1988-09-19 SP 248
SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING
September 19, 1988
Queensbury School
7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Mr. Stephen Borgos - Supervisor
Mrs. Marilyn Potenza - Councilman
Mr. Ronald Montesi - Councilman
Mrs. Betty Monahan - Councilman
Mr. Paul Dusek - Town Attorney
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. George Kurosaka - Councilman
PLEDGE OF allegiance LED BY COUNCILMAN BETTY MONAHAN
PUBLIC HEARING - Article 15 of the Zoning Ordinance
NOTICE SHOWN 7:07 p.m.
Supervisor Borgos - The first item on the agenda is a Public Hearing regarding Article 15 of the Zoning Ordinance
- this relates to the PUD Planning b Development Ordinance that was inadvertently placed, during the collation,
process, into the new proposals for rezoning, so that the old or original PUD article from several years ago went
into the booklet instead of the one we've been operating under and which is the one we want to continue. To follow
all the rules and regulations we've advertised for a Public Hearing. If anyone wishes, at this time, to speak
about the properly construed Article 15 of the Planned Unit Development Ordinance, please come forward to one
of the microphones and identify yourself.
No public comment - Supervisor Borgos declared Public Hearing closed.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FINDINGS STATEMENT AND APPROVING ACTION CONSISTING OF THE ADOPTION OF ZONING ORDINANCE,
ZONING MAP, AND SUB-DIVISION REGULATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE ENVIRONMENT QUALITY REVIEW ACT.
i
RESOLUTION NO. 400, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza: 1
WHEREAS, proposed new revised and amended zoning ordinance, map and subdivision regulations for the Town of Queensbury
have been prepared and presented to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury for consideration, copies of which
are presented at this meeting, and
WHEREAS, the Warren County Planning Board has approved of the said proposed new zoning ordinance, zoning map and
subdivision regulations, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board has approved of the said proposed new zoning ordinance, zoning
map and subdivision regulations, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is lead agency for purposes of project review pursuant to the
State Environmental Quality Review Act, and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement was drafted, and
WHEREAS, on May 16, 1988, the Town Board for the Town of Queensbury passed a Resolution certifying completion
of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed new zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations,
and
WHEREAS, a public comment period was h0din accordance with the Statement Environmental Quality Review Act, and
WHEREAS, Public Hearings were held June 6, 1988, and June 27, 1988, at the Queensbury High School Auditorium,
Aviation Road, Queensbury, New York, in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act, for purposes
of obtaining public comment on the proposed new zoning ordinance map and subdivision regulations, and the draft
environmental impact statement, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has declared by Resolution that the final environmental impact
statement drafted from the initial draft environmental impact statement and relating to the new proposed zoning
ordinance, zoning map and subdivision regulations is complete and has directed that a notice of completion for
the final environmental impact statement be served and published as required by law, and
WHEREAS, the necessary time has elapsed and the Town Board may now make finding pursuant to the State Environmental
Quality Review Act, and
249
WHEREAS3 A Finding Statement Relative to the said final Environmental Impact Statement and pursuant to the State
Environmental Quality Review Act has been prepared and presented for adoption at. this meeting, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has given due consideration of the environmental impacts of
the proposed prof and the draft environmental impact statements, final impact statements and the written findings
and facts;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED,
{ As to the action proposed, that being the adoption of the zoning ordinance. subdivision regulations and zoning
b for the Town of Queensbury, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury adopts the findings statement presented
,----� this meeting, and in so far as the environment and the State Environmental Quality Review Act are concerned
Eapproves the action, by proposed:
2: The said Findings statements shall be annexed to the minutes of this meeting;
3. The Town Board finds that the requirements of 6 NYCRR part 617 have been met;
4. The Town Board finds that consistent with social and econimic and other essential considerations were among
the reasonable alternatives thereto, the action approved is one which minimizes or avoids adverse environmental
impacts to the maximum extent practicable; including the effects disclosed in the environmental impact statement;
5. The Town Board finds that consistent with the social, economic and other essential considerations to the maximum
extent practicable, adverse environmental impacts revealed in the environmental impact statement process will
be minimized or avoided;
6. The Town Supervisor, on,behalf of the Town Board and the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized to sign and
issue a Certificate of Findings to approve the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations and zoning map for the
Toam of Queensbury insofar as to same relate to the State Environmental Quality Review Act and to cause and issue
all necessary notices, if any, required under law.
' Duly adopted by the following vote:
ev`S: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan
i
5: None
ABSENT: Mr. Kurosaka
Town Counsel Dusek noted that this was a statement primarily designed to have a resolution of record whereby the
Board actually approves the findings of fact that were prepared by the Senior Planner for the Town, Lee York.
They have also indicated that all of the SEQRA requirements have been adhered to before the ordinance is actually
na s see!,
RESOLUTION TO ADOPT REVISED 6 AMENDED ZONING ORDINANCE, MAP AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
RESOLUTION NO. 401, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi:
WHEREAS, a proposed new amended and revised zoning ordinance, new zoning map and subdivision regulations for the
Town of Queensbury have been prepared and presented to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury for consideration,
copies of which are annexed hereto with the proposed zoning map being entitled "The Town Zoning Map of the Town
of Queensbury", and the same to be dated the same as the ordinance and being incorporated in the proposed new
zoning ordinance, and
""-REAS, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board has approved of the adoption of said proposed new amended and revised
wing ordinance, zoning map and subdivision regulations 'and the repeal of the existing zoning ordinance, zoning
map and subdivision regulations for the Town of Queensbury and all amendments thereto, and
EREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury retained the services of Frederick J. Holman to assist and advise
connection with the revision and/or amendment of the zoning ordinance, zoning map and subdivision regulations
the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, a Master Plan Advisory Committee was established to assist and advise the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury
in connection with the preparation and adoption of the proposed new revised and amended zoning ordinances, zoning
map and subdivision regulations, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has, as a part of its decision on whether to adopt or not to
adopt the proposed new revised and amended zoning ordinances, zoning map and subdivision regulations, has considered
250 3
and has in part based its decision on the studies and recommendations of the Master Plan Advisory Committee, Mr.
Frederick J. Holman, and the Planning Board advisory opinion, and
WHEREAS, on the 16th of August, 1988, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury duly adopted Resolution No. 349,
scheduling a public hearing concerning the possible adoption of the proposed new revised and amended zoning ordinance
and repealing the existing ordinance and all amendments thereto, and
WHEREAS, on the 23rd of August, 1988, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury duly adopted Resolution No. 358,
scheduling a public hearing concerning the possible adoption of the proposed new revised and amended subdivision,
regulations, and repealing the existing subdivision regulations and all amendments thereto, and
WHEREAS, publication of said notices of public hearing and all other notices required by"the provision of Town "
law, section 265, have been presented to the Town Board by the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, and } !
WHEREAS, the public hearing was held by the Town of Queensbury concerning the adoption of the proposed new revised
and amended zoning ordinance, zoning map and subdivision regulations for the entire Town of Queensbury and the
repeal of the existing zoning ordinances, map and subdivision regulations and all amendments thereto, on September
6, 1988 at 7:30 p.m, in the meeting room of the Town Office Building, Bay at Haviland Roads, Queensbury, NY, in
accordance with the terms of the publication of notice and all other notices required by the revisions of Town
Law, section 265, at which all persons interested in the subject thereof concerning the same were heard, and
WHEREAS, on September 6 and September 8, 1988, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury duly adopted Resolutions
whereby the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury directed the Town Clerk to publish notice of the fact that an
error had been made in the original outline of the zoning ordinance set forth in the notice of public hearing
in so far as the same related to Article 15 concerning Planned Unit Developments, and the Town Board provided
that the corrective notice be published and an additional public hearing with respect to Article 15 Planned Unit
Development be set for September 19, 1988 at 7:00 p.m., and
WHEREAS, the public hearing on the corrective notice concerning Article 15 Planned Unit Development of the zoning
ordinance was held by the Town Board of_the Town of Queensbury on September 19, 1988, in the auditorium of the
Queensbury High School, Aviation Road, Queensbury, NY, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board, by previous Resolution passed this same date, September 19, 1988, has addressed the requirements
of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and has made findings and approved this action of adoption of zoning
ordinances, zoning map and subdivision regulations in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Bond Act
as more specifically set forth in the aforesaid previous resolution, and
WHEREAS, all other requirements of law for consideration of the adoption of the proposed new zoning ordinances,
map and subdivision regulations and the repeal of the existing zoning ordinances of the Town of Queensbury and
all amendments thereto have been fulfilled, and
WHFP,EAS, the adoption of the, proposed new zoning ordinances, map and subdivision regulations and the repeal of
the existing zoning ordinance and all amendments thereto is in the best interest of the Town of Queensbury,
'-iktKEFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the proposed new zoning ordinances, zoning map and subdivision regulations of the Town of Queensbury,
copies of which are to be annexed to the minutes of this meeting, be adopted, effective as soon as provided by
law, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the prior zoning ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, Ordinance No. 53, and all amendments thereto
be in the same as hereby repealed, effective as of the date the new revised and amended zoning ordinance, zoning
map and subdivision regulations take effect, pursuant to the provisions of law, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk be and is hereby directed to take all necessary action to cause publication of the
new revised and amended zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations or a summary thereof as may be authorized
by law, and any other notices required by law, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk enter the new revised and amended zoning ordinance, zoning map and subdivision regulations
in the minutes of the Town of Queensbury and that she maintain a file for the aforesaid zoning map, adopted in
connection with the zoning ordinance as is required by law.
Duly adapted by the following vote:
exh.,tit A s .
4f .Zee►%.1 d
AYES: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan s r
4JV
NOES: None
see g'tt
ABSENT: Mr. Kurosaka a 0
CIS,
Mr. Montesi: We are working diligently in order to come out of the moratorium by the end of September and there
have been six or seven members of the community that have specifically asked us to look at some rezoning of their
property. some of the areas in question are small, some of them are 19 acres. We have all looked at them, we
all have our thoughts on it. In all fairness to that group of people, I would hope that as soon as moratorium
is over, those folks will come back with a specific letter for us and we would have a special Town Board meeting
specifically to address those issues.
The other question he has is that with new zoning ordinance they have two PUD's that are "in the hopper". Quaker
Ridge and West Mountain. Mr. Montesi would hope that this ordinance would "grandfather" both of those PUD's.
For example: We have changed the zoning on the Earltown Corporation Quaker Ridge project from what was originally
1 acre industrial reserve to 42 acre LC and now 10 acre LC. Both of these PUD's, if receiving all their approvals
frmn the Town would go on to the State of New York DEC, it is important that DEC understands specifically that
�e zoning is the way it is and that it doesn't change. Mr. Montesi said they intend to "grandfather" the existing
ning for these PUD's until the review process is complete. If the review process is complete and
�if) a p they do not
approvals then it reverts to whatever the zone is now.
oervisor Borgos: To answer the second part of your question first, I believe it's always been the intent, and
(early stated in past minutes, but we will reaffirm it tonight, that any major residential sub-division that
was submitted prior to the moratorium was "grandfathered". That was always the intent. There was a cutoff date
by which things had to be filed. Anything filed after that was not "grandfathered" and has not gone through any
processes. That would include the PUD's of West Mountain Corporation and the Earltown Corporation. There are
some other smaller developments that I believe are still in the works, so to answer your question, I think it
has already been established that there was a time frame involved and that should be a part of the record.
The other part of your question about the zoning or rezoning, I have, just today, spoken with two property owners
who have been in touch with me before, and indicated that our attorney did indeed say that this evening we could
discuss minor changes but he would prefer not to see major changes for a number of legal reasons. I recommended
to everyone I spoke with today that they hold off until after the adoption and implementation of the new regulations
which would take effect on October 1, at which time they can come forward by filing a special form and request
changes in zoning related to specific parcels of property. It might be a couple of acres, it might be 10 or 20
acres. What we hope to complete this evening is a result of the entire Town, new subdivision rules and regulations
and lots of changes. It's been a major task. I have asked both parties I spoke with today to please bear with
us if at all possible and wait until after we've been committed to new zoning and then come forward and we'll
take these cases one at a time on a very small case by case basis and give everybody a fair hearing. I suppose,
at the instruction of our attorney, that this would be the time if anyone did wish to come forward this evening,
Y this would be the appropriate time for a last minute (it is not a public hearing).....
Monahan: I think you're right, Steve, and I think all of us have found some fine tuning that needs to be
ne which we all agreed would have to be done after we passed this and came out of the moratorium, otherwise
' ='re throwing off our time clock completely.
Mr, Porgos: Before we vote, I would like to say that this looks like the end of a year and a half, it's been
a long time. After this next vote - official implementation of the new rules and regulations will take place
October 1. Does anyone on the Board have further comments?
Mrs. Monahan: We thank and acknowledge the great work of all the people who worked on this plan, our Advisory
Board, our Senior Planner, her Assistant and all those on the staff that worked so diligently to bring us to the
fruition of what we're going to pass here tonight.
Mr. Rargos: I would certainly second that. It's been a tremendous undertaking. During all this we've had the
reconstruction of the building and alot of other problems to contend with. It's been a big job, I want to thank
everyone, personally, including ouf staff members, including our Highway Superintendent.
RESOLUTION-PAYNENT TO ADIRONDACK CONSTRUCTION FOR EXTRA CONSTRUCTION MORK ON TON! OFFICE BUILDING ADDITION AND
ACTIVITIES CENTER
RESOLUTION NO. 402, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza:
�,- EAS, Adirondack Construction Corporation, pursuant to contract, has performed construction in.and about the
Activities Center and Town Office Building Addition for the Town of Queensbury, and
;REAS, in addition to the work to be performed pursuant contract, Adirondack Construction, was requested to
,form certain extra work more specifically outlined such work further outlined in a letter from Rist Frost dated
,.,,___._,;ust 1, 1988, presented at this meeting, and
WHERcAS, Rist-Frost Associates, P.C., the engineer presently reviewing the project for the Town of Queensbury,
has indicated that a number of items of extra work can be paid except that 'Rist-Frost Associates, P.C., has indicated
that it needs further documentation before indicating that all remaining items, #NOC 21, NOC 26, NOC 46, NOC 47
noted on the said letter of August 1, 1988 are extra work performed which qualifies for payment pursuant to the
terms of contract, and
252 5
WHEREAS, Adirondack Construction Corporation has indicated that a credit of $12,582.00 is due to the Town of Queensbury
for deletions and revisions of certain contract items, and
,WHEREAS, after taking into consideration the credit due to the Town of Queensbury and the extra work items not
to be paid at the present date, there is a balance presently due to the Adirondack Construction Company $34,716.00,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and approves change orders for the extra
work performed by Adirondack Construction Corporation in the amount of $34,716.00, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized to sign and issue change order
referred to herein and upon the receipt of properly completed vouchers, sign and forward the same for processing
and payment by the Town of Queensbury, the same to be paid from a general fund transfer of surplus funds.
Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 1988 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mr. Kurosaka
Supervisor Borgos - This is further fine tuning of some problems we've had with the construction of our building.
The funding will come out of the H account - the construction fund but obviously we've run over budget. Because
of a number of last minute changes we'll have to take out of the surplus until such time as we can hopefully recover
some of this in a lawsuit. Our new architect/engineer is Rist-Frost. They've been going through this about two
months item by item. There are still several fairly substantial items on the list but they now have documentation
for each of the items we wish to pay as it's their recommendation that they be paid. Does the Board have any
other questions?
Mrs. Monahan - I wonder if NOC-29, has the credit been checked against t4a proposed credits that were issued a
long time ago, almost at the start of the contract?
Supervisor Borgos - The proposed credits, to the best of my knowledge, were in some cases implemented and in other
cases were not implemented, so what you see here are credits primarily from the renovation of the existing building
rather than from the others. I believe the others were all credited to us at an earlier time. Some of the things
that were proposed for deletion were not deleted. This is almost exclusively from the renovation of the current
building.
Mrs. Monahan - You're talking about the change downstairs?
Supervisor Borgos - Correct. We saved $12,300.00 by doing it our way.
RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION N0. 176 of 1988
BE LUT1ON N0. 403, Introduced by Mr. Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza:
WHEREAS, on April 26, 1988 the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury passed Resolution No. 176 entitled RESOLUTION
TO ACCEPT BID, and
WHEREAS, a bid was awarded to Southworth Machinery for a used Front End Loader Caterpillar 950 B and,
WHEREAS, due to a typographical error the resolution stated the bid amount at $76,280.00, and
WHEREAS, Southworth Machinery bid an amount of $76,268.00, for a used Caterpillar 9508 Loader,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby amends Resolution No. 176 of 1988 to reflect the correct bid amount as $76,268.0'
for a Used Caterpillar 9508 Loader from Southworth Machinery.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mr. Kurosaka
2536
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING - ROUND POND
Supervisor Borgos - This is not a Public Hearing this evening, it's a Public Information Meeting. However, after
discussion with the Round Pond Park Coordinating Committee both this evening and in previous meetings, we'd agreed
upon a format to be used this evening. This is still part of the public meeting so I will Chair it. We would
prefer questions from the audience at the appropriate time but, within reason, we will accept a limited expression
of feeling. We khow there ark there are alot of emotions on both sides of this issue, so at the appropriate time
when we say we are ready for questions, if you want to stand up and make a brief statement we'd be happy to have
You do that. If you have questions or comments of any sort we'd like to have you come to the microphone, indicate
Your name and address, please, just for the record because we're going to take minutes of this meeting and we
will keep the tapes as long as they'll stay audible. We'd like everyone to have a chance to speak. I would ask
if You want to applaud, please feel free to applaud, if you want to boo or hiss I'd prefer that you'd restrain
urselves but maybe a little of that would be allowed. Just remember everyone's going to have a chance to say
much as they want. There's no time limit. The heat may
get us
at Mr. Bill Morton of the Round Park Coordinating Committee will leadroffhwithohisdopeningtstatement andeIdwill
follow with one representing my own opinion and hopefully, the Board. Then our appraiser, Mr. Robert Strell who
°s last heard from at 4:10 on a delayed flight from Buffalo, should be here in time to say a few words; I don't
him yet, but he is expected. Mr. Harold Hagemann, the Coordinator of the Environmental Quality Bond Act
funds, NYS Dept, of Parks and Historic Preservation will speak and then we'll have questions and summation by
both people. Mr. Morton will speak in just a moment and we ask that you hold your questions. I will speak, hold
your questions. We'll let Mr. Hagemann speak and then after his presentation, you may ask questions of him
the same thing after the opposer speaks. After both Mr. Hagemann and the opposer have spoken we will open for
general questions or comments. At this time I would like to introduce Mr. William Morton, Round Pond Park Coordinating
Committee.
Mr. William Morton - I appreciate your welcome. I have brought with me, to represent the Round Pond Park Coordinatin
Committee, Mr. Bernard Rahill and Mr. Walter Medwid. As I mentioned, I represent the Round Pond Park Coordinating g
Committee. This meeting and the September 27th referendum are the culmination of arduous work performed by a
special group of dedicated citizens in Queensbury who have worked for the establishment of a Town Park on Round
Pond, for the use and enjoyment of all our citizens. Despite formidable obstacles and seemingly endless roadblocks
involving an unnecessary lawsuit; why have we persisted and persevered for nearly four years in working for a
park on Round Pond? The reason we have persisted is that we believe there is an overwhelming need for such a
park,.
i
The Park Proposal. The Park which we envision and have fought so hard for consists of 50 acres extending along
both sides of Round Pond Road from the southwest shore of Round Pond, and I hope all of you by now have a yellow
brochure. This has a map showing the location and delineation of the proposed park. You all had a set of papers,
ht papers, on the second page of those papers is another map. The Park would have the following features
,,dy beach, a bathhouse designed to blend, work and complement the natural surroundings, picnic facilities for
.s family, walkways and benchs for all ages, nature trails which can be used for cross country skiing, fishing
(Round Pond supports an excellent fishery). On the question of the public need and the common good. There comes
a time in the life of most communities when citizens pull together to develop a community park or a system of
parks for the use and enjoyment of all residents of a community, and for the use and enjoyment of those who are
to follow. Unfortunately we have been late in coming to this realization in Queensbury. It has been only in
the past few years that we have begun to establish this system of parks in our community. We must look to new
and creative opportunities to build upon the system and the park on Round Pond offers such an opportunity.
Is there a need for a public park on Round Pond? We must place the response to this question within the context
of the health and welfare of our community for now and for the future generation. The public health issue. The
well being of each of us is very much influenced by our surroundings. Queensbury is in a transition from a rural
to a highly developed suburban community. We must have an escape from the stresses associated with the hustle
and bustle of suburbia, traffic congestion, long waits at lights, noise, visual chaos in a manmade environment,
combined with intense pressures that can build in our places of business. For many citizens of Queensbury, stress
under such conditions can be diminished and the quality of our lives can be enriched through leisure activities
in a natural out-of-door setting and Round Pond provides such a setting. A setting where we can relax, where
we can wade in the water where our feet come into contact with the soft sand, walk in the woods, look at the sky,
contemplate and reflect upon our surroundings, swim and enjoy. These are the kinds of things which we kindle,
are uplifting to the human spirit. It is a recognized fact among social psychologists that children who come
� ,,Dntact with natural things, water, woods and animals, are more inclined to use their imagination and creativity
tin those who don't. As a community we should be providing a diversion for our children who are becoming increasingly
beseiged by the trash that comes into our homes on television. Our community and our socialist society will pay
„Jingly for the costs of social misconduct and for a lack of intellectual curiosity because our children have been
led from today's television move into adulthood.
7,7, nd Pond Park will provide for a certain amount of diversion from the dysfunctional aspects of modern day life
and it will provide a setting which will enrich the lives of our children and their intellectual curiosity. Think
about the relationship between the family unit and Round Pond. Picture a boy and his dad on a fishing trip watching
the first rays of sun burning off the morning fog. Although there may be few words exchanged between them in
sj i
254 � `.
I
the morning stillness think about the companionship they share. Picture the family, relatives and friends having
a picnic at Round Pond Park. These are the kinds of activities that strengthen and sustain the family unit, its
health and well being. Our community consists of many family units who must need, from time to time to come to
therapy at a park on Round Pond would provide. And what of our Senior Citizens? The sight of the elderly sitting
on a bench in City Park is common. Should we not provide a scenic vista, a walkway and a few benches for those
who are no longer physically active. A park on Round Pond will serve as a safety valve to help safeguard the
mental health and well being of our residents and to enrich the lives of all ages and all groups. As more and ,
more people crowd into Queensbury, which is inevitable, the safety valve and the park benefits will increase in
importance.
Now on the public welfare. Our great system of national and state parks has been established to protect the crown
jewels of our country for the benefit and welfare of all people. These parks stand as a tribute to those who have
the vision and foresight to establish them. We ask, for the public interest and welfare, to follow the example
set at the Federal and State levels of government and set aside one of the last remaining gems in Queensbury.
And Round Pond is a gem for the benefit and welfare of all the people of our community. My attractions over a
period of four years, when Mr. Salvatore Russo first offered to sell Round Pond to Queensbury for a park. Two
other consecutive Town Board's, for whatever reason, have said no to a park. What Town Board's are telling us
is that the public interest will be better served by encouraging private development of Round Pond for the exclusive
use and benefit of one person. The question which the referendum on September 27th will decide is whether the
interest of an individual landowner should prevail or be subordinate to a public interest at Round Pond.
Cost of the Park. Obviously, the cost of the park would be factored into the decision making of Queensbury residents
i
as they go to the polls and vote on September 27th. Whatever cost the park would be for land acquisition, there's
little that can be said about acquisition costs until these are made public by Supervisor Borgos `and we'll have
more to say about those costs after his presentation. But this much we can say. Two and a half years ago, ninety
acres of land for the park would have cost Queensbury residents about $900,000.00 and we had a budget surplus
of over two million dollars which would have paid for the acquisition. We can say that with each passing month
this cost has escalated as has the value of all properties in Queensbury. I would be remiss if I didn't point
out that if the Town Board had not fought the referendum which we are entitled to under State law and which they
had not dragged out for nearly two years we would have been looking at lowgr costs for acquiring the land than
we would be looking at tonight. We can say something about park development costs. Most of the improvements
that might be considered could be completed for less than a million dollars. For example, bathhouses, estimating
for a 30 x 60 foot bathhouse with related infrastructure at a price of about $100 per square foot and this price
comes from a reputable contractor in Town. The price I have arrived at is $180,000.00 for the bathhouse. Now,
I did look at a sneak preview of the Town's figures and we're very close. They estimated somewhere in the neighborhoo
of $120,000.00, $101,000.00 and then for the septic system that would have to take care of that $75,000.00, so --+^
my estimate of $180,000.00 and the Town's estimate are very close. No problem. Each improvement including sand,
rock, a couple docks, this Can be done for about $100,000.00. Straighten Round Pond road. Let me go back to
the bathhouse. I say $180,000.00. The Town of Minerva recently this past year constructed a bathhouse that had
5 toilets on each side, mens and womens, which is nearly what we'll have to have here, about that. They constructed
their bathhouse/changing facilities for $7,000.00. Okay, beach improvements, $100,000.00, straightening Round
Pond Road and I'm not so sure this should be done. T,he Town Board has estimated providing an estimate for straightening
the road for $600,000.00. Based on Warren County Highway estimates of $1,250,000.00 per mile, the estimate that
I come up with for 2110 of a mile is in the neighborhood of $250,000.00. So my estimate based on Warren County
Highway Department figures is considerably less than the $600,000.00 for 2/10 of a mile of road which would have
to be straightened. And again, I'm not so sure Round Pond Road should be straightened. There's something aesthetically
attractive about having a winding road in a park and it also provides an opportunity to slow traffic through the
park rather than speed it up. Parking lot improvements - I think I'm high on this - $100,000.00. Demolition
of existing buildings - The Town Board said $25,000.00, I put an estimate of $50,000.00. I think the work could
be done for much less than the price of both estimates if we would take advantage of the opportunity provided
by the work details that can be provided by Wilton Correctional Facility. I have been in touch with the Superintendent's
office at the Wilton Correctional Facility and advised that, yes indeed, work details are provided communities
at no cost. The Correctional Facility will provide transportation-the only thing that is required is for the
community to provide the equipment. So that could be a considerable savings in terms of. demoliltion. , Trails,
picnic facilities, benches, these kinds of things - this is a relatively minor expense and if we work with crews
from Wilton or students from BOCES who do these kinds of things, build trails and help with their layout, we could
get out very cheaply. But let's say $50,000.00 for park layout, architectural design and whatnot. Again, this
could be much less expensive and we do not have to go for the ultimate contract. Whereas, the Town Board came
up with an estimate of park development costs in the neighborhood of $800,000.00 or a little more, my estimate
is $836,000.00. This total park development cost comes in for less than one million dollars. We can finance
this expenditure through the bond market, and spread out the development costs over a period of twenty or more
years. If we do this it will cost the owner of a $100,000.00 home about $5.00 per year in taxes over this period.
That is fairly minor.
05 5'
I have not worked up park`operation and maintenance expenses but we were talking about a park manager, some lifeguards
for three or four months a year, a ground and equipment crew, which could alternate between Round Pond Park, Gurne
Lane and the recreational area at Ridge Road. Y
Financing the Park. Possible sources of funding for Round Pond Park are as follows:
Land Acquisition & Development - We could directly use the $700,000.00 to $1,000,000.00 Town budget surplus to
help with the acquisition.
Use of the developer's recreation fee - Developers in Queensbury are required to pay a recreation fee of $250.00
i --er building lot. This funding source is specifically created for acquisition and development of parklands.
f his fund can be expected to increase in size as the next wave of developers submit their development plans when
he moratorium on development is lifted in a few weeks. The Environmental
`€o fifty percent of the cost of land acquisition and development uality Bond Act of 1986 provides up
ht - e pment of eligible municipal parks. We will hear more
about this tons
9 y percent of the cost. Gifts, bequests, donations, corporate contributions and fund
ising activities can be an impo,rtant. source of funding if the community gets behind the park. Of course, there
are general tax revenues.
Park Operation and Maintenance. Here we can, once again, look to the developer's recreation fee. However, in
my own opinion I think this fee should be strictly set aside and used only for park land acquisition of open space
and the development of these park lands. Last but not least, the general tax revenue and we're not talking of
the amount of assessed valuation of our community of over a billion dollars, we're talking about a miniscule amount
of money to operate a town park.
What about the alternatives to park development? Can you all raise the white sheets, hold them up? Is there
anyone that doesn't have these sheets? Let's take a look at them. Looking at the first page, the scenario for
the public park. We've pretty well gone over that. And the map, figure 1, shows the proposed park. Let's look
at another scenario, if it's not put into a park what could it look like in a private development. Now, it's
a matter of record that the current owner of Round Pond, before the referendum, presented a plan for the development
of a subdivision containing 173 dwelling units on the property which you see in Figure 2. Of.these 173 dwelling
units, 85 are in a standard lot subdivision and 88 are townhouse projects. Alternatively the area of the townhouse
projects (it should be 18 acres rather than 17 acres) could be developed Tor recreational commercial facilities
and we can look at Alternative B for that. Under this scenario which the developer proposed, 15 of the houses
built on Round Pond. The moratorium prevented this project from moving forward, however, the landowner is in
litigation with the Town over this issue. If the landowner is successful in court, this project can go forward
rspite changes in zoning. Now, let's look at another scenario. Let's look at a scenario which could take full
�ivantage of the zoning which is about to be unveiled in the next few weeks when the moratorium is lifted. 18
,res on the north side of Round Pond Road are zoned for commercial development and the developing possibilities
include the extension of the amusement park campground, motels, restaurants, taverns, fast food stands, etc.
And this could be done in close proximity to Round Pond. So these are a couple of alternative development scenarios.
By way of wrapping up I'd like to briefly go over the eminent domain issue. There has been much ado about the
possible use of eminent domain for acquiring property for Round Pond Park. Obviously eminent domain should be
used to insure and protect the health and welfare only as a last resort. And clearly, we have no desire to acquire
Mr. Pasarelli's land by eminent domain. In this regard, and if Mr. Pasarelli is in the audience, I wish to personally
and publicly appeal to him with an invitation to work with the citizens of our communf•ty to establish a public
park on Round Pond. Mr. Pasarelli, although you reside outside our community, you have substantial real estate
investments in our community as well as the greater Glens Falls region. For this reason we consider you a member
of our community. I personally and publicly appeal to you to think about what is best for the people of our community.
This may be an extraordinary request, for it requires that you place the interest of others with whom you are
not particularly well acquainted, above self interest. If you do I can assure you that, if you have any .thoughts
of being remembered for your good works and personal sacrifice in the service of others, you will forever be a
bright spot and shining star in the history of Queensbury. If Mr. Pasarelli chooses not to join with the community
to help with the establishment of a park on Round Pond the residents of Queensbury will be faced with a choice
on September 27th. They will be faced with a choice if Mr. Pasarelli does choose to join with us to determine
if they do or do not want the park. But, if Mr. Pasarelli does not choose to join and help in the creation of
park, we are faced with a choice. Do the residents want or do they feel or do they not feel a public park
Round Pond is in the best long term interest in our community? If the answer is "yes" on September 27th, then
the land will have to be acquired from Mr. Pasarelli through eminent domain. As for our views of eminent domain,
many people view it with great disdain as one of the most ancient of sovereign ...., however, eminent domain is
t government working against citizens, it is government working for the benefit of the entire community, for
common good. Eminent domain is founded on a principal that the interest of the individuals are subordinate
�-scr the public interest and that the former must yield when the public welfare requires. The Fifth Amendment to
the Constitution guarantees that if eminent domain has to be employed the landowner will be compensated justly.
We think the public health and welfare are at stake with Round Pond, and as I mentioned the Fifth Amendment provides
that property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. If Mr. Pasarelli's property is appropriated,
I'm sure he will be angered. But this is something that an individual can get over in a relatively short time.
Granted, he may not make as much money as he could if he were able to develop the property. On the other hand,
if the community loses a park on Round Pond, it will not be compensated, and our community will forever be impoverished
25� 9
for the loss of the Park. This is not the first time eminent domain has been used on such an issue. Let'me quote
from a clipping from the Enquirer & Mirror of Nantucket on April 17, 1986. "Last night after voters fought long
and hard, Don and Thomas ....... lost their right to build a home on land the believed they own in Park
g y .....
on Nantucket. But whether ...... authorized the land baron to acquire 78 acres in the ancient subdivision by
eminent domain, the Town of Nantucket gained an open pond and beach ..... for future public use. ..... .....243
in favor and 93 opposed in the taking of the park by eminent domain. So we're not the first to do this, I'm sure
we will not be the last to be offered this choice in a referendum. The interesting thing in Nantucket, they
had the Town Board, elected representatives working on their behalf and trying to encourage acquisition of this
property for the development of the public park for the common good of the whole community. So, there are choices.
