The URL can be used to link to this page

1991-07-29 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING JULY 29, 1991 6:43 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR STEPHEN BORGOS COUNCILMAN GEORGE KUROSAKA COUNCILMAN MARILYN POTENZA COUNCILMAN RONALD MONTESI COUNCILMAN BETTY MONAHAN TOWN ATTORNEY PAUL DUSEK TOWN OFFICIALS PATRICIA CRAYFORD, KATHLEEN KATHE, DAVE HATIN, THEODORE TURNER, SUSAN GOETZ, JOYCE EGGLESTON, PAUL NAYLOR PRESS G.F. POST STAR, MOREAU SUN, CHANNEL 8, WWSC PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN RONALD MONTESI PUBLIC HEARING ZONING AMENDMENTS 6:45 P.M. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I'll ask the Clerk if this has been advertised? TOWN CLERK-Yes, it has. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- W e have before us tonight a bunch of a number of propose amendments to the zoning regulations that have reached this stage after many agonizing workshops and portions of regular meetings. This Board has torn apart rules and regulations and we believe, I think there is a strong consensus I'm sure unanimity we believe that what is presented here is appropriate and good. We don't always have resolutions in that form when we get here normally we get something such as the proposed Noise Ordinance which just came in a form that seemed to responded to some of the concerns and some of the people we knew would never get adopted, but we had to have it in some form to bring it to the public so we brought it to the public we weren't necessarily advocating it. I think it's a fair statement that we're advocating these changes because they are results of hours of work. With that in mind I would ask that anyone who wishes to speak or ask questions about this come forward please state your name and address start anywhere you'd like with a larger crowd, I would ask that we'd start right at the beginning and work through, but with a relatively small crowd start anywhere you'd like will do our best to response to your concerns, I'll ask the Town Attorney if he'll explain anything that's of concern with you and Mr. Hatin is here if that should be a problem. I'd like to go through everyone who wants to speak once before we have someone speak twice. Who would like to be first and start with any section of this that you have a question or concern about. Well since no one is getting up maybe we can run through them and see if anybody wants to talk about anything. There are a number of changes in here of importance to people all of them are really of importance. One item I can recall specifically is the change in the width of parking spaces in plaza commercial in fact all commercial zones from the 10 ft. by 20 ft. down to 9 ft. by 18 ft. I know there has been a comment made by a couple of members of the Planning Board that they felt that that was not spelled in the new Ordinance, but indeed it is the numbers nine and eighteen very specifically are listed that should solve that problem, excuse me nine and twenty it's a 180 ft., I have to get it straight in my head nine and twenty instead often and twenty, 9 ft. by 20 ft. That's just one of the changes there are other changes related to lots that were joined together by the amendment that took effect October 1 st, 1988 that was nonconforming lots in areas that were rezoned to larger lot sizes and they had common ownership as of October 1st, 1988. Many of those were joined together automatically under this propose change that would not be the case that would go back and undo that situation except for those lots in areas designated critical environmental areas in those areas they would still be joined together so you would have a conforming lot. It's a technical change it has impact adversely on a number of people this change seems to eliminate that problem. Those are the kinds of things that are in here. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Steve, household occupation. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Home occupation. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Home occupation has been worked on considerably, I don't remember all the details, I know we spent a lot of time of it. I don't know does anyone have specific questions on any part of it? I don't see any hands, Town Board members? COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-We didn't do anything on that 50 per cent allowable expansion of residential unit did we? That came up once people wanted to be able to expand their homes without having to go through the rigamoro of variances it used to be in all the other zoning ordinances except this one it's the first time they've dropped it. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I don't remember seeing that as a change. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-It was just brought up and I don't know if we did it. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-What we have here are just changes and they are other changes that will be proposed soon, but these changes are the ones that are proposed this evening, Paul. ATTORNEY DUSEK-In answer to Councilman Kurosaka question, it's my recollection and I'm trying to find it here there were some changes made that will impact that area of concern. It's in the nonconforming uses and what it did is take the site plan review requirement out of or you don't have to go through that anymore if your only expanding a residence by 50 per cent. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-That's what I thought it was. A constituent called me and I was almost certain we did something with it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Wait a minute Paul, run that by me again and where is it. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I'm trying to find it for you here. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I bet that's one we didn't do because we couldn't agree quit on the wording because we needed more work on it. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We talked about it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think we left it out. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I don't think it's in here, I re-read these again this weekend. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Page 16, it's Section 20, 179-79, what it does is that because it changes up front the provisions says, subject to the provisions of this article a nonconforming structure or use maybe enlarged or extended by site plan approval of the Planning Board. The language by site plan approval of the Planning Board is being deleted so what happens is the effect on that is that when you then drop down in reading the Ordinance now it's just is going to say, subject to provisions of this article a nonconforming use maybe continued or enlarged or may not be except as follows. One of the ways you can do it will be a single family dwelling or mobile home may be enlarged, rebuilt, as follows, all setback revisions no enlargement shall exceed. . .50 per cent of the gross floor area so that will be something that can happen without site plan review. On the other hand. . . COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Excuse me, as long as they can meet all the legal requirements the setbacks? ATTORNEY DUSEK-All setbacks provisions of this chapter shall be met and no enlargement shall exceed. . . 50 per cent of the gross floor area. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Your referring to the old law and the new law. . . ATTORNEY DUSEK-Together. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-It's not all printed here just the changes are printed here. Okay, seeing no hands, hearing no other voices will, you want to say something name and address please. JOHN MATTHEWS-Lake George. I have a question on the parking change has there been any change made to the excess area between parking areas. I know that parking areas themselves are narrower what about the roadway between two rows of park cars? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I don't believe that has been addressed anywhere even in workshops. I know what your talking about because there is an example of a mess in a newly opened shopping area here where there is barley enough room for one car yet alone two cars to go by. That was not even discussed in our deliberations. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-One of the reasons we didn't is because we didn't change the length of the parking space it still remains the same all we did is narrow it one foot. MR. MATTHEWS-The length is still twenty and there is suppose to be a described roadway. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA- That's why we didn't fool with the roadways in between. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-So your talking about the width of the driving lane really. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-The driving lane hasn't change it's the same as it was. MR. MA TTHEWS- Which is? SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Twenty feet. Thank you, anyone else? Yes" name and address please. PEGGY CHRISTIAN-Luzerne Road. How long will these changes take to pass? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Hopefully they will be passed this evening and they have to filed with the Secretary of State Office. . . ATTORNEY DUSEK-Right, and also published. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We are looking at a matter of a few days within ten days at the most? ATTORNEY DUSEK-About ten days. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-No other hands, voices? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-What about comments from the Town Board is that before or after the public hearing. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I asked for them before do you have some? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Oh yeah, I have some. I still do not like home occupation we're making a lot of things that are going on that we've never been concerned about illegal and I still do not like it. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Such as? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-There are a lot of one chair beauty shops in this Town, I know people that are teaching music in fact a very revered teacher in this Town teaches music in her house we now all of a sudden are making that legal. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-What page are you on? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Page 1. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Some of them are grandfathered anyway. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-All of them are. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That means that nobody else can do it and I don't see any problem with those uses. The only thing we added to that was Bed and Breakfast, but we had some stuff in there before as far as I'm concerned never should have been there under home occupations. I also, somebody called me any got some different answers from the Zoning and Building Department and stuff so, Paul just for the record Avon, Tupperware, Mary Kaye, we been keeping them legal or making them illegal? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We discussed those in detail and I hope his answer is that they are legal. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That was my feeling, but someone told me they called in here and got different answers and that's why I want to put it on the record whether we consider them legal or illegal, I thought some of the people were going to be here tonight. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-It's our intent to make them legal with this change. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But, I just want to make sure that our intent is followed out. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I just going to take a moment to read this over to make sure. . . COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Okay. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Most of these people don't sell don't have people come to their houses they go to other people's houses. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-We've spent hours talking about this. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- The concern was the stock in trade. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You go and pick a order up sometimes. I agree, but I just don't want to make the people illegal and there concerned out there. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-I think we worked on it Betty, and think with this change we did make them legal. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Ifyou look at the language you talk about stock in trade sold upon those prennses. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-When they called in here from people who should know the answers they were told a different answer, I just want to get it on the record. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I just reviewed it again to make sure it doesn't hurt, I feel to look it over again and I might say nobody called me Betty so I don't know about that. But, I will say if you read the definition, first all you have to do two things you have to look at what is allowed in a particular zone and if a home occupation is allowed which just to pick out a zone for instance in urban residential zones one of the accessory permitted uses is a home occupation. If you look at the definition of home occupation you find that it is a domestic or service activity carried on by members of the family residing on the premises except that is does not include bed & breakfast, beauty, barber, music, etc., but it goes on and says, basically then it includes everything else of that nature as long as there is no stock in trade sold upon the premises on a regular basis. In otherwords like if somebody who has a Tupperware Party would certainly qualify in my opinion as a home occupation. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I'm thinking not the one who goes and has the party the person who goes around giving the Tupperware Parties and has stock delivered. ATTORNEY DUSEK-They would not be selling it on the premises on a regular basis they go out and have parties so they are just holding stock and trade at their premises and then they also indicate not more than one person employed who is other than a member of the family residing and mechanical equipment. The Tupperware example if it says home occupation allowed Tupperware would be allowed under this defintion. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-As long as occupation is allowed in that zone. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Right. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-What other concerns do you have Betty? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I have another question for Paul on Page 2, this really isn't a change well it is in some ways. We're talking about the shoreline building setbacks and we took out after stream navigable by boat including canoe so I'm asking what about intermittent streams how are they going to be classified. You got one in the spring when the water table is high, but you don't have it in the fall or the winter cause I want people to realize what's in here that were not subject to interpretation later down the pike. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Sure. When you take out the words "navigable by boat" including canoe what happens is your saying every single stream you have to have a setback even intermittent streams so in otherwords this is becoming with that language it's a little bit more restrictive then it previously was. If you want to have streams only navigable by boat in otherwords if you want year round type streams only then you want to put that business about the boat in. I think, when I think back is what we did is when we were talking about the boat business we were thinking about the wetlands and said, of course, a wetland isn't navigable by boat we took it out. But, what the effect on that is is that it would also make your river more restrictive or streams if there are any. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-My concern is, I can remember one meeting and I can't tell you how far back that we sat here for hours and hassled over whether or not there was a stream on this property because it only showed up a couple times a year. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I don't think we're talking about a runoff ditch. . . COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-That's entirely different because you won't have a spring at the end of it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But there are a lot of streams that only flow a couple months a year in the springtime when the snows are running off the mountains and stuff like that. So as long as we know where we're at because I don't want to see, ya know later on it's going to be like we hassled the other time whether that was a stream or not in there. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-What's the feeling of the group? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I really don't know if. . . COUNCILMAN POTENZA-I certainly don't want to go to a fifty foot setback on a runoff. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-No. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's not a runoff. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Who designates it's a stream? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well if they have water in it part of the year I assume they are a stream. I can remember hassling that one on a specific project. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We might want to decide right now to add that in the language. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Let's take a classic example behind ACC is Old Maid Brook. . . SUPERVISOR BORGOS- That runs all the time. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Because some of the neighbors are telling me it drys up in July, August. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-That's different Ron, if it runs ten months out of the year and drys up two or it runs two and is dry for twelve. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Is that something we want to maintain do we want the Ordinance to say that is a stream? SUPERVISOR BORGOS- That's a wetland. Do you think maybe we should add back the navigable by boat including canoe? COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-No. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Would that solve the problem? COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-You've got twelve streams that you can't navigate with boats. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- True and we do want setbacks there. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-You sure do. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I think this is a protective measure that we did. ATTORNEY DUSEK-The other thought I had for the Board is if a problem does develop in this regard it would not be terribly difficult to go back and modify that a little bit if you find that your having a problem with it. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-What's next Betty? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think Paul may want to discuss the next one because it was something I picked up on Page 3, and other places about all of the retail business, Paul it had some words left of it. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Moments before the meeting started Betty pointed out to me and she is quite correct that if you look for instance on Page 3, where it lists all the uses that are allowed in that particular zone and it says, (Q) all other retail business except motor vehicles sales and service boat sales recreation vehicles etc., it does not include some of the ones that were brought up later like farm etc., and it took me a moment when I first saw it to figure out why. What happen is that as we discussed it we went back and eventually decided to change the definition of retail business. What should of happened here is that the language on (Q) should of just simply said, retail business and anywhere where it has this whole lingo about, except motor vehicles sales etc., all that should just be deleted it should just simply say, retail business in those areas that would be on Page 3, and it reappears on Page 6, and I believe that is it. So in those two areas it should simply say retail business because retail business is defined as excluding those operations that the board did not want included. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Would this change be such that we would have to republicize this meeting or do you feel it's already covered in the definitions and it's just extra words that were in there? ATTORNEY DUSEK-I don't think you would have to go through a public hearing on that again, no. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Everyone agrees to take that off it's redundant? COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Take what off? COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Where it says, (Q) just put retail business the other words are excluded because it's covered in the definition. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Betty do you have any other concerns? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think that was all, except I can't find that one that you were talking about about the land and I remember it in one and I can't find it in the one I've got in front of me. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I looked at that one carefully just last night and this morning I think. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Here it is on Page 15. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Any other concerns or questions? Mr. Hatin will you come forward identify yourself name, address, occupation, whatever. DAVID HATIN-Page 15, Section 18, I talked with Pat and I still don't know if! understand this correctly, Paul maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong. This has been a problem since the day the ordinance went into effect with the minimum lot area requirements read nonconforming lots Steve which you just talked about. The way I read this Section 179-76 is for lots within the Adirondack Park Agency only and critical environmental areas correct? ATTORNEY DUSEK-What in essence is happening is that the provision as it originally was is now just simply being defined to critical environmental areas and the AP A. MR. HATIN-Okay. Then it moves down to Section 179.77 and the new underlined part. The way I read this this still says that at the end of three years which is October of this year that these lots revert back to what the zoning is right now, correct? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Correct. MR. HATIN-That applies to all subdivisions throughout the Town, correct? ATTORNEY DUSEK-That's correct. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-They were grandfathered for three years. MR. HATIN-Just to make it clear we have a lot of subdivisions in this Town right now that at the end of October 1st, 1988 are going to become joined if all the lots are in the same ownership. ATTORNEY DUSEK-No, not joined they don't ever become joined what happens is they may this is not even absolute, but they may not meet the current criteria for setbacks etc., which means that they may have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance. MR. HATIN-What I'm saying is that people will not be able to just come in after October 1st, 1991 and get building permits, correct? ATTORNEY DUSEK-That is possible depending upon the particular lot. MR. HATIN-Ijust want the Board to know that because that's the way I read this. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- The lots aren't going to be joined, but your saying because of the change in the setbacks in some cases they have to meet the new setback restrictions but the lots are still the same as they were. Some of the setback restrictions really didn't change much. MR. HATIN-What I'm asking Paul, it says here if they are in the same ownership correct, does this apply if they are in the same ownership or no, that's what I'm asking. ATTORNEY DUSEK-The ownership criteria doesn't matter. MR. HATIN-The ownership because it's not specifically worded here doesn't apply that's what I want to make sure. ATTORNEY DUSEK-The first paragraph is being entirely deleted. MR. HATIN-Okay, that's what I want to make sure because it's hard to read it is this form and know how it's going to turn out. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Weren't we trying to say if someone bought two three quarter acre lots in a subdivision side by side for whatever reason protection or whatever and then that subdivision was rezoned to one acre that that lot would be joined prior to this change. Now we're saying it won't be joined and you may be able to build on that three quarter lot as a nonconforming lot as long as it meets the new side setback requirements. MR. HATIN-That's what I want to make sure because I wasn't quite confident this wording said that. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-So there is a inconvenience factor to a degree, but it's not as severe as it was before. MR. HATIN-Setbacks, I didn't worry about I just want to make sure that's the way it's turned out because it didn't seem to me that's the way it was worded. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-They may have to go through an area variance if they want to change something. MR. HATIN-That's what I wanted to know. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Within the confines of the Adirondack Park that is also subject to Zoning Board of Appeals decision this Ordinance. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-The Adirondack Park they've got to join right? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well they join in the Adirondack Park. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-They have to join that's not an appealable variance. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Everything in the Ordinance is subject to appeal to the Zoning Board so I would be hesitant to say it's not appealable, but I will say it will be tough to prove that case to go contrary to that joinder clause. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-The only reason I'm saying that is that some of the older homes some of the properties that we have dealt with before have always been north ofRt 149 which tend to cause us a problem they were owned by some of the older folks in Town you know what I'm talking about older families they were difficult to deal with. Whatever is happening in the ordinance all of it is subject to variance procedure whether they grant it or not is the question. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That variance would also have to consider the AP A. Paul, what are the time periods set forth in Section 8.011, up in the APA part? ATTORNEY DUSEK-I don't know where. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Under Section 18, Paragraph 179-76. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It's on Page 15. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Is that the problem that's what I was wondering, but I thought maybe that was an AP A number. ATTORNEY DUSEK-That's are old zoning number. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So will have to change that right? ATTORNEY DUSEK-That should be revised. The new number for that should be 179-77. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So what are those time requirements if your in the APA? ATTORNEY DUSEK-It would still be the three years. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Are there any other concerns? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think that covers the ones that I had Steve, I do notice that we've had some new people come in. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Yes, Mr. McCormack would you come up and state your name and address please. JOHN MCCORMACK, LAKE GEORGE-I'm still a little sketchy on the sideline setbacks that your speaking about with respect to the nonconforming lots are we talking about sideline setbacks as far as the Town is concern their setbacks or are we talking about approved subdivision setbacks? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I would presume that they are Town, but let's talk with Mr. Dusek. ATTORNEY DUSEK-The setbacks that we're thinking of are the ones that are set forth in the Ordinance which indicate in the various sections like waterfront residential for instance requires, I don't know what it is off hand forty or fifty feet setbacks or twenty feet something like that those are the setbacks were thinking of. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-John, do you have a subdivision that has setbacks other than. . . MR. MCCORMACK-We have approved restricted setbacks that are accepted by the Town. When the subdivision was filed that had restrictions that went with it that allowed for certain distances between sidelines. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Are your distances more? MR. MCCORMACK-Much more. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- That's deed restricted? MR. MCCORMACK-Yes, it is. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I presume they would take effect is that correct in otherwords they are more restricted then the Town. ATTORNEY DUSEK-This provision concerns the ordinance alone. In otherwords if he runs into problems with the ordinance if the new ordinance is more restrictive in otherwords lets assume that the old ordinance was ten his requirements are twenty and the new ordinance was thirty well now he'd have a problem because he would have to go into the ZBA. But, if the old one was ten and the new one is fifteen and he's twenty then he doesn't have a problem with the ordinance. MR. MCCORMACK-How long would this ordinance take effect until that lot is sold? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Until the ordinance is change again. ATTORNEY DUSEK-As long as your in compliance with the new ordinance the 1988 Ordinance now. . . MR. MCCORMACK-It's simply a sideline setback restriction. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well it could be area, sideline there are a bunch of restrictions in the ordinance. As long as your in compliance with the new ordinance then your find until the Board should change it at some point in the future. If it's not in compliance now then the way this is written as of October 1st this year you may have to go to the ZBA for a variance. MR. MCCORMACK-Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Anyone else? JOHN MATTHEWS, LAKE GEORGE-I hope this is a typographical error, but on minimum spaces required for parking. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-What page? MR. MATTHEWS-Page 14. It says office building one for each square foot of gross leasable space that's probably 100 square feet right? COUNCILMAN POTENZA-100 square feet. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That's a good point I'm glad you picked it up. What is the correct number that should go in there? PAT CRAYFORD-150. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I'm pleased so many people read these carefully sometimes we're too close to them. Is that something we just simply drop in? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yes, I'm making these revisions as we go along. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Any other comments? MIKE O'CONNOR-I've got a couple comments. One, I think what you've done is a good start of where we've got to go making our Ordinance a little bit simpler and a little bit easier to apply although there are certain areas here I think you still got a couple questions on page 5, paragraph l,(c). I'd like that soften if you could a little bit where you say drainage patterns and points of stormwater discharge from the site should be the same as before construction. You very conceivably may change those for very legitimate reasons and I think your handicapping the planners by saying this here, should if possible something of that nature you've almost got it in the must category and that becomes a problem when it comes to interpretation. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Could you live with should if possible? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Let me ask our Attorney, does that make a substantial change? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think that makes a great change cause we're saying right now what we've been saying. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-It depends on what the wording is. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The words before wasn't must it was should. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's what we got here is should. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Right, that's what I'm saying. Before this proposed change is should and should isn't must, I don't know if we even need it if possible, if possible makes it more clear. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-All I'm saying if you take the water that's coming from an area make sure discharge is in the same place into the same place where it's suppose to instead of change it into another place. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And that's what I think this says. COUNCILMAN MONTESI -Paul, is that the intention of what Steve just said the play on semantics. Should is not must if you say, it should do this or it must do that are you saying the same thing legally? ATTORNEY DUSEK-I suppose obviously it could lead to an argument as to whether it's permissive or mandatory. I will say that these criteria have been taken right out of the subdivision regulations so the language was intended to match up with what's already in there. I don't know if Dave's had any experience or Pat with regard to this particular part of this subdivision regulations and how the Boards have interpreted it. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I'm not quite sure how they've interpreted in the passed whether they've taken it permissive or mandatory. The best advise I can always give, of course, if there is some concern or a fear of possible confusion it should be clarified so the intent is obvious. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-I look at this as an engineer and that the water has to come out in the same place it used to come out because your going to run into. . .rights or something dumping water on somebody else's property didn't have water before you don't want that to happen. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I think that's the intent Mike that's what we didn't want to have happen was a subdivider or developer pushing water onto someone else's property just as George says and destroying the ...... rights of that neighbor. If everyone knows that this is the way it was to start with then that's the way it's going to end up with. MR. O'CONNOR -Your ordinance won't effect that one way or the other the adjoining owners have certain rights that you can impose upon. The adjoining owners could certainly agree that I would rather have it come over here then where it's been coming it makes my land more usable, my question is that I think you handicapped the planners from saying that. I also go to the point that your ordinance says that you will not discharge anymore afterwards then you do before your not taking about collecting water and discharging it directly onto a neighbors property if you follow the first part of the regulations. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-The idea of this thing is that it came in from some where in an area it could come out the same place it did before. MR. O'CONNOR-But you may very well want to change and change it by agreement with everybody concerned except for the Board because the Board doesn't think it has the authority to do that. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-You can vary a lot of things just by common agreement adjoining tenants. MR. O'CONNOR-My language would just leave that open it wouldn't make it permissible if the person who was having the water put upon him didn't agree to you would still be subject to responsibility to them. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I don't agree with you Mike, because if you put if possible in there I know you Attorneys and I've seen you in front of these Boards and I know how you would hammer the members of those Boards saying, this is not possible and I don't agree with you completely it's just another wedge to salami stuff. MR. O'CONNOR-I think it would make it easier, I pass on that comment and go on. Back to Page 3, I don't why you left 30 per cent permeability in there when on Page 4, (e) you change it to 20 per cent. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It gave conditions when you could go to 20 per cent. You had to be 30 per cent unless you could prove that you met those conditions. MR. O'CONNOR-What are the conditions? ATTORNEY DUSEK-The conditions are that whole stormwater management plan that your required to submit and have it approved. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That would be on Page 5, #1, at the top. It's a whole new section that would permit people to be able to engineer it reduce the permit. MR. O'CONNOR-All right, I didn't pick that up. My argument is that permeability really has nothing to do with drainage permeability as interpreted by the Boards is green space. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Two different worlds. MR. O'CONNOR-Right, but your mixing them. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We think that we're straightening it out. MR. O'CONNOR-This is where the argument was made for the Pyramid Mall Plaza that they should have 20 per cent permeability because they have better soils. The answer was that nobody was talking about better soils you still have to have a drainage plan you have to have calculations to show what your drainage is and your soil will have to support what your talking about. Permeability as we've been using it lately means green space. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I guess I would differ with Mike on that point to the extent that permeability, I mean the definition of the word as I understand it to means the ability of the ground to allow water to permeate the ground. A point of factor has been on a number of occasions concerns by the Planning Board raised as to parking on top of properties so that parking lots created or graveled or not graveled because it effects the permeability. I think the Boards are fairly in tune with the fact that permeability does in fact mean and relate to drainage. MR. O'CONNOR-Parking on an area doesn't that exclude it from the permeability calculations? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Not necessarily. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It depends on how much parking is done and how often. If you pack the ground so it's not permeable then yes you are excluding. If you do it once or twice a year so your not having an effect on the compaction of the ground then it can be part of the permeable area. MR. O'CONNOR-Any area that we ever shown on a plan as being parked on okay, up to now have not had temporary parking there is a provision in here for temporary parking. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think that's why we're starting to give people a little bit of leeway to try to keep a little more green area if possible. MR. O'CONNOR-Up till now permeability has excluded all parking areas. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That was never the intent of this Board. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It was with asphalt or gravel and it was if they used it every single day. But, if it was something like during the Christmas time you might use it for seven days or something or you had a big party and you used it once it a while. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We did ask for people to create more unpaved gravel areas in the number of areas that were green. MR. O'CONNOR-But, that's not what the Boards are doing Betty. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think that's a leeway that we've given them so they can do it. MR. O'CONNOR-Their treating permeability as being green space. I've even come in here with a map the color green to show it having nothing to do with drainage. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Which Board are you talking about? MR. O'CONNOR-Planning Board and this Board with regard to a septic variance I brought in, I had to bring in a plan showing it in green. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Permeability doesn't necessarily have to be green area. MR. O'CONNOR-I agree. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-It can be an underground area too or a retention basin whereby you can pick up a. . . MR. O'CONNOR-I think your mixing apples and oranges there. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I don't think we are if you go back to the definitions Mike that are in the ordinance because the definitions are very precise about permeability percent of and also the word permeable what it means. So if you go back to the definitions as I said, I think they are very precise. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I might just add that I think one of the things that happens is that because permeable space is frequently open space or green in nature in order to get the type of permeable space that you need to function well it's not going to have a parking lot on it, it's not going to be blacktopped, it's not going to have buildings on it so as a result most of the time I think it does show up as green and that's what happened. I think the two have been used maybe to an extent interchangeable, but I think the true intent is to keep permeable as opposed to open space. MR. O'CONNOR-If these minutes are going to be part of the minutes maybe we can bring those to the Boards and show them what your talking about. They have a different application right now, I've never gone in and been able to show anything other than green space as permeable in meeting your 30 per cent requirements. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Permeable, ground surface through which water can percolate in a natural manner. Now if you start packing even green space down to much it won't go through. It says, ground surface could be undisturbed natural terrain or landscape area with generally unpaved surfaces generally is in there, fall agents increase the permeability of the ground surface. I think you know there is a lot of leeway to work with that definition. MR. O'CONNOR-The Boards interpret it differently then you are interpreting and I've been before the Boards the last ten years so I know how they are interpreting it. If your telling them their wrong maybe that's some message that could be brought to them. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I'm not going to tell them their wrong unless I sit on a specific instance to see how it's handled. I'mjust saying the leeway is there for them to do some different type of things. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-I thought it included permeable areas in areas where they put parking lots with stone in it because they don't want it paved because then it's permeable once you pave it. MR. O'CONNOR-We used to include gravel parking areas as part of the permeability and in the last two years they have said, no you cannot do that. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-If you parking on it, well you know Mike you can pack that ground and make them impermeable now your trying to split hairs. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-It's not as impermeable as blacktop. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's true, but they are impermeable as far as carrying off a certain amount of water once you start to compact them. We're having the same thing when we close the landfill all that stuff has to be compacted down to a certain degree so it will be impermeable so if you compact that to a certain point you are it all depends on how much your using it. MR. O'CONNOR-Let me go on to Page 13. Do we have a definition someplace within the ordinance for leasable floor area? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Gross leasable floor area is defined, are you looking at gross or are you looking at something different? MR. O'CONNOR-Gross leasable floor area you've got that defined, Paul? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Gross leasable floor area is currently defined in the ordinance. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The other question is are you going to change that office building business. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-It's a typographical error. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Paul, I think there is in definitions of changing that could be made for clarification when this is redone someday I started to look that up under leasable floor area. I think there should be another thing put in there leasable floor area, see gross leasable floor area so people know where to find it someday when one of these pages gets redone. ATTORNEY DUSEK-All right. MR. O'CONNOR-Either that or just put gross in caps with the other part and make it part of the definition terminology because I think you use gross leasable consistently you just don't highlight it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I meant that when people are looking for the definition you lots of times go for leasable area what do I want to call it. UNKNOWN-Cross reference. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Sure, we can do that. MR. O'CONNOR-My other comment is Page 15. On your preexisting lots really what your doing is putting out a little bit of quick sand to the unweary. The developers that are out there right now have probably all checkerboarded their lots or in the process of checkerboarding their lots which means if they have prior or they have lots that are nonconforming every other lot is being conveyed to somebody separate so that they maintain their own integrity. Who you catch with this type provision is mama papa who own two lots by chance or coincidence and who really aren't aware of the fact they should be out checkerboarding. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I think we've done just the opposite of what your saying we've gone out of are way to be sure that it did not happen to people. MR. O'CONNOR-Except that it ends on 1992. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-No, that whole section has been taken out except for critical environmental areas. MR. O'CONNOR-So then the lots no longer have any grandfathering static when you take that whole section out. The only reason they have grandfather static is because this section was in. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Let me check with our Attorney. ATTORNEY DUSEK-The intent of these provisions are two fold one was previously all lots that were nonconforming after a certain period of time became joined that has been changed so that only the lots that are in the critical environmental area and the AP A become joined as they did before. Now what happens is any lots that are nonconforming to the provisions of this ordinance get an automatic exemption for three years from the date of the ordinance the original date October 1, 1988 to October 1st, 1991. MR. O'CONNOR-Which is about to run out. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Right. Once that runs out if the lot is nonconforming and they are not able to build on it they will have to come and get a variance from the ZBA. MR. O'CONNOR-I think that's my understanding also that as of October, 1991 the exemption is over with they will have to get a variance. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- They are not going to be joined. MR. O'CONNOR-Their merged. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-No. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-We don't want to merge them. ATTORNEY DUSEK-No, they don't merge Mike. MR. O'CONNOR-You got to get variances on each individual lot and if you own adjoining lots? ATTORNEY DUSEK-It doesn't matter. The only place they get merged is in the critical environmental area and the AP A they still get merged there. