Loading...
1992-03-16 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MARCH 16, 1992 7:00 P.M. MTG#26 RES. 170-186 BH 7-8 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT MICHEL BRANDT -SUPERVISOR BETTY MONAHAN-COUNCILMAN SUSAN GOETZ-COUNCILMAN NICK CAIMANO-COUNCILMAN PLINEY TUCKER-COUNCILMAN TOWN ATTORNEY PAUL DUSEK TOWN OFFICIALS Helen Otte, Kathleen Kathe PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN MONAHAN RESOLUTION CALLING FOR BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 170, 92, Introduced by Mr. Nick Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Sue Goetz. RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and enters as the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: Ayes ALL THOSE OPPOSED: None ABSENT: None QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH PUBLIC HEARING - SEWER VARIANCE - GARY P. MOORE NOTICE SHOWN SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Gary, come on up and join us please. Dave Hatin couldn't be here tonight because he had a conflict of schedule but he and I had a chance to talk about this several times and I think I understand the situation. Why don't you briefly describe to us what it is that's being proposed here. GARY MOORE-I'm proposing to install a 2,000 gallon septic holding system in lieu of a 3500 gallon tank. The reason for down sizing it, is a space restriction on my property. A 3500 gallon tank would be a very difficult thing to place on the property, it has to be brought in on a tractor trailer and set by a large crane where with the 2,000 gallon tank, it could be brought in by a truck and mounted with a normal piece of excavation equipment. The house that I want to provide this for is only used 2 months of the year. I'm providing a 1 gallon ultra low flush toilet. There are only 2 sinks in the house, they both have ultra low flow aerators on them and 1 shower which also has an ultra low flow shower head. With the 2,000 gallon tank, it will have an alarm system on it, as required by the Town. It will be set up with a float switch activating the solenoid valve which will control the potable water supply to the house upon reaching full. I've checked with alot of the local hauling companies and most the haulers can't haul more than 2,000 gallons at a time anyway. So it will pump out, every time I do it, it will empty the tank. Like I said, this is just a seasonal residence which is used by approximately four people 2 months of the year. The other zoning variance I'm requesting, is to locate it 2 1/2 feet off my neighbor's property line and the reason I chose this location, was by doing this, I'm able to keep it 50 feet from the lake in all directions. If I were to locate it anywhere else on the property, I'd also have to seek a variance to have it less than 50 feet from the lake which I think it would be better to be closer to somebody else's property line because there are no wells affected at all in this area, everybody has lake drawn water. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Are there any questions here from members of the Board? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Is this going back where the original septic system was? MR. MOORE-No it's not. It's going to be approximately 15 feet to the west of the old tank. The old tank is closer to the lake and I didn't want to get into the excavation and removal of the old system. The old system is a seepage pit and a cesspool, it's not a septic tank per-se. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Okay. What was Dave's ... ? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well Dave pointed out that since it has an alarm, it's set up correctly, since it's a low volume system, he thinks 2,000 gallons is adequate. If the alarm fails or if you want to cut the wires, it doesn't matter whether it's 3500 gallons or 2,000 gallons, in time it's going to fail. It's really up to the owners to take care of it and make sure that it works and 2,000 gallons can work just as well as 3500 gallons, understanding the limitations of the system. So it's a matter of proper maintenance and taking care of it and he feels it's fine, it's a decent answer. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-How about the State, what did they say? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -It complies with all the other regulations, it's up to us. Okay, it's a public hearing, so if there's no other questions from the Board, I'm going to open it to the public. Is there anyone here that would like to speak on this matter? JOHN SALVADOR-Just a question. What was the basis for the 3500? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That's Town law. It's a variation of our own law, is really what we're doing here. It's really a system where a septic system won't work so it's got to be, there isn't enough room to make it work, as I understand it, so it's got to be a pumping, just a holding tank. MR. MOORE-That's correct. There isn't room to put in proper leach fields and there isn't enough separation from the elevation of the land to the water to put in any sort of system that would leach back into the ground. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mr. Moore, your old system won't be being used at all, is that correct? MR. MOORE-I wanted to ask the Town about that. I do have a seepage pit which I have a 3 year intern permit which I'm operating under right now and I didn't know what the law was, whether I had to switch everything over all at once or if I could phase it in. I initially want to put the toilet and all the bathroom services on it. I didn't, I wanted to find out if I needed to put the sink on it also. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Your gray water, you'd like to run through the old system? MR. MOORE-Yea, the gray water, I'd like to keep it going into the seepage pit at least for the duration of my intern permit, but I don't know if that's feasible with the Town or not. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I don't know the answer to that either. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I don't know that either. It seems to me, it's got to be one or the other. MR. MOORE-Okay, it's okay. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But I'm just wondering if you don't use it, it almost seems like you have to fill them in and that's why I'm asking the question. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That's really for the code people to tell us. MR. MOORE-If in fact, I talked to Dave a little bit about it and I wasn't sure if I understood his answer but if they write me a new permit for this new system, then that would supersede the old permit and the old system and then yes, everything would be in on the new tank. As far as filling the old one in, that won't be a problem, there isn't alot to fill in. Like I said, it's not a tank, it's a cesspool which is just stone laid up with a void in, then everything flows into it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I'm not even sure that you have to but somewhere in the back of my mind, it seems to me, I recollect that. MR. MOORE-It may be very possible, if that's the case, I'll comply with whatever is requested. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Anyone else that has any comment, question? Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING A SANITARY SEW AGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE FOR GARY P. MOORE RESOLUTION NO.7, 92, Introduced by Mr. Michel Brandt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan. WHEREAS, Mr. Gary P. Moore previously filed a request for two (2) variances from certain provisions of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, such provisions being more specifically that requiring that there be a 10 foot separation between the septic tank and the property line, and a 3,500 gallon capacity holding tank for a 3 bedroom home, and WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was given in the official newspaper of the Town of Queensbury and a public hearing was held in connection with the variance request on March 16, 1992, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk advises that property owners within 500 feet of the subject property have been duly notified, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, a) that due to the nature of the variances, it is felt that the variations will not be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of this Ordinance or to other adjoining properties or otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any plan or policy of the Town of Queensbury; b) that the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variances is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and that the variances are granted as the mlmmum variances which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the applicant; and c) that the Local Board of Health imposes a condition upon the applicant that he must also secure the approval of the New York State Department of Health, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health grants the variances to Mr. Gary P. Moore, allowing the placement of the septic tank 2.5' from the property line, rather than placing it at the mandated 10' distance, and allowing a 2,000 gallon capacity holding tank, rather than the mandated 3,500 gallon capacity holding tank, on property situated on Fielding Lane, Cleverdale, Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax Map #: Section 12, Block 1, Lot 15. Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN FROM BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.8, 92, Introduced by Mrs. Sue Goetz who moved for it's adoption, seconded by Mr. Nick Caimano. RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns and enters Regular Session of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: Ayes ALL THOSE OPPOSED: None ABSENT: None QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED LOCAL LAW - INSURANCE NOTICE SHOWN 7:11 P.M. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Would anyone like to speak on this proposed public law? The law basically is to replace a resolution that has been previously passed by the Board and the idea is to make it a local law which is more permanent in effect and a little harder to change. It basically says that the purchase of insurance, the change in policies, the change in carrier, the change in broker, any of those things would become the purview of the Town Board, period. Nobody, the Supervisor is taken out of it, that's what it amounts to. But I think it's a very good proposal. Anyone have any comments on it? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION TO ENACT LOCAL LAW NUMBER 4, 1992 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 100 TO BE ENTITLED "INSURANCE", WHICH CHAPTER SETS FORTH THE PROCEDURE TO BE USED BY THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY WHEN SELECTING OR CHANGING INSURANCE BROKERS, AGENTS, COMPANIES AND/OR TYPES OF COVERAGE AND/OR LIMITS OF COVERAGE RESOLUTION NO. 171, 92, Introduced by Mr. Pliney Tucker who moved for it's adoption, seconded by Mr. Nick Caimano. 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 by adding a new Chapter 100 to be entitled "Insurance", which Chapter sets forth the procedure to be used by the Town of Queensbury when selecting or changing insurance brokers, agents, companies and/or types of coverage and/or limits of coverage, and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed local law entitled "A Local Law to Amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury by Adding a New Chapter 100 to be Entitled 'Insurance', Which Chapter Sets Forth the Procedure to be Used by the Town of Queensbury When Selecting or Changing Insurance Brokers, Agents, Companies and/or Types of Coverage and/or Limits of Coverage", 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 March 16, 1992, a public hearing with regard to this local law was duly conducted, 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 by adding a new Chapter 100 to be entitled "Insurance", which Chapter sets forth the procedure to be used by the Town of Queensbury when selecting or changing insurance brokers, agents, companies and/or types of coverage and/or limits of coverage, to be known as Local Law Number 4, 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 16th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION APPROVING MINUTES RESOLUTION NO. 172, 92, Introduced by Mr. Nick Caimano who moved for it's adoption, seconded by Mr. Pliney Tucker. RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the Town Board Minutes of February 20th, 24th, March 2nd, 3rd and 4th of 1992. Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: Ayes ALL THOSE OPPOSED: None ABSENT: None DISCUSSION BEFORE ACTION Code of Ethics, Public Hearing Resolution Changes to be made: Page 8, D: change figure from $1,000.00 to $5,000.00 Page 12, G: additional statement, end of first sentence, "and when doing so, shall give the effected employee or officer written notice of such activity within 5 business days". RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW NO. _, 1992 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY BY DELETING AND REPEALING CHAPTER 14 THEREOF, ETHICS, CODE OF, AND REPLACING IT WITH A NEW CHAPTER 14, TO BE ENTITLED, ETHICS AND DISCLOSURE LAW, WHICH CHAPTER PROVIDES FOR A REVISED CODE OF ETHICS, DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS, ETHICS ADVISORY COUNCIL, ETHICS BOARD, AND PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE RESOLUTION NO. 173. 92, Introduced by Mr. Michel Brandt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Nick Caimano. WHEREAS, at this meeting there has been presented for adoption by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Local Law No. _, 1992, A Local Law to Amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury by Deleting and Repealing Chapter 14 thereof, Ethics, Code of, and Replacing it with a New Chapter 14, to be Entitled, Ethics and Disclosure Law, which Chapter Provides for a Revised Code of Ethics, Disclosure Statements, Ethics Advisory Council, Ethics Board, and Penalties for Non-compliance and WHEREAS, such legislation is authorized pursuant to the General Municipal Law and 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 Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, at 7:00 p.m., on the 6th day of April, 1992, to consider said Local Law No. _, 1992 and to hear all persons interested on the subject matter thereof concerning the same to take such action thereon as is required or authorized by law, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby determines that the action proposed to be taken herein is not an action as defined under the State Environmental Quality Review Act or is it a Type II action thereunder and no further SEQRA review is therefore necessary, and 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. _, 1992 in the manner provided by law. Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT : None Town Board held discussion regarding proposed change of zone, General Mills: COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Let me just put it on the table. There has been alot of discussion regarding General Mills, regarding Red Lobster and regarding this change of zone and we have the, we have the helm here. I will say to you, that on the one hand, there's alot offeeling that a quality operation like General Mills and the Red Lobster specifically ought to be a part of this Town from a commercial standpoint. By the same token, there's an awful lot offeeling that it should not be where it is. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Where it is proposed. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Where it is proposed right now and that is changing the zone from Residential to Commercial. So the question is, since we have the authority, should we not exercise it, if we feel it's proper and stop wasting money for the applicant, stop wasting sleepless nights for the people who are living there and simply say, that this is not the right place. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-I would agree with that. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I also would agree with that. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-That we're doing everybody a favor by stopping it now and not going any further because I believe it is within our purview not to entertain it as a rezoning. I feel strongly that it shouldn't be rezoned commercial due to the fact of potential traffic hazards and very important is, preserving that neighborhood there behind it. I've been involved in land use and the zoning for many years and I went back and researched all the minutes of, like, the land use advisory committee and it was very evident that we wanted to preserve that neighborhood character. I want the Red Lobster in the Town of Queensbury but just not there on that proposed lot. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think we all agree with that and I know there's talk about a sister restaurant of the Red Lobster coming to Town and having used both of them in the South, they are both excellent restaurants and I hope they do come to Queensbury but I do not think that that is a good place for it. Also the home owners in that area, many of them have covenants on their land that they can only be used as residences, they can't even be used for professional offices. I think we have an obligation to those neighbors to uphold their rights. I think again, that's a small piece of property for the kind of use it's considered being put on it and I think you've got a terribly bad traffic situation where people are going to have a hard time getting in and getting out of it. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-This is a representative from Red Lobster here, so ... COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Before he speaks, can I make a comment? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Why not. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I've been watching government for a lot of years, and I don't think I've ever seen this happen. It might have happened, but I don't think I've ever seen the system, not go through the system and see what happened. I haven't made up my mind on this thing yet. I know the people in the area are upset but there's 25,000 people in the Town of Queensbury and that piece of property is going to be zoned for something, it's just not going to sit there with a million dollar value on it, growing pine trees. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Pliney, to answer one part of what you said, yes the Town Board in previous years, has often, not entertained rezonings when we didn't think they were worth the rezoning. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Well I don't remember the knowledge of that happening and until I see it in black and white ... I think the system should work. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-It is. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-No it isn't. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -But what you're saying ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Yea, but wait a minute, just a second. The system does work and the system says, that we do not have to accept this to go any further. It is our decision, whether or not to accept it. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Yea, okay. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-So the system is working. Whether or not we go through with a continuing resolution or whether or not we go through with continuing evidence or whether or not we put the applicant through continued expense knowing full well that there's no sympathy to rezone this, is not saying that we're not letting the system work. At least it seems to me. I'm sorry, John. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-John why don't you speak to these issues. JOHN GORALSKI, Representing Applicant-Okay, I think there were two issues that were brought up. One is traffic and one is the neighborhood opposition. On the traffic issue, the money has been spent to produce a traffic study which has been turned into the Town and also to New York State Department of Transportation. They're supposed to be the experts, they're currently reviewing it. To my knowledge, you have not received any answers from DOT regarding the traffic study. On the issue of the neighbors, your basing that all on the public hearing, or "public hearing" that was held at the Planning Board. We went to that meeting to do a presentation to the Planning Board, we didn't bring all of the people that were in support of the application. There are many people who have expressed an interest in coming to the public hearing and voicing support of the application. Since the Planning Board meeting was not a public hearing, we felt, we didn't want to drag these people out night after night after night and therefore we thought that we would wait until the appropriate time, which would be a public hearing in front of the Town Board to have these people come and speak. So I don't think you've heard both sides of the issues and I don't think you've heard all the information regarding this property or the proposal that's in front of you. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well I guess my only comment John, and you and I have talked about this before and I certainly understand the reality of having a nice operation like this and I understand the fact of where it is and where it could be and it's a good opportunity. But there's an emotional side to this thing too and that's the thing that bothers me, I think, bothers some of the rest of us, too. We keep getting correspondence and we keep getting communications from the people who live there, who are being, I guess the word would be gerrymandered, but they're certainly being aced out of where they live and it isn't that that piece ofland is zoned for a commercial operation. We have to deliberately take people like Mr. Patch and others like him and say, okay, I'm going to cut one more heart out of where you live and I'm going to reduce your property value and I'm going to make it ever more difficult for you to relax and enjoy your life, as my wife and I do, as you and your wife do, because we want one more nice piece of commercial operation to go in here. We don't have to sell every single bit of land in this Town for something. We don't have to do it. We get alot of phone calls and mail regarding the quality of life for the people who pay the taxes and live here, the people who would use these restaurants and that's not going to, it's an emotional issue, it's nothing about a logical issue, it's an emotional issue. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -John, from my view point, I think personally it's wise to have the public hearing and put everything on the table. But I'll tell you, I also have great reservations with that parcel and there is alot of land that's zoned commercial in the Town and to do a rezoning there, I have hesitancy to do that. But saying that, I'm not against going ahead and having a public hearing and putting all the information in front of us because we have not heard all of it. That's really up to the Board. Well let's formally do something, so what I'll do is I'll offer the resolution ... RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE - REGARDING PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE GENERAL MILLS RESTAURANT, INC. RESOLUTION NO. 174, 92, Introduced by Mr. Michel Brandt who moved for it's adoption, seconded by Mr. Pliney Tucker. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is presently considering an amendment, supplement, change, and/or modification to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and map, and more specifically considering a petition for change of zone by General Mills Restaurant, Inc., whereby a parcel ofland, known as Tax Map No. 98-2-1,98-3-1 and 98-3-5, would be changed from SFR- 10 (Single Family Residential- 10,000 square feet) to HC-IA (Highway Commercial- 1 Acre), thus modifying the existing Zoning Ordinance and map, and WHEREAS, in order to so amend, supplement, change, modify, or repeal the Ordinance and map, it is necessary to hold a public hearing prior to adopting said proposed amendment, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall hold a public hearing, at which time all parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, upon and in reference to a proposed amendment, supplement, change, and/or modification to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and map, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said public hearing shall be held on April 14, 1992, at 7:00 p.m., at the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed to give 10 days notice of said public hearing by publishing the notice presented at this meeting for purposes of publication in an official newspaper of the Town and by posting on the Town bulletin board outside the Clerk's Office said notice, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the Town Planning Department to ascertain a list of the names and addresses of all property owners within 500' of the area to be rezoned, and further authorizes and directs the Town Planning Department to arrange for notification of the proposed rezoning to all said property owners and others who have requested notification, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Attorney's Office of the Town of Queensbury is also hereby authorized and directed to give written notice of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury in accordance with the written notice presented at this meeting, to be delivered 10 days prior to the following: Warren County, by service upon the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, and such other communities or agencies that it is necessary to give written notice to pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law of the State of New York, the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Queensbury and the Laws of the State of New York, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Attorney's Office of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of said proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and map, and notice of hearing to the Warren County Planning Agency and the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Attorney's Office of the Town of Queensbury is also hereby directed to give notice and refer this matter to the Adirondack Park Agency in accordance with the laws, rules and regulations of the State of New York and the Adirondack Park Agency, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby directs the Town Planner's Office to contact and request that an official of the Department of Transportation for the State of New York be present at the public hearing on April 14, 1992 to address certain concerns the Town Board has relative to traffic in the area of the property to be rezoned. Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano ABSENT: None AFTER THE VOTE: MR. GORALSKI-Is that all the Board is going to do on this, just let it drop? Or are you going to vote to deny the proposal? Is there anyway that we can convince you to set a public hearing for additional information? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I suppose that's a possibility but what we're saying here now, correct me if I'm wrong here Paul and we often say that, what we have done by not setting a public hearing is to ... say the project is dead? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Right, your not taking any action. You couldn't really deny it because you can only deny it after a public hearing and after doing the SEQRA. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No, right. ATTORNEY DUSEK-But what you're doing, is you're just not moving ahead with the rezoning and since it's legislative, that's within your prerogative not to do that. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-So you can still bring forward arguments to say, hey look, there's really reasons here as far as I see. Right? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Sure, I mean he can always come back to the Board and approach you with further arguments, as long as you want to listen. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Y ea and the fact it's not with prejudice, it's just not listening to, right. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Right. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRACT WITH THE INTERNATIONAL ARTS AND CULTURE ASSOCIATION RESOLUTION NO. 175, 92, Introduced by Mr. Michel Brandt who moved for it's adoption, seconded by Mr. Nick Caimano. WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is desirous of entering into a contract with the International Arts and Culture Association, and WHEREAS, a contract has been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to execute the contract set forth above, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that payment due on said contract be paid from the 01-6420-4426 account. Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mrs. Monahan RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUPERVISOR TO SIGN CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF GLENS FALLS, THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND THE BROAD STREET CAR WASH, INC. RESOLUTION NO. 176, 92, Introduced by Mr. Nick Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Pliney Tucker. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury and Broad Street Car Wash, Inc., previously entered into an agreement concerning a hook-up by Broad Street Car Wash, Inc. to the Glens Falls sewer facilities, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury and City of Glens Falls also entered into an agreement concerning the hook-up by Broad Street Car Wash, Inc. to the Glens Falls sewer facility which Broad Street Car Wash, Inc. was also to execute, and WHEREAS, Broad Street Car Wash, Inc. raised certain concerns about the agreement proposed between the City of Glens Falls, the Town of Queensbury and Broad Street Car Wash, Inc. and the agreement, therefore, was revised, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has previously adopted resolutions approving both the original agreement between the City of Glens Falls, Town of Queensbury and Broad Street Car Wash, Inc. and the agreement between the Town of Queensbury and Broad Street Car Wash, Inc. since that agreement has been revised, the Town Attorney has advised that it is necessary to have Town Board review and, if acceptable to the Town Board, approval by the Town Board of the new agreement, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury after reviewing this matter hereby approves the new agreement between the Town of Queensbury, City of Glens Falls and Broad Street Car Wash, Inc., the same being presented at this meeting and hereby further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the same on behalf of the Town of Queensbury and take such other and further steps as may be necessary to finalize the agreement between all the parties and take such action as may be required or necessary to accomplish the purposes of the agreement. Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF CONTRACT WITH THE LITERACY VOLUNTEERS RESOLUTION NO. 177,92, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for it's adoption, seconded by Mr. Pliney Tucker. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has deemed it appropriate and beneficial to the Town that certain remedial reading services be provided for illiterate adults residing in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined that an agreement should be entered into with the Literacy Volunteers, to provide said services, and WHEREAS, a proposed agreement between the Town of Queensbury and the Literacy Volunteers, for the 1992 calendar year has been prepared, a copy of which is annexed hereto, and the form thereof has been approved by Paul B. Dusek, Town Attorney for the Town of Queensbury, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Agreement with Literacy Volunteers is hereby approved, and the Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury be and hereby is authorized on behalf of the Town of Queensbury to execute said agreement, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that upon execution thereof by the Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury and the authorized officer of the Literacy Volunteers, said agreement be in full force and effect under the terms and conditions specified therein, with an original copy of this agreement to be on file with the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that payment due on said contract be paid from the previously budgeted account. Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mr. Caimano RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS RESOLUTION NO. 178, 92, Introduced by Mr. Michel Brandt who moved for it's adoption, seconded by Mr. Nick Caimano. WHEREAS, a certain department has requested a transfer of funds, and WHEREAS, said request has been approved by the Town of Queensbury Accounting Office and the Chief Fiscal Officer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the funds be transferred as listed below: WATER DEPARTMENT FROM AMOUNT TO 40-8320-1520 (Water Plant Operator 1) 40-8320-1971 (Water Plant $30,000.00 Operator Trainee) Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION SETTING NEW FEES FOR ELECTION INSPECTORS RESOLUTION NO. 179,92, Introduced by Mrs. Sue Goetz who moved for it's adoption, seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan. WHEREAS, Election Inspectors are now appointed by the County Board of Elections, but it is still the responsibility of the Town of Queensbury for payment of these inspectors, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following new fees be set for 1992 Election Inspectors: $55.00 Primary Day $55.00 Registration Day $80.00 Election Day $5.00 Chairman Each Time $950.00 per yr. Custodian #1 $700.00 per yr. Custodian #2 Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO REVISE RESOLUTION NO. 107, 1992 RELATIVE TO DESIGNATING TOWN OF QUEENSBURY POLLING PLACES RESOLUTION NO. 180,92, Introduced by Mr. Nick Caimano who moved for it's adoption, seconded by Mrs. Sue Goetz. WHEREAS, Resolution No. 107, 1992 designated the Queensbury Central Firehouse as the location for the polling place for Ward 3/1, and, as it is not available, it is necessary to designate the West Mountain Community Church as the location for the polling place for Ward 3/1, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby revises Resolution No. 107 of 1992 to reflect that the West Mountain Community Church will replace Queensbury Central Firehouse as the location for the polling place for Ward 3/1. Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT : None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASING PROCEDURES RESOLUTION NO. 181,92, Introduced by Mr. Michel Brandt who moved for it's adoption, seconded by Mr. Nick Caimano. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of revising its purchasing procedures and repealing any previous procedures that have been adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury cites Town Law ~41-a and General Municipal Law ~ 104-b as authority for this Resolution, and WHEREAS, the proposed revised purchasing procedures have been circulated for review among the Department Heads at the Town of Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adopts the procedures as presented at this meeting and hereby directs that the Town Clerk shall furnish a copy of these final procedures to all Department Heads and Districts of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: None TOWN BOARD HELD THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSIONS: 1. REVALUATION KARL KROETZ, made presentation in favor of a Town wide Revaluation for the Town of Queensbury ... Noted unequal assessment practices throughout the Town, the result being, the State Board of Assessment and Equalization has dropped Queensbury's equalization rate excessively fast, which hurts the Queensbury Taxpayers. Noted that there is 2700 Queensbury Taxpayer's that are in Lake George School District that are paying 25 percent more school tax because of the unjust equalization rate between Queensbury and Lake George. Also true for Queensbury Taxpayer's on the southern boundary of Queensbury where they're in the Glens Falls School District. The County taxes that we pay are also affected, every taxpayer in the Town of Queensbury pays more County taxes than he should because of the low equalization rate that the Town of Queensbury has, as compared to other Towns in Warren County. The lower the equalization rate, the more we pay. A Town wide revaluation is long over due. We're only asking that you let the revaluation process to proceed as was scheduled so that all taxpayers will receive fair treatment in terms of assessed valuation of their property. Is that too much for the taxpayers to ask? UNKNOWN-Live on Bay Road, they came to my house and reassessed my property and the neighbors, is this a continuation of that? HELEN OTTE, Town Assessor-The Town is now doing, mostly, new construction and physical changes. UNKNOWN-In support ofMr. Kroetz presentation. You've started the process, you have the money, why stop now? JOHN SALVADOR-Referred to the subject of Market Value. I understand as a result of the reval, you will be bringing all properties up to present day market value, that's the objective? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Or down. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Adjusted to current market value. MR. SAL V ADOR- Questioned if the Town was going to hire a consultant to do the work? MRS. OTTE, Assessor-I will be in charge of the project as part of my job as Assessor. What we're going to do is hire an independent contractor who will furnish manpower to go out and do some of the lengthier portions of the revaluation project, that is viewing about 9,000 properties after new values have been established. 9,000 out of 12,000 and I'll be doing the other 3,000. MR. SAL V ADOR- Who is responsible for input for North Queensbury in gestation of milfoil off of our shorelines? MRS. OTTE, Assessor-That's a constant process, people who worked on data collection up there would have made note of that. I work on that all the time. MR. SALVADOR-Referred to wastewater regulations, stormwater regulations and intra operating permits, has an impact on the value of property, must be put in for consideration. MRS. OTTE, Assessor-All regulations, zoning regulations. We take all of the available information from all the planning departments, all the jurisdictions that has authority in that area, we put it all together to make the total picture of market value of the property. UNKNOWN-Support of Karl's statement. UNKNOWN-Referred to Schenectady Gazette statement relative to Equalization, the fact that the State reflects everything back to 1989. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- They're 3 years behind, in other words, if we do a reval today, it's going to be almost 3 years before there's any effect on the equalization rate. MRS. OTTE, Assessor-No that's not true. Every year when they do the equalization rate study, they use something called a level of assessment factor... they take the roll of the current year that we're producing compared to last year's roll, come up with a change in level factor and that is applied to the appraisals of 1989. That is done every year. UNKNOWN-Referred to the equalization rate being factored into the Warren County taxes, would this potentially reduce our land taxes? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-The total amount we contribute, is distributed... MRS. OTTE, Assessor-Based on the full value. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes, that's the equalization rate. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Based on total value. The County tax it's just like any other multiple tax district, it's assessment times equalization rate to come to the adjusted equalization rate and then the taxes are portioned. MRS. OTTE, Assessor-True value it's called. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-There's alot of confusion that comes into equalization rate. To me the equalization rate, whatever the State finds by their process, says that in practice, your community is at a certain level, whatever it is and then it becomes a multiple to adjust it to other communities so that they're all on a level playing field when you apportion taxes. To me, that's not the issue. The issue is whether within your assessment rolls, you have unfair distribution within those rolls. What your really talking about is bringing them all to one standard, to make it equitable and fair through out the system. The equalization rate, in my estimation, if you have an equitable roll, doesn't make alot of difference. It's going to do what it mathematically is supposed to do and that is compare the properties in one Town to the properties in another Town correctly. The argument to me, that's been the most persuasive to get involved in a reval is, that there is, at least reported to be, an enormous number of parcels within the Town of Queensbury that are not equitably assessed, they're too high or they're too low, but there's alot of them. UNKNOWN-Support the correction of the disparity in the various areas throughout the Township. MRS. OTTE, Assessor-It's a 2 part goal that you have. One is to correct inequities and the other one is to approve your overall position in perspective to the other jurisdictions surrounding you with the equalization rate. RON MONTESI-From the Assessor's point of view, looking at comparable sales for the last year, how do our assessments stack up, with a down grading market? MRS. OTTE, Assessor-We do keep a running analysis of assessments to actual sales, current sales. We find that it does vary alot in different neighborhoods, that when you put it all into averages, we come to about 85 percent. MR. MONTESI-Lower? MRS. OTTE, Assessor-No, about the same as the equalization rate. MR. MONTESI-But the sales are 85 percent higher or? MRS. OTTE, Assessor-The assessments are 85 percent of the sale price. MR. MONTESI-So the assessments are lower than the actual sales, on the average? MRS. OTTE, Assessor-Yes, on the average. The problem again exists, that on individual properties, that's a very different thing than averages and then you have alot of disparity. MR. MONTESI-With that in mind, what will we prove by doing the revaluation, if they still come out 85 percent? UNKNOWN-They won't. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-How do we know that? MR. MONTESI-Yes, that's my question. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-The point of it is, you may come out at the right average overall, but the point of it is, if one guy is paying 125 percent too many taxes and the other guy is paying 55 percent and you still get to a 85 average, is that right? MR. MONTESI-What we're hoping for is a redistribution of the same amount of money. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Ron, as you well know, when we talked about this when you were on the Board, I brought out streets, within a street, they were not comparably assessed. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-We must have been lucky in ward 4. I went down my street yesterday, there isn't $300.00 difference in the assessment on any house on my street. MRS. OTTE, Assessor-Referred to Bedford Close in Ward 4, I was working on 7 properties in Bedford Close and I don't know why those people haven't come in because many of them are assessed higher than their values were in 1986 and 87, their assessed values went on at a higher level than the actual sales from those very years. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- The people I called, were just the opposite. After our meeting on Tuesday, I spent Saturday and Sunday calling across my ward and calling some people I happen to know in Bedford Close, one is doing a job for us at the Town and unilaterally, everyone wanted to know why we were doing this. So I said, because there are people who are unfairly assessed and none of these people were. One of the interesting factors is, 2 of the people I called who happen to live in my ward, also own homes, camps, on Lake George, lake front homes. While they had some problems, they knew they could come to you. They could go to a grievance procedure, they could go to article 7, they could do something but wanted to know why we needed to spend the money. Now obviously it wasn't everybody in my ward, all I did was a cross section, a couple of them are sitting out here in the audience, as a matter of fact. I don't deny, for one single bit, that there was some gross inequities built into the system in 1987. I feel strongly that there may be a better way to do this then this way at this time. I'm concerned, for example of needle chasing, not that you're not a better Assessor than the previous one, I can't make that judgement. But in fact, isn't this the statistics, are we not needle chasing? In fact, will not we have just as many people coming to grievance day after we do a reval, as we had before? In fact, there is no ground swell outside of this group and they are an important group that says look, I think that I am being treated unfairly. Where is there a ground swell that says that throughout this town? Not in any particular pocket but throughout this town? If it is only in a pocket, why can't we do that? I still, I am perfectly willing to change my vote if somebody can say why logically, and I do not know that we have heard the answer yet, we can't do it. MRS. OTTE, Assessor-I told you the answer Tuesday night, I said the New York State Supreme Court will not go along with that, that is a pretty good reason. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-The Town of Hartford is doing it right now. MRS. OTTE, Assessor-By pocket? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Yes. MRS. OTTE, Assessor-Has it been tested in Court? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I have no idea. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-A lot of the places, like Washington County are not doing it correctly, believe me. Nick, there are two things I want to say. Number one, maybe Lake George can be adjusted with the data that has been collected, and that is a big maybe. It is still not going to help the problem that is creating the equalization rate, because most of the people in Lake George do not really think that they are over assessed. What is hurting the equalization rate is the under assessment that are in other areas of the town, and those are the ones where most of the sales are going on, those are the properties that are being used to arrive at the equalization rate, so they are having a big weight on this where it is under assessed. Secondly, you say to these people who are an important group out here, you bet your life they are, they represent over 30% of the assessed valuation of this town, is in Ward I. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That is argumentative. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That goes to the Lake George School Dist., no it is not, that is the actual fact, about 40% of the assessed valuation in the Town is in Ward 1. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-A house in Hidden Hills sold for $126,000, what would be the assessed valuation of that? MRS. OTTE, Assessor-If it was done fairly it would be about 85% of that. UNKNOWN-...you have no reason to do any re-adjustment... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- There are some towns that never do them. There are some towns, some counties, there are some areas that never do them, ever in this state. UNKNOWN-As a result, there is an impact on that, as the result of the equalization rate. I maintain that because the equalization rate, being so foggy, most people do not understand what it does to them. You never know what it does to you until you see the bill. You do not understand why it is so high. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-But will a reval change that perception? UNKNOWN-Yes. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-What is the assessment per thousand for school taxes in Lake George... UNKNOWN-It is $10.00 ...It depends on the assessed valuation of the Town that represents the school district...ifthe Lake George School Dist. in Queensbury had twice the valuation then it has now, assessed valuation, the school tax would be one half, you cannot compare school dist. to school dist. because it depends on how much it is backed up by assessed valuation. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-If you take two houses and what they will bring on the market is $100,000, one of them is in the Town of Queensbury that is in the Lake George School Dist., the other is in the Town of Lake George, what happens is, the one in the Town of Queensbury ends up paying 25% more school tax than the equivalent house in the Town of Lake George. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-This gentlemen says it does not make any difference, they pay, $1,000 assessed valuation. My entire ward pays $13.11 a thousand assessed valuation in the Queensbury Dist. and $16.50 of the people that belong in the City dist. and there is not anybody in my end of the Town wanting a reval. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-In order to do a correct comparison, in each school dist. would have to have the same budget, educating the same number of kids, getting the same amount of state aid. So you cannot compare it that way. UNKNOWN-You made an excellent point, about the fact that everyone agrees that we have areas, that have unfair assessments, some are too high, some are too low. There is only one way to correct that and that is with a revaluation, we all agree on that, do we not? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I am not sure of that. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I do not. UNKNOWN-How are you going to change assessments unless you re-evaluate them. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Can't the assessor do that? MRS. OTTE, Assessor-I have answered it for the last month. I have been trying to tell you why it is we cannot do it, how it should be done. You are asking to do it piece meal. You ask me to pick out the ones that are wrong and correct them. Where do you draw the line? I showed you that every lot value in the Town of Queensbury needs to be adjusted. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-One place to draw the line is every grievance day, is it not? MRS. OTTE, Assessor-Only the people that come in get corrected? That is what happens. UNKNOWN-People that are very low taxed are not going to come in and grieve. One thing is to give every taxpayer fair treatment and have the same percentage of true value for his assessment. We all agree the revaluation no matter how it is done is the only thing that can do that. Other people have raised the question what is going to happen to our equalization rate? Our equalization rate is going to go up because, what is happening now is the State every year is adjusting the equalization rate. What do they base it on? They base it on sales that they see in the entire Town of Queensbury. The Town is so varied, it is so big, that the sales do not reflect true value, they are reflecting far, far under assessment. That is what the State looks at. When you get a reassessment for the whole town, the State will no longer be able to see this discrepancy between sale price and value assessment, our equalization rate will shoot up. Town of Lake George are no fools, they had four years ago they had a revaluation just as we did six years ago and they saw it drop. They did not like it so they had another revaluation and pumped it right back up again, so that they do not get hurt in school taxes and they do not get hurt in county taxes and also state aid is a function of it. Someone asked the question, how does the State look at the Town, how do they determine the equalization rate fairly. That is a complicated question to answer. We know that we have been taking a beating, it went from 186 in 1988, right now it is 83, it has dropped like a stone and it will keep dropping like a stone. Everyone that pays taxes in the Town of Queensbury is suffering but they do not know it because the only thing you see on your school tax or town and county tax is the rate per thousand and your assessed valuation, equalization rate does not even appear on there. Nobody knows anything about the equalization rate, that is why you talk to your constituents down there, they do not know what the equalization rate is, all they know is their taxes. If they think their house is assessed less then what they can sell it for, they are happy. In the mean time, everybody is suffering but they do not even know it. MR. MONTESI-In the re-evaluation, what would cause, would the simple fact that you re-evaluated without knowing the outcome, would that change the equalization? What would make an equalization rate go up? On a total reval, what factor would make an equalization rate go up? MRS. OTTE, Assessor-The change in level of assessment. MR. MONTESI -Are we going to go up with the level of assessment? Every property in Queensbury would have to raise.. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That would only be true of '87 and then done properly. MR. MONTESI-In general, we would have to raise the grand list up in order to raise the equalization rate. MRS. OTTE, Assessor-You are raising the level of assessment compared to the '89 market value. MR. MONTESI-In general the assessed value of homes in the Town of Queensbury will raise... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It does not mean your taxes will raise... MR. MONTESI-What you are looking to happen in a reval is to raise the level of assessed value to the town in general which will raise your equalization rate. Why isn't it going to raise your taxes? MRS. OTTE, Assessor-If you have more assessed value to distribute the budget across and the tax rate per thousand, is going to decrease. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-If your budget does not increase and your assessed valuation goes up, then your rate will go down. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I will dispute that Mrs. Monahan. I have a sheet sent out by the assessor in 1987 when he assessed my property, I was assessed at 12,100 before the reassessment, they reassessed my property to 56,200 almost 5 times. If your 1987 estimate had been in effect, in 86 assessment of 56,200, the taxes I was paying would have produced taxes...750 to 807 my taxes went up. So don't sit here and tell people that there taxes are not going to go up because of the reval because it happens. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-If you were assessed correctly before the ratio proportion back then, I cannot tell you exactly, 4.5 a little under 5 times, if you did not go up more than that, your taxes would stay the same. If you went up more than that, your tax changed. UNKNOWN-Our taxes went up in 1987, went up 19 1/2 times on a piece of property in Cleverdale. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-What was it before that, sir? UNKNOWN-It was assessed for 19,600 and went up to $340,000.00 dollars and the camp is 100 years old this year. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Helen, if we don't authorize hiring this consultant, what would the status be of readjusting the commercial properties? I'm concerned that maybe some of the commercial properties are not properly assessed, especially when it comes to sewer districts. MRS. OTTE, Assessor-That's part of the project, redoing commercial properties. I will be doing some of those, the State of New York hopefully will do some of the more complex commercial properties. We might make use of some appraisals that we already have in existence for the Town on some of the large units as well. There's 350 or 400 that we were talking about earlier, should be redone, certainly looking at 90 and 91 market values. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-But you're saying you personally will not be able to handle the work, that that 30,000 is ...? MRS. OTTE, Assessor-No. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Sue, are you asking if Helen could just redo the commercial and not touch the residential? COUNCILMAN GOETZ-No, I'mjust saying that I feel commercial is a priority for many reasons and I'm just not convinced that we can't do it in house without hiring an outside consultant and that's my basic problem. Mr. Kroetz, I do want you to know that I did hear all the reportings, Betty recorded the meeting for me, I did listen to it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Helen, I have figured out something here, you work supposedly a 2,080 hour a week year, 2 weeks vacation I would imagine, pulls it down to 2,000, that means that you would have to do 6 pieces of property per hour for a year, not do any of the other things that, under law, your compelled for this Town. I know there are alot of superhuman people out there, maybe you could explain to me, how you could do that? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Realistically, how many parcels can our department handle a year? MRS. OTTE, Assessor-Are you talking about in normal work or in a reval situation? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Normal work. MRS. OTTE, Assessor-We send out about 1200 change of assessment notices a year, that's raising assessments or lowering them. For that 1200, we probably look at 2400, where it might not result in a change of assessment but it still needs correction, updata, or something new has been added or taken away from. We also handle all of the exemptions that have to be applied for and renewed on a yearly basis. We have to handle all of the, in May, June, July and then again starting in, August and September, we start the grievance proceedings and anything that results from those, small claims and also court cases. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-So you're looking, about 20 percent of the properties per year? MRS. OTTE, Assessor-At least, I would say more, because of the exemptions. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Part of the reason we are here, maybe a great part of the reason we are here and you can tell that to Mrs. Otte, is me. I have felt very strongly that we never get anywhere in trying to reduce government by not just taking the bull by horns and reducing government and taking things out of the budget, that are not necessary, not that they shouldn't be done, but there not necessary, so I started this. If what I hear is true and if the statements made tonight and made Wednesday night are anywhere close to true, that the money put in this budget by the previous administration, would be well spent. I am perfectly willing to back away from my stance. I certainly am going to be looking very closely at what happens when this is done. I'm not at all happy with some of the things that have happened. I'm not at all happy, much of this Board says what it has to say and they say it straight up which is not always the case when people talk to us. So I'll back away and I'd be glad to change my vote and I'd be glad to let this thing go through, but by God, it better be danm close to what everybody is telling me. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-What if it isn't? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Watch. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Are you going to shoot somebody or what? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No, but they won't work here anymore. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-You can't fire anybody. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I can not reassign. The following resolutions were proposed: RESOLUTION TO RESCIND RESOLUTION NO. 182,92, Introduced by Mr. Michel Brandt who moved for it's adoption, seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan. RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby rescinds Resolution No. 159 of 1992, entitled "RESOLUTION TO RESCIND RESOLUTION NO. 107, 1991". Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: Mr. Tucker ABSENT: None RESOLUTION REGARDING REVALUATION OF QUEENSBURY RESOLUTION NO. 183,92, Introduced by Mr. Michel Brandt who moved for it's adoption, seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury desires to authorize and undertake a revaluation of all properties in the Town of Queensbury to be effective for the 1993 tax year, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the Town Assessor to immediately take steps to begin the revaluation process including notifications that maybe necessary to the County as well as to the State, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Assessor is hereby also authorized to submit or send out requests for proposals for services to be used in connection with the reval, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor and/or the Assessor as maybe appropriate is hereby authorized to notify the State and take all action necessary to secure the grant, a grant or a funding of monies that is available from the State to assist in the cost of the revaluation. Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: Mr. Tucker ABSENT: None 2. MOBILE HOME PERMIT ATTORNEY DUSEK-A gentleman has an application to the Town Board to basically substitute one mobile home for another mobile home as I understand it. Under your code in the blue book, section 113-12 provides that, if you have a mobile home already in existence on a piece ofland in Town and if it's not in a mobile home court, it can continue there so long as that mobile home is registered and if at some point in the future, which is now in this case, a person wants to substitute that mobile home for another mobile home, he has to get the permission of the Town Board and the Town Board before they give that permission, has the discretion as to whether or not they feel, a public hearing is necessary. So this gentleman is here tonight to ask you to exercise that discretion and it's up to the Board after listening to the facts, whether you feel it's important to have a public hearing or not. Perhaps, some of the things you may wish to consider in that regard is, how long has the mobile home been there, do you anticipate any objections from neighbors but substituting one mobile home for another. MATTHEW SICARD-I have a 1962, I believe, mobile home that's getting run down. What I want to do is take that one out and replace it with a new mobile home that is 4 feet longer and 4 feet wider. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -How big of a lot are you on? MR. SICARD-It's unlimited space, the property is owned by my Father, we live on Glen Lake. I've got on 3 sides, we own like 800 feet, each way on 3 sides. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Which side of Glen Lake Road is this on? MR. SICARD-It's on the Lake Side of Glen Lake Road. It's actually on the end of Jay Road. I've spoken to Darleen, she told me that if it went to public hearing, you would have to notify everyone within 500 feet, of what I intend to do and I've got a letter, I wrote up and I had people within the 500 feet sign the letter and I talked to all of them, except for one person, who I can't get in touch with, and there's no objections from anybody because they all figure it's upgrading the property. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-A question, is this within that environmental zone? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Critical Environmental area? MR. SICARD-No, no we're not. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Even if it is, it's a type II action because it's just changing the same thing to the same thing. I don't think you have a problem with that. After Town Board discussion, the following resolution was proposed: RESOLUTION APPROVING MOBILE HOME RESOLUTION NO. 184,92, Introduced by Mr. Michel Brandt who moved for it's adoption, seconded by Mr. Nick Caimano. WHEREAS, Mr. Matthew Sicard has petitioned the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury for the necessary permission to replace an old mobile home with a new mobile home and a formal application has been submitted to the Town Board, and WHEREAS, Chapter 113 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury provides that the Town Board shall have the authority to grant a permit to substitute a mobile home it may request a public hearing, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury after examining the matter and after speaking with the applicant and considering the fact that adjoining property owners except for one owner has been notified and have voiced no objections, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby determines that it is not necessary to call a public hearing on this issue and further determines that this is just a substitution of one home which is of better quality for an older home and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes that a permit be issued to Mr. Sicard to exchange or substitute the mobile homes and be it further RESOLVED, that because this is a substitution of mobile homes is considered to be a Type II action under SEQRA. Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 1992 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr.Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None BEFORE VOTE: COUNCILMAN MONAHAN, questioned Mr. Sicard, how close to the Lake is this proposed to go? MR. SICARD, Three hundred feet, it's not on the Lake, it's a property and a road away from the Lake. 3. BANNERS KATHLEEN KA THE, Administrative Assistant, referred to request from Big Brothers/Big Sisters, authorizing approval for promotional banner in the amount of $100.00, to be placed at the Bowl-a-thon at Pine Lanes. Town Board held discussion and agreed not to authorize request because the Town's present contract with Big Brothers/Big Sisters for monies and this would be an additional sum to that amount. COUNCILMAN GOETZ, referred to the job that was given to the Beautification Committee regarding the placement of banners at the corner of Bay and Quaker Roads, noting that they've submitted a proposal and questioned the Board's feelings on it. Town Board held discussion, Councilman Monahan recommended to Councilman Goetz, being her committee, to verbally tell them to look into pricing and come back with the information. Town Board agreed. 4. PROPOSED REZONING - BAY MEADOWS COUNTRY CLUB PRESENT A TION BY DICK MORSE of Morse Engineering, representing Garth Allen, D/B/A of Bay Meadows Country Club. MR. MORSE-We are here tonight requesting the Town to authorize a public hearing for the rezoning of the Bay Meadows Country Club. The reason we're requesting the rezoning, the parcel is currently zoned an SFRIA which does not allow cluster development. We are asking for a rezone to SRIA which would allow cluster development. The purpose of that, so that we can retain the open nature of the front 9, the basic dry areas of the golf course and we're proposing a 90 unit development on what is referred to as the back 9. (Demonstrated on map, outlining proposal) Noted that we've been before the Warren County Planning Board, given their approval for the rezoning. We were before the previous Town Board, they referred us to the Town Planning Board and they also have approved the rezoning issue accept as noted in correspondence which is something that Lee should address. LEE YORK, PLANNER-Basically the only concern, which I think Dick has addressed this evening, that they were to have a commercial enterprise operating which they had actually calculated their housing density using. The commercial enterprise being the golf course, they're going to be giving up the development rights to the commercial enterprise. MR. MORSE-What we would intend to do is, to keep the open nature of the project, is to encumber the front 9, that there would be no additional development allowed on that in exchange for what we're doing with the cluster development. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-What will you do with that area? MR. MORSE-The front 9 is to be retained as a public golf course, which we're assuming we're going to be attracting a golfing clientele to this development. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Is the total amount of acreage, 97 plus or minus, is that including the golf course? MR. MORSE-That's correct. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So your using the land in the golf course to get your units which is double use of that land. MR. MORSE-But we intend to encumber that land. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes but it doesn't matter, once you put your units there, your not entitled to any more units, so your really using that land twice. I have a little problem with that. I don't think we've permitted other developers to do that. MRS. YORK-If he's come up with a plan that he believes is workable for this to be able to do this and a legal mechanism, that's fine ... it's my understanding that the owners of the property will have usage of the golf course, like part owners? How will you handle that? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But it's also going to be a public money making type of thing. MR. MORSE-That is correct, similar to Hiland Park. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea and I don't think Hiland Park was allowed and maybe I'm wrong Lee, but I don't think they were allowed to use their golf course to get the density on the rest of it. MRS. YORK-I don't know Betty, I was not involved in that. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -I don't have a problem with that. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It's against our zoning, that's what I'm saying. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well let's change our zoning. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But I don't think you want to Mike, you can get into alot of problems. How many acres are in the golf course, that you intend to retain as a golf course? MRS. YORK-He has 73 on the EIS, 73 existing golf course, 24 acres to be developed as townhouse units. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Your in a zone where you need development, your near your sewers, you want to encourage development near the sewers to get this tax base spread around a bit ... to me it makes alot of sense. MRS. YORK-I think the issue here tonight is the change from SFRIA to SRIA ... beyond that, the other decision is a zoning decision, as to whether the density of the commercial area can be utilized. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well I think if there's a question in that regard, first of all, you want to get the answer to that. For instance, if it is not allowed in that zoning, then it's within the prerogative of the Town Board to rezone the property and make it allowed if they want to as part of this rezoning which I think they do have the authority if their so inclined. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -I'm so inclined. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I have no problem going to the SRIA, the actual density, using the golf course twice, I'm not quite sure that's correct but on the other hand, I have no problem going to the SRIA because I think it's a better zoning. But I think the density is something that we do have to think about and address along the way. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Certainly rezoning, especially near the sewer lines, I think, is a high priority for us. In my estimation, we've got to rezone to much higher densities if we're going to make that sewer system work. Town Board held further discussion regarding proposed details of the development. ATTORNEY DUSEK, the resolution before you is a resolution setting a public hearing to rezone from SFRIA to SRIA, it does not however address any of the conditions or other situations that the Board has discussed tonight. It doesn't address the issue of the use of the golf course towards the total number of houses that are allowed. It doesn't address the issue of roads, cluster or retention ponds. If the Board wanted, it maybe something you wish to consider as a redraft of the resolution that puts these items in as conditions, addresses them and then you can use that resolution to go to public hearing. That would give me a chance to draft something and let the developer see it and then bring it back to the Town Board. There is one other issue that will have to be addressed and that is SEQRA, as to whether it's an Unlisted Type I Action and whether a long form or short EAF was to be used. I think one of those questions, the long form, has in fact been used, so that's been addressed. But the question that's in my mind at this point, is whether this project is being thought of as a Type I or an Unlisted Action? Lee do you or Dick have any comments? MRS. YORK-I haven't really looked at it, as far as SEQRA goes. MR. MORSE-I believe our research showed it is an unlisted action but I'd really have to dig back in the files. ATTORNEY DUSEK-If your going to go with the long form, then the Board will have to review that entire long form which I believe you have as part of your packet. So you may want to look at that before the next hearing, because those are the types of questions in part II that will have to be answered. 5. QUEENSBURY FOREST - HERALD SQUARE ATTORNEY DUSEK, noted that they do not have to come before the Board for Rezoning. The reason being, there had been a local law drafted in 1988, providing that any application for a subdivision that was in the process before the moratorium to affect, then the zoning ordinance was enacted, those particular applications and to my knowledge, I think there's only 2, Herald Square and Queensbury Forest ... UNKNOWN-And Woodmere, June 24th, on Heresford Lane off Upper Sherman Avenue, Woodmere Subdivision. ATTORNEY DUSEK-As long as they received some sort of action by the Planning Board before the cut off date of the moratorium, then that local law provides that they are exempt and they follow the old subdivision regulations and have all benefits that are accrued as part of them. I think that that relieves the Board of any further proceedings on those 2 applications. 