Whether we have the resolve to develop a public park or not. If we don't - what is it saying to the kids when
we say no to a park and yes to development? What does it say about ourselves and our values? When I was rigging
up the display, I don't know if all of you had a chance to look at the display, the photographs out in the hall
on Round Pond, but when I was rigging up the display which has been on display in Price Chopper for the past few
days, an elderly gentlemen from Glens Falls stopped by and looked at it and said "Shame on Queensbury for letting
Round Pond go in the past and shame on Queensbury if they let it slip away this time".
Supervisor Borgos - Thank you Mr. Morton. We have a leash law in the Town of Queensbury that provides that every
dog must be on a leash, must be controlled by its owner at all times, but as our Clerk here ..., there's never
a Dog Control Officer available when needed. We apologize for that intrusion, we do like labrador retrievers,
but we did not have that one come here.
The Town Board of the Town of Queensbury should protect and save our special natural resources! Round Pond is
a special natural resource. The Town Board of the Town of Queensbury should protect and save Round Pond! Let's
save Round Pond!! The Town Board is charged with the responsibility of doing many things for the betterment of
the community and for the benefit of the citizens of Queensbury. One of the primary obligations of the board
is to preserve and protect our special "quality of life".
Round Pond is, and for years has been, a special natural resource where residents and visitors alike have taken
time to swim, boat and generally enjoy nature. It is one of several special recreation locations in this town.
Round Pond MUST be protected and saved!
Many months ago, the Town of Queensbury began work on a new Master Plan and the rules and regulations needed to
implement that plan. In fact, in just a few days the new zoning map, zoning ordinance, and subdivision rules
and regulations are expected to become law. This has been a long process but the results should be beneficial
to all.
i
During the course of the rezoninq process, many properties were rezoned and permitted uses either changed or restricts .
All of this was done on the basis of public benefit and future planning, and all was done after public hearings
and public comment. Although there were several new restrictions placed on the property at Round Pond, there
was no public comment for or against the strict rezoning proposed for the Round Pond area.
Also, more than a year ago, the Tcwn .Board took action to formally declare several areas of Queensbury to be "areas
of significant environmental importance and sensitivity". These areas were deemed to be so special that immediate
action was needed for preservation and protection. Included in the areas protected--following public hearings--were
Hovey Pond, Rush Pond, AND ROUND POND! With these formal actions, proposed development within 500 feet of the
high water mark of these areas was put under special review and severely restricted. The Town Board acted quickly
and decisively to protect all of these areas!
During the past few years the Town Board has greatly expanded town ownership and/or use of property for the purpose
of recreation. Both active and passive recreation have been included.
The Town of Queensbury currently offers the following recreation facilities and pardon me if I may have missed
one or two:
Luzerne Road Park: a small area with a basketball court and children's play area.
Ridge Road Park: 85 acres, already partially developed with four softball fields and related facilities and expected
to open soon. The area also includes ample room for hiking and cross country skiing.
Boat Launching Site at Glen Lake: provides public access for boating and fishing on Glen Lake.
Hudson River Land: over 50 acres of land bordering the river, owned for many years, and with a completed park
plan. Within the past six months negotiations have been concluded to provide convenient, permanent access to
that site and all that the river offers. Final documents are expected to be signed very soon. s
South Queensbury: major improvements have been made during recent months, with much more planned for the coming
year.
ti5
Queensbury School: a lease agreement has been reached with the school district providing for a continuation of
cooperative recreational programming efforts at the school, including use of the indoor swimming pool and basketball
courts. IN ADDITION, an agreement has been reached to provide for lighting the basketball court and the tennis
courts at the school for extended use. (A construction contract is expected very soon.)
Gurney Lane Park: has been dramatically expanded with the opening of the largest locally operated public swimming
Pool in the entire area, operation of a picnic area and pavillion, a pond for fishing and many acres of cross
country ski trails.
^-iation Road Park: plans have been announced for development of a passive recreation park in conjunction with
construction of the new State Police satellite office. This should be completed and ready for use by early
ring of 1989.
Hive Pond: extensive work already done, with project headed for completion by mid 1989. Hovey Pond Park will
vide for picnic areas, fishing and probably ice skating.
Hiland Park Land: land recently donated to the town should not be overlooked. About 70 acres at this location
includes room for picnics, as well as unlimited fishing access to a major portion of the fine trout stream known
as Halfway Brook.
The town also owns land at Lake George, but it is part of a wetland area on Sandy Bay and its use and access are
limited by law, good sense and money.
As part of my budget message, to be prepared very soon, I'll call for a formal agreement with the City of Glens
Falls to assure cooperative use of the Glens Falls indoor recreation facility behind the YMCA, and cooperative
use of the lighted cross country ski trails, and I'll ask for financial support to make this possible.
The combined recreational uses either available now or planned for the immediate future include swimming (indoor
and outdoor pools), hiking, fishing, boating, cross country skiing, picnicking, basketball (indoor and outdoor),
tennis, softball, indoor and outdoor recreational skating, and indoor ice hockey.
And, we're not done yet! Much more is under negotiation and planned for L!he future. We'll preserve nature, and
provide recreation at the same time.
w let's look in detail at the specific issue before us.
i
I've already said that Round Pond is one of our special locations, and we've said that it has already been protected.
'R's protected by the environmentally sensitive designation that has already been enacted, and it is protected
by the new zoning and subdivision regulations. It is further protected by the special site plan review provisions
of the new regulations.
We've already said that the Town of Queensbury has many recreational sites and is constantly looking for more.
We already offer the picnicking, boating, fishing, ski trails and fresh air that are the possible benefits of
the Round Pond site. What we do not offer, at the moment, is a beach area for swimming on a body of fresh water,
but that may certainly be available on land already owned on the Hudson River.
y
It may be beneficial to own some land at Round Pond, but what are the costs? The cost of land that I hope our
appraiser arrives before the end of the meeting. The cost of the land estimated by our appraiser and phoned to
me late afternoon from Buffalo is a minimum of $2,100,000.00. Cost of demolition: Estimated at 25,000.00
Other development costs were handed out to you earlier. I would point out to you that the $600,000.00 figure
quoted for relocating the road really should have been have been listed at $400,000.00. The $600,000.00 figure
was given to us as a per mile figure by Fred Austin of the Warren County Highway Department, that is a county
highway and the figures for that type of road, you're looking at $600,000.00 per mile as compared with over two
million dollars per mile on Quaker Road. We have somewhere in the neighborhood of ;j mile to relocate, although
it's fairly tough terrain, so we're saying about $400,000.00. Then there's the cost of the legal battle. That
t is estimated at an absolute minimum of $30,000.00, plus the legal battle against the group we're speaking
h,-ch tonight. That's the legal rattle to represent your interests if you vote their way against the people who
own the property right now. At the present moment that includes Mr. Pasarelli, Mr. and Mrs. Russo and Niagara
Mohawk. There are three owners of the property in question. The total cost then is somewhere in the neighborhood
$2,700,000.00. Also, there's a cost in terms of time. With consideration of the court battles that we're
solutely sure would take place if the vote is "yes", this will take at least 1'to 3 years in court. Following
"-10t it will take at least one full year for Niagara Mohawk to design and move power lines after the final court
decision. And the most important cost: Taking the lands of a private landowner! Yes, the law permits some entities
to take the private lands of others for specific public use, but it is not absolute, it is not automatic, and
it is not a step to be taken lightly! If Round Pond land can be taken for a "park", then any land can be taken
for a "park". Perhaps your one acre, or five acres, or fifty acres should be taken for a "park". The law does
not seem to specify the size of the "park", or the exact purpose of the "park", it simply permits taking for a
"park".
258 I1
.,_;trying every possible way to resolve this issue out of court, I have met with the present owner of most of
the land, and he doesn't want to sell at any price. I have thought of other alternatives.
The owner has agreed to work cooperatively with the town to restrict development along the shoreline of the pond
so that the view of the water will always be available, but he does not wish to transfer ownership.
What about the home and lands and rights of the Russo's who once owned the land in question and who have constructed
a new home there? Is their home and land to be taken? If so, is that fair? If not, who will decide where the
dividing line is? Has anyone bothered to ask the Russo's if they want to be surrounded by a public park?
There are other alternatives! Let's look at them:
1) Lease the current Country Club beach. It is already developed! (Initial contact has been made to consider
this.) I believe, at the moment, the Country Club is, a committee at least is talking about it right now.
2) Purchase or take the Country Club beach and 50 acres of Country Club property. Since the property is already
developed as requested, it should be much less expensive than having to tear down and rebuild. But, of course
that would have to be by eminent domain also, and let the record speak clearly on this, I could not support that
either!
3) Construct one, two, three or four more large swimming pools and parks around the town and assure safe, clean
swimming for all for years to come. The cost of this will be less than the total out-of-pocket costs to purchase
the property in question.
4) Look actively for other land that would be better suited and is available without condemnation.
In summary: I believe that the concept of town ownership of land at Round Pond was once a viable alternative.
That was a few years ago, and now that is no longer a feasible alternative. It is simply a lost opportunity.
I believe that all of the "costs" involved, including the non-financial costs that strike at the heart of our
rights and freedoms, make the project too expensive for the benefits that may be derived.
I believe that essentially uncontrolled use of most of the proposed area would result in devaluation of the land
adjoining properties due to excess noise and litter.
I believe that the right of ownership of private property is so important that it far outweighs the desire of
the public for a piece of property that is undefined, costly and unnecessary.
Save Round Pond? Absolutely!! But don't confuse that thought with the real issue! The real issue is "shall
the Town of Queensbury abuse its power and deprive the owner of land from his legal right to quietly enjoy his
property and to develop it as best he can according to the rules and regulations of the town?
My answer to the question is to ask that you vote "NO" on Tuesday, September 27 -- And ask your friends and relatives .
to do the same. This is your opportunity to have a voice in government and to have direct input into preserving
an essential right guaranteed to by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which after the speech, is something
that the Fifth Amendment did not.
To paraphrase the question of the special referendum:
"Shall the Town of Queensbury purchase or acquire by eminent domain at least 50 unspecified acres and an unspecified
amount of shoreline at Round Pond, all at an undetermined cost and to be paid for in an unknown method at unknown
rates and conditions?"
The only reasonable answer can be "NO".
Although it is preferable to treat this entire issue as non-partisan, there is some evidence of "politics" here.
Statements have been reported to have been made concerning the public's trust in the actions of the Town Board.
If you truly don't trust the Town Board, you certainly must vote "NO" on the issue. To do otherwise would be
to give the Town Board a blank check to spend ,yourmoney. If you do trust us, then please vote "NO" so that we
may preserve the right to own property. In either case, the answer to the question on September 27 must be "NO"!
1
Please vote "NO" on September 27th!!! Thank you.
At this time it is my pleasure to introduce the man from Buffalo who has just flown in to be with us, Mr. Robert
Strell, of Northeastern Appraisal. Bob, are you ready? Do you have your legs back under you? I'd ask Mr. Strell
if he will indicate the charge that the Town Board gave him and perhaps, at the beginning, tell who he is, what
his qualifications are and how he has related his estimates to his experience in condemnation proceedings.
A 9
Mr. Robert Strell - Good evening. My name is Robert Strell and I am the President of Northeastern Appraisal Associates.
Northeastern is a real estate and consulting firm located in Buffalo, New York with offices in Rochester, but
performing work throughout New York State and throughout the Northeastern area. As some of the members of the
Town Board know, my firm has been active in the valuation of real estate for about twenty years. We tend to specialize
in eminent domain acquisition representing in many cases the municipality, in other cases the claimant. So, I
would hope I would bring a broad spectrum of overview to this meeting tonight.
To begin with, some time ago I was contacted by the Town Board and asked to develop an opinion related to the
Round Pond acquisition. In doing that it required that I have an immediate conference with the now current owner
of the property, a Mr. Pasarelli. Just to give you a little background for the sake of the record, the property
was purchased by the Russo family for approximately $950,000.00. That's a matter of the public record and that
rchase occurred in May of 1986. The purchase involved some terms and conditions, mortgage, etc., there was
easement granted to the Russo family for use of Round Pond. Beyond that I think I would also like to point
t that Mr. Pasarelli is, in fact, a home builder and has according to the information that he provided me,
built in excess of 10,000 homes during his career. He currently is a home builder and
`erprises. To give d�gj,oper of other commercial
g you that background would allow me to proceed and to suggest to you that the purchase of
�s property was not a purchase by someone who was certainly not knowledgeable in the real estate field. Mr.;
Pasarelli saw what was there, purchased it, negotiated and had all good intentions, from the discussion that we
had, to develop this into originally an 89 lot subdivision. That was curtailed vis-a-vis the moratorium that
was in place, as I understand it. Beyond that there has been some change in the zoning which would now reduce
the number of lots in that subdivision to approximately 26. To summarize the method involved in arriving at value
here and I don't know if there's been any previous information relative to what the acquisition costs would be,
and understanding that some of the information here could potentially be used in a litigation case - so I will
try and give you as much information as I can but I respectfully request that certain items will probably not
be discussed unless the Town Board wants me to.
Supervisor Borgos - Just for your sake, and I don't want to interupt you, we did indicate earlier that you had
told me it would be somewhere not lower than 2.1 million dollars.
Mr. Robert Strell - That's correct. The best scenario would be in the area of 2 million dollars and I think the
final estimate of value that I have placed on the property to be approximately 2.125 million dollars, or $2,125,000.00.
Now, understanding that the property was purchased several years ago, and 1 did make you aware of the sales price.
I would like to ,just briefly tell you where the other causes of damages come from. 1. Mr. Pasarelli has held
this property for several years. It's like anything. If you own your own house you have a mortgage, you pay
interest, you pay taxes. Those are known as holding costs. The estimated holding cost of this property for the
Past two years is approximately $125,000.00 a year. This is money that Mr. Pasarelli has in fact paid to retain
is property to date. Beyond that he has also incurred various engineering costs approximating $30,000.00 for
bdivision planning. These are all direct factors that basically can be documented relative to his ownership
-----T the property. Proceeding on that basis - In arriving at a final estimate of value, any appraiser, any real
estate consultant looks at what the highest and best use of this property is and then the analysis ..•.. from
that starting point. In this case there was no question from my part as your expert that the`highestand best
use of this property would have been for some type of residential development, be it the 89 lots which may or
may not be a matter of question at some future point or the more reduced situation of 26 lots. In any event,
reaching that starting point in categorizing the value an appraiser will normally take the potential income
that these lots would generate. Now, I want to repeat, we don't do that because it gives you a hypothetical theory.
We do it because that is the way the eminent domain proceeding act requires an expert appraiser to proceed. The
potential income of that subdivision has to be considered. If we consider the 89 lots or if we consider the 26
lots, the major difference is in the time it would take to develop that type of subdivision. Utilizing an 89
lot scenario, it was my opinion that it would take 3 to 32 years to ..... sell this property. The income derived
each year, assuming 20 lots a year or 22 lots a year is then discounted to a present day value. I don't mean
to be technical and I apologize if I lose anybody but I think it's important that you all understand or just have
a brief understanding of the concept. Likewise with the 26 lots the same scenario would apply. The potential
income that these lots would generate has to be computed. From that income the cost of doing the development,
putting in the roads, the engineering, the planning, the holding costs, the real estate commissions to sell the
lots - all of these factors must be considered. Working this analysis, any number of ways based on that particular
scenario brings you to a value of the potential subdivision in the area of $1,700,000.00. 1 just want to emphasize
tr) or three different scenarios. As your expert, and the expert hired by this town, and many other towns, if
as asked to provide testimony, my testimony would indicate approximately that range. That's the starting point.
Now, in addition to that, there are some indirect expenses that the town would incur for any type of acquisition.
1. They include the legal expense. Now I also want to specify here, in my conference with Mr. Pasarelli and
'her people were present - his position was that he will oppose and resist this to the full extent of the law.
w, the Eminent Domain Proceeding Act, and I'm speaking as a lay person, not as an attorney and if I err it is
't an intentional error, but I am speaking to the best of my knowledge based on my experience, the Proceeding
'—Tct requires you to publish your intention, the Town's intention of acquiring the property. It also requires
you to have various hearings whereby you, as the Town, have to substantiate that the public interest is being
served. Throughout New York State today we are seeing more and more changes to these potential hearings and to
the potential use of the Eminent Domain Proceeding Act. In the majority of the cases the challenges are not upheld,
however, what I want to point out is that there is a substantial cost just to get over the first hurdle and in
arriving at my conclusions as to what the cost would be to this town I estimated the legal expenses for trial
for the eminent domain proceedings and, again I don't mean to quote any expenses that any counselors who
26 nn
11 13
may be involved in this, in the area of $65,000.00. That is based on several very similar acquisitions that I
have been involved in throughout New York State. Beyond that, any litigation that may occur would require witnesses
on behalf of the Town of Queensbury - myself, perhaps an engineer; and so forth. I have estimated that fee to
be approximately $10,000.00 for all the witnesses. Over and above that, and again I would just try and relate
to you a hands on approach as the way these things tend to work, the sides representing the owner of the property
may have a value that is alot different from the Town's value and usually that is what occurs in a- potential litigation.
