Loading...
1993-10-25 TOWN BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 25, 1993 7:05 P.M. MTG#75 RES # 614-633 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT MICHEL BRANDT -SUPERVISOR BETTY MONAHAN-COUNCILMAN SUSAN GOETZ-COUNCILMAN NICK CAIMANO-COUNCILMAN PLINEY TUCKER-COUNCILMAN TOWN ATTORNEY PAUL DUSEK TOWN OFFICIALS JIM MARTIN, TOM FLAHERTY, RALPH VANDUSEN PRESS: GF Post Star PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN GOETZ Supervisor Brandt called meeting to order ... PUBLIC HEARING - CHANGE OF ZONE FOR CHARLES & BARBARA SEELEY NOTICE SHOWN 7:06 P.M. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -I was taught one time that early in running these meetings that the first thing you do in a public hearing is check that the proper legal notice was made and we always go through that formality and I just got told that the proper legal notice was not made for this public hearing. So, we're going to have to redo it later on anyhow but as long as people are here for it, we're going to go ahead and hold the public hearing and start the process and hear people out. And then we'll have to go back through it again at a later date. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-What do we do, leave it open, Paul? ATTORNEY DUSEK-No, you would open and close this one and then we'll just re-notice. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay. So, this is a rezoning matter for the Seeleys. Is there anyone here to speak on that? I'm going to declare this hearing open. MR. GEORGE RYAN-I'd like to speak on it. My name is George Ryan. I don't have time all the time you know to come here all the time and talk to you people about different things but I watch the newspaper and in the newspaper it has a thing for people zoned suburban residential one acre. I have a piece of land that's suburban residential one acre and I've been having a problem with it. I never used to have a problem and then we got new people in the Town and everybody interpret things different and now we have a problem. I have a suburban residential pig farrn. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No, this is a, you tell hirn. MR. RYAN-It says SUPERVISOR BRANDT -But this is about a public hearing for an applicant who wants to be rezoned. MR. RYAN-But it doesn't say that on the application. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Y es it does, if you read it, it does. It says a certain piece of property. Not all of these SFR1. MR. RYAN-It doesn't spell that right out and at least, I came here, this is an open meeting. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I agree, I agree. MR. RYAN-So, can't I talked to you about my problem as a Town Board and get my problem resolved tonight? I mean every month, months go into years with my problem. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-You can go in open forurn. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- You've got time but not now because of, go ahead, you tell him. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, this is a public hearing on a specific rezoning. MR. RYAN-Okay, so, I'd like to have time sometime this evening? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Please. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Sure. MR. RYAN-Just call me back? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-We will. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, anyone else that's here to speak on this specific rezoning. Come on right up because it's a public hearing, we need to have you come up, talk in the microphone, tell us who you are and then tell us what you've got to say. MR. HARWOOD BEATY-Thanks Mike. I'm Harwood Beaty regarding the zoning change of the Seeleys. I just want to read a few things here which are on my mind. We live next door, my wife and I have lived next door to Charlie and Barb since 1958, we've been there and we're definitely opposed to a change from residential to commercial zoning. We feel it would have a bad affect on the already heavy traffic as well as setting a precedent as to other possible requests for zoning changes. It would be a domino affect on the street. We could not sell our property as a residence and would have to request a zoning change ourselves in the future. This could go on down the line right down the street. We also feel that it is spot zoning which we understand could be illegal. We have lived there since 1958 and do not want anymore commercial development in that area. We also understand that the Seeleys wish to move and they feel that they can get more money for their property if it is zoned commercial. We wish them well but also feel they should not do this to the detriment of the neighborhood. And my wife signed this as well as myself. Thank you. (letter on file in the Town Clerk's Office) SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Do you want to put that right in the record, if you would please. Anyone else that would like to speak? MS. BERNADINE ROUSE-Bernadine Rouse, 45 Glenwood Avenue. My husband and I have lived at Glenwood Avenue for about three years now and we have seen a deterioration because of certain commercial properties and we certainly can't begrudge the Seeleys for wanting to sell their property and make more money but I do have a letter here which I will not read the whole thing. It is signed by myself, my husband and several other of the neighbors and I feel it's important, at least to read the first paragraph. The Glenwood Avenue neighborhood has already impacted negatively because of creeping commercialisrn. The development of the Quaker Plaza has brought with it traffic problems, garbage problems and concerns for the safety of our children. The road has been become a major artery rather than local street. For the families that reside, the nightmare of watching our neighborhood change radically because of the decisions we have no control over, has become a daily reality. I would like to say that I have seen quite a change on Glenwood Avenue in the last year since the mall has gone up. I know it was a shortcut for alot of people ahead of time, but I'm picking up garbage from my street in front of my yard, five out of seven days a week. The traffic, the speeding back and forth and I'm just, I'm very concerned with what would happen if this property if it was commercial and I would like to give you this letter. (letter continued) Now, the Town Board is considering rezoning another property to commercial. The Seeley property has been used for industrial welding and has been zoned that for some time. The property has basic ally been out of place because of the residential properties. However, the Board is aware that small industrial uses usually do not generate alot of traffic. Also the traffic from the Sawhorse and Quaker Plaza made the Seeley traffic seem minimal. Now, we are facing another major change in the character and livability of our neighborhood. The criteria for a change of zone according to Section 265 of Town Law indicates that zoning boundaries and regulation may be changed, however, if there is a protest by the affected neighbors, then a three fourths majority vote by the Town Board is required. We would like to submit this letter as an official protest. We would further like to point out that every commercial establishment in the Glenwood are has required either variances and/or rezonings. When we purchased our properties we were assured by the zoning that this was a decision to become a regional commercial area and not a community built in neighborhoods then we should be told. The continued creeping commercialism which has been no only allowed, but encouraged by the various Town Boards has negatively impacted our neighborhood to the point that a reduction in assessed evaluation is not out of line. The neighbors of Glenwood Avenue neighborhood respectfully request that the Town Board deny the request for the rezoning of the Seeley property. (letter on file in the Town Clerk's Office) SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you, we'll put it in the letter. Anyone else? MR. RUDY TRAMPOSCH-I'm Rudy Tramposch, I live at 39 Glenwood Avenue and I'm opposed to this rezoning. Mr. Beaty I think expressed any reasons I might have very well and I don't think it's, I don't think we need it. I guess, that's about all I have to say. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, thank you. Anybody else who wants to speak? MR. CHARLIE SEELEY-My name is Charles Seeley, this is my wife Barbara. You know, I've got a few things to say. Mr. Beaty has a business next door to me, he has for a long time. I bought my property as light industrial, they rezoned, they went around me and as far as the garbage goes, on the upper end of the property, it's not my garbage. It could be from O'Toole's, I have no idea where it's from. And as far as I'm concerned, I am the buffer zone and if they want to buy my place, let them buy my place and they can tear it down, I don't care. I don't know what Barbara has to say. MRS. BARBARA SEELEY-I just want to remind them that you know, we are there, we have a right to be there from our court appearances and everything. So, you know, it isn't, it's probably more to their benefit if we're not there then it would be if we are. So, I mean, it doesn't make any difference to me where we have our business. We can keep it there or we can move elsewhere but you know, it's just a matter of we were, we did put in for a light industrial and everybody didn't want to do that which is all well and good, that's fine with us. You know, we were just trying to get something that's a little more compatible to the area. So, you know, that's all I have to say. MR. SEELEY-I mean, they're talking about traffic, right? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Yes. MR. SEELEY-My traffic is zero. MRS. SEELEY-Minimal. MR. SEELEY-Zero compared to the mall. All night long. Take Thursday, Friday, Saturday night, right. This isn't my fault, right? They should block off the one roadway down the, next to Hovey's pond because they come squealing up that road, right. MRS. SEELEY-Put speed pumps in it or something. MR. SEELEY-No, they're going to put speed bumps in it or something, right, but never the less, I bought the property light industrial, went through the whole process here, right and everybody is still complaining, right. I want to get out of there but I am not going to get out of there, I'll stay there for ever if! have to. Point blank, I'll stay there for ever. If they want to, I know I have alot of stuff around, I do. I can't complain about that, I've got alot of stuff around. But I can't help it, that's business. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea, in the business you're in, that's a fact. MR. SEELEY-Well, like I say, if they want to buy it, let them buy it because I'll sell it to them, who ever want's to buy it, it's gone. If they want to buy it as residential but I'll tell you one thing, I can not sell it to a resident because nobody in their right mind would buy it. And the ones we have complaining, are people who have business in their house. I'm finished. MRS. SEELEY-Me too. MS. ROUSE-Bernadine Rouse. In no way, shape or form, when I referred to the garbage or the traffic, was I referring to the Seeleys. It never entered my mind. The point I was trying to make is that ever since the mall went in, the traffic and the garbage and the noise has increased. But the Seeley's business or whatever they have going on down there, is never SUPERVISOR BRANDT-No, from my education the traffic has been increased because the light was put there and so that becomes a bypass from Route 9 to, you know, to Quaker. MS. ROUSE-That could be part of it I guess but I just wanted to go on the record as saying MS. SEELEY-The night time traffic is ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We are doing a traffic corridor study that's related to this. You probably won't see it for, I don't know when, Jim, would you know when that's going to come out? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, JIM MARTIN-The end of the year, by the end of December. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Which year? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-This year. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-This year, okay and I can tell you that it says, one of the things that needs to be done, is to take Lafayette Street and make it a, more of a corridor for traffic rather then Glenwood. And then, extend Lafayette across Quaker into the north around behind the cemetery and up to Sweet Road is the preliminaries of what I've seen on it and it probably does make sense in the long run in looking at that whole area. It would have an affect, how, what, how you would look at the, the Town would look at Glenwood after that I don't know because right now Glenwood is carrying alot of traffic. No question of it and this would be aimed at trying to change that pattern somewhat. But it is a County road too and it's a, you're not going to go put speed pumps on it because they're not going to do that, the County isn't into that. And the Town, you know, you can't go shut that road off, so there is an area where it seems to me you do have commercial out at Quaker and then possibly, you know, my thinking was that possibly this property could be used for some of a buffer and require a better buffer between the commercial and the residential. I understand that the law is such that later on someone could come in and say, well, we don't want that buffer anymore and try and get it changed on that. And that, I mean, future boards can do what ever they want to do, I guess. We can't restrict that I don't think, unless it was an agreed to deed restriction, I guess that you could that way, couldn't you. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That's a possibility. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea, that's something that just comes to mind as we're talking. MR. BEATY-Mike, I'd like to, Mr. Seeley keeps harping on my business in my house. I'm a real estate appraiser. I employ, myself. No cars there at all during the day, only my car and my wife's, that's all. He keeps harping on my business. He's got the business, that's the thorn in everybody's side. But I accept it, it's there but I would not like to see it changed with something else coming in and he can put to bed that business of mine in my one room because I'm just my only self and you know that. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you. MR. SEELEY-I'm not going to argue with Harwood, okay. I'm not going to argue with him until he, they have another office now on Bay somewhere, right. There were many cars there, okay and I'm not going to argue with it but they work parked out front all the time and actually, I don't care. Okay, and when we're talking about speed pumps, I wasn't talking on Glenwood, I was talking behind O'Toole's on the south side of it towards the pond. That's what I was talking about because they run up and down there all night long, squealing their tires, jamming the brakes on, you know. I'm not complaining about that even. I just want rightfully what is mine, that's what I want. Now, if we have to go back to court, I'm going to go back to court, that's all there is to it, you know. SUPERVISOR BRANDT - Well, we're going to go back through another public hearing because we've got to do that in this process before this Board can really address it. But I'd like to think about, if it works for you people, you know, we will look for an answer that might work for everybody and that is possibly a deed restriction with a buffer zone in it. If that works for you, if it works for, you know and try and set up the long range program that makes sense for the whole neighborhood. MR. SEELEY-And I think if you look way, way back, right, you're going to find the zoning didn't go from Quaker Road, it went from the railroad tracks. Okay, and I was way within the limitations of it. And when I bought it, I was definitely within the limitations of it. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-In the long run, I think Queensbury needs to find ways of helping these small industries move to an industrial site or in an industrial park because they are, they do make a neighborhood concern, there are quite a few of them in the community here and there and I think we need to address that on, in some kind of a, you know, effective manner so that we don't beat up on the businesses or beat up on the neighborhoods. So, I don't know the answer but maybe we can find it. MR. SEELEY-Like I said, I'm not trying to beat up on no neighborhood, okay. The only thing is, I am the buffer, that's all I can say. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, is there anyone else that wants to speak at this time? Then I'm going to declare this public hearing closed and we're going to have to re-advertise and go right back through it. In the mean time, maybe we can come some thinking together of answers that might be useful and workable for the neighborhood as well as the Seeleys. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:19 P.M. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION REGARDING MAP, PLAN & REPORT O'BRIEN & GERE ENGINEERS 7:20 P.M. Mr. Anthony Geiss from O'Brien and Gere Engineers spoke to the Town Board regarding progress concerning the initial report for the expansion of the water treatment plant. Noted, the report is not finalized, there is no final total cost yet but there are some major items to consider. The high lift pumping station and the alternatives, the available land for the waste facilities at the water plant, the filter building location and a schedule for completion of the final report which we'll review with the Board. (submitted summary of presentation, on file in the Town Clerk's Office) Mr. Richard Gill from O'Brien and Gere Engineers reviewed with the Town Board the specifics involving the proposed alternatives for the High lift Pumping Station. Town Board held discussion and agreed to alternative 1 C; Construct a new pumping station within the proposed filter building which would operate in conjunction with the existing facility after completion of the project. Mr. Gill noted the best estimate of price, as of right now, is about eight hundred thousand dollars. Mr. Gill noted further, we're aggressively seeking price quotes on all the facilities and updating some of the previous estimates and we're hoping to have a draft map, plan and report available for the Town for review within the next two weeks and based on that we can either tentatively schedule finalization of that or wait to set that and schedule accordingly. Councilman Monahan-Mike, I would like to hear from our professionals in the Water Department to see if they agree with the choice that we have made. Mr. Ralph VanDusen, Deputy Water Superintendent-Yes, I agree, from an operational standpoint, the only choice that seems to make sense is to go with a new permanent pumping station. I do have a couple of other things that I need to get the Board's consensus on for O'Brien and Gere to continue. Part of the contract with O'Brien and Gere calls for them to evaluate the cost of the project and show the affect on the average user. I would recommend that by that the Board define that as the impact on the tax rate from the capital project. I strongly recommend as part of the 202B hearing, that they just take the capital project and show the impact on the taxpayers. Supervisor Brandt noted the Town Board agreed. Mr. VanDusen-Just for clarification from the Board, do you expect the capital expenses from the plant expansion to be tied into all of the water districts receiving the water from them, not just the Queensbury Consolidated? Supervisor Brandt -Yes, absolutely. Mr. VanDusen-Everybody, on a basis of assessed value, okay. Councilman Caimano- Tom, I know Ralph has been appointed coordinator but is there anything that you want to add? Mr. Tom Flaherty, Water Superintendent-In my opinion, the new station, lC is the way to go. I'm concerned about a shut down, if we have a fire or an emergency of some type, it's going to tie us up awfully close. Attorney Dusek-There is one other thing. There was a letter sent by O'Brien and Gere on Brien Gidlow being named as a supervising engineer and wanting an approval by the Town Board. Supervisor Brandt-I don't believe we've addressed that, could you prepare a resolution. Councilman Monahan-Again, I would refer to our professionals. Mr. Flaherty-Would it be possible to get one of those packets? Supervisor Brandt-Sure. Mr. VanDusen-One other thing. When O'Brien and Gere calculates the proposed impact on our taxpayers of the project, they're going to go to a rate table and they're looking for guidance from us as to what percent interest do we expect that we would have to pay. I spoke with EJ about that and his recommendation was for budgeting purposes, that we figure six percent for bonding right now. And the other question would be the duration of the bonding and personally, I would recommend twenty years. Councilman Monahan-Ralph, are we still paying a bond on the original water plant? Mr. VanDusen-The original plant was bonded for twenty-seven years and that's from 1977. So, that's until 2004. Supervisor Brandt-I have no problem with twenty years, I think as you start to go into the longer year cycle, the interest kills you. Councilman Monahan- I think you work it out for twenty and if it becomes too much of a burden, then we have to look at thirty. Mr. VanDusen-Certainly. Councilman Caimano- Y ou were concerned about the appointment by O'Brien and Gere. Councilman Monahan-I just wanted to make sure with Ralph and Tom. Mr. VanDusen-Yes, I certainly have no objections. Mr. Flaherty-No problem at all. Mr. Geiss-Just for definition, Brien Gidlow is our Vice President that we report to. So, he is involved in the project on a continuous basis. Attorney Dusek proposed the following resolution: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPROVAL OF BRIEN N. GIDLOW AS OFFICIAL CONTACT PERSON RESOLUTION NO. 614, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, O'Brien and Gere has requested approval of Brien N. Gidlow as the Supervising Engineer and Official Town Board Contact Person and is also advised that Mr. Anthony 1. Geiss will serve as Client Coordinator for all projects with the Town, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates it's approval of Mr. Brien N. Gidlow in accordance with the terms and provisions of the contract between the parties and authorizes the Town Supervisor to send any written correspondence concerning the same that may be necessary. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 615, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session to enter the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE OF SANITARY SEW AGE DISPOSAL ORDINANCE FOR ALICE M. CORRIGAN RESOLUTION NO. 42, 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, by operation of Law, the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury and, as such, is authorized under Chapter 136 of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance to issue variances to such Ordinance, and WHEREAS, Ms. Alice M. Corrigan has applied to the Local Board of Health of the Town of Queensbury for two variances from certain standards of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance set forth in Chapter 136, Appendix A, such standard providing as follows: APPENDIX A TABLE I - HORIZONTAL SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM WASTEWATER SOURCES TO STREAM WELL OR LAKE OR WASTEWATER SUCTION WATER PROPERTY LAKE GEORGE SOURCES LINE (a) COURSE(c) DWELLING LINE AND TRIBS. Absorption Field 100' 10' and WHEREAS, Ms. Alice M. Corrigan has indicated a desire to place the absorption field 5' from the property line and 58' from a neighbor's well, rather than placing it at the mandated 10' and 100' distances, respectively, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on November 15th, 1993, at 7:00 p.m., at the Queensbury Activities Center, (reasonably accessible to persons with mobility impairment) 531 Bay Road, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, to consider the application for two variances of Ms. Alice M. Corrigan to place the absorption field 5' from the property line, and 58' from a neighbor's well, rather than placing it at the mandated 10' and 100' distances, respectively, on property situated on Chestnut Road, Glen Lake, Town of Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax Map No.: Section 39, Block 1, Lot 16, and, at that time, all persons interested in the subject thereof will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury be and is hereby directed and authorized, when in receipt of a list of neighbors within 500 feet of the subject property, to publish and provide Notice of said Public Hearing as may be required by law, and authorized to mail copies of said Public Hearing Notice to the adjoining neighbors. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None DISCUSSION AFTER VOTE: Councilman Monahan-Jim, looking at this, I see there's a distance from the neighbor's well and if we don't have any opinion from the neighbor on the closeness to their well, I'd like to get one. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay, yes. RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN FROM QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 43, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns from session to enter the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD Councilman Monahan-Mike, do we want to set a date for the Seeleys? Supervisor Brandt-On the Seeley's rezoning, how do we move that? Attorney Dusek-Just a motion by the Board authorizing a new date. Councilman Monahan-What was wrong with the notice, Paul? Attorney Dusek-The property tax map and location was left out of the description in the paper. Town Board agreed to schedule the hearing for November 15th, as noted by the following resolution: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RESCHEDULING OF PUBLIC HEARING ON CHANGE OF ZONE FOR CHARLES AND BARBARA SEELEY RESOLUTION NO. 616, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano MOTION by the Town Board authorizing a new public hearing date of November 15th, 1993. Duly adopted this 25th day October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION APPROVING MINUTES RESOLUTION NO. 617, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the Town Board Minutes of August 11th, 17th and October 4th of 1993. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION REGARDING REFUND OF INTEREST PAYMENTS ON SERIAL BOND #3 RESOLUTION NO. 618, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has requested a refund of interest payments made to the Depository Trust Company in error, on Serial Bond #3, and WHEREAS, the Depository Trust Company requires agreement to an indemnification clause before the moneys are returned, and WHEREAS, the amount to be refunded is $2,567.50 for all remaining outstanding payments, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to request the return of the funds described in the preambles of this resolution, and as part of that request for funds, execute any documents that may be necessary to request the return of the funds, and agree to an indenmity clause which would require the Town of Queensbury to indemnify the Depository Trust Company, its officers, and employees, against any and all claims, liabilities, losses, expenses, suits, or damages resulting from the request for the return of the interest payments. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INTERFUND ADVANCES RESOLUTION NO. 619, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9-A of the General Municipal Law of the State of New York, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is authorized to temporarily advance moneys held in any fund to any other fund, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the temporary advance of funds to the accounts or funds indicated, and in the amounts indicated, as set forth below: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT 01 - General Fund 910 - Landfill Fund $50,000.00 and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor, as Chief Fiscal Officer, is hereby authorized and directed to arrange for and accomplish the above-authorized transfers, and temporary advances, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor, as Chief Fiscal Officer, shall keep suitable records and arrange for the repayment of the temporary advances as soon as possible, and the Town Supervisor shall also determine the amount of interest, if any, to be paid, upon repayment. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE: Councilman Tucker-Is this because there was shortage? Supervisor Brandt-In the budget there is expected to be revenues from the City of Glens Falls. We have still not resolved our relationship with the City on the landfill operation. So, we're not getting that money in and this is a loan with interest as required by law to cover it until we can resolve that. Vote was taken. Deputy Town Clerk Mitchell-I have a Memo from Dave Hatin. Dear Board Members, in reference to the resolution for Donald Loveland to become an electrical inspector for the Commonwealth Inspection Agency. I would recommend the Board approve this as Mr. Loveland has been a reputable inspector for the Middle Department Inspection Agency prior to working for Commonwealth Agency. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MR. DON LOVELAND AS ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR FOR COMMONWEALTH ELECTRICAL INSPECTION SERVICE, INC., AN APPROVED ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR RESOLUTION NO. 620, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury previously adopted Local Law No.4, 87 entitled, the "Electrical Law of the Town of Queensbury," and further amended the same at the time the Code of the Town of Queensbury was adopted (Chapter 80 - Electrical Standards), and WHEREAS, Chapter 80 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury sets forth certain criteria for businesses and/or individuals to perform electrical inspections in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury previously determined that both Mr. Don Loveland and Commonwealth Electrical Inspection Service, Inc., met the criteria to perform electrical inspections for the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, Mr. Don Loveland now works for Commonwealth Electrical Inspection Service, Inc., and it is necessary to re-appoint him as an inspector for said company, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Mr. Don Loveland is hereby authorized to make electrical inspections within the Town of Queensbury for Commonwealth Electrical Inspection Service, Inc., subject to compliance with the standards set forth in Chapter 80 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mr. Tucker (abstain because I do business with this Company) Executive Director, Mr. Martin-This a proposed change to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the grandfathering provisions for preexisting non-conforming lots in the AP A. I have some further suggestions I want to make on this. Section E, In terms of setback, I'd like to change the rest of that to say, minimum yard setback, lot width, permeability and building height requirements as set forth in this chapter. Town Board agreed and the following resolution was proposed: RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING AND TO DESIGNATE THE TOWN AS LEAD AGENCY REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, CHAPTER 179 THEREOF ENTITLED "ZONING" RESOLUTION NO. 621, 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 desirous of amending, supplementing, changing and/or modifying the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, the same having been previously codified and made a part of the Code of the Town of Queensbury as Chapter 179 thereof entitled "Zoning," and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the said Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179 thereof entitled "Zoning" is in the form of a Local Law and is presented to this meeting of the said Town Board with this resolution and is incorporated herein, as if more fully set forth herein, for all purposes, and WHEREAS, a completed Part I of a Long Environmental Assessment Form has also been presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury may, from time to time, pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law and the relevant sections of the Municipal Home Rule Law of the State of New York, amend, supplement, change, modify or repeal the Zoning Ordinance as codified by Ordinance of Local Law, and WHEREAS, in order to so amend, supplement, change, modify or repeal the Ordinance as codified, it is necessary to hold a public hearing prior to adopting said proposed amendment, and WHEREAS, it is also necessary to provide notice to other governmental bodies or agencies as required by law, and WHEREAS, it is also necessary to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act in connection with conducting an environmental review of the proposed action which consists of adopting the proposed amendment, and WHEREAS, it would appear that the action about to be undertaken by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is an unlisted action under the provisions of and regulations adopted pursuant to said State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates that it desires to conduct a coordinated review and be the lead agency in connection with any reviews necessary pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act and directs that such notices be sent by the Zoning Administrator to such other involved agencies as may be required under SEQRA to notify the agencies of this action and that the Town Board desires to be lead agent in a coordinated review and that a lead agency must be agreed to within 30 days, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall hold a public hearing on November 22, 1993, at 7:00 p.rn. in the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, at which time all parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, upon and in reference to the proposed amendment, supplement, change and/or modification to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance as codified and a part of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179, thereof entitled "Zoning," and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed to give 10 days notice of said public hearing by publishing a notice in a form to be approved by the Town Attorney and substantially in conformance with the Notice presented at this meeting, for purposes of publication in an official newspaper of the Town and by posting on the Town bulletin Board outside the Clerk's Office said notice, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to give written notice of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury as codified and a part of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179, thereof entitled "Zoning," a copy of the Environmental Assessment Form, a copy of this resolution and a copy of the written notice previously described 10 days prior to the public hearing to the following: Warren County, by service upon the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, and such other communities or agencies that it is necessary to give written notice to pursuant to Section 264 of the Town Law and Municipal Home Rule Law of the State of New York, the Code of the Town of Queensbury and the Laws of the State of New York, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of said proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance as codified and a part of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179, thereof entitled "Zoning," a copy of the Environmental Assessment Form, the Notice of Public Hearing and a copy of this resolution to the Warren County Planning Agency and the Town of Queensbury Planning Board for their review in accordance with the laws of the State of New York and Code of the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Zoning Administrator is also hereby directed to send a copy of the proposed amendment, Notice of Public Hearing, a copy of the Environmental Assessment Form and a copy of this resolution to the Adirondack Park Agency. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None DISCUSSION AFTER VOTE: Councilman Monahan-Jim, in this description with your negative declaration amending Zoning Ordinance to allow general exceptions to preexisting lots within the Adirondack Park, it's also within the Critical Environmental areas too. You should add that. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes, I'll do that. RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW DESIGNATING VEHICLE TRAVELING LANES ON CERTAIN TOWN HIGHWAYS IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY RESOLUTION NO. 622, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHEREAS, at this meeting there has been presented for adoption by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, a Local Law which would provide for the designation or establishment of vehicle traffic lanes on certain Town Highways in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, such legislation is authorized pursuant to the Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State of New York, and WHEREAS, before the Town Board may take action with regard to the proposed Local Law, it is necessary to conduct a public hearing on said proposed Local Law, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the proposed action is determined to be a Type II Actions under the rules and regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation relative to SEQRA, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED AND ORDERED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall meet and hold a public hearing for said Local Law at the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York at 7:00 p.rn., on the 22nd day of November, 1993, to consider said proposed Local Law and to hear all persons interested on the subject matter thereof concerning the same and to take such action thereon as is required or authorized by law, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED AND ORDERED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to publish and post the notice that has also been presented at this meeting concerning the proposed Local Law in the manner provided by law. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Monahan ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW ESTABLISHING NO-PASSING ZONES ON CERTAIN TOWN HIGHWAYS IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY RESOLUTION NO. 623, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHEREAS, at this meeting there has been presented for adoption by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, a Local Law which would provide for the establishment of no-passing zones on certain Town Highways in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, such legislation is authorized pursuant to the Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State of New York, and WHEREAS, before the Town Board may take action with regard to the proposed Local Law, it is necessary to conduct a public hearing on said proposed Local Law, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the proposed action is determined to be a Type II Actions under the rules and regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation relative to SEQRA, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED AND ORDERED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall meet and hold a public hearing for said Local Law at the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York at 7:00 p.m., on the 22nd day of November, 1993, to consider said proposed Local Law and to hear all persons interested on the subject matter thereof concerning the same and to take such action thereon as is required or authorized by law, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED AND ORDERED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to publish and post the notice that has also been presented at this meeting concerning the proposed Local Law in the manner provided by law. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Monahan ABSENT: None Councilman Monahan requested Highway Superintendent to prepare a cost analysis of these proposals for the public hearing. RESOLUTION TO DISCONNECT TV AND AUDIO MONITORING SYSTEM LOCATED IN HIGHWAY GARAGE Councilman Caimano-I thought we did this before. Did we do this? Councilman Tucker-Yea, why is that back in front of us? Supervisor Brandt-I'm proposing it again because of a discussion of what authority you have to do what. It gets to the age old problem, the highway law versus the Town Board's jurisdiction and this is clearly stating what I see is the responsibilities of the Town Board and why it's asking to do it and so I'm offering it. Councilman Caimano-How does this different from the other one? Supervisor Brandt-It basically says that the Town Board has custody and control of the buildings and it's their responsibility and authority to establish the rules and policies of employees and in light of those two, is why I would like to propose this change. Attorney Dusek-There's one other change and that is, the other one was directed to the Town Buildings Superintendent, this one is directed to the Town Highway Superintendent. Paul H. Naylor, Highway Superintendent -You're asking me to do take it out. Am I right Mr. Dusek? Attorney Dusek-No, this is a direction to take it out. Mr. Naylor-I'll see you in court because I'm not taking it out. I know why it's there and I know why it's got to stay there. Councilman Monahan-I don't see what the problem is. We've got cameras, the cameras are focused in on the trucks, they're not following people around. I really don't know what the big deal is. All I can feel is somebody want's to get inside that building that doesn't have a right to get inside right now and they don't want to get in there because they're afraid the cameras will pick them up. Mr. Naylor-We run those cameras twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week focused on the trucks and the outside of the building. And what we do is then put them on fast speed, there's no audio and if we see something with a flashlight or something inside the building, then we turn it down and we try to make out what's going on. Councilman Monahan-Those cameras aren't following people. Councilman Caimano- There's only one focus? Mr. Naylor-They're direct focus on the line of trucks on this one Councilman Caimano- They're non-moveable cameras, aren't they? Mr. Naylor-No, they're not moving cameras. Councilman Caimano-And the audio is not recordable, right? Mr. Naylor-No. Supervisor Brandt-There's audio capability on each camera? Mr. Naylor-Yea, if you wanted to really turn it up as loud as you can and really try to make it Councilman Caimano-But you can't record it. Mr. Naylor-You can't record it though, and we never watch it during the day. It's always on record and that's all we do is record it. Councilman Caimano-You're talking about video? Mr. Naylor-Yes, video. Supervisor Brandt-The sound comes out of a speaker Mr. Naylor-If you and I went over there right now and somebody was talking in the garage, I doubt if we could understand what they were saying. And if I didn't want you to hear what I was saying, I know danm well you wouldn't hear what I was saying. Supervisor Brandt-Are you willing to take a Union Representative and ourselves and do that and make a test? Mr. Naylor-Sure. Supervisor Brandt-I'm willing to try and resolve it that way with you because there is enormous apprehension that we're snooping on our employees. Mr. Naylor-That's what I can't understand where your union is coming from, it was put in there for the safety of the men. Supervisor Brandt-Okay, then I'll withdraw it until we go take a look at it. Attorney Dusek-May I make one suggestion that you move to rescind that previous resolution on this topic. Supervisor Brandt-I'll move that. Councilman Caimano-I'll second it. RESOLUTION TO RESCIND RESOLUTION NO. 588 OF 1993 RESOLUTION NO. 624, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano MOTION to Rescind previous Resolution, Resolution No. 588 of 1993, entitled "Resolution to Disconnect TV and Audio Monitoring System Located in Highway Garage". Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTORNEY MATTERS Attorney Dusek-This first matter, the Town Board adopted a resolution last week or the week before where you authorized Harry Hansen to put in for a grant which he did. The grant people apparently came back and said you have to have specific dollar amounts. So, what this does is indicate that you're looking for a grant in the dollar amount of $46, 112.00 which would be a fifty percent matching grant which means if you went ahead with the program at some point, the Town would have to come up with the other $46,000.00. He's requested this for tonight so that he can move ahead with the grant. Councilman Caimano- What is this all for? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-The Town submitted a grant through the Environmental Quality Bond Act for establishment of a park along the Hudson River. We had a resolution before you, I think several weeks ago, authorizing the submission of that grant but we came to find that it's now in, they're beginning to review it and they are asking for a specific dollar amount in your resolution and that's all this does. Councilman Tucker-This forty-six, one twelve, is the max? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes, we came up with a budget for the development of the park and fifty percent of that is to come from the grant, fifty percent from, I believe the capital reserve or the capital recreation account. Councilman Monahan-What land are we talking about along the Hudson River? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-It's the land at the end of Big Boom Road, the DeSantis parcel that he's giving to the County and the County would then donate for this purpose. Councilman Caimano-And our forty-six thousand dollars is going to come out of the, what we've been putting aside from the developers. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes. Councilman Tucker-Have we got to rescind the other? Attorney Dusek-No, this supplements that resolution. Councilman Tucker-I'll move it. Councilman Caimano-I'll second it. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO SUBMIT APPLICATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL PARK PROJECT GRANT FUNDING UNDER THE LAND & WATER CONSERVATION FUND (FEDERAL) AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOND ACT OF 1986 (STATE) RESOLUTION NO. 625, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, the State of New York has made available funds (state and federal) for a matching grant program to undertake recreational facility expansion, renovation, and/or acquisition, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Departments of Community Development and Parks & Recreation previously prepared an application for said funds in accordance with the provisions set forth in the 1994 Municipal Park Project Grants Application Guidelines, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury previously adopted resolution no. 549, 93 indicating no specific grant amount, and the State of New York has now requested that a new Town resolution with a specific dollar amount be adopted, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury, Michel R. Brandt, is hereby authorized and directed to submit a letter on behalf of the Town of Queensbury indicating that the application is amended to set forth a request in the amount of $46, 112.00 (50% matching) in accordance with the 1994 Municipal Park Project Grants Application Guidelines. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt 2NOES: None ABSENT: None Attorney Dusek-I have another issue. Last week the Town Board authorized the expenditure of funds for rabies vaccine for certain people. This past week I received word that the County did it and a contract was offered to the Town from the County. You can get the vaccine as I understand it, at this point from two different sources. You can get them through Dr. Evans Office or you can get them through the County. Dr. Evans Office as I understand, he'll arrange for the vaccine, there's some sort of a informed consent or whatever it is, that the people have to be aware of and they'll sign it and he'll take care of it and that's the Town's involvement. Through the County, I was given a contract and the contract with the County requires the Town to indemnify and hold harmless the County from the administration of the vaccine and any reaction or illness arising therefrom. In view of the contract, I would advise the Town not to do business with the County on this project and go to Dr. Evans. However, I must advise you that there is a possibility of course that you may pay more but in my opinion, it's better in this instance to pay more through Dr. Evans then it would be to go through the County with this contract. Town Board held discussion and agreed to go with Dr. Evans. Attorney Dusek-The other issues that we have are all executive session matters I need to discuss. COMMUNICATIONS Ur from Dot - on file in Town Clerk's Office Deputy Town Clerk Mitchell-Dear Ms. Dougher, the Traffic Engineering and Safety Office has received your request for a lower speed limit on Goldfinch Road and Mockingbird Lane in your Town. Please advised that the lowest legal speed limit is thirty miles per hour and it is not our policy to evaluate roadways less than two thousand feet in length unless they are part of a larger area speed limit. Therefore, it will not be possible to act upon your request. Should you have any questions, please call Amy Burlarley- Hyland at 474-6377. Very truly yours, Amy Burlarley-Hyland. DISCUSSION - PROPOSED TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I wrote you a memo on Friday, I had just come from the GFTC meeting on the 19th and the Council is putting together their transportation improvement program for the upcoming five year period, running from 94 to 98. I listed six items that I could come up with for proposed improvements along State Routes in the Town. I just wanted to run this list by you, see what's being proposed and if there's anything you wanted to add or delete. Number one would be the installation of the connecting arterial from Aviation Road to Route 9, this is coming from our plan being done by Transportation Concepts of the Route 9, 254 intersection. Two, would be to widen Main Street from the City of Glens Falls line to Exit 18 to 187. Again, that's part of the corridor studies that were done by Transportation Concepts, it's a recommendation coming from those. Three, widening interchange with 187 at Exit 18. Again, that's a recommendation from the corridor studies. Four, install turn lanes along upper Route 9, commonly referred to as the Million Dollar Half Mile. And once again, those are recommendations from the corridor studies. Five, would be widen Route 9 from Miller Hill to Exit 20. That is currently experiencing alot of growth along there and it's a two lane road, that entire width. Sixth would be reconfiguration of Exit 20 of 187. Right now, it's a split interchange for north bound and south bound traffic. The suggestion would be to consolidate the interchange at the south bound entrance and pull it farther back from the shopping center district. And the last item in the letter is, the GFTC currently has planning money on an annual basis, we tapped into that this year for the Route 9, 254 study. I would suggest that we look at the possibility of trying to get a study done of Quaker Road and Dix Avenue because with the zoning in that area and the installation ofK-Mart there, I think you're going to see development to follow. Also, in that area is the regional center now for Niagara Mohawk and their associated truck traffic, AMG and the potential expansion of A VI. So, I think there's going to be alot more traffic around that intersection also and that should be looked at. The bridge widening of Aviation Road is a done deal in terms of development of this program. It's in the program, it's going to happen, it's at it's earliest phases of design but it is going to happen. So, there's