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-All our lots are 20,000 sq. ft. allover the place and it's a one acre zone there is nothing wrong with a 20,000 sq. ft. lot. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Well, Mike let me ask you a question when you make reference to some people checkerboarding. Are you aware of subdivisions were this is really an important thing to do because of the date running out in October? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, we've done two in our office. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Where more than one, two, three, four lots were going to be involved in variance procedure? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But, they would have been involved before anyway they would become a nonconforming lot anyway. MR. O'CONNOR-There are other too, I'm sure. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mike, most of these conforming lots can have a reasonable size structure put on them and meet the setbacks that's been quickly reviewed you may have to cut down the size that you figured on putting on there, but an ordinary structure will fit on most of the lots that are out there without having to go after variances. MR. O'CONNOR-Let me go on to the next comment Page 16, it looks like your again back at trying to make illegal the renting of dock space at single family residences. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Your looking at Section 22? MR. O'CONNOR-Section 22, 179-84. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-All of Section 22 is deleted I believe, is that correct? ATTORNEY DUSEK-That's correct. MR. O'CONNOR-That has been deleted? ATTORNEY DUSEK-The brackets around it would delete that entire provision. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Except they will be in. . . SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Under Lake George Park Commission Regulations. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And I caution you again, the problem with this is that you have not thought this through and the pressure that are going to be on docks on some of these small lakes because the boats are moving in to Glen Lake and were starting to see a decrease in the quality of water over there because of the size of the boats that are moving in there and probably dock space being rented. So I think your going to have to come to grips with this on other lakes before to much longer. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-This solves the problems on Lake George because this was very restrictive and many people spoke against this. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-What Dave didn't like, of course, was he and the AP A and the Lake George Park Commission everybody getting into the act and he wanted to get out. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-If anything this should take the pressure off Glen Lake. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, it will make the pressure greater on Glen Lake. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-This was more restrictive then the Park Commission. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-True, but the point of it is Lake George is getting very expensive up there so by not having any restrictions about who can rent spaces on any lake in this Town a lot of the boat owners who can no longer afford to rent space on Lake George are now going after a lake like Glen Lake and putting larger boats there then should be because they can rent space over there now. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Except that law and supply of demand would say, there is more supply of dock space now on Lake George because of this changed the price should go lower for the lineal foot. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Do you see that happen Mike on Glen Lake? MR. O'CONNOR-There is much more day use on Glen Lake then there ever has been. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-With this that should change. MR. O'CONNOR -You now have boats that are rafting what people call floating with anchor for the day or half day you never used to see that now you can see maybe ten boats out there. As the restrictions get stricter on the other lakes you see people come to the smaller lakes they are basically cheaper. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-But they are not zoning kinds of restrictions they are mostly Lake George Park Commission Regulations, I think. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think this issue would effect that one way or the other. This issue in my opinion allows the people on Lake George to rent out their space as they've been renting it out in the past and maybe subsidize some of their higher taxes if it's permitted by the Lake George Park Commission. You got into a real enforcement problem where your telling everybody that they can no longer rent the dock to a friend or somebody of that nature. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-I think that's exactly the concern of this. MR. O'CONNOR-I also think you've got a legal problem and I've argued with Paul a couple times about nonconforming rights and being able to take them away simply by a stroke of an ordinance. I think you've really have gone back to where it was and I think that's a good move, I apologize I didn't think that was a delation. The other comment I'll make is that I have submitted a couple different comments to you and one was as the permeability throughout all commercial areas you haven't really addressed that, I would like to see you make permeability the same throughout the commercial areas the 20 per cent as opposed to the variances areas there are. I don't think permeability really should vary from zone to zone it serves the same purpose. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Your recommended change came to us when we were way into this process we are going to start another series of additional changes fairly quickly and that's included in those. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The other comment I would make is that I see that you have a Docksider provision in here and that open docking will be considered for parking. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-There is another one in there too. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I really don't think that's fair to put that in here without maybe giving some balance to it. When we went before the Boards there we had some problems where they said that the parking at the docks which is used for basically restaurant and patron use generated additional parking requirements under the ordinance because they were then considered marina docks. We suggested a change for the definition of marina boat storage so that you would still have one space for each one and a half boats stored, but we would exclude the parking of boats for patrons of restaurants adjacent to shore shall not generate the requirement of any parking under this schedule. Docks utilized primarily for patrons of a restaurant shall not generate a need for additional parking for that restaurant and that would avoid some of the double dipping that I think you could get into although the deck that we're talking about is preexisting now and maybe it's not really going to affect it. I think in fairness though you should acknowledge some place your going to have docks that are there for patronage and not there for seasonal or day rentals, I think it would make some sense. That was my comments, thank you. DAVID KINNEY, QUEENSBURY-I guess first, I would like to go back to the permeability question. I've been before the Planning Board a number of times and they've always addressed permeability as green space. Now, if I'm hearing you correctly your saying permeability does not have to be green space. If I put drywalls in the ground in my parking lot they are 8 ft. by 8 ft. drywalls and I've got catch basins going down to them it is definitely permeable you don't see it from the road, but it's down below grade and water goes into it. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Did you ready that in here that long new section? MR. KINNEY-I'm addressing the question of permeability. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- That addresses it. There is a new section in here, I don't know when you came in the new standards on Page 5, addressing exactly what your talking about which would permit you do to do that at least in a particular zone you may want to ask for that to be expanded to other zones. MR. KINNEY-I guess my question is even if it's left at 30 per cent and let's say I have a 10,000 sq. ft. lot or a 20,000 sq. ft. lot, if! leave 30 per cent of that let's say 600 sq. ft. and have catch basins all around and meet the 30 per cent requirement that way I have to have no green space. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-This let's you drop it down to 20 per cent. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, because you have to go back to the definition of permeable. MR. KINNEY-That's what you said and it's permeable and can absorb water. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-If permeable is ground surface through which water can percolate in a natural matter such ground surface could be undisturbed natural terrain or a landscape area with generally unpaved surfaces foilage increases the permeability of the ground surface. Permeability per cent of the area of the lot which is not covered by building structures or nonpermeable surfaces divided by the total area of the lot and multiplied by one hundred. You can't blacktop something from edge to edge put a catch basin in and say you've meant your permeable requirement. MR. KINNEY-What your saying is there is a catch-all if you meet these standards in order to develop a lot in order to put a building on a lot and come in and get site plan review I have to meet the drainage requirements so why is there 30 per cent in one section and twenty, I have to do that. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Maybe Mr. Dusek can answer that. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I'm kind of going back here to his first question, I think I just picked up and this may have been where Mike was leading with his too. I think the thought is that there are other ways to achieve permeability other than through green space. But, if you read the ordinance the way it is written it does presume green space because it says, under permeability per cent of the area of the lot which is not covered by these things so what is happening is is that in essence the only way under our ordinance you can get the permeability required to is by leaving green space. To that extent, I think they do use them interchangeable, but we are talking permeability in the sense of it's for drainage purposes water purposes but we're saying also the only way it relates right now the only way the Town Board through the Zoning Ordinance allows it is through basically green space you can't develop a system of catch basin. MR. KINNEY-That's the way the Planning Board interprets it, I guess that's my question why do we have 30 per cent in one section of plaza commercial and 20 per cent in the other. You say, well if you meet these requirements to develop to begin with you have to meet the drainage requirements if you can't you can't build. If you meet them you have to meet them before you can get a building permit or site plan approval, I don't see you saying it's one or the other you've got to meet drainage requirements. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-It would be my understanding that by allowing you to go from thirty to twenty if you have these engineering conditions. . . MR. KINNEY -You have to have them to go to site plan review. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-You don't have to have those. MR. KINNEY-That's news to me then. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-You do have to have them all the same things that are there. MR. KINNEY-You have to have it so to me the 30 and 20 per cent is just confusing. You know your 30 per cent if you meet these requirements then you tell me I don't have to meet the drainage requirements and leave 30 per cent permeability. This Town as far as I'm concerned has always required a developer to meet the drainage requirements. Now are you saying by this thing if I don't meet the drainage requirements I can leave 30 per cent permeability and let my water run on the next persons lawn. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I hear what your saying. MR. KINNEY-That's the way it looks to me. ATTORNEY DUSEK-In response to that question this was developed in, of course, working with the Town Planner. My understanding as a result of working through this with her as well as the Town Engineer was somewhat involved with this the thought was is that agreed you always have to provide drainage calculations there is no dispute about that. The thought was though is that in some instances in this zone in plaza commercial, I think it's plaza commercial it was thought that people may be able to demonstrate that they can go down to less than 30 per cent so if they can show a 20 per cent in using this criteria then they are entitled to the 20 per cent rating. It was also developed in this way more than anything else too in recognition of what is actually in existence in the plaza commercial right now a number of the areas are less than 30 per cent. So what it was was an attempt to try to bring the standard into practical use in otherwords where it's possible to achieve 30 per cent that's what it's like, but if you can demonstrate that 20 per cent will work using the stormwater drainage plans etc. then you would get that. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Is it possible for an applicant to present a stormwater plan and not meet the 20 per cent requirement? ATTORNEY DUSEK-In my opinion it is. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You know Paul, I wonder if the difference is this because in a normal plan do you have to do this it's not only the drainage of the site to be developed that would be what you always have to do, but then for 20 per cent you got to do the areas feeding the sites and areas downstream from the site. Now is that a different interpretation of what you have to do in a drainage plan then you would if you were doing the 30 per cent drainage plan? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Pat or Dave may be able to better answer that then I can. MR. KINNEY-One of the things I like to mention you see that's where your confusing the issue because you can get all the permeable you want by putting catch basins in. If you take a lot and blacktop a lot of it and put the catch basins in the proper area and get underground drainage back to where it naturally would of went your achieving your water drainage your not leaving me any green space not leaving any permeable area. But, the drainage situation itself can be solved on most lots without any green space. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Green space isn't primarily drainage area. MR. KINNEY-That's what I'm saying. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-When you blacktop something you've got 100 per cent runoff. MR. KINNEY-Not if you pitch it properly and put catch basins in. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Blacktop is 100 per cent whatever hits it is going to runoff. MR. KINNEY-But, if I run it to catch basins on the property that are buried down 10 ft. deep. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-That's why you have to have a drainage plan. MR. KINNEY-Right, but you don't need permeable. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-It doesn't have a danm thing to with permeability in this case. MR. KINNEY-Correct. This is what I'm trying to say so everybody can meet the 20 per cent permeability. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-All I'm saying is they want 20 per cent green or permeable area that's all. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-One of the reasons they're concerned is the visual effect it's going to have. People are screaming they don't want to see all blacktop so this Board tried to hit a happy medium by saying we will do some green areas which will be permeable and which can be used on special occasion for parking, I think your picking, Dave. MR. KINNEY-I'm picking at 30 per cent in one spot in a zone and 20 per cent on another page, to me it's going to be a nightmare with the Planning Board who is going to decide? To me you say you've got to meet drainage requirements to build on a lot to begin with I feel you had to meet drainage requirements so why do I have to have two numbers? Mike raised that question and when you deal with the Planning Board and when you come to them you've got to meet drainage requirements if you can't meet them your going to have to leave 50 per cent permeability the one key question is you have to meet drainage requirements to get site plan approval. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-My feeling is that your drainage requirements are going to be a little more stringent if your coming in after twenty rather than thirty that's what I read in this. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Our intent was to help business in the respect that in the plaza commercial areas most of them are in the 17 to 20 per cent range nobody in the present areas that I'm aware of could meet the 30 per cent standards. Yet, we're saying that if in the future we zone other areas plaza commercial we really like to see 30 per cent, but in fairness to everybody we let them go down to 20 per cent providing they would come through with these very specific engineering conditions which are probably more specific then what is known as an acceptable drainage plan that's our intent. There are a whole bunch of ways to look at it and read it and maybe through experience you've got something different maybe what your asking is this same criteria to be in all commercial zones that hasn't been addressed yet. MR. KINNEY-We're asking that in the future, but at the present time I'm talking about the plaza commercial I don't think it behooves the Planning Board to have one place saying 30 per cent and another place saying 20 per cent. The one thing you have to meet your required to meet is water drainage, parking, all the regulations in the zone your required to meet. What your saying, is you get a special exemption if you can meet the drainage plan that is not true your required to meet that before you even submit a site plan. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-But, if what your saying is true we wouldn't have to have any percentage as long as the drainage plan would be right. MR. KINNEY-Correct. that's why we want 20 per cent I'm agreeing with you there that's why it's 20 per cent permeability. I believe it should be changed to 20 per cent greenery and get rid of the word permeability because it is confusing. I'm just saying that you have 30 per cent in one section and 20 per cent, I think you should talk to your Planning Administrator, Planning Board, who is going to judge to me that zone allows 20 per cent. If your allowing 20 per cent allow it, don't say if you meet the drainage requirements cause you have to meet the drainage requirements in order to build. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Not all drainage requirements are the same. MR. KINNEY -Yes, they are. I believe in this Town all drainage requirements are the same your suppose to make sure you can control all the runoff on your property there is no exemption to that rule as far as I know of. Drainage requirements you are required to take care of all the water runoff on your property and if you can't do that you can't get a building permit or you can't get a site plan approval you have to have an engineers plan showing you meet those requirements. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-If you were to build your shopping center today plaza commercial and you came in and you knew that 30 per cent is one case 20 per cent is another how would you sell the case to go to 20 per cent, what would you do? MR. KINNEY-I don't think I would have to you say it's 20 per cent. Your saying if! meet the drainage requirements I can put it at 20 per cent why do I have to do 30 per cent, when do I have to have 30 per cent is what I'd like to ask you? COUNCILMAN MONTESI-That's why I'm saying. MR. KINNEY-I don't think you ever, I think you have it there, but you say I don't if! meet the drainage requirement which I have to meet anyway. I don't know why I would ever have to have thirty that's why I eliminate thirty out of it. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- This is almost like who's on first and we're going round and round. You know what our intention is. MR. KINNEY-That is to make it 20 per cent I presume. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I hope you know what our intent is, I hope the record will show what our intent is certainly I want to spend sometime looking at this again sometime in the future, I will put it back on the list. MR. KINNEY-On Page 14, I don't know if this is an oversight or an amendment in the old zone. It's the drive-in restaurant requirement for parking and I'm assuming that a McDonalds or a Burger King Restaurant along that nature. It says, one space for every 25 sq. ft. of gross leasable floor area, one for each four seats and one for each two employees. I believe if you calculate that out, I mean 25 sq. ft. of McDonalds is properly 3,000 sq. ft., your talking four per hundred that's probably 200 parking spaces for McDonalds I think it's way over done. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-According to this the only changes is adding the words leasable in which would make the requirements less. MR. KINNEY-I'm not saying it was proper before when you review something you look at it and you say, gee for a McDonalds Restaurant which maybe 4,000 sq. ft. with all that cooking there, I don't know how big the building is. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Wasn't there a distinction between drive-in and drive-thru didn't I see that somewhere? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We changed that because it was a drive-thru one place that didn't make much sense. Also we've done Steve is make this less restrictive because we added in the gross leasable it used to be gross floor area. MR. KINNEY -Gross leasable is the size of the building of a drive-in restaurants it's all usable space. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Apparently they've been able to meet that before I would say Dave without any problem what's been the requirement up till now. MR. HATIN-It's always gone by restaurant divided by one hundred the total square foot. MR. KINNEY-Not twenty five we've never used, I think this would be forced to be used now. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We've made another change that isn't underlined here. MR. HATIN-I didn't have anything to do with this change. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We look at it and every change that were looking at is suppose to be underlined, Paul is there a change that isn't underlined in this that were not aware of? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Not that I know of. This would of been written or developed if it's underlined that's the additional word if it's bracketed something has been deleted otherwise it's exactly the way it's currently written in the statue. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-If it hasn't been creating a problem. MR. KINNEY-I don't know if it's been looked at now that's it's new and is there it's a potential problem. I don't know if McDonald, Burger King are they considered drive-in restaurants I would definitely consider them drive-in restaurants there is no way they meet this zone whether they got away with it by going to restaurant before or what it depends on how you want to classify them. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I think that maybe that's the source of the problem. If the Board will recall a drive- in is the old A & W Rootbeer Drive-in, McDonalds is considered a restaurant with a drive thru window and that has a change made that the Board made in this ordinance in another section. MR. KINNEY-If you look at how restrictive it is for any type of operation like that your talking one for every 25 sq. ft, plus one for every four seats, plus one for two employees. It's the only zone in the Town that says that if you look at it. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Martha's has to be considered a drive-in. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Martha's Drive-in has indoor seating there. MR. KINNEY-No, Martha's Ice Cream has no indoor seating. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Martha's Restaurant does. MR. KINNEY-You have the place down on the corner of Rte. 149 and 9, the Loft, like I say I don't know the definition of drive-in. The Planning Board now has the right to decided which one is going to be considered drive-in and which one isn't. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- The definition is on Page 1, of drive-in restaurant and there it explains the drive- in window. MR. KINNEY - I think that defines McDonalds, am I correct. ATTORNEY DUSEK-No, McDonalds is not a drive-in restaurant. MR. KINNEY-A drive-in restaurant is a place where food or non-alcohol beverages or served or sold for consumption outdoors or in vehicles or a place where food is purchased at a counter for consumption indoors, that is pretty much McDonalds. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-It also says it shall not be deemed a drive-in restaurant for parking purposes that's the last sentence. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I see what he is saying the way the ordinance was previously written before this is something we didn't get into looking at. But, he is saying if you purchase food at a counter for consumption indoors that also constitutes a drive-in restaurant. MR. KINNEY-Right, I think that still says that. ATTORNEY DUSEK-What the change was that was added to this was a restaurant equipped with a window would not be considered a drive-in restaurant so now we skip back to the issue what is a drive-in restaurant what isn't. With that word there I can see what he is saying if you have a counter that may be enough to still keep it as a drive-in restaurant that may be something that the Board wishes to consider. MR. KINNEY-I think that the parking even for that type of restaurant drive-in I don't know where it's coming from let's skip that you can look at it it's just something that I want to bring to your attention. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Are you suggesting that the easiest solution here is change the number twenty five to one hundred? MR. KINNEY-I would consider it a restaurant to give it the same parking regulations as a restaurant. I mean a drive-in restaurant doesn't need that much parking really. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Restaurant is one hundred. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Is it one hundred Pat? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-So the easiest change here and it would reduce the number of parking spaces would be to make that go from twenty five to one hundred although I don't know that it would accommodate all the cars to pickup stuff at a window and stay there it's an interesting question. MR. KINNEY-When your talking about one for every four seats which is why I think it would be considered a McDonalds because your saying there is seating at the place and drive-in restaurant. Your also saying one for two employees that's a total one for every 25 sq. ft. plus one for every four seats, plus one for every two employees when you get done calculating that it's going to be an awful lot of parking. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Good point. MR. KINNEY-The one above it office building, I'm sure it's a typo. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The number 150 is left out. MR. KINNEY-On Page 10, I'm not an engineer I just looked at it quickly slopes, I don't know if this has been discussed prior to me arriving. Your saying by excavating or by putting a parking lot in or doing something I can create over a greater than 50 degree slope and inbetween thirty three and fifty I have to have an engineers approval. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Correct. MR. KINNEY-All good. Where a retaining wall supports if you look at (a) your saying if! want to put a retaining wall up I've got to move back one and a half times the height of the retaining wall off my property line. Let's say hypothetically, I've got to put a 10 ft. retaining wall up okay, at 10 feet I can create a 50 degree slope being 10 feet off of the property line. If I put a retaining wall up you say I've got to move back 15 feet, why in god's name put a retaining wall up even though it might be the better solution. If I've got to waste 15 feet of my property to put a retaining wall up when I only got to be back 10 feet and have a slope, why put a retaining wall up, why even talk about it, why even go through the expense. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-The danger that's been created in some place by retaining walls being to close to a neighbors property and of the height where somebody from the neighbors property could just fall right off it that is what prompted this in there to be honest with you it's a safety feature. Sloping does not have the danger to it as a retaining wall does. MR. KINNEY-I just think there are some areas in the Town where, I don't know. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- There is something wrong with your argument. Your talking about making a cut so you need a 10 foot retaining wall, right and your saying why bother with the retaining wall well then you also wouldn't get your cut you wouldn't get to use that land. MR. KINNEY-Sure you would, I don't get to use it now you got to be 15 feet back. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-But, if your 10 feet straight up you have to have a wall to hold the cut. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Where does one and a halftimes come from I don't remember even discussing that. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That was in here somebody had proposed that. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-If! had a driveway and wanted to put a 6 foot wall. MR. KINNEY-You can't do that unless your 9 feet back from your property line, right it's ridiculous. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA- That's stupid, I wouldn't even put a danm retaining wall up. MR. KINNEY -You can only be 6 feet back from slope. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA -You defeat the whole purpose of a retaining wall by doing this. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - Weare really encouraging the sloping because of that one real bad thing that's happened in this Town. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-But, your retaining wall has to be designed by an engineer. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-We argued this a long time that night. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-This is what we came up with and you were there George. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-I think it's a bunch of garbage as an engineer. Why this on a retaining wall you have to be one and a half times the height of the wall away from the edge of anything. MR. KINNEy-It defeats the whole purpose of putting a retaining wall up. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Part of the argument was if you build a retaining wall also do you need a engineer, remember we went through that part and what did we say we did yes or no? SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Yes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes when it got to be a certain size. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Ifyou go over thirty, but under fifty you need the engineer. MR. KINNEY-That's the slope. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-One and a halftimes the wall where in the hell did that come from it didn't come into discussion when I was talking about it, I won't vote for that with that in it. MR. KINNEY - I believe a retaining wall would need an engineer only because it would be considered a structure by the building department. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-I think it's ridiculous to have it there if your going to put a retaining wall. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-So your recommending omit the one and one halftimes wall height. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think I want to think about that a while and think of the circumstances, I want to make a little model. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-What's the idea of putting a retaining wall up if you have to put the danm thing 10 feet high 15 feet away from where you want to use the land. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It depends upon where it is George. If it's right on the border line of somebody else's property there is the trouble. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-You can do that on your own property. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I don't want you putting a retaining wall right next to me where I've got grand kids that my grand kids can fall down 15 or 20 feet with no land inbetween your space inbetween your land and my land. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- That's an interesting point. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-That was the whole purpose of this to start with. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-The building and code also says if your over 18 feet the. . . you have to put a railing in. MR. KINNEY-I think George is correct. If you put a retaining wall over you can make it 8 feet high you have to put a rail around it there are other ways in making safe rather than moving it back 15 feet. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-For your information we are thinking about one particular circumstance in Town. MR. KINNEY-I don't think you zone the whole Town for one particular problem. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I'm saying there is one particular place in Town that's a problem to us where a neighbor now is right on a line and it just drops out of sight. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well two neighbors actually. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Well there are a couple. If there is a retaining wall there that's not going to solve the problem of the visiting children for this property going through the fence and dropping 20 feet. The retaining wall won't solve that problem, but the distance away would solve the problem. MR. KINNEY-How would that solve the problem? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Because they would have to be then 30 feet on the other side of the fence before their at any danger at all. MR. KINNEY-If! move the retaining wall back 15 feet and there is still a 10 foot drop it's a 10 foot drop. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yeah, but then you could fence the top of it. MR. KINNEY-You can still fence the top if it's on the edge of the property line. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-If it's on the edge of the property you can't anchor that fence so it won't fall down. If you put that fence right on the edge of the property you cannot get that down and secure that in the ground. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-You also can't use the 10 feet. . . MR. KINNEY - I don't see by moving the retaining wall back how it makes it any safer. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Because that gives you space to put a fence up on the top. MR. KINNEY-The fence is going to be on the high part not on the low part so that's going to be on my property. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-The fence keeps somebody from the adjoining property going onto your property and falling down. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-You would have to know the situation we're talking about to understand this one. MR. KINNEY-We have a situation on my property now we have a retaining wall up the same situation, I'm about 7 feet back the retaining wall is up they put it up probably 12 or 14 feet. Now, if she had to put that retaining wall 15 or 25 feet onto her property it would serve no purpose at all the fence would be put on a high point not on a low point the low point is 15 feet away. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I realize that. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-If the fence is put on a high point and your back 15 feet your angle is the same. MR. KINNEY-If you climb over the fence your still going to fall. I could put the fence on the edge of the property line, but if somebody climbs over and falls down the wall they are going to fall. If I move it back 15 feet if they climb over the fence they are going to fall it ain't going to make any difference if I move it back 15 feet unless I sloped it also. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-On the edge of the property there is no place to put a fence. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Yes there is you can put it right on top of the wall. MR. KINNEY-To me as a lay person it makes no sense. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I'm glad you raised the issue we will think about this. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You must not be aware of one of the real bad spots we've got in this Town George, maybe it happened when you were away. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-No. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You know the one I mean? COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-I know the one you mean. That would have been alright if they had engineered it properly that would have no complaints if that wall was put up properly. MR. KINNEY-Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Is there anyone else who would like to speak to us? MIKE BAIRD, CORINTH ROAD, QUEENSBURY-First, I would like to hand this in from Haanen Engineering. On the top here where he picks out this particular zone for mining etc., is that not what you talked about. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Should I take a minute and read this. This is addressed to the Town Board regarding proposed amendments to the Town Code. Gentlemen: After reviewing the proposed amendments to the Town Codes, I have a few observations and comments which I hope will be beneficial to the Town Board. 1. Regarding Section 179-64-Mining, Excavation of Minerals/Gravel: a. Proposed paragraph #1 required an engineer's certification for any excavation leaving a slope of greater than 33 -1/3 % (l ft. vertical on 3 ft. horizontal). Since most solid in this town are stable to at least 50% cut slopes (l vertical on 2 horizontal), I believe this is an umeasonable requirement. Also, it should be noted that a 50% slope is referred to in the rewording as a 12: 12. This is incorrect as a 12: 12 is a 100% slope. b. Paragraph A (2) goes on at length about the requirements for retaining walls in relation to their proximity to the property line. Most of this is meaningless since paragraph B (Buffer Zones) requires "an undisturbed buffer of 50 ft.". 2. Regarding Section 179-66 - Off Street Parking and Loading, paragraph B (8): COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Steve, go back to that where it said buffer zone where did it say that 50 ft. buffer. . . COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You know where were getting confused here and this brings up a question. This is all under mining, excavation or minerals/gravel. What about if I'm a resident and I'm just digging I'm not really mining. I mean DEC does not require me to get a mining permit so you can't say I'm mining we need to stay to one question Steve instead of jump. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Okay, we're almost done with this one and then will go back. I disagree with the complete lifting of parking requirements for drive-thru window service. I believe that each drive- thru window should have three or four spaces allocated in a convenient location for drivers to pull aside and eat prior to pulling onto our busy highways. Thank you for considering my comments regarding the proposed zoning law changes. Very truly yours, Thomas W. Nace, P.E. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-He's raised some interesting questions and we have some concern about what he said. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Drive-thru you usually don't need parking you need a drive-thru lane to handle the traffic. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-There should be a place for me to pull up and have my Big Mac. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Your eating with one hand and using the phone with the other hand, I don't know who's driving the vehicle. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We use the Town car I'm using the cellular phone all the time for the sake of the press, I shouldn't do that. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I don't know I find this excavation one very confusing and I want to know when it was going to apply. You have a buffer zone if it's true mining, but if it isn't true mining and I know sometimes DEC has said something isn't true mining and they don't make them get a mining permit which happened on a problem we're concerned with. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-You go to get it to remove a certain volume to be considered mining. COUNCILMAN MONAHAH-Well they didn't make them. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-It's in the ordinance somewhere. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I can't help it they didn't make them. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Ifit isn't in the ordinance the state controls it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's what I'm saying the state did not make them. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Mr. Nace is not with us we thank him for his comments. Will you give this to Darleen, please. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-It's ... to repair itself the state. . . SUPERVISOR BORGOS-He has raised some interesting issues as have all the other speakers, Mr. Kinney and Mr. Baird. Do you have anything else to say Mike? MR. BAIRD-Just a question on Page 6, where you talk about the substitution for the same use. Does the top heading pretty much state that is this only highway commercial zones that this particular it looks like an elevation occurs? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-It's highway commercial, plaza commercial. MR. BAIRD-Does that mean A thru R would mean that you could alternate either of those without a site plan? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-As long as you meet those requirements up above, Mike you don't have to expand the building any of your parking spaces only a certain. . . SUPERVISOR BORGOS-It's our intention if that a candy shop goes out and a card shop goes in it can be done no more back to site plan review. MR. BAIRD-Only under highway commercial zones? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Also plaza commercial. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Plaza commercial too, Mike. Page 3 and Page 6 both. MR. BAIRD-Just for the record this does not pertain to light industrial? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We did not address the light industrial subject yet that's another one that can go on the list. MR. BAIRD-It's a very sensitive subject. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-The zoning is used for a different purpose than commercial. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Right. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-We cover the two big commercial zones highway and plaza. The others we have to address, but will get to them. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Mike, the reason why we didn't we were confronted with every time someone left a store put a new business in it had to go site plan review and we said if everything remains the same and it's just a different type of retail operation. MR. BAIRD-I wasn't lead to believe that. I was lead to believe and I've seen the operations in the near pass continues that if it was retail, I mean a card shop didn't have to match a clothing store as long as it was deemed retail. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-That's the way it reads now. MR. BAIRD-Exactly. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-That's why we tried to straighten it out. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Prior to this everything went through site plan review. If the card shop moved out and the restaurant or whatever moved in would have to go through site plan review. MR. BAIRD-Even if it was still under retail, but the cosmetics were different, is that the way it is right now? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think Pat and Dave are disagreeing with what's really been going on. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Zoning Administrator would you come to the microphone please and introduce yourself. PATRICIA CRA YFORD-Zoning Administrator. Right now as it stands when a retail business moves out another retail business comes in they don't go through site plan review. Basically if one business is replaced by the same business they do not go through site plan review. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- That's where we had an argument though a year or so ago. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Years ago if you had somebody move out a video shop moved out and hairdresser moved in bingo. MRS. CRA YFORD- That's a different use. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-You said different use or they had to. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-But, now we're saying that problem won't exist anymore under this change with these changes that problem won't exist anymore. COUNCILMAN MONTESI -So we eliminated the interpretation of a fine line. MR. BAIRD-Right. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-If it was a hairdresser, barber shop, video store. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-What we did is simplify it. MRS. CRA YFORD-It's been a little gray. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-An area gets really gray Michael if you look at light industrial because as one industry leaves and another one comes in certainly if one is a metal fabricator and the next one is a catheter type industry. MR. BAIRD-I understand that dearly. One thing I like is a little off the subject of this, but not really if your going to be working on it in the future which I'm sure you will less of spot zoning in any light industrial, of course, I'm in a light industrial zone which has changed. There is a great need for possibly retail which really other than heavy light industrial manufacturer in the term the only thing that is allowed outside of that basically is a restaurant in the zoning codes the way it reads right now. Basically light industrial could possibly hold retail. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Your saying in the future you'd like to see us add. MR. BAIRD-I'm probably saying to you that your probably going to see requests for a possible amendment to the light industrial. It seems to be either one or the other without a flow through we all admit and we've been here several time we don't want a great big asphalt plant in light industrial although it may allow it and we did exclude some of these and put it in heavy. It's kind of a happy medium we're looking for people who live in light industrial as residents don't mind particular manufacturer's and it would be nice to have some retail to a point. But, I had to pick and chose when I needed to go for my expansion on my manufacturing classification although it could have been whatever I chose to have the residence go with how we all agree it was the only thing we could all fit under somebody else won't be able to have retail now. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Mike, there is a problem with that and it's something that I faced and this Board faced specifically on Warren Street when Ciba Geigy was open, as an example when a fellow sell boats fiberglass boats, and an extremely dusty environment he had to wash those boats almost daily in order to have a worthy display, down the road there was also a nursery, across the street was heavy industrial, light industrial was Torrington Cement batch plant, the two really do not marry to well I am not sure. MR. KENNY-Is it that big that there aren't stipulations on what type of retail, like we have light industrial and heavy industrial, is it just retail? COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I am sure that anything that you wanted to go in there is subject to a variance, in any event. MR. KENNY-I guess what I am saying to you in the future, I would like the Board to recognize that there is a majority out here that would like to see at least a right to go through site plan for retail nature, low class not heavy duty. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I think that is a change again that has not been address in this regulation and is really not the subject of our great debate but I put it on my list of things for us to look at as quickly as possible. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I can see one thing Steve, lets say I make a product and because I make a product I have got to be in light industrial maybe I would like to have a chance to have a show room there and sell that product there. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I guess the feeling of the Board would not be against that we would have to change the language. Asked for public input...the public hearing was closed. 8:09p.m. Discussion held regarding the elimination of the mining section to be reviewed at a future time...Attorney Dusek noted that the certification of necessity must be issued by the Supervisor if the final version of the law is not in front of the Board for seven days...reviewed the changes...Town Attorney noted that with deleting the mining section all other sections will have to be renumbered... Supervisor Borgos-Called for a break.. Meeting reopened.... Supervisor Borgos read the following: Ltr. July 29, 1991 Queensbury Town Board 531 Bay Road Queensbury, New York 12804 re: Certificate of Necessity For Immediate Passage of Local Law Amending Chapter 179 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury Entitled Zoning Dear Councilpersons: You have before you this evening a Local law to amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury Chapter 179 of the Code Entitled Zoning. As a result of the Board's review of this Local Law, during and following a public hearing, a number of minor changes are proposed to be made at the time of adoption of this local law. The final form of the local law will, therefore not be placed before you at least seven (7) days prior to passage, if this local law is adopted this evening. I note that the changes that have been made to the local law consist of, generally, deleting certain language, deleting an entire section, Section 15 concerning mining excavation or mineral/gravel requirements set forth in Section 179-64 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, and the correction of some typographical errors concerning gross leasable floor areas for office buildings and the correction of a citation of a section of the Code in Section 18. I further note that the changes, as indicated are minor and immediate passable can occur if I certify as to the necessity for immediate passage. At this point I do certify that immediate passage of this local law, as revised, is necessary in view of the positive impact the same will have on our residents, the length of time the same has been under review, to date, and the length of time it will take to get this matter before you if this matter is not passed tonight. In view of the foregoing and in accordance with Section 20 of the Municipal Home Rule Law of the State of New York I hereby certify as to the necessity to the immediate passage of the aforesaid revised local law and hereby request that you take action this evening. Very truly yours, /s/ Mr. Stephen Borgos Supervisor RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF AMENDMENT TO THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, CHAPTER 179 THEREOF, ENTITLED "ZONING" RESOLUTION NO. 411, 1991, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering amending the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179 thereof, entitled "zoning", which Amendment is in the form of a Local Law and is presented to this meeting of the said Town Board with this Resolution and is incorporated herein, as if more fully set forth herein, for all purposes, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified to act as lead agency, other involved agencies having consented thereto, with respect to compliance with SEQRA which requires environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type I action pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the State Environmental Quality Review act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board, after considering the action proposed herein, reviewing the Long Environmental Assessment Form, presented at this meeting, reviewing the criteria contained in Section 617.11, and thoroughly analyzing the project with respet to potential environmental concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board approves all responses inserted in Part I and Part II of the Long Environmental Assessment Form and the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to complete and execute, as may be necessary, a Negative Declaration indicating that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, pursuant to Section 617.15, the annexed Negative Declaration is hereby approved and the Town Attorney's Office is hereby authorized and directed to file the same in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Duly adopted this 29th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION TO ENACT LOCAL LAW NUMBER 14, 1991 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, CHAPTER 179 THEREOF, ENTITLED "ZONING" RESOLUTION NO. 412, 1991, Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of enacting a local law to amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179 thereof, entitled "Zoning", which local law shall amend and revise several provisions thereof, delete some provisions thereto, and add new provisions thereto, and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed local law entitled "A Local Law to Amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179 thereof, Entitled 'Zoning', to Amend and Revise Several Provisions Thereof, Delete Some Provisions Thereto, and Add New Provisions Thereto", has been presented at this meeting, a copy of said local law also having been previously given to the Town Board at the time the Resolution was adopted which set a date and time for a public hearing, and WHEREAS, on July 29, 1991, a public hearing with regard to this local law was duly conducted, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has submitted a report and recommendation regarding said proposed local law, and WHEREAS, the Warren County Planning Board discussed the proposed local law at its July 10, 1991 Board Meeting, but took no action, and WHEREAS, the Adirondack Park Agency was duly notified of said proposed local law, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has made a determination that the proposed local law and amendments and revisions to the Zoning Chapter of the Code of the Town of Queensbury will have no significant environmental impact, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has considered the effects of said local law, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury finds that the proposed revisions and amendments to the Zoning Chapter of the Code of the Town of Queensbury are beneficial in that they clarify retain provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, add new provisions that will expedite certain planning processes without negatively impacting and environment, address new areas such as retaining walls and addresses other provisions that are practical, such as reducing parking space sizes in recognition of to day's smaller cars and acceptable sized parking spaces, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby enacts the proposed local law to amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179 thereof, entitled "Zoning", which local law shall be knowns as Local Law No. 14, 1991, the same to be titled and contain such provisions as are set forth in the copy of the proposed local law presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, pursuant to the requirements of Article XIII of Chapter 179 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, and Section 265 of the Town Law, the Town Clerk shall, within five (5) days, direct that a certified copy of said Local Law be published in the Glens Falls Post star and obtain an Affidavit of Publication, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to file the said Local law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law, and that said Local Law will take effect immediately and as soon as allowable under Law, and any part of Chapter 179 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury thereof, entitled "Zoning", which is inconsistent with said Local Law shall be deemed amended or repealed. Duly adopted this 29th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None (Local Law to be found on page .) Councilman Monahan-As part of the record I do not approve of the section regarding Home Occupation... Supervisor Borgos-Requested that Mrs. Monahan submit to us quickly your proposed suggestions ... OLD BUSINESS CROSSMAN - UNSAFE STRUCTURE - CONNECTICUT A VENUE HEARING Supervisor Borgos-Asked Mr. Crossman to come forward, and also Mr. Hatin We have been through your topic a number of times and I do not know that it is important to anyone to go back and relive all the things that we have talked about before, I just want to check with our Attorney to see the length to which we can go this evening, I believe you have counseled us in the past that we can take some formal action this evening if the Board deems it proper, is that correct? Attorney Dusek -Yes the notices were served, Mr. Crossman in addition to that last week had consented to action being taken I assume he is prepared tonight to do the same as he did last week especially in the light of the fact he was served with written notice. Are you ready. Mr. Crossman-I am living on the street right now. Attorney Dusek-Are you ready to participate tonight and accept the, do you wish to have an attorney do you want to do anything different or do you. Mr. Crossman-I cannot afford an attorney. Attorney Dusek-Ok, do you want to proceed then tonight? With the Hearing? Mr. Crossman-Yea. Attorney Dusek-Ok. I think Mr. Crossman when the Town Board is ready you would entertain any comments he wants to make to the Board first. Supervisor Borgos-Let me ask you the big important question have you completely and totally rehabilitated this house so it is fit for you to live there? Have you done the wiring, plumbing, the electrical... Mr. Crossman-My biggest problem is to get someone to haul some stuff away because to the stupid dumps and stuff. Supervisor Borgos-But have you put everything back into condition other than moving things away, have you done all the wiring and all the electrical, all the plumbing is that all complete at your house now? Mr. Crossman-No, because I have to seal on half of the roof still, which I am going to do. Supervisor Borgos-So it is not yet into condition and it has been this way for more than a year is that right? Mr. Crossman-Yea. I took an old trailer that was all falling down out of the middle of it which took me a lot of time because I was the only one doing it. Supervisor Borgos-Mr. Hatin, in your opinion is this building fit for someone to live in and does it comply with the codes of the Town of Queensbury Mr. Hatin-No. Supervisor Borgos-Do you have any questions, Paul? Attorney Dusek-Mr. Hatin can you just for the record at this point just indicate what the, what the problems are with the building or why is it unsafe? Mr. Hatin-Apparently we have a structure with no plumbing, no running water, no electricity interior walls that were unfinished and basically rough framing I have been told that there is a leaky roof I have not verified that in the past year because I have not been in the structure. Basically it is an unfit condition to live in. Attorney Dusek-How about the outside of the premises? Mr. Hatin- The outside right now is secured, there are windows, there are doors there is as the Board saw the pictures last week which I still have some debris outside I guess that would be up to the Board as to whether they want that cleaned up or not. Attorney Dusek-In your opinion is the debris that is around the outside of the premises is that unsafe or is that something that.. Mr. Hatin-There is a small shed which I believe is falling down there is some ruminants of things that could be dangerous is somebody happened upon the property there is broken glass and things of that nature. Attorney Dusek-In your opinion that should be cleaned up. Mr. Hatin-I believe so, it has not been cleaned up of the past year. Attorney Dusek-As far as the actual structure of the building itself is concerned is the building stable? Mr. Hatin-As far as I know right now, structurally it will not fall down I, like I said, I have not been able to gain access over the past year so I do not know what condition it is since I had been there over a year ago. Attorney Dusek-In your opinion it is basically uninhabitable though inside. Mr. Hatin-Correct. Attorney Dusek-It is dangerous for somebody to be living inside. Mr. Hatin-I believe so, yes. Attorney Dusek-And it is dangerous right now because of the debris on the property for somebody to come upon the property is that the idea? Mr. Hatin-Yes. Attorney Dusek-And do you feel that the house maybe an attractive nuisance such as to cause minors to come upon the property and go into the house? Mr. Hatin-I do believe that if they could gain access they would yes. Attorney Dusek-I guess at this point it would be up to Mr. Crossman to respond to any of this and either disagree with anything that has been said or offer anything else that you want the Board to consider. Mr. Crossman-There is there was cold running water but they shut it off on me for no reason because they said they wouldn't tear the house down because I called the water dept. and that is what they told me then I called here and they gave me another story. Attorney Dusek-In addition to cold water, running water how about the wiring the heat and the house do you have any comments on that? Mr. Crossman-The wiring was all brand new because the State did it a few years ago. Supervisor Borgos-Is is connected now? Mr. Crossman-No, it will not be for awhile because I will have to come up with $500.00. Supervisor Borgos-Are all the receptacle in the wall the way they are supposed to be and everything is grounded? Mr. Crossman-Yes. Supervisor Borgos- The system is workable otherwise? Mr. Crossman-Right. Councilman Kurosaka-Ifthe walls are uncovered... Mr. Crossman-I am redoing it by myself. Supervisor Borgos- The walls inside are uncovered? You have just the insulation there? Mr. Crossman-I took the trailer out that is the part that is not covered plus I had to do two ceilings over. Supervisor Borgos-I have had a chance to talk to several members of the Town Board about this situation and other people have talked Mr. Crossman-I have sheetrock enough to do one room right now. Supervisor Borgos-But realistically you are not going to be able to finish this yourself... Mr. Crossman-I could do it. Supervisor Borgos-From what you told us last week you did not have the money nor could you borrow the money. Mr. Crossman-It takes time, you know. Supervisor Borgos- To get this completed, right. Our concern is the public health and safety, we have received a petition from the residents of that area concerned with the living accommodations the way they are and in the Town of Queensbury we have certain standards and I do not think that they are umeasonable. Mr. Crossman-I cleaned up a lot, believe me. Supervisor Borgos-But you still do not have plumbing in the house and you do not have toilet facilities you do not have showers is that right? Mr. Crossman-No, it is in there. They shut the water off for no reason. Supervisor Borgos-Just with the water would everything else be ok the septic system ok, and Mr. Crossman-Yea it is all new. Supervisor Borgos-there is no problem? I would just ask Mr. Hatin is that correct? Mr. Crossman-If you check back the records you should know that. Mr. Hatin-From what I know HUD did do some work on the house several years ago when I was in the house when we notified of this the plumbing was not totally connected and Billy himself admitted that it was disconnected the walls in the bathroom were open there was not running water in the bathroom period or in the kitchen. The condition of that is still questionable because I was not been able to get in. Supervisor Borgos-Do you have any other questions you want? Attorney Dusek-Mr. Crossman is there heat in the property? Mr. Crossman-I was working on that, but,... why since waste the money? Attorney Dusek-But it is not heated now then, is that the idea? Mr. Crossman-I have a woodstove and stuff. Attorney Dusek-Is it a working wood stove? Mr. Crossman-Yea, I had to cement it because Dave told me to, where the chinmey is. Councilman Kurosaka-A Woodstove, just having a woodstove ...it must meet the fire code and be inspected by the fire inspector. Mr. Crossman-I understand that. Supervisor Borgos-Would it be the feeling of the Board that we should take some action to say tonight to Mr. Crossman you cannot live here now if at sometime in the future you can fix this up to make it livable and meet our standards you obviously can move back in. Mr. Crossman-Where am I supposed to go then? Supervisor Borgos- This is something that obviously that we have been very, very concerned with for more than a year, it is something as I understand we cannot consider legally we are lead to believe that if you were to make a phone call and my assistant would tell you who you can call, you undoubtedly will be offered some accommodations. This appears to be a case. We certainly do not want you to live out on the street, we do not want you to live in the woods we want you to have something that is safe and warm. We are not a social agency and cannot tell you to do this all we, we have done some homework in the background and said we have got a spot for you to call. Mr. Crossman-I you gave me was sixty days. Supervisor Borgos-I do not know about... Mr. Crossman-It is going to take a little bit longer than that. Supervisor Borgos-I do not know about the time involvement Mr. Crossman-I do not make that much a month. Supervisor Borgos-Mr. Montesi has reminded me that apparently you could live with your mother, we do not want to get into those things, that is your business, our business is concern with the health and safety of the general population including you. Councilman Kurosaka-And the public. Supervisor Borgos- It is really hard to have to say to you no you cannot live on this piece of property but it is not suitable by any type of modern standards that apply in the Town. We have gone along for more than a year with this and we want to help. I will ask the Board now if you are generally in agreement with that I will ask our Attorney what exact language we should use to order that this property is closed as far as any type of living is concerned but that Mr. Crossman could certainly enter upon the premises to make improvements from time to time obviously with a building permit if any would be required, but then it would not be available for him to live in and you would not be able to live there, stay overnight in there until such time as everything has been fixed. .... Mr. Crossman-The structure is pretty sturdy I will tell you that much. Supervisor Borgos-It is structurally sound as far as not falling over but the building itself the structure is not fit to live in so it still comes under that section of the law. We think that you can perhaps go back in and make some repairs and when all the repairs are done the Board will probably let you move in, in fact they will. RESOLUTION REGARDING UNSAFE STRUCTURE ON CONNECTICUT AVENUE RESOLUTION NO. 413, 1991, Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, David Hatin, Director of Building and Code Enforcement for the Town of Queensbury has come before the Town Board and advised that certain premises located at Connecticut Avenue, Queensbury, New York and known as the Crossman Residence are in a state of disrepair and that he has also received a petition signed by neighbors in the neighborhood dated July 16, 1991 complaining of the subject premises, and WHEREAS, the Director of Building and Codes Enforcement has rendered an opinion that reveals that he feels the building is uninhabitable currently does not have running water does not have heat as far as he knows, does not have electricity and he also has indicated that the house could be the subject of an attraction to minors that it is conceivably could be open at the doors and windows and that there is debris upon the property, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has considered the report and has also heard from Mr. Crossman on the subject and has afforded him an opportunity to be heard and WHEREAS, it reasonably appears that there is present a clear and eminent danger to life, safety or health of any person or property unless the unsafe building is immediately repaired, secured or demolished the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury resolves as follows: RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury finds that there reasonably appears and there is present a clear an eminent danger to life, safety and health of persons located upon the property and potentially to adjacent properties and finds that the premises should be immediately secured as to the date of this resolution by blocking all entrances and locking all doors to the premises and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates that the premises should be cleaned up such that no debris or otherwise be left around on the lawn area of the premises and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates that Mr. Hatin shall post a closed sign on the building indicating that the building is closed and can no longer can be used for as a habitat or living quarters for any person and be it further RESOLVED, that the previous action set forth in this resolution should be accomplished immediately as the Town Board considers that action as necessary to cure an emergency situation, and be it further RESOLVED, that Mr. Crossman is hereby given a period of time of thirty days to start and sixty days to complete the repairs from the date the notice was given to him previously and be it further RESOLVED, that Mr. Hatin shall immediately secure the building in accordance with the terms of this resolution and that Mr. Crossman will be afforded an opportunity to clean up the remaining of the property around the house two weeks from this evening and it if should not be cleaned up at that point Mr. Hatin is directed to go in and clean up the property and all expenses incurred hereby will be levied against the property. Duly adopted this 29th day of July, 1991 by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None Supervisor Borgos- Y ou have thirty days to start the project except that the cleaning up has to be done in two weeks if it is not done in two weeks we are going to go in and do it and then we are going to charge you and add it to you taxes, it is much more money. Maybe you got some friend to get together in a pickup truck and off you go with it. .... Mr. Hatin-This is a concern of the neighbors and as well as myselfMr. Crossman has admitted openly that he has been sleeping there up until now, he has full access to this house and there is nothing to prevent him from still doing that, does the Board want to consider... Supervisor Borgos-We said we want him to go back in and finish it up unless he has access he will not be able to fix it up. He is not to sleep there anymore. Mr. Hatin-That is going to be kind of hard... Councilman Potenza-That would be hard to monitor Supervisor Borgos-Except somebody says he is sleeping there and they call the Sheriffs Dept. he is going to be in violation. Mr. Crossman-The guys through me out this morning anyway. Councilman Montesi-Why don't we lock this ...a key with Dave Hatin and when Mr. Crossman is ready to do in a do some work call us... Supervisor Borgos- What if he wants to do it on Friday evening or Saturday morning? Councilman Monahan-That would be terribly awkward. Mr. Hatin-I have an alternative, I do know his employer quick well, and I would be happy to provide his employer with a key who can keep track of it. Mr. Crossman-I do not want any holes in my door I just put it up. Attorney Dusek-Maybe from a legal standpoint it would be better to let Mr. Crossman have access to his own property and go in and out, if he violates we do have recourse to the courts and the sheriffs. Councilman Montesi-To do what? Attorney Dusek-To take action against him for violation. Councilman Montesi-Which would be what, lock the house up? We just spent two months fooling around with this thing and it is still open, so what have we proved. Attorney Dusek-He will have to lock it up according... Supervisor Borgos-He is going to have to lock it every night so people cannot get in and children cannot get in an play, he cannot sleep overnight there, he cannot have any open fires he has got to clean up the yard, if he wants to work at nights or weekends he has a key to go in and do it. Councilman Montesi-I do not what we have spent two months doing? Mr. Crossman-I will never stay there because there is no sense hurting something. Councilman Montesi-Well, you were there last night, and you told us you wouldn't stay there any more. Mr. Crossman-I got to sleep in the woods that is all or something.... Supervisor Borgos-Requested input from the public - unscheduled open forum Mr. David Kenny-Spoke to the Town Board regarding the traffic problem at the Million Dollar Half Mile...requested that the Board use the estimated figures of70 Stores, 2 Motels 9 Restaurants gas stations, estimated payroll of $6 million dollars, $70 million in sales off the strip, also 3 and 4 hundred thousand dollars in property, school taxes...approximately 500 jobs... Councilman Montesi-Suggested that Mr. Kenny also convey these figures to Warren County... Supervisor Borgos-Noted that the Town did not before have access to these numbers ... will be used as ammunition...noted that taking over the light manually did not help the situation...that is further evidence that the State has to step in... Mr. Kenny-We have to get the State up her and show them the economic impact... Mr. Jeff Sherman-Connecticut Avenue-Requested that the Sheriffs Dept. be made aware of to nights resolution regarding Mr. Crossman... Supervisor Borgos-A copy of the resolution will go to the Sheriffs Dept. and State Police. Mr. Paul Naylor-Highway Supt.