1991-12-10
SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING
DECEMBER 10, 1991
7:05 P.M.
MTG#60
RES# 656-661
BOARD MEMBER PRESENT
SUPERVISOR STEPHEN BORGOS
COUNCILMAN MARILYN POTENZA
COUNCILMAN RONALD MONTESI
COUNCILMAN BETTY MONAHAN
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
COUNCILMAN GEORGE KUROSAKA
TOWN ATTORNEY
PAUL DUSEK
TOWN OFFICIALS
KATHLEENKATHE, PAUL NAYLOR
PRESS
CHANNEL 8, POST STAR
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN POTENZA
PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. BUCKLEYIBRY AN REZONING 7: 11 P.M.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS- This is just the five acres proposal for the National Church Residences. We
would like to hear from anyone who would like to speak once first from everybody before we hear from
anyone for a second time. At this time anyone may come forward, yes.
HOWARD SHAMES-40 Fox Hollow Lane, Queensbury. One question I'd like to ask is how much
research has been done on the facilities that have been built by the National Church organization?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-A great deal, Mrs. Monahan can probably tell you in detail.
MR. SHAMES-One of the things we were talking about is the facility and there were questions on how it
was going to be built and so forth and so on. I worked in Whitehall, I didn't go over to the facility that's
over there, but I had questioned a number of people who have relatives and friends in the facility and
became a little concerned because I didn't get anything positive from anyone I spoke to. They were
unhappy with the way the building was constructed. The residences there are fearful they keep doors
locked at all kinds of hours there seems to be all kinds of problems. Like I said, I didn't get anything
positive so I'm kind of concerned of what kind offacility and how it's going to be maintained especially
when these people were given all kinds of promises and they can't seem to get anybody to respond to their
complaints.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Maybe Mrs. Monahan can tell us.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Are these first hand comments that you got from residents of the National
Church Residence facility?
MR. SHAMES-These are people who have friends and relatives in the facility.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I would tell you that I visited the facility. I talked to the people who live in
that facility. I did not talk to anyone but who was delighted with the facility. I visited an apartment that
was the model apartment. I also visited an apartment that a lady moved into with her own furniture her own
amenities she invited me into visit. I saw the day room, I met people, I saw them congregating there to
share food in the day room. I did not get one negative comment from anyone I talked to and the
atmosphere and there was no one around from National Church Residence or a paid member I was talking
directly to the residents they were under no constraints to say anything that they didn't truly feel, to me, and
I came away from there with an excellent feeling.
MR. SHAMES-Okay. What I had researched wasn't very scientific or anything, but what I had found was
completely the opposite of what you've found and I spoke to about three or four different people.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-I didn't visit the location in Whitehall, but I did go to Granville and I did go to
Waterford both of those are units that were built by the National Churches residences they were well
maintained and well cared for and the people just loved it. They considered them their homes they treated
it as if it was their home and there was no negative vibes from me when I walked away from it.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I did not go in to the interior of Granville, but I had visited the exterior of
Granville saw many amenities out on the grounds where they could grill these and so on and so forth.
There were different lawn games that they could do there were benches out there very well maintained and
I have not seen any problems. I do know I happen to have someone in my family who deals with HUD and
who researched a little bit of National Church Residences for me nation wide and told me that they have a
superb reputation nation wide for the work that they do.
MR. SHAMES-Okay. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Anyone else who would like to speak for or against or ask questions about this
project.
DEBBIE COLLINS-16 Fox Farm Road, Queensbury. I guess, I just have a question with what he brought
up and I talked to Betty. My grandmother is in Adirondack Manor and I guess my question then to you is
because I'm finding very poor management there and I still don't know if that's been resolved. . .atmosphere
the Board of Health I think has been notified. Who is the director of this is there a manager on the site a
house resident, I guess that would be my question?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-There is an apartment that will be for a resident manager that's what the
forty first unit is.
MRS. COLLINS-Do they hire from the public or is it a private sector or from the government?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-How would you describe National Church Residence Paul, I would say a
non-profit organization.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-As far as I know that's what I understand them to be.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And they will have a Board that will be involved with this.
MRS. COLLINS-And they will hire anyone with the qualifications.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yeah. I can only say Debbie at the time that I visited the Whitehall one I
had a lady with me who would of been eligible infact she is living in subsidize housing in Glens Falls in an
apartment that leaves a lot to be desired for the elderly with backup facilities and stuff. Her comment to me
after we visited the apartments after she talked to the people, I wish we had one that I could go into.
MRS. COLLINS-You had told me that the access will go from Manor Drive over a piece of his property
right now your not going into Farr Lane it looks like.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The proposal is still to have the access from Farr Lane at some point. To get this
thing started I understand the National Church and Mr. Bryan have agreed on the sale of a narrow strip of
property which would be adequate for their driveway from Manor Drive. The ultimate proposal is for the
road to come in from Farr Lane and then loop over to the right and potential make a circle there, but sense
we're not dealing with the whole parcel we don't know the exact configuration of that.
MRS. COLLINS-Okay, so I need not be concerned about Fox Farm Road at this point.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I would hope not.
MRS. COLLINS-I hope not too. I think this would be a good thing for our community it's just the five
acres. I wish I had someplace to pull my grandmother out of what I saw that day so it's definitely needed.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you. Mr. Naylor would you like to come forward and state your name
please.
PAUL NAYLOR-Ward 4, Queensbury. How old do you have to be to get in?
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Your old enough.
P AUL NAYLOR-Just in case my kids don't find a home for me I'd like to know where I can go.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I'm not sure if it's sixty two or sixty five.
MR. NAYLOR-Is it sixty five? Is there a tax bracket that you have to be in before they let you in?
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Yes.
MR. NAYLOR-Do you have to be poor or middle income?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-There are certain requirements before your eligible for this type of housing.
MR. NA YLOR- They would let me in right.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-You make enough, but you probably don't claim it all.
MR. NAYLOR-I'm not joking is there a tax bracket?
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Yes, $15,000.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-There is an age level an income level depending upon whether it's a couple
or one person or what.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-It's pretty small Paul.
MR. NAYLOR-In case my kids pick the wrong place I might not want to go there.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I don't recall the details of the limit, but I know because it's a federal subsidy you
will not pay more than a certain specified percentage of your income whatever that might be.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And it can vary from person to person.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-It will definitely vary from person to person.
MR. NAYLOR-By the time I'm ready to retire you'll have it all setup.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Get ready next year.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-If we have a hard winter you may be ready sooner than you think.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Anyone else, Mr. Montesi.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I just have a comment about the project the way it's revolved at this point. I
guess I'm delighted and hopefully the residents of the town will accept and acknowledge the fact that
sometimes your comments don't seem to get any place state wide or nationally, but you certainly know
locally when you come to a Town Board meeting that we're trying to listen. Lots of people came to this
meeting as Steve pointed out and had some big concerns about traffic on Aviation Road. Lots offolks had
some concerns about an access onto Fox Farm Road and in general there were some concerns about the
environmental impact of this project on the twenty acres not knowing all the details. I think the Board
heard what you were saying and made a decision not to vote for that and the developer came back in and
said I'll do the five acres, I think most of us wanted to provide a home for senior citizens and five acres
made a big difference. The impact here is going to be a driveway onto Manor Drive which has two
entrances onto Aviation Road which should in some ways lessen the traffic. The forty one units of seniors
generally doesn't have a lot of cars, I don't think there will be forty one cars based on what we've heard
from the other homes. I think this is a very nice thing to happen to our community and it's a nice thing to
know as citizens the elected people listen to you. Lastly the balance of this twenty acres certainly if Mr.
Bryan comes in with a plan and a proposal for things that look right that environmentally make us feel
comfortable the next sitting Board that minimize the traffic or mitigate some of the traffic we certainly will
look at the rest of the project. Our hope is that the money is still there from the federal government and we
could vote favorably on this tonight.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-I concur with Mr. Montesi. This certainly starts to fill a desperate need in this
community and that's find housing for our seniors and I compliment Mrs. Monahan whose put an awful lot
of effort and an awful lot of work into this project. It's certainly a start it's not going to fill all our needs,
but we started the ball rolling and eventually it will be an answer to some very needed problems and
concerns.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Anyone else, last call.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Just out of curiosity maybe you didn't have a chance to check with your
secretary have you any idea how many people have called in and have asked to be put on the interested list?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I haven't checked the number recently, but I think some people are in the
audience. How many in the audience have called in? At least one, there are a bunch.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I know I told someone the other day to call in and I know by then it was up
to quite a few numbers.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We are not the official place to call to have your name on the list. What we've
agreed to do if people do call we will turn over the list to the National Church Residence people. As soon
as the project is finalized and is available, I'm sure lots of publicity will go out. It's my best guess perhaps a
hundred or more people will request the forty one units. Anyone further, if not will close this public
hearing.
TOWN CLERK DOUGHER-Steve, do you want this read in or just kept?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Let's leave the hearing open would you read that please.
TOWN CLERK DOUGHER-This is to Mr. Borgos. Americans are living longer, healthier lives due to
improved health care, working conditions, safety and nutrition. The"aging of America" presents new
challenges to our community. In 1990 we spent 38% of our lifetime in retirement compared to 20% by
1980. Most of our elderly population must face living on a "fixed income" for at least 20% of a lifetime.
According to the 1990 census Warren County's total population is 59,209. The total number of Senior
citizens aged 60 and older is 11 ,312 which represents 19.1 % of the total count. There are 8551 seniors 65
and older; 3741 seniors 75 and older 963 seniors 85 and older. At least 40% or 4524 of all seniors rent.