6. CELLULAR PHONES COUNCILMAN CAIMANO, regarding the subject of cellular phones, referred to memo from Kathleen Kathe to all departments requesting the return of all cellular phones. In return, we've received several letters ... from Dave Hatin, Tom Flaherty, Kip Grant, Cemetery and Wastewater Departments. My reason for bringing it up, it's 6,000 to 7,000 dollars worth of expense that was belt and suspenders, since most of these cars also have radios in them. I think it's silly, I think it makes us look ridiculous and I don't see anybody on here that needs to have both a radio and telephone. After discussion, Town Board agreed to have all cellular phones returned with the possible placement of radios for those who do not presently have them, one being the Cemetery Department. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO, referred to Mike Shaw who asked for permission to use his vehicle because he has emergencies. Questioned how often there was an actual emergency in the past 2 years, year, 6 months ... what's the probability of having to use that vehicle? I don't know if there's been an answer. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Have you asked Mr. Shaw? COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Kathleen will talk with Mike Shaw about his vehicle. KATHLEEN KA THE-Questioned the position of cellular phones with the Highway Department? Discussion held, leave matters as is ... talk with Paul later, that will settle out ... Discussion regarding lighting districts ... Councilman Caimano concerned with residents paying for lights that they don't have. (Councilman Goetz adjourned from meeting) OPEN FORUM 9:40 P.M. CHESTER BEAGLE, Bay Road-Spoke to the Town Board regarding French Mountain Lumber Company, noting problems with noise and traffic, the business running 7 days a week. Questioned whether they have the proper permit to run their business... feel it is no longer a saw mill running electrically but rather a mulch business, with a huge grinder run by a big cat diesel and with a big cat diesel loading up to ten trailer loads a day... would like to know what can be done about it ... we can't live on our property anymore, can't enjoy our property anymore. Noted having problems with these people for along time ... dogs running loose, motorcycles with no exhaust system ... people out of control, something has got to be done. After discussion, Town Board agreed to have Director of Building and Codes, Dave Hatin, research further and suggested to Mr. Beagle to call Dave directly, come to his office ... who will be able to provide you with all the information that your looking for. JOHN SALVADOR-Mike, you had made mention about the State reneging on their subsidy for your fire code enforcement at a Special Board Meeting ... could you elaborate on that? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -For code enforcement, yes. I don't know the whole history, a letter came to me from the State basically telling us that there was no money in the budget for reimbursement of the normal payments that they have been making to the Town for code enforcement. MR. SALVADOR-How much was it? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I don't know, I know we didn't budget revenue for it so it's not a big problem ... when they made the budget last year, they did not anticipate a revenue there. MR. SALVADOR-Referred to Warren County Board of Supervisor's Meeting, Lou Tessier introduced the resolution recommending that they set up an Advisory Board for the Tourism Committee. Did you vote for that? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yes I did, I voted for it. MR. SALVADOR-Do you know whose on that committee? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I saw a list, there was still someone to be chosen from the City, it was predominately business people and there was a discussion to add nonbusiness people on it and Lou agreed to expand the committee to bring some other people in if they could find some people to do it. MR. SALVADOR-Do you know if there's any commitment of funds? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-To that Citizen's Committee, there was none. MR. SALVADOR-Questioned the status on Lake George Park Commission Stormwater Regulations? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We haven't done anything on it. MR. SAL V ADOR-I think they're required to be in place by April 1st. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We won't make it. We met with them, they opened the window to a grant of money, $5,000 dollars, but since then, I've looked at our work load, there's just no way in the world we can do it. So we haven't made application for the money either. At this point, we've got alot of other problems to solve before we get to that one. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Questioned whether this has to do with the inspections that are now being done? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-This is to create a new ordinance, write an ordinance on Stormwater for the Lake George Basin. This is a major engineering job. MR. SAL V ADOR-I really think before you move on this, you need a environmental impact statement, which they haven't done. Questioned the status of wastewater, on site sanitary septic inspections? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That's just sitting, we've got to put a committee together to get on it. The Lake George Park Commission said that they would look at innovative technology and they agreed that nobody is going to make a central major sewer system on Lake George at this point, they've come to accept that. MR. SAL V ADOR- Warren County has an EIS on the table that talks about sewering North Queensbury, connecting it to Lake George and connecting it to the Hudson River. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I don't believe that will ever happen and that's exactly what the Park Commission said, they didn't see the practicality of that ever happening. MR. SALVADOR-The EIS is there, they're talking about 1700 dollars a unit ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-The EIS maybe there, but the funding source is not, your talking enormous money. MR. SALVADOR-They are expecting you to resume the inspections this Spring. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-On a best effort basis, we'll do that. MR. SALVADOR-Referred to Special Meeting where TEAMCO made their Solid Waste Management Plan presentation, would like to follow up tonight with a letter. (Read into record letter and submitted letter-term sheet to Town Board & Town Attorney) We stand ready to answer any questions, do anything we have to, to move this concept forward. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We'll have to do some studying and look at this hard ... I'm sure we'll have questions ... we'll get back to you. DICK BARTLETT -Referred to earlier discussion regarding General Mills proposed project and not allowing them to go forward with a public hearing. Feel strongly that the public should be heard, not happy with not having a public hearing ... please consider holding a public hearing. OPEN FORUM CLOSED ATTORNEY DUSEK-I wanted to mention to the Board, when I draft the Ethic's Law, I'm affecting myself as well as everybody else but just to mention to you, one of the provisions especially that affects your Town Attorney is the of course the provisions dealing with not working for other people when you leave the Town. Since I drafted that provision, I just feel that I should let the Board know, that obviously that poses, I don't see any legal conflict obviously in me working for the Town, but I have to tell you honestly, that I am troubled by the provision to some extent. I just think that I should let you know that so that you know where I stand on the provision. The couple of issues that should be looked at eventually on that is whether it's retroactive, whether it's only in the future or when it takes effect, these are different things that the Board is going to want to consider which that law just simply puts it into place. But there's a question in my mind, for instance whether an appointed position such as myself that's there for 2 years, whether that's covered or not under it's current language. Now I think it can cover me, I think there's law to that effect, but I wanted to mention that to the Board because that's a specific concern to me. The overall ethic's policies because they do obviously apply to me, you should just recognize that fact, that the guy who is drafting it, is also affected by all of this stuff. I will say though that I did attempt to put in, obviously as I drafted this, I divorced myself from what I was doing and thought strictly from the perspective of the Town and just tried to basically, I looked in some of the State provisions and tried to mirror some of those same provisions in terms of compensation, employment. But I felt that it was important to me to mention that to you, so it's there and you see it, that's all. AUDIT OF BILLS RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS RESOLUTION NO. 185,92, Introduced by Mr. Nick Caimano who moved for it's adoption, seconded by Mr. Michel Brandt. RESOLVED, that the Audit of Bills appearing on Abstract March 16th, 1992, numbering 92-593 thru 92- 1270 and totalling $415,521.77 be and hereby is approved, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the following vouchers are to be held with authorization from the Supervisor for release: 92-1093 92-1094 92-1107 92-1179 Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: Mrs. Goetz COUNCILMAN MONAHAN noted for the record, Page 29 of the Audit, objecting, Town Board never authorized expenditure to Hudson Environmental, testing at the Landfill ... Don't object to paying the bill, object to doing it with out the authorization. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 186,92, Introduced by Mr. Nick Caimano who moved for it's 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 Matters and Attorney/Client Privilege Advice on Contract Matters. Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: Ayes ALL THOSE OPPOSED: None ABSENT: Mrs. Goetz No further action was taken. On motion, the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK TOWN OF QUEENSBURY