Loading...
1993-01-18 TOWN BOARD MEETING JANUARY 18, 1993 7:00 P.M. MTG. #5 RES. 75-87 TOWN BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Michel Brandt Councilman Betty Monahan Councilman Susan Goetz Councilman Nick Caimano Councilman Pliney Tucker Attorney Paul Dusek Representatives of Red Lobster and Neighbors of Red Lobster Councilman Goetz led the Pledge of Allegiance RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN SANITARY SEWER SERVICE AND THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY RESOLUTION NO. 75, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury finds that the Town does not employ a sewer service and that it is necessary from time to time to obtain emergency call-in coverage, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is desirous of retaining the services of Sanitary Sewer Service, and Sanitary Sewer Service is desirous of providing services to the Town of Queensbury for emergency call-in coverage for the sewer districts of the Town for the 1993 calendar year, and WHEREAS, an Agreement has been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves of the Agreement presented at this meeting and hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to execute the annexed Agreement, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any monies due in connection with said Agreement shall be paid for from the Miscellaneous Contractual Account (Account No. 032-8120-4400). Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPOINTING PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN (MOTION DEFEATED) RESOLUTION NO.: 76, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has previously established the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, Mrs. Carol Pulver was appointed as a member of said Board, said term to begin on November 8, 1989, and to expire on September 30, 1996, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has recommended that Mrs. Pulver now serve as the Planning Board Chairman, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves of the designation of Mrs. Carol Pulver as Chairman of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, pursuant to Town Law. Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Monahan NOES : Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt ABSENT: None DISCUSSION REGARDING DIP ALMA Councilman Tucker-Why is this getting out of our jurisdiction what is the reason for that? Mr. James Martin-It is my understanding that we are just consenting to their review it is in the AP A it is typically done. Councilman Tucker-The final decision will be the ZBA? Mr. Martin-Yes. The application is currently on hold. Councilman Monahan-Is the Park Agency aware of the previous decision of the Town regarding this application. Mr. Martin-Yes. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUPERVISOR TO EXECUTE ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY FORM REGARDING MICHEL DIP ALMA RESOLUTION NO.: 77, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has been advised that Michael DiPalma has applied to the Adirondack Park Agency for a permit in connection with the alteration of a dock on Lake George, and WHEREAS, the Adirondack Park Agency requires that a form be completed by the Town, a copy of the same being annexed hereto, and WHEREAS, the form has been reviewed by the Town Attorney and the Executive Director of Planning, Zoning, and Building & Codes, and may be sent to the Adirondack Park Agency, once authorized by the Town Board and signed by the Town Supervisor, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to execute the Adirondack Park Agency form on behalf of the Town of Queensbury, and send the same to the Adirondack Park Agency. Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES : Mrs. Monahan ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TOWN CLERK TO SUBMIT PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE FOR LYDIA AND ROBERT EDWARDS TO TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 78, 93 MOTION WITHDRAWN INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano DISCUSSION HELD Councilman Monahan-We want this to go to the Planning Dept. that is part of the rezoning on 149... Mr. Martin-To be fair to the applicant we wanted to bring this before the Board and you can make the same recommendation that you did last week. We have started work on the format ... we will be ready at the first available time you have items of discussion the Planning Dept. will be before you with our format for the Planning study as well as a suggested table of contents for the Planning study for your review. Councilman Tucker-Withdrew former resolution. Councilman Caimano-withdrew his second... RESOLUTION TO TURN OVER LYDIA AND ROBERT EDWARDS PETITION TO ZONE CHANGE TO PLANNING DEPT. RESOLUTION NO. 78, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano A resolution to send Petition for change of Zone for Lydia and Robert Edwards to the Planning Department as par of the 149 Rezoning Study. Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 1993 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INTERFUND ADVANCES RESOLUTION NO.: 79, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9-A of the General Municipal Law of the State of New York, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is authorized to temporarily advance moneys held in any fund to any other fund, and WHEREAS, the Director of Accounting Services has recommended to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury that $3,500.00 be advanced from the General Fund (01) to the Landfill Fund (910) to cover expenditures for the year 1993, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the temporary advance of funds to the accounts or funds indicated, and in the amounts indicated, as set forth below: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT 01 - General Fund 910 - Landfill Fund 3,500.00 and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor, as Chief Fiscal Officer, is hereby authorized and directed to arrange for and accomplish the above-authorized transfers, and temporary advances, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor, as Chief Fiscal Officer, shall keep suitable records and arrange for the repayment of the temporary advances as soon as possible, and the Town Supervisor shall also determine the amount of interest, if any, to be paid, upon repayment. Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION RESOLVING KENNETH ERMIGER PROPERTY MATTER RESOLUTION NO.: 80, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHEREAS, by previous resolution of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Mr. Kenneth Ermiger was notified of an unsafe structure upon his premises and that a hearing and certain proceedings would occur relative to the same, and WHEREAS, since the time of said notification, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has been advised by the Director of Building & Codes, that the circumstances giving rise to the Director's report of an unsafe structure have been resolved in that the garage has been removed from the property and the log building has been boarded up and secured until such time that Mr. Ermiger demolishes the structure, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby acknowledges that the circumstances giving rise to the Town Board's resolution determining that the property owned by Kenneth Ermiger is unsafe have been resolved, and determines that no further action is necessary against tax map no.: 73-1-4, and should any further notifications or filings be necessary to effectuate the terms and provisions of this resolution, the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized to handle the same on behalf of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1993 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 81,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano DISCUSSION HELD Supervisor Brandt-These are interfund transfers in the Planning and Zoning Dept. from one code to another to fund equipment and a different classification oflabor... Councilman Tucker-Mr. Martin, Office Specialist is that settled? Mr. Martin-I rather discuss that as a personnel matter. Councilman Caimano-Should we be voting on this number or not? Attorney Dusek-I would recommend to leave those two items off. Mr. Tucker and Mr. Caimano agreed to remove items that refers to Office Specialist... Councilman Caimano-Re: purchase ofradios...1ast year we did away with the radios for building inspectors, it was not a reasonable expense no matter how much it was, why are we going back to this? Mr. Martin-I was not aware of the past history as much as you are, it was explained to me that we are having trouble sometimes when the inspectors are out of their trucks or on the site they are not available, this would do away with the two pagers that we do have that we are paying an annual expense on, the expense that you have before you will essentially pay for itself within four years with the pager rental that we have now. In addition to that it will eliminate the need for the radios in the trucks... Councilman Caimano-The fire I can see the others I can't...requested that this also be put aside... Motions withdrawn by Mr. Tucker and Mr. Caimano RESOLUTION MODIFYING DEPUTY TOWN SUPERVISOR SALARY RESOLUTION NO.: 81,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury previously budgeted the sum of $1,000.00 for the position of Deputy Town Supervisor for the year 1992, and WHEREAS, by subsequent resolution, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury revised said salary to the amount of $1.00 for the year 1992 and transferred the remaining funds to the account line for Contractual payment and increased the amount to be paid under agreement with Crandall Library, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of authorizing the restoration of the $1,000.00 salary for the Deputy Town Supervisor's position effective November 17, 1992, and paid proportionately with respect to the amount of time served by the Deputy Town Supervisor for the remainder of 1992, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby amends the 1992 budget to provide for a salary of the Deputy Town Supervisor to be $1,000.00 per annum effective November 17, 1992, and authorizes payment of said salary on a proportionate basis to the Deputy Supervisor after such date, and the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury acknowledges that a transfer of funds has previously occurred to provide for this expenditure. Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mr. Tucker DISCUSSION HELD Councilman Tucker-Has this anything to do with the County doing this work? Mr. Martin-This is in regards to what I understood was the Board's intention to put in a GIS mapping system within the Planning Dept. and eventually networked into the whole town, assessors office etc. This is our first work station and the purchase of the software which would be the map into GIS mapping system, it will not be networked in yet, we are going to try and get our feet wet with it, get used to it at one station. Regarding the County matter it is my understanding that the County is in the process of clearing up the problem that they have with their map consultant who is mapping all the tax parcels in the County and they should be operating in February and we will be first on the list for digitizing to be done and that will save the Town $30,000. as was originally budgeted. Councilman Tucker-Will this mesh with the County? Mr. Martin-Yes. Attorney Dusek-The resolution indicates that three quotes were obtained? Where they obtained by you Jim? Mr. Martin-Yes. E. 1. gave me help with it, we received quotes from Business Automations, CMTI and State Contract... Attorney Dusek-This is subject to a contract that has yet to be entered into, the Supervisor will be able to sign the contract when it comes in...(part of the resolution) RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE ORDER RESOLUTION NO.: 82,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has previously adopted purchasing procedures, and WHEREAS, in accordance with said procedures, a contract in an amount greater than the amount of $5,000.00, up to New York State bidding limits, must be approved by the Town Board before said contract is entered into, and WHEREAS, the Executive Director of Planning, Zoning, and Building & Codes has proposed to purchase and install a computer hardware and software Map Info system as more fully detailed in the documents presented at this meeting, and has requested Town Board approval, and WHEREAS, three quotes for the said system were received in accordance with the Town of Queensbury Purchasing Procedures, and Creative Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., (CMTI) was the lowest, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby approves and authorizes the purchase of services and materials indicated herein, from CMTI, with the contract to be in a form approved by the Town Attorney, and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the contract and thereafter, the purchase order for the same, on behalf of the Town, said purchase to be paid for from Account No.: 001-1680-2100. Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW NO. _, 1993 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY CHAPTER 136, ARTICLE X THEREOF, ENTITLED, "BUILDING SEWERS AND CONNECTIONS," RESOLUTION NO. 83, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, at this meeting there has been presented for adoption by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Local Law No. _, 1993, A Local Law to Amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 136, Article X thereof, entitled "Building Sewers and Connections," to amend Section 136-54, "Responsibility for Costs; Liability," to add a new paragraph therein concerning the costs and expenses incidental to the cleaning and maintenance of a building sewer lateral, with the remaining provisions of said Code remaining unchanged, and WHEREAS, such legislation is authorized pursuant to the Municipal Home Rule Law of the State of New York, and WHEREAS, prior to adoption of said Local Law, it is necessary to conduct a public hearing, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby determines that the action about to be undertaken qualifies as a Type II Action under SEQRA as the requirements of the Local Law are part of routine or continuing agency administration and management of the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District and no further SEQRA Review is therefore necessary, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED AND ORDERED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall meet and hold a public hearing at the Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, at 7:00 p.m., on the 1st day of February, 1993, to consider said Local Law No. _, 1993 and to hear all persons interested on the subject matter thereof concerning the same to take such action thereon as is required or authorized by law, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED AND ORDERED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to publish and post the notice that has also been presented at this meeting concerning the proposed Local Law No. _, 1993 in the manner provided by law. Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT : None Attorney Dusek-This is the change in the Building Sewers Connection Law that Mike Shaw has recommended, the change that Sue referred to last week and asked if we could get that moving. Provides that the cost and expenses of cleaning and maintaining laterals are the obligation of the homeowner or owner of the building. RESOLUTION TO CONDUCT POLAR CAP 10 K RACE RESOLUTION NO. 84, 93 MOTION WITHDRAWN INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz DISCUSSION HELD-Councilman Caimano-Ijust found out about this today it is in the Third Ward, on Saturday Morning 9:30 a.ill. tying up Aviation Road for an hour...I go along with it unless we get a complaint from the people. The west side of the Northway Bridge in Ward III is very busy on Saturday mornings, to tie up that road in any way, shape or form is something people may scream about. I will go along with it as long as we do not have a large human cry. Councilman Monahan-Questioned if the Town Clerk had checked the insurance? Town Clerk-no Mrs. Monahan-Requested that this be withdrawn until the Clerk has time to review the insurance... Motion withdrawn by Mr. Brandt and Mrs. Goetz Councilman Caimano-Ifthere are any complaints let us know about them... DISCUSSION HELD-Attorney Dusek-It is my understanding that it is a computerized purchase that will upgrade the software and services from KVS...(Accounting) Noted Memo from E.J. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE ORDER AND AGREEMENT WITH KVS INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC. RESOLUTION NO.: 84, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has previously adopted purchasing procedures, and WHEREAS, in accordance with said procedures, a contract in an amount greater than the amount of $5,000.00, up to New York State bidding limits, must be approved by the Town Board before said contract is entered into, and WHEREAS, the Director of Accounting Services has proposed to purchase and install a computer hardware upgrade system only, with installation of the Town of Queensbury's software, as more fully detailed in the documents presented at this meeting, and has requested Town Board approval, and WHEREAS, NYS Bidding is not required, since the equipment prices are State Contract, and the installation and software prices are considered to be professional services (usually exempt from bidding under NYS Law, per the Office of the State Comptroller Financial Management Guide), and WHEREAS, the Director of Accounting Services has proposed to use the services of KVS Information Systems, Inc., as the current software of the Town's Accounting Computer System was provided by KVS, and so they are the only reasonable choice for installation of the proposed new hardware, and WHEREAS, an agreement for the services and purchase with KVS Information Systems, Inc., has been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby acknowledges that the Director of Accounting Services has indicated that the equipment prices are State Contract, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby acknowledges that the labor part of the proposed agreement constitutes professional services and therefore is exempt from bidding, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby approves the agreement with KVS Information Systems, Inc., and authorizes the purchase of services and materials indicated therein, and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the same, on behalf of the Town, said purchase to be paid for from Account No.: 001-1680-2100. Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES : None ABSENT: None DISCUSSION Attorney Dusek-This is the same law that you had before you last week but because you made changes at two different points in the meeting and also because I wanted to recommend a further change tonight, I have brought this back before you...changes that were made if you go to Section 4 paragraph A page 3 of the Local Law, if you recall last week the references to Adirondack Resource Recovery were added, there was a point that ash which will be subsequently processed into Rolite that change was not, according to the minutes, made in paragraph B to read the same so I made it in paragraph B for you also the language as far as DEC regulations read that C&D waste was to be taken as allowed by DEC regulations, I have changed that now as defined by DEC regulations. If you recall a couple of days ago I gave you a copy of the definitions that they had. The same changes were made in paragraph A & B with those two changes that I just noted plus the other changes that you made at the two different points in the meeting I believe this to be as the Board had wanted this law to read... RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW NO. _, 1993 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, CHAPTER 96, THEREOF, ENTITLED "GARBAGE, RUBBISH AND REFUSE" RESOLUTION NO. 85, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, at the meeting of January 11, 1993, there was presented for adoption by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Local Law No. _, 1993, A Local Law to amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 96, thereof, entitled "Garbage, Rubbish and Refuse," to add a new section providing for an exception to the restriction that solid waste disposed of at the Landfill be from within the Town or City of Glens Falls or under certain circumstances from outside the Town or City, but within the County, and WHEREAS, during the course of the meeting, the proposed Local Law was modified on two occasions and as modified, the Town Board planned to proceed with scheduling the public hearing, and WHEREAS, the Town Attorney has recommended a further change to the Law and has recommended that the previous resolution to set a public hearing on the Law be rescinded and a new resolution adopted to set a public hearing on the proposed Local Law as now revised, and WHEREAS, such legislation is authorized pursuant to the Municipal Home Rule Law of the State of New York, and WHEREAS, prior to adoption of said Local Law, it is necessary to conduct a public hearing, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that previous resolution no.: 60, 93 is hereby rescinded, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall meet and hold a public hearing at the Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, at 7:00 p.ill., on the _1st day of February, 1993, to consider said proposed Local as now revised and to hear all persons interested on the subject matter thereof concerning the same to take such action thereon as is required or authorized by law, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to publish and post the notice that has also been presented at this meeting, which notice is the same notice as was previously drafted, except that the date of the Board authorizing or setting the public hearing shall be today's date, the same being determined to be otherwise sufficient for purposes of notification of a public hearing of the proposed Local Law No. _, 1993. Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT : None Councilman Caimano-Before you came in Paul we turned down the resolution appointing the Planning Board Chairman do we now appoint the Planning Board Chairman or does the Planning Board go back and... Attorney Dusek-The Town Board does have the right to appoint the Chairman Councilman Monahan-I think that is something to discuss in closed session, I have another question. Supervisor Brandt-Noted that the Red Lobster Hearing is Scheduled for 7:30 and it is now 7:23 will leave the meeting open ... Mrs. Barbara Bennett -Questioned item H on the Agenda Supervisor Brandt-What we did, we originally budgeted last year $1000 a year for the Deputy Supervisor and it was paid to the Library until November 17th or whatever the date is, what we are doing is restoring the money from the 17th on. RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS RESOLUTION NO. 86, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker RESOLVED, that Audit of Bills as appears on Abstract dated 1/15/93 and numbered 93000100 through 93026300 and totaling $589)15.74 and be it further RESOLVED, that the following vouchers were pulled from the Audit 93003100 Morse Engineering $1872.82 and 93021600 Rosch Bros. $16211.11 which has been reflected in the total amount referred to above. Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 1993 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN; Mrs. Monahan on vendor number 453 Mr. Caimano on vendor number 000127 PUBLIC HEARING CHARLES R. WOOD PROPOSAL PETITION FOR CHANGE IN ZONE aka RED LOBSTER NOTICE SHOWN Supervisor Brandt-Opened the Hearing at 7:35 P.M. Would you like to start off John? Mr. John Lemery-Mr. Brandt and Members of the Town Board, Ladies and Gentlemen, my name is John Lemery, I am here on behalf ofMr. Charles Wood the owner of the site on Aviation Road which has been proposed to house the Red Lobster and behalf of General Mills Corporation the owner of the Red Lobster Restaurant chain. Thank you very much for you willingness to hold this public hearing. This has been a transaction a project that has been in the news for several months now. When it first came before this Board there was a clear interest on the part of the Board in terms of having the need to protect the neighborhood from an intrusion for commercial purposes and based on some of the original discussions that were held the applicant went back and some substantial changes were made which we believe brought to your attention and brought to the attention of the Town some significant issues facing the Town of Queensbury. Not necessarily directed to the Red Lobster site. What I hope you will consider tonight is that all of us have a need to deal with balancing competing interests in government and here tonight there are three interests that need to be considered and considered very carefully by the Board. Certainly the interest of the neighborhood group and the neighbors that border this site the interests of the Town of Queensbury and its need to promote and deal with responsible planning and zoning and economic development and the needs of Charles Wood who has the right as any property owner in the Town does to have his property zoned in a manner that's appropriate and fitting for the area in which it's located. The property in question that is owned by Mr. Wood goes way back and over a substantial period of time it has evolved to a point where that area in the town now is probably the largest commercial district in the Town of Queensbury. We put on the wall over there what amounts to a rendering of Aviation Road and Rt. 254, Quaker Road. The history of this road with respect to zoning is as follows. The area delineated in brown is zoned commercial highway all the way down to the end of Quaker Road at what was the entrance to basically Ciba Geigy The property in question that we're looking at tonight is located here, you'll see that it's SFR-IO. The other parcels which are of the same nature and the only other parcels on Aviation Road and Quaker Road it's entire length. The Town of Queensbury Cemetery located on the north side of Quaker Road, a wetland located at the southeast corner of Meadowbrook Road, a parcel owned by Niagara Mohawk which is wetland also on Meadowbrook Rd. and a small parcel owned by Earltown over in what was the ...swap over in that part of the Town, on Quaker Rd. The entire area other than that has been zoned for highway commercial. The evolution of this site has been that it has been this buffer, this piece of treed area between Aviation Rd and what was historically and is now the Greenway North area. All of the rest of the town if you were to look at an aerial the entire area surrounding this is commercial. You've had before you in the recent past a number of projects both from a Planning Department prospective and from a Town Board prospective. If my recollection is correct last year the Town Board approved a 100,000 sq. ft. addition to the Pyramid Mall located over here. Sometime ago the planning people approved a 60,000 sq. ft. addition to the Dexter Shoe Outlet up on Route 9, on a two lane highway with what amounts to a substantial traffic issue. Now, your looking also at what to do with the Wal-Mart proposal which is proposed to be located on Rt. 9, north of this site which is also going to increase traffic here on Aviation Road and Quaker Road. We have, I'm going to distribute to you at the end of my presentation a traffic report and a very thorough traffic study which was done by Larry Levine our Traffic Consultant and Larry will speak to that. It very accurately points out that the biggest issue facing the traffic and the people in Greenway North is not what would happen or doesn't happen to the Red Lobster site. Roughly 95% of the traffic going through Greenway North and Old Aviation Road is cut-through traffic. The cut-through traffic is not going to be diminished or increased by the inclusion of an 8,000 sq. ft. restaurant on a two acre parcel of land. It's going to be increased every time there is any development along Quaker Road, Aviation Road, Route 9, because people are using Greenway North and Old Aviation Road as a short-cut between the mall and Route 9. So, if in fact the whole 8,000 sq. ft. addition gets built over here at the Pyramid Mall and the traffic increases in the Pyramid Mall then obviously the traffic on Greenway North and Old Aviation Road is going to increase. IfWal-Mart builds up on Route 9, the kind offacility their talking about and if they draw the kind of retail trade that they are historically noted for, once again the traffic on Aviation Road and Quaker Road will increase. I think it's not such a far fetched statement to say, that Old Aviation Road and Greenway North will be fully impacted by that. So we think that what has surfaced here as a result of this Red Lobster proposal is a issue which faces the Town which is really not a Red Lobster problem. It's a problem dealing with how to protect the residents back there from the cut-thru traffic that they face because people use it as a short -cut. Our traffic consultant will speak to this, but they drive over that bump, there are bumps at McDonalds, they basically ignore them he told us that people basically scramble to get out of the way of the bumps to get through there and where the stacking comes from and the traffic accidents come from is not residents coming in and out of Greenway North but in fact really has to do with people using it as a short cut. I know that there are some plans here in the Town to try and get access into the mall and try to get access into some of these other areas by other means and I think that is something to be encouraged and certainly has to have merit from a long range Town planning process. But, if in fact you find that the Red Lobster proposal is going to increase the traffic then you have to find that every single piece of development that happens if somebody comes along and adds ten thousand square feet if some extra special kind of attraction located here then it is a fair statement to say that, that is going to increase the traffic on Quaker Road, Aviation Road until such time as you stop the traffic using Old Aviation and Greenway North as a thru street it is going to continue and get worse. What we have tried to deal with before the Town Planning Board and before your Board is an issue facing that particular site and what is there to everybody involved. I think it is significant to note what we proposed here, basically cuts that parcel right in half and dedicates half of it for commercial use and half of it for a buffer which our client has proposed to transfer to the Town as a Conservation easement that can never be developed. Your Town Zoning Laws require a 50' buffer between a zone from a residential to a commercial, that is what is proposed, as a matter of fact, the Wal-Mart transaction is at the north end of the Greenway North area. What we have proposed is a 100' buffer along the back side of the site, 75' on the eastern side and almost 200' of buffer at the back end, diagonal looking at Old Aviation Road. These are all mature trees, and once the conservation easement was turned over to the Town of Queensbury this entire area could never be developed for anything. The reason it is before the Town Board and not before the Zoning Board of Appeals for some kind of a variance is that it is our opinion that it really isn't the kind of transaction that is subject to a variance, we are not talking about a hardship here we are talking about what makes sense from a zoning perspective. We have all read, everybody in the audience and everybody on the Board has read the letters to the Editor and has read the articles and correspondence which was directed to the Planning Board earlier and I have here with me at the table. One individual proposed that we make a senior citizens area out of the site another resident in the neighborhood suggested well, maybe would make a better affordable housing site. Another resident suggested that Mr. Wood donate it to the Town for a forever wild area and the other people said well we have had this buffer we want to have it remain a buffer. The problem is that neither you or I nor the people in Greenway North can control what happens to the site the way it is presently zoned. The way it is presently zoned permits fourteen single family residences to be built there. So, the question really is, does that makes sense for zoning, does it make sense to assume that Charlie Wood or any other landowner or commercial business entity in the Town of Queensbury would take a look at that site and say well, we think we ought to put single family homes in there? I submit to you that the front half of the site you could not sell a house, on the front half of the site because of the traffic and because of the mall and on the back half of the site if you tried to develop it, people would say well we would like to have a buffer to protect the neighborhood, so how much of a buffer are you going to give us, Mr. Landowner and so effectively I do not think that makes any sense. I cannot imagine ten thousand square foot houses in there I cannot imagine children playing there and the only entrance you could get would be on Aviation Road because of the restrictions on the back on the Old Aviation Road side. So, the only entrance and exit you have to the single family residences would be on Aviation Road, and that does not make any sense. Joe Carusone when he attended the meeting of the Planning Board and I do not mean to speak for him and I do not know if he is here or not, I can only refer to the minutes of the Planning Board Meeting where he did speak, he basically said that and if you would just permit me to quote 'I have tried to research my own notes and recall as best I could I have spoken to other members of the committee to see what their memory is and what their notes show to see if we were in agreement at the time we looked at this we recognized that property on Aviation Road should probably be zoned Commercial. That Aviation Road was essentially commercial property and only made sense that, that would be this way. However, we were very concerned about the neighborhood behind the property and how it could protect it. In our discussion at that time we were not able to resolve the buffer zone and how we could adequately protect the people who live in the residential area behind the property in question. The problem that we had, do we create an extrodinary buffer and so I do not mean to make a mountain out of a 100' high fence, and I do not mean to build a mountain or 100' fence but a buffer zone that was different than then other buffer zones we proposed for both commercial and residential properties, because we knew that those buffers, while adequate for other properties, were probably not adequate for this property. So we have taken that a step further and said we agree with you Joe Carusone and what we have done is that we have proposed a buffer that is larger than what you ultimately decided upon for the rest of the Town zoning. If you decide that this should remain purely residential it seems to me that what you are really saying is well, we really know that nobody is going to come along and try to build on this, I do not think it makes any sense maybe there are people out there who would say we think this would make a great residential development. But, absent that, are you really saying ok, Charlie, ok any other owner who might come along an buy this. we really want to keep this forever wild, we really do not want this developed we really want to keep it as a wood area so we are not going to allow any development, because that is really what you are saying if you say we are going to keep it residential. Again, when your job, seems to me as a Town Board is to look at all the issues and to treat a person here and each interest with a degree of fairness and responsibility I submit to you that, that is not a fair way to treat the property owner because it basically says to him we are going to keep the land the way it is we are not going to pay for it and I do not think it is in the best interests of the Town of Queensbury. What we proposed here is an 8,000 square foot restaurant on a two acre parcel ofland with an additional two acres being devoted to forever wild purpose. In Vermont when a commercial project is proposed there are statutes up there that say under certain circumstances you have to contribute a parcel of land back to a land bank and you have to give us something, if you are going to take land out of a land bank if you are going to take land out of a tree area you have to give something back. I thought about that and I spoke to Mr. Wood and I said have you got, is there any land that you own right near there that, in addition you might be willing to give to the Town and to the neighborhood by way of an additional buffer which would in effect give back some of what is going to be taken to develop the front side of this piece of land. Mr. Wood owns a parcel of land that fronts on Aviation Road that is adjacent to the 187 ramp it is roughly 3500 sq. ft. and while it is not part of this application it is a very pretty piece of land with white burch and other pines on it and I have some views here from the north the south, east, west and from the 187 off ramp. Mr. Wood has prepared also as part of the conservation easement to convey this parcel ofland to the Town which would in addition be part of the conservation easement and would amount to a protection for the people in the back of the site there. It is 1993 in the Town of Queensbury and the community that we live in we have a high unemployment rate we have a State that is not doing very well in attracting or keeping businesses here we have a tax rate that is up and going higher it cost the Town according to my calculations $800,000 dollars a year to service the sewer...sewer district if you permit this 8,000 square foot restaurant to go on that site. We have calculated the sewer taxes at roughly $33,000 dollars a year which amounts to about 3 1/2 to 4% of your annual sewer debt service. That is not insignificant and the only way the community is going to deal with these sewer tax is to get more properties that can pay it. You really have to depend on your commercial properties you cannot burden the residential taxpayers with this kind of thing and it is the only way to grow the Town to provide adequate sewage and adequate water and we believe that this facility, this restaurant would meet that criteria from a town planning perspective. Red Lobster Restaurant is owned by General Mills Corporation and Neal Tuwelliger is here tonight and I know he will speak to Red Lobster's plans for the restaurant and what they would intend to do with it. As the people in the community have heard before they intend to employ between 80 and 90 people. The sales taxes that would be generated here amount to a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year. It is a, General Mills Corporation is a Company that can afford to meet your requirements by way of mitigated measurers it can afford to take care of the property adequately it can afford to have its dumpsters picked up every day it can afford to operate a clean sound business that employs people and becomes a good corporate citizen of the Town of Queensbury. It has been a very emotionally charged kind of issue here, and I, some people say it is really between the neighborhood and the developer. It really isn't, it is a planning issue, it is a traffic issue, it is what makes sense for the Town, it is, what do we do with the site that is currently zoned in a way that doesn't protect the neighbors. What we think that we have done here is something that helps everybody, protects everybody and gives everybody a reasonable return for their interests. I would like to conclude my remarks by saying that there has been a lot of silent approval for this project and I want to just, if you would permit we also, just a minute here to tell you what we have got by the way of support on file. I have a number of letters some of which you have, some of which will be turned in this evening of property owners, both commercial and residential who have said that they have an interest in seeing the Red Lobster project get approved. Everyone of them to a person has said it is very important to protect the neighborhood but we also see that what you have done is fair and reasonable. The Pub, Minogues Beverage Center, Frank Nigro who owns the Paper Cutter, CHP, Fays Drugs, Michael Valente from Glens Falls Agway, Kays Motel, Lou Gagliano General Manager of Aviation Mall, Aviation Mall supports this, E & W Development which is the company that owns the Boardman Plaza, Paul Smith President of Northway Floors, Allen Boychuck the owner of Mark Plaza, Ken Noble President of Marcus Noble Inc., Dave Saline Adirondack Auto Supply, ABC Rentals, J. Peter Garvey Volkswagon, Regan and Denny Funeral Service, Tom Ross of Silverstein Loftus and Ross, and each one of them basically in their correspondence Ladies and Gentlemen says, it is our belief that the property currently before the Board of Supervisors for a zone change should be granted the necessary zoning and site plan approval to allow for the development of a commercial restaurant. We urge that you approve this change to insure the highest and best use of the property, create jobs, lighten the burden of the Quaker Road Sewer Dist. and increase the economic tax base of the Town of Queensbury. Dorothy Norr and Katheen Hanna of 5 Moorwood Drive and a Michel Stern an Attorney in Northway Plaza. We also have a letter which I know was delivered to you previously from the Adirondack Regional Chamber of Commerce which also supports the zoning request. The Planning Department, before I get to that let me just say that at the Town Planning Board it was an interesting vote. The newspaper said the vote and the minutes say the vote was four to three, and that is true but if we take away Mr. Rowe's vote for the moment Mrs. Tarana who I know is here said I am voting no and I would like to tell you why quickly. I think this should be rezoned, I do not think that there is any question of that. So she voted no for this project but, I am reading from the minutes and Mrs. Tarana if she thinks that I am wrong can certainly speak up. She recognized that the zone was not appropriate, so if you add her it was really a five to two vote to change the zone and one of them probably should not have voted. In conclusion your own Planning Dept. I have seen the notes of the Planning Dept. have said that the site is not appropriately zoned and should be changed. If after deliberation and after you have heard from everybody and after you adjourn and after you come back at some later date and vote on this it is the kind of thing that doesn't, its not, it will not go away it will come back and come back because it is where it is. It is not zoned right the way it is and whether, if this Board does not deal with it some future Town Board will have to deal with it and until it is zoned right and appropriate it will be there and will in effect in my judgement all the other zonings all the other changes that you are going to have to deal with on the Aviation Road, Quaker Road highways because it is a traffic and planning issue. With your permission I would like to pass out now the report from Larry Levine the Consulting Engineer he is going to talk to you about the consulting study they did, the survey they performed the last few days and what they really found out with respect to the cut through because I think that is a very significant issue. Mr. Lawrence Levine-My name is Lawrence Levine I am a Traffic Consultant, I do not believe that I have truly introduced myself to the Board in the past. My background is as a Civil Engineer with a Degree from Michigan State University and followed by a Degree, a Masters Degree in Transportation and Civil Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute which I received in 1975. Since really 1974 I have been working in the Traffic Engineering Field, I have always been based in the Northeast, although I have done work throughout the Country, principally though on the East Coast and in the Northeast. I have done traffic studies for many municipalities, towns and so forth, I currently still do that work as well as private development, traffic engineering work and I am also quite involved at the present time as an expert I work for the State of New York many Counties and Towns and insurance companies, primarily in the defense aspect of highway accidents analysis, reconstruction and liability issues relating to highway and bridge related construction, some building construction as well. So I have been working in the field in this general areas since about 1974-1975 in the traffic engineering field. When I got involved in this particular project I was hired initially to do a traffic study to evaluate the impact that a Red Lobster Restaurant would have on the surrounding intersections, roadways community. It was immediately apparent to me in doing the traffic counts and so forth related to that study that there was more involved at this particular location than immediately met the eye and that more study really was called for but, under the normal traffic impact study procedures and so forth did not fall into place until out of the public hearings and so forth where issues that I had touched upon such as accidents at the intersection of Greenway North and Aviation Road and the unusually high volume of traffic on Greenway North, Old Aviation Road and the high congestion that I saw, particularly in the McDonald's Restaurant which has entrances and exists to Route 9 and to Old Aviation Road and also the Northgate Center which actually it is the entrance to the Kentucky Fried Chicken in the rear which ties in with Old Aviation Road. It was obvious immediately, Old Aviation Road was closed by the Town it has a cui de sac at the end, there is a dead end sign in advance of the cui de sac there is also a no thru traffic sign at Kentucky Fried Chicken access from Old Aviation Road, so at is some point in time intent was to close off this Street to thru traffic between Route 9 and new Aviation Road. Since that time much has happened in this area, during my first study I said I found that there were significant number of accidents at the intersection of Greenway North and Aviation Road. I met with Department of Transportation the Traffic Engineer for Region One the accident analysis for New York State, spoke to residents and also other people and found that there really was no pattern to the accidents, that would relate to the geometrics of the intersection and so forth, it was almost a random pattern. Now random patterns such as that is usually only found in the type of accidents that we see there, where people do not have enough time to get out of the signal. They are being delayed at the signal they are waiting in a line there are too many vehicles or the vehicles are in a hurry. That is when during my study I noticed as I was sitting at the base of Greenway North at its intersection with Old Aviation Road there was a tremendous cut through volume in both directions. I did not count that at the time, but noted, could not help but noted it, it was more than 98% of the cars going in and out of Greenway North were coming from Old Aviation Road. The numbers of cars that I was counting were during the peak hour almost 10% of the traffic on Aviation Road during