1992-07-15
SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING
JULY 15,1992
7:00 P.M.
MTG #73
RES #380-387
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
MICHEL BRANDT -SUPERVISOR
BETTY MONAHAN-COUNCILMAN
SUSAN GOETZ-COUNCILMAN
NICK CAIMANO-COUNCILMAN
PLINEY TUCKER-COUNCILMAN
TOWN ATTORNEY
PAUL DUSEK
TOWN OFFICIALS
Harry Hansen, Robert Parisi, Jim Martin
PRESS: G.F. Post Star, Channel 8
Supervisor Brandt called meeting to order ...
PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED LOCAL LAW, AMENDING THE CODE
"FIRE PREVENTION & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
NOTICE SHOWN
7:02 p.m.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Is there anyone that would like to speak on this proposed amendment?
JEFF LEE-What is it?
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-This is the amendment or it's a change to the code which basically has to do with
the Zoning Administrator and it's basically taking the duties of the office that was created as Zoning
Administrator back to, really be delegated by the Town Board in what way I think it see's fit. That's mighty
brief but that's basically what it is. It was proposed as part of the reorganization of the department and your
welcome to ask questions or give comments or whatever you'd like.
MICHAEL CRA YFORD-I would like to say something.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Please.
MR. CRA YFORD-My name is Michael Crayford, my wife was too devastated to come here tonight and I
just wanted you to be aware of that.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay. Does anyone have, you know, the hearing is open so.
MR. LEE-Who is going to take over this job? Is there going to be somebody there?
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I think basically there's a reorganization in mind and I think it's the intent of the
Town Board to reorganize the way that function is happening. The specific legal duty will probably be
given to Mr. Parisi but other people will be handling most of the work that has to be done. Alright, in other
words, it may be people that are already in the Codes Enforcement section and it may be some of it
delegated to some secretarial help and the final determination will be made by Mr. Parisi. I think that's a
fair analysis ...
MR. LEE-Well, you know, this is going to be a full time job. She's helped me out on many occasions and
she was there many times. You think there's going to be somebody there to fill that job?
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yes there is. Certainly Pat has done a very good job, no question.
MR. LEE-She helped, .. with variances, when there were problems with neighbors, fences, property lines
and she has always come right out to the job and took care of it? Do you have somebody to do that?
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We have to do that, it's a very important job, there is no question about that.
DAVID KENNY-I own the Adirondack Outlet Mall and the Days Inn. I always got along great ... good
personality. I do believe there is a need for someone in that capacity to deal with the public on a day to day
basis and help the public, meet with the people to get through the process in that capacity and I will, I do
have to say through all my dealings with the Town of Queensbury, I will be honest, no one has been more
helpful than Pat Crayford, so, you can send up smoke conditions...
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Maybe we should since all the people out there do not have a copy of this
law maybe some of the sections of this law relating to the zoning administrator should be read, those that
have been added to, for example. Section IE Purpose the bottom of the purpose at the bottom of section
one under purpose it says nothing herein shall be ...in the middle of it, it says the Town of Queensbury shall
be administered by an officer or employee who is designated by the Town Board of the Town of
Queensbury as a Zoning Administrator as provided for herein, nothing herein shall be deemed to be prevent
the assignment or delegation of the duties, responsibilities and/or authority of the Zoning Administrator to
any officer or employee of the Department of Building and Codes. The intent of the law is to provide for
that, to provide a zoning administrator or zoning administrator position as both you and Dave have asked.
The only thing that has been done in this law is that it may be assigned by the Executive Director of the
Department or by the Town Board, that is what this law is about. It has nothing to do with the goodness or
badness or rightness or wrongness of a particular person but the change of the law to designate who or
what, who is going to be the zoning administrator that is what this law is about.
MR. KENNY-So, it is my opinion that the intent of this law is not to abolish this position,but to create a
new position, I have been told by Pat Crayford...not be around any more and maybe the building inspector
or someone else my concern is at least one person there, I went through a problem last year...the continuity
of somebody to walk in and see the same person all the time to as questions rather than every month have a
different person assigned to do that, I think there has to be someone there from day to day ...
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Maybe I can be helpful in that regard, this law does not eliminate the position of
zoning administrator as that title appears, in the zoning ordinances and various laws of the Town and in
effect when I was drafting this language for it, it became obvious to me that you could not eliminate it very
easily without making some major re-writes of a lot of laws and changing a lot of structures. So, the
zoning administrator title and the duties and responsibilities still exist and the law makes it clear that it will
exist. There will be, there will always have to be one person who is the zoning administrator, what this law
does though is it opens up the board to flexibility to determine whether or not the position has to be a full
time position, part time position, whether it can be assigned to another employee with other duties and
responsibilities. The way the old law was written, it set it up as its own office, title everything so it was
very difficult to change things around if the Board felt that it wanted to. On the other hand I should
mention this, that this law by its mere adoption does not automatically mean the abolishment of the Zoning
Administrator's position as it currently exists all it does is open up avenues for the Town Board to have
flexibility in dealing with this so we can leave it as is after the adoption of this law, we can change it we
can assign it to another person who already has some duties, we can make it part time we can do a number
of things. This law just basically builds in some flexibility so the Town Board can re-organize the Town as
it feel is most appropriate.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-As a matter off act under Section 2, Section 88.6 Section 2 titled Zoning
Administrator A. says and I will read it in full. The Town Board of the Town of Queensbury does hereby
acknowledge establishment of the position of Zoning Administrator, which administrator has and shall
continue to have the duty and responsibility of administrating and enforcing the Zoning Ordinance of the
Town of Queensbury and making such orders, requirements, decisions or determinations as may be
necessary to carry out said duties and responsibilities.
MIKE O'CONNOR-I would like to comment first in the nature of a compliment to the present Zoning
Administrator. I come to this building often, I send applications here often and I would say that the present
Zoning Administrator, probably the only one who treats applicants and applications in a positive manner
for the most part and I have a real problem with maneuvering or the, to propose a law in the sense that what
we really should be looking at, is long term planning, long term goals and apply to the goal, adopt a
positive attitude so that we have some good solid growth in the Town and it's not a constant show me,
prove to me that you have the right to do this, every time somebody comes through the door. I really have
some problems because I look upon the proposed amendment as some maneuvering, I guess the
handwriting is on the wall cause I know they're speaking maybe to myself, for the most part. I, in fact
opposed the creation of a separate office for this some time ago. I think it has worked. There are manners
to appeal decisions within the present law if there is a dissatisfaction with those decisions. Unfortunately
from the top down, support has not been given to the people in this position. Board ... have react to the
decision that is made, you can't have a person making decisions and interpretations and then to have
somebody publicly say, we're just not going to enforce that. You can't have a Board act upon an
interpretation and make a decision to simply say, we're not going to enforce that. This change of attitude
with the problems, has to start at the very top and the Board is at the very top. Your not going to do it by
changing the semantics of how you designate a person in a particular office. First I would say, I
compliment the present Zoning Administrator. I hope that this, I see that ... with this is some change of
attitude so that applicants don't and aren't faced with this show me attitude, prove to me your right to be on
this agenda as opposed to, here's how we can help you get on this agenda or here's how we can help you go
forward with this project and it's a positive attitude shown...
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Y ou mentioned that you were here for the other change. Those same
statements and their same feelings were mentioned then too, at that time we took the powers away from the
Building and Codes Enforcement Officer and passed it then to the Zoning Administrator, if you will ... we
created the Zoning Administrator position. All this Board is doing is going back to, essentially that
position of where we were when you and I and several others in this room, were before another Board
saying, don't do this, it's not the right thing to do. We're returning it to that, we're trying to get back to a
better position. It has nothing to do with personalities, no more than it had to do with Dave Hatin, in those
days, when we were arguing the other side of the coin. My position is still the same as it was a year and a
half ago. I think the position that we put the Zoning Administrator in, that is in that mid-range spot, caused
many problems. Not the personality, not the person of Pat Crayford, but the fact that where we put the
office. If you remember, going back to those days, you and I stood on the same side and argued that very
same point.
MIKE O'CONNOR-I'm still arguing the same thing Nick, I'm saying that the changing of the law of
designation isn't going to do it. It's going to have to be support from the top ... with the decisions that are
made and by either the person who fills the position, whether it be part time or full time, where the Board
says, reacts to a decision that are made by this person whether he be full time or part time.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I don't disagree with that.
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-What you've outlined in your wish is exactly what has happened with the whole
reorganization of the department. Everything that you've outlined as a goal is exactly what this Town
Board wants.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Without any question, I couldn't agree with you more for this Board to lead to
clean up this process so that people can get through the approval process in an orderly, straight,
simple...and that we have to commit to it this is part of reorganization. There is certainly debate within the
Board on how to do that. But, what we're doing with this law is taking that authority back to the Board to
assign it and you can reassign it whatever way you think it should be done so that we get the results we're
looking for. I think it's a major commitment here by this Board to do what your asking to do, that is to
simplify the process and make it a little easier for the person coming in ... it certainly had to be ... for a
period of time and certainly this community is suffering for a lack of growth because of these problems.
This is one step and there will probably be more, I'm sure there will be more. Anyone else?