Their number's higher, mine is lower. Ultimately, some decision is made by the Court. In most cases that I have
been involved in, even though I like to think that we did the best job possible and that we were 100% correct,
ultimately the Court has awarded the additional monies. ..... award depending on what the other side presents
ranging from $275,000.00 to $475,000.00 and the reason I suggest that to you because, very frankly, in my conference
with Mr. Pasarelli he refers to his "opportunity" cost which may or may not be compensable depending on other
actions or other issues in this entire scenario. What he basically means is that his land to generate to him
a profit over and above the subdivision break down and that is one of a building profit. He was to earn so much
a house and we all know that builders do make ..... money. The issue of if or if not it is compensable is another
issue but it goes to the heart of your incurred costs here or potential exposure in terms of estimates. Based
on that analysis we have concurred that the cost of this entire proceedings and we feel very, very strongly and
I'm going to make the necktie a little tighter tonight by being on record, to be in the area of $2,000,000.00 yryJ
to $2,125,000.00. I think your best scenario is two million, your worst scenario may be close to 2.3, 2.2 million
and the probable range is $2,125,000.00. .....all the procedure that the Town Board would like at this point.
Supervisor Borgos - Thank you very much. You missed the opening two statements, we can understand how you don't
understand where we ark this point, we had indicated at the beginning. So that we don't get too far out of
sync with who is saying what, we'll open the floor to questions from Mr. Strell about his methodology, his background,
anything else you might feel pertinent to the question of the value of the property through the condemnation proceeding.
If you have any questions please come forward to the microphone, give your name and address and we'll continue.
Mrs. Manahan - Bob, would you describe what land this appraisal refers to. Does it refer to everything that Pasarelli
owns, a part or what?
Mr. Strell - I think that's probably a very well put question. As I understand the information provided, and
understand we're working with the best information that we have which is a deed and various surveys and tax maps,
the site includes approximately 90 acres of which the 10 acre parcel is zoned commercial and not part of this
discussion. Over and above that, it's working with the 80 acres, the residual value. I want to use that term
and maybe come back to it for just a brief minute. The residual value, if in fact there was a residual value,
has been computed in the final analysis so the $2,125,000.00 that I provide you with takes into account that there
would be approximately $500,000.00 of residual value. Now, I want to suggest this to you so I clearly get this
point across. When you talk about residual value you are talking about the value to what's left. And to understand
what's left one must understand what we're starting with. What you're starting with is approximately 80 acres
all of which have rights vis-a-vis the title and the deed to Round Pond. What you have in the remainder is something,,,,,_ __
less than 80 acres, with that remainder being part or having the same rights as everyone else within the Town,
a public area. So this has been taken into consideration and a credit has been made for that in the calculation
of approximately $2,000,000.00 in damages.
Mrs. Monahan - You have not included the commercial property that fronts on the Lake George Road.
Mr. Strell - The commercial`•property, ten acres, has been excluded, yes.
Mrs. Monahan - Thank you.
Supervisor Borgos - Our first speaker from the audience first, then Mr. Montesi.
Mr. James Ingalls - Cleverdale. I'd like to know how much this land is appraised for by the Town of Queensbury
at this time and who appraised it?
Mr. Strell - The ........ assessment at this time, I do not have in front of me the exact number but will tell
you that it is substantially below my estimate of value. I would also suggest to you that, understand that this
land like much land throughout the Town of Queensbury is appraised and was appraised in the re-evaluation that
took place several years ago, the land was looked at as vacant land. Since that time I would again suggest one
must consider and take into consideration that's really not the same thing that we have tonight. . What we have
is a vacant tract of land that has been subdivided, or strike that, that has subdivision maps pending for potential
use. I guess that's the best response I can give you at this time.
Mr. James Ingalls - What interested me was that it was sold for $950,000.00 and I was interested in what it was
appraised for as related to what it sold for in addition to what it might be gained for.
Mr. Strell - Relative to the assessment in conjunction to what it sold for, at this point without going into a'
little research I wouldn't be able to answer that for you immediately, only to suggest to you that, again, it
is assessed somewhat under what I valued it for. That I can tell you for a fact.
Mr. James Ingalls I believe that.
f
14
Mr. Bernard Rahill - 'I am a member of the Round Pond Coordinating Committee, the Queensbury Association and the
Queensbury Citizens Party, so that everybody knows who I am. But I am here to be completely objective and I think
You will find after I have spoken that I am objective. First of all the property on Route 9 is assessed at $80,000.00,
as a commercial value approximately $30,000.00 to $50,000.00 an acre. So therefore it's mis-assessed. The remaining
property was assessed at $900,000.00 which means that you have $980,000.00 worth of property. Now, we're talking
about percentages and I think anybody here with a calculator can tell that percentages that we're talking about
and that the Board has been talking about for a long time are 100% in three years, 200% in three years, 400% in
three years, 500% in three years. That's ridiculous! Nobody makes that kind of money. Not even Ivan Boesky!
Thank you.
Mr. Strell - I'm sorry, I don't know if that was a question or I guess it was a statement.
Irvisor Borges - I think that was a statement. We prefer to limit to questions for a minute. Mr. Montesi
!? 'a brief question, then we'll go back to the audience.
Mr. Montesi - I'm just curious. You obviously have appraised a total parcel, 80 acres knowing full well that
5 those 80 acres are the land in question. We presume you've had a map to get an idea, what 50 acres. I'm
cur ous, in your research, who owns the pond? There's 60 acres of water. I just wonder who owns the pond, the'
water itself?
Mr. Strell - From the best information presented, again I do not profess to be an expert in reading the deeds
and so forth but, based on the meets and bounds that I see in the deeds and the latitudes and longitudes, it would
appear that a portion of this ownership does extend into Round Pond. Specifically, for how great a distance I
would be unable to tell you that unless I' saw a Mason Bond survey. Mr. Pasarelli, I just want to suggest one
thing, I believe also had a similar problem with his surveyor. You're talking about lengths and rods and tree
stumps that were in place many years ago so I think the estimates and everything that I'm trying to provide you
with reflect the best information but it's a very ...... question.
Mr. Montesi - Well, the question I mean, you've put my mind at ease a little bit, there are two owners of property
around the pond, Mr. Pasarelli and the Country Club, that the ownership of the pond per se should not be too hard
to question but at least if we do acquire this land by eminent domain we would be assured of having water.
Mr. Strell - There are raparian rights as I would read the deed and I woul suggest that is obviously subject
to a good reading by competent counsel.
Mr. Phil Harris - Star Route, Queensbury, 12804
4rvisor Borgos - Thank you, I love it - the first time that's been said in public.
i
Mr. Phil Harris - I'd like to congratulate Steve and Jerry Solomon and all that made that possible. One thing,
Steve, that you mentioned was the fact, and also Mr. Strell mentioned, that the property was not for sale. We
had Mr. Krogmann, Mr. Pasarelli's attorney, I don't know if he's here tonight -
Supervisor Borgos - I did see him earlier.
Mr. Phil Harris - - at a meeting just a couple weeks ago. He indicated to us that the property was for sale and
that the Town Board knew it, so I think that needs to be cleared up.
y
Mr. Strell - I'm not aware of the fact that we have a letter. I can tell you that 2 had a face-to-face meeting
with Mr. Pasarelli although I believe he is not in attendance this evening. I know he'told me he had a conflict
out of the area but I had a face-to-face meeting with Mr. Pasarelli. The meeting was conducted at the Town Hall.
The Supervisor was there, also another lady from the Supervisor's office was there and it was my understanding
of their conversation in very strong terms that this property "to the best of my ability is not for sale, will
not be for sale, and he will fight this as far as he has to go to prevent the Town from acquiring the property".
That is as close to context as I can get it and that's exactly what was said.
Supervisor Borgos - I believe there is a letter, will you read it please?
!fit-:Strell - Here's a letter dated September 12, 1988, it's signed by David B. Krogmann, copy to Mr. Pasarelli
as follows, addressed to the Honorable Supervisor:
accordance with our telephone conference this morning and my conversation with Mr. Paul Dusek last Friday,
letter will confirm the position of Mr. Pasarelli that, at present, he does not wish to sell all or any portion
4—"iis property on Round Pond to the Town of Queensbury."
Supervisor Borgos - Would you care to see it sir?
Mr. Harris - This contradicts what Mr. Krogmann told us. I'd just like to point out that Mr. Pasarelli who is
a Staten Island developer, just on your estimates or appraisal, could stand, to make over pretty near a million
and a half dollars on that land. According to what Mr. Krogmann told us, he agreed that the most valuable part
of that land was the land, the 30 acres over on Route 9 for commercial development. So he stands to make quite
a sum of money even if it was through eminent domain.
262 15
Mr. Strell - I guess the answer to that issue is not what someone purchased the land for. At this point it's
what its market value is, based upon the actions that the owner has taken. I would also suggest I do not believe
that's all profit in there. When I say that, keep in mind that Mr. Pasarelli has incurred, according to the information
he provided, and I want to suggest I have no reason to doubt this information, has incurred interest expense and
a homing cost of approximately $125,000.00 a year. For two years there is approximately a quarter of a million
dollars. I would also tell you that probably goes to one of the hearts of the issue here that Mr. Pasarelli is
a knowledgeable developer of homes and other types of real estate. He has the financial ability to handle this
type of project. I think that's shown by the fact that he has incurred these carrying costs. I think a check
of the record, as I recall, will show that the taxes are all current. Any interest or mortgage payment I believe,
according to his information, is current.
i
Mr. Harris - Okay, I guess according to you too, also you mentioned that he plans to go ahead with the project
development. The first map that we saw, the 82 townhouses and so forth. This will be regardless of what the
Town Board passes ....
Mr. Strell - I don't think that'$ quite correct. As I understood the conference, and I think Mr. Pasarelli obvious,7)
has the right to pursue this with his counsel, 1 believe, in the course of the conference, it was alluded that
there is (1) an issue regarding the first subdivision that may be a cause for litigation. Mr. Pasarelli nor
his counsel, in my mind, has ever conceded the fact that they are in accordance with the down zoning that has
occurred.
Mr. Harris - One last thing, I just want to note that after October 1st we're going to have a lot of Mr. Pasarelli's
coming into town ready to deluge after the moratorium is lifted October 1st.
Mr. Charles Adamson - Assembly Point. Mr. Strell we meet again. I just have two quick questions, one as a matter
of fact. You said, and this does not jibe with my understanding of the situation but you may be correct. You
said that Mr. Pasarelli has owned this property for several years. Several to me is, gets into the five, six,
seven, eight and ten. It is my understanding he has only been involved in this for a couple of years.
Mr. Strell - That is correct. He-actually acquired the property in May of 1986 according to.the deed I reviewed.
I'm sorry I didn't mean to mislead anybody, two years.
Mr. Adamson - The other thing is I just have a question about your function in this sort of arrangement. You
said you represent both sides in your business. You have represented those trying to take property and people
trying to defend the taking of property. Right?
Mr. Strell - That is correct, yes sir.
Mr. Adamson - Now, tonight it seems to me you are in the situation where you're working for somebody that wants
to take property. Now, are there two Mr. Strell's in this category? You know that this Board is strongly, apparently,
strongly against the taking of this property. Does that in any way affect your judgment as to the amounts that
You have stated? In other words, if this Board were strongly in favor of the property, of taking this rather
unique place, could you make a slightly better case so that when it went to public vote it would have a better
chance of passing?
Mr. Strell .- I think there are two answers to the question. 1. I'm not aware of what the Board's position in
this matter is. I heard the Supervisor's statement as I came through the door and have never had any discussion
with any members of the Town Board relative to this property other than the fact the Supervisor retained us to
do an appraisal. The instructions were fairly explicit in the appraisal and that is to provide an estimate of
value that would be supportable in an eminent domain proceeding act. I would suggest to you that the value that
I provide is the value that I have to defend the Town in. No doubt, in my mind, the other side will have. a whole
different outlook of value and I do not believe it will be lower than mine. So I would suggest to you that my
estimate is my estimate and it reflects what I believe the development potential of this property is. There was
certainly no influence on myself or any member of my firm to arrive at any value. I can say for the record, some
of you I know from tax assessment cases, and ...... a couple years of good relationships, I do not room in the
area here, my children do not go to school here and do not have to utilize the park or I don't have to see you
in the supermarket or church. It gives me a little more latitude to, again, come in for a situation like this
and try and react without any pressure one way or the other. I would also suggest to you that members of the
Town Board change from time to time and, in many cases, I relate the story of probably a very similar situation
when I represented a small village outside of Syracuse, Liverpool, where my strongest advocate was a lady who
did an extensive review of her assessment and we always managed to kind of hold our own and defeat her in the
courses of the hearings and she went out and ran and became Mayor and I'm still working for the village so I ...
you that I try to act in.,that fashion.
Mr. Adamson - We've thought of that too.
Supervisor Borgos - Let me just add a comment before the public. To answer this question further, both sides
to this particular meeting tonight understood that an appraisal by competent appraisers would be an integral part
of some final decision. The Town Board had already agreed to do an appraisal and then we were requested by the
Committee to do an appraisal, of course at Town taxpayer expense, but it was necessary. We selected a person
who routinely does our appraisals and he was given the information as he has indicated. So I believe, I would
liked to have seen a higher price, it would have made it better for my side but it's lower than what I estimated
in the newspaper.
I Just want to clarify the best scenario price you mentioned. It was 2.1 million?
Mr- Strell - $2,125,000.00, approximately 2.1 million.
that 2.1? - Okay, you're talking about credits and what not. Does that include the $400,000.00 missed opportunity,
Mr. Strell - When you talk about the - I'm not sure. Mr. Pasarelli has suggested, in my conference with him,
that he is a residential home builder and that his intentions for this site was basically to develop a subdivision
on which he would build the homes. He suggested that perhaps he is going to relocate to this area or have his
I imily relocate to this area. The opportunity costs that he was talking about is the profit that he anticipated
eking on the sale of those homes over and above the land. It's not reflected in this scenario. It is not.
It's not? It would be 2.1 plus million?
�. Strell - Yes. It's very clear, I do not believe that that is a valid consideration at this point.
- But that's usually where both sides differ. The $400,000.00 is not included in the 2.1?
Mr. Strell - It does not. Correct.
Supervisor Borgos - Any other questions for Mr. Strell. Mr. Morton.
Mr. Bill Morton - Yes. The Proposition calls for the acquisition of not less than 50 acres. Were the instuctions
to come up with an appraisal for 50 acres closest to Round Pond?
Mr. Strell - I was asked to complete the appraisal based upon my understanding of the eminent domain proceeding
act. We're not really dealing with a 50 acre parcel here. You're dealing with an entire parcel which has been
subdivided. So in effect there would be what we call "severance" or indirect damage to any remainder or residual
that you would have and what I guess we mean by that in Mr. PasarelIIIs scenario, all the lots were going to enjoy
private access to Round Pond. If an acquisition takes place then, and there is some residual land, and even if
that residual land is subdivided it no longer really has private access td Round Pond. It would have access to
what would become a public park.
Mr. Morton - I understand. What if, in your opinion or your estimation, how much would you estimate and I expect
at you could do it off the top of the head here but, let me rephrase it; would you expect the appraised value
50 acres, realizing the damages that are lost on the properties that have no access to Round Pond, would you
` npect the appraised value of 50 acres near the pond to be considerably less than the 2.1 million for the 80 acres?
Mr, Strell - To try and answer your question, I really don't think we can break it off and say this acre is worth
this much and that acre is worth that much cause it's a thousand or two thousand feet away. I think the answer
to the question and I've indicated to the Supervisor that, as I saw my role, this is step number one to estimate
what your damages would be. I think that if the Town proceeds the second issue then is to suggest and advise
the Town how to attempt to minimize those damages by, in effect, what they're going to acquire. Maybe give an
acre here and give an acre there. The only thing wrong with that position I can see at this point or that suggestion
is that you have an owner who's not going to agree to that. In alot of cases there is'some give and take between
owners' when eminent domain proceedings take place but, in this case again, there's no doubt in my mind that a
condemnation case here will move in. There's just no question about it.