that hour that is how high the movement is at that time. So, what I did in the past week was I had six technicians with me, one sat in the McDonald's Restaurant and took down the license number of every vehicle that entered McDonald's from Route 9. I then had two other technicians in the back of McDonald's and they took down the license plate number of every vehicle that went in and out of the rear of the McDonalds and I also segregated out those vehicles that did not stop at McDonalds that strictly just went through the parking lot either from Route 9 to Old Aviation Road or from Old Aviation Road to Route 9. Then I had another pair of people sitting in their vehicle at the intersection of Old Aviation Road and Greenway North so that they could take down all the license plate numbers all the vehicles that were coming in and out of Greenway North and either continuing on Greenway North or turning to Old Aviation Road and vice versa. We were also able to see where the people were coming from and going to as far as going into McDonalds or into the Kentucky Fried Chicken. Then I myself was counting cars at the same time at the intersection and just making general observations along with them at the different locations. What I found was pretty startlingly. Now, we took the count from eight o'clock in the morning to ten o'clock in the morning. Then we continued from eleven o'clock in the morning till two o'clock in the afternoon. Then we continued until three o'clock in the afternoon till seven o'clock at night this is on a Friday. I'm just going to put up a board that shows the cut -thru that I'm talking about. The drawing is not to scale it's strictly just to show this route that I'm talking about that people use. It begins at new Aviation Road goes right on Old Aviation Road and then primarily goes through McDonald's and out either of the two exits of Route 9. In the opposite the traffic comes in McDonald's turns right onto Old Aviation then left onto Greenway North and then out onto new Aviation. The other significant, but not as high movement is to continue down go through the Kentucky Fried Chicken drive-thru area around and through the Northgate Plaza and out onto Route 9 and vice versa. Just to give you some idea that are involved here we're talking fourteen hundred cars in the nine hour period plus or minus. The numbers of cars we're talking about for the Red Lobster is going out. I think it's ninety cars total, now it's fifty five in and forty out for the peak hour for the 8,000 sq. ft. restaurant. The point is we also counted the number of cars from the Aviation Mall across into Greenway North and back this number alone was significant. Ijust want to refer to my notes here. From the mall we're talking about one hundred thirty four plus cars. Now, with the hundred thousand foot expansion to the mall one can easily extrapolate that its foreseeable that this cut thru movement from the mall will increase perhaps a third. So, it will be with any development either in Route 9 or New Aviation Road and to a lessor extent on Quaker Road. Every development will end up adding to this cut thru traffic. The numbers of cut through traffic coming from Route 9 to New Aviation Road was 718 and going in the other direction was 524. Now, out of this number the other interesting point was only 53 cars out of a total of 1200 and sum odd cars which went thru McDonalds stopped to eat. Supervisor Brandt-Say that again? Mr. Levine-Only 53 cars out of 1200 stopped to eat at McDonalds, ok, now that's what I am pointing out is that to McDonalds this is a very small fraction of their business. It is less than 3 % or so based on our count of everyone coming in. Now, what I observed in McDonalds myself and what is written on the sheets was that vehicles coming into the McDonalds from Route 9 and cutting thru have to use either the drive thru lane or the lane next to it and there are so many cars that come in that the cars back up onto Route 9 for significant periods of time from the drive thru area right out the entrance to McDonalds there, right out onto Route 9. Not only is this an accident hazard obviously it is on a down hill grade on Route 9 on a major highway but it also is a detriment to McDonalds. What we saw happening was people balk they do not go in as customers and people do not want to fight the congestion so to speak and go around the cars. During the peak hour in the evening we observed cars the words on the survey report were, very high speed, almost a crash, person almost hit, this is in McDonalds. Ok. You are talking 500 cars going thru their parking lot in one direction and 340 in the other direction. This is a lot of cars compared to what we are talking about with Red Lobster. Again, as any development happens on Route 9 or Aviation Road in the whole corridor if something is not done about the cut thru which is within the Town's power to do I believe. There are various ways to handle it. The residents of Greenway North and Old Aviation Road will be subject to all this traffic, that is what this amounts to. If the cut thru can be dealt with number 1 McDonalds I believe would, should be, happy to cooperate, now whether they do or not I do not know what they will do. My study has been provided to them. They I understand want to do their own study as well. They have eight speed bumps in the McDonalds, now as an expert in Court I know that speed bumps are not what you want to do in a parking area because they themselves are a liability problem. What I observed the night of the count and my people observed was, people do S curves around these speed bumps at 30 mph. to get in and out. Or they go over the speed bumps at more than 30 and you shock absorbers just take it. Now, so McDonalds is already involved in this study at this point, Kentucky Fried Chicken to lessor extent, same problem, I do not know if they have been contacted yet I have not contacted them. So, the problem the traffic problem if there is a traffic problem is due to the cut thru traffic, and what my study turned up was that Red Lobster we already taken upon ourselves to put a right in right out onto Aviation Road and also to prohibit right turns from the exit onto Greenway North. So, in the initial application we address this problem but we did not have a handle on exactly how extensive the problem was until I went out and did this other study. There are more conclusions in the report all the data is summarized in the rear of it and I have discussed this with Jim Martin and I have talked with people at McDonalds, it is something that needs to be addressed. I think everyone will benefit by eliminating it, especially the residents. Number one accidents would be lessened for sure, tremendously, number two the noise the interruption of the neighborhood would be lessened tremendously and three just the businesses in their McDonalds and Kentucky Fried would not be hurt and at the same time might enhance their business. I think that is all I have to say unless you have any questions. Councilman Caimano-Just your right turn question, envision that people will come out of the restaurant turn left onto Greenway then be forced to turn right onto Aviation? Mr. Levine-No, at Greenway, oh I am sorry. Councilman Caimano-My question was, does he envision the traffic coming out of the restaurant turning left onto Greenway and then being forced to turn right onto Aviation, is that what you meant by what you just said? Mr. Levine-No. They would be forced by signing and by channelizing the exit to turn left out of the exit on Greenway North. Councilman Caimano-On to Greenway North. Mr. Levine-On to Greenway North, but from that point when they come to that signal at Greenway North and New Aviation Road they can turn left or right, and it would be signaled controlled. What I meant by right in, right out was if there is to be entrance on New Aviation Road for this Red Lobster site. Councilman Caimano-Ok. Mr. Levine-That would be right turns in and right turns out there would be no left turns into the median and so forth. Supervisor Brandt-Any other questions from Board members on traffic? Ok. Thank you. Mr. Levine-Thank you. Mr. Lemery-Before we conclude Mr. Supervisor I would just like to introduce the representative from Red Lobster Neil Tuwelliger just to introduce himself to the Board and that would conclude our presentation we would like to reserve the right if we could after all the comments were, a slight exclamation at the end if that is possible. Mr. Neil Tuwelliger-My name is Neil Terwilliger as John has indicated to you I am with General Mills Restaurants the operators of Red Lobster out of Orlando, Florida, and I am really here to just basically ask and answer any question that the Board might have. Red Lobster tries to put itself in the position in every situation we go into as being a very positive and good thing that comes into a community. The history behind this is not gotten off that way we are trying to do everything we can through buffers and working with Planners and so forth to demonstrate to the community that we are serious about a very active and a very positive influence on the community. I think we have demonstrated that in many ways with the mitigation that we have proposed and we would like to hope that the Board feels that way when it comes time to voting on this. I think we can be a very positive influence in the Community if given the opportunity to be here. Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Any questions by the Board members, ok, thank you very much. Ok. I guess that concludes your presentation. Understand that this is a public hearing on a rezoning and this Board has to make that decision in the final analysis and it is for us to try and get enough information to make an intelligent decision and this is now a public hearing for anyone how wants to comment on it. I ask you to be respectful of one another and ourselves in the process. We are here to get some information, I would like to keep it simple it is not a shouting match. I know that in the process of doing these kinds of rezonings this kind of taken on an advisorial relationship, and I do not believe that is proper for a Town. We are not adversaries to any of our citizens unless they are violating the law. What we are here to do is to figure our what the best answer is here and we are just like you guys, we do our very best and we look at things and we use our common sense and we want everybodies input. So, if you give us that input we would appreciate it, it is not a shouting match, you do not have to go tit -for-tat if somebody says one thing you do not have to oppose it. We have some common sense too, and just feed us the real information and lets look at this, it is certainly not a simple matter we are all aware of that. I open the floor to anyone who wants to speak the rules are, give us, your name on the record and where you live simply because we are making a legal record here at the same time. The gentleman in the back. I will also tell you, we have a lot of time tonight and everyone will have a chance to speak and we will take the time to hear you out. Mr. Royce Boynton-Mr. Brandt the Board, my name is Royce Boynton I live at 9 Birch Lane east of that proposed Lobster, Red Lobster site I am the only one here that bordering that Red Lobster site according to Mr. Lemery there is no other property on that New Aviation Road that is zoned residential. That is a big mistake I do not know where I live, if I do not live on that road, there is another house there it belongs to John and now Al Lanfear on that road. I am stuck right in the middle, if they rezone this commercial. Sticking out like a sore thumb in residential. I would like to make one more point too, if they have only a right turn going into that property coming down the hill, cars will see that and where will they turn? They will turn in Birch Lane and and go around and come right back up Old Aviation Road and Greenway North in there so it is not eliminating much traffic that way because they are not going to see that sign starting up to Greenway North to go in there first unless you get older customers that know after they have been there two or three times. But, there is going to be a lot more traffic on Birch Lane where I live then there, the way they got it planned. I can see Mr. Woods point of view where he has got a lot of wasted wood space there but for the benefit for the Town in my opinion it should be left that way. He has got enough property to have it built someplace else. That is all I have got to say. Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Do me a favor, I know there are a lot of feelings here and lets just get the record and get the information and it is not a popularity contest. Come on up and tell us. ......Mr. Brandt and Supervisors and people, I have not personnel interest Councilman Caimano-Could we have your name please? Marion Walton-Excuse me, Marion Walton I live on Triphammer Road. I have followed this with interest and I am wondering why Red Lobster does not look at all the various areas in the Town that are already developed? There is a large mall where County Mill has just abandoned there is a Rite Aid left there and I believe Strawberries, that is paved property that environmentally has been lost. If a Red Lobster goes here, there is going to be paved ground again which effect, water runoff and everything that is dangerous to our planet. We also have businesses in Queensbury Restaurants that are operating at minimum capacity on their help because they are not doing in the business. We are being told that there are going to be jobs put in here if there are then they are going to be drawing the business from somewhere else. I do not believe Red Lobster can hire and support the number that has been handed to us when other businesses mainly restaurants are operating at reduced staffs because the business is down. You can go along Route 9 you can find various areas that are empty but they are, have paved parking spaces that are absolutely ....my suggestion to Charlie Wood is it would be a nice gift to give to the Town that land and forget about business there and locate where it is already developed. I have no interest I do not live there but we, too many empty businesses now without adding a new one. Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Ok, next. Who would like to speak to us next? Mr. Bob Atkinson-My name is Bob Atkinson I live on 14 Meadow Lane and the Red Lobster will not effect my family directly as a matter of fact it would probably be an asset because it would be another good place to eat. But, we moved up here three years ago from a place that made the same mistakes that I see starting here. I live near Paramus New Jersey I dare you to drive down Route 17 and do more than ten miles per hour. On holidays, Christmas shopping and what have you, the local residents can not do anything they stay home because forty years ago the Town Planning Boards gave out variances the way you give lolly pops out in a dentist office. You just cannot do this. Wal-Mart, this one, that one every time you make an exception every time you grant a variance you are setting a precedent. It is that much easier now for Wal-Mart to say, hey we do not want to pave this ground over we will do this, we will do this, these people if they want to come in the market area and do the business let them obey the rules. It is not for us to tell go to the Northway Mall it is empty it is not for us to tell Charlie Wood to make a gift that's, these are their decisions. But for the benefit of the Town we have got to be awfully careful with what we do because sooner or later my great grandchildren will have to move to the top of Mount Marcy. You are really setting yourself up for a terrible fall, I saw it happen before and I see it happening now. I beg of you to be very, very careful with what you do. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Councilman Caimano- Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Next. . ..1 would like to say something? Supervisor Brandt -Come on right up. ....1 have got a cold. Supervisor Brandt -So do I. Ms. Theresa Pazutto-I am not a good speaker, but nobody pointed out here tonight how to drive, I am Theresa pazutto I live on Carlton Drive. My car would not go down and cut through McDonalds because I do not stop there to eat, but I do cut thru there because I cannot get out of Carlton Drive. I cannot make a right, I cannot make a left so my choice at certain time of the day is cut thru McDonalds, I do not stop and eat there and there is where the traffic is, we cannot get out of our street. That is all. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you very much. Mr. Daniel Olson-Daniel Olson, 29 Carlton Drive I am representing my wife and myself this evening. Theresa's remarks were some remarks that I had written down and I wanted to discuss with you but as long as she touched on the traffic exiting Carlton Drive on to Aviation Road I just want to re-inforce what she said. It is a problem and the people want to exit from Carlton Drive to make a right hand turn to go to the Northway or excuse me make a left hand turn to go east on New Aviation Road. Most cases, unless it is real early in the morning or real late at night when there is very little traffic and that is almost an unusual time on Aviation Road, people have to make a right hand turn then you are fighting the traffic. That is in the right hand lane, traffic is going to get on the Northway and go north so, I have seen people, I have had to do it myself I have had people visit me that had to make right hand turn on Aviation Road go up to Queensbury School, turn around and come back down to get to Aviation Mall. We are traffic, we are talking major traffic, you are talking of four lanes of traffic with a two lane bridge. It just does not cut it, you just cannot put traffic back and forth on Aviation Road going across the bridge that small, the bridge I think is one of the major problems why the traffic does not move freely on Aviation Road. I would like to go back and address some other points that I have jotted down in reference to this rezoning proposal this evening and my first remarks will be about the Warren County Planning Board Meeting of November 1992 at that meeting the County Planning Board voted 9 to 0 against the rezoning. I hope Mike and I am sure you must have the Board Members must have a copy of that Planning Board Meeting. Supervisor Brandt-We certainly can obtain it. Mr. Olson-It is important and I am not going to go through it, it is very lengthly. I would like to give you just some page numbers and sentence numbers which I think are important to this, and I am not going to read them because they are very, very lengthy and I would take up the whole meeting, but page 10 section, sentence 26 through 41, Page 13 sentence 1 through 23, page 15 sentence 28 through 42 and page 27 sentence 14 through 20. That page 27 Section 14 though 20, is a section where the reasons are outlined for the introduction of a denial on the application for rezoning. I have not read your records of your minutes I am a little familiar that minutes sometimes of a meeting are not always the same as what I read in the papers. So, I am only going to quote what I read in one of the local papers on the refusal of this Board this year to grant an extension a time extension to Aviation Mall for purchase of land for the expansion of Aviation Mall. If I am right in what I read here and I have got the right information the major reason that I saw and the major concern that was pointed out was that the Town did not have consensus on the traffic problem the traffic problem, Aviation Mall was supposed to present to the Town before the Town would continue on with the sale of the property. I think it was a contract of sale probably the Town was in. Am I right Mike or am I off base. Supervisor Brandt-Well, essentially let me tell you quickly the Aviation Mall asked for a one year extension the Board unamiously did not want to do that, and there is some concern that is expressed about solving this whole traffic problem. But, we did last meeting give them a relatively short extension and there is a willingness they expressed to help and try and solve this problem but they also have a problem because they are landlocked on their sides so it gets down to trying to find together between the Town and the various land users a better answer here. I think you are hitting it right on the head there is a major problem. Mr. Olson-I failed to mention the fact that you did give them a short period of time to negotiate that contract, but the point I am trying to make to the Board Members is that we are dealing with traffic problems, traffic congestion an expansion. I have read some other articles and I couldn't research the article last week and find the article but I think it is called the Greater Glens Falls Transportation Councilor Committee where they recently, maybe the end of, beginning of this year or the end of last year at one of their meetings stated that the Aviation Road, Route 9 section North to the Northway was worst problem, one of the largest problems that they had. I know that Aviation Road Route 9 Intersection was maintained was built for traffic estimated to the year 2000 and 1993 now we have already gone past expected construction of that project the way it was projected to be built. Traffic that's, traffic traveling east on Aviation Road I think, and I live in the area so I see the traffic flows there and I fight the traffic myself, you get very frustrated at times with the traffic lights sometimes that are not working sometimes are blinking and when they are blinking and when they are blinking you cannot get out of Greenway North. You would have to go eventually so you shoot out and hope the devil that you make it out before the guy coming down the hill steps on his gas instead of the break. Traffic traveling east on Aviation, which would be somewhere in the vicinity I would imagine by Friendly's Restaurant someplace would want to make a left hand turn into the area that you are considering rezoning. I cannot picture a car making a left hand turn to get into the entrance of that area across the medium. The middle of the road, the middle of the road plus the two lanes traveling west that want to get the devil out of the congestion and either hit the Northway or get on up further on Aviation Road, I would see that as a very serious and dangerous situation in that intersection there. Sewer tax which has been referred to in other meetings and mentioned this evening to benefit this business would contribute to the sewer charges and expenses of this sewer district. That is true, that is true, the only thing is the effected people, the people that are opposed to this project and opposed to the rezoning of the area that live in that immediate area are not going to benefit anything in their sewer tax because they are not in the sewer district. And I am not saying that some people should not be benefitted from the sewer tax but the people that are effected the most will get the least out of the this rezoning. Late last summer, Sue, late last summer, early fall some neighbors of Old Aviation Road had a meeting and I appreciate that Sue attended that, Sue Goetz, our Council representative attended that meeting and I believe that after even a walk through that area, the effected area, the area that we are discussing this evening and I think that our Representative got an idea, a good idea that there was not anyone at that meeting that was in favor of a rezoning of that parcel. I just want to wrap this up and thank you for your time all I want to say is that you know how we stand and I think you are going to hear other people and I think you are going to see a petition tonight and appreciate Sue being there and you know that people there appreciated you being there and having a chance to talk to you a tell you what our feelings are. We hope you would remember us to. Councilman Goetz-I would like to point out that the proposed land in not in the sewer district. It would have to be an extension of or contract in. Mr. Olson-Right, that parcel would have to be drawn in because they would not want to work on septic tanks, I am sure, you know, septic systems, but the people that are going to have the problem with this project that live in the immediate area, are not going to benefit from any of that because they are not in the sewer district. Councilman Tucker-Going way back to page 10 would you give me the lines that I have got to read in that thing? Mr. Olson-26 through 41 Councilman Tucker-I got it, that is the only one I did not get. Thank you. Mr. Olson-Ok. These are the minutes of the Planning Board Meeting Councilman Tucker-Warren County Planning Board Mr. Olson-Mr. Tucker of the meeting of November 1992, there are other sections of the minutes that related to this but those where some articles that I thought pointed out from the members of the Planning Board questions and their comments in opposition to this project. Councilman Tucker-Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Ok. Who would like to be next, way in the back. Mr. Brian Granger-Good evening. For the record my name is Brian Granger I am a resident of Queensbury, I am a former resident of 16 Old Aviation Road which is opposite the McDonalds rear entrance and exit. Tonight, I would like to make a few points. The residents of Old Aviation Road and Greenway Circle have a right to maintain the quality of their neighborhood. However, the largest concern has been traffic, this problem is a past and present problem, I can tell you tonight that more cars go thru McDonalds parking lot than enter the restaurant. Just to make sure that this has not changed from the time I lived there, I spent a small amount of time there yesterday and today. On Sunday at about 3 P.M. to 3:15 P.M. 8 cars drove thm the parking lot and 3 cars entered the restaurant. Today at about 2 P.M. to 2: 15 P.M. 7 cars drove thru the parking lot and 2 cars entered the restaurant. I am not a traffic expert however it did not take, it doesn't take a traffic expert to see where the problem is coming from. A large wooded buffer is proposed out of natural trees that are in place, fortunately these trees large with many brushes along side of Aviation Road. As far as the aspect of smell when I lived on Old Aviation Road I never smelled McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Neba, Pizza Hut or Long John Silvers, all restaurants surrounding the neighborhood, these are only my opinions. All of us know that Red Lobster will provide jobs, sales tax, sewer and water tax revenue which will benefit the community. As for the quality of life which is important to all of us and tonight is most important to the neighbors of Old Aviation Road and Greenway Circle. The proposed large buffers zoning, zone and traffic concerns discussed I believe that the neighbors will be protected. In closing lets not forget the right of the property owner to a reasonable return on his investment, a large influence has been brought by the neighbors and the applicant has spent a lot of time addressing those concerns. The applicant has shown to be than reasonable in addressing those concerns. Does Mr. Wood have a right to a reasonable return on his property, does the neighborhood have the right to totally control a piece of property that is not owned or have an influence on how it is developed? Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Who is next? Way in the back, again we will get to you all. Mr. David Strainer-Hi, my name is David Strainer, I live on Ridge Road. To start with this neighborhood is not against Red Lobster coming to Queensbury, we are also not against Mr. Wood in developing the land that is proposed for Red Lobster. Back when we first started coming to these meetings, a representative from the Red Lobster said that a Red Lobster must be located near a mall or interstate. Well, apparently they have never been to the one in Albany because it is about a mile from the interstate it not very close to any of the malls. Also, the zoning was done in 1988, that is when we should have been here to change the zoning in 1988, Mr. Wood had his opportunity then, he chose not to do so. They have got Mr. Carusone to come up here and say he felt that even when they were doing this the zoning was improper but yet Mr. Carusone was one of the few people that was not at the meeting the night they voted on that zoning in 1988. We have also never seen any other plans for any type of use for that property. We all know that the traffic at the intersections is horrendous we have sat here and listened to people tell us that when these people are cutting thru McDonalds well where is that other traffic going to go how much more traffic will that put on the intersection at Route 9 up to Greenway North. Also, we have talked to Mr. Reardon the owner of the McDonalds and he does not want his back exit closed. Also, in Mr. Levine's traffic study he also pointed out that the grade at Greenway North from Aviation Road, Old Aviation Road to new Aviation Road should be leveled off, at who's cost will that ...come to because I found it is a 24% grade and it will cost almost 50 to 100,000 dollars to change that grand to straightened it out so it will be less of a traffic problem and safer for those people using that exit. Supervisor Brandt-Go back through that for me would you please? Mr. Strainer-What is that? Supervisor Brandt-That, the point you just made. Mr. Strainer-At the Planning Board Meeting Mr. Levine stated that there is a 24% grade that ... from Old Aviation Road to New Aviation Road a little section of Greenway North, I talked to a person from Calahan Industry and he estimated with fill, with the changing of the trip light and all that it would be from 50 to 100,000 dollars to do. It would cost. Supervisor Brandt -Ok. Thank you. Mr. Strainer-Also, when you go to the zoning when we purchase our homes we do, we look into this, we try to see, what is the zoning here, is there ever going to be a problem? When my mother purchased her house on Old Aviation Road in 1951 all that land was residential, it is still residential and it should remain residential. What good is the investment in your home if you cannot rely on the zoning that you know, the people have gone and done. Also, if we take a look at the Planning Board at Warren County they voted flatly 9 to 0 not to approve this project. That was 9 people who had studied the project and apparently paid attention because they asked all the right questions in Warren County. They talk about an economic value, well as the woman pointed out earlier with the amount of restaurants that we have in this area there is not a reallot of economic value in more restaurant jobs in the area when this is probably one of the heaviest located restaurant areas in the world. They are not in the sewer zone and most of the people that I talked to, Queensbury residents were all against rezoning this because of the traffic problems. Ok, also, I came here at the last Planning Board meeting and I heard Mr. Sutton say that he is not afraid of competition, well I do not believe that this project is about competition, I believe that this project is about compatibility, compatibility with the neighborhood and with the Aviation Road. That is all I have to say, thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Wait a minute there was a lady back here. Ms. Susan Macey-I am Susan Macey and I live on 17 Old Aviation Road and Mr. Granger had mentioned that there are no smells from McDonalds. I beg to differ with him, also from Kentucky Fried Chicken and the Blacksmith Shop. Especially in the summer time when there, when the windows are open and the air is heavy and damp. I get the full force of it. As far as getting out of my driveway, it is sometimes near impossible to get out of my driveway to go either way and also I do take my daughter to Penny's to work, where she works and trying to get in and out of across Aviation Road is also at times near impossible. The traffic is very heavy and we do have a bus stop at the end of Old Aviation Road where little children are waiting for their bus. So, if we have more traffic its, a lot of these things are going to be in jeopardy especially the children. Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Yes, Sir, in the back. Mr. Richard Joyce-My name is Richard Joyce, I live at 8 Vista Court. I have lived there for 13 years. I have also been a teacher in the Queensbury district for starting 24 years in two weeks. My main concern is the children, I believe that you mayor may not remember that the school district is not required to provide busses for any child who lives within a certain mileage and that means that after fourth grade the children in that neighborhood walk to school. A lady just mentioned that the kids were waiting for the bus, I want to point out the children that walk back and forth from grades 5 through 12 at that time. It is a very, very dangerous situation now and I cannot see how adding anything no matter where could help it out, I want to tell you that you do not want to jeopardize your children they are too valuable. Thank you very much. Councilman Monahan-Mr. Joyce what is the limit from where the children have to start walking in that area? Mr. Joyce-Two miles Councilman Monahan-Two miles. Mr. Joyce-After fourth grade the school district is required to have a bus anything after two miles. Councilman Monahan-Thank you. Mr. Joyce-You are welcome. Supervisor Brandt -Ok, Thank you. Mr. Ronald Montesi-Mr. Brandt, Board Members, between Dan Olson, myself and Sue Goetz we have 20 years of Town experience in the room, dealing with problems in Ward II, specifically drainage, water, traffic up in June Drive and Vista Court and Greenway North. One of the things, lets put aside for the moment, traffic and put aside the buffer zone for just a moment and one of the concerns that I think the Town Board has to deal with tonight is do you feel that this building, this restaurant will in any way hurt the value of the homes adjacent to it in this neighborhood? If you do you have to vote accordingly. The largest investment that I have made in my life is my home and the education for my children in college, you certainly cannot take that education away from my children at this point and they can make or break their lives based on what they do with it. But, you certainly can effect the value of my home adversely or in some cases positively but it certainly is something that a . . homeowner does not have much control over. So, I think you need to consider that seriously. The other consideration also is that Mr. Wood is paying taxes on the property and if you vote yes tonight, well I guess the problem goes away to a degree if you vote no I would certainly ask you as a Board to make a commitment that in the next 30, 60, 90 days that you bring this issue back and rezone this property to a use that is fair to all, because, it is not fair for a taxpayer to be able to have to pay these taxes and not be able to use it. As a small point of correction I happen to be sitting next to Mike Shaw who is our Commissioner of Sewer for the Town of Queensbury and there is a little bit less than 33 or 34,000 because if you take two acres out of that site to be given to the Town you reduce the tax by maybe $1800. it is a small point but it, is not 4.3 acres it is 2 acres that is going to be taxed. Thank you. Councilman Caimano- That is an interesting point, I think that he makes and I think that just to let the audience know, in formal talking among this Board we have no intention of not resolving the problem no matter what the vote is. The problem has to be resolved one way or another informally we have, this Board is going to resolve it, we are not going to leave it to the next Board. Supervisor Brandt -Yes, Sir. Mr. Paul Levack-My name is Paul Levack I am the father of Mark Lavack who is in the real estate business here in this community. I am speaking here tonight on behalf of my self and no one else. I am a life long resident of the area I have been a past taxpayer in the City of Glens Falls and more recently in the Town of Queensbury. As a matter off act I took my first airplane ride from the Aviation Road airport, back then was basically predominately a commercial zone. You only had the airport there you had the Spinning Wheel Motel you had Hambergerhaven the Pepsi Cola Bottling Company and of course up the street you had the old speakeasy Peabodies. It was basically then a commercial area. Back in the middle 50's, let me go back a little bit, after the War, people started building houses in that area, it was a desirable area they started building houses there. In the middle 50's the taxpayers, Federal, State, Town and County taxpayers put in a major artery a major arterial from Albany to basically Canada, the Northway. When that, we in, shortly after that another major arterial was put in the Quaker Road, well there is only one reason that these major arterial go in is to promote economies and in any area you go, and this area is no exception, that the land adjoining these major corridors is, ends up being commercial land. The reason that the roads were put in there in the first place is to let economy come into the community and let economy go out of the community. I think, that for anyone to think that, that piece of property there on the Quaker Road is anything but commercial I believe it to be ludicrous. It is a commercial piece of property. I take, and I do not want to get in to a tit-for-tat but I take exception with some of the comments that were made. Mr. Wood has been around this community a long time and has provided a lot of stability a lot of economy for the community. You get carpet bagger or whatever you want to call it to come into this community lately the last two or three years and they have made their lot in life they come from Paramus or where ever and try to tell us that you know, we better be careful what we are going to do, I take exception to that. I also take exception to Ron Montesi's statement that he said he had all these years of experience in that district and was wondering about the values of the houses going down, well the facts, the pure and simple facts are that the value of those house has gone up continuously after ever major, after every major commercial venture, starting with the Silo, starting with the Econo Lodge, what their houses were worth then and what they are worth today they are worth infinitely more. The most recent commercial venture, Warren Tires that went in there houses are worth more today then they are now, so, again it if ludicrous to think the values are going to go down because of a Red Lobster. The other issue that I also take exception to is the traffic issue that has been battered around quite a bit. The fact that Red Lobster goes in or does not go in has no bearing on your traffic problem. It is not a Red Lobster issue. In closing I would like to ask this Board and I believe that they are totally capable of it, basing their decision on facts and facts alone, do not base them on the emotions that have come into this project. Do not base them on the petty politics but just base them on the pure and simple facts we believe the facts speak for themselves. Thank you very much. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Mr. John Buecking-Real quickly, thank you. My name if John Buecking I live, we are on the east side of Town I am speaking more about the Town of Queensbury here then I am about this local, particular issue. It just appears I think that Mr. Lemery has been very, very open and factual and truthful but I think that what it missing here is some of the things are the things that have not been said. The people that have spoken in, for this project I have noted that each and every one has a financial interest, my interest in talking about this project is not financial it is just about the future of Queensbury. A man commented, lets do what's fair for everybody, well, it seems to me what is fair for everybody is those people who bought those houses in Greenway North, yesterday or in 1951 and when they looked around and they found that the entire area is zoned residential have a right to expect that, that will remain residential. That is at the very foundation of this question. It is not the question as I see it, I do not see how a Red Lobster is going to improve the traffic situation. It think Red Lobster is going to be a good neighbor where ever they go but, it gets to a greater issue here are we going to cut down a green space for a commercial venture when that green space is a genuine asset for the Town of Queensbury as well as for the people of Greenway North and that area, should be able to full expect that their property is going to remain zoned residential. It gets down to thank God the, there is a grave yard there to provide a green space otherwise that strip of road going all the way east is a big mess. So, I hope that we look at some of the larger issues here as well as the rights of those people that are residents. Thank you. Councilman Caimano- Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Ms. Lisa Strainer-Hi, I am Lisa Strainer I live on 21 Old Aviation Road. I just have one point, they say that their exit out of, on to Greenway North and that all traffic is going to left ok, that is fine but how many cars are going to disobey the sign and go right. At Burger King there was a sign there no left turn when the building first come in now, you can go right down there the sign is not there and everyone makes a left hand turn. That is all I have to say, thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Who wants to be next. Yes, Sir. Mr. Al Lanfear-Good evening. My name is Al Lanfear and I live at 8 Birch Lane. We have heard the traffic situation to, beat to death here tonight for some reason or other there has been very little mention of it right in the immediately vicinity in front of the proposed Red Lobster, this is between Greenway North and Birch Lane. It seems to me there would be some specifications in there as to what present day traffic was, now, I observed that all during the month of December which is pretty much lately there were cars backed up Birch Lane to the red light at Greenway North and also backed up from Greenway North to in front of well I guess all the way to the bridge over the Northway. If you try to get from coming in from the west if you try to get into Greenway North you pull into the middle of the road and you cannot get across the road to save your sole. I sit there during two or three red lights and you cannot do it, nobody will wait for you and the minute the light changes you still sit there, and this is something that I observed. And also, down where I think there has not been much importance attached to it but it looks to me as if there was another entrance way to the Red Lobster down the hill on the easterly end of that property and it looks to me like a fairly main thoroughfare where you go into that institution. Now, these two little entrance ways up here and exits on Greenway North are to me pretty minimal but that one down there is a problem because this is where all the heavy traffic coming up Aviation Road goes around there much more than 35 mph and its continuous and it is continuous going down. I live within 200 feet of this site and I try to get out of Birch Lane and the only way I can get out of there is go West. I have got to go up the hill for the life of you, you cannot go down the hill, if you do it is worth your life doing it. Now, just below me at the Warren Tire there is a sign that you do not turn left, but I can vouch for the fact that probably 75% of the cars that go out of there turn left and go down toward the east, down Quaker Road. One other misconception here I think I do not know if it was meant to be set up the way it sounds to me Mr. Boynton and I live on 200' of zoned property there which is zoned for residential and it boarders the Quaker Road and on this first chart that was put up here I would like to put out something. (Using chart) This section in here is Birch Lane from anywhere back of the room you cannot see that this is divided into two pieces there is a red line running through here which I presume is Birch Lane or maybe back of Mr. Boynton's property. Well anyway, about half of that ...halfway and he joins me and we own about a quarter, about a half of that together, I might as well point out when this is if the zoning on this one is changed, there is going to be this piece in here which remains light green...1 do not think that was clearly pointed out to begin with. Before this traffic survey was presented here we beat the bushes all around this country especially down in these places here...and I go through here myself because there is no other way to get out. When Quaker Road was built and Route 9 improved this road was put into a cui de sac and you can not get out of there to go out onto Route 9, it would not be a great problem to turn that into an entrance or an exit but you can not do it now so if you get down here on Old Aviation Road you have got to go ... you have got to go through Kentucky Fried Chicken or McDonalds to get out onto Route 9, this was done by the State...cross road going across Old Aviation Road discontinued on both sides ... That is about all I have to say. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Who would like to be next, yes, Sir. Mr. Walt Brown-My name is Walt Brown I guess I am one of the carpet baggers I heard about a little while ago. I live at 6 Birch Lane I just moved here two years ago or a little over two year. If I am not mistaken I think its the oldest house in the neighborhood built in 1903 was the first date that shows on our deed. I have got two big complaints with all due respect to Mr. Wood right now we have got the mall to the left of us, Warren Tire right directly in back then there is Kentucky Fried, McDonalds and if Red Lobster goes in front of us I am going to be setting right in the middle surrounded by commercial and even if they were to come in and buy the property that's facing Aviation my little quarter of an acre is going to be sitting there worthless. I am more concerned about the street being wrong than anything else. My biggest concern is my 11 year old son, in the winter time he has got to walk by there to and from school he rides his bike in the summer or spring, if I am not mistaken Red Lobster serves alcoholic beverages and there is a strong possibility of impaired drivers leaving that restaurant when my son is on his way home from school. That is my biggest concern. Supervisor Brandt -Ok. Thank you. In the back of the room, go ahead. Mr. David Kenny-For the record my name is David Kenny, resident of the Town of Queensbury also President of the Queensbury Businessmen Association. I would like to read a statement to the Board. At the January meeting of the Queensbury Businessmen's Association the Board of Directors met to discuss rezomng of the 4.4 acres on Aviation Road across from the Aviation Mall. We passed a resolution that the property is incorrectly zoned as residential and therefore should be rezone something other than residential, we left it at that, we leave it in you hands to see fit what it should be zoned at. We strongly recommend that it not fit as residential property. Now, I will speak for myself as a citizen of the Town of Queensbury. I was on the Planning Committee that, back in 1987-88 with the new rezoning of the Town of Queensbury. This property was discussed I would have to agree with Joe Carusone after much discussion it was very difficult piece of property to deal with. I have, I am not saying if I am in favor or against the project but creating the buffer zone this man is creating there is no other piece of property in Town that is doing that. The issue of zoning and value of houses I can agree with Ron we should not take value of people's houses but let it also be know the truth that, some of the statements tonight I take offense to, that these people came and moved here and built homes here knowing that this property was all residential well if the truth be known, the Town of Queensbury did not have zoning until 1967 and most of these houses were built prior to that when there was no zoning in the Town and most Aviation Road was commercial at that time. Not that in 1967 it wasn't zoned residential it was possibly to protect the neighbors there whatever the houses that were built in that area mostly were built prior to zoning in the Town of Queensbury. All along Aviation Road was commercial. So, I do not mean to say that should be why it should be zoned commercial today, I just think that it is not properly zoned as residential property. I think the planning committee back then felt that way, did not know how to deal with it because we, if it was zoned commercial they would be stuck with a building of approximately 12,500'per acres 50,000 sq. feet building on the property if it was ever rezoned commercial which we felt was not the best use of the property. That is why we left it residential so at the time, today you are talking 4.4 acres that the man is talking 8,000 sq. feet of building on vs 50,000 sq. ft. if it was zoned Highway Commercial like the rest of the area is. I think the neighbors we have to work as a group for the Town of Queensbury to see what's best for the Town and see what is best for this property owner and best for everyone, I am not saying this, I do not know, to me it sounds like a logical proposal and I do think it is zoned improperly today. That is all, I would like on the record that zoning did not take effect in the Town of Queensbury until 1967 I believe and that is when this property was zoned residential up until that time it could have been developed as commercial. Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Who else would like to speak. Lets go all the way through until we repeat. Ms. Patricia Strainer-Hi, I am Patricia Strainer In reply to Mr. Kenny's remarks there was no zones and they wrote deed restrictions back in 1951 for that purpose so that it would be residential not commercial. Supervisor Brandt -You say there were deed restrictions? Ms. Strainer-There were deed restrictions. Ok. I want to talk to you about the two acres that they are donating to the Town. What else could you do with two acres, of, sitting around two acres of property? There is nothing you can do with it? Who can build on it? You have got this lovely parameter, and I want you to know I live across the street from it and I can see right straight through to Aviation Road right now, with all the land still there, so what does that tell you. Now, lets see what else would you like to know here? As far as what we could put there? Senior Citizens, Mr. Lemery said he would not want his father to live there, his father in law, I think it would be a lovely place for some senior citizens, they would be close to everything. Why does this property happen to be worth one million, when the rest of our property is worth what ever we bought it for or whatever it has gone up on the course of however many years this has been? I think that is probably all I really have to say because I am sure there are a lot more people that have a lot more to say. Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Councilman Goetz-Thanks. Supervisor Brandt-Who would like to speak next, yes, Sir. Mr. Tim Brewer-My name is Tim Brewer, I live on Candleberry Drive I just wanted to make mention that all the concerns have merit here tonight with the peoples homes and their rights and Mr. Wood's rights but I think the issue has to be brought to mind that the zone that Mr. Wood is asking for is a Highway Commercial and the uses allowed in that zone are the most important issue that should be brought up here tonight. Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Next. Yes, Sir. Mr. Steve Sutton-Hi, Steve Sutton Resident of Belle Mt. Road and also Route 9 in Queensbury There has been a lot of great, I am sorry, there has been a lot of great points brought up here and it is a great turn out I wish we had this many people all the time here we really could have government by the people here. Supervisor Brandt -Speak for yourself. Mr. Sutton-We might not get anything done but I think it is great. Just a couple of comments, in a perfect world I think I would take Wal-Mart and put Red Lobster and Wal-Mart together and put them down in the old Sears Plaza and we would all be happy in this room, every one of us. Supervisor Brandt-Wouldn't we. Mr. Sutton-Unfortunately, we do not have a perfect world as we can see in this room and we do not own that property down there maybe they want to sell maybe they do not. You have businesses come in Town and there are certain properties for sale there are certain that are not for sale so we get down into the property rights issue on whose property and it is a very difficult issue. My opinion the traffic is the main concern and I applaud you Mike for starting to look at those problems because there has been too many years gone already that they have not been addressed and I think this would be a very easy decision if you addressed some of the problems and come up with a plan to divert some of the traffic. I agree with, what Dave said, of course of all the plans that could go on that spot it looked like a pretty good plan to me but I am not here to say whether to say if I like the Red Lobster or not. I was taken a little out of context and I was not sure if I was coming up here or not, about my remark about competition a few weeks ago in front of either you or the Planning Board. I was responding at that point and I was disappointed in a lot of businesses in Town that came out variably against this project because they were worried about the competition. I did not think that, at that time should be an issue, whether that restaurant competes with me or anybody else and I do feel that I want to deal in a spirit of cooperation not competition with the residents, but I just want to clear that up, that it was just my feeling that a few of the other sea food restaurants and I think the Chronicle did quite a job of bring up names of businesses that were against this project and frankly I was disappointed at that, competition makes the world go around. So, that is a non issue as far as I am concerned. Is it zoned right? I think pretty much common sense says no, it is not the way things have developed. If we had done a great master plan years ago maybe this would not even be an issue today it would have already been zoned properly. Or maybe that road would never have been developed. But when you look at two or three properties on a whole road that are zeroed out not to be commercial it does not make a lot of sense. Another comment was made about buying property as a resident and we all do that we value our home more than anything else and then commercial people coming in around you. Well you can put the shoe on the other foot very easily we have seen it happen with the Great Escape and some other issues where residents have developed around commercial property and stopped commercial property. People move in around the airport they do not want the planes to fly, they move in around the farm they do not want the farmer to farm, so it can be I mean it is a two way street here so I guess my only real comment is, I hope you really do take a look at the plan what is best for the Town and really look past what is best whether it be politically or whatnot that look at this thing as a whole and try to solve the planning problem. Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Councilman Caimano-Can I ask you a question Steve? Steve you said that the traffic issue is the real problem and right after that you said it was an easy decision if you base it on the traffic issue do you have an answer for us? Mr. Sutton-I am not sure that is exactly the way I meant that to come out. I think if the traffic problem is addressed as some of the things I have seen that Jim has, trying, to come up with and I know Mike is looking at the plan overall and I really think this is really what your job is, if you elevate some of that pressure this project, for that piece of property becomes, a lot easier decision. Councilman Caimano-Ok. Mr. Sutton-So whether you can make that decision before those other problems are solved I do not know. Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Who would like to speak next? Way in the back. Ms. Beverly Kerr-I am Beverly Kerr I live at 47 Garrison Road. When my family moved here we came because Glens Falls was a unique and lovely community I think the urban sprawl that happened over the last 22 years in Queensbury is not the fault of anyone particularly but I think we have not paid close attention to our community and its needs. Any time you travel to Connecticut or Massachusetts I am always impressed by how well their community seems to be developed I am just so concerned that we are blacktopping everything that means so much to so many people. It is unique, I agree with people that say that we are going to become another Paramus. That is all I have to say. Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Anyone else, Yes. Ms. Kathy Rowe-Good evening, probably most of you remember, know me. Supervisor Brandt-Put your name on the record. Ms. Kathy Rowe-My name is Kathy Rowe or Kathleen Rowe, I reside on 17 June Drive in the Town of Queensbury and just for the record for those of you present I have excused myself from the Planning Board to have this opportunity to speak to you here, that was my understanding that I could speak as a private citizen. Supervisor Brandt-Glad to have you. Would you sit down and use the microphone. Ms. Kathy Rowe-I want to hand these over to Jim too. One of the issues that was brought up and I would like to address this right away is the fact that McDonalds should be disappointed with the amount of traffic that goes through McDonalds and I would just like to say that we did speak to the gentleman who owns the McDonalds and we have his signature on one of the petitions that I have right here in my hand and I have 225 signatures from various residents in the Town saying mostly that this is the wrong thing to do to rezone this land. I am just going to submit these to you now. I would just like to take a few moments to say that I believe that the rezoning of the Charles Wood property from the single family residential 10,000 square feet to Highway Commercial one acre is probably the wrong thing to do for a number of reasons. One reason is that it sets an extremely dangerous precedent in the Town and once we allow residential land to be rezoned highway commercial it is lost to us forever. I feel it would complicate and worsen traffic condition on the road most especially on that section of Aviation Road and Route 9. A highway commercial zone allows any kind of use from a used car lot or car wash to a gas station a motel or mobile home sales. Ames Plaza is a perfect example of what can happen in a highway commercial one acre zone. Business owners in the plaza as well as the residential property owners nearby were led in for a surprise when Wal-Mart announced that it would be tearing down the stores in the plaza, as well as 200 feet of buffer that exists between the residents and the plaza to use every square inch of the plaza in order to put in their Wal-Mart Business. Thereby putting an end to our idyllic situation that we have there right now. Highway Commercial zones are not reliable, changes can be brought about very quickly and as you see businesses will come and go. Highway Commercial is a catch all zone and it is destructive to the residential neighborhood. Members of the Town tell us and also residents of the Town will tell us that it is the wrong thing for them to allow the property in question to remain residential. But by one statement here on that issue is that we would be very happy to accept fourteen neighbors into our community, we would not need a buffer between ourselves and the neighborhood. There are many residents in the Town who can attest to the fact that we, live as close to that Aviation Road and the Northway as those new homeowners would be and I think that some people would be very, very happy just to own a piece of land and not be so concerned about where that land is and how close to a road that it is. It is easier to lift restrictions on streets than it is to change zoning and by that I mean that they are saying that they cannot put these homes in because the Town would not allow them to have streets go the way that they wanted them to go. I have written down some notes myself here but I also think you should consider some of the issues that you are going to consider here tonight, won't be considered again, until site plan review. And with some of the things considered in site plan review are characteristics and the special nature of the area in which they are to be located. These uses and actions require special consideration so that they may properly located and planned with respect to their effect on the surrounding properties and the ability of the Town to accommodate the growth resulting from the proposed use with undue adverse effect on the Town its Citizens and Taxpayers and the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the Town and its Citizens. Again in the zoning it states, the establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed use would not create public hazards from traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles under equipment to be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the Town. The project would not have an undue impact on the natural scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resources of this Town. I think that those are all things that need to be considered before it ever gets to a site plan review. I just want to close by saying, ask yourselves whether this zoning change is absolutely necessary, consider its effect on all the residents not just all the neighborhood. Is it absolutely necessary or by changing the zone will the interest of justice be served? I would like to thank you for listening. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak to us? Come on right up. Mr. Robert Sawn-Hi, I am Robert Sawn I live on Greenway North. I am almost opposite where their exit and entrance is offfrom Greenway North, I live, I can show you on the picture (used map) This is Greenway North this is the sidewalk coming down through at the end of Greenway North my property is right here. When I sit out in my yard all I am going to see is cars going in and out of their yard, I can look right through these woods now and see practically all his property. I do not think it is going to be a very good place. Another thing is it has already been brought out, it is residential here on the end of this property if I am not mistaken this is Town property it is not residential that leaves this sitting in the middle of property that is not zoned commercial. That is about all I have to say. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Anyone else? Can you take the microphone and put it right back, oh there IS one, sorry. Mr. Gary Slusher-Hi, my name is Gary Slusher I live on Willow Road, as you can see I do not have anything prepared tonight I do not represent any group, I really have no special interest involved here. I have nothing financial to gain I do not live near, but, the reason why I am here is that I live in the Town of Queensbury and what I have been watching tonight and what I have seen recently in the paper is two sides try to get together on an issue which has divided quite a few people. I think that everyone's concerns have been brought forward and done really well but I look at this at the stand point of why do I live in Queensbury. Queensbury affords a tremendous amount of opportunities for people right now. But, Queensbury is growing and I think that Queensbury has to allow the growth to continue, if we don't when my children are older they are not going to be able to afford to live in Queensbury, they are not going to have the jobs necessary to keep them here in Queensbury. One thing people mentioned tonight was traffic, I just wanted to do a little affidavit to what I see happening on that roadway. I was headed in a westerly direction on Quaker Road and was at Bay and Quaker where there was a car that was driving next to me two lanes going west and the car proceeded to weave in and out of traffic to try to get ahead of the traffic however at every traffic light the person would be maybe one, two cars ahead of me. We would get to the next traffic light, and I maintain my speed and he would, the same thing just one car ahead so by him speeding and weaving through traffic maybe he gained one car by the time we got to Route 9, I could see that this person was eager to get where ever he was going and he shot off to the right going north on Route 9. I watched him because at the high rate of speed he was driving, I was kind of curious to see where this person was going. As I watched him he made a left crossing over its, one, two, three, four lanes of traffic into the Northway Plaza parking lot by then my light had turned green so I proceeded north and west on Aviation Road now and come to the light by Warren Tires, stopped for the red light, continued west and by the time I got to Greenway North and Aviation Road there was that same gentlemen trying to make a right hand turn, so that he could continue west on Aviation. He did all of this, all this effort to try and save time. So, in the interest of the traffic situation and the Red Lobster situation I hope that no matter how you vote on this Red Lobster issue that you seriously look into that situation. I will not go to McDonalds, my kids say to me Dad take me to McDonalds, I will take them to McDonalds but not the one in Queensbury at that location because if you try to pull into a parking place which is the only logical thing to do it is tough to back in when there is so many cars going through. If you pull in you have got to back out and you could just forget about backing out of one of those parking places because someone is coming through. I cannot understand how as a business person who pays insurance, liability insurance on his property how in his mind he would agree to all that traffic flowing though his property. I certainly know as a resident if I had people cutting through my yard so that they could get to the next street over to make it more convenient for them, well, is the neighborly thing to do once or twice that would be fine, but if they did it on a continuous basis, it is just not the way things should be done. So, I really think that's seriously has to be addressed. I think that if you were to elevate that problem that concern that the residents in that area have about transportation and cars coming out of the restaurant they would greatly see that you would have diminished amount of traffic going though there people would be coming in and spending some money in Queensbury. Someone had mentioned that there is a restaurant, a Red Lobster down in Albany, I am very familiar with the restaurant, in fact, I have tried to have dinner their several times but it seems that it is such a popular restaurant there is almost always an hour wait. What better thing to have in our community than a restaurant which brings people into the community. There is an hour wait maybe they will not want for an hour so they will go next door and shop at the mall a little bit. We are looking at a situation now where there are several businesses being developed and opened at exit 15 at the Northway in the Wilton area and the concern that I have if we try to push away businesses from coming into our community and get known as a community that does not want to work with developers in a way that basically you have power, and the community has the power to say, look if you want to develop in our community this is what you have to do. If you are willing to work with us then we are happy to have you here and I think that is happening here. The company is willing to work with the Community they have shown us that because they have come back they did not give up and they are willing to work not only with the neighbors but with the community and I hope that when the decision is made whenever you do, you would consider all those things for the future of Queensbury. Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Anyone else, yes, Sir. Mr. Charles Wood-I am Charlie Wood I am sure everyone knows that I am Charlie Wood, I would like to say that I have sat here for two years and listen to people tell me to give the property, I should build 14 houses on the property. I would like to bring to everybodies attention, in the 50's I bought this property from the Griffin Estate it was all one piece, this piece in question plus where the Pyramid Mall is. I bought it commercial. The State came along and put New Aviation Road in and condenm my land and I made a settlement with the State. Pyramid came and bought the land they built it. They tell me I should have objected when it was rezoned. At that time they did not have to notify you of rezoning, I was never notified, if anybody can prove to me that anybody gave me a notice I would be glad to pay them whatever they wish because I was never notified the land would be rezoned. That was commercial when I bought it and it's proven by Pyramid Mall being there, we built the Burger King in there I still own the land under the Burger King. I built the Howard Johnsons I did not have to go thorough this struggle, Carl DeSantis built the restaurant we did not have to go through this. Someone at the last meeting brought out the Silo was built they did not have to go through this for two years, the Economy Lodge was built they did not have to go through anything. The gas station was built they did not have to go through anything. Now, whatever is voted on it will not change my feeling with the Ranch, with the Hospital with the Hospitals in Albany I will still donate to them, we are going to make the ranch a success. Paul Newman was here ten days ago, brought me a sizable check so we can continue and open in the spring but I am not going to give this property up regardless of what. I am not going to build 14 houses. I feel I have had a fair shot I have hired these traffic people, I have hired lawyers, I have hired designers, I have offered to give half of this land to the Town as a buffer. I would like one person in this room to tell me another piece of property that has ever offered a 100' buffer or even a 75' buffer to separate their property from residential area. This property was commercial back in the 50's it is a long time ago, over thirty years ago. I have a right to sell it for a commercial piece of property. Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes. Ms. Katherine Kelly-I an Katherine Kelly, I live a 13 Carlton Drive I just would like to say one thing, we do not want anything for nothing, we were just against rezoning, that is all I have to say. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Ms. Joyce Eggleston-My name is Joyce Eggleston I am a resident of the Town of Queensbury and I would just like to say that I support the rezoning, I really feel that the owner of the land has certain rights and for the people to try to deprive him of that after paying taxes for so many years is not really fair. I would like to see the people in the district who are opposed to this that they now have the attention of this Board, and maybe something good can come out of this, maybe we can have the best of both worlds. Maybe we can accommodate Mr. Wood and see that he has his rights to the property that he has put forth all these years and at the same time solve the traffic problems for the people who have so many complaints in the neighboring community. That seems to be their main complaint is traffic. So, if somehow I urge you people to rezone but at the same time make these people's life easier by doing something about making a Road from Aviation over Route 9 whether it be up near the school somewhere that would eliminate a lot of that traffic down through there. There are certainly areas that can be explored and maybe these people in that neighborhood would come out much, much better and this might even be a blessing in disguise. If you people can come up with something and please both ends here, I think it can be done. I think it would help preserve Mr. Wood's rights and also help these people who really feel they are between a rock and a hard place so speak, between Wal-Mart and the Red Lobster. That is all I have to say. Thanks Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Next. Mrs. Thelma Gilheany-I am Thelma Gilheany from 23 Old Aviation Road. We came here in 1952 we were shown homes by Tom Rogers in the Cottage Hill where Mr. Wood was living at the time. I needed more space for the size of the house I wanted, as I had the two children, so we bought the corner lot on Greenway North and Aviation. On our deed it said we could only sell the house to a private concern, we could not sell it to semi private, we could not sell it to anybody who had chickens, cows or anything on the lot, there were quite a few restrictions. He had an area which was called Glen Acres, that area goes up past the Farm House which is in back ofMr. Sawns house and there was a buffer where the telephone and power lines go. That is still in Mr. Rogers property. That was bought by Liapes years ago, he was going to take the Farm House and build a motel we did come and say Tom Rogers property said you could not use it for commercial because he was going to put a road there and put little cottages. Speaking of traffic my husband is a semi invalid he sits at the window and he watches, in the fall, people are washing their cars the water starts coming down Greenway North, we do not have a side we have a gully in the middle, the children always made nice little lakes in the middle of the road. The Town says that they cannot do anything about the way the road is built it has to stay that way, I think it was Mr. Lackey something like that, was his name, who put in the road. It comes down Greenway North and then starts down Old Aviation Road when the weather starts getting cold and it starts to freeze on many days we call the Town and say please bring us over some sand we need that because cars cannot get up or down. That little piece of Greenway North up to the traffic light. They spoke about the cars coming out of the Lobster on Greenway North, we have sat and watched cars coming up Old Aviation Road turning left to go up to the corner, many a day it was down to Mrs. Marcy's which is number 17 there are times when there is something going on at School it is even worse, it is very, very difficult. If you can tell me how people will be able to get out of the Lobster at that time, no one is going to let you in, they will not even let us from Greenway North go into the line to attempt to get up to the traffic light. I love the home, I love the area and I sure have worked very hard for Queensbury for Church the School and I continue to love it, please think about us who are living there, we are old but we still want to live there. Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Anyone else? Attorney Mark Schachner-Good Evening, I am Mark Schachner I am an Attorney I do not reside in the neighborhood, I am an Attorney and I represent the neighborhood the interests that are opposed to the proposed rezoning. I have got several points to make, I think that they are reasonably well organized and then I will digress for a little bit and discuss one or two points that the applicants counsel made. First and foremost we want to be very clear about one fact. The applicant is entitled to develop his property, just like any other applicant any other property owner in the Town of Queensbury or anywhere else. That is critical, we believe he is entitled to develop his property, we do not believe that this applicant or anybody else, ourselves included or any other applicant is necessarily entitled to develop the property to its very highest and very fullest and very most economically profitable use and I can assure you that New York State Law supports that position. We urge you to recall and remember that what is before you is a request for a rezoning. It is not obviously because we are before you, the Town Board not the Planning Board or the Zoning Board of Appeals its not currently a request for site plan approval or site plan review it is also not currently a request for a variance of any type. That is a very, very significant point for a number of reasons. First of all it is not just any old rezoning proposal. It is a very drastic rezoning proposal, notwithstanding the applicants statement that he bought it as commercial and I am not sure what that means, its absolutely uncontroverted as far as I know and if anyone knows differently I am sure they will point this out. That since the inception of zoning in the Town of Queensbury this property has been zoned for some type of residential and not a commercial use. The proposed rezoning is a very drastic type of rezoning in that you as a Town Board will somewhat frequently see rezoning requests that are what I call differences in degree but not in kind. By in that what I mean is you will often seen requests for rezoning where one type of residential zone does not seem most appropriate so an applicant may request rezoning to a different type of residential zone. Similarly you may see the same thing on the commercial side. You have a piece of property that is zoned to allow certain commercial uses but not others and you will often will see an application that says or an applicant that says we would like to be rezoned from type A commercial to type B commercial that is not what we got here. We have got a very drastic type of rezoning from residential to commercial. The proposed Highway Commercial Use and we have to keep in mind that is what is proposed here, the Highway Commercial designation, the applicant has stated all along, that all they want to do here is a Red Lobster Restaurant and they have candidly offered a number of conditions that would certainly hone us in on a Red Lobster Restaurant. The fact is, that if the property is rezoned it is not rezoned Red Lobster Restaurant nor is it even rezoned restaurant. The request is to be rezoned Highway Commercial. The uses that can be allowed in the Highway Commercial Zone include, public parking garage, commercial green house or nursery, planned unit development, day care center, pharmacy or drug store, stationery store, hardware store, meat or food store, barber and beauty shop, clothing apparel store, musical instrument and record store, multi function department store, sports equipment store, my own personnel favorite, jewelry store, travel agency, professional office, office building, restaurant obviously, shopping mall, plaza, television radio station, retail businesses, gasoline station, drive-in theater, amusement center, golf driving range, miniature golf course, recreation facility operated for profit, hospital, nursing home and health related facility, day care center, auto repair and body shop, automobile sales and service, commercial boat storage, repair or sales, farm and construction equipment sales and service, mobile home sales, car wash, fast food restaurant, dinner or bar, places of public assembly, professional office, office building, commercial green house nursery I think I said that one already I apologize, social club or fraternal organization, motel, hotel, Inn or lodge, veterinary clinic. Restaurant is one of them but it ain't the only one by a long shot. If the applicant's contention and it has been phased a number of times all pretty much the same way, is really that it doesn't work the way its zoned, that is exactly what the applicants representatives have said then there is an avenue that has been created by State Law to address that situation. That avenue, is seeking relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals. I am not going to sit here in good faith, tell you that if this applicant made this application to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a use variance that the neighbors would support that application. However, I am also going to tell you that their concerns would be significantly lessened in a number of important ways. That is, because, if an applicant gains a variance through the Zoning Board of Appeals the underlining zoning of the property would not change. That means that if Red Lobster were to get a use variance to come to Queensbury, more power to them, and for what ever reason the property either never became a Red Lobster or it became a Red Lobster Restaurant and it did not work out these other uses that I have described would not be allowed because the underlying residential zoning would still be in place. Obviously if there is a rezoning application grant the underlying zoning is gone, out the window and it is not going to be there, commercial, Highway Commercial a very intensive Commercial Zone is what we would then have. There has been no effort what so ever made that we have been able to find, or that anyone has mentioned to develop this property as it is zoned. The applicants representatives have previously put some plans that they might propose if they were trying a residential development on the site on that wall we did not think much of those plans, I do not think the Planning Board thought much of those plans but they led us to believe that this is the only possible residential development that it is an impossibility. It is non-sense, it is sheer utter non-sense. There are any number of ways of doing this that would have a buffer along Aviation Road, the applicant says, if you have a residential development it won't be buffered from the neighborhood. That is right. If we have a residential development we do not need it to be buffered from the neighborhood its so obvious as to almost be silly to be even make that statement. Residential neighborhood fits right in awfully nicely with a residential neighborhood. The proposed rezoning obviously has to be analyzed and I understand that the Town is preceeding in this vein by the way, and we agree that this is appropriate. You look at it as a proposed rezoning with a specific proposed use, obviously that is why some of our comments do relate to the proposed restaurant because you have an actual concrete proposal on the table before you. We have heard a lot of characterization of the issue really focusing on traffic and I think we believe the traffic is the principal issue but by no means is traffic the only issue. Noise is an important issue, odors is an important issue, property values is an important issue. Focusing for the moment on traffic, as a very important one, you have been provided with a traffic study, and I do not mean the letter that was handed to you tonight, I mean the October 18th or so traffic study that you previously been supplied with. I am not a traffic engineer but that traffic study does not appear, let me phrase it in the positive. That traffic study says that it analyzes the peak time of the existing traffic and it that's that peak of existing traffic and adds on a projection for what it believes the traffic study projects Red Lobster will add to the peak existing traffic. Now it does not analyze the acknowledge Red Lobster peak hour and the reason it says is because the Red Lobster peak hour is not the same as the existing traffic peak hour. I amjust going to wait, because I would like the Town Attorney, when he listens also. Attorney Dusek-Sorry Mark. Attorney Schachner-No problem. The, here is another important fact about the traffic study and again please bear with me I am not a traffic engineer, as far as I know none of the five of you are traffic engmeers. Supervisor Brandt-And we do not play one on television. Attorney Schachner-Pardon me. Supervisor Brandt-And you don't play one on television. Attorney Schachner-That is correct. But I have done some homework and I have consulted at length with the main reference that the traffic study says it uses which is what is called the ITE Manual, and I believe that ITE stands for Institute for Transportation Engineers. That manual is the source of the applicants traffic study projections for how much traffic Red Lobster will add. Now the ITE Manual has several classifications of types of restaurants on which it then formulates some projections. The traffic study that you have says in it that this restaurant is classified as a Quality Restaurant, that is the title in the ITE manual, Quality Restaurant. I was reading this and I thought I wonder how high this scale goes. Is Quality Restaurant the top of the heap, the nicest restaurant, the most expensive finest restaurant there are, or is there one thing above that called luxury restaurant. What is just below Quality Restaurant, it is important where it is classified because as I said where it is classified in the ITE manual is what leads to the traffic numbers. Well, it turns out that as I read the ITE manual, Quality Restaurant is the highest classification there is. So, that when one considers what I consider the most highest quality or the finest restaurant that I am familiar with although I do not eat out very much, I think of the Montcalm Restaurant, the Grist Mill in Warrensburg, the Coachman here in Queensbury the, I have only been there once the, there is a restaurant in North Creek I think it is called the Copperfield, those are what I think of as the highest quality the finest restaurants and those restaurants obviously do fall into a classification of Quality Restaurant. My understanding of a Red Lobster Restaurant is they are very fine, I have never heard anyone say they did not enjoy the restaurants but they are not of that caliber in the sense that they try to have a higher turn over rate. I wondered what is the next level down in the ITE manual under Quality Restaurant. It is called, I looked it is called High Turnover Sit Down Restaurant. And although we are not traffic engineers we think that the description in the ITE manual of a High Turnover Sit Down Restaurant sure sounds a lot to us like what the Red Lobster probably is. And, the numbers are very, very different. Naturally the High Turnover Sit Down Restaurant projections are significantly higher in terms of traffic than a Quality Restaurant, it made sense to me and I hope it makes sense to you. This ITE manual exercise also struck us as somewhat, it was interesting but I consulted with some traffic engineers who told me that, told me that I was boring, I consulted with some traffic engineers who told me that the ITE manual is certainly the appropriate reference to use but they also told me that you should use imperial data when ever you can. And that for example and I ran this concept by them I said we are talking about a Red Lobster Restaurant in the Town of Queensbury and they said naturally the applicant is using the traffic figures from the Red Lobster Restaurant in Albany to bolster its traffic study. And, again I am not a traffic engineer, when I read through the traffic study I could not find any place that it use imperial data from the Red Lobster Restaurant in Albany or anywhere else to bolster its contentions. I had a similar experience, one of the gentlemen who spoke he mentioned something about an hour wait at the Red Lobster Restaurant in Albany. I called there just a few nights ago asking about that and they told me oh, it is over an hour wait all the time. They have got traffic there it would be nice to know what goes on and try to correlate it up here, you do not see that in the traffic study at least I do not see that in the traffic study. The applicants representative made a number of statements that I want to address briefly. I wrote them down as he said them and I think I am quoting them verbatim if I am not I will try to say that. He said that neither you nor I nor the people of Greenway North can control the property as it is currently zoned. What controls the property currently zoned is the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance as administered by the Town Board, you folks, the Planning Board the Zoning Board of Appeals. I have no idea what the statement means but I will submit there is no need out there for anyone to control the property as it is currently zoned. The control is in place it has worked thus far. Let me reiterate a point that I made earlier there has been no significant effort to develop the property as it is currently zoned. The applicants representative then said, if you develop what he referred to as the back side of the property by which he seems to mean the none, not the part that fronts on Aviation Road, people would insist in a buffer. I have already indicated if you develop the property as it is zoned or in any of a number of other ways that we feel are perfectly appropriate no one is going to insist in a buffer because no one is going to need a buffer because it is going to be compatible with the existing neighborhood. The applicants representative then went on to repeat a tail that he stated at several Planning Board Meetings already about Mr. Joseph Carusone his recollection of the rezoning committee. At the Warren County Planning Board Meeting on November 18th and by the way, I do commend those minutes to you if you, do not have them they are obviously available and they are very insightful. Pat Tatich, Patricia Tatich the Director of the Warren County Planning Dept. stated that she was at most, but not all, of the numerous meetings that occurred when the Town went through the rezoning process. She had very specific notes that referred to meeting number 18 which was conducted at the Glens Falls YMCA on February 22, 1988. She stated that at that meeting there was discussion of a number of properties including this one and she stated that there was a concern expressed for residential zone that are transitional between residential and highway commercial uses. She continued stating that the master plan identified Aviation Road along with Quaker Road as a local arterial road for planning purposes and she then stated that this situation was discussed and that the propriety or appropriateness of a transition zone was discussed She then stated, that they believed at the time and she was speaking obviously from her notes and her recollection of that meeting at which Mr. Carusone was not present, that they believe that there was a strong indication to protect the area known as the subdivision of Greenway North. The indication was evidently manifested by the decision to keep its zone residential. The applicants representative then went on to say that if we, meaning you not me, turned down this request and this part I am quoting 'you are really saying no to development and that is not fair' he then said that it would be especially unfair to do that without compensating the landowner. I have to emphasis the neighbors feel number one, the property can be used as it is zoned there has been no effort to use it as zoned, number two the neighbors do not whole sale oppose any type of rezoning. In a moment I will speak about some types of rezoning that they would not oppose. The applicant representative then goes on to discuss what a Corrine Terrana had stated at the Town Planning Board Meeting, I am going to assume that the Corrine Terrana that he is speaking of is the women I refer to as Corrine Tarana who is a member of the Town Planning Board and he then counted her vote, he characterized her vote stating that a rezoning would be appropriate he switched her vote over cleverly I thought, he switched her vote over to being in favor of rezoning. He characterized her vote as saying as I am in favor of rezoning, and he then said therefore she was really in support of the proposal and that's is what he said. I have here the minutes from the Town Planning Board meeting when this was discussed, Ms. Tarana did vote no to the proposal and here is what she said. Reading this verbatim, Ms. Tarana, I am voting no and I would like to tell you why quickly. I think it should be rezoned and to that extent the applicant selective portion of his reading was absolutely correct, she then goes on to say, maybe there is a question of that but I think it could be rezoned to a zone perhaps even a transition zone made which would create perhaps a professional office building, something of that nature which would not be so offensive to the neighbors. That is what Ms. Tarana said when she cast her no vote. Similarly the applicant representative also characterized your own planning staff comments as being supportive of the rezoning. In exactly the same way, a selective reading, or perhaps I do not even remember a verbatim reading but a selective characterization of what the Town's Planning Staff said. I have here the Town's Planning Staffs actual recommendations, it was made on October 27th 1992 obviously. The Planning Staff says and I am reading verbatim the planning staff agrees with the applicant that the property should be rezoned. So, to that extent, again, the applicant is correct. But, also believes that alternatives to the highway commercial zone should be explored. The applicant should investigate the possibility of rezoning the property either urban residential or multi family MR-5. Both zones permit multi family uses. I cannot over emphasis the neighbors position the applicant has the right to develop the property the right exists to develop it as it is zoned and in addition there is significant number of alternative uses that would require rezoning by the way as Ms. Tarana suggested at the Town Planning Board and as the planning staff suggested that would require rezoning that would allow any number of other uses that would not be so noxious, intrusive and offensive to the neighborhood as the proposal for highway commercial with that long laundry list that I read and including the Red Lobster Restaurant. A professional office building would be fine you would not have the noise you would not have the odors you would not have the bar in the restaurant at night, and I think only one person mentioned that, but this is an important point. You are talking about a restaurant that stays open and serves alcohol where people are coming out after who knows what they have had to eat and drink and they are going to be dealing with right turn only and left turn only to avoid a neighborhood. You are going to be dealing, I am speaking now if there was a professional office building there. You are going to be dealing with less frequent traffic obviously. Instead of come go, come go, you have people show up in the morning you have people leave in the evening. You get some visitors, basically you are going to have it a lot less frequent and you are not going to have it at night. There is a whole, that is just an example. There are a whole series of uses that would be perfectly appropriate. I have got two final points and they are really quite brief. One is the discussion of alternative sites. I could sit here and take another half hour and describe to you in lurid detail how many alternative sites exist in the Town of Queensbury that fits every single criteria that the applicant can possibly come up with, proximity to the Northway, high density traffic volume, commercially zoned, does not seem to be one of the criteria for this applicant, but commercially zoned, available for sale if they want available for rental if they want, I am not going to belabor the point it is too obvious. My last point is simply that there have been an