HOLLY WHEELER-I'm Holly Wheeler from Wheeler Signs. Previous to Pat Crayford's employment and
... called up to the Town of Queensbury to get any information was more than impossible. I would call at
one time and get Dave Hatin, the next time would get, whoever was involved in the zoning department at
that time, but I would get ... one person each time be answering my questions and then I would send my
client up here to get a sign permit and have someone tell them that, the Wheeler's, they don't know what
they're talking about, your incorrect. What I mentioned previously whatever I was requesting was correct,
so I always had a problem of dealing with different persons through each phase, Pat Crayford has done,
has provided me with one person to give me the correct answer, consistent, I don't have any problems
anymore I love when I call up and say what is allowed in this zone, she will tell me. ...1 do not have one
person saying yes she will allow this and then ...no you are not allowed that. I do not want to see it go back
the way it was, it was very difficult to do business that way.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Anyone else?
BRAIN GRANGER-You mentioned this was one step, what are the other steps ...
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -First, I think it would be less than candid to say, that this Board is going to leave
it the way it was assigned the duties back to Pat. I don't, I've listen to this Board talk and it wouldn't be ...
to say that, I think they are going to reassign someone else. We're basically, before this day is over,
probably going to pass a couple of resolutions, one of them is to do away probably with the position of
Zoning Administrator, start the process of creating a new position which would be assistant planner.
Instead of, and I'm going by memory, $28,000, $29,000 a year, the new position would be in the
neighborhood of $21,000, $22,000 a year. Replace a building inspector that's left, hire another one and the
duties of these people would be reshuffled around so that there will be a change of responsibilities so the
zoning administration job will be split between various people but certainly the public's interests has to be
guarded and we're aware of that. That means you have to get straight, simple answers when you call in,
you have to get someone whose assigned to do that. You can't have a different person then find someone
who doesn't know the answers, that's our responsibility. I think we have got to be helpful at best, I think
these comments are very good because as we change the way we are running that department it concerns
you express it...in our minds. Beyond that where we are going I do not know, one of the first steps that we
looked at and talked about between ourselves and I think that has to be settled fairly soon.
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I believe there is only going to be two people making decisions as far as zoning
administrator is concerned, that is Mr. Parisi who sets there and Dave Hatin. I believe Dave Hatin when
Mr. Parisi is not around will be doing that so you actually going to be dealing with just two people that will
be telling you what you can do as far as zoning is concerned.
BRIAN GRANGER-There is where our problem is we want to be able to deal with one person, we want an
answer from one person, I had a site plan review for a piece of property I bought that had construction
company on it before, I got a notice from a whole list of people instead of Pat, got it from one person, that
is the problem, dealing with two people is not efficient.
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-There are only two people that can tell you what you have got to do we cannot
have everybody in that department down here telling them. If Mr. Parisi cannot take care of you Mr. Hatin
is going to have the authority to do it, and Mr. Hatin had done this job before it was changed over. Both of
these people know what the rules and regulations are.
BRAIN GRANGER-Mr. Parisi, fine but we had one person before we do not want two people telling us or
making a decision where someone else in the department is going to conflict, actually that position has to
be, one person making it and making ..ifyou do not like it you go to ...
MR. KENNY -On this one of the things that I feel this is true David Hatin has been doing it I had a problem
with a ...for a building permit everyone has to be reviewed for zoning compliance and the way it is
structured now a building permit, I fill out an application ...required by the Town, stamped in by the
secretary it goes to zoning....it goes to Pat..and then she ...Dave Hatin makes comments, now it goes to the
building department, Dave Hatin job to make sure that it meets the building codes and I have a little bit of a
problem if he is going to be doing both jobs now ...1 just don't know if one person can do all building codes
on one set of plans and also the zoning codes, it has never been that way there always was two people it
was Pat Crayford before she had this job the old job then it was Dave Hatin there always was two people
there was Pat Crayford before she had the job the old Job of Dave Hatin, but she was the one that always
made sure the plans to complied to the zoning, she always made sure what we were doing was ...set backs
and all that...David Hatin made sure the building complied with the building code...If we are going to ask
Dave Hatin to do both I am not saying that he cannot do it..
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-He was doing both of them before.
MR. KENNY-Pat Crayford always did...
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Before Pat Crayford because the Zoning Administrator she used to work with
the prints and passed them onto Dave Hatin and Dave Hatin made the decision.
MR. KENNY -She told Dave Hatin when the zoning was good if she had problems, she was the one that
checked the zoning...Dave Hatin checked the building code, she worked through him in his department her
main job was to check to see if you complied with the zoning. He got it then and she said yes.. .he would
..the building code law. I do believe that there has to be somebody knowledgeable in just zoning ... to let us
know if it is allowed in that zone...
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Dave I am going to tell you it is going to work.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think we are missing a big point here, and that is the whole purpose is to
make the department that handles building and codes, zoning and planning work as a unit and work
efficiently that is the job that we have given to Mr. Parisi. I have confidence in Mr. Parisi, that every ..will
be .... will be trained correctly in all our codes so that everybody will be speaking one line and that they will
understand the goals and they will all give the same answers if they are not interpretating the codes in the
same light, Mr. Parisi along with Paul Dusek our Attorney will not take very long in order to train and
correct any misconceptions that anyone working in that department has and this is where we are right now.
We are giving to Mr. Parisi the ability and the authority to train the people in that department so that you
people are not having these kinds of problems that we are listening here tonight. I think you have to give
this a chance to work.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yes, Sir.
MR. GILBERT BOWMAN-..when I see this focused around one individual that to me implies no depth, if
that individual is sick, everything grinds to a halt and it seems to me it is almost mandatory for multiple
people with the capabilities so in some fashion they can carry on when one is out.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You are following the line that I was saying ...
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-In the final analysis ...this law passes the responsibility to this town board, we
have to assign this responsibility and make it work and if we assign it and it does not work, you can come
and hold us responsible and you can tell us and it's for us to re-design it and make it work. It gives us alot
of flexibility and I think that's what we're looking for, but it basically, we're responsible so I'm sure if it
doesn't work, you won't be shy, you're entitled to come and tell us.
LYNN POTENZA-I'm concerned because it appears to be that in our zoning rules and regulations of this
Town, they are not workable and perhaps we're shooting the messenger. Perhaps we have to review the
zoning rules and regulations and make them easier for the constituents rather than, shoot the messenger, as
I said. My relationship with the Zoning Administrator is professional as well as very nonprofessional and
every time with a customer I suggest call the Zoning Administrator, has received caring, professional,
knowledgeable information and I'm concerned about whether this Board is replacing one individual and
other individuals or we're consolidating different ...
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We pass the law, we'll have to see how it works but that's a very legitimate
concern. Again, it's our responsibility ...
MR. LEE-If somebody is doing a good job and it's working smoothly, why change it?
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- The question answer's itself.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-... I wish you would not zero in on a person because this law is not about a
person, it's about how those duties may be conducted and as those duties have been analyzed, it seems that
those duties do not warrant an 80 hour week and that's what's been happening. We've been paying for an
80 hour week, we've been paying for a Zoning Administrator, 40 hours and we've been paying for a Zoning
Administrator Secretary, 40 hours. As you analyze what goes through the department and how much paper
flow should go, I think members of the Town Board have been aware of this and I think Mr. Parisi who we
brought in as Director has started analyzing the paper flow down there, the paper that goes into the
department, this is something he realized very quickly, that it really is not an 80 hour a week job and that's
part of the reason we're researching it and merging it and the other reason is that more than one person has
to understand that job so that in case of illness, in case of absence, in case of vacation, other people are
prepared to take it over and give the same interpretations so we are getting the same level of interpretation
at all times.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-My observation in the short time here, is that the whole danm thing isn't
working, whether you're talking Zoning Administrator, Planning Department or Codes Enforcement, there's
problems all over and that's what we're trying to address. We're really putting them all under one roof and
we're putting one guy in charge and we're saying, make it work. We're giving him some flexibility, we're
giving him the ability to reorganize and if necessary, change names but we've got to make it work ... and
that's my candid view of it. Any other input?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think Mike also, in response to Lynn's comments, that your completely
correct, alot of our zoning ordinances need to be redone ....
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-In fact, part of it is on the agenda, tonight.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-This is a separate public hearing which we screwed up on and we have to set it
all over again ... Mrs. Martindale?
CAROLYN MARTINDALE-Yes, I'd like to comment, I do think that the Town Board is making a proper
step. There hasn't been cooperation with the Planning Board, the Zoning Administrator, there's alot of
confusion in the Town and I do think this is an excellent step and I commend you.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Anyone else?
MR. ROBERT EDDY-I think I have been here with the Town probably longer than anybody here including
the Town Board. I was on the Committee on the Zoning ... twice. The zoning, about every 5 years, gets
out of ... you have to redo it ... but I'm kind of, I don't know, this whole thing sounds like a vendetta against
one person and I just don't like the sounds of it. Actually the problem, if there's any problem at all, I don't
of it, I've been in and out of there, that department, for the last many years and I've never seen any
problems except for one, and one person isn't doing her job....1 think you are going after the wrong name,.. I
have seen Pat Crayford in operation and she has done a fine job, the only thing is that I think that you are
lax in not notifying the people to take care of the sign, the sign ordinance, and to set up the signs in a proper
manner, ...October 1987 there were 189 signs that were non conforming and as far as I know...
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Is there anyone else?
