lake instead of the required two hundred feet and ninety-four point seven feet from the neighbor's well in lieu of the hundred-foot setback. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-And the draft resolution reflects those, the accurate distances. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I thought it was ninety-seven feet. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-That's correct. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay, good. Okay, due to the property line constraints, this is a maximum distance the Mansmanns' could place a field from the neighboring well and the lake. I trust this will answer all your questions and concerns. Dave Hatin, Director. Well, I know Ted Turner and I went out to the proposed site of this action and we did try to get the best view of it we could. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this situation? Yes, would you please come forward, introduce yourself please, state your address for the record? MR. GIRARD HA THAW A Y -My name is Girard Hathaway, I'm an architect with McKernan Group here in Glens Falls and I'm representing Terry Mansmann who is also here. My address is 176 Ridge Street in Glens Falls, the address for our business and Terry's. MS. TERRY MANSMANN-My address up here is 19 Chestnut Road. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-You need to speak right into the microphone really nice and loud for me. MR. HATHAWAY-I'm sorry. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-You were okay, I think I missed her a little bit. MR. HATHA WAY-Okay, her address is 19 Chestnut Road, up here, the property in question. Would you like a little sununary? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Please. MR. HA THAW A Y -Okay, in general, what the Mansmanns would like to do is to be able to do make their camp a little bit more roomy. Right now, they have two small bedrooms in a one story property and their family comes up to visit them when they're here in the summer time often and they would like to add a second story and add one bedroom. We would actually delete one bedroom on the first floor and add two bedrooms, I'm sorry. Add two bedrooms, there would be three on the second floor and one on the first floor instead of just the two that are on the first floor right now. The actual load of people that would be using the place would be the same it's just that overnight sleeping arrangements would be a lot more simple and a little bit more roomy and that would require adding the second story. The present situation right now with their septic system is not a good one. So, it's something that they want to try to improve on anyway. When they bought the house, there was a well that was right between two of their neighbor's septic systems in very close proximity. So, they have to test it every spring anyway. So, they want to upgrade their septic system and relocate their well which is a drilled well. They want to actually do a driven well toward the front of their property to be able to get the separation and get themselves off between the other two existing septic systems. So, part of it is to take care of an existing problem and as long as they're doing that, they'd like to be able to have the extra space. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Now, am I correct in understanding this actually a further distance away from the well then the previous location? MR. HA THA WAY -Yes, in fact it improves all of the situations even though the variance request that closer distance to the lake. That distance, the two hundred feet was required because of the perk was just under three and that's when it jumps out to two hundred rather then one hundred. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I was going to say, I remember the one hundred. I don't remember the two hundred though but I remember it now that you mention it. MR. HA THAW A Y -And the new location for the septic system is actually farther from the lake then the existing septic system is right now. So, they would be improving on that and we also propose on the lake side of the distribution field and on the side of the Wests', which have a bank down to their property that we put a six foot deep clay cutoff pit to make sure that anything goes down before it goes out and there's no problem with the neighbor next door and no problem with the direction towards the lake. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Now, let me ask you this, are you planning to upgrade this whether or not we allow a change to the existing house? MS. MANSMANN-I mean, I think that we're concerned enough about the lake, I've been coming up to Glen Lake since I was a young girl, ten years old so I'd want to make sure that whatever we're doing at the house would improve the ecological situation and right now what we have is not very good. The septic system is right along side of the house and we'd like to improve that. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Was that a yes? MR. HA THA WAY -Well, I think his question was would you want to do a septic improvement even if you didn't get granted your variance to do the extra space? MS. MANSMANN-I think that we need to do that. MR. HA THA WAY-She feels that they would need to do something to improve it and would love to do the project too. I don't know if it would happen as quickly if they didn't do the project but I think they know they've got to improve the situation. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Just for the benefit of the public, what is the existing separation of the leach bed from the shoreline of the lake? I know we have the drawings but just to get it on the record. MR. HA THAW A Y -The existing separation is, let's see right now, we're talking, it will be a hundred and thirty-nine, the existing separation is less then a hundred feet. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Okay and there are, just so that we can get this all on the record, you've looked at other scenarios, other alternatives on the site and this is the best you can come up with? MR. HA THAW A Y -Yea, this is the absolute farthest because it's right against the ten-foot setback from their back line. So, it's the best they could do there. We have the fifty percent or the hundred percent additional space for the future but they would locate this system toward the very back. They're looking at using a new system called an Eljen system which can be done in a smaller space, a little bit more expensive system to put in but it helps promote the breakdown a lot quicker. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Great. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Is there any way you can modify the soils? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I think they're, aren't you putting in that clay barrier? MR. HA THA WAY-In essence, we're doing that. There will end up being a sand bed under each one of these, the Eljen system, they're like almost like bales that are four feet long sections and they help promote the breakdown of any effluent or influent that comes into there and then, at the edge of the whole system to six feet down and the lake side and on the side of the Wests', there would be that six foot deep clay cutoff barrier. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Then that, doesn't that meet the standards, then.. C. It says, the system may be allowed within two hundred feet of the shoreline if corrected measures are taken to reduce the percolation rate to a minimum of seven to ten minutes per inch. If you modified the soils. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Oh, I see what your point is. You mean to modify the soils to slow it down. COUNCILMAN BREWER-For the percolation, yes. Then you would be well within the setback. I mean they did that at Hudson Pointe where it was so sandy that they imported different soils. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Loamy, clay or something like that, they mix it. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don't know how exactly they did it but it was done there with almost every septic. MR. HA THA WAY -Well, that would be another approach that are, it wasn't suggested by our engineer, he felt that this would suffice, it's certainly another way to look at it. It would probably mean a lot more over excavation, not being a civil engineer, I'm not sure how much you would have to remove to meet the, how far down you'd have to remove to meet the law. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Have you seen anything on that? MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-No, I know with, you're talking about a fill system, it's excavation and replacement of fill and then it has to sit through a freeze thaw cycle and then, the setback requirement and then you've got to test the percolation afterward. I don't know. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Well, I think another overriding, or another consideration, maybe not overriding, on the lake here I would like to see disturbance kept to a minimum, you know of the lot. That's generally a good practice. COUNCILMAN BREWER-New York State guidelines for erosion control and all that. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Yea, I'm saying that's why the engineer might have opted for this system rather then modification of soils, a minimum loss of vegetation and so on. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Is this seasonal? MR. HA THA WAy-It is seasonal. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-It will be seasonal after the work is done. MS. MANSMANN-Yes. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don't see a problem if it's going to be seasonal. What do you call seasonal, though? How many months of the year? Every season or? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Ten. Just kidding. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Seasonal mean every season or? MS. MANSMANN-Every season we're up here at the lake. On the weekend. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Christmas, Easter. MR. HA THAW A Y -About how many weeks or months? MS. MANSMANN-We're up two weeks in July and we come up sometimes long weekends. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Oh, so it's not a steady use, then? MS. MANSMANN-No. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I think the use is going to be minimal. MR. HA THA WAY-And they come up to ski sometimes in the winter time for a weekend. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-No, I think they've taken every measure that can. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yes. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Is there, do you have anything further that you'd like to share with us before we find out if there is additional comment? MR. HATHA W A Y-I don't think so. It sounds like you've reviewed... COUNCILMAN MARTIN-One last quick thing, have you contacted your neighbors at all? Are they aware of the work going on? COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yea, there's releases in here, Jim. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Okay. MR. HA THA WAY-They are. I think, I'm not sure, I guess it's recorded in here. We did, one neighbor that still has the shorter distance that we were talking about did sign an affidavit that they were happy with that. In fact, their own septic system is closer to their well then this one is. And this one, again, we're not just improving the distance from the lake, we're improving the distance from that neighbor's well. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Yea, I understand that. What are the depths of those wells? Do you have any idea? MR. HA THAW A Y -The depth of, I'm not sure of the depth of the neighbor's well, you're is depth was a hundred feet? MS. MANSMANN-I don't know. MR. HA THA WAY-Their original well is near, right involved in where this septic system is and if you're noticing the details, that will be completely filled with sand, capped with a steel cap and then a clay barrier put over that too. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Right, yea, I saw that, yea. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Alright. That's all I had. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Would anyone else like to care to address the board in favor of this project? How about oppose to the project? Anyone else like to address the board during this public hearing? Okay. In that case, I'll declare the public hearing closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:17 P.M. RESOLUTION APPROVING SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE APPLICATION OF BILL AND TERRIE MANSMANN BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 6, 2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. James Martin WHEREAS, Bill and Terrie Mansmann filed an application for two (2) variances from provisions of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, such application requesting that the Local Board of Health grant variances to allow an absorption field to be located 139' from Glen Lake and 94.7' from a neighbor's well instead of the required 200' and 100' setbacks respectively on property located at 19 Chestnut Road, Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk's Office published the Notice of Public Hearing in the Town's official newspaper and the Local Board of Health conducted a public hearing concerning the variance requests on February 28th, 2000, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk advises that property owners within 500 feet of the subject property have been dilly notified, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, a) that due to the nature of the variances, it is felt that the variances would not be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of this Ordinance or to other adjoining properties or otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any plan or policy of the Town of Queensbury; and b) that the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variances is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and that the variances granted are the minimum variances which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the applicants; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health hereby approves the application of Bill and Terrie Mansmann for two (2) variances from the Sewage Disposal Ordinance to allow an absorption field to be located 139' from Glen Lake and 94.7' from a neighbor's well instead of the required 200' and 100' setbacks respectively on property located at 19 Chestnut Road, Queensbury and bearing Tax Map No.: 39-1-17. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 2000, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING BOARD OF HEALTH BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.7, 2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns from session and enters Regular Session of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES: None ABSENT: None REGULAR SESSION CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING - NIGRO COMPANIES NOTICE SHOWN 7:18 P.M. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay, that brings us to another public hearing and that would be the rezoning request by the Nigro Companies. As we did two weeks ago, I will recluse myself from either discussion or the vote on this matter since it's my aunt's property in question and Mr. Turner would you please take over the meeting? DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-Yes. Good evening, I'll continue on with the hearing on the Nigro application. Mr. Lapper, we asked for some information which you have submitted, the additional information. COUNSEL JON LAPPER-Yes. DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-And I would like you to make your comments on that right now. COUNSEL LAPPER-I'm going to ask Frank Palumbo to go through his letter. MR. FRANK P ALUMBO-(referred to visuals throughout presentation) Mr. Chairman and other members of the board. We did receive comments at the last meeting and many of those of the public and have tried to respond accordingly. I'll just go through the main topic points of the letter that we forwarded on to try to address those and then can answer them in greater detail with any questions you might have about them. In order of what we had done in this letter, the first question seemed to be about the distributions used for the traffic coming to and from, or coming to the site and then going away from the site as well and this had all been information included in the traffic study that was originally prepared and that traffic study was reviewed by the AGFTC and also an independent town consultant, Vollmer Associates. But what the information provided that we tried to summarize was that approaching the site, what we did was we took the actual trip counts that were conducted at the site and all through the transportation corridor. We studied other intersections as well but what we used was the intersection arrivals at the intersection of Bay and Quaker as the method of determining the distribution for the site and those were generally fifteen percent from the south, thirty-five percent from the west, fifteen coming down from the north and north on Bay Road and thirty-five percent coming from the east. Those were how cars were approaching this intersection and it's most, in it's simplest terms. What we then said was, how would we attribute those patterns to a site that's situated here on the southeast corner of the intersection. What we in that assumed, are two access points, one on Bay and one on Quaker. Both of those would be unsignalized, fully serviced intersections. The fifteen percent coming from the south, we assumed all of that distribution to be coming in the Bay Road access right in, left out. The thirty-five percent coming from the east, all of it using the Quaker Road, left in, right out. The thirty-five percent that was approaching the site from the west, we used a number of breaking that thirty, not down into a thirty percent of that thirty-five but the thirty percent of the overall would make a right at this intersection, come down and make a left into the site with five percent passing through the intersection and making a right into the project here. One of the reasons, this is one of those areas where you can start to say how do you decide that distribution and what we did in that case was that we felt that the left hand turn movements here were going to have the greatest nature of impact. So, we could have actually attributed more of a percentage to pass through that intersection if somebody were approaching and it were green, they may continue on through and enter in here. But we felt that they would still exit the site at this point to make the left at the light rather then trying to make the left out of here. At the signalized intersection it would be an easier movement then here. So, in doing so, we attributed a higher percentage to make this because the left was a harder movement therefore it would show a conservative impact. We weren't trying to limit our impacts. Similarly, that movement back and the left hand turn movement out there would relate to highest level of impact on this intersection that we could study and analyze and then therefore, mitigate. So, that was one of the deciding factors in terms of how we divided that thirty-five percent that was coming from the west. We tried to take a worse case scenario on that. Similarly, with the traffic coming down from the north, we took ten percent of that through the intersection making the left in with five percent of it turning left at this intersection and then right in here. That was, again doing a similar fashion, whether that should be nine and six, eight or seven, really became a matter of, it wasn't worth getting into that, as much as it was, let's show a conservative analysis of the Bay Road and Quaker Road intersection and also similarly, heighten any degree of impact that could possibly happen for the left on Bay Road here and it also similarly did the same here. We wanted to try to be conservative. It think that AGFTC and their comment letters on the traffic study verify that we were taking a very conservative approach with that. So, that is, in a nut shell how we decided where those trips were coming from and I know there was some specific questions regarding that in terms of how we decided that fifty-one trips were coming from the south and that's basically how that was divided up. As a matter of contrast, one of the things that we first initially considered was, we have a grocery store on the opposite corner and how do those numbers distribute. So, as a total, we had forty-five percent entering from Quaker and fifty-five percent entering from Bay. The Hannaford driveway off of Bay had about thirty-seven percent with their Quaker Road entrancing about sixty-three percent, my hundred percent is there. The difference is stated here, are that one, it's a signalized intersection. More people are going to use that intersection off of the main line corridor because it's signalized as compared to here and here. Our distribution pattern is slightly different because of that. What you would have for the Hannaford for instances, is that all thirty-five percent would be from the west similar to all ours coming from the east, would utilize that Quaker Road entrance. The cars approaching from the east to go to Hannaford, more of them would pass through to make the left at their entrance, then make a left here, wait for a green arrow to make a left here and then a right into the store. So, that shows the nature of the difference between those two numbers and we believe it's validated in the method that we analyzed it. So, that's how we roughly generated those numbers and I know that that will have a factor in the next part of the discussion that we were going to have which was the potential impact on the neighboring streets. One of the things that was brought up was how the development up here was going to affect some of the side streets down Bay Road, Garrison, Fort Amherst, Webster and those are, just for indication purposes here are sited here. Here's Quaker. Here's Bay. Garrison is right there. Fort Amherst and Webster, right there. We had at the last meeting presented some information that we had done some studies at those intersections only it was not done during the peak time. So, there was a question in terms of the, you know, how valid was that? Was it representative of what was occurring? What we did see at that time and that was in November was that the major movements were for vehicles heading north on Bay Road making a left hand turn and then a right hand turn to access this area, the major commercial area up on upper Glen Street and the Aviation Mall area. Similarly, the movements back south and then making a right hand turn onto Bay Road. What we were trying to establish here was the nature of the development up here and what it's draw was and what was occurring with respect to the movement through on those streets. What we found with the, we did counts during a peak hour, a P.M. peak hour. We had witnessed the intersection of Garrison and Bay Road and we attached the information with the actual counts that were done during that peak hour which was the, the peak hour was established during the traffic analysis from four o'clock to five o'clock. I actually sat there and did the counts myself so that I would be able to, not only address the numbers but if there was any anecdotal information in terms of, you know, witnessing it, I wanted to be prepared to do that. What we found was very similar in nature to what we had found during the earlier afternoon period. In fact, even slightly higher. The numbers represented that the, for all the vehicles coming into or moving, going onto or coming out of Garrison Road onto Bay, the predominant movement was that movement that I described from the south onto, onto Bay. Seventy-two percent of the vehicles that were witnessed turning onto Garrison Road were making that movement, the left hand turn onto Garrison. Likewise, the return trips were equal. Seventy-two percent making the right hand turn off of Garrison onto Bay with the other twenty-eight percent being those coming from the north and making a right hand turn or making a left off of Garrison onto Bay. That predominance and where I was situated to count those cars at that vehicle, although I can not count all three intersections, we could witness and see that roughly the same thing was occurring. You could see the percentage of vehicles that were making those movements were pretty similar to what was happening at Garrison and Bay. That verified, for us at least that yes, there were vehicles that were, you know, were accessing through here. We could not tell what percentage of those were actual distribute, trips to residences. Our suspicion is, that many people are using that as a cut through to this area. But what we were finding was that, it was not a predominate movement to get up to the Bay and Quaker area where our site would be situated. We took as the overall, those fifty-one trips what we found was, for the total number of trips, the number of turns, the number of vehicles making that turn onto Garrison, as a percentage of our total trips generated, we saw that that would equate to three vehicles in each direction. So, a total of six vehicles possible. That was taking just the overall numbers. It's, it could not, it could not say exactly how many of those twenty-eight percent that were making that movement were actually headed towards a house here and how many were cut throughs', but if you just used the sheer numbers and used the same percentages, it, our site could reasonably be projected to have six vehicles per peak hour utilizing that site as a cut through. We feel that that's a number that is relatively low given the significance of the nature of the traffic generator that we have and that the issue of the neighborhood streets here really is not being exasperated by the development and the plan development of this project. The next issue was also concern over Homer Avenue and the trips that would occur on Homer and we could find nothing to substantiate that vehicles, one of the comments was that vehicles would turn right out of this exit, make a right onto Everett, right onto Homer and then a left onto Bay. We just couldn't see that justification in terms of the timing of those movements considering that we have the left hand access here. The level of service that we are going to have on this unsignalized intersection would not cause the type of delays that would warrant anyone to make that, the movement. So, and also from the truck access standpoint, there was information talked about in terms of how trucks would be accessing the site and we see no cause given the nature of the site and where it's situated off of Bay and Quaker with both those access points being available to handle the truck turning movements and again, being able to utilize an unsignalized intersection that does not have a level of service that would preclude making a left out of there, that there be any reason for trucks accessing this site to utilize Homer. We have, as we mentioned before left no direct connection to Homer from the site because that was one of the concerns. We knew we wouldn't want to have any of the traffic going out in that direction. There was also a question about the water table and what we included in your packets was a map showing some test borings that were done and none of the issues raised was from a near by resident, that, you know, the area along this stream was, where their property was had a high water table. So, we had, we took the test pits that were located closest to that stream which we're right in about this area here, and what we found was that the water table was at approximately three zero eight point five elevation. Our building is being set with a floor elevation at three seventeen and a half which gives us a great deal of leeway for our footings to be well above the water table and we could see the rational when we went back out there and we could see the locale of that house and how it was situated. There was a discussion about the basement and whether or not it could or could not include a basement and what we're talking about here is that we're talking about footings that will be down approximately four, maximum of five feet. Whereas, where they were up closer to the stream, if you were to try to put in a basement, that basement is going to have a much greater depth then our footings. Your basement is going be down a minimum of, you know a minimum of eight but really in modern construction, at least nine feet between the first floor elevation. And what we could determine was that that first floor was roughly about three fifteen. If you went down nine feet, you were down into what we were witnessing as a water table here. So, we could see that there could be a problem with the basement. We don't see a connection to our site with that building set at that elevation. We don't see the problem with the water table. There were other areas, down in this area it's very clear that the water table where we're at the lowest grades here, down about three zero nine, that the water table is very near, these are the wetlands here, similarly right here that the water table will be near the surface but in essence there was not, not a water table problem given the grading that we're planning for the building and where we're putting it. The stormwater management was also a concern. These are just the large scale maps of the material that was included in a stormwater management report that was prepared and submitted to the town and reviewed by Rist Frost Engineering. Rist Frost reviews stormwater plans for the town on a regular basis. They reviewed it and saw that it met all of the town's criteria and also that it met all the, the most basic information that we generally try to install in a stormwater management plan and that's that our pre-runoff rate is not going to be any greater then our, or our post -runoff rate is not going to be any greater then our pre and what we did was we analyzed three main points. The first being the outflow at Quaker Road, the second being where the stream that does come and cut across the corner of the property here and is adjacent to these wetlands, exits the site roughly at this point here and the third that was analyzed was, there's an existing stormwater catch basin over in Homer that does take some flow down to that stream. So, we analyzed that point as well. One of the things that came up in the questions last week were, what was going to happen with the water coming off the burm and I actually misspoke and I wanted to make sure I corrected that. That, yes, there will be some that comes off of that burm and does not, I had said that it would all come right down into this stormwater basin and what happens in actuality is that some of that will continue to flow into that catch basin as it does presently. What we've altered with that, is the amount of area. So, although coming off the burm we have a little bit greater, faster rate, the area has been decreased and therefore the end flow through that point C is less then the preconditioned. So, we believe that that's all been handled and accounted for in the proper, in the fashions that the town normally looks and that is concert with the best engineering practices. That information is all here. You know, if you have any greater questions on it, when I've finished, we'll be glad to answer that further. This is just a little more detailed on the post showing the actual locations where we're tied with our utility plan which again, Rist Frost had the ability to review all of that. There was discussion about lighting and what we have included in your packets was the lighting plan. This is showing an area, I think the areas of prime concern were in the rear here. What we've done is, the poles that are located here, here, here, and here are all twenty foot high poles. The maximum height that we have at any other point is the thirty foot high poles here. What we've done along the building where there would be lighting and there was discussion about whether we'd have wall packs on the lighting, on the back of the building. What we've got are, wall mounted fixtures that would be mounted similarly to the way that they are on the poles so that they would project out from the building and shine down rather then being on the building with and facing out. So, that would use the same house protector shields that these units are fixed with to minimize any glare and spread out from there. But the light levels are shown to be controlled within the area before were even at the berm. So, that is all with the twenty foot high lights and the projected down pattern using the shield protectors, we can maintain the light in the point. What we've done in all other areas, and where we do have some, some light spill there and down at this point, some over right here that can be really fine tuned once we get into the site plan because we realize that they'll probably some modifications once we get to site plan. But those areas we've got generally one foot candle or less at those areas. We do have a small intrusion here and I just have to clarify that all of that is done without taking into account the topography of that berm or any of the landscaping on that berm. This is strictly a straight, two, you know, basically a two dimensional projection and so that the berm and the landscaping that we've put there have not been accounted for in terms of dissipating that light any further. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Frank, what are your light levels at the southern edge of the lot along Homer Avenue? Along the edges of the spill? MR. PALUMBO-Right here? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-No, along the southern edge, right along Homer Avenue. Although, you're not spilling off the site COUNCILMAN BREWER-At the berm? MR. PALUMBO-Right along here? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Yea, what are those light levels and then put it in layman's term as to what type offoot candles might you expect and then develop, you know, tell me how is that equal in reality, you know compare it to something people can understand. MR. PALUMBO-It's, I'll try. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Okay. MR. PALUMBO-It's a difficult concept of what a foot candle is but to answer your first question. The outer line that we're showing here, there's two lines around each one of these poles and the outer line is half a foot candle which, Chris I don't know if the town has any particu1ar standard in terms of MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-No, we're developing that standard as a part of our new ordinance. MR. PALUMBO-It's not uncommon that a lot of the codes will call for a foot candle, others maybe a half a foot candle at that property line. What we've got is that that half a foot candle is there, then we're going to have the berm, then we're going to have the fence on top of that with those twenty foot high poles, we're really seeing no light spread out along Homer. I mean that's the most, that's the clearest way I can explain is that the lights that are on the back of this building will have no impact and light spillage whatsoever when you hit the right-of-way line here and the property line. That's what, using those twenty foot high poles. Had we gone with the thirty foot high pole in the back, we probably would have been able to achieve a half a foot candle at that property line but you know, that's why we decreased those and it really came out of comments that people brought up last week. I don't know if you've got a good way to describe a foot candle. I mean, the age old one is that it's the amount of light that's necessary to illuminate fully a one square foot box. If that were a glass box that you could put out in the parking lot, the amount oflight that was necessary to illuminate that such that you could see it, is what a foot candle is. So, half a foot candle is that much less. It's not easily quantifiable. The best cases you COUNCILMAN BREWER-Is it like a seventy-five watt light bulb? Is it like a hundred and fifty watt light bulb? MR. P ALUMBO- The problem with equating it to a light bulb is that the light bulb at it's point is giving out it's highest intensity and so a seventy-five watt right at that location would be very bright light there. You would see that point clearly and the area around it, I can't, I don't know, and it's also not equitable to the interior and exterior lighting of a light bulb. It would be very low. It would be less than a seventy-five, probably down maybe as much as like a forty. It's low, a foot candle. UNKNOWN AUDIENCE-But it's more then if it wasn't there? COUNCILMAN BREWER-Oh absolutely, it's more then if it wasn't there. MR. PALUMBO-Yea. But to make that point, right now, the lighting along here, we haven't even established what the lighting from the houses that are up close to the street are, and any, you know any lighting that is coming off of there. But, what we can say is that in actuality along that property line, it might be less then what's already there by keeping it with those twenty foot high poles, with the down shield protectors which cuts the angle at which that light, the glare protectors are intended to cut that light level down to a sixty-two and a half degree angle. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Are there street lights on Homer Avenue? UNKNOWN AUDIENCE-Yes. COUNCILMAN BREWER-There are? So, it's probably going to be less light then the street lights produced on that street right now. MR. P ALUMBO- The, I think most of the poles are on the south side so we wouldn't really be taking out, I would love to be able to just say yes, but I don't know if there's any poles over here. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, if your spill, if your spill is not going to get past that berm, then absolutely, it's going to be less then what's there now. MR. PALUMBO-Yes, that I think is safe to say. COUNCILMAN BREWER-That's pretty simple then. MR. PALUMBO-Yea. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Pardon me? UNKNOWN AUDIENCE-You've got to add to what's already there. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Not if it's not going to reach past the berm. If it doesn't reach past the berm, then it won't increase the light that's there now. You'll have what's existing. UNKNOWN AUDIENCE-But he doesn't show on here where the lights are going to show on the other side of the berm, where they're going. MR. PALUMBO-But I think you're, I think the point of that is that, if the poles are over on this side and they're currently spreading some light across that street for the purposes that they were put there for, that would be the base level projected on this side of the street. And, I agree with what you're saying there is that, we're not adding to that. So, if there is a light source that's providing some illumination at that property line, it's not these lights. It would be any of the existing lights along there. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Okay, thank you. MR. P ALUMBO- The last topic, we have all the visual presentations that we had brought last time and we can get them out as necessary but one of the things that came up was exactly how you would look at these from any of the buildings that are, had a second story. So, what we had done and I'm actually going to give you a handout at this point. These are the maps that I'll have on the board and it will just be a little easier for you to see. We took some photographs of the area. If you want, I don't know what works best, when we get to the point of having questions, COUNCILMAN STEC-You can turn it to the audience. MR. PALUMBO-Yea, we can, as matter of fact, since you have it there, I'll turn that one a little bit more towards the audience. DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-Yea. COUNCILMAN STEC-Okay. MR. PALUMBO-What we have in the upper left hand corner, as far as I can go, is a cut of the site plan, reduced scale showing three cross sections that we've labeled A, B, and C and what we had brought last time and again, that I could get out if it's necessary were photo simulations from points a and points b with the third location being from the, C being from the corner of Homer and Bay as a gentleman had come and discussed that that was his residence and he did have a two story house and how would any of that be projected. And since we didn't have an actual photo there, we couldn't really represent it too clearly. Some of the photos that we included in there are just to give you sort of a nature of the context of the area. What we did with the A cut through and then the first section which is just below the planned section, is showing the location of the, if you see, right under the word, floor of second floor, you'll see a car and a, the height of an individual standing on the other side of the road. That was the view point that we had used for the photo simulation and what we've done is drawn the line of site right over the top point of the fence and projected it up onto the building. What we've done additionally is then, moved back away from the road on the same line of site, we just moved back forty feet to approximately where the houses are and then we went up to a point that would represent the second floor plan and a person standing on that second floor and their eye level. What we again, since, actually what we're representing in A, the A-A cross section there, isn't even reality from the standpoint of that there isn't a two story house there. The two story house is further down the road. We wanted to represent where we had shown you the photos simulation from first. And so, we went back and that is a single story structure at that point. That is right where you see the circle that's there with A and the note that says second floor at elevation three thirty. If you go to the, if you're looking at the plan to the left, you'll see a driveway down right about where there's an elevation that says three fourteen on an existing contour. That's the driveway to the house that is a second story house. What we did by projecting this image of the second story house from that point was that we felt that we were giving it a, again a more of a worse case scenario. We couldn't recreate because we couldn't have an actual photograph from that location and that second floor in the time that we had. So we tried to represent something that would show you what a second floor level would, what would occur. And what basically occurs is that you will see more of the back of the building. From a higher elevation, it's basically taking the view that we've projected where the fence line was cutting off all but the upper six or seven feet of the building, if you just went up in there air, you would be looking down over that fence. And some, there was some concern over whether you would see the truck loading dock area, whether you would see any of the pavement in the back of the building and that is not the case. What we were able to establish is that what you would see is more of the back wall of the building. We also did that from the standpoint, the trees that you're seeing in that cross section are planted height. So, there is only going to be more fill in over time that would decrease that view and again, that view is really not representative, you have a two story house here which is angled and I'll refer to the photographs, that's photograph number five is a two story house. That is situated right at this point here and as you can see in the picture, it's angled pretty much as my finger is here. So, the front side of that building is looking more in this direction with the garage face facing in this direction. So, in terms of the, you know, the potential for the high impact, yes, they would have the potential for the higher impact. They do have a second floor where COUNCILMAN BREWER-There's only one window in that end of the house. MR. PALUMBO-There's one window on the end of that house and the rest is looking in this direction. This is a one story house. There's a one story house here. There's a one story house here. There is a house right at this point which is roughly in the vicinity of where we have the B cross section. That is also represented in the photograph, picture number three is the house in question and you can see they have a dormer window up on that second level and so there is a second floor on that house. Not a full second floor with windows on all sides. But that is the direction they would be looking sort of off to the right if they were looking out the window and that would be the direction of that cut. Again, similarly, they would not see, section B-B is showing you that they would not see the loading dock area but what they would be seeing is more of the face of the building. To add to that though, again, as I said, we show the planted tree height. Something as we were doing this that we realized was that, if you can take a look at photo eleven, is, you'll see the dark area of the tree in the foreground. That tree is staying and if you, I have pictures right here, there is, we have some shots up and down Homer Avenue and I just want to point out, photographs nine and ten, you can see the trees. That's one view looking from Bay Road and down and the other is looking from the west. Those trees that you see in, especially photo ten, those trees are located here, here, and here and there will be no reason for us to disturb those. We can do our landscaping of our berm and protect those trees that are right along the right -of-way line. Those are very mature maple trees. They will be maintained and will give even greater relief then what we're showing in our cross section. So, again, I think we're giving a worse case scenario representation in that cross section. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-There seem to be some trees on the south side of the street also. MR. P ALUMBO- Yes, those and those are all on the adjacent residences of the south side of which, you know, we'll have no impact on. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Yea, obviously. MR. PALUMBO-And what you can see also from picture ten is that the area here is roughly all landscape lawn. There's not a lot of trees in the front view and so, in that area there that's where we're adding the berm and the trees on top of that berm and the fence on top of that berm. So, in terms of the character of that street, after the fact, we're not trying to say that you won't see some of that building, but I think we're also adding some substantial character with the landscaping that we're showing in that area. The third aspect was the C-C cross section. Again, similarly we tried to plot the best location that we had of that house and there is a photograph of the rear, of that area which is shots seven and eight. And what we did was we shot the rear area of, seven shows the back of that house showing where the windows are situated. There's a barn behind there and then shot number eight is one that's looking in, they had a double lot, the house is sitting here. Shot number eight is taking from about this point right here looking into the site and what you can see is some of the garage areas behind there. There's also a fence that you can see right along here and that, I'm assuming is about a six foot high fence. Okay, which would be roughly the height of the berm at that, if you were to extend that horizon line of that fence over, that would be the height of the berm on top of which would be the six foot fence that we've currently got planned. So, although there will be some views into the site, we think that we've done everything we can to mitigate those to a maximum extent possible and also, I'll just stress that what we're showing here is the worse case. We're not taking advantage of any of the landscaping that we're going to have and there will be a great deal of landscaping that we've already shown on here and we've already made the commitment that when we get to the site plan process, if we're asked to plant those at a larger height then would normally be required, instead of a six foot Evergreen, if we have to go to an eight to a ten foot to get some more substantial landscaping right off the bat, we're willing to do that. But we see that the nature of that landscaping and the berm, is going to do a lot both for the lighting spread and also the visual context of it. At this point, I'll stop there and field your questions. DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-Okay. Do you have any, Jim? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I think I'm all set for now. DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-Any Dan? Do you got any? COUNCILMAN BREWER-I'm all set. COUNSEL LAPPER-We'll wait until after the public hearing to address any comments? DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-Yea, I'll open the public hearing, you guys can sit there. Alright, I'm going to open the public hearing and I would ask that the people that spoke the last time, which I have a list of here, speak to the issues that were presented tonight and to those that didn't speak the last time and they're here for the first time, I will open the floor to them right now. Anyone here that didn't speak in reference to this application the last time? This gentleman right here in the back? MR. MATTHEW VAUGHN, 6 Homer Avenue-Good evening, my name is Matthew Vaughn, I live at 6 Homer Avenue, that is one of the pieces of property that is proposed to be bought. And I feel that Nigro has done a good job of addressing all of the concerns on the residences on the other side of the street. And one thing I haven't heard is with this company coming in, how many more jobs will be available to our area, not to mention the tax money that the town would also receive from a company this big. We don't just have to satisfy the residents on the south side of Homer Avenue, we have to do what's best for the community as a whole and I feel that the community would definitely benefit from adding another store to be able to compete with, to keep prices lower. The place that they have proposed for this was not a whim. I'm sure they had sat down, did traffic studies, just as Hannaford picked the place that they did. This is just a good place to have the store, it's close, it's not too far out and it doesn't impact too many residential communities. Thank you. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Thank you. DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-Anyone else wish to speak? Lady with the hand in the back there, I can't see you. MS. BETTY MONAHAN, Sunnyside Road-Betty Monahan, Sunnyside Road. Just some general comments. I think what's important is how well or how poorly the site is developed and I think all the claims they're making now need to be tied down because I also think of the mark that's up in the Ames Plaza, what happened there with the lighting with the neighbors when they didn't go according to what they said they were going to do. I think Jim and Ted, you're both well aware of that situation. I just want to say that when Jim Martin was Director of Community Development, he did a great deal to get good green areas along our streets and the streetscapes. He checked on the trees that were planted, were they the right number. And there's a reason for planting, not just for aesthetics, it's also to counter act pollution. It cuts down the kilowatts you need for air conditioning and so, there's a lot of practical reasons for why the green areas and the trees and ecetera go in, and there's formu1as for that. So, I hope, you know, when we look at this, we're really going to look of how it's going to look out there, and how well it's going to function in the community because what I have noticed since Jim has left, the evinces isn't on the green areas any more and I think we're starting to go the other way when he was bringing us into good streetscapes while he was here. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Well, ... comments right now. COUNCILMAN BREWER-How much did that cost? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Go on Betty. MS. MONAHAN-And when I hear them talking about what you can see from houses and where the windows are UNKNOWN AUDIENCE-Can't hear you. MS. MONAHAN-Because I'm facing that way, I know it's terrible when you sit in the audience. When they talk about the views from houses, they're assuming that none of those houses will get re-modeled, none of the windows will get changed, nobody is going to put a second story on it and I don't think that you can make those assumptions. You have to look at it from what could possibly happen. I'm wondering on the turning lane, is that going to be a dedicated lane or are they going to turn in the line of traffic. That's a question that I had. I think you have to be very concerned on the lighting and the noise that will spill onto the neighbors property. I know they've given you a presentation of that but then what about when are the delivery trucks going to deliver. Are the neighbors going to listen to back up, you know in the middle of the night and ecetera and so on. I think the buffering, we have such a poor definition of buffering. You've got to make sure that the buffering achieves the purpose that you want it to do. I think the landscaping plan should go to the Beautification Committee because that committee seems to be being ignored recently. The other thing I would say, the parking islands in this town are a disaster. They're too small, we've got too many of them. They don't support the trees that they're supposed to support and I think that's another thing that you have to look at in this plan. And then, I want to point out, as far as the, well another thing. I think you need some green area by the buildings to absorb the runoff from the roofs so it's not all going into asphalt. The other thing I wanted to point out, that Duke Industrial Park, when that was put in, and you know, they did everything they said they would but what happened afterwards because of the amount of soils being brought in and the buildings and the compression, people around there had water in their cellars that had never had water in their cellars before. At least, the way they told it to us. So, I think you have to be, you know, aware of that. I also brought some pictures of good parking design in England where the cars don't hit you right in the face and I'll share those with you but I want them back later. Thank you. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Thank you, Betty. I'm really. COUNCILMAN STEC-That's Jim Martin, Ward I. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Capital J, I. DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-The lady had her hand up over here. MS. JOANNE SWANSON-I'm Joanne Swanson, I live on Garrison Road and I think it's important to remember that you're changing a neighborhood with this store proposal. The people who are moving whose homes are being bought and torn down are leaving. The people who are staying are the people that are going to have to deal with the increased noise, the greatly increased traffic it's going to produce, the greatly increased lighting it's going to. The light pollution and the noise pollution are going to be significant. This is a neighborhood where you're putting this store. It's hard to believe that this traffic would only increase by six vehicles a day. I find that kind of preposterous and November is not exactly the best time to do traffic studies in this area. The, I think they're going to be cutting down a large number of trees to put this building in. You're going to be cutting down sixty or seventy trees when you're going to have to be re-planting. And in terms of jobs and taxes, I want to remind everyone that Grand Union left us with a big box store a couple of years ago. Didn't care, moved out very quickly, didn't care about the town and it's loss of taxes and revenue and left us with a big box store and I want to point out that the only thing worse then a big box, is an empty big box. So, I don't think that's, we have some history here to remember and that this is a troubled corporation at the moment, they've lost millions and millions of dollars in the recent history. So, I don't think that they're offering us a great ticket to any sort of success. Thank you. DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-Thank you. Anyone else, that didn't speak the last time that wants to be heard now? The person in the back there. COUNSEL JOHN RICHARDS-Good evening, my name is John Richards, I'm an attorney in Glen Falls, I represent one of the adjacent owners a Frank Nigro, not the applicant and on his behalf, I just wanted to ask for some clarification tonight. We really don't object to the concept of the proposal but I'm a little concerned and understand as the lead agency you have a role in many of these elements we're talking about. But when does the review here end and the site plan review come in? We happened to have some serious concerns about the traffic plan and the exit plan and location on Quaker and I would expect we would have a chance to address those in great detail before the Planning Board. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Yes, that's true. COUNSEL RICHARDS-So, when you're making your SEQRA determination, should you approve this rezone, to what extent are you putting any kind of approval on the traffic study and the various other plans that have been proposed here separate and apart from the zoning, let's say. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I think in terms of, you know specific design and geometry and placement and that type of thing, I don't think we're placing any restrictions on the Planning Board. In terms of the SEQRA review, at least in my mind, I'm approaching that from the standpoint, you know volume, capacities, level of service, impacts, things of that nature because that's fixed no matter, you know, not unless something drastic were to happen at the Planning Board and as you know, John it would come back here if that were to happen anyhow. COUNSEL RICHARDS-As I understood Mr. MacEwan, part of his comments or concerns were that they seemed to be blending into site plan issues. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-You're going to have natural some crossover to the extent this board needs to have, to take up the SEQRA form, to go through the assessment form. I mean, you have to come to some level of detail. So, we have to do that. Beyond that, though, dimensional requirements like access points and things like that, if that shifts a certain amount or there's a change in the design that could result in a less impact or a reduction in the level of impact, you know, that type of thing is permissible. COUNSEL RICHARDS-So, you're certainly not trying to hamstring the Planning Board. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-No, no. COUNSEL RICHARDS-And their ability to review those things. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Oh, absolutely not. We would encourage their involvement to make it a better plan. COUNSEL RICHARDS-That's all. I just really wanted to make that was clear to me and everyone. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Yea, and you're going to have your, there will be another advertised public hearing, I'm saying this, as you know but for the benefit of the public should this move on from this point. There will be another noticed public hearing that will deal with those type of site specific issues. COUNSEL RICHARDS-Okay, I thank you. DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-Okay, John. Anyone else? MR. BOB V ALLERO-My name is Bob Vallero from Queensbury. I'd like to just take up where that gentleman left off. On Indian Ridge, we, I'm a member of the Planning Board as you all know but on Indian Ridge when the SEQRA was done by the Town Board, we were prohibited in that site review from doing off site traffic work. I'd like that clarified. Am I right or wrong there? MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-You do lose some flexibility and some muscle to change site plans when a SEQRA determination has been made. MR. V ALLERO- True. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-I think what Jim was speaking about is that, they don't have an approval, I mean, that was a PUD, that's a different animal then a site plan approval process. So, there's two different animals there as well. MR. V ALLERO-It is but the SEQRA is still the same, the controlling element. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-There is but you don't necessarily have to approve. It's still a site plan. If the zoning is appropriate for the project, you still do not necessarily have an approveable project per se. MR. V ALLERO-As far as the internal project is concerned, I understand that. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-Well, internal or driveway locations, building aesthetics, architecture. MR. V ALLERO- True, but let it be determined so that I understand that when we're doing site plan review. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-It's very hard to speak to specifics when we're talking in generality. MR. V ALLERO- Well, we can get specific and specific is, do we or don't we have the offsite traffic responsibility as far as the Planning Board is concerned, if the SEQRA sits with the Town Board? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-In my opinion, that would be diminished. Offsite would be diminished. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-Yea, offsite. MR. V ALLERO- Yes. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-When I spoke earlier, I was talking about site specific things like driveway locations, things on site. But you're right, like if there is a, like I can remember on the K-Mart project, there was an impact on the Dix Avenue Ridge Street intersection in the City of Glens Falls and there was mitigation required for that in terms of a new signal located at that intersection. That was something that was dealt with at the point of the traffic impact at the SEQRA review at that stage. So, you're right, you are diminished in that regard. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-Right, but for this particular project, if you decided after a SEQRA determination was made that you wanted a traffic signal a particular location at one of these entrances, you could, that's not an offsite issue. But, if we're talking about, you had a, making the same comparison Jim is making, if you had decided that there is an impact to Garrison Road and Bay Road intersection and that you're going to require, as a part of your project review, some mitigation to that location, your ability to exercise that influence is diminished through the SEQRA, having had the SEQRA determination been made. MR. V ALLERO-Okay, I think I've got a good answer to my question. I mean, at least I know where I stand and where the board stands. Okay, thank you. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-And just as a follow up to that, Bob, that's why I would support in future rezoning requests that the Planning Board be the lead agent and then there's not that. COUNCILMAN BREWER-And I would also. We mentioned that at the last meeting, I think. DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-Yea, we did. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-But that's on the side. DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-Who was next? Anyone else? MR. JOHN STROUGH, Woodcrest Drive-John Strough, Woodcrest Drive, Queensbury. Since it's a rezoning issue, I just think we have to look at all of the impacts. We have to look at worse case scenarios and I have some concerns. One of my concerns is, allowing a left in on Quaker Road. I mean, for O'Tooles and for Lowe's we only allowed right in, right out. Or actually, O'Tooles is a right in only. And I think maintaining the traffic health of Quaker Road is important and I would like to suggest that we also make the access point to Quaker Road from this enterprise a right in and right out. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Is that, Planning Board could do that? DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-Yea, they could that. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-They could but MR. STROUGH-Yea, they could do that. COUNCILMAN BREWER-That's an entrance and exit issue that the Planning Board MR. STROUGH-But we're looking at rezoning COUNCILMAN BREWER-No, I understand but MR. STROUGH-So, we're looking at all the impacts and all the issues. COUNCILMAN BREWER-That was one of the issues we were talking about with the Planning Board having the authority to do that, John. MR. STROUGH-Yea, well, let me go on with my point. So, if cross traffic was disallowed on Quaker Road, then you're putting in, I think the applicant said thirty-five percent of the traffic would access this site from the east. If that traffic were not allowed, I'll assume that the thirty-five percent would then be using the Bay Road access and then we would have eighty-five percent of the load, the traffic load would be using the Bay Road access. I'm just wondering if the traffic study considered that scenario. Like I said in the beginning, with a rezoning, we have to consider all of the impacts and the worst case scenarios. Another concern that I had was the traffic study addressed the peak hour, four to five and the traffic impact to Fort Amherst and Garrison and that road. But I begin to think, what is the character of the traffic from four to five? Isn't that mostly people returning from work and wouldn't the character of the traffic at later hours or other hours, possibly be different and were those scenarios looked at? Just some concerns. And the water table and stormwater runoff. I did hear them suggest that the engineering approvals seemed to be satisfactory and I'm assuming for most conditions but were those studies satisfactory, in this particu1ar area, I'm especially concerned because of the water table. Did they do a worse case scenario such as, you know, the flooding we're not experiencing with the snow melt and heavy rain. I'm just worried about the load of that particular area to be able to contain that. And my last point is, I lived in back of Price Chopper off of Dix Avenue. I lived about a hundred and fifty feet in back of it and I bought that house for fourteen thousand in 1973 but I just want to tell you from experience, it wasn't pleasant living in the back of Price Chopper. I mean, with the noise of the snow removal, the trucks, the garbage trucks and the loading and unloading that went on frequently during the night did account for a lot of lost sleep. But the sununer smell coming from the garbage bin was especially nice too and that's probably why I got the house for fourteen thousand. COUNCILMAN BREWER-How much did you sell it for? MR. STROUGH-Well, I fixed it up and sold it for a whole lot more but still not as much as I could have gotten if it was located elsewhere but then again, I bought it that way. I mean, if the Price Chopper were to move in and degrade my quality of life, then I would have had a legitimate concern and I think some of the people who live on Homer Avenue have legitimate concerns. Okay, thank you. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Thank you. MR. ROGER BOOR, Sunnyside-Roger Boor, Sunnyside. If I could I'd just like to get a clarification on the question that Mr. Vallero asked and the clarification would be, is it this board's thinking that if they neg dec this project, that the Planning Board would be in a position where they could not have impact fees, the burden of the applicant? In other words, if it is determined at the Planning Board stage, that gee, we're going to have offsite traffic problems, it's going to require a light, my question is, whose going to pay for the light? Is going to be the town or is going to be the applicant? In other words, are you going to make a determination at this board that's going to prevent the Planning Board from saying, my gosh, the town is going to have to spend all this money for offsite work? Is that a scenario that's realistic or possible? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I think not. I think not because any experience I've ever had, any, even offsite improvements are born at the expense of the applicant. Like the case I sighted with K-Mart and the improved traffic signal in the City of Glens Falls, far away from that site, that was installed on the developer's nickel. COUNCILMAN BREWER-At K-Mart, Dix Avenue and Quaker Road intersection, K-Mart paid for all of that, all those improvements. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Right, sewer connections, the signals that were installed on Route 9 with Wal- Mart came at the expense ofWal-Mart or that developer. And what we're basically, if we approve this tonight or this SEQRA, if we come to a negative declaration, we're essentially setting a threshold, a series of lines not to cross, so to speak and if the Planning Board, in their site plan review institutes certain improvements to maintain that threshold or not cross those lines, that's perfectly permissible and welcomed. MR. BOOR-That's great. I guess my concern is that, there's still, I still don't have this confidence that offsite stuff is covered. In other words, they're showing this project on the property they're rezoning and the property that's already appropriately zoned but they're not discussing possible improvements outside the project and I'm just concerned that the Planning Board won't have the authority to have, to put the financial burden on the applicant if it's off the site. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I'll defer to Bob but I don't know of any reason why they couldn't and it's never been the policy of the town that the town bear those costs. It's always been the developer. If there is an offsite impact or a mitigation measure or something like that, it's always been born by the developer and I have no intention of changing that policy now. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Improvements at Lowes, they did all that, they paid for it, not the town. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Right. MR. BOOR-I would only, I'm referring back to Indian Ridge where the improvements to Aviation Road apparently in that situation were not the burden of the applicant because they were considered offsite measures. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-What improvements? MR. BOOR-If, let's say, the realignment of Dixon and Aviation and Farr Lane and Potter, those types of scenarios, it was my understanding was that the town would bear the burden of putting in the lights there. COUNCILMAN BREWER-That was to help alleviate an existing problem that's there now. Whether Indian Ridge happened or not, there's a problem there now and I think the town talked about possibly realigning some of those intersections, as I recall. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Even in that context, I recall discussions about them paying a proportionate share of that improvement, at the time. DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-Yea, that's true. MR. BOOR-I hope you're right, thanks. DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-Anyone else, first time around. Okay, seeing no hands, who wishes to speak on the information that was submitted tonight? Mrs. Thompson? MS. JOYCE THOMPSON, Garrison Road-My name is Joyce Thompson and I live on Garrison Road. I've been at each meeting to voice my opposition to the rezoning of Homer Avenue and probably my biggest concern is the increased traffic that it's going to cause on Garrison and the changing perhaps of the neighborhood scene. Since the last meeting, two weeks ago, several Garrison Road neighbors have asked me to represent them and present their letters to the board. I'd just like to read maybe an exert from one or two of them. One of them is from John Rugge. He says, Dear Members: We are writing to ask that you uphold existing town rilles and deny the variance requested by Grand Union for a mega-store on Homer Avenue. Fundamentally, Queensbury is and should remain a community of neighborhoods. Like most local residents, we have chosen to live here for the quality of life, not to experience unbridled, commercial development for it's own sake. The only protection for our homes, our peace and quiet and our peace of mind is the knowledge that the configuration of our neighborhoods will remain in tact unless there's an overriding public need or an overwhelming consensus on the part of local people to change the rilles that have been promu1gated for our mutual benefit. There is manifestly no great need for another superstore in this part of town. We have two already within three or four blocks of this house. And there is certainly no consensus to change the zoning requirements that we have long depended upon and pay taxes to support. Chasing development dollars has understandable appeal and new stores have their place in Queensbury. But this is not the place. You are our only bulwark. Please vote to protect our neighborhood. Another letter is from Loren Baim, she's a local dentist. I reside at 16 Garrison Road. I am writing to you to oppose the rezoning of land on Homer Avenue. Our residential street is already becoming a busy thoroughfare. To build a supermarket at the proposed site would only add to the traffic flow, noise and pollution. I ask the board to consider if the area truly is in need of another major grocery store. I think not. My house is already within easy walking distance of three such superstores. If it is decided that another store would be an asset to the Town of Queensbury, it should be placed in an existing commercial site. There are certainly plenty of commercial properties that are currently unoccupied. I hope that the Town Board will vote to protect the integrity of Queensbury's neighborhoods. To allow zoning changes to promote unnecessary development would be doing an injustice to the citizens of Queensbury. Beverly Kerr, Mrs. Kerr lives at 47 Garrison Road. The hesitation of the Town Board in the matter of rezoning the north side of Homer Avenue frightens me. Neighbors in the immediate area accept the Bay Road corridor just south of Quaker Road is a transitional zone. What we cannot accept is being forced to allow a highway commercial designation for this parcel. Should the rezoning be granted, the character and quality of our neighborhoods would be eroded. It simply does not make sense. We must get a grip on development in Queensbury. We cannot continue to strip trees and pave over open spaces to suit developers. The residents of the town need and expect representation. We are speaking. Are you listening. Very trilly yours, Beverly Kerr. And then her husband also wrote a few lines. I would like to register my strong objections to the rezoning of the parcel on the north side of Homer Avenue and the approval of the mega-save project. My objections are as follows: One, the ongoing decisions to randomly rezone parcels to suit developers. Two, encroachment on residential areas and wetlands. This one I think is important and many people have spoken about it. The lack of a complete environmental study before rezoning is approved. Traffic, there are no projections for the resulting increased number of vehicles. And I was interested, the Nigro people said that between four and five on Garrison, they counted six cars in an hour making a turn and I mean, sometimes in the middle of the afternoon, just the traffic from A. C. C. coming down from classes letting out can be, you know really difficult to get out onto. So, you know, there's not just grocery store traffic and I think the four to five time period is probably a time when people are going home from work and maybe not, you know, going grocery shopping or going up to that commercial area. And then he also says, the questionable need for another supermarket in Queensbury. And then there's also a small note from Mr. Merritt Scoville. He says, please record my objection to zoning change in the Homer Avenue, I can hardly read is writing, but he says, he's just not in favor of any kind of changes. And the last letter I have is from another neighbor and he really brings out some new points, I think. He says, for the reasons stated, I oppose the application for rezoning and urge the board to deny the application. First, the people in the surrounding community have a right to rely on the continuation of zoning classifications which were in existence when they purchased their properties. Before the board changes the status quo, it must be convinced that the change is one which will benefit the surrounding the neighbors and the town. The interest and the applicant who also purchased his property with full knowledge of existing zoning, is irrelevant to the board's consideration. Thus far, the record is devoid of any evidence which clearly establishes that it is in the best interest of either the neighbors or the town to grant the applicant's request for a zoning change. Absent such a finding, the board will not be acting in the best interest of the town. Second, this is an interesting new point, I think, to grant the application would result in spot zoning. As this board knows, spot zoning is an inappropriate means of exercising land use control. In this case, we understand that the record contains information and testimony that individual homeowners will lose significantly property value of the application is granted. It is our opinion that the board must factor into it's equation, the possibility that, under Federal law, if there is a significant diminution in adjoining property value as a result of the board's action, the Town of Queensbury may be financial liable to individual homeowners for that diminution in value. And here's the same issue again. Third, the Environmental Conservation Law and the case law interpreting that law, requires that decision makers have before them an Environmental Impact Statement for this type of action. We understand that an Environmental Impact Statement is planned for a later stage of the approval process. Quite frankly, having an Environmental Conservation, or application prepared after the application is granted by this board, is not only absurd, it is also in violation of the ECL. Obviously, the Town Board is required to have before it all data, reports, studies, and alternatives necessary for the board to access and fully consider the impacts of this project before it renders it's decision. A grant of this application before the full preparation of, public notice, and acceptance of an Environmental Impact Statement will render any decision of this board voidable. And here's another point too that hasn't been brought up too much. Fourth, Grand Union, the proposed tenant for this property, had a prior presence in Queensbury on route 9 and elected to abandon that store and this community as soon as it hit financial trouble. I recall at that time that the Grand Union filed for bankruptcy which it is apparently still in. The Queensbury store was closed within days of that filing. The board should not extend this company, which was so quick to leave Queensbury with a vacant store on Route 9 any courtesy to give it the benefit of any doubt. The last thing this town needs is another store building abandoned by a bankrupt entity. Enclosed is a recent news article concerning the Grand Union. The article confirms that Grand Union has filed for bankruptcy protection twice in the past five years and that it reported a lost of thirty-five point six million dollars in the last quarter. It is inconceivable that it could be the best interest of the Town of Queensbury to have this company open a facility in this town. I mean, I don't know if that is a factor that this board would consider but it certainly seems like a worth while one. Finally he says, I live on Garrison Road. Over the past several years, the through traffic from Bay Road to Glen Street has increased significantly. Entering and exiting Garrison, Fort Amherst and Webster onto or from Bay Road in the morning and the evening is dangerous at best. A full consideration of traffic impacts on these through streets must be made before the application can be granted. Again, this is the reason the law requires that the Environmental Impact Statement be prepared before the board grants the application, not after the fact. Again, I want to emphasis that Mr. Nigro's investment in the property was made with full knowledge of the existing zoning. Any hardship he may bear as a result of the denial of his application is self imposed and of no concern to the board. On the other hand, the members of the community who also made an investment in this town has a right to expect the board to respect their rights and concerns in this matter. There's no reason why this town should alter it's zoning to accommodate either the applicant's desire to pu11 the last nickel of value from his property, or the fleeting desire of a bankrupt entity to have another shot at the Town of Queensbury. And this was signed by Robert Lustberg. It just, I don't know, it seems to me, I really have been involved in this issue. I've talked to so many people in my neighborhood and allover Queensbury and it just seems that the only people that I've spoken to who think that we should proceed with this project are those who will benefit from it financially. I don't know if you've all had a similar experience but it really, I think deserves your serious consideration and I would just say, please represent the people that you represent and vote this project down. Thank you. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Thank you. DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-Thank you. Anyone else wish to address the board? MS. BETH PARADISE, 18 Homer Avenue-Hi, my name is Beth Paradise, I live at 18 Homer Avenue. I asked the man to show what the affect on my property would be on his diagram but I believe he was describing the Potter home. But still, he doesn't show my house just on the other side of the brook. And I believe the only people who are going to approve of this property of this zoning change are the people that have been made a generous offer by Nigro. The water level that they spoke of doesn't seem correct and I don't see stormwater basins there because K-Mart had to put, I don't know how many, I think three or four in. And we were told that it's a hundred feet from the brook that you can do anything. So, I would ask, as a taxpayer for the last twenty-four years, if you turn down their offer to rezone Homer Avenue because, like I said at the last meeting, I stand to lose twenty-five thousand dollars and as Joanne just said, that that loss would be to the Town of Queensbury. Thank you. DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-Anyone else? MR. MICHAEL INGLES TON, 302 Bay Road-My name is Michael Ingleston, I live on the corner of Homer and Bay, 302 Bay Road. Two weeks ago we had a meeting with Nigro at the Town Board. Some of the things that we discussed that were not brought up tonight that Nigro chose to lose out their agenda, was that the deliveries made to the store, I believe they said at one point, were going to be four or five deliveries a day. And I brought up that, that the truckers run twenty-four hours a day and that if they don't get unloaded on the eleven to seven shift which normally they do, they will be there running constantly. Because they have to use the AC in the summer and they have to have heat in the winter because they live in those tractors. Those tractors are virtually their home, that's why they pay a hundred and twenty-five thousand for those rigs, just the tractors. That's not the trailers, that's not even the reefers. Another thing that hasn't been brought up, I live on the corner of Homer and Bay. I have a lot of dust coming in off of Bay. Now, if we put another entrance on the other side, on the back side of my property where TPI used to be, if they go in here and if they choose not to come onto mega -save from Quaker because they have to cross the eastern traffic because right now it's a zoo, getting across that highway. They're going to turn on that yellow or on that green light and they're going to turn onto Bay and cross the lane because it's easier to cross one lane on Bay then it is to cross two lanes which is non stop on Quaker, to get into that entrance to that store, if that store is approved to go in there in any aspect at all. So, I would like to bring this to the Town Board's attention as far as their rezoning to get this store in there. I don't believe peak hour for this store or for any day is four to five. I believe a lot of people downtown in Glens Falls work until five p.m. I would say the peak hour would be after five p.m. Maybe five to eight or maybe on a Saturday or maybe on a Sunday but not four to five. And like the lady said, when they did a study, first of all we're taking figures from the people that are involved in trying to persuade this town to let them bring a store in there, instead of an outside company doing a count. So, actually can we say, is there any bias on this count. I don't know. I didn't take the count. I probably should have stood there the same time that he was standing there or sitting there and took a count. I don't know. There's been no traffic on and off, no study for the traffic on and off of Homer Avenue and I've already brought it up before, that is a zoo trying to get off of Homer and if we do rezone this so that they can get back farther to Homer, it's just going to increase the traffic or increase the situation getting off of Homer Avenue. Nothing was brought up tonight about bringing in fill. Two weeks ago, Nigro discussed that they might have to bring in fill. I was just wondering why tonight it was not discussed at all. We know that across the street at Lowes, they had to bring in six feet for the whole parcel. But maybe the water table is different across the street from them, just like the property that they are trying to pass to get rezoned, they say is different from the people next to them on the same side of Homer or across the street. I haven't had any soil test done on my property so I don't know. Now, apparently they are giving you pictures from homes across the street. I have no idea. I know that I live on the corner of Homer, it was brought up about the pictures, what they see. I know that we had a commercial, we had a computer printout of what they would see from the road COUNCILMAN BREWER-Do you want them? MR. INGLES TON -Yes, please. Today, they brought in drawings instead of actual pictures and I believe that actually the drawings doesn't give you a graphic view as a picture would. As far as influencing somebody or whatever, I believe the picture gives you a lot more detail then the drawing will. Now, they said that they were going to lower the lights from thirty feet to twenty feet on the backside of Homer because of the houses. I believe he said on Bay Road, he's going to leave them at thirty feet which apparently they're going to be thirty feet on the corner of my property. Okay, because I have buffers on both sides because I have a corner lot. So, I'm assuming that I'm going to have thirty foot high poles on the back of my property which, you know, in the first place I don't want these people there and the second place, I don't want thirty foot high poles there. Okay? The noise of the unloading is going to be increased if the town rezones this property for those eight lots on Homer because the original plan, when they went to the Planning Board in October was, they had two plans. They had one without the houses on Homer, one with the houses on Homer. Now, if they buy the houses on Homer which they have contract on a certain amount of houses, then they own to the edge of the property of the road. Then that gives them, basically a hundred and forty-three feet more closer to Homer which affects everybody on the other side of the road and the people on their side of the road if they go in there. So, actually they're bringing the noise and the light and the dust and all of the pollution of whatever, the air conditioning units and the heaters and whatever, a hundred and forty-three feet closer to both sides of that street if they are allowed to buy those houses, those eight lots and rezone. Because, in the first place when they brought it to the Planning Board in October, they can build that in Queensbury if it is approved on just those two parcels that they bought off Bay Road. They don't need anything on Homer. Queensbury says you have to have thirty percent greenery. They have more then thirty percent greenery without buying anything on Homer. And, oh, I won't go there. Okay. It's been brought up two weeks ago when the Chairman of the Planning Board brought it up about rezoning sections of areas. If this property is rezoned commercial instead of light industrial, which I think there's a large difference between commercial and light industrial, it will be in the middle of that street on one side of the street. Now, if you're trying to convince me that that is not sectional when both ends of that street on both sides will be light industrial and the middle will be commercial if it is rezoned, is not sectioning. Then, I don't know, maybe I went to a different school, I don't know. I'm not trying to pull the wool over your eyes. If that is not rezoned and they don't buy those properties and they do get approval to go in there, we will actually have won a little bit of our own identity back because we are a residence. That is a neighborhood right now and if they go back a hundred and forty-three feet because they do not buy those properties because it is not rezoned commercial to put that building up, then they will be a hundred and forty-three feet away from all of us on that street. Unfortunately, some of those people that have options on their property will be hurt financially because when they made options, those people came into a great windfall because they offered a lot more money then what that property was assessed. I was actually ask, one of the residents that they offered to buy me out and they chose not to because of the cost. They offered to buy the trailer on the street next to the brook when they made the original offers and apparently they chose not to buy that piece of property also that borders the brook because of the cost. So, I just wanted to bring that to your attention that because the trailer next to the brook and the house on the corner was not bought because of the cost. Okay, these people don't care, it is a conglomerate. These people don't care about the residents. They don't care about that neighborhood and when they get all done, if they get your approval, they could care to you what happens to you tomorrow because they don't live here. It's very simple. They live in a different city in a different county. Now, they're saying that the water table is X amount of feet below ground level. Is the water table in my yard because I have sump-pump in my cellar, everybody on that street has sump-pumps in their cellars. If they're going to cover five to six acres of property which is now soil which lets runoff go through towards the brook and if they're going to cover five to six acres of property with cement and with blacktop, how is that piece of property that is being covered with solids going to affect my property because I border that property. I'm not across the street or down the road. DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-No, I know right where you are. MR. INGLESTON-Right. How is that going to affect my property? Is that not going to affect my water table on my property? DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-I couldn't tell you that but I'll tell you an incident where I live. People across the road they developed one, two, three, four houses. I had water in my cellar. They put that development in there and they brought the fill back up, they're raised ranches so they brought the fill up. I don't have any more water. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Really. DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-So, it diverted it some place. COUNCILMAN BREWER-You were the most opposed to that development in the town at that time. DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-Yea, when it was apartments. COUNCILMAN BREWER-See, you were wrong, Ted. MR. INGLES TON-Apparently, I should have grabbed your piece of property instead of where I am, uh? Well, I just, I mean were not supposed to bring up what we brought up before, I just wanted to just, I definitely wanted to let the board know that I opposed this zoning change. I ask the board not to approve it. I have the cutout from the Post Star on the Grand Union where they filed bankruptcy twice in the last five years. They lost thirty-five point six million dollars in the last quarter. February 15th they fired it's CEO in the finance, in the, the vice chairman. They fired the CEO, Wayne Harris and Jack Partridge, the, he was serving as vice chairman. I mean this company is in a world of hurt. You know, we've seen what they did on Glen Street. Nigro has torn down, you know, the Carvel shack and put up, you know, which was nice and they have sprinklers. I don't need sprinklers around my house, I have enough water already. Thank you. DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-Anyone else wish to be heard, last time? Okay, public hearing closed. The following residents submitted letters of opposition which are on file in the Town Clerk's Office: Richard Luther Hudson Falls, New York Ola Edmunds Queensbury, New York John Rugge, MD Victoria Rugge 44 Garrison Road Queensbury, New York Raymond Maddocks 45 Garrison Road Queensbury, New York Loren Baim 16 Garrison Road Queensbury, New York Joanne Swanson 45 Garrison Road Queensbury, New York Beverly Kerr 47 Garrison Road Queensbury, New York Shirley & Chuck Moon 30 Garrison Road Queensbury, New York Marilyn & Thomas Jacobs 8 North Road Queensbury, New York Mary Brown 10 Garrison Road Queensbury, New York Mr. & Mrs. John Sturt, Jr. 31 Fort Amherst Road Glens Falls, New York Mrs. Hedvig Goodrich 65 Fort Amherst Road Glens Falls, New York Robert Lustberg Garrison Road Queensbury, New York PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED TO PUBLIC COUNSEL LAPPER-IfI could just make a couple of general comments before we answer the board's specific questions. We're all aware that right now in our Town of Queensbury development is a public issue that certainly for the last five years, people have been very focused on and we were certainly aware of that before we came to the town with this project. I probably mentioned this last time but when we look at this project and we look at the rezoning request, the rezoning request seems like a no brainer, with all due respect because were doing the building in a project on ten acres that could be done on seven acres. When I say seven acres, if you look at that site and you picture the Hannaford which is the identical the size building and seemingly identical layout, if you just twist it so that the side on Bay faces Quaker and the long driveway is what comes out to Bay on Hannaford, it's the same building and essentially the same site plan. But the difference here is that this taking ten acres in order to leave what would be, I think just about fifty percent green when we take out the two rows of parking that we talked about at the last meeting. So that, so we've got a fifty percent green site which far exceeds what the requirements are in the town. In terms of the impact on the neighbors on Homer Ave, which of course we're all aware of, this is, one of the last gentleman said this but this is an industrial zone. So, unlike other projects that have come before the Town Board for rezoning, we're asking for an up-zoning from industrial to commercial and if you're talking about the impacts of potential industrial development where at a minimum you're going to have truck traffic on Homer Ave. We knew that, so we closed off Homer Ave completely. Homer Ave is certainly going to be a quieter, a less impacted street even though there's going to be a store on the other side, there's going to be a berm with significant landscaping and what we determined since we were here last time is that we can leave a line of mature maple trees which will also help. We looked at this from the two houses that were two stories as you had asked and of those two houses on either side, the gentleman that spoke at the end is across the street from CR Bard, he's got a barn in his backyard. We don't think that we're going to make a significant difference and we've landscaped very nicely all the property around him. The people in the raised ranch, as Frank mentioned when we looked at their house, their windows face towards the northeast. So, yes, I mean, the issue of transition, the people on the south side are zoned light industrial. I think it's interesting. One of the gentleman who were here last time was the second house on the south side and he mentioned that, last time, which I thought was interesting, that his house was on the market for a year and a half and that he hadn't received an offer. Then I thought certainly you can't blame Nigro Companies, if that's the case right now that people already don't want to buy it as a residence but what I found when we pulled the multiple listing was that he was asking two hundred and fifty thousand dollars for his house for a small ranch and the real issue there is that these houses are like a thousand square feet. So, that's, they're small houses in an area that's zoned light industrial. That doesn't make it an easy sell, having nothing to do with the commercial development next door. But when he listed it for two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, he was listing it as industrial which it is. So, he was looking to see if an industrial buyer wants to come in. I think that's the intention of the town in that zoning, that eventually there will be an industrial project in that area between Duke Concrete and Homer Ave, that's what it's zoned for and to some extent, by changing the character of the other side of the streetto commercial, it may facilitate somebody else looking at it as an industrial project because they won't be worrying about residents across the street. But in terms of what we're proposing, we're using the land that will purchased and rezoned to create a significant buffer which is something that was done with the residents across the street in mind and it wasn't the intention of the Nigro Companies to come in and to have to buy these additional parcels when the project started. In fact, we had the first properties, the commercial zone properties under option well in advance and as we were planning this out and realizing that the neighbors that would be backing up to the project would have a problem with it. We felt that if we could provide a landscaped significant buffer and then the street in between, then we would be doing what we could to protect those people who are stilling living on that street now until it becomes industrial. MR. PALUMBO-I also wanted to clarify some of the issues that were discussed about the peak hour traffic. For traffic studies, the method in which they are analyzed is not the peak hour of the store. It's the peak hour of the traffic on the roads that you're going to be accessing. That's developed by doing actual counts. When the gentleman referred to an independent agent doing the counts or anybody, yes, we did the counts but those counts were verified because of the development that has occurred. The Lowe's Traffic Impact Study was analyzed and also a report that was done by Vollmer Associates doing the entire Route 254 corridor that was, was commissioned by the municipalities, AGFTC and the town, I think shared in that. But our numbers, I mean if there was any concern about any fabrication, not only would we not do that but it gave the ability to have representative numbers already there that we could consider our numbers with. Again, the peak hour is established for the existing traffic flow. Then we doubly are conservative by saying, what's the maximum trip generation for the store. You add the maximum trip generation to the peak hour of the surrounding roadways, you get your most conservative view. If you were to say, well, more people will go shopping at six or seven o'clock at night, the flow of traffic on the road because all those people who are going back and forth to work are now not on the road, would decrease the level of impact, the level, increase the level of service and decrease the impact because you have less existing traffic on the road. Less of the pass-by traffic. So, when you talk about peak hour, it's not the peak hour of the store, it's the peak hour of the transportation system that it's accessing. And that was, again reviewed by Vollmer that was hired by the town, not by the Town Board, not by the Planning Board. It was hired by the town to review this and the information was provided to both the Planning Board and the Town Board and that information was out there. It was also reviewed by AGFTC and in both cases, the Quaker and Bay intersection was deemed that we were using very conservative numbers. We were using numbers that were two percent higher then the actual Vollmer study that had analyzed the entire 254 corridor. So, we're very confident in the levels of impact that we're projecting on the system, on the traffic system. So, they're more conservative, they've been reviewed by multiple agencies. When we get to the Planning Board process, another player that will be involved with that will be the county. The County DPW will being an interested party as were going through that and where we've determined through our traffic analysis that we'll need a hundred and twenty foot left hand turn lane, we're going to have to have actual design plans with the county and they're going to be the ones that tell us what we can do fully off of Quaker and the comment about the location of, the exact location of the driveway, if it were to come about that we couldn't fit that dimensionally in there, we would have a problem. Alright, but we know that we have, we have the highway drawings, we've been doing that work, it was not appropriate to be presenting that at this point in time, showing actual detailed design because it is the zoning issue right now. But we know we have to be able to provide what we've talked about in the traffic study and we know that the Planning Board is going to have the review of that. If there, in terms of offsite impacts, if there's an associated need for a traffic signal at one of our entrances that were to come up through other purposes or other things that were not foreseen in this traffic study which I can not foresee at this point, and were due to the project, yes it would be the project, the applicant who would be responsible for the cost of such improvements. And also, referencing what somebody had said about that we were showing six cars. We were showing an increase of six cars to what we had already counted. The counts that they we actually had there, I talked of in terms of percentages and it was, then we used those percentages to say, that given our volumes, our maximum trip generations, we would see an addition of three cars in each direction. So, that was just some clarification on the comments regarding traffic. In terms of, one person referenced the cutting down trees. I'd like to reference the fact that one of the, one of the objectives or positive things out of this is that by rezoning and allowing the building to be moved back further on the site, the area up front has got substantial green area and trees that are saved and yes, it's wetland and we want preserve that because there's a positive for both us and the environment with preserving that wetland. But the amount of green space that we've got on the site, as Jon referenced is far in excess and I think the amount of trees that we'll be saving, yes, we have to take some down in order to do this project, there's no question about that. But I think if you look at the plan, there's a lot of positives that are being done there. I guess at that point, I'll just, those were just the some of the things that COUNSEL LAPPER-Ijust have one other comment. I think it's interesting, in terms of, a number of people mentioned the former Grand Union and that site was also redeveloped by the Nigro Company. So, when Grand Union left that site, my understanding is that they left because it was a thirty thousand square foot supermarket and it was at that point that Price Chopper and then Hannaford had built the super centers at sixty-five thousand or greater. So, I think that was market forces but during that period of time, it was, the Nigro Companies that ultimately redeveloped it into the Toy's R Us which they did a nice job with and certainly they paid taxes on that when it was vacant while they were looking for another tenant. So, in terms of that issue of what happens if a tenant changes, you've got a responsible developer with deep enough pockets to pay the taxes and maintain the property during any time when they have to switch tenants. I don't think that's a negative, I think that's a positive. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Nigro will maintain ownership? COUNSEL LAPPER-Yes, yes. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I have, one of the fellows here mentioned, we did ask if you could find out possibly how many trucks per day, Shop and Save, Price Chopper, K-Mart, ecetera. I don't know if you tried to do that or. MR. PALUMBO-We tried to obtain that information and it was not something that, we went into speak to a manager at the store and as representatives of the competing change, they didn't really want to offer that information. We, I think the easier way for us to address that is that we have gone on the record and would expect that the Planning Board, which I believe is within their authority can, as a measure of site plan approval condition the delivery times. And what would be to the benefit of those adjacent landowners would be that, it would be on the record and if there were violations of that, they would have the record behind them in terms of being able to monitor it and call the authorities and say, now they are violating what they said they were going to do in the site plan. COUNCILMAN BREWER-They would have to condition it. The other thing was fill. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Just before we get off that issue. Does that include the overnight storage and idling of trucks, until the delivery occurs? Correct? DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-Yea, that will all be site plan issues. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Yea, but I mean, when we say that COUNCILMAN BREWER-That was just an issue that was brought up last time that was mentioned that they didn't comment to. MR. PALUMBO-We've done it on other projects and COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I've heard of it done before myself, so. MR. PALUMBO-Yea, and we're COUNCILMAN BREWER-How about fill? MR. PALUMBO-Fill, what we had referenced last time is that our goal, our goal for cost savings standpoint to try to do it with just what we have here. Now, we will have to, right now, all we've been able to do is show a balance for our own purposes of what is surface to surface. Now, once we get into the actual, some of that material, that soils that's there, that we're counting as cut and then placing it as fill for the building, may have characteristics that we don't want to have under the building. And if that were the case, we may have to spoil that in another area and bring some more structural fill. But from a cost standpoint, we want to do as much with just the onsite material and in any case, we're far different from the area across the street where they had to bring in as much fill. The gentleman was correct, we had looked at that site at one point in time before it was the Lowe's and yes, it was a low, flat, large flat area that COUNSEL LAPPER-Also, in a flood plain. MR. P ALUMBO- That was in a flood plain that needed to be brought up just to get the building up to that level. It was, the building that was twice as large roughly, a hundred and thirty thousand square feet with the garden center. And so, yes they had to bring in a lot of fill, no question about it. Our existing grade in the building area is about three fifteen. Our finished floor elevation is about three seventeen and a half. At that stands right now, given the sub-base that we would normally under the concrete floor, the amount of actual earth that we have to move to that area is relatively insignificant. COUNCILMAN BREWER-That's all I have right now, Ted. DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-That's all you've got. Dan? COUNCILMAN STEC-I was curious to hear about the noise mitigation. You would be willing to certainly make that precondition at site plan with the Planning Board to limit the idling of truck times. Because, you know, I'd like to give the benefit of doubt, everyone has got good intentions but I know practicality, after it's said and done a year later, you know, you can have potential for noise problem and I just want to make sure that everyone is going with open eyes that you're willing to stand behind it and eliminate that. Because, frankly, that was one area that I think you didn't really address as thoroughly as I had hoped. COUNSEL LAPPER-Only because we thought we had made that commitment last week. Anything that's proved as a condition, it's, you get a letter from Craig Brown, I mean, that's just how it works. DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-Yea, we could condition that in the approval if we decide to approve it. COUNCILMAN STEC-We could do that ourselves? DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-Yea, we could, you know, conditionally send it to the Planning Board that they'll look at that and they'll address that. COUNCILMAN STEC-Okay. DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-Okay, anything else? Jim, do you have anything? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Yea, just a couple of things we heard tonight here. Landscaping goes to beautification, right Chris, as a matter of course? MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-All commercial development does. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-And I appreciate the comments but Chris, you guys are doing all that you can with the landscaping. Let's see, changing of the neighborhood. You know, I, there was a zoning plan put in place for this street in terms of Light Industrial Zoning and I know the Light Industrial Zone, as a technical matter doesn't even allow single family homes as an allowed use. You know, with the zoning plan in place, you know, there was obviously an expectation that this area would some day go to industrial use. DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-Yea, but it very did. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-It never did. DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-It's been thirteen years. UNKNOWN AUDIENCE-It's a neighborhood. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I understand but my point is, it's not a rezoning from residential zoning DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-To Highway Commercial. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Highway Commercial. I just, that's in my thought process, that's all I'm saying. The six cars were clarified. I wanted to make sure that was clarified. That was the actual increase in the resulting to this project, not the overall increase on the street background or the existing cars traveling on the street. That's obvious. The percent coming in from Quaker, could you Frank just get into some further clarification about that left hand turn on Quaker and how you guys are able to maintain a full movement intersection? I know we've gone through it, I just want to clarify one more time that, how you justified that as being a full movement intersection. MR. PALUMBO-On Quaker, full movement? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Right. MR. P ALUMBO- Yes, one of the things that you have there is that, you know, we're down past the Lowe's intersection by COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Now, how far are you past the Lowe's intersection? MR. PALUMBO-I'd say, center line and center line, we're, Lowe's driveway is about two hundred feet down from the Lowe's driveway. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Really? MR. PALUMBO-Yea. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Okay. MR. P ALUMBO- What we have there is that the real tough movements would be left turn out and the left turns in. Now, the left turns in, we can provide for and have spoken in the traffic study about a left hand turn lane. There's plenty of width there. We've talked with the County DPW, as I said earlier. That there's ample move there with just re-striping that we can provide the left hand turn lane. We've gone out, we've measured, it's not shown on here but we have all the driveway locations, such as Minogue's and from there down to Everetts and you know, we're confident that we can do that turn lane without any impeding of the existing flow of traffic there. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-And you've approached that subject with the County DPW? MR. PALUMBO-Yes, yes. DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-You won't interfere with the intersection of Everetts Avenue with the turning lane? MR. PALUMBO-No, no. The hundred and fifty, we're, again, don't quote me on it because I don't have it right in front of me but I believe it's about six hundred feet to Everetts. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Okay. DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-From your driveway? MR. PALUMBO-And we're talking about a hundred and fifty foot turn lane. You know, so yes, we've looked at it and we're confident that we can provide that turn lane without any undo impacts to Everetts or the driveways along Quaker. Now, the left hand turn movements out of the site would then be, would be the trickier of the two issues. Now, what you have happening there is that, you'll have a certain amount of time allotted in the shadow of the Quaker and Bay intersection. So, there will be some green time allotted there. The, what we've done by using, as I referenced before, the higher percentage of the traffic coming from the west, therefore would want to return to the west, they have two options. One is, to turn left out of Quaker Road, the other is to turn right out of Bay and turn left at the Quaker and Bay. Now, if, by using the higher percentage there, what we're doing is taking a worse case in that situation such that if the turn out of the Quaker driveway, if that became too difficult, if it became that more people were trying to use that, the natural flow is then to make the right out and turn at the light. So, we provided the additional, the higher number there because we knew that the green time that's allotted at Bay and Quaker was going to be more, more impacted. So, the higher the number we could throw there, the more conservative we were being. So, that thirty percent split, or the thirty-five percent being broken into thirty and five is actually, and I think that the reviewers of the traffic study, you know, from a technical standpoint did see that as being a more conservative approach. You could say that ten percent, fifteen percent maybe able to make that in the shadow times and the other movements being that far down that they'd be able to get out of Quaker more easily. But in the worse case scenario, they go out and use the green time and it's allotted there. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-You have a combined level of service at the Route 254 site entrance as an A. Do you recall what the left hand turn movement out of that was rated at, individually? MR. PALUMBO-I don't recall, Jim. If we go on, I'll try to find it but I know and actually, it's not in here. I'm sorry. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Yea, I'm on page 2, it's on the MR. P ALUMBO- Where it is, is we addressed that in the letter, the follow up letter that went to some of the comments. Chris, I don't know if you have that? I think we had a hand sketch that showed some of the movements out of the site because that was one of the questions that came up after the initial study. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Okay, well if you can find it. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-It's the left hand out? MR. PALUMBO-Left hand out of the Quaker driveway onto MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-Out of the Quaker driveway. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Alright, that's all I had Ted. DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-Okay. Are you guys all set over here? COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yes. DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-Alright. Thank you. MR. STEVE POWERS-Steve Powers with Nigro Companies, if I could just make a little clarification as far as our tenant and the condition of the recent changes. As the developer and owner of a number of Grand Union facilities, the recent management changes caught our attention as well. But financially, the Grand Union Company is fine. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be paying these guys or wasting your time or everybody's time going through this because we're talking about a nine or ten million dollar investment here. And we're proceeding on because what we see with the Grand Union Company is, not only day to day operations are the same, if not better but the company is going to be leaner, it's going to be more aggressive and that's the reason why the new board personnel came in and made changes. They felt that Grand Union maybe was getting a little behind the eight ball in terms of the Hannafords, the Price Choppers, the Shop N Saves, or the Stop and Shops and the Wagmanns of the world. So, they're really trying to be more aggressive. So, we're here to proceed on with this project and we're bullish about the Grand Union Company. DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TURNER-Okay, because that's a big concern, you heard it tonight. Alright, thank you gentlemen. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 9: 18 P.M. Mr. Round, Executive Director lead the Town Board through the following SEQRA: FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, PART II]RIV ATE IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will the proposed action result in physical change to the project site: YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 1O%. Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Construction that will continue for more then I year or involve more than one phase or stage. Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. Construction in a designated floodway. Other impacts: Small to Moderate - Clearing, paving, and associated land development activities. 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.) NO Specific land forms: IMPACT ON WATER 3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? NO Examples that would apply Developable area of site contains a protected water body. Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. Other impacts: 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? YES Examples that would apply A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. Other impacts: Small to Moderate - Stormwater discharge to unnamed tributary of Halfway Brook. 5. Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? YES Examples that would apply Proposed action will require a discharge permit. Small to Moderate Proposed action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action. Proposed action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. Proposed action will adversely affect groundwater. Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. Proposed action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. Proposed action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. Proposed action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. Proposed action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. Proposed action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. Other impacts: 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? YES Examples that would apply Proposed action would change flood water flows. Proposed action may cause substantial erosion. Proposed action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Proposed action will allow development in a designated floodway. Other impacts: Small to Moderate - Alternating drainage patterns through installation of detention ponds as a stormwater control measure. IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? NO Examples that would apply Proposed action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. Proposed action will result in the incineration of more than I ton of refuse per hour. Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 Ibs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. Other impacts: IMP ACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? NO Examples that would apply Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. Other impacts: 9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? NO Examples that would apply Proposed action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. Proposed action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. IMP ACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? NO Examples that would apply The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) Other impacts: IMP ACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES II. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? YES Examples that would apply Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. Small to Moderate Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. Other impacts: IMP ACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOCIAL RESOURCES 12. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? NO Examples that would apply Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. Proposed action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? NO Examples that would apply The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Other impacts: IMP ACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 14. Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14 (g)? NO List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? YES Examples that would apply Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. Other impacts: Small to Moderate - As identified in Traffic Impact Analysis, additional trips from 251 to 302 trips per hour. IMP ACT ON ENERGY 16. Will proposed action affect the community's sources offuel or energy supply? NO Examples that would apply Proposed action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy in the municipality. Proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. Other impacts: NOISE AND ODOR IMP ACTS 17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? YES Examples that would apply Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. Other impacts: Small to Moderate - Additional noise/odors as a result of commercial activity. IMP ACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 18. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? NO Examples that would apply Proposed action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. Proposed action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other flammable liquids. Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. Other impacts: IMP ACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 19. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? YES Examples that would apply The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. Small to Moderate Proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) Proposed action will set an important precedent for future projects. Proposed action will create or eliminate employment. Small to Moderate Other impacts: 20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? YES Mr. Round, Executive Director-You have not identified any items as potentially large impact? That's correct? Councilman Martin-That's right. RESOLUTION ADOPTING SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY NIGRO COMPANIES FROM LI -IA (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL - ONE ACRE) TO HC-IA (HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL - ONE ACRE) Councilman Brewer-Don't we have to do a negative declaration on the SEQRA first. Mr. Round, Executive Director-It's a component of the resolution. Councilman Brewer-I don't know if I like that. Councilman Stec- Yea, is that normal practice or new practice? Mr. Round, Executive Director-It has been. You certainly Councilman Stec-I mean right, conceivably we could go through and have a negative declaration and then refuse the rezoning. Mr. Round, Executive Director-Correct. Counsel Hafner-Would you like to break it out? It's totally up to you. Deputy Supervisor Turner-Let's break it out. Counsel Hafner amended and proposed the following resolutions: RESOLUTION ADOPTING SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION RESOLUTION NO.: 85,2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. James Martin WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering Nigro Companies' request to amend the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and Map whereby properties bearing Tax Map No.'s: 107-1-38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45 and 47 and located on the north side of Homer Avenue, Queensbury would be rezoned from LI-IA (Light Industrial- One Acre) to HC-IA (Highway Commercial - One Acre), and WHEREAS, the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing concerning the project, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, as SEQRA Lead Agency, has reviewed a Long Environmental Assessment Form to analyze potential environmental impacts of the proposed rezoning, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has considered the conditions and circumstances of the area affected by the rezoning, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby determines that the proposed rezoning will not have any significant environmental impact and a SEQRA Negative Declaration is made, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director of Community Development to send a copy of this Resolution to the Warren County Planning Board, Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury Planning Board and any agency involved for SEQRA purposes. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 2000, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Brower DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE: Councilman Martin-I've got one point of discussion in that regard, on the form that's submitted, Bob, the neg dec? Counsel Hafner-Right. Councilman Martin-I just want language in there to the affect, the Town Board after taking a hard look and considering the information that was submitted, and I'd like that information listed. You know, in terms of the various reports and studies. What I want to get across here is that we did take a hard look. Counsel Hafner-Okay, and I'll get that list from Chris. Councilman Martin-Alright and I want it, you know I want it clearly shown the amount of information that was supplied to us in coming to this decision, it was not one that was reached lightly. Counsel Hafner-Okay Vote taken. RESOLUTION AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY NIGRO COMPANIES FROM LI-IA (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL- ONE ACRE) TO HC-IA (HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL - ONE ACRE) RESOLUTION NO.: 86,2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. James Martin WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering Nigro Companies' request to amend the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and Map whereby properties bearing Tax Map No.'s: 107-1-38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45 and 47 and located on the north side of Homer Avenue, Queensbury would be rezoned from LI-IA (Light Industrial- One Acre) to HC-IA (Highway Commercial - One Acre), and WHEREAS, on or about October 4th, 1999, the Town Board adopted a Resolution authorizing submission of the rezoning application to the Town's Planning Board for report and recommendation, and WHEREAS, on or about December 21st, 1999, the Queensbury Planning Board was unable to adopt any recommendation on the Petition, and WHEREAS, on or about October 27th, 1999, the Warren County Planning Board recommended approval of the Petition for Change of Zone, and WHEREAS, the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing concerning the proposed rezoning on February 14th and February 28th, 2000, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has considered the conditions and circumstances of the area affected by the rezoning, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury determined that on February 28th, 2000 that the proposed rezoning would not have any significant environmental impact and a SEQRA Negative Declaration was made, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby amends the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and Map to rezone property bearing Tax Map No.'s: 107-1-38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45 and 47 and located on the north side of Homer Avenue, Queensbury from the current zoning ofLI-IA (Light Industrial- One Acre) to HC-IA (Highway Commercial- One Acre) contingent upon the following conditions; 1. The applicant will make the change they discussed at the Public Hearing to delete two rows of parking, 2. That the Planning Board has full discretion to review the entire plan and is not to be limited by the Town Board's action in it's SEQRA Review, 3. That the Planning Board will consider plantings around the building to diffuse the height of the building and to consider breaking up the roof line, 4. That the Planning Board will consider the hours of delivery and lighting and noise and delivery times and aesthetics of the project, 5. That the Beautification Committee will review the landscaping, 6. That the Planning Board will consider a planting plan that would require one tree for every eight to twelve parking spaces, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to arrange with a surveyor to update the official Town Zoning Map to reflect this change of zone, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director of Community Development to send a copy of this Resolution to the Warren County Planning Board, Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury Planning Board and any agency involved for SEQRA purposes, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, in accordance with the requirements of Article XIII of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and ~265 of the Town Law, the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to publish a certified copy of the zoning changes in the Glens Falls Post-Star within five (5) days and obtain an Affidavit of Publication, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this amendment shall take effect upon filing in the Town Clerk's Office. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 2000, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Stec, Mr. Turner NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Brower DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE: Councilman Martin-The applicant will take out the row of parking that you alluded to earlier. The two rows of parking that you mentioned earlier and I think it should be specifically said that the Planning Board, I want it said right out that the Planning Board had latitude in making changes at, as they sit fit as long they don't do anything to violate any section of this resolution. Deputy Supervisor Turner-I would also add that they look at the plantings around the building, up next to the building to kind of diffuse the height of the building. Counsel Hafner-Say that again, I'm sorry. Deputy Supervisor Turner-I would want them to look at the plantings that were suggested around the building in the areas that are needed to kind of diffuse the height of the building. I would also like to add that they look at the roofline and try to break it up. Counsel Stec-I'd add that I'd like that the Planning Board to specifically look at noise and specifically loading hours and particularly calling attention to the operation of trucks that may not be in the act of unloading but are running in the evening hours and the aesthetics of the building itself and the beautification committee, reviewing the landscaping. Deputy Supervisor Turner-Right. Councilman Stec-I don't know if that's necessary to be in there but I think that those are important. Deputy Supervisor Turner-Yea, I agree. Councilman Martin-And one last one, I'd like the Planning Board to consider a planting plan that would require eight to twelve trees for every park, no, one tree for every eight to twelve spaces of parking. Councilman Stec-Are we going to talk about minimum size of the trees or do we leave that to the Planning Board? Councilman Martin-Leave that to the Planning Board. Deputy Supervisor Turner-But I think they should be directed to look at the size of the trees. Councilman Martin-There's guidance in the site plan standards for that. Deputy Supervisor Turner-I know there is but Councilman Brewer-Certainly, I think the Planning Board, there's members of the Planning Board here and I think they know what direction that Councilman Martin-Well, I'm just trying to be responsive to their request for some latitude. Councilman Stec-I think it's important, there have been some valid concerns that are raised and it's easy to say we'll take it on face value and we trust you but good fences make good neighbors and you know, the four corner document, there are four corner doctrine, right from my business law class. If it's not in the paper, it's not there. So, I think the concerns are valid ones. Counsel Hafner-If the board wants it there they should put it there. Councilman Martin-So do we need to, as amended then, I guess that's an amendment to the resolution, is that Counsel Hafner-As I amended by those and Caroline and I will go over it. Vote taken. Five Minute Recess 9:43 p.m. Supervisor Brower took meeting over ROWLAND'S COMPROMISE PROPOSAL Counsel Matt Ludemann-Good evening gentleman, my name is Matt Ludemann, I represent Curtis and Marion Rowland and I realize the hour is late so I will try to keep this moving along and I do appreciate, at least to the extent that the snowmobiles got put off another week, that it is appreciated. First, I'd like to introduce my clients, I know you've all met them. You've all been nice enough to go up and visit their property but I'm not quite sure you know who they are. They grew up locally. Curt is a mill worker, GiGi is a secretary and they built a very nice house in the Town of Queensbury in the rural section rather then some of us who have decided to build in subdivisions. What they are not. What they are not. They are not the people who have sued you over the last five years. They are not the people who come here to the meetings and shout, I mean yell and shout at people. They are not the people who remove guardrails on icy winter nights and steel them. What they have done instead, during the last five years is allowed their neighbors and anyone else who has asked, permission to cross their property to go from Fuller Road to Clendon Brook and vice versa and some of their neighbors, almost five years ago were nice enough to clear a path in the woods and that has been used consistently for the last five years. What has also been going on during this last five years is that they have offered to the town as a standing offer to donate the land for the town to build a recreation trail so that recreational bikers and hikers could access Fuller Road from Clendon Brook and vice versa. Originally, we planned a two part presentation tonight but unfortunately Tom Nace, a professional engineer had another commitment so I will have to make both presentations. Before we get into the engineering part of the presentation, I'd like to do what I call the legal part of the presentation and by that I mean, I'm the one whose going to present it rather then an engineer. It seems apparent that despite the fact that the Rowlands have done nothing wrong, and I believe the Mr. Brower was quoted as saying such that they're endanger of having a road implemented within forty feet of the back of their house at about the second story level. I'd like all of you to think of that for a moment. If someone said to you, I'm going to build a road forty feet from your back door and it's going to be at the second story level, it would make you pause and make you think. The Town Board want's to make a decision, I understand you spent a lot of time since the first of year and you'd like to move on and I believe you basically have two choices. You have a practical, pragmatic choice and you have a political solution and by political solution, I simply define that as meaning one where you don't take into consideration and don't get the consent of the Rowlands. What everyone understands and even the Post Star, with the exception of the Post Star, the Rowlands own the property that we're talking about. This is not town property, its their property. It has always been and always will be unless this board decides to take land by eminent domain. I'd like to talk about the practical, I mean talk about the political solution that I've alluded to. It seems that if there's a consensus, except for a few individuals that Fuller Road is not needed as through road. That as far as I know, there's almost unanimous consent from the people who live on Fuller Road that they want the road to remain closed. They petitioned this board in the past asking that that stay so and be so. Obviously, the Rowlands would also appreciate the road not be opened. You also have to think about some precedence that you would be setting if you were to go forward and come up with a solution that did not include the Rowlands consent. First, you would be opening up the town to continuing and additional litigation. Two, you would be sending a signal to Mr. Salvador that even if he brings a very marginal, frivolous lawsuit, that he will force you guys to act, hardly and in a quick matter rather then thoughtfully and reasoned. Third, you'll send the message to Mr. Schulz that you can suit the town and even if you lose, just wait for a new Town Board to be elected because you'll get what you want anyway. Mr. Schulz carries a lot of weight around here and he's used the magic word, unconstitutional and that's a word that when it comes to Mr. Schulz, people listen. We all know he's been very successful in getting the state and other municipalities found to have done unconstitutional things. But I want to displace some myths here. First, the town has done nothing wrong. Town's are allowed to abandon roads and that is, sections have been in the law for many years and how do I know that what the town did was not unconstitutional here, Mr. Salvador, Mr., I mean Mr. Schu1z, Mr. Abess and six or seven others sued the town and my clients and said that what the town did was unconstitutional. Judge Dier said, "No, it was not". They appealed that and to Mr. Schulz's credit, he managed to convince one out of five Appellate Judges that in fact, it was unconstitutional. But the four other Judges said, "Judge Dier, you're right, there's nothing unconstitutional here". He still continued. He went to the Court of Appeals and tried to get the appeal heard again and it was denied. That issue is done. No one can suit you and tell you that what was done five years ago in abandoning that road was done wrong, was done improper or needs to be heard again. One of the things the law does provide for is finality and my clients waited four months for the Statute of Limitations to run before they applied for a building permit. If anyone does not believe that, I have the building permit here. It's also unfair to say that the Town Board five years ago or any of the town employees did anything improper. It's both untrue and it's unfair. It's unfair to Mr. Turner who was sitting there that night. It's unfair to Jim Martin who was sitting over where Chris Round is sitting tonight. It's unfair to Betty Monahan who is in the audience. It's unfair to Paul Naylor who is in the audience. It's unfair to the other three board members who voted to close that road. There were legitimate reasons to close that road. It saved that town money. It was not an easy road to maintain. Now, I realize that the town, the current Town Board has discussed, at least informally opening the road up either full time or for seasonal use. But the real need and desire here that everyone recognizes is that there are recreational hikers and recreational bikers. Why should the town pay for a road for bikers and hikers when the Rowlands are willing to give the town free land so that they can build a trail just for bikers and hikers. (placed visual up and passed out submittal to the members of the board and the public) Before I actually discuss the plan, there's one other point I'd like to make. Dan Stec was perhaps foresighted enough to have Judge Muller come here last meeting and discuss for you his decision. What Judge Muller said is what the Rowlands have been saying all along but no one seems to want to listen, particularly the Post Star. The most, and I'm going to quote now from your minutes from the last meeting when Judge Muller came here for the benefit of the audience who was not here, "The most important reason why I made that decision was that there was no opposition by the prosecution. The constitution dictates that I must make a decision when there is no opposition by the prosecution in favor of the defendant". He then close his remarks, and I think this is the most telling thing, "If you feel that the road shall remain close, then do so. Again, the Justice Court has no position on it and shouldn't it". Basically, as a matter of law, Town Court does not decide real property issues. That's a Supreme Court issue. That issue has already been decided. It's not open for debate. If this board goes forward without the Rowland's consent, I'm not threatening, I'm simply making a matter of fact statement that you will be affecting the ownership of their property and they will have no recourse because if the road is open, everything on their property that is buildable including their house is within a hundred feet of the road. They will be out of zoning compliance. They will not be able to ever add to their house. They will never be able to add the garage that they were waiting to do this spring. They will never be able to do any out buildings because all of the buildable land is within a hundred feet of a road. Now, the proposal itself. I assume that some people may be disappointed but it basically provides for what the Rowlands have asked for all along, their privacy. They don't want a road going behind their house. What has been proposed goes along the side of their property, the side yard, cuts towards the back of the house, then does a switch back and then heads up to Clendon Brook. If you look at Tom Nace's notes, the maximum grade on that proposal is sixteen percent with an average grade of eleven percent. To get up Fuller Road to get to that house, you have to go upgrades that are much steeper then that. He's provided that information for you. In essence gentleman, the compromise that is being proposed here is that the Rowlands give up some of their privacy and some of their property. The compromise that the town gives up, is that they will build a six hundred foot bike path instead of maintain an eighteen hundred foot road. The compromise for the bikers and hikers is that they get a bike path now and they don't end up waiting in litigation, over and over again. The bikers and the hikers were the ones who suit the town, when the town said five years ago, we will not reopen the road, but we'll build a bike path and the Rowlands said yes. Mr. Turner, I believe was here for that and can speak to that. But in essence the people who are objecting the most strenuously to the location are the people who cost the town thousands of dollars in litigation fees and lost and lost and lost and then have come back here over the last three or four months and bullied and bullied and bullied. It's time for you to have some back bone, make a decision, do what's fair and in the long run, the most important thing I think for any politician, I think the one thing everyone in this room can agree on, if you don't spend our tax dollars wisely, you are not going to stay in office. You can vote either way you want tonight and half the people in the room are going to leave happy and half are going to leave unhappy but if it turns out that you wasted the town's money, then all of you will find that it will be difficult to run for reelection when it comes up. Questions? COUNCILMAN BREWER-You would provide for the town to build this? COUNSEL LUDEMANN-Yes, we would not pay for the cost of building it. Although, it's envisioned since Fuller Road is a dirt road and Clendon Brook is a dirt road, the bike path will be a dirt bike path. COUNCILMAN BREWER-And you would allow the town or if the town hired somebody to go in and do this, no problem? COUNSEL LUDEMANN-That's correct. If you look at Mr. Nace's notes, you'll notice he looked at whatever regulations he could find and specifications for building a bike path. He believes that a twelve foot wide path would be appropriate. We're willing to give a sixteen foot easement for that purpose along with whatever grading and drainage easements might be necessary in order to complete the project. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Any questions from the board? COUNCILMAN BREWER-How about comments from the board. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Any comments from the board? COUNCILMAN STEC-Well, personally, I think if any money has been wasted, it's been wasted by a previous board in the action that they took five years ago, not by this board and I think that, to put the onus on the town to build another, would-be trail, would be a waste of the taxpayer's money by this board. So, I'm concerned about wasting taxpayer's money but if it goes to litigation and we lose and we cut a check, that's on Fred Champagne, not on Dennis Brower or this board. COUNSEL LUDEMANN-My point is, why spend money in perpetuity to maintain an eighteen hundred foot stretch of road when you can maintain instead a six hundred foot dirt bike path. In the long run, it's cheaper to have the bike path. The other problem is, as I said, you immediately diminish the value and the utility of my client's property because that will be out of compliance with the zoning. And that's not something they created. They waited until the Statute of Limitations had run. You're creating a problem for them that they didn't have. COUNCILMAN STEC-I have issues and questions and suspicions about the Statute of Limitations, as well. I've heard a lot of lawyers on both sides and a lot of would-be lawyers on both sides and I'm not convinced that there's an attorney in this room that can tell me and convince me, beyond on any doubt that they know with certainty what's going to happen here. So, I have my own suspicions and I formu1ate my own opinions and I, I'm not convinced that everything was done on the up and up five years ago. COUNSEL LUDEMANN-Well, then I think COUNCILMAN STEC-I think the public was shortchanged and stonewalled five years ago. COUNSEL LUDEMANN-Well, I think in that case, you should address that comment to Ted Turner who was here and will tell you that the regu1ations were followed and that the Town Attorney at the time did what was correct. COUNCILMAN STEC- The board knows how each other feels and I think this board respects how each other feels and not everyone is convinced to the equal degree. COUNSEL LUDEMANN-Well, the one thing I can tell you is that the Statute of Limitations has run on what the previous Town Board did because it's been litigated, it's been appealed and it's final. It can't, you can't go back and reopen that. COUNCILMAN TURNER-No, you can't. I agree. You can't go back and open it. We did right. It was done. They had their three shots at it. It was turned down. It's over. COUNSEL LUDEMANN-Something else that I think should be made clear here, is that my client specifically asked the Town Board at the end, or near the end of the four month period to ask the opponents whether they intended to oppose and ask for a reopening of the road and they were told no, what they wanted was a bike path and a hiking path. And that's where the negotiations went thereafter COUNCILMAN TURNER-I'll tell you right now that Fred Champagne went up there with Mr. Abess and a few others and tried to work out a compromise and that wasn't good enough for them at the time. COUNSEL LUDEMANN-The precedent you're setting is that when someone says, make me a bike path on the old Fuller Road and you say no, and they suit you and you waste money on that and they lose, that they can come right back and get it anyway. That's a waste of taxpayer dollars. It's a waste of my taxpayer dollars and it's not fair to these two people cause they're the only two people in the room who have to go home and live with this. The rest of us are all going to go to our own homes and forget about it and move on and do other things. And you're also ignoring all the wishes of the other people on Fuller Road. COUNCILMAN TURNER-And I think further then that, if push comes to shove, this should go to court, Supreme Court and let it fall on Mr. Salvador's back, the expenses. COUNSEL LUDEMANN-Well, I think, you gentlemen should already be aware, we have already intervened in the Salvador litigation and we basically have already said, in so many legal terms, that his lawsuit is frivolous. He's basically asking you to suit us for a document that doesn't say anything about you having a right to suit us. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Say that again? COUNSEL LUDEMANN-He sued you to suit us based on a document that does not say that you have any right to suit us. It's completely frivolous. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I was going to save this until we voted but I'm going to say it now. I've been here since January 1st and I've heard a lot of conversation about, we broke the constitution, we're doing an injustice to the constituents and I've thought about this for a long time. And I've had many conversations with our attorney, with other attorneys and what I see and I'm not perfect by any means, I'm doing what I think is right from my heart. I think the town followed the proper procedure. We broke the constitution, is a silly argument. It was a highway of town and there is ways to close roads in this book. The town followed the procedure by the book. The crossed every T, dotted every I. The Attorney General specifically says, the Statute could be used for abandoning a highway by use. I think the road was legally abandoned. I think a lot of people don't like it. I live on a road that was abandoned and closed by the town. It happens. It happens in other towns and like the attorney said, half the people are going to go home unhappy and half are going to go home happy. My suggestion was and has been all along, we are in litigation right now and it said in the paper the other day, I don't know if it's true or not, March 9th it goes to court. Let the Judge decide. Come back and tell us what we should do. There's about three lawyers in this room. The rest of us are not. Let it go, finalize it and move on with our lives. That's all I have to say. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Anyone else? COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yea. The other part of the argument is that when we did close this road back in 1995, we did not have to hold a public hearing. That's law. We didn't have to hold a public hearing to close the road. COUNSEL LUDEMANN-Well, I think the other point I'd like to make is no one, no one, go ahead. COUNCILMAN TURNER-But, let me finish. Since that time, we've closed some roads and we had a public hearing and I didn't see anybody here in opposition to any of them. COUNSEL LUDEMANN-I guess in closing, the point I want to make is no one challenges or says that there isn't a legitimate need for recreation, for hiking and biking. The solution there is practical, it's pragmatic and it's final. There's no litigation over that solution. Thank you for your time, I realize it's very late. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. We're going to move into Open Forum. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-You really should take care of the snowmobile one because that was advertised as a public hearing. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Oh, okay. Alright. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, can we continue this issue and then go back to that? COUNCILMAN STEC-Get the snowmobile into the resolutions. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-I thought you were going to go to open forum resolutions first. SUPERVISOR BROWER-No, I was going to go to Open Forum period. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-Usually, public hearings we have in the beginning of the meeting. I know you're trying to hurry through for. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Well, I'mjust, we're trying to be responsive to what majority of the people are here for. How many people are here for snowmobiles? COUNCILMAN BREWER-I think we ought to put this issue right here to bed. COUNCILMAN STEC-Yea, I think so too. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Finalize it and then do the snowmobiles. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-We can open the snowmobile thing later on in the night. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I've got a feeling people here would like to address us on the, on this issue and maybe others and if we open the. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-Okay. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Let's go to Open Forum. It will be five minutes maximum per person. I'm going to try to be very strict with this so, we've got to move this right along. OPEN FORUM 10: 15 P.M. Susan Hoy, lA Manor Drive-My name is Susan Hoy, I live at lA Manor Drive in Queensbury. I have a petition signed by a hundred and sixty-one Queensbury residents, twenty-three of which are the residents of Fuller Road and I'd like to give the original petition to Mr. Brower and copies to the other members. (submitted petitions to the board) To the members of the Town Board, Town of Queensbury, we undersigned citizens of the Town of Queensbury would like to request the Town Board to uphold the attached Appellate Court's four to one Decision and Order and the attached Court of Appeals decision and discontinue any further spending of our tax dollars by trying to reverse a resolution previously upheld by the Courts of the State of New York. We realize the dismissal of the criminal charges of trespass against the Fuller Road eight had no barring on the issues involved. Nor did it, in any way alter the decision of the Appellate Court that we are asking the board to uphold. This fact is shown on the attached copy of the Queensbury Town Court's Judge Mu11er's clarification of his dismissal of the trespass charges. We further understand that there has been a reasonable offer to gift to the Town of Queensbury an alternative route. Currently being used by residents of that area to connect the end of Fuller Road with Clendon Brook Road. The true basis of this whole issue is to get from point A, Fuller Road to point B, Clendon Brook Road. A difference of several hundred feet from the point of intersection should not be, under any circumstances an issue blown up so far as to warrant any court's decision. It is a known fact that the two roads run within approximately a hundred and fifty feet of each other at the widest point along the abandoned portion of Fuller Road. We feel that the efforts spent on continuing to re-argue a case previously decided by the courts in which, to the best of our knowledge by law cannot be legally tried again, should be spent finalizing an offer of a gift as a settlement and thus, putting an end to this outrageous, expensive plight of a few individuals. The decisions of the newly elected Town Board to be swayed by the loud voices of a very few to not only allow but to agree to involve the town in yet another drawn out expensive lawsuit, one in which the Rowlands have every right to commence, deeply concerns us. This is the same issue the town has just spent four years and our tax dollars getting a decision and their favor. Why are we now headed back into yet another expensive lawsuit trying to get that same decision reversed. The Statute of Limitations allowing anyone the ability to challenge any Town Board's resolution for up to four months was designed to prevent issues like this from occurring. If the Rowlands had to wait until that four month period expired to begin construction of their home as shown by the issuance of their building permit, then why does the same statute not apply to the selected few individuals unhappy with their neglect in challenging the Town Board's resolution in the time allowed by that same law. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to address the board, please? Yes, Roger. MR. ROGER BOOR, Sunnyside East-Roger Boor, Sunnyside East. This is one of these rare occasions where we get, or at least I feel like, I have an opportunity to tell a great anecdote and it's the one we've all heard but I think it's so apropos that I just have to say it. And it has to do with the young child that sits before the Judge and he has killed his parents and in a last ditch effort, he pleas to the court for mercy because he's an orphan. And I say that and I think that's a relevant story because this whole thing that we talk about tonight, was brought about by the Rowlands giving information and direction to a previous board which I believe, just my personal opinion, I believe the board took at face value and did not do a thorough job of looking at what the law was really about. I don't want to get into dedicated roads and roads by use but essentially, I believe wrong law was applied. I just don't want to see this board continue that mistake and I'm not begrudging the Rowlands and I admire all their neighbors over here because I don't think anybody would want to have, you know, these are great neighbors. They stand up for them and I appreciate that and I'd want that out of my neighbors too. But I would ask these neighbors to embrace us as a community because we are a large community, we are the people. And I think one of the problems that we had is the previous board thought they were the people, not the representatives of the people and when a board does that, they tend to make mistakes. And I think that the past board didn't see their relationship as representatives but in fact thought that they were the people and they made a decision I think that was in error. And I think that quite possibly the solution that the Rowlands are offering tonight is a good one, it may work. But it should not keep you from opening that road and then working to make it a workable, better, safer place. The fact of the matter is, the road should legally be open and then if you want to change it, go about the proper procedure. Don't just make, the problem with the old board is they just determined that it was useless. They did, there's no study that shows it was useless or that it hadn't been used. They declared it was useless. I don't want to have any elected official making declarations without empirical data to support it. That's dangerous. It's scary. Go ahead and get the studies and if you can support it with a study, move with the law and do what you have to do but by God, don't just make a declarative statement and say, that's the way it is, here's what we're going to do. Because we all lose when that happens and we're guaranteed nothing when that happens. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. Anyone else like to speak? Yes, Ma'am. MS. PATTI MYHRBERG, Sunnyside-My name is Patti Myhrberg, I'm also from Sunnyside and I also own some property up on the other side of Fuller Road and I've owned that probably around twenty years and I know that road was useless. You couldn't use the road in the winter. It was never plowed. We used to have occasional fun just sliding down there and meeting the road down farther but it was not used in the winter. That's half of our tax dollars used on, spent on a road that wasn't used, wasn't plowed because of the danger. I have to agree with the previous Town Board's decision to close the road. I think they went about it constitutionally. It's been proven in court. I think as a Town Board if you, if you make a decision to rescind that resolution that they made five years ago, I don't think that you're do anything better then what you accuse them of doing. I think you accuse them of not knowing what they were doing, making a decision, I think you accuse them of making a decision based on hearsay. I believe that's been proven in court that it wasn't. I think, you as a Town Board have that right to close the road as Mr. Turner has said and if you open the road at this point without any further legal counsel, I think you're doing the same thing that you're accusing them of and are not any better then they were. The other thing, as far as the trespassing goes, the trespassing issue. I understand that there were a few, a few people that were given a ticket for trespassing and it was thrown out in court. I believe, if I was to trespass on your property unbeknowingly, not believing that I was trespassing, that I also would not be given a ticket. I can go anywhere in this town and if I say, gees, I didn't believe I was trespassing, I think that's public property, I would not be given a ticket. It has nothing to do with whether you own the property. It has nothing to do whether it was a public road. So, I think you need to consider that before you make your decision. As a taxpayer, I don't want to see the road back opened. I don't want my money spent on a road that's partially used and I don't want you to open the road because of a few Tom, Dick and Harry come up here and bully you and shout at you and tell you, gees, you should open the door. I think it's been proven in court many times. You should listen to the Rowland's lawyer. Accept what he has to say and move on with this. It's done. If you don't like what was done, change, then make some sort of decision or a resolution to make sure that it doesn't happen again. But it's done. These people are paying taxes, property taxes. You can't take the land back from them, I don't believe. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you very much. Anyone else like to address the board? Yes Ma'am. MS. DONNA WOOD, Aviation Road-My name is Donna Wood and I live on Aviation Road. As a seventeen year resident of the Town of Queensbury, I believe this is the most outrageous issue I've seen the Town Board waste our tax dollars on. Just regarding an Appellate Court's decision and leading us into other legal battles is unbelievable. I would hope you would either accept the fact that this matter has already been decided in court, end it and move onto more important issues of our town or accept this proposal and build a recreational trail. Either way, stop leading us back into legal battles and wasting our tax dollars on a few outspoken individuals. And I have a question, Mr. Stec, you mentioned that if a check was cut it wouldn't be against Mr. Brower, it would be against Mr. Champagne. COUNCILMAN STEC- That's right. I think, yes, that's what I said. MS. WOOD-Would that be my tax dollars? COUNCILMAN STEC-Yes, it would be. MS. WOOD-Then I don't care who it's against. COUNCILMAN STEC-I hear you. MS. WOOD-Thank you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you very much. Yes, sir. MR. JOHN SCONZO, 175 Fuller Road-My name is John Sconzo, I live at 175 Fuller Road and I'd like to state that I believe that the Town Board made the correct decision back when they decided to close the road for several reasons. Some of which have already been elucidated so far including the financial concerns. However, some other concerns as a resident and as a parent living on Fuller Road, I want to point out that since the road has been closed there have been several positive changes in the road. For one thing, and off the road in particular that I think, or much to the benefit of those using the road recreationally. Those changes are, there's much less garbage strewn along the sides of the road, in the woods and all along the road. Two, there aren't cars careening down the road right now, out of control. In my experience, those were the two most popular uses of that road. For throwing out garbage in the woods and for kids coming down, screaming down the road. As a parent with kids who frequent the lower part of the road, I'm very, very happy that that is no longer the case. I think, as well, that there are many more recreational users of the road right now then there ever have been before. There are people walking, biking, walking their dogs that never used to. Mostly because they were concerned about cars careening down the road. So, for those people who wish to utilize and state that they think the road should be utilized for recreational purposes, it is being used right now more then ever before for just that purpose. I believe that the Rowland's compromise is ideal for those who wish to use it for recreational purposes and I think to continue to avoid the garbage and the unsightliness that ensues from that, is an ideal that we should strive for. I urge you to keep the road closed. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you very much. Anyone else? Yes, Betty. MS. BETTY MONAHAN, Sunnyside Road-I come here as taxpayer, not as a member of the former Town Board that closed this road. I could refute a lot of Roger's arguments but I'm not going to get into that. The minutes are there. As a taxpayer, if this goes to court and I'm sure it will, I figure it's going to take at least three cents of my tax rate since one penny raises roughly fifteen thousand dollars. If you get out of this suit for much less then forty-five thousand, I'm going to be surprised. I really have other things that I would rather you spend that money on that. Okay, I'm only reading what's in the paper. I have not heard Dan Stec, Dennis Brower or Jim Martin give a reason why this, they say, if they pass this resolution, this is neither appropriate nor properly accomplished and when you go to court you will have to give those reasons and I have not heard those nor have I seen them in the paper. This action was discussed over a period of six months time. I also would like an answer from the three of you, have you read the record that's in the Town Minutes. If it's not complete, the tapes I hope are still on file with those minutes. You may have to listen to the tapes if it was paraphrase. Okay, if you don't do this before you make your decision, have the reasons, you are, as far as I'm concerned, doing an arbitrary and capricious action that will not sound very well in court. I'm also concerned, for years I was very much involved in the insurance program of this town. If you take an action and do not have the reasons to back it up, accept personal opinion, I have to wonder what an insurance company is going to look at the risks that this board presents if their going to do actions arbitrarily and capriciously and what kind of a rate you're going to get also. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Yes. MS. MONAHAN-And by the way, I didn't get an answer from any of you. What your reasons are to ... this is neither appropriate nor properly accomplished and I would like to hear that answer if you're going to pass this tonight. MS. MELANIE HAGUE, Oak Tree Circle-Hi, Melanie Hague, Hidden Hills, Oak Tree Circle in Queensbury. Five years ago appeared in front of the board with my then seven year old son, Kyle. He also spoke to the board and we were in opposition of the closing of Fuller Road. I don't understand anything but it was a road that was used by myself and my son and frequently. I hear talk about the Statute of Limitations and that four months went by. If I recollect, the road was closed in April of 95 and I understand that in the winter the trail, I used it as more or less a trail for snow shoeing and cross country skiing but was unaware that the road was closed until April when the Mountain bike came out. I stumbled upon the closing of Fuller Road by myself, not because of any phone calls or publicity that had taken place but because I had run from Lake George over the mountain onto Bear Town Road and missed the turn and when I got to the top of Clendon Brook with friends, said, oh, well we must have missed it. It's the most awesome view you've ever seen. For me, the opening of Fuller Road is purely aesthetic. It is by far one of these most beautiful routes in Queensbury and as an absolutely active outdoor enthusiast who bought a home in Queensbury and no, I couldn't afford the rural setting that the Rowlands have, I do live in a subdivision. But I do get out to those rural places and I do enjoy them. My Father raised all of us to have an intrinsic value of the surroundings and the Adirondacks and Queensbury is such, are more the likely the most beautiful place that I have lived and I lived in Colorado where I relocated after six years of being away. I just really think that what the town needs to recognize is not the bike trail that everyone is using but Fuller Road that was really the attraction from me. I snow shoed it myself. I cross country skied it. I Mountain biked it excessively. I did use it a lot in the summer. I'm also a competitive Kayaker and Canoeist and would get into Luzerne to paddle the Hudson because it was, there wasn't traffic. There weren't hairpin turns. Sure, it's steep but it's dirt. It's not safe to take a child onto Clendon Brook on a Mountain bike and I know when my son spoke five years ago, that was what he said. My Mom told me that she would bring me up to this really awesome spot where we could look out over the whole town and now I can't do it. I would really ask you to consider maybe the simple form, myself and those of us who are enthusiasts who do appreciate Fuller Road, not the trail but Fu11er Road and the beauty that it gives to those of us. And I keep hearing that there are only a few tonight and no, I haven't come to a lot of the board meetings in support of this because I'm busy, real busy as a single parent. But what I do hear is that there are also an awful lot of us who are sincerely interested in, in Fuller Road being opened and not the trail and that it's not a few. It seems to me that the few might be the Rowlands who are fortunate enough to have the property. I would really hope that you would consider my plea and reopen Fu11er Road. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you very much. Yes, sir. MR. JOE BRAYTON, 231 Fu11er Road-My name is Joe Brayton, I live at 231 Fuller Road and they tell me all these people that travel this road with their bicycles. Yes, there is some and there's more now then before but you know, when that upper section of the road was closed it quieted down a lot of the horsing around with cars and what have you. It also made it much better for all the people living on the lower end of the road with small children walking to the bus every morning, home every night like Mr. Sconzo's kids have to walk clear to the foot of the mountain. And yet, it's just a ridiculous thing to even talk about opening this road. Keep it closed. Keep it the way it is and you'll have a, and maybe you'll even get elected next time. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Maybe we won't want to. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-And won't an honor that will be. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Anyone else? Yes, sir. MR. MIKE SYLVIA, Hummingbird Lane-My name is Mike Sylvia I live on Hummingbird Lane in Queensbury and I'd certainly like to thank the gentleman who just spoke because he did seem to interject a little bit of humor in this proceeding. First thing I want to say to the Rowlands and to everybody essentially on that side of the room is that, I'm sure everybody here is a nice person and I don't have anything against anybody here personally. I certainly did object to the tone of your attorney's presentation. I felt we were all being scolded and perhaps, that's with cause but hopefully, we can all rise above this a little bit. So, that's the first thing is that, I may have a difference of opinion here but it certainly doesn't mean I don't like you or respect your point of view. The second thing I want to address is that I continually here that one of the reasons that the upper portion of Fuller Road was closed was because it presented a danger to the Town Highway crews and so forth and so on. I certainly can respect that but at the same time, I scratch my head when I ride my bicycle up and down Luzerne Road every summer and on drive payment in July, I have a hard time slowing down in those switchbacks. So, that argument about this is a difficult thing to maintain, I say, yea, sure but there are certainly other roads that have not been abandoned that are equally if not more difficult to maintain. The third thing I want to say is that what we're talking about, not necessarily is the closing of Fuller Road but the closing of the top part of Fuller Road and one of the things that makes me curious here is that having ridden my bike and skied up there and never dropped an ounce of garbage on that road, what we really have is just a top portion. That's what's in question here. So, my question is, okay, if we are abandoning the road then it would seem to me that we need to determine what part of the road are we abandoning and is the end of Fuller Road proper where the majority of the houses are? Is that where we're going to end and is the town then going to be plowing was is essentially a half mile driveway up to the Rowland's house? Is that what is going to happen? That's a question to me and in terms of taxpayer's dollars and so forth and so on, that's an issue I would like explored. With regards to the garbage, I can certainly see where there wouldn't be any garbage on Fuller Road with fewer motor vehicles passing up and down. But I don't think that's to say there's less garbage. I think the garbage just moves one road over to the north or to the south and anyone, Mr. Stec, I'm sure has been up and down Butler Pond Road a few times. The garbage hasn't gone anywhere, it's just gone into different places. And the last thing I'd want to address is, I'm looking at this proposed trail and I'm interested and curious and perhaps it is a good solution but at the same time I'm curious as to whose going to maintain that and are the differences in maintenance of Fuller Road, the upper section of Fuller Road which, in my view is still passable after five years of no maintenance, is this trail going to provide that much of a break in maintenance? It looks like it's cutting across a pretty steep slope and is the maintenance of that trail going to be trilly less costly then a road that's been in use and existing and in my view, is still passable now even after it hasn't been maintained in five years. So, again, those are my concerns and it's just my opinion and I may differ with you guys but at the same time it's just a conversation and it's part of the process. Thanks. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Thank you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. Anyone else care to speak? Yes, Ma'am. MS. SUSAN BROWN, 28 Twin Mt. Drive-Good evening. Members of the Board, my name is Susan Brown, I live at 28 Twin Mt. Drive, Queensbury. We've heard so many things, over and over and over, they're much, much the same. I would be interested to know, though, if this new board is going to ignore the prior board's resolution of an Appellate Court's decision by passing a new resolution that we know will end up in court. We've heard this at nauseam tonight and it will happen. Another concern, because of that is, does this mean that possibly the developer of Indian Ridge can come back now and apply for smaller zoned lots and simply expect that he can receive it now because we do have a new Town Board? I think, I've always been interested in the politics in the town and it worries me to consider that possibly every time we have a change of board members, old issues will keep creeping up that might end up being changed as well. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Just keep re-electing us, Sue. MS. BROWN-You're my guy, Tim. But, I think that each board should respect another board's decision, whether they do agree with them or not and as the gentleman said here, I don't feel any antagonism personally against other people because we do all have differences of opinions but legally a decision has been made. I think that we really should move onto other issues. Thank you for your time. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Thank you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Anyone else care to address the board? Yes, sir. MR. BOB SCHULZ-It's been a long night but I must address some of the comments that I've heard within the last half hour or so. It is a fact, can the Rowland's attorney deny that Fu11er Road that has been a highway by use for over a hundred and twenty-five years? That it has, it is not, was not a dedicated highway? That it has been a highway by use? Can he deny that? COUNSEL LUDEMANN-I do not deny it. It was a highway by use. MR. SCHULZ-Thank you. Can the Rowland's attorney deny that only Section 205 of the Highway Law can be used to close a highway by use? That Section 171 can not be used to close a highway by use, Section 171 can only be used to close a dedicated highway. Can the Rowland's attorney deny that? The prior Town Board passed the resolution based upon Section 171. It was improper to do that. Section 171 deals with dedicated highways. 205 deals with highways by use. The procedures of one can not be used to close another road. The procedures of 205 can not be used to close a dedicated highway. The procedures of 171 can not be used to close a highway by use. There are very important distinctions, Mr. Brewer. For instance, if you look at Section 205, only the user can abandon the road and there's a criteria laid down in 205. The user is the public in a highway by use. The Rowland's attorney has confirmed that. The criteria set down is the user can not step, can not place one foot, can not use that road at all for a period of time. That's an important distinction between the two sections. Even, there's a court case, you'll find in case law, if you're looking at McKinney's, even minimal use is enough to establish and maintain a highway by use. The case law, I think had to deal with one person walked over that road once in ten years and that was enough to maintain highway by use status, public highway. The Town Board used Section 171 ignoring the fact that the highway, the user had not abandoned the road. It's also a fact, the Town Board is limited by the written constitutions, State and Federal. Can the Rowland's attorney deny that. The Rowland's attorney, and forgive me, I missed his name but the Rowland's attorney was incorrect, stated a falsehood when he said, and many people followed him to this mic picking up on the mistake that the Appellate Division, other then one Judge, the other four Judges ru1ed that what the prior Town Board did was not unconstitutional. False. In that entire decision by the Appellate Division, they never mentioned the word constitution once. Not once. Either the majority or 1. Mikoll in dissent, Judge Mikoll in dissent, never mentioned the constitution. The issue of constitutionality was not encompassed in that decision. They didn't encompass it, much less was that decision decisive of the question of constitutionality. Only one Judge, only one court has touched on the issue of constitutionality. That was Judge Mu11er and you heard him say and I have the quote here. He held this letter up that I read from and he said, Mr. Schu1z is correct. He says he's quoted me correct, correctly. I'll read the paragraph from the letter. I was addressing the statement by the Editors of the Post Star in which they said, it's unclear whether Judge Mu11er's decision (five minute bell rang) it's unclear whether Judge Mu11er's decision COUNCILMAN TURNER-There's five minutes. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I'll let him finish this paragraph. Please read that. MR. SCHULZ-I won't finish it. SUPERVISOR BROWER-You won't? MR. SCHULZ-I'll save the time. It's in the record. You have Judge Muller's decision. It's public. He said the prior board's decision to close the road, was quote, of no legal effect, the Town Board acted outside of it's constitutional authority. It had, it's clear, for the benefit of the audience, it is crystal clear, government, unlike the people, government can only do what the law specifically authorizes you to do. If it's not in law, you can't do it. Whereas, we can do anything we want to do unless the law says we can't do it. And if the government acts outside of the constitution it's acting unconstitutionally and that's what the prior board did. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you Mr. Schulz. Anyone else care to address the board? Yes, sir. MR. VON LINDALL-Von Lindall, Upper Ridge Road, Queensbury. I like the guy bringing up the garbage issue. I'm one of eight boys UNKNOWN AUDIENCE-Can't hear. MR. LIND ALL-Alright. I like the issue of the garbage. I'm one of eight boys who lived on a street that was three quarters of a mile long, one of twenty families. My Father, at least four or five times a year made us go clean the road whether the town did or not. My two boys, I own a quarter of Ridge Road. Four times a year I have my kids out cleaning the road, not paid by the town, just because it's a decent thing to do. They have a problem with garbage, I'm sorry, hopefully they'll teach their kids some decent manners and go clean it. As far as time limits. Anything that has to do with fraud, doesn't have a time limit on it at all. What was done was done, whether Tim Brewer believes it or not, was unconstitutional. He had a Judge here at the last meeting make that statement. He made the statement right in front of court that it was closed unconstitutionally therefore it was not closed. On your 5.1 Resolution, it states that you're going to reopen it. I think it ought to be changed to continued use because nobody can get a ticket on that road. Mr. Muller's already made the decision of that because they're not trespassing because it is public property. The decision is and already has been made. It's public property. It was a road. It is a road. There's really no question about it. At the last meeting, you guys said you'd make your decision. I hope you make a good one. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. Yes, sir. MR. RON STEWART, 249 Fuller Road-My name is Ron Stewart, 249 Fuller Road and for somebody's information, our kids were trained, they did get out on that road and they did clean it up. But there's one thing they couldn't do is pick up a hundred tires at a time that people throw over the sides, bedsprings, you need trucks to go up there to get that stuff out. So, don't tell me your kids went out and picked up a few cans and a few papers, they didn't pick up a hundred tires. The issues here are obviously emotional and legal. We know it's a good road, that's why we live there. But the money that's being spent to try and close it and then reopen it, I've kidded with people and said we could have built a glass elevator by now and lifted everybody up. I think the board simply has to ask themselves, are you opening up the Town of Queensbury to more legal difficulties if you open up this road? The thing to do is wait until you're absolutely sure that you are not opening it up to any legal difficulties before you make a move. That's seems to be common sense. I can not believe you'll take the chance and put this town and we the taxpayers, at risk. I find it difficult to believe that you would do that to us. So, let's wait, let the courts finish. When you can show very clearly, legally that you're doing the right thing, then we have to accept it. In the mean time, you've been given a pretty good offer and it was given here five years ago. For all the people who truly believe that the area is for recreation, biking, hiking, cross country, they need a trail. I know, because I used the trail. My kids used the road for the same reason. There's a trail. It can be available, you can have it now and you won't have to worry about the legal aspects. If, at some later date you're legal aspects are clear, then we'll hear about it. But until then, why don't you open up a trail for the people of Queensbury and for that matter, any other town that would like to use it. There's your offer, accept it. It's an interim solution that's going to keep an awful lot of people happy. They can go up there and use the road. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. MR. DON KRUGER, 192 Fuller Road-I'm Don Kruger, I live at 192 Fuller Road and yes, I'm opposed to opening the road. I think that a reasonable compromise would be, this seems more then fair to me. But to those of you that don't know Tom Nace who has proposed this, I've been in the construction business forty- one years and Tom Nace is one of the very few engineers that makes a lot of sense and he usually comes up with a pretty practical solution and although, I haven't had a chance to go up there or shoot any grades, I've worked with the man enough to know that the man is a practical engineer. Now, that's a rare find today because there's a lot of them that are not, gentlemen. And, although, who builds the road or what, I don't know but it seems to me that it would be a very intelligent way of handling this solution unless somebody has a different reason for wanting it open. I don't know if any of you, do any of you own property up there, that you would want the road open up there? You, Dan? COUNCILMAN STEC-No. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I do. MR. KRUGER-You do? You want it open? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Clendon Brook Road. MR. KRUGER-Well, you have to answer that in your own mind but I just feel that, you know, the man, as proposed, the Rowlands have proposed a reasonable compromise and the little bit I, I've worked with Tom Nace, it seems to be a practical solution and I'd like to encourage you gentlemen to take that into consideration when you make your decision. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to address the board? Yes, sir. MR. BILL TROMBLEY, West Mt. Road-Hello, my name is Bill Trombley, West Mountain Road, just a few hundred feet from Fuller. I'm very scared right now because I'm not used to public speaking. But I can tell you that I've grown up on this West Mountain Road for many years and I use the Fuller Road very frequently through these years. And I can tell you that from this proposed, now I've walked this ridge before and I can tell you in regards to the engineer, if this is the trail that they're proposing up through this embankment which in my mind from the last time I actually ran up this section, all of about, maybe a few months ago, it's about forty-five degrees of an angle up on the top portion here. I don't know if, if there's anyway that, I mean, I know myself from racing my bicycle up Mt. Washington for the last ten years, I know that myself I'm going to expel a little bit more energy trying to get up this embankment, possibly this proposed trail then possibly most people will actually have probably a little harder time getting up this. I don't really see where this is, where this is an actual, you know, acceptable proposal, to cut this trail up this embankment. I mean, many people would have a hard time walking up it let alone riding a bicycle. I never really understood the closing of Fuller Road. I guess it goes back to the road by use. I'm mainly at odds with why the Rowlands built their house so close to the road when they have such a large, beautiful piece of property. They could have built their house much farther away from the road. Why, you know, would they even consider building it close to the road that was used so often. It shouldn't be closed. It should be open and it should stay open for many generations ahead. I know that with growing up on West Mountain Road, I have friends and family that live in Luzerne and I've used this road, not just for my bicycle but to get over the mountain efficiently with my vehicle to enter the Lake Luzerne area and I just, I just find it preposterous that this whole thing has even taken place from five years ago. I don't understand any of it. I don't understand why it ever was closed in the first place and how it got this far staying closed. I can only hope that it becomes open, once again so, you know, I can get to see my family in an efficient manner and be able to bring my son and hopefully, you know, his friends and his son possibly riding bikes and enjoying the road like many other Queensbury and you know, the residential area throughout the whole entire area that people use this road. Not just a few people here and there. I can't understand why a road would be taken away from thousands to benefit just a few. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you very much. Yes, Paul. PAUL ABESS, 5 Woodcrest Drive-Paul Abess, 5 Woodcrest Drive, Queensbury. I just want to clarify one thing. I think a lot of people have a misunderstanding. Residents of a road do not have the authority to close that road. It is not their road. It's a public road. It's a public right-of-way. Residents do not own roads, they own the land, they may own the land underlining the road but they do not own the road. Local governments, municipalities, they do not own the road. It's a public road and there is a particular way, an acceptable way to abandon public roads. What abandon means, it means is that the public decided that they are not going to use the road any longer. They have not used it for six years and that is the law for abandoning roads by use such as Fuller Road. It is not up to me. It is not up to anybody. It is up to, the public has to abandon their right-of-way and obviously Fuller Road, we never abandoned our right-of-way on Fuller Road. I just wanted to clarify a few other things. Jerome Lapham and Mr. Keanon laid out Fuller Road in 1871. They chose it's route because it was the best route to get through there. Mr. Lapham, he was the former Queensbury Town Supervisor twice for two different terms and he was the owner of Glens Falls Cement which still exists, obviously and Mr. Keanon was the manager of Finch Pruyn. So, they knew what they were doing at that time. Clendon Brook, another thing, a misconception about it. Clendon Brook runs into Fuller Road where Fuller Road is barricaded up at top. Fuller Road continues on. That is the terminus of Clendon Brook Road right there. Fu11er Road continues on into Bear Town Road into Luzerne. So, right now, the end of Fuller Road is not closed, even though that's what you read all the time. The middle section of Fuller Road is closed. Fuller Road continues on. So, it's the middle section that's barricaded and you can check on a map if you think this is, if this is not accurate. I also wanted to mention that there are people that use Fuller Road for vehicle or traffic, like myself. It is my preferred route of travel back and forth to work in Luzerne. It is not just a recreational road. This is really not a popularity contest here tonight. We did not, it's not who speaks the most and says the most one way, in favor of the road opening or being, continue to be barricaded. But a good determinate town wide was the Post Star had an online poll and they had approximately five hundred people responded on online and people were in favor of opening of Fuller Road. It wasn't two to one in favor. It wasn't three to one in favor. It wasn't four, five to one. It was six to one in favor. That is what the public wants. Now, I don't blame these residents one bit. If! had a chance to have my road closed, many of us would be the same way, would prefer to have our roads closed. But I challenge these residents. Did they buy their property when the road was closed or did they buy their property on a thoroughfare and now are complaining that they want to keep the road closed? If they wanted that, they should have bought property on a road, a dead end. Now, we also mentioned about how safe it is now that (five minute bell rang)... Wow, that was five minutes? DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-Yes. MR. ABESS-John Merry on Clendon Brook Road has had four accidents right in front of his house since Fuller Road has been closed. So, you're just moving the traffic from one place to another. Let me just one point, I just wanted, one last point is that, okay, Judge Muller spoke really clearly when he said that he could not charge anybody with trespassing to be on Fu11er Road. That's what he said because it is still a public right-of-way. Now, if you don't pass a resolution to take down the barricades, you're really going to be, there's going to be other problems because people are going continue to use it. It is a public right-of- way and he said that very clearly. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you, Pau1. Anyone else? Yes, Mrs. Rowland. MRS. MARION ROWLAND-Obviously, everyone knows who we are. UNKNOWN AUDIENCE-Can't hear you. MRS. ROWLAND-Curtis and Marion Rowland, Queensbury. I'd like to know why, what my husband and I did to this board to deserve such disrespectful treatment. We're not the ones who sued the town and lost. Appealed, lost, appealed, lost, one more time. We're not the ones who have stolen public property, admitted it public and still got away with it. We do not vandalize private citizen's property. We have not threatened to have any of you removed from office for not respecting our wishes. We did not come into your public meeting shouting at you and demanding that you do what we want even though there's been an Appellate Court decision stating the prior board, what the prior board did was not illegal nor was it unconstitutional. We've always left the doors of communications open to discuss offering a means of access for those wishing to get from the end of Fuller Road to Clendon Brook Road. That is until this January when you instructed your attorney not to discuss Fuller Road with us or our attorney. This was done after Mr. Salvador instigated a lawsuit in which he, among other things is trying to suit us monetarily through you. Interestingly also is the fact that the answering papers of the town that would customarily be filed with the County Clerk has also some how been withheld from the public files. We have a every right to know what legal negotiations are being decided when it directly affects us. How can you justify treating us like this? Common courtesy alone should result in better treatment. You're all going to go home tonight and move your thoughts onto some other important issues of your lives. You're going to enjoy your home you live in. We get to go to our home and dwell on the fact that several of you, be it by political pressures or for whatever other reasons, possibly may have decided to totally ignore the Appellate Court's decision that we, as citizens fought and won for. The decision made mayor will ultimately take away from us the whole reason for wanting to live where our house is currently located, privacy. Why else would anyone else choose to build in a location without existing power, public water, sewer, paved roads and even a close fire hydrant? We chose to deal with those issues to ensure that where we built our home would allow us the privacy we so strongly desired. We didn't choose to have the additional expense of fighting and winning a legal battle for relying on the town and their legal counsel's knowledge on where we could locate our home. Again, what have we done to warrant this board for forcing us to take an additional legal measures just to preserve our home? We've been willing from day one to give up a portion of our privacy to accommodate the needs of certain individuals. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you? Yes, Mr. Rowell? MR. DON ROWELL, Glens Falls-Don Rowell. I live in Glens Falls and I just wonder if the Post Star reporters are here tonight to record everything that's being said? Are they here? COUNCILMAN TURNER-He's right behind you. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yes, they are. MR. ROWELL-So, you're taking it all down? Good. I hope he gets it right. You know, if he gets it right tonight, it will be the first time that he has. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Well, if he doesn't, he's got the Chronicle on your other side right there. MR. ROWELL-That would be good. I have expected to see Channel 13 here tonight because it was on the news, Channel 13 that the Fuller Road was being closed by the members of the Queensbury Town Board at the six o'clock news. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-They're only five years late. MR. ROWELL-Apparently some members of the Town of Queensbury Town Board didn't read the decision of the Supreme Court Justice Dier, namely Mr. Brower, Mr. Stec, Mr. Martin. Did you people read that? COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yes sir. COUNCILMAN STEC-Yes. MR. ROWELL-You, the whole three of you did? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Yes. COUNCILMAN STEC-Yes. MR. ROWELL-Well, you've got a bad decision then from it. It was given to them in January and upheld by four of five Judges, the Honorable P.l Cardona, Honorable White, Honorable Carpinello and Honorable II Graffeo. Because if they had, they would have read that everything that the Rowlands did was within the law and on the up and up and above board. Not like such things as Mr. Stec, when he invited Judge Muller to a meeting on February the 7th and not notifying the Rowlands of such a request when most of the opposing people, Mr. Abess, Mr. Schu1z, and some of his other members holding up their place cards and signs. It reminded me of the Reverend Al Sharpton and his demonstrations with their signs and place cards. Is this what the Town Board wants to be remembered by. You know, it's not a joking matter, I'm serious. How many times do we have to listen to Mr. Robert Schu1z and his frivolous actions? There must have been at least twenty-five in the last few years. Always costing money and time that could have been better spent on more important matters. Most of his actions were thrown out by the courts. I could stand up, I could bang my hand, maybe I could get more attention, I don't know and demand you put an end to all of this and leave the Fu11er Road closed as the previous board members did when they closed. Some on the Town Board, namely Mr. Brower, Mr. Stec and Mr. Martin are making a mockery of our justice system by ignoring our court system that has decided when they thought, when they through out all the charges brought by Mr. Schulz and his associates. Maybe you want people from Indian Ridge to come up to you and demand to be allowed to build more homes on the acreage that was specified. If you allow everyone to bring these demands up, you'll always be fighting in courts and prolonging the things that should be done. I know I am not from Queensbury but I don't believe Mr. Robert Schu1z is either. I wonder if some of the board members are getting paid off in some form, by getting votes, getting more votes in their decision to open... COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I've got to go. (left meeting room) MR. ROWELL-Go ahead. Go ahead, don't listen to it all. UNKNOWN AUDIENCE-That happened five years ago. MR. ROWELL-IfMr. Abess and his followers want to walk and ride their bikes, there are plenty of other trails in the Queensbury. (Councilman Stec left meeting room) MR. ROWELL-Boy, you've got a, do you want to leave too, Mr. Brower? SUPERVISOR BROWER-I'm sitting right here, Mr. Rowell. MR. ROWELL-Good, thank you. UNKNOWN AUDIENCE-You're five minutes is up. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-Not yet. MR. ROWELL-If you open, I'm going to just finish it up. If you vote to reopen the road the way that I have heard that you're going to, it will be the worst travesty of any board in the history of the Town of Queensbury. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you very much. Anyone else care to address the board? Mr. Tucker. MR. PLINEY TUCKER-It isn't to do with Fuller Road. COUNCILMAN BREWER-It doesn't have to be. MR. TUCKER-It's nothing to do with Fu11er Road. SUPERVISOR BROWER-It doesn't have to be. It can be anything. COUNCILMAN BREWER-We'd rather take a break anyway for a minute, Pliney. (Councilmen Martin and Stec reentered meeting room) MR. TUCKER, 41 Division Road-Pliney Tucker, 41 Division Road, Queensbury. Resolution 5.10, Authorizing the Agreement Between the Town of Queensbury and Queensbury Economic Development Corporation. Henry, are you satisfied with it now? MR. HENRY HESS, CONTROLLER-Yes, I am. MR. TUCKER-So am I then. Planned discussions, Indian Ridge PUD Agreement. I'm going to sit here if! get a chance to talk during that thing. Am I going to get a chance to talk during that discussion or is that just the board? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Yea, if you'd like to same thing, you're welcome to comment. MR. TUCKER-Okay. Now, I'm going to throw the Town Attorney in. I asked last board meeting if it was SUPERVISOR BROWER-Which one? MR. TUCKER-Well, the whole outfit. Don't pay them for last month. I ask the board to have the Town Attorney call and check on Mr. Johnson's case with the Labor Board and Mr. Hafner said that he told the gentleman that was supposed to call me, Mr. Pratt but he didn't do it. COUNSEL HAFNER-I apologize he hasn't called, I thought he had. I'll make sure he does. MR. TUCKER-Well, alright but I just wanted them to know because if! don't hear in a day or so I'm going to call up and raise hell with somebody, I don't know who. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I'm the guy, Pliney. MR. TUCKER-Okay. SUPERVISOR BROWER-You can yell at me. MR. TUCKER-Thank you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you very much. Anyone else care to comment this evening? Yes, sir. MR. TOM NEWTON, Old Bay Road-Good evening, Tom Newton, Old Bay Road. The Rowlands have offered a six hundred foot bike trail to replace eighteen hundred feet of road by use. That seems to be like only a third of the distance. If people are using that road of use for recreational purpose, they're getting shortchanged by two-thirds. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. Anyone else care to comment? MR. BOB REARDON-My name is Bob Reardon, another carpetbagger from Glens Falls. I've been on Fuller Road since I was nine years old. Went to a birthday party up on West Mountain Road and pushed my bicycle to the top of Fuller Road and have been riding my bicycle up that road and down it many years since. I hate to see the road closed. I'd like to paraphrase a quote by Governor Howard Dean of Vermont in the recent canceling of the hockey team ofUVM's season over a hazing incident that was hidden by the powers to be at the college and he said it's time for people to stop listening to their lawyers and do what's right. This road being used for a hundred and twenty-five years by many people in the Town of Queensbury, Glens Falls, Luzerne. It's for everyone. It's not just for the residents on both sides of the road. I see on this map of the proposal, we have a hundred and three feet between the edge of the house and the eastern edge of the Rowland's property and then they talk about a forty some odd foot setback from the road. Well, the way I understand it, they bought their property before they came before the board. Now, anyone that's ever proposed any development in the town, they don't buy property first and then go ask, can we do this to the property? Prudent people might get an option to buy and then go and ask, can we change this. So, them being played as the victim in this whole thing is way out of whack. A prudent person would go and ask about the closure of the road first before they would expend money. Without having the hundred foot setback on either side of the road from the, or you know, from the house, what they bought primarily was a wood lot. And we're meant to feel like the bad guys because we're asking the board to abide by the law because they spent money on a piece of property that was a wood lot. I just don't see it and hopefully, you'll open the road back up again. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the board at this time? Mr. Naylor. MR. P AUL NAYLOR-I'm glad I'm retarded, you guys have got to make this decision and I don't feel good for you because I've been sued before from the other side and I've lost cause they said I was arbitrary and capricious and I didn't think I was. But, I lost anyway but you guys got a big thing on your hands. There was a lot of roads closed by me over the years. My question is, when you get sued, do you pay the bill this time too or do the other guys? Now, we can suit the other guys if they don't pay you? Who gets sued? COUNSEL HAFNER-I'm not going to answer that. MR. NAYLOR-You ain't going to answer because you're going to get the money. COUNSEL HAFNER-No, that's not why. MR. NAYLOR-No, you're not going to get it? Okay. Just, you've got to do what you've got to do. Better you then me. I'll probably testify for them at the trial. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Yes. COUNSEL LUDEMANN-Matt Ludemann, Queensbury resident, Rowland's attorney. Ijust, I know it's late, I just want to make the point that the Rowlands had an agreement with the seller's of their property to buy a building lot. It was conditioned upon the road being abandoned and getting a building permit. Mr. Martin was well aware of that. He was involved, he was an employee and ran the Planning Department and all the other related functions at that time. They had an out if the road had not been closed, they could have gotten out of their contract and if anyone wants to check, talk to the person, the persons, the couple that they bought it from. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. Anyone else care to address the board at this time? Yes, sir. MR. MARTIN MORRELL-Hi, Martin Morrell from Glens Falls. I want to thank the three of you who have been outspoken in favor of opening Fu11er Road again. I appreciate that. And I want to address a couple of things that I heard. We are not, and I've said this before, I'm saying it again, cause I've heard it here again tonight. We are not the loud voices of the very few. I think one thing that ought to be very clear here tonight, that the special interest group is Curtis and Marion Rowland and the residents of Fuller Road. The rest of us come from all walks oflife and towns. We are not the loud voices of the very few. The people, I must say, the people have little interest in this compromise and the people have absolutely no need for this compromise because we have the right to pass or stay on the existing road bed of Fuller Road. We have exercised that right. We will do it again and the Rowlands are going home and living with this situation anyway. You were handed a petition tonight and since most of you were not here five years ago, I just want to mention that if you look back in the record, there's another very sizeable petition that we folks submitted to open this road back then. And lastly, someone from Fu11er Road mentioned that their children couldn't pick up the tires. I would like to point out to everyone in this room that it was Pau1 Abess who picked up the tires on Clendon Brook Road. It is absolutely true. UNKNOWN AUDIENCE-My son is the one that found those tires in ... MR. MORRELL-Well, there are probably a lot of tires on Fu11er Road but Paul Abess was instrumental in removing a great many of them from down a very steep embankment and I know that for an absolute fact. I have photographs of them. So, again thank you very much. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you very much. Yes, sir. Mr. Duell. MR. DAVID DUELL-David Duell, Town of Queensbury. I think everyone here tonight have voiced their concerns, opinions. I think everybody has said what they had to say. I think we ought to move on with this resolution 5.1 and let's hear your vote. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. Alright. Yes, thank you. Mrs. Bennett. MS. BARBARA BENNETT, Dixon Road-Barbara Bennett, Dixon Road, Queensbury. Mostly I'm just an observer of this, I've never been up there but I happen to know people who do and I've repeatedly heard how beautiful the area is and I'm talking about people my age. People who are sick and drove the car up there and watched the birds and the scenery and a bike trail is not going to help them. People in my age group are not going to ski, are not going to bike, it's an area they need to go there by car. So, that was my only comment. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you very much. I guess I'll ask one more time, would anyone else like to address the board at this time on this issue or on any other issue? Okay, that being the case we'll close the open forum. OPEN FORUM CLOSED 11:26 P.M. COUNCILMAN STEC-I'djust like to take a couple of minutes of everyone's time. I know we've been here a long time, I've been mostly listening to four and half hours. Most of you will go home after finish this and the remainder of the five, actually nine of us will stay here probably, well after one. Don't complain about it, we volunteered for this duty but I think I can speak for everyone here when, you know, we can do without the personal attacks. Talk about payoffs, that's totally uncalled for and there's no room for that here. Now, the comments that I'd like to make, the comments I'd like to make, January 1st, 2000 at the swearing in ceremony, we all made a few remarks and one of the remarks that I made was that I thought that this board, by myself in particular we would seek the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It's obvious to me that no matter what we do tonight, some people are going to leave here unhappy. I want to clarify my ideas because I think we owe it to the taxpayers and the people here tonight that we are talking about a couple of things. We're talking about how we spend taxpayer money and we're talking about public rights and I would say that both have equal standing here. We talked about a reasonable compromise. What our ideas of a reasonable compromise are and I know that the Post Star doesn't have voluminous room to print everything that Dennis says but, cause he's talker, especially Ted but we, they mentioned briefly today. A reasonable compromise that I think that the five of us could, all five get behind but, you know I'm just speaking for myself, my own interpretations, none of us have a burning desire to have highway traffic on that road. It's not the ... of traffic in the community. We realize that. We understand that. Alright, but I think the compromise that perhaps we were hoping to hear and something different then, we're well aware of the compromise that was made five years ago, we would hope that maybe there'd be some movement in five years. Well we would have sought or I think would have had an easier time getting a little bit more behind, would have been a non-motorized vehicle access. The public would still have the right to use the road however, there would be no cars on it. Somebody, a compromise means that somebody on each side gives a little bit. Compromise doesn't mean that one side walks out of the hall, thinking great, I got everything I wanted. The other side says, gees, I didn't get anything. That's not a compromise. That's what I think this board was hoping to get. I certainly, I want to express my heartfelt feelings for the Rowlands and the people on Fuller Road. I understand you desires. I agree with where you're coming from as far as your desire to keep it safe and clean, those are legitimate concerns. I don't have any ill will for the Rowlands. I don't have any ill will for anyone on Fuller Road and neither does anyone on this board and again, we can do without the comments to the contrary, questioning our integrity. That's not called for. We're certainly not paid very much and we certainly do spend an awful lot of time here. Now, I reject the notion that we've been browbeaten into this, our positions here. As right as some people may think Bob Schulz and as crazy as some people may think that he is, Bob Schulz, John Salvador, Paul Abess, the Rowlands, you know, they all get equal standing in my book and I listen to them and take it with a grain of salt and I consider the source. But we have not been browbeaten into this decision tonight. We have not been steered by a fringe group. I was there when the Fuller eight were arrested. I was there. That was before the election. I've been following this for a long time, this isn't something that I'm bending to public pressure. I'm not worried about Fuller Road coming back to get me. I'm trying to do the right thing here and I think the whole board is doing that. I respect the dissenting opinions on this board. To answer some of Betty's concerns. Betty, I feel that, in my opinion the questions been raised that perhaps something of value was improperly given away by the taxpayers to individuals. That's one reason. MS. MONAHAN-Have you done the research to prove that? That's what I'm trying to find out. COUNCILMAN STEC- There's been, the other issue that I have is, to my knowledge, there's been no study or traffic study saying that somebody could hang a hat on and justify that this road is abandoned by the public. So, those are the reasons where I'm coming from. Now, there are reports that the public complained to the Supervisor and he may have stalled or stonewalled beyond the Statute of Limitations but it's obvious to everyone in the room that the public had a problem with the closure of this road. Now, whether they missed it by a day or a week, I'm not sure of the time line but it's, I have enough doubt in my mind that perhaps the public wasn't given it's fair shake. Now, I'm also concerned that, from where I sit the case has never been heard on it's merits and to me, that's important. Now, obviously, the public has a problem. I don't think that we're insisting on motor vehicle traffic. I think that the issue here is public access. The issue is not trash or speed, these are law enforcement officers, they are not reasons to close the road. There are many roads like Fu11er Road in the town where residents would desire closure. Case in point tonight, obviously, Garrison Road. There's a lot of people that would like to see that be a private drive. I'm sure you can go down Butler Pond Road and ask the Stecs and the Borgos' and the Tarantinos and the Nestles and the Tingleys if they've had problem with people that really don't have a legitimate business on that public road. That's no reason to close the road either. Well, I think that I can speak from personal experience that there's a lot of trash up there on the Watershed property right off of Butler Pond Road and Gurney Lane and a lot of the roads up there. These are not reasons to close the road, they are law enforcement issues not road closure. But now I'm getting to the heart of the issue. Is it right to fail to do the right thing and the sole purpose to avoid cost? At what point do you put a price tag on doing the right thing? Are we going to spend taxpayer money? You're dam right we are. But do you know what, no matter what we do, we're spending taxpayer money. If we do, if we leave it closed, we get sued. Ifwe open it, we get sued. So, that money is already spent. So, but, at what point do you put the price tag on your integrity, on doing the right thing, what you think is the right thing? As far as respecting previous Town Board's actions. The Post Star is very accurately reporting, that we've got an issue with an action that the previous Town Board took regarding bonuses. I don't think that this board wants to hang itself, it's integrity and it's image and it's good name on every action of the previous Town Board. The previous Town Board's action is no reason to say, well, you know, I guess that they had the market cornered on smarts that day and we don't have the right to review it. So, I reject those arguments. But either way, it's going to cost and I want to talk about that too. Either way we turn, we're going to get sued. I recognize that and I also recognize and I think Mike brought up a good point earlier that, how much is that trail going to cost to maintain? I walked that road before the snow fell and we haven't spent a nickel on that road in five years and you could drive a two wheel drive car over it when there's no snow on it. You could have done it in November, no doubt in my mind. So, I'm not, I don't think we're talking about bucket loads of money to maintain this road, especially if we're talking about maintaining it for public access but maybe not motorized vehicles. So, if we're talking about well, you know, where's the spirit of compromise and all that, I think it's here tonight, at least on this side of the table. But that's what I wanted to say. I think that the public has a right to know where we're coming from and how we feel. But I certainly can understand where the Rowlands are coming from. I can understand Tim's point. I can understand the Highway Department's position. Alright, but that's Dan Stec's opinion, for whatever it's worth. That's all I have to say. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Anyone else would like to address the, any other board member like to address at this time? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Yea, I might as well chime in here. I, Dan stole a lot of my thunder. I feel the same way. A couple of points I want to make though, I can, first of all, I want to say I really feel the Rowlands in this case. I think they went to this, they honestly thought they were doing the right thing. They approached it, from what they thought was the best way to do it and I think that anything that's been said ill of them is wrong. Any time I've ever met with them or seen them, they've been fine people. A lot of other people associated with this. Pau1 Naylor is an excellent Highway Superintendent, he gave many years of good service to this town. I worked with him in my capacity as Director of Community Development and he spent a lot of sleepless nights plowing roads while people in this town were sleeping and he only had the best interests at heart too and I say that about the previous board. You know, I was here that night when these decisions were being made. There were three people in the room, as I recall. I don't think anybody realized what was happening or the ramifications of what was happening and if they could foresee it, maybe things would have turned out differently and they would have decided differently. Nobody knew and the reason why I've come out in favor of opening the road is, I think there's a larger, more fundamental issue at play here and I'll speak to Betty's concern about appropriateness. I think it's appropriate that these types of decisions be made by the full public. It's something I ran on, I think we should try and include the public as much as we can and for whatever reason, at nobody's malicious intent or sneaking around behind closed doors or backhanded politics or anything like that, a decision was made in a vacuum. It was intended to be that way but it was and then when the public did see the ramifications of the decision, they didn't like it and the right of passage over a right-of-way is a very, very sacred, important thing. It goes back in Highway law. Highway law is the oldest set of law in the books. Pau1 knows. It's been in the, and therefore it's a very hard section oflaw to interpret. The attorneys do back- flips trying to interpret this section of law. It's very old and the reason why is because it's been around a long time. And I don't think it's good policy for five people to make that decision on behalf of the public and I don't know how to say it any more clearly then that. I think it should be a wider, something like this should be a subject of a referendum or something like that if it's possible. The right of passage, you don't know when this is going to come back to bite you. It's precedent setting and it's very important and that's why I think it should be opened. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Well, I've got to tell you, I came on the board in 1995 and this was an issue then. This has been researched since 1994. Paul Dusek would not let this proceed without crossing all the T's and dotting all the I's and that's just exactly what happened. He researched the issue whether we could close it. He came up with the decision that we could based on his information and his research. Yes, we didn't hold a public hearing cause we didn't have to hold a public hearing but since then we have and I'll challenge the ones that are sitting on this side, where were you when we closed Bank Square Road? You never showed up. UNKNOWN-How did we have any inkling you were closing Fuller Road.... COUNCILMAN TURNER-You weren't here when we closed Fuller Road. UNKNOWN-... .until we saw the barricades there? UNKNOWN-Let him talk. COUNCILMAN TURNER-So based on the information that Pau1 provided us and the law that pertains to the highway system, we voted to close the road and I stand on that, I seconded the motion and I am firm in my belief that we did it right. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Care to speak? COUNCILMAN BREWER-I've already said what I had to say. I'll say it in about two minutes when you introduce this motion. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Well, I'll tell you, I'm going to chime in here a moment because I appreciate all the public input. I mean, this is a very difficult issue. I remember this coming to the board. I don't remember the initial motion or acceptance of the resolution but I can tell you I remember the discussions that the group of people that were concerned about keeping this road open had with the former Town Board and I recall clearly Fred Champagne kind of indicating that he would like to negotiate a compromise and you know, if you can just hold off and I remember those words very well and of course, the case was never heard on it's merits. It was only heard on the fact that the Statute of Limitations had expired, a four month Statute of Limitations. Now, quite frankly, I feel lousy about having to make a decision that will affect very nice people like Marion and Curtis Rowlands. I feel like a big danm heel, if you want to know the truth. And I'd love, I'd love to look at this and have the bikers say, gees, that's great, let's do it. I'd love to have that happen. I'd even like it better if they had said, gees, let's make a bicycle path out of the existing road bed. Can you help us screen our, the back of our property? That's what I would have loved. Unfortunately, none of that's happened. I'm very familiar with this road because I happen to own a piece of property on Clendon Brook Road. I don't live up that far. I live further down on Clendon Brook before it hits Tuthill or I don't live there now, I own a house there that I rent. However, I lived there for over ten years and I've got to tell you, the Mountain property is the most beautiful property you'll find. The piece of property they own is just fantastic. I mean, they were kind enough to show me through their house. I walked the proposed route of their compromise that they exposed tonight to the public for the first time. I walked the road bed of Fuller Road and the Clendon Brook attachment and walking the road bed of Fuller Road and looking down at the stream that meanders below us and the guardrail that was thrown down there, I thought this is, this is mother nature. This is beautiful. This was a public road for a hundred and twenty-five years and for the simple fact that a Town Board declared the road closed, by the way using a road by dedication declaration as opposed to a road by use closure, it seems like a crime to me that we could extinguish the right to the use of a road simply because of a four month time period. Something seems very wrong about that, to me. When you abandon a road you must have consent of the neighbors before you close the road and there was one neighbor that hadn't given his consent after the process of road abandonment had started. Frankly, before I was sworn in this year, I was served a lawsuit on behalf of, by Mr. Schulz on behalf ofMr. John Salvador. I was a little bit put offby the fact that Mr. Schu1z wanted us to make a quick decision even though he served me this lawsuit which wasn't even coming to fruition until March. I also feel that this board tried to work with our attorney to protect the rights and interests of the town to the greatest degree by our response to the lawsuit that was presented to us. And frankly, I was concerned when those on the board that support the closure, or the opening of the road approached me for this resolution. I was concerned that maybe we should wait until we heard a decision by the court and maybe we would act rationally if we were to pass a motion of this nature before we heard from the court. But after great deliberation, I've come to the conclusion that by taking this action we may indeed invite the court to ru1e on the merits of the case and not simply on the fact that the Statute of Limitations should be upheld. So, there will be those of you that think we are dead wrong if we oppose the opening of this road. There are those of you that will be thrilled. I won't be either. What I'll be is content in my heart that to the best of my knowledge, I've tried to be fair with the public, the residents of the Town of Queensbury and the public in general and hopefully, we won't open ourselves to a great deal of litigation. But this has been a difficult decision and you deserve to know how we think and how we feel and you may not agree with us but I hope you'll respect the fact that we've thought at length about this issue. So, that's all I have to say. I'd ask you to read the motion please, 5.1. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING OPENING OF FULLER ROAD FOR PUBLIC USE RESOLUTION NO.: 87,2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. James Martin WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, a previous Queensbury Town Board in 1995 purported to discontinue a portion of Fuller Road by abandonment of the public right to use that portion of the road as a highway by use, and WHEREAS, the current Town Board believes that the discontinuance was neither appropriate nor properly accomplished, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby declares that portion of Fuller Road previously sought to be discontinued to be open for public use, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Highway Superintendent to arrange for and promptly remove the barriers which were previously installed on that portion of Fuller Road and to also remove any other obstacles to that portion of Fuller Road. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 2000, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Martin, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower NOES Mr. Turner, Mr. Brewer ABSENT: None (three minute break) PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED LOCAL LAW - "SNOWMOBILES" NOTICE SHOWN 11:50 P.M. SUPERVISOR BROWER-We'd like to open a public hearing for a proposed law on Snowmobiles. If the Clerk would read 2.2, the public hearing resolution. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-Resolution enacting Local Law NO.2 of 2000 to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 168, Article I entitled, "Snowmobiles". COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I think we should leave this open. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Leave it open? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Yea. SUPERVISOR BROWER-For comment, you mean? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Yea, cause I mean. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Yea, we can, we can leave it open. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I mean, not unless somebody is actually here for this. COUNCILMAN TURNER-No, he asked the question if somebody was here... SUPERVISOR BROWER-Is anyone here from the public to speak on the snowmobile issue? The proposal is to, we only have one road in the Town of Queensbury currently that you can legally run snowmobiles on and that's Peggy Ann Road. COUNCILMAN STEC-Ifit's signed. COUNCILMAN TURNER-If it's posted. COUNCILMAN STEC-Ifit's signed but it's not signed. COUNCILMAN TURNER-It's not signed. COUNCILMAN STEC-Ifit's posted to that. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Oh, okay. But the bottom line is, Mr. Stec is right, you have to have the proper signage on it. The problem however is, since that road has been developed so aggressively over the past few years, it's been brought to our attention that this is really a road that probably should not be allowed for snowmobiles and if people do travel on it, they certainly would travel at their own risk and illegally, frankly. Would anyone like to address this issue, either positively or negatively? If you would, please come to the mic. No takers. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-If there's no comments, you can close it. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay, we will close the public hearing then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 11:52 P.M. RESOLUTION ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO.: 2 OF 2000 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 168 ARTICLE I ENTITLED, "SNOWMOBILES" RESOLUTION NO.: 88,2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: 2 of 2000 amending Queensbury Town Code Chapter 168, Article I entitled, "Snowmobiles," to delete ~ 168- 3 entitled "Permitted highways," so that snowmobiles will no longer be allowed to be operated on the section of Peggy Ann Road currently designated in ~168-3, and WHEREAS, the Town Board duly held a public hearing on February 28th, 2000 and all interested persons were heard, 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 Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby enacts Local Law No.: 2 of 2000 to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 168, Article I entitled, "Snowmobiles," 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. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 2000, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer LOCAL LAW NO.: 2 OF 2000 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND CHAPTER 168, ARTICLE I OF QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE ENTITLED "SNOWMOBILES." BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 168-3 of Chapter 168, Article I of the Code of the Town of Queensbury entitled "Snowmobiles," is hereby amended and the following sections thereafter renumbered, as follows: ( 168-3. Permitted highways. Only the following streets or highways of the town are designated as uncongested for the purpose of operation of snowmobiles on the shoulders thereof, as authorized by the Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law. AA section of Peggy Ann Road (also known as "Old Forge Road') seventy-five hundredths (0.75) mile in length, extending from Wintergreen Lane westerly to the westerly boundary of the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation easement. SECTION 2. 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 3. 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 4. This Local Law shall take effect upon its filing in the New York Secretary of State's Office as provided by New York Municipal Home Rule Law (27. (Councilman Brewer entered meeting room) RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION SEEKING LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND AUTHORIZING TOWN CLERK TO SUBMIT APPLICATION TO PLANNING BOARD FOR JAMES FEENEY FOR SUBDIVISION AND/OR SALE OF PORTION OF TOP OF THE WORLD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 89,2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. James Martin WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, James Feeney has submitted an application to the Queensbury Town Clerk's Office for subdivision and/or sale of a portion of the Top of the World Planned Unit Development and the application has been reviewed by the Town Planning Staff and deemed complete for purposes of review, and WHEREAS, applications for subdivision or sale of a portion of Planned Unit Developments are forwarded to the Town Planning Department and Planning Board for recommendations in accordance with ~ 179-57 of the Town Zoning Ordinance, and WHEREAS, following such recommendations, the Queensbury Town Board will review the application and take such other action as it shall deem necessary and proper, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to submit the following subdivision application to the Queensbury Planning Board for report and recommendation: APPLICATION OF: James Feeney-Top of the World Ventures, Inc. TAX MAP NO'S: Portions of Tax Map 24, Block I, Parcels 4.1, 5.3,6.3,6.2,7.2,7.1,8 and Tax Map 23, Block I, Parcels 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 27. LOCATION OF PROPERTIES: Lockhart Mountain Road, Queensbury, NY APPLICATION FOR: World Planned Unit Development Subdivision and/or Sale of a Portion of the Top of the and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury 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. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 2000, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: None DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE: Jim Feeney, Owner of Top of the World and his Counsel Dan Smith reviewed proposal with the board.... Mr. Round, Executive Director reviewed process with the board. (vote taken) RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADIRONDACK RUNNERS TO CONDUCT 14TH ANNUAL SHAMROCK SHUFFLE ROAD RACE RESOLUTION NO.: 90,2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Adirondack Runners Club has requested authorization from the Queensbury Town Board to conduct its 14th Annual Shamrock Shuffle Road Race as follows: SPONSOR EVENT DATE The Adirondack Runners Club 14th Annual Shamrock Shuffle Road Race Sunday, March 19th, 2000 PLACE: Beginning and ending at Glens Falls High School and going through the Town of Queensbury (Letter and map showing course is attached); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby acknowledges receipt of proof of insurance from the Adirondack Runners Club to conduct the 14th Annual Shamrock Shuffle Road Race partially within the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby approves this event subject to approval by the Town Highway Superintendent, which may be revoked due to concern for road conditions at any time up to the date and time of the event. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 2000, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2000 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 91,2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury wishes to authorize fund transfers for the 2000 Budget and the Chief Fiscal Officer has approved the requests, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs that funds be transferred and the 2000 Town Budget be amended as follows: ASSESSMENT: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 01-1355-4400 (Misc. Contractual) 01-1355-1070-002 (Clerk, Part-time OfT) 200. EMERGENCY SERVICES: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 05-3410-4200 (Insurance) 05-9040-8040-4980 (Worker's Comp - Fire) 5,000. 05-3410-4200 (Insurance) 05-9040-8040-4981 (Worker's Comp - EMS) 3,000. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 2000, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: None Supervisor Brower noted that Resolution 5.5 was pulled from the agenda. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SETTLEMENT OF PENDING ARTICLE 7 REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CASE COMMENCED BY PLAZA @ LATHAM ASSOCIATES RESOLUTION NO.: 92,2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. James Martin WHEREAS, Plaza @ Latham Associates has commenced Article 7 Real Property Assessment Review cases against the Town of Queensbury for the 1997 and 1998 assessment years, and WHEREAS, the Town Assessor has recommended a settlement proposal to the Town Board and the Town Board has reviewed this case with Town Counsel, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Union Free School District has been informed of the proposed settlement and the School District has advised that it has no objection, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves of settlement of the pending Article 7 cases against the Town of Queensbury by Plaza @LathamAssociates for the 1997 and 1998 tax years in accordance with the following revised assessment value: Parcel - Tax Map No.: Revised Assessment for 1997 and 1998: Meadow Lane, Queensbury 59-3-1.25 $30,000 and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that any refunds paid to Plaza @ Latham Associates as a result of this settlement shall be without interest, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Town Assessor and/or Town Counsel to execute settlement documents and take any additional steps necessary to effectuate the proposed settlement in accordance with the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 2000, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF EMPIRE STATE APPRAISAL CONSULTANTS TO PROVIDE APPRAISALS IN CONNECTION WITH ARTICLE 7 TAX ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING - PAULSEN & SONS, INC. RESOLUTION NO.: 93,2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, Pau1sen & Sons, Inc., has commenced an Article 7 Real Property Tax Assessment Proceeding against the Town of Queensbury concerning a 189 unit apartment complex located at Weeks Road, Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 71-1-2) for the 1998 tax year, and WHEREAS, the Town is required to file an appraisal with the Warren County Supreme Court, and WHEREAS, the Town Assessor has recommended that the Town Board engage the services of Empire State Appraisal Consu1tants to provide a limited appraisal for the amount of $2,900 and if necessary, the complete appraisal for the amount of $2,900 for a total appraisal fee not to exceed $5,800, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Union Free School District has pledged to pay half of the total appraisal costs incurred up to the amount of $2,900, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the engagement of Empire State Appraisal Consu1tants to furnish a Court -ready limited appraisal, and if necessary as determined by the Town Assessor, a complete appraisal, in connection with the Article 7 Real Property Tax Assessment Proceeding commenced by Paulsen & Sons, Inc., concerning the 189 unit apartment complex located at Weeks Road, Queensbury for the 1998 tax year for the amount of $2,900 for the limited appraisal and, if necessary as determined by the Town Assessor, the amount of $2,900 for the complete appraisal, not to exceed a total amount of $5,800, with the understanding that the Queensbury Union Free School District will pay half of the total appraisal costs incurred up to the amount of $2,900, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the appraisal costs shall be paid for from the appropriate account, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Assessor and/or Town Counsel to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 2000, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF ALVEY AND COTE, LTD., TO PROVIDE APPRAISAL IN CONNECTION WITH ARTICLE 7 TAX ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS - FRAMMIS DEVELOPMENT CORP. RESOLUTION NO.: 94,2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, Frammis Development Corporation has commenced Article 7 Real Property Tax Assessment Proceedings against the Town of Queensbury concerning property located at 90 Quaker Road, Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 108.-1-37) for the 1997 and 1998 tax years, and WHEREAS, the Town is required to file an appraisal with the Warren County Supreme Court, and WHEREAS, the Town Assessor has recommended that the Town Board engage the services of Alvey and Cote, Ltd., to provide the appraisal for an amount not to exceed $1,900, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the engagement of Alvey and Cote, Ltd., to furnish a Court-ready appraisal in connection with Article 7 Real Property Tax Assessment Proceedings commenced by Frammis Development Corporation concerning property located at 90 Quaker Road, Queensbury for the 1997 and 1998 tax years for an amount not to exceed $1,900 to be paid for from the appropriate account, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Assessor and/or Town Counsel to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 2000, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPOINTING ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CHAIRMAN RESOLUTION NO.: 95,2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board has received the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals' recommendation for its year 2000 Chairman and the Town Board now wishes to appoint Lewis Stone as Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the year 2000, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby appoints Lewis Stone as Chairman of the Town's Zoning Board of Appeals for the year 2000. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 2000, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND QUEENSBURY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RESOLUTION NO.: 96,2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. James Martin WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury strongly supports the important mission of the Queensbury Economic Development Corporation (QEDC) which includes improving employment opportunities and economic development in the Town, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury therefore wishes to enter into an agreement with QEDC for the years 2000 and 2001, and WHEREAS, a proposed agreement has been presented at this meeting and is in form approved by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves and authorizes the Agreement with the Queensbury Economic Development Corporation presented at this meeting with funding to be paid for from the appropriate account, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Agreement and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 2000 by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: None Supervisor Brower pulled Resolution 5.11 for Executive Session. CORRESPONDENCE-NONE TOWN COUNCILMEN'S CONCERNS Mr. Hess, Comptroller spoke to the board regarding the Fire and EMS budgets that he submitted to the board last week. .. if the board approves these numbers, would like to release to the fire companies and have resolution prepared for next week's agenda setting the public hearing for the second meeting in March... Town Board agreed to review again and if there were no questions from the board, it was okay for the Comptroller to mail out on Wednesday morning. PLANNED DISCUSSIONS 12: 10 P.M. INDIAN RIDGE PUD AGREEMENT Counsel Matthew J. Jones, Jones Firm, Saratoga Springs-On behalf of the applicant for the Indian Ridge PUD, Dennis, first of all, thank you very much for accommodating me this evening. You did in fairness, tell me you were going to be very, very late and your prediction was accurate. I'm here, actually for two reasons. You recall, two weeks ago I presented to you a draft of an Indian Ridge Planned Unit Development Agreement and went over the major sections of that agreement with you. Sought your input on it and had it circulated to counsel. The following evening, we went to the Planning Board for Final Site Plan Approval from the Planning Board on Phase I to solicit at that time any further comments they would have on the Draft PUD Agreement so that those, all of that could be incorporated, you would have the benefit of all of the thinking. Since that time I have, I've done the following. I've taken the comments that you've provided to me two weeks ago, I've done the best I could to incorporate those into the Draft. In particular, Jim had me rework the option provision on the option to purchase and I made those changes. I've also taken some of the information from the Planning Board and incorporated that information in the Draft and thirdly, I got comments from Bob's Office and Mark on Thursday and made the changes, got them up to your counsel and I believe I hit all the marks, at least from counsel's standpoint. So, if it's appropriate, if I've hit all the numbers, I'm here this evening in the first part to ask you for authorization for the Supervisor to execute the PUD Agreement on behalf of the town and we're prepared to execute it on behalf of the developer. And secondly, as I was going through my approval check list the other day, this has been such a long project and it's had so many turns. Chris, if you've got the town code near by, Bob, have you got one. There is a provision, it's in the PUD, it's 179-58D, Chris. This is a provision that talks about a change in the sketch plan and for that, I need to give you a little history. It's a provision in which, when an applicant having received Sketch Plan Approval which is what we received from you in 1995, when he goes forward and makes or proposes a change in that Sketch Plan, as was the case last April when we came back with an agreement with the Citizens for Queensbury, there's a process involved in which we need to then go to the Planning Board and seek approval from the Planning Board on that Sketch Plan and only if approved by the Planning Board does the Sketch Plan actually come back to you and you have the final say on that Sketch Plan approval. So, it's kind of a technical provision that's in here in circumstances where there's a change. That did occur. The Planning Board considered that on, in September. September 21, by unanimous vote made the recommendation that the Sketch Plan is within the zoning resolution, actually the language, the term about here, is in keeping with the intent of the zoning resolution that you approved back in July. It's a lot of verbiage to say that the Planning Board has considered the change, has approved it but ultimately it requires a separate and distinct vote by you, as some point, hopefully this evening. That will conclude the approvals for the Indian Ridge. Would you agree with that? Executive Director, Mr. Round-Yea, that's correct. Counsel Jones-And in recognition of the hour, I do want to make a very brief, a very brief presentation with respect to the chronology here. As you all are very well aware, in April I came back to this board with the Citizens for Queensbury, we jointly made a presentation in which we outlined a revised Planned Unit Development. It's significant change was that we reduced the single family homes from a hundred and eleven to seventy-five and we eliminated the duplex homes. There are other changes but I would characterize that as a reduction in the density as the significant area. From there we proceeded to the Planning Board this fall, we received, again that Sketch Plan Approval. We received Preliminary Approval from the Planning Board about a month ago and two weeks ago, we received Final Site Plan Approval from the, on Phase I. What remains is for you to implement the zoning which was adopted in 1995 and rather thoroughly litigated for three years and to implement that zoning you would need to agree on a PUD Agreement and do this last, under 170-58. Town Board held discussion regarding the following; components of the Planned Unit Development, the single family lot sizes and the cost of the single family homes, the elimination of the duplexes, the land conservancy, the buffer and the no-cut zone, the Homeowner's Association Agreement and the elimination of the language thereof (paragraph 18 in the PUD Agreement) ... the following resolution was amended (the addition of the last RESOLVED paragraph) and proposed by counsel: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INDIAN RIDGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 97,2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. James Martin WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 357,96 the Queensbury Town Board approved the Indian Ridge Planned Unit Development (PUD) subject to execution of a Planned Unit Development Agreement by the Town and J. Buckley Bryan, Jr. and Thomas J. Farone & Son, Inc., (Developers), and WHEREAS, the Town and Developers have reached agreement on the terms of the PUD Agreement, and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed PUD Agreement has been presented at this meeting and is in form approved by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves of the Indian Ridge Planned Unit Development Agreement between the Town and J. Buckley Bryan, Jr. and Thomas J. Farone & Son, Inc., as presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Agreement and take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby affirms and consents to the Preliminary Site Plan Approval that it is consistent with the Sketch Plan as approved by the Town Board on August 8th, 1996 as required by Town Code Section 179-58 (D). Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 2000, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brower NOES Mr. Turner ABSENT: None RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO.: 98,2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. James Martin RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and enters Executive Session to discuss a personnel issue. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower NOES: None ABSENT: None EXECUTIVE SESSION I :05 AM. RESOLUTION TO RECONVENE RESOLUTION NO.: 99,2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Executive Session and enters Regular Session of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES: None ABSENT: None REGULAR SESSION 2:00 AM. RESOLUTION APPROVING MEDICAL LEAVE OF ABSENCE FOR RICHARD WHITMORE RESOLUTION NO.: 100, 2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, Richard Whitmore is employed by the Town of Queensbury (Town) Highway Department and is a member of the Queensbury Unit of the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., (CSEA), and WHEREAS, Mr. Whitmore suffered a work-related injury before he was employed by the Town and Worker's Compensation for that injury is the responsibility of his prior employer, and WHEREAS, Mr. Whitmore has been employed by the Town of Queensbury for one year and has now accumulated two weeks of paid vacation, and WHEREAS, by virtue of Mr. Whitmore's one year of employment, he is entitled to invoke the protections of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and WHEREAS, Mr. Whitmore has informed the Town that he needs to undergo surgery related to his pre-existing work injury and has advised the Town that he will receive Worker's Compensation Benefits from his prior employer and does not wish to use accumulated paid leave from the Town, and WHEREAS, Article VI, Section 6 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Town and CSEA provides that the Town Board, in its discretion, may grant a request for unpaid medical leave not in excess of ninety (90) days, and WHEREAS, Mr. Whitmore may waive his rights under the FMLA and instead request Medical Leave under the Collective Bargaining Agreement, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the unpaid Medical Leave under Article VI, Section 6 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement for Richard Whitmore for a period not in excess of ninety (90) days contingent upon Mr. Whitmore waiving his rights under the FMLA within ten (10) days of the date of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that consistent with the Collective Bargaining Agreement, during the period of unpaid Medical Leave the Town will not pay any benefits to or on behalf ofMr. Whitmore, but Mr. Whitmore may continue his health insurance and/or dental coverage if he pays the entire premium while on leave within six (6) weeks of when the cost is paid by the Town, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Highway Superintendent to enter into any necessary agreements with CSEA and/or Richard Whitmore in form approved by Town Counsel, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes the Town Supervisor to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 2000 by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Stec, Mr. Turner, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION CONCERNING UNIFORMS FOR MECHANICS RESOLUTION NO.: 101,2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury wishes to provide the Town's mechanics with fire retardant uniforms for safety purposes, and WHEREAS, the Town and the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) have negotiated payment terms and have agreed that the Town will incur the additional cost of providing the fire retardant uniforms providing that all mechanics in the Highway and Water Departments agree to wear the fire retardant uniforms, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the Town to enter into an agreement with the Town's Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) in form approved by Town Counsel concerning the provision of fire retardant uniforms, with each mechanic in the Highway and Water Departments completing an appropriate Payroll Deduction Authorization, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to sign the agreement and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 2000, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Stec, Mr. Turner, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN MEETING RESOLUTION NO.: 102,2000 INTRODUCED BY: WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brower NOES: None ABSENT: None 2:05 AM. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK TOWN OF QUEENSBURY