number of analogies made by applicants representatives and some of the few people who commented in favor of the proposal when they made analogies to development elsewhere on Route 9 and elsewhere on Aviation Road else where on Quaker Road that other development would have impact on the traffic situation. I don't probably disagree with that there is just one major difference, most of the other properties to which they were referring are zoned commercial. This one is not, it is not zoned commercial for a reason, to protect the neighborhood. It is a neighborhood that is deserving of protection. We urge you not to rezone it in the fashion that is proposed, not to highway commercial, there may be other proposals if the applicant wantS to pursue them that the neighbors would find totally acceptable. The neighbors would be willing to work with the applicant along those lines in the acceptable arena but not for highway commercial and not for a restaurant. That is the end of my comments, any questions, I would be glad to answer them. Supervisor Brandt-Mark, I have got a question for you, you are the first man here other than the attorneys for the other side whose an Attorney and representing people. I would like to know, you said you represent the neighborhood, does that mean you represent only the home owners or do you represent commercial businesses too? Attorney Schachner-Essentially the homeowners. I am not here representing the commercial businesses? Supervisor Brandt-Are you paid by anyone other than the homeowners? Attorney Schachner-Well, I am not going to divulge, anything about who we are paid by... Supervisor Brandt-I think that is fair question to ask you.. Attorney Schachner-or even whether we are... absolutely not. Attorney McDonough-Point of order, would counsel stipulate and state for the record who it is that he does represent in his representative capacity he said he does not represent himself would he kindly state who he represents. Attorney Schachner-Yea, I do not have any problem with that, I already stated that I represent a group of neighbors opposed to the proposed rezoning. Attorney McDonough-State for the record who it is you represent. Attorney Schachner-If you want to hear a comment from Mr. McDonough, lets have him come in. Supervisor Brandt-I am asking as a Town Board member I am not a lawyer, but I would like to know who you represent? I think that is a fair question, it tells me what your view is and why it is slanted by the way it is. So far you have talked about totally neighborhood concerns are you paid by a commercial business to be here? Attorney Schachner-And you are absolutely correct that I have mentioned only neighborhood concerns our clients are the neighbors and I am not going to divulge nor is it appropriate it is totally confidential I am not going to divulge whether...Mr. Brandt can I finish my answer. Supervisor Brandt -Yea, you can certainly but I can ask a question too. Attorney Schachner-Sure and you ask it and then I will answer. Supervisor Brandt-And I have a right to know too, by gezes, if! am making decisions I have the right to be informed, if you do not want to inform me so be it. Attorney Schachner-Ok, here is my answer. It is well known that it is totally 100% confidential relationship between an attorney and his client as to...Mr. Brandt can I finish or not? Supervisor Brandt -please do it. Attorney Schachner-Without interruption, without interruption that is all I ask. Fair question? Supervisor Brandt-Please. Attorney Schachner-It is well known, I do not believe anyone will controvert this that a relationship between an attorney and his or her clients has numerous aspects that are sacred holy and confidential, one of them is the fee arrangement and I am not at liberty nor is it appropriate for me to divulge whether, even whether we are getting paid. We may be doing this on a pro bono basis, that is lawyer talk for you know for public interest for free we may be doing it, who knows what we are charging? Our clients know and that's between me and our clients and it is totally, totally inappropriate for me to divulge the nature of the fee arrangement. Whether we are getting paid and how much we are getting paid and what that arrangement is. Supervisor Brandt-Are you finished? Is it appropriate for me to ask, if that, you do not feel comfortable telling me in public who is paying you to come here and talk about this? Attorney Schachner-You can ask whatever you like Sir. Supervisor Brandt-I just asked you, is it, are you telling me you do not feel free to tell me who is paying you to come here. Attorney Schachner-I will tell you what I am telling you. I am telling you that no matter what the situation was whether I was representing an applicant or anyone else in opposition I would never divulge the nature of a fee arrangement with a client unless the client asked me to do it. That is just not appropriate. Supervisor Brandt-I have just been reading a book and it is called Who Will Tell the People, and it is about the abuse of Attorneys in Washington talking to our government and telling our government things. Telling specifically about large corporations that hire attorneys to come in to fight for their, what they want for their corporation. And what do they do, they use all neighborhoods they use people who are unemployed they use people that need job training they use people who are on welfare, they use people to come and be their witnesses. They never the hell tell you that they are doing it for themselves and I think I have the right to ask that and I think I have a duty to ask that and I am asking you in that vein. Attorney Schachner-Mr. Supervisor you can lawyer bash, badger me Supervisor Brandt-I am not lawyer bashing, I am not badgering I am asking a straight question about what you are representing and who you are representing here tonight. Attorney Schachner-Ok. Supervisor Brandt-I think I have a right to know that. Attorney Schachner-Amen. You can ask whatever you want you can raise your voice you can use any tactic you want but I have got a professional duty Supervisor Brandt-To protect your client. Attorney Schachner-I have an ethical obligation that says that the relationship between an attorney and his or her client in terms of fee arrangement is confidential. I would be breaching by ethical duty if I discussed that with you in this or any other context. Therefore you can ask me until the cows come home and I am not going to breach my ethical duties. Supervisor Brandt-I think it is my ethical duty to know. Attorney McDonough-Mr. Supervisor can I just have a point of order and state for the record who it is that you represent? Attorney Schachner-I will say it again and I am going to say it again and again, I represent Attorney McDonough-Paul, Paul, Paul Attorney Schachner-I will answer your question Councilman Caimano-I have a right to a point of order, Paul, the Supervisor or any other member of this Board can ask all the questions they want, I think Mr. McDonough right now is a little bit out of order. He can come up here and speak when he wants to I do not think he has a right to be badgering any witness. Attorney McDonough-I asked for a point or order. Councilman Caimano-Mr. Brandt, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Monahan the rest of this Board can beat this man up until the cows come home, Mr. McDonough is out of order. Supervisor Brandt-From my view point I am asking a legal question and you are my lawyer, can you find out? Attorney Dusek-It seems to me under the law that a fee, although he might refer to a fee arrangement holding some confidentiality I do not know that it is confidential as to who is paying the fee. Mark you have been referring to the nature of the fee arrangement, I do not believe that has been the Supervisor's question I guess he wanted to know who it is that is paying and who in particular that you represent. I think those are the questions and I do not know that, that is confidential in fact as I understand it the code of professional responsibility at least in the case of a tribunal would indicate that you would have to disclose who you represent. Now, this is not a tribunal but I think there could be some logical comparisons to it. Attorney Schachner-I am hearing two different questions or two sort of different versions. I did not have any trouble at all with Mr. McDonough's question I would not mind if he identified himself for the record, said who he was said what his interest is said who he is representing if anyone or whatever I think that would be a more appropriate way to proceed. I am sure Mr. McDonough would not have any trouble with that, I do not have any trouble answering his question, I do not have any trouble answering your question, I started off saying we represent a group of neighbors who are opposed to the proposed rezoning. That is who we represent. That is all I am going to say about it, that is who we represent what I also said is I'm not I would never I don't care if! was representing the Dexter Company, Red Lobster, Mr. Wood or anybody else I would never divulge the nature of a fee arrangement and I am not going to do it now. Attorney Dusek-What neighbors in particular do you represent? Attorney Schachner - A large group of neighbors that I can't I do not have a list of their names but if that is your concern and that's a very fair and valid question I would be happy to provide the Town Board with a list of the neighbors, a list by name of the neighbors that we represent. That is a totally fair question that I would have absolutely no trouble answering, except that I cannot answer right now, I would have to give you the list. If that is what you are asking I have absolutely no trouble with that. Supervisor Brandt-Are the people who you are representing on the list that you propose to give us the people that are paying you in total? Attorney Schachner-I am not going to discuss a fee arrangement. I must not have made myself clear I guess. Supervisor Brandt-I think you have. I think very much you have. Councilman Goetz-I have a question Unknown-Does it really matter? Supervisor Brandt-It does to me. In making decisions who comes here and what their basis is for talking. Attorney Schachner-So let me get this straight Mr. Brandt. Supervisor Brandt-Mr. Schachner, now just a minute let me talk. Attorney Schachner-I apologize. Supervisor Brandt-If Mr. Schachner is representing a business who does not want competition and who is sitting here using the neighbors to hide his or their identity I want to know that. That is a fair question. Attorney Schachner-Excuse me, my advice to my client group here is not to bother responding to that comment because it is simply inane. Supervisor Brandt-That is all right. I think I got the answer... Councilman Monahan-You know I have a comment Mike Councilman Caimano-Sue had a question though, Betty. Councilman Goetz-This is a question for you Mark and John Lemery I had a call from a resident saying that they had been called by a survey group and all the questions were pertaining to the Red Lobster, do either of you have knowledge of this? Attorney Schachner-I can answer very, very quickly, some of our clients called us and told us the same thing we have absolutely no idea, nor were we involved at all in whatever it was, we have no idea what it is about. Councilman Goetz-John, do you have any knowledge of that, survey? Attorney Lemery-I am aware that there was a survey done, but I do not have the information on it. Supervisor Brandt-Do you know who asked for it? Attorney Lemery-Charlie Wood asked for it. UNKNOWN-Who asked for it? Supervisor Brandt-Mr. Wood. Attorney McDonough-I believe Mr. Schachner has a duty and an obligation to disclose who is paying his bills because I know who is paying his bills... Supervisor Brandt-I don't. Attorney Schachner-Any other questions? Councilman Caimano-Betty? Councilman Monahan-My comment was that Mike is very interested in who is paying Mark Schachner bill...(audience cannot hear) I am sorry can you hear me now, Mike was very interested in who was paying Mark Schachners bill but when Brian Granger appeared here I did not hear him ask Brian Granger if he did any work for Mr. Wood, Mr. Lemery or any of the people. Nor, wait just a minute please, wait a minute nor, I am just asking Mike to ask the same questions from everybody. Nor when Mr. Levack was here did I hear him ask Mr. Levack what his sons real estate firm involved and is his sons real estate firm getting any kind of commission. If we are going to ask these kind of questions I think we should ask them of everyone who appears in front of us. Everyone who appears in front of us you should say, do you have any kind of a financial connection or financial interest we should not ask it just of one person. Supervisor Brandt-Wait a minute....order.. First of all Betty I will talk to that because I asked the question, I asked it of the Attorneys I asked both Attorneys, they both revealed somewhat they gave their answers and that is part of the record and I did not ask it of any other citizen, the other citizens said they were representing themselves, the Attorneys said they were paid to represent someone, there is a big difference. Councilman Monahan-I think there is still an interesting thing... Attorney Schachner - I did not say, I just want to correct that I did not say that I was being paid to represent anybody, I did not disclose Supervisor Brandt-I know that. Attorney Schachner-ok, you just said we were getting paid by somebody, I did not say that. Supervisor Brandt-I said the record is clear, there is a record, that is what I wanted...ok Councilman Caimano-Before you go any further though I did insult Mr. McDonough and now if you are finished you have an opportunity to come up here if you would like to speak. Supervisor Brandt-Wait a minute, Mark is not finished. Councilman Caimano-I am sorry I thought he was done, I beg your pardon. Attorney Schachner-Well, actually thanks Mike but I sort of am other than to ask the question, I do not think that we have heard an explanation nor or are we necessarily entitled to one, but I know I an curious and so are the neighbors, is exactly where we are in the process in terms of whether you are going to continue the public hearing or close it or conduct SEQRA Review and if at some point Supervisor Brandt-We are certainly going to hear everybody out that wants to talk. Attorney Schachner-Oh, I understand that, I just meant, we, I know some people are wondering do you think you will vote tonight, to you think you will SEQRA Review tonight? Supervisor Brandt-I do not intend to want to vote tonight. Councilman Caimano-We have got to do a SEQRA before we even do that. Attorney Schachner-Again, will you be doing your SEQRA review tonight or at some future date I am not trying to pin you down but we are just curious. Supervisor Brandt-I think there are major issues that came up here and I think they have to be analyzed, Mrs. Eggleston said is there a win, win solution here. There are a lot of questions that I am going to ask of our Planning Dept. and I would like to have a session with our Planning Dept. fine, in front of everybody I do not mind but I would like to explore this thing and look at what the answers are I think it is a very complex question. Many things have come up here and I think we have got to look at it I think we have a big responsibility and it is not a quick job and I do not see that we are going to solve it tonight. Attorney Schachner-Nor are we trying to push you in that direction. Ok. Is that sort of the consensus. Councilman Caimano-Oh yea. Attorney Schachner-Ok. That is all, thanks. Councilman Caimano-We are liable to come to blows here shortly. Attorney Schachner-Thank you very much. Councilman Caimano- Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Mr. McDonough you wanted to speak? Attorney Thomas McDonough-My name is Tom McDonough I am here speaking on behalf of myself as a resident of the Town of Queensbury a carpet bagger of about 30 plus years. I asked a valid question as to who counsel is representing when he spoke here tonight I did not intent to speak here whatsoever but every counsel to state on whose behalf he speaks because he is only an agent for the person who he speaks. Mr. Schachner said he was not speaking for himselffor the outset and I asked for a point of order that should have been asked for initially to say on whose behalf he spoke because he still has not told us that. The problem that has been generated by this little triangle of land is a happenstance of history. As I recollect that, a carving out of a new Aviation Road by 254 by the State of New York as against the Old Aviation Road which is the area of controversy with the heavy traffic is against 254 as it exists today. It has never been had a full hearing with respect to its current status. It just happened to be there and now it is there and it is the vicinity of the highly densified commercial area it becomes an area of controversy. Nobody is going to be happy with what ever the result is and no matter what happens. The truth of the matter is it is not a forever green piece unless you pay the fair market value to buy it for that purpose, if you do that you benefit the small community if you do it for, so there is going to be no happy resolution no matter what happens here and aside from that I was not going to speak here tonight I spent by three hours, three years in the service. Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Anyone else. Before we go the second round I would like to get all the audience participation first. UNKNOWN-Can I have a second shot? Councilman Caimano-He, this is his second shot. Supervisor Brandt-This is the second shot, anyone first time who wants to speak? UNKNOWN-I wanted to clear up some of the history on this... Supervisor Brandt-There is nobody else first time? Come on right up and talk to us. Town Clerk-Mike could I have just a second. I have a petition that was given to be read into the record. Supervisor Brandt -Yes. Ok. Hang on a second let her read this. Town Clerk-This petition was given to me tonight. We the undersigned restaurant owners and businessmen of Queensbury, feel that for the following reasons the Town of Queensbury should not grant the rezoning of the property off Aviation Road for the Red Lobster Restaurant. 1. There will be no increase in sales tax or jobs for the Town of Queensbury. It will be a transfer of taxes andjobs taken from the customer base of existing restaurants. As the customer base is diluted, existing restaurants will pay less in taxes and will be forced to cut worker's hours back or lay them off. 2. Red Lobster does not franchise its restaurants to private individuals. It is wholly owned by the General Mills Corporation whose shareholders are the sole beneficiaries of any profits. This means that profits of not stay in the area. We, the private restaurant owners, live and work in the community, send our children to local schools and reinvest our profits directly back into the community. 3. The benefit to local food purveyors will be minimal. Red Lobster will buy a majority of its food products for the General Mills Corporation, not local purveyors. 4. There are serious traffic problems with entering and exiting onto Aviation Road. This problem should not be mitigated by increasing traffic on a residential street. 5. There is an obvious surplus of vacant commercial lots and buildings throughout Queensbury many of which are in the sewer district. These locations desperately need to be utilized before restoring to the spot rezoning of residential property. As long term residents and business owners of the Town of Queensbury, we have over the years dutifully paid our taxes, complied with all new and existing ordinances, provided jobs and have been successful in existing commercial zones without special favor. In light of the fact that there are so many compelling reasons to the contrary, the spot rezoning of this parcel to allow Red Lobster to come into the area must be viewed as an act of favoritism. It is signed by 36 businessmen. Attorney Dusek-Mr. Supervisor before you continue also there is petition that have been handed in which should be made a part of the record at this point. If the Town Clerk would read those. Town Clerk-We the undersigned are declaring our support for the re-zoning of the proposed Red Lobster site on Aviation Road. It is our belief, that the property, currently before the Board for consideration of a zone change, should be granted the necessary zoning and site plan approval to allow for the development of a commercial restaurant. Moreover, we urge that you approve this change to ensure the highest and best use of the property, create jobs and increase the economic tax base of the Town of Queensbury. Thank you for this matter. Attorney Dusek-John do you have any idea how many there are here? Attorney Lemery-We have about 100 signatures there. Attorney Dusek-They are all the same statement? Mr. Lemery-.... UNKNOWN-..neighbors petition? Attorney Dusek-Is there a neighbors petition? Town Clerk-I did. Councilman Monahan-You did not read what it said, did you, I do not think you read it. Town Clerk-You want all the signatures read? Councilman Monahan-What it said. Town Clerk-I did. Is there another one? Attorney Dusek-The one Kathleen Rowe handed in. Councilman Caimano-She just read Kathleen Rowe's didn't she? Attorney Dusek-No. Supervisor Brandt-Kathleen Rowe said there was 225 signatures. UNKNOWN-I think that is the one that has not been read. Town Clerk-I do not have it. Supervisor Brandt -You want the petition read into the record. Town Clerk-Wait a minute, excuse me...We the Taxpayers of the Glen Acres Development, located directly behind the proposed rezoning on Aviation Road, and other residents object to the proposed zoning change, from the current SFR-1O to HC-IA, for the parcels ofland encompassed by Aviation Road, Greenway North, Old Aviation and Birch Lane. These parcels ofland are noted on the tax map as # 98-2-1, #98-3-1, #98-3-5 The Zoning Change would allow the building of a commercial facility at the above intersection. To be more specific, a Red Lobster Seafood Restaurant Building of 8,336 Square feet. A few reason for this objection are: 1. Dangerous Traffic Patterns to an already dangerous situation. Aviation Road is now experiencing overcrowding and more than occasional traffic accidents. 2. Area residents would suffer from various forms of commercial pollution. 3. Noise would exceed acceptable levels for this residential area. 4. We feel that there are more appropriate areas within Queensbury. 5. We feel that the property values of our neighborhoods will decrease. (then it jumps to) 8. We will be subjected to fish and other associated odors as well as trash odors and airborne grease particles. 