MR. STEVE SUTTON-I think during the last year a lot was said about attitudes about a Town Board that
was arrogant who did not care about the things that were going on. Frankly over the last few months I hear
a lot obviously I am President of the Queensbury Business Association I get a lot of feed back from a lot of
different people and my point is that the attitude has gotten better except the moral is pretty poor. But there
were some problems when you went to the Planning Board, everybody helped me, certain personalities
Dave Hatin for one has improved 100% he is very capable, I am very concerned that you are going to set
the tone on what attitude that people that the Town employees are going to have when we come before the
Town ...one thing about Pat she had a positive attitude. One of the most important things that we need is
somebody that is there to help not to hinder the applicant, too many times we feel like we are being
hinderance and not helped. I am hoping, Mr. Parisi or anybody is here to help us.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That is our responsibility and I think most of us said that when we were running
for office and you better believe we intend to carry it out and if we don't we have to run for office again you
have a good shot at us. What we tried to see, what I certainly want to see is the Town being administered
by a philosophy through out of the people who ran for office and to have that philosophy carried out and it
is very frustrating so far and I think that there needs to be re-organization I do not think that this is a
vendetta against anybody I think that is wrong. This is a re-organization and it may be the first of many but
before we are done we have got to deliver a system that gives you the results that you are looking for, and I
think that is very good it certainly is to me.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-One other thing Steve and anybody else in the business, but you in general,
specifically, you opened up your furniture center in the back of your lot and you had all the best intentions,
the best people and the best products, if in fact it didn't work right, you would say, well, regardless of it all,
I've got to make a change. Good, bad or indifferent, I've got to make a change because I know it's not
working and I think that's what we're asking you to look at now.
MR. SUTTON-If the change is in a positive direction and like I said, the attitude of the employees that you
put down is to expedite people and help people, you know, if they're within their rights, I'm all for it,
personalities aside.
MR. KENNY-I'm out here, I think there has to be room to make changes to make the system work, I agree
with you, I am not disagreeing with that, I think you have to support the new changes ... I guess the only
concern that I have, from the comments I've heard and I haven't any business with the Town in the last six
months, I am a little concerned that it seems the one person for any of the restructure, the first move, maybe
it's the best move but it doesn't look it from this side of the fence, not knowing from that side of the fence,
from this side of the fence, it seems the one person that's been the most helpful is the one that's possibly
going and alot of the other problems so that, and maybe it's you ... hopefully you know what your doing,
you know a lot more than I know because your on the day to day scene, we're not involved in that. If you
feel it's in your best move, the only thing from a public standpoint, the input we've got through QBA,
calling in, this person has always been a positive person, you would think that she would be the last person,
nothing personal. But you know she might ... problem and we've had problems and a lot of the problems
got resolved through that sequence, I will say that also. I've gotten alot of positive input, people feel really
good about going to the building department right now, they've seen a positive attitude change, they feel
good about seeking a permit. They're a little concern from when they get to the planning ... some
apprehension but they need help ... application, before ... there has been change. I'm just a little concerned,
you know what you have to do, so be it. I'm just saying, the concern is, the one person that we all felt was
the most receptive, the most hardworking maybe leaving and that's just the concern. But if you feel that's
the best way, you've got to do whatever the Town feels best ...
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-You know when you deal with personnel matters, sometimes we're all... you
make a change and it has all kinds of ripple affects and I think that maybe a little of what we go through but
when you make a change, you make a change and you have to make it work and that's our responsibility.
This law gives us the right to do that and we have the obligation to do it so I'm in favor of a change in the
law and I realize alot of responsibility comes to us. Anyone else?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I just want to say in answer to Dave's comment and not relative to the
department, relative to all departments within this Town's government, as far as I'm concerned Dave, every
department ... and that's been my philosophy and what I've told departments ever since I came on this Town
Board. That's their job, they may... know sometimes but they're serving the public in a way that is
acceptable to you.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay with that, any other comments?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Just one brief, Mr. Supervisor ifI may. Considerable concentration on this local
law of course has been made on the Zoning Administrator's position but I just wanted to mention so the
record is complete, that there is of course some other changes being proposed in this local law which are
minor in nature but they're there. One of which is that the assignment of duties and responsibilities from
the building inspectors and the Director of Building and Codes and Fire Marshal's Offices, must or can be
done to assistance or extend their assistance but they have to be with the consent of the Town Board. That's
some new language that's been put into this part of the law. Other places, modifications were made in
another section entitled, Penalties for Offenses, just to indicate that certain actions can be taken, not only by
the Fire Marshal and the Director of Building and Codes but also their authorized assistance, keying back
into that other language. Basically this additional language was designed to clear up the lines of authority
as far as how the deputies and the assistance working within the departments. So that is another minor
change that's being made in this local law and I just thought I should mention this so the record is complete
and make sure the public is aware of that.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Any other comments? I'm going to close the public hearing on that.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
8:42 p.m.
Supervisor Brandt noted that the following public hearing will have to be held again, due to absence of
notifications to local agencies. Would like to continue with this hearing since it was advertised and we're
here, receive some input, make some possible changes be for readvertise the next hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED LOCAL LAW, AMENDING THE CODE
"ZONING"
NOTICE SHOWN
8:43 p.m.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I'll declare the public hearing open on all these small zoning changes. The
zoning changes came from a committee that looked very rapidly at our zoning ordinances and
recommended certain changes and they were advertised, although not quite correctly, evidently not enough
people, not enough people notified. But they're in front of us, if anybody has any comments on any of
them, let's hold the public hearing ...
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-I have a question for Paul. The outside storage buildings, did you have a chance
to talk to Dave Hatin about that?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-I have not yet, no, I think I have a meeting set up with him on another matter
tomorrow and I plan to discuss it with him at that time.
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Will you have enough time to incorporate it in this?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yes, because as the Supervisor mentioned, it's my opinion that you should
reconduct the public hearing in any event, so before you set the next public hearing, I would like to be able
to go through and make any modifications in this current language that you would like as well as add any
other changes that you think should be made.
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Okay.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Anybody got any input on this?
UNKNOWN-I think I read where they're going to change size of buildings, are they going to be larger or
smaller?
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-If! remember right, one of these changes says that commercial property for
small outlying buildings where you can get the permit, you go without site plan review? Am I correct?
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-On what?
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That's the one that's subject or still has to go ...
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Well, no that's on outside storage buildings ... there was quite a problem, people
who had businesses had to keep coming in for an unreasonable, it was unreasonable because the
requirements were for small outside storage buildings and so this is the one that needs to go in because it's
not ... in residential but the businesses need this change, we up the size that they can have for outside
storage ...
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Without going through site plan review.
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Right, without going through site plan review.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Any comments for the record?
MR. O'CONNOR-I have a couple of questions. If you look on page 2 under section 2... I think you've got
a conflict. The first sentence or the first and second sentence says, there's going to be no more than one
principal building in a residential zone on any single lot less than two acres in size. Then the next sentence
confuses me to say, subdivision approval shall be required for more than one principal building on such lot.
Such lot referring back to the two acres in size or was the intention to say that there shall be only one
building on any single lot less than two acres in size unless subdivision approval shall be obtained? I'm
confused here.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-I can respond to that. That's one of the changes that the Adirondack Park
Association wanted me to, Association, Adirondack Park Agency wanted me to ordinance, I drafted all of
this just before I left on vacation, to be quite honest with you, I just went through and added their changes
that they had wanted as far as our ordinance, put it into place and at the time I drafted it, it was my
understanding that it would be applicable to over two acres but I'm going to have to go back and take
another look at that language again. So this is just language that was incorporated directly from their
conditional request.
MR. O'CONNOR-The first sentence seems to say, if you more than two acres in size, you can have more
than one principal building.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-But now, if you put that second sentence in, your saying, even on those lots, your going
to require subdivision approval. You lose the benefit of being able to put two buildings on one lot, if you
go through subdivision, you might as well create two separate lots. People generally try to avoid going
through the subdivision approval process because of expenses connected with it. So you've got a
contradiction, it just doesn't make sense. The next question I've got is on page 3, I understand, C, what
you're talking about is lots on a collector or arterial road, not being required to have two times the lot width,
your trying to make an exception and make the ordinance a little bit easier. The way that you built this in,
your talking about a single common driveway, which is, some of the nightmare with a piece of property
when you go to finance it, you go to, put it to a secondary mortgage market, they won't accept common
driveways unless there's a written maintenance agreement that comes along with this and basically people
stay away from those, because then there's alot of obligation back and forth, if the other guys ... line,
they've got to do it and what not. You might accomplish the same thing by saying, limited to or provided
by a single common driveway and/or contiguous driveways, and/or contiguous, independent driveways. So
that each person, you have one curb cut, but each would have his curb cut on his side of the common
boundary line and they wouldn't have to get into this common driveway maintenance agreement. I don't
think the burden on the Town roads would be anything more significant and you accomplish your purpose.
On page 4, you say that your intentions to make the ordinance easier, more friendly to the user, your
excavation business, I think your really throwing out the baby with the water. I know there are a couple of
instances where you've had problems but you are making this very, very difficult to do business I think.