-Complemented Mr. Hatin on his speech to the Assembly Pt. Association...regarding the relocation of Assembly Point Road they seem to be evenly divided, they will probably be back... Supervisor Borgos-Noted that the Highway Dept. has begun closing cell number one at the Ridge Road Landfill site... Councilman Montesi-Asked to have light at Glenwood checked...asked if the lights will be sequenced... Supervisor Borgos-Reported on a State program that reviews lights... Mr. Naylor-Noted that he would contact the County regarding the lights, noting that they are still under the control of Stilsing Elec. Mr. Mike Baird-Regarding Quaker Plaza-question the use of architectural board... Supervisor Borgos-Number one the Town Board had nothing to do with that project...totally a Planning Board situation...noted that an architectural rendering was brought to the Town showing what was built here, I said to them I hoped that was not what was going to be built here, they said no, this is what we have done in florida...I am more than angered by it I am upset with the curb cut off the Quaker Road, I am upset with the width of the driving lane and the parking lots, I am upset with the width of the parking spaces, I am upset with the narrowness of the slots through the drivein bank...my personnel opinion it is a terrible mess...also noted the new color of McDonald's..we have no control over that...1 think that by talking with the owners of these properties, we may be able to convince them to change, the alternative of an architectural review Board I have great difficulty with unless we put it on another basis that is not built into the bureaucracy but may be advisory.. Councilman Montesi-Regard architectural review board, my feeling three is enough talent in our community to take the main throughfares of our roads and set some themes that the Planning Board would work with. Advise developers as they come in that there is theme to a road... Mr. Baird-Speaking for himself, we do not want an architectural board...we do need to address the problem... Susan Goetz-Zoning Board Member-I want to remind you that the Zoning Board of Appeals was involved with this project also and we granted three variances, the first for a set back and it was not a unanimous decision of the Board to allow it, I voted against it. Based upon the fact that I really felt it was a self imposed hardship they knew what property they were buying and then there were other variances later, it is a big problem. ... Supervisor Borgos-Re: National Church Residences, there are three property owners who have expressed some interest in selling to National Church Residences... DISCUSSION HELD REGARDING LIBRARY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT-Supervisor Borgos-I am concerned with the funding mechanism in respect to the Town having to go on the line and pledge its assets as a town to secure some of the debt of the library improvement district...also concerned there must be a provisions for permissive referendum for any construction...Councilman Monahan-question if under the present equalization rate would the Town of Queensbury residents be hurt...would like figures verified by our own Assessor...concerned about the impact on the North Qsby. Residents... Supervisor Borgos- questioned how the bonding would be set up...Attorney Dusek, I think it would be divided according to the percentage of interest each municipality has in it. Supervisor Borgos-Since this is being drafted would this be the opportune time to insist that permissive referendum is always necessary...Councilman Monahan-If the library wants to do a 2 million dollar addition and they are going to go to bond for it do they have to get the permission of the government's involved or the people in the district? Attorney Dusek-They would have to go to the governments because the district itself will not have any power to issue bonds...Councilman Monahan-requested that Paul Dusek contact the Attorney Krogmann regarding the bonding... Supervisor Borgos-Regarding voting, have it published the vote should be at the same time as general election each year to save time and money...recommended all districts be used...Attorney Dusek- requested a policy call on the library district could come into existence and the budget approved by majority of qualified voters within the district...it is possible to have other types of arrangements you could required that every municipality could approve it...Agreed that it should be the majority vote of each Town is needed...Publication ofvoting...listed as published one and posted...Agreed by the Board to request public hearings on the budgets... Supervisor Borgos-Requested that the Board present questions to the Town Attorney by Wednesday, so he can talk to Dave Krogmann... RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MINUTES RESOLUTION NO. 414, 1991, Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: RESOLVED, that the Town Board Minutes of June 17 and July 8 be and hereby are approved and be it further RESOLVED, that the minutes of July 22 nd be amended to reflect that Mrs. Monahan and Mr. Kurosaka entered the meeting during executive session, and that those minutes hereby are now approved. Duly adopted this 29th day of July, 1991 by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None (Resolution to retain O'Brien and Gere is pulled from the agenda, awaiting further information) RESOLUTION REGARDING APPLICATION TO ACT AS ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR FOR THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY RESOLUTION NO. 415, 1991, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 80 of the Coder of the Town of Queensbury, Independent Electrical Inspection Agency, Inc. has submitted a request and supporting documentation to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury for authorization to act as electrical inspectors for the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, David Hatin, Director of Building & Codes Enforcement, has submitted a written report relative to the qualifications and experience of an electrical inspector employed by the aforementioned agency, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has given due consideration to the Standards for Electrical Inspectors set forth in Chapter 80-7 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, the above mentioned report from David Hatin and said documentation submitted by Independent Electrical Inspection Agency, Inc., NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby finds that the firm does not meet the qualifications set forth in Chapter 80-7(E) of the Code of the Town of Queensbury and Chapter 80-7(F) of said Code, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, pursuant to Chapter 80-6(A) and 80-7(F) of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby determines not to authorize Independent Electrical Inspection Agency, Inc. to act as electrical inspectors for the Town of Queensbury is hereby denied. Duly adopted this 29th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION APPROVING RENTAL OF EQUIPMENT IN HIGHWAY DEPT. IN CONNECTION WITH LANDFILL CLOSURE RESOLUTION NO. 416, 1991, Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos: WHEREAS, Mr. Paul H. Naylor, Town Highway Superintendent, has determined a need for the rental of one new 1991 D6H Caterpillar Bulldozer, to be used in connection with the landfill closure, and WHEREAS, the Southworth Machinery, Inc., has offered to provide said bulldozer for the amount of $8,000.00 per month, and WHEREAS, Mr. Naylor feels that his department will need the bulldozer for at least two months, and WHEREAS, a copy of the Rental Agreement has been presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 143 of the Town Highway Law of the State of New York, it is necessary for the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury to review and approve of the amount to be paid for the rental of said machine, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves of the renal agreement presented at this meeting, and authorizes and directs that Mr. Paul H. Naylor, Town Highway Superintendent execute the same, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the rental costs shall be paid for form the Landfill Closure Account. Duly adopted this 29th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION NO. 407, 1991 REGARDING POSITION AND TITLE OF "CONFIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY" IN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY WATER DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO. 417, 1991, Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby amends Resolution No.: 407 of 1991 to reflect Mrs. Lynn Godfrey's change of position and title to take effect on June 3, 1991. Duly adopted this 29th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY FROM THE COUNTY OF WARREN RESOLUTION NO. 418, 1991, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza: (No vote taken) Supervisor Borgos- This is a piece of property along Halfway Brook against the Hovey Pond Property 40x50' outstanding taxes $500. Warren Co. has a policy where it will negotiate with a municipality in preference to an outside bidder... Discussion held regarding the account this amount is to be taken from...Reserve Fund, Attorney Dusek, requested that this resolution be tabled until further resolution can be before the Board... RESOLUTION TO TABLE RESOLUTION NO. 418, OF 1991 RESOLUTION NO. 419, 1991, Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby tables Resolution No. 419, of 1991 entitled RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY FROM THE COUNTY OF W ARREN/ Duly adopted this 29th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REOPENING OF TWO CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS RESOLUTION NO. 420, 1991, Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury by previous resolutions dated October 15, 1990 and February 4, 1991 authorized the transfer of funds closure of, respectively, Capital Project Fund No. 86 (old code No. H52), Quaker Road Water Transmission Main, and Capital Project Fund No. 77 (old code No. H41), Queensbury Water Wheel-Loader, and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the funds should be reopened as there are still outstanding matters affecting said funds, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the aforesaid Capital Project Funds to be reopened, assigned new numbers, if necessary, and hereby directs the same shall be kept active until such tie as the Town Board authorizes the closure of the same and Resolution No. 582 of 1990 and No. 93 of 1991 are hereby rescinded or amended to the extent the same are inconsistent with this resolution. Duly adopted this 29th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUPERVISOR TO SIGN AGREEMENT WITH MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC. RESOLUTION NO. 421, 1991, Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, after requesting proposals be submitted to the Town for engineering services, previously resolved to employ the services of Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., subject to Town Board approval of the contract to be entered into with Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., and WHEREAS, a contract providing for the retaining of the services of Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., has been presented at this meeting, the same having been reviewed and revised by the Town Attorney and La Verne Fagel, Consultant on landfill matters, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves of the agreement presented at this meeting and hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the agreement on behalf of the Town of Queensbury and take such other and further steps as may be necessary to implement the terms of the agreement, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution is approved subject to an agreement entered into with Malcolm Pirnie subject to the furnishing of an insurance certificate by Malcolm Pirnie that demonstrates minimum insurance limits of three million dollars covering general liability claims and a minimum of two million for what is known as mal-practice or errors and omissions type insurance policy, against the engineer. RESOLVED, that the cost of the agreement shall be paid for from the landfill closure project account. Duly adopted this 29th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None Discussion held before vote on resolution no 421...insurance coverage shall be minimum of 3 million general liability and two million in mal-practice ... add to page 1.3 item number 1.3.3 add or 25 working days which ever is longer.. . RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS RESOLUTION NO. 422, 1991, Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: WHEREAS, certain departments have requested transfers of funds, for the 1991 Budget, and WHEREAS, said requests have been approved by the Town of Queensbury Accounting Office and the Chief Fiscal Officer, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the funds be transferred as listed below, for the 1991 budget: WATER DEPARTMENT FROM TO AMOUNT 40 8340 1900 40 8340 1590 $25,000.00 (Eng. Tech.) (Maint. Foreman) 40 8340 1560 408340 1400 $23,975.88 (Maint.l) (Laborer A) 40 8340 2899 40 8340 2020 $ 6,400.00 (Capital Constr.) (Vehicles) 40 8340 2899 40 8320 2899 $10,000.00 (Capital Constr.) (Capital Constr.) Duly adopted this 29th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $140,000.00 SERIAL BONDS OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO FINANCE IMPROVEMENTS AND FACILITIES FOR THE EASY STREET EXTENSION OF THE QUEENSBURY CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 423, 1991, Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has heretofore adopted a final resolution and order establishing the Easy Street Extension of the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Article 12A of the Town Law of the State of New York and more particularly resolutions of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury duly adopted on May 6, 1991 and July 22, 1991, it has been determined to be in the public interest to establish the proposed Easy Street Extension of the Queensbury Consolidated Water District and authorize the improvements therefor consisting of, generally, the purchase and installation of water distribution mains, hydrants, gate valves and such other facilities or apparatus as is more fully described in a map, plan and report on file with the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the maximum amount proposed to be expended for the increase or improvement is $140,000.00, WHEREAS, it is now desired to authorize payment of said improvements to the Easy Street Extension and likewise authorize the financing thereof, and WHEREAS, the action for which this funding is proposed was designated as an unlisted action under the general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury previously conducted an environmental review and determined that there will be no significant environmental effects and adopted a notice of determination of non-significance, the same being on file with the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, as follows: SECTION 1. The specific object or purpose to be financed pursuant to this resolution is the cost of improvements to the Easy Street Extension of the Queensbury Consolidated Water District consisting of, generally, the purchase and installation of water distribution mains, hydrants, gate valves and such other facilities or apparatus as the same is more fully described in a map, plan and report on file with the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury. SECTION 2. The maximum estimated cost of the specific object or purpose is $140,000.00 and the plan for financing thereof is the issuance of $140,000.00 in serial bonds of said Town and is hereby authorized to be issued pursuant to the Local Finance Law. SECTION 3. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of aforesaid specific object or purpose is forty (40) years, pursuant to subdivision 1 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law. It is hereby further determined that the maximum maturity of the serial bonds herein authorized will exceed five (5) years. It is hereby determined that pursuant to Section 35.00(b) of the Local Finance Law that this bond resolution is not subject to permissive referendum and that a five percent (5%) down payment is not required pursuant to Section 107 of the Local Finance Law. SECTION 4. The faith and credit of said Town of Queensbury, New York, are hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal f ad interest on such bonds as the same respectively become due and payable. There shall be annually apportioned ad assessed upon the several lots and parcels of land within said Easy street Extension of the Queensbury Consolidated Water District which the Town Board shall determine as specified to be especially benefitted by the improvement, an amount sufficient to pay the principal and interest on said bonds as the same become due, but if not paid from such source, all taxable real property in said Town shall be subject to the levy or Ad Valorem taxes without limitation a to rate or amount sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on said bonds as the same become due. SECTION 5. Subject to the provisions of the Local Finance Law, the power to authorize the issuance of and to sell bond anticipation notes in anticipation of the issuance and sale of the serial bonds herein authorized, including renewals of such notes, its hereby delegated to the Town Supervisor, the Chief Fiscal Officer. Such notes shall be of such terms, form and contents, and shall be sold in such manner, as may be prescribed by said Town Supervisor, consistent with the provisions of the Local Finance Law. SECTION 6. The powers and duties of advertising the bonds for sale, conducting the sale and awarding the bonds, are hereby delegated to the Town Supervisor, who shall advertise the bonds for sale, if appropriate, conduct the sale and award the bonds in such manner as he shall deem best for the interest of the Town of Queensbury, provided, however, that in the exercise of these delegated powers he shall comply fully with the provisions of the Local Finance Law nd any order or rule of the State Comptroller applicable to the sale of municipal bonds. The receipt of the Town Supervisor shall be a full acquittance to the purchaser of such bonds who shall not be obliged to see to the application of the purchase money. SECTION 7. The validity of such bonds or notes or any bond anticipation notes issued in anticipation of the sale of such bonds may be contested only if: 1) Such obligations are authorized for any object or purpose for which the Town of Queensbury is not authorized to expend money, or 2) The provisions oflaw which should be complied with at the date of the publication of this resolution are not substantially complied with and an action, suit or proceeding contesting such validity, is commenced within twenty (20) days after the date of such publication, or 3) Such obligation are authorized in violation of the provisions of the construction. SECTION 8. This resolution shall be published in full by the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury in the official newspaper of the Town of Queensbury, together with a notice of the Town Clerk substantially in the form provided in Section 81.00 of the Local Finance Law. SECTION 9. This resolution is not subject to permissive referendum. Duly adopted this 29th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION SETTING FEE FOR UPDATING OF TOWN CODE BOOK RESOLUTION NO. 424, 1991, Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby establishes that supplements to the bound volume of the Code of the Town of Queensbury will be available to he general public at a rate of $50.00 per year with the first year being considered any supplements that would have come out in 1990 and al of those that would have come out in 1991. Duly adopted this 29th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None Discussion held-Should recyclers (commercial) be charged to drop of recycling items...it was suggested that any commercial venture regarding recycling items should go through Warren County.. Councilman Potenza-Concerned about traffic on Aviation Road when the Opera gets out at 5:00 P.M. traffic congestion is bad... RESOLUTION CALLING OR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 425,1991, Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos: RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby moved into executive session to discuss pending litigation. Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 1991 by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None On motion the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully, Miss Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk-Queensbury REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING JULY 8,1991 7:00 P.M. MTG#29 RES#380-390 BH30-31 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR STEPHEN BORGOS COUNCILMAN GEORGE KUROSAKA COUNCILMAN MARILYN POTENZA COUNCILMAN RONALD MONTESI COUNCILMAN BETTY MONAHAN DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY KARLA CORPUS TOWN OFFICIALS KATHLEENKATHE, PAUL NAYLOR PRESS G.F. POST STAR, TV 8, WWSC PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY SUPERVISOR STEPHEN BORGOS A moment of respect was held for the family of Francis Walters, former Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 380, 1991 Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from regular session and enters into the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 8th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent:None PUBLIC HEARING SEWER VARIANCE ALICE M. JAMES OPEN 7: 10 P.M. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I'll ask the Clerk if this has been advertised. TOWN CLERK-Yes, it was. JOSEPH BANARO-C.T. Male, representing Mrs. James. What we are seeking is a variance a septic variance to replace an existing septic system with a 3500 gallon holding tank for a seasonal residence the variance is for both setback and for nonconventional septic system. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Does the Board have any questions at this point? Tom, are you going to make a presentation also? COUNCILMAN POTENZA-This is for a holding tank. MR. BANARO-Yes. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I have a little bit of questions about this. Normally I and perhaps again tonight I feel that a holding tank is probably as secure a situation as we can get. Normally we deal with septic systems and we're concern where the tile fields in, where the seepage pits are, but a holding tank is a holding tank is a holding tank. Except someone pointed out to me recently that sometimes holding tanks are punctured and could be punctured a steel bar or something could be punched through so that there would be a situation where a holding tank never got full. I'm just going to ask the engineers as long as they are here is there any precaution that can be taken to be sure that that doesn't happen is there any way to prevent a hole in the side of a holding tank or to alert someone in case that would occur? Would you stand up again and introduce yourself. MR. BANARO- The tank that we had specified is a heavy duty precast concrete tank this tank is manufactured to withstand H20 loadings and therefore is capable of withstanding somewhat a extremely large thrust or point loading from a vehicle or any other object. During construction in most cases there would be someone inspecting the placement of the tank and that would be the most likely occurrence of any type of puncture other than having vehicular traffic based on the type of material that you back fill with or the condition of the structure as you place it. Taking that into consideration that someone would probably be inspecting it such as the Building Inspector and observing the construction procedures outlined on the plans it isn't likely that a puncture will occur. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Is it possible not making any judgements at this point that somebody in the future ten years from now could take a steel rod or crowbar or something a long bar and punch holes in the bottom of this? What's the depth of the propose tank, I didn't memorize the plans is it four feet, three feet? MR. BANARO-Something like that four or five feet it would be on Page 2, it will give you a generally detail showing the configuration of the tank. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-A holding tank is usually six inch re-enforced concrete tanks it's pretty hard to punch a hole in it with a rod. They are usually water tight. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I think I'm looking for an engineer like yourself to say that. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Fort Miller produces some excellent holding tanks. MR. TOM. . . -The construction is basically the same as standard concrete septic tank in this case we specified a heavy duty tank because of possible truck loading and as George said the likelihood of that tank being punctured is extremely unlikely. I would also point out that the same possibility exists for a standard septic tank with a leach field following it and if the tank leak in that situation no one would know that either. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-But there would be a leach field there and essentially the liquid would be going into the ground that's what the concern is in this case the liquid would be going into the lake. MR. TOM. . . -Except if a septic tank was punctured we would possibly have solids entering the ground as opposed to liquid affluent and in either case the solids would likely plug up the hole after a time. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Good point. MR. TOM. . .-1 really don't see much difference. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Tom this is an existing house this is not a vacant lot this is an existing situation. MR. TOM. . .-That's correct. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Does this show that in your map that the holding tank will be under the driveway? MR. TOM. . .-Yes, that's for easy access by a pump out vehicle. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-We just passed a new resolution so that we don't need to make. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- That applies just to commercial. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Just commercial is there a variance needed for that? MR. TOM. . .-1 believe you don't need that for a tank you may be considering a leach field. . . SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Or septic system. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I'm not trying to make it cumbersome I'm just making sure we're covering the bases here. The necessary alarms are on here now out of curiosity obviously this eliminates any problems of affluent entering the lake providing everything goes okay. You have a 3500 gallon tank the alarm is set for, I'm not sure I'm reading this right two inches or two feet from the top, how much capacity does he have before he has to have it pumped out? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Approximately two feet. MR. BANARO-You have approximately 50 per cent additional capacity you have a 50 per cent capacity for which is actually the required storage capacity an additional 50 per cent capacity to the high shutoff level like a backup a fail save if for some reason the alarm goes off and it's not attended to quickly. After that alarm shutoff the water supply to the house will actually be terminated no longer being able to discharge anymore affluent to the holding tank. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-This is designed according to our Sanitary Ordinance. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I'm just curious as a laymen what does this mean to a seasonal homeowner how many times would he have to, you obviously had to estimate this more, because he has to have a feeling for what it would cost to pump it out, how many times will this have to be pumped in a season? MR. TOM. . . -That would vary, but according to the standard two weeks on an average type of use average usage that's for design flow. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-So that homeowner would be looking at a couple hundred dollars a month to pump out seasonal. MR. BANARO- Yes. Or less for example this is designed for full occupancy of the structure if it is not occupied under full occupancy conditions you would have less. MR. TOM. . . -We routinely recommend to our clients when they consider these kinds of systems that they put in significant water saving devices in the plumbing and this house is being it's a new structure to be constructed on the same footprints so, I believe all the plumbing is going to be water saving. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-What was there before? MR. BANARO-Presently there is an existing camp there now. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-What did they use for a system? MR. TOM. . . -You may not want to hear this. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-It doesn't make any difference your going to ban it anyway. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Obviously we're making a big improvement over the existing. MR. BANARO-It's a seepage pit below the floor of the structure located approximately 35 feet from the lake. MR. TOM. . .-It's actually a cesspool under the garage. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-You show a freeboard here of twelve inches. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-That's standard. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-My only concern is if there should be a failure I presume that upstream on the inlet side your going to have a check valve of some sort. MR. TOM. . . -Well that water shutoff would occur before that freeboard is. . . SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Assuming for a minute that the water shutoff doesn't work that the water continues to run. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Nothing fail safe Steve. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The only thing I'm thinking if it doesn't the thing that will happen is that the septic will back up into the house so you'll notice a problem there before it flows out on the ground or into the lake based on this drawing. MR. BANARO-Exactly the invert in the building would be higher than the. . . COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-It depends on if you have a washing machine lower than the pipe otherwise you would never know it. MR. TOM. . .-We would have to check that actually, but Joe thinks that it may back up into the house first. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-There about as fail safe as you can make them. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Your diagram does show six inch minimum walls. Let's ask the public if there are any other comments, I know of at least one letter or a couple of letters that came in that were ask to be read this evening, anybody else from the public that wishes to speak first? I'll ask the Clerk would you read the letters please, I glanced at one of them. TOWN CLERK-The first one is the Lake George Association. Dear Town Board Members: The Lake George Association was recently notified that the Town would be taking action on a variance application submitted by Alice MacLean James to put in a holding tank 36 feet from the shores of Lake George in Kattskill Bay. As you may know, this area of the lake is very densely populated and though the water quality in the area is diminished, many residents still take their drinking water from the lake. In addition, the community beach and swimming area for Lakewood Estates is adjacent to this site. The LGA has for many years been monitoring problems related to wastewater treatment throughout the basin. We have found that it is not uncommon for accidents to occur when holding tanks are utilized. Because overflows occur, alarms systems fail, etc., it is very important to take extra precautions. To assure maximum protection of the lake and public health, we would ask that the following points be considered before any decision on this request is made by the Board. As in any case involving a variance, the applicant must first prove a hardship; that is, perhaps a holding tank is required because the existing system has failed, and the configuration of the lot does not allow placement 50 feet or more back from the shores of Lake George. Ensuring that the variance is for a valid reason, that the applicant has a genuine hardship, is the first step in determining whether the application should be approved. The second step is to determine whether a holding tank is the best alternative for the site, and the alternative with the least amount of impact. If in fact the Board determines that there is a valid hardship, and that a holding tank is the best way to take care of the site's wastewater, the LGA would ask the Board to consider placing the following conditions on the permit:(see attached LGPC Wastewater Regulations 6NYCRR 646-3.14 (d) Holding tanks), in addition to any other conditions you deem necessary.' Thank you for your care in promoting responsible use of the lake. Sincerely, Mary-Arthur Beebe Executive Director TOWN CLERK-Do you wish that section to be read Steve? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Not at the moment. SECTION 646-3.14 (iii) The fill material shall be placed from the upslope side of the system to the full depth required in the design and shall extend to the edge of the basal area at a slope not to exceed one vertical to three horizontal. (iv) The absorption area shall be then formed within the mound. A minimum of six inches of aggregate shall be placed beneath the distribution lines. (v) The pressure distribution lines shall be placed parallel to the contours of the slope and a minimum of two inches of aggregate is place above the lines. (vi) A permeable geotextile shall be place over the entire absorption area to prevent the infiltration of fines into the aggregate. (vii) On sloping sites a diversion ditch or curtain drain shall be installed uphill to prevent surface water runoff from reaching the absorption area. (viii) A minimum of six inches of finer materials such as clay loam shall be place over the top of the absorption area, and the entire mound including the tapers shall be covered with six inches of top soil and seeded to grass. (d) Holding tanks. When site characteristic preclude any of the foregoing wastewater treatment systems, a holding tank shall be required. Holding tanks may be approved on a case-by-case basis. Evidence of an agreement with a professional hauler for disposal of the waste shall be required prior to approving installation of a holding tank. In addition, if the holding tank waste is to be treated at a wastewater treatment plant, the plant shall provide a written statement to this effect prior to approval. The holding tank shall have a capacity equal to five day's design flow or 1,000 gallons, whichever is greater and meet the same construction as a septic tank except that the holding tank shall not have an outlet. Installation of a high water alarm positioned to allow storage of at least three day's volume of waste after activation is recommended. A cover over the tank or other method of odor control may be necessary. If winter usage is planned, the tank shall be protected from freezing. TOWN CLERK-Second letter. TO: Town Board, Town of Queensbury July 2, 1991 I am writing as a spokesman for the Lakewood Homeowners Association. We are concerned about the holding tank that is proposed for the James residence on Pilot Knob Road. 36' removes much of the safety that the 50' restriction provides. What safety features are to be built in to protect against an overflow or accident in pumping out? The Lake is very fragile in this area and must be protected to the highest degree. Doesn't the AP.A require a 50' setback from the Lake? Some lots on Lake George do not lend themselves for adequate septic systems or holding tanks. We think this is one of them! Earl Ellsworth President Lakewood Homeowners Assoc. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-We have all the safeguards you can put on a tank. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Ijust looked at the prepared resolution that comes with this and that if we were to take action on this from what I've heard, I think we should also find that the propose tank would dramatically improve the existing condition certainly what is there now regardless of how far it is from the lake can't be very good and that obviously is going to find it's way into the lake sooner or later. I think we can find that, I would certainly be comfortable with that and I think we would have to impose the condition that we use, take one of Mrs. Monahan's lines now at least or no more than a 1.6 gallon flush toilet so anything 1.6 or less gallons per flush would be required. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And the other water saving devices showerheads, etc. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Showerheads, faucets, whatever. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-There are some very inexpensive water saving devices one is simply a little washer very flat washer with a smaller hole in the middle you pop it in just by the strainer it's remarkable. ALICE MACLEAN JAMES-I own the property. I instituted this because I was aware that my septic system was not I felt adequate. It has been tested in the past there has never been any sign that it leaked into the lake, but I did not like it, I was uncomfortable with it so I instituted this myself. On the whole I will be living there by myself I will have company from time, but on a whole it's a one person maybe two people will be there so the amount of water used is not going to be excessive. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-How big a house is it, how many bedrooms? MRS. JAMES-Three. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Three. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-How many bathrooms? MRS. JAMES-I have one now, I want a second one, but I have signs all over navy showers and that kind of stuff. I would be very interested because I don't want to have to pay to get it pumped out anymore than I have too. But, also if it did not function correctly after a year or so I would have some idea when it should be pumped out and if it didn't get full I certainly would take action to find out why, I like Lake George I want to keep it prestine if I possible can. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I'm sure you do. Thank you. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Tom, one other question because this is a variance and Lake George did suggest that you show hardship what is the reason why this tank can't be put back fifty feet from the lake? MR. TOM. . .-We originally submitted the plan to the Department of Health and Brian Fure had reviewed our case to establish hardship and he in fact did review it and acknowledge that hardship was present for this specific lot. I included a copy of his stamped and signed plan. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- That was approved last November according to this. MR. TOM. . . -Yes, we had this on hold for a little bit and we're just presuming. . . COUNCILMAN MONTESI-And what was the reason why? MR. BANARO-We were trying to establish clear title. If you review the first page there is a wedge piece of property which we did not establish clear title to there was a bounty line agreement established and we did not have a title to determine whether or not this pie shape piece of property did in fact belong to Mrs. Alice James, since then we did establish that the deed recorded bounty line agreement is in fact valid and that she may state claim to this pie piece of property. Now that we know that in fact that she does own that we are completed our submission at this time. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Are you going to be able to move it further away from the lake then? MR. BANARO-We don't really want to move it the reason being we don't want to disturb anymore land than we have too and then also that we're providing this in the mist of the existing driveway which we want to improve some we don't really want to improve all of it because then we would have to disturb pie shape piece quite a bit to accommodate the elevations. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Where would the hardship be? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We have to find the hardship if you can move something fifty feet from the lake we can't just say, okay don't. MR. BANARO- What we're trying to do is salvage the existing vegetation that's in this area. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's still not a hardship. MR. BANARO- The hardship being you cannot place a sub-surface septic system on the property. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I know, but why are you not meeting the fifty foot setback that's what we're talking about we have to a reason why your not. . . COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Understandably when you didn't have title to the property no question you had a problem, now that you have title to it why are you going through the scenario of. . . MR. TOM. . . -Your right, originally it was proposed for the location that it's in because there was no title to that wedge shape piece. Then when title became clear recently we debated moving it to meet that setback requirement and instead decided to propose to you leaving it in the driveway where there is an existing driveway not disturbing the trees in the wet area to the north and having to improve that area by building a road. We thought that we would propose that to you as an alternative we felt there would be no more impact to the lake even though it doesn't meet the setback requirements. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Is that indeed a wet area? MR. BANARO. . .-Yes. There is a grass strip in between, but it's very wet it's marshy in the wooded area between where the tank is now in the far corner. . . COUNCILMAN MONTESI-If you put it in the other road you would be too close to the property line? MR. BANARO. . .-That and also that it really isn't an improve road it's shown as a grass drive and it's not as frequently. . . MR. TOM. . .-It's not acceptable for truck traffic we know that it would have to improve as a road to accept truck traffic. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But, see that really isn't our problem our problem is to find the hardship reason. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-How high is the water table? MR. TOM. . .-Very shallow it's approximately 18 inches down. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-That solves it right there. MR. TOM. . .-We realize that that setback is not as proposed in the regs, but we thought we propose it this way because we felt it created less impact. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-The water table is extremely high and it varys so you can't put it anywhere else. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Y ou show two circles, could you come here just a second please. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-How do we know it isn't just as high as where he is putting it George. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Are we talking about this location or this location? MR. BANARO- Those are the two manholes. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Okay, I'm sorry. What if we move it more this way then we're away from the lake and the lake stops here. MR. BANARO-The reason being we have a specific grade on the driveway and if we push this farther it would have to much. . .this is as far away as we can push it. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-It would interfere with the grade. MR. TOM. . .-Needing the pitch that we need to get into the tank that's as far away as we can push it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-What's the water table under where you want to put the tank? MR. TOM. . .-Approximately the same. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's what I'm saying you can't call it a hardship if the water table the same if they could move it fifty feet away. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-You can't a foot and a half isn't enough. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-He says it's just the same where he wants to put it George. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-The Park regulations in the Lake George Association says it has to be. . . feet away from the water. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Why not move it fourteen feet and put an elbow on it here and drop it right in here? MR. TOM. . .