Our seniors need more safe and affordable housing units than are available at this time. There are 279
Senior housing units in Warren County. Included in this figure are Cronin Hi-Rise, 100 units, Stichman
Towers, 80 units, John Burke 75 units and Johnsburg Senior housing, 24 units. Many seniors have had to
move out of the county to find low-cost housing. There are 2591 or 30.3% seniors over the age of 65 who
live alone. In New York State-55.4% of seniors aged 60 and older had incomes under $10,000. 11.7% of
seniors 60 years and older were below 100% of the poverty level and 68% of seniors aged 75 and older had
incomes under $10,000; 16% of seniors 75 and older were below 100% of the poverty level. Seniors 65
and older spend approximately 16.1% of their income on food/beverages; 32.5% on housing; 11.3% on
Health Care and 16.3% on transporation. For many retired seniors Social Security is their only source of
income. Health care and health insurance costs are increasing as health coverage decreases. Rising food
costs are sending more seniors to various community food pantries for assistance in meeting their basic
needs. Many seniors live in apartments and homes that are not safe and/or very costly to heat and maintain.
The prospect of living in inadequate, unsafe housing on a fixed low-income for the next 15-20 years of
one's life is not a very bright one. Adequate and affordable housing is essential to enabling our elderly to
maintain their independence and dignity, remain in their communities and avoid or delay costly
institutional placement. We commend you on your efforts to sponsor a senior housing project in
Queensbury. Ida Schneider, Director Office of Aging, Warren County.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you. All right, we will close this public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:25 P.M.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
OF PROPOSED REZONING - 1. BUCKLEY BRYAN, JR.
RESOLUTION NO.656, 1991
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Marilyn Potenza
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury held a public hearing, considered and
voted on a proposed amendment, supplement, change and/or modification to the Town of Queensbury
Zoning Ordinance, which provided for the rezoning of an approximately 25 acre parcel owned by 1.
Buckley Bryan, Jr., bearing tax map number 73-1-22, and the same being more specifically described in a
deed filed in the Warren County Clerk's Office at Book 673, Page 92, and a map entitled "Map of a Survey
Made for Kennedy-Bates Development Company, Inc. ", by VanDusen & Steves (copies of the same being
presented at this meeting), and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment, supplement, change and/or modification to the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and Map was to change the aforedescribed 25 +\- parcel of land from the
current zoning designation ofRR-3A (Rural Residential- One Principal Building Allowed for Every 3
Acres Within the Zone) to the zoning designation ofMR-5 (Multi-Family Residential - 1 Dwelling Unit for
Every 5,000 Square Feet of Land Area Within the Zone), subject to certain conditions, and
WHEREAS, one of the principal purposes of the rezoning was to allow the construction of a 41
unit HUD senior citizens residential complex on approximately 5 acres of the 25 acres of land to be
rezoned; the remaining property was to be developed as MR-5 but in a manner consistent with the
development of the aforesaid senior citizens complex, and
WHEREAS, the vote by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury to rezone the property as set
forth above failed to result in a rezoning as four (4) votes were needed in accordance with the provisions of
the General Municipal Law of the State of New York due to the disapproval of the project by the Warren
County Planning Board, and
WHEREAS, in the opinion of the Town Board, it would appear that one of the major reasons the
project was not approved by a sufficient majority of the Town Board was due to concerns of traffic
congestion and other environmental impacts associated with a full development of the property as
proposed, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has been informed by Mr. Bryan, Jr.
that he would be interested in pursuing a rezoning of only part of the property, aforedescribed, in a size of
approximately 5 +/- acres so that the aforesaid 41 unit HUD Senior Citizens Residential Complex could be
constructed, and
WHEREAS, it is the understanding of the Town Board that the proposal now presented to the
Board for consideration is to rezone from RR-3A (Rural Residential - 1 Principal Building Allowed for
Every 3 Acres Within the Zone) to MR-5 (Multi-family Residential - 1 Dwelling Unit for Every 5,000
Square Feet of Land Within the Zone) that portion of property consisting of approximately 5 +\- acres
situated within the boundaries of that property having a tax map number set forth in the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Map Book as 73-1-22 and Warren County deed reference of Book 673, Page 92, the
same property being located off of Fox Farm Road (off of Aviation Road), in the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning would be subject to conditions which generally relate to the
development of a 41 unit HUD Section 202 Senior Citizens Housing Project and other conditions the Town
Board may determine to be appropriate concerning the preservation and protection of the neighborhood
environment, following the holding of a public hearing, and
WHEREAS, the revised proposed change of zone would appear to eliminate the concerns of
traffic congestion and other environmental impacts and be compatible with the relevant portions of the
Comprehensive Land Use Master Plan of the Town of Queensbury as it promotes affordable senior citizen
housing and for the reasons more specifically set forth herein, and
WHEREAS, the subject premises would seem to accommodate housing for senior citizens and
individuals with unique needs and it would seem, from experiences of the members of the Town Board of
the Town of Queensbury, that it would be difficult to find another location which would provide the
secluded atmosphere, yet the proximity to services, and
WHEREAS, it would appear the community interest would be generally served by providing
housing for a segment of the population which currently has limited housing options, and
WHEREAS, the senior citizens housing complex would be assisted by a Federal Aid or Grant
Program, and it is necessary to take immediate and quick action to preserve said grant program, and
WHEREAS, as a result of the public hearings and discussions had relative to the previous zoning
proposal, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury feels that the citizens would generally support the
above proposed rezoning of a portion of Mr. Bryan's property, consisting of approximately 5 +/- acres, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified to act as lead agency
with respect to compliance with SEQRA which requires environmental review of certain actions
undertaken by local governments, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is an unlisted action pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the
State Environmental Quality Review Act, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Department has reviewed the matter of rezoning the parcel in question
and the Planning Department has prepared the Environmental Assessment Form for the Town Board's
review, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has likewise made comments and the same have also been
considered by the Town Board, are presented at this meeting, and are to be made a part of the Town Clerk's
files kept in connection with this matter, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has given due consideration to all comments made on the previous
application for rezoning and this latest revised proposed rezoning,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, the Board notes that it desires to make the following clarifications and corrections to
the Environmental Assessment Form that has been prepared by the Planning Department;
1. Part B i the width is changed to be that of 50 + or - feet.
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, after considering the action
proposed herein, the comments made by the Planning Board and other comments made on the previous
application for rezoning after reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form, reviewing the criteria
contained in Section 617.11, and thoroughly analyzing the project with respect 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 of the Town of Queensbury hereby finds that the proposed
responses inserted in Part II of the said Environmental Assessment Form are satisfactory and approved, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to complete said
Environmental Assessment Form and to check the box thereon indicating that the proposed action will not
result in any significant adverse impacts, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that 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 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Duly adopted this 10th day of December, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted the reason for not acting on the Resolution passing the Bryan rezoning is
technical. The Warren County Planning Board by law first has to do their review and make a
determination. A meeting will be setup tomorrow to take action on the resolution.
DISCUSSION HELD
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Read the following letter addressed to hirn. In response to our recent telephone
conversation please be advised that the Wilton DDSO (Developmental Disability Service Office) is willing
to extend the time frame of the notification of Section 41.34 of the New York State Mental Hygiene Law.
Specifically we agree that with the formation of a selection committee by the Town of Queensbury a thirty
day extension beginning December 6, 1991 and ending January 6th, 1992 is acceptable. If you need
additional information please let me know. Sincerely, Daniel Donahue, Director. Has received letter from
Mrs. Getman representing the Twicwood Association, indicating that since this letter had not yet arrived
they wanted to protect themselves legally in requesting the Town Board to take specific information.
Asked Mrs. Getman if the Board could put her letter on hold until the committee meets or if she wanted
action taken on the letter.
MRS. GETMAN-Requested that the Board take action on the letter.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted at the appropriate time he will indicate to the Board that the group of
citizens from Twicwood have proposed three alternative sites and at the proper time the Board will look at
it.
PUBLIC HEARING WILTON DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER COMMUNITY RESIDENCE/OWEN
AVENUE OPENED 7:33 P.M.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I'll asked the Town Clerk if this has been advertised.
TOWN CLERK, DOUGHER-Yes.
CARL BAKER-20 Owen Avenue, Queensbury. My comments are obviously directed to the Owen Avenue
property. Pursuant to the notice the Town has received to establish a community residence there the Town
now finds itself in a position of having three options in terms of responding to that notice and that is either
approving the sites that have been recommended; recommending alternative sites or objecting to the
proposed sites. In having to think about this issue more than I really care too, a couple months ago I have
spent some time looking at what the Towns alternatives are and it strikes me that there is no reasonable or
morale basis for the Town to object to the locating of the community residences in the Town. What I'll try
to assist the Town with tonight is some comments as to the appropriateness of 20 Owen Avenue. First, I
want to just emphasis the materials and the comments I'm going to initially make here come from the
feasibility study prepared by the Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities it's their
existing building feasibility study relating to 20 Owen Avenue. These are not in any particular order they
are in the order that I've found these comments and their materials. They point ultimately to a conclusion,
I'm not trying to make a mountain out of a series of mole hills here, but I think they point out some of the
considerations that the Board has to bring to bear on this question of finding alternative sites potentially.
