Loading...
1993-06-07 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING JUNE 7,1993 7:00 P.M. MTG#42 RES#318-339 BH# 21-22 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Supervisor Michel Brandt Councilman Pliney Tucker Councilman Nick Caimano Councilman Susan Goetz Councilman Betty Monahan TOWN ATTORNEY Paul Dusek TOWN OFFICIALS Jim Martin, Mike Shaw, Scott Harlicker PRESS Post Star PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN MONAHAN Supervisor Brandt -Called meeting to order. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 318, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 7th day of June, 1993, by the following vote: All Those In Favor: Ayes All Those Opposed: None Absent: None PUBLIC HEARING - SANITARY SEW AGE VARIANCE JOHN T. HUNT, JR. OPENED 7:02 P.M. NOTICE SHOWN Supervisor Brandt-Notices have been sent out for this hearing? Deputy Town Clerk O'Brien-Yes. Supervisor Brandt-Is there someone representing Mr. Hunt here? Come right up to the table if you would, please. Supervisor Brandt-Jim are you familiar, we really just got a letter on this, I guess with all of the other paperwork it certainly explains it. You have two problems right? You have a groundwater table problem, tell us about it rather than me tell you. Mr. Hunt -Groundwater is seven foot so we can't go that far down. But, the property line I've got fifty seven feet wide a hundred thirteen feet back. So, I don't have enough room to do the required amount of footage that is needed between the seepage pits. Supervisor Brandt-That's a new regulation as I understand it. That is a change on the code from the State which required more distance between pits and you just don't have the physical room there? Councilman Caimano- Y ou are Mr. Hunt? Mr. Hunt -Yes. Councilman Caimano-Just for the record Karen. Supervisor Brandt-Are there any questions by any Board members? Councilman Monahan-Jim, I don't know how familiar you are with this and we don't have a map of the adjoining property, but I'm assuming that because of the nature of this variance it won't have any affect on the neighbors septic system. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I am not familiar with this at all to be quite honest with you usually Dave handles these. Councilman Goetz-We have a letter from Dave. Councilman Monahan-But, it doesn't address that question. Councilman Tucker-We had that a month and a half ago we had the whole packet. Councilman Monahan-It doesn't show the neighbors. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Do you have any idea of your separation distances between you and your neighbors? Mr. Hunt-No. Supervisor Brandt-That's all Town water? Mr. Hunt-Yes, that's all Town water. Councilman Monahan-I'm assuming because it's just a difference between his seepage pits that it wouldn't have an affect on the neighbors or he'd be in for a variance for that type of a distance, too. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I would assume so. Councilman Tucker-I assume that Dave Hatin's familiar with your situation? Mr. Hunt -Yes sir, he is. Councilman Goetz-There is a letter that he sent. Councilman Tucker-And he gives his okay. Supervisor Brandt-Is there anyone here from the public that wants to speak on this application? Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING A SANITARY SEW AGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE FOR JOHN T. HUNT, JR. RESOLUTION NO.: 21, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHEREAS, John T. Hunt, Jr. previously filed a request for a variance from certain provisions of the Sanitary Sewage Disposal Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, such provision being more specifically that requiring that there be a 375 square foot absorptive area, and WHEREAS, Mr. Hunt has also applied for a variance from New York State Department of Health Wastewater Treatment Standards for Individual Household Systems, Section 75A.8(H), which provides as follows: (vi) The separation between the outside edges of seepage pits shall be three times the effective diameter of the largest pit. This separation is measured as the undisturbed soil between pit excavations. and, WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was given in the official newspaper of the Town of Queensbury and a public hearing was held in connection with the variance request on June 7, 1993, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk advises that property owners within 500 feet of the subject property have been duly notified, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, a) that due to the nature of the variance, it is felt that the variation will not be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of this Ordinance or to other adjoining properties or otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any plan or policy of the Town of Queensbury; b) that the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and that the variance is granted as the minimum variance which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the applicant; and c) that the Local Board of Health imposes a condition upon the applicant that he must also secure the approval of the New York State Department of Health, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health grants the variance to John T. Hunt, Jr., allowing (1) 201 square feet absorptive area rather than the required 375 square feet, and (2) allowing 15 feet separation between seepage pits rather than the required 24 feet, on property situated at 14 Holden Avenue, Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax Map #: Section 117, Block 9, Lot 19. Duly adopted this 7th day of June, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 22, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns as the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 7th day of June, 1993, by the following vote: All Those In Favor: Ayes All Those Opposed: None Absent: None PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE FROM SEWER CONNECTION - ROBERT CONDIT OPENED 7:06 P.M. NOTICE SHOWN MR. CONDIT PRESENT Supervisor Brandt-Again, that was properly noticed and advertised? Deputy Town Clerk O'Brien-Yes. Supervisor Brandt-Mr. Condit is here, right? Mr. Condit-Right. Supervisor Brandt-Would you come up and address us. We have a copy of your letter asking for some relief here. Are there any questions by any members of the Board? We in the past have on vacant property set a couple stipulations. We've said that if the property gets filled with a tenant or if it's sold we required hookups immediately. Otherwise we've given some time in the past, I think that's been our history and that's essentially what your asking for isn't that right? Mr. Condit-Essentially. Councilman Goetz-Had we originally given him a variance till June 30th? Councilman Caimano-Yes, I think so. Councilman Goetz-So you are asking for an extension of that? Mike Shaw, Director of Waste Water-He currently has a June 30th deadline. Councilman Caimano-And this is a vacant lot, right? Mr. Shaw, Waste Water Director-There is a building there that is vacant now. Councilman Caimano- The building is vacant? Mr. Shaw, Waste Water Director-Yes. Mr. Condit-In the building there is only one lavatory and one commode. There is no cooking, shower, bathing or any other water using facility. It has had its own septic system for a number of years there have been no problems with it or no failures. The building has been used as a Real Estate Office kind of small scale. It was a swimming pool sales room for a while its currently empty. We as the owners would either like to sell it or lease it. We've been highly frustrated with the costs that they suggested the one and only quote authorized Town of Queensbury contractor. We wrote everyone of them and got one response. I don't have that figure in front of me, but it was in excess of $4,000, which leads me to ask how do you become an authorized Queensbury Contractor? Councilman Caimano- That's another matter. Supervisor Brandt-How many authorized contractors are there? Mr. Shaw, Waste Water Director-Currently there was a list of thirty five. But, since hookup has back off there are probably currently ten on that list now. Mr. Condit-I believe, I received a list with eleven. Supervisor Brandt -Your going to have to go out and solicit more, I think when the time comes. Mr. Condit -Yes, sir. Mr. Shaw, Waste Water Director-It does sound very high. Supervisor Brandt-This is a public hearing is there anyone who would like to speak on this request for a variance? Councilman Caimano-Mike do you have anything to say? Mr. Shaw, Waste Water Director-Nothing to add to it at this time. Unknown-Can you tell us where this property is? Supervisor Brandt-Location? Mr. Condit-Corner of Everts Avenue and Quaker Road. Supervisor Brandt-Any comments from the public? Any questions from the Board? Councilman Caimano-Have you owned this since the sewer district was put in? Mr. Condit-I have owned it since it's either late eight four or later eight five and the answer to your question IS, yes. Councilman Tucker-The extension is from July 1st, because he's got an extension until June 30th right now. Councilman Goetz-Your asking for six months beyond the June 1st date? Mr. Condit -Or until sold. Councilman Monahan-Mike that's the thing that I thought of the six month extension is going to bring them to December 30th. Do you want put that extension in to what's good weather unless its sold? Your not going to do anything December 30th, if its not sold. Councilman Caimano- That's ridiculous to extend it to December 30th, because nothing is going to happen December 30th anyway. Supervisor Brandt-What's your thought? Councilman Monahan-Wouldn't it be at least May 1st. I mean if would be at least April before they could get in to do any work, I would say. Councilman Tucker-The only thing is are we superseding other extensions that we have given by extending this? If we extend it to December 30th and it runs out the thirty first he can come back and get another one. How long have the other ones been Mike? Councilman Monahan-Those are ones that had to hook up though, Pliney. Those ones that we did June 30th, they are going to have to hook up they are little different type of thing and they are going to have to hook up by June 30th. Mr. Shaw, Waste Water Director-You have one other extended to this fall, Mr. Finkowski on Glenwood. Councilman Tucker-How long did we give Quaker Electric? Mr. Shaw, Waste Water Director-To next Spring. They are going to connect this summer because of the date. My only suggestion is that if you grant him an extension if your going to grant it next year sometime you ought to grant it to June 30th of next year because your going to run into the same problem unless somebody occupies the building then it should be connected then. Councilman Monahan-Mike it says, six month extension of the variance or until the building is sold. I would think or until its occupied by a tenant. Supervisor Brandt -Yea, I think if that's going to be the motion. Councilman Monahan-I would say extend it to June 30th, 1994 unless the building is sold or is leased to a tenant. Supervisor Brandt-I'm going to close the public hearing. First of all, before I close it is there any other input? Okay, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:15 P.M. RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCE FROM REQUIRED SEWER CONNECTIONS FOR ROBERT D. S. CONDIT RESOLUTION NO.: 319,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is authorized, pursuant to ~ 136-44.1 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, to, upon request, waive the sewer connection requirement of ~ 136- 44 thereof or vary the time in which such connection must be made, provided that certain standards and criteria or conditions are met or demonstrated and provided that a certain procedure is followed, and WHEREAS, in granting a variance or waiver, the Town Board may consider one or all of the following circumstances: (a) The distance from the building to the town sewer pipeline to which connection is required. (b) The cost of the connection. (c) The existence or nonexistence of any physical obstructions. (d) The financial loss to be sustained by the property owner in the event of nonuse of the current system. (e) Whether the current sewage disposal system is properly functioning. (f) Whether any rights-of-way or easements are needed in order for the applicant to make the connection to the town sewer system. (g) Whether strict application of the connection requirement of ~ 136-44 would result in a specified difficulty to the applicant, for which the applicant has not been given a reasonable time to respond to or address, and whether the variance or waiver would be materially detrimental to the purposes of the sewer connection requirement or that the property and the district in which the property is located or otherwise conflict with the description or objections of the plan or policy of the town and that the interests of justice are served; and WHEREAS, if the Town Board finds any or all of the above circumstances or conditions, the Town Board may grant the following relief: (a) In the event that circumstances giving rise to the request are due to physical obstructions, costs significantly greater than the usual sewer connection costs, a distance greater than two hundred fifty (250) feet from the sewer pipeline to the building or structure to be connected or a documented inability to obtain an easement or right-of-way over which the sewer line must pass in order to connect to the town sewer system, the Town Board may grant a permanent waiver from the requirement that the applicant connect the subject property, provided that the sewage disposal system currently serving the property is operational, in accordance with the Town of Queensbury laws and regulations and appropriate New York State agency rules and regulations, and (b) In the event that the circumstances giving rise to the request are due to excessive costs of connection, the financial loss to be sustained by the property owner in the event of nonuse of the current system or any other specified difficulty which