no need to request it now, it's in there. The other thing that's on there for Betty's interest in her ward, is the reconfiguration of Route 149, it's in there. It's the entire Route from the intersection with Route 9 to Route 9L. So, it's essentially almost the entire length of the road in the Town. I think they will take the whole thing right over to Route 4, myself because that's now a national highway. So, with that understanding, those two projects are already on the program, there's no more need for us to repeat that again. I think we're in a fortunate position the problems we're experiencing here are as great or greater then anywhere else in the Glens Falls Transportation Council region or within our program boundaries. Our problems are going to rate highly because we have the greatest needs by the volumes of traffic we deal with. Town Board held discussion, agreed with Mr. Martin's recommendations and the following resolution was proposed: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF LETTER TO GLENS FALLS TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL STAFF COORDINATOR RESOLUTION NO. 626, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury understands that the Glens Falls Transportation Council is in the process of developing the transportation improvement program for the next five year period, WHEREAS, Mr. James Martin, Executive Director for the Community Development Department has submitted a proposed draft letter to this meeting outlining the suggested projects for the Town of Queensbury for the 1994 - 98 program period, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates it's approval of the letter drafted by Mr. Martin and hereby also authorizes it's submission to the Glens Falls Transportation Council Staff Coordinator. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None OPEN FORUM 8:38 P.M. Mr. George Ryan spoke to the Town Board regarding his problems with the designation of his property, whether it's classified as a farm or not and if so, want's his pigs back. Supervisor Brandt-Referred to the study, prepared to move on it but not certain of the where we are right now. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Noted, we are prepared to have the Route 149 study adopted. Supervisor Brandt-Okay, so we need to readdress that. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I told George that I will work with him over the Winter because I know he's looking to do things there again next Spring. Mr. Ryan-I've been doing things every year there. In Winter I'm going do things, in the Summer I'm going to keep doing things. The Zoning Board called me up, they said, can you come down tonight, we're going to have the definition of farm. Mr. Ted Turner at my house called me, I came here and he told me I have a farm. So, now you're telling me no pigs on the farm. How about if I got goats? I would rather have something that would keep me occupied and I want to put the animals there. Right now, it's a farm. It's not funny, okay, don't laugh because it's not a funny matter. It's my livelihood and it's my land and I want to do something with it. And you got the rules and regulations, I want to go by your rules and regulations, I don't want you to make new ones for me. If it says I can do it, I want to do it. If I could put a silo, it says silo, I'll put a silo. I'll save the money and do it. It's not funny. I've had it, I'm telling you, I've about had it with this stuff. You know, you can look at me and laugh but nobody makes a decision here. Somebody has to just get up and make a decision. Supervisor Brandt-I think we're at that point. We've had hearings, we've done alot of work on that corridor, we've talked a great deal. Mr. Ryan-Here we are tonight, let's do something. Can't it be done? I'd like to wake up tomorrow and no what I have, home. It's commercial land, okay, then I can come see Jim, I want to sell something different. I got a letter home, I can't sell Snapple, I can't sell propane. I haven't sold any propane in two months because I don't know if somebody is going to come and handcuff me. Councilman Monahan-I thought we got the propane all straightened out, Jim. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I told him the propane was okay. Mr. Ryan-I still got the letter, nobody gave me a letter telling me it's okay. They gave me a letter to take it out but nobody sent me one to keep it. Send me a letter, let me know what I'm doing. Nobody says either way. Councilman Caimano-I don't understand this Snapple? Mr. Ryan-I can't sell that, that's all natural fruit juice. Councilman Monahan-I thought it was kind of a ridiculous decision, frankly. Mr. Ryan-There's things in there that maybe not belong there but whatever I'm selling there, that's my bread and butter. If we have a problem with it, okay, we'll take it out. But then I've got a farm, I've got to put something in to supplement it. You laugh about those pigs but I know I'm going to eat all Winter. I just want to get in the direction and know where we're going. Thank you. Mr. Fred Champagne-I have a question relative to resolution 4C, it says authorizing interfund advances. I think I heard you say there's a transfer of money to cover Glens Falls landfill portion that has not been paid yet due to a lack of contract. Supervisor Brandt-To cover the operation of our landfill. There's no contractual arrangement between the Town of Queensbury and the City of Glens Falls at this time. We sent a proposed contract, the Board saw it last week and we sent that proposed contract with figures filled in to the City this morning. I talked to the Mayor about it this morning to try and get this resolved. Mr. Champagne-How long has this been hanging? What was the date of the original agreement that evidently has not been signed? Supervisor Brandt-Paul do you remember the details? Councilman Caimano-We have no contract for 93, right? Attorney Dusek-That's correct. Mr. Champagne-So, it goes back to January? Councilman Caimano-December 31st, 1992. Supervisor Brandt-It was the advice of counsel that we terminate the contract. We've had discussions upon discussions but there has been very little movement and the movement came a little faster when we shut the City from going to our landfill for certain items. And then we withdrew that and let them go back for a little while, while we got their attention and I told them we would look at it on a week by week basis. I think the City is willing to resolve the problem but they're having internal disagreements within the City Council and the Mayor and it's very hard for us to force a decision. We need to be paid and for what we've done and what we're doing. Mr. Champagne-So, to move the signing of the contract, did I hear you say, we shut down the City from using our landfill? Supervisor Brandt-For a little while. Mr. Champagne-What was a little while? Supervisor Brandt-A week or so, to let them know we're watching, we're paying attention and that we're concerned. Really, I think we shut them off only on one thing which was the ash from their sewer burner and they were bothered by it and then it seem to be causing a real problem so we said well, we trying to get your attention to address the matter. But quite frankly we also had to come to a proposed contract which we just got done. Mr. L. Paul Daigle-I was here last week with signed petitions in regards to an legal reflective signs in the Town of Queensbury. I asked for a decision that could possibly take place immediately instead of waiting like we've done two years about it. What have we done about it? Are they legal or they not? Can we all have reflective signs or should nobody have reflective signs? Do we have an answer? Attorney Dusek-I don't have it in writing, I have a verbal opinion I can give you tonight. The written opinion I planned to send to Mr. Martin because he is the Zoning Administrator charged with the enforcement. So, my opinion is properly in writing I think directed to him. However, the opinion I plan to issue to Jim, will read something along the lines that as I understand it, there are two basic questions regarding application of the Sign Ordinance. One question is, do the general standards and regulations apply to temporary signs? It is my opinion that the language of the statute is very clear, that they do. The statute says that the following regulations shall apply to all signs. It doesn't distinguish between temporary or non-temporary. Later on in the statute itself, it also indicates in J, that it talks about signs not being able to simulate movement and then it goes on and says that, except as may be permitted under Section 140-4, Temporary Signs. But as I review this, that's even further proof that all the general regulations apply to temporary signs, not