Loading...
1991-12-02 TOWN BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 2, 1991 7:00 p.m. MTG# 59 RES. 639 - 655 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN BORGOS-SUPERVISOR GEORGE KUROSAKA-COUNCILMAN MARILYN POTENZA-COUNCILMAN RONALD MONTESI -COUNCILMAN BETTY MONAHAN-COUNCILMAN TOWN ATTORNEY PAUL DUSEK TOWN OFFICIALS Paul Naylor, Rick Missita, Kathleen Kathe, Tom Flaherty, Ralph VanDusen PRESS: Channel 8, G.F. Post Star PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA RESOLUTION CALLING FOR BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 639, 1991, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for it's adoption, seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza. RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and enter as the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 2nd day of December, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH PUBLIC HEARING - SEWER VARIANCE - MS. WENDY JEAN INGLEE NOTICE SHOWN 7:01 p.m. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-At this time we'd like to hear from anyone who wishes to speak for or against or ask questions about this particular sewer variance. Please step forward, state your name and address and then let us know what you'd like to say. Do you have anything additional that you would like to add to this? MS. INGLEE-Additional, no. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Okay. The Town Board have any questions? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-What do we have from the adjoining property owners, for distances? Do we have a map that shows the adjoining property? SUPERVISOR BORGOS- There is a map. TOWN CLERK DOUGHER-There's one attached here. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-It should be attached to each one of these. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-I think you maybe looking at the wrong thing Steve. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes you are Steve. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-You're looking at the wrong one. That's for Seage. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I'm sorry. Do you have a copy of your map with you? COUNCILMAN POTENZA-She has a copy I think, Wendy. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Could Mrs. Monahan see that for a minute please? TOWN CLERK DOUGHER-Here Betty, I've got it. Steve, do you want this letter read now from Dave Hatin? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Ifyou would please? I didn't know you had one. TOWN CLERK DOUGHER-Members of the Town Board, this letter is in reference to the Inglee Septic Variance before you. The applicant is requesting a 6 foot variance from the neighboring property line in order to put in a conforming system. When this was brought to the attention of this department, the septic system had failed and collapsed and therefore this dwelling had no septic system. I allowed the applicant to install a septic tank and conforming leach pit with the stipulation that if the Board would not grant the variance, they would have to move the tank to the appropriate location. This was taken so that the applicant could be provided with a septic system and not create a health hazard to neighborhood nor the dwelling. Again, the only variance this applicant is applying for is a separation from the property line of six foot versus the required ten feet. No other variances are necessary or required. I trust this will answer any concerns that you may have, if not please do not hesitate to contact me. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Steve, what we don't have on any of this information is the adjoining, the wells of the adjoining neighbors. MS. INGLEE-There are no wells Mamma. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-It's public municipal system, water system. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-It's all public water. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Okay. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- This was an existing system that failed and you simply replaced it. It's recommended by Director of Building and Code Enforcement that we go ahead and approve this. Any other questions or comments from the Board? Hearing not, I'll call this hearing closed. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING A SANITARY SEW AGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE FOR WENDY JEAN INGLEE RESOLUTION NO.: 44,1991 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Marilyn Potenza WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. George Kurosaka WHEREAS, Ms. Wendy Jean Inglee 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 that there be a 10 foot separation between the septic tank and the property line, 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 December 2, 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) 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 c) 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 BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health grants the variance to Ms. Wendy Jean Inglee, allowing the placement of the septic tank 6' from the property line, rather than placing it at the mandated 10' distance, on property situated on Boss Road, Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax Map #: Section 142, Block 1, Lot 15. Duly adopted this 2nd day of December, 1991, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE OF SANITARY SEW AGE DISPOSAL ORDINANCE FOR ERIC SAGE RESOLUTION NO.: 45,1991 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. George Kurosaka WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is, by operation of Law, the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury and, as such, is authorized under Section 5.035 of the Sanitary Sewage Disposal Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury to issue variances to such Ordinance, and WHEREAS, Mr. Eric Sage has applied to the Local Board of Health of the Town of Queensbury for two variances from certain standards of the Sewage Disposal Ordinance set forth in Section 3.050-5, such standards providing as follows: APPENDIX A TABLE I - HORIZONTAL SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM WASTEWATER SOURCES TO STREAM WELL OR LAKE OR WASTEWATER SUCTION WATER PROPERTY LAKE GEORGE SOURCES LINE (a) COURSE(c) DWELLING LINE AND TRIBS. Seepage Pit 150' 100' and WHEREAS, Mr. Sage has indicated a desire to place the seepage pit 95' from his neighbor's well, rather than placing it at the mandated 150' distance, and 90' from Lake Sunnyside, rather than placing it at the mandated 100' distance, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on December 16th 1991, at 7:00 p.m., at the Queensbury Activities Center, (reasonably accessible to persons with mobility impairment) 531 Bay Road, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, to consider the application for two variances of Mr. Eric Sage to place the seepage pit 95' from his neighbor's well, rather than placing it at the mandated 150' distance, and 90' from Lake Sunnyside, rather than placing it at the mandated 100' distance, on property situated on Sunnyside North, Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax Map No.: Section 50, Block 1, Lots 80 and 47, and, at that time, all persons interested in the subject thereof will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury be and is hereby directed and authorized, when in receipt of a list of neighbors within 500 feet of the subject property, to publish and provide Notice of said Public Hearing as may be required by law, and authorized to mail copies of said Public Hearing Notice to the adjoining neighbors. Duly adopted this 2nd day of December, 1991, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES : None ABSENT: None COUNCILMAN MONAHAN, noted the variance request of 95 feet from the neighbor's well and the variance request of 90 feet from Lake Sunnyside. Questioned whether the Town Engineer should be reviewing these because of the close proximity with the Lake and the small size of lots that are involved. Questioned whether the neighbors will be notified? TOWN CLERK DOUGHER noted that all the neighbors within 500 feet will be notified. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR REGULAR SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 46, 1991, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for it's adoption, seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza. RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns and enter Regular Session of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 2nd day of December, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD PUBLIC HEARING - TWICWOOD AREA, SITING OF COMMUNITY RESIDENTS NOTICE SHOWN 7:10 p.m. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The format for this public hearing will be the same as for all those that we run. We ask that any individual wishing to speak for or against or ask questions about this particular project, raise your hand, be recognized please and step forward to the microphone, state your name and address. If you are representing someone else, such as if you were an attorney representing a group, please state your name and who your are representing. Then feel free to say anything that you would like to. We certainly would recommend and hope that you will to the best that you can to keep the discussion relatively short. There are relatively few points that you can speak about in this particular situation. We would not be expecting to take any formal action this evening. It's a public hearing, we prefer not to get into any major debates but certainly if you have questions, we'll try to get the answers for you. I would ask that everyone be permitted to speak once before anyone speaks for a second time. You can come up and have multiple comments or questions if you'd like, that's fine. But once you've taken your seat, we ask that everyone be allowed to speak once before you come to the floor again. At this point, we'll open this hearing and ask you raise your hand please and let's get started. SHARON GETTMAN, 40 Twicwood-President of the Twicwood Homeowners Association and I would like to make the following comments and have them go into record. Tonight is the public hearing for the proposed residential site by the Wilton Developmental Center at 7 Maplewood. Although the Town Board adopted at it's November 18th meeting, the resolution to form an alternate site committee and although as a result of the resolution, a 30 day extension may be given, we have received no notification in writing of that extension and therefore must proceed as if our deadline is December 10th. The people of Queensbury, Twicwood in particular have received some bad press in the past 2 weeks. We are not opposed to the concept of developmentally disabled in neighborhoods. We are opposed however to the process by which sites are chosen, the attitude of the State, lack of communication, the wild abandon in spending our tax dollars and lastly, in making those living in the chosen neighbors look like bigots and ogres because we dare voice our thoughts regarding site location. Since November 8th when we learned of the proposed site at 7 Maplewood, a few positive actions have taken place as a result of the Town working with the people. That we applaud. All of us, including those involved with Owen Avenue and McCormack Drive, hope these positive actions continue. Seven Maplewood has several deficiencies and is not a good site to house 8 severely and profoundly handicapped people. Among those deficiencies is inadequate parking. The driveway is equipped to handle 4 vehicles, beyond that, you have to park in the road. That will be a problem, particularly in the Winter. There are no sidewalks and no street lights. The UPS man that delivers in our neighborhood told me a week ago he hates to come into after dark because it is so dark and you can not see where you are going or what you are doing. There is, at times, inadequate water pressure. This could present a real problem if there is ever a fire. The inadequate septic system, the original septic was not adequate for 6 people, we're now talking about a minimum of 10 around the clock The tank and fields have not been verified and the site study looks to have 10 feet or less as the required set back which could eventually cause problems for the neighbor to the west of the site. We're also concerned about increase traffic in the neighborhood. We're sure these people will have visitors, we've already been told there will be therapist, etcetera, etcetera. The staff changing and could we maybe expect an S.S. Pierce or Sysco truck delivering groceries, such as that. The increase noise levels, again with the shift changes. We have a hill that is difficult in winter. There are 2 or 3 times during the winter that several of us leave our vehicles at the bottom of the hill because we can not negotiate the slippery hill and the school bus does not come up that hill either. There are narrow side set backs. I think it's 11 feet on one side, 14 on the other. This could be a problem with large trucks perhaps having to get into the backyard to do certain work Additional site lighting and exterior exit stair to the ground level will definitely alter the character of the house and the character of the neighborhood. As I've said before, you can come into Twicwood, you will not see another home with an exterior stairway. The property has a swimming pool that could be a hazard to those living there. There are other reasons and concerns that we feel 7 Maplewood is not a good site. Miss Betsy Calvert told us that 15,000 dollars would be spent on renovations. We have received an estimate of 16,650 dollars for the work to be performed as itemized by the feasibility study. There's an additional 3 to 4,000 minimum to fill the pool or take out the pool if they chose to do that. We are prepared to offer the Board alternate sites. However this is not an easy task The certificate of occupancy shows the house as a 3 bedroom not a 5 bedroom as the feasibility study states. The certificate of occupancy states one 1,000 gallon septic and disposal pit. The feasibility study shows two 1,000 gallon tanks and tile fields and again I mention the fields seem to be very, very, very close to the side set back, side lines. There are no plans available regarding the pool. To find a comparable or superior site, are we to go by the certificate of occupancy or are we to go by the feasibility study which states the site plan was prepared with minimal site information therefore the information shown as to location of building and other improvements, is guess work We will be offering alternate sites and we request the Board formally and in writing, give these alternate sites to Wilton before our deadline of December 10th. We also wish to point out that law does not limit you to offering one alternate site therefore we request the Board offer several to 7 Maplewood. In closing I'd like to thank you for your time. I'd like to thank you for scheduling the public hearing and I thank you for working with the community. Thanks. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you very much. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Sharon, a question please. You said the CO says 3 bedrooms, that the feasibility study says 5. MS. GETTMAN-Yes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Does anyone on your committee know that house well enough to explain the difference? MS. GETTMAN-I don't know but I'll find out. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I was wondering if that means, you know that there looking at the garage for 2 more bedrooms, was the purpose of my question. MS. GETTMAN-Could be. I obviously have not been in the house in recent years. I understand that it still can be shown. I don't know. That is another problem to find a comparable site. All we are using is the multiple listing book I mean we have not gone into any alternate site and looked at it. Do, can we do that? I don't know. I obviously am not going, I mean, I don't know. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think it would matter how cooperative your real estate agents around here are with you. I've also noticed that there are many homes around Town that aren't listed because they are offered by the occupant or by the owner. MS. GETTMAN-Yes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That is another possibility. I saw one or two that I thought could be a very good possibilities. MS. GETTMAN-The possibility also exists that we could offer 10 sites and 6 of them have already been rejected. I feel that the list that we received is not a complete list. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Oh. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Sharon, what I'd like to do before we get too far into the comment stage is try to address a couple of those questions that you've raised and I see Mr. Donahue here. Specifically what I wanted to ask Mr. Donahue was, we have the committee formed, you have said on occasion that what you'd like to do first and for most is meet with this committee, very specifically at Wilton. MR. DONAHUE-Anywhere. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Oh alright but meet with them and I think what's important is that hopefully at that first meeting what would happen would be, there would be an exchange of ideas and perhaps an exchange of some of the alternative sites that you've already looked at and if our committee has already and I know your neighborhood has, a list of them, you very quickly can eliminate some of those, simply at that first meeting and know where you are going for the balance of the time allotted to us. I would hope that that's ... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Let me interrupt for a minute. It may make more sense because there will probably be questions. Mr. Donahue would you mind moving up to the front here so that you can respond fairly quickly and we can get you on the microphone. That's my biggest concern, this is a formal record. Mrs. Gettman, is there anything else that you wish to add? I didn't mean to chase you away. MS. GETTMAN-Well the only thing that I would like to add is, I keep thinking about this and to me, the real, win, win situation is to build and I think there is probably a couple of builders in Town who would consider that. Not only would it help the people who live here, the people Mr. Donahue wants to take care of, we would maybe put a few people to work for a short period of time which would be great. I really think if Wilton is not scheduled to close now until March 94, several places could be built between now and then and I really think that's the win, win situation. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. Mr. Donahue, did you wish to address any of the comments that came up earlier? MR. DONAHUE-If! can remember the comments but I think one questions was, the extension of time. We've announced but we haven't formally put in writing but certainly we would announce it publicly so it is the 30 days from the time the committee was formed. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Tonight, we hope to name the final 2 members of that committee. Could we consider tonight the beginning of the 30 days? MR. DONAHUE-We certainly can, that's no problem at all. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We'll clarify that. MR. DONAHUE-I think the, second question, second issue? COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Alternate houses. MR. DONAHUE-Well I think you answered the questions specifically and you're absolutely right. We said we would meet immediately anywhere, anywhere anybody wanted to meet, tomorrow if you want, the day after if you want. Whenever it's convenient, day or night and we would go over those issues and identify exactly what we're talking about. The feasibility study, I think, spells out exactly where the bedrooms are, it's actually designed out so and we would go over that, so that's not a problem. As far as construction, we would entertain looking at that but again, that's not my decision and it's certainly something we would have to work with. But my understanding of the past has been that construction of that nature would have to come from the Town. I'm not sure it would come from an individual because of the commitments that have to be made. So and not from our stand point but from somebody else's stand point, there's no way we can guarantee to an individual that we'll buy a home. That is not necessarily true with Town however, government to government. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That's something we'll have to ask our Attorney to check on, nothing to do tonight, later. TOM MCDONOUGH-I took a little time out about a week ago to check your Town records under the freedom of information act, I obtained copies of the original plans and specs on this particular house and the building permit that was issued pursuant to those plans and the certificate of occupancy that was granted for the use of this premises. The building permit based upon the plan and the certificate, demonstrates that a CO was given for a 3 bedroom residence with a den, kitchen, family room, dining room and that was it. Apparently in the plans as demonstrated there was a loft for storage in those plans over the garage. No where did I find any type of a subsequent application for a building permit that would permit the structure to be anything other than a 3 bedroom residence. A matter of fact there were no other permits obtained even with respect to the swimming pool and it would appear from the plans that were submitted with respect to the septic that there was a tank and a holding field, not even a leaching field as I see it in the specs which at this point and time, I think should be leaching somewhere around the swimming pool. I point that out only as to the legality of the residence even being listed as anything more than a 3 bedroom residence. There is nothing in the records which demonstrates that any change in plans was ever requested. With that sitting out there as the criteria, I submit that the site selection committee is going to have some kind of difficulty establishing the criteria as to what they're looking for if we have had an acceptable piece of property that's only a legal 3 bedroom residence, what and they're supposed to get a comparable to that. They have a difficult task in front of them because right now we're talking about a structure that's going from 3 to 4 to 5 bedroom which is only a 3 bedroom structure and there's supposed to go out and look for a comparable, it won't exist. It can't exist it. So far as the structure is concerned, I question whether or not that's the type of structure that Wilton itself is looking for. Again, as a resident of the neighborhood, the object of the Wilton Developmental group is fine. The piece of property we have in question as indicated by Sharon Gettman, the side set backs on one side I think is 11 feet and the other side is 14 feet and there's supposed to be adequate room on the rest of the property for use for the purpose for which Wilton would like to intend it to be. The area is inadequate, space wise. On the front set back they're right practically on the road. To have sufficient parking just for those who use it on a daily basis, you would have to blacktop pretty much the front lawn. I've gone around to various numbers of structures that are being used for similar purposes, they all have parking spaces for at least 8 to 12 vehicles. There isn't enough room on the front of this lawn to do that, even if you blacktop the whole lawn. In addition to that, each one of the residences I've looked at, use large dumpsters. The only locality you can place a dumpster on this particular piece of property, is on the front lawn. There is no other place to put it. Absolutely no place for a truck to come in and pick it up. You can't put it in the back, you've got to put it right in a highly visible area. These structures are intended to blend into the neighborhood and not change the character of the neighborhood. If this is done to this one structure, it's going to change the character and the appearance of the neighborhood to that extent and I point that only informationally with respect to 7 Maplewood. Going over the sites that have been considered to be selected, I would suggest to the committee that they look at each one of these sites that have been previously been selected as being a site to be looked at to see what was looked at and what the criteria was with respect to each one of those sites. Because it will have to be subjective in light of the criteria that was used to select this particular site because the only way they could have selected this as a 4 to 5 bedroom structure would have to be convert a loft in a garage to a bedroom and a convert a den to a bedroom. That's the limited point of information I wanted to submit tonight to you folks. If anybody has any questions about it, I would be happy to talk to them. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you. Would you give this to Darleen, that's official record? Who would like to be next? Anyone else wish to speak? CHARLES MCNULTY, 14 Twicwood Lane-Primarily I would like to reiterate some things, points that have been made before but I think they are very important. As everyone has said, we're not against the type of people that would be coming into this place but the problem is the site and the number that are being tried to put into it. For instance, on the point of the septic system, it's abundantly clear that a family of 6 had been in there and had problems with the septic system and presumably had some work done with it. Now as anybody is familiar with septic systems knows that when the septic system fails, it's not the hardware in it that fails, it's not the pipes, it's not the tank, it's the soil. The soil gets plugged up. So you can't just go in and pull the pipes out that are there and put new pipes in where those were and use the whole area. You've got to have a new place in that yard to put a drainage field and from what it sounds like, there's a real question whether there is enough new fresh soil available on that piece of property that will accommodate a septic system that would handle the, probably 10 to 12 people that would be using it with 8 residents and however many staff they might have there. Second point was the parking. The driveway will hold 4 cars. They have said that they're going to have a van there, so it means 3 additional cars. There's times that they've said they will have 3 staff people there so that fills the