Again, in paragraph 1, I think you have a contradiction. You say in the first part, slopes caused by
excavation shall, upon completion, not exceed 50 percent. Then you start saying, so it's says your not
going to ... exceed 50 percent and then you say, any property owner or developer who upon completion of
excavation, leaves a slope less than 50 percent but greater than 33 1/3 percent shall file a licensed
engineer's certification that the slope is and shall remain stable. I don't know if that's a contradiction or not.
I played with the words many times there. I think you've got a contradiction built into it. Paragraph 2,
what about replacement walls? Is there going to be an exception to that? In the second paragraph, in
paragraph 2, you say in addition to the following guidelines or addition to the above guidelines, on the third
line, you say, all retaining walls. Are you talking about 1 foot retaining walls, 2 foot retaining walls as well
as retaining walls in excess of 4 feet?
COUNCILMAN TUCKER- ... pick a number. Why is that a problem?
MR. O'CONNOR-Because if you apply the numbers, what might have been a simple thing for a driveway
becomes a 22 foot wide ... on a slope lot. Because if you've got fill on one side of the driveway, your
talking, you've got a 4 foot ... on one side and your talking 6 feet spread between that and the driveway,
you've got a 10 foot wide driveway and if you then even a minimum of 2 feet on the other side, you would
be talking a 6 foot ... on that side. So you built into this thing, alot of clearing because I think it's contradict
to the idea of the residential lots. I would make a suggestion, I understand you may have a problem for cuts
over 4 feet but leave to the people who have cuts less than 4 feet, to make their own plans and their own
determinations.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -All retaining walls over 4 feet?
MR. O'CONNOR-Or cuts, work that in.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Let me take you back a step, you were on page 1, slopes over 30 percent and
over 50 percent. I'm in the ski business we do that all the time. You can't build ski trails without that it
don't work, you can a novice trail. From my view point, I'm representing myself, I think you better look at
if your going to get a licensed engineer to certify a ski trail, I never found one who knew much about them.
You don't have much road problem because that's what it's all about. I think while this is certainly looking
at development and some of the problems occur in development, it's certainly not looking at ski trails.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think 30 percent of the work, I don't think you really need to go with 50 percent, all
though somebody has suggested it. We were involved with a review of a mining permit in a very sandy
area and the engineering part that was involved, the applicant indicated that the sand that's in this
immediate area had a state of impose at better than 30 percent slopes, steeper than 30 percent slopes and
this defines sand. So again you've got a little bit of that baby going out with the water here, I'm not sure. I
know there are a couple of areas you've had some problems, some neighbors, people have had severe
problems but it makes me look at it, the town engineer looked at that as well as others and see if you really
need the regulations that you have, that's put in there because the intent is to make it easier.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Just as a point of information, this information was drafted or this part of the law
was in fact drafted after consultation with the engineer for the Town. It was language that was originally
created last year and since these changes were being brought and I think there was an interest in the part of
the building department to resurface this and that's not to say that it can't be improvements made obviously
but I just thought I mention that so there has some engineering review, that's where the 4 on 12 and 50
percents, especially the criteria for retaining walls was developed.
MR. O'CONNOR-You've got an engineer's certification to go 4 feet high, why don't you rely upon his
certification that it's going to work?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mike, I think we might be creating more problems here, maybe it's because
we're trying to lump all of the Town of Queensbury together and certainly those with large acreage in
reviewing some of this, it's not that much of an impact as though you've got neighbors within so many feet
and we have had excavation in this Town where people have had high, high walls ... where neighbors have
a child visiting there, that child steps off their property and goes down the hill that's probably 20 feet high
... just like this ...
MR. O'CONNOR-That wouldn't be permitted if you made a simple statement that any cut in excess of 4
feet or any retaining wall in excess of 4 feet, had to be certified to be a stable cut or certification.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It could be stable as far as the cut is concerned but it doesn't protect the
neighbors from having this big drop-off that wasn't there when they... the property. You could make that
drop-off stable but you've still got the danger of the drop-off right adjacent to your property that wasn't
there when you built the property. That has to be addressed some place in this law, maybe that's not
addressed correctly but that is a big problem and has become a big problem in this community and it's got
to be addressed. I personally have visited the site where both neighbors on both sides, could be in very
severe trouble with either their own children or people visiting them, because the contours of their land
adjacent to them, right up to their boundary line, not you know, 20 feet out but right from their boundary
line, had been changed... with the owners land is eroding away.
MR. O'CONNOR-It's probably a violation of that persons individual rights, it probably is in, that is in a 30
percent slope ...
there's better ways of doing it ...
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I agree with you.
MR. O'CONNOR-I'm just saying, if you take a simple driveway that you put into a sizeable lot if you
figure out mathematically how you comply with a,b,c,d, you haven't got a simple driveway anymore. I
don't think that's the intention of this. If the intention is to make this simpler, I think you've got to go back
to the drawing board and look at it. I maybe wrong.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I guarantee from view point, as a ski operator, this would put you out of
business, you couldn't comply with it.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But again Mike, as I said, a ski operator has got alot of acreage, should be
treated differently than the guy whose got a 1 acre lot and trying to do this.
MR. O'CONNOR-Maybe then your talking about the proximity to the property line ...
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Or set an erosion control ordinance, no problem with that.
MR. O'CONNOR-There is an erosion control separate section of our zoning. I have a comment, it's in the
same nature, page 6, second paragraph under lots. I know there's building and houses that are a built that
are very nice that don't ... and what your doing is building in a requirement for variances. Minimum
grades adjacent to buildings shall be a minimum slope of 2 percent away from the building for a minimum
of 10 feet on the side and rear of the structure and a minimum slope of 2 feet up from the edge of any road.
Two feet from the side ... some houses aren't that way, they're just not built that way. If they aren't, then
your going to have a variance, I understand.
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-The problem we've been running into Mike, up at Queensbury Forest, not to
pick on them, there was a house built over there and before the paint was dry on it, the Highway
Department was over there, putting in drainage on our right-of-way, to keep the water from running into
this guy's yard because the house was built 6 foot below the road.
MR. O'CONNOR-That's not this paragraph here Pliney. There are other paragraphs that talk about ... so
they won't be above the road and that you're going to have a swale or you're going to have a ... driveway so
be ... I'm not talking about those paragraphs. I'm just talking about this paragraph here, for ... or something
of that nature, it just doesn't work. You make alot of work for people to come in here and get variances. If
you want to do that, fine, there are some people who make money on people who come in here ...
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Oh gee, whose that?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mike, I'm not sure what this says, so I'm going to ask you. Does this
prevent me from building into the side of a hill where I want the front exposed but the back of the house is
into the side of the hill, it's almost underground, part of the back of it?
MR. O'CONNOR-That section talks strictly about size in back, back grades and I didn't read the front? It
doesn't accommodate very easily a raised ranch which your talking about, more so it doesn't, if you have a
raised ranch, running out the back, alot of people have the slopes, sliding glass doors coming out of the
basement area, a recreation area. This I think will create a problem.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes, that's what I was thinking.
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Unless they built a retaining wall.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But why should they have to? I don't want a retaining wall.
MR. O'CONNOR -... the whole back end of it, say you build on a hill.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes, that's what I'm ...
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Come over to Hidden Hills and I'll show you a house I built on a hill and I'll
show you a raised ranch that I built and there's no water runs off the road to either one of them.
MR. O'CONNOR-Take right over here on Blind Rock Road and the whole south side of Blind Rock Road
drops away from the road, all of those houses if they are built along there, their backyard is not going to
have a minimum grade of 2 percent for ... and that's ... the land right now with 3 acres.
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-It is if it's required Mike.
MR. O'CONNOR-Then your talking about alot of additional fill, your talking about expense. This is
supposed to simplify, this isn't supposed to complicate their life.
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-What most of this is being put in here for, is tax payers that live in the Town
are paying for developers that are building these buildings that are creating water problems and it's
happening time and time again. Go ask Mr. Naylor, how much drainage it has to do because some
developer doesn't want to bring in fill to fill the lot so he can build a decent building. I can take you all
over the Town and show you. It's happening time and time again and I'm a developer and a builder, I'm not
a lawyer but I'm a developer and a builder.
MR. O'CONNOR-My comments, the fact is, the section I'm looking at, has nothing to do with road and
drainage and maybe we'll look at it and disagree with my viewpoint. I'm not here to argue, I'm here to
make comments.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-But I think your comments are important ...
MR. O'CONNOR-Again, I'm not here to confront, I'm just here to make comments and I could be doing
something else just as well.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We appreciate your comments ...
MR. O'CONNOR-You know this is an attitude type thing, prove to me your right. That's wrong, that is
wrong.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No Mike, I tend to agree with you, that I think that we're looking at one
problem, but when your trying to solve that problem, we're creating some others. So we need to go back
and relook at the problem we're trying to solve and make sure we only touch those types of situations that
are creating the problem, not the ones that aren't creating the problem.
MR. O'CONNOR-That was my point. I didn't pick on the ones that said you got to take care of the road
drainage and not have that be a problem with the Town getting money even though they didn't build the
roads, it was built by the developer. On page 7, you seem to be exempting or creating the difference
between nonconforming lots...
Supervisor Brandt-Where are you?
Mr. O'Connor-176-76. Your talking there about minimum lot area and/or minimum lot width
requirements. I would suggest that you also consider adding road frontage requirements. That is
interpreted at being different than minimum lot width and there are a lot of those lots that create a problem.