9. In today's world we need to conserve our natural resources wherever possible, not destroy them. With so much vacant commercial property readily available why destroy potential sites for Residential housing. Again I am not sure how many have signed it but there are one, two, there are five sheets submitted. Supervisor Brandt -Go ahead. UNKNOWN-I will keep this short, this is the history that goes back to the 1930's and concerns the original intent of what this property was at that time. Back in those days it was owned by a man by the name of C. V. Peters who had a store down town and he had a dream that the country on top of the hill would all be residential and he had a subdivision made by Coulder and Ashley who were surveyors in Glens Falls and I believe it is filed in the County Clerk's Office, I am not positive of that fact. But I know there is a copy in Coulders Office and all those acres up there were divided up on lots and this man used to come down to where I lived and talk to my father about it. We were one of the few residences there at the time. He painted a pretty rosy picture of houses and people living there. It was an ideal spot. He never got to do much about it but he sold off three pieces of land along the Old Aviation Road he sold one just above Birch Lane which was finally owned by a man named Walter Norris. There was another piece up near Howard Johnsons a man by the name of VanSittert bought it and there was one more piece right adjacent to that some people by the name of Shoulderman owned it and they all built houses. Each one of their deeds there were covenants there would be no other use of that land, they could not sell their land for commercial purposes of any kind and none of the rest of that land which included acres and acres on both sides of the road could be sold for commercial purposes. Now, all of a sudden commercial interest come in there and the way it was done someone bought up the Shoulderman property someone bought up the VanSittert property and it left the property down near Birch Lane by the name of Norris and he held onto it. Things sort of were quite for a while because he held in his deed were all these covenants. If he had wanted to and had the money I guess he probably could have brought a lawsuit for whatever good it would have done. But I just want to point out that fact this was all intended to be residential property from the word go and when the road was put in there it went right through practically in the middle of it. Immediately the road was in there and all of a sudden the commercial interest moved in. So, if that clears up some of the misconception on it, I ...it. Thank you. Supervisor Brandt -Ok, Yes, Sir. UNKNOWN-I am just a carpet bagger would like to be heard again. Supervisor Brandt-Most of us are. UNKNOWN-Mr. Levack disliked us so much he should tell his son the broker to be more careful who he sells his listings too, because I bought them. The other thing I would like to point out is that maybe because I am a carper bagger I have lived through experiences that fortunately people up here have not yet seen. I have seen them and I do not like them and I am seeing them again, that is what I am trying to say. The other thing that I forgot to point out when these things come in they all tell you that what they are going to do to the tax base it sounds as if the citizens are going to get rebates from the Town. Like George Gershwin, said it ain't necessarily so, you find that your infrastructure suddenly becomes obsolete who is going to pay for the extra police to patrol this stuff, more fire stations, more traffic lights, what it amounts to is the taxpayers chip in for the infrastructure to support these businesses and except in isolated cases where they will say well, if you put in a traffic light we would appreciate it. But in general these rosy tax pictures that they paint for you are water color painted on sand and the tide is coming in. Thanks. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. One of you two guys, Mark? Mr. Mark Levack-I have been sitting, Mark Levack for the record Levack Burke Real estate I have been sitting in the front row here patiently for a year now just representing Mr. Wood and this project. I would like to if I can just quickly summarize it, I certainly don't think my father meant to imply that we do not welcome trade in the area, we do. That is what the Town lives on that is how the Town grows. I would just like to say that his last speech regarding fair and reasonable I think was important because it pointed out that trade, commerce and residents can live together if there is a fair and reasonable compromise. As I see it, this plan set before the Board is a fair and reasonable plan and it does address the issues of both. Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Attorney Lemery-You have been very patient, and I just have a couple of comments by way of wrap up. When I said the Town could not control the property in terms of the way it is currently zoned, I really meant that, in the sense that its zoned Single Family Residential and if I heard anything here I heard that the neighbors want to protect the buffer. The buffer is not protected by leaving it Single Family Residential because whether it is 14 houses or 10 houses or 12 houses what happens is, is that two acres of the four acres that we are proposing would be left in its current state would simply not be the case. And so the neighbors are at risk to the extent that the zone is left as it is. The neighbors are at risk, whether it is Mr. Wood or whoever it is they are at risk if somebody comes in and does what Mark Schachner says which is develop a single family residences and trees come down, we know that, the ten thousand square foot houses you cannot afford to have a lot of amenities so what is likely to happen is that the site is prepared for residential development and then everybody would be in here again claiming what happened to the trees. Why didn't we protect the trees, why didn't we protect the buffer why didn't we do this why didn't we do that. I think that is a fair and reasonable issue. Now, this is where conflicts occur as Lawyers will tell you. Because the other thing that Mr. Schachner said was that the neighbors did not care if it was developed as residential property. I am not sure that is the case. Because, the buffer disappears now, Mr. Schachner disclosed to our traffic consultant that DeSantis Enterprise has been paying his fee. So, DeSantis Enterprises has a different agenda then perhaps some of the neighbors have. DeSantis Enterprises I assume their agenda is you don't need another restaurant. Certainly if we do not need another restaurant then we can make it residential because residential then says you can put 14 or 12 or 13 houses. So, I am not, this is where we Lawyers need to disclose who we represent as principals we need to know who it is that we are really watching out for. Because, what I heard out here tonight with all these eloquent comments was we would like it to remain a buffer zone and in a perfect world as someone said if Mr. Wood were to donate it which he cannot do because of all the other commitments he has including he just re-acquired the Great Escape out of bankruptcy. If in fact the Town would acquire it, it would be forever wild, that is not the case, too bad it isn't because everybody is right about the fact that it is a little green area but that is not what is going on here. So, the best way to provide a buffer is to do something that creates a permanent conservation easement to the community that protects everybody. What we think we have done Ladies and Gentlemen is say to you if you will, let us use the front for commercial purposes. The Northway went through there, nobody I have heard the elderly gentleman say about how it was originally residential property and he is right, but they put the Northway in or a corridor like that, that is what happens. And so, a fair and reasonable way to deal with it is by, as I think what we have done here, two acres residential, two acres not even residential two acres forever wild, it's not even, would be not even developed as residential it would be turned over to you as a conservation easement, which ever you would prefer. Thanks for taking the time to listen to us, it had been a long and arguous struggle we know that it is created lots of discussion for you if anything, hopefully, the community will be better served at the other end of it. Thanks alot. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Anybody else that would like to comment. Jim Mahalick-I have a quick question, I do not need a microphone my wife tells me I got a big mouth, Jim Mahalick I live in Glens Falls but I do have a business in the Town of Queensbury. I just have one question I can see being in business in Queensbury I can see both sides of it. So, for me if it were solely up to me it would be very difficult to decide. I do have a question it is regarding the letters that have been received by the Board from the business people in the community. Letters on both sides of the fence either taking Mr. Wood's position or taking the residents position. My question is simply, please do yourselves a favor and if you are going to take these letters into any type of consideration in making your decision, get back to the business owners and find out if they have authorized signatures because people are coming to some of the businesses and talk to the employees and some of the employees have probably signed some of the letters without the business owners knowing and that could be for either side either in opposition to the business or for it. I would just like to go on the record in saying that I have not signed a letter from either side so I think there are probably other business people in the same situation who would like to know ...is appearing on either of these letters that we would like to know. Supervisor Brandt -Ok, Thank you. Is there any other anybody else that wants to make comments. Yes. Ms. Marilyn Streeter-Marilyn Streeter I live on 10 Greenway North Supervisor Brandt -Come on right up so it is part of the record, then we will get it typed and we know what we will remember it. Ms. Marilyn Streeter-I am Marilyn Streeter I live on 10 Greenway North and I would much rather see some homes with some green grass than a Red Lobster Restaurant with the all the aspects of a restaurant and the traffic and whatever. Everything else has been talked about here tonight but I would rather see homes with green grass there. Thank you very much. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Attorney Schachner-Question, written comments, deadline tonight, deadline tomorrow? Supervisor Brandt-I am sure you can send them to us we will keep that open for a couple of days if you want. Attorney Schachner -. .. we are not suggesting you should I was just wondering? Supervisor Brandt-Well, I do not know, what's the feeling of the Board? I certainly do not want to shut down comments very rapidly I would rather get all the input. Councilman Monahan-I think ten days would be nice period to give people a chance to think over what they have heard tonight and maybe have some further thoughts and maybe people who did not have a chance to come to give them a chance. Councilman Caimano-I think so too. Supervisor Brandt-I have no problem with that. Councilman Caimano-Do you have a calendar in front of you? What kind of a day in the week is it? Councilman Goetz- I have one, the 28th is a thursday. Councilman Caimano- What is the 31 st? Councilman Monahan-Sunday. Councilman Goetz-It is a Sunday Councilman Caimano- Then why don't we leave it to the 29th. a nice cut off date. Supervisor Brandt-So, we saying for the record you can submit written comments through the 29th. Councilman Monahan-To the Planning Dept. Supervisor Brandt-To our Planning Dept. Councilman Caimano-John? Attorney Lemery-Did you say would hear oral comments again on the 28th Supervisor Brandt-No Councilman Caimano-All we said we are leaving the hearing open until the 29th, written comments. Supervisor Brandt-The hearing is closed the written comments until the 29th. Councilman Monahan-Can we do it that way, wait a minute Mike. Attorney Dusek-The thing you just want to technically say that the hearing is closed except for written comments that will be accepted. Supervisor Brandt-Before we do that I want to ask you some questions, I have some questions. We are going to continue and I would appreciate it if you don't talk so that we can hear, I have a cold and my hearing isn't any too good to start with and with a cold it is worse. There were aspects that came up here tonight I need some information on the rezoning request, was for highway commercial, can we as a Board chose a zone that is more restrictive than that in our deliberations? Attorney Dusek-If you chose a different zone you would have to go back through the hearing process. Supervisor Brandt-Can we restrict the uses in that zone on that parcel? Attorney Dusek-Yes you can. Supervisor Brandt -So we could cut that list that Mr. Schachner down to a specified list that would be acceptable to the Board and in effect change that zoning, leave it highway commercial but restrict it. Attorney Dusek-That's known as a conditional rezoning and it has been upheld by the Court of Appeals the highest court in New York State. Attorney Schachner-to a point. Attorney Dusek-Very, you can go quite aways, Mark from the case that I read involving Flowerhill down in Southern New York. Supervisor Brandt -Ok. Any other questions? Councilman Tucker-I have one for Jim Martin. We have heard the word conservation easement, have you got any information what they are proposing to do and who is going to maintain this thing? Mr. Jim Martin-From my understanding it would be deeded to the Town it would be Town property. Councilman Tucker-And the Town has got to maintain the trees dying and what have you? Mr. Martin-Yes, to the extent that you want to, yes, if it was deed to you that would be the case. Councilman Goetz-I have a question, Paul is there a time limit on the SEQRA determination? Attorney Dusek-Yes and you should plan to make that as soon as possible the catch with SEQRA if you will although their time frame set forth in, there is no absolute penalty if you fail to make it within the time frame. For instance if a planning board fails to make subdivision approval it is automatically approved, if you fail to move timely through SEQRA the effect of that can be the applicant can make an application in court to force you to move along a notice of Article 78 proceeding. I do not think if you are looking at only a ten day time period I do not think that would be terribly offensive in the SEQRA process. Councilman Caimano-We ought to set the SEQRA for the Monday night meeting after the Friday deadline. Councilman Monahan-Does that give the staff time enough to put everything together from those written comments? Supervisor Brandt-That is the next question for me is the Planning Dept. I certainly want some help in this I want to help, we need to list all of the points that were made here and Councilman Monahan-Pros and Cons. Supervisor Brant-And analyze it. I would like to get some help from you guys can you help us with that? Mr. Martin-Certainly. I would like some time beyond the ten day written comment period in case something new should come forth from those written comments. I would like to say another ten days on top of that. .. . Supervisor Brandt-In SEQRA all these things have impact and we have to analyze that and I do not want to do that glibly I would like to really look at it. Mr. Martin-And we can assist you in that. Councilman Monahan-And I think the night that we are going to do the SEQRA we want to know that ahead of time so that we can publicize it so that people can come and see us go through the SEQRA process. Supervisor Brandt-I think that is fair, I think all the people that came here have the right to hear our deliberations every part of it. Councilman Goetz-Ok, the first Monday after your ten days would be the 15th of February, if we did it at a Town Board Meeting. Councilman Monahan-Nick and I are going to be at Association of Towns. Councilman Caimano-Lets do it at the following one. Councilman Goetz-The following one. Councilman Caimano-21, 22 Supervisor Brandt -Or set a special meeting. Councilman Caimano-Or set a special meeting either way. Supervisor Brandt-I think a special meeting would be...this is a complicated one. Councilman Monahan-We would be back, anytime Thursday would be. Supervisor Brandt-We could set that, I wouldn't be in a rush lets look at it and quietly and set that maybe at Monday's Meeting. Councilman Monahan-And maybe Jim needs to see really how many comments come in to see what his scope of work is before we set that too, really. Mr. Martin-I can get a copy of the minutes from tonight also. Attorney Dusek -lam just going to mention to you that the first step in your SEQRA process will just be to make the determination of whether the project should be granted a negative declaration a positive declaration or a negative declaration with conditions that is your first step, that is what you will be deciding of whether or not there is any impact. If in fact you should decide that there is impacts and you give it a positive declaration that is going to start a whole other process down a whole other channel that will be a much longer time frame. If however you decide it as a negative declaration that is something that would be done in as a result of one vote it would be over with. So, that's the first thing that is going to have to be decided by the Board and you should make the decision as soon as you feel all of the information is in to make that decision. That is where you are getting the extension under SEQRA. SEQRA says normally you make it within I believe within 20 days after lead agency has been declared we are well past that date but it also says that your authorized to get the amount of information you need which is what I feel gives some right to extend that a little bit. It has to be a reasonable extension and you have to finish it up relatively quickly. I would be a little concerned about going to the end of February to get that done that is my only... Supervisor Brandt-Lets look at it and make a time schedule during the week here and come back and set it. I would rather not try and do it tonight, I think there are too many factors that we, I am not aware of I would like to look at it. Councilman Monahan-I think we need to have Jim have time to think about what Paul just said now, do the positive and negative because that is a fairly simple step and I think Jim could know how soon he could give us help on that type of a declaration. Which is kind of fairly simple really. Supervisor Brandt-We are still public session so... Attorney Schachner-I might of been misunderstood earlier, we are not trying to delay this process maybe you want to just cut the public hearing close it today, no more written comments lets start that rolling sooner. Councilman Caimano-No Attorney Schachner-I just want to make sure it is clear we are not just saying we didn't request it. Councilman Monahan-Mark, I think our point is we would like to make sure all the public has a chance to be heard and digest stuff and so they all get a fair shake. Attorney Schachner-Just was suggesting if you wanted to you could close it tonight it would be ok with us. Supervisor Brandt-Ok. Is there anyone else that would like to make comments on this issue? Yes, Sir. UNKNOWN-I was just wondering I had a fellow come to my door a while ago taking a survey he told me he worked for the Town of Queensbury is that possible? Supervisor Brandt-He certainly is not on our payroll. UNKNOWN-Most of the questions were around the Red Lobster he asked... Supervisor Brandt - I think someone is misidentifying himself, ask for identification and if someone says they are on our payroll and they are not I sure would like to know that. UNKNOWN-He did not say he was getting paid by the Town he was doing it for the Town. Councilman Monahan-If anyone ever says that to you please take their name and call the Town and check that out. UNKNOWN-I was busy eating supper and ran to the door and I never thought about it until he left. Supervisor Brandt -Ok. Yes. Sir. UNKNOWN-It is apparent that there has been some sort of survey done maybe we could find out the results somehow. Supervisor Brandt-Well, we do not control it. ...Anyone else that would like to make comments? OK I am going to close the public hearing then and leave it open for written comments through the Planning Dept. through what date? Mr. Martin-February 29... Attorney Dusek-No January 29th. Supervisor Brandt-Through January 29th. Thank you very much. Recess Meeting back in session Attorney Dusek-Reviewed the following with the Town Board 1. Traffic Light at Quaker Plaza 2. Ltr. Howard Krantz re: approval of contract of services for the architect... (Town Board noted that they did want to have approval of the architect...) asked that Mr. Krantz be notified that the Board never wanted the right to pick the architect... 3. Spoke to the Town Board regarding an insurance company that is in liquidation-Mutual Fire Marine Inland Insurance Company-the Town has some potential recovery items one of the items deals with a case that has since been settled... we have filed a proof of claim in bankruptcy and recently we were sent a notice they would not pay, I have sent a letter that they should pay the claim- notice of objection- item for $2700 - requested resolution authorizing my action... RESOLUTION REGARDING CLAIM BY RUTH SMITH RESOLUTION NO. 87, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has been advised of a certain claim that the Town of Queensbury filed concerning Attorneys fees and Adjustors fees in the matter of Ruth Smith vs Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Attorney has advised that he has received a letter from the Mutual Fire Marine Inland Insurance Company indicating that the claim would be denied and has also advised that based on the form of the claim he was unable to determine absolutely whether it effected our claim or not and therefore advised that a letter should be sent and has in fact sent a letter objecting to the resolution of the claim. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby ratifies the action to the Town Attorney in preserving the Town's rights and objecting the denial of payment of $2,700.00. Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 1993 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES; None ABSENT: None 4. Landfill user agreement-amendment-noted changes capalize the word Rolite...describe C&D Waste as DEC approved...Councilman Monahan-Noted that she had gotten feed back from the public and they did not feel as taxpayers we should be letting someone else in here for the same fee when we have to pick up the roads.... Supervisor Brandt-Reviewed the time table for closure of the landfill...Attorney Dusek- Reviewed the agreement noting that the Town is not bound by the draft until a Board resolution states that...questioned if the board felt comfortable as far as a negotiation stand point as to what we have present so far? Councilman Tucker-requested that it be noted in the document that this is a draft and we are moving because we have got to move. Discussion held on pricing...it was suggested to charge the neighbors an extra $1 or $2 a yard over our fee...that is a position we can change later...that is a negotiated item...Attorney Dusek basically what it would be doing is taking out the one clause that says the charge is the same rate...Board agreed to take that out for now...1eave room for a differential. Board agreed to let Paul send out the amended Landfill User Agreement...Attorney Dusek, noted he will add an item 4 that the Board will not be bound until passed by a resolution, I will send it out under a cover letter which says it is a draft proposal. Supervisor Brandt-agreed...and we need to tell them that we are in need of moving it rapidly. 5. Planning Board Chairman-Supervisor Brandt-Noted it was a three to two vote...Mrs. Pulver did not get selected...Councilman Monahan-Paul, was that two to three vote valid because Pliney was one of the three that was against it and according to the Ethics Board they said some things that he is not supposed to vote on as where does that leave us? Councilman Tucker-I have not been convicted of anything. Councilman Monahan-Didn't they give you a directive, that lower Board. Councilman Tucker-They suggested. I refused...Attorney Dusek-Even if we throw that vote out it was a two to two vote...you have to have a majority vote ...it did not pass...Councilman Monahan-Questioned what they do for tomorrow night? Attorney Dusek-They can use their Vice Chairman...Agreed to by the Town Board to have the Planning Board go back and pick another candidate for chairman... On motion the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Miss Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk-Queensbury