Loading...
1996-05-06 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MAY 6,1996 7:10 P.M. MTG #18 RES. 197-215 BOH RES 3-6 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR FRED CHAMPAGNE COUNCILMAN BETTY MONAHAN COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER COUNCILMAN CONNIE GOEDERT COUNCILMAN CAROL PULVER TOWN COUNSEL MARK SCHACHNER TOWN OFFICIALS JIM MARTIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TOM FLAHERTY, WATER SUPERINTENDENT P AUL NAYLOR, HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT DAVE HATIN, DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES PRESS: G.F. POST STAR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN MONAHAN Supervisor Champagne called meeting to order ... PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED LOCAL LAW/WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL REZONING NOTICE SHOWN 7:10 P.M. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-The first order of business is a public hearing on a proposed local law, Waterfront Residential Rezoning. Where do you want to start with that Mr. Martin? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. JIM MARTIN-I thought I might highlight the changes. First of all, and I think everybody, a copy of this has been available in the clerk's office and we made them available even up at places around the various lakes and down by the river. The building square footage total is a new definition within the definitions section of the code and introduces the concept of a floor area ratio, providing definition for that. The front lot line definition would now be defined to include both the road side and the shore line side. That's really not a change but it's a clarification that was basically implied in our current code. In the actual WR-IA section itself, there's some cleanup language on the density provisions, trying to set it out to be more orderly. Then when we get into the principal uses and accessory uses on page 3, this section has been reordered to make more plain to read. We now are differentiating between uses and structures. Principal uses are outlined, there's no change there over what is currently allowed. Accessory uses are now listed. Again no change over what is currently allowed and we have accessory structures. Again, providing a better breakout of structures and uses. Site plan review uses are now listed. There's really no change there except that uncovered docks are now no longer subject to site plan review. Meaning a flat dock is not subject to site plan review however you still have to meet the requirements of the code in terms of the dimension. Okay, in terms of lot, yard and height requirements, basically the first several listings there are the same except there is relief given now for side yard set backs on lots of sixty feet or less. The requirement goes down to fifteen feet rather then we had, we used to have a total of fifty with a twenty foot minimum. The shoreline set back is reduced in the WR-IA zone to fifty feet. The building heights are reduced, we now have a principal structure height of twenty-eight feet from thirty-five and accessory structures now carry their own height restriction of sixteen feet. The floor area ratio that was defined earlier is established at twenty-two percent and that was a number that was greatly discussed. The original draft had ten percent and this has been increased after input during the public hearings, input from the Zoning Board as well as the Comprehensive Land Use Committee. The last or the next change is compliance of septic regulations and I'll read that. Any increase in size or interior alteration of existing structures containing sanitary facilities, or any new construction shall be required to upgrade or install septic systems to conform with the requirements of Chapter 136. Section 136-12, Continuance, shall not apply in this zone. Construction of decks and open porches shall not be considered to be increasing the existing structure for purposes of this section. And the next change is again a clarification that the road and shoreline does represent front yard and further clarification of the shoreline setback being reduced to fifty feet in the WR-IA zone. And that's a highlight of the changes. We have some visual aides up there that I'll take you through them briefly. These are meant to be a representation of the current zoning, what is allowed on a typical lot that is sixty feet wide by a hundred and sixty feet deep, the shoreline being here, the roadside back here and this is a representation of the reason why we begin this discussion is, it continues to cause a variance almost in any situation. If you apply all the setbacks, twenty foot rear, seventy-five foot shoreline and twenty-five foot side, for a total side yard of fifty. We're left with what is we refer to as a ten foot wide building envelope that obviously is not very workable. And then you have to begin to figure in a septic system for this lot you can see the obvious problems. The proposed changes, again we're looking at that ... same size lot, sixty feet wide by a hundred and sixty feet deep. This orange area here represents what would be added by reducing from seventy-five feet to fifty feet and if we apply the setbacks now that would be allowed under the new change, we now widen the building envelope out to thirty feet which is a much more reasonable situation. And this whole area does not necessarily have to be covered by the structure, it just gives a greater flexibility for the individual who might own this lot to move their structure around within this. If they want to come forward, that obviously allows them more area for their septic system. Okay, what's proposed or was shown here, are these are just some recent examples of structures we've had submitted, actually submitted and one is built and one is proposed to be built. One on Glen Lake, one on Lake George. We have a structure here, the lot size was .61 acres, that's 26,572 square feet. If you were to apply the twenty-two percent floor area ratio, that lot would be allowed a structure 5,800 square feet in size, a little bit bigger then that. The actual house built here, you can it's quite nice, it's 4,800 square feet in size. So, there's an example of a situation that, this original required a variance due to the shoreline setback under the current code a structure even of this size, or under the proposed code I mean, a structure even of this size could be accommodated. Again, here is another proposal up on Cleverdale we have a lot here .63 acres, that's over 27,000 square feet in size. If you apply the floor area ratio proposed, it would allow for a structure of over 6,000 square feet. The total structure here is proposed as 2,700. Again, these are examples of what could be done even with the floor area ratio restrictions. So, we just wanted to show you that. That's basically all I had, I think it's more important to get into the public comment. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay Jim, thank you. Let's open it up to the floor now. Anyone care to speak pro or con on the new plan? MR. GILBERT BOEHM, DUNHAM BAY-On the definitions, is visual character defined somewhere? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARTIN-No. MR. BOEHM-Then what do you mean by visual character? On page 3, it says, the purpose is to protect the delicate ecological balance while providing while providing adequate opportunities for development that would not be detrimental to the visual character. What's that mean? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARTIN-That remains unchanged, that's the current language of the purpose. We're not changing that. MR. BOEHM-That may be true but it sure needs some definition or else it should come out cause it's really meaningless, it's all in the eye of the beholder. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Good point. MR. BOEHM-The other thing is, relative to your building height, what's the bottom from which you measure the building height? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARTIN-The lowest point on the grade of the lot next to the building. MR. BOEHM-Which means it takes no recognition of the terrain. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARTIN-Yes it does. MR. BOEHM-When your terrain is inclined, many houses are built in a step fashion. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARTIN-Right and we've also been getting alot of comment during the input on this that the appearance of a thirty-five foot high structure from the water of a structure built in the incline of which you're speaking, is too much. MR. BOEHM-Is what? What you're talking about is visual character. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARTIN-I'm just telling you what the, it's not my comment. I'mjust saying what the comment of many of the public has been about the thirty-five foot high building allowed in the waterfront residential. MR. BOEHM-Well, when you've got an incline and you build a house on an incline, invariably you step it. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARTIN-Right. MR. BOEHM-You don't nest it into the incline which therefore says that thirty-five feet should perhaps be measured from the highest point of the terrain. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARTIN-Then you're defeating the purpose. MR. BOEHM-What's the purpose, visual character? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARTIN-Well that's true of any building height in any zoning code. What's the purpose of having a building height restriction at all then? MR. BOEHM-The point is with the terrains that we have, unless you're talking about a horizontal surface the thirty-five foot or twenty-eight foot or twenty-six foot, whatever you've got here is really not relevant, is my point. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARTIN-Alot of people thought it was. MR. BOEHM-I can't argue with alot of people. There are alot of people that think it's ... EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARTIN-I just, we were trying to react to the comments that were given during zoning board meetings at public hearings when these variances come in and during the public hearings that were held regarding this change. We had three of them. They were public meetings I should say. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I guess if, what I hear you say acting on a thirty-five foot height, if this terrain was on a slope and you had a forty foot house and you go in forty feet, you're back up there another ten or fifteen feet, you're saying that that portion of the house ought to be thirty-five feet plus the front of the house being what, thirty-five plus the difference, the ten? MR. BOEHM-Yea, right. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-So now the front of the house could be fifty. MR. BOEHM-Right. Mine is probably about fifty-four and I've got one of the smaller ones because up the bay from me, there are some that are nested into a steeper terrain and they are easily about sixty, sixty-five feet. The other way, they would actually have to nest into the rock. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-No, I understand what you're saying, yea. MR. BOEHM-Impractical. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARTIN-Well for example the house there showing on the front is, that's about thirty feet high on a sloping lot and again, it becomes a matter of how much do you really need. Alot of these are small lots and is that, I don't know. MR. BOEHM-It depends on the incline. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARTIN-That's a very, that's a very steep lot there. That lot carries an incline of about, I would say ten to fifteen percent. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Fred, I think this is a public hearing for input, not debate. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yea, I think that's true. We want to, that's a point we need to consider. MR. BOEHM-On page 4, it's my impression if you're building a house, you don't need site plan review. Is that the intent? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARTIN-Correct, yes. MR. BOEHM-On page 5, you have an asterisk by side setback, I think you need an asterisk by rear setback since a piece of property that has two fronts, there are no sides and therefore you're only concerned with rears and that's when your asterisk I think applies. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Don't we have to designate a front and a side? MR. BOEHM-When you border two roads or a road and the lake or stream, you have no sides, you only have rears for the definition here. When you measure the setbacks in that, do you measure to the foundation or do you measure to any overhangs? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARTIN-The ordinance requires, the ordinance calls for the building line which is the cantilever portion of the structure. MR. BOEHM-Okay thanks. Since many of the, most of the property on Lake George is already built out, these regulations here in affect put most of the people in non-conformance. Now, is that the intent normally of a regulation and that is to have most people non-conform? Isn't a regulation normally... SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I don't believe so but Jim, you might want to add something to that. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARTIN-We're trying to give relieffrom what you're clearly, about the current ordinance is that's clearly the case and on those instances where we do have an exceptionally small lot we're trying to give some further relief by lightening the shoreline setback and the side yard requirement. I'm not saying it's, you know, going to work in every case but it's a step in that direction to try and require less variances. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That's the intent of this, for the most part. MR. BOEHM-Okay, thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. MR. MIKE O'CONNOR-Good evening. I'm Mike O'Connor and I appear here as an individual which is unusual for me, I guess. But I own a fifty foot lot on Glen Lake which is affected by the regulations that you are proposing. These regulations I think have quite a widespread impact in fact I've colored in, if you will, all the WR-IA and WR-3A parcels that are within the town. I'm not sure if you or everybody else is aware of it. We're talking about along the river, we're talking about along Glen Lake, Lake Sunnyside and a good part of the portion of the town that is ... to Lake George. Everybody in different zones has different impacts. In Glen Lake I think we probably have probably the most impact except for maybe Lake Sunnyside and Glen Lake when it was developed it wasn't a crime or wasn't wrong to create fifty foot lots. Everybody wanted to have a piece of the frontage and that's basically how the lot or the lake was laid out. What you're proposing here I find very objectionable. In fact, I'm appreciative of the fact that you're cutting back the lake shore setback from seventy-five feet to fifty feet but if I've got to give up my right to develop the balance of the lot to get that, I'd rather not do that. Right now, I can develop up to thirty-five percent of my lot. The permeability requirement is that I have permeable soils for sixty-five percent. Now you've overlaid on that another regulation to tell me how I can utilize the thirty-five percent that I've been entitled to develop. Basically, I have a setback problem regardless of what you're regulations are but it's a setback problem that can be remedied by area variances and I think in most cases have been granted to most people that have applied. We've got pre-existing lots, there isn't available land adjoining to us and we come in and we show that we aren't going to do anything out of the ordinary or we aren't going to increase the encroachment upon the setback, I think for the most part the Zoning Board has agreed that we qualify for the area variance. It's enticing to have you change some of the side line setbacks particularly from the arbitrary amounts that were placed on the lots on Glen Lake in 1988 when the latest change was made. But again, I'll go my battle with the ZBA as opposed to given up my right to determine how I develop my thirty-five percent of my lot. The main problem I have with the ordinance as you propose it is you're, in putting this new regulation or definition of building square footage in, I have two problems with it. One, is the arbitrariness of the twenty-two percent but that probably is arguable, some people would like it higher, some people would like it lower. The main problem I have with that is that you count each floor. We've always talked about the foot print of the structure or the building. We never talked about counting each floor. On a small fifty foot lot in that little map that I gave you was by chance was a map that I had when I was doing a septic case and we picked a comparable on of that portion of the tax map. If you take a look at that particular map better than seventy five percent of those lots are fifty foot lots. If you take, when you take a look at those lots they are fifty foot by one hundred and forty seven feet by one hundred and fifty feet those are the lots that are in existence as the prior speaker said. You have got to accept somewhat the development as we had it my lot on a tax map happens to be fifty by one hundred and eighty that would give me approximately nine thousand square feet. At twenty two percent I can have a building or building structure of up to nineteen hundred and eighty feet. If! have a typical garage which I think is about four hundred and eight feet and I put it at four fifty I then can have my house fifteen hundred and thirty feet because I am on a fifty foot lot in order to do that I am going to have to build a two story house. I do not have room to build on one story the fifteen hundred and thirty square feet. I then am going to have a floor of seven hundred and sixty five square feet that is not going to be a house I am going to find acceptable as a year a round home. I am going to have a kitchen and a family room probably or living room whatever you want to call it. I basically have a three bedroom home it is winterized, people stay in it year round, they have stayed in it for years, year around, I have stayed in it sometimes in the winter my self in fact I have it rented, year round basis, to a member of the family right now. But it not a home that I would live in year round basis. I would like to take those three bedrooms and put them on a second floor and make that whole first floor my living area, the area that I am going to live in accept for sleeping purposes. I think what you have done is you have chosen what type house I am going to live in you told me how many rooms I can have as opposed to me deciding whether or not I have walks, patios, or other things that might count against the thirty five percent. I do not like that and I just I do not understand the environmental purpose or it, to be honest with you I am not talking about increasing my burden on the lake by increasing the septic or anything of that nature and whether I have run off from a roof that is eight feet off the ground or run off from a roof that is fifteen feet off the ground I do not think makes any difference either. I have got to put eve trenches in or do whatever I have got to do to handle surface water run off. So, environmentally it is just a little bit more of, big brother and a little bit more of over regulations, without any real purpose to do it. The other thing that I would call to your attention, let me going do this as I would..I disagree entirely with your definition, under building square footage that counts all floors. I then go over to what was page six, of what I had under F. I disagree again with maximum floor area being twenty two percent. Just by, I looked at the Village of Lake George they do not, there is not Town or municipality around here that has this type regulations that you are talking about when you count every floor. All of our adjourning towns even those that are on the same bodies of water that the Town of Queensbury are on talk about the foot print of the building. Those in Lake George I think talks about fifty percent permeability in their Rl Single family residential. Bolton has one it is a residential commercial maximum percentage of lot by forty percent, rural residential I will not, there is no percentage it is not applicable is the way they say it. Land conservation, no it is not applicable, residential low density is not applicable. In Hague, it depends on what zone you are in you can have thirty percent, forty percent or sixty percent but you have got to understand, again that's the foundation imprint so when they say thirty percent they in essence in comparison to what you are saying are saying sixty percent, eight percent or one hundred and twenty percent, you are double dipping particularly on the smaller lots this is what makes it so unfair to a fifty foot lot. Maybe not to an acre and a half your comparisons up there are all half acre lots. Jim, I am not picking on you but your comparisons on the bottom house there, that would not be permitted under your twenty eight foot height requirement. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARTIN-That is correct on the height yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Because I think on that house you have got a couple offeet offoundation exposed. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARTIN-But they do have an excessively high basement, it has a ten foot basement in it. MR. O'CONNOR-It has a ten foot basement and it has a ten foot first floor and the pitch on that roof is probably another ten feet. You have probably have got thirty five feet there or thirty four point some odd feet. That is seven feet over, now, somebody decided that twenty eight feet is better than thirty five feet I do not understand the basis for it. That really does not bother me on a fifty foot lot because I am not going to be able to go that high but on a bigger lot it would bother me even more. If you have an acre and a half of property you all of a sudden you are coming up with this standard that is applicable to this portion of Lake George, say, when that lot might very well carry with it a nice thirty five foot house as opposed to what you are talking about. In Hague, I said thirty, forty and twenty, City of Glens Falls which is old as far as their zoning, twenty percent foot print which means forty percent per your comparison. Town of Lake George, RS 1 Residential Special, that maximum lot coverage is fifteen percent, but again the way that they define that is the area taken on a horizontal plane at the main level of principal buildings exclusive of un-covered porches, terraces and slopes. That still equates to thirty percent, residential high specialty density, again they have fifteen percent that would equate to thirty percent. RCHLS which is Residential Commercial Lake Shore that is thirty percent which is sixty percent, so I object strongly to including both floors I object mediocre to the twenty two percent, I really do not know why we have either. I think we are duplicating what is the thirty five percent permeability requirement and I ask you simply, let us choose how we will prioritize our own building on our own lots. On the relief given for a lot width you have got relief for sixty foot lots or less to fifteen feet. You have got to understand that when most of those fifty foot lots were built on the requirement was actually was five feet on each side, now I do not envision that we are going to be able to get five foot through I would ask for another relief and make it for fifty foot or less have ten foot side line set backs. Five foot would be nice but I do not know if you are going to do that. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Nice thought, Mike. MR. O'CONNOR-No, I am being realistic, and still we are going to have to get an area variance, ok? But, I think under the rules of area variances if we have a house built there and we are talking about putting a second story on and we come in and show the practical difficulty of coming in five feet or not expanding any further we are probably going to be entitled to it particularly under the new laws for area variances. I do not think we even have to show practical difficulty? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARTIN-No, you don't. MR. O'CONNOR-You have to show the four different qualifications for an area variance, and I understood part of the idea here and it was a good idea, is to limit the number of applications that ordinary people have to go through. I think you can even do that a little better than what you have got here. The next thing which I have strong objection to is your compliance with septic regulations. Basically as I read this you are saying any increase in size, except for construction of decks and open porches and any internal alteration requires the people to upgrade their septic system. Again, I will compare you to every other community that is on the water systems and they are not there yet. If I change a bedroom into a family room or living room and I do it by taking out an interior wall, what have I done to my septic system that requires me to go out and do a new septic system? Or if I change the location of my bedrooms and I still have three bedrooms why should I have to upgrade my septic system. I have no problem with upgrading my septic system if I increase the burden of septic on the lot. But if I have working functioning septic system and you refer to some section, Section 136-12 that says that you can continue your existing septic systems if they are working but in this particular writing of the ordinance you said that section is not applicable to anybody in a water front residential area. I really have a problem with that particular section. So, my comment is pretty much the same as comments that I made at the meeting at the fire house. You have got a good start folks but I think you have created more problems then you solved and I think you need more work before you adopt something. Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, Sir, John? MR. JOHN SALVADOR-Good evening, My name is John Salvador I appear here tonight with my wife Kathy, we are residents of North Queensbury and we are here tonight because we own property in a one acre residential zone and our concern that the proposed zoning changes will further diminish what little residential use we can make of our property, providing these changes are enacted into law. By the way I would like to reiterate everything that Mr. O'Connor said. As these residential zoning ordinance changes are put forth here tonight we must assume they reflect the desire and will of the Town Board. However, these proposed zoning ordinance revisions, one, fail to be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. I serve on the Comprehensive Land Use Planning Committee and I can tell you when this subject left our committee the twenty two read twenty four. Now, two percentage points on a fifteen thousand square foot lot of which we have many in North Queensbury and some of them a lot smaller is a bedroom. You have just zoned the people out of one bedroom. There are other aspects of this that we have talked about at length at our committee meetings and we weighted the twenty four percent against the twenty eight foot height. We talked from twenty eight down to eighteen, we evaluated everything what would this give the people in relationship to the number of lots we had. I think we could say that the twenty four represented a rational basis and the twenty two is irrational, it is an arbitrary number I do not know where it comes from. Were you relying on this committee to give you? SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE- This committee, my understanding is I did not sit through every meeting but we started in at I remember at eighteen didn't we? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARTIN-No, we started in at way down at ten and was quickly adjusted upward, John is correct it did come out of the Comprehensive Committee at twenty four percent which was discussed at Town Board Planning Committee and it went down to twenty two percent. MR. SAL V ADOR- Town Board Planning Committee. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-That is composed of? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Jim, myself and COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-myself and Ted. MR. SALVADOR-Frankly, don't ask us citizens to spend our time, volunteer our time, work at length many hours of the month to come up with a recommendation and then it is just ignored, that I do not think is fair. The Town Law specifically states that the participation of citizens in an open responsible and flexible planning process is essential to the designing of the optimum town comprehensive plan. We have had numerable meetings in this Town as we went forth to set up the Comprehensive Land Use Planning Committee, we had neighborhood meetings, we had a second round of neighborhood meetings just for the water front, we had a special meeting in North Queensbury dealing with storm water runoff and this subject. I had the list here of the citizens concerns and comments, some of them are not addressed in this zoning ordinance change and I just wonder whey they are going to be. Particularly my insistence that we do something about an allowable use for ten commercial business in North Queensbury that are now pre- existing nonconforming uses, ten. That's ludicrous, have to function as a pre-existing nonconforming use and I dare say all of them pre-exist the zoning in this town and many of the citizens living in the town. Another thing I think we failed to do and this is the, you know, the old argument, if you've discovered the oasis on the desert, you can't build a fence around it and keep everybody else out because it might go dry some day. That's what we do in North Queensbury. We built a fence around ajewel and the comprehensive, the law says that the comprehensive plan will give due consideration to the needs of the people of the region of which the town is a part. Now, one of the things that almost every neighborhood meeting brought out was the need for park land in North Queensbury. Mr. O'Connor mentioned all these other towns around the lake, they all have town parks, town beaches, even Fort Ann. Can you imagine? Little Fort Ann can support a town beach. We have land in North Queensbury that could be used and we zone it residential. If you have an intention to use it as park land the first thing you've got to do is zone it for that. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That is not true, a municipality can put a park land anyplace it wants to put it. MR. SALVADOR -Yea, but if, it is not zoned COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It does not have to be zoned... MR. SALVADOR - I know it does not have to be a lot of things do not have to be done. Another thing we failed to do in these regulations is consideration of regional needs and the official plans of other government units and agencies within the region. I will come back to that later. And also this mentions here existing and proposed recreation facilities and park lands should be a part of the comprehensive plan. In the proposed regulations we have made a major step in 179-16 where we say at least one acre is required for each principal building and a minimum of two, ... SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-A minimum of two acres are required for clustering is that what you want MR. SALVADOR-And only one principal building is allowed on a lot regardless of its size and otherwise you have got to go to site plan. I have got an article for planning news I wonder is we subscribe to it, I do not know. It is interesting because they address this subject. Back up use regulations with subdivision regulations once open land has been divided up into little parcels too small to use economically as is the owners of the individual lots can claim a taking based on lack of economically beneficial open space use. Due to subdividing in other words open land protection can no longer be validly applied to the land. Subdivision regulations can prevent this by stopping people from creating the little lots that have no value except in uses that violate zoning and other regulations. It looks like they have laid out your plan. No matter what the economic impact Courts rebel when they believe that the community may be attempting to unfairly single out particular owners with adhoc restrictions on use while others do not have to play by the same ground rules. This does not mean that every piece of land has to be treated the same. In North Queensbury some of the salient points that were brought out by some of the residents were the fact that we should have our storm water management requirements in place before we proceed with zoning changes. I think this subject of storm water management the fact that the sewer is coming to North Queensbury and these zoning changes are inseparable. There is nothing comprehensive about what we are doing this way. We have singled out what is perceived to be one problem, one little problem of building on small lots. They may no longer be considered lots if we have a proper approach to storm water management. If we get relief on using our land for on site septic systems that will free up land that you are talking about here and maybe they will no longer be small lots. I think they are inseparable got to consider them all together. I suggested an impact statement on the zoning changes an economic impact statement. This, these changes are going to diminish some people's property values and they are going to enhance other people's, I think we should know what that is. I think Mrs. Otte has enough experience and a big enough computer to tell us. I have asked and put forth a suggestion in the comprehensive planning committee that we create a recreational commercial zone or zones in North Queensbury. West Mountain functions in the middle of a residential area they are recreation commercial. There is absolutely nothing residential about the character of Dunhams Bay. My wife and I are the only ones that live there and we are in a residential zone the water front? Is that what you want? We had this issue before you of our submerged lands what you are saying with these regulations is you want those lands developed as residential property, that is what you are saying. The suggestion was made to maybe have separate water front zoning for each water body, the Hudson River, because they have different echo systems, different terrain. I do not know if you got Sunday's Post Star? You know the sad thing about all of this is we all know that there are different ways to look at data, we all know that, and you can draw different conclusions. The sad thing is that we were not told that from the beginning, it could be this. With regard to the zoning and the subject of our submerged lands, Mr. Champagne I addressed a letter to you, sometime 1994 bringing to your attention the fact that, if I can find it, on November 21, 1994 I wrote you a letter concerning vessel regulations zones on Lake George and the fact that you have created these zones and Dunhams Bay is one of them. This Town has certain obligations in that regard. It talks about regulating speed, restricting and regulating anchoring and mooring, restricting and regulating occupation living or sleeping quarter on vessels. Restricting and regulating sewage disposal, garbage removal and the use of toilets thereon. You have not done any of this, you have not done any of this, all you did was seize the opportunity to put a speed limit in the bay. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-John, I have got to ask you are we still on water front residential rezoning? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-We are? MR. SALVADOR -Yes, because my point here is this vessel regulation zone is nothing more than an overlay zone and it is not recognized in your regulations. It is an overlay zone. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-John we have done something with that, it has been, the Town Attorney at that time did do some research on it, it did come back that more vessels up there were not part of the taxing issue, you discussed that with us and that is the best I can offer. MR. SALVADOR-On February 26, 1996 I wrote you a letter concerning the water front zoning, again, recreation commercial zones. The fact that we fail to be able to come to grips on our comprehensive planning committee with the issues in North Queensbury. It was the first zone we talked about it got kind of sticky so we left it for some other time and every time we come back to it, it is hard to talk about. But, we move ahead with these water front changes, zoning changes and there is nothing comprehensive about they whatsoever. With regard to the subject of overlay zones we had a Town One Acre Water front Residential Zone presently, we have the Town vessel regulation zone Ordinance Number 34 we have the Lake George Recreation Zone that was put in, in 1978 there are requirements there not recognized in our Code. The Lake George Park Recreation Zone was put in, in 1981. There are requirements there that are not addressed in our Water front Zoning. Dunhams Bay, all the bays up there are navigable waters of the United States there are requirements they are navigable waters of the State there are rules and regulations that cover our activities there, they should be recognized in our regulations our zoning. The Lake George Park Commission has the power to control prohibit or restrict commercial purposes. That is a mighty heavy hammer. The power to control, prohibit or restrict commercial purposes and they do it every day. We should know what our requirements are. The Adirondack Park Agency it has come out and said now that the bed of Dunhams Bay your vessel regulations zone is a deep water marsh. Invented a new term, did you ever hear it before, deep water marsh? There are requirements, what are they? These effect our submerged lands they effect your vessel regulation zone. The activities that go on in Lake George on Dunhams Bay some of them are prohibited by the public health law, no one knows about it no one is doing anything about it. More importantly your zoning allows for the regulation of docks on Lake George. We all know the bed of Lake George are public lands your zoning and taxing jurisdiction ends at the mean high water mark. I believe your zoning regulations should not regulate docks and boat houses. Anything beyond the mean high water mark is somebody else regulatory area. It is not this Towns. With regard to regulations that is drafted, Section I building, square footage is a cumbersome term it should probably read building area. There is another aspect that was not a part of our work in our comprehensive planning and that is the insertion of at least three feet of height of one wall. That came later, we were talking about one wall partially exposed. Again, paragraph three I believe docks should be excluded except as they are on our submerged lands then, then you have the right to regulate them. And they probably should not be allowed in a residential zone because the only permissible uses are single family residential dwelling or hunting and fishing cabins. The set back definition I believe that you could clarify a lot of this if you adhered to what is commonly accepted as the law on set backs and that is you reference them from the property boundary. All other things can move and we are in a tit te te with Jim over our set back on our hunting and fishing cabin he wants to use the shore line, our shore lines moves it is not the same I can show you pictures over the years. You talk about road right of ways, Paul will tell you how hard it is to define. You got roads by use, you have got roads by dedication, I think if you tie it to the property boundary then everyone knows where we are. On page three principal uses, one B it says occupancy by individuals of a building which facilitates hunting and fishing activities. Why has facilitates been dropped in there? That was not in the original, it just said an allowable use was three hundred foot, yea the area has been down below its three hundred, no commercial use is allowed. No commercial use is allowed in a residential zone in any case. If I can not rent out as an individual my hunting and fishing cabin then I would suspect my neighbors who have a residential dwelling under one A would also not be allowed to rent theirs out. There is an inconsistence there it is discriminatory and redundant. I could go on and on but you have heard enough. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you John, anything more out there that we need to hear over and above? Yes this lady from the rear? MS. LORRIE GRAVES-Good evening, I'm Lorrie Graves and I am a property owner on Glen Lake and I'm presenting to you from the Board of Directors of the Glen Lake Protective Association to the Queensbury Town Board members. The Glen Lake Association is very concerned with the quality of water and the quality oflife on Glen Lake. These Association applauds the efforts of the Town Board to balance the needs of the lake environment and at the same time simplify rules requiring area variances around the lake. However, the Association is also concerned with over-regulation that would render pre-existing lots useless, or greatly restrict their value. The Town Board should be mindful that many, many lots on the lake have a width of fifty feet. The Board of Directors at a duly called meeting on April 30, 1996 considered the proposed waterfront zoning amendments as follows. Number 1, building square footage. The present definition of building square footage is not acceptable. Same should include only the footprint measurement of the primary structure excluding detached garages and storage buildings, and all other accessory structures. To count each floor and garages, enclosed porches and accessory buildings in excess of one hundred square feet does not provide any significant environmental benefit. Right now owners are encouraged to build two stories to preserve green space or permeable space. This takes away that incentive. Number 2, setbacks. Suggested setbacks with exceptions are acceptable, except for lots with a width of fifty foot or less. The Association requests that the exception to the general rules be modified as follows: lot width of fifty foot or less with a ten foot side and rear setbacks; lot width of sixty foot or less, but greater than fifty foot with a fifteen side and rear setback; lot width of a hundred and fifty foot or less but greater than sixty feet with a twenty foot side and rear setback. Number 3, paragraph G. Compliance with septic regulations is not acceptable. The intent is not clear and interior alteration is subject to misinterpretation. The following is suggested: any increase in size or alteration of existing structures that are serviced by sanitary facilities that has a related increased demand and/or impact on septic system shall require certification of compliance or upgrade to conform with the requirements of chapter 136. If an engineer certificate is obtained that the pre-existing individual septic disposal system is functioning, section 136-12 shall apply. Construction of decks and open porches shall not be considered to be increasing the existing structure for purposes of this section. If someone has a functioning pre-existing individual sewage disposal system, why should they be required to abandon the same. Number 4, shore line setbacks. The proposed modification from seventy-foot to fifty foot in the WR-IA zone is acceptable. In honesty, a question is raised as to why the same would not be put forth in the WR-3A zone as well. Number 5, maximum building height. The proposed change of maximum height for principal structure from thirty- five feet to twenty-eight feet was discussed as well as the imposition of a new maximum building height for accessory structures of sixteen foot. No real conclusion was reached as to that issue, but the question on the table was will the seven foot differential really be that significant environmentally, and is that not arbitrary, when again ninety-eight percent of the lots on the lake are already developed, and we will be building next to pre-existing structures that have, in some cases, taken advantage of that height limitation. Most areas of the lake because of typographical features do not accommodate upland development with views. The Board of Directors of the Glen Lake Protective Association requests that the proposed amendments not be adopted until the above modifications are incorporated into the proposal. Dated May 6th, 1996, Christine Mozal, President and Lorrie Graves, Vice President. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. MS. GRA VES- Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Anyone else? MR. BOB BRODY-Good evening, my names is Bob Brody, I'm a summer resident of Palmer Drive on the Hudson River. I'll give you my input on your changes, although I don't have the final draft in front of me. First I'd like to say I agreed with most everything that Mike O'Connor said. Secondly, I don't feel that the water, the river front water should be included with Glen Lake, Sunnyside or Lake George. We're entirely different setup. For God sakes, the effluent water from the wastewater from Hi-P in Corinth is dumped into the river but yet you're worried about me having a garage that maybe in excess of sixteen feet. I don't agree with that. We shouldn't be grouped with the lake people at all. I don't agree with your changes here. I think it's commendable that you want to relax the side setback and the waterfront setback. Jim, have you made a provision for in excess of say sixty to a hundred feet? I don't know if there was any changes there? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARTIN-No, we didn't cut it that fine but it seems like there maybe some revision after tonight. MR. BRODY-Most of the lots on the river are a hundred foot wide which don't meet your today standards but I feel they should be grandfathered in there somewhat. Like I say, it's commendable that you want to relax the side setback and the waterfront setback. I disagree with your twenty-two percent, I like the twenty-four percent figure I heard better. Your height requirements I think you should leave those at thirty- five and maybe adjust your accessory height to twenty-eight. At one of the river front meetings, I think Carol was there, I presented a garage package that Curtis Lumber sells that has a attic truss in it. It's a very common package, it looks good, one was just erected on the river but yet it wouldn't meet your sixteen foot requirements on accessory structures. Queensbury is already too restrictive as far I'm concerned with a garage. You limit everybody to one garage so if you want to have some extra storage area overhead, you should be allowed that. I guess that's about it. Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. Yes ma'am. MS. KIM OTT -My name is Kim Ott, I live on Palmer Drive on the Hudson River and I, again I would have to agree with Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Brody in what they've said. The twenty-two percent for total development isn't enough. It should be footprint the way that the other towns do it. Measuring the height of the building from low point, we have one of those lots where we are the low point and if you don't build up, you're below grade and you end up with garages full of water. I mean if you're going to measure sixteen feet from the peak, it should be from your peak to your floor. That's the height of a sixteen foot building. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's how you are measured. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARTIN-Yea, I think you misunderstood, that's the way it is done. MS. OTT-That's the way it is, not the lowest spot on the land? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARTIN-No. MS. OTT -Okay, alright. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-The lowest spot of the building. MS. OTT-Okay and that's all I want to say, I think the twenty-two percent is too small. I don't see why Residential Riverfront or Waterfront should be segregated or discriminated in relation to another neighborhood by building structure size. It doesn't impact the ecology of the land or the waterfront. It comes back to the visual and that's in the eye of the beholder. That's all I have, thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. Anyone else care to speak on behalf? Yes sir. MR. DAVID KENNY-David Kenny, I'm resident of Assembly Point. I guess, I have, my major concern is the height of a structure. I have a home built, I built three years ago up there and I'm thirty-five feet high, thirty-four foot. My house is a new home on the lake and is approximately thirty four feet high between thirty four and you know, I got to be honest my architect would have had a hell of a job designing a house with twenty, and it is not a big house it is thirty five hundred square feet, some may consider it big. For what I paid for the land I am finished, it is not going to affect me these new regulations but I think what you are going to see is all four twelve pitch roofs some flat roofs up there, I think from an architectural standpoint it would make it worse. I do not know if enough thought has been put into and why we have a height restriction. You cannot build a house fifty feet wide you know by fifty feet that is twenty five hundred square feet and have, you would have to have a section of it two stories you are going to be over thirty five feet if you want a nice pitched roof, different designs in your roof style. You go you know for some of the nicer designed homes the twelve pitched roofs the six twelve pitch roofs is what gives it character. Personally I think from an architectural standpoint we are going to put a lot of architects out of business because we are designing the house for the people. Four twelve pitch, if you want a two story house go to four twelve pitch roofs which with the snows loads we have, I think it is crazy. I do not know what the purpose of it is. You are putting in a density of twenty two percent so it is not to shrink them I do not, you know we have one problem up there I guess in Cleverdale that some big building is going in and I hope we are not changing the law to effect, for one property owner. I mean, has there be any complaints on size, heights of building on any lake fronts? Executive Director Martin-Yes. Mr. Kenny-There has, the house sizes? Executive Director Martin-Yes. Mr. Kenny-I had not heard that much about, no one ever, the neighbors around me love the house I built. And it doesn't obstruct views, I mean, the house is a small percentage of the lot. There is green space on either side. I think if they see, it is not going to effect the size of the structure, what it is going to effect is the slopes of the roofs, that is what it will effect. I think if you talk to most architects that's when you see all twelve, twelve pitched, I mean four twelve pitched roofs and flat roofs on houses it is not aesthetically pleasing. I think having different pitches and stuff, I do not think enough research has been done on it. I also think it puts everybody else in and gives me the advantage and the future people a disadvantage. I just, I do not know if it is a, you said it goes to the floor height now from the floor not from the ground level? What does the existing code say? Executive Director Martin-No, that is the way it is treated. The lowest point on the structure to the highest point on the structure. Mr. Kenny-The lowest point? Executive Director Martin-As the structure meets the grade. Mr. Kenny-As the structure meets the grade, not floor. Because my foundation comes out of the ground two feet it goes to the ground not the lowest point of ground. Executive Director Martin-Right Mr. Kenny-I think that is what had her confused. Councilman Monahan-Wait a minute, you are not talking about when you go down below the frost line, you are not talking about that? Supervisor Champagne-He has a crawl space. Executive Director Martin-If you have a walk out basement Mr. Kenny-It goes to the lowest point of ground, to the highest point of the roof. Executive Director Martin-Right. Mr. Kenny-Nothing to do with floor space. Executive Director Martin-I will read you the Mr. Kenny-That is the way I interpret it, because I think she was talking about something, you thought the lowest point of the floor, not the floor, if the floor is three foot about grade for whatever reason it goes to the ground. Executive Director Martin-Building height, the vertical distance measured from the lowest portion of the natural grade of the building site coverage by the building or finished grade of cut required to accommodate the building to the highest point of the structure. MR. KENNY-Right. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARTIN-Alright? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-There won't be anymore crawl space. MR. KENNY-Well no, you typically have to build a house a foot above grade. Most people have a step up into their home. They don't have, because of your soils and stuff, you have your house above, for water or anything else you don't want it coming in on your first floor. Usually when the design a foundation, you have a twelve inch, anybody in construction will have a twelve inch door joist and they're above grade. You don't have dirt backed up to them. You're concrete generally sticks out of the ground about six to eight inches and then you have a twelve inch box. So you're house has to be eighteen inches above grade to be halfway decently designed, not to have dirt rotting your wood away. So you know, your dirt doesn't come above the concrete and your box is a foot up. So, you're only talking really twenty-six feet from the floor to the top of the peak is what you're actually talking and I just have a problem with that. I think it's something that really should be reconsider. I think you should have some good architects and engineers look at it to see if that's the proper thing to do. Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes sir, Jim. MR. JIM WELLER-I'm Jim Weller and I'm a resident of the town. I've got a question of the board relative to this discussion that's going on that maybe you can help me understand. Why are we here tonight talking about shoreline regulations in North Queensbury, Glen Lake, Sunnyside and on the river which is a portion of the town when some two and a half years ago we went through this whole process for rezoning the Route 149 corridor and that was studied and studied and studied and I as told personally, in fact I think I've got a letters to the affect some two years ago that the issue would be cleared up and passed within six to nine months. That's two years ago, absolutely nothing has happened. It apparently has been put on a back shelf and now the hot issue is shoreline regulations. I thought we were going to take this one step at a time and move forward with it. What happened to that first step and why are we here with this second or subsequent step? SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE-I don't know, is anyone from the board care to answer that one? I guess my, go ahead Betty, you're ready to talk. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think 149 Jim was put on hold until the state comes up with a determination of what they're going to do with that road and where they're going with that road and how much land they're going to take along side that road. I believe and Jim would you agree with me that that's why that's on hold until we get, the state finalizes their plans? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARTIN-That was the general consensus of the public that attended the meetings is that, you know, why do anything or why should we try to attempt to do anything until the state defines what they're going to do with the route. MR. WELLER-I don't understand that as being a consensus of the meetings and I think it's perfectly clear that for over thirty years now the state has had this plan, that plan, or some other plan to do something along the Route 149 corridor and if we're going to table the amount of work that was done some two to three years ago to do something along that road and we are tabling it to wait for the State to make a decision as to what they are going to do are we willing to wait another thirty years or is this really an excuse for why we are not doing it? Is this the real reason why we are not doing it. I did not hear that from the public meetings, I heard that after the public meetings were finished from various politicians in this Town, not from the public meetings. I do not believe that the public meetings will support what you are saying. Thank you. Supervisor Champagne-Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Paul Durby-My name is Paul Durby, I am a Glen Lake resident. Overall I think that the plan you have come up with is pretty good. I think that we do need to be aware of the environmental issues that are involved here and I would just like to say this is a good opportunity to look at septic systems and rather than I think maybe even more restrictions should be there such as if property is turned over or if any kind of improvement is made to a piece of property to a building to go in and look at that and make sure it comes up to standard. Supervisor Champagne-Anyone else care to speak? Yes. Ms. Judy Wetherbee-With all the changes and everything Supervisor Champagne-We have got to have your name, Judy. Ms. Judy Wetherbee-I am sorry, Judy Wetherbee I live at Cleverdale. There has been nothing said about trees and most of the time when people buy lands now, they come in and take down all the trees and it is the trees that keep the lake clean, keep the air the way we like it if there is some way that, that part of the environment could be considered in that, it would make me very happy and a lot of other people I think. Supervisor Champagne-Thank you. Councilman Monahan-Judy, there is one regulation that has been added in here, clear cutting of an area greater than one acre or twenty five percent of the lot which ever is more restrictive. They have to go to site plan review and approval from the Planning Board. Ms. W etherbee- Well, is that a new part of it? Councilman Monahan-Yes. Ms. Wetherbee-Oh, I was going to say, there has been properties that you all have seen and know about that, smaller than a acre and they have taken down all the trees. Councilman Monahan-And you know, and I think that is why that is in here where it says or twenty five percent of the lot which ever is the more restrictive. I do not know if that meets your concerns you know or if you think that needs to be re-worked someway. Supervisor Champagne-Has everyone been through the first go around, I guess we have some interested folks here that want to do a second. Anyone else for the first go around, John we are still talking about lake front properties right, zoning? Mr. John Salvador-The subject of the tree cutting Supervisor Champagne-Yes. Mr. Salvador-We have a restriction on twenty two percent of the lot for development and no more than twenty five percent of the lot can be clear cut now in addition to the dwelling you need a storm, a waste water management system, I do not think you can plant trees on that, we may need a storm water control device, I do not think we will be able to plant trees on that. How does the twenty two and the twenty five and all these other requirements add up? Supervisor Champagne-To 100% John. Are we all finished with that part of the program? Where do you want to go with this here, folks, do you want to do the assessment? (Board agreed not to do assessment) So, we will close the public hearing and certainly the board will take the input tonight under consideration. We will be dealing with that sometime in the future. Thank you very much for the input I think it perked our antennas up a little bit and we will pay a little more attention to it. BREAK Supervisor Champagne recognized that many residents were present due to the Harris issue and announced this issue will be discussed next. Mr. Keith Harris-How you doing? Mr. Supervisor Champagne-Doing good. Mr. Keith Harris-I'm Keith Harris, I see a couple new members here on the Town Board and I'm here tonight to try to put a stop to a lawsuit that was handed to me this morning and I got alot of support from alot of residents here in the town and I think the Town Board, number one, has stepped way out of bounds and number two, have taken the voices from three residents on Pickle Hill Road to start this lawsuit. Another thing I would like to ask, the last time you sued me it was the Town Board. Now this morning, we have the Town of Queensbury. I don't know, is that everybody from the town or? Supervisor Champagne-It's on behalf. Help me with that Mark? Town Counsel Schachner-I don't understand the question. Mr. Harris-Well, the last time Mr. Schachner that the town sued me which I have the decision here, it was the Town Board that decided to sue me. But this morning when I received the actual lawsuit I noticed it states here the Town of Queensbury is suing me. I don't know, is this all the residents or is this Jim Martin or is everybody sitting here or? Town Counsel Schachner-The Town Board is authorized to act on behalf of the Town of Queensbury including authorized to commence legal action on behalf of the Town of Queensbury. Mr. Harris-Okay, well I'm not a lawyer, I'mjust, it's kind of brought to my attention that before it was the Town Board that made the decision, now I think it's the Town of Queensbury. I have not found nobody that ok'd the lawsuit but I understand they do not have the rights either. Jim Martin and I kind of worked on this problem which has been a problem for the last ten years, everybody is familiar with it. In 1994 I got a letter here that states that the business is legal. What I was doing the logs the trucks the repairs the equipment all the commercial activity was legal. Well, Mrs. Burnham, Mr. Davidson, Mrs. Marvin the three neighbors that bought there when the Harris farm was there and all the commercial ventures were going seem to raise enough stink here so we have got the whole town board, it is going to take a lot of tax dollars here and you know fight me again, which I guess I have no jurisdiction over that. But, I would ask the Town Board and you all know here that I have a plan, you all know what I have done in Fort Ann, it is in the future. It is going to happen, do you have one good reason for the lawsuit? Is this going to help me build a new place? You finally drove me out of Queensbury, with I do not know a few others I do not want to mention. Now, I have gone to Fort Ann I bought the property it's been almost two years getting approved. Environmental studies, traffic studies, soil studies, you name it, from the Army Corp. of Engineers right now to the nice Town of Fort Ann over there that approved me one hundred percent. I a looking at a large sum of money to move. Just because the Town of Queensbury is not accommodating my business at all, which, I can understand somewhat, but, you know I have better roads to go down. I was just wondering if this lawsuit is to help me start this business or it's I do not know, get my blood pressure going a little bit. It was fine, you know it comes up and down but and another thing I would like to mention to everybody here is Mrs. Monahan has been more than nice but, you know being she is friends with two of these neighbors I really do not think it is very fair for her to be able to have any vote in this issue. Now, maybe I am wrong I am not a lawyer, but it is awful funny when you got three people on Pickle Hill Road, I have a hundred signatures within one half a mile from this business. I got one of the people that sued me in 1986 to sign this petition that I have here, that says this is a bunch of bologna and you know, I know you people seem to think if you can, you know, hire a lawyer firm to bring a small business like me to court I guess the Davidsons and the Burnhams and the Marvins and whoever else is going to be happy, but as far as I am concerned it is the worse insult my family has had in the last two hundred years we have been there. I have paid my taxes on time I am never late, I do everything up there I can to accommodate that Town, I have planted shrubs I stopped working, I planted trees. I was in here tried to make a deal with these people in 1989 to resolve this, the neighbors would not deal I took it to the appellate decision they tried to over turn the case, they lost. Not once, not twice they lost eight or nine times, I cannot even, we have been farming there for two hundred years did you know I had to go to site plan review to have animals on that farm? But, you know what I am not going to mention it, there is a Town employee and there is a Town Judge that has got animals with less a half a mile from me never went to site plan review and never got, I am not even going to get into it because that is his business. Did you know that I had a dog that got loose twice that the Town of Queensbury wanted to do away with this dog because of my neighbors? My neighbors, the dog slipped away it was a little bit younger and I will tell you another thing with this Town of Queensbury, I do not think it is very fair when you have got three people and I do not know how many citizens are in here right now, I have got a hundred close residents that are behind me on this battle to sign this petition to bring me to Supreme Court when you already done it and lost. I just, I do not know what this lawsuit is going to prove, whether, whether it is going to help the problem or whether it is going to help me go to Fort Ann, I just do not know, maybe you guys can explain to me. Supervisor Champagne-Well, Keith, let me try. First of all I have to tell you as Supervisor of this Town, the last thing I am anxious to do is to go out there and beat up business, that is not my purpose for being here that's strike number one. Strike number two is to say that we have to uphold the Zoning Laws we have certain laws on the books that it is our obligation, our duty our responsibility to uphold one of those zoning laws and as I understand it from the Court decision it came down back in 88' or when ever it was I was not around at that time here, but I do understand, I think I do, that part of that decision was that a portion of your property on the east side of your garage was not to be used for the purpose for which it is being used right now. I guess that's identified in the suit in relationship to the use of that property for logging, what is the word I want? Executive Director Martin-Storage and processing. Supervisor Champagne-Storage and processing, primarily, let me finish. Now, if we are looking at just that issue and I think that is the only issue we are looking at here tonight, unless somebody has got some other advice for me, but, my understanding is that is the issue that we are looking for. I guess all that I am saying and I speaking just for Fred here is that, that particular portion of your property should not be used for the purpose for which it is being used for currently. Now, we are asking for you to do something to clear that out and get on with your business and we will get on with Town government, that is how I sense it. We are interested in talking about that. Mr. Harris-Yea, I understand what you are saying, but the thing is I have my decision from Supreme Court 1989 which was upheld by a panel of five judges in Albany and it does not say you do this here and you do this there you do this there it is the same garage the same twenty point eight nine piece of property the same type of business and it does not have no restrictions whatsoever and the size area that I use the amount of logs I store or whatever. You have three people on Pickle Hill Road that is punching this Board right down to nothing. I went right around my house and the house, and I cannot believe three people would have this kind of pull. When you people know that I have a plan, I do not know if you ever paid any legal fees to go to Supreme Court I went down to appellate Division and I paid there to, but I still paid by land taxes. Now, you are asking me, which Jim Martin has worked on this and I will tell you we have tried and Jim he will back me, if he won't something is wrong. I have tried to accommodate these neighbors across the road they went to Town of Fort Ann when I went over there to got approved and do you think you are happy still? The economy is low, the economy is slow I cannot go over there it is a quarter of a million dollar project to the minimum balance. You are asking me ok, well I am storing logs I am doing logs all I am doing is what my family been doing way before there is any Zoning whatsoever. It might be, who knows in a different place to the property but the Court stated that it is legal. There is nothing in the decision here that says that I cannot store logs or load or unload logs, I am in the logging business, I mean my God if you have got to welding business in Town and all of a sudden you are bring larger quantities of metal and steel in does that mean, well you cannot unload and load your welding supplies here at the business? Or further more I could go on and one it is just the Board here has acted way unreasonably with me I am not happy and I will tell you I have a lot of people here behind me and I really I would love to thank them right now for doing it. I do not think it is right, the people, they have not helped me at all. I have been to Court for the last ten years of my life, my children are twelve and thirteen and the last ten years I spent a lot of time right down here at Court. I will tell you I am not backing off for nobody if this goes to Court, it goes to Court fine, but I will tell you one thing right now it is hard for me to believe that three neighbors in this Community can have the pull that they do on this Town Board. Somebody knows somebody here and I do not think it is fair you know, we all know what I am doing up there. I tried to expand the business up there put on a little bit extra there supply, no I got shot down. So, fine I cannot do what I want to do up there so I go to Fort Ann, who knows it might be one year it might be five years I told Jim this, and Jim is sitting there saying that this logging thing is not legal you know it has been through the Courts. I know Jim is very professional what he does now we are going to take tax money to fight Town of Queensbury business and take him to Court again. Maybe I am a little bit vulgar about this but I am sorry, it has been ten long years and it is finally blew the whistle and I will tell you what I am not going to stop I do not care if I have got to go every resident in the Town of Queensbury I am not going to stop. You know I will get some sort of respect over what I have been through. I know I was there when a lot of these people come I know my family has always been there it is a bad situation, all I know I have a legal permit to be there and a legal decision from the Judge Appellate Division in Albany and I am there to stay until like I said the economy gets better. I have nothing more to offer, unless someone else has a better idea. I have got right now in the neighborhood at a busy times I will have twenty to thirty five people working do I send them on the public assistance line? Do I send my sales tax to some other county or some other state, or do I shut right down completely? I know this lawsuit here the last time I could tell you what it cost me and you do not want to know because it would scare everybody here on the Board. You know, Mr. Champagne, you have been more than willing to work with me you want to try and settle this thing out but you know, I have a lawsuit here and all I am trying to do is to defend this thing out of Court and it will all work out in the long end, but the neighbors are not going to be happy. Supervisor Champagne-What kind of compromise can we agree on, is there anything that Mr. Harris-Well, I will tell you what we can do, and I think that everybody agree here in the Town I have already been through the Courts once, if the neighbors do not like what the Courts said let the neighbors pay for the fee not the tax dollars. Let the neighbors pay for what they say. The Town of Queensbury has spent some money once, they spent it once, I do not know what it costs I am sure we could audit and find out. I paid, we went to Albany, I paid again if the neighbors are not happy you got three of them, one of them is here tonight. Either that or you know the plan I surely did not go to Fort Ann and buy that property and go through all, almost two years, almost two years to get approved everybody here now the plan someday I am going to move out of there I am going to subdivide that land and sell it for lots. I wanted to wait until I could retire but, paying lawsuits like this it might be a little bit earlier and further more I just cannot believe that the Town of Queensbury can do this to such a original route resident and I mean, I am not the best business man out there but I will tell you what I am far from the worst. I never make you wait for your taxes even though I sometimes do not like to pay them. I got nothing out of this, all I have got a lot of aggravation and a lot of fees and the Town Board just keeps looking at me like you know, this is your job. I am sure this is your job but the thing is you have got to understand it is not right, you are in America, you are not in Russia or somewhere where three people dictate what goes on in the Town. I got my closest neighbors, one of them is right here the other one could not make it, matter of fact I have got two of them here. They have never come here and give you all this grief. I have had it so bad I need a lot better things in my life I have gone to Fort Ann but, I am asking the Town Board and maybe I am out of my grounds either they drop this lawsuit take it where ever you want to let the neighbors pay for it. The Town has paid once. Unknown-Maybe instead Supervisor Champagne-Wait a minute you are going to be called upon and you will have your chance. Ok. Mr. Harris- I would like to ask Jim Martin, right here in front of this session if I have been more than reasonable trying to work this out with shrubs, planting trees, picking up parts, hauling used