You've got lots that have been in existence that don't have forty feet of frontage on Town road. There is no
way of ... it, people don't own any adjoining properties, I've been through a couple of variances and I think
other people who have been involved in variances, they should be given the same nonconforming standings
as somebody whose got that 3/4 of an acre, close to an acre. The use of the word this, in the second to last
line, and should this lot adjoin other lots. I think you've got to change that somehow, your talking about,
and should that lot join other lots. It doesn't really act as a merger, when you say this lot ... The other thing
up at the beginning, I don't think you, maybe you were doing it intentionally, maybe not. Your saying any
nonconforming lot of record as of the date of this ordinance. Before you were talking as of October 1st,
1988. So are you now going to grandfather lots that were created after October 1st, 1988?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-No, I think that's an error. I think when this was put together, it should probably
have said October 1 st, 1988 instead of adding the date of this ordinance. It doesn't mean as of this date, but
it means retro.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-I'll go back and ...
MR. O'CONNOR-Then you didn't intend to do it, but if you did, it's a gift to alot of people. The next page
is 8, at the top. Again, I would suggest that you include into the dimensional requirements, that you give
relief from the road frontage requirements.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mike, you lost me.
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-What page?
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Page 8.
MR. O'CONNOR-Page 8, it can be found where it says, 179-77, gives you relieffrom various specific
dimensional requirements.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Maybe if! can interrupt, that whole section is being proposed to be deleted at this
point and with our new system with the brackets, it's kind of hard to pick up sometimes, but that's what's
happening. The section that you previously referred to that's underlined at the bottom of page 7, is being
proposed to be a substitute for 179-76, 77 and 78.
MR. O'CONNOR-It's all of, the first paragraph, I don't see a bracket in the beginning.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-That should be, that should be ... your right, the brackets not there.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- The bracket is in front of the symbol for section 179-77.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Paul do the brackets start before chapter 179, section 12?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yes.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Right after?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yes, because that entire section is being eliminated.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes, alright. So that would mean the same for section 14, right ... ?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-A general question on your nonconforming, why are you ...
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mike, where are you?
MR. O'CONNOR-This is a general question. You use nonconforming standings to lots to ... not within the
environmental critical sensitive areas. Why are you not also putting nonconforming lots within that area
standings?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Because that's why we've got critical environmental areas, we recommend
and have recommended for years that we have certain areas in this Town, that is even more important that
we're very, very careful because of the impact on our lakes, etcetera.
MR. O'CONNOR-But if you had a nonconforming lot Betty, that you had no means of waive the
nonconforming, it's a true nonconforming lot.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-True but that lot will still have to jump through the hoops to make sure that
the buildings are placed, so they won't do anymore damage in that area, etcetera. Yes, I know that any
nonconforming lot is a buildable lot, but it's still going to have to be very carefully scrutinized to minimize
any damage to the lake and lots of times is drainage problems that have to be mitigated for different things
you can do through site plan review.
MR. O'CONNOR-This nonconforming section that you have here, even for non-environmentally critical
sensitive areas, doesn't void setbacks.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's true but drainage lots of times, is not setbacks and I can think of one
lot in particular that I've been working with a constituent of mine very close to get it ready for site plan
review and their drainage is one of the big problems that they have to mitigate.
MR. O'CONNOR-The law... you can not make a nonconforming lot unusable ...
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It won't be unusable.
MR. O'CONNOR-It just went through the courts, in went through the Supreme Court on ... Island area, ...
Island or someplace on South Carolina, a variation where they tried to do away with lots that were on
seashore.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It won't be unusable Mike, it will just be certain ... will have to be looked at
very carefully and mitigated. It will not make it non-usable, believe me.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I tell you something, I have a major problem with this phrase in this law called
critical environmental areas because to me, all environments are critical and ought to be taken care of. I
don't know why they want one place different than another. To me, it's just a legal way of proposing a
whole new set of laws that are more... problems, as far as I can see. I don't know that for sure, but I
certainly sense it and I would love to do away with it and take care of the environment the same
everywhere. I don't see that one neighborhood is more critical than another.
MR. O'CONNOR-Half of the lots on Glen Lake that I've spoke for often, okay, don't have the required road
frontage.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-True.
MR. O'CONNOR-That's a dimensional requirement. It has very little to do with what's the use of that lot
or what to put on that lot. There's an informal... growth system that's been built up over the years, where
everybody gets to their place somehow or other, where they're deeded right-of-ways or un-deeded right-of-
ways and what not. You have no ... to this thing, simply because you've excluded those lots, with the
requirement to go for a variance every time you ask for a building permit on one of those lots. We've gone
through this, I spent the Summer here last year going between the Zoning Board, the Planning Board,
County Planning Board to build a new building which had better drainage on the exact foundation of the
prior building with a holding tank as opposed to a septic system which was questionable because of the size
of the lot, at great expense to the person who was doing all of this, instead of putting the money into the
building which is a benefit to everybody in the tax base in the Town to set it Oll...years and what not will
go back and forth. Much of that had to do with the fact that that lot didn't have road frontage, so it made it
subject to the variance process. My comment to you is I think the lots, I'm not saying that they can then
violate the current setback requirements but I'm saying honest space, using same standards, same as
nonconforming lots as other lots.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-The road frontage doesn't bother me Mike, but I would have to look at some
of the other requirements. I would gladly approve of the road frontage even in a critical environmental
area. Some of the other requirements do concern me, I would really want to look at those in depth.
MR. O'CONNOR-The other question I had, page 8, Section 15. It has been deleted is that what your telling
me?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-No. Section 15, there is new language being added it's on the top of Page 9.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, I have no comment then. Sorry to take all your time.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We thank you for your comments.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-The comments are awfully important. We're trying to move so quickly instead
of simply fixes maybe we ought to be taking a little more time and do this more in-depth. This seems to be
more complicated than what we saw, at least that's my impression of it, take a real hard look at this.
MR. KENNY-I have questions on the first page, agricultural use. I seem to be reading. . .including the sale
of products or raised directly such land. Does that mean that these properties will ...
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Where are you?
MR. KENNY-Agricultural use, first, page, it says, management ofland, let's say you have a farm with a
little market out in front of their home selling their stuff, been selling for years, selling what's grown from
their property, then you read, including the sale of products grown or raised, so your saying these people
can't sell it anymore on their property because they're not commercial. Is that what they're saying?
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-They can.
MR. KENNY-I don't know that's what I'm asking.
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Right, they would be able to.
MR. KENNY-No, your saying, the way it is now, your not going to be able to do this. Are you deleting or
not deleting it? Before they could, now your taking it out of the law so now you can't ... I'm just asking the
question ... the read
JIM MARTIN-The way I read here... it simply allows the raising of animals.
MR. KENNY- ... raise animals, I don't think that's, I don't ... it's the way I read this.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-This was a suggestion by the committee and I'll have to go back and look at their
notes, I can't comment on it now. But maybe, you never know, in the transition, something got missed but
I can see what your saying, it looks like your saying you can't sell any longer at all and I'm not sure if that
was in fact the committee's intention. I can go back and take a look at this.
MR. MARTIN-It would be my comment to leave it alone completely.
UNKNOWN-No.
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Well I think the thinking of that committee was that it's hard to enforce where
the stuff is grown and it's out of the hand that you said ...
MR. MARTIN-If your aiming to simplify it, taking it out would make ifvery simple.
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-What we're trying to do is say that people who sell stuff that's grown in other
places.
MR. MARTIN-But then you run risk that all your agricultural areas opening up into retail center and you
don't want that either, I don't think that is not the intent of the agricultural districting.
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-You can take a look at that wording can't we come up with ...
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Jim, since the Planning Board has wrestled with this many, many hours,
would the Planning Board perhaps look at this and come up with some language they think would meet the
problems that you've been dealing with?
MR. MARTIN-Sure, you bet.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Thank you.
CAROL MAR TIND ALE-Why don't you just leave everything, including the sale of products grown off or
on site? From either off or on site, off site or on site it is really simple. The Town of Queensbury . . allowed
anything from outside or on-site grown in the Town of Queensbury and it would simplified it if you say
off-site or on site.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think what Jim is saying is, if that were written that way, that any place in
this Town could sell farm produce and it would be considered agriculture even though it's in the middle of
the mall over there and that's the whole thing, that needs to be clarified.
MR. MARTIN-Well yes and then your zoning, rural and residential areas and that district by it's purpose
and intent was meant to protect these areas as agricultural and residential and your taking that away.
ROBERT MARTINDALE-Then why don't you just put in an acreage requirement in? If the people like in
these developments only have 3/4 of an acre or an acre and they want to sell produce on their front lawn,
you can't do it because they have to have a certain amount of acreage and that if you are in a true
agricultural district, your going to, to be a farm in order to sell, your going to have to have more than 5
acres, more than 10 acres in order to have the farm because the person who has 2 acres is not going to be
considered a farm, it's not enough acreage.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-As I said, I think I'd like to see the Planning Board come up with some
recommended language because they've wrestled with this so many times ...
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-This is good input, let's get it.
MR. SUTTON-On the other side of the coin, I understand where they're coming from but it quickly
becomes a retail establishment when you ship in produce that comes from ... you really don't know whether
it's a farm or anywhere, that's a retail establishment, even if your not selling your own products grown on
there, it ... into another thing which I think comes under site plan and everything else that's involved.