proof that they don't apply because what they're saying here is that normally you would have these rules apply accept if they've been changed in the previous section. To me, the statute seems relatively clear and I don't think there should be an issue with regard to the application of the general regulations. The second issue as I understood it was with regard to whether the signs used by Mr. Naylor are of a reflecting nature that is in violation of section 140-5 of the Sign Ordinance, paragraph, as I understand it, it's paragraph B of that section it is in contention. The section reads that the provisions of this subsection shall not be applied so as to prohibit a sign changing to show time or temperature. No sign shall use reflective material which sparkles or glitters. Now, the first thing I should say of course, is that any final statutory interpretation is always set for the courts but the first instance the Zoning Administrator is certainly charged with the duties of determining whether or not there's a violation. When you look at a statute to this nature, you read the statute as a whole and you read it to make sense out of the words that are used, that is the general requirements of constructions. The law says that you read the statute to have it's most natural and most obvious sense, that you construe the statutory language literally whenever possible. In addition to that, it's permissible when you don't have terms to find in the statute to go to dictionaries. Although they are useful and they can be used to help you define the statute, of course, I must stress that they can't be used as the final requirement, they're just used as a tool to help you get to an answer. With all of this in mind, when you read that section, it indicates that no sign shall use reflective material which sparkles or glitters. It doesn't say that you can't have a reflective sign. It says that you can't have a reflective sign that sparkles or glitters. When you look up the meaning of the word sparkle, you find that it means to glisten, to spark, to twinkle, to flash, to glitter, using the word glitter again. In my opinion and this is based on a conversation I had with Jim Martin on Friday, he is, I think, within his rights to determine that the sign does not sparkle or glitter as the terminology of the statute would require. In other words, you think of a sparkling or glittering like a diamond, when you shine a line on it, it sparkles or twinkles, if you will. And I think that if you think about it and the way the statute's written, it makes sense that that's probably what they intended when they wrote this section because they didn't want something coming back and sparkling into somebody's eyes, perhaps blinding them as they went down the road. So, it's my feeling that although Mr. Naylor's signs certainly can be said to be reflective, the law, and I note that the petition says that, it stops at the point, no sign shall use reflective material. The law really doesn't say no sign shall use reflective material but rather no sign shall use reflective material that sparkles or glitters and it's my opinion that Mr. Naylor's signs don't fall within the context of the aspect that's forbidden by this particular law. Supervisor Brandt-You couldn't just say that in one sentence? Attorney Dusek-I wanted to give you the back up for the opinion. Supervisor Brandt-Okay, I think the last sentence said it. Councilman Caimano-We call you Mr. Justice Dusek. Attorney Dusek-The reason why I wanted to give a thorough opinion on this is because there's been some concerns and I didn't want anybody to think that I took this matter lightly. I investigated it very thoroughly, I spoke to the people, did the research. Councilman Caimano-I have to tell you that we needle you alot but I think given the circumstances and the seriousness of it and the ramifications of it, I think in this case, regardless of the outcome, you did a good job and certainly told us where you came from, item for item. Mr. Daigle-So, therefore the part of the law Article 5, Section 5.100, is improper where it says, no signs shall be reflective, period. Councilman Caimano-It doesn't say period and that's what he's saying to you. Mr. Daigle-It's section 5 of the Town which I gave to Mr. Martin last meeting, Article 5 state just that. Am I right? Councilman Monahan-No, it says no sign shall use reflective material which sparkles or glitters and our Attorney just told you why he didn't consider those signs either sparkling or glittering. Mr. Daigle-Right, so therefore we can all have signs next year, whenever from this point on, let's set forth the new rules and regulations, those signs out there now, they're legal and everybody politician can clutter up the landscape. So, next time that we come around, as politicians and clutter up everybody's landscape, we can do it in that fashion that's being determined today by you Board members, that is okay. If it is, let's make the law for everyone, let's not have one individual above the law. Thank you. Councilman Monahan-The temporary sign part of this ordinance has been reworked and what's legal this year, may not be legal next year. Supervisor Brandt -But as of right now, that interpretation holds for everyone. Attorney Dusek-Yes, that is another point of statutory construction as well as the rules that the Town has to operate under and that is that the law has to be equally applied to everyone and everyone gets the same benefits under the law. So, if anybody else has a sign that would similar of construction to Mr. Naylor's, they would have a right to use that sign. OPEN FORUM CLOSED RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 627, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session to enter Executive Session to discuss four matters of Litigation and a Labor/Collective Bargaining Negotiating Matter. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO RECONVENE RESOLUTION NO. 628, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Executive Session to enter Regular Session of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RESOLUTION NO. 629, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, a proposed grievance settlement agreement in the matter of Town of Queensbury versus Civil Service Employee's Associations and Pamela L. Whiting has been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the settlement agreement and authorizes the Town Supervisor to execute the same on behalf of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: Mr. Tucker ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPROVING SETTLEMENT ACTION/ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION NO. 630, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, an assessment proceeding in the matter of Edward A. Brablc versus Helen Otte has been brought against the Town of Queensbury and a proposed settlement of that action has been offered, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the settlement of the action such that the amount of the assessment for the year 1993 on the assessment roll shall be $282,500.00. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPROVING SETTLEMENT ACTION/ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION NO. 631, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has previously considered the matter of Howard Carr as Receiver of Queensbury Factory Outlet Center against the Department of Assessment and Taxation of the Town of Queensbury and has previously authorized a settlement such that the assessed value for the year 1993 would be established at $3,750,000.00, and WHEREAS, the Town Attorney has advised that the settlement number that was ultimately discussed was $3,725,000.00, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and approves a settlement of the above reference action for an assessed value for the year 1993 of $3,725,000.00. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPROVING SETTLEMENT ACTION/ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION NO. 632, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, there has been a number of actions brought in the matter of 1. Buckley Bryan, Jr. versus Helen Otte, sole Assessor of the Town of Queensbury and the Town of Queensbury and the following settlements proposed, each of the set forth numbers indicating the assessed value being proposed to be established for the year 1993: 61-1-35 $174)00.00 78-1-8.2 78-1-8.3 78-1-8.4 $120,800.00 78-1-10 $700.00 78-1-18 78-1-19 78-1-20 78-1-21 $273,600.00 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves of the assessed values for the year 1993 set forth above for the parcels indicated. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN RESOLUTION NO. 633, 993 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK-QUEENSBURY