The particular house at 23 Owen Avenue is at least eighteen years old. The comments that are made in the
materials are evident that there exists a pet odor in the house that needs to be addressed an extensive
cleaning, painting, some carpet replacement would correct that condition. The second floor bedrooms do
not comply with the requirements according to the New York State Code Section 711.1A-2, minimum
ceiling height of seven feet six inches the comment goes on, however, but as a preexisting condition a
wavier can be obtained. Several changes are going to be required to 23 Owen Avenue to make it useful as
a community residence. It needs a smoke detection alarm system. It meeds a securable mechanical room in
the basement. It needs two new hot water heaters with applicable plumbing. It needs steel pipe colunms in
the basement. It needs changes in doors for the bedrooms to make them fire resistant. It needs fire
separation between the garage and residents and the walls in the ceiling. It needs to have the sky lights in
two of the existing bedrooms replaced to meet code in those rooms currently there is lack of sufficient light
and ventilation and apparently the replacements will also modify the egress in case of a fire. Second floor
tube and. . .are in disrepair and should be replaced. A shower to be added to half bath on second floor, GFI
outlets within six feet of sinks and wet area. The existing septic field is not adequate for the proposed
program requirements. The property in terms of it's evacuation capable of the clients is rated as slow need
for smoke barriers and fire walls in stairways, corridors, and bedroom doors. Bathroom would require
resizing of doors, modification for five foot turning radius, add grab bars, modify and replace sinks, water
closets. Room would need to be modified to meet all ANSIAl17 .1-1988 criteria. Shingles are showing
signs of wear estimated three to five year life expectancy of roof remains. Wood paneling in family room
needs to be removed and painted or painted with an. . . paint. The furnace is sighted as eighteen years of
age. There is no emergency lighting or exit lighting or site lighting. The level of fire safety is not shown
by this system to be equivalent to that prescribed for small dwelling units. Of the four considerations that
bear in this equivalency evaluation this home fails all four. In relating back to the septic system changes
that are going to be required on this property the comment exist on the site plans that existing large
diameter trees are to be removed as required. Other changes there is the possibility of an exterior ramp and
further changes will be determined by the needs of the selected individuals who reside at the home. Now, I
started to say that I'm not trying to make mountains out of mole hills. I think the conclusion here is that
there is no magic about 23 Owen Avenue as a site by waving some of the requirements that apparently have
been enacted because they make a house safer and by applying sufficient money to this property certainly it
can be designed to meet the needs of community residence program. On the other hand, what is it about 23
Owen Avenue that is particularly attractive as a residents property. Well according to the answers that
were given a couple of times by WIlton it's available, feasible, suitable, it's also in close proximity to
community resources. Available it was on the market apparently, feasible and suitable is, it was large
enough to house several individuals. I think feasible with again the application of sufficient funds it can be
made a satisfactory residence. The information that it is in close proximity to community resource, I'm not
really sure what that means and we have not had any luck in identifying what resources in the community
other than general shopping and other facilities will be used, but no one, at least 23 Owen Avenue is not
walkable to any place so it strikes me that it's in no closer proximity than any other property in the Town
that one would drive from to get to wherever one was going. By locating the community residence on
Owen Avenue there is certainly going to be some changes in the neighborhood a community residence
simply is not a normal home it's different. It's statutorily defined to be a residence and that's how it
qualifies. As I already mentioned many physical changes are going to be required to the property both
interiorly and exteriorly and the extent of those physical changes currently are not known. If 23 Owen
Avenue is a approved site it will not be the same house and it will not be the same neighborhood. There
will be fire drills that will occur periodically on all shifts consequently in the middle of the night the near
neighbors will potentially experience those happening and those events. There will be increased traffic on
the street the site is described by Wilton as a residential area on a lightly traveled street. How much
increased traffic again, it's hard to determine as it will apparently will await the individuals who will be
residing there in terms of their needs and where they will be traveling to. We know there will be shift
changes, care providers coming, and there will be the individuals there using the various community
resources there will be more traffic than currently exists on Owen Avenue. As a parent of small children, I
have an eight and a four year old one of my occupations is worrying fortunately my wife sees to most of
that for me. But, our neighborhood does not have sidewalks it does not have street lights it's fortunate to be
populated with a lot of small children and traffic becomes a very big concern when you have small children
who are out playing using the streets and biking. Any minor increase in traffic is going to result in an
increase in worrying for parents of the children in that neighborhood. What has the Town got for it's
options. Well it has the absolute right statutorily to propose alternate sites, should it do that, well I think a
couple of considerations the Town should bring to bear. The statue is designed and appropriately so to
provide residential environments for the needs of these individuals. I don't think there are many people who
would argue that an institution is in any way comparable to a residence. There is nothing in the statue at
least as I find it or in the intent for the legislation that defines where that residence has to be located. It
strikes me therefore that the Town has the right to secure a property that will better meet the needs of the
individuals perhaps in the proposed properties and perhaps have less impact on the neighbors that are going
to be near these properties. Ideally a street where any increase in traffic would not be noticed would seem
appropriate. Where there is sufficient spacing between the homes so that neighbors are not unnecessarily
disturbed would seem appropriate and respectful of the neighbors rights. Where a safer and better physical
environment can be provided for the individuals that will be residing in the home more economically than
the proposed home would seem to be a legitimate concern of both the Town and the State in creating these
homes. One thing I would recommend to the Board, your faced with a tough decision and it will pass to the
next Board in deciding what to do in deciding upon alternate sites you clearly cannot go lightly into that
decision. If you find a better property I would, one, encourage you to involve the succeeded Boards since
they may be the ones ultimately making this decision and ultimately being asked to support this decision.
If you find alternate sites that you find are going to be better for the individuals that are safer they won't
need waivers of particular requirements, they won't need the application of unknown amounts of money to
make them suitable, they won't impact the neighbors as much as the properties currently proposed. If you
find those sites and they are proposed to you then you need not only to propose them, but be willing to
support thern. If the State turns that down the Town has the right to request that those sites be reviewed by
the court. You should not make those decision, you should not recommend those sites unless your
prepared, I think in my mind, to go forward and support them. If there are better sites that are better than
these properties then you have a duty both to the residents that are going to be living there and as well as to
the community that is being affected by these homes to support and follow through on those
recommendations. I thank you for the time and for these comments.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Just one question. I'm not sure the end of your statement you said, if we
propose through our community on some alternate sites and the State rejects them I'm not sure it goes to the
court, I think the next step is that you ask for a ruling by the commissioner and his ruling is a one person
ruling.
MR. BAKER-That's correct of my understanding of the statue. But, if he also supports the local agency
proposing that site then the next step would be for the Town to ask the courts to review that decision so it
will come out of the agencies hands at some point. There has been a very recent case decided in Saratoga
where that has occurred perhaps that was today or a day ago has found that the State should have not
proceeded with a home in a particular site.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-That's been a battle down there.
MR. BAKER-It has been. It shouldn't be this is a reasonable statue and it supports the reasonable rights of
a lot of individuals. It just should be implemented in a way that can meet everyone's needs and have the
least negative impacts on anybody. It will be a different living environment, it will be a different residence
that's located in whatever neighborhood this house ends up being situated. Ideally it should be in a place
where there is some spacing some room so that it will have minimal impacts.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you. Please state your name for the record.
JOHN LEMERY-I'm not a resident of the Town of Queensbury, but if! can have your permission to speak.
I have lived next to a developmental disabled home for twenty two years. I'm not here Steve or members of
the Board to discuss where you site one of these facilities or houses, but I've been reading the reports in the
press of the various meetings that you've had and I thought it might be helpful if I could speak to the issue
as a neighbor of one of these homes. My oldest child was five years old when we moved to 203 Ridge
Street, I have four children all the rest of my children were born there. In the entire time we've lived there
we never had one single incident with anyone living in the house next door to us that would in anyway
cause me to be concerned as a parent. It's been kind of interesting for my children because we've been
fortunate in that they have had their mental faculties and motor faculties as children and as adults and as
they became of age were curious as to the people who lived next door some of whom couldn't walk very
well a lot of whom couldn't talk very well, but all of whom tried to make the best of what they had in the
house that they lived in. We became friends over the years with one woman who is severely incapacitated
in terms of her motor abilities. We have watched two couples there get married and leave the house and go
and live in the community, a lot of them work at the Community Workshop and get along that way. I live
on a parcel of land one hundred and twenty feet wide. Ridge Street is one of the busiest streets in the city,
infact in the entire community. A couple of these people are able to ride bicycles none of them, of course,
drives. They ride bicycles in the street on the side and they are able to manage them and control them
pretty well. We've visited with them, we've attended a couple of picnic's that they've had in the back yard
the yard on 201 Ridge, I think it's 199 Ridge is very small. We've never seen a situation where there has
been an altercation or disturbance involving any of the residents. As your last speaker said, as Carl Baker
said, we've have witnessed a couple of times from time to time fire drills the fire trucks pull up in front of
the house and that happens we've not found it to be any problem. As far as traffic is concerned, I can report
to you that Sundays once in a while there are people there that come and visit their relatives, but we've
never seen a situation where traffic has caused a problem either for the family or to my knowledge for the
neighbors. Our particular neighborhood is zoned R-l, I've never found the situation with the traffic for
either me or my wife or children. One of the good things about it that I found is that the house is very well
maintained it's maintained by the State of New York The lawns are always mowed it's been kept painted
and cared for. There is a van that they have that is parked in the backyard that is used to take the residents
to their jobs from time to time. Once in a while the church buses stop on Sunday to pick them up to go to
the various churches that they attend. I guess I would say in the time I've been there we've found it for my
family to be a positive experience. It's good for my kids to know that not everybody acts the way they act
and not everybody looks and dresses the way they do, speaks the way they speak or walks the way they
walk so we've found it to be good for children and for small children. I'm not speaking here as a moralist
it's not my point, I just thought it would be helpful if you talked to someone or heard from someone who
lives next to one and understood a lot of the fears that people would naturally have, I think might be
unfounded because the people that live there try to live productive lives. I think my recollection there are
thirteen or fourteen residence who live in the house next to me. A couple of times I've called the Director
and asked him to do something with the yard or something around the house and I can report to you that it
was immediately attended to they were very solicitous of the welfare of my family and I know the
neighbors around us. To the residents of Queensbury wherever you put them I think you'll find that they
can be a positive neighborhood experience. I don't believe that our property values have been devalued as a
result of the home being there. I thank you. I'd be glad to answer any questions anyone has about one of
these houses from a neighbors point of view and I appreciate having the opportunity to speak even though
I'm not a resident of the Town.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-John, your next door to the residence that is managed by ARC, right.