MR. MARTINDALE-Well if you wanted to do that, then all you have to do, is say, they can only sell
products that they grow, it doesn't matter if it's grown in the Town of Queensbury, if it's grown in Fort Ann,
as long as they grow it, they produce it, they can sell it but they can't go out and buy to resell, that's
commercial, I agree with you. Okay, but if you produce it yourself, that's not commercial because, well it's
a commercial type ...
MR. SUTTON-Those guys are definitely commercial, I agree with you.
MR. MARTINDALE-Because you are selling it but as long as you produce it, you should be able to sell it.
(Tape inaudible)
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -One at a time.
MR. MARTINDALE-If you have land in Fort Ann such as we do, this is a big problem, I think your aware
of it because we have talked to you about it, if you have property in a neighboring county and you want to
bring your product into this Town ... the Town of Queensbury, as long as you own the property that your
bringing it into, you should be able to sell it. If you have, like Betty was saying, open up a little stand in a
shopping center, okay... they don't own the property where that stand is at. Okay, so if you have to own
the land, to sell the property, you have to produce that to sell it.
MR. MARTIN-But now speaking as a citizen and not as a member of the Planning Board, I chose to live in
a rural residential area thinking that I was going to be subject to some protection from ... retail
establishments in the area of my home and now I'm forced to look at billboard heaven up and down Route
149 with 4 by 8 colored plywood signs, handpainted and it's turning into agricultural product war up there
and I don't like, you know, that's not what it's intended to be. It's supposed to be a residential area and an
agricultural area, not this, I don't know what brought about by agricultural war.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Is there minimum acreage ... on that.
MRS. MARTINDALE-Ten acres.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I don't think that's right because there are also people with small acres who
have... I think it needs alot of input and alot of thought.
MR. MARTINDALE-But Betty those people are not growing all them ears of corn themselves.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-The ones I'm talking about are, there are some small...
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-How do we know, how do we know... ?
MR. MARTINDALE-If you have 3 acres ofland, certainly can't produce enough corn to sell through out
the season and produce everything else, you've got to have some ...
MRS. MARTINDALE-Acreage.
MR. MARTINDALE-Acreage to do that.
ED MOORE-I think it's very simple, if you have that zoned agricultural, you should be allowed to sell what
you grown on your land, simple, if you got 1 acre or 42 acres. But if you grow it, you can sell it if it's
zoned agriculture.
MR. KENNY-I think the question here is that, I have 3 acres ... I own 20 acres in other Town, I grow there
and I want ship ...
MR. MOORE-Then sell it in another Town.
(Tape inaudible)
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -One at a time.
MRS. MARTINDALE-Mr. Brandt, I don't know if this Town is aware, I know we are not considered an
agricultural Town but the Town of Queensbury has become more organized and we just don't have the
agricultural property. We for one do have agricultural property in the Town of Queensbury, we have taxes
on 400 acres between Queensbury and Fort Ann. I don't think the solution be that we not sell our product,
we're providing a service, a good service of fresh vegetables to this community, it's better than ... retail
operations, markets and super markets ... you go into Price Chopper or any of these other markets, you find
green beans that look like they're all wilted and you don't even want them ... and I've watched them, 99
cents a pound of fresh produce, snow peas, you don't even want to look at them, they're black and all
blemished and who wants to pay 4.79 a pound or 3.99 a pound, it's a disgrace. Number 2, New York State
Town Law 136, is a State Law, you produce it in New York State, you have a right to sell it on private
property and we own next to 40 some acres in Queensbury and we have a legal right to sell our produce
that we produce in Fort Ann on our property in the Town of Queensbury. It is a New York State Law and
Mr., our Town Attorney, Paul, should be well aware of that. Also, Mr. Martin here seems to think that 149,
one of the most heavily traveled roads in the Town of Queensbury is rural residential, it is commercial no
matter how he wants to look at it. He got the property because it was owned by the family, he got a real
good price and that was the reason why he chose to live there and it is commercial no matter what he wants
to claims.
MR. MARTINDALE-The other thing is, want to ask your opinion, he chose to live in a rural zone okay,
but that farm as been in that rural zone before the Town of Queensbury was established and if he didn't
want to live there, he knew what was going around ...
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay.
MR. BOWMAN-The only problem I see, is how do you enforce these kind of exclusions?
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well that's the problem, that's where we stand. How do I know where it was
grown ... I think, we're not going to solve it tonight.
MR. MARTIN-My only final comment would be, it's not like the Town of Queensbury is saying that no
agricultural products from outside the Town, come into this Town and be sold, we have retail zoned areas
for that to occur. I don't know why this retail thing has to be forced in the agricultural areas and the rural
areas, I don't understand that. There's lots of great retail zoning and commercial zoning to accommodate
the sale of agricultural products or any other kind of product from anywhere in the world. So why do they
have to be in a rural residential zone?
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-... Parisi, are you hearing all of this?
ROBERT PARISI-Yes ...
MR. MOORE-Not to get off or change the subject for anybody, on page 4, A, Excavation 2a, where the
retaining wall supports earth soil or infill solely on the property on which the wall is constructed, there shall
be a minimum setback from all property lines of 1 1/2 times the wall height. Now if that is meant to be on
all property wherever, that means if you own a piece of property, whether it be commercial or residential, if
you go up 20 feet, you've got to be 30 feet back. Now I think that should read that is zoned, a wall like that
should be certified by an engineer on New York State's ... structuring design and that wall should be
allowed to be put up because otherwise you'll say, hey got be 30 feet, you could have a 30 foot by 2,000
foot and he or she lose alot of potential property. Now if you wish, it should also be written in there on top
of that wall, should be a 4 foot fence. So in order for somebody to fall down, they could not get hurt, they
would have to climb over the fence ...
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We'll close the public hearing now and go onto the prepared resolutions.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
8:45p.m.
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION TO APPOINT MEMBER TO RECREATION COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 380, 92
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has previously established the Recreation Commission,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby appoints Douglas Auer to serve as a
member of the Recreation Commission, said term to expire on April 27, 1997.
Duly adopted this 15th day of July, 1992, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr.
Brandt
Noes: None
Absent: None
RESOLUTION TO APPOINT MEMBER TO PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. 381, 92
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has previously established the Planning Board,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby appoints Noel Harding to serve as a
member of the Planning Board to fill the unexpired of Peter Cartier, said term to expire on September 30,
1992.
Duly adopted this 15th day of July, 1992, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr.
Brandt
Noes: None
Absent: None
RESOLUTION TO APPOINT MEMBER TO PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. 382, 92
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has previously established the Planning Board,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby appoints Stephen M. Barson to
serve as a member of the Planning Board to fill the unexpired term of James Lauricella, said term to expire
on October 22, 1998.
Duly adopted this 15th day of July, 1992, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr.
Brandt
Noes: None
Absent: None
RESOLUTION TO ENACT LOCAL LAW NUMBER 7, 1992
A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
CHAPTER 88, ENTITLED,
"FIRE PREVENTION & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION"
RESOLUTION NO. 383, 1992
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz
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 revising Chapter 88, entitled, "Fire Prevention & Building
Construction," sections 88-4, 6, 7, 8, and 24 thereof, which chapter would, among other things, generally
eliminate the office of Zoning Administrator, but acknowledge the position of Zoning Administrator, and
WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Local Law has been presented at this meeting, a copy of said
Local Law also having been previously given to the Town Board at the time the Resolution was adopted
which set a date and time for a public hearing, and
WHEREAS, on July 15, 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 revising Chapter 88, entitled, "Fire Prevention &
Building Construction," sections 88-4, 6, 7, 8, and 24 thereof, which chapter would, among other things,
generally eliminate the office of Zoning Administrator, but acknowledge the position of Zoning
Administrator, to be known as Local Law Number 7, 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 15th day of July, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr.
Brandt
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
LOCAL LAW NUMBER 7, 1992
A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
CHAPTER 88, ENTITLED,
"FIRE PREVENTION & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION"
SECTION 1. Chapter 88 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Section 88-4, Paragraph B, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
B. Purpose. The purpose of this Department is for the administration and enforcement of the
provisions of all laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and orders applicable to the location, design, materials,
construction, alteration, repair, equipment, maintenance, use, occupancy, removal and demolition of
buildings, structures and appurtenances located in the town, with the exception of administration of the
Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury which shall be administered by an officer or employee who
is designated by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury as the Zoning Administrator, as provided for
herein. The Department of Building and Codes shall continue to be charged with the duty to enforce said
Zoning Ordinance but shall not assume the duties assigned to the Zoning Administrator, other than as
expressly set forth herein. Nothing herein shall be deemed to prevent the assignment or delegation of the
duties, responsibilities and/or authority of the Zoning Administrator to any officer or employee of the
Department of Building and Codes.
SECTION 2. Chapter 88 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Section 88-6, is hereby amended to add
and delete provisions or parts thereof as follows:
~ 88.6 Zoning Administrator.
A. The Town Board of the Town of Queensbury does hereby acknowledge establishment of the
position of Zoning Administrator, which administrator has and shall continue to have the duty and
responsibility of administrating and enforcing the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury and
making such orders, requirements, decisions or determinations as may be necessary to carry out said duties
and responsibilities.