Mr. Morton - I guess I have my answer.
Mr. Strell - I'm trying to answer as best I can. I didn't mean to avoid it.
Mr. Phil Harris - Queensbury, 12804. I ,just need a clarification. Mrs. Monahan asked you a question in the beginning
of the amount of land that was purchased and it was my understanding that the answer was that you didn't appraise
land out on Route 9. Am I m4staken?
Mr Strell - I did not appraise the ten acre commercial parcel on Route 9; 80 acres appraised of the 90 acre
purchase.
pervisor Borgos - Any other questions of Mr. Strell. Mr. Tucker?
Mr. Pliney Tucker - Ward 4, Queensbury. Your figures and your appraisal is based on today's values. Is that
true?
Mr. Strell - That is correct. I was asked to do an appraisal as of this date so attempted to bring the values
to today's date. It's a very good question because technically there has really not been eminent domain or what
we call vesting of the property so when that occurs is, in effect, the date that you're looking at in terms of
value.
17
264
Mr. Tucker - At the time that the case goes before the courts?
Mr. Strell - At the time, yes, the map is filed and the Town files the papers to proceed. That would be the
date of value. It would certainly be a few months down the road.
Mr. Tucker - You're protecting your opinion, based on the value of this property today. I assume you have an
idea this if this goes to eminent domain, we're looking what, three or four years down the road?
Mr. Strell - Well I think the Town would need some time to acquire the property, generally in my experience after
a first .... it takes anywhere from six months to a year to file the map and I would anticipate the year period
here that you wouldn't have litigation opposing that. What generally happens then is that the Town must pay the
landowner what is called an advance payment which is the amount of our appraisal. So that would go to Mr. Pasarelli'
«fi
and then the dispute over the difference..... The court calendars here could take anywhere from six months to
three years.
Mr. Tucker - Then would I be out 'of line to assume that the value of this property, if everything comes together
and the Town gets ready to purchase it, that it might be a great deal more than what you're talking here tonight.
- i
Mr. Strell - Well I think the best answer to that question, if you're talking about a length of time to go into
a condemnation, I think that one just has to look around Lake George and Queensbury and Warren County in general
and see what's happening. There's no question that there is very, very strong demand for property in this area.
Some people call that progress. It's all over and I say you standing there know the answer to that as well as
I do. The answer is probably "yes".
Mr. Tucker - Well I think that that should be pointed out that even though we're talking figures here tonight
this is not something that's going to be settled, boom, tomorrow or the next day.
Mr. Strell - We must face some dealings with attorneys and no pun intended, nothing is settled tomorrow.
Mr. Tucker - I.drive deals for a living myself, so No, I just wanted to point that out while we're knocking
figures around here but whether you're "for" or "against", you're not really talking two figures. And I realize
that you can't, I can't, or the association here can't, the Town Board can't, but I think it should be pointed
out to the public that this could cost alot more than what we're talking here tonight.
Mr. Strell - There's no question. I've been asked to talk a little bit and I don't want to sound negative because
I was asked about that earlier, but I want to relate just a quick war story that took place in a small community
called the City of Dunkirk,.New York which is between Erie, Pennsylvania and Buffalo, New York. The city of Dunkirk
is developing their harbor front and in 1982 or 83 went through an eminent domain proceeding to acquire all the
property along the harbor front. The acquisition was challenged by several different property owners, we represented
the City. Subsequently in 1986 the Court ruled that the acquisition was illegal, it was not done procedurely
right and the City had to go back and refile all the papers. In addition the date of value changed from 1982-83
to 1986 so alot had happened in that interim period which brought to the success of the other side, made many
property owners happy because they received substantially many more awards. I guess the answer to that is nothing
is carved in stone. I don't say that to suggest anything to you. I'm just telling you that it happens both ways,
in fact this happens to be one story that comes to me quickly. I've attempted to give you my best estimates today.
There could be some increase if the Town moves in an orderly fashion to acquire this property. Six months from
today I'm not sure how significant that increase would be. If it goes three, four or five years then it's a whole
different ball game.
Mr. Tucker - Thank you very much.
Supervisor Borgos - Any other questions for Mr. Strell.
Mr. Neil Lebowitz - I'm a resident of Glens Falls. Would it be possible to ask a question?
Supervisor Borgos - Absolutely.
Mr. Lebowitz - Right now Mr. Pasarelli has an Article 78 proceeding against the Town with regard to the filing
of his subdivision map. I'm just curious in your analysis of the acquisition costs of the property if you took
into account a scenario where Mr. Pasarelli lost on the filing of his map, the new zoning went into place, how
that would affect the acquisition costs of the property around the lake if the referendum passed and the Town
either tried to negotiate and then acquired the land through condemnation as opposed to condemning the land ...
right away without negotiating with Pasarelli. How that would affect your position?
26
Mr. Strell - I'm trying to answer to the best of my ability. The first scenario reflecting the fact that Mr.
Pasarelli is upheld, in effect he has 80 to 89 building lots as I understand it, speaking not as an attorney but
only as a lay person; if the Town is correct in their procedure, then, in fact, there are 26 building lots. I've
tried to take into consideration the indirect area, the difference between the two. When I say that basically
You're talking about 26 larger lots or 89 smaller lots. Now, that's not to say that you'll generate the same
...... revenue but it's not going to be in a proportion of a ...... There would be some increase in the revenue
so the scenario that I've attempted to approach this with in terms of my range facing the consideration of the
fact the plan does, in fact, have the approval for the down zoning, not the fact that the full number of lots
have been included. If the 89 lots are included then in my statement that the range of award from the court to
Mr. Pasarelli may exceed my appraised value by $275,000.00 to $425,000.00, I think is that area where the difference
will be.
`. Lebowitz - Thank you.
-W. Strell - Again, I speak for the record. Mr. Lebowitz knows,
the legal issue, I'm trying to address it strictly
as a lay individual and I don't mean to offend any of the counselor's present relative to attempting to indicate
t I know what's right and what's wrong on that issue, because I don't.
Supervisor Borgos - Is there anyone else? We have no time limits so relax.
Ms. Janice Maki - Queensbury You didn't appraise a 50 acre parcel according to the map that the Round Pond Coordinating i
Committee had come up with that we thought was the best possible acreage for the park and you left out the Route
9 commercial. .. lose anything by not having that part?
Mr. Strell - I looked at the 80 acres, not 50 acres.
Ms. Maki - Okay. When this comes to a head and, say the Town's referendum passes and the Town decides they only
want 50 acres. Where are we going to approve of doing it for that because surely isn't it better to take over
50 acres ...... than 80 just because that other 30 acre parcel really isn't -
Mr. Strell - I think it's a very good question and it's a point that I appreciate you're asking because I would
like to try and clarify it. Let me just try and take it to the perspective. I'm going to assume that perhaps
you're a property owner in the Town and you have a residential house. Let's assume for a minute that the Town
of Queensbury and your house is obviously set back so many feet from the highway, correct? Maybe 50 feet. Let's
assume for a minute that the Town of Queensbury took 45 of that 50 feet to expand the highway and only wanted
to pay you for the land that they had taken. In effect not only have they taken your land but, indirectly haven't
ey reduced the value of -
L. Maki - Okay, but couldn't you still come up with an appraisal, okay, this 50 acres is worth this much and
then you have to add on this residual value that's lost to the other acreage. Couldn't you come up with a figure
there?
Mr. Strell - Sure. I've attempted to take into consideration that there would be a residual value to that remainder.
I did take that into consideration but the problem is we don't know other than some sketch dwellings in terms
of any uncertainty as to where you're going to draw the lines. I made the point before if this was an issue where
you had a willing seller or a willing individual who was going to sit down and draw some lines with you, I think
it's a different scenario, but the issue you have here, according to the information I ^was provided, a man that
is going to staunchly oppose this action and carry the sabre as long as he can.
Ms. Maki - Is it possible, though, in an eminent domain proceeding like this for us to, if we went through with
the referendum, to just purchase 50 acres?
Mr. Strell - It is certainly possible to-
Ms. Maki - .... .. The Town can't buy 80 acres and then sell the 30. They can't be in the business of
real estate if I'm correct.
Mr. Strell - Let me say this to you that I believe that's the position of this Board, that's the way
`-' it has been outlined to me but what you're confronted with is that at some point a decision has to be
made as to exactly, precisely what is going to be taken.
Ms. Maki - And that will not be done until the referendum?
4
Mr. Strell - We know it's approximately 50 acres and we also know that the 50 acres follows the lake
frontage or a good portion of Round Pond frontage will be taken. That really restricts the value of
the residual land to a great degree because the Pasarelli concept is that the use of the pond, fishing,
paddle boating or whatever is really what's going to sell all the land and if he doesn't have it, in
effect, he really doesn't have the concept that he started with.
Ms. Maki - That's true but when you have 30 acres of land left over in the Town of Queensbury you can
go to one of the ... developers and be paid 45 or 50 thousand dollars an acre for land and if you have
30 of those acres whether they have .... or not, it's still a good chunk of value for those 30 acres.
Mr. Strell - There's no question, you're absolutely correct. But look at it this way - look at one
acre of land on Lake George versus one acre of land here.
266 19
Ms. Maki - But...
Mr. Strell - I understand that but I just use it for the standpoint of an example. When I try and do
these things I really try and put myself in the place of all parties to try and react as best possible.
Regardless and I'm, again, here retained by the Town by, in effect, your -side to limit the damages as
much as I can. But if you really think about what Mr. Pasarelli has proposed here, in the area that
he's proposed - you know they have this story, if you're 60 miles from home you're an expert and Round
Pond has been around a long time and no one locally here has really made an attempt to subdivide or
build homes on it but aesthetically Mr. Pasarelli is suggesting to you that the homeowner or the potential
purchaser is going to look at Round Pond the same way we look at it. It's aesthetically just a beautiful , '
clean glacial lake.
Ms. Maki - But would you say it wouldn't be too far off to use that calculation that I made taking
that 30 acres and put a .... in Queensbury, without beach rights it's going to be obviously less but
could you take that total amount and substract it from your 2.1 million figure.
Mr. Strell - I don't think so, no. I would suggest to you that what you're doing is, the door is open
and you're coming back in the house to close it. Okay. I hear what you're saying but what I'm saying
to you is that the approach is really not the fact that there are thirty acres ...lots but there are
30 acres and there are damages that reflect the difference between having access to a public type or,
strike that, a private situation versus not having access to it. The difference goes right to the heart
of the selling price of those lots.
Ms. Maki - Okay, thank you.
Peter Tarana - 27 Edgewood Drive Maybe I'm thick here but the 90 versus 50 acres plus residual value.
I have trouble saying it, let alone understanding it. We've got 2.125 million dollars. That is correct.
Okay? That's for about 90 acres or 80 acres or is it for 50 acres plus residual value or is it for
both? Is there any difference in terms of the appraised value, whether we go for 50 acres minimum park
plus residual value or if we go for the whole ballpark? Is there any difference?
Mr. Strell - You really, in my opinion, do not have a 50 acre parcel that you are condemning. What
You would be condeming is 50 acres of an 80 acre proposed subdivisiop. In effect what you're doing
Is you're taking probably, again my opinion, the best 50 acres and leaving the worst. Now reflected
in my estimate of damages, and my estimate of damages the 2.125 million also includes the' indirect costs.
Those other costs that you might have, legal, loss over and above what I projected and a number of other
things. In that analysis I have taken into consideration that there, in fact, would be a residual value
to that 30 acres of land.
J
Mr. Tarana - So this 2.125 million refers to 50 acres plus residual value?
Mr. Strell - It makes the clear assumption that we are appraising the 80 acre parcel but there is going
to be 30 acres left when we get done cutting it.
Mr. Tarana - Yes, so we'll only take 50 acres?
Mr. Strell - Directly we'll be acquiring 50 acres approximately.
Mr. Tarana - And the 30 acres, now, that would remain in Pasarelli's hands or are you assuming the
Town would sell?
Mr. Strell - I'm suggesting to you the 30 acres, in technical terms, would not be vested in the Town's
rights. The Town would acquire strictly the 50 acres of land. The 30 acres would remain, and let me
tell you what Mr. Pasarelli, basically what his position is going to be is that if you've taken 50,
You might as well take 80 causc there isn't any use for the 30.
Mr. Tarana - So, we would get 80?
Mr. Strell - You may, I don't know. I don't want to speak for the other side. You're acquiring 50.
Mr. Tarana - If w0idn't get the 80 and the 30 remained in his pipe, would we still have to pay 2.125
million?
Mr. Strell - There's no question about it. Absolutely, in my mind. The probable range.
Mr. Tarana - Okay. This is for, you know, I'd like to know as a taxpayer what this translates in tax
increases for me. So you're saying, if this referendum passes, and we go minimum park 50 acres, would
the residual value in what you anticipate, what would be done with the 30 acres, this would be 2.125?
Mr. Strell - Yes. And to clarify the record these are going to be costs that you will incur in the
acquisition of this property. And the're my best opinions relative to your tax increase either school
district or town-wise, you'll have to talk to these people.
0
Mr. Tarana - And might I just ask at this point, I think a-lot of people are here for that take home
message, what's this translate, bottom line, what's this going to cost me? Bill Morton gave an estimate
in terms of about a million dollars over 20 years being an additional five dollars on a tax' bill of
a $100,000.00 house per year. So, if we were to talk about 2.125 million over a five year bonding period
are we talking roughly 40 or 50 dollars a year? Is that something in the ballpark or what are we talking
about?
Supervisor Borgos - The best answer I can give you without having my little magic book with me and
without knowing how many years the bonding would be for would be that Mr. Morton's number would be an
absolute impossible scenario because it looks at taking the total, dividing it simply by 20 years with
no interest charges.
Mr. Tarana - And no increase in the tax base?
i
Supervisor Borgos - No increase in the tax base.
Mr. Tarana - Would that decrease the charge as the tax base increases?
Supervisor Borgos - I think the interest would more than offset the increase in the tax base so we're
looking at, depending upon the number of years, five years is going to cost you alot more per year,
twenty years, if that's possible, if you get somebody to bond it for that will reduce it. It could
be anywhere. It couldn't be as low as five dollars a year.
Mr. Tarana - My concern is that we're going to have to vote on this in about a week and we have some
estimates possible I think, in terms of the increase in total assessed valuation. We have some history
of that. We have a feel for the bond market. Maybe Mr. Montesi has an idea in terms of the 2.125 million.
What would this translate to?
Councilman Montesi - Peter, to answer you directly. Bill Morton and I worked on a million dollars
and the reason we worked on that - we foolishly assumed the acquistion would be a million dollars for
the eminent domain and at the present value of total assessment in the Town we worked up a figure
of $35.00 per $100,000.00 home. If you owned a home that was valued at $100,000.00 it would cost you
$35.00 a year for $100,000.00 for five years. I think the law, and Phe attorney can correct me if I'm
wrong - when you acquire something by eminent domain, you are charged with paying that or bonding that
for five years. The rest of the costs, all of the other costs that we talked about, the development
costs of that park, are something that you can bond over twenty years. So the immediate concern for
everyone in this room or every taxpayer in the Town of Queensbury ought to be, what's it going to cost
me for five years for 2.1 million and to the best of my ability I can tell you $75.00-$80.00 a year.
On top of that you can add whatever scenario you want to in terms of 3,4,5 million dollars development
costs and come up with some figures but I don't know if you can go out way beyond five years because
our assessed, total assessed value for our Town is a billion dollars right now. What will it be in
five years, I don't know. Obviously that will have a bearing on the cost but I just looked at what
is it going to cost me for the next five years for the acquisition and I think that's a pretty good
figure to work with.
Mr. Tarana - So it would be no more than $75 or $80? And if the tax base increases substantially it
could be somewhat or considerably less?
Mr. Montesi - I don't know how the last increase but I do know that when Bill and I figured that we
just figured a raw figure of a million dollars, no interest for five years and I assume that the bond
market is ten percent. So you add $100,000.00 each year but I'm trying to give you a very average figure
because you'd really have to go into it. We just got the appraisal today on the phone so Steve could
put it into his proposal, and Bob is here, so no one has really had a chance to look at the impact totally,
but I think my figure would stand a reasonable test of scrutiny in terms of what we presently have for
assessed value in Town.
Mr. Tarana - Whatever reconsideration is necessary will be done pretty soon so it will be well before
the referendum?
Supervisor Borgos - Let me answer this. This is one of the bothersome questions. We would love to
be able to say exactly how much and how many years and all this, but we can't. So that's the problem.
We don't have the willing buyer-seller. You've got to vote to pay whatever it costs, at whatever rate.
There's no choice.
Mr. Tarana - We have an appraisal that seems to give a value that perhaps will stand up and we've got
to give the public something to go on and a ...
Supervisor Borgos - That's why we're doing the best we can. That's roughly where-we might be.
Mrs. Monahan - Ron, I have a question. Did you, when you considered the cost per year, take
into account the interest charges?
268 21
Mr. Montesi - No.
Mrs. Monahan - So probably you're going to double that for interst charges which usually happens so
your 70 becomes 140. Also did you take into account that you are taking taxable property off the roles
because that further increases .... that those of us that are left are going to pay. And, thirdly, Mr.
Tarana talks about our increased tax base. If you watch the history of the Town taxes you will notice
that increasing the tax base has not decreased your taxes it's increased your taxes because more services
have to be furnished and that's a provable fact and most people don't realize that. Houses do add to
the burden of your Town, do increase the taxes. It will be different if we get perhaps more commercial
and industrial base in this Town. But that's the story as of right now. Our taxes are going up per
thousand dollars of assessed valuation and have been going up.
Supervisor Borgos - Further questions for Mr. Strell. Mr. Helm.
Max Helm - Sherwood Drive, Queensbury, 12804. Early in the description of the property that you appraised,
you gave reference to the fact that the land involved went under the water.
Mr. Strell - Yes, it would be my understanding from the deed provided that the actual lot line goes
out into some point of Round Pond.
Mr. Helm - I had been told by somebody who probably should know that that was the case, in that the
Glens Falls Country Club I was told by the same party that probably doesn't know that they feel they
own the land under the water so the question comes up as to where the hell is the line and you can draw
it on top of the water I guess but if I were to use the figure 2. put out by I suppose the Committee
and were to assume that we would attach on a straight line those two lines, and I realize that's probably
wrong, but if we were to do it in any form or fashion to connect the two lines that are on this description
here you would find that a precious small amount of Round Pond would be involved in the park if we were
to be able to get that.
Supervisor Borgos - On the map up here we've drawn, as best we can, from tax maps it shows a little
corner of the pond.
Mr. Helm - Okay good, I'm glad to see that. That makes my point. My point is, does the Committee
then feel that this small amount of water that's available would serve their purpose - I'm not so certain
that the Country Club would want to have their part of the water used for the Town Park and they didn't
tell me to say that.
Supervisor Borgos - I don't want to interrupt you but, please raise your question to Mr. Strell and
we'll take general questions later.
Mr. Helm - My question to Mr. Strell then was if he could identify exactly how much total water exists
in Round Pond and how much would be in that parcel or something approximate?
Mr. Strell - It would be, the description of the deed is one that goes back some time ago and certainly
someone with more qualifications than I in reading a deed and plotting it would h@ve to do that. I
would suggest to you that it is my opinion based on what I've read that there are what we call raparian
rights that a portion of this property is in fact part of Round Pond. In the point we make about the
use of the pond is certainly a very valid point. You can arrive into all types of potential problem
situations when you have a body of water that ...(end of tape) - is over and above what I've done for
you but it certainly, as I stand here, I think I would be proper in suggesting to you that that is certainly
a hurdle. There's obviously a hurdle relative to, if members of the Country Club or the Country Club
per se want 50 paddle boats in what they construe to be their property in addition to ten fishermen.
I don't know the answer to that. It's a very valid point and one that I think the Town would have to
seek out some legal opinion on.
Mr. Helm - I can tell you that several of the members up there have a tendency to push balls off into ..,
the water and we have a concern that we don't want to hit some of the citizens of Queensbury.in the
head.
Mr. Ingalls - If public access were obtained to Round Pond and that would thereby make the bottom of
Round Pond the property of the State, how would this influence your appraisal?
Mr. Strell - In terms of public access versus private access, in my mind is completely different.
Currently, I'm sorry, let me just ask you - do you mean public access to Round Pond from a different
area?
Mr. Ingalls - Right. Say the Town bought 200 feet of the Country Club property: We now have public
access to Round Pond. Now everybody can go on Round Pond.
Mr. Strell - It's a hard question for me to answer because I think it becomes a legal scenario. There
would be, certainly in my mind, a difference between a private pond or quasi private pond versus a public
pond.
Mr. Ingalls - It seems to me it would blow the fiscal matter. The $2,125,000.00 would go down to $900,000,00:
Mr. Strell - I couldn't comment on that without knowing exactly what we're talking about here but it
certainly would require taking another look at. No question about that.
Walter Medwid - Laurel Lane, Ward 4, Queensbury. You mention the words "missed opportunity" and all
of a sudden it dawned on me that there are some other "missed opportunities". It relates to the Town
negotiating over the course of about three years. What I'm curious, is maybe to provide just a little
bit of history - Mrs. Walter talked about appraisals that were or were not made during the initial negotiations
with Mr. Russo and I guess my question is - were those appraisals made available to you or could the
�. Town Board, at this stage I suppose the appraisals which were kept secret at the time because of delicate'
negotiations, can we at least have that information to at least have some perspective as to how close
we were let's say two or three years ago when it was ultimately sold to Mr. Pasarelli?
Mr. Strell - Well I think to answer the question for you and understand I was not involved in those
appraisals two or three years ago, nay only involvement has been current as you probably know, I was
given a document from the file which was "really not an appraisal but more of a consulting opinion from
a local individual, a local real estate agent in his opinion of value". At the time and I *honestly
do not remember the number so I can't really tell you what it is and in no way did it influence me,one
way or the other and the reason for that, at the time it was done and I think it was done substantially
back in time, a few years I should say - the approach taken was one to give consideration to the existing
improvements, a cost approach to value less depreciation, plus land value. That's what was done then.
You don't have that today alright and I think if there's any difference the difference is in what you
have today. What you have is a large tract of land owned by a knowledgeable builder with ability, financing,
etc, to turn that tract into a subdivision and that's basically the difference.
Mr. Medwid - I wonder whether that number could be released.
Mr. Strell - I don't recall it and I don't have the appraisal. I did see an appraisal. There's no
question about it.
Supervisor Borgos - I can answer that one. We covered that the other day. Certainly anyone is welcome
`— to a copy of that.
Mr. Medwid - Is that, may we have that now?
Supervisor Borgos - It won't be tonight, it's in the files.
Mr. Medwid - You have no idea of the number at this time?
Supervisor Borgos - I don't recall the number. It was less than the 2.1 million.' I know that,
Mr. Medwid - Well, if it sells for $950,000.00 I would hope it was substantially below that.
Mrs. Monahan - The appraisal was not for the land that the $950,000.00 was paid for but as a matter
of record, I would like to state that to Mr. Russo's attorney, about one week to ten days before he
signed the papers with Mr. Pasarelli, the Town told Mr. Russo's attorney the Town would give him exactly
what he wanted for his property and would give him precisely the method of payment that he wished.
We were told at that time the land had not been sold and we could proceed with what we were doing.
A week to ten days later we were told the land had been sold. So that, in short, is the scenario.
I, frankly, was a member of the negotiating team at different parts of the time because I had known
\.,Mr. Russo for many, many years and there's been a heck of alot of misinformation about those negotiations
that went on and I'm getting a little sick and tired of hearing them. Frankly.
Supervisor Borgos - Next question for Mr. Strell, please. General questions we'll hold for later.
Mr. Rayhill - My question is with regard to the financing of the property right now. We're talking
about property that was sold for $950,000.00 and so therefore we're talking about 50 acres that the
people wanted for a lake and just to make it in rough terms, that translates into $10,000.00 an acre.
If we take a look at that and we say 50 times 10, that's $500,000.00 and the assessment, the appraisal
that you've arrived at is 2.1 million dollars which means that over a period of 3 years Mr. Pasarelli
has made 100% a year on the land. Of course we're including his expenses. Excluding his expenses,
what would be the profit on that? Do you know offhand? Would it be 100% a year?
270 23
Mr. Strell - What you're doing and let me again state for the record that sale occurred in May of 1986
and in effect you're taking numbers and making allocations on a per acre basis or some other basis which
is a mathematical calculation.
Mr. Rayhill - Actually I'm on the low side because I took the whole 90 acres at $10,000.00 an acre
I'm really on the low side. I could go low again.
Mr. Strell - Let me try and bacl into that, to the answer a little bit and I just want to reaffirm
- understand again, Mr. Pasarelli is a knowledgeable builder.
Mr. Rayhill - I am a knowledgeable political scientist.
Mr. Strell - I understand that. His motivation in the acquisition of this property is, in spite of
the fact that number one, he had made terms to me that he is familiar with this area, he's been here
and he just wants to live in the area, etc. Over and above that, and I'm sure he's very sincere in
those comments, but there's a'motivation here and the motivation is money or profit, clearly. Basically
what he has done here is he bought an Edsel and converted it to a Cadillac and he did it by recognizing
that there's a demand for this property, doing a subdivision analysis and the fact that from my number
to his number represents maybe a 200% - 300% increase, that is a moot point when it goes to the issue
of what the value is today. I'm not disagreeing with you. Don't get me wrong but what I'm saying to
you is that the man saw an opportunity from a real estate perspective, he came into the area, he negotiated
with Mr. and Mrs. Russo, as I understand it very hastily and had that property tied up in a very short
period of time. Government bodies have to go by due process. An individual obviously does not have
those constraints. I think, I'm not trying to suggest here that Mr. and Mrs. Russo sold the property
for less than it was worth at the time but what in effect you have is a purchaser who bought the property
knowing what he could do with it and how he could convert it into dollars.
Mr. Rayhill - Well I understand that and Mrs. Monahan has said that ten days prior to that the Town
Board had offered him what he wanted and apparently that must have been an offer of $950,000.00 ten
days prior to that and I know that a great number of people in the community as well as MP. Russo were
interested in seeing that as a Town park and so therefore if somebody purchases a piece of land that
people want as a Town park he doesn't have an Edsel, he has a Cadillac immediately because he can go
to eminent domain in order make the money.
Mr. Strell - There are people who just drive around and look for those opportunities and that's just
the way it is.
Mr. Rayhill - Yes, Ivan Boesky did that. I understand completely and I think we have to look at this
matter very, very carefully, legally. Thank you very much.
Supervisor Borgos Without intending to shut off anybody I think Mr. Strell perhaps needs a break
and we do want to get to Mr. Hagemann who has come here at great expense to nobody probably, on his
own time. Thank you very much Mr. Strell. At this time I'll introduce Mr. Harold Hagemann, Coordinator
of the Environmental Quality Bond Act funds, New York State Department of Parks and Historic Preservation
who is here at the request of the Round Pond Park Coordinating Committee and will speak to us about
possible funding. If I got your title wrong, please correct it. '
Mr. Hagemann Titles are not important at this point. My name is Harold Hagemann, I work for the
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. I'm going to present to you funding
options that would come into play if, and only if, the Town has acquired title to the property or chooses
to pursue that route. This is only relevant depending on the outcome of your referendum ten days from
now. When I was first invited to attend this meeting by members of the Round Pond Committee, I stressed
to them at that point that I am an impartial party here and I would reiterate that again to all concerned.
I'm at their invitation, here at your courtesy to present information.
The Environmental Quality Bond Act of 1986 is primarily about toxic waste cleanup. The Bond Act had
a funding authority of 1.45 billion dollars. That's an awful lot of money. Out of that 1.45, 250 million
was set aside for Title 7 and Title 9. That quarter of a billion dollars, which is still alot of money,
was to provide for the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands such as wetlands, endangered species
habitat, that sort of thing and Title 9 provides for grants to municipalities for historic preservation, j
municipal park acquisition and development and then a very special sort of park in New York State called 3
urban cultural parks. Between Title 7 and Title 9 there is no legislated differentiation of funding.
It is up to the legislature in each fiscal year to divide the money out. In 1987 the legislature appropriated
30 million dollars for Title 7 and 30 million dollars for Title 9. Of that 30 million dollars for Title
9, ten million dollars was earmarked for municipal park purposes. Under the muncipal park component
of Title 9 of the Environmental Quality Bond Act, municipalities, school districts or other public beneficiary
corporations can acquire or develop park land. Your town is considered a .municipality under that definition.
This year in 1988 the legislature provided 35 million dollars for Title 9 and 20 million dollars of
that 35 was targeted for municipal parks. Twenty million dollars across the State of New York sounds
like a fair amount of money. I would work for ten percent of that but the way it worked out this year,
there were 252 applications requesting well over 100 million dollars of money with only 20 million dollars
to be given out. There's an awful lot of competition for this money. The first year out the competition
was about the ratio of 8 to 1. This year it's 5 to 1, one does not know what will happen next year.
So although the gross numbers are high I think what I need to make clear to everyone is there's an awful
lot of competition. Further there's no differentiation in the Bond Act between upstate and downstate.
There is no differentiation in the Bond Act for acquisition versus development, indoor versus outdoor.
So the small upstate communities are competing with the large municipalities, New York City, Long Island,
for the same money. It makes for a very interesting grant process. The acquisition development or
a combination of indoor and outdoor recreation facilities is a 50-50 matching reimbursible process.
If the Town is successful in a Bond Act application the Bond Act could provide up to 50% of the cost
of the acquisition and development of a park. The Town could apply for just acquisition, it could apply
for just development or it could apply for some combination thereof. Further it is at the Commissioner's
discretion whether that funding will be at 50% or not. The legislation provides for up to 50%. I can
assure you though our case, particularly downstate acquisition cases where they would be happy to get
80 acres for 2.2 million dollars, where the acquisition costs are in the teens of millions, that the
awards are much less than 50%. There is one grant cycle a year. The next grant due date will be in
May of 1989, so the grant cycle is closed for 1988. The Commissioner will be announcing awards in the
next two weeks about the process in 1988. Although we don't know how much money will be available in
89 it's quite likely to be approximately the same. Once the application has been submitted to the region
and I would be the recipient of your application, it's reviewed simultaneously in the regional offices
in Saratoga Springs as well as the central office in Albany. These separate and simultaneous reviews
are one of the ways we try to assure some sort of statewide consistency in the way our evaluation criteria
are applied. I would have a prejudice for applications in my region. I want to see municipalities
get funded in my region. Conversely, applications that are reviewed at the Albany level may not have
access to the same information I would have because of my site visits to the site, my conversations
with town officers or whatever. So in this negotiation process a score is developed and projects are
funded based on their scoring system. The scoring system takes into account alot of different criteria.
Some of the criteria include conformance with various statewide initiatives. The State of New York
and the Office of Parks has identified a half a dozen or so different program initiatives statewide
that receive bonus points so to speak. For example, a project that enhances fisheries, that's recognized
by DEC as enhancing the fisheries in New York State is one of those projects. Projects that access
statewide trail systems receive bonus points. Those are the sorts oi{ statewide initiatives that are
addressed. Other factors that are major include, does this project meet identified recreation demands.
If your project meets recreation demands as identified by our statewide surveys then it's going to be
a more competitive project than if your project is duplicating services that are available elsewhere.
If you're proposing a tennis court for example that's going to compete with a private enterprise operation
or if there's some other duplication of services. So we do measure how well your project meets identified
recreation demands. Other criteria going to evaluating projects include the demographics.of a community,
relative wealth of a community statewide, prior grant experience, grant dollars per capita, previous
experience with grants in terms of whether we can predict that the spots will be a good grant applicant
or bad applicant, the cost effectiveness of a project, how much ... for the buck are you getting with
your project. For acquisition one of the criteria that we apply is population density. Population
density is one measure of demand for open space. ... not the only measure but it's a uniform measure
that we do apply for acquisition. We also measure environmental factors. Are you acquiring environmentally
sensitive lands, are there historic resources on this parcel that deserve to be protected? Are you
going to develop an environmental education facility, which is seen as a State priority? Those are
the sort of factors that we develop. Every project across the State of New York is evaluated using.
the same criteria. Certainly the demographic figures vary from county to county and municipality to
municipality but the system is standardized across the State. Once you get a grant you then enter into
a contract with our office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation and the Town of Queensbury.
You would then have, generally speaking, a two year period to complete your project. I would act as
basically the Project Officer for the State side working with whomever the Town would designate as their
Project Officer. It's a reimbursible program. Therefore you would incur the costs, make the payments
and then submit for reimbursement. One of the elements I think that's relevant here is the match on
the part of the town does not have to be 100% cash match. For example, a couple of different scenarios.