MR. LEMERY-That's correct.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I appreciate you coming in. I don't think we've had anyone in your situation
speak to us at all before and I would appreciate maybe taking you up on your offer as the evening goes on.
MR. LEMERY-I was hoping I could leave.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Unless you like to leave. Is there anyone who might have a question for Mr.
Lemery while he's here? If not, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak about the Owen Avenue site,
yes SIr.
JOEL BOBICK-I live at 22 Owen Avenue across the street from the proposed site. I feel I must speak in
contradiction to Mr. Lemery's comments. Mr. Lemery is dealing with a different population than what is
proposed at the site at 23 Owen. The people he talks about would be considered mildly retarded and or
handicapped in some way that does not reflect upon the safety of the community at large. I have a sister
who has down syndrome and lives in a group home and it's appropriate for her, however, she is not one of
the class people which are considered dual diagnosis people who have mental retardation problems and
these are the sort of people who are also living at the Wilton Developmental Center. As of right now
Wilton has not offered what provided assurances that people who have been known to attack either their
own families or the staff members of Wilton will not be placed in these group homes. For that reason, I
believe these are items that the Town Board should look into and also the Town Board should consider
when deciding upon a different site. Again, Mr. Lemery had a very fortunate experience, but he's dealing
with a different nature of people that are now at Wilton and are being released.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Anyone else, we're still on Owen Avenue.
BOB EDDY-17 Owen Avenue, Queensbury. What John Lemery has to say about the people may be true,
but I've gotten some information from a resident nearby one of these homes. They say that the people are
docile they are no problem at all. The problems are with the traffic. They say the traffic is horrendous in
the middle of the night you have somebody changing shifts. In the daytime you've got the people going to
and from CWI if they work there or various daycare centers. You've got the therapists, you've got the
people who are relatives coming, people who are suppliers the traffic is just uncontinuous. .. I used to live
right near where John Lemery lives Ridge Street is a totally different street than Owen Avenue. Owen
Avenue is probably at the best twenty four foot street, whereas Ridge Street is must be fifty or sixty feet
more they have street lights, sidewalks, everything there. But, one of the biggest problems I think is the
fact that this particular property as I understand it the driveway is right on the property line which means
the garage faces north. This means that the people have to go in and turn and that means that the people
next door have not only the cars starting up in the middle of the night or various times like that, but also
have the problem of fumes from the exhaust of the cars starting up. I just think it's a totally impractical
piece of property for this purpose.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Anyone else. Seeing no hands, will close this public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:01 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING WILTON DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER COMMUNITY
RESIDENCES/MCCORMACK DRIVE OPENED 8:02 P.M.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I'll ask the Clerk if this has been advertised?
TOWN CLERK, DOUGHER-Yes.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Please same rules as for the past hearing. Some people came in late I will ask
that individuals come forward state your name and address say whatever you'd like for or against the
project or ask questions about it. We would ask that all persons be given a chance to speak once before
anyone speaks the second time.
ANDREW MCCORMACK-62 McCormack Drive, Queensbury. I'm here not to speak for or against the
proposed home at 81 McCormack Drive. From a personal standpoint my home is not in direct proximity to
81 McCormack Drive it's on the opposite side of the street some seven or eight hundred feet down the road.
I'm also not here speaking on behalf of myself and my son John as the developers of sections two and three
of Courthouse Estates. We have nothing to win or lose as to whether or not this 81 McCormack Drive does
become a community residence, I'd like to make that clear. What I would like to offer as an observation,
more than an observation, we've lived at McCormack Drive for the last ten years. Prior to that for the
previous twenty years we lived at the foot of Mt. McGregor in the Town of Wilton. During that time the
facility that's now on Ballard Road in Wilton was on top of Mt. McGregor. During the time we lived there
at the foot of the mountain and my wife and I were raising our six children we would go to the church, to
mass on Sunday up at the top of the mountain and there was a facility there for the residents of the facility
up there to participate in whatever they chose to. So my observation is one that's based on quit a number of
years of observing the residents that either up on top of the mountain or later down on Ballard Road who
are now being placed in community residences. I think the main comment is this. There have been so many
articles written in the paper from people who would think it's absolutely terrible that anyone could not think
kindly about putting these folks in family type surroundings and they often refer to them as children and
this is my very specific point. These folks are not children in terms of years they are grown people, they
may act like children but they do not look like children. Again, this comes from experience having been
with them many many times over many number of years. That when an adult acts like a child other
children become a little confused because they are looking at what appears to be a rational adult person.
When these adults act like children which they are mentally and if in the case such as we're talking now
with the homes in Queensbury in a relatively small not community, but neighborhood situation where you
have a number of children sometimes fifty, twenty, or thirty gathering for a school bus either before or at
the end of the day or other activities, these folks from these homes who again, appear to be adults for them
to act like children and doing strange things it becomes very unsettling to small children. The parents,
grandparents, other adults related to or knowing the children understand, but the children don't understand.
Depending on the severity of the handicap and the number of people living in the home that's what should
decide where these residents should be located. Mr. Lemery mentioned that his home on Ridge Street and
he's lived next to a home for a number of years as Mr. Eddy said, Ridge Street is not Owen Avenue, Ridge
Street is not McCormack Drive or any other relatively small neighborhood street it's a totally different set
of circumstances. But, again like he is and I keep thinking about this because of some fifteen years of
raising my children in the community and atmosphere of these other folks they leamed to know, my
children leamed to know that there were adults that had a problem but, they did so under the care and
guidance of their parents so it can be a disturbing thing. This is just something I wanted to share with you
from my very direct experience and I thank you for the time.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you. Who would like to be next?
SUSAN ROHNE-Greenwood Road, Courthouse Estates. I have been asked my neighbors in Courthouse
Estates, once again to present to the following statement. At this time seventy five residents of Courthouse
Estates formally oppose the placement of a group home for the developmentally disabled at 81 McCormack
Drive. I have just submitted this petition to the Town Board for public record. All of us strongly feel that
if we had not read the early November Post Star article and specifically the story entitled, Officials Defend
Group Homes, dated November 13th, 1991, we would still be in the dark regarding this issue of the State
purchasing private homes on Maplewood Drive, Owen Avenue, and McCormack Drive. May we stress
again, that no one has ever denounced the concept of relocating developmentally disabled and mentally
retarded people into home like environments, rather we object to the State dictating to us and to the fact
that tremendous tax dollars will be misused on purchasing and renovating these homes. Sadly this issue
has ignited neighbors from the outset due to lack of communication since April of 1991. Many
Queensbury taxpayers could of been saved anguish if they had been informed of the Wilton Developmental
Disability Service Offices plans back when the concept was in it's formative stages, perhaps then the people
of the Town of Queensbury could of started working sooner hand in hand with all parties concerned. We
have heard words, words, and more words since early November, it has been rumored that our chances of
reversing the situation are negligible at best. We posed numerous questions to the Wilton representatives
and most were answered with the ubiquitous, I don't have the answer for that one. We find it incredulous
that on November 25th, 1991 simple questions asked like who will be serviced at 81 McCormack Drive,
will the people be wheelchair bound, or will they be ambulatory, were met with a nebulous response.
These questions were designed to assist the thirteen member Site Review Committee along with residents
of the Town of Queensbury to select alternate sites matching criteria set forth by the Wilton DDSO. Last
night the Site Review Committee met for the first time we will work along with the Town to find three
viable sites. However, we will continue to urge the Town Board to look into the most viable solution to
this problem rather than enumerate the negative attributes at 81 McCormack Drive. We rather address a
positive approach to resolving this situation we hope you will act on this excellent recommendation. John
McCormack, principle builder in Courthouse Estates has been in constant phone contact with a company
that constructs modular homes customized for the handicapped and may we add they have already been
approved by New York State Inspectors in the past as homes having met specific guidelines for the
disabled. Complete construction takes only six weeks at appropriate cost of $115,600.00 per home. John
gave me those figures over the phone today and I put them on this little graphic, how he came about those
figures. (Presented graph to Board) Like I said, this is all preliminary and it's just an estimated cost
breakdown. He took the figure of 1,800 square feet which is about the size of 81 McCormack Drive, he
received the figure that is the cost $42.00 per square foot, $75,600.00. We estimated the average price for a
one acre lot in the Town of Queensbury would be about $20,000.00. John, also estimated that a septic
system and a new foundation about $12,000.00. We just tack in that miscellaneous item of $8,000.00 to
come up with that figure of $115,600.00 per home and that's the customized modular housing for the
handicapped. When you compare the approximate purchase price of $180,000.00 plus renovations costs
you are estimating a complete cost of about $250,000.00 for the home at McCormack Drive. We estimate
that New York State will be saving taxpayers in excess of $350,000.00 for the three targeted homes
combined. We also liked to remind the Town that new custom would allow the current homes to stay on
the tax rolls and that unused property in the Town would be purchased and put to excellent use. To all of
us taxpayers that makes financial sense to save approximately fifty percent of the projected cost. We
would require a meeting with Mr. Borgos and or someone familiar with available Town property in
residential areas that the State would agree to look at. We also asked the Town Attorney to explore all
legal perimeters to make this succeed. So much will be going on in the next few weeks prior to the new
year other communities such as Clifton Park, Guilderland, Niskayuna, Saratoga Springs, in addition to
Queensbury, will be convening to meet with legislatures in Albany to voice our concerns. We remain
optimistic that Mr. Donahue and Wilton will select three alternate sites and or choose to construct
handicapped accessible homes at a substantial cost benefit savings ultimately pleasing all concern.