parts out of my property there to and Dave Hatin was here somewhere I mean he is the one that has been I am not sure if he is still here, he is the one, Dave is more than, Dave have I tried to work this thing out reasonable? Building Inspector Dave Hatin-I am not going to comment. Supervisor Champagne-I think the questions you are asking here tonight may very well be asked in the Courts if it goes that far, hopefully it won't. But, I just have some hesitation in trying to respond to your concerns and I understand your concerns very well, what I would like to suggest is if we can set up a time when you and who ever else you would like to bring with you could come in and sit down with Jim and any other members of the Board that would like to be a part of that and our Council to see what we can piece together that makes some good sense. That is what I would ask. Councilman Pulver-Mr. Harris, I have a couple of question, first of all I am not influenced by your neighbors. I was influenced by what Mr. Martin told us apparently you are not in compliance on one piece of your property. Now wait a minute... Mr. Harris-That is his version. Councilman Pulver-Ok. I have to take his opinion we hire him, we pay him to administer the zoning ordinance in this Town is what he did and he came to us and said you are not in compliance. Now, if you are willing to come into compliance we are willing to drop the lawsuit. I certainly do not want to take you to Court and spend the money, but it is up to us to enforce our zoning ordinance and we have to enforce it on everyone we cannot just single out one or two people and say we will enforce it with you but not with you. It must be consistent. Mr. Harris-The problem is I have been more than reasonable trying to work this out, when we went, when this lawsuit went through our, who knows the highest courts that we have available I won, I come to the Town Board I Councilman Pulver-Isn't this a different issue though? Mr. Harris-No, no I tried to work this out, I have a letter right here from my attorney if you want to read it you are more than welcome to read it. I spent many a nights, many a times down here trying to work this out, the neighbors were not happy with nothing. I checked the cards over I went to Albany I won again and I am just afraid and I am sorry if I am being a little bit vulgar about this you are going to get this one thing against me what if I cannot move. I mean, I sure but a year if sure what the economy is going to do, what if I cannot move for twenty year? Supervisor Champagne-Then you are going to be there Mr. Harris-It is not my intentions, so what is it next, first it is the logs, next it will be on parking to or next I have got an animal in the wrong place or the dog got loose or the kid ran over in their yard or one of the trucks might of parked out this neighbor that I have Mr. Davison is a very, very unsociable neighbor he has got a bad, bad grudge for me. He is lost, he has lost several times he is going to continue to loose, because I do not loose any sleep over him. You are never going to keep him happy. It is just, it is just plain blank, just as good as we are sitting here. My whole thing to this ok, I am not doing anything different then timber harvesting and logging and excavation and farming and saw mills. I mean there has been four saw mills in the property, it has been, I do not know how many commercial ventures there that I can remember. I am sure some of the older people in the town, there has been twenty ventures there that I mean, I cannot really give them to you because I did not actually experience them myself. I am afraid if I give an inch you are going to take a mile. Councilman Pulver-I do not think we are concerned with your business that you are doing there right now, I think our concern is where you are doing this business on the property in one particular area. Because it violates our zoning ordinance. Mr. Harris-What is going to happen in a month or so when I fence that off, and I bring in some animals what is going to happen then? Councilman Pulver-Well, if you are in violation of the zoning ordinance, then I suppose you will be seeing Mr. Martin again. Mr. Harris-Well, I am not going to be because I have already been through a site plan review. Councilman Pulver-Well then it has already been approved. Mr. Harris-What is going to happen when I do get ready to subdivide that property and start to put roads in there and start to develop that and ...now they do not have a business there they have nine more homes and eighteen to twenty four more vehicles. Councilman Pulver-There is a process for that too, to subdivide, you will have to go through the subdivision process. Mr. Harris-I know that, but what I am saying to you is, you know it has been ten years and I know that you are taking this a little bit strongly and I am sorry that if, I am acting that way. I have bent over backwards, and almost broke, I planted shrubs on the neighbors property, I have planted trees on my property, I have stopped working so many hours, I come here, we worked almost a year trying to come onto a plan because we knew I was there to stay. The problem is I think Mrs. Monahan was working on that and Mr. Turner was too, we could not agree on it so l,like I said I took my chance and went to Appellate Division and won. Councilman Pulver-When was that, you were working on that in Planning Committee is that what that was? Mr. Harris-When I won in Supreme Court I come back here to the Town and I believe Dave Hatin was here at the time, I have got a nice letter here from my lawyer which was wrote to Mrs. Walter and the neighbors just weren't, they were not going to agree with nothing they come here and they bought, they wanted peace they wanted quiet they wanted beauty they wanted all of the things that they did not have in the City. But, then they forgot that there was people here that were working, so they come here to the Town Board and say oh, Mr. Harris we never seen them there, well they might not have seen me but I am sure they have seen my grandfather or an ancestor or a relative or someone else there, so I go to court, I mean and I win and I go to Albany and I win. But, all of a sudden now, I got this big expansion thing. When I was a kid we had one of the last working dairy farms and commercial venture on Pickle Hill Road had over one hundred and twenty seven milking cows. God only knows how many pieces of farm machinery, trucks, dozers and whatever was affiliated with that farm, but all of a sudden there is no commercial venture there. Its funny for me to believe that we have a Supreme Court Judge that upheld the decision a panel of five judges in Albany that upheld the decision but all of a sudden we have no commercial use there or it is expanded or it is too noisy or it is too dirty or you have got an animal or its. Its the most hideous ridiculous situation I would ever even want let anybody I have been through. But for some reason, three residences seem to coax this town into spending how many hundreds or thousands of dollars to bring me to court. I have been to Court nine times in the Town of Queensbury, nine times for different things I have done on the property. Sometimes I feel like a criminal after a while I feel like I am going to turn into a nut I hope I don't but I can tell you right now and I told this to the judge I can see why people lose it. Because, this situation up here it really I can fully understand why people lose it in this world. I can deal with it I will be ok, but I do see the other end of that road down there and, the thing that really I cannot even start to understand is you people know the plan that I got but yet, I have a Supreme Court Lawsuit against me. I just, does anybody understand Supervisor Champagne-Well, Keith, I think this started out with what four or five different citations, how many was he sited for, four. Unknown-five Supervisor Champagne-Five, four were thrown out. Executive Director Martin-Actually there were six. Supervisor Champagne-There were six, then five were thrown out we have got one hanger. We have one hanger out of the six, that is the one we want to settle on. Unknown-Do we understand what that hanger is? Supervisor Champagne-Yea, as I said earlier it is the processing of wood on that particular parcel. That is where we are Unknown-It is only one piece ofland. Supervisor Champagne-I am sorry but I have to talk directly to Keith here. My offer is if you can come in here tomorrow sit down with the Attorneys, sit down with Jim Martin and any member of the Board that would like to sit in there with us I think that would make just good sense to get this thing going in the right direction. There is going to be no decision here tonight, you know we are in litigation and I got to be very honest with you to tell you that the Board is not anxious to move this in the direction that it is moving. Tell it to you right up front. Mr. Harris-Another thing that bothers me too, and I do not know which one of my Town Fathers put this in this lawsuit we had a farm there for two hundred years all of a sudden it is illegal for me to be farming on the same farm that I farm, so instead of fighting the Queensbury Tax Dollars or my tax dollars that you people have to spend I go to the site plan review to get permission to have animals which never should have had to do but I did it. The more the nice guy that I am, and all of a sudden we have thrown this site plan review for a farming thrown this site plan review map into a lawsuit for my business which I do not know if this was Mr. Schachner or Mr. Martin or who did this and I have not showed this to the Attorney yet because I got it today, I was kind of busy. Does this site plan review for my farming use is that the farming or the agriculture or is that the logging or is that the commercial but I guess it is the guide lines for the commercial. Not only do I think it is very unfair I think it is I do not want to make you mad but I think it is a very sneaky tactic to bring this map in here which has nothing to do with the lawsuit with the garage and I am not stating you I do not know who put this in here. This is a map for site plan review for farming which I never should have went but I did. But, now all of a sudden this is a map for the business. Does anybody know who put this in here or maybe? I am trying to be as polite as that I can but as I told you it has been ten years and I just I told Jim Martin this was going to happen, I asked him I said Jim, drive over to Fort Ann see what I have done see what I have paid for ask the Town Board, the County the Army Corp. of Engineers my engineer, surveyors, soil tests what I have been through over there look at the site work that I have done tell the neighbors to just to go in their perfect little mansion there and let life roll on, but yet no. Someone the Board has sued me again and I do not think it is right at all. I will tell you what I have got almost a full room of people here that do not think it is right. When you are taking taxpayers money a lot of these people are trying to retire. The Town of Queensbury is a lot better at balancing the budget than the State but I will tell you every time the taxes go up I feel sorry for the ones that work all their life they are trying to enjoy those last few years of their life and to take these tax dollars to me it is very ridiculous but I am on one side of the dollar so. Supervisor Champagne-I would ask you the same question, would you be willing to come in tomorrow and sit down and try and negotiate this, there is a lawsuit on the table right now, you know that, I know that so. Mr. Harris-Like I said you know, I would be willing to discuss it. Supervisor Champagne-That is all I am asking. Mr. Harris-I would be willing to do that. Supervisor Champagne-That is all I am asking. Mr. Harris-I would like,you know a few of the residence here and someone that has a little bit of political pull here to try to defend my side of the story too. Another thing I would like to ask too, is there was a new business started in 1986 on Pickle Hill Road I never once filed a complaint because it did not bother me, I am a businessman and I like to feed my kids too. That business started at a pace this high that business is up to that high right now and everybody in this zoning board down here the Town of Queensbury they ignored it they have told me it is legal. I do not think it is right. I went to Court in 1986 I finished in 1989 there has been not one legal complaint. It is one of the neighbors that is suing me I am not a lawyer I do not know if it is legal but you know what I think it is awful, awful funny if you got a guy that is suing a guy for a business and he starts one right across the road you know to me it seems like something wrong here but you know and you people look at me like you know like I am asking for everything on the table. All I am asking is just leave me alone. I have been through Court I have paid once I paid twice and Jim Martin here, Jim has been more than reasonable about it but he has never once gone over and contested that business I guess it is legal. Unknown-Or dipped into his pocketbook for that matter. Mr. Harris-Hah- Unknown-Or dipped into his pocketbook ...matter Mr. Harris-I have not asked it the Town of Queensbury to pay any of my legal fees or I have not asked the Town of Queensbury to represent me in Supreme Court because it would not do no good anyway. I would like a full investigation into that business and the amount of people that are being conducted under that business across the road. I have asked Jim about this he said it is legal it is total legal like I said I have been kind of busy so I have not spent a lot of time on it. Ijust, I thought you would want to know that one of the neighbors that is complaining has another business on Pickle Hill road. When he started there was very few clients to that business, lately there are several clients to that business but it is fine with me I just thought that the Town Board ought to know that there are two businesses. By the way I wrote a letter to the Post Star it will be coming out pretty soon and I put a lot of these articles in there and a lot of stuff to the Post Star not to hurt anybody on the Town of Queensbury but I am going to tell them what I have been through. I also told them about this business. I also told them about some previously neighborhoods these people have lived in. It is hard for me to believe that you can take somebody that moved in there in 1986 I never had a problem and like I told you earlier I got one of the neighbors that sued me in 1986 is backing me on the lawsuit. She was coaxed into suing me she was new on the block all the neighbors come to her like vultures and said listen we got the meat over there we are going after it, it did not work. I got her on my side now and I will tell you if you think this is living in America, I really think that it's one of the worst things that the Town of Queensbury has ever done. Maybe I am wrong, for me it is the worst thing I have ever been through in my life, well I should not say that, I had something, one of the worst things I have ever been through. I do not... Supervisor Champagne-I have been to your house, I have sat in your office, we talked man to man over the table over your desk that is all I am asking for. Come on in tomorrow if you can make yourself available, Mark can you be there? Mr. Harris-I think we ought to have a meeting here not only with me, you and Jim, like I said I want a little political pull behind me. I am not a politician I am not on the Town Board and you are asking me to come to you privately with Supreme Court Case Lawsuit. Supervisor Champagne-Bring an Attorney bring whoever. Mr. Harris-I do not want to pay an Attorney Supervisor Champagne-I agree with that. Mr. Harris-I have a project in Fort Ann we know this, would you supply a, I can see that you have already supplied Attorney for, it says the Town of Queensbury I do not, it is hard, all the residents of the Town of Queensbury or just the name the Town of Queensbury. Supervisor Champagne-Just the name, the Board is acting on behalf of the residents Mr. Harris-Who is the Town of Queensbury? Supervisor Champagne-The complainant is the Town of Queensbury or the Town Board acting on behalf of the Town of Queensbury. Town Counsel Mark Schachner-It is a municipal Corporation formed under the laws of the State of New York. Mr. Harris-So basically this is all the residents and taxpayers in the Town of Queensbury? That is suing me? Unknown-A bunch of us better secede. Supervisor Champagne-It is the Town Board that is acting. I think the finger got to come back to the Board. Mr. Harris- W ell last time, it had the board members here listed and I was, actually it was kind of surprising to find out that, is the Town of Queensbury all the residents and taxpayers, or is the Town of Queensbury the Town Board? Supervisor Champagne-In this case we're going to say Town Counsel Mark Schachner-Either one, it's a municipal corporation. Unknown-Get a different attorney. Mr. Harris-Do you have some tax paid lawyers that I could, I guess maybe I could complain that I've been through this legal road once, maybe we can hire an attorney for me? I just, I really don't think it's fair for a resident of the Town of Queensbury and the family has been there two hundred years to go through the court system once and ask him to go through the court system again. But yet no, the neighbors Unknown-He's right. Supervisor Champagne-Keith, we're trying to uphold our Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance as we interpret it, and that could be wrong, we may have wrong interpretation but what we're saying is that here is a piece of property that you own that you're doing business on that's not in accordance to the decision that came down. Now, is that said plain enough or is there a better way of saying that, Jim? Executive Director Martin-You're pretty much right. Mr. Harris-I don't want to sound like I'm repeating myselflike a parrot but didn't we do this in 1989? Didn't we take our zoning regulations to Judge Dier up there in Supreme Court but it wasn't could enough for the Town of Queensbury. By the way, the Town of Queensbury backed out the Appellate decision, or the Appellate lawsuit for one good reason because they would have been liable. And we did this in 1989, and I had a panel of five judges I won the decision of all of them. And now you are asking the Court System to test these zoning regulations or this business, logging venture who knows? There is surely nothing in my court decision that says, Keith you conduct business within fifty feet of your garage, Keith you conduct business within the regulations of your neighbors here on Pickle Hill Road. It does state in there that you people are taken that there was one process into 1980 when I took the property over. I have conducted the same timber harvesting and logging business on the property. There is different markets, there is different ways of selling your wood, there is different ways of doing it but it is the same business. It ain't no different than a guy selling a loaf of bread in the store or putting a loaf of bread out in the front yard to sell it. If he has got the store there he is going to sell bread. And further more you people you people have acted with our tax money and everybody here knows that eventually that business is going to be gone if I can ever afford to leave. If I don't run out of money paying lawyers and still gone and put me in Supreme Court. You know, you are asking me to come in here and negotiate, I have negotiated for ten years, you know what I have gotten? I have gotten a lot of aggravation and a lot of expense. And you are saying to end this session you say come here and negotiate. That is fine it is not going to work, it is not going to work, because it is not going to work until I am gone. Mr. Davison himself stated that when he lost the first time, he said I am not going to give up until you are gone. I said well, you have lost again, you will lose again, maybe I will win, maybe I will lose. Maybe it will not go to court, but I will tell you one thing right now you have got a lot of mad residents. And when this letter hits the paper you are going to have a lot more mad residents because I tell you, I wish I could have put about eight or nine hundred words in there, they have a five hundred word limit. The people are going to know what I have been through for the last ten years. Supervisor Champagne-Ok. Mr. Harris-You guys, I think you know if you guys want to negotiate we can try, but it is not going to work I can tell you right now. Pardon me? Supervisor Champagne-Be an optimist. Mr. Harris-I have been an optimist for ten years now. Supervisor Champagne-Give me a call in the morning and lets see if we can get together sometime tomorrow, is that fair enough, lets leave it at that. Unknown-We probably ain't got nothing better to do. Mr. Harris-I am really busy you know, I would not mind working this out but I would like to see this either delayed this lawsuit delayed or this lawsuit Unknown-Throw it out. Mr. Harris-Because what is going to happen is we are going to go behind closed doors and I am going to have the same fights that's been for ten years. I can guarantee you when this thing hits the paper I am going to have a lot of people behind me and not only that you know, I am not going to back off you know, it is going to cost the Town thousand and thousands and thousands more dollars because I am going to the stream with this legally this time. Mr. Schachner might now what the legal liabilities of the Town of Queensbury are I am not going to state what they are because I am not a lawyer, but I know what I have been informed. I really do not want to cost myself or any other taxpayer any money I would like to see this dropped, and if you are more than welcome to help me move lets talk. Unknown-Can't we give him the money that we are going to sue him with to help him move that would make sense, positive action. Supervisor Champagne-Lets keep direct communication. If you have something to say we will give you the mic in a minute, but if you are finished, Keith? Mr. Harris-I am finished. I just wish that, I hope you did not take me too harsh, but it has been ten years and I am really, I am after one thing I would like to see this thrown in the wastebasket. You know what my intentions are Mr. Champagne, Jim Martin knows what they are you can ask Mr. Weller, you know what my intentions are they will happen, God providing and the economy willing. I would really like to see this thrown in the garbage and maybe it was the wrong move. Supervisor Champagne-Ok. Mr. Harris-Thank you. Supervisor Champagne-Thank you. We can hear from a couple, three others, go ahead, Dick. Mr. Richard Merrill-My name is Richard Merrill, I have been a resident of Pickle Hill sense 1971-72 and I am quite familiar with the area and with the problem at hand tonight. I find it a very sad state of affairs. I have sat with Keith and I have reviewed his site plan, I have seen the bills that he has paid for the site plan I have seen the value of the property and I know he has made a significant investment in the land in Fort Ann and he has started improvement there. Before he can move he does require a building there. I have seen the quotes on the structure, and I recognize he is an independent businessman he is reluctant to take on a heavy mortgage to make this move. But, ultimately the solution and I find it a sad solution when the Harris of Harrisena if forced to leave because he is engaged in a timbering operation which is what the Adirondacks is all about. But, so I find the situation sad but he is going to move but the law suit I find is a difficult thing because it will only delay, it is going to cost Keith money, and time and it is going to cost the Town money, it is going to cost us as citizens money. I think that is what people are objecting to tonight, the Town supporting this. But, the lawsuit will delay the ultimate solution which is, as Keith has acknowledged he does intend to move the business out of the area. So, if somehow we can resolve this maybe we can turn a lose, lose situation because if the Town is successful in its lawsuit will delay Keith's move, that is why it does not make any sense to bring this lawsuit against him. It just does not add up. I think what Keith is asking for is some breathing room here we have talked about how long will it take to make the move Keith, he is being very honest when he says I do not know. He just does not know. I find it sad that we are forcing a businessman employing twenty five employees and I know how much we need employment in this Town. I am sure you would go over backwards to bring in new business in that would employee twenty five people, and yet we have forced on out. But, I would hope somehow Keith could be given some room, some breathing