For example if you are doing an acquisition and development project and the town work crew does some
of the Work. That's considered force account labor. The wages and salaries and fringes of the town
laborers, the ... of the town equipment and whatever supplies the town would purchase would be part
of your match. You would not have to cash match for that. Similarly volunteers can be a source of
match. Inmate labor was addressed earlier. Inmate labor is a source of match. Donations are a source
of match, so there's lots of ways to raise your match apart from just straight cash. The town does
have the option of mixing and matching all sorts of funding operations. One of the questions will come
up, I'm sure - well what's been the success rate of small upstate communities in the past with funding
for this sort of program. Roughly in past experience it's a 60-40 split between downstate communities
and upstate communities for grants ... programs. Again, there is no stipulation in the administrative
regs or the legislation that divides the money up but based on population and demand and other sorts
of factors, we're seeing about a 60-40 split. The City of Saratoga Springs was successful last year
and received almost $100,000.00 as part of a project Geyser Park, a ... complex. There are other projects
across upstate New York that range up into the several hundreds of thousands of dollars. Acquisition
2`72 2s
projects by their very nature tend to be on the high side of the price scale and again there are upstate
projects that have been funded for acquisition as well. Not knowing exactly what the interest on the
part of the audience or the Town Board is, I think I'm going to, at this point, just open it to questions
rather than delve into the details.
Supervisor Sorgos - Thank you very much. That was a good introduction, great introduction actually.
I learned" alot. Please state your name, just so we can get it on the tape, Bill.
Mr. Bill Morton - My name is Bill Morton, 9 Meadow Drive. Mr. Hagemann, how would you rate the chances
of the kind of park that we described competing for EQBA funds?
Mr. Hagemann - With the caveat that there are no guarantees, I think Round Pond has ... that would
make it a competitive project. Let me outline some of this for you. Acquisition of recreation land
is treated as priority under the Environmental Quality Bond Act. It is the Commissioner's policy that
that is one of the priority's of the Bond Act, is the establishment and setting aside of public open
space, public recreation space. Round Pond also provides water base recreation which is another identified
priority. Round Pond also connects to the Warren County Bike Trail which is another priority within
the scoring system. I'm not going to tell you it would win. What I'm going to tell you is that it
would be competitive with the great mass of other applications that would be received.
Mr. Morton - Thank you.
Supervisor Borgos - Any other questions from the audience? Mrs. Monahan?
Mrs. Monahan - Steve, I would comment that the Town has applied for two previous grants, one for Gurney
Lane and one for the Ridge Road-Jenkinsville Park and we have been turned down.
Mr. Hagemann - That is correct.
Supervisor Borgos - We have another application pending, four grants Mr. Hansen says. We're getting
up near that average, aren't we?
Mr. Hagemann - You also received money in the past for other small parks.
Mrs. Monahan - Very minor.
Mr. Morton - Can you tell us why these applications may have been turned down?
Mr. Hagemann - Part of the problem in the past has been an absolute lack of money. The Bond Act, Title
9 grant element was A State response to a Federal cutback in the Land and Water Conservation Fund Program.
The demand for park and recreation resources and the development and acquisition of park and recreation
did not go away when the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund declined. In response the Bond Act
was put together. Two or three of the Town's applications came during the decline of land and water
funds and before the bond act. Factored into this too is largely the preference for acquisition as
opposed to straight development.
Supervisor Borgos - Next question, please identify yourself for the records.
Harry Hansen - 29 Meadow Drive. Just to elaborate, Harold, we have submitted two land and water conservation
applications, one for Gurney Lane, one for Ridge Road and then two environmental quality bond act, one
last year, one this year. Both for Ridge Road. We are in the process of having one decided right now
by your -
Mr. Hagemann - And we can anticipate an award announcement by the Commissioner in about two weeks.
Mr. Hansen - Super.
I
Mrs. Monahan - May I comment that Gurney Lane was turned down because we were told that we had so much
access to fresh water in this area, so that's why our application for the pool, etc. was turned down.
The fact that it was all surrounded by private owners didn't seem to count. (end of tape)
Mr. Hagemann - ...figures, yes, taken on an individual case by case basis are not perhaps as fair as
one might like to see them. Alot of our figures are done on a county-wide basis and it does ... inequities
in some cases.
Councilman Potenza - Just a comment - when you say population density - what do you mean by that?
Mr. Hagemann - People per square mile.
Mrs. Potenza - Okay, per square mile and the percentage of land that is not maybe being allocated already
as park area in the Town.
Q'73
Mr. Hagemann - Percent of available parkland is an element. Yes, that is considered.
Mrs. Potenza - After talking with the Adirondack Park today I found out that we have 17,000 acres of
parkland in.the Town of Queensbury so obviously that would be taken into consideration. Right?
Mr. Hagemann - Yes it will, and that's one of the factors that needs to be weighed when you ... your
application., as the Supervisor read off the list of available recreation facilities, Queensbury has
... recreation in the State. You have a professional recreation supervisor who's well known to the
professional community in New York, so you have certain strengths in hand already.
Mr. David Kenny - Route 9, Queensbury. You stated that Round Pond .... competitive. There are other
bodies of water in this community that I feel, for instance, Rush Pond that... ... a park at a lot cheaper
price I believe and I believe it's also more sensitive. It's got the water, it's got the recreational
facilities, it's next to the snowmobile trails. There are a lot of things in Rush Pond that I ....
.., more sensitive area. How would we score if we decided to make that a park?
Mr. Hagemann - Not knowing the parcel there's no way I can tell you. What I will tell you is that
if the Town wishes the Town could submit an application for Rush Pond as well. I will be glad to evaluate
it.
Mr. Kenny - Thank you.
Supervisor Borgos - Anyone else who would like to speak to or ask questions of Mr. Hagemann? Had I
known that your presentation was going to be relatively short and Mr. Strell's extended (and he's not
being paid by the hour) I would have asked you to go first so you might go home. Anyone else? If not
we thank you very much for joining us here this evening, we still have now a period of open questions
and we will be sending you many applications in the near future. Now, we have a period of time during
which we're willing to take questions directed to any one of us here or any member of the committee,
related to anything that you've heard tonight or any comments you want to make. We're open.
- 7 Meadow Drive. Those questions related to a compent you made Mr. Borgos earlier
that you felt that the value of 2.1 million dollars was too low and I was curious as an objective representative
of the community, why you would make a statement that you wished that the fee would have been higher.
I couldn't quite follow that comment.
Supervisor Borgos - Only because I am an objective representative of the community and my position,
after a great deal of study, is that I prefer not to take this by eminent domain. It would make it
much easier for me to sell my position if the number would come in higher. The numbers that I had previously
stated for the newspaper and other media, an estimate of what it would cost to develop this and I think
it was quoted as saying between three and fifteen million dollars including acquisition is not going
to come in too far off the mark. I would tend to think the court would probably go higher. I'm not
shooting from the hip or from the lip on this, I do have twenty-five years as a licensed real estate
salesman, I have taken in the past many real estate courses. As part of my marketing profession I have
taught real estate acquisition and land cost and development and so forth so I'm relatively familiar
with these topics. I do think that the 2.1 million is on the conservative side bpt certainly at this
point I'll yield to Mr. Strell who is an expert. Anyone else who wishes to - Mrs. Monahan?
Mrs. Monahan - Steve, I have some comments I would like to make and that is (1) when the group is talking
about all the surplus that we have, I want all of you to be aware that every year we've used a good
portion of our surplus to cut your taxes, so we are not going to have you take both ways. If we use
the surplus to buy the park, your taxes are going to go up accordingly because we don't have that amount
to cut. I hate to use figures from the top of my head but I think we have averaged roughly about $500,000.00
a year toward reduction of taxes. Money from the surplus must also be kept for contingency. We have
tax cases in court. Some we'll lose, some we'll win. That money will have to be paid. We have unexpected
vehicle expenses. We have unexpected legal fees. not all covered by our own Town Attorney. There are
many things that can come under contingency. Emergency repairs to buildings. Then good government
and good budgeting requires that we maintain a balance take care of unforseen needs. One I want you
to be aware of, roughly 30% of our budget in the last few years has been paid by the sales tax that
we get back from Warren County in cash. If we have a recession this amount will probably go down and
we will have to put more burden on the direct tax to the taxpayers. So I just wanted you to be aware
of some of the history of surplus. And when we talk about paying for this park, and it's said that
this may be bonded in twenty years or so, this is fine, this is what the federal and state have done.
The State has other gimmicks like Authorities, but it's still money we owe and we have to make up our
mind if this is a burden we're going to take or a burden we're going to pass on to future generations.
I also wonder if the cost of fencing has been included in some of these figures. Why do I say fencing?
I've lived by a pavilion all my life. I've seen what happens when no one is around it. If you don't
have fences you're going to have people coming in throwing broken bottles on the beach, beer cans, paper,
you're going to have parties, you're going to have slot of radio music at all hours of the day and night.
We also have to provide land for Niagara Mohawk when they move their lines. That has to be considered.
2 7
27
We also have to take into consideration, and I believe an easement at least for their lifetime has been
given to Russo's, an easement to the lake and the purpose we were told when the Town was negotiating
for that land with the Russo's, was so that Mrs. Russo could feed the ducks. I understand that she
uses quite an amount of feed per year. I think we're all aware of the problem that Glen Lake has had
with the ducks, the fact that they have had to treat the water because of the snail population and swimmer's
itch. Now whether there's anything the Town, if they acquired this land, could do about this situation
legally, I'm not sure. That's again, one of the questions that haven't been answered. And I really
would like you to think about this. If this petition is successful, if this referendum is successful,
is this going to be the start of some other petitions in the future for the Town to acquire other parcels
of land. I can think of about three or four, part of one which has been under a great deal of discussion, -
that could be the subject of future petitions. Are we starting a precedent? Think about it.
Supervisor Borgos - Mr. Montesi?
Mr. Montesi - I made a statement a few days ago in the paper and basically what I said was that I thought
Round Pond had a great deal of merit for the Town of Queensbury as a park. What concerned me was the
methodology of getting there by eminent domain. I guess the only way I can pass my concern on to you
is to be a little more specific than Mrs. Monahan. Let's take a very controversial project in our Town,
the Quaker-Ridge Earltown development - 542 acres of wetland in question. This same group of people,
concerned people that want a park at Round Pond, the Court's have told us now that they can go out and
get another petition signed and say to the Town, we want you to buy or take by eminent domain the 542
acres of the wetland. Certainly the owners of Quaker-Ridge development, specifically Mr. Laakso, is
not going to sell. It happens to he the site of his golf course. So that puts us into a referendum.
It's an endless and ... situation. When Steve Borgos referred to the taking of your land, think about
some of the things. This is a controversial issue. There's some people standing on both sides of the
fence that are saying that's a wetland, we want to preserve it as a park or a nature reserve. This
would be an ideal situation. I'm not advocating it, I'm saying that that's what scares me most about
the precedent that we're setting. My concern is that Round Pond is the start of it. It has nothing
to do with Round Pond being good, bad or indifferent as a location of a park. I guess it's just the
way we're going to get to that point.
Supervisor Borgos - From the audience, please. 1
Mr. David Kenny - I would like to state my position. I'm strongly opposed to the taking of this land
by eminent domain. I feel there are alot of other opportunities in the Town of Queensbury for development
of recreational areas. One such area is Rush Pond. I believe this area can be purchased at a much
more reasonable cost. It is located in a very sensitive area and as a park it could be expanded behind
the school where alot of amenities are already established. Also as a citizen taxpayer and a member
of the Advisory Committee ... .... just said, there are alot of areas in the Town which may be better
left undeveloped such as Earltown, West Mountain, Glens Falls watershed, Round Pond, Rush Pond, areas
around the Hudson River, areas at Lake George just to name a few. As a taxpayer and landowner I ...
or the right to just condemn and take other peoples land and where do we stop? I feel we should look
at other areas in the Town which could be developed as a park and look at all costs and make a reasonable
judgment on where we develop such a park and at what cost. Thank you.
Supervisor Borgos - Thank you sir. Mr. Morton, again.
Mr. Morton - We have one estimation, the makings of a tragedy here. In the paper a few weeks ago and
at a meeting which the Round Park Coordinating Committee held Mr. Krogmann appeared at the meeting and
he informed us that negotiations with Mr Pasarelli could still be a viable, were still on the table.
This was verified by his statements in the paper but what we've been hearing from the Town Board was
that there was no opportunity whatsoever for any negotiations on Round Pond and that Mr. Pasarelli had
no intention of selling. Today I received a call from an employee of Mr. Pasarelli. He wanted to take
issue ... over some comments that we made on Speak Up today on the radio. We had reiterated a statement
that you had made, have been making for the past few weeks, that there's no way would Mr. Pasarelli
sell the property.
Supervisor Borgos - That's absolutely correct.
Mr. Morton - This employee informed, and this is contrary to what Mr. Krogmann has said about not being
willing to negotiate, this employee informed me, and it was incredible that he came forward,
that Mr. Pasarelli has come forward to the Town Board over a year or more ago and had offered to sell
land to the Town. He had asked how much would the Town like to acquire, how much land on Round Pond
and how much would they be willing to offer and this employee told me that the Town Board never really
told him how much land the Town wanted on Round Pond and the Town Board never told him how much they'd
be willing to pay for the land. ... ... Mr. Pasarelli left and according to the employee he has been
waiting, he had been waiting for some time until about ten days ago and he had heard nothing from the
Town Board whereupon he decided to submit a letter saying that he was no longer interested in selling
the land. Upon receiving my call and listening to the employee I touched base with Mr. Krogmann, Mr.
Pasarelli's attorney, and without putting words in Mr. Krogmann's mouth he seemed to pretty much confirm
28
ti7J
that story. What is the tragedy here is that all along we have been struggling to try to have a park
on Round Pond and we have to go to the extreme of using a law that's on the books going for a referendum,
or conducting a petition campaign in accord with the law, requesting a referendum on a proposition.
We've been delayed two years in court, or a year and one-half to two years in court over our petition
for a referendum, all of which time, according to indications Mr. Pasarelli was willing to negotiate.
The tragedy is the problem now might be insurmountable in terms of working out an agreement prior to
the referendum in any case providing a signal to the public that, yes indeed Mr. Pasarelli might reconsider
but there is, might reconsider and negotiate, but there is a glimmer of hope that perhaps based on his
what would you say, his acceptability of being willing to negotiate, there might be a glimmer of hope
that the doors are not totally shut and that perhaps he would still be willing to negotiate and that
C this could be made public, if he would be willing to negotiate before the referendum. If he will not
{ then we have a tragedy, not as a result of Mr. Pasarelli submitting this letter as of ten days ago,
but the tragedy was in fact that all along for a couple of years now he has apparently stated that he
was a willing negotiator and the public did not know it.
Supervisor Borgos - I would like to respond to that. There are two people I wish would be here at the
moment and one is Mr. Pasarelli and one is the person you supposedly spoke with. I think everyone should
know and I am not going to divulge some things and I'll tell you what I'm not going to divulge. Everyone
should know that we care so much about this project and have tried so hard to acquire the pond through
purchase and everything except eminent domain that as I recall it was a Saturday morning after a fresh
snowstorm that I met in Mr. Krogmann's office with Mr. Pasarelli, I think February of this year. I
spent a few hours discussing this entire issue, Mr. Pasarelli was there, Mr. Krogmann and a few other
people. We agreed at that time, because it is legal to make this agreement that we would not discuss
the details of that discussion. That it involved land acquisition, therefore was excluded from public
information. It is not that anyone is trying to hide anything but we were in a system of negotiation
with a private landowner. There was negotiation discussed. There still are negotiations in the works.
As recently as this last Thursday I met again with Mr. Pasarelli. I have spoken with Mr. Krogmann many
times. We asked Mr. Krogmann for this letter tonight so that we could be absolutely sure that the land
is not for sale, no part of it is for sale at any cost. There are, however, many options and I did
discuss one of them in my presentation this evening. One of those options, a part of the negotiation
process if you will, is that Mr. Pasarelli has agreed that under certain circumstances he might possibly
restrict the new development so that the view of the pond would alwalys be available to the public from
the road. That is a form of negotiation. No one has ever tried to hide that. What is absolutely ruled
out at the moment I believe and as far as I know forever, is the actual purchase, taking the title the
.. on the part of the Town. That is entirely different. What you've attempted to portray here may
be because you understood negotiations to mean purchase and so forth but negotiations take many forms.
The purchase is not one of the viable options. I see Mr. Krogmann is with us and has moved toward the
microphone. I presume he wishes to say something. I haven't spoken with him this evening and don't
know what he's going to say.
Mr. Krogmann - Thank you Mr. Borgos. I wasn't going to say anything but I feel compelled just to make
one very limited comment. The only thing I will say about the Saturday morning meeting was that, and
what took place at that meeting was that we had a dozen donuts and Mr. Borgos ate the majority of the
donuts. Other than that and I consistently have said I will not discuss publicly the essence of our
negotiations or discussions and that remains the position of Mr. Pasarelli and myself this evening.