makes it difficult or impractical for the applicant to connect to the town sewer system and the applicant is willing to pay the full and usual sewer rents or taxes accruing against the property, the Town Board may grant an extension of time, not exceeding two (2) years, in which to connect to the town sewer system, provided that the sewage disposal system currently serving the property is operational, in accordance with the Town of Queensbury laws and regulations and appropriate New York State agency rules and regulations, and WHEREAS, Mr. Robert D. S. Condit previously applied to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury for a variance and relief from that part of the law requiring sewer connections upon the grounds that: he is without the economic ability to complete such a hook-up at this time; and WHEREAS, the applicant previously indicated that: the building is currently empty and causes the applicant great strain. He is attempting to find a new tenant or to sell the building, and would like a six month extension of the variance or until the building is sold or until occupied by a tenant; , and WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was given in the official newspaper of the Town of Queensbury and a public hearing was held in connection with the variance request on June 7, 1993, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has received a report from Michael Shaw, Waste Water Superintendent, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby grants a temporary variance to June 30th, 1994. Duly adopted this 7th day of June, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING CURTIS LUMBER PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 7:15 P.M. NOTICE SHOWN Executive Director, Mr. Martin-This is a petition for zone change that we have for Curtis Lumber over on Western Avenue. It's a zone change from Urban ResidentiallO-Acre to Light Industrial One-Acre, I mean 10,000 feet to light industrial one-acre. Both the Town and County Planning Boards have received this and both have recommended approval. Supervisor Brandt-Is there anyone here from Curtis Lumber? I'll declare the public hearing opened. Mr. Griffin, Regional Manager, Curtis Lumber present. Supervisor Brandt-Do you want to take it as questions to the maps that we received? Councilman Monahan-Is there a map for the public to look at? Jim do you have a map that the public can look at? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Really not at a scale that could be seen. I don't think I have a map, but it is the one that's in your packets. Supervisor Brandt-Let's start out is there any questions by anybody on the Board. Councilman Tucker-Where is this piece of property located compared to your store on Western Avenue? Mr. Griffin-It';s in back of the store. It's on the other property that we own in the back of the store. The store is on Western and this is in the back of the store. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-It fronts on Feld Avenue. Councilman Tucker-Feld Avenue, is that the short street. Mr. Griffin-Dead End street. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-It crosses Columbia if that helps you at all. North South Street or Councilman Tucker-East West. I thought there was some talk about one time that the Town was going to abandoned that. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-It's approximately fifty feet wide and a hundred feet deep. Councilman Monahan-According to this map Jim it seems to be behind someone's warehouse? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Right. Councilman Monahan-Whose warehouse? Mr. Griffin-Ed's Warehouse. Councilman Caimano- Who? Mr. Griffin-Ed's Warehouse he has the second hand shop or whatever right there. That is just adjoining our driveway it goes into our present lumber yard right there. Councilman Goetz-I have something I wanted to ask about. In some of our notes here we have a reference to a variance that had been granted in July of 1987 and it had stipulations on it. I'm bringing it up because I have a question as to whether the stipulations we're ever adhered too, should I read it. Mr. Kelly moved approval of use variance with stipulations. Curtis Lumber Company agreed to amend this application for use variance request with the stipulations. One. Contractor sales only no retail sales. Two. No advertising of this location in Curtis Lumber flyers for retail sales. Three. Hours of business will be from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday only. Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is a hardship because it was purchased as a place where lumber sales took place. Preservation of property right on expanded basis cannot be used as zoned no reasonable return. This is detrimental to surrounding area. Other commercial endeavors are in the area no neighbors opposing. This meets the four use variance criteria. At that time there were two variance requests, one was use and one area, can you tell me if you've adhered to the stipulations or that store has? Mr. Griffin-That has and since then it has been changed because the property has been rezoned and it doesn't have to fall under those classifications. Councilman Goetz-Is that right? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-This is currently light industrial zoning. It was discussed also at the Planning Board meeting. Building supply and lumber yard is an allowed use. It's defined as a general business where building supplies are sold either wholesale or retail including the storage of such supplies. Councilman Goetz-Does that negate the stipulations then that were placed in eight seven? The reason I brought it up is that I don't think we should entertain rezoning if there is any kind of a violation on the property so I'm glad to have that cleared up. In the Assistant Planner's report, I think he also mentioned there were possible alternatives that you could move into some of the light industrial zone without going into the residential zone. Mr. Griffin-No, not the way this piece of property, if you look at the map there are three different pieces of property. This one has an abandoned house on it and the other two pieces of property do not. For the correct use of the property we need all three parcels to be used. Councilman Goetz-Did he mean that at some point you could maybe buy the houses? Mr. Griffin-There was some reference that we owned that house that's the one that we're trying to rezone is that one there that we could continue on down the street that was one of the concerns and we said if we could buy them we would. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-There is another concern of staff we had in terms of there is a fifty foot buffer required between residential zoning and industrial zoning. Since this lot is about fifty seven feet wide that sort of negates the use without a variance. Mr. Griffin-I think we already had a variance on the previous didn't we? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-But, that would require a new variance for the use of this parcel if you are going to actually place things within the buffer. Councilman Caimano-Did you say the store was light industrial? Is that all light industrial around it? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-It's light industrial to the south of it and to the west of it, but right on its northern border begins the UR -10 district. Supervisor Brandt-Okay, this is a public hearing is there anyone from the public that would like to speak on this rezoning and Curtis Lumber in West Glens Falls? Come right up, talk to us, tell us your name if you would? Diane Carpenter-I own two lots of Feld Avenue which I don't have a problem, what they want to do with this is drive the tractor trailers down through so they can go straight in. But, why not make the whole street then light industrial because that's all we are is businesses around there and I have two lots right there. Supervisor Brandt -You would like to see it adopted to expand it? Mrs. Carpenter-Right. Councilman Monahan-Where are your two lots? Mrs. Carpenter-One's 17-6-8 and one's 17-6-7, and their's is 117-9-14. Supervisor Brandt-Can anybody get that on a map? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Can you show me on my map where that might be? (Mrs. Carpenter explained the locations of her two lots in relation to Curtis Lumber) Councilman Caimano-Let's make sure we look at all of the things that can be put in a light industrial zone. A freight terminal, extraction of sand, stone or gravel, restaurant, as been said a building supply/lumber yard and similar storage, any light manufacturing assembly or other industrial research operation meeting the requirements of this chapter, a warehouse for enclosed storage of goods, laboratory, office building, truck repair, heavy machinery. I think if we ought to do this if we're going to do this we need to limit what goes in the zone. Supervisor Brandt-I would be comfortable addressing the application in front of us and then doing a study of that whole area. I think your point is probably valid, but we should really look at it as part of the Master Plan in rezoning it or take it as a special rezoning beyond this, your input is appreciated. Thank you. Tammy Hermance-I live right next door to the property that they are going to try to rezone. First of all, I have a problem with right now I'm going to want a buffer to be provided definitely. Also, there is a major problem with dust right now. All my windows are constantly dusty the inside of my house is constantly dusty so if they are going to use this for their lumber yard, I would like it to be paved as soon as possible. Also, if they are going to zone that light industrial I was wondering if they would be zoning my house light industrial, I 'm right next door. Then, I also have a problem with tractor trailers being driven by my house constantly I don't want that. Councilman Monahan-Do you want your lot rezoned? Mrs. Hermance-I don't mind being rezoned light industrial. I don't mind that lot being rezoned light industrial that doesn't have no affect on me, but I do not want that being used as a gateway for tractor trailers. Supervisor Brandt -Your adjoining right next to it? Mrs. Hermance-Right next to it. Mr. Griffin-Ed's Warehouse. Mrs. Hermance-I'm not Ed's. Ed's Warehouse is my father-in-laws, I'm the yellow house right next door. Mr. Griffin- Next door on what side? Mrs. Hermance-On the right of the house. Supervisor Brandt-Anyone else that would like to speak to us? Del Mulder-I own a number of lots on Holden Avenue and Western Avenue. It's just a block over and I have no opposition to Curtis Lumber, I hope they get their application. But, if your going to be rezoning why don't you rezone me light industrial as well. I own just about the block the whole block on Western Avenue with the exception of three house lots, so put me on the list. Supervisor Brandt-Anyone else that would like to speak on this rezoning application. Jim Davies-Mr. Brandt, good evening I'm Jim Davies, how are you? Supervisor Brandt-Hi, Jim. Attorney Davies-I'm sorry I'm late I just came from another meeting, I didn't think we would be reached this early. Are there any questions I could help you with that....hasn't taken care of, please.... Supervisor Brandt-I don't have any so far. I think things are evolving fairly well everything's out on the table. So far one neighbor is concerned about dust and concerned about having buffer to her immediate house. Other neighbors are saying it's not a bad idea maybe I ought to expand it into a bigger area. I think that's basically it and that's where we are at this point. Any other comments. Okay, anything from the Board, then I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:30 P.M. DISCUSSION HELD Councilman Monahan-I think Nicks suggestion is good if this is going to be rezoned it has to be restricted to what can go in there because it's a pretty tight area and it's near single family residential. Certainly a lot of these uses would not be compatible with single family homes that are near there. Councilman Caimano-I think step one is as far as Curtis is concerned we ought to consider going ahead and approving with restrictions only for him. Then asking the Planning Department to look into all of the applications here all the people who seem to want to change their zone. Maybe as you say, Mike we need to look at this whole neighborhood as far as a light industrial plus a buffer zone around them and do this thing right. But, I wouldn't go so far as to give this approval for the whole light industrial zone here it would just open up a pandora's box that I don't think we want do you? Councilman Monahan-No. Councilman Caimano-I would go ahead and do it restricted to their use. Councilman Monahan-Building Supply Lumberyard and similar storage yard and restrict it right to that? Councilman Caimano- I would like to do that. Councilman Monahan-Until we do the whole area. Councilman Caimano- Then do the whole area and find out where we're going to go for Mr. Mulder and everybody else. But, if we do it the way we're doing it now I'm afraid we're going to get into trouble. Councilman Monahan-It's a pretty tight area. Councilman Tucker-Are you satisfied with that if it zoned for your use and your use only? Mr. Davies-That's fine. Councilman Monahan-I do think that we have to maybe address that problem either, do they have to come for site plan review? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes, any use in an industrial zone. Councilman Monahan-We either should address the problem of the dust or ask the Planning Board to address that problem when it comes to them for site plan review and any noise that would be created in hours of operation. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-The other is, is there going to anything occurring in the fifty foot buffer too, that's another concern. Supervisor Brandt-That will be reviewed.... Councilman Caimano-At site plan review. Councilman Monahan-We should bring those and tell the Planning Board that we are concerned about that to make sure they address those problems. Mr. Brewer-If there is a fifty foot buffer that has to be provided the Planning Board can't do anything about that they have to go to the Zoning Board. Supervisor Brandt-That's right. Councilman Goetz-What will the first step be will they go to site plan? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-If they are calling for anything in the buffer zone itself it will be for vanance. Councilman Goetz-Will they go to ZBA first? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes. Supervisor Brandt -So that will be handled there. Councilman Monahan-The Planning Board would have to do a SEQRA review on a thing like that? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes. Councilman Monahan-Planning Board would do SEQRA for Zoning Board then it go back to Zoning Board.... Executive Director, Mr. Martin-No. Councilman Monahan-Usually for variances I thought they ask them to do the SEQRA. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-For Type I actions they do. I don't think this would be viewed as a Type I action because it's an area variance involving setbacks. It would probably be Type II in terms of the variance, but there would be a SEQRA review at site plan anyhow and you have one to do tonight as well. Supervisor Brandt-To move this resolution obviously some things have to be added to it, Paul can you help us? Attorney Dusek-There are actually a couple of issue. First of all, addressing the Board desire to approve a light industrial zone, but you want to accept out everything except just the one use... Councilman Caimano-My personal opinion is at this stage we exempt out everything except the building supply/lumber yard and similar storage yard. Supervisor Brandt-I have no problem with that. Attorney Dusek-What we could do in the resolution on page 2, of this would be the actual rezoning resolution. In the first resolved clause, where it says Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to rezone thereby authorizing in this area, all uses permitted under Section 179-18 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, I would just say except the following uses and will except out all of the uses except for the one. Councilman Caimano- Why don't you do it the other way around, thereby authorizing this area only one use. Attorney Dusek-The reason is because in the second clause, I would want to have in their would be that the rezoning shall be continued upon the rezone property or the owner of the rezoned property executing a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions which shall provide that only a building supply/lumber yard and similar storage yard will be allowed upon the property, and that the said Covenants and Restrictions can only be revised with the consent of the Town Board. What this does is it files an actual recorded instrument in the County Clerk's Office so that all future people that may have an interest or become interested or buy the property ultimately someday will be put on notice of the restrictions and it also rezones the property under your Zoning Ordinance. So, it does too, in that fashion and I think that would be the best situation. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I would also like the Town Surveyor to make note of that on the Town Zoning Maps as well. Attorney Dusek-Reviewed with Town Board members the process of SEQRA review. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Lead Town Board through the Full Environmental Assessment Form with the following determinations: Impact on land. One. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? Town Board-Yes. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes, the applicant has indicated demolition of house, removal of trees and vegetation. What's the view on that small to moderate? Supervisor Brandt -Yea. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? Town Board-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Three. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? Town Board-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Four. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? Town Board-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Five. Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? Town Board-Yes. Councilman Monahan-Yea, your going to start paving over a whole area. Councilman Caimano- Yea, it will. Supervisor Brandt-A little bit. Councilman Monahan-Oh, come on that is an impact you are going to have to do drainage impact when they go for site plan review. Maybe that comes down to the next one, six. Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff? I would say that one belongs down there. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I would say, yea on that one. How do you feel on number five? Surface groundwater or quantity. Councilman Monahan-Isn't that where we were just talking about the high groundwater? Councilman Goetz-Mr. Hunt wasn't he on Holden Avenue. Supervisor Brandt-There is a high groundwater table in that region. Councilman Monahan-It is going to affect it. You start putting more area under roof and your going to affect it. Mr. Griffin-This area isn't going to be under roof. Councilman Monahan-Under roof is a technical term meaning your going to have an impervious surface there which your going to have. Mr. Davies-It's just an expansion of storage it's not going to be impervious. Councilman Monahan-We don't know that because the Planning Board may require it to be paved as one of the neighbors wants it because of the dust situation. If it does your going to have an impervious surface. Your going to have a certain amount anyway when you cover that with piles of lumber and stuff you do affect your groundwater. Supervisor Brandt-Maybe I'm missing something. But, it would seem to be if you make impervious surfaces a roof your going to have higher rates of runoff and less percolation so the groundwater will run off the surface and out through surface runoff and it's not going to add to the groundwater, in fact it's going to do just the opposite. I think there is a drainage system that parallel's Western Avenue as I understand it. It belongs to the City and we have tied into and contracted with and that's probably where the water's going to go it's going to end up in the Hudson River rather than in the groundwater. That's my interpretation of it, I maybe wrong if I am, please tell me. Councilman Monahan-Except we have an Ordinance on the book that says, no lot may release more water into the ground faster than what is already happening before you make any changes to it. Councilman Caimano- Y ou may be right, but he's got to make sure that he takes care of his property so that happens. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Do you want to list under other Betty, possible affect due to construction of impervious structures. Councilman Monahan-I think you have too. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Small to moderate? Supervisor Brandt -Small to moderate for sure. Councilman Monahan-That's something again that the Planning Board should be noted, you know that it's going to be something they review in site plan review. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Right. Six. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? Councilman Tucker-A little bit. Supervisor Brandt-A little bit. Councilman Monahan-Yes. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Under proposed action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns or do you want under other? Supervisor Brandt -You know as a matter of fact you've got a good drainage system there and your taping into it. I can't believe, well I just think it's a right kind of a project in the right location. Councilman Goetz-The staff said there will be a change in the drainage flow. Supervisor Brandt -Sure there will be. Councilman Goetz-So it's yes. Councilman Monahan-It has to be yes. Again, I think the other impacts is something that the Planning Board under site plan review will look to mitigate that. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Do you want to give an indicate small to moderate? Town Board-Yes. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Seven. Impact on Air. Will proposed action affect air quality? Town Board-No. Councilman Monahan-Only if there are a lot of diesel trucks that are coming in there that aren't coming in there now. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-The answer no? Town Board-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Impact on plants and animals. Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? Town Board-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Impact on agricultural land resources. Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? Town Board-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Impact on aesthetic resources. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources. Town Board-No. Councilman Monahan-The buffer zone should mitigate that. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Impact on historic and archaeological resources. Will proposed action any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or palentological importance? Town Board-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Impact on open space and recreation. Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing of future open spaces or recreational opportunities? Town Board-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Impact on Transportation. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? Councilman Caimano-Probably. Supervisor Brandt-It's so minor, you know it's very very minor by the criteria I think that are given that it would not. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Any consensus on that one? Town Board-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-No. Impact on Energy. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? Town Board-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Noise and odor impacts. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? Councilman Monahan-There will. Councilman Tucker-Small to moderate. Supervisor Brandt-Minimal. Councilman Monahan-If your the neighbor you might not think so. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Odors will occur routinely? Supervisor Brandt-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Or dust resulting.... Councilman Monahan-I think proposed action will proposed operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures and also dust. Councilman Caimano-I don't think the noise is going to change trucks are going to be the same. Mr. Davies-Let me say, if! may. We're not really looking towards an expansion of the business of Curtis Lumber per say. We're looking at the ability of Curtis Lumber to accommodate the business that it has. We need more storage... Councilman Caimano-Because your business is growing? Mr. Davies-We're not going to have more trucks, there is not going to be more lumber we're just going to have a place to put it. Supervisor Brandt-Even if there is a little bit it's pretty minimal. Mr. Davies-That's right it would be minimal. It's kind of a shifting of what's already there. Councilman Goetz-But, won't it bring it closer to Mrs. Hermance's home? Mr. Davies-Yes. Councilman Goetz-If I lived there that would concern me. Mr. Davies-But, there won't be more noise. Councilman Goetz-It will be closer though. Supervisor Brandt -So where are we. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Are we saying small to moderate? Town Board-Small to moderate. Councilman Monahan-The other impacts, I think you have to put dust Jim. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes. Impact on public health. Seventeen. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? Town Board-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Impact on growth and character of community or neighborhood. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? Supervisor Brandt-A little bit. Councilman Monahan-Staff says, yes. The rezoning will allow for the expansion of an industrial use into a residential zone. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I would say, yes. Councilman Monahan-I think you've got to say, yes. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-From a small to moderate nature? Town Board-Yes. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Is there or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? Supervisor Brandt-I don't think so. Councilman Monahan-We haven't had much here tonight. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-No. Town Board-No. Executive Director-Mr. Martin-That completes it. Attorney Dusek-I presume the Board wants a negative dec, is that correct? Supervisor Brandt -Yes. Attorney Dusek-We have to come up with reasons for you. Councilman Monahan-Some place Paul, I don't know if we do it here or do it in the rezoning itself. I think we should put in what we want the Planning Board to look at. I don't know which is a proper place to put it which is, the dust, the hours of operation, noise levels, and the drainage pattern. Councilman Tucker-Wouldn't they look at that normally? Councilman Monahan-When we do a rezoning if we have those concerns we should express them specifically in order to have done our proper job in a rezoning. Supervisor Brandt-If you have that concern that's fine. But, I want to make sure the whole Board feels the same way. I don't have that concern, I'd like to keep it simple. Councilman Caimano-I don't understand Paul what you mean. Why would you want to get beyond what you've already done in this resolution on a neg dec? Attorney Dusek-Right after the first resolution there is a State Negative Declaration Form. If you turn that the next page reasons supporting the determination. What we should do is summarize what you just learned from doing that form right there that's all. Basically your going to identify they were all small to moderate and mitigation available. One of the mitigation measures will be your site plan review. Councilman Caimano- I just find it interesting that we have to support a negative. I would like we would have to have a reason to support it if we're not going to make a neg dec, but why are we supporting a negative it is negative we found nothing to warrant going the other way? Councilman Monahan-Because you have to be able to support your negative dec if your ever challenged. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I'll just start this out. Due to the restrictions placed on the proposed rezoning and the small scale of the proposed rezoning the Board has determined that a negative declaration is warranted. Attorney Dusek-I think I would just recommend that you add on there something else I think that's coming from the Board. Is that also, the Board notes that there will be a site plan review where upon certain mitigation measures will be taken a look at. The following resolutions were passed. RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY CURTIS LUMBER CO., INC. FROM UR-1O TO LI-IA RESOLUTION NO.: 320, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering the application for a change of zone by Curtis Lumber Co., Inc., requesting that property owned by them, bearing Tax Map Number 117-9-14, be rezoned from the current zoning ofUR-1O (Urban Residential Zone - 10 Acres) to LI-IA (Light Industrial Zone - 1 Acre), and WHEREAS, as a result of the public hearing and review had on the proposed rezoning, the Town Board is desirous of undertaking a rezoning action which would result in a rezoning of property bearing tax map number 117-9-14, and WHEREAS, the action as now proposed has been determined to be an unlisted action pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board after considering the action proposed herein, reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form, reviewing the criteria contained in Section 617.11, and thoroughly analyzing the said action with respect to potential environmental concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to complete and execute Part II of the said Environmental Assessment Form and to check the box thereon indicating that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section 617.15, the Negative Declaration presented at this meeting is hereby approved and the Executive Director is hereby authorized and directed to file the same, as may be necessary, in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Duly adopted this 7th day of June, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY CURTIS LUMBER CO., INC. FROM UR-1O TO LI-IA RESOLUTION NO. 321, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, Curtis Lumber Co., Inc. petitioned the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury for a zoning change of its property (Town of Queensbury Tax Map No.: 117-9-14) from the current zoning of UR-1O (Urban Residential Zone - 10 Acres) to LI-IA (Light Industrial Zone - 1 Acre), and WHEREAS, on the 26th day of January, 1993, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board recommended approval of the petition, and WHEREAS, the Warren County Planning Board also recommended approval of said petition on the 10th day of March, 1993, and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on this matter on June 7, 1993, and WHEREAS, as a result of the public hearing and review had on the proposed rezoning, the Town Board is desirous of undertaking a rezoning action which would result in a rezoning of the parcel of land, known as tax map number 117-9-14, and located on Feld Avenue, in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has made a determination that the rezoning will have no significant environmental impact, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has considered the conditions and circumstances of the area to be rezoned, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to re-zone to LI- lA (Light Industrial Zone - 1 Acre) property bearing Town of Queensbury Tax Map No. 117-9-14 (property owned by Curtis Lumber Co., Inc.) and thereby authorizing in this area, all uses permitted under ~179-18 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury except the following uses: 1. Freightterminal. 2. Extraction of sand, stone or gravel. 3. Restaurant. 4. Any light manufacturing, assembly or other industrial or research operation meeting the requirements of this chapter. 5. Warehouse for enclosed storage of goods and materials, distribution plants or wholesale business. 6. Laboratory. 7. Office building, in excess often thousand (10,000) square feet. 8. Truck repair facility. 9. Heavy machinery repair facility. 10. Television and radio station. 11. Construction company. 12. Logging company. 13. Heavy equipment storage. 14. Heavy equipment sales. 15. Agricultural service use. 16. Passenger limousine and/or bus storage and terminal facility and, Subject to the following conditions that the rezoning shall be conditioned upon the owner of the rezoned property executing a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions which shall indicate therein that the only allowed use for the property is that of a Building Supply/Lumber Yard and similar storage yard, and that the Covenants and Restrictions may only be revised or modified with the consent of the Town Board, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Zoning Map for the Town of Queensbury is hereby amended to provide for the rezoning of said property, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk shall, within five (5) days, direct that a certified copy of said change be published in the Glens Falls Post-Star and obtain an Affidavit of Publication, and copies of this resolution and the aforesaid notice shall be circulated to the various agencies and departments as may be required by law or regulation, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this amendment take effect ten (10) days after publication in the official Town newspaper. Duly adopted this 7th day of June, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES:Mrs. Goetz ABSENT:None RESOLUTIONS Councilman Goetz-Presented award to Mr. Robert Eddy for Charles Houghton former Chairman of the Queensbury Beautification Committee. COMMENDATION RESOLUTION: 322,93 INTRODUCED BY: ENTIRE TOWN BOARD WHEREAS, Charles Houghton, a resident of the Town of Queensbury has served as a member of the Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification since 1968, and WHEREAS, Charles Houghton, has volunteered countless hours in the service of this community, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has grown dramatically since Charles Houghton became a member of the Beautification Committee twenty-five years ago, and WHEREAS, he has contributed to the role the Committee plays in the planning within our Town to enhance the appearance of residential and commercial property in the Town of Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT KNOWN that the Queensbury Town Board on behalf of the residents of the Town of Queensbury, does hereby commend Charles Houghton for his years of dedication and service to the Queensbury Committee for Beautification. Duly adopted this 7th day of June, 1993, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt Noes: None AbsentNone RESOLUTION APPROVING MINUTES RESOLUTION NO. 323, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the minutes of April 12th, and 26th 1993 and May 3rd, 1993. Duly adopted this 7th day of June, 1993, by the following vote: All Those In Favor: Ayes All Those Opposed: None Absent: None Abstain: Mrs. Goetz (May 3rd, 1993) RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING INTEREST RATE TO BE PAID IN CONNECTION WITH THE FIRE FIGHTER SERVICE AWARD PROGRAM RESOLUTION NO.: 324, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, Article 7 of the Plan Document established for the Town of Queensbury Service Award Program provides that the Town Board, as Trustees, will determine annual contributions to the Plan, as well as the percentage of interest to be paid by the Town on contributions for the period of time the annual contribution due the Service Award Program Trust Fund has not been made, and the rate of interest used to calculate the annual contribution calculated to fund any prior service liability in accordance with Section 7.03 of the Program Document, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has been advised that interest rates earned in January of 1993 on investments of funds accruing from taxes at the rate of 4.65%, and at the weighted average of the interest rates for the month of January was 4.65%, as calculated by the Director of Accounting Services for the Town of Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby determines that the interest rate to be paid on unfunded contributions to the date of funding for annual contributions to be made to fund prior service liability, shall be 4.65%, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor, working with the Fire Service Awards Administrator, Mr. Ed Holohan, is authorized to make the contribution to the Fire Service Award Fund as soon as practical, and said contribution, after being calculated, shall be paid for from the Account No.: 005-3410-4980. Duly adopted this 7th day of June, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION CONCERNING MOBILE HOME PARK APPLICATION RESOLUTION NO.: 325,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has heretofore adopted certain local laws and/or ordinances concerning the regulation of mobile homes, as more specifically set forth in Chapter 113, entitled "Mobile Homes" and Chapter 179, entitled "Zoning of the Code of the Town of Queensbury", and WHEREAS, Mr. Barry Converse has made application for an establishment of the Converse Mobile Home Park on April Lane, in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, Chapter 113 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury provides that, upon filing an Application for a Mobile Home License, the Town Clerk shall notify the Town Board, and the Town Board shall then refer the Application to the Planning Board for Type II Site Plan Review, as more particularly described in Chapter 179 of Zoning, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has made a written recommendation to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, the same being in the form ofa Resolution, dated May 18, 1993, and WHEREAS, Chapter 113 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury further provides that the Town Board shall hold a hearing on the Application, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby sets the hearing date on the Application for June 21, 1993, and hereby further provides that seven (7) days written notice by ordinary mail shall be given to the applicant and all property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the proposed site, setting forth the date, time and place of the hearing. Duly adopted this 7th day of June, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION CONCERNING TRAFFIC SIGNALS ON QUAKER ROAD RESOLUTION NO.: 326,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has been advised by Sterling T. Goodspeed, Assistant County Attorney, that evaluation and repair or servicing of the Quaker Road traffic lights located at the intersections of Meadowbrook and Quaker Roads, Glenwood Avenue and Quaker Road, and Lafayette Street and Quaker Road, has been completed by New York Fire and Signal Corporation, and WHEREAS, the agreement between the Town of Queensbury and the County of Warren provided that the agreed upon conveyance of ownership of the traffic signals to the Town shall be deemed to not have occurred until such time as the work is completed to the satisfaction of the Town Board, as evidenced by an adoption of a resolution of acceptance, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby acknowledges that the work on the traffic lights has been completed satisfactorily and in accordance with the terms of the agreement, which provided that the County shall accomplish further programming and adjustments to the satisfaction of the Town, and that, "the Town shall supervise the programming or adjustments and Town responsibility for the lights shall commence following New York Fire and Signal's performance of service." Duly adopted this 7th day of June, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION TO AMEND 1993 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 327,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, certain departments have requested transfers of funds for the 1993 Budget, and WHEREAS, said requests have been approved by the Chief Fiscal Officer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the funds be transferred as follows, for the 1993 budget: PLANNING: FROM: TO: AMOUNT: 001-8020-4110 (Vehicle Repair & Maintenance) 001-8020-4050 (Books, Pub. & & Subscriptions) $ 150.00 and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the 1993 Town Budget is hereby amended accordingly. Duly adopted this 7th day of June, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RETENTION OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OF LA F AVE, WHITE & MC GIVERN, LS., P.C., TO CONDUCT MAPPING SERVICES REGARDING TRANSPORTATION STUDY RESOLUTION NO.: 328, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury previously adopted resolution no.: 204, 93 regarding the undertaking of a planning study of the Route 9/Route 254 intersection and surrounding area, and in said resolution, authorized funding up to an amount of $50,000.00, and WHEREAS, the Executive Director issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to three (3) qualified mapping and aerial photography firms, and WHEREAS, Lafave, White & McGivern, L.S., P.c., offered to supply both the aforesaid mapping and aerial photography work for the lowest submitted total bid of $13,320.00, and WHEREAS, the Town Board previously authorized the photography portion of the services and the same have been completed, and WHEREAS, the mapping portion of the proposed bid is $11,620.00, and the Town Board is desirous of proceeding with that portion of the project, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the retention of Lafave, White & McGivern, L.S., P.C., to perform the mapping services regarding the authorized planning study of the Route 9/Route 254 intersection and surrounding area, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized to sign any and all documentation for the retention of the mapping services, as hereinbefore mentioned, and forward for processing any and all bills for services rendered, upon the receipt of properly completed vouchers, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the expenditures shall be paid for from Account No.: 001-8030-4400 (Home & Community Services - Research). Duly adopted this 7th day of June, 1993, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt Noes: None Absent:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PERMIT FOR FIREWORKS DISPLAY RESOLUTION NO.: 329, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is desirous of contracting with Michael J. Y oung/Torrington Explosives to conduct a fireworks display as follows: SPONSOR: Town of Queensbury PLACE: West Glens Falls Fireman's Field DATE: July 4, 1993 TIME: 9:30 P.M. (approx.) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk, in accordance with the Penal Law of the State of New York, Section 405, is hereby authorized to issue a permit subject to the following conditions: A. An application for permit be filed which sets forth: 1. The name of the body sponsoring the display and the names of the persons actually to be in charge of the firing of the display. 2. The date and time of day at which the display is to be held. 3. The exact location planned for the display. 4. The age, experience and physical characteristics of the persons who are to do the actual discharging of the fireworks. 5. The number and kind of fireworks to be discharged. 6. The manner and place of storage of such fireworks prior to the display. 7. A diagram of the grounds on which the display is to be held showing the point at which the fireworks are to be discharged, the location of all buildings, highways, and other lines of communication, the lines behind which the audience will be restrained and the location of all nearby trees, telegraph or telephone lines or other overhead obstructions. B. Proof of insurance be received which demonstrates insurance coverage through an insurance company licensed in the State of New York, and that the Town of Queensbury is named as an additional insured and that the insurance coverage contain a hold harmless clause which shall protect the Town of Queensbury; C. Inspections and approval must be made by the Queensbury Fire Marshal and the Chief of West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., D. Cleanup of the area must be completed by 10:00 a.m., the following day, and all debris must be cleaned up including all unexploded shells, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the permit or letter of authorization by the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury shall, pursuant to the Penal Law of the State of New York, Section 405, provides: the actual point at which the fireworks are to be fired shall be at least two hundred feet from the nearest permanent building, public highway or railroad or other means of travel and at least fifty feet from the nearest above ground telephone or telegraph line, tree or other overhead obstruction, that the audience at such display shall be restrained behind lines at least one hundred and fifty feet from the point at which the fireworks are discharged and only persons in active charge of the display shall be allowed inside these lines, that all fireworks that fire a projectile shall be so set up that the projectile will go into the air as nearby (nearly) as possible in a vertical direction, unless such fireworks are to be fired from the shore of a lake or other large body of water, when they may be directed in such manner that the falling residue from the deflagration will fall into such lake or body of water, that any fireworks that remain unfired after the display is concluded shall be immediately disposed of in a way safe for the particular type of fireworks remaining, that no fireworks display shall be held during any wind storm in which the wind reaches a velocity of more than thirty miles per hour, that all the persons in actual charge of firing the fireworks shall be over the age of eighteen years, competent and physically fit for the task, that there shall be at least two such operators constantly on duty during the discharge and that at least two soda-acid or other approved type fire extinguisher of at least two and one-half gallons capacity each shall be kept at as widely separated points as possible within the actual area of the display, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor on behalf of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized to execute a contract between Michael J. Y oung/Torrington Explosives for the fireworks demonstration, the form of the contract to be approved by the Town Attorney and the amount of the contract not-to-exceed four thousand five hundred ($4,500.00) dollars to be paid for from account no.: 001-7550-4400, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes payment of $800.00 to Michael J. Young/Torrington Explosives up front, with the balance of $3,700.00 to be paid 15 days after the fireworks display, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby requests that with the first payment, Michael J. Y oung/Torrington Explosives, furnish the Town with a Certificate of Insurance in the amount of $1 million dollars, with the Town of Queensbury being named as an additional insured on the Certificate and the insurance certificate indicating that there is insurance coverage on a Hold Harmless Clause which will protect the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 7th day of June, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: Mr. Caimano ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND THE WARREN WASHINGTON REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RESOLUTION NO.: 330, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is desirous of entering into a written contract with The Warren Washington Regional Economic Development Corporation, and WHEREAS, a copy of the aforesaid contract has been reviewed and approved, in form, by the Town Attorney of the Town of Queensbury, and is hereby presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves of the contract between The Warren Washington Regional Economic Development Corporation and the Town of Queensbury, presented at this meeting, and hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury to execute the same, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that payment due on said contract shall be paid from the appropriate, budgeted account. Duly adopted this 7th day of June, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None DISCUSSIONS Bob Allen - Discussion Election Mr. Allen presented to Board members a map with the new Election Districts boundaries. (Map on file in Town Clerk's Office) Spoke to the regarding the election district boundaries that have been put together that have been mandated under the Election Law due to the large size of three districts. Noted that none of the Ward boundaries changed. First and Second Wards in the Town of Queensbury were not affected at all. In Wards Three only Districts One and Two were involved. In Ward Four there were massive changes. In the Fourth Ward former District Five was abolished and combined with former District Four, giving a total of 730 voters in that one District. Ward Four, District One, was divided forming new Districts, One and Five. Former Ward Four, District Two, was divided forming Districts, Two and Six. Noted the law requires any time a polling place is changed the voter be notified, postcards are being printed and voters will be notified of these changes. Also, noted that the redistricting is at no additional cost to the Town. Recommended to the Board that they pass a resolution noting these changes. The following resolution was passed. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLLING PLACES RESOLUTION NO. 331,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby established that the voting places for Districts Two, Six, and One of Ward Four, shall be at the Fire House located at Luzerne Road and VanDusen and the voting places for Districts Five, Three, and Four of Ward Four, shall be at the West Glens Fire House located at the corner of Luzerne and Veterans, and WHEREAS, the population shift caused a change in the District boundaries, and THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Town is desirous of establishing new voting places. Ayes: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt Noes: None Absent:None DISCUSSION WEST GLENS FALLS EMERGENCY SQUAD Jay Mayer, President of West Glens Falls Emergency Squad and Jim Webb, Captain West Glens Falls Emergency Squad Spoke to the Town Board regarding their contract. Requested to the Town Board to be able to enter into a Mutual Aid Agreement with Empire Ambulance Services. It was the decision of the Town Board to have public comment on this matter at the next Regular Town Board Meeting on June 21st, 1993. ZAREMBA REZONING Executive Director, Mr. Martin-The SEQRA review has been done on this as of the last meeting. The Board withheld a decision as to the actual rezoning pending the outcome of the County review. There seems to be some discrepancy whether or not the thirty day review period by the County has expired or started, their position is that it has not started. After our research Paul and I have been looking into this it's our opinion that the period has started and has lapsed. Supervisor Brandt-I've got a question in what was discussed in the previous rezoning on Curtis. We had tremendous argument here in trying to understand the scope of what we were wrestling with and the SEQRA review that we did at the last meeting. It got down to an argument of we're we really trying to understand all the details of the project or we're we really talking about the zone change and not look at the project. I think there are some clarification needed there or we're left a little dirty, I think. I think we have to clearly look at the project from what you just describe earlier. Councilman Caimano-I tell you, I did the SEQRA review based upon my laws and rules and unfortunately I am hundred percent wrong compared to what you said today. Attorney Dusek-Let's talk about that for a second. This is where the situation gets kind of interesting. As, I indicated when an applicant comes with a project the general proposition is that you do a SEQRA review for the entire thing from start to finish like your doing with Hudson Pointe. There comes on occasion, though, times when it's not known what the whole project will be or there are questions involving the projects. There has been a couple of court decisions concerning situations where residential property was being rezoned to commercial and in those instances the court said, well you go as far as you can go. You evaluate it with as much as you know you use the conceptual development tactic. However, I note in those court decisions though that they were in instances where you had residential to commercial. Here we have something that is different. We have a situation where you have basically a hodge podge, if you will of zoning where it's potentially light industrial for the whole parcel or could be plaza commercial light industrial etc., for the parcel then being converted from either one of those to a commercial setting. Also, you have, of course, a situation where you don't know for sure if the site is going to be in fact develop with the particular project at least that is what I got out of one of the meetings and the applicant is here, he can correct me if I'm wrong. If it's a definite thing and this is what is going to be built there and there is no ifs, an's or but's about it then, of course, obviously it becomes a whole project SEQRA. On the other hand if there is a possibility that your going to rezone and that may not occur then it seems to be the Board has some flexibility. When your into it in the previous discussion, I could certainly understand where Nick was coming from when he was looking at the zoning lines saying, your just changing lines and it's not making a whole lot of difference. It made and said to me especially when your looking at light industrial plaza, commercial they are all it seems to be similar intensity of uses. The issue such as drainage and runoff are going to be the same whether it's industrial or commercial at least as I looked at. The other thing I looked at is SEQRA doesn't say you can't segment the SEQRA review so you could have a situation where a project has a SEQRA review at the Town Board level and it later has a SEQRA review at the Planning Board level. In point off act, when you do your major zonings that's exactly what happens and SEQRA says and the Courts have said that's, okay you can do that because those are instances where the Town has initiated the zoning. They are saying, of course, you don't know what's going to go on so you do the best that you can and you just look at it from the overview of the intensity of the various zones. In this case, however, it's different because the applicant is here before you with a particular project and the courts say that your suppose to implement SEQRA as soon as possible so you can avoid an irreversible course of action based on SEQRA. Option, first of all review the project as the entire project under SEQRA so go back through the SEQRA document and have that as a consideration. Secondly, the other option would be to bifurcate it and say, well we did our SEQRA review because on just the rezoning in this case it's an unusual case and we're going to let the Planning Board do the remaining SEQRA review. I'm telling you up front, of course, that it is if you read the SEQRA handbook and you read at least what initially appears to be the lessons of the cases that seems to be contrary to the cases. However, I feel that because the SEQRA regulations do indicate that segmentation can occur and because I haven't seen a ruling from the top Court of Appeals of the State of New York that says you can't do it this way, it's my opinion that I think you still do have some flexibility. One way is safer than the other obviously in terms of being a hundred percent protected. On the other hand it's not to say that you can't segment it and I think if you wanted to and you justified it, I think you can move ahead with that with a reasonable degree of comfort. Councilman Caimano-Didn't we also say last week didn't I ask on at least three occasions that whether or not this was going to have a SEQRA review at site plan and the answer was, yes. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-It's already scheduled for that to begin as of June 10th. Councilman Monahan-On the other hand DEC has also told me one person in DEC that you can't segment. I do want to say this we have a letter here June 4th, 1993 which says this will be absolutely a Kmart Corporation on this site so there is no doubt what's going on that site. Supervisor Brandt-This letter is written by Thomas Wardlow who called me today from Kmart and said the same thing. That makes no doubt about it they had made a commitment to this site and they were not interested in the other site that was being brought in front of us. Clearly they had made their choice and told the developers of that and we should move ahead as if this was their site because it is. That's the phone conversation and I see a letter here that was brought, I assume by you folks tonight. Unknown-Really this in response to Mrs. Monahan's question last time we met that this was indeed going to be a Kmart Corporation project. I think at that meeting I offered the rejoinder that at the next opportunity to meet that I would do my best to supply you with information and give you a comfort level to that affect. Councilman Monahan-The other thing is Jim, I'm just looking at the SEQRA review and I don't have the completed one in front of us, I have the proposed one. How did we answer the impact on transportation? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I don't have it in front of me either. But, I think we said it was no impact and that was with the standing we we're just looking at a rezoning and not with the idea a known end use was in place. Councilman Monahan-Isn't it true that the level of service at Quaker Road and Dix Avenue is at level E right now which is a failed level? Councilman Goetz-I think we should go back and do the SEQRA again. Councilman Monahan-And isn't it true that what Warren County asked them according to minutes was traffic studies and isn't it true that the applicant said that they would furnish it to Warren County? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes, in the contexts in which is was asked for, yes. Councilman Monahan-I can see why Warren County says the time has not started because they asked and the applicant said they would furnish. Unknown-Mr. Chairman, can I address Mrs. Monahan's question? Supervisor Brandt-I would like to first, it seems strange to me that Warren County would feel so strongly about this and ask for traffic studies on this project, but not be interested one bit in traffic studies on the competitive project across the street. To me that's ajerk around, somebody's playing politics the good ole boy's system in simple english. As far as I'm concerned, Kmart whether it's on this side of the street or that side of the street is going to produce a certain amount of traffic. If that isn't clear to Warren County Planning then by jesus they've got their head in the sand. So, what they are doing is picking on this group and the other group they are saying, go right ahead we don't have any questions whatsoever. As far as I'm concerned, local jurisdiction this Board is controlling this project and it's time to assert ourselves and tell Warren County if they want to play by fair rules we'll play. If they want to play with the good ole boy's system to danm bad we're going to control it. Councilman Monahan-Jim has the other site gone to Warren County for review? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-That was heard May 12th, they approved it. Councilman Monahan-They approved the other site? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Non-conditional. Councilman Monahan-That was the site already approved under zoning for commercial or did they go for the light industrial part for that site? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-It's a very similar situation. The rear half is light industrial and that applicant is taking the tact of a use variance in order to get commercial use of the entire site. Councilman Monahan-It wasn't a rezoning it was a variance? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-They were hearing the two use area variances that were involved. There is a use variance and a area variance. Councilman Monahan-I'm just trying to find out what the history... Executive Director, Mr. Martin-As a matter off act the other application involves a project with sixty five thousand square feet of more area. Supervisor Brandt-There will be some impact. As far as I'm concerned, compared to the traffic that's already there it's light to moderate it's not an enormous increase and it is on the Traffic Study Committee the Committee of the Regional Transportation Group. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I've been in contact with DOT about this. This is not going to be dealt with lightly they are fully aware of the level of service at that intersection. When they get the notice of the SEQRA review when the Planning Board accepts lead agency status for site plan they want to have a full session with the County, Town representatives present themselves, the applicant and go through what traffic mitigation measures are required. It's not going to be taken lightly they are even mentioning physical changes to the intersection down there. In terms of reconfiguration or anything of that nature that can be done to improve the turning movements down there. Councilman Caimano-I would say under ordinary circumstances, I would agree with Sue that we ought to redo this thing. Except that we are on the record first of all as going to site plan review and doing another SEQRA. You are on the record as indicating that DOT is going to take a hard look at traffic. Weare on the record as saying, that we are concerned about it we're not shirking our duties here at all by not going back as far as I'm concerned. All we'd exceed in doing is slowing down the process. If that's our intent then I would be glad to go back and revisit SEQRA here. If that's not our intent we want to move this project along to a conclusion one way or another then I say, our words stand for themselves on the record and we go on to the Planning Board. Councilman Goetz-Can I just say my intent in saying that was not to slow down the process. If we did the SEQRA again would we do it tonight? Attorney Dusek -You could. Councilman Goetz-I feel based upon what you said Paul how we should approach a rezoning in the SEQRA, I think we should. Supervisor Brandt-I certainly don't want to see us get into litigation. I have no problem sitting here tonight too late if that's what it takes and getting through this. I certainly want to prepare a clear record to any court that looks at that we do know what we're looking at and we are aware of the project and we are ruling on the project with our eyes wide open. Councilman Caimano-Just so the two of you know though we will not be able to finish the SEQRA review tonight because we do not have any traffic documents, we do not have any of that. I, for one would not allow us to put a neg dec on this thing if we don't have any information on traffic. How could we possible neg dec it? Supervisor Brandt-I could. Councilman Caimano- Y ou could, but it wouldn't be right. Supervisor Brandt-I don't believe that's correct. Councilman Caimano-We don't have any information. Supervisor Brandt-Wait a minute let me speak for a second. Councilman Caimano-Go ahead. Supervisor Brandt -You have information you've seen those roads. You know what the traffic is and you know about what kind of traffic comes from one of these stores. Is it an enormous increase in the baseline traffic of what you have or isn't it? It's a pretty minor increase from what I can see. Councilman Caimano-A hundred and sixty thousand square foot store is going to be a minor increase on that corner? Councilman Monahan-You already have an intersection that is at failure level. That's what level E, is it means that intersection has failed right now. Councilman Caimano-I think we ought to let the evidence come forward and let SEQRA be done again at the Planning Board. You might be able to do it, it got voted, but I don't know how we could pass a SEQRA tonight based upon the traffic. Councilman Tucker-You got to have that it's part of it, right? Councilman Caimano- That's part of it. Supervisor Brandt -Can we rezone this specifically sending that question to a future SEQRA in the Planning Board? Attorney Dusek-First of all, I think you've got a unique case here. It's a case that doesn't squarely fit within the normal SEQRA review. Hudson Pointe is a classic example, I keep coming back to that because your familiar with it and it's classic. Your going to go through a full scale SEQRA review right down to the last dwelling unit that gets built over there the drainage and everything else. In this particular case you have an unusual situation because you have a hodge podge of zoning right now over there and your changing it into a commercial zone. You have available to you a SEQRA review at the site plan level which seems to me, this will be for the Board to answer ultimately though, won't that SEQRA review do everything that you could possible hope to do in a SEQRA review at this stage? Because the zoning is so similar in character in otherwords something is going to get built there, but a light industrial unit of a hundred sixty eight thousand could also be built there based on its current zoning or you could have a mixture of industrial and plaza commercial. SEQRA does not say you could never segment a lot of people think that's the case, but that's not what it says, it says you can segment. DEC has said, don't do it unless you really make a good reason why you segmented it. Also, the other thing I might say is the other thing they look for, are you going down a irreversible course of action. It seems to be your light industrial plaza commercial now your going to plaza commercial something's going to happen over there it's going to have an impact on traffic no matter what it's zoned on these two types. I think this is a different type of case, but I'm telling you, you are dealing on the acceptance range of the general proposition. This is for the Board to weigh whether or not you feel that this case is sufficient to justify being treated as an acceptance. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-The other thing I would note is that DOT was consented for lead agency when the Town Board sent around its lead agency request and they did not comment at that time knowing they would see it at site plan. Councilman Monahan-Jim can you answer me one question, please or may the applicant can. We have 35.46 plus or minus and it's divided up into many different zones. Can you tell us how much of that acreage is in the different zones at the present time? Unknown-That would approximately be half... Councilman Monahan-We've got light industrial, plaza commercial, highway commercial, heavy industrial. Can you give us a run-down of how much is in each one of those zones right now, please. Unknown-This is the grandfathered zoning map which we presented to you several times already. This zone line right here encompassing this entire property that's zoned heavy industrial. If you look at in proportion to what is currently plaza commercial these areas here are light industrial it would be approximately twenty eight acres. Fourteen acres more or less of the project site which the Kmart Store is going to be constructed on is heavy industrial. We have the remaining portions down here which is heavy industrial and commercial which is approximately fourteen acres. You can see a majority of that is approximately two thirds heavy industrial. Then we have highway commercial which is only a small portion of this existing area which is, I don't know the exact figures. Then we have the plaza commercial acres which again is about fourteen acres. The numbers may not add up, but by portions you can see and this map was provided as part of your packet. Councilman Monahan-I know, but it still doesn't give me acreage. Supervisor Brandt-I'd like to move this thing off dead center. What, I think I'd like to do is put a resolution together that basically says that this Board is not right now going to go back through the SEQRA review because it has looked at SEQRA and the impacts on the project and it is specifically asking the Planning Board to review details such as traffic when it passes on. Would that procedurally make sense of where we're going as a Board? Attorney Dusek-I think so. The following resolution was passed. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING NO FURTHER ACTION ON SEQRA REVIEW - ZAREMBA RESOLUTION NO. 332, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker I like to put a resolution together that basically says that this Board is not right now going to go back through the SEQRA review because it has looked at SEQRA and the impacts on the project and it is specifically asking the Planning Board to review details such as traffic when it passes on. Duly adopted this 7th day of June, 1993, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt Noes: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz Absent: None DISCUSSION CONTINUED Supervisor Brandt-Where do we go next? Attorney Dusek - I think you should talk about the County aspect of it. General Municipal Law Section 239- M, provides that whenever you have this type of application it must be referred to the County for their approval, disapproval or non-action if that's their choice. That's a very strong section of the law because it says if you don't comply with that section you basically have no jurisdiction to act. You cannot even entertain it and if you tired to it's null and void. Now, the County can either approve, disapprove or not act. If they don't act then your free to do whatever you want to do actually your free to do whatever you want to do if they either do one of those three things. Obviously, approve, disapprove, that's easy to understand they send you something back. We're in a situation where they haven't sent us anything back so now the question is have they failed to take action under the law? The laws says that the referring agency which is the Town of Queensbury will decide what it is they send over as part of a complete application. You, the Town makes that determination whether the application is complete. The law then says you'll send it over to the County for their review and that they have thirty days to review it. The law also lets them adopt regulations on the thirty day review time period as to when it will start. From the best available information we have it appears that the County has not formally adopted rules and regulations as to when the thirty day time period. Like the Town of Queensbury has regulations that we have cut -off dates established and they are done by Board action. As far as we can tell, Jim correct me if I'm wrong we're not aware of any regulations that the County has adopted rather they just have informally set cut -off dates over there. So, therefore if that's true the law says the thirty days starts when you give the full application to them. Jim has a letter that was signed by the County indicating a receipt of the application of May 5th. That would clearly start the thirty day time clock running. The thirty days would have already expired provided they had a full statement. Jim Martin has informed as the Planner for the Town that he has reviewed the application that was given to the County and that is the full application in his opinion. Supervisor Brandt-In his opinion it's a full application? Attorney Dusek-Right. We have advised the County of this. The County's Attorneys Office contacted me and informed me that they felt the statement wasn't full because the applicant had indicated that transportation studies were to come and he basically admitted that the application wasn't complete and so the County says, we feel that's binding upon the Town and therefore the thirty day time period hasn't started. The applicant, however, informed us today and Tim is here he can correct me if he feels I'm saying this incorrectly. But, your position is that you only offered to provide the, let me let you say it as opposed to me. Tim Morgan-What was discussed at the County Planning Board and what is mentioned in Mr. Goodspeed's letter is indeed the situation, but it's not correct in fact. The issue of traffic studies was brought up as part of the rezoning issue and they asked me to speak to that issue. What I had mentioned to the Board in a very narrow context was this. The issue of transportation in the mitigation of those issue would take place, we would develop a traffic study and we would live by its findings and conclusions, but that is not an issue to be discussed in a rezoning contents. It is a site plan review issue only and it will not be discussed nor would it be supplied in a rezoning contexts. I advised the Board that should we be fortunate enough to proceed to a site plan level that a full traffic impact study would be supplied for their review. It was never insinuated in any way, shape, or form that it would be supplied at any other stage. Councilman Caimano-Is it a matter of fact that the County reviewed the other application and there was no traffic study with that other application. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-It was on the same night and they moved on it that night with no conditions it was approved. Councilman Monahan-Did they have a traffic study? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-No. We just got it over the fax machine today at five o'clock. Councilman Monahan-Again, that was a use variance and I'm not going to get into it. I kind of wonder Jim that you consider it complete without a traffic study when it is a rezoning. A rezoning is a very big step to rezone when we did do a Master Plan and this was all done in accordance with the Master Plan. I'm a little concerned that you did not require a traffic study for a rezoning of this magnitude to be honest with you. When we're looking at an intersection with a failing level right now and that's just a comment. Unknown-We are aware that we have not submitted a traffic study for a rezone. The question that I have to the Board is when you developed your Master Plan and you did do rezoning of significant portions of the Town of Queensbury did you in fact do a traffic study? Councilman Monahan-There were studies done at that time. Unknown-Was that done specifically to address all the rezoning changes is that correct, Jim? Councilman Monahan-Jim wasn't involved. Sue was on the committee that work on that with the hired consultant and with our Planning Department at that time. There was a contract for traffic studies and also the County had input into that and there was a good deal work done on traffic study. Supervisor Brandt-Maybe somebody could enlighten this Board as to what was suppose to have happen that would cure all this problem that created this problem of an E rating. Could we pull that out and tell us what went wrong? Isn't that just kind of a waste of time it happened. Whatever they predicted didn't happen whatever is here is what happened and now we're here and let's move on. I mean to me this is a rezoning and it's unfair to ask an applicant to come in with site plan review in a rezoning, I think you have to separate it out. The Planning Board and Zoning Board whoever has to handle this are competent groups. I think what we have to do is rule on the zoning pass it to them and let them do the site plan. There are some items it's just to expensive to ask an applicant in a rezoning to give every detail of a site plan and then not give them the zoning. Councilman Monahan-But, your rezoning makes the impact on the traffic. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-When I look at a rezoning going from land that is zoned heavy industrial there could be a warehouse distribution center there with twenty four hour three shift truck traffic going through there and wouldn't require any review beyond site plan. Councilman Caimano- There could be an automotive distribution warehouse center there, too with three shifts the traffic would be horrendous. The point is, 254 is arterial right? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Right. Councilman Caimano-Dix is a corridor? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I would venture to say the factor contributing to the failing grade on this intersection is not so much the volume of traffic that it handles, but the configuration of the intersection. Councilman Caimano-Either way it doesn't make any difference what we do here and it doesn't make any difference what the applicant does that intersection needs to be corrected and changed. Unknown-Which will be mitigated at time of site plan review. Obviously we won't get all our approvals to go forward to the project unless something is done. Councilman Caimano-As a matter off act by having this application we force the issue of getting that intersection taken care of. What are we going to do because it's a failed intersection we're never going to allow anybody to build there. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I would also note that if that was known as a failed intersection then why did the rezoning in 1988 call for plaza commercial around all the intersection there and light industrial beyond it. Councilman Caimano-Because they couldn't predict the future. Now the future is here and now we have to take care of it and because of this applicant we will take care of it that's the way I look at it and they are going to take care of it at the Planning Board stage. Supervisor Brandt-Now do we need a resolution to determine that the application was complete that was sent to the County in the view of this Board. Attorney Dusek-In the Boards opinion, I think that would be a good idea. The following resolutions were passed. RESOLUTION REGARDING APPLICATION TO COUNTY - ZAREMBA RESOLUTION NO. 333, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker Resolution determining the application sent to the County was complete in the view of this Board. Councilman Caimano-I think it should be noted in there that the argument put forth by the County was the absence of a traffic plan and at the same time they approved a parallel project which also did not have a traffic plan. Duly adopted this 7th day of June, 1993, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt Noes: Mrs. Monahan Absent:None RESOLUTION AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY CLAUDE C. CHARLEBOIS (APPLICANT - ZAREMBA GROUP, INC.) FROM LI-IA, PC-lA, HC-15, AND HI-3A TO PC-IA RESOLUTION NO. 334, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, Zaremba Group, Inc., petitioned the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury for a zoning change of the property owned by Mr. Claude C. Charlebois (Town of Queensbury Tax Map No.'s: 110-1-2.1,110-1-21,110-1-22, and 110-1-30) from the current zoning ofLI-IA (Light Industry - 1 Acre), PC-IA (Plaza Commercial- 1 Acre), HC-15 (Highway Commercial- 15,000 Square Feet), and HI-3A (Heavy Industry - 3 Acres) to PC-IA (Plaza Commercial- 1 Acre), and WHEREAS, on the 20th day of April, 1993, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board recommended approval of the petition, and WHEREAS, the Warren County Planning Board has failed to take action on said petition, and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on this matter on May 24, 1993, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has made a determination that the rezoning will have no significant environmental impact, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has considered the conditions and circumstances of the areas to be rezoned, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to re-zone the property owned by Mr. Claude C. Charlebois (Applicant - Zaremba Group, Inc.), Town of Queensbury Tax Map No.'s: 110-1-2.1, 110-1-21, 110-1-22, and 110-1-30, to PC-IA (Plaza Commercial- 1 Acre) thereby authorizing all uses permitted under Section 179-22 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury in such area, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Zoning Map for the Town of Queensbury is hereby amended to provide for the rezoning of said lands, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk shall, within five (5) days, direct that a certified copy of said changes be published in the Glens Falls Post-Star and obtain an Affidavit of Publication, and copies of this resolution and the aforesaid notice shall be circulated to the various agencies and departments as may be required by law or regulation, BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this amendment take effect ten (10) days after publication in the official Town newspaper. Duly adopted this 7th day of June, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: Mrs. Monahan ABSENT: None DISCUSSION HELD Councilman Monahan-Reasons for voting no. The reason is that we are zoning out of this Town all of our light and heavy industrial areas. I feel that we need to keep those and keep the areas that are on water and sewer for those purposes if we're going to provide any jobs of any type of good paying jobs for the future generations of this Town. Councilman Goetz-Reasons for voting yes. I would just like note that I am a member of the Queensbury Economic Development Corporation. At the last meeting, I asked them if they had any intentions or desires to purchase that land and it was explained to me that they did have a chance in the past, but that the price of the acre now they could not consider it. I do think that we have to be concerned with zoning more light industrial land and possibly on County Line Road. ATTORNEY MATTERS Attorney Dusek-Presented and reviewed with the Board an Investment Policy for the Town and a Third Party Custodial Agreement. Both of which have been caused by changes in the General Municipal Law which requires the Towns to adopt this. Noted he has sent revisions to the Bank, but would like to get their responses back first. Should they not have any problems the Board would be free to adopt or not adopt or whatever you want to do. Requested Town Board members to review and consider this as soon as possible within the next couple of weeks so they can move to adopt this. It was the decision of the Town Board to bring this matter up at the regular Town Board Meeting on June 21st, 1993. DISCUSSION DEC LANDFILL ORDER Attorney Dusek-Presented to Board members from DEC a Proposed Modification Order on Consent. Discussion held with Board members regarding Order of Consent. It was noted in the discussion to have the Town Attorney draft a Manifest Agreement for people entering the landfill with C & D waste. After further discussion the Town Board passed the following resolution. RESOLUTION PROPOSED ORDER CONSENT MODIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. 335, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has been presented with the Proposed Order on Consent Modification, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of indicating its approval and consent to the order and authorizing the Town Supervisor to execute the same on behalf of the Town of Queensbury, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves and indicates its consent to the Proposed Order on Consent Modification presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes the Town Attorney to attempt to seek a modification of language appearing in Paragraph 2 (h), which provides three working days notice of agreements to DEC and the Town Attorney is authorized to discuss with DEC a modification that paragraph such that the period of time can be waived ifDEC consents to it. Duly adopted this 7th day of June, 1993, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt Noes: None Absent:None DISCUSSION HELD Supervisor Brandt-Noted he would like to see a law suit to claim at least all the interest if not all of the payments that were made on the rental contract that was criticized in the Audit for a Frontend Loader with Southworth Tractor. Requested the Town Attorney to look into this matter and come back with a report to the Board. OPEN FORUM Barbara Bennett-Requested that the Town Board ask for the money back that was spent on the recent Assessment of the Town. John Salvador-Questioned the Town Board regarding the Southworth contract on the Frontend Loader. Noted that public officials and public employees should be held personally liable for this kind an error. Asked to have this kept on the agenda until this matter is finalized. Supervisor Brandt-Noted that he intends to do that. Mr. Salvador-Asked for an update on the Fire District budget for next year. Councilman Caimano-Awaiting information from Fire Departments. Mr. Salvador-Spoke to the Board regarding the Emergency Squad fly car in North Queensbury. Questioned the Town Board if they have a plan in place regarding the landfill closure on October 7th, 1993. Supervisor Brandt-Noted that they hope so, there is a chance of this happening. Mr. Salvador-Spoke to the Board regarding C & D waste deposited in the landfill and who will be liable for what is deposited in the landfill. Noted he can only be responsible for what he deposits in the landfill. Supervisor Brandt -Stated your only liable for what you deposit in the landfill. Councilman Caimano-Noted that you also have to sign a Manifest Agreement stating what you deposit in the landfill. Mr. Salvador-Spoke to the Board regarding discussions held at Washington County Board of Supervisor's meetings about some kind of citizen input with regard to negotiated settlement on the Trash Plant Contracts, asked if Warren County has considered this? Supervisor Brandt-Noted this question should be directed to the County. Mr. Salvador-Spoke to the Board regarding the Town of Queensbury participating in the North Queensbury Marina Inspection in order to satisfy the increase number of complaints to the Lake George Park Commission and the Public Health Office in regard to pollution, marina's, etc. Presented letter to Board members with report prepared by Towns Public Health Officer on results of inspections. Noted one major potential pollution problem left with Harris Bay Yacht Club with concern to the pit and mound which need to be investigated. Have been in contact with Lake George Park Commission their response indicated that they are continuing to observe the pit and mound for evidence offailure as defined in 6NYCRR646-3. The response also suggested to refer concerns to the appropriate Town and County Offices. Noted Dr. Evans and Dave Hatin were part of the joint inspection. Asked what resolutions and depositions have taken place for the following: (1) What were the inadequacies for the pump out system. (2) How were these inadequacies corrected. (3) What does possible drainage below groundwater mean. (4) By what means does this get investigated by which Town Official. (5) Was the Public Health Officer strong recommendation for a holding tank accepted, if not why not. (6) What was the illegal aspect of the line to the pit. (7) How was this corrected. (8) Does the Harris Bay Yacht Club have an easement for the line to the pit to cross Route 9L and travel within the Highway right-a-way. (9) Were the results of water sampling conducted by Mr. Olson ever made known to the Town. (10) Would such test result precipitate action by the Town. (11) Should the Public Health Officer take his own water samples for testing. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-To contact Dave Hatin in regard to this matter and report back to the Town Board with an update next week. Mr. Salvador-Spoke to the Board regarding a letter from Warren County Department of Public Works, copies to Supervisor Brandt, Councilman Monahan regarding Warren County Sewer Project with attached letter from Clough Harbour. Supervisor Brandt-Noted he has received a letter from the DPW of the County which outlines what options need to be studied, also the County is trying to define the options and asked for a meeting regarding this matter. Mr. Salvador-Questioned when will the determination be made as to other alternatives in the North Queensbury study area? Are there expected to be charges to the Town of Queensbury for this study to determine other alternatives. Supervisor Brandt-Doesn't believe there will be charges to the Town to do the study. At this point it is agreed that the County will do this and are in the process of setting up a meeting. Mr. Salvador-Noted he thinks there are some people in North Queensbury that could put input into this subject. Would like a meeting with the Town in regard to this matter. Executive Director, Mr. Martin to set up meeting. Questioned the level of insurance coverage for the Fireworks. Attorney Dusek-One million dollars. Mr. Salvador-Spoke to the Board regarding his concerns with public money flowing for a private purpose regarding Queensbury Economic Development Corporation. Attorney Dusek-Read through the agreement, noting he doesn't think it's a private purpose or undertaking. Based on everything he reviewed to date it's proper, if new things should come up then we will revisit it. Councilman Tucker-Pertaining to the article in the paper about West Mt. Ski area stealing water from the Town. I'd like to point out there were no dates in the article in the paper. I've been questioned about what the Board is going to do about it. I'd like to point out and make it a part of the public record that the Water Superintendent did not bring this to the Town Board. He took it to his own private Attorney who requested the Sheriffs Department to do an investigation who requested the State Police to do an investigation which they did and found no proof of theft. But, I would like to point out for the public record that the time frame involves January lIth, 1982, the years of 1985-1987. To make the point again, this was not brought to this Board for an investigation if it had been it would have been investigated. Supervisor Brandt-I have a comment, too. There is an implication that there may have been theft of water by a company that I own. I asked the Water Superintendent for the copy of the files of that water meter. I wanted to see what made him believe that an investigation was necessary. I didn't get them so today I went to the Water Department myself and I had them copied and have the entire file. I've gone through it very very carefully. There was a meter failure that's documented in 1982 and apparently that's the justification for the investigation that was just done. I don't think that's fair at all and I want to be dam public about it. In 1982, here's a copy of the report the meter and pipeline are in full view of the meter readers and the Water Department and always have been for the last eleven years since this was done. There is a diagram of the service which was changed, it was changed in 1984, 1985, there is no diagram of the new one. I remember when the meter failed, I remember being there when we opened the screen to find out what caused it. It was a two by four that was left in our water line somewhere in the Towns maintenance system and it came through a little short piece of two by four it came with enough velocity that when it hit the screen it shattered and part of it went through and hit the meter and broke the meter. That was at least one failure, I don't know what the date of that failure was, but it was around ten, twelve years ago. The meter was eventually changed and we changed the sequence of where the meter was to the screens and what have you. In 1982 there is a note that says, checked meter in company of Mike Brandt by operating value, looks like it says, four inch to pond the meter did not registered possibility of a cross connection between pond and municipal water. That basically says you could be stealing water, 1982 this is 1993, nobody did anything about it. Councilman Goetz-I have one question about it. The letter that went to J. David Little was on Town stationary. I didn't understand why it didn't come to the Town Attorney is that a procedure? Attorney Dusek-I didn't know anything about it until I heard after the fact the same as you. Certainly any employee who feels that there is a problem in Town Government, I would hope they would feel comfortable enough to come to me. My job is legal counsel to the entire Town. Although, I will say this obviously if somebody feels something is improper warrants an investigation they don't have to come to me either they are free to go to the authorities themselves they don't have to report it to me. But, on the otherhand I do stand available to assist any employee or officer of the Town. Councilman Goetz-Your laughing why are you laughing? Councilman Caimano-I was looking at the expression on his face, that's the expression. Supervisor Brandt-I'll tell you I'm not laughing to me this is danm close to slander. When we rebuilt that pump house the work had to be inspected by the Water Department. They had inspectors that came there and looked at all of the piping and they had to approve it. Now, eleven years later or ten years later they come and say that we might be stealing water that takes some gaul. Mr. Salvador-Who owns the water meter Mike? Supervisor Brandt-Originally, I had to buy it. After that one the first one got shattered and broken and I bought according to the specifications of the Water Department they told me what to buy I just paid for it. Later on they replaced the meter with one that they bought a different specifications. About three years ago we had a crew in the pump house working on a pump and one of the guys, my son threw his carhart coat over the valves and there are all a big run of valves, check valves, screens, and meter. The guys throw their coats over it cause it happens to be a dry spot where they can work cause it's very warm in the pump house. When they left he picked up his coat and a button on the coat caught the wire on the meter and broke it. He called the Water Department the next morning and told him that he broke the meter seal. That meter seal has been broken hasn't been repaired ever since and that's two or three years. Now somebody is going to start accusing me of a crime over this crap. There isn't a thing in the records that says the seal is broken, it's been broken for three years. A guy has gone there and read the dam meter every month, if not in some cases last year they read it every week looks to me like a funny set of standards, not so funny as a matter of fact. Mr. Palmer-Mike, how much water does the mountain use if they were having their pumps operating? Supervisor Brandt-We use about a million gallons a day a little less than that. Mr. Palmer-It would be next to impossible then if we're running about 2.7 million gallons and I'm looking over some of the square usage over the period of years investigating and trying to find out how much we should increase our capacities to. If they are using approximately 2.7 million gallons a day for the Town and there was a million gallons usage when your pumps are in operation, I would think that would be very easily registered and known at the Water Department am I wrong? Supervisor Brandt-In fact in the water they don't use 2.7 million they are using about 1.3 million so we use about a fifty per cent increase in their water production when we take water. We try and tell them when we're going to take it because when they see the meter jump and it really jumps on them they think a water main could of broken. We do our best to inform them when we start making snow and tell them what we're doing so they are not looking for a broken main. I think they know quite well when we're taking water, shabby at best. RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS RESOLUTION NO. 336, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the Abstract appearing on June 7th, 1993 and numbering 93189300 through 93217500 and totaling $196,998.83 is hereby approved, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that voucher #93002080, for Court was held for further explanation. Duly adopted this 7th day of June, 1993, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt Noes: None Absent: None Abstain Mrs. Monahan, vendor# 00453 CWI Workshop, Mr. Caimano, vendor #000127 G.F. Post Star RESOLUTION ENTERING EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 337,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and moves into Executive Session to discuss one matter of litigation and one matter of union arbitration. Duly adopted this 7th day of June, 1993, by the following vote: All Those In Favor: Ayes All Those Opposed: None Absent: None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 338, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michael Brandt RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Executive Session and moves back into Regular Session. Duly adopted this 7th day of June, 1993, by the following vote: All Those In Favor: Ayes All Those Opposed: None Absent: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SETTLEMENT OF ACTION RESOLUTION NO. 339,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury maintained an action against Mechanical Electrical Systems, Inc., and WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed the action with the Town Attorney, together with the offer of settlement by Mechanical Electrical Systems, Inc. in the amount of $4,000.00, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor and Town Attorney to arrange for settlement and discontinuance of the action based upon the $4,000.00 payment by Mechanical Electrical Systems and hereby further authorizes the Town Supervisor to execute a limited Release and authorizes the Town Attorney to execute a Stipulation Discontinuing the Action and file such papers with the Supreme Court. Duly adopted this 7th day of June, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None ABSTAIN:Mr. Tucker No further action taken. On motion, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, Darleen Dougher Town Clerk Town of Queensbury