B. The position and duties, responsibilities and authority of Zoning Administrator may be assigned or
delegated by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury to any qualified employee or officer of the Town.
The position of Zoning Administrator and accompanying duties, responsibilities and authority may be
assigned or delegated to any Town officer or employee simultaneously with or in addition to any other
duties and responsibilities or authority that individual officer or employee may hold. The Town Board
may, but shall not be obligated to, grant additional compensation or alter or change the affected officer's or
employee's duties or responsibilities as a result of the additional zoning administration duties,
responsibilities or authority delegated or assigned to the officer or employee. In addition to the foregoing,
in the event that the Town Board determines it shall be necessary, the position and duties, responsibilities
and authority of Zoning Administrator may be assigned to an officer or employee or a person whose sole
duties will be that of full-time or part-time Zoning Administrator. The Town Board may also appoint such
other employees as may be deemed necessary to assist in carrying out the functions of the Zoning
Administrator. Compensation of such other and further additional employees shall be fixed by the Town
Board.
C. The position of Zoning Administrator and the duties, responsibilities and authority incidental
thereto shall be vested in any particular officer or employee at the pleasure of the Town Board and such
position of Zoning Administrator may be revoked or reassigned to other officers or employees as deemed
appropriate by the Town Board.
D. In the absence of the Zoning Administrator or in the case of his inability to act for any reason, the
Town Supervisor shall have the power, with the consent of a majority of the Town Board, to designate a
person to act on behalf of the Zoning Administrator and to exercise all of the power conferred upon him by
this chapter.
SECTION 3. Chapter 88 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Section 88-7, paragraph C is hereby
amended to delete subparagraphs (2), (3) and (4) as follows:
C. Zoning Administrator.
(1) Except as otherwise provided by law, ordinance, rule or regulation, the Zoning
Administrator shall administer and enforce the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury. The Zoning
Administrator's duties and responsibilities shall consist of the following:
(a) Reviewing all applications for variances, permits or other types of approvals
requested of or required by the Zoning Board of Appeals and/or the Planning Board of the Town of
Queensbury.
(b) Reviewing all building permits and signs permits to determine compliance with
the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury.
(c) Making decisions, orders, requirements or determinations as to the applicability
of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury.
(d) Keeping appropriate records of any orders, requirements, determinations or
decisions made.
(e) Attending meetings of the Zoning Board, Planning Board and Town Board when
appropriate.
(f) Making site visits when appropriate.
SECTION 4. Chapter 88 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Section 88-8 is hereby amended to
read as follows:
~88-8. Powers and duties of assistants and deputies.
The Assistant Building Inspectors, Code Enforcement Officers and Deputy Fire Marshal(s) provided for
herein shall have any or all of the authority, powers, duties and responsibilities of the Director of Building
and Code Enforcement or Fire Marshal, as may be assigned or delegated by the respective Director or Fire
Marshal and with the consent of the Town Board when required herein, or by the Town Board by local law.
SECTION 5. Chapter 88 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Section 88-24, is hereby amended to
read as follows:
~ 88-24. Penalties for offenses.
A. Violations; procedures for correction; appearance tickets; summons and complaints; fire lane and
parking violations.
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to construct, alter, repair, remove,
move, demolish, equip, use, occupy or maintain any building or structure or portion thereof in violation of
any of the provisions of this chapter or fail in any manner to comply with any notice, directive or order of
the Director of building and Code Enforcement, Fire Marshal and/or Zoning Administrator and/or their
authorized assistants or deputies or to construct, alter or use and occupy any building or structure or part
thereof in a manner not permitted by an approved building permit, use permit, plumbing permit or
certificate of occupancy.
(2) Any individual, partnership, corporation or other firm owning, operating, occupying or
maintain property or premises within the scope of the Uniform Code or this chapter shall comply with all
the provisions of the Uniform Code, this chapter and all orders, notices, rules, regulations or determinations
issued in connection therewith.
(3) Whenever it is found that there has been a violation of the Uniform Code, this chapter or
any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to this chapter, a violation notice and/or appearance ticket or
summons and complaint may be issued to the person, individual, partnership or corporation owning,
operating or maintaining the premises in which such violation has been noted.
(4) Violation notices shall be in writing, shall identify the property or premises, shall specify
the violation or remedial action to be taken and shall provide that said violation must be corrected within
ten (10) days from the receipt of said violation notice unless said ten-day period shall be modified in the
discretion of the enforcement officer issuing such violation notice or unless a shorter period of time has
been prescribed for in this chapter.
(5) Violation notices and other orders or notices referred to in this chapter shall be served on
the owner or one (1) of the owner's executors, legal representatives, agents or lessees, any tenant or other
person occupying the premises or other person having a vested or contingent interest in the premises, either
personally or by certified mail, addressed to the last known address, if any, of the owner or one (1) of the
owner's executors, legal representatives, agents, lessees or other persons have a vested or contingent
interest in the same, as shown by the last preceding completed record of the Receiver of Taxes or in the
office of the County Clerk.
(6) Appearance ticketslsummons and complaints. The Director of Building and Code
Enforcement, Fire Marshal and/or Zoning Administrator and/or their authorized assistants or deputies shall
have the authority, pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Law, to issue an appearance ticket or summons and
complaint, subscribed by him, directing a designated person to appear in court at a designated time in
connection with the commission of a violation of this chapter or any order made thereunder.
B. Penalties. Any person who shall fail to comply with a written order of the Director of Building
and Code Enforcement, Fire Marshal and/or Zoning Administrator and/or their authorized assistants or
deputies within the time fixed for compliance therewith and any owner, builder, architect, tenant,
contractor, subcontractor, plumber or construction superintendent, or their agents, or any other person
taking part or assisting in the construction or use of any building who shall violate any of the applicable
provisions of this chapter or any lawful order, notice, directive, permit or certificate of the Director of
Building and Code Enforcement, Fire Marshal and/or Zoning Administrator and/or their authorized
assistants or deputies made thereunder or any person who shall violate any provision of this chapter, the
Uniform Code, any rules or regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter or who shall violate or fail to
comply with any order made thereunder or who shall build in violation of any detailed statement of
specifications or plans submitted and approved thereunder or any certificate or permit issued thereunder, in
addition to any other penalties provided for in this chapter, shall be guilty of an offense punishable by a
fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.) or by imprisonment for not more than one (1) year, or
both; and each day such violation continues shall constitute a separate violation. The imposition of such
penalty shall not be held to prohibit the enforced removal of prohibited conditions by any appropriate
remedy, including immediate application for an injunction.
C. A civil action or proceeding in the name of the Town of Queensbury, New York, may be
commenced in any court of competent jurisdiction to compel compliance with or restrain by injunction the
violation of any provision of the Uniform Code, this chapter, any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to this
chapter or a violation of any order to vacate the occupancy or building in the case of imminent danger to
life or property. Such remedy shall be in addition to penalties otherwise prescribed by law and may be
commenced by the Director of Building and Code Enforcement, Fire Marshal and/or Zoning Administrator
and/or their authorized assistants or deputies with the consent of a majority of the Town Board.
SECTION 6. Effective Date.
In accordance with the provisions of Municipal Home Rule Law Section 27 and Town Law Section 265,
this Local Law shall take effect upon the occurrence of the later of: (1) the filing of the same with the
Office of Secretary of State or (2) Ten (10) days after such Local Law and Zoning amendments or notice
thereof, as may be required by state and/or local law, is published in the official newspaper of the Town of
Queensbury and duly posted, except that the 10 day waiting period shall not apply against any person
served personally with a copy thereof in accordance with Town Law Section 265.
RESOLUTION REGARDING APPOINTMENT OF PERSON
TO ACT ON BEHALF OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
RESOLUTION NO.: 384, 1992
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator for the Town of Queensbury has taken leave, and
WHEREAS, Section 88-6 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury provides that in the absence of
the Zoning Administrator, or in the case of his inability to act for any reason, the Town Supervisor shall
have the power, with the consent of a majority of the Town Board to designate a person to act on behalf of
the Zoning Administrator and to exercise all powers conferred upon him, and
WHEREAS, the Town Supervisor has advised the Town Board that he desires to designate Mr.
Robert Parisi, Executive Director, to act on behalf of the Zoning Administrator,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby consents to the designation
of Mr. Robert Parisi to act as Zoning Administrator.
Duly adopted this 15th day of July, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr.
Brandt
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND CODES ENFORCEMENT
AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO REVIEW THE WORKLOAD OF THE
BUILDING & CODES DEPARTMENT AND DETERMINE THE NECESSITY OF
ADDITIONAL ASSIST ANT BUILDING INSPECTOR
RESOLUTION NO.: 385, 1992
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of authorizing the Director
of Building and Codes Enforcement and the Executive Director to review the workload of the Building &
Codes Department and make a determination as to whether an additional Assistant Building Inspector is
required, as part of the reorganization of the Planning, Zoning, and Building & Codes Departments,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby notes that sufficient funds
exist in the budget for the Building & Codes Department for the hiring of an additional Assistant Building
Inspector if authorized by the Town Board, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the Director of
Building and Codes Enforcement and the Executive Director to determine whether an additional Assistant
Building Inspector is needed in view of the plans of reorganization, and if such a determination is made, to
review the civil service listings, or advertise, if necessary, conduct interviews, and forward a
recommendation or recommendations to the Town Board concerning the person to be hired in such
capacity, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the authorization herein is subject to the Town Board making the final decision
as to whether any person or which particular person is hired, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Director of Building & Codes and Executive Director shall indicate to any
prospective candidates that any appointment would be provisional subject to a civil service test, and subject
to Town Board approval.