room that something could be worked out to drop the suit. I am not an Attorney but I have read the charges and I really think they are open to interpretation. So, if Keith looses we all lose. If we drop it we may turn a lose, lose into a win, win. Thank you. Supervisor Champagne-Thanks Dick. Mr. George Ryan-Hi, I am George Ryan I live over on 149. You know in the Town we have all kinds of zoning problems, I have the only suburban residential pig farm in Queensbury and it is zoned and that has got to do, nothing to do with this case but the 149 zoning project if we could speed it up, if you needed by assistance down here I could come down and get the move on it for you. I mean it is simple, just like tonight I would like to get the move on Keith's problem. We can save the town money we have an Attorney here, we have got the Town Board here lets throw this lawsuit out and start talking, communication. Right now we are chasing a guy that employs twenty five people, out of those twenty five people I probably get ten customers a week, so I am going to feel the aspect. He loses the Court battle what happens George, George ain't going to sell as much corn right? And it is just going to dwindle down, why don't we give him the money that we are spending on the lawsuit give it to him and help him move on a small interest loan. He will probably pay it back, we give these guys money they are not even paying it back. We are looking for new business we got the guy here, Jim put him in the right direction find Keith some financing and help him. You will be helping Washington County they will get the sales tax, twenty five jobs now, there will probably be thirty five we got the guy right here we could build business. Twenty five jobs is like seventy five part time jobs, we bring Wal Mart in they tell you three hundred jobs I was here and I heard the guy, three hundred part time jobs, now people want to buy stuff at three o'clock in the afternoon so therefore the mother with the kids she has to, she can't wait for the kids off the bus because she has to be at Wal Mart at three o'clock, because from three to six it is busy, there is traffic so what are we doing? He's it is like seventy five jobs what he is giving us there. What we should do is help him lets take the lawsuit and throw it out, it is not even written up right. I am a taxpayer, he is wrong a municipalities cannot sue, that guy is wrong the Town of Queensbury, it should be Fred Champagne, Connie and Carol, Ted and Betty then we know who is suing. But, the Town of Queensbury is the people we don't want it, there is one hundred of us here tonight that signed a petition we don't want it, can't you throw it out? Mr. Harris-There are four hundred that sign the petition. Mr. Ryan-Throw it out tonight and start allover start your negotiations and then do the process. That thing is not even written up right they got maps there that do not belong, do it right, don't waste the money we could throw that out tonight I am asking you to do that throw it out for the people. We are here to support Keith, we went to court, the court said no, everybody has his day in court lets go with the judges decision that is why we use the Judge, to get his right. What we need here in the Town is a common sense coordinator we should give him twenty five dollars a hour to talk these things over with you. It is real world out there and you guys are not seeing it, we are hurting. Keith does good jobs, some people cannot read, they cannot write they are loggers they got to work they go to the grocery store they pay their taxes...the Adirondacks that is what it is all about, trees woods, that wood looks better than that blue building on Quaker Road. Every year you by it would look different the bark will fall off. It is a natural resource, there is no contamination, it is beautiful, that guy is going to clean that up it is not like an old car. Think about it, it is ridiculous you are telling them what they can do on a piece of land it is twenty acres that he has there. Throw that out tonight, I am asking you. Supervisor Champagne-Thank you. Mr. Harris-Thanks a lot, George. Mr. John Walker-My name is John Walker I own and operate a logging supply business on Route 149. I have to agree with George with Dick this Town Board has acted like a bunch of kindergartners pardon the expression. Twenty five jobs it is a mere drop in the bucket. Twenty five jobs when you start fanning this out over the Town of Queensbury what do twenty five pay checks every week, this is not just a summer job at five bucks an hour every week of the year. I even understand that Mr. Harris pays his men a nice bonus come Christmas time. This all funnels back into the Town of Queensbury, whether it be to merchants like myself, like George, like Tody on the corner, Canavan Tire, Warren Tire the Napa Store any of these businesses are all benefiting from Mr. Harris's operation. I do not think maybe you Fred, if you tell me you have done some logging, but I do not think the other four, I know Jim Martin never has, because I have talked with Jim. I don't think you really understand what logging is all about. Logging does not start when a man gets out of his pickup in the morning puts on his safety gear starts the chain saw, cuts a tree brings in out behind a skidder, cuts it into logs. That is not where it ends. Logging if a man is going to survive at it today, he has got to bring those logs somewhere. It happens to be that Keith has the property to do it on at home, apparently this Town Board feels that you could take this piece of property and ok, you can do this on this part and this on this part but don't do that over there. I do not understand that, that sounds like subdividing a man's piece of property. Keith brings his wood home, he piles it when he has time which is probably several times a week he will go out and sort that wood. Today's markets in the wood business demand this if you are going to succeed. You cannot just sell pulp wood or you just can't low grade saw logs, you have got to sort this by species you have got to grade it so that, when that wood buyer comes in with his tractor trailer he has got something to look at. This is what Keith does. That pile of logs that you see in his yard is not there for a duration, it may be there for several weeks, logs especially in warm weather you cannot keep them any longer than that. So, they have to be moved on a continuous basis. This is what Keith Harris is doing there, this is part of logging and I believe, my interpretation anyway, in the Code Book 179-15 I do believe logging is a permitted use. This is part of logging. Just because you go in the woods and cut a tree and you cut it into logs it does not end there. What Keith Harris is doing as far as I am concerned and it is my judgement, I know, the rest of you probably have a different judgement, but in my judgement that is part of logging. If you asked Keith who has bent over backwards, for ten years to cooperate with this man and I say man, because I know one of the names on this thing, one of the people that has come here she cannot even see Keith's place from her residence. So, I do not know where her big gripe is. But, this man has shown and has proven that he will not cooperate no matter what. Does he think if he get Keith moved out of there that, that building is going is going to disappear? If I was Keith Harris, I would go down to Gordon Paint and Paper and I would buy a can of every color paint that he had and I would put it all over that building, believe me and this man would have something to look at the rest of his life. Now, you talk about harassment this man has the right to sue for harassment. I think if this Town Board does not dump this lawsuit that he has a right to sue you people. Individually or however. That is all I have. Supervisor Champagne-Thanks John. Lets take one more. Mr. Robert Stark-Hello, my name is Robert Stark I am a taxpayer of Queensbury plus an employee of Keith Harris Logging. I appreciate the job with him but you should not hassle him if you want to hassle him pay for it out of our own pockets don't use my tax dollars. Loser pays. You pay Lawyers, you pay his fees, do all that fine, take him to court. As long as you use your own money not mine, I work too hard for my money. That is all I have got to say. Supervisor Champagne-Thank you. Mr. Harris-Thanks a lot, Bob. Supervisor Champagne-Stretch my imagination John, you have two minutes, can you do it in two? Unknown-We have enough time to throw it out. Mr. John Salvador-Wait a minute I get only two minutes? Supervisor Champagne-Oh come on in. Come on up. Mr. John Salvador-You shake me up so I can not keep my train of thought. Supervisor Champagne-Well there is a little strategy to that. Mr. John Salvador-My name is John Salvador a resident of North Queensbury. I also find it difficult to understand what the Town Board is doing here. There has been a lot said about wood processing, I am looking in the Zoning Ordinance I cannot find the definition of wood processing. Do you have a case? Supervisor Champagne-That's not the question. Mr. Salvador-Just a minute, this is all semantics everybody understands logging, Fred Supervisor Champagne-I understand that. Mr. Salvador-No one understands wood processing, because it is not written down. Jim wood processing, I am here in the zoning ordinance. Do you have a case? Unknown-No. Throw it out. ...taxpayers here tonight, do justice. Mr. Salvador-One more thing. I have listened to this discussion tonight, I am guilty of wood processing and I am in a three acres residential zone. I do not have a permit, and it is not even a non-conforming use. Are they coming after me next?... Supervisor Champagne-Ok. That had to be the last one we are running real late here....our action here tonight we will further discuss it here tomorrow Mr. Ryan-I am going to want my name off that thing, I am a taxpayers I am going to mad if that ain't thrown out, danm right we went to court once Supervisor Champagne-I am not here to argue with anyone I am here to tell you what this Board has instructed us to do. Mr. Ryan-I think there is enough taxpayers here that we should have our say Supervisor Champagne-I am not going to sit here and argue with you, what we are going to do is tomorrow we will meet with our Attorney we will meet with Mr. Martin and this Board will go from there. Mr. Ryan-Maybe next week we will have to get together to find somebody to take your job, maybe Mr. Salvador would want to run. Mr. Salvador-No thank you. Mr. Ryan-This is bullshit we got an Attorney here, you are here lets do it and get it over with. You can always start a new one, we are here talking Supervisor Champagne-You better sit down before I call 911 and we will remove you from here. Mr. Ryan-If that is the way you feel go ahead Pal. Supervisor Champagne-Ok, Pal. Mr. Ryan-Go right ahead. Supervisor Champagne-I am telling you that the hearing is over, I have listened to it, we have got enough information now to proceed Unknown-You have not heard all the input. Mr. Ryan-I did not hear Supervisor Champagne-...suggesting that we drop it, we are not going to drop it tonight period. Is that understood? We are not dropping it tonight. Mr. Ryan-Why can't you. Supervisor Champagne-We sit here as a Board representing the people of the Town of Queensbury Mr. Ryan-The people are here, we are the people Supervisor Champagne- Well, Mr. Ryan-That is why we came here tonight, talk to them, talk to the people, you want to raise hands? Supervisor Champagne-We are anxious to talk with Keith tomorrow, I do not want to get into a contest. Unknown-..1awsuit you guys did. Unknown-Mr. Philo would like to speak... Mr. Ryan-There are a lot of people that would like to speak Mr. Schultz did not say nothing, he would like to say something. Supervisor Champagne-Time out, just a minute. Mr. Ryan-We are the tax people, don't let anybody ...that. Supervisor Champagne-We will take Mr. Philo's last comment here then we have got other issues here. You want to stay on, I did open this up early on because we did want to hear it, I think we are at a point now where we need to move ahead with the Board meeting if you want to stay on later on that if fine. Mr. Philo Mr. Philo-Thank you very much Mr. Champagne- I know everybody in this Board but a couple over here to the left. I think you have been good citizens and tried to do the best you could for this town, I would like to ask one question to Mr. Martin, what is RR-3 zoning? Executive Director Martin-Rural Residential three acre as defined here in the code, stated purpose and so on. Mr. Philo-If you can explain that one thing I think I can solve a lot of this problem. Executive Director Martin-The purpose of Rural Residential Zoning is to enhance the natural open space and rural character of the Town of Queensbury by limiting development to sparse densities deep slopes, wetlands limiting soils and marginal access to populated areas often characterized such areas warranting said densities, that is the stated purpose of the zone. Mr. Philo-So, what can they do on that property? Executive Director Martin-Stated here under various things. Permitted uses are Single Family Dwelling, timber harvesting, hunting, fishing camp less than three hundred square feet. Mr. Philo-What I am saying he is in an RR3 zone? He has been permitted and it is grandfathered I would say, I took stone out of there when we were doing jobs over by your place, I took top soil out of there and bought it from the Harris's. I took top soil and gravel to Lake George Beach, I was just a young lad when I got that contract from the Village of Lake George. So, we took wood out of there how come it has changed. In other words a property should be grandfathered and it was before the zoning come in, should this be solved now? Supervisor Champagne-Are you asking me to solve now, what ever now is, I do not know what you are asking? Mr. Philo-I say anybody can sit down Mr. Turner, yourself, Betty Monahan, I do not know these other people but I have a lot of confidence in you people I think somebody has made a mistake. The Town has paid enough for lawyer fees and it is all over this Town right now the expense that we pay for Attorney fees. We have got a boat house up Lake George it is under a legal problem right now I was on a case at Dunhams Bay and they were going to take the business away from the guy when I was on the Zoning Board. They did not have the proper information. Once the Zoning Board got it or the Town Board and the Zoning Board got it properly they acted on it properly. So, I think if you sit down Keith and who ever is involved in it fine. But I do not feel that the Town should pay one cent as far as Attorney fees, this poor guy up at Dunhams Bay is paying his shot or the Boat house if it is possible can we please sit down as a Town and talk this over, this is an RR3 zone. It should be solved without even going to Court. When you, like Mr. Walker said when you go into logging you just do not have a stick of wood out there for a day and then move it. You have got to sell it with the market. There is a lot of variables that the people are not in this business don't see. Thank you very much. Supervisor Champagne-Thank you. Ok we are going to close that part of the open forum we are going to move right into the Correspondence. CORRESPONDENCE Town Clerk Darleen Dougher read into the record the following correspondence: Dear Mr. Naylor, my family resides at 101 Northwest Road, Queensbury. This is at best, a difficult road to maintain during the winter months. I would like to express my appreciation to your staff and Mr. Don Hunt in particular, for the excellent job they did this past winter. In the past, our driveways were inevitably plowed in each time the equipment passed. This year, the plowing was done quickly, efficiently and the snow was pushed off to the side instead of at the end of the drive. This was particularly helpful to me in the mornings when I had to get out to catch the school bus. I'm sure you must get your share of negative feedback. I felt it was appropriate to let you know that the efforts of your staff are very much appreciated. Thank you for a job well done. Sincerely, Mary C. Fosbrook. Sirs, I wish to express admiration and heartfelt thanks for the heroic efforts of two of your residents. During a devastating fire at my mother's 207 Meadowbrook Road residence on April 18, two neighbors, Ted Turner, a student at Queensbury High School, and Jenny Lortz performed the greatest act of friendship. both have been my 79 year-old mother's neighbors on Meadowbrook Road for the past several years. On the day of the fire and at great peril to himself, Ted entered my mother's burning residence and led her outside to safety, while Jenny supported the effort from outside his point of entry. As a daughter, a parent, a current fourth grade teacher, as well as a former school board member here in Pennsylvania, I treasure the example of courage and character demonstrated so unselfishly by Ted and Jenny. Accordingly, I request, on behalf of my mother, that they be recognized in some fashion by the Township of Queensbury. I am also contacting Representative Gerald Solomon in regard to this extraordinary matter. Should you need to be in contact with me, I may be reached at the address and phone number indicated. Thank you in advance for you support. Sincerely, Nancy A. Deltete Dear Kate, Thank you for your help with our Town of Queensbury Bond. We're are very appreciative, believe me. We received the now registered Town of Queensbury Bond back and the check for the current coupons. Again, thank you. Good Job. Sincerely, Joanne VanZandt RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 197,96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourn from Regular Session and enters the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 6th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT: None QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FROM SANITARY SEW AGE DISPOSAL ORDINANCE FOR MR. TIMOTHY 1. BENNETT RESOLUTION NO.: 3.96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is, by operation of Law, the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury and, as such, is authorized under Chapter 136 of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance to issue variances from such Ordinance, and WHEREAS, Mr. Timothy 1. Bennett has applied to the Local Board of Health of the Town of Queensbury for a variance from certain standards of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance set forth in 1) Chapter 136, Tables 5 & 6, such standard providing that there be 375 square feet of absorptive area; and 2) Chapter 136, Appendix A, such standard providing as follows: APPENDIX A TABLE I - HORIZONTAL SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM WASTEWATER SOURCES TO STREAM WELL OR LAKE OR WASTEWATER SUCTION WATER PROPERTY LAKE GEORGE SOURCES LINE (a) COURSE(c) DWELLING LINE AND TRIBS. Seepage Pit 150' and WHEREAS, Mr. Timothy 1. Bennett has indicated a desire to 1) provide only 101 square feet of absorptive area rather than the required 375 square feet; and 2) place the seepage pit 83' from the neighbor's well rather than placing it at the required 150', NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on May 20th, 1996, at 7:00 p.m., at the Queensbury Activities Center, (reasonably accessible to persons with mobility impairment) 742 Bay Road, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, to consider the application for the variances of Mr. Timothy 1. Bennett to provide 10 1 square feet of absorptive area rather than providing the mandated 375 square feet, and to place the seepage pit 83' from the neighbor's well rather than placing it at the required 150' distance, on property situated at 29 East Branch Drive, Town of Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax Map No.: Section 133, Block 1, Lot 4, and, at that time, all persons interested in the subject thereof will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury be and is hereby directed and authorized, when in receipt of a list of neighbors within 500 feet of the subject property, to publish and provide Notice of said Public Hearing as may be required by law, and authorized to mail copies of said Public Hearing Notice to the adjoining neighbors. Duly adopted this 6th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FROM SANITARY SEW AGE DISPOSAL ORDINANCE FOR EDWARD D. LOCKHART RESOLUTION NO.4, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is, by operation of Law, the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury and, as such, is authorized under Chapter 136 of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance to issue variances from such Ordinance, and WHEREAS, Edward Lockhart has applied to the Local Board of Health of the Town of Queensbury for two (2) variances from certain standards of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance set forth in Chapter 136, Appendix A, such standards providing as follows: APPENDIX A TABLE I - HORIZONTAL SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM WASTEWATER SOURCES TO STREAM WELL OR LAKE OR WASTEWATER SUCTION WATER PROPERTY LAKE GEORGE SOURCES LINE (a) COURSE(c) DWELLING LINE AND TRIBS. Absorption 100' Field 10' and WHEREAS, Edward Lockhart has indicated a desire to place the absorption field 75' from the existing well on the property rather than placing it at the mandated 100' distance and 5' from the neighboring property line rather than the mandated 10' distance, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on May 20, 1996, at 7:00 p.m., at the Queensbury Activities Center, (reasonably accessible to persons with mobility impairment) 742 Bay Road, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, to consider the application for two (2) variances of Edward Lockhart to place the absorption field 75' from the existing well on the property rather than placing it at the mandated 100' distance and 5' from the neighboring property line rather than the mandated 10' distance, on property situated at the end of Dream Lake Road, Town of Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax Map No.: Section 51, Block 3, Lot 8, and, at that time, all persons interested in the subject thereof will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury be and is hereby directed and authorized, when in receipt of a list of neighbors within 500 feet of the subject property, to publish and provide Notice of said Public Hearing as may be required by law, and authorized to mail copies of said Public Hearing Notice to the adjoining neighbors. Duly adopted this 6th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FROM SANITARY SEW AGE DISPOSAL ORDINANCE FOR MR. JEFFREY BEAN RESOLUTION NO.5, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is, by operation of Law, the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury and, as such, is authorized under Chapter 136 of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance to issue variances from such Ordinance, and WHEREAS, Mr. Jeffrey Bean has applied to the Local Board of Health of the Town of Queensbury for a variance from certain standards of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance set forth in Chapter 136, Table 4 (copy attached), such application requesting that there be 138 linear feet of leach field in lieu of the required 187 linear feet of leach field, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on May 20, 1996, at 7:00 p.m., at the Queensbury Activities Center, (reasonably accessible to persons with mobility impairment) 742 Bay Road, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, to consider the application for a variance of Mr. Jeffrey Bean to provide 138 linear feet ofleach field in lieu of providing the required 187 linear feet ofleach field, on property situated at 142 Sunnyside North, Town of Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax Map No.: Section 50, Block 1, Lot 19, and, at that time, all persons interested in the subject thereof will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury be and is hereby directed and authorized, when in receipt of a list of neighbors within 500 feet of the subject property, to publish and provide Notice of said Public Hearing as may be required by law, and authorized to mail copies of said Public Hearing Notice to the adjoining neighbors. Duly adopted this 6th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.6, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns and enters Regular Session of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 6th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT: None QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING COMMENCEMENT OF LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THE HILANDER RESTAURANT AND SNACK BAR RESOLUTION NO. 198,96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHEREAS, Thomas Flaherty, Town of Queensbury Director of Wastewater and Michael Shaw, Town of Queensbury Deputy Director of Wastewater, have determined that the Hilander Restaurant and Snack Bar, aJk/aJ Family Golf Center, Inc., is in violation of ~ 136-70 and ~ 136-10 I(C) of the Code of the Town of Queensbury in that the oil and grease separator is not of appropriate capacity and the facility is discharging oil and grease in excess of the allowed limitation, and WHEREAS, a cease and desist order was issued dated October 23, 1995 requiring that the Hilander Restaurant and Snack Bar abate these violations of the Town Code within 21 days, and WHEREAS, the Hilander Restaurant and Snack Bar has failed to comply and is still in violation of these provisions of the Town Code, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury authorizes counsel for the Town to commence legal action in Queensbury Town Court against the Hilander Restaurant and Snack Bar and/or Family Golf Center, Inc., alleging violations of the Town Code and seeking appropriate sanctions and penalties authorized by law. Duly adopted this 6th day of May, 1996 by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING GRANT OF EASEMENT BETWEEN SCHERMERHORN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION AND THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY RESOLUTION NO. 199,96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHEREAS, a Town of Queensbury fire hydrant and associated water line(s) presently exists on property owned by Schermerhorn Construction Corporation and existing within the Sherman Pines Subdivision common area located at the end of Burch Road, and WHEREAS, it is necessary that the Town of Queensbury access, use, and maintain the existing fire hydrant and associated water line(s) extending and connected thereto, and WHEREAS, a proposed Grant of Easement has been submitted by Schermerhorn Construction Corporation, and Thomas Flaherty, Town Water Superintendent, has reviewed said Grant of Easement and has expressed his approval of it, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves acceptance of the Grant of Easement between Schermerhorn Construction Corporation and the Town of Queensbury submitted at this meeting, and further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute any documents that may be necessary to arrange for the acceptance and recording of said Grant of Easement, including the causing of the placement of the Town seal on any documents that may be necessary. Duly adopted this 6th day of May, 1996 by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDED DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AUTHORIZING BALLOT REGARDING AMG INDUSTRIES, INC. RESOLUTION NO. 200, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, AMG Industries, Inc., a New York Corporation, has filed a Voluntary Bankruptcy Petition for Reorganization under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code on May 10, 1995, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is the holder of an impaired Claim or Equity Interest in the proposed Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization in the amount of $350,692.45, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has received an Amended Disclosure Statement regarding the Plan of Reorganization of the Debtor, AMG Industries, Inc., and WHEREAS, a hearing to consider the confirmation of AMG's Amended Chapter 11 Plan has been scheduled for May 31, 1996 and a ballot to accept or reject the Chapter 11 Plan needs to be completed by the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has reviewed the Amended Disclosure Statement and Amended Plan (a copy of the same being presented at this meeting) and desires to accept the Chapter 11 Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, after due consideration, hereby authorizes and approves the Amended Disclosure Statement and Amended Plan of Reorganization referenced hereinabove and presented at this meeting, and hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to complete the ballot to accept the Chapter 11 Plan and to take such other and further steps as may be necessary to implement the terms and provisions of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 6th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION AND NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. TO LOCATE A GUIDELINE/ANCHOR TO SUPPORT TELEPHONE POLE ON TOWN PROPERTY RESOLUTION NO. 201, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner (Motion withdrawn - resolution pulled) RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING POSSIBLE PAYMENT UNDER COUNTY CONTRACT - NORTH QUEENSBURY WASTEWATER FACILITIES RESOLUTION NO. 201, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc., has presented to Warren County through the office of Fred Austin, P.E., Superintendent of Public Works, an estimate of the engineering costs necessary to complete the district formation report for the North Queensbury Wastewater Facilities in the amount of $280,000., and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury may be liable for a maximum local share not to exceed ten percent (10%), which based on the above estimated total of $280,000., would therefore be $28,000., and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury feels that the North Queensbury Wastewater Facilities will be in the public interest of North Queensbury and the entire Town of Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves funding up to, but not to exceed, $28,000., if necessary, as the maximum local share to be expended towards the engineering costs necessary to complete the district formation report for the North Queensbury Wastewater Facilities. Duly adopted this 6th day of May, 1996 by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver ABSENT: None DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE: Town Board held discussion... Councilman Goedert noted, I have a problem with a resolution to pay somebody based on an estimate and don't feel I have enough information as to why we're spending it... Councilman Pulver agreed, I too feel uncomfortable with it. RESOLUTION TO AMEND 1996 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 202, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, certain departments have requested transfers of funds for the 1996 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 1996 budget: BUILDING & GROUNDS: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 01-1620-4670-0022 (Telephone Repairs) 01-1620-2100 (Computer Hardware) $ 300. 01-1620-4670-0022 (Telephone Repairs) 01-1620-4220 (Training/Education) 400. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/BUILDING & CODES: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 01-3620-4400 (Misc. Cont. - Zoning) 001-3620-2100 (Computer Hardware) $ 1,000. 01-3620-4400 (Misc. Cont. - Building & Codes) 001-3620-2100 (Computer Hardware) 1,000. SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 01-1990-4400 (Contingency) 01-10 10-4400 (Misc. Contractual - Town Board) $ 1,440. and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the 1996 Town Budget is hereby amended accordingly. Duly adopted this 6th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AMENDING RES. 671, 95 CONCERNING FEES FOR PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SECRETARY RESOLUTION NO. 203, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury previously adopted resolution no. 671, 95 which set the salaries for 1996, including the fees for the Chairman and members of the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals, and WHEREAS, said resolution failed to include the fees to be paid to the Secretary for the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby amends resolution no. 671, 95, such that the fee for the Secretary of the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals shall be set at the amount of $35. per meeting, said amount being retroactive to January 1, 1996. Duly adopted this 6th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION DELEGATING TOWN COMPTROLLER DUTIES TO TOWN BOARD AND TOWN SUPERVISOR RESOLUTION NO. 204, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has received the resignation of its Town Comptroller, Catherine M. Geoffroy, and WHEREAS, as Town Comptroller, Ms. Geoffroy served as Town Budget Officer, was responsible for the bi-weekly audits and reviews, countersigned checks, and approved payroll, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of delegating the review and audit duties back to the Town Board, appointing the Town Supervisor as Budget Officer, allowing the Town Supervisor to be the sole signer on all bank accounts and designating him as the official responsible for the approval and payment of payroll, with the Deputy Supervisor having the authority to sign checks and approve the payment of payroll in the absence of the Town Supervisor, until a new Town Comptroller is appointed, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby designates the following duties until a new Town Comptroller is appointed: 1. delegates the review and audit duties of Town Comptroller referenced in the preambles above to the Town Board; 2. appoints the Town Supervisor as Budget Officer; 3. designates the Town Supervisor as the sole signer on bank accounts, with the Deputy Supervisor having the authority to sign on the accounts in the absence of the Town Supervisor; and 4. designates the Town Supervisor as the official responsible for the approval and payment of payroll with the Deputy Supervisor having the authority to approve the payment of payroll in the absence of the Town Supervisor. Duly adopted this 6th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mr. Champagne RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO DISCONTINUANCE OF A PORTION OF SHERMAN ISLAND ROAD RESOLUTION NO. 205, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHEREAS, on or about the 7th day of March, 1994, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury approved and authorized the Hudson Pointe Planned Unit Development, and WHEREAS, one of the conditions of the proposed development was that the southern portion of Sherman Island Road (approximately 1,800') would be abandoned and that Sherman Island Road would become a dead-end with a paved turnaround to be constructed by the developer at the end point of the road, with that portion of Sherman Island Road becoming effectively blocked by berming, planting and similar measures, and WHEREAS, a portion of the southern portion of Sherman Island Road has previously been duly abandoned, and WHEREAS, the developer has proposed to abandon the remaining portion of Sherman Island Road as part of the Hudson Pointe Planned Unit Development because the roads servicing the Hudson Pointe Planned Unit Development have been constructed, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has examined the circumstances and conditions of said remaining portion of road to be abandoned, as well as the roads that generally service that area of the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, Hudson Pointe, Inc. and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation have each executed a consent that the portion of highway described herein be discontinued and therein also release the Town of Queensbury from any claims to damages by reason of the discontinuance of said portion of highway, and WHEREAS, it appearing that no other persons or corporation other than Hudson Pointe, Inc., and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation own any premises through which said portion of highway sought to be discontinued passes or to which it is adjacent, and it further appearing that no significant purpose would be achieved in keeping that section of Sherman Island Road open and the Town Highway Superintendent having recommended that this portion of road be closed and it further appearing that the portion of highway sought to be discontinued has become unnecessary and useless in view of the roads available as part of the Hudson Pointe Planned Unit Development and previously accepted by the Town Board on behalf of the Town, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that, upon due deliberation, the undersigned members of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury do, pursuant to ~ 171 of the Highway Law of the State of New York, consent in writing that the said portion of highway sought to be discontinued and described in the application and the preambles of this Resolution be discontinued, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that it is the intent of this Resolution to consent to the abandonment of only those easement rights or rights of the public historically in that portion of Sherman Island Road described in the three descriptions annexed to the Release executed by Hudson Pointe, Inc., and nothing contained herein shall be deemed to constitute agreement to the abandonment of any portion of roads previously dedicated by Hudson Pointe, Inc., which may overlap a portion of the road abandoned hereby, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the members of the Town Board shall, in witness, hereunto set their hands in the Town Hall in said Town on the 6th day of May, 1996. Duly adopted this 6th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION REGARDING EXTENSION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND LAVERNE B. F AGEL RESOLUTION NO. 206, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury and LaVerne B. Fagel previously entered into a Consulting Services Agreement pursuant to Town Board Resolution No. 273, 94, and WHEREAS, this Agreement was modified and extended by Town Board Resolutions No. 565 and 626, 94 and 378, 95, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 171,96, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury authorized an additional extension of said Agreement, and WHEREAS Resolution No. 171, 96 did not contain an appropriation to cover the additional services and time involved, and WHEREAS, Ms. Fagel has indicated that $10,000. will cover any additional fees for services contemplated under this most recent extension of the Agreement, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the amount not to exceed $10,000. for the additional consulting services authorized by Resolution No. 171,96. Duly adopted this 6th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT LAND FROM JOSEPH P. GROSS AND DEBRA M. GROSS TO THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY RESOLUTION NO. 207, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHEREAS, Joseph P. Gross and Debra M. Gross applied for approval of a subdivision of land located on Big Bay Road in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, this subdivision was approved by the Queensbury Planning Board at its February 27, 1996 meeting, and WHEREAS, a Deed has been presented at this meeting which would convey property from Joseph P. Gross and Debra M. Gross to the Town of Queensbury as recreation land pursuant to Chapter 124 of the Town Code, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Recreation Commission reviewed and recommended acceptance of the dedication of this land at its December 12, 1995 monthly meeting, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board also approved dedication of this strip of land to the Town in lieu of recreation fees at its February 27, 1996 meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby accepts the Deed conveying the property to the Town of Queensbury and hereby accepts the property as recreation land pursuant to Chapter 124 of the Town Code, and hereby further authorizes the Town Supervisor to execute any instruments that may be necessary to accomplish the filing of the Deed on behalf of the Town of Queensbury and to place the seal of the Town on said documents. Duly adopted this 6th day of May, 1996 by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING AND TO DESIGNATE THE TOWN AS LEAD AGENCY REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, CHAPTER 179 THEREOF ENTITLED "ZONING" RESOLUTION NO. 208, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of amending, supplementing, changing and/or modifying the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, the same having been previously codified and made a part of the Code of the Town of Queensbury as Chapter 179 thereof entitled "Zoning," and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the said Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179 thereof entitled "Zoning" is in the form of a Local Law, titled "A Local Law to amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179 thereof, entitled 'Zoning' to amend certain provisions thereof," and is presented to this meeting of the said Town Board with this resolution and is incorporated herein, as if more fully set forth herein, for all purposes, and WHEREAS, a completed Part I of a Long Environmental Assessment Form has also been presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury may, from time to time, pursuant to ~265 of the Town Law and/or the relevant sections of the Municipal Home Rule Law of the State of New York, amend, supplement, change, modify or repeal the Zoning Ordinance as codified, and WHEREAS, it is necessary to hold a public hearing prior to adopting said proposed Local Law, and WHEREAS, it is also necessary to provide notice to other governmental bodies or agencies as required by law, and WHEREAS, it is also necessary to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act in connection with conducting an environmental review of the proposed action which consists of adopting the proposed Local Law amending Chapter 179 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury entitled 'Zoning", and WHEREAS, it would appear that the action about to be undertaken by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is an unlisted action under the provisions of and regulations adopted pursuant to said State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates that it desires to conduct a coordinated review and be the lead agency in connection with any reviews necessary pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act and directs that such notices be sent by the Zoning Administrator to such other involved agencies as may be required under SEQRA to notify the agencies of this action and that the Town Board desires to be lead agent in a coordinated review and that a lead agency must be agreed to within 30 days, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall hold a public hearing on May 20, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, at which time all parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, upon and in reference to the proposed Local Law, titled "A Local Law to Amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179 thereof, entitled 'Zoning,' to amend certain provisions thereof," amendment, supplement, change and/or modification to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance as codified and a part of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179, thereof entitled "Zoning," and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed to give 10 days notice of said public hearing by publishing a notice in a form to be approved by Town Counsel and substantially in conformance with the Notice presented at this meeting, for purposes of publication in an official newspaper of the Town and by posting on the Town bulletin Board outside the Clerk's Office said notice, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to give written notice of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury as codified and a part of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179, thereof entitled "Zoning," a copy of the Environmental Assessment Form, a copy of this resolution and a copy of the written notice previously described 10 days prior to the public hearing to the following: Warren County, by service upon the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, and such other communities or agencies that it is necessary to give written notice to pursuant to ~264 of the Town Law and Municipal Home Rule Law of the State of New York, the Code of the Town of Queensbury and the Laws of the State of New York, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of said proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance as codified and a part of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179, thereof entitled "Zoning," a copy of the Environmental Assessment Form, the Notice of Public Hearing and a copy of this resolution to the Warren County Planning Agency and the Town of Queensbury Planning Board for their review in accordance with the laws of the State of New York and Code of the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Zoning Administrator is also hereby directed to send a copy of the proposed amendment, Notice of Public Hearing, a copy of the Environmental Assessment Form and a copy of this resolution to the Adirondack Park Agency. Duly adopted this 6th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION DETERMINING THAT PROPERTY OWNED BY HARLEY JAMES IS UNSAFE - TAX MAP NO. 125-3-2 RESOLUTION NO. 209, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHEREAS, Mr. David Hatin, Director of Building & Codes Enforcement of the Town of Queensbury, has advised that he has investigated and inspected certain property identified as Corinth Road, Town of Queensbury, and bearing tax map no. 125-3-2, and has made findings as more specifically set forth in a letter dated July 28, 1992 and memorandum dated April 30, 1996, copies of which are presented to this meeting, and WHEREAS, Mr. David Hatin advises the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury that, in his opinion, a structure on the property presents a hazard and a nuisance to the neighborhood and is unsafe to the general public and has asked the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury to take action to have the property secured if the property owner fails to do so, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 60 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury and ~130(l6) of the New York State Town Law, the Town Board may by Resolution determine whether in its opinion the structure is unsafe and dangerous and thereafter order its repair or demolition and removal and further order that notice be served upon the owner or other certain persons interested in said property, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that, upon reviewing all of the evidence presented at this time, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is of the opinion that the property and structure thereon, bearing tax map number 125-3-2, appear to be: 1. removed; 2. 3. 