-It can be done. MR. BANARO- There is also a Niagara Mohawk Pole that would be disturb. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That's right, what about if you moved it up this way? MR. TOM. . .-We tried to put it as far away from the lake as possible. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Can't put a leach pit in, the problem is you can't put it under the driveway they don't have any choice. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-What's the sideline for the property sideline for the septic tank or holding tank? SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Ten or fifteen. MR. BANARO-We looked at accommodating some area for actual construction to because we don't want to disturb any. . . COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You have to forget we have to find a hardship reason so it isn't like what you want to do for convenience of building. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Ifyou put it right back in this grass area. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Then he doesn't need a variance except for the holding tank itself. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-You can save quite a bit of money on the line. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You would need a holding tank variance, but not distance variance. MR. BANARO-Would it still be fifty feet. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-It would be more than fifty feet because it's 36' here and if you go back fifty and put it in here you don't have to move the power line, you don't have to disturb the driveway, you would save a lot of money on the pipe and excavation. We're not trying to hide any of this discussion folks, but the map is small. If we were to move it back this way and put it in here and jockey it around so you don't loose any of your favorite trees is that possible? You would save the cost of running the pipe this distance you would save the excavation of this part of the driveway. MRS. JAMES-If you let me put it in I'd put it in any place. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Just put an elbow right here drop it right in here. MRS. JAMES-That would probably get rid of most the trees. MR. BANARO- Then you would have eight feet to the tank and then fifteen feet to the septic for the side yard then you would have seven inches across. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-You would have to apply for a setback. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Further back this way the more land you've got you can take a spot in here. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We have to have a reason for granting a variance when you say hardship it's got to be true hardship. MRS. JAMES-If you let me do it I'll put it. . . COUNCILMAN POTENZA-We're not changing the concept we're still looking for a holding tank. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We want to make things better and obviously you do too. MRS. JAMES-See what happened was I thought I had a ninety nine year lease on this. . .we played games with that property for a year and a half about ten years ago, I thought he deeded it over to me. My mother died in December is this why it took me so long these poor gentlemen have been chasing me around trying to get me to get things done. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I'm not to sympathetic to Earl Ellsworth comments because if you can't put a septic system you can't put a holding tank. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-So we can make this subject to the Park Commission Regulations. MR. BANARO-When it was originally being prepared, I prepared an application for submission to them and in over the interim the Town had. . . COUNCILMAN MONTESI-If we can grant the variance for the holding tank and allow you the flexibility of placing that. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-As long as it's fifty feet back from the lake. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-As long as you stay away from the neighbors. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-How is that going to affect that side line? MR. TOM. . .-It looks like it will make it, I guess it will make it. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Do you want to go as far as giving them forty seven feet or forty eight feet? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I wouldn't have a problem with that as long as you stay away from the neighbors where your suppose to. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Give them a little flexibility there, but the minimum offorty seven feet. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Then we could state to meet the setbacks both ways could be the reason for that. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Any other members of the public wish to speak or ask questions, any questions from the Board, hearing none will close that public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:35 P.M. RESOLUTION APPROVING A SANITARY SEW AGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE FOR ALICE MACLEAN JAMES RESOLUTION NO. 30, 1991, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, Ms. Alice MacLean James previously filed a request for a variance from certain provisions of the Sanitary Sewage Disposal Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, such provision being more specifically that requiring there be a 50 foot separation between a septic tank (holding tank), and a stream, lake, or water course, and WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was given in the official newspaper of the Town of Queensbury and a public hearing was held in connection with the variance request on July 8, 1991, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk advises that property owners within 500 feet of the subject property have been duly notified, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, a) that due to the nature of the variance, it is felt that the variation will 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; b) the proposed tank will dramatically improve the existing conditions c) that the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and that the variance is granted as the minimum variance which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the applicant; and d) that the Local Board of Health imposes a condition upon the applicant that she must also secure the approval of the New York State Department of Health, and e) that this variance will be subject to the Lake George Park Commission wastewater regulations 6NYCRR 646-3.14 (d) Holding tanks, and f) that water saving 1.6 toilets will be installed and other water saving devices BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health grants the variance to Ms. Alice MacLean James, allowing the placement of the septic tank (holding tank) 47 feet from Lake George rather than placing it at the mandated 50 foot distance, on property situated on Pilot Knob Road, Warner Bay, Lake George, Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax Map #: Section 19,block 1, Lot 29. Duly adopted this 8th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN AS QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 31. 1991 Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns as the Queensbury Board of Health and moves back into Regular Session. Duly adopted this 8th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent:None OPEN FORUM 7:40 P.M. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Noted that he had an opportunity to talk to one of the Sheriff Investigators about the fatal accident at Dix Avenue and Queensbury Avenue. Noted that from the Boulevard to Dix Avenue there is a stretch of three blocks with no speed limit posted. Asked the Board to put together a letter to Fred Austin, that from the Boulevard to Dix Avenue it should be posted at 30 m.p.h. and from Dix Avenue to the Airport it could remain at 55 m.p.h. RESOLUTION REQUESTING LOWER SPEED LIMIT RESOLUTION NO. 381, 1991, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza: RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury requests that the County of Warren through the State of New York Department of Transportation change the speed limit on Queensbury Avenue from the Boulevard to Dix Avenue to 30 mph. Duly adopted this 8th day of July, 1991 by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Noted that the Planning Board would still like to be lead agency on a rezoning issue. Discussion held on lead agency issue concerning the Town Board and Planning Board. A final decision was made that a Special Meeting would be held on July 15th, 1991 at 6:30 p.m., subject to Planning Board approval. PLINEY TUCKER-Ward 4, Queensbury. Noted his concern about the Town going to the state level on this issue. MIKE BAIRD-Ward 4, Queensbury. Noted his concern is for the applicant in these kind of rezoning matters. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Anyone else from the public on any subject? JOAN GODDARD-Ward 4, 13 Ferris Drive, Queensbury. Representing Queensbury Forest Development. Requested the Board to put more stop signs or slow children signs in the development for safety reasons. (Presented a petition to the Board) PAUL NAYLOR, QUEENSBURY HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT-Noted police enforcement is the best way to solve this or residents taking down the license plate number and turning it in. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted he will contact the Sheriff and the State Police with a copy of the petition. PAUL NAYLOR-Noted that he will look into this matter. MRS. GODDARD-Noted that they are going to start building Phase III of their development soon, questioned the Board about the possibility of the developer cutting the road through to Sherman Avenue. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted she should present this at the public hearing of the Planning Board. PLINEY TUCKER-Ward 4, Queensbury. Questioned the Board about Hovey Pond. Asked the Board how much has been spent on this project, where it has been spent and how much more is going to be spent before it is completed. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that three years ago when they got started on this project they were looking at a potential cost of $900,000.00 if they hired an outside contractor to do the work. Noted they have been doing it in-house and hopefully the cost will be substantially lower than that. Will provide Mr. Tucker with the information. MR. TUCKER-Questioned the Board on where the money came from for this project. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted a good share of it has come from the developers, recreation fees, topsoil and the material that has come from Hovey Pond they are taking up to the landfill this is being done with very little charge. MR. TUCKER-Asked if it would be possible to put a news article in the paper covering this. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that this could be done. MR. TUCKER-Questioned the Board about inspections of septic systems for Lake George Park Commission, asked if this is being done by the Town free of charge? Questioned the Board about the man that was hired to do this job, how is he going to be paid? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that they are doing the inspections for existing situations for free. If someone has to replace something or upgrade something then the normal fee would be charged. Noted that they did have someone who was with the Town before comeback, he was on an extended medical leave who is doing this now and doing other inspections with the building department. MR. TUCKER-Questioned the Board on how long this process is going to take? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted the first time through the lake should take 2 to 2 1/2 summers only working from spring to mid fall on this. MR. TUCKER-Noted that the employees that were hired from Warren County are doing an excellent job on cleaning up the roads in Ward 4. PAUL NAYLOR, HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT-Noted that Ward 1,2, and 3 paving are done. MRS. GODDARD-Asked when the roads in Queensbury Forest will be repaved? MR. NAYLOR-Noted possibly next year. CAROL PULVER-Asked for a list of roads that are going to be repaved in Ward 4. PAUL NAYLOR-Noted he will provide her with a list of roads. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Made a recommendation that he would like the Town Board to consider renaming the Queensbury Activities Center after Fran Walters. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Made a recommendation to the Town Board to consider renaming the driveway to the Queensbury Activities Center Walter Drive in memory of former Supervisor Fran Walters. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted they will give this some thought. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Noted the possibility of setting salaries for Town elected officials. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Recommended establishing a local law that would establish salaries for the elected officials for two years. CAROL PULVER-Made a recommendation about the possibility for the Board to appoint a Citizens Commission to establish the salaries for the elected officials. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted they couldn't set the salaries, but make recommendations. Noted he will check the law and also find out what it would cost to have a consultant come in. Read letter from Queen Victoria's Grant requesting no parking signs for Queen Victoria's Grant and for a reduction of the speed limit from 30 m.p.h. to 20 m.p.h. and for the Sheriff Department to enforce the parking. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Asked for recommendation of Highway Superintendent. PAUL NAYLOR-Recommended that the Board make a request to the state on speed limit request. Noted that the "no parking" signs would have to be placed every 100 feet. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Read memo from Dog Control Officer requesting to transfer a defected tranquilizer gun to the Glens Falls Dog Control Officer. Board agreed to transfer gun. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DISPOSAL OF TRANQUILIZER GUN RESOLUTION NO. 382, 1991, Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, the Dog Control Officer for the Town of Queensbury has requested permission to transfer one defective 1973 C02 operated projector tranquilizer gun serial number R855 from the Queensbury inventory to the City of Glens Falls Animal Control Officer inventory, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of transferring said tranquilizer gun, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby grants permission to the Dog Control Officer to transfer said tranquilizer gun to the City of Glens Falls Animal Control Officer inventory and have the alkaloids associated with this equipment received and burned at the Glens Falls Animal Hospital. Duly adopted this 8th day of July, 1991 by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None OPEN FORUM CLOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING MINUTES RESOLUTION NO. 383, 1991 Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the minutes of May 13th, 1991 and June 3rd, 1991. Duly adopted this 8th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUPERVISOR TO SIGN AGREEMENT BETWEEN RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES AND TOWN OF QUEENSBURY CONCERNING SEQRA REVIEW - GREAT ESCAPE ROLLER COASTER RESOLUTION NO. 384, 1991, Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: WHEREAS, an agreement between the Town of Queensbury and Richard E. Jones Associates, concerning the SEQRA review of the roller coaster proposal at the Great Escape, has been prepared, and WHEREAS, the aforesaid agreement has been reviewed and approved, in form, by the Town Attorney, and is presented to this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves of the aforesaid agreement and hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute said agreement, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that payment for services rendered by Richard E. Jones Associates shall be paid for from the non-reimbursable engineering account. Duly adopted this 8th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUPERVISOR TO SIGN AMENDED AGREEMENT WITH BUSINESS AUTOMATION SERVICES INe. RESOLUTION NO. 385, 1991, Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: WHEREAS, pursuant to Town Board Resolution No. 369, 1991, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury authorized an agreement between Business Automation Services Inc. and the Town of Queensbury subject to its final approval, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves of the amended agreement presented at this meeting and hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the agreement on behalf of the Town of Queensbury and take such other and further steps as may be necessary to implement the terms of the agreement, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the cost of the agreement shall be paid for from the computer software/hardware account. Duly adopted this 8th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT RESOLUTION NO. 386, 1991, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, Paul H. Naylor, Highway Superintendent, has recommended installation of a dry well and leach area on property owned by Frances Sullivan and Ann R. Sullivan, in order to facilitate surface water run-off from Glen Lake Road, and WHEREAS, in order to install the aforementioned items, it was necessary for the Town to enter into a certain Drainage Easement with the aforementioned owners upon whose property the items are to be located, and WHEREAS, the form of said Drainage Easement has been reviewed and approved by Karla M. Corpus, Deputy Town Attorney of the Town of Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said Drainage Easement is hereby accepted and approved and that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized to execute, sign and affix the Town seal to any and all documents necessary to complete the transaction, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause said easement to be recorded in the Warren County Clerk's Office, after which it shall be filed and maintained in the office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 8th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, CHAPTER 179 THEREOF, ENTITLED "ZONING" RESOLUTION NO. 387, 1991, Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury previously adopted Resolution No. 357, 1991, entitled "Resolution to Set Public Hearing and to Designate the Town as Lead Agency Regarding Proposed Amendment to the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179 Thereof Entitled 'Zoning"', and WHEREAS, the Town Board is desirous of changing the date of the public hearing, and acknowledges that the Town Attorney's Office has already begun to notify appropriate agencies, individuals and municipalities of the change of the hearing date, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby changes the date of the public hearing, at which time all parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, upon and in reference to the proposed amendment, supplement, change and/or modification to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance as codified and a part of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179, thereof entitled "Zoning" to July 29, 1991, at 6:30 p.m., in the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, New York, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed to give 10 days notice of said public hearing by publishing a notice in a form to be approved by the Town Attorney for purposes of publication in an official newspaper of the Town and by posting on the Town Bulletin Board outside the Clerk's Office said notice, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Attorney's Office is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of said change of the public hearing date to all of those communities, agencies, and other entities that it was directed to notify, pursuant to Resolution NO. 357, 1991, of the proposed amendment, supplement, change and/or modification to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance as codified and a part of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179, thereof entitled "Zoning", pursuant to Resolution NO. 357, 1991, and any actions already taken by the Town Attorney's Office to so notify any agency, municipality or interested person of said change of hearing date are hereby ratified. Duly adopted this 8th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT OF BIDS FOR PURCHASE OF DUCTILE IRON PIPE, CAST/DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS, VALVE BOXES, COPPER TUBING, BRASS SERVICE CONNECTION MATERIALS & HYDRANT REPAIR PARTS RESOLUTION NO. 388, 1991 Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of purchasing Ductile Iron Pipe, Cast/Ductile Iron Fittings, Valve Boxes, Copper Tubing, Brass Service Connection Materials & Hydrant Repair Parts, which items are more specifically identified in the proposed bid documents and specifications submitted to this meeting, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 103 of the General Municipal Law, it is necessary to advertise for bids and award the said proposed contract to the lowest responsible bidder meeting New York State Statutory requirements, and the requirements set forth in the bid documents presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that an advertisement for bids for the said Ductile Iron Pipe, Cast/Ductile Iron Fittings, Valve Boxes, Copper Tubing, Brass Service Connection Materials & Hydrant Repair Parts be published in the official newspaper for the Town of Queensbury and that such advertisement indicate that bids will be received at the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury at any time until, but not later than July 29th, 1991, at 2:00 p.m., and that the bids will be publicly opened and read at 2:05 p.m. by the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, and such advertisement shall indicate that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall have the right, at its discretion, to reject all bids and re-advertise for new bids as provided by the laws of the State of New York, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that Miss Darleen Dougher, Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, is hereby authorized to open all bids received at the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, at 2:05 p.m., July 29, 1991, read the same aloud and make record of the same as is customarily done, and present the bids to the next regular or special meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 8th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent:None RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS RESOLUTION NO. 389, 1991, Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos: WHEREAS, certain departments have requested transfers to funds, and WHEREAS, said requests have been approved by the Town of Queensbury Accounting Office and the Chief Fiscal Officer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the funds be transferred as listed below: WATER AND WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT FROM TO AMOUNT 40 8340 4240 4083204500 $ 5,000.00 (Repair & Replacement (Fuel Oil) Parts) 408310 4477 408310 4190 1,000.00 (Administrative (Refunds) Contractual) DOG CONTROL FROM TO AMOUNT 013510 4400 013510 4010 50.00 (Misc. Contractual) (Office Supply) ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FROM TO AMOUNT 01 14204402 01 1420441 5,000.00 (Attorney, Contractual) (Attorney, Labor) Duly adopted this 8th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AUDIT RESOLUTION NO. 390, 1991 Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: RESOLVED, that the Audit of Bills appearing on Abstract July 8th, 1991 and numbering 01-1010-4400- 91304300 through 91-8160-4780-91319000 and totaling $409,296.23 is hereby approved. Duly adopted this 8th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent:None On motion, the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK TOWN OF QUEENSBURY