Loading...
1992-01-27 SPECIAL BOARD MEETING JANUARY 27,1992 7:00 P.M. MTG #10 RES. 71-78 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT MICHEL BRANDT -SUPERVISOR BETTY MONAHAN-COUNCILMAN NICK CAIMANO-COUNCILMAN PLINEY TUCKER-COUNCILMAN BOARD MEMBER ABSENT SUSAN GOETZ-COUNCILMAN TOWN ATTORNEY PAUL DUSEK TOWN OFFICIALS KATHLEEN KATHE, DAVE HATIN, LEE YORK, PAT CRAYFORD PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS, ZONING BOARD MEMBERS & BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE PRESENT PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY SUPERVISOR BRANDT QUAKER ROAD SEWER RENT SUPERVISOR BRANDT, referring to the proposed sewer rents.. noted that after many discussions, workshops, we basically came to the conclusion to proceed with the law as it was proposed last year and through the public hearing. Although we know that there may be some alternative ideas that might make some sense and we'd like to pursue it further, we've run out of time. We have to enact the law now, we need to pay bonds and pay what is due. ATTORNEY DUSEK noted a change to the resolution since the time of the public hearing, an added WHEREAS clause on page 2, end of the WHEREAS clauses just before the first RESOLVED... which refers to page 4 of the Local Law, a figure originally at $291.8265 has been changed to $291.84, another figure of$3.18 has been changed to $3.22. SUPERVISOR BRANDT questioned whether the change was significant enough to go back through the public hearing process. ATTORNEY DUSEK noted that it was a decision for the Town Board to make ... I've already put in there that it's minor but if the Board feels differently, you can order another hearing. Supervisor Brandt agreed with Attorney Dusek and the following resolution was proposed: RESOLUTION TO ENACT LOCAL LAW NUMBER 1 , 1992 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY CHAPTER 136, ARTICLE XXIV THEREOF, ENTITLED "SEWERS AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL AND ESTABLISHMENT OF SEWER RENTS", RESPECTIVELY. RESOLUTION NO. 71,1992, Introduced by Mr. Nick Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Pliney Tucker. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of enacting a Local Law to amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury Chapter 136, Article XXIV thereof, entitled "Sewers and Sewage Disposal and Establishment of Sewer Rents", respectively, by amending fees to be assessed as sewer rents within the Sewer District and adding, amending, or modifying additional provisions in Section 136-137 A and Section 136-145, as more specifically set forth in the proposed Local Law presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Local Law entitled "A Local Law Amending the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 136, Article XXIV thereof, entitled 'Sewers and Sewage Disposal and Establishment of Sewer Rents', Respectively", has been presented at this meeting, a copy of said Local Law also having been previously given to the Town Board at the time the Resolution was adopted which set a date and time for a public hearing, and WHEREAS, on December 30, 1991, a public hearing with regard to this Local Law was duly conducted, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby determines this action to be continuing administration and not a new matter and hereby further determines this matter to be a Type II Action under SEQRA and finds no further SEQRA review necessary, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury notes that since the time of the public hearing, two changes exist in the proposed Local Law, said changes appearing on page 4, where the present, correct figure of $291.84 was printed originally as $291.8265 and the present, correct figure of $3.22 was printed originally as $3.18, and the Town Board recognizes that these changes are minor, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby enacts the proposed Local Law to amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 136, Article XXIV thereof, entitled "Sewers and Sewage Disposal and Establishment of Sewer Rents", respectively, to be known as Local Law Number 1, 1992, the same to be titled and contain such provisions as are set forth in a copy of the proposed Law presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to file the said Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and that said Local Law will take effect immediately and as soon as allowable under law. Duly adopted this 27th day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: Mrs. Goetz INSURANCE - BROKER OF RECORD COUNCILMAN CAIMANO noted that after much discussion, there are 2 resolutions for proposal... one being the resolution retaining the insurance agent and broker, the other resolution stating, when an Insurance Company is chosen, it must be done by Town Board function. SUPERVISOR BRANDT noted for the public's knowledge, I changed broker of record and when it became a controversy within the Board, I passed it to the Board which led to a meeting, an Executive Session with a lengthy discussion where the following resolutions were proposed and read into the record: RESOLUTION RETAINING INSURANCE AGENT AND BROKER RESOLUTION NO. 72, 92, Introduced by Mr. Nick Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the action of the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury in completing a change of broker form naming Cool Insuring Agency, Inc., as the broker of record for the purpose of reviewing and obtaining insurance coverage for the Town's insurance needs is hereby ratified, authorized, and approved and the Town Supervisor is hereby directed to complete and execute, on behalf of the Town, all other necessary documents required to change insurance brokers and agents to Cool Insuring Agency, Inc., effective as soon as possible. Duly adopted this 27th day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: Mrs. Goetz RESOLUTION CLARIFYING THE AUTHORITY FOR THE SELECTION OF INSURANCE BROKERS AND INSURANCE COMPANIES, AS WELL AS MODIFICATION OF INSURANCE AND INSURANCE PROTECTION LIABILITY LIMITS RESOLUTION NO. 73, 92, Introduced by Mr. Nick Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, as a matter of policy and direction to all present and future Town officials, is desirous of clarifying and defining the authority for the selection of insurance brokers and insurance companies, as well as for the modification of insurance and insurance protection liability limits for the Town of Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby directs, as of this day and until such time as this resolution should be repealed or modified, that the selection of insurance brokers and/or agents and/or companies to represent and/or provide insurance liability protection and/or other types of insurance for the Town of Queensbury shall be made exclusively by resolution adopted by majority vote of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby further directs that, from this time forward, the selection of types of insurance, as well as increase or decrease in all coverage, shall also be accomplished by resolution of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury adopted by majority vote. Duly adopted this 27th day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: Mrs. Goetz DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE: COUNCILMAN TUCKER noted that the Board was considering making this a law, questioned Attorney Dusek if this will have the same effect. ATTORNEY DUSEK noted that a resolution is a direction from the Board and indicates how the Board wants things run as charged with Town policy and Town finances. Referring to the resolution, in terms of making it clear and resolving the issue, I think it does that. In terms of establishing legal authority that is more difficult to change and will be in existence in the future and easily found, it does not do that. The only thing that would do that is the local law and a local law obviously carries more clout then a resolution. In conclusion, for purposes of this administration, I think it does make it clear but for purposes of future administrations, this could be an issue that repeats itself. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO but in fact, future administrations could change the law anyway. ATTORNEY DUSEK that is correct. Noted that the Town Board could adopt a local law at some future date. DISCUSSIONS WITH TOWN ATTORNEY A. SUBDIVISION/ZONING ORDINANCES - NON CONFORMING LOTS ATTORNEY DUSEK-You should have proposed resolutions in your packet dealing with it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Paul, tell me in the blue book where I'm going to find the original one that were trying to do something with? ATTORNEY DUSEK-179-77 in your zoning. The section itself is actually laid right out in the law. The way I do it is I put the whole law paragraph in there, not, obviously the whole ordinance but that one paragraph is there so that you don't have to refer to your books. It would be in your, I think your last resolution in your packet. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea, general exceptions. ATTORNEY DUSEK-If you go down, I would say the last 2 pages of the last resolution, it should say local law on top, on the top of the page of the last 2 pages. What you see there is section 179-77, just that one section of the law. What you see in brackets is what we are proposing to delete and that's the only, just in the caption, that was something that was an error that should have been not there to begin with. But the major difference in this particular legislation is what you see underlined at the very end, that's what is being added and that's the only change other than the brackets up at the top that is being made. Basically what it does and I can read it to you too, it says, except, first of all, what has happened here in the first part of the paragraph, it says that, basically all lots were exempt from the 88 ordinance revision requirements until October 1st of 91. As of October 1st, 91, all those lots in subdivisions and everywhere in Town basically became non conforming if they didn't match current ordinance requirements. The idea at the time it was adopted, was that variances could be obtained for lots that were non conforming if they needed them. One of the big things that people thought of at the time and I went through the minutes and it reflects this, was set backs that you have to have from side lines and things of that nature. But what was also addressed by this law was area. In other words if you have a subdivision that has half acre lots in an area of Town that is now been zoned 1 acre, you can't issue a building permit unless that person gets a variance from the 1 acre requirement because that's what the law says, you've got to have 1 acre to build. So what this change does, it doesn't effect the side lines, but it effects that area, part of it and says, if you are in a subdivision and it's half acre lots and it's in an area of Town that is now zoned 1 acre, you don't need a variance to build on that lot if you meet everything else. So just the area is effected. So a half acre lot is made basically conforming in so far as the half acre is concerned and I'm using the half acre only as an example because I think there are some subdivisions in Town that are a third of an acre and before the 88 ordinance was adopted, that was fine. Once the 88 ordinance was adopted and 3 years went by, now those people can not build on those unless they come in, even if they meet all the other requirements, they still can't build on them because the area says it's maybe a half acre or 1 acre in that part of Town. What would happen now is, it says, whatever was approved by the Planning Board for acreage is what's going to be allowed in terms of the size of that particular lot in that subdivision. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-The original approval? ATTORNEY DUSEK-The original approval so long as it is after 1982. It doesn't change anything with regard to anything before 1982 and it doesn't change anything with regard to lots that are not in subdivisions. I hope I've made that clear. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Only subdivisions. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Only subdivisions, I made it very limited only because we got a crisis the other day as the Supervisor knows that arose because what has happened essentially is that, that part of the area for subdivision lots was never, nobody ever required a variance for it and all of sudden, somehow it was picked up on, and area variances were started to be required and that we found all of sudden was effecting alot of subdivisions in Town, more so than I think we realized would happen. Because it was enforced against some and not against others, it seemed appropriate to make this change but only deal with this small area because we were doing this so fast and I kept it very conservative and very narrow to this particular point which I believe addresses the immediate concern although you may want to go back into this and look at it. I have had some phone calls and one person, it's an attorney who called and said that he felt this needed some further work and he had some other ideas and he had some concerns. But as indicated to him, I had written this up for the Board very, very conservatively just to address the problem that we are having right now and that I assumed you wanted, you were going to go back and look at many parts of the zoning ordinance anyway. But that's all that this does. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-So in effect we have given out permits in violation of our own law from October 31 st until some time last week. ATTORNEY DUSEK-That's my understanding. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Right and then we discovered this and so now we're going to enforce it and that is selective enforcement in effect. I mean we have some, you know, some folks got through the law and some won't and this will change it so that everybody gets treated the same way. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I think in so far as selective enforcement is concerned, selective enforcement is more of a case where your going along and you give this guy this and then you give that guy that and you hold different laws at different times. What's happened here is that there's been a block of time where basically a mistake has occurred but what bothers me in this particular case is that you could have subdivisions where it has been allowed, then it hasn't been allowed and so then it seems, it strikes you or at least it strikes me, as an unfair situation in terms of that proposal. So this law would go to correct that and it only, like I said, it only effects subdivisions and I forgot to also mention, it would not effect anything in the AP A or the critical environmental areas. So it's very, very narrow in it's application. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-My concern is frankly, because we haven't looked at the impact of this on the zoning and when you redo zoning and we've got a lot of critical environmental areas at the present time are not designated critical environmental areas because we've only done a few of them in this Town. We maybe making some impacts trying to do this too fast, we maybe doing some impacts that we don't know. Mike, I know this isn't a public hearing, but I would ask your indulgence, we have some Planning Board members here, if we could have some comments on them since they worked in the master plan. Of course they haven't had too much time to consider this but I just wonder if they have any words of wisdom at this time they would like to give us if you would be indulgence enough to let them speak. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-By all means. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Planning Board members any comments or would you like to read this so you know what we're doing. PETE CARTIER, Planning Board Member-I've read it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Oh you've read it. JIM MARTIN, Planning Board Member-From what I hear is being done, what Paul has done is pretty much standard practice with an ordinance and the way it reads in relation to previous ordinance or when you are changing from one ordinance to another or you've done a major revision as the Town did in 1988. This is pretty much standard practice so you are not being unfair or discriminating against those people who went in since 1982 and up to 1988 and met all the Town's requirements for a subdivision and think now that they have a workable piece of property and can be developed according to the way the Town said they could. Now you are sort of shifting gears on them although they have been duly warned for a 3 year period here, sort of speak, I think the changes here are more fair and represent what is more commonly done with zoning as it relates to subdivision issues like this. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-But Betty brings up an interesting point and those are things that we don't know about. What effect are we having on those, in your opinion? MR. MARTIN -You are obviously going to have quite an impact in those areas where you're going from maybe a third of an acre up to an acre, you are allowing 3 times more the density, 3 times more the septic therefore and your putting more stress on the infrastructure in those subdivisions and so on. So it is something to weigh, I can only offer that in many cases ordinances will read as Paul has changed here. But you might want to reconsider that. I don't know if it would be allowable to say in those critical environmental areas that the previous wording is more appropriate. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But, see what I'm saying Jim, is there are alot of critical environmental areas out there that have not been designated legally that way yet. I mean we've only done Rush Pond and Round Pond and a part of Glen Lake and I say a part because you know we had the big squabble about how far back from the lake and the previous Board wouldn't even go as far back from the lake as the homeowners over there wanted to go. So you know we do have some problems. My concern is doing this so fast and I don't know if this is possible, I know we've got a Planning Department that is terribly understaffed. I really would like to see this held until Monday night and see if the Planning Department can come up with the areas of Town that this is going to effect, what subdivisions, what areas and so we can figure out if it's going to have any negative impacts or not. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-The only thing is Betty you've got a major industry in the Town standing still. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Whose that? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-The building industry. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That may be, but, you know I have to look at, a week of that in this kind of weather, one week of that against some damage we may do to this Town that can not be undone and that is my concern. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Only subdivisions were approved. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That doesn't matter, the reason for ... COUNCILMAN TUCKER-What do you mean it doesn't matter? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Pliney, it's the same thing, I've heard people say, why do we have different road standards in the road that goes to Cleverdale. We have different road standards because the road is too blasted narrow and it made accidents on it and if we did a rezoning with the idea that there were problems out there in this community that the rezoning was too incorrect and now we're saying throw that away, we might as well throwaway all the new rezoning that we do. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Let's see if we can get creative and I'll ask you to be creative, and that is, can we do both? Can we answer Betty's problem and that is look at the future and have the Planning Department look at the future and yet take the brick off of those people who are already approved and say, okay, go ahead? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well yes, the answer to that is, you can always legislate from this day forward as to what is going to be because everybody gets notice, just like when they went through in 88, when they changed all the half acre zoning to acre zoning, they did it at that time which was perfectly valid. When you create critical environmental areas, they didn't exist before, but you go through a proper process and you can create those and put those protections into place. So, can you make changes, yes. Do people however build up certain rights under previous legislation, yes and in this particular case I would submit that you would have a very difficult time effecting those particular subdivisions that you've already made a change in, although I'm not going to say it's impossible to do that. A couple of observations I would point out to you though and that is that in July of 91 when the Town Board originally enacted this piece of legislation that is now, well actually there was more to it than just this one thing, but this was a part of some of the changes they made. They, at that time, there was a provision in the ordinance which allowed for the joinder of lots, they took that provision out and said it will only apply in the critical environmental areas and in the Adirondack Park and I would submit to you that they made a major change at that point which was much more significant than this change is here in terms of all these subdivisions. The other point I would just like to make or actually 2 more, the 82 ordinance or the subdivisions that were approved under 82 ordinance, I think it's been pointed out, they would have been approved under, first of all by the Planning Board, second of all, the Planning Board would have done an environmental review on each one of those and would have determined that if they were properly subdividable that the infrastructure was there to support that many lots. The last comment I have, is that the third of an acre example comes from Hidden Hills. Hidden Hills is practically built out, so what you are looking at is a few more lots over there that have been, you know that, in fact I gave this opinion at the Zoning Board the other night, that I would think it's virtually impossible to deny a variance for those lots because they are already in existence. If you've got a house here and a house here and you've got a lot in the middle, I don't know how you are going to deny that guy the right to build a house on that lot because I think he can show, if it's the developer, I think he can show a practical difficulty in as much as he's paid all this money for infrastructure and he's developed everything else and all he's got is one lot left, I think you're going to have a difficult time in dealing with that. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Those I have no problem with whatsoever and I never have. My problem is, is when you have a subdivision that has not been really started at all, it just has the approvals but it hasn't been started at all and then in the mean time, the rezoning came, so they have a time to readjust their plans and their financial picture and everything else. So you haven't done a negative, financial impact on those types, in fact I remember one of these rezonings we did one time, we put that kind of clause in it. If the subdivision had been to a certain amount built out, then they didn't have to abide by the new rezoning. If it hadn't, they did have to and that to me is the type of thing that makes sense. ATTORNEY DUSEK-In that regard and I'm taking the risk here, I don't want to make it sound like I'm all pro this legislation but I'm just trying to address the concerns that have been raised. I did attempt to address your concern by saying that they had to have received final subdivision plan approval and be filed in Warren County. So in my opinion that if you have a subdivision for instance divided into 3 phases and only the first phase has received final subdivision approval and been filed, then the other 2 phases, this wouldn't apply to. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Okay. ATTORNEY DUSEK-So you do get some protection in that regard. MR. MARTIN-And then that goes back before the Board for review. ATTORNEY DUSEK-In point in fact, you have one subdivision I know that's coming back before you for rezoning because it doesn't get this benefit. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Can I ask Mr. Martin a question? Hasn't the Planning Board as far as subdivisions are concerned been operating under the zoning of 1988? MR. MARTIN-Yes, that's correct. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-In other words, they've got to be one acre lots unless we as a Board change the zoning in those subdivisions. MR. MARTIN-Right, that's pretty much true. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-At one time, excuse me Pliney, my concern was... COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Well I've got one more question then you can... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, I just wanted, I want to explain to you my concern. My concern was that I don't know if these are subdivision lots or what they are but at one time, we had an awful lot of approved lots out there that were not built on and my concern was, if we had a group of those together, they could be dating way back, they might not be under the 88 approvals. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-One question for Paul. You said you left out individual lots? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yes. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I gather they will go through the system and in front of the ZBA and for variances and ... ATTORNEY DUSEK-It's my opinion that the way this is written right now, that if you have a lot that is not in a subdivision and is under the area requirements, it would have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals in order to get a variance, if you were going to build on it. MR. MARTIN-How are you defining that context, individual lot? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Anything outside of an approved subdivision, one that's been approved since 1982. MR. MARTIN-Okay, so then it's just any lot that's been created because any division of even a 2 lot subdivision, is a subdivision. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Right. MR. MARTIN-So it's not like we are talking about big mass of 50 lot subdivisions here. Okay. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Has it been introduced. ATTORNEY DUSEK-If you wanted to take action on it, there's one step you would have to do first and that is to go through the environmental review. There's 2 resolutions here prepared. One is the environmental review resolution and then the second one sets a public hearing so that you can then pass that local law. So you can't, you can take action to approve 2 resolutions tonight but the final effect of what you do will not occur until you go through your public hearing which can not be until after it gets to the Warren County Planning the first part of February and the Planning Board. So you've got a couple of steps. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-But if it's the intent of the Board to do all that, they can issue building permits as they did from the period of October 31 st until last week? ATTORNEY DUSEK-If the Board decides to go ahead and your going to make the revisions to the law, then I don't see any reason why you couldn't recognize the fact that the, the situation as it currently exists, is unfair to enforce and say that because you're going to make the change anyway. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Okay, so the first thing to do is introduce this resolution adopting the determination of non-significance? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Before you do that even, if you go to the short environmental assessment form that's down, it should be a few pages down in your resolution. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Nick, it's on the back of the one that says resolution adopting determination of non-significance of amendment to the code of the Town of Queensbury, it's in the back pages. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I've got it. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Nick, I think your familiar with these from the Planning Board days. Basically what you have here is, outlined is the project that's being considered which is your legislation basically describing what's occurred and also indicating that you still need Warren County Planning and Town of Queensbury Planning and this becomes your Board's statement on the front. If there's anything you disagree with it, I think it's pretty open, straight forward. Then the second page is where you have to go down thru the list of questions which, like I say, Nick is familiar with because he's done this many times with the Planning Board. You really just basically answer the questions that you see there, whether you feel that this type of action is going to have a significant impact on the environment. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Do you want to lead us through? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I'll ask the questions. I'm on page 2, part II, Environmental Assessment letter a, does the action exceed any type 1 threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.12 and the answer is no. B, will action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6, again, the answer is no. C, Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following, 1, existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? No. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-How do we know? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-We don't know... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We don't even know where this is happening ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-As I'm reading these things, I realize, that there is no answer. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You don't know. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-We don't know the answers to these. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think, I mean, you have to say you don't know or you wait, that's why I always say, you wait for the public hearing to do those because if there is some than usually that comes out during the public hearing. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-In all fairness, we can't and you know that, we can't answer that question because we have no idea. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Then I just think, you put down, you do not know. You don't say no to something that you don't know. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Okay as an idea then maybe you could postpone this until after the public hearing. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I think we should. ATTORNEY DUSEK-And just set the public hearing and then do your environmental review then. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I think we should because we can't answer these questions properly. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Absolutely not. TIM BREWER, Planning Board Member-Not until you look at every single subdivision that your talking about. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's right. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That's right, set the, we have a resolution to set the public hearing then. ATTORNEY DUSEK-The only thing we should change in this resolution, is that you won't be sending a copy of negative declaration out then with the stuff, you'll send the environmental assessment form. TED TURNER, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals-I would rather see you wait and look at what's left out there. We have 3 coming, the 30th, that have been approved subdivisions and I don't feel that the Board has any problem with them because a couple of them have been approved in 87 and I don't know about Herald Square but that was approved I think maybe around that time. But I don't think there's any problem as far as getting them over the hurdle that they are in, as far as the dimensional requirements of the lots and the setbacks. I would say to you people, don't rush into this, I think we can take care of the problem that's created right at this point in time and get these guys on the go. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Going through the public hearing Ted, aren't we by just by the nature of the system, going to now go a little bit slower so we don't rush into it? How much time do we have? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well your going to have to set your public hearing offfor about a month anyway. MR. TURNER-So this is going to hold, they're already in a predicament. Some of them have got houses built that need the dimensional requirements, the area dimensional requirements. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You've had 3 subdivisions coming? MR. TURNER-We've got 3 coming, that's right. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And yet at this time, you have no idea how many more are out there are effected or from what age they are effected or anything like that? MR. TURNER-No and we don't have any further requests at this point for any variances, only those 3. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-What you're saying is, the system really is able to cope with it as it's set up right now. MR. TURNER-Yes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And so why fix something that isn't broken? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-How long would it take though Ted, for, after you people say it's okay before these people can get building permits? That's the big question. The guy has got a house half built and he's been, you know, or want's to start one ... MR. TURNER-The next day. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-The next day? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-The next day, his way is faster than our way. MR. TURNER-Our way is faster than yours. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-But can we do them parallel? MR. TURNER-And we don't have a problem with what's out there either so far. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-So what we're doing is not going to stop Ted and the ZBA, right? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Except that we maybe getting into something that we don't know what we're doing. MR. TURNER-We're going to address the 3 concerns right now. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Fine but all I'm saying is that, I mean, it's possible that you might not too. It's possible that it could go in front of ... MR. TURNER-Let me say this. I think after looking at the 2 that we've looked at already, there's no concern. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Okay. MR. TURNER-Alright, there's no concern as to density, they've been granted a variance for set backs on the one. The other one will be the same in area. These are pre-approved subdivisions so we don't have a problem with them. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Okay, but by acting in parallel... MR. TURNER-But the process is quicker this way. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Y ou are going to go right ahead with this, we're not going to stop his process, all we're going to do is right a wrong. In the mean time, you can go right ahead and they can do whatever they want to do, right? MR. TURNER-Yes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, I think what Ted is saying ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Wait a minute. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Okay, the difference is this. The variance procedure or the Town Board procedure nets the same result. MR. TURNER-Nets the same result, exactly. ATTORNEY DUSEK-They get to build on the lots. MR. TURNER-But your's is a step longer. ATTORNEY DUSEK-The difference is that once you take the Town Board action, they'll never again have to come for a variance. That's the difference. MR. TURNER-That's it. You can do it later down the road but I'm saying ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But the difference also is that when they come in front of the Zoning Board, you're looking at each individual subdivision to make sure it's appropriate for that subdivision, where were just white washing the whole Town, saying everything is okay, whether we know it's okay or not. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Fine, all I'm saying, okay, go ahead Pliney. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Mr. Kelly, I believe you have 4 lots in 4 different subdivisions? MR. KELL Y-I have 2 lots in 2 subdivisions, that's correct. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Yea, what's Hidden Hills? MR. KELLY-I've got 2 in Hidden Hills, I've got 2 in Tyneswood and what's happening here is a COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Your not working on either one of those? MR. TURNER-He hasn't submitted an application, he's got to do that first. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-The man already did it one time. I mean the subdivision was okay. MR. TURNER-No, no I mean for the variance. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Yea but I mean he was... MR. TURNER-That's fine but they came to our meeting and I told them the fastest way right now that I could see for them to go was, if the Zoning Board of Appeals felt that there was no problem with the subdivision or phase one of their subdivision, some of them have got phase one and phase two, phase two is not adopted yet. They don't have any plans for phase two. That the Zoning Board would probably grant him a variance because the practical difficulties are already demonstrated. I don't see, just like Paul said, there's no way that we could deny them a variance. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Fine and all I'm saying, all I'm suggesting is that we can kill 2 birds with one stone. In the first place, if we're not going to interrupt what the ZBA is doing, they can give the quick fix to the people who are waiting right now. At the same time, we're going through the process that will take this ridiculousness off the books and as long as one doesn't stop the other, why don't we do both? MR. TURNER-I don't have any problem with that but ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well I'm asking him if he has a problem. MR. TURNER-But I would say let's look at what's left out there and make sure what's there before we jump through the hoop. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Okay but we're not really going to jump through the hoop, we're going to languish through this long piece of time. MR. TURNER-Yes, okay. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-So there's plenty of time for people to come forward and say, your being a fool, you shouldn't do this. In the mean time those folks who are stuck on the fence, can get relief through the ZBA immediately. No, Paul? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yes. MR. KELLY-But do you realize the paper work that's involved to go through the ZBA ... (speaker in back of room, not picked up clearly on tape) MR. BREWER-On the same hand, if they have to go through every subdivision that's in the Town of Queensbury, they're going to have a SEQRA on every single subdivision in the Town. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That's what we are trying to eliminate now. UNKNOWN-You are only talking, I believe 4 subdivisions or 5, that are pre-approved. MR. BREWER-In the whole Town? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We don't know. We don't know, we don't have the faintest idea. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-We have no idea. MR. BREWER-Maybe that you know of, maybe there's 7 or 8 that's somebody else knows of, we don't know, I don't know. I would think we would have to look through them all. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Ted is there anyway you can, I know your Board has a right to waive certain requirements, is there anyway you can look at the paperwork involved for this particular problem and see a way of cutting that down, maybe through what they've already filed here when they filed for their Planning Board Subdivision, so they don't have to go out and redo alot of this paperwork and stuff? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Especially since it's our fault. MR. TURNER-I think our intent is to approve as submitted. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No but he's saying, Steve is saying it takes... MR. KELLY-I'm talking about, what are the requesting, 50 dollars per variance ... MR. TURNER-Yes it's 50 dollars for the application. MR. KELLY-And 14 copies per ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's what I'm saying, can we cut down some of those 14 copies stuff since it's already been filed here in the Town. Is there anyway of cutting any of the paperwork or Steve will that require any new engineering work or any of that type of thing, will it? MR. TURNER-No nothing. MR. KELLY-Not really, it's requiring alot of my time which I feel like, hey this, my time is money and what I'm asking for, you know, you're going to say yes ... MR. TURNER-But the comment was raised, well why don't we go through the Town Board and I said the process would probably be, right now you were concerned about getting your project going, so I said the process would probably be quicker if you went through the Zoning Board. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, right now we're talking about we can quickly go to public hearing on this proposal so why doesn't someone offer a resolution to do that. MIKE O'CONNOR-This is not a new problem. I wrote a memo back in November, early November with regard to it. I think you can answer both concerns and the reason I'm speaking, I'm not speaking either for what Mr. Turner has said or what Paul has said. But I would rather think that it is a process that you're going to have to go through, it's not something you can accomplish tonight but I would hope that you would accomplish it not with a band-aid and that you would maybe take the problem and put it aside and answer it for the future. I think what we're talking about where the real hardship is, not with the subdivision that is sitting with the block of land that might or might not be able to conform with the new area dimensions. But what you are talking about is the individual lot where the property on one side has been sold to John Jones and the other side sold to Peter Smith and the guy in the middle really doesn't have any choice. He has a lot, either he is the owner who had the lot at the time that the new dimensions became effective in October 1st of 1991 or maybe he is a subsequent purchaser who, for some reason or another didn't come and ask if he could get a building permit when he bought the lot because it was an approve lot on a subdivision, there's houses on both sides, and he said I can buy this lot and build my house and whatever. There is a way of doing it and just simply grandfather the preexisting lots and you can condition that and I think maybe even before you set your public hearing, you ought to get a little bit more homeworker done as to what you're going to have your public hearing on. Are you going to have your public hearing on the band-aid or are you going to have it on, maybe a provision which will give everybody the relief that they are looking for and not have hidden impacts that you are not aware of. You can condition it upon the fact that the lot or the improvements on the lot will comply with the existing setback requirements of the ordinance and you can condition it upon the fact that the owner of the lot not own any other adjacent or contiguous lands or else the merger provisions would apply. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Except we outlawed that provision as I understand it. We don't have that anymore. MR. O'CONNOR-Well I don't think you did Betty, I think by operation oflaw it applies. You had section 179-76 which had to do with merger in the AP A and the environmentally critical sensitive areas and I think that's part where you took that out. But that also had a 3 year time frame in it and I don't mean to take all your time, I think we've laid it out once before, we can lay it out again. If you have new dimensional requirements that come into affect, they by operation oflaw, create a merger if you own contiguous lands unless there's an exception in the ordinance that says, that it wont apply. A general exception like, was in the ordinance or like you're proposing to put in now. This is the way, probably a poor example but this is the way AP A operates and this is the way any other ordinance that I'm familiar with, operates. There is a merger and you have to comply with the new area requirements. One specific thing I would ask you to also include in the grandfathering would be the provisions of the ordinance that now require you to have 40 feet offrontage on a Town road. What Paul eluded to and I think what Ted Turner eluded to, is there are certain examples where people have come in and I got involved in this in early October because I had a client that didn't have 40 feet of frontage on an approved lot with the new provisions, he had to come get a variance. He had 25 feet, it was a lot on Tina Lane. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -I've heard of it. MR. O'CONNOR-You've heard of it. Okay, you may have been the developer of it. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -I was. MR. O'CONNOR-And I don't hold that against you. You know, it's a perfectly good lot. The people had sold lots on both sides of it and those people were using land on both sides of the particular lot in question for their own purposes so there was no additional land. So you had a square chunk of land within the Town that unless a variance were granted, you couldn't use it and there really would be very hard for the Town not to approve that variance. So you've got the person making the application, you've got the person paying application fees, you've got time, you've got alot of effort going in there by the applicant and by the Board in reviewing it, sending people out to do their pre-site review and everything else. Alot of wasted time. So I will submit the memo that I wrote before, I would ask you to really take a look at what you are going to adopt as the cure and ask you to get on with it and maybe have a public hearing but have a public hearing on the proper provisions. ATTORNEY DUSEK-The only thing that I would like to address in that regard is that what Mr. O'Connor has raised other, I think legitimate concerns, that perhaps the Board would want to take a look at, the only thing that I would just say to you is that you have to keep in mind that what I have done is something that is very conservative, very, you know, I tried to make it as minor of a change as possible to address a particular concern that arose last week when we found that some people had gotten building permits and now some people were being denied building permits and it seemed to be that the subdivisions were the thing that was of concern. Certainly the other areas that Mr. O'Connor is suggesting may be very worthwhile to get into and I guess the decision for the Board is, do you want to take a measure now that quickly resolves what came up last week and at least in my opinion I think it does, or do you want to postpone this for the moment and look into a more major redrafting of legislation. When I say major I don't mean to say it's huge but it's going to be something that you're going to want to take a look at a little further and it's going to take some more time and I think that's really what is before the Board. I will say this, that you can adopt, there's nothing that precludes you from adopting something now and also going forward later and re-amending or readopting. But that's up to the Board. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, it seems like we can have our cake and eat it too, again and that's the fact that I'm intrigued by the fact that we handle the entire problem and not just a part of the problem, that's number 1. Number 2, it appears that the ZBA can on the short term handle those people who are in trouble right now and who need relief and number 3, there's no reason why this Board with proper evidence from those applicants who have been denied, couldn't waive fees so that that road block is taken out of their way. After all that's your biggest concern was the fact that it's going to cost you money and we cost you money. So we could waive that and the mean time, the ZBA could handle those quick problems. MR. KELL Y -With once a month meetings? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-What's that? MR. KELLY-The ZBA. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Twice a month. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-How about the paperwork? Nobody made a decision on the paperwork. Ted is there anyway to cut down on the paperwork? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, you know and I say about the fees Nick, alot of those fees strictly cover the cost of advertising this in the Post Star. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-What are you asking me? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I'm just commenting, these are not fees the Town keeps, they pass through, they cover the advertising bill which is very high. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No, I understand. RON MONTESI-Mike I guess the Board really if you're going wait a little bit of time, should really get a handle on the number of subdivisions that this is going to impact on. Are we talking about 7, 12, 15, 18, I think that's what Betty was eluding to, what's the big picture. But one question that I didn't quite understand when you say you're going, this would take care of the area part of a subdivision or a lot but if, are you saying in essence that you have a half acre lot that you have to meet the acre side line and ... setback requirements, even though we waive the area? Is that how it works? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Under what is proposed, yes. MR. MONTESI -So that, I think you have to look at that because if you're looking at an half acre and the side lines on the half acre lot is 10 feet and the side line on an acre lot is 20 feet, you're crannning a house into some very, very limited situations on a half acre lot. I'm not opposed to it, I just think you ought to look at that concept because your going to change, your going to effect the aesthetics of a lot or a house... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I think this really requires a little bit oflooking into, I really do, I agree with Betty. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -I'm treading very lightly here because I may in fact not be able to vote on this. There's still a subdivision that's not sold out that my wife still may own part of, I don't even know if she does or doesn't but I'll need to know that before I stick my neck out and vote. So I'm trying to find a consensus here without my vote. PETE CARTIER, Planning Board Member-Betty just one quick correction. The Zoning Board can not waive anything. The Planning Board can waive subdivision regs, some of the subdivision regs but the Zoning Board can't waive anything. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Thank you. MR. CARTIER - I would just like to encourage you to go the dual route here I think in terms of allowing people in the process now to go through the variance route and take a look at all of these things that need to be taken a look at. It's very appropriate for you to deal with individual situations and try to resolve those for builders. But I think you have to remember, what we've got to do is look at the long term interests of the community. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I like that myself, I think that makes sense. Which means that we have to prepare a different resolution or can we do it on the spot? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Would this be a resolution waiving fees, is that the idea, is that the one your thinking of? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I want to do that too. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Again, I think you have to know about the impact of those kind of things before you start talking those kind of things. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Yea, we can do that Monday night. I mean we don't have to do that tonight, we can do it a week from now. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think what I'm seeing is a lot of homework that needs to be done before we jump in and not know what we're doing. I always like to know what I'm doing, what the puddle is before I jump into it. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I don't deny that, I just don't want to hold, if we caused the problem, I don't think it's fair that somebody has to pay for the problem we caused. That's my only concern and that we'll get that taken care of. MR. MARTIN-The only thing that I want to submit was that I, this is the second time in my, being on the Planning Board that I've seen revisions drafted to the Zoning Ordinance and with all due respect to Paul, I think he does a wonderful job and he's very competent. I think that something like this is a planning function, I think it should be done by a planning technician and it start there and then you would elevate alot of these problems that your having with this. Your saying you can't fill out the environmental review form, you don't know what the impacts are, what areas of the Town are going to be effected, these are all planning functions that if, either your Planning Department or a hired consultant was to undertake this, then you would have all the information you need to make a thorough and informed decision and it would then really pass through the Town Attorney's office for legal review as to whether it's technically correct and is being adopted in a proper fashion. But I think these things are planning functions, it would be then whoever undertook that study would sign off on your environmental assessment form and then you would simply go through your half of the form and that way you are covering all your bases, you've done a comprehensive thorough analysis as to the short and long term effects of whatever change you want to make. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I can understand that and I totally agree. MR. MARTIN-I understand what was trying to be done here, was a quick fix thing but ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT -But I can also understand somebody has got approvals, they've been sitting there for, I mean the last year where nothings happening. The federal reserve finally says, drop interest rates, young people are starting to say, hey, let's buy a house and suddenly the guy can build and who screws it up, us. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But let's not double do that. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well double do it, you know, what's that mean? How long can we hold it up? We sat here and gave building permits from October 31st until last week and it didn't make a danm to any of us and suddenly today the sky falls in, it makes a danm. Suddenly it's the most weighted vote, I mean, God, it's just pulling you down, it's just incredible. But hell, we did it every day for 75 days and nobody knew it and we felt fine about it. Now suddenly the whole Town is going to collapse. I mean to me, I think we're making a mountain out of a mole hill. As far as I can see, if the 76th day and the 77th day and the 100th day went, so what the hell, then we get our house in order while business continues. But I hate to see us pull down everybodies construction, crews that are looking for work, unemployment is 10 percent and we're just calloused, we just say, oh hell, this process is more important than the economy. I don't buy that. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Lee, if you had some help from somebody in the building department that's qualified to do that, between now and Monday night, could you pull together any subdivisions that might be effected by this change? LEE YORK, Planner-I could give you a list. DAVE KENNY-I'd like to say something, I mean, if the economy was good in 1990, you wouldn't have this problem probably because all those lots would be built on by now. Apparently there was something done in 88, that says give them 3 years to do this. What was really said back then was, only approved went by 1991, will hopefully be built on. But because a bad year and half of the economy, they haven't been. We're asking for an extension of something that was already looked into. I don't see, I would agree, I don't see where the big problem is. Actually were approved and we're saying now is, at that time there wasn't a good environmental assessment form study done, I think there was and we gave them the extension for 3 years. If 1990 was a good building year, they would probably all be built on. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Dave, the answer to your question is exactly the question you pose and that is the fact that in 1988, they did something without thinking through the long term ramifications. MR. KENNY-No, they thought in 3 years they would all be built. I think, really thought in 3 years they would be built out. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Yea, but they didn't think about the fact that they might not be built so we're here today. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, they didn't really because I was on the Board then, what their feeling was, if it wasn't built out by then, then it ought to have a second look at and that was their feeling, that's why they put the date of 91 on. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That's all fine but we don't control banking. PETE WHITE- I also have a building lot in Tyneswood which is eight -tenths of an acre, certainly has more than ample room side line, front, back, rear, any way you can possibly look at it and as of right now I couldn't build on that lot if I wanted to. It seems to me that it is awful unfair to somebody such as myself who may have a customer today that wants to build on that and we can't satisfy their needs. That customer could very well go to another developer or builder that may have a 1 acre zoning lot that is now ready to go. As far as the Town is concerned, they can build whatever they want on it. To me it sounds awful unfair and I think the delay that we're looking at, at possibly looking through the reviews and everything that your talking about can, I say can, very easily become a very time consuming process. We as builders are looking at a year that could possibly finally pull alot of builders out of the red and start doing something for a change. We're looking at a situation now where for a period of time your telling us we just can't built SUPERVISOR BRANDT -And we did this all at once, bang, we just discovered, we screwed up. MR. WHITE-And it's totally unfair. I don't see how legally the Town Board has a leg to stand on to stop the process in the manner that they are. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Dave wants to talk to us. DAVE HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Probably as the person sitting most in this room that's been most involved with this whole deal in receiving a call from a developer that said I was getting blamed for this and having nothing to do with it, that's the unfortunate part. I think the Board has to understand one thing here and that was the intent of the previous Board when this change was done back in early October and this is the discussion, long discussion that Paul and I had. We read minutes, we disagreed on what the minutes said but I know what the intent of the Board was at that time. They were concerned that we were going to force people in subdivisions that had, take LeLand Park, Heresford Lane, Tyneswood, the bigger subdivisions that had, Masulo Brothers in Queensbury Forest, the bigger subdivisions, we were going to force these people to combine all their lots. The Board did not want that, so they took away the joinder clause. At the same time, the intent was to leave the subdivision lots as is forever, alright and I know that, I've read the minutes, I talked to Ron Montesi just now about it and he agrees with me. The previous Board wanted to keep the subdivisions as is. The reason that it's been enforced the way that it has been since October up until last week, was because that's the way we knew what the Board wanted at the time. It wasn't a screw up, the legal wording is what screwed us up and it was pointed out to Pat by another attorney. That's how this all came about. The legal wording as Paul stated is correct but we were going by the intent of the Board at the time and that's why it was, the building permits were issued, that's why they were issued up until last week. It wasn't a screw up, it was, we were going by the intent of what the Board wanted at the time and I think that's what this Board has to understand. The intent was to keep the lots in subdivisions, possibly prior, with the exception of prior to 1982 as is, as they are right now so people could build. The thing that bothers me the most is prior to this, the discussions of individual lots as Mike O'Connor stated, were never brought into this. Now they are being brought into this as area variances for non-conformance with the acreage pertaining to that zone. That's never been a problem in 3 1/2 years, I've been here and never been even looked at and never been considered because that was never the intent of any Board that created the law. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I can't help but think that if, you picked the right guy, he could sue us and beat us on this, absolutely beat us in court so why the hell are we even talking about it? Why don't we just hand out our building permits as we did last week and get on with life and then go correct whatever we've got to correct and get people back to work. MR. MONTESI -Mike, why don't you just extend it from 3 years to 3 1/2 years, take care of that quickly and have 6 months to deal with changing the law. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That's what I was just going to say. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Let's do it. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Just extend it 6 months. ATTORNEY DUSEK-That's an idea. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -How do we do that legally? ATTORNEY DUSEK-I've got to rewrite that. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Can you do it? ATTORNEY DUSEK-I can't, I don't know, maybe ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That still has to go to a public hearing Paul? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yes you would still have to go through a public hearing, I can certainly have it done by Monday and in the mean time if you wanted to, you know I think, Mike, you and I had this discussion ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Just issue permits. ATTORNEY DUSEK-The Town Board does have the authority, I feel, to recognize that it's an unenforceable provision of the law. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That's the word. ATTORNEY DUSEK-That one segment until we get this thing straightened away. The only thing is then, is that what you'll be doing, is saying that and this is what and I got to tell you, this is what your going to, the legal community and Mike O'Connor is here, you get into a real quagmire over this as to whether or not even if the Town Board recognizes it and says we, the Town won't enforce it, whether people can enforce it against each other and it's a real mess until you get it cleaned up. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-God, let them do that, I don't want to do that. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Let's face that issue as we come to it. We can't stop the wheels of progress just because of what ifs. ATTORNEY DUSEK-If you did take that avenue, then that would mean nobody would have to come for a variance either and the variances that are currently scheduled for Thursday then would be then mute, because it would not, there wouldn't, unless they wanted to protect themselves against other possible problems. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-If! were them I would come if! were already on, boy I'd come. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I'd protect myself. I think we should do that. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I like that. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-And we still handle the long term problem but we have to do that. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I would suggest in the mean time that we ask Lee whatever help she needs to get through the Building Department to research what's out there so we have some idea of what we're talking about. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I'd like that. ATTORNEY DUSEK-So you want me to prepare then for Monday a 3 1/2 year provision instead of the current 3? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-What does 3 1/2 year bring us up to? UNKNOWN-March ... ATTORNEY DUSEK-So you probably want to go a little longer than that. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That wouldn't give you much time to do corrective work. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That's all fine but today is Monday, Tuesday morning, why don't we just tell our folks issue the building permits? ATTORNEY DUSEK-You can do that. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Okay, let's get on with it, then we can fiddle around with the law all we want to but let's get the community moving. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well no, Paul is saying do you want it 3 1/2 years or do you want it 3 and 3/4 or like until June say... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-June 30th. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That gives us time to get this other in gear. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Why limit yourselflike that? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Because in the mean time, we're going to pass the law. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Yea but I mean, we don't know, these people have been telling us that we're liable to run into all kinds of problems, give ourselves some time and then when we change the law, that is mute and dead... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-June 31st. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Yea, June 31st? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -June 30th but what year? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Extend it a year. Extend it a year, we're going to get right on it, are we not? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Do you want to put it ahead until October 1st, this year? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea, let's do that. ATTORNEY DUSEK-So I'll just change the 3 years to 4 years and that will at least get it ahead but then you'll have to deal with it coming up. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No I think what were saying is, we're going to have Lee do the research and we don't want to put this off, we want to deal with it immediately. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Now what do we have to do to get these permits issues? Do we have to do it? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Tomorrow morning they're going to do it. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I've got a resolution that you can adopt. (read into record the following resolution) RESOLUTION REGARDING DETERMINATION OF NON-CONFORMING LOTS IN SUBDIVISIONS RESOLUTION NO. 74, 92 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano RESOLVED, that the Town Board determines that Section 179-77 which makes lots in subdivisions approved by the Planning Board and filed in the Warren County Clerk's Office non-conforming on the basis of area and results in non issuance of building permits should not be enforced against any subdivision lot in any subdivision approved by the Planning Board since 1982 as it was not so enforced previously and as to do so now would be unfair and finally BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this determination of the Town Board should remain in effect until such time as section 169-77 is amended. Duly adopted this 27th day of January, 1992 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: Mrs. Goetz ABSTAIN: Mr. Brandt B. DRAINAGE PROBLEMS - HIDDEN HILLS ATTORNEY DUSEK referred to the drainage problem in Hidden Hills that the Town's been working on for awhile, noted that there's some legal advice concerning potential litigation which I would like to discuss with the Board in Executive Session. C. QUEENSBURY FOREST DRAINAGE UPDATE ATTORNEY DUSEK noted they started the repairs today, to dig out the muck, put in sand and get rid of the water. Our engineer called us, Rist-Frostjust to let us know what was going on and asked me if the Board wanted him to go over and inspect. SUPERVISOR BRANDT noted the Board would take a look at it. D. PROOF OF CLAIM AUTHORIZATION ATTORNEY DUSEK proposed the following resolution, authorizing the Town Supervisor to sign a proof of claim order, so the Town can file a claim concerning monies owed to the Town. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUPERVISOR TO SIGN PROOF OF CLAIM CONCERNING BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS OF INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING CORP., D/B/A GREAT ESCAPE RESOLUTION NO. 75, 92, Introduced by Mr. Nick Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan. WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is desirous of filing a Proof of Claim in the United States Bankruptcy Court for technical assistance fees owed to the Town of Queensbury by the International Broadcasting Corp., d/b/a Great Escape, a copy of the same having been presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, said Proof of Claim has been reviewed and approved, in form, by the Town Attorney of the Town of Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves of the Proof of Claim as hereinbefore described, and hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury to execute the same. Duly adopted this 27th day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: Mrs. Goetz E. SEWER DISTRICT ARBITRATION SUPERVISOR BRANDT noted this for discussion during Executive Session. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO referred to Memo from Judge Bacas ... Town Board held discussion regarding construction proposed to be done at the court house ... no action taken, Town Attorney will prepare resolution for Monday night's meeting. WORKSHOP - DISCUSSION OF MINOR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, etc. The Town Board with the Zoning Board of Appeals, Planning Board and Beautification Committee (tape on file) RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 76, 92, Introduced by Mr. Nick Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Michel Brandt. RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session to enter Executive Session to discuss Personnel Matter, Sewer District Arbitration and Potential Litigation. Duly adopted this 27th day of January, 1992, by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: Ayes ALL THOSE OPPOSED: None ABSENT: Mrs. Goetz RESOLUTION CALLING FOR REGULAR SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 77, 92, Introduced by Mr. Nick Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Pliney Tucker. RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Executive Session and enter Regular Session. Duly adopted this 27th day of January, 1992, by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: Ayes ALL THOSE OPPOSED: None ABSENT: Mrs. Goetz RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EMPLOYMENT-JERRY THORNE RESOLUTION NO. 78, 92 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is currently involved with Arbitration involving Joseph R. Wunderlich Inc., and WHEREAS, the Town Board desires to retain the services of Jerry Thorne NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the employment of Jerry Thorn in connection with the aforesaid arbitration at a sum of $50.00 per hour for services rendered for a total amount not to exceed $1200.00 without further authorization of the Board and be it further RESOLVED, that the expenditure shall be paid for from the appropriate account as determined by the Town Supervisor. Duly adopted this 27th day of January, 1992 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: Mrs. Goetz No further action was taken. On motion, the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK