Loading...
1996-11-18 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 1996 7:02 P.M. MTG#47 RES#448-465 LL#7,96 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR FRED CHAMPAGNE COUNCILMAN BETTY MONAHAN COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER COUNCILMAN CONNIE GOEDERT COUNCILMAN CAROL PULVER TOWN COUNSEL MARK SCHACHNER TOWN OFFICIALS William Burns, Comptroller Harry Hansen, Director of Parks & Recreation James Martin, Executive Director Community Development Tom Flaherty, Water Superintendent Mike Shaw, Deputy Wastewater Director PRESS GLENS FALLS POST STAR, ACC TELECOMMUNICATIONS CLASS PUBLIC HEARINGS PARILLO REZONING - FOREST PARK MOBILE HOME OPENED 7:02 P.M. NOTICE SHOWN SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I'll open the public hearing on the Parillo rezoning, Forest Park Mobile Home. Before I ask for presentations I'm going to ask Jim Martin if he will bring us up to date on that application, Jim and where it stands this evening. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-This is for extension of the mobile home overlay zone onto a section of property at the Comer of Van Dusen and Pitcher Road this has been to us previously before. It is an amended application to some degree in that one mobile home lot has been removed from the last time this was reviewed. I don't know if I want to term it new information it was new revelation to me, anyhow, it came this morning when we found that a hundred foot buffer zone is required between a town right -of- way and the nearest boundary line of a lot containing a mobile home within a mobile home court. Therefore, that would significantly limit the design possibilities on this particular parcel. Certainly, from some degree from what you see there before you with what is listed if you include the house lot an eleven lot configuration, I want to make the board aware of that as soon as possible. We had a Planning Committee Meeting earlier today that was discussed with Ted and Betty, I made Fred aware of it, and I left word with Carol on her phone, it was in her Ward to make her aware of it that's the latest with the application. However, in further review of the resolutions for this evenings meeting the resolution setting the public hearing for tonight as well as the resolution you have before you to extend the overlay zone there is no specific mention made of this map or a particular design configuration or a number of lots. I talked to Mark today also, it's our opinion this can move forward tonight, the public hearing can go on and you can take up the rezoning request if you want. I just wanted to make you aware there is hundred foot buffer off of each road that would somewhat frame in where the lots would exist on this particular parcel. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-It could reduce the number oflots. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Depending on when we get an exact site plan and how much a roadway that would service the lots would take up in terms of area, I estimate the maximum of lots would be six or seven, but I'd like to see a specific site plan that lays out the dimensions, six or seven exclusive of the house lot. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Were they notified of this finding? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yes. I called John Richards the applicant's Attorney as soon as I came across this section of the code this morning and I conversed with him, I think three times today on the phone. Actually he said he was aware of it several years ago when this first proposal was made. Scott Harlicker the Planning Assistant at the time made him aware of it apparently in his notes. It didn't come as that much of a shock to the applicant or it didn't appear to anyhow he is here to speak tonight. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-What's the pleasure of the board do you want to proceed with the public hearing based on change of design? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-My feeling is Fred that since the people are here to speak they should have this opportunity to speak, but that we should leave the public hearing open until we get a revised site plan in from the applicant. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Something I do want to emphasize for the board too, this is not the last time you will see this. This is dealing with the rezoning request tonight meaning extension of the mobile home overlay. If there is in fact a proposal to extend the mobile home court into this area that is a site plan review that requires the review and approval of this board and you also will have the benefit of the input from the Planning Board on such an application. That application will get into the detail design in terms of lot layout, drainage, septic system design, and so on and so forth, and any other concerns that you may have. You will have an opportunity to see the specific design on a mobile home court expansion and all the issues associated with that. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Is that satisfactory to the entire board? TOWN BOARD-Yes. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, you heard a description of what the applicant is proposing do you want to add anything to that Mr. Richards? ATTORNEY JOHN RICHARDS, ATTORNEY FOR FRANK 1. PARILLO-I thought I just better make sure there seemed to be some confusion earlier that we're all working off the same map. I wanted to post my, if I could, for just a moment and make sure that matches what you have in your file. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-John for the record why don't you specify the date or any other identification that's on that map, please. ATTORNEY RICHARDS-This is a map of Forest Park Mobile Home it is by Harold Berger an Engineer. The last update I see is August 10, 1996. Let me first address Jim's comments. The reason why I wasn't surprised it is in the Mobile Home Ordinance. To the best of recollection Scott Harlicker and I talked about this when this first came up several years ago. All along we have treated this sketch that you see before you as kind of a conceptual schematic to support basic rezoning petition this was done at the request of the Planning Department. As Jim said we have to come back before this board again with a very specific design plan in order to get the actual permit to extend. I believe, correct me if I'm wrong Jim the Planning Board will also act as a recommending body at that time. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-That's correct. ATTORNEY RICHARDS-It's not called a site plan review but in effect have the same kind of detail that a site plan approval application would have. What Jim did mention and I think he should have is that this board also has the power to grant variances from the specific requirements of the different requirements of the Mobile Home Ordinance. When that time comes when we do submit our application we'll certainly request that variance. We think we more than meet the test for that variance and we're ready to address it, but that's down the road a little bit. Tonight we're just asking this board to approve that this property should be rezoned because it's an appropriate area for a mobile home overlay zone so that is what we're doing tonight. This schematic conceptual, however, you want to characterize this supporting sketch of the lot layout is as many of you know the result of a lot of time we've spent with the Planning Department, members of this Board, and certainly the Planning Board. We got a lot offeed back we have taken some of the neighborhood concerns into account. As you know we've eliminated one mobile home spot, one lot excuse me, broaden the buffers, and we feel it is an entirely appropriate use. As a matter of fact, I went back and looked at the Planning Staff comments both in ninety-four, ninety-five when we submitted our original proposal and again in ninety-six. They have both indicated it is good planning, it is proper in-fill. This is surrounded on two sides by an existing mobile home park as you know, and it is certainly an appropriate way to increase the affordable housing within our community. I do have and I know you've probably all been by it, but just to give you an idea of how this looks from the outside. I do have a picture I like to pass to the board of the house parcel it is going to be used in conjunction with the mobile home park and the site itself. (Presented pictures to board) Also I want to emphasize we have flagged the proposed buffers as well as some of the sites for the actual mobile homes. Any of you who have been by, realize the mobile homes will be invisible, virtually invisible from both of the roads. There will be no outlet or curb cuts or anything leading on that comer it will all be back through to the existing roadways. We think it is perfectly appropriate and actually an ideal use of that site. I would ask this board to consider and approve the rezoning application tonight. Mr. Parillo is here if you have specific questions for him. If any other questions come up during the course tonight we have more information and data that we're prepared to review with the board, I would ask for your approval tonight. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, thanks John. Anyone else here to speak on behalf or against? TOM CONDON, 510 CORINTH ROAD, QUEENSBURY-My property is to better zero in for you three parcels in from Van Dusen, three lots in from Van Dusen Road. It is a lot that goes from Corinth Road right back to Pitcher Road. In fact, my property is directly across from the proposed overlay area. I'm speaking in strong objection to the overlay proposal. I purchased my property in 1992 as a primary investment and retirement home expecting to protected by existing zoning laws. At an October 15th, 1996 Planning Board Meeting the Planning Board did not approve Mr. Parillo's petition for zone change because of a number of real and valid concerns. Didn't even consider the fact as Jim has recently brought out at this meeting the fact that there is a required one hundred foot buffer. One year ago the Town Board, this Town Board different members perhaps, but the Town Board in fact of Queensbury voted down Mr. Parillo's request for his proposed trailer court expansion for good and valid reasons. Again, not even considering the one hundred foot required setback. I would suggest that code requiring a hundred foot setback was for good and valid reasons for obvious reasons. A petition with forty signatures was submitted at that time to that board and that board again voted down the petition. From landowners in the near proximity of Forest Park Trailer Court strongly opposed to the requested zone change, forty signatures an expansion of the trailer court. The petition stated objection was, now this is right off the petition the petition which I didn't circulate other concern people did. If this expansion is allowed it will reduce the existing buffers and decrease the value of their life time investments. That was the petition, that was signed by forty people. I find it a bit incredible that this petition for change of zone is being given any serious consideration to the extent that we have to keep coming back and go to all these meetings and try to voice our concerns. When in fact the Town Board has voted down, the Planning Board in 1996 did not give approval for good and valid reasons not even considering the fact that there is a code existing that requires the one hundred foot setback. Clearly the proposed map, the map has changed several times the map submitted in February of 1996 has twelve sites now it's down to ten sites, and the ten sites won't fall within that one hundred foot setback. I don't know how much time has been given to this on the part of the parties if they are aware of the hundred foot setback it should of been brought out as a matter of important concern and addressed accordingly. Additionally all the documents have been submitted even to this day, I believe have not in fact brought up to date all the factors that now are being presented. I think it's kind of a rush to get approved something not everybody wants to hear all the details on and I'm very concerned about the process. One of the primary premises, I guess of Mr. Parillo and Mr. Richards who is representing Mr. Parillo in justification for this request for change of zone is a tremendous need, quoting off his petition for more affordable housing in the Town of Queensbury, well I submit that hasn't been proven. I have learned that the town has not had a Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Queensbury since 1989 they are presently doing that updating. I submit that a lot of people have taken the time to become concerned about this latest development in the area that I live and have in fact taken the time, I think responsible town officials should take before they seriously consider changing zoning laws, changing codes to facilitate somebody that wants to make a lot of money at the expense of existing property owners in that area. I say that the Town Board somebody ought to be sure of the facts before we assume them to be true. There is not a tremendous need in the Town of Queensbury for more affordable housing. Specifically there has been a survey made of four existing trailer courts in the Town of Queensbury. There are five different trailer courts existing in the Town of Queensbury of four of those that have been surveyed there are seventy to eighty existing vacancies. In Mr. Parillo's own park there are at least seven or eight vacancies with four trailer sites, trailer homes up for sale. That doesn't demonstrate to me a tremendous need for more affordable housing. I would also say that if there is demonstrated by the updating the plan within the Town of Queensbury for more affordable housing there certainly are alternatives way to meet that need which I think would be in the better interest of the Town of Queensbury. I would also urge the board to consider learning and factually knowing what is the financial impact of trailer courts to any community. I think that if one were to find that information, factual information you'd find out there is one guy that's gaining and gaining significantly and the rest of the taxpayers are paying rather significantly for the educational cost and all other costs in the town where individuals are not when they have children or whatever paying that normal share of the tax requirement of that community. Certainly there are other ways of meeting the need of affordable housing in the Town of Queensbury. I think first of all the town has to prove in fact that there is a need and if there is a need what is the best way to fill it. Certainly, not do so when so many people in the immediate area of this particular proposal have voiced strong opposition. I made a major investment in 1992 I did that expecting the existing zoning laws to be upheld. Coming into the Town of Queensbury thinking its a well run Town, educational, superior or good. Why did I make that investment, I thought I'd be protected by a responsible Town and Town Officials by the existing zoning laws. It is my primary investment it is not something to make money on. It's my primary investment it's where I plan to retire and I would appreciate a comprehensive review of this particular matter before any decisions are made. Have all the Town Board members here tonight read the minutes of the Planning Board Meeting of October 15th, 1996? COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Yes, I have them with me with my comments. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yes, right in front of me. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes. COUNCILMAN PULVER-Yes. MR. CONDON-In there and the reason I asked that question is I have copies and I like to make a matter of this meetings record the copy of the formal presentation that I gave to that Planning Board Meeting in opposition to this zone change petition and now we're dealing with a code change. Do I need to give this to someone to make it a matter of the minutes? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Give it to the clerk. PREPARED SUBMITTAL OF OPPOSITION FROM MR. CONDON SUBMITTED - ATTACHED TO BACK OF MINUTES MR. CONDON-I think if the board members have read the minutes you would have also have read my presentation. I took a great deal of time and I think I was quite factual in what I presented in the way of comments in opposition to this proposal. I guess with that I'm wondering why this process continues to go forward with so many things that have to be changed in existing code, existing zoning laws, and such a negative impact to immediate area residents. I think there is another resident here that is directly impacted as I am he was here a year ago. How many hours do we have to put in and how many times do we have to object to this process. I find it, I guess a real concern as to why all of this is being brought forward and given so much consideration when in fact there hasn't even been a proven need for this development other than somebody wants to make some money at the expense of the neighborhood at the expense of the Town of Queensbury in my opinion. There are existing zoning laws in that area that are not being enforced, I brought that to the board's attention the last time that I came before this board and voiced my concern. I guess I'm going to have to take specific concerns requests to the responsible Town Officials to insist that existing zoning laws in that area are being upheld certainly before we start relaxing the zoning laws that do now exist. If anybody would like I have copies of the petition that I mentioned. Would any of the board members like that? Can I have that made a matter of the minutes also. This is the petition offorty signatures that were gathered. They are all dated in May for the Town Board Meeting a year ago when we were hearing this very matter. It is a demonstration of the number of people the volume of people that have voiced concern, objection to this petition. I like to submit it for the record. PETITION OF FORTY SIGNATURES IN OPPOSITION OF EXTENSION OF MOBILE HOME PARK SUBMITTED - ATTACHED TO BACK OF MINUTES MR. CONDON-I guess, in closing I'd like to highlight. It's mention in my presentation to the Planning Board and I have a really very large concern about the environmental aspects of that existing and by Mr. Parillo's own comment very old trailer park. As to the existing domestic sewage system, septic tank specifically trailers that are very close to a pristine brook, Clendon Brook. Landfill that was established and at the last Planning Board Meeting the dump loads of material, gravel, crush rock, were dumped on top of it, I guess to cover it up. I think the board whoever the responsible officials are in the Town of Queensbury should make very sure that the trailer court in it's present condition without expansion is in fact not a pollutant of Clendon Brook and is in fact in any kind of compliance with normal expected septic code and requirements. I would suspect that perhaps there is some real concerns that would be found and I would urge the board not to pursue the abbreviated SEQRA or environmental option, I guess they have. But, rather to go to a comprehensive environmental review of existing facility before any serious thought is being given to the expansion. Someone, like as mentioned at the Planning Board Meeting, a Rist Frost. A competent engineering review of existing site let's be sure that if it's done it's done right and not going to be a further problem to the Town of Queensbury. Thank you. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mr. Condon before you leave the microphone just a question. In light of what you heard tonight about the hundred foot buffer and the reduction of lots would you change your presentation in anyway? MR. CONDON-I guess, I could only say Betty if! may that the hundred foot makes sense. The buffer zone that exists there makes sense. I can't imagine why thinking people with any consideration to the area residents would want to take away from that existing total buffer area. Why is it three to begin with? Why were the existing laws formulated as they were? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It was done because I was on the board when it was done for the reason of protecting the neighborhood and having the mobile home park an entity within itself. MR. CONDON-I think the way it was done was certainly a consideration I made when I came into the area. Again, expecting those zoning laws to be upheld and so aren't a lot of other of my concerned neighbors. COUNCILMAN PUL VER-Mr. Condon you had a question why is this applicant allowed to keep coming back, keep coming back. We have a process and that is as long as the application changes which his application has changed he can continue to come back. If he gets a no that he can't do it he can go away he can modify it, he can make another change, but he can still keep coming back. I know that as far as you residents having to show up at all of these meetings it is an inconvenience, but at the same time if you had something that you wanted to get done you would want to have the opportunity to keep facing the board and being able to work out some sort of agreement. MR. CONDON-I appreciate the comment Carol, I guess that's the democratic way. First of all, I would say that before I leave that I appreciate the opportunity to speak here tonight. The fact that it is an open hearing I think is very healthy for any community, I certainly would want anybody to be given the chance. I'm saying if it's so soundly rejected then why. The fact with the maps that Mr. Parillo and his Attorney submitted February 1996 there were twelve lots very little change in fact from the Town Board rejection of a similar petition a year ago, very little change, but in fact a change. Then maps that were submitted were changed at the last minute before a Planning Board Meeting and then never have they been clearly defined dimensionally as far as what is actually that buffer zone it seems to be left up to the Town Board or left up to someone. Nothing was mentioned until Jim was able to find or did locate or was brought to his attention, whatever that one hundred foot dimension, very critical, very critical. COUNCILMAN PUL VER-I agree with you. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Mr. Condon before you go away. MR. CONDON-Yes. COUNCILMAN TURNER-I think Betty asked you a question in reference to the plan as proposed before or as in front of us tonight the ten lots what's your position on six lots? MR. CONDON-I would have Ted very real reservations from the standpoint that the Town of Queensbury determine what is existing site environmental condition. Why in the world are we changing zoning laws, changing existing codes regarding mobile trailer courts when in fact we don't have a proven need within the Town of Queensbury for more trailer sites, mobile homes. When in fact there are seventy to eighty existing vacancies. When in fact there are other locations in the Town of Queensbury that could be considered for mobile homes. When in fact if and when it was demonstrated that more affordable housing were needed in the Town of Queensbury there are other ways to meet that need. In my opinion the best interest of the people who would want those affordable houses and certainly there ought to be something other than mobile homes and trailer courts to meet such a need. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mr. Condon may I correct an impression that people seem to have of trailer parks or mobile home parks in this community. Mobile Home Parks were not put in necessarily as a means to meet "affordable housing", but that definition can vary from person to person. It also was put in because people have a right to have different types of housing. There are some people who prefer mobile homes. I think if you've been in Florida you've seen the leisure parks down there. If you've been on one forty nine you've seen Ledgeview. Ledgeview, I certainly don't think qualifies as affordable housing. MR. CONDON-That is very nice Betty, I've seen it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I kind of get a little concern when I see people just think of mobile home parks meaning affordable housing that really is not the criteria. The criteria is to give the people in Queensbury a variety of housing choices. MR. CONDON-I think there should be a variety Betty but, when there are an existing eighty or more sites available...... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It's just like a subdivision do you not approve another subdivision because we've got alot of houses for sale out there. Everyone has a right to choose their type of housing to live in. MR. CONDON-I guess, I would go to the point that I believe in the area of Town of Queensbury there are other locations for trailer parks. There are existing vacancies, trailers for sale in Mr. Parillo's trailer court. There are seventy to eighty more vacancies on four of the existing trailer courts that have been surveyed yet. How many trailers, mobile homes does one community have to allow to make sure the community is meeting that need or expressed desire. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay Tom, thank you. Anyone else here to speak? BRIAN WARNER, 3 VAN DUSEN ROAD, QUEENSBURY-My property is on the comer of Pitcher and Van Dusen Road. I'm opposed to the trailer park expansion. I'm a little suspicious about everything here. I just received this in the mail and it's still asking for the trailer park expansion to go to the comer of Van Dusen and Pitcher Road. I don't have a map or anything else. I didn't make it to the last meeting for personal reasons. I don't understand how they could be asking for the comer of Pitcher and Van Dusen and changing several times, I guess. I see no need for an additional mobile home parks as the gentlemen just said there are a lot of vacancies in the area. As far as affordable homes with the lot rents and the mobile home payment today you can buy a house for less than that so I don't see it as affordable housing. COUNCILMAN PULVER-Brian do you want to come here for a second. This is you right here, right? MR. WARNER-Right. COUNCILMAN PULVER-This is it right here this is the whole piece. They need the land from that house in the calculation in order to expand it. Betty do you have the map? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes. COUNCILMAN PUL VER- The overlay map Jim's got it? He's right opposite the comer what he wants to see is the layout of that plan. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Anyone else? ROLAND AKINS, CORINTH ROAD, QUEENSBURY-There isn't much more to say. I back up everything that Mr. Condon has said. I'm strongly against rezoning of that area. The last time around the Planning Board recommended approval of this to you people. This time they've taken a second look at it they didn't come up with any recommendation. There is a lot of vacant lots in the Town of Queensbury there are other ways to go to affordable housing. Although Betty says that it's besides the point there are other forms, Inspiration Park which is a good example. A few years ago my wife and I applied for, put in an application for a variance for a mobile home on thirty acres of land. We brought this up before Mr. Turner's board they turned us down, said they we're protecting our land. I'd like to have this board do the same thing continue to protect my land. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mr. Akins, I'd asked you the same question. Now that you know that there has to be a hundred foot buffer by both roads and the fact that the lots will be reduced we're not quite sure of the number yet does that change anything you want to say to us tonight? MR. AKINS-Not at all with the number of vacancies in the Town of Queensbury right now for mobile homes. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Anyone else? NEIL LAVIGNE, 119 MOUNTAIN VIEW LANE-I moved to Mountain Lane because of this so called parcelofland. I lived at 1 Briwood Circle from 1976 to 1978. My trailer was adjacent to this parcel of land I believe that is trying to be rezoned. I was one of the original folks that went into the trailer park, I think number four or five, I started and grew up with the whole trailer park. As the park grew and grew if you are familiar with the area or the exit and inlet exit that's off of Van Dusen Road. When I moved in there, there was only probably no more than ten trailers they were on Woodland Path rather than Briwood Circle. I think there might have been two or three on Briwood Circle. The trailer park started in 1996, I moved in January of 1967. I raised my family there for eleven years. I basically got fed up with the trailer park in itself. The trailer park, I work at Finch and Pruyn and through the winter time there was many times I came home and I had a least a foot of water or more underneath my trailer. Mr. Slopey couldn't do nothing about it and it ran into Clendon Brook down the road, whatever the case may be. I got sick and tired when I had this septic system from the pumping station down to my trailer was all basically hooked up on the same line and dumped underneath my trailer. In the spring time when you turned around, I had human waste underneath my trailer and I found a way to stop it. I took and inner tube, I tied it to the existing line underneath the upside of my trailer and I shoved it under somebody else's trailer, I got sick and tired and I moved out of there. There was human effluent that went into Clendon Brook the eleven years that I was there it was clear violation. That's all I could do I was a little boy at the time raising my family we don't need this. The same thing when you are talking about this hundred foot zone. Obviously you probably recall because I've come in front of the Town Board three or four weeks ago about Mrs. Jefferson. The main concern of the individual is you are asking for a hundred foot buffer zone. Look at the trailer park we have on the comer of Aviation Road. You haven't even got ten feet as a buffer zone. Some of those trailers are probably within three or four feet of the line. This is why we have bitterness of mobile homes. As far as I'm concerned, I'm going to object it because the fact that I no longer live there, but I was there and I believe the system was never drastically changed. In my case the eleven I was there, I bet you there were at least four or five different times that I had sewage underneath my trailer. Maybe it has been....because I have not lived there since 1978, but I moved out because of some of the problems. A foot and a half of water underneath the trailer, sewage underneath my trailer, Mr. Slopey said if you don't like it move out, I moved out. Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. Anyone else? COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-I have some questions for Mr. Parillo. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Can we just read there was a couple of correspondence. DEPUTY CLERK O'BRIEN-Actually just one in regard to this. This is from Mrs. Carol Henderson, 188 Pitcher Road. Does not support any more trailers next to Pitcher Road. We received that today it was per telephone call. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT -She has a lot in between, I believe Mr. Condon's and Mr. Warner's. I'd like to address some questions to Mr. Parillo. Mr. Parillo the last time you were up for the rezoning and then you came to the workshop to bring it back I went over and walked your trailer park because there was a lot of questions in the upkeep and also within the landfill area. I also see that there are numerous comments in the Planning Board's minutes in reference to a landfill that is supposedly on that site. The only thing that I could find what I will explain to you is I thought a vacant place for a trailer. Over the bank they had dumped some pine needles in that area. Mr. Condon said that this week you had trucks come in there and dump stone and dirt to cover that up? MR. P ARILLO- That's not true. The area that you are speaking about is a dump site that we use for pine needles and brush. It is not a vacant mobile home lot it never was a mobile home lot. We have pictures that were taken this week of a pile of sand that is there as a result of re-stoning a drywell. The sand is still in a pile it wasn't spread nothing has been covered up. What is in the pictures that were taken a week ago are still there today. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-What they are stating as a landfill is not technically what we are thinking about as a landfill? MR. P ARILLO- W e pick up our own garbage we have our own packer. We operate four mobile home parks, five hundred sites. We don't dump garbage where it shouldn't be dumped. We take it to the Bum Plant we are permitted to go to the Bum Plant we have insurance. Our bill at the Burn Plant is probably about $4,000 a month. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-In reference to the seven or eight vacancies, your turnover in your park is that on a regular basis? MR. PARILLO-We have the lowest vacancy in the town. We have a hundred and eighty six sites. We have, I believe six vacancies which is around five or six percent, actually it's probably closer to three percent. The vacancies are there because we have rules and regulations that must be followed. We screen our applicants very closely and we don't take everyone that comes along. We have taken some pictures of some homes in the park that are sixty and seventy thousand dollars doublewides. There are two residents here this evening both of which one has been there over ten years the other one has been there five or six years they can attest to the management of the park. We have another lady that couldn't make it that's lived there twenty nine years she is very happy. The roads are paved, we have town water, the septic's are maintained. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-In reference to the septic systems. MR. P ARILLO- The septic systems are two and three thousand gallon septic tanks some have four, five, six homes on them. The New York State Department of Health has given us a letter that we have tonight with this. They have never ever been there on a complaint since I've owned the park. I bought the park I believe in, I think it was 1985 or 1986. We pay as far as the number of children there are less than a hundred kids that come out of that park. Our total taxes are $85,000 a year. SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE-$85,000... MR. PARILLO-Approximately school and town tax. Our water bill is $6,000 a quarter. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-How many children? COUNCILMAN PULVER-Less than a hundred. MR. PARILLO-Less than a hundred. COUNCILMAN PUL VER- That's three quarters of a child per home. ATTORNEY RICHARDS-There is a large portion of the mobile home park that is basically senior citizens. MR. P ARILLO- I think probably the oldest park in the town. ATTORNEY RICHARDS-I think Betty pointed out one of the things that makes an alternative attractive like this is the upkeep and the trash removal and that kind of thing that would make it attractive to a senior citizen. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-There are a couple of things that I'd like to add in terms of that dumping area. We went out to the site the last time that this was here before us. We checked that out and I can confirm personally John Goralski and I were there. We poked through the piles all we ever found were pine needles, leaves that type of thing. John was there himself personally two times since then in response to some inquires we got about that area and all we found were pine needles and that type of thing. He and I were there again today forge around that area dug a couple feet into both the piles in the ground and all we found were pine needles, leaves that type of thing we didn't come across any garbage or waste. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-He is entitled to do that. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-It all appears to be generated on site. I drove through the entire park I noted a lot of people seemed to be raking their lawns and had the pine needles in piles and so on. I counted, I think six or seven vacant lots and probably an additional six or seven vacant homes that were for sale the trailers were still on the lot, but for sale. I also got the impression some people use this as a summer residence. It look like some of them were closed up for the summer and moved maybe on to the south or something, but it looked like they were boarded up for the winter. ATTORNEY RICHARDS-I got that letter from the Department of Health. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT -I think you should put in for the record. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I think it should go for the record John. ATTORNEY RICHARDS-It really just confirms that they have to approve any septic systems that are installed there and they don't see any problem with the soil types there. Following letter submitted to Clerk. November 18, 1996 Mr. Frank Parillo Forest Park Mobile Home Court Pitcher Road Queensbury, NY 12804 Re: Forest Park Mobile Home Court Queensbury (T), Warren County Dear Mr. Parillo: Confirming our phone conversation of November 14, 1996 you presently are in discussions with the Town of Queensbury over a potential 10 or lllot expansion of the about referenced facility. That expansion would require Department of Health approval. Plans need to be submitted detailing the design of the sewage disposal systems and the layout of the extension of the water distribution system. Prior to the submittal of plans, test hold must also be dug and witnessed by Department staff to verify the presence of acceptable soils to the depth appropriate for the sewage disposal system design. From my knowledge of the area and generalized soils maps I would expect the soils to be deep and excessively well drained sands. Very truly yours, Brian S. Fear, P.E. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-We have asked to keep the waste away from the brook or the dumping away from the brook. I think it's around forty feet now from the shoreline edge of the brook. It appears now the dumping is more to the south and they are maintaining that buffer away from the shoreline of the brook. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Also in the Planning Board minutes it states somehow, access road use was brought up. I couldn't quite pick it up in the minutes where it came up, but Mrs. LaBombard stated something about her kids traveling on their bikes and using the store. COUNCILMAN PULVER-The conversation was increased traffic that would be on Pitcher Road. Her comments were my children ride their bikes over there all the time and she never really noticed an increase in traffic or a lot of traffic coming in and out of the trailer park, I think that's what the comments were. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Any other questions. Before I move on with closing or leaving the public hearing open what's the pleasure of the board? Do you want to leave the public hearing open until we come back with a finalized plan? COUNCILMAN PUL VER-I think we should. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes. ATTORNEY RICHARDS-Correct me if I'm wrong this isn't the stage when we have a finalized plan. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-John we're not asking you for all the details that we will during site plan. But, we certainly want to see a schematic layout of how you are going to get the lots in with the hundred foot buffer zone left. ATTORNEY RICHARDS-What if we want to apply for a variance from that... COUNCILMAN TURNER-That will have to come after. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You'll have to come after that. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I think the most we can do now John is to look at a plan not necessarily detail but certainly a layout with a hundred foot buffer which is not what we've seen so far. I guess, I have to say for whatever reason this got by me anyway to the point where I wish now that I was looking at a six or seven lot layout that I think we could move ahead. ATTORNEY RICHARDS-Do you need a plan legally for rezoning? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think we can request whatever we want. ATTORNEY RICHARDS-Certainly if the board needs a plan to decide it obviously we'll come back with the plan that you need to review. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That's where I am. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Here is the way I pick up the order of sequence. You came tonight with this plan, we're looking at this plan. This plan obviously has changed since the last go around because of the hundred foot buffer. Now you've got to come with another plan specifying the layout of the new proposal and then we have to look at that one. It would be my position to leave the public hearing open until you come back with that new plan and then we go from there. If the Town Board approves the new plan then it's approved, but then if it's denied then you go for variance. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And the variance is to this board. This board is the one that would grant that variance or not grant it. ATTORNEY RICHARDS-I'm not trying to be....I'mjust trying to understand this. Don't we have to have the rezoning before we're in a position to apply for the variance? COUNCILMAN TURNER-You are applying for a variance because we denied the rezoning. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No. COUNCILMAN TURNER-I think so. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-What he is saying is he wants to get a variance from the hundred foot buffer, I would assume. COUNCILMAN TURNER-He can apply for that. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You can apply for that but the board you are going to apply to that too is going to be the Town Board. ATTORNEY RICHARDS-I understand that it's part of our license application. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think you have to look at this very closely John to see whether or not you can really meet the requirements of a variance. ATTORNEY RICHARD-We're confident we can, we just didn't expect to have to do that at this stage. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, I certainly am not going to look at a rezoning and give you a rezoning that shows ten lots plus a home lot that is in conflict with our Ordinances, I would not do that. I will tell you right now, I also want to see some test borings to see what the percolation rate is over there and I want to see a plan to beef up that hundred foot buffer. That house lot and I think we discussed this before the house lot is within the hundred foot buffer and I'm going to want to see as part of that rezoning a deed restriction requirement on that house lot that will only ever be used as a house for a caretaker. It can never be subdivided and sold off it will always have to remain part of the buffer and a mobile home will never go on that lot because it will always be part of the buffer. ATTORNEY RICHARDS-Can I ask you though. We come back with a plan that reflects the current buffer requirements of the Ordinance. We're not precluded after approval of the rezoning as part of our license application for applying for a variance from those buffer requirements am I right? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-You are not precluded you can certainly make application, but that's a whole different ball game that we're in now. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-On the other hand Mark do we have to hear a variance or can we say we just don't want to hear that variance, I'm not sure where we are legally on that? TOWN COUNSEL, MR. SCHACHNER-I don't think it's similar to a rezoning which as you know you have the discretion to not even consider. I think that an applicant speaking genetically does have the right to make application under that section of the Town Code for a variance. Again, there are some cart and horse issues that I think we need to make sure we're all on the same wave length. But, I think the correct procedure and I think at this point perhaps we are understanding it, but the correct procedure just to clarify is that right now this particular property is not within a mobile home district. They can't apply to this board for a variance from any of the mobile home regulations at this time because they are not even in the district. They are making application to get in the district so to speak and at that time as the applicant points out and I think as Fred correctly responded, if they get approved and they are in the district and they then want to make an application for a variance to have increased density or whatever that's an application that would come to this board and this board would have to rule on. ATTORNEY RICHARDS-So we're going to keep the public hearing open and we'll come back with a revised plan. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Showing whatever number of lots fit within a hundred foot buffer. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-As I said before, I pass on this rezoning request I'm going to want to see some test borings. I'm going to want to see how you are going to beef up that buffer to make it better than what it is today. COUNCILMAN PULVER-We do have to re-advertise so they won't be on the next meeting. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You don't have to re-advertise when you hold it open. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-People don't have to notified? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Not when you hold it open. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN - We have just as a general curiosity in the past. SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE-I was just going to say normally we would do that. COUNCILMAN TURNER-To inform them. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Is there anything else I had in my list Jim? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-No. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-If they are going to come back with a revised plan I have two recommendations I would like to make to them in reference to their park. That's numbering and finding some way of putting a street sign up, I realize to keep it there is a big issue. I think those things need, I don't know where you want to bring that into this? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-That would probably be best at site plan something that specific. I did mention to Dave Hatin a little bit about this today he's been helping in the addressing. He said the best thing to do if this is in fact done and they do extend this internal road within the park it should get a new road name and then address from there because it would mess up the numbering system on the existing road. COUNCILMAN PUL VER-I was going to say is the road we don't know what the configuration is, but the road that goes into that park is it an extension into the new part, is it an extension of another road? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-It is an extension of an existing road within the mobile home park as it's shown there. There is no new access off..... COUNCILMAN PUL VER-I thought it was a separate road? COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-The road is already there. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-It's an extension I think of Briwood. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. TOWN COUNSEL, MR. SCHACHNER-So the public hearing is staying open? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yes. PUBLIC HEARING TO REMAIN OPEN PROPOSED LOCAL LAW - MORATORIUM COMMUNICATION TOWERS OPENED 7:58 P.M. NOTICE SHOWN SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Anyone care to speak in reference to that? TOM HARIG, 1 SWEETBRIAR LANE, QUEENSBURY-Submitted letter for the record. (ATTACHED TO MINUTES) SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Before we get started here I did have an opportunity just for the board's information. I had an opportunity to speak to Tom today in relationship to the Ham Operators. I think as we first took a look at this there really wasn't an awful lot of consideration even thought about if you will in relative to the Ham Operators with home base antenna's so that's what we're going to hear a little bit about tonight. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-My understanding is the moratorium wouldn't involve them would they? MR. HARIG-We're here to clarify that. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Jim did you see this as far as the moratorium is concerned. Would this impact on the Ham Operator? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-My understanding is any communication tower of fifty feet or more in height as it's written tonight. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-How high is the tower normally for a ham operator? MR. HARIG-If we had our druthers fifty thousands of feet high? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I have one near me and I don't think it's more than fifty feet, but I'm not a very good judge of distance. MR. HARIG-Typically probably fifty to seventy five feet. That's not to say some wouldn't be higher than that. Probably on the outside a hundred feet once you start to get about that your into quite a bit of money and quite a bit of land to do that. That's not to say someone here wouldn't be interested in doing that, typically probably less than a hundred feet certainly on average. Good evening my name is Tom Harig, I reside on Sweetbriar Lane in Queensbury in Ward 3. I'm here tonight to represent the interest of the local amateur radio community. As you said we wouldn't have expected in a discussion of cellular telephone towers and that's the frenzy that's caught the nation recently that we would be talking about amateur radio operators. But, the fact of the matter is we have towers as well and this tends to catch those towers in the same predicament. In addition to being an Amateur Radio Operator licensed by the Federal Government, I also have two local government capacities. I am an employee of the State of New York and for my agency in Albany, I'm the Disaster Preparedness liaison for with the State Disaster Preparedness Commission. I have more than just a hobby interest in this, this is part of my employment to some extent. Also for the State Emergency Management Office which maintains an office on Fox Farm Road in Queensbury for Region II, I'm the RACES Radio Officer. RACES is the Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service. It's regulated in part under our Amateur Radio license structure put in place by the federal government to have license amateur radio operators provide disaster communication supports to local governments. Not for parades, not for Red Cross, not for other kinds of organizations in the community that need communication support, but specifically for government organizations. I also act in that capacity for Warren County the Office of Natural Disaster and Civil Defense, two different levels here. Formally, I've been the Disaster Communication Chairman for the Local Chapter of the American Red Cross. I speak with a bit of experience at least in the disaster communication area. I representative the interest of our civil defense volunteers in this amateur radio arena. Let me ask, first of all the board members are you familiar amateur radio, ham radio in general, I can go into that just a bit? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I think we're pretty well up to date on that Tom to be honest with you. MR. HARIG-Let me point out that it is a license service licensed by the Federal Communications Commission under the Communication Act of 1934. That's important because the federal government basically takes the position that it regulates the conduct of amateur radio stations. It acted recently to pre- empt the interest of state and local governments in that area. SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE- Tom can I stop you there. I'm going to call on counsel here. Is that what we understand to be true that the federal government does in fact regulate the ham radio operations? TOWN COUNSEL, MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, I believe that's correct. MR. HARIG-They ask what the linkage is between amateur radio operators and cellular communication towers that you are looking for a moratorium for or I should say towers in general prompted by the cellular wave, I think. The answer to that question is the tower. Ham radio operators have to have an antenna connected to their transmitter to speak to the outside world. Those antennas come in various sizes, shapes and forms. The key that is important to all of them is the higher the antenna the better it works. We have fairly large size antennas that allow us to talk overseas. We have fairly small antennas that allow us to talk across town. The common characteristics of all of them is the height that is directly associated with distance and that's where the tower comes in. I think it's fair to say at least myself and my colleagues are unaware of any instances in the Town of Queensbury where we've had a problem or we've had one of our volunteer members have a problem with neighbors or with the local community with the towers that they've operated. Again, they come in all shapes and sizes some of them are commercially built towers, some of them are what we would call home brew, homemade towers. Frankly, I'm not aware to be honest with you, express my ignorance whether we currently require a building permit to erect the tower in a home, I simply don't know that. Amateur radio towers do not come under National Electrical Code to my knowledge. As I said early, I expect typically the tower that you would see from a ham radio operator someplace in the order of fifty to a hundred feet. About ten years ago the Federal Government acted to protect the interest of a class of folks that has licenses. They issued a preemption order that sort of sent to local governments you can regulate amateur radio towers to the extent minimally necessary to protect the health of the local population and safety of the local population. One thing is very clear from the federal prospective you cannot prohibit the conduct of operation of an amateur radio station. They would essentially say, I think if we had their attorneys here that you could not engage in a local practice that would prohibit the erection of an antenna. I would view a moratorium as a temporary prohibition to that. We would ask basically our question of relief is that amateur radio operators be exempted from the local moratorium at least. If I could summarize and I had this in bold in our statement. From the federal memorandum that states the federal preemption. Quoting now from the federal government. "State and local regulations that operate to preclude amateur communications in their communities are in direct conflict with federal objectives and must be preempted. Local regulations which allow placement, screening, or height of antennas based on health, safety, or aesthetic considerations must be crafted to accommodate reasonably amateur communications, and to represent the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the local authority's legitimate purpose." Part of what they are saying is if you feel compelled for safety reasons to require that the ham radio operator fence in his property or fence in the tower the federal government can appreciate that. If you should require that the tower structure that the ham radio operator has in his backyard have an anti-climb device to keep kids away from that they are not interested in interfering with that. But, the moment that you say the federally licensed ham radio operator cannot presently erect a tower than we view this as the federal government intervening and preempting your local authority to do that. A number of states for example, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Florida have taken the federal preemption language and embodied that in their own state's zoning statutes to be sure that local governments are protected in that regard. Actually we find, I guess most attorneys don't have the need to get into communication law most local governments aren't aware of the federal preemption and the interest in this area. Most ham radio operators are unaware of this and it's only when these kinds of moratoriums, these kinds of regulations come about that we have the need or the opportunity to get into this. Basically we would ask your relief in exempting the ham's from this. I would volunteer eagerly if you should get into zoning regulations or building code regulations in the future we would like to participate in that and help you draft those codes. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. MR. HARIG-Any questions? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I guess I'd rule it back over there to these folks that put these ordinances and regulations together. Do you see any problem with this Jim? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Mark and I were just talking about that. I do note that specifically in our Zoning Ordinance the closest thing we have to this is part of the reason why we're here is we regulate satellite, what we term satellite receiving antennas. That's defined in the zoning code and I note that in the last phrase of that definition it goes through a.... of things that are included in that. Earth terminal, earth station, satellite communications antenna, satellite antenna. The very last phrase is, but does not include conventional television radio and amateur radio antennas. As it stands today we don't regulate residential amateur radio antennas they are not subject to zoning and they are not therefore subject to a building permit or anything like that. MR. HARIG-Jim if I can bring you up to date. The federal government just in the last few months has basically stated that the regulation of satellite dishes is something that they also preempt. I know probably about ten years ago maybe that the Town enacted an ordinance that limited the satellite dish to the backyard. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-We last updated our satellite again, based on what we thought at the time was right up to date with federal regulation. We last updated the satellite receiving antenna section May 3rd, 1993. I remember at the time Paul Dusek did a lot of research then as to what were the federal standards that we had any say in and what we didn't. My understanding this is up to date, but you may have even more. MR. HARIG-In August of this year the federal government you've seen these small dishes that Radio Shack sells now these eighteen inch dishes? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. HARIG-They specifically exempted those from local regulation. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-That would make sense. MR. HARIG-Except to the extent to which they say the local government has the authority to regulate the positioning. If for example, I wanted to mount that on a fire escape and that presented problems with entry or exit from a building you have the authority to regulate in that. They essentially say that you cannot regulate one's reception of federal license services. If what I hear you say basically we are already exempted from the local Zoning Ordinance? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I think in terms of the amateur radio, yes. MR. HARIG-Okay, excellent. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-It's going to stay that way throughout the new ordinance. TOWN COUNSEL, MR. SCHACHNER-That's the key question. I don't think there is any question that these are currently exempt from our current ordinance. I think the gentlemen's points are appropriate and well put and appropriate to raise at this time to make sure if and when the Town Board enacts a local law governing towers presumably at the conclusion of a moratorium if you are in fact going to have a moratorium that now we have extra input to make sure that we don't step on the toes so to speak of the federal governments regulations of these types of towers. SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE-I guess for my own edification though. If someone wanted to buy one of these eighteen inch disc and put up on a hundred foot tower in the backyard then again the federal government regulates that we don't? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-If you are talking about one of those dishes I think these are regulated to some extent by our local law that specifically is what we're talking about. In terms of ham radio or the term is used amateur radio antenna that is specifically not regulated. But, I do think these TV satellite dishes are even the smaller ones at an eighteen inch size. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It's in zoning and the setbacks is where we regulate. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Right. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-What about height? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-A satellite dish listed three feet in diameter should comply with the setback requirements of an accessory use or structure in the zone in which it's located. Except it shall not be located less than ten feet from any property line or easement. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I'm not concerned about setback. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I don't know when you would ever put up one of those small dishes that high frankly. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I guess my only concern is when we get ready to do the ordinance that we certainly need input from those of you that are out there. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-It maybe time to also look at the satellite receiving. If there is new federal legislation maybe it's time we went to back again. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-I think we've gone to towers to dishes. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-It all has to be encompassed in the ordinance. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-The moratorium was on towers. MR. HARIG-We had an interesting comment in the back row. We would view the tower as the structure itself a commercially built tower to the top of the tower. Inside the tower we would put on a mask as high as twenty feet high and then mount an antenna on that. So one of the fellow says are we talking about fifty feet or seventy feet, well it's another twenty feet. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-We need to do some homework on it obviously. TOWN COUNSEL, MR. SCHACHNER-Just why we have this gentlemen here, I think it would be helpful from our standpoint on a factual basis the amateur radio towers so to speak are they always mounted on the residence? MR. HARIG-It could be on the side of the house. It could be an independent structure in the back or side yard. TOWN COUNSEL, MR. SCHACHNER-Sometimes it's not on the structure itself? MR. HARIG-That's true they could be free standing. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-The one near me is an independent structure. MR. HARIG-If there are no other questions. Let me end by saying the highest principal that we have is that we're good neighbors. If you should have a problem with any of antenna structures we would not hesitate to work with the board to try to resolve those... SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I appreciate that. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-This is also an update for the board. Two members of the planning staff spilt a conference this weekend in Vermont there was one sponsored by the Vermont Law School. George Hilton went Friday and Sue Cipperly went Saturday and we got material that we brought back from that. We already shared some of it with Mark and we'll sit down, that is on the cellular tower issue and the emissions and that type of thing to see what boundaries we have to work as a local municipality. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Jim and Dr. Harig, I just like to ask a question to get educated a little bit please. On these towers whatever you want to call them that go up for ham radios. What guarantee do we have as far as the safety of them in their structure as far as wind etc., and so on so we don't have to worry about one of those getting blown down hitting a neighbors structure, etc? MR. HARIG-I guess the most practical aspect of that for me is that it damages my house before it damages his house and puts me and my family in jeopardy. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Do we have any regulations pertaining to that any inspection type of thing? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-No. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's what I wanted to know for background. MR. HARIG-Our people are fastidious at making sure the thing is well built. If anything it would probably withstand a nuclear attack because it's a hobby interest as well for the people that are putting it up. I would dare say that ours is as good as any commercial installation. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. Anyone else care to speak? PAUL NAYLOR, DIVISION ROAD, WEST GLENS FALLS-We've got two of them over in our neighborhood and I guess we've got a third one after listening to George's problem last week. I agree with the gentlemen that they probably build them as good as anybody else. But, if it's a hundred feet tall and it's a hundred feet within my house I rather have our Building Department take a look at it to make sure it passes inspection like everything else in this town. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. BILL SHEETS-I just want to comment that most of the towers that are commercially bought today, in fact also the tower sections which these towers are assembled from are commercially manufactured and they generally comply with the Uniform Building Code. They are generally designed to withstand winds in accordance to what are called EIA specifications which is Electronics Industry Association. They are generally specified to carry certain loads which are measured in square feet at a certain wind velocity which generally is fifty to eighty miles per hour. Most of the towers themselves have small antennas on them. Amateur radio antennas tend to be smaller than a lot of commercial antennas I know, I have one myself. I live in Hebron, but I have some property in Queensbury here. I have one that is seventy feet tall and I'm on a mountain top and we get eighty mile an hour winds, and the thing hardly moves, and it's free standing, and it is not guide. I think the thing here is that most of these are made to far exceed uniform building code specifications. They have to be because not only if an antenna is whipping in the wind it's kind of useless if it's aimed someplace and it doesn't stay where it's suppose to stay it sort of defeats the purpose. I assure the board members most of these antennas if not all are made to meet these specifications which we in this part of the country we seldom if ever will get winds or any kind of severe weather of that nature. Thank you. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Now you are talking about the antennas for the amateur radio? MR. SHEETS-I'm talking about the towers that are generally used for amateur radio, yes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-How far can you reach out, can you get to Australia from where you are? MR. SHEETS-Any where in the world generally it depends on conditions. GEORGE DRELLOS-27 FOX HOLLOW LANE, QUEENSBURY-I would like to see this board put a moratorium on these towers. I'd like to see some setback requirements since we don't have any laws in effect for that and have permits for these towers so they can be inspected. I know everybody says they are safe, but a lot of other things get inspected in this town that I could say are safe. I think that this thing has gone just to far without some kind of law for these towers and we, I think are getting taken advantage of in Queensbury or we will be because we don't have any laws in effect. But, that is my opinion and I'd like to see it go for like at least six months to get through the winter to give your people time enough to get some zoning laws and some kind of permit process in effect for these kind of towers. Even the ham operating ones if there is fifty, seventy five feet, I wouldn't want one within that range of my house and go by somebody's word that it's safe. At least if the town looked at it there is some kind of responsibility there to say that they are safe. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay anyone else for or against a moratorium? We got a letter let's hear it. DEPUTY CLERK O'BRIEN-Read the following letters into the record. Dear Mr. Martin: I am in full support of this moratorium towers, just recently having a 150' tower approved on the adjoining property. I feel there must be laws in pace to protect adjoining land owners, and for looks alone the people of Queensbury. I ask for a time of six months on the matter to give the town time to have a good set of laws drawn up for adoption. Further more, if this resolution is passed, I will be more than willing to assist the town as a concerned citizen in adopting new laws. Very truly yours, George Drellos Letter dated: November 13, 1996 Dear Board Members: I recently read in the newspaper that the Town of Queensbury is having a meeting in which you are planning to propose a law to ban towers temporally. Since I cannot be at the meeting I am hoping this letter can be read to the board. Since the area I am currently living in is becoming a dumping area for all kinds of towers I am in agreement that there should be a law temporarily banning these towers. This area as you go past it from the Northway looks terrible and is only going to get worse by the looks of it. A recent example is that Sprint was given approval to dump another tower in this area. This is not a pretty site for people coming on or off the Northway and this practice should be discontinued. So due to all of this I hope the Town Board will vote for some type of ban on these towers until someone can come up with a better idea of what to do with them. Respectfully, David T. Kelly SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. Anyone else care to speak? NO PUBLIC COMMENT SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Ready to do the SEQRA Jim. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think first we have to decide whether or not what we are going to do about the amateur radio. COUNCILMAN TURNER-They are exempt. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-I don't think we should make it an amateur professional. I think we should stay with what we have in our packet and go with the height, the height exceeding. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Apparently the federal government preempts us in what we can do in that respect and that's why I'm trying to do something here that's legally responsible. TOWN COUNSEL, MR. SCHACHNER-I guess for what it's worth my feeling on that is we need to be very careful in whatever local regulatory law is ultimately enacted to safeguard that interest. I don't think in the short term moratorium it's a big deal. I'm not an amateur radio person perhaps the gentlemen that was here would know better than I, surely he would know better than I. But, I'm assuming that these are not things that crop up that new amateur radio towers don't go up several per month. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-One could go up next week. I think what I hear you say is that if the federal governments regulations supersede anything at the local level that needs to become a part of the moratorium which I think can happen by having to do the SEQRA and approving this. All we're really doing is going by what the federal statue says. TOWN COUNSEL, MR. SCHACHNER-I guess what I would say if there is a reasonably possibility, let me back up a step. There hasn't been any discussion about how long a moratorium might be in place for. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Let's do that right now before we get any further. What are we talking here Jim can you put something together? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I would say ninety days would be sufficient for us to develop a law. It would require a couple workshop sessions with the board. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think you've got to get a lot of information and background too before you are really ready for this. I think you are really putting that a little short. I would say at least four months not the thirty days. By the time we do all the research that's out there, there is a lot of material out there. I'd rather do it for a little longer period and then if we're ready we can go sooner. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-What do you want to do with this tonight? COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-I just think that we're going into a really busy time of year. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So, I rather put the moratorium for a longer period of time. If we're ready before than we can do whatever we need to do. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That's fine. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-What would you think Connie do you think we can do it in four or do you think six is better? COUNCILMAN GOEDERT -Can we do four and not to exceed six? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-If you put six and if you are ready in four then you come in and pass the law in four months. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT -It's fine with me. All I know is that I'm not ready in ninety days. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Put six months in there we're safe. COUNCILMAN PUL VER-I like six. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We're talking about a six months period. My feeling is frankly since I think this is very important with the kind of commercial communication towers that are popping up. I hate to take a chance on this getting challenged because we shouldn't be dealing with the amateur radio. Right now, I would at least say that we take them out until we find more about it. If we find out there are some regulations that we can do we can come back in and do those at a later date. But, right now what's really of concern to me is the commercial communication tower. To make sure we have something that isn't going to be challenged and start the whole process right now I would take out the amateur communication towers, ham radio. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-It's not been a problem that I've been advised of anyhow. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Would everybody agree to that? COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yes. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-I would agree to that. COUNCILMAN PUL VER-I agree to that. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mark we have to write this in such a way. TOWN COUNSEL, MR. SCHACHNER-What, I would propose then is to add a sentence in the propose local law on Page 2. I would propose to add a new sentence on Page 2, at the end of Section 2, prior to Section 3, entitled Severability. That sentence could simply read this restriction shall not apply to amateur radio towers as regulated by the Federal Communication Commission. While we're doing that Section 4, the Effect Period it sounds like we would be talking about making that read, shall expire 180 days after its effective date. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Are we ready with that then. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-The other thing we discovered Mark and I were looking at the SEQRA Law here there is a specific notation in Type II actions about moratoriums. They are not subject to environmental assessments. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We don't have to do.... TOWN COUNSEL, MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. As far as your concerned and probably to your deep....you don't need to do a SEQRA review of the propose moratorium if you don't wish, too. I just want to make, I've drawn to the board's attention the provision on Page 2 that's in brackets. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-On Page 2 of the law itself? TOWN COUNSEL, MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. Just before the additional sentence we just added. I want to just point out to the board the reason for that bracketed phrase is because this moratorium would prohibit construction of any new towers from the date of adoption forward. There is a tower as we understand it is about to be constructed, I believe by the Sprint Company. That particular application has already received a use variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals and site plan approval from the Planning Board. We put that in brackets in there if you want to keep that in then that tower would still be allowed to be built. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Great. TOWN COUNSEL, MR. SCHACHNER-The only thing I would say if you are going to keep that in delete the brackets. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I didn't think we had a choice. TOWN COUNSEL, MR. SCHACHNER-I don't know that they are not in the ground yet. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-They are not. TOWN COUNSEL, MR. SCHACHNER-That's what I thought. If they are not in the ground then legally we could still have some authority over that I'm not saying we should, I'm just saying we could. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I have to think about that for a few minutes. What's other people's thought? COUNCILMAN TURNER-Are we opening ourselves up to a law suit with Sprint? COUNCILMAN PULVER-They've already gone through the approval process and we're actually doing this law to prevent... SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I'm not ready to stop them. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Again, I'm afraid that we're going to get this challenged if we do that kind of stuff we maybe in a mess and not be able.... SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Let's leave it as it is. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION TO ENACT LOCAL LAW NUMBER 7, 1996 A LOCAL LAW OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ESTABLISHING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON CONSTRUCTION OF COMMUNICATION TOWERS RESOLUTION NO. 448, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of enacting Local Law No. 7, of 1996 "A Local Law of the Town of Queensbury Establishing a Temporary Moratorium on Construction of Communication Towers," which Law shall authorize a temporary moratorium on the construction of or receipt, review or approval of applications for all communication towers in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Local Law has been presented at this meeting, a copy of said Local Law also having been previously given to the Town Board at the time the Resolution was adopted which set the date and time for the public hearing, and WHEREAS, on November 18, 1996, a public hearing with regard to this Local Law was duly conducted, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby enacts the proposed Local Law Establishing a Temporary Moratorium on Construction of Communication Towers to be known as Local Law No.7, of 1996, the same to be titled and contain such provisions as are set forth in a copy of the proposed Law presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to file the said Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and that said Local Law will take effect immediately and as soon as allowable under law. Duly adopted this 18th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:None TOWN OF QUEENSBURY LOCAL LAW NO. 7 OF 1996 A LOCAL LAW OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ESTABLISHING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON CONSTRUCTION OF COMMUNICATION TOWERS BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Local Law is the protection of the general welfare, health, safety and well- being of the persons and property of the Town of Queensbury. The Town Board hereby finds that the construction of communication towers fifty feet (50') or more in height presents unique problems relating to zoning and planning and that such structures and towers may adversely affect the aesthetic resources of the Town. This Local Law will protect the general welfare, health, safety and well-being of the persons and property of the Town and the integrity of the Town Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance by temporarily prohibiting the construction of any communication towers fifty feet (50)' or more in height pending the Town's review and possible revision of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance regarding such towers. This Local Law is adopted pursuant to ~1O of the Municipal Home Rule Law and Article 16 of the Town Law. SECTION 2. After the effective date of this Local Law, no Town official, department or board may accept, review, or approve any applications for the review or construction of any communication tower fifty feet (50') or more in height nor may any such tower be constructed in the Town during the effective period of this Law unless such tower has already previously received site plan approval from the Town Planning Board as of this date. This restriction shall not apply to amateur radio towers as regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. SECTION 3. Severability . If any part of this Local Law shall be declared invalid by a Court of competent jurisdiction, such declaration shall not affect or impair in any way any other provision and all other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. Effective Period. This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing in the Office of the New York Secretary of State as provided in ~27 of the Municipal Home Rule Law and shall expire one-hundred eighty (180) days after its effective date. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION ADOPTING 1997 ANNUAL TOWN OF QUEENSBURY BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 449,96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury met on November 7, 1996 at the time and place specified in the Notice of Public Hearing and heard all persons desiring to be heard concerning the 1997 Preliminary Budget, and WHEREAS, ~27 of the Town Law provides for the setting of salaries of Elected Officials of the Town, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the salaries for the Town of Queensbury Elected Officials shall be as follows: Supervisor Town Councilpersons (4) Town Clerk Highway Superintendent Town Justices (2) $49,130. per annum; $12,360. per annum; $43,560. per annum; $55,620. per annum; $28,645. per annum; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the amendments to the Preliminary Budget shall hereby be as follows: Proposed Adopted Fund Dept. Line Item Description Budget Budget 1 1 599 Appropriated Fund Balance 480,321 564,481 1 1010 4400 Misc. Contr. Town Board 2,440 3,000 1 1220 4110 Vehicle Repairs-Supervisor 0 500 1 1420 4130 Town Counsel Services 150,000 200,000 1 1440 4400 Misc. Contr.-Engineering 50,000 40,000 1 1650 4100 Telephone Use-Cent. Comm. 39,000 37,900 1 5010 4100 Telephone Use-Hwy. Admin. 0 1,100 1 5630 4412 Trolley - Bus Operations 0 45,000 1 8010 1002 Misc. Payroll-Zoning 5,000 7,500 1 8540 4400 Misc. Contr.-Drainage 90,000 75,000 1 9901 9904 IF Transfer to Hwy. 1,730,798 1,741,398 4 4 5031 Hwy.-Interfund Transfer 1,730,798 1,741,398 4 5110 4400 Misc. Contr.-Hwy. Repairs 35,000 40,000 4 5130 4410 Gasoline-Hwy. Machinery 70,000 75,000 4 5130 4820 Uniforms-Hwy. Machinery 3,000 3,600 5 3410 4415 Fire Contracts 1,790,231 1,405,522 8 3410 4424 EMS Contracts 0 384,709 5 9040 8040 4980 Worker's Comp-Fire 6,593 21,269 5 9040 8040 4981 Worker's Comp-EMS 14,676 0 32 32 599 Appropriated Fund Balance o 30,000 32 32 2120 Sewer Rents 493,024 463,024 and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adopts the 1997 Preliminary Budget as amended as the Town of Queensbury Annual Budget for 1997 and directs that such Budget be entered in the minutes of the proceedings of the Town Board, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury shall prepare and certify duplicate copies of said Annual Budget as adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury and deliver one copy thereof to the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury, who shall thereafter present it to the Warren County Board of Supervisors. Duly adopted this 18th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:None DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE WILLIAM BURNS, TOWN COMPTROLLER-Noted changes to be made under Fire Contracts: $1,421,495 should be $1,790,231. Under the adopted budget the $1,420,216 should be $1,405,522. The next line down under Fund this will be under EMS Contracts where the Fund 5 is that should be an 8. Coming across $368,736 should be 0, the $370,015 should be $384)09. Two other small changes the total under Fire Protection 005, $1,541,485 should be $1,526,791. The line below that the $430,015 should be $444,709. The total do not change but this is creating the new fund for the EMS Service and getting them distributed correctly. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Questioned if they vote for this resolution are they voting for the changing of the printout with that or just voting with the budget? COMPTROLLER, MR. BURNS-Noted the budget that is proposed is in the consolidated format. Spoke with the State on Friday this is the recommended and suggested approval mechanism for the budget this is what we're following tonight. As far as subsequent approvals that is still an open issue and you have control over that. The budget as presented tonight is the budget format that is recommended by the State. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Questioned if this is different from what they used to have? COMPTROLLER, MR. BURNS-Yes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Noted it is just format not figures. COMPTROLLER, MR. BURNS-They are consolidated. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Questioned why the budget was printed before approval of the board? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-The board met last Thursday night it was brought to the board, noting Councilman Goedert and Councilman Pulver had left. It was the consensus by the three members that they proceed under these terms. COMPTROLLER, MR. BURNS-Noted the issue that's addressed is the number of transfers from one line item to another become numerous, extensive and lose their value because of the impact. Talking to other communities and the State Auditing Department they felt that because we had created a line item that as you get closer to the end of the year the voluminous number of transactions results in the validity of approval of them. Noted this is the recommended format if the board wants to change it it's like any other policy the board still has that option. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Noted whenever there is a change in adjusting those lines then it would have to come to the group. Anything within the group the Comptroller has the privilege of making those changes without having to go through the whole process. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Noted has a problem with this, likes the fact that she can go back and look at the line items. COMPTROLLER, MR. BURNS-Noted that part will not change. What will change in the approval of the budget. In the approval process of the budget it was approved in what it was called Groupings .1, .2, .4, which is a consolidated approval process. You will still get all the details you will still get all the line items it will not change. COUNCILMAN PULVER-Questioned if this has been discussed with all the staff? COMPTROLLER, MR. BURNS-No, nothing is going to change for them. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT -Noted her problem is not with the budget or the way it is printed. The problem is that it was decided to do this and is handed in that format tonight. COUNCILMAN PULVER-Noted that she doesn't mind that they are going to this but minds that she is finding out this tonight and the consensus was taken Thursday night after we had left the meeting that this was the way we were going to go. Would of preferred that she was called or told about this prior to the meeting tonight. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Noted to approve the budget as it is printed then discuss this during the workshop next week. RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT BID FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE I PARK F ACILITIES AT THE HUDSON RIVER PARK SITE RESOLUTION NO. 450, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHEREAS, the Director of Purchasing for the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, duly advertised for the furnishing of all labor, material and equipment necessary for the construction of Phase I Park Facilities at the Hudson River Park Site at the end of Big Boom Road in the Town of Queensbury, as more specifically identified in bid documents and specifications previously submitted and in possession of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, such bids were solicited in the form of a base bid for construction of the basic park amenities including pavilion and athletic fields and for additional alternate bids (alternates 1 - 4) consisting of planting, volleyball court, boat launch ramp and boat launch abutment section respectively, and WHEREAS, six (6) companies submitted bids and bid packages for the base bid and four (4) alternates, and WHEREAS, a summary of the bids received and the November 13, 1996 memorandum from the Town Recreation Commission have been presented to the Town Board at this meeting, and WHEREAS, the Town Recreation Commission, Director of Parks and Recreation and the Town's consulting landscape architect Miller Associates have reviewed all bids submitted including the various prices and options for the various alternates, and WHEREAS, the Town Recreation Commission, Director of Parks and Recreation and Miller Associates have recommended acceptance of the low bid for the base project plus alternate number 3, such low bid in the amount of $149,360 having been submitted by NuTech Industries, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, hereby awards the bid for the furnishing of all labor, material and equipment necessary for the construction of Phase I Park Facilities at the Hudson River Park Site at the end of Big Boom Road in the Town of Queensbury in accordance with the base bid and alternate number 3 proposal submitted by NuTech Industries in the amount of $149,360, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that said services are to be paid forfrom Account No. 107-7110-2899. Duly adopted this 18th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:None DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE: SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Questioned what the base bid includes? HARRY HANSEN, DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION-Phase I is everything that was included in the application. The grant, softball, basketball, pavilion, picnic areas, nature trails, any road work, the gate, playground equipment. The only thing that was taken out of it is the boat launch. The reason it was taken separately is because we don't have approval from the Army Core of Engineers. Noted all they are recommending is to do the base bid and Alternative #3. RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT BID FOR SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FOR USE AT THE QUEENSBURY WATER TREATMENT PLANT RESOLUTION NO. 451,96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Director of Purchasing for the Town of Queensbury duly advertised for bids for sodium hypochlorite pursuant to bid specification no. 96-8 previously submitted and in possession of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury received one bid in connection with the aforementioned advertisement, and WHEREAS, Thomas Flaherty, Water Superintendent has recommended that the bid be awarded to George Mann & Co., Inc., the only and therefore, lowest responsible bidder, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, hereby awards the bid for sodium hypochlorite to George Mann & Co., Inc., and authorizes and directs that the same be paid for from the appropriate Water Department Account. Duly adopted this 18th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TOWN SUPERVISOR TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD, THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND THE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING BOARD REGARDING REFERRALS TO THE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO.: 452,96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, General Municipal Law ("GML") ~239-m requires that the Town Board, Town Planning Board and Town Zoning Board of Appeals refer certain proposed actions to the County Planning Board for its advisory recommendation before taking final action on these proposed actions, and WHEREAS, GML ~239-m(3)(c) states that the County Planning Board may enter into an agreement with the referring body or duly authorized body of the Town to provide that certain proposed actions are of local, rather than inter-community or County-wide concern, and are not subject to referral under GML ~239-m, and WHEREAS, many of the proposed actions currently referred to the County Planning Board are deemed by the County Planning Board to have no County impacts, and WHEREAS, the municipal Boards, applicants and the public would be better served by eliminating unnecessary steps in the regulatory process, and WHEREAS, the Town and County therefore wish to enter into an agreement as authorized by GML ~239-m(3)(c) in order to avoid needless referral of very minor actions, and WHEREAS, an agreement between the parties has been presented at this meeting, which agreement sets forth the proposed actions that will no longer be referred by the Town Board, Town Planning Board and/or Town Zoning Board to the County Planning Board, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves of the agreement presented at this meeting and identified in the preambles hereof and hereby further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the aforesaid agreement on behalf of the Town of Queensbury and to take such other and further steps as may be necessary to implement the aforesaid agreement. Duly adopted this 18th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:None DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE: SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Noted that this has been a long time coming. Thanked Executive Director, Mr. Martin for bringing this to its final verdict. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Noted this is a major piece oflegislation that is really going to help make government work better. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING DOCUMENTATION FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SERVICE AWARD PROGRAM FOR TOWN OF QUEENSBURY VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE WORKERS RESOLUTION NO. 453, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 532,93, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury established a Service A ward Program for volunteer ambulance workers in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, a public referendum for eligible voters within the Town of Queensbury was held on November 2, 1993, and the results of said referendum supported the establishment of said Service Award Program for volunteer ambulance workers, and WHEREAS, the New York State Comptroller's Office selected Key Trust Company to provide the administrative and investment services required for said Service Award Program, and WHEREAS, Key Trust Company has forwarded the initial documentation for the implementation of the Service Award Program to the Town of Queensbury, said documentation consisting ofa Program Agreement, Adoption Agreement and Trust Agreement, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury must execute the Adoption Agreement and Schedule A of the Trust Agreement and said documents have been reviewed and approved in form by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves and authorizes the documentation for the implementation of the Service Award Program for volunteer ambulance workers and further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Adoption and Trust Agreements and any further documents as may be necessary to implement said Service Award Program. Duly adopted this 18th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Turner, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:None ABSTAIN:Mrs. Goedert (member of EMS) RESOLUTION FOR MAINTENANCE OF WATER MAINS RESOLUTION NO.: 454,96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, the New York State Department of Transportation proposes the construction of the State contract identified as Intersection Improvements, U. S. Route 9 (SH 417) at Gurney Lane, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, and WHEREAS, the State will include as part of the construction, reconstruction, or improvement of the above mentioned project the construction of relocated and replacement water main utilities, pursuant to ~ 10 Subdivision 24 of the Highway Law and will provide for the relocation and replacement of existing water mains pursuant to ~ 10, Subdivision 24 of the Highway Law, as shown on the contract plans relating to the project, and WHEREAS, the State will provide for the reconstruction of the above mentioned work, as shown on the contract plans relating to the project, and WHEREAS, in light of the above, the Town Water Superintendent has recommended Town approval of the utility relocation and replacement, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury approves the municipal utility relocation and replacement of such existing water mains and the above mentioned work performed on the project and shown on the contract plans relating to the project, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury will maintain or cause to be maintained the relocated and replaced water mains performed as above stated and as shown on the contract plans, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed to transmit five (5) certified copies of the foregoing resolution to the New York State Department of Transportation. Duly adopted this 18th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH PLAN, MVP, EMPIRE BLUE CROSSIBLUE SHIELD, AND NORTHCARE PARTNERS HEALTH PLAN RESOLUTION NO.: 455,96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury desires to offer health insurance to the Town of Queensbury's employees and their eligible dependents, and WHEREAS, the Town Comptroller's Office has reviewed many health insurance proposals and has determined that the HMO plans from Community Health Plan (CHP), MVP, Northcare Partners Health Plan and Empire Blue CrossIBlue Shield Blue Choice, and the Empire Blue CrossIBlue Shield Matrix Plan will best meet the health insurance needs of the Town employees and has therefore recommended Town participation in these programs, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the remittal agreements necessary between the Town of Queensbury and Community Health Plan (CHP), MVP, Northcare Partners Health Plan and Empire Blue CrossIBlue Shield Blue Choice, and the Empire Blue CrossIBlue Shield Matrix Plan for the year beginning January 1, 1997, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that said agreements shall be in a form to be approved by Town Counsel. Duly adopted this 18th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE PERMIT TO LOCATE A MOBILE HOME OUTSIDE OF A MOBILE HOME COURT FOR ROBERT AND MARY WOOD AT 174-176 EAST DRIVE RESOLUTION NO.: 456,96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is authorized pursuant to ~1l3-12 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury to issue permits for mobile homes to be located outside of mobile home courts under certain circumstances, and WHEREAS, Robert and Mary Wood have filed an application for a "Mobile Home Outside of a Mobile Home Court" Revocable Permit, in accordance with said ~1l3-12 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, to locate a mobile home at property situated at 174-176 East Drive, Queensbury, New York 12804, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury determines it to be appropriate to hold a public hearing regarding said permit application, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on December 16th, 1996 at 7:00 p.m., at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, to consider the application by Robert and Mary Wood for a "Mobile Home Outside of a Mobile Home Court" Revocable Permit on property situated at 174-176 East Drive, Queensbury, New York, 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 to publish and provide notice of said public hearing in the official newspaper of the Town of Queensbury, to post a copy thereof on the bulletin board of the Office of the Town Clerk, and to mail a copy thereof to the Town Planning Board, at least ten (10) days prior to said hearing. Duly adopted this 18th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:None DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE: COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Noted their reason for applying for a mobile home outside of a mobile home court is not a reason that is sufficient. Noted this is going to the Zoning Board thought this process was stopped. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Noted that is the policy. However, there was an extenuating circumstance with this applicant. Noted in the tax maps with the zoning and the mobile home overlay zones the mobile home overlay zone does exist across the street from this lot. There was an update to this particular tax map section the clerks cut them out and paste them onto the map. When this particular update was done a mistake was made and inadvertently this area of the map was colored in as being in the mobile home overlay zone. Noted they found the mistake that was made and are now looking to rectify it. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Questioned other than the mistake made in the overlay zone is the lot not within the zone? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Correct. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Questioned if there has been a mobile home on this lot? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Believes there has been a trailer on the lot before. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Noted if this is going in a mobile home overlay fine. Otherwise they should go for a variance if they give it conditioned on approval, also it doesn't run with the land it's with the owner. RESOLUTION TO AMEND 1996 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 457,96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHEREAS, certain Town Departments have requested fund transfers for the 1996 Budget and the Chief Fiscal Officer has approved said requests, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the funds be transferred as follows for the 1996 budget: CEMETERY: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 02-8810-2899 (Capitol Construction) 02-8810-4410 (Queensbury Highway-Gas) 500. COURT: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 01-111O-201O (Office Equipment) 01-111O-4150 (Steno.) 500. o 1-111O-4090 (Conf. Expense) 01-111O-4150 (Steno.) 200. HIGHWAY: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 01-3310-4400 01-3310-4160 500. (Misc. Contractual) HIGHWAY: FROM: 04-5130-4200 (Insurance) 04-5130-1460-0002 (Mech. OT) 04-5142-1002 (Highway Snow - Misc. Payroll) 04-5142-1002 (Highway Snow - Misc. Payroll) 04-5142-1002 (Highway Snow - Misc. Payroll) WATER: FROM: 40-8340-1570 (Maint. Man II) 40-8340-4310 (Hyd Maint.) 40-8340-4320 (Service Materials) 40-8340-1570 (Maint. Man II) and BE IT FURTHER, (Signs) TO: 04-5130-4480 (Tires) 04-5130-4820 (Uniforms) 04-5110-1400-0002 (Lab A OT) 04-5110-1440-0002 (HEO OT) 04-5110-1450-0002 (MEO OT) TO: 40-8340-1400 (Laborer A) 40-8340-4330 (Equipment) 40-8340-4340 (Op Maint C&R) 40-8340-1410 (Laborer APT) 7,000. 2,000. 2,000. RESOLVED, that the 1996 Town Budget is hereby amended accordingly. Duly adopted this 18th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: NOES: None AYES: Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. ABSENT:None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING Champagne $ AMOUNT: 942. 650. 620.09 256.08 992.03 $ AMOUNT: 270. CONCERNING PROPOSED EXTENSION TO THE QUEENSBURY CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT TO BE REFERRED TO AS THE "BIG BAY ROADIBIG BOOM ROAD EXTENSION # 1" RESOLUTION NO.: 458,96 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 establishing an extension to the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, to be known as the "Big Bay Road/Big Boom Road Extension #1," and WHEREAS, a map, plan and report have been prepared on behalf of Joseph and Debra Gross (the Developers) by Van Dusen & Steves and Haanen Engineering regarding the said extension of the existing Queensbury Consolidated Water District, such extension to serve an area adjacent to, in and around that area of the Town of Queensbury along the southerly end of Big Bay Road consisting of 31.53 acres and including a subdivision known as the Gross Subdivision, as more specifically set forth in the said map, plan and report, and WHEREAS, the map, plan and report have been filed in the Town Clerk's Office and are available for public inspection, and WHEREAS, said map, plan and report show the boundaries of the proposed extension of the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, a general plan of the water system, and a report of the proposed water system and method of operation, and WHEREAS, the map shows the water distribution mains, gate valves and hydrants, together with the location and a general description of all related or appropriate public works existing or required, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury desires to establish the said proposed Water District Extension pursuant to Town Law Article 12A and consolidate the same with the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, pursuant to ~206(A) of the Town Law of the State of New York, and WHEREAS, an Environmental Assessment Form has been prepared and presented at this meeting and a coordinated SEQRA Review is desired, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The Town Board shall hold a public hearing and consider establishing the proposed extension to the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, the same being previously described in this Resolution and to be known as the Big Bay Road/Big Boom Road Extension # 1. 2. The boundaries of the proposed extension and benefitted area to the Queensbury Consolidated Water District are to be as follows: All that certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the Town of Queensbury, County of Warren and the State of New York, more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point in the easterly bounds of Big Bay Road in the westerly bounds of Interstate Route #87 at the existing southerly bounds of said Big Bay - Big Boom Water District; running thence southerly along said Interstate Route #87 and Big Bay Road, a distance of 80.00 feet more or less to a concrete monument found in the ground for a comer; thence continuing along said Interstate Route #87 South 14 degrees, 44 minutes and 20 seconds West, a distance of 346.53 feet to a concrete monument found in the ground for a comer; thence running South 66 degrees, 27 minutes and 35 seconds West, a distance of 58.28 feet to the northeast comer of Lot 4 Gross Subdivision; thence running South 23 degrees, 07 minutes and 21 seconds West along the easterly bounds of said Lot 4, a distance of 312.19 feet; thence running South 69 degrees, 56 minutes and 28 seconds West along the southerly bounds of Lots 4, 3,2, & 1, a distance of 812.00 feet more or less to the shore of the Hudson River; thence running northerly along said Hudson River as it winds and turns, a distance of 239.00 feet more or less; thence running North 71 degrees, 06 minutes and 40 seconds East crossing Palmer Drive and continuing along the northerly bounds thereof at the angle point thereof, a total distance of 148.00 feet more or less; thence running North 65 degrees, 01 minutes and 45 seconds East still along the northerly bounds of said Palmer Drive, a distance of 142.00 feet to an iron pipe found in the ground for a comer; thence running northerly along the rear oflots abutting Palmer Drive the following seventeen courses and distances: (1) North 22 degrees, 29 minutes and 37 seconds West, a distance of 88.22 feet; (2) North 22 degrees, 46 minutes and 59 seconds West, a distance of 49.87 feet; (3) North 23 degrees, 04 minutes and 14 seconds West, a distance of 100.33 feet; (4) North 22 degrees, 07 minutes and 27 seconds West, a distance of 49.58 feet; (5) North 23 degrees, 20 minutes and 17 seconds West, a distance of 100.43 feet; (6) North 20 degrees, 47 minutes and 07 seconds West, a distance of74.95 feet; (7) North 24 degrees, 13 minutes and 30 seconds West, a distance 0 125.17 feet; (8) North 15 degrees, 17 minutes and 50 seconds West, a distance of 186.65 feet; (9) North 03 degrees, 26 minutes and 17 seconds East, a distance of 98.32 feet; (10) North 02 degrees, 16 minutes and 18 seconds East, a distance of 101.14 feet; (ll) North II degrees, 10 minutes and 09 seconds East, a distance of 101.06 feet; (12) North 16 degrees, 31 minutes and 58 seconds East, a distance of 99.43 feet; (13) North 19 degrees, 14 minutes and 36 seconds East, a distance of 41.96 feet; (14) North 08 degrees, 47 minutes and 43 seconds East, a distance of 202.50 feet; (15) North 13 degrees, 48 minutes and 32 seconds East, a distance of 198.25 feet; (16) North 13 degrees, 48 minutes and 14 seconds East, a distance of 100.04 feet; (17) North 20 degrees, 59 minutes and 52 seconds East, a distance of76.79 feet to the existing Big Bay - Big Boom Water District; thence running southeasterly along the southerly bounds thereof the following six courses and distances: (1) South 53 degrees, 44 minutes and 40 seconds East, a distance of 458.72 feet; (2) South 29 degrees, 18 minutes and 40 seconds East, a distance of79.77 feet; (3) South 29 degrees, 20 minutes and 31 seconds East, a distance of 189.86 feet; (4) South 29 degrees, 23 minutes and 39 second East, a distance of 444.56 feet; (5) South 36 degrees, 35 minutes and 15 seconds East, a distance of 225.28 feet; (6) Northeasterly crossing said Big Bay Road 100.00 feet more or less to the point and place of beginning, containing 31.53 acres ofland, to be the same more or less. Bearings given in the above description refer to magnetic North. 3. The improvements proposed shall consist of the purchase and installation of water distribution mains, hydrants and gate valves and such other facilities as more specifically set forth in the aforesaid map, plan and report and the costs shall also include a proportionate share of the cost of the Water Treatment Plant, mains and other facilities of the existing Queensbury Consolidated Water District; 4. All proposed water mains and appurtenances shall be installed in full accordance with the Town of Queensbury specifications and ordinances and in accordance with approved plans and specifications and under competent engineering supervision and thereafter all water mains and improvements shall be turned over to the Town of Queensbury without charge; 5. The maximum amount proposed to be expended for said improvement is estimated to be $30,000, said amount to be paid by the Developer. 