However, we also demand that Mr. Donahue or whoever makes the ultimate decision by January 1st, 1992
submit in writing detailed reasons why some sites might be rejected and while some sites are approved and
submit this to the Town Board and to the thirteen member site review panel. I have been asked not to leave
this microphone from my neighbors without some confirmation from the Board that on or about January
1st, 1992 you will support your constituents if negotiations break down. We strongly urge the Board to
back our recommendation for three alternate sites be it existing Queensbury homes or three newly
constructed residences. We trust our words won't fall on deaf ears and that you will support our fiscally
expedient solution and please all of us in Queensbury. I thank you very much for your time.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Susan, question.
MS. ROHNE-Yes, Mrs. Monahan.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-$42.00 per square foot is that the erected price?
MS. ROHNE- That is the price that was quoted to John from this company.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Is that erected?
MS. ROHNE-Is that erected, sure it would be. It's a modular kind of home with all the rams all ready in it.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Is it also the erection if it's under contract to the state will have to pay the
postage job rate was that also factored in to that construction price per square foot?
MS. ROHNE-Mrs. Monahan, I'm speaking for John and I shouldn't do that, he broke his foot he couldn't
come tonight. He said if you have any questions he'd be more than happy to discuss it in detail with you. I
won't speak for him because that's not fair and he's the contractor I'm just the lackey.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That is an important consideration.
MS. ROHNE-It's a very good issue and he was showing me some of the specs and it does look very viable.
I have seen it in other communities and it seems to be working quite well, but it's something to consider
because. . .
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I agree with you, but I was just trying to get a little bit more detail about that
forty two dollars.
MS. ROHNE-Definitely call him he is also on the site review committee he loved to present his ideas I'm
sure.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Thank you.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you, anyone else?
COUNCILMAN MONTESI -Steve, just a general comment while folks are still here, I just sort of need to
get a feel for this. This Board that is presently sitting has gone through the public hearings has listened to
the comments of constituents in all three neighborhoods and as such I as a member of that board feel like
you know, I have a handle on some things. Four of us will be leaving this Board January 1st, we have an
extension until January 6th. I'm looking at and wondering what kind of a time frame we should be working
under would it be beneficial and I'm thinking out loud, I need some feedback Would it be to our advantage
to wait until the last day January 5th, to submit the alterative sites to the State they have to consider that. I
don't know how many days they take to consider that maybe you might be able to fill us in there is a certain
amount of time they must take to make their decision. Once they make their decision and say yes or no,
then the new Board that is sitting will have to say, okay we want to take it one step farther we think in place
of Owen this site is good, in place of Maplewood this side is fine and your rejecting it and the new Board
would have to carry it to the commissioner if need be, as Carl Baker pointed out go into court action. What
I'm trying to get is a feeling, do you want to take all the time is that to our advantage is it to the advantage
of the constituents to do that. I don't have a feel for it except, I don't know how long Mr. Donahue takes to
make his mind up.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I can't speak for Mr. Donahue, but he did tell me when he sent this letter when
he told me he would send this letter and did send it that the new date of January 6th, is what they would
really like to see. But, if your close to something the committee is working on something a few days here
or there is not a major problem. I think Karen, I see you nodding your head, probably agree with that. So
there is a time pressure there, but it isn't like at midnight something is going to strike at least that's the
feeling I've got.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-So that in essence this Board will not be making, actually we're making a
decision we have decided, we formed the committee and the decision that we're going to carry forth to the
next Board is that the constituents in all three sites would like us to look at alternative sites and basically
that's what the committee is doing.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I suppose we could make a decision before we leave office, but that then impacts
dramatically on the Christmas holiday and New Years Holiday.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I guess what we're going to have to say, is that we as a Board are rejecting the
three sites that's what we have to do in asking the committee. . .
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-The present Town Board.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-The present Town Board is rejecting the three sites.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I don't think that's the official position and again, Mr. Donahue is not here to
clarify it. It's my understanding that the committee was to meet review the entire situation and make
recommendations and it's potentially possible that the committee would say that two of them are good, one
is okay, that's my understanding. It's not that we are officially rejecting any sites at this point we haven't
heard from the committee yet that's what their charge is.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Paul, I have a further legal question. If it comes to the fact of rejecting a
site after the first of the year the new Town Board will not have been sitting in these chairs therefore, they
will not of supposedly officially been hearing been present during the hearing officially. Therefore, sense
they weren't present during the hearing can they act on a rejection of the site?
TOWN ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yes.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Fortunately most of the new Board members have been here, are here again.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But, I'm talking about officially. I remember one time, I missed part of a
public hearing and was told not to vote on it.
TOWN ATTORNEY DUSEK-I think there are two observations here. One, is that the law refers to the
Town Board and the Town Board is the Town Board regardless of who occupies the seats. The second
thing, I think here is that the public hearing that is held on this creates a record which is separate and apart
from the objections if there is going to be one by whatever Town Board should be sitting. The public
hearing, infact the public hearing is not even a mandatory requirement. I think that any Town Board upon
reviewing the entire record and either reading, I know some of the new members have been at some of
these meetings as long as they feel comfortable enough to speak it will be a personal decision they make.
They could either reject, approve or handle it whatever way they deem appropriate.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So there are no legal constraints by the fact it's moving from one Board to
the other.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Mr. Eddy you've walked up, would you state your name and address please.
BOB EDDY-17 Owen Avenue, Queensbury. There is just one question that came up in my mind that
applies inversely here. That is when Dan Donahue was presiding at the second hearing which is on 23
Owen Avenue, he said that the clock started running when he met with the committee has the committee
met with Dan Donahue?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I know the chairman of the committee met with Mr. Donahue last week
MR. EDDY-He said the committee.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS- The committee is meeting with him next week I know he's been anxious to set
up such a meeting.
MR. EDDY-I think that's a point. . .
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The last time we met was December 2nd maybe, I've lost track of time. He
agreed to the thirty days that night, but I noticed that he extended it another four days anyways.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-There was some concern about the calendar date starting, I think the Friday
after Thanksgiving and it was requested by the audience that perhaps start the clock the first Monday. It
was agreed upon with Mr. Donahue to start the clock was that December 6th or was that. . .
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No that was December 2nd, so he's extended it even further than that.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-He doesn't seem to be hung up on technicalities of an hour or a day or two days.
MR. EDDY-The point is probably not necessary or an important one. I have one point that I think should
be put into the record on the McCormack Drive. That is that they wanted to extend that property by an
additional amount for a subdivision, I should say and the Town Planning Board turned it down because it
wasn't a secondary means of egress. I think that's important because if a tree falls across that entrance there
which there is only one entrance no matter whether these people are here or the disabled people or the
people that live there. . .
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-I agree Bob. I remember when that was a very heated discussion and there
was some concerns about an exit from Courthouse Estates and because you only go in Courthouse Drive
there was concern about rescue services or equipment and vehicles getting in and out. Infact, I remember
Supervisor Borgos going to the County Board asking the County Board to consider an entrance from the
light off of Exit 20 going back with the help of the McCormack's. We couldn't get any cooperation on the
County level so that's certainly, I think would be a very legitimate concern for the members of McCormack
Drive and for also the Wilton organization. I think this Board has done what it's had to do and certainly
wish we could do more, but I think appointing the committee and working with the committee and certainly
this is a community committee. There are people that are on it there are vacancies on the committee there
are people that were on the committee that felt that they didn't want to participate anymore on the
committee. I don't care whether you live in whatever ward you live in be it one of the three wards that have
a home or a potential community home or the fourth ward at this point this certainly is a community
concern. I can't see this Board going on record rejecting any of the three present locations because in
rejecting that present location we're going to turn around and have to select alternative locations and once
that alternative location is named that's it that's the end of the process. Those neighbors won't have the
options that our neighbors have with coming before this Board and discussing it. Susan's presentation to
me sounds terrific and I think with the cooperation of our Planning Board Department who should have a
list, I mean they told me three years ago they had a list of residential lots available in this Town preexisting
nonconforming lots, certainly I would hope that our Town Planner would work hand in hand with this
committee to come up with three lots and this certainly could be the best possible solution. We would put
some people back to work which we desperately need in this economy we would have a building that
would be suited for our new neighbors and it would solve an awful lot of problems. I hope the committee
studies this presentation.
MR. EDDY-I think that when they made a survey it might have been as much as a year or a year an half
maybe two years ago they came up with something like fourteen hundred vacant lots.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Unfortunately they were not listed. I thought they were listed they are not
listed they are just numbers on maps. We turned them over to Mr. Dybas in my neighborhood and he's
spent many a day taking the list and looking at the tax map and going around and looking at some of the
lots. There are lots out there and they are available and they will certainly fill the need. It's a matter of the
clock is ticking there is nothing we can do about it. When people tell me they wish they had known about
it earlier this started ten years ago, I didn't even know about it ten years ago this is bureaucracy at it's best.
MR. EDDy-It's the State of New York
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Bob, I think the one thing that is happening here is that Susan's comments,
she's on the committee she'll be meeting with Mr. Donahue. That committee is going to know very very
quickly whether the state is going to accept, I say the State, Mr. Donahue is going to accept that concept of
modular or something. If they do what's the guidelines that we're going to have to work with as a Town
Board. But, at some point this committee is going to come back to this Town Board and say, here is what
we're proposing. We're proposing you reject all three sites and that you use these three sites or this group
of sites as an alternative this is what we would like you to propose to Donahue. Or we would like you to
reject all three sites and propose these three sites on these three lots and build three houses and Mr.