4. and Presently unsafe and dangerous and should be repaired or demolished and Potentially an object of attraction and danger to minors; Unfit for the purposes for which it may be lawfully used; May warrant immediate boarding up or repair as an emergency action. BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that pursuantto Chapter 60 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury and ~130(l6) of the New York State Town Law, the Director of Building & Codes be and hereby is authorized to serve a Notice setting forth the Town Board's determinations upon the owner(s) of said property or upon the owner's executors, legal representatives, agents, lessees, and any other person having a vested or contingent interest in the property, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that a hearing before the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, in relation to the dangerous or unsafe condition of the property shall be held on May 20, 1996, at 7:00 p.m., in the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the contents, service and filing of the Notice provided for herein shall be in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 60 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury and ~130(16) of the New York State Town Law. Duly adopted this 6th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CDL SAFE DRIVING PROGRAM FOR TOWN OF QUEENSBURY'S CDL DRIVERS RESOLUTION NO. 210, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver Town Board held discussion ...Councilman Goedert requested change to resolution... if we are going to pay for CDL safe driving program, it should be mandatory that all CDL licensed operators that work for the town with that license be in attendance of this. Supervisor Champagne, Councilman Monahan and Councilman Turner agreed... Councilman Pulver does not agree and withdraws her motion... (Motion withdrawn) The following resolution was proposed: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CDL SAFE DRIVING PROGRAM FOR TOWN OF QUEENSBURY'S CDL DRIVERS RESOLUTION NO. 210, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHEREAS, the Washington, Warren, Hamilton, Essex, Saratoga BOCES has proposed to provide a CDL Safe Driving Program for all Town of Queensbury CDL drivers at a total cost of $270., and WHEREAS, the Town Supervisor and the Town Superintendent of Highways, Paul H. Naylor, recommends said program, provided that the program be offered during regular work hours, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves and authorizes the CDL Safe Driving Program identified in the preambles hereof at a total cost not to exceed $270., to be paid for from the Miscellaneous Contractual Risk Management Account No.: 001-1910-4400-1910, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor and the Town Highway Superintendent are hereby authorized and directed to take such other and further steps as may be necessary to implement said program for all CDL Drivers. Duly adopted this 6th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES : Mrs. Pulver ABSENT: None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR TRANSIENT MERCHANT/TRANSIENT MERCHANT MARKET LICENSE FOR MR. KEVIN QUINN RESOLUTION NO. 211, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, Mr. Kevin Quinn has made application to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury for a Transient Merchant and/or Transient Merchant Market license in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 160 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury previously forwarded said application to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board for recommendation and site plan review, and WHEREAS, the said Planning Board, at its April 16, 1996 meeting, recommended site plan approval of Mr. Quinn's transient merchant market proposal, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury desires to schedule a public hearing on the application as is also required by Chapter 160 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby determines that a public hearing will be held regarding the request for a transient merchant market license for Mr. Kevin Quinn on the 20th day of May, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York and at such public hearing all persons interested in the subject matter of the license shall be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury shall give notice of said public hearing to the applicant and owners of property within 500 feet of the applicant's property by regular mail and that a notice of said public hearing shall likewise be published in the official newspaper of the Town a minimum often (10) days prior to the time of the hearing, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the notice of public hearing shall contain the name of the applicant, the tax map number, a general description of the property, the date and place of the hearing, the fact that all persons interested in the subject of a license will be heard, the nature of the action by the Board, i.e., transient merchant license, and the length of time the license will be in effect, and the said notice shall be otherwise in a form to be approved by Town Counsel. Duly adopted this 6th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPOINTING MEMBER TO THE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES RESOLUTION NO. 212, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has previously established the Citizens Advisory Committee on Environmental Issues, and WHEREAS, there is presently a vacancy on said Committee, and WHEREAS, the Town Board desires to appoint Ms. Linda Mezzadonna White, Peggy Ann Road, Queensbury to fill this vacancy, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby appoints Ms. Linda Mezzadonna White to the Citizens Advisory Committee on Environmental Issues. Duly adopted this 6th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None TOWN BOARD MEMBER MATTERS 10: 15 P.M. Councilman Goedert requested the board schedule interviews for the Comptroller's position... Town Board held discussion, agreed to schedule interviews for Thursday, May 16th at 4:30 p.m. Councilman Pulver agreed with the correspondence from Nancy Deltete to give those individuals an accommodation as she suggested... Would like the Town Board members to reconsider their action about taping the Town Board workshop sessions... Referred to the painting recently purchased by the Supervisor for his office out of the Town Board budget and would like to know what the protocol for purchasing such items. Supervisor Champagne-we did purchase a painting by Peggy Reid of the Vietnam Memorial located at the college with one of the Vietnam Vets standing in front of that memorial. Noted that it was one of fifty limited editions, the cost was $150.00. I spoke with the Comptroller at the time and the Comptroller said that it was permissible to do this. Councilman Pulver-it came out of the Town Board budget and therefore the Town Board should have been notified... requested a policy be put into place. Councilman Monahan recommended that it may be more appropriate to take the funds out of a different part of the budget, possibly celebrations because we are honoring the veterans from the Vietnam War who did a great deal for their country... I don't have a problem with it. Councilman Turner noted a couple of discussions scheduled for the May 13th workshop meeting... lighting on Sweet Road and the Sheloski drainage problem. Supervisor Champagne-received a letter from John Porter, Evergreen Bank who have held our interest bearing accounts over the past two years and John is offering to extend that same agreement for 1996 through June 30th, 1997. Noted that it's an excellent arrangement and that he spoke with the comptroller before she left who also recommends that we continue with First National. OPEN FORUM 10:28 P.M. Mr. Pliney Tucker, Queensbury-Referred to article in paper regarding figures for the proposed highway building in the west end where the comptroller stated that the town would save between twelve and thirteen thousand and the Highway Department stated a savings of one hundred and thirty-nine thousand. Questioned the difference? Councilman Goedert-Noted, that the comptroller's figures were based on an average twenty-four snow storms a year and we're assuming that the figures that came from the Highway Department were figured on a daily basis. Mr. Tucker-Questioned about the article mentioning the town bringing in a consultant. Councilman Goedert-Noted, with the confusion and the different things that have been going on in reference to the highway garage, I have come to the conclusion that we can't seem to get the answers that we need to make the decision. I was going to poll the board in reference to doing a study, if there was possibly a way we could do a study or whatever it takes to find out if this is warranted, to put a satellite station in the west side of town. Mr. Tucker-Noted that the article also mentioned the Highway Department moving their offices into the satellite and questioned the reasoning for that? Councilman Goedert-Noted that it refers to the stipulation that if we bought an already made building that the offices could be accommodated and that's nothing that's been set, that's all in the talking stages. Mr. Tucker-Questioned whether the Supervisor has given it some thought about a trust fund to maintain the major parks in the town? Supervisor Champagne-Noted, I haven't really got into it to any degree at this point but it's still on my to-do list. Mr. Tucker-Questioned the attorney of his determination that the petitions that were filed against the Hudson River Park were illegal? Town Counsel Schachner-Noted that he did not determine the petitions were illegal. Mr. Tucker-Who did? Town Counsel Schachner-I don't believe anybody made that determination. Mr. Tucker-Why weren't they accepted? Town Counsel Schachner-Nobody made any determination that anything was illegal. There was a determination made that those petitions filed in the form in which they were filed and at the time at which they were filed, were not sufficient to trigger, under New York State Law a public referendum at that time. That's the determination that was made. Nobody made any determination that anything was illegal. Mr. Tucker-Why weren't they accepted? Councilman Pulver-Those petitions when they were submitted to the Town Board were submitted as a request for the Town Board to bring that issue to a public vote. That's all they were ever intended to do because on this particular issue the Town Board could if they chose, bring this issue to a public vote on their own without being requested with the proper number of signatures by the public to do so. So, these folks had hoped that four hundred signatures would be enough to get the board to bring this to the public for a vote without having to hire an attorney and go through the whole process. This was not for or against this particular issue, it was just four hundred people who said, let the people decide and members of the Town Board decided that they didn't want them to decide and that's why they voted not to accept those petitions. Councilman Goedert -First of all, I'm insulted by your statement that we didn't want to listen to the taxpayers as to bringing this to a vote. The reason that I voted no, and I will only speak for myself is the fact that I was an elected official, I can make the tough decisions along with the easy decisions and I am put here for a purpose and if they wanted to do a petition to bring the park to a referendum, that they have to follow these steps in which the law makes them take. I am not going to give them a free ride as I would not give anybody else a free ride. They have steps to take, it's their job to take those steps and just like I wouldn't ignore another law in reference to Mr. Harris, I stand the ground that we do that because of a law. Councilman Tucker-Noted, that he's heard there's a chess game going on or maybe going on at the county level and questioned the Supervisor whether he's going to finish out his term here at the town? Supervisor Champagne-Absolutely. Mr. Brendon Lyons from the Post Star-Mr. Harris is here and I'm not sure if you're planning to meet with him tonight or whenever but in light of your invitation earlier, to come in and meet with the board or any member of the board, I just want to remind you that you can't meet in Executive Session with your advisory in a lawsuit. Mr. John Salvador-Referred to the resolution previously passed at tonight's meeting authorizing the payment of twenty-eight thousand dollars and questioned whose money has been authorized to be paid? Supervisor Champagne-Noted, that would have to come out of the contingency fund in order to make that payment. Mr. Salvador-Whose contingency fund? Supervisor Champagne-The Town of Queensbury. Mr. Salvador-You can't authorize funds to be paid unless you have a contract. Town Counsel Schachner-I understood the resolution as presented to not actually authorize payment of any money to anybody. I understood it to be a budgeting resolution. I understood it to simply be a resolution indicating that the board was approving funding up to but not to exceed twenty-eight thousand dollars if necessary as your maximum local share so that you would be as budgeters, if you will. You would be knowing in advance that you may some time have to pay up to twenty-eight thousand dollars for this cause. Supervisor Champagne-We would need a contract to that affect. Town Counsel Schachner-We would need a whole bunch of things to happen but I understood this resolution to merely be a budgetary planning type resolution to indicate that we might want to set aside, if you will figuratively speaking or keep in mind that we may at some point have to pay up to twenty-eight thousand dollars. I did not understand this resolution to be actually authorizing any payment of anything to anybody. Mr. Salvador-Referred to the transient merchant and noted that there is someone considering an activity of vending from a boat on Lake George. Executive Director Martin-Noted that he's not a concern, he's out in the water and therefore is not in the Town of Queensbury. Mr. Salvador-Stated that the five hundred dollars a day for a transient merchant license is ridiculous. Referred to the Mooring Post hearing, views seem to be the hold subject and concern. I feel it's time that we do something about evaluating and putting into motion some kind of an ordinance, regulation, something that tells people what obligation they have to protect views. Noted that there are communities in this country that charge a view tax and view easements are granted. If you want it, you pay for it. Did you close the public hearing tonight regarding the zoning? Supervisor Champagne-Yes. There will be another public hearing once this is revised. (Keith Harris Matter) Mr. Jeffrey Martin-Good evening. My name is Jeffrey Martin, I'm licensed land surveyor and geologist with an office on Dix Avenue. I'm here in regard to the Keith Harris matter. As a land surveyor and geologist I do a lot of work for loggers, people who are having their property logged, people who are worried because the adjacent property is being logged, for mining, for people near mining operations, for agricultural operations. And over the years, and here I've been working in this area since 1966, I've seen an awful lot of squabbles. They usually start small and sometimes they end small, sometimes they get big. People demand the products and as, but they don't want to see them produced. I hate to use the phrase because it's greatly overworked, it's nimbi, not in my backyard. I've been around long enough to see enough housing developments done where I've gone in when I started out as a rodman or an instrument man and we would be in surveying for a new housing development and the neighbors say they don't like it, the want to see that land left open for their enjoyment but they don't want to own it or pay the taxes. Five, ten years later, that's all developed, there's houses in there and we're surveying the next property. Sure enough at the Planning Board meeting, the people what we're new houses, are in their complaining that they don't want to see what's going on next door. It happens again and again. Some of you are chuckling, you've seen it, you've been on the boards. Over the years the regulations have changed, well, regulations have changed. The state has, finally begun to recognize that basic production, I hate to say industries because we're not like a smoke stack industry. Basic production industries need some protection. We've got the Fisher Act for forest lands, we've got agricultural districts. Alot of towns are now passing right to farm laws. If you want to move out in the country, well, you've got to understand that maybe there's a farm down the road and you're going to get that smell of manure every once in a while. You know, don't move to the country then yell, scream and holler because there's natural, normal country activities going on. This is happening time and time again. The state's mining law, has specifically superseded alot of town regulations that, whose felt were over regulating and trying to drive out the mining industry, sand, gravel, crushed stone, whatever. But by God, when you go to pave somebody's driveway, listen to them scream and holler about the price of the asphalt or the price of the concrete but they don't want any of the production around the area. Alot of these production facilities be it production, processing have been a long, long time and the people who are in it are getting squeezed. Alot of the people who are doing the screaming haven't been there that long, relatively new to a neighborhood, think that because they're there, everything should go their way. Very little recognition and tolerance of what's going on. I've also worked the other side of the street where a group of neighbors get together to fight a project and as, usually not as a surveyor, more as a geologist, I get hired to come in and shoot holes through the other consultants plans, whatever. If you've been on any planning boards, you see this, you can go from town to town. It's the same with attorneys, you may be reading one script in one town on one night and reading the other script and wearing the other hat in another town on the next night. In surveying we see a lot of boundary disputes or disputes that end up over boundaries mostly because of the neighbor's activity or what someone perceives as the neighbor's activity. And sometimes these get pretty hot and I suspect from what I've seen, I have done some work for Keith Harris, I've done some work, I don't want to say against Keith but I've worked for people that have had Keith working for me and I've been checking his work. Not in my own business but under previous employers I did a fair amount of work for the Town of Queensbury. I've also done a fair amount of work for people who are fighting the Town of Queensbury or try to either ram something through or sneak something through or just thoroughly bewildered by the regulations in just trying to get something through, something that seems normal. I've seen the growth of the subdivision and zoning regulations which I believe started about 1967 or 68, back there somewhere and I've seen them grow and grow and grow until there's this mammoth book or couple of books and I think you've got one person who knows, really knows where everything is. And if you go in and ask Jim a question about something, you'll find him flipping through to two or three sections. If you pick up that book and read it, and here I've been dealing with it since the day it came out, you pick it up and read it and depending upon which section you read, you get different ideas. If people didn't get different ideas, then the Zoning Board of Appeals wouldn't have much to do and yet they always seem to be busy. There's alot of interpretation going on. Now, I don't understand what the matter was that was being discussed a few minutes ago. I didn't hear the people who were discussing it knew what was going on, I just heard some figures and the population of this town is, I don't know exactly but it's thousands, ten thousand, twenty thousand, it's quite big. Supervisor Champagne-Twenty-four. Mr. Martin-It's quite big, okay. The number Mrs. Goedert mentioned on a particular petition was something like four hundred and I believe either Mrs. Goedert or Mrs. Pulver made the comment that well, it's only four hundred out of twenty-four thousand. I don't know first hand what the numbers are in the Harris dispute. The numbers I heard tonight were three people on one side and I heard a hundred or so on the other. Mr. Harris-Almost four hundred. Mr. Martin-Whether the numbers are exact or not, I don't think matters. If four hundred out of twenty-four thousand doesn't seem to be very much, it looks to me like, three, even if it were six, if it were only one, that much difference in the number. A couple of people have gotten the town and the Town Board so excited over something that I think in the grand scheme of things, and the grand scheme of some of the issues you're discussing tonight is really very small, very small. This is something might better not be handled, in my opinion, might better be not handled by the town, it could be a civil matter between these three or one or six or these couple of neighbors against one other neighbor. The courts are set up to handle this thing. I think the town has maybe inched into this step by step. It's just kind of grown, it's festered for years and years and years and as such, you know picking at that little sore, it just keeps getting worse and worse and worse but by the time your done, there's still just that little, tiny splinter in there and everything else is just so much infection that's been caused by something so small and so tiny. I think in starting this lawsuit, the Town Board may have, I hate to tell you your business, I know I can't tell you your business, I think we've lost track of the scale of things here of the import to the town. The Town Board is supposed to represent all of the interests, majority interests, minority, residents, industries, commercial operations and there's got to be some kind of a balance and in my opinion having worked in this field for thirty years, some how I just don't see this as the place for someone to draw the line in the sand to spend who knows how many taxpayer dollars. I hate to keep saying taxpayer dollars but that's where it comes from. I think we've got more important problems to take care of. The very, very few people who are having a problem with this have a proper forum that they could take it to. Don't you think? They'd be more then welcome to take it to that proper forum. I've probably spoken enough, thank you very much for listening. Supervisor Champagne-Thank you. Anyone else care to speak? Yes sir. Mr. Bob Schultz-My name is Bob Schultz, I'm a taxpayer in the town not a resident. I'd like to comment briefly on the Keith Harris affair but before I do I'd like to say that there was a man on my property today hanging survey ribbon. I bumped into him, literally. He identified himself as an employee of VanDusen and Steves and that he had been contracted to do aerial photographing for placement of the sewer, the North Queensbury sewer. I asked him to please remove the ribbons and himselffrom the property which he did. Does the town have a contract with the county for this work? Supervisor Champagne-The answer to that is no. Mr. Schultz-The town has no contract with O'Brien and Gere for the work? Supervisor Champagne-The answer to that is no. Mr. Schultz-Nor with VanDusen and Steves? Supervisor Champagne-That's no. Mr. Schultz-Can I have a copy of tonight or do I have to come by tomorrow for a copy of the resolution that you passed earlier tonight? Supervisor Champagne-You're going to have to come by tomorrow because it's got to be redone. Mr. Schultz-To pay O'Brien and Gere the twenty-eight thousand. Can I pick that up tomorrow? Town Counsel Schachner-It's not to pay O'Brien and Gere any money but obviously he's welcome to a copy. Mr. Schultz-Darleen, can I stop by tomorrow and pick a copy of that resolution up? Town Clerk Darleen Dougher-Probably by tomorrow afternoon it will be ready. Mr. Schultz-Okay, thanks. There is a pending lawsuit involved, that I'm involved in, Schultz vs the Warren County Board of Supervisors. Has any member of the board seen a copy of the complaint? Supervisor Champagne-Relative to the North Queensbury Sewer? Mr. Schultz-Right. Supervisor Champagne-Yes. Mr. Schultz-Anyone else. Councilman Goedert - I have not. Councilman Pulver-No, I've not. Mr. Schultz-Does anyone else care to see it? Councilman Goedert -Yea, I'll read it. Mr. Schultz-Okay, I'll drop that off in the Clerk's Office tomorrow. You're running some risk that, that money if it is a resolution to spend money could be wasted. I mean we have, we think we have a good complaint. Another minor matter. If the town receives vouchers or invoices for anything, surveying work down through paintings, what is the procedure for auditing those vouchers or invoices? Is it, does it get audited and does not every voucher or claim need to be approved by the Town Board? Supervisor Champagne-With a comptroller, that's their job and during the time that we had the comptroller obviously she did review the vouchers and she did manage that whole process. Without the comptroller obviously it's the town's responsibility to go through, audit the vouchers and follow through those steps, that's right. Mr. Schultz-Fred, from my understanding, does the town law not require the Town Board to approve all payments? Supervisor Champagne-No. Mr. Schultz-Does not, okay. Supervisor Champagne-Not with, when you have a comptroller, that's what takes that responsibility away from the town. Mr. Schultz-And you had a comptroller at the time? Supervisor Champagne-Yes we did. Mr. Schultz-The Town of Queensbury lawsuit against Keith Harris, I don't, I know I can't sue the Town of Queensbury. I can sue the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, I can sue it's officers but I can't sue the Town of Queensbury. I don't think the Town of Queensbury can be a plaintiff in a lawsuit either. I think the Town Board can sue but I don't think the Town of Queensbury so I would hope that you, if the lawsuit goes ahead, I would hope that you would amend it and make sure that the Town Board is suing on behalf of the Town of Queensbury maybe not the Town of Queensbury. As a taxpayer in the town I would not want to be included in that lawsuit. I guess that's my point. Also as a taxpayer in the town, I object to the use of public funds for this particular lawsuit. I have reviewed the decision in the earlier lawsuit, I've reviewed the complaint and I've also reviewed a few documents, a few copies of correspondence between the town and the neighbor and the town and Mr. Harris. I'm not an attorney but I can read and comprehend. It appears to be quite frivolous, it appears to be without merit in fact or in law and it would appear as though no reasonable