6. There will be no financing of the proposed Water District Extension improvements by the proposed District, the Town of Queensbury, or the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, as the Developers will contribute towards existing facilities, and parcels in the proposed District will contribute toward existing debt of the Consolidated Water District as herein set forth; 7. In accordance with ~206(A) of the Town Law of the State of New York, all of the expenses of the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, including all extensions heretofore or hereafter established, shall be a charge against the entire area of the district as extended; 8. The map, plan and report describing the improvements is on file with the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury and available for public inspection; 9. The Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall meet and hold a public hearing at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, on the 2nd, day of December, 1996 at 7:00 p.m., to consider the map, plan and report for said water district extension and to hear all persons interested in the proposal and to take such other and further action as may be required or authorized by law; 10. The Town Clerk is directed to cause a copy of this Order to be duly published and posted not less than ten (10) days nor more than twenty (20) days before the hearing date set forth herein and as required by Town Law ~209-d and complete or arrange for the securing of two (2) Affidavits of Publication of Notice and two (2) Affidavits of Posting of Notice of the public hearing required hereby; 11. The Executive Director of Community Development is hereby requested to prepare a report on any environmental impacts that should be considered at the time a SEQRA review is conducted; 12. The Town of Queensbury Water Superintendent is hereby authorized and directed to send a copy of this resolution, Part I of the Environmental Assessment Form presented at this meeting, and a copy of the map, plan, and report to all potentially involved agencies and to DEC and DOH together with an application for a water supply permit, all documents to be sent out with a letter generally indicating that the Town Board is about to undertake consideration of the project identified in this resolution, that a coordinated SEQRA review with the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, its lead agency, is desired and that a lead agency must be agreed upon in 30 days. Duly adopted this 18th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR TRANSIENT MERCHANT/TRANSIENT MERCHANT MARKET LICENSE FOR NAOMI POLITO RESOLUTION NO.: 459, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHEREAS, Naomi Polito has made application to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury for a Transient Merchant and/or Transient Merchant Market license at 1652 Route 9 on June 2-7, 1997, 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 October 15, 1996 meeting, recommended site plan approval of Ms. Polito's transient merchant market proposal, and WHEREAS, on or about October 9, 1996, the Warren County Planning Board also recommended approval of the 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 Naomi Polito on the 2nd day of December, 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, 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 18th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF ESCROW FUNDS TO THE UPPER GLENS FALLS DEVELOPMENT CORP. FOR COSTS RELATING TO THE CENTRAL QUEENSBURY QUAKER ROAD SEWER DISTRICT EXTENSION NO.2 RESOLUTION NO.: 460,96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury by resolution no. 496, 94 approved the establishment of the Cronin Road Extension NO.2 to the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District Extension, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury by resolution no. 588, 94 approved an Agreement between the Upper Glens Falls Development Corporation and the Town of Queensbury regarding said sewer district extension and said agreement required the Developer to provide escrow funds to be held by the Town of Queensbury in an amount not to exceed $12,375 to pay the cost of the facilities and all of their engineering and other related expenses, and WHEREAS, the Upper Glens Falls Development Corporation has requested that the $12,375 plus interest monies held in escrow be returned as all of the required site improvements have been completed, and WHEREAS, Michael Shaw, Deputy Director of Wastewater, has determined that the required improvements have been satisfactorily completed and recommended the release of the escrow funds held by the Town, plus interest earned on the funds, but minus various fees, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the return of the sum of $1l,027.50 to the Upper Glens Falls Development which sum is the net result of the $12,375 deposit plus interest, but minus the administrative fee and buy-in costs and one year deposit. Duly adopted this 18th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AMENDING RES. 432, 96 REGARDING AMENDMENT TO 1996 TOWN BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 461,96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury by resolution no. 432, 96 amended the 1996 Town Budget, and WHEREAS, the fund transfer for the Parks and Recreation Department set forth in such Resolution was incorrect, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby amends Resolution No. 432,96, such that the Parks and Recreation transfer portion of said resolution is hereby deleted. Duly adopted this 18th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION APPOINTING MEMBER TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADVISORY BOARD RESOLUTION NO.: 462,96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, ~3-4 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury authorizes the establishment of Advisory Boards, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 557, 1994, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury established an 11 member Comprehensive Plan Advisory Board in an effort to invite public participation in the designing of an optimum Town Comprehensive Plan, and WHEREAS, a vacancy presently exists on the Advisory Board and Town resident Fred Carvin has expressed an interest in filling said vacancy, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby appoints Fred Carvin to the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Board, said term to expire on December 31, 1997, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director to provide Mr. Carvin with a copy of Chapter 3 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 18th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION CREATING SEPARATE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FUND NO.8 WITHIN THE TOWN'S FISCAL RECORDS RESOLUTION NO.: 463,96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, by resolution no. 442, 96 authorized separate line items for fire protection services and emergency medical services in the Town of Queensbury tax bills, and WHEREAS, the Town Comptroller's Office now wishes to segregate emergency medical services funds from fire protection services funds within the Town's fiscal records, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the creation of the Emergency Medical Services Fund NO.8 and further directs the Town Comptroller's Office to make any necessary budget transfers and cash balance transfers to effectuate the segregation of such funds. Duly adopted this 4th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION TO AMEND 1997 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 464, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner Resolution to amend the 1997 Budget for Fire Protection $1,517,408 and Emergency Services $442,092 to amend budget according to these figures. Duly adopted this 18th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Champagne Noes: None Absent:None DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE: COMPTROLLER, MR. BURNS-Noted he gave the board the wrong numbers in the previous resolution. Referred to the 1997 Propose Tax Rate Sheet. Under Fire Protection the correct number should be $1,517,408. Under Emergency Services the correct should be $442,092. DISCUSSION HELD COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Questioned if the board is comfortable with the short environmental assessment form for the Parillo Rezoning or if they want the long form, noting the board can decide and let Mr. Martin know before the next meeting. (COUNCILMAN PULVER LEFT MEETING 9:20 P.M.) NEW BUSINESS BUILDING AND GROUNDS SUPERINTENDENT, CHUCK RICE-Spoke to the board regarding the pay phone locations at town facilities. Noted he has received bills from AT&T regarding the six pay phone locations for the town. Due to the low usage of the pay phones the designation has been changed and they will start billing the town monthly for each pay phone an average of $63.00 a phone to keep the six phones the cost would be about $4,600 a year, recommended to the board to explore options. Noted the town could add courtesy phones at the Town Hall location, at the Center location, and Town Court. The town owns a pay phone suggested putting this at the Gurney Lane location. Suggested purchasing telephones that are compatible with our existing system to use them as extensions for the buildings just talked about. Also noted that he has received retroactive charges regarding the phones. Councilman Monahan questioned if they can legally charge for this, board to look into this. It was the decision of the Town Board to remove all phones. OPEN FORUM BARBARA BENNETT, QUEENSBURY -Questioned if a new chemical is being used in the water? WATER SUPERINTENDENT, MR. FLAHERTY-Noted the original plant as it exists before the expansion they have used chlorine gas for disinfection. The emergency plan if there was a leak it would require us to evacuate a twelve square mile area which would include the Glens Falls Hospital, City of Glens, Jail, County Center, College, shut down the Northway, shut down Route 9, and parts of Town of Moreau. When they did the study for the plant expansion they look at putting in chlorine scrubbers for safety reasons. Because of the configuration of the building and the cost associated with that it was decided that we would no longer use chlorine gas would use liquid chlorine which is sodium hypochlorite. They are still disinfecting with chlorine it is coming in a different form it's liquid instead of gas. MRS. BENNETT-Noted she is allergic to chlorine. WATER SUPERINTENDENT, MR. FLAHERTY-Noted there is chlorine in the water now. Noted if you put the chlorine in a bottle and let it set overnight the chlorine will dissipate. MRS. BENNETT-Questioned if they are still testing the water for PCB's. WATER SUPERINTENDENT, MR. FLAHERTY-Yes. MRS. BENNETT-Questioned if they have seen any changes in their testing this summer? WATER SUPERINTENDENT, MR. FLAHERTY-No. MRS. BENNETT-Questioned on the preliminary budget that is issued will the public be able to see the figures for the different departments or will it be consolidated? COMPTROLLER, MR. BURNS-The resolution itself will show the changes in the budget that was passed tonight. It is not the intention at this point in time to have all the line items in the budget it would be the consolidated budget. Noted he would be happy to discuss the line items with Mrs. Bennett. MRS. BENNETT-Questioned if the public has a say in changes being made to the preliminary budget before it is passed? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Noted that is not the way the law is written. PLINEY TUCKER, DIVISION ROAD, QUEENSBURY-Questioned why is the Town of Queensbury's county tax increasing six percent? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Noted the true value went up two years ago to about a million and a half. That million and a half kick up the percentage of the total cost to the county. It went from thirty two percent to about thirty three point one percent. This means that the share of Queensbury's payment to the county is up one and a half percent. Between the million and a half that we were bump up and the four million that Hague lost we pay a third of that loss that's why our taxes are six percent, other towns their taxes went down in some cases. It also means we're going to get a little more share of the sales tax. We will be looking at about $160,000 of sales tax coming into the town based on that same formula. MR. TUCKER-Questioned about much the six percent amounts to. COMPTROLLER, MR. BURNS-Three hundred twenty, three hundred thirty thousand. About half will come back to us in increased sales tax next year. The net to the taxpayers is about $160,000. MR. TUCKER-Spoke to the board regarding the equalization rate for the entire county. Questioned if there is any way that Supervisor Champagne and the rest of the Supervisors can put some pressure on the rest of the communities to get their reassessments done? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Noted they have tried. MR. TUCKER-Spoke to the board regarding the annexation of Cole's Woods, in Glens Falls. Questioned if the City has to pay town tax? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-No. They pay all the benefit taxes. There are some properties that town tax is being paid on and other properties they don't. MR. TUCKER-Questioned what allows this to happen? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Noted he hasn't been able to get an answer on this. Invited Mr. Tucker to come in and sit down with Town Assessor, Helen Otte regarding this matter. TOWN COUNSEL, MR. SCHACHNER-It was accurately stated in the newspaper. The City of Glens Falls has taken the first step the first formal step towards the annexation. They have not actually commenced litigation yet, but they have commenced the first step of the formal process which includes a public hearing and some other steps prior to going to court. MR. TUCKER-Questioned if the public will be involved in the total outcome? TOWN COUNSEL, MR. SCHACHNER-The law actually requires public participation steps. MR. TUCKER-Questioned if the contracts with the Fire Companies and EMS will change the Fire Tax? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-No. JOHN SALVADOR, QUEENSBURY -Spoke to the board regarding leaving the sales tax with the county and having that reduce the county tax. Noted he has more control as a taxpayer over his town tax than his county tax. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Noted it is the board's option as to whether we take it all or leave a portion of it. It's this board's vote that we take all of it. Noted they are one of the few Town's that does not leave a portion of the sales tax with the County. MR. SALVADOR-Spoke to the board regarding the State owned land in the Town of Queensbury. Spoke to the board regarding the County not paying Fire Tax on the Airport, Community College, County Center, Nursing Homes, questioned what can be done about this? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Noted nothing can be done regarding this. He has studied this and has met with Fred Austin, noting the County Airport has certain federal regulations that control the Airport. MR. SALVADOR-Spoke to the board regarding the cost of disposal for solid waste. Spoke to the board regarding the accounting system in the Town. Questioned if certain departments time and effort can be allocated directly to what they do? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Noted they will take it under consideration. MR. SALVADOR-Questioned if a date has been set for the North Queensbury Sewer Project? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yes. Asked Mr. Salvador to contact his office in the morning to verify the date. MR. SALVADOR-Spoke to the board regarding the financing of a mapping of the Blue Lupine in the Town of Queensbury regarding the Curtis Lumber Building. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Noted Curtis Lumber has made a donation to that effort and it will commence in the Spring. MR. SALVADOR-Questioned if the map will be available to the public? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-Questioned the status of the Towns Stormwater Management. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-The draft plan will be presented to the board in a workshop session that will be presented by the Advisory Board. We're looking at a public hearing on this in July because this is the peak time for these people to participate. MR. SALVADOR-Read an article to the board entitled, Highway Superintendent Gets Conservation Award. RESOLUTION ADJOURNING REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO. 465, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Regular Town Board Meeting. Duly adopted this 18th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Champagne Noes: None Absent:Mrs. Pulver On motion, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk Town of Queensbury