Donahue says it something he thinks he can work with. Somewhere along the lines within the next thirty
days this committee is going to come back to this Town Board or the new sitting Board with very specific
recommendations it would be our desire to follow those recommendations.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-In those recommendations if the lot is selected and the new built is the way
the committee recommends that we do on top of this it's a matter of meeting the people in the community
where that lot is and letting the people know that this is what's going to be placed on that lot. Once the
alternative is given that's it, you know let's be fair to everybody here.
MR. EDDy-After the alternative is approved, I think rather than just a selection.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Yes, that's true. I can't speak for the new board and I will not speak for the
new board. I know that there are legal avenues to go and the courts maybe the answer. Unfortunately, I'm
not going to put their head on the chopping block I won't be here for that decision they will make that
decision.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I can share with you this. In my conversation with Mr. Donahue last Friday, he
indicated that by all means he is willing to look at the option of building a new facility or three new
facilities. He is very open to that as a possible provided that the process keeps moving along that's his only
concern.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-One of the citizens made a comment at one of the community meetings, how
come our new neighbors want the best. Well you know what, I like the best too everybody wants the best.
Nobody wants to stay with mediocre or select mediocre when you can have, I'd rather have Ben and Jerry's
than you know Price Chopper too. I think that they can have their Ben and Jerry's with a new home. I
think it will be suited to their needs, I really hope that this is the avenue that Wilton will look very seriously
at.
MR. EDDY-I think they got stung, Dan Donahue particularly on one case in some other county where they
had six hundred thousand dollars for a new building that met all the codes.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-There is a lot to be considered. You know Bob, you know what you have to
do when you have to go with prevailing wage rates and the amount of dollars that are involved.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you very much. Anyone else?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Steve one question. When you talked to Mr. Donahue and I'll also ask Mr.
McNulty this same question. When you discussed the possibility of building did he give you any indication
of the size lot that they would consider?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-No, we didn't get into that. He thought that the first hurdle would be the legal
one, I'm waiting for Paul to open his ears again, asked for our Town Attorney to take a close look at the law
to see what if any role the Town would have to play in the process or could play. The easy suggestion the
easy solution to this would be to have three builders offer to build three spec houses that are suitable in
three locations that are acceptable to all concerned and then for the State to buy those three spec houses
once they are done.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Once they are done.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The problem is if you do it at the wrong time it appears then your trapped in the
prevailing wage rate scenario. It appears that if the developers or the builders were to build them with the
understanding that they probably will be purchased, but perhaps not definitely purchased that might be the
option. That's something that has to be looked at closely and will ask our Town Attorney to take a quick
look at it from the Town perspective but, this committee will be looking at all those options. Wilton as I
understand it is just anxious to see three homes in Queensbury they want them to be in nice locations and
they want the housing to be appropriate they don't seem to be hung up on specifics.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-If this committee is going to be looking at vacant land they have to have
some idea what size that lot has to be.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-We have an ordinance in this Town it's called one acre. We have one acre
building lots unless they are preexisting nonconforming if they are preexisting nonconforming we can go
with that.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We've got other sizes to depending on where they are.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-But, this is a residential property. This is a single family residential property
that's what the law is asking for.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Also the state is not bound by any of our regulations of that type so I'm
really saying to meet Wilton's needs what do they think the size of the piece of parcel needs to be.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Don't forget your asking a builder or three builders to go out and build a
house on spec a very specifically designed home. . .
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-In a terrific market time.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That's why I said what I said. I said that appears to be an option if it's done
properly, but there will be no guarantees and that could be a little risking. The second time, name and
address please.
SUSAN ROHNE-Greenwood Road, Lake George. Just a quick follow up. One, the single entrance. I
didn't even bring it up because Mr. Donahue answered that at the informational meeting. His response to
us at Courthouse was if you can live with it so can we.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I don't agree with that.
MS. ROHNE-Neither do we, but that's life. Two, people on the committee had a question about the size of
the lots which you people are discussing right now. We understand it that for instance the house at 81
McCormack Drive, 3/4 acre lot that type of thing, I'm assuming they want the same size if not better that's
always been the explanation we keep getting.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-That's what they are saying.
MS. ROHNE-So that's what we have to look for. Our other question is do we go directly to Lee York. .
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Certainly.
MS. ROHNE-And sit with her as soon as possible.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Absolutely.
MS. ROHNE-Would she have available listings of these properties would that be the best bet right now.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-I would also get a hold ofMr. Dybas, I don't know if he is here or not. Joe
has done a lot of work on some building lots.
MS. ROHNE- Then the other big problem which has cropped up is, I don't know if Mr. McNulty is here.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-He is here.
MS. ROHNE-Somebody has mentioned that it's all well and good to go ahead and find these pieces of
property, I should say, go ahead and build but there are certain state requirements. You have to have State
workers constructing it.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS- That's what we were just talking about. That's the prevailing wage rate for State
workers.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That the prevailing rate that you have to pay of public jobs.
MS. ROHNE-It was intimidated that you have to go through so many different channels.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-That's why it was recommended that you could get three private builders to
do this, I mean there are a lot of things you can wish for.
MS. ROHNE- That's right. The other situation came up we have a number of alternate sites picked out all
ready. Everybody is afraid to submit that and you know why.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Sure.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS- That's why the job of the committee will be very difficult.
MS. ROHNE-No, no, no. Somebody came up with the idea that let's say, Courthouse Estates
representatives from our ward hand in five alternate sites. There is no guarantee that McCormack Drive
will not be selected and Twicwood would be and Westlands would be.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-That's right.
MS. ROHNE-So that has caused a tremendous dissension among the group also. I don't know how we're
going to resolve that problem if we can.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I would expect there would be many late nights.
MS. ROHNE-So that's the other issue. You say it's all right to contact Lee York as soon as possible.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Absolutely.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-I would hope that your scenario would work because what a impact what a
message it would send to Albany that the Town of Queensbury has solved a problem and done it with their
head and not their heart and has kept their hands on their pocketbook
MS. ROHNE-And you have that feeling that Mr. Donahue would really be willing to look at. . .
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-I think he is a very understanding, workable, gentlemen.
MS. ROHNE-I'm glad you said that and I appreciate your comments before that was very kind of you so
thank you.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you, anyone else?
RON BRYANT -Hawthrone Road, Courthouse Estates. The only quick comment that I'd like to make is
that number one, if this decision has to be made by the committee and the Town Board by the early part of
January, it's been given an extension but it's still limited time, it's very important and hinges on the decision
that the turn around time on the communication has to be quick In otherwords the committee is going to
have a number of specific questions to ask Mr. Donahue and the State representatives and that's going to
alter their decision of the sites. It's important that when they ask specific questions they get answered in a
reasonable amount of time otherwise without the information coming back from the state and sharing of
information. . .
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-I don't see any stall tactic's here. I think the lines of communications are
open. Has the committee seen any stall tactic's, I haven't?
MR. BRYANT-It's my understanding there are a number of questions asked that Mr. Donahue said would
be forth coming some specific questions. As far as I'm aware for Courthouse Estates for the 81
McCormack Drive property we haven't received that maybe I'm under the wrong impression. . .
MS. ROHNE-It's true.
MR. BRYANT -We didn't receive the information.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Perhaps Mr. McNulty has received that now.
MR. BRYANT-For instance why earlier ones were rejected. We want to go out and find the best that we
can for the residents we really do. In order to do that we need to know the guidelines otherwise we're just
going out in different directions and just wasting our time and effort.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That's the purpose of the committee, I believe.
MRS. GRANT -Specifically anything that has been asked of us has been forwarded to the committee. If
there is something that is lacking we can work through the committee, I think on Monday. If you have
questions that you feel are unanswered I would get them to Mr. McNulty.
MR. BRYANT-Is there anyway you can set a reasonable turn around time. I know at work I belong to an
organization we deal with management and we have an agreement that the reasonable amount of turn
around time unless both parties agree otherwise is, you know five days, you know unless something comes
up.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I think the committee can discuss that with Mr. Donahue. I know that he was
calling here waiting to hear from the committee he is anxious.
MR. BRY ANT -F or me that's good to hear.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-I would suggest that you cut out the middle man and don't come to this
Board. Go from the committee to Mr. Donahue and go back and forth.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-It will go faster if you go directly to the committee.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you very much.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you. Anyone else?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think Steve we should assure everyone should any information come into
you or Mr. Dusek it will be forwarded to the committee as quickly as possible.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Yes, definitely.
MET A MURRAY -25 Owen Avenue. My comments are of a general nature so I don't, there is a problem of
mine taking some of the Courthouse Estates time. One of the things that I wanted to emphasize and I think
the committee and the Board both need to keep in mind is the nature of the issue that is facing the Town.
It's a Town wide issue and I've heard several comments here tonight that make me very concerned about
one ward against another. I think I would like some comfort in hearing the resolution reread that the Town
Board did pass with respect to appointments on the committee. Mrs. Potenza made reference to the fact
that there were openings and more or less invited people to come on the committee and that, of course,
would open it up to waving it in favor of certain wards. There seems to be a ground swell of neighborhood
against neighborhood and I know that the resolution was crafted to avoid that problem and I wanted to
make sure that doesn't happen.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-My comments were that there were vacancies on the committee that have to
be filled. I really feel that whether the vacancy comes from the third ward or the first ward or the second
ward, we're looking for a committee of twelve and a chairman. I think that there is a need because it is
indeed a Town problem and not a neighborhood problem.