argument can be made for an extension of the law. What is apparent is that it's a form of harassment, given the total picture of what Mr. Harris has been subjected to, that it was brought with malice. Fred, you and Mrs. Pulver appear to be under misunderstanding. You said earlier that it was your understanding that the earlier decision said, restricted certain types of operations to certain parts of his land and that he might be for instance, storing logs on the wrong part of his land. That was not part of the earlier decision. The earlier decision did not restrict any kind of operation to any part of his land. Supervisor Champagne-Bob, wasn't there an agricultural provision in there that did have some restrictions to it? Jim or am I... Town Counsel Schachner-I think you're probably talking about two different court cases. I suspect that Mr. Schultz is focusing his attention on the Supreme Court case decided by Judge Dier and I'm guessing that you're focusing, at least part of your attention on the Town Court case decided by Judge Muller. Two different cases, apples and oranges. Mr. Schultz-The complaint appears to refer to Judge Dier's decision which was appealed to the Appellate Division not to, another lawsuit. Supervisor Champagne-Right. Mr. Schultz-If that's the case then it's true that the decision did not restrict Mr. Harris to a certain part of operation to a certain part of his land. And there is, I find it ironic that the letter from the town to the neighbor indicated, in 94 indicated quite clearly that under Judge Dier's decision under the, it's finding of fact and conclusions of law, you found the fact that timber logging in a construction business is allowed at the site and that an increase or an acceleration of the business volume alone would not support an argument that there expanding an enlargement of the business and yet that seems to be what the lawsuit is all about. Clearly, I mean the lawsuit, the complaint appears to be over the stock piling of a large number of logs. Three logs might be considered large to Mr., to the neighbor where as ten million logs might be considered a large number to you and I. But in any event the complaint appears to be an objection to the fact that he's storing logs which seems to be an integral part of his, of the logging business. Mrs. Monahan, with all due respect you appear to be allowing the town to carry the water for neighbors including your friend Dorothy, an official of the League of W omen Voters which as you know has some ability to sway the results of elections. I went through this personally as you know, you were here then back in the eighties when because of the complaints of a few neighbors, not the least of which was an influential official from the thruway authority. The town issued a stop work order to my subdivision the day the trucks began to bring the road building material. So because a few neighbors complained you had this board issue a stop work order and I had to go down to the state law library every day the three weeks to study the highway law from King George on down to find out what my rights were and also to find out how I could proceed without an attorney because I couldn't afford one. In any way that began my perse' legal career. It's wrong to be influenced by a few people, a few neighbors. Councilman Monahan-Mr. Schultz, you are entitled to anything you want to believe. Mr. Schultz-I know that. Councilman Monahan-Therefore, I will not try to dispute what you want to believe, that's up to you. I would not be sitting on this board if I felt that I was going to sit here to further the cause of certain people. I'm well aware of what was happening to our road up there at Hanneford. I'm well aware of the problems that were caused. I'm well aware that Paul Naylor looked at it and a few other things. Truth can be twisted to any means that somebody wants to put it. Mr. Schultz-As a taxpayer, I would hope that you would drop the lawsuit. Thank you. Supervisor Champagne-Okay, thank you. Since you've been around once, can we hold you for a second go around? We're going to have the first timers come in. Is that fair enough? Councilman Goedert-He didn't speak in reference to that. Supervisor Champagne-He was up earlier. Councilman Goedert-In reference to the other thing. Supervisor Champagne-Okay, you're next. Ladies before gentleman, let's leave it at that. There you go Dorothy, it's all yours. Ms. Dorothy Burnham-My name is Dorothy Burnham and I live on Boulderwood Drive and I have been the subject of many remarks this evening. My purpose in coming up here now is to say that I have not seen the petition that was presented to you. I wondered if I could get a copy of it perhaps tomorrow and have a chance to look at it? Councilman Goedert-What petition? Councilman Pulver-We don't have a petition. Ms. Burnham-Pardon? Councilman Pulver-We don't have a petition. Ms. Burnham-Oh, you don't have a petition. Councilman Monahan-Has a petition been turned into you Darleen? Town Clerk Dougher-No. Mr. Harris-I have the four hundred signature petition. Ms. Burnham-I believe I have the floor. I understood that a petition was presented containing four hundred so you don't have one. If you get one will I be able to see it and look it and perhaps have a copy of it? I also would like to say that there have been several, shall I say inaccuracies presented this evening. I won't go into them but I think some remarks were made by people who do not know the entire background of this situation. Other then that, Mr. Harris has said, he indicates that I'm trying to force him out of business which is far from the truth. Never have I tried to force him out of business. My only concern is with the expansion of a pre-existing nonconforming use and that is all. So, I would hope that those of you who know the situation and who know me, will have realized that some of the things that were said both by Mr. Harris and by Mr. Schultz are incorrect. Thank you. Supervisor Champagne-Thank you. Mr. Gilbert Boehm-Questioned whether the town was going to conduct a household hazardous waste day this year? Supervisor Champagne-We did send a letter to the county, we had hoped at the time that the county would take on this project and allow it to happen county wide. They came back with a cost of upwards to sixty to eighty thousand dollars and the Board of Supervisors turned it down. We brought it back here to the town, we took a look at it here on an individual town basis and again that cost was somewhere in the neighborhood of fifty to sixty thousand dollars. Councilman Monahan-I don't know, the last I knew of it, it was going to be sent to the county. I didn't know anything else had happened since then. Councilman Pulver-I didn't either. Supervisor Champagne-I apologize I guess for not getting it out. We asked Jim Coughlin to take a look at it and he came back with an estimate of about fifty thousand dollar cost to the town to provide for that. At that point when I guess I made a decision and maybe the board needs to be updated on this but it was far expensive, the money is not in the budget and we just decided not to proceed with it. I guess I will take the rap for that. The next step, Fred Monroe from Chestertown is working with other counties to see if collectively we can get enough support together and also at the State level if the State requires these things to happen then perhaps they should help support this kind of cleanup day. Mr. Boehm-What's happening is you're inviting people to just discard however they can. There's got to be some methodology of getting rid of this stuff and not leaving it to everybody to dispose as they see fit. (Keith Harris Matter) Mr. Harris-I've just got a couple of questions, I'm not going to bother any people any later tonight. I was wondering if this Town Board knew that I was being sued, if everybody here knew this? Councilman Goedert -Yes. Councilman Turner-Yea. Councilman Monahan-I did. Mr. Harris-Okay. I was wondering, was this a board decision or whose responsible for this lawsuit? Supervisor Champagne-It was an unanimous decision on the part of all board members. Mr. Harris-Was that at a board meeting or? Supervisor Champagne-Yes. Mr. Harris-Okay I was wondering is there any Supervisor Champagne-Executive Session obviously. Mr. Harris-Is there any possible way to get an audit of what this is going to cost and what it's cost in the past? Supervisor Champagne-I don't know, to my knowledge, I don't know if you could put an estimate on this. I don't know that Keith, I'd have to check. Mr. Harris-Is there any way to get an audit of the cost of the last legal fees the town paid? Supervisor Champagne-We may be able to do. Mr. Harris-So we can just let the people know what it's going to cost. Councilman Goedert-Did Paul do this or did he ... Councilman Monahan-Keith is it a matter of cost or I think the question in front of this board has to be, is a zoning ordinance being not followed. If it's not being followed, we don't have much option. Mr. Harris-Mrs. Monahan I was just, all I was going to see was how much it was going to cost now, Councilman Monahan-I know but what I'm trying to say Mr. Harris-compared to the last time when we brought this in front of the Judges. Councilman Monahan-Keith, I realize what you're saying. What I'm saying is, I think that you're putting a different slant on this then the Town Board can put on it. What has to be determined is whether or not a zoning ordinance is being broken. Mr. Harris-So money is not an object. Councilman Monahan-It doesn't mean that money isn't an object but I guess what you're saying then is if it costs money to enforce our ordinances, we don't enforce them. From what I've listened to here tonight between the Waterfront Residential and what I've heard from you people, I'm getting the impression that the people in the Town of Queensbury would like us to tear this book, take this book and tear it up. Now, we could do this and we could do it after having a public hearing, we can do that. I guarantee you though six months later we'll have everybody in here screaming we want it back in place. This is one of these things you're danmed if you do and danmed if you don't, there's no satisfying people. Mr. Harris-I tried to tell you that. Councilman Monahan-They want it as long as it doesn't affect them. Mr. Harris-Mrs. Monahan, I tried to tell you that tonight for a half an hour. Councilman Monahan-I'm saying Keith, they want it if it doesn't affect them. If it affects them, they don't want it. You would be the same way about a situation from the other side. Mr. Harris-I've got a business across the road from me, I've never squeaked once. What I was just going to ask the people is, if it's not an issue of money, let's let everybody know whose paying for this, you and I and everybody here and if it is an issue of money, I'm willing to tell you what I paid. Can we throw this, we can't throw it in the wastebasket, can we throw it on the table for six months? I have a lot of investigating to do and a lot of legal advice to get and a lot of town support, it's going to take me time. Supervisor Champagne-And I think we've listened and I think we've heard what came back to us tonight, Keith. Mr. Harris-I hate Supervisor Champagne-And I think that it's up to this board to meet in Executive Session with the counsel, with Mr. Martin to determine what direction we need to take and that's why, if we invited you in tomorrow and you give me a call and let's see what we can put together to make it happen for both sides in a win, win environment. That's my, that's my proposal. Mr. Harris-Okay can't we just put this thing on the table for a few more days so I can prepare myself. Supervisor Champagne-Are you willing to come in tomorrow and talk about putting it on the table or the next day or the next day? Mr. Harris-I'm pretty busy but I Councilman Goedert-Excuse me, I have a question. In the papers that you were served today, does it tell you that everything is taking effect immediately? Mr. Harris- I have twenty days to answer this summons or I default. Either I hire an attorney out of my paycheck, out of my own financial situation or I default and I was just asking the town if we can find out how much money you're paying, how much money I'm paying, let's put this thing on the table for sixty days if I can't get six months. You're just, for once I was just wondering if I could get a little something. Another thing I wanted to ask you too, how many times does the town, if you have a business that's in question in the Town of Queensbury and you sue him once and then you bring him and you sue again, how many times do you sue him before he's legal? And I don't know if this was a Town Board vote, shall we take the chance of suing Mr. Harris again. Supervisor Champagne-Keith, you know I think that in our findings as we went through the legal documents of your previous cases and I guess I've got to say it again, it as come to at least my view that there's a problem on that one section of property. Now, if I'm wrong, I've got to call on counsel and yet we don't want to really get into this deeply in as much as it is in litigation. You know, we have an obligation. Mr. Harris-You have an obligation but then again you have an obligation, I'm a citizen too and I'm a taxpayer and I generate alot more money then any of these neighbors and I'm not saying that makes me better than you and everybody else. You rely on the zoning people. The zoning people rely on you. You rely on the lawyer. The lawyer relies on the Judge. The Judge relies on the five Judges down in Albany. Yet, no, we're going to start the whole waste of tax money again. Especially, I would give everybody here just a little bit of leeway if they didn't knew what I did and am doing in Fort Ann. You know I would give everybody just a little bit of the chance to make this decision, this lawsuit. Like I told you before, you know I, I just think it's one of the most ridiculous moves that I've seen in my business career but you know I'm not going to speak for you and the Town Board and all the taxpayers. And I will, can't I ask for an audit of how much the last lawsuit costs? Supervisor Champagne-Well I'll do my best. Mr. Harris-Do you know the process of doing Supervisor Champagne-It's public information. It's public information and certainly we'll Councilman Pulver-You just need to file a Freedom of Information form that you want the attorney's fees. I don't think they're broken down though into Mr. Harris-They should be on a large lawsuit like that. Councilman Pulver-I don't, I mean we had a town attorney. Supervisor Champagne-I don't even know if he defended us. Executive Director Martin-Peter Firth defended it. Supervisor Champagne-Peter Firth did? Councilman Turner-Yes. Mr. Harris-But the town did, they didn't appeal it because maybe they were advised of better judgement. Councilman Monahan-Keith, I want to clarify something at least from my view point okay. It is not my understanding that this is the same case of that one that was tried before. Councilman Turner-No it's not. Councilman Monahan-More then that I really can't say but I did want to clarify that because you seem to be of the impression that we're bringing the same case over again. From all the information that has come to me, no we are not doing the same case over again. Mr. Harris-I don't want to interrupt you but it's very hard for me to believe that considering the same business, the same owner, the same type of business, the same size property, the same ruling from the Judge and the same town that sued me once under a zoning regulation that I've been advised I never should have went to court in the first place. Councilman Monahan-I can only repeat what I said, if I and you know, that's all I can say but I will say that. Supervisor Champagne-I want to leave the door open. I still want to invite you in here, sit down, if the newspaper has to be here, that's fine with me too but it seems to me as if, across the table and reasonable people with reasonable minds ought to be able to put something together that works for all sides without going to court. And I'll say that publicly, I'll say it directly. I will invite you in, sit down in our office, my office, where ever and let's see what we can piece together sometime between now and Wednesday or Thursday. Mr. Harris-I'm more then willing to work anything out Supervisor Champagne-That's all I'm asking for. Mr. Harris-but it's hard for me to believe this Town Board can even sit, the ideal of an agreement, in 1986 Mrs. Burnham sued me. I won, I won twice. Now we are in 1996, the town is suing me. Mrs. Burnham wasn't happy then, she's not happy now, she's not going to happy ten years from now. Mr. Davidson and luckily most of my enemies have backed out due to common sense probably. It's not going to work out. I've tried to tell you this. I've been ten years, ten wasted years out of my life. It's not going to work. We have to say yes, no, or that's that because I can only accept that. That's, you know, that's my rights on that property. I need, if I could get sixty days on this lawsuit we probably could work it out. Supervisor Champagne-Do you want to go into caucus and talk about sixty days? Councilman Pulver-It's too late, I've got to go home. I'm tired. Supervisor Champagne-Well, how about the rest of you? Mr. Harris-All it takes is a vote. Councilman Pulver-I can't think this late at night. Mr. Harris-Did you vote when you sued me? Supervisor Champagne-Sure did. Mr. Harris-Was that in private session? Supervisor Champagne-It was in Executive Session. Councilman Pulver-No, we never vote in Executive Session. Supervisor Champagne-Well when we came out of Executive Session. Mr. Harris-Oh. Supervisor Champagne-I'm sorry. The discussion was, Mark, give us the happenstance here that we go back at which time we dealt with it in Executive Session. Town Counsel Schachner-Right, I wasn't here because this is when Paul Dusek was still here as your Town Attorney but my understanding from Mr. Dusek was exactly what you just said Fred. That you discussed it in Executive Session which is totally appropriate and that upon leaving Executive Session you enacted a resolution directing me at that time, before I was counsel for the town, as special counsel to the town, to commence the action. That's my understanding. Mr. Harris-Why would the Town Board put me March 21st under the guillotine of the Zoning Board of Appeals when March 1st you had already voted to suit me. Was that just a little bit more fair treatment from the town? Town Counsel Schachner-That's a simple question to answer, the town, neither the Town Board nor anyone else from the town had anything to do with bringing Mr. Harris's case, if you will to the Zoning Board of Appeals. In fact, someone else appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals about a ruling that related to your property and it's their right to make that appeal. Nobody affiliated with the town in any way, form, shape or matter brought that case to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Harris-So you mean to tell me that you professional people from within the Zoning Department and the Legal Department on March 1st already voted to take me to Supreme Court. That was already, he's legal. But yet no, the neighbors come in and say, well we want to get him in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals. March 1st, I've already got a lawsuit coming, March 21st I'm up here like a guillotine guinea pig getting the savage from you people again and I'll tell you, I've had it. It's been ten years. You've pulled every trick out of the book to me. Jim knows it, everybody knows it. I'm sorry, I mean like I told you, you know the nice guy only goes so far until you bend him over backwards. So March 1st I'm in court for something that's illegal but March 21st I go in front of the guillotine again in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Is that very fair? Why didn't you tell the neighbors that you had a lawsuit coming? Why didn't you tell them, we're spending your tax dollars very, very respectively and we're going to sue Mr. Harris again. We don't have to bring him in front of everybody and waste a whole night here with the Zoning Board of Appeals. It just doesn't make sense to me but, like I said, I'm on one side so I was, really look for some comments on that one. Town Counsel Schachner-If you want I'll make the same comment and it must not have been clear, I thought I was speaking as clearly as I could. Nobody affiliated with the Town of Queensbury had anything to do with bringing your case before the Zoning Board of Appeals in March. Mr. Harris-Who mailed the letters? Who held the meeting? Town Counsel Schachner-The appeal was filed by, was it Davidsons? Executive Director Martin-Yes. Town Counsel Schachner-The appeal was filed by the Davidsons. Under New York State and Town Law Mr. Harris-Can you just, can you state that one more time just so I can, just try to clarify that? Town Counsel Schachner-Okay, the appeal was filed Mr. Harris-No, no before, you said nobody that's affiliated with the Town of Queensbury Town Counsel Schachner-Right. Mr. Harris-had anything with doing Town Counsel Schachner-No. Mr. Harris-calling a public notice in the Post Star Town Counsel Schachner-No, that's not what I said. That's not what I said. Mr. Harris-Oh that's not what you, what did you say? Town Counsel Schachner-This is not a debate I'm going to win. Supervisor Champagne-No I Town Counsel Schachner-Do you want me to continue or no, it's up to the Town Board? Supervisor Champagne- Well Town Counsel Schachner-I'll be glad to repeat myself if you want me to, it's up to you. Mr. Harris-I wish. Councilman Pulver-Go ahead, one more time. Town Counsel Schachner-Nobody connected with the Town of Queensbury meaning no official Supervisor Champagne-No official. Town Counsel Schachner-No Town Board member, no Zoning Board member, no Jim Martin, no counsel, no anybody else brought any case involving you or any other case, for that matter before the Zoning Board of Appeals. A private citizen did that and under New York State Law and the Town of Queensbury Code a private citizen has a right to appeal a determination made by Mr. Martin. Mr. Martin made a determination, a private citizen appealed that determination to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Once that appeal is filed, under New York State Law and Town of Queensbury Law the Zoning Board of Appeals and it's staff are bound by law, must, bound, mandatory, have to by law to publish notices of public hearings and to convene a meeting to consider that appeal. You, I don't personally know how you found out about that but of course it's public knowledge. Mr. Harris-I was mailed a legal notice. Town Counsel Schachner-Oh okay. Mr. Harris-I see it in the paper and everybody told me. Town Counsel Schachner-All the better. My point being only that, you're presence was not required at that meeting but it was certainly welcomed. Mr. Harris-The thing that amazes me and this is my last statement, is Jim Martin in 1994 stated this was legal. The Supreme Court stated it was legal in 1989, the Appellate Division backed it up with a holy decision from five Judges and the taxpayers have got me in Supreme Court again. I'll tell you I feel like one great guy. I feel like the best guy in Queensbury and I just hope that this thing doesn't have to keep getting, you know, because I'm, I have it and I told Jim this and it's, it's ridiculous and I think you people agree. The problem is when you start finding out the other sides of the tale, the stories, they differ, the people's views. Supervisor Champagne-Okay. Anything more? Mr. Harris-Just, I wanted to get my file back if I could. Supervisor Champagne-Anyone else, open forum? OPEN FORUM CLOSED 11:45 P.M. AUDIT OF BILLS RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS RESOLUTION NO. 213, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan RESOLVED, that the Audit of Bills appearing on abstract May 6th, 1996, numbering 96-192400 through 96-208000 and totalling $143,434.06 be and hereby is approved. Duly adopted this 6th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 214, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Fred Champagne Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and enters Executive Session to discuss one matter of personnel and a matter leading to the potential hiring of an electrical inspector. Duly adopted this 6th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND MEETING RESOLUTION NO. 215, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Fred Champagne RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Executive Session, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Town Board Meeting. Duly adopted this 6th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT: None No further action taken. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK-QUEENSBURY