driveway. Then when you have visiting technicians or therapists or whatever come, they're going to have to park in the street. I think you could do a comedy act on the shuffle that would occur when the new shift of staff comes in because if you don't want to leave these people alone, then when the new staff comes, they've got to park in the street, they've got to go in and let the old staff go out and move their cars out of the driveway but then the old staff has to go back in and cover while the new staff comes back out and moves their cars into the driveway. That result is, you are going to have to blacktop the front yard. The practical part of it is you're going to have to have space for 8 or 10 cars. They're talking about using a van to transport these people in and out. The points have been made, that access to this neighborhood is 2 hills. On bad winter days, you cannot get up those hills. Anybody that has driven a regular van knows that those things are worse than an empty pickup truck as far as traction goes. The wheels are way in the back end and you can get stuck on top of level wet grass with them. It just does not seem like a sensible place to put this kind of a neighborhood home, at least for the quantity of people that they are talking about putting in there. So whether or not somebody comes up with a better alternative, I think the decision making process that was gone through to select this place is faulty and should be re-examined. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you. Any other comments? Mr. Donahue, do you wish to make any statements? JOHN MCCORMACK-I'm one of the committee members of the Courthouse Estates. I would like to address the, what I feel and what our development feels the real issue is here. The issue is not whether, even though the concerns of the Twicwood people are parking facilities, whether the site is suitable or not, whether or not there's going to be a dumpster, I think the real issue here that we all as residents of the Town of Queensbury, is the bottom line. The bottom line here is the State is over spending New York State tax dollars on these 3 homes when in fact there are other alternative, less expensive, more modified alternatives. When we had our public meeting last week, the Courthouse residents got up and spoke their opinion of what they thought. I addressed at that time an option to the State and to all of us as residents and again taxpayers, to create the same scenario that we're all looking for and I don't believe there's anyone here that disagrees with the fact that, if in fact the State 20 years ago stated that they would like to integrate these people into our neighborhoods, I don't think there's anyone here that opposes that issue. I think the real bottom line is what they are going to spend to do this. Are we going to create a heavier deficit with the State by buying in the most expensive areas of the Town of Queensbury or can we work with the State and find affordable housing. That seems to be the issue throughout America today. If we can't find affordable housing, I don't know who can. We have a better opportunity living in our own neighborhoods to know, how to buy, how to purchase better than perhaps the State would. I say to this Board and to the rest of the residents of the Town of, to the community of Twicwood, if we were together, which I believe we are here tonight as a committee, a total committee, give us the opportunity to find that alternative for the State and save a few tax dollars. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you. Anyone else? Yes sir, Mr. Fitzgerald? NEIL FITZGERALD-I'd just like to ask Mr. Donahue and I guess kind of address the subject that you just brought up Mr. McCormack and I'm wondering whether there are similar places going in Westchester County, Pennfield, outside of Rochester. I guess what I'm trying to tell you is that whether we argue about 180,000 dollars or whether we argue about 125,000 dollars, if in Westchester they're going to put a building up and it's going to be 480,000 dollars, you know, we're whistling in the wind. I think the other point along that line would be is it probably, my guess would be that the facilities that we house people in are probably a relatively small portion of the total cost of taking care of these people. The people themselves create an expense for the things that they have to have done for them and then the staff that has to take care of thern. So I don't even know what those numbers are but just off the top of my head I would think that they were substantially more than the housing. So I don't know where to go with it other than just to make, I wanted to make these points because I felt that this was probably the case and this is probably the case allover the State. It just happens to be the numbers here in Queensbury are one thing, the numbers in Westchester County are quite another and you name the next place and you'll find different numbers there too, I'm sure. Probably none of them are going to be very cheap. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you. Anyone else? I see no other hands, Ron? COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Just one other question or one other comment and perhaps some in the room were aware of it. The site committee or the selection committee that is going to propose an alternative site or sites, and I guess I would have to assume now, Mr. Donahue that although Twicwood or Maplewood and Owen and McCormack were, the letters were addressed to the Town Board at different dates, they are all going to begin, let's say, tonight or tomorrow, so that the alternative sites that are going to be proposed to your group, are all in sequence now. There all, you know if we have 3 sites that you selected, we have to provide you with 3 alternative sites if that's what this committee wants to do. I guess I'm addressing that, that's what it is now. MR. DONAHUE-Yes, I think that's our agreement. That was the agreement we had. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Okay, we're all on sequence now, they're not a week apart. MR. DONAHUE-Yes and very frankly if you remember, I said 30 days is not handfast, if you need a few extra days, alright, we're not going to argue about that. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Right and the other thing that everyone on that committee must understand and the public also is that when this committee proposes an alternative site to the Town Board and we turn that over to Mr. Donahue's group, ifhe should select, if his group should select one of those alternative sites, the process ends there. That new neighborhood that you've just selected to put the home in, doesn't have the pleasure or the convenience of a public hearing or any of the stuff that were going through tonight. You say that may be harsh and I questioned it too but as Mr. Donahue points out, somewhere, somehow, the process has to end, you know and if it didn't end there then you proposed another alternative site. So this is it. Whatever site is proposed and if accepted, than that will be the site and there will be no more public hearings on it. Just so you know that I think some folks thought that I was kidding when I said that this is not an easy committee to be on because your going to be looked upon that your transferring the responsibility to another neighborhood. Even though in some cases your doing it because of all of the reasons that we have set forth tonight. There's lack of parking and lack of septic, etcetera, etcetera but there is a perception out there that that's what you'll be doing. I just needed that to be part of the record so we all know where were coming from that this alternative site if accepted will be the site. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Would you confirm that that is the case, Mr. Donahue? MR. DONAHUE-Yes, that's correct. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Ron, it would be my hope that this selection committee when they pick an alternative site would also canvas the neighborhood that that site is going to be in for their reaction to that. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-That will take an infinite amount courage. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well... COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-I'm quite certain it will cause that's what they're complaining about, wouldn't do that to somebody else. MR. MCDONOUGH, 28 Twicwood Lane-Ron, you picked up on a point. You're saying, we're talking about 3 separate site. Let's assume your committee comes up with a suggestion that was brought up earlier and had been discussed at other meetings, that you select a site that actually the Town would agree to get involved with on construction, does it have to be 3 sites or can it be a single site for the same purpose for the same number? We keep talking about 3, the possibility is that you might come up with the end result that accommodate 20 or more, which is what the 3 sites are proposed to accommodate at this particular time. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-You've got them in an institution then instead ofa house. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Let's ask the man with the answer. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-I think that's your answer. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Mr. Donahue would you address that please? MR. DONAHUE-The answer is 3 sites. Three sites are three sites, other wise you're right back where we started, right, back to institutions. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you. MR. MCDONOUGH-That's the point I wanted clarified so that does away with the objective that has been discussed earlier as in construction. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-You have more near a family than an institution. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Unless you built 3 different places. MR. DONAHUE-The other point I think has to be made is that each site has to be defined. This is a replacement for this site and this is a replacement for this site, because there's no way to sort that out. MR. MCDONOUGH-Well that brings it back to my original point with respect to 7 Maplewood. We have a criteria that was established by your group as being 4 to 5 bedroom residence, the structure... MR. DONAHUE-Let me just clarify that so, I think if you look at the feasibility study which I believe you have right here, somewhere, it should be here tonight, it spells out exactly what we have which I believe you just said it, it's 3 bedrooms and a den. Is that correct? ATTORNEY DUSEK-I... MR. DONAHUE-I think that's in there and that would be the substitute for that. I mean a comparable house is a comparable house. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Okay, we're dealing with, just so I understand now too, I was under the impression that 7 Maplewood would be the home for 8 patients, 8 people. MR. DONAHUE-Eight people. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-That means 4 bedrooms. MR. DONAHUE-Yes, I think ... COUNCILMAN POTENZA-You've got 3 bedrooms and the flexibility ofa den to be made into a fourth bedroom. MR. DONAHUE-Of a den, I believe was made into a bedroom, that's correct. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Okay, alright, so we're really looking for a 4 bedroom. MR. DONAHUE-I think that's defined. That's my point, it's in the feasibility study, it's in there. MR. MCDONOUGH-My point has been clarified, thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you. Anyone else? MR. MCDONOUGH-Excuse me, it was just brought to my attention as so far as the feasibility study and it does say, 5 bedrooms, not a 3 bedroom. Now coming back to that same issue, are we looking for a 5 bedroom or a 3 bedroom? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mr. McDonough, I think what Mr. Donahue is referring to is what Mr. Dusek has got in his hands which is not that single sheet that they gave us the night of the meeting but it's a document that's probably got 6 or 8, 9 pages in. MR. DONAHUE-That's correct. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Where it defines things with more detail. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Okay, thank you. We'll take you in just a minute, okay, it will be your second time. This gentleman is first, please write down your question or save it and we'll get right back to you. HANS HANK-I'm a resident on Twicwood Lane. A few points and a few questions that I would like to raise. One of them being that the Town Board I'm sure realizes if these 3 locations or 3 other locations are chosen, there is a certain tax revenue laws, cause this would be considered State property and non taxable. Am I correct there? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I believe that's correct, with the exception of special districts. MR. HANK-Okay. The other point is that you know the area where I live in, so I'm not directly involved in terms of neighborhood proximity, we have quite a few people that are very close to this so far chosen location and there might be an economic hardship involved for these parties. This is of real concern to me because they are being deprived of whatever they have worked for in their life in terms of equity. I know some people are retired and might have to consider the equity in their homes as being the only security they have and this has to come out in the opening. I read with some concern all the applauding statements from various individuals, individuals that really do not try to put themselves and place themselves in the position of these individuals that are being effected and that should be a concern to all of us. Again, I would like to support the statements that were made by Mrs. Gettman and others relating to the win, win situation. We should consider locations in a political sense that would not effect any so called neighborhoods but still place these homes in an environment that is close to what the State requires. I remember 20, just about 20 years ago when the Wilton facility was dedicated, that they were talking about a facility that we would expect in the 90's and we're here. All of a sudden the facility in Wilton is no good any more. I also do question as others have, the economic feasibility in terms of competing with the renovation costs of 26 million dollars for the Wilton against the cost of establishing these homes and operating thern. We have never really been given detailed comparisons and they should be made. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you. Anyone else? Mrs. Gettman, did you want to come back again? COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Wait a minute, the lady has spoken yet there. Steve, there's a lady sitting in the isle there that has spoken yet. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Welllet's, I didn't see her hand. MS. GETTMAN-The only thing that we wish to point out is, we have taken this from the feasibility study that was sent and it does state 5 bedrooms, 2 and 3/4 bath, ranch style home and I have said before, there's no way I would consider that a ranch. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you. Anyone else? Yes mam, name and address please. PAT LEONARD, 35 Twicwood-I'm concerned about the site requirements in this, Sharon just read, it says 5 bedrooms. If you go back further and you look at the plans, it shows them using 4 bedrooms, it doesn't show 5 bedrooms, one of those bedrooms is on the second floor. Also, I'm concerned about changing the exterior of the home because those are, I believe you call them awning type windows and they would, yea, they just fold out, and it says they would have to be changed. It's just that I feel that the residents of Queensbury are working with minimal facts, we really don't have the accurate information. I know I'm not part of the committee but I think that Wilton owes that to the Town of Queensbury, that we have accurate facts and for all of the site developments. This one isn't accurate. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I would think that that would be one of the things that the committee would take a look at very, very quickly. MR. DONAHUE-That was the approach that we had taken, that we would work very closely with the Committee to do that. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Mr. Brandt and I met with Mr. Donahue at Wilton and we went through this concept and Wilton is extremely anxious to work with the committee as representatives of the community and of course the committee would then just make a recommendation to the Town Board to take whatever action is appropriate. But Wilton I believe will answer any questions, do anything possible and I get the distinct impression that Wilton is anxious to make the community happy. I don't think Wilton wants to come in with a big hammer. So I don't know if that means the locations are going to change or not but certainly there is a willingness, I believe a genuine one, to meet and communicate and to resolve the issue. I think with the committee structure it will be done. I see a little lull here as far as hands are concerned and maybe were over but I do need, I believe we need one more representative from ward 4 and we need somebody to volunteer as chairman of the committee so we can complete that tonight. At least if we just have a chairman tonight we'll complete it and march on. So just keep that in mind if you would. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Mr. Donahue I have one quick question for you and it relates to the staffing of these homes, particularly in Warren County but as I've been told that in other counties in other areas that there's a non-profit corporation called MayFair which in essence staffs the homes in other parts of the State. MR. DONAHUE-I don't know anything about it. MayFair? COUNCILMAN MONTESI -Yes. MR. DONAHUE-No, I know nothing about that. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-We will have State employees, State trained people ... MR. DONAHUE-For these homes. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-People for these homes. Thank you. MR. DONAHUE-There are non-profit agencies that do operate homes as we know and they have there own staff, yes, absolutely. COUNCILMAN MONTESI -Okay. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I learned a long time ago, when the Town Attorney raises his hand, I better interrupt for a second. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I just wanted to make a comment because there seems to be some question on this number of bedrooms and this may be something the committee as well as Mr. Donahue may wish to look at. The narrative description of the Twicwood residence and the, indicates that it's a 5 bedroom, 2 and 3/4 bath ranch. It does note that the second floor bedroom does not comply with the requirements of the code section but indicates that maybe a waiver or modification to the roof system could occur. But it seems to be indicating than at least a 4 bedroom with 1 bedroom that's not in conformity. Looking through the rest of the information, I couldn't find anything anywhere that indicates that it's anything less than a 5 bedroom. So perhaps this maybe something your people might want to check into. MR. DONAHUE-Certainly. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Because this may very well effect what your plans are for the residences in any event. MR. DONAHUE-Certainly. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Then the committee could use this as guide lines perhaps because apparently your willing to modify buildings if necessary. MR. DONAHUE-That's correct. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Mr. Fitzgerald, for the second time. MR. FITZGERALD-I'm just trying to clear up a point that I thought Mrs. Monahan brought up and I didn't know whether I understood the answer. But I thought you said something about the people, these having to be 3 separate locations and the answer I guess was yes. But then it really didn't say or really address as far as, I guess I'm mixing myself up, it was 3 separate units, but not necessarily 3 separate locations. MR. DONAHUE-No, no, 3 separate locations. MR. FITZGERALD-Three separate houses and 3 separate places? MR. DONAHUE-Yes, yes. MR. FITZGERALD-Okay. Thank you. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-In other words, a campus type of setting, if it were built say, it would not be acceptable. MR. DONAHUE-Not acceptable, absolutely not. MR. FITZGERALD-Okay, thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you. Last call, anyone else? Town Board members. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-I just have a comment. The fact of the matter is that there's, you will not find the perfect neighborhood nor the perfect home unless we follow some recommendations this evening and that is to build. If you could convince the State to build you'll stimulate a badly needed economy in this area. You'll get contractors back to work, you'll get laborers back to work, you'll absolutely give, it will be a win, win situation because we can build a home that will accommodate the needs of our new members of the community that will be here within the next 2 years. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mr. Donahue, I have a question. There are different duplexes that are being built all over the Town, would they qualify by changing the exterior wall, interior walls, excuse me, during the process of construction, to give you more nearly what you wanted, it seems like the space would be ... MR. DONAHUE-The problem there, you're talking about going up and down stairs again, right? Duplex? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I'm not sure. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Side by side. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-No, most of them are side by side. MR. DONAHUE-The answer is, there's no way for me to answer that question until you see if it's comparable, I don't know and hopefully that's what we would work out with the committee. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, I was saying, you know, if that's a possibility where 2 duplex units become 1 single family, that while it was in the process of construction so you can alter your interior walls, you might end up perhaps with a better facility. If that's a possibility as far as the State is concerned. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- There was a hand in the back here somewhere. Yes sir, no. Anyone else from the audience? Any other Board members? COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-I think your bottom line is going to be it's going to cost more one way or the other. It's going to cost more for them to move in and modify a house then to build a new one. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I would hope that the committee would raise those issues and discuss all those. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-I think that's what it boils down to, dollars and cents. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Okay, we'll call this public meeting closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED OPEN FORUM 7:58 P.M BARBARA BENNETT questioned the Supervisor whether he had any comments regarding the trash plant and their problem with a shortage of trash. SUPERVISOR BORGOS my comment would be that I'm not surprised. The status of the trash plant to the best of my information is exactly like that of trash plants throughout the Country. When the habits of individuals change and we're asking people to change now, we've got a consumer behavior status to go through, when people change their habits, they immediately respond precisely by not throwing out so much garbage so what happens, we come up short of garbage. Being short of garbage means not only does the plant shut down but ultimately if that were to continue the tipping fee which is the price that we pay, would have to go up. The ideal situation is that the plant is sized properly and there's lots of garbage and the place can run efficiently and the tipping fee can drop. Right now were in a difficult situation. It's my understanding that the IDA is looking for customers from out of this area. CURT MADISON referred to the recreation fee for his subdivision, noting that he felt he paid an unfair amount and has made mention of this numerous times to the Supervisor, requesting a refund. Questioned whether the Town Board has an answer for hirn. SUPERVISOR BORGOS noted that we have discussed this over and over again, this particular case and we've looked at your plan, we saw that the subdivision was broken up into 4 lots, 2 buildable, 2 unbuildable. So one was really the extra burden on the community and I think it was the consensus of this Board that you would be charged for 1 lot. But at the time, the law hadn't been changed, so Mr. Madison paid for 3 lots at $1500.00 dollars, instead of $500.00 dollars for the 1 lot. Questioned how the Board can approve this and refund Mr. Madison his $1,000.00 dollars. DISCUSSION HELD, Town Board agreed to have a resolution for next meeting to set a public hearing on the local law with the intention to propose new language to the law to help these particular case situations. PRESENT A TION - RECREATION MASTER PLAN Director of Parks and Recreation, Harry Hansen, introduced Roger Murman of Murman Associates. Mr. Roger Murman presented to the Town Board copies of the Recreation Master Plan and recognized the many efforts of the steering committee comprised of citizen volunteers, staff persons and elected officials. Councilman Potenza recognized and introduced Sharon Simmonds, President of the Recreation Commission and Marlene Connolly who both worked very hard on the advisory committee along with Lee York, Mike Woodbury, John Carusone, Harry Hansen, Lynn Potenza. Mr. Chuck McNulty entered meeting and spoke to the Board regarding the site committee, noting his desire to become a member of that committee. Supervisor Borgos questioned him on whether he would also be willing to be person? Mr. McNulty agreed. Supervisor Borgos noted that the Board would consider that during executive session this evening and notify you tomorrow. OPEN FORUM CLOSED 8:25 P.M. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 640, 1991, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for it's adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka. RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the Town Board Minutes of October 21 st, 1991. Duly adopted this 2nd day of December, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: Mr. Borgos RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF COUPON BONDS BY FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF GLENS FALLS RESOLUTION NO. 641, 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, by a previous resolution, authorized the sale of certain serial bonds for public improvements, and WHEREAS, payment of the aforedescribed serial bond issue was authorized by way of the submission of coupons requesting payment, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury was advised by the First National Bank of Glens Falls that certain coupon bonds totaling the amount of $3,950.00, bearing numbers 1017, 1018, 1022, and 1047 through 1053 and dated April 1, 1990 and October 1, 1990 were either lost or destroyed on premises and has requested authorization of payment, and WHEREAS, the First National Bank of Glens Falls has presented to the Town a letter of indenmification and security as required by Section 164 of the Local Finance Law and an Affidavit concerning proof of loss or destruction and proof of ownership, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and ratifies payment of the aforementioned coupon bonds by the First National Bank of Glens Falls and further indicates that there will be no charge assessed for the payment of the cost of preparing and issuing a new coupon bond as the same are not necessary. Duly adopted this 2nd day of December, 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.: 642,1991 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Marilyn Potenza WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan 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, LANDFILL FROM TO AMOUNT 91-8160-4780 (Scrap Removal) 91-8160-4790 $12,000.00 (Haz. Waste Clean-up) 91-8160-4130 (Legal Services) 91-8160-4790 $ 3,600.00 (Haz. Waste Clean-up) Duly adopted this 2nd day of December, 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.: 643,1991 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Marilyn Potenza WHO MOVED 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, DOG CONTROL OFFICER FROM TO AMOUNT 01-3510-4030 (Postage) 01-3510-4110 (Vehicle Repair & Maintenance) $ 100.00 BUILDING & GROUNDS FROM TO AMOUNT 01-1627-4404 (Qby. Center Misc. Contractual) 01-1623-4650 (Air Conditioning & Furnace Rep.) $ 500.00 01-1624-4300 (Utilities) 01-1624-4100 (Telephone Use) $1,000.00 01-1622-4660 (Elect. Repair) 01-1624-4670 (Telephone Repair) $ 100.00 LANDFILL FROM TO AMOUNT 91-8160-1400 (Laborer A) 91-8160-1410 $1,400.00 (Laborer A, PT) CEMETERY FROM TO AMOUNT 02-02-5031 (Interfund Revenue) 02-02-2401 (Interest & $ 800.00 Earnings) Duly adopted this 2nd day of December, 1991, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION WAIVING SEWER BILL PENALTY FOR REGENCY PARK APARTMENTS RESOLUTION NO.: 644,1991 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Marilyn Potenza WHEREAS, Regency Park Apartments received a bill for the Quaker Road Sewer District which was erroneous as result of a mistake made in reading the water meter during February of 1990, and WHEREAS, the error has been corrected and a new bill sent to Regency Park Apartments, with no penalty assessed for a late fee as the corrected bill was just recently sent out, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approvesand authorizes the waiver of the penalty under the circumstances stated above. Duly adopted this 2nd day of December, 1991, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION REGARDING PUBLIC HEARINGS ON COMMUNITY RESIDENCES SITED AT 81 MCCORMICK DRIVE AND 23 OWEN AVENUE IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY BY THE WILTON DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY SERVICE OFFICE RESOLUTION NO.: 645,1991 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has been notified by the Wilton Developmental Disability Service Office of its intent to establish community residences for mentally retarded and developmentally disabled persons in the Town of Queensbury, and more specifically at 81 McCormick Drive and 23 Owen Avenue in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the notification was made pursuant to Section 41.34 of the Mental Hygiene Law of the State of New York, such law providing therein that the municipality may hold a public hearing before forwarding a response to the Commissioner, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has adopted a resolution generally responding to the site locations of community residences in the Town of Queensbury by the Wilton Developmental Disability Service Office and desires to hold public hearings in an effort to assist in developing further responses to the Wilton Developmental Disabilities Service Office with regard to the 81 McCormick Drive and 23 Owen Avenue locations, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs that public hearings be held on the 10th day of December, 1991, at which time all persons interested in the subject matter of the placement of community residential facilities by the Wilton Developmental Disabilities Service Office at 81 McCormick Drive and 23 Owen Avenue in the Town of Queensbury shall have an opportunity to be heard and the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury will consider all comments and information presented relative to the said issue of the siting of community residential facilities on the date and times indicated herein, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the aforementioned public hearing shall be conducted in a manner similar to that conducted by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury in connection with or at the time of consideration of adoption of local laws for the Town in accordance with the Municipal Home Rule Law of the State of New York, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk shall provide such notices of the aforesaid public hearings as is usually required by the Municipal Home Rule Law when the Town Board is considering the adoption of local laws, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that in any event, the Town Clerk shall publish notices in the official newspaper of the Town of Queensbury and post the same on the bulletin board not later than 10 days prior to the date of the public hearing authorized herein. Duly adopted this 2nd day of December, 1991, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT BIDS FOR CONTRACTS lA, IE, lC, 1D FOR NEW ADMINISTRATION BUILDING QUEENSBURY CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 646,1991 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Marilyn Potenza WHEREAS, the Director of Purchasing for the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, duly advertised for the construction of a new administration building of approximately 8)00 square feet, for the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, which work is more specifically identified in contract documents previously submitted and in possession of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, certain bidders have submitted the lowest bids for the aforementioned project as follows: BID/CONTRACT NAME BIDDER AMOUNT A) Contract lA, General - ROSCH BROTHERS, INC. $494,000.00 B) Contract IE, Electrical - HOUR ELECTRIC CO., INC. $ 57,079.00 C) Contract lC, HV AC - JACK HALL PLUMBING & $ 80,456.00 HEATING, INC. D) Contract ID, Plumbing - GENERAL MECHANICAL $29,950.00 SYSTEMS, INC. TOTAL: $ 661,485.00 and WHEREAS, O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc., has recommended that the bids be awarded to the aforesaid bidders, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, hereby awards the bids as follows: BID/CONTRACT NAME BIDDER AMOUNT A) Contract lA, General - ROSCH BROTHERS, INC. $494,000.00 B) Contract IE, Electrical - HOUR ELECTRIC CO., INC. $ 57,079.00 C) Contract lC, HV AC - JACK HALL PLUMBING & $ 80,456.00 HEATING, INC. D) Contract ID, Plumbing - GENERAL MECHANICAL $ 29,950.00 SYSTEMS, INC. TOTAL: $661,485.00 and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that said items are to be paid for from the appropriate Water Department Account(s). Duly adopted this 2nd day of December, 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.: 647,1991 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Marilyn Potenza 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: HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT FROM TO AMOUNT 045142 1940 0451304510 $4,500.00 (Parts Shop Assistant) (Radio Repairs) WATER DEPARTMENT FROM TO AMOUNT 408310 1770 4083101320 $13,000.00 (BS Data Entry) (Conf. Admin. Sec.) 4083404810 4083204300 15,000.00 (Equip. Rental) (Utilities) 4083404330 4083204300 10,000.00 (Equip. Maint.) (Utilities) 4083404320 4083204300 9,000.00 (Service Mat.) (Utilities) WATER DEPARTMENT (Continued) FROM TO AMOUNT 4083404310 4083204300 4,000.00 (Hyd. Maint.) (Utilities) 4083204240 4083202899 4,800.00 (Repair Parts) (Cap. Constr.) 4083401590 4083101490 4,000.00 (Maint. Foreman) (Water Supt.) 4083401570 4083101490 4,000.00 (Maint. Man2) (Water Supt.) 4083401570 4083101500 1,600.00 (Maint. Man2) (Deputy Supt.) 4083301850 4083301420 4,000.00 (Intern) (Laborer B) 4083404340 4083404453 464.11 (Oper. Maint. Ctr.) (Contr.) 4083104070 4083104010 550.00 (Equip. Repair) (Office Supplies) 4083401570 4097106010 92.50 (Maint. Man2) (Serial Bonds) 4083401570 4083101211 1,903.20 (Maint. Man2) (Clerk of Works) Duly adopted this 2nd day of December, 1991, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES : Mr. Montesi ABSENT: None DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE: Councilman Montesi questioned why there were a number of items being transferred to utilities. Ralph VanDusen, Deputy Water Superintendent noted that the power bills specifically this sununer during peak usage, we had to run the pumps significantly more. Councilman Montesi questioned the transfer of funds to Water Superintendent and Deputy Water Superintendent. Supervisor Borgos, noted it was a buy back of vacation time, Town Policy as stated in the union contract which, according to the contract, has always been by the fiscal officer. RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL STATE CHAMPIONSHIP TOURNAMENT FOR GIRLS RESOLUTION NO. 648,1991 INTRODUCED BY: THE ENTIRE TOWN BOARD WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION WHEREAS, the Queensbury High School, located in the Town of Queensbury, has hosted the Public High School State Championship Tournament for Girls since 1983, and WHEREAS, the attendance at the annual tournament which represents the final competition for 16 pubic high schools has averaged an estimated paid attendance of 4,000 per tournament during the past 8 years, and WHEREAS, the location of the tournament at the Queensbury High School offers the participants the use of practice gyms and the convenience of accommodations, restaurants, shopping and entertainment near the school, and WHEREAS, the residents of the Town of Queensbury are pleased to share the atmosphere of hospitality with visitors from across New York State, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby notifies the New York State Basketball Committee, meeting in January 1992, that the Town of Queensbury supports continuation of the Girls Public High School State Championship Tournament at the Queensbury High School, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury shall assist in the preparation of a formal proposal to retain the Public High School State Championship Tournament in the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 2nd day of December, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARINGS ON EMERGENCY AMBULANCE SERVICE CONTRACTS RESOLUTION NO.: 649,1991 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Marilyn Potenza WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. George Kurosaka WHEREAS, there has been duly established in the Town of Queensbury a Fire Protection District embracing the entire territory of said Town and the Town Board of said Town proposes to provide emergency ambulance service therein by contracts with three (3) rescue squads known as: 1) Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., 2) North Queensbury Rescue Squad, Inc., and 3) West Glens Falls Rescue Squad, Inc., and WHEREAS, the Town Board desires to provide for furnishing of emergency ambulance service within said Town of Queensbury Fire Protection District, and WHEREAS, Section 184 of the Town Law and Section 209(b) of the General Municipal Law require a public hearing upon the contract provisions for such emergency ambulance service, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a public hearing be had with reference to the proposed contracts for the furnishing of emergency ambulance service for the Town of Queensbury Fire Protection District, on December 16th 1991, at 7:00 p.rn., and that notice of such hearing be published in the Post-Star Newspaper once on or before the 6th day of December, 1991, and that such notice shall specify the time when and the place where said hearing will be held and describe in general terms the proposed contracts, and be in the form presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that copies of the proposed contracts be kept and maintained in the Town Clerk's Office and be made available for inspection by any interested party. Duly adopted this 2nd day of December, 1991, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES : None ABSENT: None COMMUNICATIONS BID OPENING - Reroofing, Water Treatment Plant Maintenance Building. TOWN CLERK DOUGHER noted that one bid was received after the bid time therefore it's here and has been left sealed for your recommendation on whether to accept the bid or not. ATTORNEY DUSEK made a recommendation rejecting the bid so as to not create a precedent in terms of accepting late bids. RESOLUTION REJECTING BID-REROOFING WATER TREATMENT PLANT MAINTENANCE BUILDING RESOLUTION NO. 650, 1991 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Marilyn Potenza WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury by previous resolution authorized the advertising for bids for a Water Treatment Plant Maintenance Building Reroofing, and WHEREAS, the bid opening was scheduled for and did occur on December 2nd, 1991, and WHEREAS, only one bid was submitted and that bid was according to the Town Clerk two minutes late, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has a discretion to either waive the informality or hold to the bidding documents requiring the timely submission of the bid, and WHEREAS, the Town Board after due consideration determines as follows NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby rejects the single bid submitted and authorizes a rebidding of the project using the same specifications with the new bid date to be December 16, 1991. Duly adopted this 2nd day of December, 1991 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT: None Attorney Dusek noted for the record that the Town Clerk has not opened the bid and it should be returned. RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS RESOLUTION NO. 651, 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 December 2nd, 1991, numbering 91582500 thm 91600000 and totalling $166,841.83 be and hereby is approved. Duly adopted this 2nd day of December, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT: None Supervisor Borgos noted that the Town as been contacted by Warren County and they are interesting in purchasing 1 unisus work station from us that we no longer use. We bought that in early 1989 at $1,000.00 dollars, it's the recommendation of our Director of Accounting Services that it be sold for $500.00, the County has offered $200.00. Town Board agreed to sell for $500.00. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 652, 1991, Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan. RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourn Regular Session and enter Executive Session of the Town Board to discuss four matters of Personnel and two matters oflitigation. Duly adopted this 2nd day of December, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION CALLING FOR REGULAR SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 653, 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 hereby adjourn from Executive Session and enter Regular Session of the Town Board. Duly adopted this 2nd day of December, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION OF APPOINTMENT TO SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE RESOLUTION NO. 654, 1991 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Stephen Borgos RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby appoints Mr. Charles McNulty of 14 Twicwood Lane to be Chairman of the Citizens Committee related to the Wilton Site Review Committee. Duly adopted this 2nd. day of December, 1991 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION REGARDING NOTICE OF MOTION RESOLUTION NO. 655, 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 has been advised of a Notice of Motion to add third party respondent to the matter of Town of Queensbury against Maurice M. Yaffee and WHEREAS, said Motion would add the matter of Maurice M. Yaffee against Warren County NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the Town Attorney working with the Supervisor to respond to said motion in a manner to be determined in the next couple of days. Duly adopted this 2nd day of December, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT: None Discussion held regarding Hiland Park Sewer, Councilman Montesi noted that he has spoken with Gary Bowen whose concerned with paying for non buildable lots and would like the Board to consider researching this. Councilman Montesi requested permission to start looking into this, Board agreed. No further action was taken. On motion, the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK TOWN OF QUEENSBURY