MS. MURRAY -Would that be a legal committee then because it will not be in accordance with the
resolution.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The resolution specifically talks about three representatives from each of the
four wards. But, it's my understanding that we're losing representatives fairly quickly and that I suppose
any ward that your from will provide an opportunity for you to have a spot.
MS. MURRAY-Is there a need for a new resolution then?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I don't think so. Do you happen to have that old resolution handy, I don't think
we do. It is very specifically three people from each of the four wards plus one chairman who may be from
anywhere.
MS. MURRAY-I just want to go on record as having a concern of that nature. One of the other things that
we talked about earlier and the fellow who spoke before me made very clear was that the committee does
not have all the information it needs to try and meet whatever requirements Wilton is coming up with. It
seems to me that there is a need for that information to be available again, I would emphasize that the clock
really shouldn't start until that information is available to the committee. They really can do some ground
work, but they can't really come up with any viable alternatives or do any real meaningful work until they
know what the perimeters are they are working within. The other thing that I wanted to emphasize was if
your talking about new builds, I think it's very important that the Town not get caught up with just one
option. I've heard varying things from both Dan Donahue and other people working down at Wilton as far
as their attitude towards new builds. When we first talked to Mr. Donahue he was vehemently opposed to
the idea he said it couldn't be done ba, ba, ba, ba, we've done new builds we're not doing those anymore
we're into existing houses. That position has been soften, but I think we need to realize that the state more
less makes their own selection and we have to be very careful about not putting all of our eggs in one
basket. I think we probably need to look at both existing homes as well as new builds. With reference to
that somebody really needs to be given the responsibility for finding out what the requirements are with
respect to the building. I know possibilities might be a not for profit association or something to not use a. .
., but to deal with the issues of complying with the building codes and the prevailing wage rates and that
kind of thing. There are some options out there that creativity can allow us to get the job done, but
somebody needs to be able to work with the state in developing those options.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Anyone else?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Steve, my suggestion would be if the committee feels that they have
questions that Wilton has not answered that they specifically list those questions in writing that they are
forwarded to Mr. Donahue so that you have a paper trail that can be followed. You cannot do that just by
word, by telephone calls, it has to be written and with written responses so you have that trail.
CARL BAKER-20 Owen Avenue. A couple of comments that maybe appropriate maybe they'll just be
concerns for Paul to worry about. The way I read the statue, I don't know the Town can respond to these
propose residences in any sort of shot gun fashion. Each residence, I think is a separate application and as
to each one particular alternate sites are going to need to be suggested if the Town finds that there are better
alternate sites. I don't think you can say you don't infact reject these applications you merely suggest
alternate sites. As to each one, I suspect the Town is going to have to act independently. I think the
concern about what is going to be a necessary alternate site or a suitable alternate site is not inparticular sort
of vaguely defined by the statue. The Town can suggest suitable sites which would accommodate such a
facility and then the statue goes on to say if the site suggested are satisfactory with regard to the nature,
size, and community support requirements of the program for the propose facility then the agency shall
seek to establish it's facility in those recommended sites. Now, what is going to be the nature, size, and
community support requirements. Well in the applications made to the Town they define the nature of the
program at least as to 23 Owen Avenue, it's a home for six adults. It's not really defined much beyond that
it's merely a residents for six adults it's the nature of the prograrn. The community support requirements
the occupants of Owen Avenue will use an array of community resources including community
recreational, culture opportunities, shopping, religious, medical etc. There doesn't seem to be anything
directly related to Owen Avenue that is accessible it's things that are accessible within the Town.
Obviously the size it's going to be a facility that will house six adults. I think some of it's here in the statue
it's strikes me in my charge to this Board is a couple of things. As I would not respond in some sort of piece
meal fashion by quickly finding three alternates and sort of throwing them out there. I think the committee
should do it's work and it should come back and it can find alternate sites it should make that presentation.
I think the new Board should be the appropriate Board to respond to this as they are the ones that will have
to decide if their decision is correct and if they are going to follow through on that decision by carrying it to
it's logical conclusion. I think if suitable sites are found the statue implies that the agency shall use those
sites. The decision to accept those resides and the director initially on appeal to the commissioner and then
finally to the courts if the Town finds the commissioner and or the director acting arbitrarily in rejecting the
sites. My recommendations are not a piece meal reaction here let the committee do it's work I do suspect
as to each location alternates are going to have to individually be addressed. The Town does not have to
merely recommend one alternate the statue says, alternate sites in the plural and therefore to each location
several options could be recommended.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you. This is why specifically why we held three public hearings so that
each site would be looked at independently so we've got a record for each site. We would tend to agree
with your conclusion.
TOWN ATTORNEY DUSEK-I just might add that I think everything that Mr. Baker has just indicated is
the way in which we've conducted it so far. I would agree that we received three separate notifications we
ought to address these individually. I think his observation about the fact for instance one of the houses is
set for six, I think the other ones are varying in numbers that also goes to indicate the type of residents you
will be looking to substitute for each one. One residence you find may not be suitable for all three of them
it may only be suitable for one, I think you do have to address it on a case by case basis. The other thing is
I think what Mr. Baker is suggesting is that we in terms of doing the homework when you do that two
things are going to happen. One is that you may be very well able to persuade Wilton to use the alternative
obviously that's what everybody wants in the end. Secondly, if you've done your homework and it is
suitable and there is no reason why they shouldn't use it then I think you strengthen your case if you should
be forced to go to the commissioner. You've showed that it's been a reason thought out individualized
approach not just simply a bunch of residences thrown up with no justification. Certainly, I cannot find any
fault with what Mr. Baker says, infact would be in complete agreement with him on that.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you. Anyone else from the audience. Let me close this public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:46 P.M.
DISCUSSION HELD
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Mr. Montesi would like to know Mr. McNulty, brief report your committee met
last night would you come to the microphone please.
MR. MCNUL TY -Yes, we did meet last night as a organizational meeting went through a number of issues.
I'm trying to put my thoughts in order. Some of the same concerns that have been mentioned here were
mentioned in the committee meeting things like neighborhood against neighborhood. We have an
approach that we think is going to work with that. As we begin to get sites to look at and things to consider
we're going to split the committee into subcommittees two different ways. Where we have some sites to
look at and evaluate we're going to split, I guess you would say vertically we're going to have one person
from each ward on a subcommittee so that you get a cross section and look at things that way. Then we
will come back as a committee as a whole for the better looking sites and discuss those and pursue those as
an entire committee. At the same time, last night I suggested that each member from the three wards that
have propose sites go back in their own ward and take a real close look at their own neighborhood so that
when we're ready to look at other neighborhoods we can say that we have also gone back to the existing
neighborhood and taken a careful look to make sure there isn't a better suited house in that neighborhood so
we'll be doing that as well and trying to avoid the problem of neighbors against neighbors. As far as
matching the homes in the discussions that I've had with Mr. Donahue he says, he is not real picky about
matching exact specs so for instance, he is not worried about the home in Twicwood whether it's a three
bedroom or five bedroom or whatever. He says they are planning on putting eight people in there which
means four bedrooms therefore a comparable home would be a four bedroom home or a three bedroom
home with a den that could be converted he can be quite flexible that way. As far as exactly was he's
looking for and specs, I've got to contact his office yet, but he offered to come anytime after Thursday night
to meet with us weekend or evenings and we're shooting at this coming Monday night. He offered to go
through the reasons they rejected some of the places that the have rejected. He also said if we found places
that we thought we're suitable he would be glad to send one of his people up same day or next day to look
at it with us and go through it and tell us what their reaction was and what the pluses and minuses were so
he is ready to react as soon as we ask for help. I think that this is the approach we'll probably be trying to
take rather than try to nickel and dime him to death with all kinds of minute details on paper we'll sit down
and work with him as long as he's cooperating and he can see we're cooperating, I think we'll get where
we're headed.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-What Paul just said tonight the Town Attorney might be something important
for the committee to pass on to you too. That very specifically for each site that has been. . .by the state we
should individually have alternatives sites. That doesn't necessarily mean if Twicwood or Maplewood or
McCormack they both could have the same alternative site, I would presume.
MR. MCNULTY-Mr. Donahue has discussed that with me also. He made it plain that when we are ready
to present our alternate sites whether it's three or ten we have to tell him which alternate sites are for which
place. He wants them segregated and presented as a separate package they can go to him the same time,
but they've got to be segregated that way. At some point as people we're saying we've got to make that
decision and part of it's going to be whether you've got a lot of three bedrooms homes or a lot of four
bedrooms homes or whatever. He also mentioned that doesn't preclude finding a six bedroom home with
two of the bedrooms on the second floor which they just don't use so he can be flexible that way. The other
discussion we had on building with me he seemed to be fairly open to consider new construction. The
points he was making to me, I think the same ones he's made to Steve, that he does not feel that the State at
this point can go out and contract to build a new place it just takes to long it's to complicated he would
never meet his deadlines if he were to do that. If we can find a way to in essence hand him a spec home
without having an iron clad guarantee from him that he will buy it that's the other catch to it he cannot gives
us an absolute guarantee that he'll buy it when we offer it, but he will work with us to work that direction.
It does not have to be a completely finished home he said if it's roughed in and up to a certain point he feels
he might be able to purchase it and then renovate it to finish it up to their specs. He is willing to look at
options, I don't think he's in a position to give absolute guarantee until he does looks at it. But that's one
thing we will be certainly looking at is the possibility of building not forgetting that you still have the same
problems of finding the vacant land site in a neighborhood where you can mitigate enough of the objections
that you have a better situation than you do now. We feel there is no point in just moving the same
situation to another neighborhood we've got to find a way of coming up with a better solution.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Did he tell you and probably not because it's the overall cost that's important
to him, but did you get any idea what they would be willing to factor in the cost for price of land?