Duly adopted this 15th day of July, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr.
Brandt
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR ASSISTANT PLANNER
RESOLUTION NO.: 386,1992
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, after review of reorganizational plans
with the Executive Director, has determined that it would be appropriate to hire an assistant planner, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board notes that funds were budgeted for an assistant planner in the
Planning Department budget,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the Executive
Director to review civil service listings, and/or, if necessary, advertise for an assistant planner, such
advertisement to be consistent with the civil service job description, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that upon the receipt of applications following the advertisement, the Executive
Director is authorized to interview assistant planners and make recommendations to the Town Board as to
the hiring of any particular person, subject to the Town Board making the final decision as to whether any
person or a particular person shall be hired, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Executive Director shall indicate to any prospective candidates that any
appointment would be provisional subject to a civil service test, and subject to Town Board approval, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board shall establish a salary for the assistant planner upon hiring,
and notes that funds in the amount of $8,000.00 exist in account no.: 001-8020-1610, by which an assistant
planner could be compensated for the remainder of the year, and hereby determines that the amount of
compensation paid to any assistant planner will be such that the budgeted amount shall be sufficient unless
further authorization is provided by the Town Board.
Duly adopted this 15th day of July, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Mr. Caimano
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Referred to the following resolution, noted for the Board ... the Town Board
previously adopted this local law while I was on vacation and I was given the copies to sign. The problem
I had, is I couldn't sign them because I couldn't verify that all the proper steps were conducted which are
required by Municipal Home Rule Law. The one step that I couldn't verify from my files or from the
record that it was in fact before you seven days before adoption. To avoid any potential problems, I would
like the Town Board to rescind it and readopt it tonight and I can sign off tomorrow.
Town Board agreed and the following resolution was proposed:
RESOLUTION TO RESCIND PREVIOUS RESOLUTION AND TO
ENACT LOCAL LAW NUMBER 6, 1992
A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 178 TO BE ENTITLED,
"ZONING - SUBDIVISION REVIEW,"
WHICH CHAPTER SHALL PROVIDE FOR JURISDICTION AND REVIEW OF
TWO LOT SUBDIVISIONS.
RESOLUTION NO. 387, 1992
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt
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 178 to be entitled, "Zoning-
Subdivision Review," which chapter shall provide for jurisdiction and review of two lot subdivisions, and
WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Local Law entitled "Zoning - Subdivision Review" has been
presented at this meeting, and a copy of the same was also given to the Town Board on or about the 30th
day of June, 1992, and was also present before them on a date of a public hearing of July 6, 1992, and
WHEREAS, on July 6, 1992, a public hearing was held with regard to this Local Law, and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Town Board adopted this Local Law and the Town
Attorney has raised a question as to whether seven days had elapsed between the time the Local Law was
before the Town Board in its final form and the adoption thereof, and has advised that to avoid any
potential problems with regard to the effect of this Local Law that the previous resolution be rescinded and
this Local Law be readopted as the final version of the Law has now been before the Town Board for more
than seven days,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby rescinds resolution no. 358,
1992 enacting the aforesaid Local Law, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby enacts the proposed Local
Law presented to it on this date, which is the same Local Law which was previously presented to it on June
30, 1992 and July 6, 1992, to amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury by adding a new Chapter 178 to
be entitled, "Zoning - Subdivision Review," which chapter shall provide for the jurisdiction and review of
two lot subdivisions, to be known as Local Law Number 6, 1992, the same to be titled and contain such
provisions as are set forth in a copy of the proposed Local Law presented at this meeting, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and 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 15th day of July, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr.
Brandt
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
LOCAL LAW NUMBER 6, 1992
A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 178 TO BE ENTITLED,
"ZONING - SUBDIVISION REVIEW,"
WHICH CHAPTER SHALL PROVIDE FOR JURISDICTION AND REVIEW OF
TWO LOT SUBDIVISIONS
Section 1.
The Code of the Town of Queensbury is hereby amended by adding thereto a new chapter, to be
Chapter 178, Zoning - Subdivision Review, to read as follows:
~ 178-1 Title.
This Chapter shall be known as "Zoning - Subdivision Review".
~ 178-2 Statutory Authority.
The authority for this Local Law is cited as Municipal Home Rule Law ~ 10 and Town
Law ~276.
~ 178-3 Legislative Intent; Purpose.
The intent of this Local Law is to modify the Planning Board's authorization to review
and approve subdivisions in the Town of Queensbury. The desire is to provide for the authorization of
certain two lot residential subdivisions without Planning Board approval. The subdivisions allowed would
have to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. The type of two lot subdivision allowed without Planning
Board approval would not seem to generally cause any environmental concerns and also would not seem to
warrant the expenditure of time and money by all concerned for a review by the Planning Board. Also, as
subdivisions in the Adirondack Park may be subject to restrictions or notification procedures under State
Law, any subdivision in the Adirondack Park would still be subject to Planning Board review to make it
easier, procedurally, to be sure that law is complied with in the event compliance is necessary. Finally,
the subdivisions to which this Local Law would be applicable are extremely limited and the
review provided for herein would be ministerial in nature to determine whether or not certain
conditions are met. If the conditions are met, the subdivision would be allowed by the Town
without Planning Board review. If they are not, then the subdivision would be reviewed by the Planning
Board.
~ 178-4 Local Resolutions Amended or Superseded.
This Chapter shall supersede or amend, as may be necessary, Resolution No. 114 of
1963, and any other resolution that may have granted or be deemed to have granted subdivision authority to
the Planning Board.
~ 178-5 Definitions.
As used in this Chapter, terms and words shall have such definitions as are established in
Chapter 179, Zoning, of the Code of the Town of Queensbury.
~ 178-6 Jurisdiction and Review of Plats Showing Two Lot Residential Subdivisions.
Subdivisions of parcels into two lots for single family dwelling unit residential purposes,
shall be permitted in the Town of Queensbury, without Planning Board approval and shall not be
considered a subdivision under the jurisdiction of the Planning Board provided that the procedures in ~ 178-
7 and 8 hereof and the following terms and conditions are complied with:
(a) The parcel to be subdivided is located outside of the Adirondack Park
and areas determined to be critical environmental areas in accordance with the State Environmental Quality
Review Act;
(b) The proposed subdivision complies with the applicable zoning
regulations;
(c) The proposed subdivision does not require new streets nor the creation
or extension of improvement districts for the supply of water, sewer or drainage;
(d) The parcel or portion thereof to be subdivided has not have been
previously illegally subdivided or subdivided with the approval of the Planning Board or through the use of
this procedure;
(e) The proposed subdivision does not propose to establish or create more
than two lots;
(f) Payment of applicable recreation fees are made at the time of the
application provided for under ~ 178-7 hereof; and
(g) The proposed subdivision and new lots created hereunder are used to
construct not more than one single family dwelling unit on each lot.
(h) No further resubdivision will be allowed
under this provision.
~ 178-7 Procedure and Form of Mapping and Application
Subdivisions of parcels into two lots for single family dwelling unit purposes shall be
permitted by the following procedure:
A. An informal plot plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator. The
Zoning Administrator will review the plan and then, if the same demonstrates compliance with the terms
and conditions set forth in ~ 178-6 hereof, the same will be stamped permitted with the following notation:
plot plan meets all criterion; no Planning Board review necessary. The applicant may then use the property
for single family dwelling unit purposes consistent with the Zoning Ordinance.
B. The plot plan required hereunder shall contain the following information:
(1) name and address of property owner
(2) date of submission
(3) tax parcel number
(4) name of subdivider
(5) approximate location of the proposed structure to ensure setbacks and
septic system can be met
(6) north arrow
(7) that final grading of the parcel will slope away from the proposed
structure for stormwater drainage and disposal
~ 178-8. Required Filings.
The original plot plan submitted hereunder shall remain on file with the Town of
Queensbury and a copy shall be given to the person or entity requesting the subdivision.
~ 178-9. Effective Date.
This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State.
DISCUSSION - Quaker Road Traffic Lights
Town Board held discussion on agreements with County regarding the responsibility of maintenance and
repairs for the Quaker Road Traffic Lights; Lafayette, Glenwood and Meadowbrook. Town Board noted
interest in maintaining the lights as long as the Town of Queensbury has full control of the lights ... agreed
that this needs further review of numbers, costs involving maintenance before final commitment.
MR. MARTINDALE-Referred to the agricultural zoning discussion of earlier and would like the Town
Board to be aware of the many vegetable stands through out the Town selling produce that's been brought
in from out of the Town.
DOUG AUER-Spoke to the Town Board regarding the need for resurfacing and widening of Aviation Road
over the Exit 19 Bridge.
MRS. MARTINDALE-Noted that she has been approached by people trying to sell her different items,
books and cutlery ... Questioned whether they had the right to do this?
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Noted that they must have a permit authorizing them to sell their items,
suggested that she request seeing their permit and if they can't provide it, then notify the sheriffs
department.
No further action was taken.
On motion, the meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
DARLEEN M. DOUGHER-TOWN CLERK