1993-11-29
TOWN BOARD MEETING
NOVEMBER 29, 1993
7:00 p.m.
MTG.#85
RES. 710-726
BOR. 56-57
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Michel Brandt
Councilman Betty Monahan
Councilman Susan Goetz
Councilman Nick Caimano
Councilman Pliney Tucker
Town Attorney Paul Dusek
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN GOETZ
Supervisor Brandt -Opened the Meeting. The first item on our agenda tonight is a public hearing which we
have tried to do it three times, I think. Did we get the legal notice through correctly?
Town Clerk Dougher-Yes.
Supervisor Brandt-So we can do it. This has to do with a rezoning and it is the Seeley's who would like to
open it, do the Seeley's want to start does the public want to start how do you want to do this? Are there
questions by the Board Members of the Seeley's to start with. I am going to open it to the public for
comment. So, if anybody would like to comment now is the time.
Mr. Bob Stewart-For the record my name is Bob Stewart I am a lawyer from Glens Falls and I am here
tonight representing Mr. and Mrs. Harwood Beaty who are neighbors of the applicants immediately to the
south. To begin I would like to offer to the Board an original signed copy of a petition that has been signed
by many of the neighbors, it is my understanding a copy of this was circulated to the Board Members a few
weeks ago and I do not think the original was ever placed on file (Supervisor Brandt-handed over original
petition to be placed on file with the Town Clerk)
Supervisor Brandt-I think we have seen it.
Attorney Stewart-I have two basic points I like to make and make them fairly briefly. Number one is
always sort of the emotional overlay that comes in to applications of this nature. As I read the application
of Mr. and Mrs. Seeley it creates the implication that somehow along the line even though they have
bought residential property around 1972 from Harold LaRose which he had used as a residence and even
though the law clearly seems to show that it is always been zoned residential with the various changes in
the zoning ordinance over the years that some years ago when CR Bard asked for a rezoning of a certain
area of land in that neighborhood that somehow their property got caught up in that rezoning that therefore
they got to rezone manufacturing and then in 1980 when the zoning ordinance was re-done again they lost
that status that they had been given it before and therefore somehow they had obtained some validity to
their use. This has been litigated and argued over I have been involved since around 1988 in it and the
application of this, it is the first time that has ever been suggested that was never ever a reason before as an
argument. I have seen copies of the application and the resolution of the Town Board many, many years
ago in connect with that rezoning and it rezoned commercial area to manufacturing it did not rezone the
adjacent residential area it stated flatly that the existing R4 zone line would remain the line of demarcation
so I do not believe that there is validity to that argument. Now, obviously my saying that does not make it
so and they are saying the opposite does not make it so if it is a matter of significance to this Board
probably surveyors or people should go back and examine the old lines that existed and determine that fact.
But, I didn't want us to go un-challenged that gee somehow they were re-zoned legal and now it has been
torn away from them and therefore they have been injured by the Town. Now, let me turn to the more
significant part of it which is the legal aspects of it. Now, as I understand the situation back in 1972, Mr.
and Mrs. Seeley bought the property from Harold LaRose. It was zoned residential at that time, Harold
LaRose has advised me that he used it for residential only that he never had a business there. Over the
years it started with the repair of antique automobile and then little by little until somewhere in the mid 80's
it began to get more and more heavily industrialized. A commercial industrial plant began to operate there.
There were complaints by the neighbors and there is a history of complaints, stop work orders were issued
by the planning board because of the illegal use some debate back and forth and then finally when the
Seeleys were told that it is was town's position that they were illegal they applied for a variance. The
variance was turned down and I believe that this is the end of 88 or early 1989 by the zoning board by
unanimous vote. They then filed an application for review to the New York State Supreme Court. That
was not successful. But, nothing was really ever done to solve the problem it went on and on and on and
the arguments that I always got as I would call about it was that, well they are trying to move and they want
to move but they have not been able to find a place in the mean time that if the Town shuts them down
people will loose jobs. Of course nobody wants to see that happen even the neighbors so everything is sort
of backed off and to the best of my knowledge it has never been pursued further the law has never been
enforced by the Town since that time and now we are faced with this application. As I understand it they
would like to move to the industrial park here or in Saratoga or somewhere and that is fine, they would like
to sell their property and certainly that is understandable but that they can not get the maximum dollar out
of their property if they sell it as a residential property for which it is now and has always been zoned.
Therefore they want it rezoned to some type of commercial character that would enhance its sale price.
Well the difficulty that I have with that is of course we would all like to have our property zoned to produce
the maximum sales price we could get, I have sympathy with them on that point, but there has to be some
comprehensive plan and scheme to develop this. You have a zoning ordinance you have a master plan that
has been developed over the years you amended your zoning ordinance as late as the Fall of 1988 and you
decided which property should lie in which zones and you for the third time in a row zoned this property
residential. If and there is no question to the north there was Northern Homes which is now vacant there
along Quaker Road there is a commercial strip, they lie south generally south of that and there is some
commercial pressure there. Now, if it is the judgement of the Town Board and the Planning Boards and
who ever you have to study it that you want to amend your ordinance to provide transition zones
everywhere in Queensbury where you have commercial and phases that into residential that is fine that is a
thought that you can consider and study. ...was done in 1988, and nobody decided to do that. The
suggestion now is to take this very small lot which is I believe six tenths of an acre and we zone it and it
alone to a separate and distinct zone which is not blend or matched with any of the zones in that
neighborhood and to do it at the specific request of the owner and as a favor to the owner to enhance its
potential selling price and do it as a favor to the owner and now to do it pursuant to a master plan that the
Town of Queensbury has for how it is going to go Town wide then that is the absolute classic definition of
spot zoning. There is no, there is a lot of case law that say if you are using a piece of property small than
eight acres it is almost automatically spot zoning, although the size is not really the criteria. The question is
what are you doing it for, is there a long range community plan that would be enhanced by this proposed
change of zone. If there is the Board should consider it and if they are satisfied fine, change the zone but
that is not even being suggested. The proposal is would you please change the zone so that Mr. and Mrs.
Seeley might sell their property for a higher price. It is spot zoning it is the anthicizes of thoughtful
planning and zoning it is illegal as a matter of law it is not enhanced the neighborhood this Town has spent
and enormous amount of time and money and energy in developing that park along though there which is
really a handsome thing and in two or three years it is going grow and development I think in a really
beautiful thing and to start down that road with commercial or industrial flies in the face I would think of
what you have done so far. Now, you can say well, we are only coming down another eighty or ninety feet,
one hundred foot whatever width that lot has but you start the domino effect. If you put a restaurant or
gasoline station next to my clients property and he wants to sell what is he going to do, he is going back
saying hey, help me out rezone me to some sort of a transitional area and then when you do that to him as
you almost have to do to keep a straight face then the next neighbor down the line says well now what does
that do it me? You are just bring it down the road. So, I do not believe that you are pursuing a long range
beneficial plan it certainly does not at all comply with your master plan which the law says you really have
to do. But, forget a Master Plan it doesn't seem to me to make much common sense in view of the work
and effort and money you have spent on that park and the last thing to my mind is I honestly do not think it
benefits Mr. and Mrs. Seeley either because when you put a zone of this nature and you rezone their lot that
way you must the zoning request a fifty foot buffer between that lot which is now in a commercial zone
against a residential lot owned by my client the lot is somewhat less than one hundred feet. I do not believe
the deed or the plan show but some years ago Mr. and Mrs. Beaty bought a five, a strip that is five feet on
the road and it tapers back to fifteen feet wide at the rear from Harold LaRose, so their lot is a little bit
bigger and the Seeley lot is a little bit smaller than I think shows on the tax maps. That is not critical other
than to make the point that if you take the lot that they do have and you take fifty feet from it as a buffer
zone which the proposed zoning would have to do and by the way buffer means nothing, you cannot park a
car you cannot put up a sign you can do nothing other than either fence it off or allow to go to growth and
trees and shrubbery to shield one zone from the other. So, for the Seeleys to loose approximately fifty
percent of their, the usefulness of their land to enhance its selling price I do not really think it is well
thought out on anybodies point of view. And then finally I would make this suggestion. Rather than a
rezoning which flies in the face of your planning and common sense and the law if I may say so, if in fact a
potential purchaser came to the Seeleys and said I would like to buy your property to use it as a specific use
then the Seeleys would always have the right to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and seek a variance and
in that case it becomes site specific. There they go to the Board and they say it is a the XYZ Company this
is what they plan on doing they will agree to these set backs they will agree to certain hours of operation
levels of noise all these details the Zoning Board of Appeals is allowed to put in as a condition to approval
and what you are not allowed to do all you can do is rezone it or not rezone it. You cannot start changing
the nature of the zones. At that point a plan might come forward that the neighbors would embrace and say
yes we would agree to this we think this would be a good plan we could live with this and there you are
dealing with a set of specific proposals that you, can be controlled. To rezone it and say you can have
anyone of the items, I did not memorize them but I am sure have ...twenty some things that could go in
there and then to start that domino effect down that street I think is unwise. I would urge the board not to
do so and I will answer any questions you have, if you have none I will be quite and sit down.
Councilman Caimano-Just a point of information, what Bob said that last, that last thing you said seems to
me is not right, it seems to me that we can, we can rezone with specifics in it, a specific out thing is that not
so?
Attorney Dusek-Yes, under law the Board has a right when they rezone or zone property to a certain
classification you can make conditions on that zoning that has been upheld by the Court of Appeals as a
right the Town Board has, foreinstance set backs as Bob was referring to that a variance could you could do
the same thing here you could eliminate certain uses that are unpalatable for whatever reason in that area
because that is exactly what you know you have the ability to do, to make the zoning more compatible with
the neighborhood.
Councilman Goetz-We did it at the corner or Ridge and Quaker recently.
Attorney Stewart-Well, my concern with that is I believe that the Town Board can do subject to Court
review for spot zoning and any of these other complaints that I might have that you can do what is on your
plate before you tonight subject to public notice etc. which is to rezone this property from zone a to zone b.
I do not know that you can just go anywhere beyond that point, I have concerns about that. But, Paul and I
disagree maybe on that point.
Attorney Dusek-I think that, it gets down to an issue of you know major or substantial revisions to what has
been proposed or not so. Some minor conditions added are one thing major changes in terms of the
concept as to what the property would be zoned to you know the board would be ultimately be in the
judgement position of determining whether they should hold another public hearing or not. But that is
certainly a concern and the only way you can get to that concern though is to see what it is that you are
ending up with that is proposed. If you are staying exactly with what you have that is one thing if you are
staying exactly with what you have and a fifty foot buffer then you have to weight it and say well does that
mean this is a different zone or is it basically the same or is it such a substantial change that we should hold
another public hearing? Obviously the more ingredient and the more changes you make the more
substantial the change is and therefore you are leading your way to another public hearing.
Attorney Stewart-Specifically the zone the thing requested contained within it a fifty foot buffer, that is
written in the ordinance are you suggesting that the board could waive that for example and say all right we
will rezone it but they do not have to honor the fifty foot buffer zone.
Attorney Dusek-Well if they went to less than fifty feet then it seems to me that the Board would want to
consider that as a substantial change because now you are not, the public would have put on notice of this
presume that you would stay with that criteria of that zone and if all of a sudden you are lessening the
criteria or making the impact more than what they might of anticipated that to me makes a good argument
for another public hearing.
Councilman Monahan-May I interject something here I think the fifty foot buffer we are talking about is
not within this zone per sa but is a buffer that is in our ordinance that is a general buffer that says if your
the difference, if you have a commercial zone abutting up against a residential zone you have to have a
fifty foot buffer. Now, that
Attorney Dusek-Where is that Betty?
Councilman Monahan-Jim, you find it because I know Scott and I talked about this.
Councilman Goetz-179-2
Councilman Monahan-No, that is not it, there is another buffer there when you are going from a zone, one
zone to another that you have to have the fifty foot buffer in there. But what you do have here and I do not
think anyone seems to pick this up because we keep talking about CR15 and fifteen thousand square feet is
allowed for residential or professional office but when you get down to the commercial part you have to
have an acre.
Attorney Stewart -You have to have one acre.
Councilman Caimano-One acre.
Councilman Monahan-And this piece of property is only .64 so we are rezoning a non-conforming lot, we
are rezoning to make a non-conforming lot.
Councilman Caimano-Or at the very most all they could even talk about would be would could subsist in a
fifteen thousand square foot lot.
Councilman Monahan-Well, I asked Scott in our Zoning Office, Planning Office to take this piece of
property as it is shown with the dimensions that came in with the application and to draw a map to show
how much of this could possibly be used if we are talking about a use that is not a residential use within
this area. So, if you get down to the commercial part of it forget that we got a lot that is not big enough you
have got to come back from the front seventy five feet, you have to come back from the neighboring
residential of fifty feet you have got to come back between there and Northern Homes twenty feet and you
have got to come back from the property line in back twenty five feet so this is the amount of property you
have left to use on that for that type of use.
Councilman Caimano-Not a lot.
Councilman Monahan-That part that is done there with the (showed Board Members drawing)
Councilman Caimano- With the scratch out?
Councilman Monahan-Yep. And again you start off with a non-conforming commercial lot in the first
place.
Attorney Stewart-Now I will suggest to you however that you will hear the argument that those set backs
do not apply even though give them the benefit of the new zoning because the buildings are already there
even they are there legally they are already there they are existing use and therefor why not let them stay
and be used and there goes all the setbacks out the window if you do that.
Councilman Goetz-Was the thought to if this property was to be rezoned, to sell it as one piece with the
building that was Northern Homes?
Attorney Stewart-Remember now, I do not represent the applicant all I have is his petition and the
comments that were made by Mr. and Mrs. Seeley before the Queensbury Planning Board I have those and
it indicates that they do not have a buyer a specific buyer they want to sell it they want to get the maximum
dollar and god bless them I do not blame them for that. It maybe whoever bought Northern Homes would
be want to come in an pick up this depth because they might need some additional depth and maybe some
development to the east might happen and they just want to be put in the most flexible and beneficial
position they could be put into so they can turn and deal in any direction. That seems to be their position.
Councilman Goetz-It seems that with a rezoning that would be the only sensible way to do it to try to sell it
with the other piece but if we ....
Attorney Stewart-But they do not own the other piece.
Councilman Goetz-Right I now, just let me finish, it goes back to your point, of if that were to happen
wouldn't it be better to bring it in at that time as a variance procedure?
Attorney Stewart-I think it would, and I think and I only speak for the Seeleys I do not speak for any other
of the neighbors that are here but my guess is, if the people in the neighborhood saw a specific request to
do a certain thing with noise control, limited hours, access, truck access and volume and they could look at
it and say we could live with this. We could understand this the neighbors might be supportive of it, but
here we really, it is a blank check is what we are talking.
Councilman Goetz-That is the only way that I could see that it would be reasonable at all is to use it in
conjunction with the other piece of property rather than do what you have envisioned as a spot zoning
procedure and just have this little piece of property that was totally different from that on either side of it.
Councilman Caimano- The other piece of property being Northern Homes?
Councilman Goetz-Yes.
Attorney Stewart-That is what is being asked of you tonight.
Councilman Goetz-I know but I am trying to think a little bit more and I brought into your one argument
there you ought to be glad.
Attorney Stewart-I don't, I do not really think it helps Mr. and Mrs. Seeley I don't see where it takes them,
they are going to end up with a lot fifty, sixty feet wide and if they obey all the set backs that Mrs.
Monahan points out they will end up with a postage stamp.
Councilman Monahan-Well in the first place they are going to have an illegal lot for the commercial use of
it anyway so we are creating a illegal lot for commercial use.
Attorney Stewart-No, not necessarily because you could give them the zoning that the request and in doing
so that zoning carries with it the requirement that if they want to use the industrial aspect of the zoning they
must have at least one full acre which they do not have. So, that takes you no where.
Councilman Monahan-Reality of this Town though if you do that to a lot they go to the zoning board and
say I have a lot zoned like that now you have got to let me use it. That is my concern because you get into
that mess and then we really got a mess.
Councilman Caimano-Do you have an answer Jim?
Executive Director Martin-I would like to look over the grandfathering rights as a pre-existing lot.
Councilman Monahan-But with an illegal use on it Jim.
Attorney Dusek - I do not know that, that is necessarily correct.
Councilman Monahan-Well I am saying if that is true. We don't know one way or the other.
Attorney Dusek-There as back a number of years ago now and I think it was 88,89 somewhere in that time
frame, when there was a matter in litigation over this and it was at that time that this idea of the is it heavy
industry or one of those classifications was found at an earlier time that it was rezoned by way of a
resolution and I remember Leon Steves looking at the maps and also agreeing that they had been rezoned I
guess it was an MIl Acre zoning classification or something like that so at that point it seemed that they
had the my recollection is, and I would have to go back thorough this pretty thick file that we have on it but
my recollection was that point it was determined that they in fact have a grandfather status and that as long
as they stayed within the exact confines of what they had when they started because the ordinance as Bob
said did in fact change immediately after that in 1980 I think it was or 82 so they were clearly rezoned at
that point into the residential classification and have been ever sense. The only question is whether they
have those grandfather rights I understand what Bob is saying tonight he is contesting those rights you
know to absolutely definitely answer the question I am recalling that I believe they had those rights but I
think we have to go back and look at the records and see that.
Attorney Stewart-I would simply say the resolution that may have given ...connection with CR Baird was
1970's in the 70's as late as 88 they went to the Town the Town said you are illegal then, issued a stop work
order they appealed that to the court it was not successful then we have argued about it ever sense and at no
time has anybody ever claimed or established to my mind and I have looked at the resolutions and
everything that their property was ever rezoned other than it was just added to a paragraph to this
application. So I would want to see some proof on that on behalf of my ...
Executive Director Martin-What I was thinking in terms of the grandfather rights was I would believe there
would be grandfather rights of the lot area but if someone was to go in and propose a commercial use in
that existing structure then in my view they cannot meet the set back standards of today which they would
be bound to do as a lot of record at the time of the adoption of the ordinance so therefore they would need a
variance to conduct a commercial use in that structure and therefore it would be.
Attorney Stewart -You are talking about the residence itself or the?
Executive Director Martin-If you were to take that existing, say the rezoning occurred and someone was to
propose a commercial use within that existing structure, according to the grandfather rights as they read
you have to meet the set backs of todays standards if you are not in a planning board approved subdivision.
The lot was not created as a result of planning board approved subdivision, which this is not the case. So,
therefore they have to meet the setbacks of todays standard and they could not do that without existing
structure and so by definition that would require a variance right off the bat to use that existing structure.
Now, if someone was to totally level that the structure and propose a commercial use in a structure that did
meet the set back of today, that would be a different matter, but in the terms of using that structure you
know Betty is right to that extent it would need a variance right off the bat.
Attorney Stewart-If the Board rezoned it and then the lot was leveled and I wanted to build a new
commercial or industrial type building there under the new zoning ordinance I have to have an acre of land
to do that.
Councilman Monahan-You cannot even do it in the first place.
Attorney Stewart -Only got six tenths of an acre.
Executive Director Martin-Any lot of record lawfully existing and complying with the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Ordinance on the day prior to the adoption of the October 1, 1980 amendment to the
Town Zoning Ordinance that does not conform to this chapter as it exists on or after October 1, 1988 would
be deemed as a conforming, will be deemed as conforming to the required area and or minimum lot width
requirements of this chapter.
Attorney Stewart -Ok, but the problem is you have a double use zone
Councilman Monahan-Excuse me Jim where are you.
Executive Director Martin-179-76A
Attorney Stewart -residential commercial the lot would conform to a residential use and could be used as a
residential use under this new rezoning but it would not conform to the commercial aspect. Now, you have
a double standard, you say that a lot in this zone once the applicant wants to use it commercially the
applicant must have a full.. Jot.
Supervisor Brandt-But if the applicant was someone who adjoined it and bought that parcel to be used
together with what they...then it could be used.
Councilman Caimano-Oh, sure.
Supervisor Brandt-And I assume that is why the applicant is applying I do not, so to say that it can't be used
yea, in itself it can't be used but
Attorney Stewart-In its present pasturage
Supervisor Brandt -right, but obviously they are here asking for a rezoning so they must see a reason to do
that and it must be that its, gives them the opportunity to try and combine that with the neighbors parcel.
Councilman Caimano-But there is nothing, I am sorry Sue, go ahead.
Councilman Goetz-I would like to mention, I was on the Zoning Board during a lot of this to do with both
the Northern Homes property and Seeley and the Northern Homes property has sever restrictions on it itself
so to not rezone it and let it go a variance request at the time that it would help both pieces of property out
would make a lot of sense because I have seen those problems.
Councilman Caimano-Also Mike, there is nothing in the application that says that is what they want to do
all they are asking for, we are not talking about trying to combine the two properties. We are only talking
about one property.
Supervisor Brandt-They are asking for a rezoning, simple, plain and simple and that is what we have to
look at.
Councilman Caimano-Right.
Supervisor Brandt-The fact is that as it stands it cannot be used for commercial use under the zoning that
they are asking to be granted. So, you know in a ways, it leaves the problem for the future to be solved but
it lays the ground work so someone can combine properties. Right now, it can only be used for a residence
and all of the machine shops and that becomes useless at that point.
Councilman Caimano-I know, but the argument that Sue is bring up and that Bob brought up is a very valid
one. Absent the argument over spot zoning which I think we have, we have a very good case for spot
zoning here. The fact of matter is we are going about this backwards if the Seeleys were to, were to find
out who was going to buy the Northern Homes property and come to us and want to dovetail then and go
through the site plan or the ZBA process then that would make sense and it should flow naturally. We are
trying to do this backwards we are trying to do it on the strength that this may happen when we have no
evidence at all it is going to happen.
Councilman Monahan-I think, Nick, you bring up a very good point and at that time if that were to happen
you would condition it on the sale of Northern Homes and adjoining as we did when we rezoned for the
Senior Housing the National Church Residence and we rezoned for Inspiration Park neither one of those
could go forth for any other thing but the exact purpose and use for which they were rezoned. Nobody was
given a blank check on those piece of property it was rezoned the Senior Housing had to go for Senior
Subsidized Housing when we did Inspiration Park that had to go for affordable housing and we put
guidelines in there that they had to meet and we did not give those people a blank check when we rezoned
those pieces of property and those, for that reason missed the definition of spot zoning because they also
did a social need of the community. It wasn't for the good of the property owner. We have nothing here,
but if you read the case on spot zoning everything that is in Anderson spot zoning the notes from our own
Planning Dept. that were with the minutes of the Planning Board, this whole criteria is strictly spot zoning.
Attorney Stewart-I think you are absolutely right. The application itself doesn't mention one word about it
being for the benefit of the community, it is for the benefit of Mr. and Mrs. Seeley which is understandable.
That makes it illegal in my mind for this Board to rezone it and give the full blown check. It does not make
it improper however for Mr. and Mrs. Seeley to go to a Zoning Board six months from now a year from
now and say we have a composite application here, Northern Homes is for sale the XYZ Company wants to
come in they need more space they would buy Northern Homes and us if we could work out an
arrangement that satisfied the neighbors and the law and the problems that they would have I would think
grounds to do. But to come here and say, rezone for our benefit and not in compliance with the general
plan and scheme of the neighborhood is not allowable under the law.
Councilman Caimano-We create a scenario to that's, that's kind of scary and you brought that up and we
talked about it before, and that's if we do this and I do think it is spot zoning and lets say we follow through
with it that just gives ammunition to the next owner to come in and say look you have already done this
once why won't you do it again, from a legal standpoint and that's kind of scary.
Councilman Monahan-And then you have the terrific impact on our park there of Hovey Pond when you do
that. I do not know how many people on this Board read the staff report that went to the Planning Board
but there is nothing but negatives about the rezoning in that staff report.
Supervisor Brandt -Staff is here they can certainly comment. I am hearing a blank check and I am hearing
an argument that if you give these people the zoning they are asking for they cannot do anything with it so
what the hell is that for a blank check? That isn't a blank check at all what it says is that if you give them
that rezoning the only benefit they can derive is if they combine that property successfully with
neighboring property otherwise there is no benefit.
Councilman Monahan-Mike that isn't true because they would go to the Zoning Board and get a variance.
Attorney Stewart-...
Supervisor Brandt -One at a time, just a second. Mr. Stewart?
Attorney Stewart-If that combination plan that you see a year from now see ill advised that they are a
tragedy to the neighborhood and in violation of all your general plan and scheme it is too late because you
have opened the door for them.
Supervisor Brandt-But you have to go site plan review, you have site plan review on every.
Attorney Stewart-But Site Plan Review has very limited authority site plan review in reality, I think Jim
will agree with me. Can't say no you can't have an industrial place there when it is zoned industrial they
can say how you can have it where the driveways are they can steer you but they cannot really say no you
cannot use your property ...that zone. Once you have zoned it you have opened the door they can try and
patch it up and make it as palatable as possible but they cannot prevent thereafter.
Councilman Monahan-I would just like to read some of this from the staff notes into the record however, it
is from the minutes of the Planning Board Meeting, Zone Change Analysis, what need is being met by the
proposed change of zone or new zone? The applicant states that the zone change will better reflect the use
of this property. However, the current use of the property as a machine shop is industrial in nature and non
conforming. With the proposed rezoning the current use will still be non conforming. Therefore the
rezoning will not reflect the existing use of the property. The proposed rezoning does not better reflect the
existing uses on most of the adjacent properties. Most of the adjacent properties are zoned residential, the
only commercially zoned properties are those fronting on Quaker Road and this property does not have any
frontage on Quaker Road. What proposed zones if any can meet the stated need? The applicant states that
only highway commercial would suit the stated need. Staff does not believe that the applicant has
addressed the question of need adequately enough to answer this question. How is the proposed zone
compatible with adjacent zones? The proposed zone is not compatible with the adjacent residential zones
any expansion of commercial zones south along Glenwood Avenue would come into conflict with existing
residential zone. However, it is compatible with existing commercial zone along Quaker Road. What
physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone? The physical characteristics of the site
are not entirely suitable for rezoning as highway commercial. This originally came in as highway
commercial. The existing structures are more suited for conversions to professional offices or dwellings
then structures generally associated with Highway Commercial Uses. This site is atop a small hill and the
intense development allowed in Highway Commercial Zones could cause drainage and runoff problems on
the property to the north. How will the proposed zoning effect public facilities? The proposed rezoning
will have an adverse impact on the adjacent Hovey Pond Park, the rezoning would allow uses that are in-
harmonious with the park. It does not seem prudent to approve a zone change that would allow uses that
would spoil the atmosphere that the Town has been trying to create with Hovey Pond Park. Why is the
current classification not appropriate for the property in question? The current zoning of the property as a
single family residential could be considered inappropriate given its proximity to the highway commercial
zone, however it is not good planning practice to just shift a bad situation. By rezoning this property to
highway commercial the bad situation that of a residential zone abutting the most intense commercial zone
is just shifted down Glenwood Avenue. An appropriate rezoning may be to rezone to an MR5 zone which
would allow limited commercial office development a multi family development and would act as a buffer
between the highway commercial zone and the residential zone. I do have here one that Scott did if this
were an MR5 zone. (shown to the Board Members) What are the environmental impacts of the proposed
change. The environmental impacts associated with rezoning this property to highway commercial include
increased traffic both automobile and truck and an increased noise. The rezoning would also have a
negative impact on Hovey Pond Park. The Town has spent a great deal of time and resources developing
this park most of the use is allowed in a highway commercial zone would have significant adverse effects
on the park as well as the adjacent nearby residences. Most Highway uses are not compatible with
residential and park use. How is the proposal compatible with relevant portions of the comprehensive
landuse plan? The proposed rezoning is in conflict with several sections of the comprehensive plan as well
as the zoning code. One of the transportation goals is to reduce truck traffic in residential areas this zoning
would increase truck traffic in the residential zoning along Glenwood Avenue. The water resources section
states that Hovey Pond is an important water resource for the Town and its development as a park confirms
that. The impacts that are generally associated with Highway Commercial Zones increase traffic, noise,
odors, as well as the aesthetic impacts would have significant adverse effect on the publics enjoyment of
the park. The landuse goals and policies reflect the importance of requiring buffers between commercial
and residential zones in order to preserve the neighborhood integrity. The proposed rezoning would not
allow for the creation of any buffer between the commercial uses allowed in a highway commercial zone
and the abutting industrial and park properties. Landuse strageties including limiting highway including
limiting include limiting highway commercial zones to arterial roads and to reduce densities in areas that
environment sensitivity. The rezoning would allow for the expansion of the strip development currently
confined to Quaker Road. To begin expanding down Glenwood Avenue it would also conflict with stated
strategy of reducing densities in areas of environmental sensitivity. Hovey Pond is an area that is
environmentally sensitive. The Zoning Code also states that Highway Commercial Zones are for areas that
are already, well we can skip that because they are coming in for CR some of this, I read that refers to
highway commercial because I think that part that I read is also appropriate to the CR. How are the wider
interests of the community being served by this proposal? The wider interests of the community will not be
served by rezoning this property to highway commercial. The landuse plans, goals, policies and strageties
along with the zoning code were developed in consideration of the wider interests of the community. If an
action is in conflict with both stated goals, policies, strageties and purposes it is likely that the action is not
serving the wider interest of the community. The negative impacts on the adjoining residential zone and
the park are major concerns and those impacts out weight any personal interest of the applicant that will be
met by this rezoning.
Supervisor Brandt-Again that is talking about Highway Commercial.
Councilman Monahan-That is right, but I read it Mike because a good deal of those points are also
appropriate to CR and I skipped the ones that were not appropriate to CR.
Councilman Goetz-It has been awhile since I have read the minutes of that the Queensbury Planning Board
Meeting but the recommended commercial residential, right and there was also talk about neighborhood
commercial which I did not think fit in at all.
Executive Director Martin-No, and that is why it was thrown out.
Councilman Monahan-But, I wonder, Sue, and I do not mean to interrupt you, when they recommended
CR15 I wonder if they realize that the commercial part took an area and they were making a substandard
lot?
Executive Director Martin-That I am not sure of.
Councilman Monahan-That is a question I would like to be able to ask the planning board because I cannot
believe the Planning Board they talk about CR15 but nobody ever brought up the point that the commercial
needed an acre.
Supervisor Brandt-This is a public hearing and we are getting into the argument of the merits and we really
here to listen to the public at this point so I am going to open it back up to the public for their input and
then we can get right back into the arguments after the public hearing. So, it is still a public hearing it is
open to the public is there anyone else that would like to speak?
Mrs. Barbara Seeley-I am Barbara Seeley, there are a lot of things going through my mind right now that, I
was listening to. First of all it was light industrial by your zoning maps when we bought the property, yes,
Harold LaRose did have it as a residence but prior to that it had been used by AC Warner as Office
buildings. When we started our machine shop and whatever, we did go to court and Mr. Dusek was there,
Judge Bacas I guess his determine was, his determination was that we were allowed to be there because of
the resolution and because of the prior zoning. A million things going through my mind. We are the buffer
zone just in case anybody is wondering, there is no buffer zone between us and the southwest property.
There is no buffer zone anyplace as far as where we are. We have not extended any of our business beyond
the garage and the house toward Mr. Beaty's we do not intend to do so. I think that acts as a pretty good
buffer and I do not think that the Beaty's are inconvenienced by any noises from our shops if they are I wish
he would let me know.
Supervisor Brandt-What is the zoning to the east of your property? Behind you.
Councilman Goetz-Some of it is residential, isn't it?
Mr. Harwood Beaty-It is residential, I own it, it is residential.
Mrs. Seeley-It is residential but it has got twenty years worth of restrictions on it also.
Mr. Beaty-Right, which I agreed to.
Mrs. Seeley-Yea. We are not being pressured into moving you know, we can stay there I guess as long as
we . . actually it is a matter of yes, we would like to move into a bigger facility when we are financially
ready selling the property at a higher price definitely would be in our favor I am not going to dispute that
whatsoever. I do think that something in the commercial residential neighborhood is a lot more suitable for
that area then what we are doing. I am not doing to dispute that. I agree with them whole heartily.
Supervisor Brandt -You say there is no buffer zone to your north between what is now Raven industries and
your property?
Mrs. Seeley-No, no there is no buffer at all they come right up to our property line.
Supervisor Brandt -So, in the past Queensbury allowed that to be rezoned without a buffer.
Mrs. Seeley-Right.
Supervisor Brandt -So, you are taking the brunt of that.
Mrs. Seeley-We are taking that, not only that.
Mr. Beaty-...it was that way when they moved there.
Mrs. Seeley-Exactly.
Mr. Beaty-That was commercial when they moved there, they knew that.
Mrs. Seeley-But, so was our property, our property was light industrial when we moved there also.
Supervisor Brandt -Ok. I guess, we have a formal record so it is one at a time.
Mrs. Seeley-It was five hundred feet from the railroad tracks, if you go back and look at old zoning maps
and so forth, but, that's I do not know if there is anything else to say...
Supervisor Brandt -Your original application was for Highway Commercial and then it went through the
process where the Planning Board recommended
Mrs. Seeley-suggested
Supervisor Brandt -you go to a lessor category
Mrs. Seeley-Yes
Supervisor Brandt-And that became commercial residential fifteen.
Mrs. Seeley-Right. And we have no objection to that.
Supervisor Brandt -You still have this application in front of us so you see some merit in it even though you
understand that it is not a big enough plot to put a commercial use in.
Mrs. Seeley-We did submit a letter with the down grading to commercial residential that we would accept
that also as an alternative.
Supervisor Brandt-The argument was made that your frontage on Glenwood I think it is one hundred and
forty feet and fifty feet of that your would lose as a buffer zone so ninety feet of it would be usable. Ok.
Councilman Monahan-That is not really true Mike because you have got to have twenty feet buffer on the
other side and you have got to have a seventy five foot, not buffer, excuse me, it is a set back in that case.
You have got to have a seventy five set back from the road and you have got to have a twenty five set back
from the rear so it does not leave you very much useable space in that property.
Supervisor Brandt-But, they are asking for this and they know what it means.
Councilman Monahan-The only trouble is when you create a lot and it can not be used in a way you create,
I have seen this happen too many times. Then they go to the Zoning Board and say I have a lot that cannot
be used in the way it was created so now you have got to give me all these variances you have got to let me
infringe on the buffer zone you have got to let me infringe on the set backs and so on and so forth so I can
use it. So, those are the kinds of problems you are creating when you do this type of thing.
Supervisor Brandt-The Zoning Board can say no and they have in the past.
Councilman Caimano- W e cannot out guess the Zoning Board.
Supervisor Brandt-No, that is not our job.
Councilman Monahan-But you are doing why would you create a lot when you, a use when you don't have
the space there to do...
Councilman Caimano-I am not saying we should do that, but I do not think we can sit here and divine what
some board that we do not even know the make up of is going to say down the road that just does not cut it
with me.
Councilman Monahan-Well, you know, you get that argument I have a lot and I have a right to get the use
out of it because you create the lot for me.
Councilman Caimano- Go ahead, I am sorry.
Mr. Charles Seeley-My name is Charles Seeley and if the..., you are talking about the set backs from the
side line to the north of us what are you going to do with the saw horse parking lot, take twenty foot off
their parking lot when they resell because it is going to put them
Mrs. Seeley-It would have to be fifty feet.
Supervisor Brandt-It would have to be fifty feet.
Mr. Charles Seeley-You know what I am saying, what are you going to take the whole parking lot away?
Because now, they need a buffer zone.
Councilman Goetz-The two of you need each other. Those two property owners...
Mrs. Seeley-Exactly and that is our whole purpose of being here.
Supervisor Brandt-I see some logic in that and creating a formal permanent buffer zone to the neighbors to
the residential neighborhood. The problem is that in effect that was never done in the past. If it were deed
restricted it would seem to me that if that was a condition of the approval that you would not be doing a
domino effect you would make a deed restriction and it would have to, be part of the deed. It would go
with the property.
Unknown-You cannot make a deed restriction by zone...
Supervisor Brandt-They would have to agreed to it as a condition of zone.. . attach that as a condition.
Mrs. Seeley-It is also you know, I do not even like to bring it up but Mr. Beaty does have an in home
business it is my understanding that an in home business is not supposed to have a sign. Mr. Beaty says he
is a real estate appraiser his sign says a real estate, a licensed real estate broker. I do not really care one
way or the other it doesn't effect me I do not, you know, he also has a business there so you know he is not
completely out of fault, I am not going to say that he is illegal or he isn't, I do not care. It does not bother
me, but at the same time if you are going to throw stones lets look at all of them.
Supervisor Brandt-I think we have to look at them from the Town's view point and not from the neighbors
view point and I think the question is would this parcel work better in combination with neighboring
parcels with the kind of restrictions that are imposed with a CR15 zone and with the buffer zone that would
be permanent and the only way I would consider this personally would be to ask for a deed restriction so
that it is not a domino effect because I think that is a legitimate concern that the neighbors have and should
have and I think that Glenwood Avenue has changed in character a great deal by the installation of the
traffic light at the intersection of Glenwood and Quaker and that has changed traffic patterns a lot and you
are going to have to look in the future of what can be done about that. Part of the traffic study is to look at
eventually trying to shift back traffic pattern to Lafayette Street and changing the character of Lafayette
Street which would not effect a lot of residential and I think that is good planning and I think we are
working on that and in context I think that can work. Any how it is still a public hearing, so you do not
want to hear me we want to hear you.
Councilman Caimano-Lady in the back.
Supervisor Brandt -Come on right up and talk to us.
Ms. Bernidine Rouse-My name is Bernidine Rouse, 45 Glenwood Avenue, I am not well versed in codes
and policies and procedures. But, as a neighbor and resident on Glenwood Avenue and I think I can
honestly can make a statement on behalf of most of the neighbors. What may make sense to combine these
two properties I think is what frightens us the most and I would ask the board when they do vote to really
please, put themselves in the position of the neighbors that live on Glenwood Avenue. I live right across
from Hovey Pond I love it, as I said two meetings ago the Mall is there we have to live with it but I can not
say that all of us are too tickled about it. But, it frightens me what may go down there because with all of
the commercialism that is going into Queensbury which does make sense which I know is bring revenue in
we really do not want to see Glenwood Avenue become a commercial street and I see this coming I really
do and I think the other neighbors feel the same way. Thank you.
Supervisor Brandt-Anyone else that would like to speak.
Mr. George Wiswall-My name is George Wiswall I live at 68 Glenwood Avenue and I live at Hovey's
when I first came to Glens Falls so I am well acquainted with the area. This doesn't really have anything to
do with rezoning that property but there is one thing that you could do for Seeleys and whoever lives there
in that house is create a one way traffic that road that comes out of Quaker Plaza and Mrs. Seeley brought
this up the last hearing they come out of there one, two, three o'clock in the morning their light shine right
in their windows and they are squealing their tires they do not bother us over where we live but I know I
can just imagine how difficult it is to occupy that house. The house is a nice residence it has always been a
nice residence, an asset to Hovey Pond area, I do not know whether it is possible for the Town Board to do
anything with this Quaker Plaza exit there but it would help a lot. You know the road that I am speaking
of?
Councilman Caimano- Yes.
Mr. Wiswall-It runs along the fence there by the dam and we get some loud music from over there we do
not hear the squealing tires but it is just a thought that it would help the neighborhood. I have not talked to
the Seeleys about this but the Beaty's agree with me that it would help their residence and maybe some of
the other residences on Glenwood Avenue if that traffic was diverted to Lafayette Street in the back side of
the night club over there. Thanks for listening.
Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone at all? Then I am going to declare the public
hearing closed. Thank you.
Councilman Caimano-Lets settle a legal question first. We have heard several stories regarding what it was
what Judge Bacas said it was, what is the scoop? Have you got any?
Attorney Dusek-I would have to go back and check the records and that is one of the things I would
recommend to the board before you take action tonight there are a couple of points that have been raised
one is the history of the parcel and what exactly are the rights there and I think we can easily enough clarify
that issue. The second issue that has been raised though is the issue of spot zoning. Mr. Stewart has
outlined several criteria that you have to look at with respect to spot zoning so far from everything I have
heard, I have not heard anything to the contrary on spot zoning so there was a question in my mind
you know exactly where the, what the Town's position is on this and I think I would need to hear that or
read what the Town has for a position before I can start to even to offer any kind of a opinion on whether or
not you have a problem there. So, I think those are a couple of issues that need to be addressed.
Supervisor Brandt-It would seem to me that the, from what I heard tonight that the there were restrictions
put on what was the Northern Homes Property when it was rezoned. I would think that, that would be very
important to look at those restrictions in context to what is being proposed here in a CR15 and I think that
may shed some light and I would like to know about that before we move on it.
Councilman Caimano-I understand your question, but help me out here. The application before us is for the
Seeleys, we do not know what plans there are or if there are any plans for the property on the corner, I do
not think that has any unless the Seeleys come forward and say we have, we know that there is an offer to
buy the property and if we join with them here is what we can do, I do not know that we should take that
into consideration what is the difference?
Supervisor Brandt-I am talking about the spot zoning issue.
Councilman Caimano-Ok.
Supervisor Brandt-I am talking about what is the real nature of what was rezoned to the north and how
would that look as the zoning and what uses are allowed there as compared to what we are considering
there in that context is my interest.
Attorney Dusek-I might add that is exactly the type of thing that you would want to look at to see if you
have a spot zoning. Just because you rezone a small parcel it has been well established that, that doesn't
mean it is spot zoning you have to take into consideration the adjoining parcels as Mike mentioned you also
have to take into consideration whether there is any practical needs to the community and where there is
any practical needs as far as that particular parcel is concerned in terms of being a transitional zone.
Councilman Ciamano-But in fact the application before us doesn't show any other needs for the community
that are fulfilled there is only one and it has only been stated as one and it is economic. That is that if we
do this we will get a better return on our dollar or ...
Attorney Dusek-It is clearly a legitimate concern on the part of whether or not that's you know just that
record alone is that spot zoning.
Supervisor Brandt-I think there is another question and that is that somewhere along the line Queensbury
changed its outlook on buffers and Queensbury allowed zoning to the north without a buffer that adversely
impacts this property and now you have got a chance to change that and put a buffer zone in correctly and I
think that has some merit in my mind it does. It is easy to isolate the Seeleys and say oh, well, too bad you
got stuck and it is your problem but we are the people in Town government that did it and if I think we
have some obligation to look at it and see if there is a way to right a situation that's been done by the Town,
I think it is an issue. Is that spot zoning I do not think so, I think, is that a community need I think it is a
community need at large not a Seeley issue.
Councilman Caimano- What is the community need.
Supervisor Brandt-Proper buffering and proper transition from commercial and certain restricted
commercials to residential. We ought to look at that and I...
Councilman Monahan-I think to qualify that as a community need it seems to me that we would have to
look at that all over town and not do it in one spot.
Councilman Caimano- That is right. Otherwise it becomes spot zoning.
Supervisor Brandt-How many places was it created? We know of this one that is all I know.
Councilman Monahan-We don't know.
Supervisor Brandt-At this point that issue is going to need some research before we can act on it so we are
going to move on to the next public hearing.
Councilman Monahan-I would like to ask one question please, and Bob please do not leave, we have two
attorneys here and I would like to ask a question on something. There is a ..zoning law and talks about a
protest petition and when a protest petition has been received it requires a more of a vote from this board,
now one of the requirements for a protest petition is a protest against such change and it is signed by
owners of 20% or more of the land immediately adjacent extending 100' from the land subject to this
change. I have a petition here and if I took the same side of the road as the Seeleys there would be
Northern Homes would be within that 100' and then there would be the Seeleys and then there would be the
Beaty's and there would be the Rouses and the Beaty's and the Rouses have signed this petition do I have a
protest petition here that requires a greater majority of vote of this Board?
Councilman Caimano-But even more important what do you think?
Not to denigrate you Bob, but we pay him not you.
Councilman Monahan-I am asking all the Attorneys that is what I said.
Attorney Dusek-I think you may, I will not say you definitely will, Mr. Stewart will say you definitely
will...
Councilman Caimano-He is paid to say that.
Attorney Stewart-I was in this two months ago down in Saratoga and I did some research on it and there is
no format, the petition was will say we hereby file a protest petition under Section 309 of the Town Law it
is just a petition signed by the neighbors saying we are opposed.
Attorney Dusek-The question is though you have to tally up the properties and make sure you have the
Councilman Monahan- I did, one of the requirements is, it is a protest against such change and assigned by
owners of twenty percent or more of the land immediately adjacent extending 100' from the land subject to
the change that is one of the requirements there are three different requirements they can meet anyone of
them and it looks to me that we have got one of those met.
Attorney Dusek-If you do and we can check this out more carefully in give you a definite opinion along
with these other issues. If you do you are right it would take a super majority of the board which would be
four votes instead of the ordinary three but that would be easy enough to verify and we would have that
answered in the definitive by the next meeting as well.
Councilman Monahan-The more I read zoning laws the more questions I find.
Attorney Stewart-I do not wish to make any further arguments because the public hearing has been closed
but I would ask for the curtesy if it is going to be adjourned to receive legal arguments on the points that I
have raised then I would appreciate the curtesy of receiving copies of those and an opportunity to respond
because having raised them I think they are critical.
Attorney Dusek-I have been in this spot before and I would just caution the Board I certainly do not mind
sharing what my opinions mayor may not be but I think the thing you have to keep in mind is that this is
not a legal contest between your Town Attorney and Mr. Stewart or any other Attorney but rather he has a
right to make his arguments which I believe he has made tonight if he has any additional arguments he is
certainly welcome to make them or submit them in writing. But, I think as far as getting into a legal
dialogue between me and Mr. Stewart that is not appropriate my job is to advise you as the Board we can
entertain in that process any comments that Mr. Stewart has.
Councilman Monahan-I also remember though Paul and this one thing that makes me very skiddish is when
we rezoned the property for the Senior Subsidized Housing you said to Lee York if we are challenged in
Court can you support this so this cannot be called spot zoning? I remember you putting her through the
fifty degree in questions as she would have to answer in court so that we could support the issue that it was
not spot zoning.
Attorney Dusek - I do not recall that exact think but it does not surprise me if I did ask that, but I would
point out that tonight I made a similar type of comment in terms of saying to you I did not find the Town
taking a position on the record as far as whether this was or wasn't spot zoning that is one of the issues I
wanted to look into in terms of your records on this matter.
Supervisor Brandt-And you will advise us so we can go on with this at a later date and in the mean time lets
get on with the next pubic hearing.
Attorney Dusek-When we finally get through this process that we meet again and the concern citizens as
well as Mr. Stewart be advised of that meeting so that they can attend and hear the opinions themselves.
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED LOCAL LAW VEHICLE TRAVELING LANES
Supervisor Brandt-The next is a public hearing on Traveling Lanes on marking two different highways....
Attorney Dusek-This was a local law that I was asked to draft for the Boards consideration the issue is of
the first local law is white stripping on the side of a road which would indicate traveling lanes. The
question became what do we have to do if we want white strips put on the road and the, when I researched
the vehicle and traffic law you find that the Town Board has authority by way of the vehicle and traffic law
to set regulations for the highways whatever they may be, double lines, signage whatever it is the Town
Board would like the only way though that seems that you could practically do that is by your local law
powers which is where this is developed and why this was developed and this one right here, the first one
simply provides that there will be white lines placed on Mt. View Lane and it provides further that there
will placed there in accordance with the New York State Manual Uniform Traffic Control devices which is
the standard format that the Highway Dept. would normally follow anyway and that they will be
maintained in accordance with the local law. The only think I will mention which the Highway Dept. also
has raised I believe and Rick is here so if I mis-speak he can certainly correct me. But as I understand it
one of the concerns voiced by the Highway has been in the past once you put these on the road that you are
setting a precedent and also you are never going to be able to take these off as a practical matter and it is
going to be a constance expense. I think that is something that the Town should certainly consider.
Supervisor Brandt-This public hearing is related to the next public hearing which is on no passing zones
which is the center line on one of these same roads and another road Mountain View Lane no passing zone
and a center line on old, Luzerne Road. Can we hold both of those public hearings at the same time?
Attorney Dusek-I would recommend against it because they if one for some reason doesn't pass then the
other does then you want the record so it is not confused between the two.
Supervisor Brandt-We will open the public hearing then on the traveling lanes. (notice shown) Is there
anyone here to speak on Mt. View Lane on white stripes down the sides? Come on right up and talk to us.
Mr. Les Summers-My name is Les Summers and I live on Mt. View Lane and I have no problems with the
stripping either on the side or in the middle. The problem I have is the traffic coming offfrom West Mt.
coming south from the County Building, they come off that road going fifty miles an hour and I do not
think they ever let up until they get to Aviation Road. I think it would be great if we could have some more
traffic signs possibly up on that end where Bonner Drive is in that area to slow them down. About three
weeks ago a little girl almost got hit on the road by a car and what is going to happen someone is going to
get killed because they travel too fast. There is a possibility even some lighting on Whippoorwill might
help. I am not sure what can be done but we do have a problem every sense they changed that road over
and made it a thoroughfare we have tractor trailers coming across it we have logging trucks we have busses
we have everything coming across it. I would say most likely seventy eight percent of the traffic coming
off West Mt. comes across that road now. It never used to be that way it was always a town road it was
narrow, it is still narrow and there isn't much room to expand it anymore they expanded it four or five years
ago they widened it some and to my knowledge there is no way of expanding it any further. I like to see
some type of control there because a lot of children on that road that play and eventually we are going to
have some type of a problem unless something is done. Thank you.
Councilman Monahan-Have you ever petition the Highway Dept.
Councilman Caimano-Wait a minute let me answer that, because Mr. Summers brought this up last last
time and I have had the ...pleasure of talking with Mr. Austin regarding it. Apparently, several years ago
meaning like four or five they took on the task of trying to correct that I asked Austin why he couldn't put
in a stop sign just north of Bonner making it a three way stop at that point and he claimed that they did a
bunch of surveys and the reason that Mt., West Mt. now takes the curve it does was to move the traffic in
that direction. We are still having the dialogue trying to explain to him that the traffic coming offfrom
West Mt. comes offfrom it into Mt. View at about fifty miles per hour and that is where we are but
apparently there was a tremendous amount of work done like three or four years ago I do not have it with
me and we are in the middle of a dialogue now. I hope to continue it and I hope that we can get the stop
sign. To me the answer is the stop sign just on the north side of Bonner a stop sign going kind of
northeasterly on West Mt. and one on Mt. View if you make all the traffic stop then you allow the traffic to
come out on Bonner and you make sure nobody comes speeding down or at least you try to make sure that
no one comes speeding down Mt. View. That is where we are with it right now.
Mr. Summers-I think the stop sign would be a great help because it would slow them down and by the time
the pick up speed again they would be hitting the thirty five miles per hour speed sign which I think would
help.
Councilman Caimano-He gave me a form letter, not a form letter it was a law from the State of New York
indicating what had to be done in order to qualify for a stop sign. Its, we do not qualify. But, we can
whoever made the law can change the law that is what I am hoping for.
Councilman Tucker-What is the zone on Mt. View now, thirty five or thirty?
Councilman Caimano- Thirty five.
Supervisor Brandt-Is that a local law, establishing the stop sign? Because you are in a transition from a
fairly high speed road coming from a County Road unto a Town Road which is really very different in
character and that is the problem. People do not realize it and they are going way too fast when they come
into that.
Attorney Dusek-I know on a town to town intersection there is no question that you have the right to place
stop signs, the issue here is that you are on a county road which I would have to check.
Councilman Caimano-The County and the Town and there were very, he gave me the copy of the law and
short of death we did not quality, you had to have so many cars per hour and all this kind of nonsense, and
we did not qualify.
Attorney Dusek-As far as the DOT recommendations standards that is right.
Councilman Tucker-I have got a question for Rick how comes that thirty five up there instead of thirty.
Deputy Highway Supt. Missita-New York State sets the speed limit.
Councilman Caimano-All the rest of the town is thirty.
Councilman Tucker-I thought all roads...
Councilman Monahan-No, thirtyfive...
Depty Highway Supt. Missita-All secondary roads are thirty ...thirty five and forty, fortyfive and fifty,...
secondary roads not the main. The intersection in question though is belongs to the County that is why we
don't have the authority to put a stop sign there...
Councilman Caimano-We are working on it and we are working on it as fast as we can.
Mr. Summers-Are you saying though that the Town has the right to put stop sign on a town highway?
Councilman Caimano- Yes.
Mr. Summers-Then why don't you put a stop sign on Whippoorwill and all the Highways that it connects
and that will certainly slow them down because they have to stop three times before they get to Aviation.
Councilman Caimano- Y ou mean at Whippoorwill and Mt. View?
Councilman Monahan-You cannot use stop signs for speed controls.
Councilman Caimano- That is one of the things you cannot do, you cannot use stop signs as speed control.
If you use that as an argument the State and the County and everybody else says no.
Mr. Summers-So the Town really does not have any control over it then.
Supervisor Brandt-Right now what we are talking about is stripping the road period that is what the public
hearing is and all these other things are of interest and educational but the public hearing is on stripping the
road.
Councilman Monahan-Mike, but I would like to ask Mr. Summers another question please, while he is here
have you ever considered petitioning the highway department to put a truck weight limit on that road and
maybe keep the big trucks off there and prevent them from using it as a short cut? Rick is that a
possibility?
Deputy Highway Supt. Missita- The only thing that will do is keep certain trucks off it cannot prohibit
people in the business from going down that ...
Councilman Monahan-If they are doing a local delivery. But if they are just using it as a short cut between
Wt. Mt. and Aviation Road.
Deputy Highway Supt. Missita-....make sure the cops stops them and says what are you doing, well I am
just making a delivery, how are you going to tell them that they are not?
Mr. Summers-I have never petitioned them because it has only happened in the last few years since they
have changed the highway. But the traffic is getting worse every day you know we are getting more and
more of it.
Councilman Caimano- Weare working on it.
Attorney Dusek-Just as a question, the speed limit on Mt. View is thirty five?
Councilman Caimano- Thirty five
Attorney Dusek-Is the problem that they are exceeding the speed limit?
Mr. Summers-Yes.
Attorney Dusek-Because then doesn't it become really a issue of enforcement.
Supervisor Brandt-What is happening the road is getting narrower and you are coming into a populated
area and people are not respecting or even understanding that, the change all of a sudden there in there and
they are going faster than they should be the neighbors are ...
Councilman Monahan-I will tell you a good way to stop that is done in many towns
Councilman Caimano-Shoot them?
Councilman Monahan-No, you put a sheriffs car right where that thirty five mile sign is and you better be
down to thirty five when you hit that because that is done in a lot of places.
Mr. Summers-That would be great if they would do it but, unfortunately I do not think they have the time...
Councilman Monahan-We have done it in a few places in town just to get people a little, aware of it.
Supervisor Brandt-We are at a public hearing to hear about anyone else that would like to speak on this,
come on up and talk to us please.
Mr. ..... -lam...I live on Bonner Drive, I would like to clarify one or two things that I have just heard,
because I live at Bonner at the intersection ofMt. View. There is a sign just to my left as I head south on
Mt. View that says this road is County maintained.
Deputy Highway Supt. Missita-Maintain at that point.
Mr....-That is south of the intersection where I am speaking about.
Deputy Highway Supt. Missita-Right.
Mr...-So you are saying it is County maintained but it is a Town Road.
Deputy Highway Supt. Missita-They own that much of the intersection, that is correct.
Mr...-Now, wait a minute, that is County.
Deputy Highway Supt. Missita-right.
Mr...-Now, I just would like to know what is the reason for these traffic lines, I am not against them I am
just saying who is proposing these lines to be put on this road and if we are saying according to this what I
have in front of me, it is the Town of Queensbury proposing these lines be painted.
Councilman Caimano-On Mt. View.
Councilman Tucker-On Mt. View.
Councilman Caimano- Which is a town road.
Mr...-Mt. View becomes County maintained to just south of Bonner.
Councilman Tucker-No. That is the end of the County maintenance, where you see the sign is the end of
the County road.
Mr...At the end of the County road.
Councilman Tucker-Right. And the Town Road starts at that point
Mr...The Town starts at that point
Councilman Tucker-And at that point is where we are going to put the line.
Mr...Oh my God, because when you are driving toward Aviation the signs reads the people heading south
County maintained.
Councilman Caimano- Yea, but then the road turns.
Mr...ends.
Deputy Highway Supt. Missita-ends here.
Mr. .. -Thank you, that is the word it ends at that point.
The next thing I would like to say because I agree with my neighbor there about the cars do go awfully fast
and a lot of times you will find that, that intersection cars go into the woods because the cars cannot turn,
they cannot make the turn right onto the West Mt. Road and they cannot turn left to stay on Mt. View road.
Maybe that is the purpose of these proposals? What is the purpose of the no-passing and lines?
Supervisor Brandt-The purpose is to show people where the sides of the roads are so they do not go off the
road, show them that it is restricting down and show them that it is no passing.
Mr...-..use the word no passing, this is a to me considered a County a country road it is almost beveled
being it is taken to be looking like a county road not to say these lines should not be on there.
Councilman Caimano-Do you think we should allow passing on Mt. View?
Mr...-No. I am just wondering why they were being why they are being proposed.
Supervisor Brandt-They are being proposed so that people can see that the roads are necking down
narrower and that there is no passing would be allowed that would be the next public hearing from there
south.
Mr...-Let me just use an analogy as I am up here. Why wouldn't we put them on Sylvan, Centennial those
kinds of roads? Why are those roads different?
Supervisor Brandt-The difference here is that you are coming off a County Road at a pretty high rate of
speed
Mr... -Ok, so you are using this as a speed control which I am all for I just want to get in to your heads you
say I just threw an analogy of why not Centennial or Sylvan those road why was this road picked? If it was
chosen it was trying to do away with the petition trying to get a stop sign?
Supervisor Brandt-It was picked by the neighbors who asked us to please do it.
Mr...-Put the lines on the road
Supervisor Brandt-Right, they are saying it is dangerous the way it is and people do not see the edge of the
roads and since it is narrowing down they think it would help people ....
Councilman Caimano-What is the designation of that road Jim?
Executive Director Martin-I believe that
Mr. ...-What section of it?
Councilman Caimano-From West Mt. to Aviation, Mt. View Lane, it is not an arterial.
Executive Director Martin-No, no it is listed in our Zoning Code.
Councilman Caimano- That is why you have got the book and I asked the question.
Executive Director Martin-No it has no designation. Not on our regional arterial or local arterial.
Councilman Caimano-No more than Sylvan or Luzerne is
Executive Director Martin-No, I am sorry Mt. View Lane is listed as local arterial road.
Councilman Caimano-So that is the difference between that and Sylvan.
Councilman Monahan-What page are you on Jim?
Executive Director Martin-Page 17988, Section 179-30
Mr...-I would suggest anything to slow it down and it is a very good idea I just want to know why it is
being proposed. Thank you.
Supervisor Brandt-Anyone else that would like to speak on this? Ok. Then I am going to close the public
hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED LOCAL LAW ON NO PASSING ZONE
NOTICE SHOWN
Supervisor Brandt-I would open the public hearing on the double yellow line, which is for two pieces of
highway, the same section ofMt. View Lane and Luzerne Mt. Road running from West Mt. Road up to
Luzerne Town line.
Attorney Dusek - I just feel that I should make one comment on this no passing zone it doesn't refer to it as a
double yellow line but rather refers to whatever the once again the New York State DOT manual uniform
traffic control devices. Whatever they would call for under these types of situations. In one case I believe a
double yellow line does in fact exist already right on the
Councilman Caimano-Part of Luzerne
Attorney Dusek-Luzerne one but on the other one it would be you know the Highway Dept. would have to
take a look at the manual and see what it calls for most likely it would be a double yellow line but just in
case I did not want the record to say that it would definitely be because somebody might get confused if
they saw some other type of center line device out there.
Supervisor Brandt-Ok. With that said, proper legal notice was made on this also.
Town Clerk Dougher-Yes.
Supervisor Brandt-I am going to declare the public hearing open is there anyone that would like to speak on
the no passing zone?
Deputy Highway Supt. Missita-Just on question on the effective date, if it is not possible to be done at this
time of year does that mean it is ok to do it in the spring?
Supervisor Brandt-I would hope that common sense can prevail in law. Can it?
Attorney Dusek - I think to be safe we should say that?
Deputy Highway Supt. Missita-I am only saying if we call the people that do the stripping ...1 do not know
if it is too cold or not...
Supervisor Brandt-Well it certainly...
Unknown-I doubt that they will.
Deputy Highway Supt. Missita-I do too, but I am just saying, it says immediately so I do not know if that is
going to cause a problem.
Supervisor Brandt-Well, if we enact this and it should reflect what you are concern is.
Councilman Monahan-In fact Rick wouldn't it cost a small fortune to get them here for just two roads don't
that tie in when they are in our area and they do the whole?
Deputy Highway Supt. Missita-They will have to make a special trip if they will make a special trip...
Councilman Caimano-Are you talking about effective date?
Deputy Highway Supt. Missita-Yes.
Councilman Caimano-I do not think that has no effect you can do it, it is the effect of the law they can do it
when ever they want.
Attorney Dusek-It is but I think his concern is the law goes into effect today and then they do not put the
stripping on when perhaps they can conceivable at great cost could right now will they somehow be held
responsible for failing to do that until summer time?
Supervisor Brandt -So, you could give us wording to
Attorney Dusek-I think you could just add something to that just to clarify.
Supervisor Brandt-To help us get thorough that.
Anybody else that would like to give us input? Ok. I am going to declare that public hearing closed.
Councilman Monahan-Mike I would like to hear from the Highway Dept. please on this, Rick? Any
comments about these two proposals from the Highway Dept.?
Councilman Caimano-Do you want to get on the record, please.
Supervisor Brandt-Lets keep the public hearing open then I am sorry I closed it before, lets go ahead,
please.
Deputy Highway Supt. Missita-Just what Mr. Dusek mention earlier, that once we do, do this it is, it is in
gold it has got to be done from now on, on those particular road at that you are going to pass or not pass
tonight. The one road that is already done now, is going to have to be effectively keep being done, I think
regardless if you pass anything tonight because it is done on there, and Paul maybe correct me if I am
wrong, being down already that road is going to have to be continued to be done anyway.
Councilman Monahan-Are you talking about Luzerne Mt.?
Attorney Dusek-It was done as a error.
Deputy Highway Supt. Missita-Correct.
Attorney Dusek-There is no law in the books or anything so I do not know that the Town is necessarily
obligated I can understand your concern it seems to me that I think what would be the final determination is
whether or not under the regulations it is really something that should be done under that, on that road.
Deputy Highway Supt. Missita-According to the manual once it is put down it has to be continued to be put
down and it was put down in error by the company they were only supposed to go to Luzerne line they just
kept right on going but, other than that my only comment is that once it is done it has got to be done.
Councilman Monahan-But, has the Highway Dept. evaluated this from a safety, you are in charged with the
safety of the highways and the safety of the people on there.
Deputy Highway Supt. Missita-It is not going to be a hinderance Betty if that is what you are trying to say.
Councilman Monahan-No, I ...
Deputy Highway Supt. Missita-It is going to help to a degree especially Mt. View Lane where the
gentlemen is talking about the intersection up there the only thing it is going to do is depict where the lines
are and where the road is it is not going to stop the problem with the intersection itself because people
coming fifty miles per hour don't slow down enough to negotiate the turn onto Mt. View Lane and they end
up into the trees all the time the lines are not going to help that because the lines are down the road farther
then the intersection. That is not going to help that situation out. It is going to help down Mt. View Lane
itself, the only thing this may do is it as the gentlemen mentioned back here is asking about Sylvan and
everything else this could open up a can of worms and more people could come forward and ask for it. But
the budget is only so large to do so much so we can only do what we can do.
Supervisor Brandt -Ok, with that then I am going to close the public hearing.
I would propose a resolution with the modification that you described so that it can be done in a timely
basis, or these changes can be done when it is cost effective to do it.
Attorney Dusek-I think on both of them you could add it would fit in nicely under number 4 where it says
the Town of Queensbury Supt. of Highways is hereby authorized and directed to: right at that point say,
directed to, as weather permits and not later than June 1st. 1994.
Councilman Monahan-I would suggest that we say when all the roads in the town are done or you are going
to have a big, big bill for this town when you just call them here to do two roads.
Supervisor Brandt - I think Betty has got a good point when the we are doing the repainting of lines that this
be included at that time and if that happens to be July, it is July but, I do not think we should set a date let
him set that date. Mt. View Lane traveling lanes, I have looked at that carefully and at night in the rain
and it is really very hard to see the change in the road without the strips and I really believe that it will
benefit the safety of the driving public and the neighborhood to do it. I will propose that one first with the
other one behind it.
Councilman Caimano-I will second it, I just want to say I understand the Highway Depts. concern but you
also said that it does help and I have to tell you that in our budget we spend tens of thousands of dollars on
charitable organizations and if our first order of business is the health, welfare and safety of our people then
that comes first and we will find the money somewhere else.
Attorney Dusek-Dictated new language for the resolution--in both local laws-The Town of Queensbury
Supt. of Highways is hereby authorized and directed, at such time as the Town Roads are scheduled for
stripping or re-stripping to: A and B
RESOLUTION TO ENACT LOCAL LAW DESIGNATING VEHICLE TRAVELING LANES
ON CERTAIN TOWN HIGHWAYS IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
RESOLUTION NO.: 710.93
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 enacting 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, a copy of the said proposed Local Law entitled, "A Local Law Designating Vehicle
Traveling Lanes on Certain Town Highways," has been presented at this meeting, a copy of said Local Law
also having been previously given to the Town Board, and
WHEREAS, on November 29, 1993, a public hearing on said proposed Local Law was duly
conducted,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adopts and enacts the
proposed Local Law designating vehicle traveling lanes on certain Town highways in the Town of
Queensbury, to be known as Local Law No.: 14, 1993, the same to be titled and contain such provisions as
are set forth in a copy of the proposed Local Law presented at this meeting, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to file the Local
Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home
Rule Law and that said Local Law will take effect immediately and as soon as allowable under law.
Duly adopted this 29th day of November, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES : Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
LOCAL LAW NO.: 14,1993
A LOCAL LAW DESIGNATING VEHICLE TRAVELING LANES
ON CERTAIN TOWN HIGHWAYS
BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS
FOLLOWS:
1. Purpose.
The purpose of this Local Law is to establish or designate Vehicle Traveling Lanes on certain
Town Highways in accordance with the authority provided in the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law
~ 1660.
2. Definitions.
For the purpose of this Local Law, words used herein shall have the same meaning as set forth in
the definitions of such words in the Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State of New York.
3. Designation or Establishment of Vehicle Traveling Lanes on Certain Town Highways.
There shall be designated vehicle traveling lanes as indicated by white striping on the sides of the
highway or other similar markings or devices, including any signs that may be necessary or required by the
New York State Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and/or any applicable State regulation on the
following Town Highways or portions of Town Highways:
A. On Mountain View Lane in the Town of Queensbury, County of Warren, State of New
York, from the point or place where the same intersects West Mountain Road, to the point or place where
said Mountain View Lane intersects Aviation Road.
4. Authorization and Directive to Town Superintendent of Highways.
The Town of Queensbury Superintendent of Highways is hereby authorized and directed at such
time as the Town roads are scheduled for stripping or re-stripping to:
A. Indicate the designation of vehicle traveling lanes on the highways, roads, or portions
thereof, referred to in paragraph 3 hereof by appropriate markings and/or signs made in accordance with
and as may be provided by the New York State Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and any
applicable State rules or regulations.
B. Maintain all markings or other traffic control devices required by reason of this Local
Law.
5. Effective Date.
This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing thereof in the Office of the Secretary of
State.
RESOLUTION TO ENACT LOCAL LAW ESTABLISHING NO-PASSING ZONES
ON CERTAIN TOWN HIGHWAYS IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
RESOLUTION NO.: 711.93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of enacting a Local Law
which would provide for the establishment of no-passing zones on certain Town Highways in the Town of
Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, a copy of the said proposed Local Law entitled, "A Local Law Establishing No-
Passing Zones on Certain Town Highways," has been presented at this meeting, a copy of said Local Law
also having been previously given to the Town Board, and
WHEREAS, on November 29, 1993, a public hearing on said proposed Local Law was duly
conducted,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adopts and enacts the
proposed Local Law establishing no-passing zones on certain Town highways in the Town of Queensbury,
to be known as Local Law No.: _, 1993, the same to be titled and contain such provisions as are set forth
in a copy of the proposed Local Law presented at this meeting, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to file the Local
Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home
Rule Law and that said Local Law will take effect immediately and as soon as allowable under law.
Duly adopted this 29th day of November, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt
NOES None
ABSENT: None
LOCAL LAW NO.: 15,1993
A LOCAL LAW ESTABLISHING NO-PASSING ZONES
ON CERTAIN TOWN HIGHWAYS
BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS
FOLLOWS:
1. Purpose.
The purpose of this Local Law is to establish no-passing zones on certain Town Highways in
accordance with the authority provided in the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law ~1660.
2. Definitions.
For the purpose of this Local Law, words used herein shall have the same meaning as set forth in
the definitions of such words in the Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State of New York.
3. No-Passing Zones on Certain Town Highways.
There shall be a no-passing zone and the same is hereby established on the following Town
Highways or portions of Town Highways:
A. On Luzerne Road in the Town of Queensbury, County of Warren, State of New York,
from the point or place the same intersects the Town of Queensbury and Town of Lake Luzerne
coterminous boundary line to the point or place where said Luzerne Road intersects West Mountain Road;
B. On Mountain View Lane in the Town of Queensbury, County of Warren, State of New
York, from the point or place where the same intersects West Mountain Road, to the point or place where
said Mountain View Lane intersects Aviation Road.
4. Authorization and Directive to Town Superintendent of
Highways.
The Town of Queensbury Superintendent of Highways is hereby authorized and directed at such
time as the Town roads are scheduled for stripping and re-stripping to:
A. Indicate the no-passing zone on the highways, roads, or portions thereof, referred to in
paragraph 3 hereof by appropriate markings and/or signs made in accordance with and as may be provided
by the New York State Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and any applicable State rules or
regulations, except that such work will not be performed to the extent appropriate or satisfactory markings
and/or signs exist on the roads described in paragraph 3 hereof. Any existing markings or signs shall be
reported to the Town Clerk and the Town Board. Signs and/or markings and other devices in existence will
be considered satisfactory if the same comply with the New York State Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices and any applicable State rules or regulations.
B. Maintain all markings or other traffic control devices required by reason of this Local
Law.
5. Effective Date.
This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing thereof in the Office of the Secretary of
State.
Discussion held before vote: Supervisor Brandt-I have had occasion to look at that piece of road and while
Luzerne Highway Dept. did have it stripped in error it does help a lot through the S turns in that road it is
very hard to see who should have which lane and sometimes it shows people that there is a restriction and I
think it helps in safety.
(vote taken)
Councilman Monahan-Now, Mike, I would like to suggest something practical that tomorrow you call the
Sheriffs Dept. and get them up there with the car on Mt. View Lane and let some of the speeders know
who is up there.
Supervisor Brandt-We could ask for that and we do ask for that in many, many neighborhoods ask for that
but it up to the Sheriff is and when and how he wants to do it.
Councilman Monahan-Noted that they are very cooperative.
PUBLIC HEARING
AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE-NON-CONFORMING LOTS
Supervisor Brandt-Asked Mr. Martin to explain the amendment.
Executive Director Martin-This was a change to Section 179-76 E of the Town Zoning Codes as it relates
to general exceptions to minimum lot requirements. We have come to find since, this was last amended
almost a year ago to the day even, from this meeting and the Town did put back in grandfathering rights for
minimum lot requirements, the one area that was left out was those lots in the Adirondack Park and we
have come to find that this created a lot of variances and really for no good reason. I also talked with Jim
Hotalling about this it was his recollection at the time I spoke with him that this was, we were the only
town that had no grandfathering rights even for pre-existing lots. He thought it was unusual that we were
requiring them to be conforming. So, given the fact that we have seen a lot of variances come through
none of them have been denied they have been open and closed situation with the Zoning Board its just
resulted in really unneeded delays for people and even the AP A had no problem with it, so that was the
spirit of offering this change to the code.
Councilman Tucker-I think at the time we did this law though we were told that we shouldn't.
Councilman Monahan-We couldn't touch the AP A
Councilman Tucker-We couldn't touch the APA and that was the reason it was done that way.
Supervisor Brandt -So we are learning.
Councilman Monahan-Jim I have a question here and wait a minute until I find my question. This sheet
right here, this one it is in the SEQRA part. The State Environmental Quality Review Negative Declaration
Notice of Determination of Non significance. It says description of action amending Zoning Ordinance to
allow general exceptions to pre-exisitng lots within the Adirondack Park, and then I go over to the law
itself on page one and it also says non-conforming lots we are taking out this part non-conforming lots in a
critical environmental area and in the Adirondack Park now, am I reading that this is applying only within
the Adirondack Park or applying to any critical environmental area outside the park also, that is confusing
me between the two pieces of places here.
Executive Director Martin-It would be either area. It would be also outside of the Adirondack Park also.
Councilman Monahan-I dis-regard this description of action here.
Executive Director Martin-Right.
Councilman Monahan-Does that make an difference, you know, having it sent to the AP A that way and
stuff?
Councilman Caimano- That word should be or then.
Executive Director Martin-No, this is something that is sent out after if you do find a non-significance,
make a determination of non-significance. This is the notice that is sent out that can be corrected.
Councilman Monahan-Ok. That is what I was wondering.
Executive Director Martin-We will do that after the ...
Councilman Caimano-179-76 Paul, shouldn't that be or or and/or, development of the non-conforming lots
in the critical environmental area and/or the Adirondack Park.
Councilman Monahan-Yea. I think so too, because it is confusing when you read it.
Councilman Caimano-Otherwise, it seems like.
Executive Director Martin-Up until this point I have been making the determination that its in either case.
Councilman Caimano-But that is not how it reads.
Councilman Monahan-But don't you think we should do that in the writing?
Attorney Dusek -You should put the or in.
Supervisor Brandt -Can we hold the public hearing on this?
Councilman Caimano-Yea, I think so.
Supervisor Brandt-Is that enough of a change that its?
Attorney Dusek -You make the judgement call but I do not think it is a significant change.
Supervisor Brandt-I would think it is not.
Executive Director Martin-I think that is the only place in reading the rest of the paragraph to make that
change just that one place.
Supervisor Brandt-This is a public hearing and I am opening for public comment, is there anyone here that
would like to speak on this? I am going to close the public hearing.
Executive Director Martin-Led the Board through the Part II Environment Assessment:
A. Does Action exceed any Type I Threshold in 6NYCRR, Part 617.12?
Councilman Caimano-Not to our knowledge.
Councilman Monahan-You tell us.
Supervisor Brandt-In your opinion what do you think?
Executive Director Martin-No.
B. Will Action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6NYCRR, Part 617.6?
Answer-No
C. Could Action Result in any adverse effects associated with the following:
C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic
patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?
No
C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or
community or neighborhood character?
No
C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or
endangered species?
No
C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of
use of land or their natural resources?
No
C5.
action?
No
C6.
No
C7.
No
Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed
Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C l-C5?
Other impacts including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy?
D. Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?
No
Executive Director Martin-You should also note Betty's suggested change in the description of the action in
the notice of determination.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF
LOCAL LAW NUMBER 16, 1993
A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY,
CHAPTER 179, ~179-76 THEREOF, ENTITLED,
"GENERAL EXCEPTION TO MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS"
RESOLUTION NO.: 712.93,
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering the action of the adoption
of a Local Law which would amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179, ~ 179-76 thereof,
entitled, "General Exception to Minimum Lot Requirements," regarding the development of non-
conforming lots with respect to area, setback, and lot width requirements in critical environmental areas
and the Adirondack Park, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified to act as lead agency
with respect to compliance with SEQRA which requires environmental review of certain actions
undertaken by local governments, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is 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
Short 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 III of the said Short 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 annexed Negative Declaration is hereby
approved and the Town Attorney's Office is hereby authorized and directed to file the same in accordance
with the provisions of the general regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation.
Duly adopted this 29th day of November, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt
NOES
None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION TO ENACT LOCAL LAW NUMBER 16, 1993
A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY,
CHAPTER 179, ~179-76 THEREOF, ENTITLED
"GENERAL EXCEPTION TO MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS"
RESOLUTION NO. 713.93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of enacting a Local Law to
amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179, ~ 179-76 thereof, entitled, "General Exception to
Minimum Lot Requirements," regarding the development of non-conforming lots with respect to area,
setback, and lot width requirements in critical environmental areas and the Adirondack Park, and
WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Local Law has been presented at this meeting, a copy of said
Local Law also having been previously given to the Town Board at the time the Resolution was adopted
which set a date and time for a public hearing, and
WHEREAS, on November 29, 1993, a public hearing with regard to this Local Law was duly
conducted,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby enacts the proposed Local
Law to amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179, ~179-76 thereof, entitled, "General
Exception to Minimum Lot Requirements" to be known as Local Law Number 16, 1993, the same to be
titled and contain such provisions as are set forth in a copy of the proposed Law presented at this meeting,
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to file the said
Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal
Home Rule Law and that said Local Law will take effect immediately and as soon as allowable under law.
Duly adopted this 29th day of November, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
LOCAL LAW NO. 16,1993
A Local Law to amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179, thereof entitled
"Zoning," to amend and revise certain provisions thereof, delete some provisions thereto, and add new
provisions thereto:
BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 179 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Section 179-76, paragraph E, is hereby
amended as follows:
~ 179-76. General exception to minimum lot requirements.
E. Development of nonconforming lots in a critical environmental area and/or the Adirondack Park shall
be in accordance with the minimum yard setback, lot width, permeability and building heighth
requirements as set forth by this chapter. In the event that a lot located within either a critical
environmental area or the Adirondack Park does not comply with the minimum lot area or minimum lot
width requirements and adjoins other lots in the same ownership, the lots will be treated together as one (l)
lot for zoning purposes.
SECTION 2. Effective Date.
In accordance with the provisions of Municipal Home Rule Law Section 27 and Town Law
Section 265, this Local Law shall take effect upon the occurrence of the later of: (1) the filing of the same
with the Office of Secretary of State or (2) Ten (10) days after such Local Law and Zoning amendments or
notice or summary thereof, as may be required or allowed by state and/or local law, is published in the
official newspaper of the Town of Queensbury and duly posted, except that the 10 day waiting period shall
not apply against any person served personally with a copy thereof in accordance with Town Law Section
265.
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH
RESOLUTION NO. 714, 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 Queenbury hereby moves in the Queensbury Board of
Health.
Duly adopted this 29th day of November, 1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES
OF SANIT ARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL ORDINANCE FOR MS. MARGARET WALLACE
RESOLUTION NO. 56.93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is, 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. Margaret Wallace has applied to the Local Board of Health of the Town of
Queensbury for three 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.
Seepage Pit 150'
and
WHEREAS, Ms. Margaret Wallace has indicated a desire to place the seepage pit 75' from her
own well, and 110' and 120' from her neighbors' wells, rather than placing it at the mandated 150' distances,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury will hold a public
hearing on December 13, 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 three variances of Ms. Margaret Wallace to place the seepage pit 75' from her
own well, and 110' and 120' feet from her neighbors' wells, rather than placing it at the mandated 150'
distances, on property situated on 169 Reardon Road, Town of Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax
Map No.: Section 44, Block 2, Lot 27, 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 29th day of November, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES : Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH
RESOLUTION NO. 57.93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queenbury hereby adjourns as the Queensbury Board of
Board and moves back into Regular Session.
Duly adopted this 29th day of November, 1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE TOWN BOARD MINUTES
RESOLUTION NO. 715, 93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
RESOLVED, that the Town Board Minutes of October 28th, 1993 and November 3rd, and 19th of 1993 be
and hereby are approved.
Duly adopted this 29th day of November, 1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION TO AMEND 1993 BUDGET
RESOLUTION NO.: 716.93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
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:
SUPERVISOR:
FROM: TO: AMOUNT:
01-1440-1750 01-1440-4400-9001 $16,000.00
(Engineer) (Peggy Ann Road
Engineering)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
FROM: TO: AMOUNT:
01-3620-4100 01-3620-4410 $ 350.00
(Misc. Equipment)
(Gasoline)
01-3620-4030
(Postage)
01-3620-4400
(Misc. Contractual)
150.00
01-8010-1910
(Senior Typist)
01-8010-1915
(Office Specialist)
21,487.24
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
FROM:
TO:
AMOUNT:
01-3510-1640
(Dog Control Officer)
01-3510-4110
(Vehicle Repair & Maintenance)
150.00
01-3620-2001
(Misc. Equipment)
01-3620-4110
(Vehicle Repair & Maintenance)
200.00
01-3620-4030
(Misc. Equipment)
01-3620-4400
(Misc. Contractual)
200.00
01-8020-1910
(Senior Typist)
01-8020-1915
(Office Specialist)
21,000.00
01-8020-4050
(Books, Pub. & Subs.)
01-8020-2010
(Office Equipment)
250.00
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the 1993 Town Budget is hereby amended accordingly.
Duly adopted this 29th day of November, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES : Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr.
Brandt
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
Councilman Caimano-Requested an executive session to discuss personnel matter before any action is
taken on agenda items
C&D.
It was agreed to set aside C&D until the end of the resolutions, agreed to by the Town Board.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUPERVISOR TO SIGN CONTRACT WITH
THE COUNTY OF WARREN, ON BEHALF OF THE WARREN COUNTY HEALTH
SERVICES DEPARTMENT FOR PRE-EXPOSURE RABIES IMMUNIZATIONS
RESOLUTION NO. 717.93
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is desirous of entering into a contract with the County of
Warren, on behalf of the Warren County Health Services Department, for pre-exposure rabies
immunizations, and
WHEREAS, the aforesaid contract has been reviewed and is presented at this meeting,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to execute the contract
set forth above, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that payment due on said contract be paid from the appropriate account.
Duly adopted this 29th day of November, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES : Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr.
Brandt
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
Discussion held-Councilman Caimano, requested information regarding the run around between the Doctor
and the County...why we had to pay the larger amount because all of a sudden the Doctor could not get
rabies vaccine.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF OVERAGE TO MORSE ENGINEERING,P.C.
REGARDING ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENT WORK AT PEGGY ANN
ROAD/RESERVOIR DRIVE
RESOLUTION 718.93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Mike Brandt
Discussion held-Councilman Caimano-My understanding is this did not cover all the to Clark, is that right?
Supervisor Brandt-It does cover. Councilman Caimano- The Highway Supt. called and said did you know
that this does not cover the whole thing, it may cost this again. Councilman Goetz-Mr. Naylor was here
and I thought he said it covered the cost. Councilman Caimano-So did he, and I think he went to see Dick
Friday and the indication is and I am not saying this is so all I am saying is it may cost us again this amount
to go from where we end to Clark and I would like to get that on the record somewhere. Councilman
Tucker-There are two questions here Mike, the original, his original charge for 1000 and then it wound up
1750 feet now what was the reason that, I thought that took us on down to Clark Street? Supervisor
Brandt -So did I. I thought I saw that in a letter from Morse, so maybe that is an error. I do know we have
to do it. Councilman Tucker-I would like to hold this until we get a firm answer. Supervisor Brandt-We
have been holding it a long time another week, lets get it. I have no problem with it...motion with drawn by
Mr. Tucker and Mr. Brandt.
RESOLUTION RETAINING HAANEN ENGINEERING REGARDING HIDDEN HILLS DRAINAGE
RESOLUTION NO. 718.93
INTRODUCED BY: MR. MICHEL BRANDT WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: MR. PLINEY TUCKER
WHEREAS, it is the Town of Queensbury's intention to improve the drainage situation at Hidden Hills, and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate to retain the services of an engineering firm to provide professional assistance
in conjunction with said project, and
WHEREAS, Haanen Engineering, has offered to perform the necessary engineering services for the
project,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves of the retention of Haanen
Engineering, to provide the services described in the preambles hereof at a cost not to exceed $3,000.00, to
be paid for from Account No.: 004-5110-4400,
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to sign an agreement for the
professional services, said agreement to be in a form to be approved by the Town Highway Superintendent
and Town Attorney.
Duly adopted this 29th day of November, 1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON
TOWN FIRE PROTECTION CONTRACTS
RESOLUTION NO.:719. 93
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt
WHEREAS, there has been duly established in the Town of Queensbury a Fire Protection District
known as the Town of Queensbury Fire Protection District embracing the entire territory of said Town, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has previously arranged to provide fire
protection therein by contracts expiring December 31, 1993 with five (5) fire companies known as: Bay
Ridge Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., Queensbury Central Volunteer
Fire Co., Inc., South Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., and West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Co., Inc.,
and
WHEREAS, the said Town Board is desirous of entering into new agreements with the said fire
companies for 1994, and
WHEREAS, Section 184 of Town Law requires a public hearing upon the contract provisions for
such fire protection, and
WHEREAS, the said contracts are presented at this meeting,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that a public hearing be had with reference to the proposed contracts for the
furnishing of fire protection for the Town of Queensbury Fire Protection District on December 13, 1993, at
the Queensbury Activities Center, Town of Queensbury, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, New York, at 7 :00
p.m., and that notice of such hearing be published in the Post-Star Newspaper, once at least 10 days prior to
the said hearing, and that such notice shall specify the time when and the place where said hearing will be
held and describe in general terms the proposed contracts, and be in the form presented at this meeting, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that copies of the proposed contracts be kept and maintained in the Town Clerk's
Office and be made available for inspection by any interested party.
Duly adopted this 29th day of November, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Discussion held after vote: Councilman Tucker-Questioned if the contracts are basically what they were?
Attorney Dusek- reviewed the changes: Noted that they are all exactly alike... changes in paragraph one
used to say two pieces of equipment had to be maintain, it has been changed to say maintain adequate and
suitable apparatus...the contract is only for one year...the amounts are different from last year...There is
some new language in 2B concerning the Highway Dept. snowplowing efforts around the station, saying
that the Town assumes no liability or responsibility and the company agrees that is shall not hold the Town
liable or responsible to guarantee that the snow will always be removed to the extent of access... . Paragraph
five was cleaned up more to make sure it was clear that no purchases of any kind could be made over
$50,000 without Town Board approval and it also indicates that even it you do give approval it is not to be
interpreted as an agreement that you will assume responsibility and liability...Volunteer Fire Fighters
Award Program is in everybodys...there was a clause that said that the Town if it can legally do so will
issue its full faith and bonding for the benefit of the fire companies in certain instances that has been taken
out...those are the main changes...
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TOWN CLERK TO SUBMIT PETITION
FOR CHANGE OF ZONE FOR AL BOYCHUK, AGENT FOR DONALD BAKER
TO TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. 720, 93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has previously approved a form entitled,
"Petition for a Change of Zone" for rezoning matters, and has directed that the same be used for rezoning
requests, and
WHEREAS, the Town Attorney for the Town of Queensbury has recommended that any and all
applications for rezoning must first go to the Planning Department and Planning Board for
recommendations regarding the same, and
WHEREAS, following such recommendations, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury will
then review the Zoning Applications and take such other action as it shall deem necessary and proper,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs that
the following application be submitted to the Planning Board for the Town of Queensbury for report and
recommendation: AL BOYCHUK, AGENT FOR DONALD BAKER - Tax Map No.: 110-1-1.25, 36 Dix
Avenue, Queensbury, New York, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates that it desires to
be Lead Agent for the SEQRA review of this project and directs that the Zoning Administrator's Office
notify any other involved agencies of this.
Duly adopted this 29th day of November, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr.
Brandt
NOES None
ABSENT: None
Discussion held before vote: Attorney Schackner-Noted that the property near the corner ofDix and
Quaker Road, former Northeast Welders Supply... zoned light industrial and used as commercial in the
past...wish to have HCIA or PClA...
ATTORNEY MATTERS
1. The Town has for a number of years been involved with DEC revolving fund in terms of being on an
intended use plan for the County Line Sewer Dist. proposal and the North Queenbury Sewer Dist. proposal.
Basically what it meant was that we anticipated that there would be a time that we would need funds and
we wanted to remain eligible through DEC's program to get the funds because it provides basically a two
thirds of the interest rate benefit to the Town so you can finance it lower. What has happened is that the
intended use plan now calls for these projects to be funded in 1994 DEC is calling saying are you going to
do this do you want the money in 94 we need some commitments from you now or should we roll these
over to 1995. Knowing the legal procedures that are involved and also knowing that both projects have
not started the legal process it seemed to me highly unlikely that you would fund these in 1994 and possibly
be looking at 1995. Before conveying any message to DEC I wanted to 1. see if you were in agreement
and 2. also advise you that you do not have to stay on this program.
Supervisor Brandt-I think the next board has got to discuss that right a way, I think we ought to seek their
input.
Attorney Dusek-Supervisor Elect Fred Champagne was contacted and he did not have a problem waiting to
1995...
Councilman Monahan and Councilman Caimano-agreed...
Councilman Tucker-Request for light at the corner of Glenwood and Bay.. . almost opposite this corner and
a little bit to the north of Glenwood Avenue is a light, the power company recommends that if we put a
light at the corner of Glenwood and Bay that we stay with 100 watt...cost $140. per year...
Dr. Charles Wiswall-suggest that the light at the east side of Bay be move to the corner of Glenwood
Avenue...1 think you need more than 100 watts. Noted there are three lights out from the corner of Country
Club Road to the corner of the Country Club...one is a pole that was broken off a year or two ago.
Councilman Tucker-Noted it was the power companys job to see that they lights are operating.
Supervisor Brandt-Re: the proposed street light let the next board make the determination...
Councilman Tucker-I have a letter from Haanen Eng. they want to give us 6 acres of swamp land on Bay
Road in lieu of recreation fees...
Supervisor Brandt-I am against taking wetlands as recreational land, I think that is ah, wetlands are
wetlands they are not recreation lands, from my view point satisfy the recreation needs. I think we need
make some kind of vehicle to accept wetlands and become the trustee of them but not as recreation land.
There is no question that there is land needed for recreation in that area.
Executive Director Martin-The whole concept of recreation fees and things have to be looked at.
Councilman Caimano-It was anybodys intent to have unusable swamp land as an exchange for recreation
land.
Executive Director Martin-The first step is for the Recreation Commission and the Town Board to come
back with a recommendation to the Planning Board then the Planning Board in the context of their
subdivision approval accept it and then you will formally...it will die with the Planning Board if the three
boards decide against it.
Supervisor Brandt-Requested that the Board thoughts be passed on to the Recreation Board and Planning
Board and see what they do.
OPEN FORUM
Mr. Charles Adamson-Assembly Point -Praised members of the staff, regarding the handling of a run off
disaster on the lake yesterday, the town responded, Betty responded... Spoke on clear cut property, what
happens if this occurs in the future, what went wrong?
Executive Director Martin-Noted the break down happened when the building permit came in it was a
conforming lot, and a conforming application the only action needed was a sewer variance which was
given. It broke down, it requires a procedural change in our office, is that prior to the development
occurring the sacred area if the 35' buffer from the shore line inland, and that are should have been clearly
flagged and pictures taken to establish the existing condition and clearly indicate that that is a area to be
stayed out of and that was not done in that case. That will be done in the future. Noted the applicant has
been sited in violation of our code as it relates to the 35' area and you will be required to replant that area...
Mr. Adamson-Do you put a stop work order on him?
Executive Director Martin-No. The order to remedy violation he will not get a CO until that is done.
Mr. Adamson-re: sewage system...questioned the placement...
Executive Director Martin-Noted he will show Mr. Adamson the placement site...it is on higher ground...
Mr. Adamson-Asked the six people that tell the Town what the high water mark is should be taken out of
the law...
Councilman Monahan-The amount you can clear for beach and how much clear cutting you can do on
shore, where does the space that is used for docks come in that regulation?
Executive Director Martin-It really does not speak to that.
Mrs. Lillian Adamson-Assembly Point-Noted she has spoken to the Assessor regarding this property, noted
it is not designated wetland the second lot that he purchased...it did have a lot of water on it...he paid half of
the present new assessment on that property. . . the assessment was high for a wateree piece of property. . . one
of the properties on Brayton Road was one I was trying to get some concession from the Assessor at small
claims and I was concerned in that the property I was working on backs onto a wetland and the lake
frontage portion the assessment was reduced because of neighborhood sales but then the assessor said the
rear portion of the land should be $25,000, I could not understand that, because a road goes thorough it
allowing access to three other properties, Niagara Mohawk has three power poles on the right of way
portion of that property and you cannot do anything because it backs on to the wetland and has
restrictions...by question for Mr. Martin, the Assessor said it does not matter that there are those restrictions
because on the other property they were able to build whatever they wanted anyway, therefore my client
could do whatever he wanted on his piece of property that backed onto the wetland, my concern is how
much the building dept. speaks with the assessor, does she have copies of the wetland maps or overlays to
put on her maps so she can judge what the values truly are and does she have copies of the restrictions that
apply to these properties?
Executive Director Martin- I do not know if she has a copy of the wetlands map.. noted he is trying to
establish a data base to be able to share information with the Assessor... noted he will give her a copy of the
maps...
Mrs. Adamson-I am concerned about getting all things from the Buildng Dept. up the size, the construction
of houses and that sort of thing. ..
Executive Director Martin-Noted he is striving to have on a regular basis that she check our building
permits to see what has happened in the last week...
Supervisor Brandt-Noted received the map, plan and report for the Water Treatment Plant
Expansion...suggested that a special town board meeting should be set...possibly on 12-20-93
Mr. Fran Martindale-Questioned when the proposal for zoning change and 149 Corridor Study done?
Executive Director Martin-It has been to the Planning Board and the County Board and the study there
were only four people present that night and in terms of a resolution recommending it be sent on to your
board for consideration and ultimate adoption it tied up to two, two, and there was only four people present.
In terms of the study I wanted to have that brought back to the Planning Board again I want more
consensus out of them than that, with only four people I do not feel that is very representative of the board.
I was hoping to have that brought up with them again and get some sort of consensus one way or the other
and then move it on to you for a public hearing and adoption.
Councilman Monahan-Suggested that the board meet separate on that one issue.
Supervisor Brandt-A lot of work has been done on it we are basically us to speed, why don't we consider it?
The date of the 27th of December was suggested...
Mr. Fran Martindale-I was told that this was going to take three months, I have been very lenient I have
been very patient and you are costing me a lot of money. My taxes have gone up they have not gone down,
I am going to echo what Mrs. Adamson just said. I got a piece of land that I can do nothing with because
of agreements that is in the deed and I have come with a very good project I am trying to work with 100%
within what the town wants. It goes with the 1989 perspective of what the Town projected for the 149
corridor and I am getting just delayed. I do not think it is fair. What about the zoning request that I had,
one or the other.
Councilman Monahan-I think you have got to do the 149 Corridor Study because it has a big impact on
that.
Mr. Martindale-I do not think you have to I think you can make a stand one way or the other.
Executive Director Martin-I think in terms of the rezoning request that the I think the plan does have some
bearing on that, it has been done and passed on by the Planning Dept. I think the Board would be remiss if
you did not consider what was said in that study at this point in terms of the rezoning issue on that corridor.
I understand that the rezoning request was somewhat changed at the Planning Board meeting in that they
reduced the area that would be covered only to your property Fran is that right?
Mr. Martindale-We are the agent for the whole 103 acres we agreed to go along with what the proposal was
on the 149 Corridor Study which was to make three acres to one acre density we agreed to be very fine we
agreed that we would like to have ours commercial in someways so that we could do our venture and there
has been all kinds of errors made it is called a trout brook down through the property the brooks dry up
there is no trout brook, there was told there were eight parcel of land, there were six parcels of land. We
were told it is too high a ground for percolation if you came up and saw the clay in that ground you would
no it does not percolate very fast. It is just, I am getting delayed, delayed, delayed. You know very well
what the situation is and ...
Councilman Monahan-Suggest that Mr. Martin needs the minutes of the Planning Board meeting.
Supervisor Brandt-We have heard the story for two years, we have worked on it, a lot of work done lets
bring it to a conclusion, lets finish the job. The 27th lets have a public hearing....
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION
RESOLUTION NO. 721.93
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 holds an executive session on one
litigation matter, one matter of Attorney Client privilege, and negotiations classified as Attorney Client
privilege information and a personnel Matter.
Duly adopted this 29th day of November, 1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION ADJOURNING EXECUTIVE SESSION
RESOLUTION NO. 722.93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby adjourns its Executive Session and moves back into Regular
Session.
Duly adopted this 29th day of November, 1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FILING OF MOTION - HILAND PARK
RESOLUTION NO. 723.93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has filed a claim in the matter of the Hiland Park Bankruptcy and
WHEREAS, the Town has been working with the Law Firm of Daffner and Tang in connection with the
aforesaid claim
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorized the filing ofa motion for
administrative claim for allowance on the outstanding executory contract and also to file objections to
confirmation.
Duly adopted this 29th day of November, 1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ciamano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr.
Brandt
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE - DAFFNER AND TANG
RESOLUTION NO. 724.93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queenbury previously authorized the retentino of the services
of Daffner and Tang adn
WHEREAS, the Town Board is desirous of providing for further funds for work being performed by the
Attorneys
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes an additional sum of
$2,250.00 to be expended wiht teh afore services by Daffner and Tang with the cost of the services to be
paid for from the Town Attorney Misc. Contractual Account.
Duly adopted this 29th day of November, 1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr.
NOES: None
Brandt
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION TERMINATING USE OF LANDFILL TO THE CITY OF GLENS FALLS
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz
RESOLUTION NO. 725.93
WHEREAS, the agreement concerning the use of the Ridge Road Landfill and Luzerne Road Transfer
station between the City of Glens Falls and Town of Queensbury terminated some time ago, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby recognizes that a considerable sum of
money is owed by the City of Glens Falls for use of the landfill in 1992 and use of the landfill in 1993, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has on a number of occasions attempted to
negotiate the new agreement with the City to address the past amounts due as well as the current 1993
relationship of the party and possibly the future relationships of the parties and
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury views the City's actions to date in the negotiations as negotiations in
bad faith, and
WHEREAS, we have, this Town Board, has the legal responsibility to protect the costs incurred by our
citizens in providing this service for the City
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby determines that it would be appropriate
to terminate effective immediately the City of Glens Falls use of the landfill as well as the Luzerne Road
Transfer Station and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed to
immediately transmit a letter to the Mayor of the City of Glens Falls advising of the termination of the use
of the landfill and Luzerne Road Transfer Station at the close of business November 30th 1993.
Duly adopted this 29th day of November, 1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Brandt
RESOLUTION ADJOURNING TOWN BOARD MEETING
RESOLUTION NO. 726.93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt
RESOLVED, that the Town Board Meeting of November 29th, 1993 is hereby adjourned.
Duly adopted this 29th day of November, 1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Respectfully submitted,
Miss Darleen Dougher
Town Clerk-Queensbury
Brandt