MR. MCNULTY-No, I haven't. Although there are some of these questions that I would hope we will be
asking Monday night when he comes. There have been several specific questions that people have had that
we want to get clarified. He's available if we think of something later it's easy enough to pick up a phone. I
can reiterate what Steve has said too. When I haven't gotten back to him in a day or so and he hasn't heard
from me he calls me from the office down in Albany, he called me yesterday or the day before and said, I'm
going to be out of Town for three days and I know your going to want to get in touch with me and here's
what my schedule is and here's when I'm available.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-No problem with a meeting place, I mean where your meeting you've got
access and all that.
MR. MCNULTY-We're fine. Again, I've got to get back to Steve's office to arrange for next Monday
night, but that's pending my action which I'll do tomorrow.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you and thank you again for serving this difficult capacity.
TOWN ATTORNEY DUSEK-I just want to make a comment because this has come up a number of times
tonight and that is on the possibility of building. As I understand it and I think it's been said, but let me just
repeat for a moment. The biggest problem that Mr. Donahue finds, I think with the building is the length of
time and the cost factor because when a State entity or a agency of the State must build homes they have a
whole host of things they have to do. They have to comply with the education law and the engineering
requirements. They have to comply with bidding requirements, drafting specification, putting things out
for bid, getting bonds. They have to pay prevailing wage rates. They have to break the contract in what
would normally be one builder building a simple house the State has to divide it into four different parts.
They have to have an electrical, plumbing and heating and ventilation, general contract, electrician, they get
divided into four parts. There is just a whole host of things that have to be done in order for the State to
construct these things. Now, whether it's good or bad can be argued and debated, but the laws are there and
they've been put into place
for a lot of reasons which I won't get into now. My point is that the Town of Queensbury just so everyone
knows faces the same type of problems. We're an agency or a municipality, we're part of the State
government so to speak. We also as a Town have to comply with all of these same type of requirements.
I'm not saying that I won't look to try to find any other possible solutions because I will. But, the short term
solution of well, Town of Queensbury you build the house and offer it to them that won't work because
we'll have the same exact problems that they are having in terms of timing, expense, terms of all the
requirements. Now, are there any other alternatives out there, I don't know but they have this problem and
we have the same problem from the Town perspective. We also have an additional problem and that is that
I'm sure people are thinking why can't the Town of Queensbury somehow just go head and buy it or make
other arrangements. That is that we have an additional problem of proper expenditures of Town funds and
questions of that nature. There are going to be a lot of issues that we have to take a look at from the Town's
perspective. I just wanted to point out that at least essentially, I see some of the same problems that they
are having that we would have in terms of trying to build a house. As the Supervisor mentioned if a builder
just wanted a house and offered it fully completed to the State and said, do you want to buy it or don't you
want to buy it with no obligation on part of the State that's a different story because what that is is
essentially just going out like they are buying an already built house that's no different if the house was just
built. But the danger, of course, to that is the builder or the developer because he's got to take that risk that
he is either going to sell it to the State or for this purpose or perhaps that he can find another use for the
house or sell it to somebody else. Now, maybe he's willing to take that chance builders do build spec
houses and perhaps somebody out there is willing to do that and I think that, I'm certain that Mr. Donahue
would be willing to take a look at that kind of a concept as he's indicated. I think the other thing is I got the
sense at least from sitting through all the meetings I have with Mr. Donahue and that is that I think the
receptiveness on his part to explore this building issue is just that. He is basically saying, here's my
problem it's a tough situation if we build it. On the other hand if you can somehow come up with a solution
for me sure I'll take a look at it. But, I don't think at least the impression I gotten from him, I don't think
that he has any particular solutions in mind as to that issue. I just want everybody to know I think that's an
area that really has to be taken a look at. I've gotten some feel from the Board tonight that I think you want
me to look into this, but we do have some road blocks of our own. I just wanted to mention that to clear up
that issue.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Paul, an other question. Should the Town try to do anything we would also
be subject to the thirty day permissive referendum type of thing.
TOWN ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well you may be, but a lot of the permissive referendum times deal with
particular sections of Town Law that may require them and sometimes depending upon how your financing
a particular project those may be avoided so I don't know that it would necessarily be controlling. I see the
biggest time factor and cost factor is the breakup of the contracts the bidding and all the other stuff that I
mentioned.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you. I did receive a letter from Mrs. Getman offering three other sites as
alternates and requested that we submit today by the latest December 10th to Wilton a formal resolution
recommending one or more of the three proposed sites. Of course, at that point she did not know that the
letter from Wilton had come and I got it just this afternoon although it came yesterday. What is the
pleasure of the Board?
BOARD-Agreed not to act on the alternative sites at the present time. Agreed that alternative sites
suggested should be turned over to the committee.
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
OF ROAD DEDICATION
RESOLUTION NO.: 657,1991
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Marilyn Potenza
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering the acceptance of
Cardinal Court, offered for dedication by Stephen M. Kelly, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified to act as lead agency
with respect to compliance with SEQRA which required environmental review of certain actions
undertaken by local governments, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is an unlisted action pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the
State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, after considering the action
proposed herein, reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form, reviewing the criteria contained in
Section 617.11, and thoroughly analyzing the project with respect 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 of the Town of Queensbury hereby finds that the proposed
responses inserted in Part II of the said Environmental Assessment Form are satisfactory and approved, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to complete and execute
Part III of the said Environmental Assessment Form and to check the box thereon indicating that the
proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the annexed Negative Declaration is hereby approved and the Town Clerk 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 10th day of December, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF
CARDINAL COURT
RESOLUTION NO. 658,1991
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Marilyn Potenza
WHEREAS, Stephen M. Kelly has offered a deed to dedicate to the Town of Queensbury Cardinal
Court, which is more particularly described in the survey map presented at this meeting and the original
deed being presented to this meeting, and
WHEREAS, Paul H. Naylor, Superintendent of Highways of the Town of Queensbury has advised
that he has inspected said road proposed to be dedicated to the Town of Queensbury and he has found it
meets with Town specifications and his approval, and
WHEREAS, Thomas K. Flaherty, Superintendent of Water of the Town of Queensbury, has
advised that he has made an inspection of water mains and appurtenances along said road proposed for
dedication and finds that the installation is in accordance with the requirements of the Town of Queensbury
Water Department, and
WHEREAS, the form of the deed and title to the road offered for dedication have been reviewed
and approved by Paul B. Dusek, Town Attorney for the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has considered the environmental
effects of the proposed action by previous resolution and issued a Negative Declaration pursuant to the
State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the aforementioned deed for dedication of the said road be and the same is
hereby accepted and approved, 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 that the Town Clerk is
hereby authorized and directed to cause said deed to be recorded in the Warren County Clerk's Office, after
which said deed shall be properly filed and maintained in the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of
Queensbury, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the road be hereby added to the official inventory of Town Highways, to be
described as follows:
Road Number: 479
Description: Located off Potter Road, in the
Partridge Run Subdivision.
Name: Cardinal Court
Feet: 775
Duly adopted this 10th day of December, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING
ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW NO. _, 1991
A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
CHAPTER 124 THEREOF ENTITLED "PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS"
TO ADD A NEW PARAGRAPH EXEMPTING CERTAIN LOTS AS NO LONGER
ACCESSIBLE FOR RECREATION FEES
RESOLUTION NO.: 659,1991
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Marilyn Potenza
WHEREAS, at this meeting there has been presented for adoption by the Town Board of the Town
of Queensbury, Local Law No. _,1991, A Local Law To Amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury,
Chapter 124 Thereof entitled "Parks and Recreation Areas" to Add A New Paragraph Exempting Certain
Lots as No Longer Assessable for Recreation Fees, and
WHEREAS, such legislation is authorized pursuant to the Municipal Home Rule Law of the State
of New York, and
WHEREAS, prior to adoption of said Local Law, it is necessary to conduct a public hearing,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED AND ORDERED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall meet and
hold a public hearing at the Supervisors Conference Room, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County,
New York, at 4:00 p.m., on the 19th day of December, 1991, to consider said Local Law No. _, 1991 and
to hear all persons interested on the subject matter thereof concerning the same and to take such action
thereon as is required or authorized by law, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED AND ORDERED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby
directed to publish and post the notice that has also been presented at this meeting concerning the proposed
Local Law No. _, 1991 in the manner provided by law.
Duly adopted this 10th day of December, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs, Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka
RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS
RESOLUTION NO.: 660,1991
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Marilyn Potenza
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi
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:
ASSESSOR
FROM
TO AMOUNT
01-1355-4010
(Office Supplies)
01-1355-2010 $ 45.00
(Office Equipment)
PLANNING
FROM
TO
AMOUNT
01-8020-1610
(Asst. Planner)
01-8020-4060
(Service Contracts
$ 22.00
and Warranties)
01-8020-1060
(Clerk, Full-Time)
01-8020-1910
(Sr. Typist, Full-Time)
$14,577.76
CEMETERY
FROM
TO AMOUNT
02-8810-1430
02-8810-2060 $ 3,500.00
(Laborer B, P.T.)
(Tools)
ATTORNEY
FROM
TO
AMOUNT
01-1420-4402
(Town Attorney,
Contractual)
01-1420-4411 $ 7,000.00
(Attorney, Labor)
Duly adopted this 10th day of December, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka
RESOLUTION TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION
RESOLUTION NO. 661, 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 hereby adjourns from Regular Session and enters
into Executive Session to discuss two matters of personnal and real property acquisition.
Duly adopted this 10th day of December, 1991, by the following
vote:
AYES: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka
No further action was taken.
On motion, the meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
DARLEEN M. DOUGHER
TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY