Loading...
1995-10-16 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 16, 1995 6:04 P.M. MTG#54 524-536 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Supervisor Fred Champagne Councilman Betty Monahan Councilman Theodore Turner Councilman Connie Goedert Councilman Carol Pulver TOWN ATTORNEY Paul Dusek TOWN OFFICIALS Tom Flaherty, Ralph VanDusen, Jim Martin, Cathy Geoffroy PRESS POST STAR SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Opened meeting. DISCUSSION WEST GLENS FALLS WATER PRESENTED MAP OF DISTRICT TOM FLAHERTY, WATER SUPERINTENDENT-Spoke to the Board regarding the problem with the quality of the water in West Glens Falls. In the early eighties a report was given to the Board which pointed out the problems with the quality of water that the town was receiving from West Glens Falls also problems with the age of the water mains. Pointed out at that time that the revenue the town was receiving from West Glens Falls was inadequate to maintain the system, subsequently made that report to each and every board thereafter. The last time the rates were raised in West Glens Falls was in 1976 noting that they are facing the problem allover again. Noted the problem that they had last fall when the Health Department put the West Glens Falls District on a boil water notice as a result of that O'Brien and Gere was hired to do an engineering report. The system was temporarily switched from the City of Glens Falls supply to the Town of Queensbury supply. The reason being that the City of Glens Falls supply had inadequate chlorine in the water to pass the test that was needed. Once it was switched to the Town of Queensbury water system we were able to maintain the chlorine residual in the system, but now that has created a follow-up problem. The problem is that the chlorine that is now in the system is beginning to react with the unlined iron water mains, react with the tuberculation that has occurred in the mains over a period of years. It is now oxidizing the iron, receiving a rash of complaints of rusty water (showed board members the areas on map where complaints are coming from). The only way that they can find to correct this problem is to do some extensive work in the West Glens Falls Water District noting they would either have to reline the unlined mains, cement line the unlined mains or install new mains. Has done an estimated figure to reline the mains and replace the smaller mains of Newcomb Street, River Street, Pine Street and to install meters in all of the houses the estimated cost $350,000. Noted the town try to get a grant last going around, but was unsuccessful, but could try again. The work doesn't have to be done all at once it could be phased in. COUNCILMAN PULVER-Questioned when the grant would have to be applied for this year? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-The actual submission date has not been sent, but is expected to be late winter early spring. The usual submission time is anywhere from February to April, but is dependent on when the budget passes at the federal level. COUNCILMAN PULVER-Noted the town needs to find a solution to the problem not just rely on the federal grant. In the meantime the town should apply for the grant but still find a solution for it on our own. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Stated that would be advisable, but noted that the town cannot be reimbursed for the money expended. Noted there is a second option with the grant if there is some concern that this is not strong enough or has been weakened by the length of time that has lapsed since the boil water order you could put this in as part of a comprehensive grant application and the other parts of that grant application would carry this then you might be able to get a whole program funded and this would be one aspect of one overall larger program for that area. Maybe some housing rehab and things of that nature might be included in it and you might be able to carry it that way, too. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Questioned what kind of money is involved? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-A comprehensive grant can be as much as $900,000 and it can span three years. You're talking about the availability of 2.7 million dollars should you have a program to meet that need. COUNCILMAN PULVER-Questioned if a map, plan, and report needs to be completed for the application? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-No. COUNCILMAN PULVER-Questioned how would you come up with the exact cost? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-It is in the report that was prepared by O'Brien and Gere. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Questioned if anyone has looked at the comprehensive grant in enough detail to know how we would come out and the type of money we would be asking for? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-No. The opportunity has existed in that area for a long time for some comprehensive grant funding. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Questioned the deadline date for the comprehensive grant? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-It would be the same as a single purpose which is not known, projected to be sometime between February and April. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Questioned when the town would be notified regarding grant approval? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Depending on the Issuance of the Notice of Funding Availability. From that point of issue it is 75 days from the point that is issued in the federal register. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Questioned if there is a waiting period before the money can be released? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Would be released to the town at that time. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Questioned since the district is formed already and if this is to be borne by the people in the district does this have to be approved by the comptroller's office? MR. FLAHERTY, WATER SUPERINTENDENT-Is not sure. There has been a change in what has to be approved by the comptroller and what doesn't. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Questioned if there is enough tax base there to support what this improvement is going to cost. MR. FLAHERTY, WATER SUPERINTENDENT-Noted water rates were set in 1976 in West Glens Falls the average house in West Glens Falls is paying $42.00 a year for water., noted that there is no money left in the fund balances. The revenue that you are deriving from the West Glens Falls Water District no where comes near the cost of the operation of the water district whether we buy the water from the City of Glens Falls or Queensbury. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Questioned what would the cost be to the residents if it was a district users charge to fix the problem? MR. FLAHERTY, WATER SUPERINTENDENT -Figures not available, but can get them for board members, noted rough estimate $1.50 to $1.70 a thousand on top of the user rate. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Questioned if a survey of the value of houses in that area? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Noted a survey of the incomes has been done not the value of houses, but that could be done. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Questioned what location most of the complaints are coming from? MR. FLAHERTY, WATER SUPERINTENDENT-Fourth, Street, Fifth Street, Caroline Street, area? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Questioned what the cost would be to do this particular area? MR. FLAHERTY, WATER SUPERINTENDENT-Seventy-five to a hundred thousand dollars, if your are lining the mains. COUNCILMAN PULVER-Questioned if relining is as effective as replacing the mains? MR. FLAHERTY, WATER SUPERINTENDENT-Yes. RALPH VANDUSEN, DEPUTY WATER SUPERINTENDENT -Noted when you reline you can put a thicker protective coating on than you normally would get from the factory. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Questioned if the critical area was done first then applied for the grant can that amount be reimbursed? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-You cannot be reimbursed. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Questioned by doing some of the work first could that affect the grant? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN -You could run the risk of weakening the grant if you take out the most critical or urgent aspect of the project. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Noted his concern that you have to take a look at the assessed value, need to take a look at what it would do to the taxpayers and to the users. COUNCILMAN PULVER-Recommended having the Water Superintendent come back to the board with answers to the questions being asked then asked the people in that area if this is what they want. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Need to find out the assessed value in order to find out the impact on the neighbors. MR. FLAHERTY, WATER SUPERINTENDENT-To report back to the board regarding what the cost will be to the taxpayers in the district. PUBLIC HEARINGS PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE PETITION CHANGE OF ZONE HUDSON POINTE,INC. OPENED 7:00 P.M. NOTICE SHOWN MAP PRESENTED EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-If everyone recalls the configuration of the Hudson Pointe Planned Unit Development there was a long linear piece that extended from the southern portion of the project that fronted on Corinth Road. In that area where that frontage occurred we had a allocation for some commercial uses down in that area those were dictated specifically in the legislation that approved the PUD, by that I mean the requirements for the types of uses allowed provisions of setback and so on. On the northern edge of that commercial area there existed a one acre parcel that was at the time privately owned and outside of the project. I understand now that provisions have now been made for inclusion of that one acre parcel into the project and the petition for the change is to allow for the types of commercial uses that were approved in the original PUD so it would match up. On the scale of the overall project this is a small parcel it's one acre in size and really extends the frontage on Corinth Road by approximately two hundred feet and would allow for those as I indicated earlier those same types of commercial uses that were approved with the PUD. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Jim either you or Alan Oppenheim have a map that you could put up on the board so that people could see what are we're talking about, I think it would be helpful? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Do you have one Alan? The other thing is that this has been to our town Planning Board as well as the county Planning Board and they have both have made recommendations for approval. I think that information has been provided to the board. MR. OPPENHEIM-The piece in question here Mrs. Monahan is outlined in blue. That is a one acre piece, if you've driven by it there is a house on it currently. The two other parcels that were part of the original Hudson Pointe project are outlined here in orange. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Alan would you point out where the Boulevard is? MR. OPPENHEIM-The Boulevard if that was the subject to your question, I have a better map that illustrates that it comes in right through here. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-That's not the Boulevard that's the reserved right-of-way. That's the right-of-way the town reserved.... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I'm just trying to orient this for the audience. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN -You might want to get the other map out. MR. OPPENHEIM-(Presented other map to audience) This is the southern portion.... EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Southwestern actually. MR. OPPENHEIM-Southwestern portion of the current Hudson Pointe single family subdivision. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-The project that is now under construction is essentially in this area over here. Here's Corinth Road over here. The Boulevard extends further to the east and comes in, in this fashion. This here is the westerly most portion of the approved project you can see several lots in here and then it extends off here in a loop road like this. This portion here is a dedicated right-of-way that the town got with the project. This was the originally approved commercial sites up here. Here is the parcel in question right here this small square piece right here. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Now you've showed us that go back and show me where Corinth Road is. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Here's Corinth Road here, extending along like this. West Mountain Road, I believe is further back up this way. MR. OPPENHEIM-The Boulevard is right up here on Corinth Road. PLINEY TUCKER-Where is that piece in relation to the present water line? MR. OPPENHEIM-Do you know where the Wesleyan Church is? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes. MR. OPPENHEIM-It's right here. MR. TUCKER-The piece of property that you are talking about has got a house on it used to be a school? MR. OPPENHEIM-That's correct that's the former school house. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Anyone from the public have anything to say or add? BOB TOMPKINS-I live right here. I can see that house from where I live. There is some acreage here that belongs to my neighbor between that house, that lot, and myself, I live right about here. I'd like to see that area kept as it is residents only. The traffic is going to be much more there with any kind of nursery or convenience store or whatever they are talking about putting in there we don't need it, don't want it. We got petitions we've got quite a few signatures nobody wants it. The Hudson Pointe itself and also Inspiration Park has brought in so much more noise and traffic nobody is happy with it at all. I think this area with Pumpkin Hill Farm and Bill Joslyn across the road and the neighbors behind me with....and so forth its got a country setting with this going in it's just another big chunk going away. More noise, lights, traffic, people in and out it is something we don't really want at all. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. Anyone else from the public care to speak? GLENN BROWN-I own the piece of property that borders that lot they are talking about I own the property that comes right down here. I contacted everybody who owns property that was sent a notice and I have a petition here all of them against the zoning being changed. I also got about sixty-five other signatures from people who live in the area but were not sent notice because they were more than five hundred feet away, all against it. Like Bob said, the traffic there is horrible there are accidents there every month. As it is it's going to make it that much worse it is just something that is not needed in a rural setting at all. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Do we have a copy of that petition? MR. BROWN-Do you want the copy I had signed? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE- Could we have copies of that or I could make copies? MR. BROWN-(Submitted petition to Supervisor Champagne) I don't know if! did it formally or properly or not I've never done it before. I just went down around and talked to my neighbors that's all I did. They all said that they are one hundred percent against it everyone of them. Everybody that was sent a notice except for Niagara Mohawk has signed that petition against it. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-(Submitted petition to Deputy Clerk, on file Town Clerk's Office) Anyone else from the general public care to speak? Anyone for it care to speak? DAVID HATCH, NIAGARA MOHA WK-A couple of things that I would like to point out. If those of you go back to when we first brought the Hudson Pointe project to the town the quite lengthy process that was involved and the various consideration. One of the things that was identified, I might say by the town as one of the things they would like to see as part of the project was an area for neighborhood commercial development. In fact, that was as Paul mentioned made part of the requirements of the original legislation that this area be set aside for this purpose. I think we should be advised that what we're here for tonight is not whether there will be or should be commercial development in this area that's already been dictated in that land that's set aside. What we are trying to do was make this one piece more compatible with that use that's already been identified. I would point out that if preservation, I think that's a legitimate concern of the adjoining property and you talk about the buffers, is a concern and I think that it is proper that in actuality by reading of what is being proposed would be more suitable for preservation. By that, I mean that right now as in settled side lot, I think the restrictions on what a person could do as far as clearing the land and everything are probably a lot less restrictive than the restriction on some of the preservation....requirements that would be incorporated by what is being proposed tonight as far as buffers etc. What we would envision may be suitable buffers. As far as traffic the plans, right now are to properly take this property outside this piece and develop it commercially that's what we we're basically told to do. That's the limitations on the use that's what its been set aside for not residential so we're trying to do that in the best manner that makes the most sense for the area as a whole. This was identified as a need by the town as a whole apparently when the Planned Unit Development went through. What we're suggesting that this can be done in a most compatible measure to preserve the neighborhood. I think we would have suitable protection as far as setbacks non-clearing along the boundaries and everything. We would propose that the town does consider this it makes more sense to include this piece in the already designated commercial zone. MR. OPPENHEIM-Representing Niagara Mohawk. The way the restrictions and proposal for rezoning is to make it neighborhood commercial with the same restrictions that apply to the currently approved Hudson Pointe commercial area which you can see already encompass most of this area, but there are restrictions. Number one. Any specific views when we identify the...we will have to go through a site plan review process. There is a ten percent green space requirement that goes beyond the normal coverage requirement. As I understand it, it will not only go through site plan review but it goes through your beautification committee in terms of the way the green space and the landscaping will work. So, I think we demonstrated the on going commitment to quality and doing the job right by what is seen by what is already going in at Hudson Pointe this would really be just a follow through to the same. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-What are some of the restrictions in the neighborhood commercial what can go in there? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-This is a special one for thern. It's right in what we have in the one that is entitled Zoning Ordinance. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Got it. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I believe this was commercial area number one. Recreation facilities, community center, day care center with seventy-five child maximum capacity, convenience store with gasoline pumps and no automobile sales and repairs, grocery store, bank, hardware store, professional office, including beauty shop, all the above uses in designated commercial areas are allowed upon site plan review and approval by the Planning Board. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Jim, I can't find what I want here fast like so I'm going to ask you. In this definition of green space it says the green space shall be located in the front yard of the lot. With the blue piece over there, I'm assuming there are two front yards. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-That's correct. The other thing, I would say is any access to that parcel should be restricted to the proposed right -of-way and not directly on Corinth Road. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That right-of-way there are there any other house locations there, building lots along that right-of-way? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-After these lots it extends into the PUD itself and there are no lots between this point and the lots in the PUD. It's just the sixty foot right -of-way. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That right-of-way will eventually become a road it was the original plan. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-That was the long term plan. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It's a right-of-way right there now to protect the town for in the future. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-That's what shown there that long.... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Linear piece. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-There are no lots in between the last lot in the cul-de-sac they are part of the housing development. MR. OPPENHEIM-From there on through you can see there is a significant area. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That's the developer's responsibility to construct that road, I would assume? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-They are going to give the right-of-way to the town. MR. OPPENHEIM-The town would have the right-of-way to the extent on a short term interim basis and the suitable uses are identified here. What would probably happen you would extend that road in this far. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-The first section would be built by whatever user. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I might say to the neighbors that part of the planning that went into this was that you put the neighborhood commercial there and the people in those developments right there would be using it and cut down on the traffic impact. They wouldn't be going away out and coming in, and going away, and coming out this would keep it kind of self contained in a area was the original planning. MR. BROWN-They are too far away from that. They have to come up Corinth Road to do it or that back access road. There is no way to do it except for them to come up one mile up Corinth Road to get to it that's how far away it is. MR. TOMPKINS-They would be going right by our homes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I'm saying when it gets finalized and all the phases get built out there. MR. BROWN-Only if they use that access road on the backside. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's what I'm saying, but that was the planning at the time. MR. TOMPKINS-And that is going to put more noise right behind our property where we spend a great deal of our time back there. MR. BROWN-That's the rural area that we're talking about. MR. TOMPKINS-This road that's going in on the side not out Corinth Road off this right-of-way, I mean that's fine but, there is no room, no buffer now. This lot is clear there is a house, there is a lawn, there are very few trees on the actual lot there is no buffer. I can sit in my living room, dining room, I can see this house it's right there I'm looking at. The last thing, I want to see is white. I'm seeing deer, I'm seeing foxes, coons, it's quite fairly residential other than the Corinth Road itself. The last thing, I want to see is seventy-five kids or some hair salon, gasoline pump. Right across the road from this on the Corinth Road and just slightly west of it is a couple that live there with a couple of small children in that house that sets very near the road they are petrified of this thing, it's like you've got to be kidding me that's the last thing that they want to see. Sixty-five signatures nobody wants it, it's not right. There are plenty of gas stations down the road, plenty of stores down the road, keep it down that way. We don't need that stuff down in that area we've lost a lot in the last two, three, four, five years. MR. BROWN-We're two and a half miles exactly from us to the first door on the Northway and they are three quarters of a mile from us so they are almost half way there already. They have to come back past us to get to that instead of going in towards town they have to head towards Corinth. COUNCILMAN PULVER-This road they're talking about it is only a right-of-way it's not a road they would have to be built in order to internalize any of that traffic. They have no way to get to that internally now they have to go out on the road. The property there that Glenn owns is that large piece of property. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Are you guys still there on the bend of West Mountain? MR. BROWN-Yes, I am. My property borders that blue square and yellow square. MR. TOMPKINS-Once that is built, once the road is built back there which I'm sure it's going to be, there goes more privacy, more noise, more traffic, and more people you can't keep them out of there. It's all posted now and they are allover the place the garbage, the noise, the yapping dogs. The quality of living there has gone down with Inspiration Park and it's going to continue to go down with Hudson Pointe. I'm speaking in terms of noise and intrusion and less of a country setting. COUNCILMAN PULVER-Alright, but now, I wasn't on the board at the time. You understand that these are already commercial? MR. TOMPKINS-Yes. COUNCILMAN PULVER-This is the piece that he's talking about. MR. TOMPKINS-Right. MR. BROWN-And that's the piece we can see. MR. TOMPKINS-But when the right-of-way goes down between that and when it turns and loops around behind it it's going to border right up against Glenn and also Mrs. .... we care take for, her property. I don't see a buffer there is no buffer there now. The buffer is that lot if they build that road. MR. BROWN-I just don't understand why that commercial part of Hudson Pointe is so far away from Hudson Pointe, away from the development, the last lot it's a long ways away. MR. TOMPKINS-They don't want it down there in Hudson Pointe their not going to want something like that there. Take one of their cul-de-sacs and put a laundromat in there or offices, but put it in there, they are not going to want it there. They want the nice little setting all the little houses in a row, little trees, they want that, that's what we have, we have that. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Anyone else for or against? We need to go through the assessment piece. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We ought to table it for tonight. COUNCILMAN TURNER-I think we ought to table it. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-You want to do the assessment first or no? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Not if your going to table it I wouldn't do the assessment. I think we have to table it and think about what the neighbors said. COUNCILMAN TURNER-I have some real concerns with it because I think that once that lot is developed your going to get the people in Inspiration Park and everybody that's in is in close proximity are going to be using that commercial site right there. That commercial site there is going to be a lot of traffic there. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-In fact that was part of the original planning to put it out in the neighborhood. I think we have to go back and look at the areas around it. Even though on paper I think it looks very good I'm not ready to go a or na tonight on the whole thing. COUNCILMAN PULVER-We're going to have to back track cause I don't remember the reasons, I wasn't on the board the reason for doing the commercial there. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You need to look at the whole area. COUNCILMAN PUL VER-I know exactly where it is and I know exactly what they are saying. For Inspiration Park and for Hudson Pointe to use that blue square they have to backwards rather than go forward. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Towards Corinth. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Do one of you live where there used to be the vegetable stand at one time a few years back? MR. BROWN-No. that's Mrs ..... MR. TOMPKINS-That's to the right of this and to the right of us. MR. BROWN-She's towards Glens Falls. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-She's closer to Glens Falls than you are? MR. TOMPKINS-There is this property, then there is me, then Glenn's driveway. Mike Brandt owns a little piece of property right in between there, I'm going to guess five acres maybe. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-The other thing, I'm looking at if it does goes through does it need more restrictions for buffer that type of thing? I think we just need to look at this and do a little more thought on it. IT WAS THE DECISION OF THE TOWN BOARD TO TABLE THIS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH (COUNCILMAN PULVER EXCUSED HERSELF FROM MEETING) RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO RETAIN ATTORNEY JONATHAN C. LAPPER RESOLUTION NO. 524, 95 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Town of Queensbury has requested that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury appropriate funds to allow for an attorney to service the Zoning Board of Appeals, concerning an application for variance filed by Mr. John Brock of the Mooring Post Marina, and WHEREAS, Town Law ~271 provides that the Town Board is authorized and empowered to make such appropriations as it may deem appropriate for Zoning Board expenses, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to retain the services ofMr. Jonathan C. Lapper regarding the variance application filed by Mr. John Brock of the Mooring Post Marina, an hourly rate of $120., and to be paid with monies to be transferred from general contingency not to exceed $7,500, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that all bills submitted for legal services shall include a brief description of the service performed, the date of service and charge for the same, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this authorization is contingent upon the fee arrangement being consistent with the terms and provisions of the retainer agreement submitted at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized to execute the aforesaid agreement. Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:Mrs. Pulver RESOLUTION REGARDING ADVERTISEMENT OF BIDS TO SELL VEHICLES RESOLUTION NO.: 525,95 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, by Resolution No.: 489, 1995, authorizing the advertisement of bids for certain vehicles and equipment no longer needed for Town purposes, and WHEREAS, although bids have been received in connection with the advertisement, it has been brought to the Town Board's attention that the advertisement and bidding documents contained an error referencing that an award would be made to the "lowest" bidder, when, in fact, it was the Town Board's intention to provide for the sale of the equipment to the "highest" bidder, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that, due to the error in the bidding documents, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby determines to reject all bids and authorize the re-advertisement of said vehicles and equipment, together with additional vehicles and/or equipment, as authorized by separate resolution presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor and Town Clerk are hereby authorized to take all action that may be necessary to advise all bidders of the rejection and authorization to re-advertise and to return any funds that may have been received in connection with the first bid. Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:Mrs. Pulver RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT OF BIDS TO SELL VEHICLES RESOLUTION NO. 526, 95 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of selling, by advertisement for and receipt of bids and "AS IS," certain vehicles as follows: 1. 1990 Chevrolet Van - 90,000 Miles 2. 1967 International Rock Bottom Dump Truck 3. Ford Tractor 4. 1986 Ford Ranger Truck - 62,845 Miles 5. 1987 Chevrolet S-1O Pick-Up Truck -75,950 Miles 6. 1977 International Truck Chassis 7. 1988 Ford I-Ton With Box 8. Air Compressor 9. Three (3) Buckets for a John Deere 510B 10. 1967 - I.H.C. Truck 11. 1978-FordVan 12. 1962 - I.H.C. 6x6 Truck NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that an advertisement for bids for each of the said vehicles referenced hereinabove, be published in the official newspaper for the Town of Queensbury and that such advertisement indicate that bids will be received at the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury at any time until, but not later than November 3rd, 1995, at 2:00 p.rn., and that the bids will be publicly opened and read at 2:05 p.rn. by the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, and such advertisement shall indicate that the Town of Queensbury shall sell all vehicles to the highest bidder for each and "AS IS" with no warranties, no warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, and that the sale shall be final, and that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall have the right, at its discretion, to reject all bids and re- advertise for new bids as provided by the laws of the State of New York, and that if a bid is accepted, that full payment for any vehicle must be made in cash or certified check or bank cashier's check and delivery must be taken within 10 days of the opening of bids, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk or her designated Deputy, is hereby authorized to open all bids received at the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, at 2:05 p.m., November 3rd, 1995, read the same aloud and make record of the same as is customarily done, and present the bids to the next regular or special meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:Mrs. Pulver RESOLUTION TO AMEND 1995 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 527,95 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, certain departments have requested transfers of funds for the 1995 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 1995 budget: DATA PROCESSING: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 001-1680-1002 0.001-1680-2100 3,660. (DP - Payroll) (Computer Hardware) 001-1680-2032 001-1680-2100 1,986. (Computer Software) (Computer Hardware) 001-1680-4060 001-1680-4400 450. (Service Contracts) (Misc. Contractual) 001-1680-4070 001-1680-2100 6,382. (Equip. Repair & (Computer Hardware) Maint. ) 001-0001-2680 001-1680-4400 2,383. (Insurance Proceeds) (Misc. Contractual) 001-1990-4400 001-1680-4400 3,000. (Contingency) (Misc. Contractual) WATER: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 40-8320-2899 40-8310-2031 $ 14,000. (Cap. Constr.) (Computer Hardware) 40-8320-2899 40-8310-4060 500. (Cap. Constr.) (Ser. Contr.) ASSESSMENT: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 01-1355-4400 01-1355-4100 1,000. (Misc. Contractual) (Telephone Use) BUILDING & GROUNDS: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 01-5132-4300 (Utilities) 01-5132-4400 (Misc. Contractual) 2,500. 01-1620-1400 (Laborer A) 01-1620-1470-0002 (Working Foreman - Proj. Overtime Earnings) 1,500. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 01-3620-2001 (Misc. Equipment) 01-3620-2032 (Computer Software) 400. 01-3620-4400 (Misc. Contractual) COMPTROLLER: FROM: 01-1315-4220 (Training) 001-9950-9100 (Transfer to Hudson River Park) HIGHWAY: FROM: 04-5110-1440-0002 (HEO - O.T.) 04-5110-1470 (Working Foreman) 01-3310-4170 (Traffic Repairs) 01-5010-4090 (Conference Expense) 04-5110-1440 (H.E.O.) PAYROLL FROM: 01-3620-4030 (Postage) TO: 01-1315-4050 (Books & Publications) 001-9950-9101 (Transfer To Weeks Road) 42,500. 300. $ AMOUNT: 100. $ AMOUNT: 500. $ AMOUNT: SEE ATTACHMENT FROM COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE DATED 10/4/95 AND ATTACHED TO THE MINUTES OF THIS MEETING; and BE IT FURTHER, TO: 04-5130-4480 (Tires) 3,200. 04-5130-4490 (Batteries) 2,500. 01-3310-4160 4,500. (Signs) 01-5010-2010 (Office Equipment) 04-5130-4480 (Tires) 3,000. TO: RESOLVED, that the 1995 Town Budget is hereby amended accordingly. Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: NOES: None AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mr. Champagne ABSENT:Mrs. Pulver RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT BID FOR PURCHASE OF COMPUTERS RESOLUTION NO. 528, 95 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Fred Champagne WHEREAS, the Director of Purchasing for the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, duly advertised for the purchase of computers and computer equipment, as more specifically identified in bid documents, specifications previously submitted and in possession of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, Darleen M. Dougher, Director of Purchasing, has made recommendations in connection with the bids, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, hereby awards the bid for the aforementioned computers and computer equipment as follows: (A) (1) Microcomputer designed as a network file server with: - Pentium 90MHz - 32MB RAM - (2) 2GB SCSI Hard Drives - (2) SCSI Hard Drive controllers - 14" VGA Monochrome monitor - 3.5" floppy drive - 4X Internal CD-ROM - Tower Case - Novell Certified Price for MICROCOMPUTER COMPLETE as per above: $ 5,081. (B) to Renegade Holding Corporation, to be paid for from Account No.: 01-1680-2100; (1) Microcomputer designed as a network file server with: - Pentium 120MHz - 64MB RAM - (2) 4GB SCSI Hard Drives - (2) SCSI Hard Drive controllers - 14" VGA Monochrome monitor - 3.5" floppy drive - PCI IOMBS/100MBPS network adapter - 4X Internal CD-ROM - Tower Case - Novell Certified Price for MICROCOMPUTER COMPLETE as per above: $ 8,212. to Renegade Holding Corporation, to be paid for from Water Department Account No.: 40-8310-2031; (C) (5) Microcomputers to be used as network workstations with: - Pentium 75MHz - 16MB RAM - 400MB Hard drives - 3.5" floppy drive - Baby AT Case - MS-DOS 6.22 - MS-Windows for Workgroups 3.11 - 4X Internal CD-ROM - 14.400bps internal fax/modem - 15" SVGA Color Monitor Price for MICROCOMPUTER COMPLETE (5) as per above: $13,255. to Renegade Holding Corporation, to be paid for from: 1) $2,651. from Account No.: 01-1330-2031; and 2) $10,604 from Water Department Account No.: 40-8310-2031; and (D) (1) Hewlett Packard 4 Plus wi JetDirect Ethernet connection - Price: $ 1,843. to Data Tech Associates, to be paid for from Water Department Account No.: 40-8310-2031; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury authorizes the purchase of the Network Hardware & Software as follows: (2) APC SmartUPS Model 1250 Net (includes PowerChute Software) (2) Arcada Single Server Backup Software from Preston Computer Services, for an amount not to exceed $2)10.50, ($1,155.25 of said amount to be paid for from Water Department Account No.: 40-8310-2031, and $1,155.25 of said amount to be paid for from Account No.: 01-1680-2100), and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury further authorizes the retention of the services of Preston Computer Services in connection with the server preparation, network installation, and software configuration, for an amount not to exceed $2,800., to be paid for from Account No.: 01- 1680-4400-1680, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury further authorizes the retention of the services of Tech II Business Services, Inc., in connection with the wiring services for the new computer equipment, for an amount not to exceed $2,725., to be paid for from Account No.: 01-1680-4400-1680. Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:Mrs. Pulver RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 179, 95 CONCERNING DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF TOWN COMPTROLLER RESOLUTION NO.: 529,95 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, by resolution no. 623, 94, previously established the duties and responsibilities of the Town Comptroller, which duties would include manually signing all checks, together with the Town Supervisor, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, by resolution no. 179,95, amended Resolution no. 623, 94, and established that the duties of the Town Comptroller will not include countersigning all checks of the Town until such time as the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury adopts a further resolution directing such and also authorized the use of a facsimile signature of the Town Supervisor and Town Comptroller, and WHEREAS, all required forms and signature cards have been prepared for the banks in which the Town currently does business authorizing the Town Comptroller to counter-sign checks, and WHEREAS, a signature plate was received bearing a facsimile of the Town Comptroller's signature, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury stated a desire to control the signing of significant checks through controls requiring the Town Comptroller and Town Supervisor to manually sign checks of significant dollar amounts, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the duties of the Town Comptroller will include an obligation to counter-sign all checks, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that all checks over $10,000., will require the manual signature of both the Town Comptroller and Town Supervisor. Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1995 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:Mrs. Pulver RESOLUTION HIRING PART-TIME REAL PROPERTY TAX SERVICE ASSISTANT IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE RESOLUTION NO. 530, 95 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of establishing the temporary position of Part-Time Real Property Tax Service Assistant in the Assessor's Office, and hiring Barbara Howe, of Pickle Hill Road, Queensbury, for that position, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby establishes the temporary position of Part-Time Real Property Tax Service Assistant and hereby hires Barbara Howe for that position, to work approximately 8-12 hours per week, at a rate of pay of $10.22 per hour, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the hourly wages paid to Barbara Howe shall be from the appropriate Town of Queensbury Payroll Account. Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:Mrs. Pulver RESOLUTION TO PAY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF BUILDINGS & GROUNDS FOR VACATION TIME HE DID NOT EXPEND RESOLUTION NO.: 531,95 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, A. Peter Brault has 7.5 vacation days that were unused prior to the previously approved 90 days starting February 7, 1995, and WHEREAS, A. Peter Brault has requested to be compensated for these days following his retirement, and WHEREAS, A. Peter Brault was unable to use these vacation days within the time allocated, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves A. Peter Brault's request for payment of the 7.5 days vacation, for a total of $898.24. Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1995 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:Mrs. Pulver RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HIRING OF ENGINEERS REGARDING DRAINAGE PROBLEM ON WEST SIDE OF WARREN STREET NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF WARREN STREET AND THE BOULEVARD RESOLUTION NO.: 532,95 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has been advised that a drainage problem exists on certain property located on the west side of Warren Street, near the intersection of said Warren Street and the Boulevard, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury would like the drainage problem reviewed by an engineer and the cost of remedying the same identified should the Town Board elect to perform such work, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to arrange for the hiring of Scudder Associates Engineers for purposes of studying the drainage problem identified in the preambles of this Resolution and hereby further authorizes an amount to be expended for such services in an amount not to exceed $1,000.00, to be payable from the Miscellaneous Contractual Engineering Services Account (Account #01-1440-4400), and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, in accordance with Town Law, Section 64 II-a, this Resolution and the authorization provided thereby is subject to a permissive referendum in accordance with the terms and provisions of Article 7 of the Town Law of the State of New York, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk shall, within ten (10) days from the date of this Resolution, in the manner provided for notice of special election, post and publish a notice which shall set forth the date of adoption of this Resolution and such notice shall contain a copy of this Resolution and shall specify that this Resolution was adopted subject to a permissive referendum. Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:Mrs. Pulver ATTORNEY MATTERS ATTORNEY DUSEK-Noted he had three matters for executive session. DISCUSSIONS ELECTED OFFICIALS SALARIES SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Noted they are ready to discuss the elected officials salaries for 1996. Asked the Board to give this some thought, to be discussed at the next workshop. HUDSON RIVER PARK UPDATE ATTORNEY DUSEK-The engineers have been on site to review the property, noted the abstract of title will be going out this week to them. With that and together with their review he expects this soon so it won't take them long to give the board an environmental audit of the property. Has heard from all the agencies that were notified as part of the SEQRA process. One agency that we did hear from was the Department of Army Core of Engineers who has indicated that we may need permits from them. Recommended that this matter be further investigated to ascertain exactly what you need before you enter into any agreement with the county. Believes that the facility is calling for a boat launch. Although there is one there questions how much use will you have to put to that and whether or not your going to have to make any improvements, and whether they will allow you to make those improvements in light of everything that has been going on up and down the river. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Noted the principal concern with the Army Core of Engineers is they are going to want to know the delineation of wetlands on the site. You are going to have to supply them with that and then show them where the activities are going to occur. They have accepted practices to either avoid those places or if you can't avoid them then how you undertake that activity according to a prescribe plan, but the first step is going to be to delineate the wetlands on the site. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Questioned if they will flag this area? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-DEC will flag it if it's not large enough to be flagged by DEC which is likely that's it's not Army Core will come up and look at it with you. You will have initiate the wetland process with a private individual trained in that field to know what a wetland is and where the boundary of it is. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Questioned if this allows them to get in within the time frame of the grant which will include actual construction? ATTORNEY DUSEK-The actual construction has to be completed a year from now, will be able to tell better within the next few weeks. You would have that idea taken care of before you actually get into this winter, but will need to move quickly. Recommended to have an on site meeting with the representative of the Army Core of Engineers and whatever the board feels the appropriate town officials to kick it off. From there determine whether or not you will need to move to engineers. Among the other things that need to be done before you decide on the engineers is determine whether or not DEC will flag these for you. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Questioned if they have a local representative? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-They are out of Troy. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Questioned how the Army Core of Engineers got into the issue of wetlands? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-It's a relatively new change to the wetlands law. In 1991 they were given extensive jurisdiction overall water bodies in the United States. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Questioned if they take care of the flood level? ATTORNEY DUSEK-They don't regulate the flow of the river as much as .....does, but they are one of the agencies that will review and issue permits relative to the various activities that could occur. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Need to put a time frame together to get this moving. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Noted the board doesn't need to wait for the environmental audit to deal with the Army Core of Engineers. Recommended as a starting point would be to contact DEC to make sure they won't voluntarily flag the wetlands. Need to coordinate an immediate meeting between appropriate town officials and the Army Core of Engineer representative once the wetlands have been flagged. If it turns out there is a problem in terms of wetlands and or flagging of wetlands and a engineer needs to be retained it would be advisable to get quotes as to what the cost would be for the type of services that we need (could be done before next meeting) then bring that back to the board meeting so the board would be at the next step. You could get through this part of the process knowing whether or not the site is workable from the Army Core of Engineers standpoint. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Noted the rec commission mentioned bringing in someone. Noted they will need to do a request for proposal due to the amount of money involved. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Has met with the Recreation Commission believes they came in under the request for proposal. They came in under the amount if you take out the surveying which is being done by a different company. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Asked the amount of that? COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-The surveying was $7,000. The engineering was twenty something. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's over the $20,000 limit. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-You have to go for an RFP. Asked Executive Director, Mr. Martin to contact DEe. Supervisor Champagne to contact the Recreation Commission. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Recommended the board selecting a contact person to follow up on all the steps. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-To contact Harry Hansen, Director of Parks and Recreation regarding this. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Recommended having someone follow this from the board. Noted since it is in Councilman Pulver Ward, recommended her as a contact person. CONDENSED DRAFT REPORT RELATIVE TO FIRE PROTECTION AND RESCUE SERVICES SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Spoke to the Board regarding the condensed draft report from the MMA Consulting Group asking board members to review report. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Recommended this should be discussed with the fire companies to hear their input. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Noted from the Fire Marshal standpoint if there is any discussion regarding this he would like to attend the meetings. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Recommended to solve the budget for this year and address the whole report in January. After further discussion it was the decision of the Town Board to do the contract work for one year and then in January bring the fire companies in to meet and discuss report. TOWN INSURANCE FOR 1996 COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Spoke to the Board regarding the Town Insurance for 1996, noting she has met with the present carrier. The town is looking at a couple of options whether we stay with the same agency that we have now or whether we have them pull together specs and open this up to other agencies. The consultant that we had before recommended not to do this every year, that we do it every other year, or every third year. Noted the present agent stated that the carrier will hold the line on our insurance noting he doesn't see too much of an increase in the premium. Asked board members to think about if they want to go out this year with requests for proposals or if we will hold it where it is with the same company this year and do that next year. SPRAGUE MOBILE HOME (COUNCILMAN PULVER REENTERED MEETING DURING DISCUSSION) ATTORNEY DUSEK-According to the board's request, I reviewed the legal issues that were surrounding the Sprague mobile home application if you will recall at your last board meeting which was about two weeks ago. As a result of the review, I've reached a couple of conclusions or opinions I'd like to offer to the board. The first opinion is, I think there was some question as to whether Chapter 113 of the town code applied in view of the fact that the property in question had received a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Based on my review of the chapter in the laws it's my opinion that an applicant would have to achieve both. They would have to get a variance from the board which they did in this case, Zoning Board back in 1987, but that they are also required to comply with Chapter 113. In terms of compliance with Chapter 113, I think the next question becomes, well what section of that do they comply with? If you'll notice under Chapter 113-12 there are actually two different ways, actually there are more than two different ways in which you can get a mobile home located on a property. One way is and this is the way, I think the Sprague application kind of started off as if a mobile home is already existing and you want to upgrade it says the owner of the property or the occupant of the existing mobile home wishes to upgrade then you can come in under that one section which seems to be the way the Sprague application was handled. However, when you look at that section though, I have to stress it's the owner of the property or an occupant of the existing mobile home neither of which Sprague would seem to qualify as. On the hand you look at another section of the law which is 113-12 in the first part of it, the first three paragraphs, the third paragraph in sets up the provisions for a revocable permit to be issued to anybody for a mobile home. It would seem to me that section would be one of the sections that the board would want to consider the application under in terms of considering it. The problem is though if that is the board's choice to consider it under that section then, I think that the notice is troublesome because the notice makes it sound like it's replacing a mobile home under that other section. To make a long story short I think the board needs to enter into a dialogue with the applicant to find out if the applicant wishes to revise the application. If the application does not wish to revise the application then I think the board has to make a decision as to whether it will treat the application as if it is one of the other areas as properly regulated and then make a decision as to whether or not you need to re-advertise. I will tell you that the other advertisement appears to be faulty so you may very well want to consider re-advertising. If the applicant wants to voluntarily amend the application then it would seem to be very straight forward that you would just simply move ahead and re-advertise, hold another public hearing, go back through the proceedings. If they don't then you may wish to simply reject the application. Mike O'Connor, who represented the applicant at the meeting indicated to me he would be present tonight and I do notice that he is present tonight in the event that the board wants to enter to the dialogue that I suggested. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Question for Jim. Jim that mobile home that was moved onto another lot in town which apparently was not moved there legally has that been addressed? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-My understanding it has been moved it's not there anymore. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Has it been moved any other place in the Town of Queensbury. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I don't know. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-We don't have a tracker on it. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I guess on the Wayne Mechanick property it's no longer there it's the last I've heard of it being anywhere. But, if anybody else knows another location we'll certainly go over and address it. UNKNOWN-It's on Vermont Avenue. It's owned by Larry Clute as a matter of fact, I found that information out from Mr. O'Brien in Building and Codes, I believe. I know that's where I got the information, I believe that's where he's at. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-The previous trailer is not the issue right? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Except we've got one floating around town illegally that's not suppose to be floating around town. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-We'll track it down. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So we have two issues here that came out. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Mike do you want to make your case here? ATTORNEY MIKE O'CONNOR-I can try to make it. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Basically, I disagree as to which law supersedes which law. You've got a 1964 Mobile Home Ordinance and then you have a Zoning Ordinance which was past in 1967, and which has been amended many times since then. All of which have a very specific provision on replacement of nonconforming structures. It does not say that, that right to replace a nonconforming structure if they are destroyed by the elements is regulated by any other provision of the ordinance. Unfortunately the economics of the argument here are not worthy of probably trying to go to a court to convince you if my opinion is correct as opposed to Paul's opinion. Also the timeliness of doing that just makes it impractical and really foolish. I tried to get a hold the people and a hold of Paul we traded phone calls around quarter after five today. Unless the board is going to agree with my opinion that the Zoning Ordinance supersedes the Mobile Home Ordinance in this particular instance then I think we ought to abandoned that law and maybe pursue other avenues. As you look in the zoning ordinance there is a specific section that deals with nonconforming structures and replacement of them. It simply says if it's within eighteen months it's permitted. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-What? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Ifs it's within eighteen months it's permitted, I think we've been through that before. COUNCILMAN TURNER-179-83, page 18054. It says use nonconformity. ATTORNEY DUSEK-To help the board through this issue a little bit, I think the issues not only looking at the zoning ordinance provisions because you have actually two separate laws here. You have this law which Mike is correct from records that we have in the town it looks like it was adopted in 1964 which would of been previous to obviously the May, 1967 Zoning Ordinance that really set the zoning in place for the town and all the other zoning after that. However, what convinced me that Chapter 113 is in fact controlling there is a provision right in the very beginning of the chapter which deals with interpretation it says right in the law itself. In a case where provision of this article referring to Chapter 113 is found to be in conflict with the provision of the zoning, and it refers ironically to zoning which I don't know where, or when, how it got in there, but it's there. Zoning, building, electrical, plumbing, etc., a bunch of them it names law, or ordinance, or regulation adopted pursuant thereto, or other local law, ordinance, code or regulation, the provision or requirement which is more restrictive or which establishes the higher standard shall prevail. In other words, that language plus what I believe to be the correct statutory type of interpretation when your in these situations tells me that you have to apply both sets of law to the extent that you can. In this case it says if they conflict you'll apply the more restrictive. It seems to be that apart from the zoning this is certainly more restrictive and therefore requires that it be applied to the Sprague application. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Take for example though just the simple application for a mobile home outside of a mobile home park. The mobile home regulation simply says that on unique circumstances, I think it is or something of that nature the zoning ordinance says that it must only be where a mobile home has been destroyed by elements beyond the control of man, but not by man, a replacement must be within eighteen months. Even taking your interpretation under those circumstances and not the upgrading of a mobile home the zoning ordinance is still stricter. If you're relying upon the section in the mobile home ordinance it says the stricter of the two would apply. I would still submit to you that in this particular instance because of the unique circumstances the manner in which this home was initially destroyed the zoning ordinance is actually stricter. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I guess what I find troublesome is the fact that first of all, I guess there is an issue of fact if you will as to whether or not the first mobile home was destroyed, I think that's number one. Number two, is the fact that this is not the usual case where an owner say if this was, Marjorie Johnson is the owner of the property according to the information presented to the board. Let's assume she owned the property. Let's assume further she had a mobile home on the property and she was living in the mobile home and then it was truly destroyed by a fire or something falling on it and she came in and said, I want to replace it, I think Mike's argument would certainly have a lot more bearing at that point. In this particular case though what we have is the occupant of the original mobile home, the existing mobile home or what was there is not before you. The owner of the property is not before you rather what you have is an individual who had previously no connection to this parcel seeking to bring in a new mobile home to this particular area in town. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Isn't that of... . Paul to only the section that has to deal with upgrading because that's where that language appears. ATTORNEY DUSEK-This would obviously be the board's judgement call on this and not mine. But, I think that even if you say that does not apply you go back to Section 113 -12. In the first provision it would be B-3 and there is where the board has the ability to issue a revocable permit and you don't even get into the issue of whether or not you have a better or worse or anything else mobile home. That section that we got started on I think contemplates an owner of the property or somebody who is living in a mobile home say, it's a 1959 mobile home and they come in, Town Board I want to bring in a new mobile home can I bring it in? I think that's what that section contemplates. It doesn't contemplate an entirely new individual with a new mobile home to the area and everything coming in and saying, well now we want to substitute. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Is there something in here that says the applicant is the owner? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Under the section that is in question it says when it is desired by the owner which would in this case be Marjorie Johnson or occupant of an existing mobile home located outside, Mrs. Sprague does not meet either one of those qualifications. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-That's the section for upgrading right? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Right. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-How about the section for just placement? ATTORNEY DUSEK-For placement it seems to me that she would have the right to come in and make an application like anybody else would. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Which is what I'm talking about. I'm not arguing at this point, your going to get into another factual question about upgrading and obviously the Sprague's are not here. I don't have information to give you it has been through a couple of people as to whether or not this would be an improvement of a mobile home despite the fact that one is at one age and the other at another age. That's where I think you get into that section where you talk about the owner or occupant of a home that wishes to be upgraded. When you talk about general placement I don't really see that as being a requirement that the applicant is the owner. Let me ask you another question or maybe ask the board what their feeling is. You are saying that you think the initial advertisement wasn't in sink with what we're doing in any event so it sounds like you're talking about advertising again. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Are we saying that Mrs. Sprague is coming in now as a general applicant to place a mobile home on a..... ATTORNEY DUSEK-I guess that's the question I have for Mike. Does he wish his application to be treated that way at this point? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I'd like the board first....whether or not you think that's necessary. It's my opinion that if you read the zoning ordinance where you have a mobile home that has been destroyed as this mobile home has been destroyed. I don't think there is any question or fact as to whether or not it was destroyed and made uninhabitable by the storm, I don't think that's been an issue. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think it's an issue with me Mike when I found out it was moved to someplace else for the ability to be reconstructed then if it has the ability to be reconstructed it wasn't destroyed. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-My understanding is it hasn't been reconstructed. My understanding it's closed up simply for the purpose of moving it so it wouldn't fall apart while it was being moved. UNKNOWN-It's being reconstructed. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-If that's your issue of fact I disagree with your interpretation of what I know is before the board at the last discussion of this by the people who were involved in this. But, I still think this section for replacement under the zoning ordinance supersedes because it is in fact stricter than the mobile home ordinance. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mike are you referring to 113-12, G2? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Yes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But, it still.... ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Not G2. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It says by the owner or occupant of an existing mobile home. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Three not two. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I don't see it Mike. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-If your issue is who the applicant is I'm sure that the owner of the lot would join in the application. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-They would have to own the mobile home. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I would differ with you on that. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I wouldn't. COUNCILMAN PULVER-We have a lot oflots in town Betty that are rented to people that own mobile homes in the town the person owning the lot doesn't have to own it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But, if you have your book in front of you so your reading the law that we have on, when you have this type of a situation then you have to look and see who is allowed to do what? COUNCILMAN PULVER-When someone owns the piece of the property that a mobile home is an allowed use on it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes. COUNCILMAN PULVER-Say, I have a mobile home on a piece of property that Connie owns. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes. COUNCILMAN PUL VER-I don't want to live there anymore, I take my mobile home and go off Connie rents it to somebody else with a mobile home. That trailer that was destroyed wasn't the same owner as this Kelly Sprague. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Connie didn't get the permission for the mobile home in the first place the person there with the mobile home got the permission. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Not in this case. COUNCILMAN PULVER-No. The person that had the lot got the variance for the lot. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Mrs. Johnson got the variance. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-She got the variance, but then I think there was something that happened in between. COUNCILMAN PULVER-She got a variance to have a mobile home on that lot. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-After the variance was gotten then there was something that did or didn't happen if I remember right. COUNCILMAN TURNER-What didn't happen? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I don't know I'm trying to think back. Because as you said it looks like it was suppose to go one way, but it went the other way. ATTORNEY DUSEK-As far as the variance and the zoning is concerned the record is clear that she got a vanance..... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Who got the variance? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Marjorie Johnson. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That lot has a variance on it to place a mobile, bingo. ATTORNEY DUSEK-No question about it. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-If Marjorie Johnson wanted to come in here and replace that home could she do that? ATTORNEY DUSEK-If she was the owner of the home and the home was destroyed and she came in she would be able to come in underneath that section that allows you whether or not you have a public hearing etc., she would be able to replace it then you get into the issue of upgrade. In this particular case it doesn't seem like that section would apply. What it is we have a new applicant with a new mobile home who wants to come in and put a mobile home there and it seems to me that this other section of the law would be the one that would actually control. In other words even though she's got the zoning variance she still has to come before this board and get a permit. Then she has to be able to prove that she has a hardship or extenuating circumstances to allow the board to grant her relief. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's it, I don't think they came in front of the board and got their permit wasn't that the part that didn't happen? ATTORNEY DUSEK-I don't know. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Darleen was researching that. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-If you also take a look at Section 179-79, of the zoning ordinance. You are talking about single family dwellings or mobile home may be enlarged or rebuilt as follows. You've got a direct contradiction in that section that doesn't even refer to 113. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I don't think that's a contradiction. I think that you can read both of them here again together that zoning ordinance gives them the right to do that. This says in order to get that right you have to come in and get another permit. I don't see that as any different than if the Town of Queensbury grants a variance or site plan and you have to go to the Lake George Park Commission and get another approval. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-The difference is that they are talking about nonconforming uses or structures under that particular section. ATTORNEY DUSEK-This is not nonconforming. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-It would be nonconforming because it went in by variance. ATTORNEY DUSEK-So it's not nonconforming. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-It became nonconforming when it was rezoned in 1988. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I disagree. I think once the variance has been received it's a use that allowed by variance and not a nonconforming use that's my interpretation of a nonconforming use. Nonconforming use to my knowledge is a use that comes about previous to a zoning ordinance change. When the zoning ordinance comes in that use is outlawed, but because it's grandfathered or was there it's allowed to continue that's a nonconforming use. What we have here is a use that was allowed by way of variance and that means that the ordinance was varied for this particular lot this is not a nonconforming use at least in my mind. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-There are six different ways, I think you can say it's permissible as a replacement for the zoning ordinance. I don't know where you are going to go with it there is not much sense in spending three or four months trying to figure this out. You are going to have to pretty much tell us which way you want to go with it. I do think that you do have to have another public hearing and probably the application should be amended to be that application of Marjorie Johnson as well as Ms. Sprague and just go forward on that basis. I think when you really get into the nuts and bolts of it you probably don't have to go into the paragraph where it talks about superior construction or....because it is a nonconforming use. You have to know whether or not it is unique and Paul and I had a brief discussion. I think there are very few lots in the town which have variances. A lot that has a variance for a mobile home is a unique entity under our zoning interpretations that would give it qualification without regard to hardship or not. It says show hardship or unique circumstances. It's something that the board can approve and approve properly within its discretion. Again, I'm talking about economics and I'm talking about somebody who doesn't have all the....to take this to court, or time, or effort, or even desire. They tried to come in and make a presentation here to show that they are going to significantly improve what is there and make it compatible with the other adjoining uses. JEFF FRIEDLAND-law firm of Miller, Mannix and Pratt. Representing Ed Hermance who is one house away from the proposed mobile home. There are a few things I'd like to address, I'll be as brief as I can. It's not quite clear to me, but I think Paul has said that Section 113 the mobile home section applies and we certainly agree with that. I think it's pretty clear right from the language that Paul read in the very first section this is under Section 113-3, the provisions of this article shall supersede all the laws, ordinances, codes, or regulations to the extent they are inconsistent. ....it's really clear it applies, I don't think there is much question about that. I think the next question is which section applies. It's Paul opinion the section which talks about the upgrade actually it's called superior construction and/or improve facilities, Section 113-12G. It's Paul's opinion that this section does not apply, I guess we would have to disagree with that we think that section clearly applies for a few reasons. First it seems to me that the applicant is the one that came in here represented by council and submitted an application under that section and caused, you the Town Board, to have a public hearing, a notice to public hearing, hold the public hearing, have another meeting tonight all under that section. It seems to me that the applicant represented by council throughout has waived any claim to that section, it doesn't apply they clearly submitted to that section from the beginning. The other big reason why that particular provision applies is that if it does not apply the argument that Paul, it's the way the Town Board interprets from now on. Anybody can circumvent the town code and basically jerk the town's chain by having somebody else besides the owner or occupants submit an application and say, I'm not the owner or occupant this provision doesn't apply. I can pullout the nice new mobile home and stick in anything I want because this section doesn't apply, I mean that's what's happened here. The applicant wasn't the owner the owner got somebody besides himself or the current occupant to submit an application and then say this section doesn't apply anybody can do that and circumvent this section. I think for that reason you would be asking for a lot of trouble if you go with that interpretation with all do respect Paul. I think that you have to have that provision apply or people are going to begin circumventing this left and right. I guess there are a couple of factual things that I think we need to bring up also. One of them is whether the mobile home was destroyed or not. I think Mr. O'Connor said that he thought the mobile home was not destroyed. From my understanding, my client's understanding, that's clearly not true. It was damaged, it was not destroyed, it was sold to somebody that person who now owns it has moved it some where else, I think you said Vermont Avenue. They're repairing it the new owner is going to fix it and move in. It clearly was not destroyed there is a clear misrepresentation from the beginning. The second factual issue that I think we need to bring up is whether or not this is upgrade. Again, I think that section does apply and I think that issue has become relevant very important. It seems to us that what the applicant tried to do is substitute a relatively new 1987, eight year old trailer for a twenty-five year old trailer. The 1987 trailer had a sort of nice peak roof it had vinyl siding. The one that they want to put on the lot, they have put on the lot is twenty-five years, a 1974. It has a flat roof has painted metal sides and was purchased for about $2,000. The original price of the one that was removed is about $22,000 and the book value of the used trailer is about $20,000. I think there is clearly no upgrade here if anything it's just the opposite. I think lastly, I think this is also very important, is that the applicant has submitted her application for a mobile home permit, knew that she needed a mobile home permit but she put the trailer on the site. But even way worse than that, I think when you were here last time the trailer was on the site this past weekend she spent hooking it up. She doesn't have a permit she knows she needs a permit and she is hooked up to water and possibly the electricity. It seems to me here she is clearly....flagging the law here. She misrepresented the facts on the initial application she went right ahead and hooked it up without a permit. We would respectfully asked the town to enforce the law and seek to have it either removed or issuance an order that she not hook it up any further. Thank you. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR - I did not submit this application under 113 -G that was done before my involvement. I am not necessarily agreeing with that being the applicable section I'm just trying to work within that section and show that they would qualify there. I recognize, I think which Paul has recognized, Mrs. Monahan has just pointed out that there is a problem with a stranger coming in under that section. I don't think that even the comments and criticism that my applicant coming in or the applicant trying to come in with trying to circumvent the law. I think the law simply says an owner or occupant of an existing mobile home can seek to upgrade. I recognize a factual problem with that that's not what we had. I think that's the problem that we have with the public hearing notice that's part of the problem that's there. I think clearly that the applicant in this particular instance is not the owner or the occupant of the trailer that was damaged we believe it was destroyed by the storm, I don't even know that it's germane at this point. I still go back to the issue, I have. I think you've got to tell whether or not you think the zoning ordinance in fact supersedes the mobile home ordinance. I think there is question of destruction there because the reference that you are making to and agreeing is a 1964 ordinance that refers to an ordinance that wasn't in existence at that time. When the ordinance was adopted in 1967 when it was amended and....in 1982, 1988, but there was never any reference that the rights that it gave to replacement of nonconforming structures was subject to the mobile home ordinance. I think it's unique I don't know how many lots you have out there in the town. I think that they have the entitlement to replace it even if it were not destroyed. You take the mobile home the mobile home is a piece of personalty it is not considered realty. You file it I guess differently in the County Clerk's Office you file with the UCC as opposed to a mortgage. This variance ran with that land I think that they can bring in old, new, whatever. How many properties out there that have variances that are mobile homes, your not talking about open flood gates here. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I'm not so sure we've got quite a few that keep popping up. I can think of another one that this can be a precedent for. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-A precedent, I think is precedent under the law. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Anything more? ATTORNEY FRIEDLAND-I don't think what we're trying to say that they don't have a right to replace it. But, I think what we're saying is she has a right to replace it she has to comply with Section-l13 just like everybody else. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Look under 113-G, it says owner or occupant. We're not the owner or occupant the variance runs with the land and that owner of the land has the right to separate distinct from this mobile home section. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That's the call. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-You've got to tell us that. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Whether the land goes with the variance forever and ever like Mike said, do you come in with a general application and apply? ATTORNEY FRIEDLAND-I think you have to comply with the code. This Section 113 says it supersedes everything else. I think you have to comply with the code. COUNCILMAN PUL VER-I think Mike has agreed that we need to have a new application. That possibly the original application was not the application that Kelly Sprague should of made, correct? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I tend to come that way. I'd like to take a shortcut. COUNCILMAN PULVER-We agree on that. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I could live with that rule. COUNCILMAN PULVER-First of all we're talking about all these things and we don't have anything really together. In order to start to get it to go anywhere you have to have a revised application and then we have to re-notice right? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Right. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I don't mean necessarily shortcut. There is an issue first does the zoning ordinance simply say this particular instance because the property has a variance that they don't need to comply with those sections of the mobile home ordinance. The mobile home ordinance was four years before any zoning reg's. There is no reference in the zoning ordinance in its many different adoptions saying that it's subject to that particular ordinance. I think this is maybe discretionary judgement on your part. The mobile home ordinance even in its worse interpretation from my client's position applies only if it's stricter than the zoning ordinance. I don't think in actuality it's stricter than the zoning ordinance. You've got to look at the sections for replacement of nonconforming structures. Those restrictions are stricter than if I come in here and simply prove hardship under the mobile home ordinance, I can get a permit. It doesn't say it is limited to...it's just one small distinction but it is a significant distinction. This thing says that somebody has got to do something within eighteen months or you use that conformity. This other thing is unlimited in time.... ATTORNEY DUSEK-I would encourage the board to be careful of that analysis because once again, I don't believe that you are looking at a nonconforming use here. You are looking at a use that is allowed by variance which I don't believe would expire at the end of eighteen months. The variance runs permanently with the land and unless we had legislation to the effect that the variance would lapse and I think we do, but it is usually only when it first gets started I think there is a certain time period in which you have to take advantage of the variance. In this particular case this is not a nonconforming use. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Paul, I'm talking about nonconforming structures. I understand what you are saying about nonconforming uses not having the eighteen months and I've argued that not having the eighteen month time limitation of it. Nonconforming structures are something different this is still a single family home. Maybe in 1967, 1964, when the ordinance was adopted people didn't think of a mobile home being a single family home, but the federal government has since said that they are single family homes. You can't out rule, you can't outlaw them, they are single family homes so that use is not a nonconforming use. What is nonconforming here is the structure that's a little different. I think that is subject to the eighteen month business. If we have a house that is seventy-five feet tall and it's there because it was built in the early 1900's and it burns down if we don't replace it within eighteen months I think I'm going to be subject to the general requirement of the town that your house can't be higher than thirty-five feet. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Even if that is true that actually makes a worse situation than for your own client Mike because it doesn't stop the fact that both apply. I think the fundamental philosophy here I think you have to accept is one thirteen applies and the zoning applies. If one thirteen does not cause the expiration in eighteen months and the zoning does well then the zoning operates in that insistence, but one thirteen operates in all the other instances. I think you have to read both statues together to the extent that you can consistently. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Your premise is that the one thirteen applies if it's stricter. I think there are many instances in which it is not stricter that's a board decision on which is stricter. If it's not stricter it doesn't apply. JEFF FRIEDLAND-I don't think that this says that one thirteen only applies if it's stricter. Maybe, I misread it, but it doesn't say that. It says that this article supersedes local law, ordinances, etc., to the extent that such laws that are inconsistent with the provision of this article. It doesn't say that it only applies if it's stricter. I agree with Paul the bottom line is that they both apply. I don't think this is stricter they both apply and they have to apply to both provisions. I'm not sure if you mentioned this and you need to bring it up the legal jargon there is a genera1....ofinterpretations that us lawyers were taught in law school which says you, when you have two separate laws with the same subject you try to read them both so that they both apply and you don't just read out one of them in existence. That's the cannon of interpretations that we're using here. That you can read both of these they both apply to the one subject mobile homes based on that both of them should apply. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Also the basic premises if you read the whole section if you read Section B you are going to see what we talk about being stricter that's what we're talking about. The other is a general caveat that you can adopt stricter or more stricter this ordinance here doesn't prevent the town from adopting stricter ordinances that's what Section A is about. Section B talks about which provision would apply....! think that's how we got into the stricter interpretation. You've got to make the decision. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I understand that. I think we have enough information we'll reserve our opinion here for the attorney and take his advice and go from there. I don't see where we can act on anything this evening. ATTORNEY DUSEK-If the agreement is that a new application will be submitted on the basis of the revocable license asking for that then I would take it we would receive something from Mike to that regard and upon receipt set the public hearing and go down that path again. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-What you are saying is you are not acting on the basis or you are not of a consensus that you would act on the basis that we really do not need to come to the board under one thirteen because we are there by right by variance? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I can't accept that. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-One thirteen has to apply. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Let me ask this general question. You believe that because this lot sits there with the variance that it is a unique property and it would qualify under the general section, I'm just saying let's not spin our wheels? SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE-I hear clearly what you are saying? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Why are you saying unique? If you're reading the thing that I'm reading under revocable permits is that where you are getting unique? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Under Sub-Section 3. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It says hardship or extenuating circumstances that isn't unique necessarily. Also, Mike I find a very interesting sentence in here and if my book isn't up to date and somebody else's is different let me know. If following such public hearing and upon consideration of all the testimony and proof presented there the Town Board shall determine that the hardship or extenuating circumstances have been sufficiently proved it may, it doesn't say it has too, it says it may by resolution authorize the Town Clerk to issue such permit, the may is a may not a shall which is a little different slant than you gave to it. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I don't think it's a different slant. I think with the facts that you have before you are extenuating circumstances. You've got somebody with a lot with a variance..... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Extenuating is different than unique quite a bit legally. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-The problem I think with extenuating is that there is probably no definition of it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That doesn't mean that you can substitute unique I can probably find the definition of it. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-You can tell these people to reapply which I think I heard you say. SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE-I think you've got the message. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I think it's not fair to them to tell them to reapply go through the public hearing if you don't have a feeling as to whether or not that what they have presented is extenuating circumstances you might as well tell them that up front. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-The circumstances are not going to be, you tried to base this prior on the fact that there was a mobile home there previously that got in your words "destroyed" which we may not agree with your terminology that it was your extenuating circumstances. To me the extenuating circumstances in this case has to mean that the person themselves, the extenuating circumstances are unique to the person. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I don't think that's the way in which you determine the zoning laws the words hardship or extenuating circumstances. In fact there is some case law that says it's not the personal decision it is something that is suppose to be unique to the property. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I guess, I would have to talk that over with our attorney before I bat that around anymore. ATTORNEY FRIEDLAND-Mr. O'Connor is trying to get this board to say, yea come on back submit the application and we'll give you the permit he can't do that it's completely un-proper. It has to be an application that has to be testimony and proof just like any other permit. I don't think you can tell them now to come back you have to see what the application says, you have to see what the proof says, and what the testimony says, only then can you make a determination. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I can ask this board to do whatever I think is appropriate they can either do it or not do it. ATTORNEY FRIEDLAND-You can ask but it is clearly improper to make a decision before you have a hearing before you have the testimony. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I think Mike the bottom line is that there has to be a reapplication. I think the board as I sense here this evening and advise by counsel here we'll be willing to hear it again with no guarantee's. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It would have to come in under Section-I13-12 in the revocable permit section. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yes? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yes. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Under section three? ATTORNEY DUSEK-That would be my interpretation. It's up to the board's final call, but's that my interpretation. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I agree with you Paul. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Mr. Supervisor if! could make one recommendation while you are on this issue and that would be for the reasons that you have discussed this evening to reject the previous application somebody should make that a motion so it's in the record that the previously application has been rejected at this point. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I would like to move to amend that application. I don't think there is any great deal why make them go through all of the paperwork....on stipulation for council. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I would hesitant to recommend that previous application because it was filled out and contained information that was truthfully was geared towards that other section of the law. I think you may want to very well submit a new application it's not that complicated. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR -Yea, but you are into another workshop meeting than you are into another meeting before you set another public hearing come Spring maybe they'll find someplace else to put it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Paul if you dictate that resolution I'll move it. The following resolution was passed: RESOLUTION REJECTING KELLY SPRAGUE MOBILE HOME APPLICATION RESOLUTION NO. 533, 95 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury after considering all of the facts and reviewing the Sprague application with the Town Attorney and hearing from Mike O'Connor as well as Jeff Friedland attorney's for various interested parties determines that it's appropriate to reject the Sprague application due to the facts does not comply with the particular sections of law for which an application is needed and recommends that the applicant come back with a new application under Section 113-12-B3. Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goedert, Mr. Champagne Noes: Mr. Turner AbsentNone DISCUSSION HELD COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Questioned the issue of the hookups to the trailer? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Will have it removed? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Questioned if the trailer was going to be removed or the hookups? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Pending the application? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-It's up to the board's discretion. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think the hookups they definitely have to be disconnected. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-You do have the right to park the trailer there if you don't occupy it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I'm not sure if she does. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That's my question. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I wouldn't agree with that. ATTORNEY FRIEDLAND-There is a trailer there without a permit and they are hooking it up. SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE- The hooking up part. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-They are saying the trailer is there without a permit which it is. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I don't know all of the circumstances which brought this trailer to this lot. But, I do believe the applicant consulted with Mr. Hatin and had him go and inspect the trailer on the site before the trailer was moved. If I'm incorrect in making that statement I'm going on the recollection of the meeting that we had before. I think it was led to believe that there was no big issue here. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-There has been a ton of information that's been forthcoming that wasn't made available to Dave at that moment in fairness to Dave. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR- I would ask that the parties be allowed to remain statuesque for a period of thirty days and we will submit an application within that thirty days if that's their intention or they will then comply which I think is within your discretion. I would stipulate and I don't believe anybody has said that they are occupying this as a residence, I'm not aware of that myself. So whether you are going to go out and tell them to pay a electrician or plumber to disconnect something simply while we have the application pending doesn't seem to be very productive... COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-It wasn't very productive for them to hook it up without having it either. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I think what they were trying to do is to get there if they could get there. They did ask me about having the trailer resided with vinyl siding. They priced it and everything else and they intend to do that and add that to the list which you have there and I told them not to do that. I told them everything here is at risk anything you do out there is at risk. There is no sense in putting more money into a bad investment if it's not going to work. I'm not sure what hookup we're talking about or what the extent of it is. ATTORNEY FRIEDLAND-I guess, I would have to object to that. You come back in thirty days and then what they moved in and that they want to stay there another thirty days. It's there without a permit it's been hooked up without a permit. I just found out now that Mr. Hermance has filed a couple of complaints with the police. He has seen Sprague's boyfriend throwing things into his truck. It is not a good situation and if you let them keep it there and let them hook it up it's only going to get worse. At some point the town needs to enforce the law and put its foot down. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I think you are hearing a lot of hearsay. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Are they residing there at the present time? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Not that I am aware of. UNKNOWN-They are there all the time. You can speak to the officer today that we filed a complaint with. The Sunday before the last meeting we had the last public hearing.....he is the one there doing the work on the trailer. ATTORNEY DUSEK-For the board's consideration I would recommend deciding against any issue based on whether complaints have been filed or not filed with the police. I think that the decision here is really just should you allow the mobile home to stay or not stay considering the ordinance of the Town of Queensbury and the current status of the application. I think that it is a discretionary call in considering what has to be done to request that it be removed or go through the procedures. I think it's up to the board to decide how far you want to go with it or what kind of remedy or relief you want to fashion at this point in time. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Paul would you think it's good judgement, maybe that's not the way to state my question, but anyway give me your comments. If we permitted the mobile home itself to stay there thirty days pending a receipt of a reapplication within that time, but immediately the hookups are to be disconnected. Also with the stipulation that no one must be living in that place and if it is we will immediately move for the trailer to be removed from the site. ATTORNEY DUSEK-If the board wants to do that I see no problem with that. I think you have authority to do that. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-What do you gain by disconnecting of the hookups? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I mean that they can't have water going into that trailer, they can't have electricity going into that trailer, and if it costs them money to disconnect it I'm sorry but they shouldn't of connected it in the first place. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I think that's my position, too. You got to get the utilities out of there. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-That's vindictive. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-I think we have to confirm that the utilities are there first, though. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-We can do that. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Do we need that in a form of a resolution? ATTORNEY DUSEK-You should. The following resolution was passed. RESOLUTION CONCERNING SPRAGUE MOBILE HOME RESOLUTION NO. 534, 95 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Fred Champagne RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the parking of the Sprague mobile home at the site that its currently located at in the Town of Queensbury for a period not to exceed thirty days provided that (1) An application is immediately filed with the Town Board place a mobile home there. (2) That the water, sewer, and electrical services are in mobile home. for a revocable license to fact disconnected from the (3) That no one resides in the mobile home during the time period. Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mr. Champagne Noes: Mrs. Pulver AbsentNone COUNCILMAN PULVER-Noted she believes that there shouldn't be anyone residing in it, but doesn't believe the water and electricity has to be disconnected. SET DATE TO INTERVIEW ZONING APPLICANTS SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Spoke to the board regarding setting a date to interview zoning applicants. Noted there are three applications to interviews. It was the decision of the Town Board to meet on Thursday, October 19th, 1995 at six o'clock. DISCUSSION ATTORNEY DUSEK-Spoke to the board regarding information received from Mr. Quinn regarding Queensbury Forest. Noted the Queen Victoria Grant Homeowner's Association has granted the town permission to go into the site and conduct the test as part of the Queensbury Forest Phase III drainage testing by Fraiser Associates. The Board had previously adopted a resolution authorizing Fraiser Associates if the town got the permit. His office has been in contact with Fraiser Associates making sure the contract terms and conditions are still acceptable, noting awaiting to hear from them. Assuming that they are he has prepared a short form extended contract which would be available for the Supervisor and Fraiser Associates to sign, noting they could start the work on that immediately. OPEN FORUM PLINEY TUCKER-Noted his concern regarding the resolution that was passed for the Building and Grounds Superintendent regarding vacation time he did not expend. Questioned if there was a resolution on record that if they didn't take their vacation time they lost it and didn't get paid for it? MS. GEOFFROY -Yes, but they need to get it approved to carry over. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Noted the reason in this case he was going to be able take his carry over time on time. But, then we were putting air conditioning this building and it was such an involved project that he needed to be here and that's why he couldn't take it when he was suppose too. MR. TUCKER-Asked the status of Hudson River Park? Questioned if Warren County accepted the land without a survey? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yes. They accepted it without an environmental impact statement. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Noted it is not an environmental impact statement it is an environmental audit. MR. TUCKER-Questioned the difference? ATTORNEY DUSEK-An environmental audit is done by a buyer of a property or someone who is going to acquire significant interest in property prior to the time of acquisition. It entails hiring someone who is qualified such as an engineer to go out and look at the property and look for potential environmental problems. An environmental impact study is a document that prepares part of the SEQRA review process. MR. TUCKER-Questioned who would determine if there are wetlands here if no one has done an environmental study on this land? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Noted no one has determined officially that there are wetlands. The presumption goes because it's so close to the river. The next stage will be to conduct the necessary meetings and ascertain whether there are problems. MR. TUCKER-Questioned if the board will be talking to the Black River Regulating Board, noted they control the Hudson River. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Noted the town's activities are going to occur adjacent to the river and are going to utilize an existing boat launch facility that's already there. The town will be checking with all agencies to make sure we acquire any necessary permits or know ahead of time before we lock in ourselves to this deal what our exposure is going to be with the various agencies. MR. TUCKER-Questioned when a report will be made available to the regarding the amount of money spent and balance concerning the landfill closure? MS. GEOFFROY-Noted the landfill is 99.9 percent closed. There is one more application to be make with the state to get reimbursed for our cost. When this is done and we get back our final reimbursement from the state noted she will prepare a report. MR. TUCKER-Spoke to the board regarding his concern with the QEDC and the $25,000 they plan to give to the city noted he wants to make sure that what they are doing is proper. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Noted that he should contact Mr. Beckos regarding this matter. ATTORNEY JEFF FRIEDLAND-Representing David and Colleen Cook,...Cook Michael Wynn, Robert & Joyce Eggleston, William & Doris Cook, and a couple of more people, seven out of eight residences on Big Boom Road next to Craig Seeyle's property. Requested the Town Board to shut down the motor cross track. Has spoken with the Code Compliance Officer and Attorney Dusek putting forth this position. Noted this is not someone riding their motorcycle around his backyard once in a while on a weekend. Mr. Seeyle has bulldozed a six to ten foot wide motor cross track on his property. Noted it is important to understand the kind of noise we're talking about. It is not a regular motorcycle they are motor cross bikes they are legal for only competition. The muffler and exhaust pipes that are on the bikes are not legal for street use strictly competition. Noted this is very upsetting and annoying to have this going on in what was prior to this a pretty quite residential neighborhood. Noted that Mrs. Cook cannot put her two year old child down for a nap even with the windows closed and air conditioning on. Explained to the board why this is an illegal use under the code. Asked the board to take whatever steps necessary to shut down this illegal motor cross track. COUNCILMAN PULVER-Questioned where did the board leave off with the Code Compliance Officer on this matter? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Noted that the board did speak about this in executive session. ATTORNEY DUSEK-The board had this under discussion and has not yet reached a final decision. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Read to the board Section 168-13. Noted the state requires registration for A TV's and requires them to have insurance. Recommended amending the A TV Law for decibel levels. JOHN SALVADOR-Spoke to the Board regarding the Hudson River Park regarding the county acquiring the land noted the cost of the environmental assessment should be the county's responsibility. ATTORNEY DUSEK-What we have is a situation that the county for whatever reasons decided that they did not need an environmental audit. At this point the town is interested in acquiring an interest in this property it wouldn't be an ownership interest it would probably be in the nature of a license or some other type of interest. Feels from the town's perspective an environmental audit should be done to make sure because of the history of that parcel. MR. SALVADOR-Questioned if the cost of this is coming out of the recreation fund? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-Questioned if the employee's of the town if their time is charged and billed out of the recreation fund rather than the general fund of the town? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-At this point it is still all general fund. MR. SALVADOR-Spoke to the board regarding Bill 1845 that was passed by the House of Representatives. Questioned the Town Board how he could prevent and protect his privacy regarding this bill? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Recommended sending a letter to the town identifying the types of information that he feels are restrictive and that should be kept private. Upon receipt of the letter the Assessor's Office together with his office will look over the Freedom of Information Laws and check this out against it. MR. SALVADOR-Noted he doesn't believe he needs to do that noted it only requires his permission. JOHN SCHRIENER-Spoke to the board regarding what took place on September 30th and October 1st, regarding the boat storage facility. Noted on both days there were ten vehicles park there which were in violation of the ordinance. Asked that in the future if the boat company comes in for any kind of permit or variance that they will keep in mind that he doesn't live up to the ones that he has. RESOLUTION ENTERING EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 535, 95 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into Executive Session to discuss one matter of property acquisition, two matters attorneylclient privilege, two personnel matters. Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne Noes: None AbsentNone RESOLUTION ADJOURNING EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 536, 95 INTRODUCED BY: MR. THEODORE TURNER WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: MRS. CONNIE GOEDERT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Executive Session and moves back into Regular Session. Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mr. Champagne Noes: None AbsentNone No further action taken. On motion, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk Town of Queensbury