I think what my comment is directed to is to respond to Mr. Harris's comment a few hours ago in that
there seemed to be some confusion about Mr. Pasarelli's position or some misinformation, which is not
the case. At the time that the Coordinating Committee met and I believe it was the Thursday or Wednesday
before Labor Day weekend, they were gracious enough to allow me to sit in on that meeting and I did
and the position of Mr. Pasarelli at that time as it has been since he acquired the property was to
encourage, to support and to authorize the continuation of negotiations between himself and the Town
Board and that has taken place and there have been numerous meetings both with representatives of this
Board and with representatives of the prior Queensbury Town Board. I used the the term negotiations
and I believe that you just have done the same Mr. Borgos in the broadest and most general sense. I
think it would be counter-productive for anyone to speculate as to the discussions and the nature of
the discussions that have taken place. Nevertheless at the meeting of the Coordinating Committee Mr.
Pasarelli did in fact authorize and request that I send a letter to the Town Board. I believe it is
dated September 12 indicating that his current position is that he does not desire to sell any portion
of the Round Pond property to the Town of Queensbury. The only final comment that I would make is that
f eminent domain procedure law not only suggests and encourages but mandates that both prior to and during
i'
the eminent domain procedure that the municipality involved continue negotiations in the broadest of
terms with landowner involved and other than that I really have no other comment to make and I don't
think it would be appropriate to go any further. Thank you.
Supervisor Borgos - Thank you very much for going on record with that. Anyone else on the Town Board
have a comment? Mrs. Potenza?
Mrs. Potenza - Well 1 take exception to Mr. Morton's comment. I am offended by the comment and I don't
know why he made it. We have in writing from Mr. Pasarelli's attorney, statements that he does not
want to sell his land and yet he comes before the microphone and makes comments that a certain employee
from
276
29
an - an unknown employee calls him and says, and makes some sort of comment and not very pleasant insinuations
to this Board that we have not indeed done our job. I have been on the Board for seven months. I have
been aware of what is going on with Round Pond. I have never gotten a phone call from Mr. Pasarelli
or anyone representing Mr. Pasarelli stating that he would like to negotiate on this land.
Supervisor Borgos - Anyone else wish to comment before we go into our summation. Mr. Tarana? Please
restate your name for the record.
Mr. Peter Tarana - 27 Edgewood Dr., Queensbury. I think we ought to lower the emotional level of the
conversation here. We are talking about a park you know, we're not talking politics here, I hope.
I think with some of the things that have been said here, if you bring it back 40 or 50 years, we never
would have had Crandall Park, we never would have had national or state parks. One has to look for
the general welfare over the long term. You know, it's something you're leaving your kids so let's
get the politics out of here. Okay. Now we do have some numbers, some bottom line numbers that Ron
indicated $75 or $80 a year for five years exclusive of the developmental costs which have -
Mrs. Monahan - And interest.
Mr. Tarana - That was including interest. We're not including interest?
Mrs. Monahan - No, you have to double it.
Mr. Montesi - It was just a raw figure. As a matter of fact Bill and I sort of worked that up one night:
Bill Morton is my neighbor.
Mr. Tarana - We should have those numbers pretty quick, before this referendum. I'd like to ask with
regard to the recreation fund, you know when somebody develops a lot, there's a certain amount of money
that goes into a fund and is it $250.00 right now? And, might it be larger than that sometime soon?
Supervisor Borgos - The money is an option imposed by the Planning Board ...$250.00 or maybe so many
square feet of property.
Mr. Tarana - Okay. What do we currently have in that fund?
Supervisor Borgos - Somewhere in excess of $300,000.00 some of which is already committed. .
Mr. Tarana - Is there an anticipation y p on when some signigicant development may be happening soon? We're
looking at the end of the, moratorium, there seems to be some builders anxious to build. We're looking
at possibilities of Earlown, ... in terms of residences up on West Mountain. We're looking at some
anticipation of significant increases in that fund, are we not?
Supervisor Borgos - I would expect that it will increase a bit although I do expect some land to come
from the Earltown project in lieu of money, plus an environmental trust fund, if it goes through. West
Mountain I presume would give some money.
Mr. Tarana - So perhaps, could we be looking at in the course of a year's time or a year and a half,
a fund that would look like a million dollars?
Supervisor Borgos - I doubt it. I would think three or four hundred thousand might be a very high estimate.
Mr. Tarana - It won't go up from the three or four hundred thousand?
Supervisor Borgos - I mean' an additional three or four hundred perhaps.
Mr. Tarana - It's three or four hundred now and an additional three or four hundred so we're talking
to six to eight hundred.
Supervisor Borgos - Don't forget a good share of what we have today is spoken for. It's just waiting
for the...
Mr. Tarana - Let me just mention something here. You know if you're going to have a "can't do" attitude
about things, you know, if you're going to have a negative attitude about this, you know it's definitely
not going to go. Let me just finish.
Supervisor Borgos - I'm still Chairman and you're asking a question but you've just made an allegation
of a negative attitude and I resent that. We were talking, you said to keep the emotions down, so keep
my emotions down by not accusing me of having a negative attitude on anything.
Mr. Tarana - You know there have been municipalities in the area that have looked at fund raisers for
various civic projects. One of the things I can think of right off is Heritage Hall where a - another
thing on my campus at ACC, the daycare center. (end of tape) ...fund raising and we did it. And we
3,77
did it at minimum cost to taxpayers and students and the City of Glens Falls did a remarkable job with
Heritage Hall. So I think, you know when we look at these things, you know, is the glass half full
or is it half empty? You know I think one thing we should look at, okay. is that fund with recreational
fees. What was that fund supposed to be for? Can you tell me because I really don't know.
Supervisor Borgos - For the acquisition of property for recreational purposes and capital improvements
thereof.
Mr. Tarana - So we're talking about a fund that's sort of earmarked for this kind of thing?
Supervisor Borgos - Absolutely.
Mr. Tarana - Not there are lots of other things that it might be used for? But that's available?
Supervisor Borgos - This type of project.
Mrs. Monahan - But don't forget there are projects that we already have underway that have to be paid
for.
Mr. Montesi - Let me just qualify that for you. This is my first year sitting as Chairman of the Recreation
Commission. I'm going to say that there is $227,000.00 that I know of in this recreation fund. I asked
and I'm following a direction that Bill Morton started two years ago or three years ago, let's clean
up and save a pond that's dying - Hovey Pond. That's just a small pond, it's in the middle of nowhere
and nobody even knows it exists. Let's clean it up. I asked the Recreation Commission this year of
all the projects that they had going which one they wanted to give priority to because I was going to
ask for $125,000.00 to start 'that project of cleanup. That's the project they asked me to earmark $125,000.00
of this $227,000.00. Along with that I also asked to earmark some dollars for the 70 acres of land
that Gary Bowen gave me. I have a pristine stream running through 70 acres of land that what I would
like to do is take your idea and make a nature walk through that and utilize some of EnCon's expertise
for walkovers through this 70 acres. Now, that's something that's ongoing, that's something that's
going to take some bucks but this is free land that I have and we're losing sight of some of the things
that we're trying to do that's a positive thing. You know saving Hovey Pond's important., Don't take
the attitude that the $300,000.00 is there doing nothing. I'm trying to work with it. Now, within
the framework of that if there's another $300,000.00 available and tAe community and the Recreation
Commission says what we'd really like to do is put these bucks towards Round Pond, that's fine because
if that's an issue. This gentleman from the parks said some of the high points that you get for funding
come from saving a fishery, there's Hovey Pond. Halfway Brook runs through it. It's the beginning
of, you know, I mean I can tell you the whole scenario and I'm sorry we didn't apply for that. But
we're trying.
Mr. Tarana - I appreciate comments. Those are all good things. What I'm saying is this,--that sometime
before the vote, perhaps some estimate of money in that fund could be given in terms of the impact on
bottom line - what's it's going to cost.
Mr. Montesi - ...we've been in a moratorium for 14 months so we haven't had the fund working.
Mr. Tarana - Do you have some anticipation of, I think in the last couple of years when we've had the
moratorium, alot of people out there would agree, that there have been a whole lot of houses built and
if that's any indication perhaps when the moratorium comes off there might be a whole lot of houses
built again, perhaps even more. This is a community that's generating fairly significant dollars and
perhaps we could look at the offset there. Now, it's just a suggestion okay. Also I might comment
and ask the Board again to anticipate the increase in total assessed valuation based on the kind of
construction we might anticipate for the next five years and that would decrease despite what Mrs. Monahan
says, that would decrease the tax bite of this particular project. And I understand what Betty's saying
in terms of taxes going up. There's water treatment facility we may have to pay for, there are lots
of other things. But this particular project as a part of the total assessed valuation would be minimized
as the years go on and our total assessed valuation goes up. So I think what I ask you to do in a balanced
kind of way and an analytical approach is, sometime before the referendum to give some data on how these
factors might impact the dollar figure on the taxpayer. Now, I'd also ask you to look back at our appraiser
who says that 80 acres appraised is equivalent to 50 acres appraised plus residual value. Well what
that tells me is that the land once you buy the 50 acres, the residual land is not worth anything.
There is some inherent economic problems with that and I think perhaps the Board could look at that
appraisal and see it, the 2.125 million really represents purchasing 50 acres. You see what I mean?
Supervisor Borgos - I see what you mean and it does but I listened to his explanation.
Mr. Tarana - Your saying that the residual is equivalent to the 30 acres?
Supervisor Borgos - I think we'll just have to explain it to you on the board perhaps.
Mr. Tarana - No I think maybe I might have to explain ... So would you please reconsider that, would
you please reconsider that?
278 31
Mrs. Monahan - Would you define something for me please. You talk about 50 acres, okay. Eight acres
are under water. Are we talking about 8 plus 50 or are we talking about 8 under water plus 42 on top.
Mr. Tarana - Oh we can talk about anything.
Mrs. Monahan - It's very important I think.
Mr. Tarana - The principal is the 50 acres versus 80 in terms of the.appraisal and the residual value
whether it's 50 with the lake or not. I would ask the Board to look back at that appraisal and explain
it to thick heads like myself. I've talked to several people already here who don't quite see it either
so you may have a job but I'm willing to listen. I'd like to just finish with a couple of comments.
I'm sort of uncomfortable when people on the Board criticize the people who pass the petitions around
that 700 plus people signed to have this referendum. We thought maybe the people would be interested
in voting on this instead of having people that are represented as voting. I think this is an ultimate
form of democracy to have people vote on a referendum. You get to press a lever, "yes" or "no". We're
not taking any rights away from anyone. If you don't think that eminent domain is good, it's the "no"
lever and that's fine. You make your own decision and your representatives don't, and that's why we
won in court. That's why, despite using taxpayer dollars to prevent the referendum from going, the
courts overruled that this is a just use of the referendum process. So, you know we, .this is the last
resort you know and I think most people who signed the petitions including many of the people here,
felt just that way. It's too bad the Town Board didn't pick it up. They really should have. They
could have picked it up bargain basement price and it was unfortunate. Let's have people vote on it
and if you don't feel it's a good thing you say "no". If you feel it's a good thing you say "yes" and
the issue is clarified. Now, to me you know, that's what this Country's all about. You say "yes" or
"no" and you get a direct vote. If you don't like eminent domain I respect that, you know, say "no"
but you get a chance to say "no" because there were a bunch of people who spent alot of time running
around with petitions. It took alot of time, etc. I just hope as time goes on here that, and I hate
to say this but, after all the negative remarks Mrs. Monahan, that we don't see a proposal for a' park
on Sunnyside Lake. Thank you.
Supervisor Borgos - We still have some time for more comments. Yes Sir I think you were next, then
Mr. Rahill. He was walking up before and he sat down when Mr. Tarana came up.
Mr. Roger Wilder -Oakwood Drive. Alot has been said tonight about costs, about size of the property,
acreage and so forth. I heard nothing or very, very little with regard to the pond itself. To me it's
a small pond. If this sketch in here is any kind of scale it would say that it's less than the 50 acres
being talked about, although the body it says it's 60 acres. It's a small pond.. It has supported some
swimming. In recent past it's been basically the Country Club. Years ago when it was opened by Mr.
Russo for swimming,`there was swimming there. Being a small pond I am concerned about its quality in
the summertime. Twenty years ago when our kids were small our pediatrician made the comment that it's
not safe for swimming in August when the weather gets real hot. There is value in the park. I haven't
made up my mind yet. There's value in the park there, centrally located and everything. But I do have
this concern, and it has not been addressed as to, is it a good body for swimming? Is it a good body
of water? And what could the Town do about it if they were to have it? Could it be made to support
swimming from a safe and healthful standpoint?
Supervisor Borgos - Just a quick answer to your question. We did obviously consider this. It juste
so happens in the middle of August when all the problems were happening at Lake George the Town was
approached by a resident of the Town with a concern for the quality of the water at the Country Club
beach, the swimmers itch and so forth. We did an analysis at that time, in fact we had it done and
we as the Town didn't touch it. It went to the RPI Freshwater Institute and they indicated at that
point the water was near drinking quality. However, as you say, it has not been used by many people
and the Country Club beach goes essentially unused all summer. It has not been used by many people
for a long time. It's a very good question what might happen if there were many people there. At the
time we had the other sample done, Mr. Pasarelli did authorize us, if we so desired, to go to his side
of the pond and do a sample there. We thought about it and decided not to just so that we wouldn't
be accused of sampling at the worst time of year and coming up with the worst possible results. We
had no idea what the results would be but we said we just don't want to get critcized about this. We
don't want to do that. If it comes to that point we'll go and do it but we didn't want to do it. So,
as best we know this year, in August the water was near drinking quality at the Country Club's side
of the pond.
Mr. Wilder —Thank you.
Mrs. Monahan - Steve, may I add to that please. I don't think there's any doubt in most peoples minds
that the number of people that can be allowed to swim in there one day will have to be restricted and
that's another question as how is that mechanism going to take place. I don't think that what's happened
to other lakes around this State that have been small lakes that you can have uncontrolled swimming
there.
32 Q(]
N�eJ'
Mr.,Wilder - Gee, that's fundamental to the whole park. The whole question
Supervisor Borgos - Becky, I would like to have you next to media relations, okay. Mr. Rahill was at
the microphone and I asked him to sit down, so if you'll wait just a ...He's decided to let ladies go
first. Becky, a representative of the media. Your name please.
Becky Howe - I live at Dunhams Bay up on Lake George right now. My concern is exactly what these last
two people have mentioned, Betty and Mr. Wilder, is it? You used to live next door to us, didn't you?
The Aviation Road. That was a long time ago. I grew up in Queensbury, spent alot of time, most of
my summers at Glens Falls Country Club and as a child in the mid-sixties, early sixties, our pediatrician
also, and actually that's John Caffry's grandfather, Dr. Canaday - he was adamant with my mother about
not letting us swim in the pond during the month of August. It's like a big, I mean because of its
water table, it reflects the water table around it that lake does. There's no inflowing water to it
and so the water table goes down and then it's just concentrated bacteria. That's when Paradise Beach
across the way was operating full tilt. My concern is will there be some kind of a moderation so far
as regulating the people that are able to use that pond. How it can just take on as many people as
it will be loading into it, I mean in summer months here it's hot and everybody just wants to take a
dip somewhere and it's right in the middle of everywhere - between Lake George and Glens Falls/Queensbury.
I was just wondering if there was any concern about that. I haven't heard anybody mention it. That's
why I was, I wanted to say something about it and nobody had even brought it up but I just wanted to
let you know it is my concern.
Supervisor Borgos - Perhaps someone from the committee -Bill Morton.
Mr. Morton - Yes, the density of the swimming population would have to be controlled and this is controlled
under New York State Department of Health regulations, so many square feet of water per swimmer. I
don't think any of us on the Round Park Coordinating Committee are looking to create a mob scene there.
Obviously it does have limits as does every water body. Back in the early 40's and 50's when this was
in its heyday for swimming they had as many as 1500-2000 people on the beach according to Mr. Russo.
I have had the occasion to talk with a representative of the New York State Department of Health today
about this very issue and he concurred that actually swimming, per se, has really very minimal impact
on water clarity. The thing that could impact swimmers and swimmer itch type of syndrome is the duck
population that has been in Round Pond. Now I've been there off and►on this summer and there are very
few ducks at this point in time. I was there this past week and there is, as far as I could see, there
was only one family. Now in previous years the former owner of Round Pond was feeding, was pumping
as much as 3,000 pounds of grain into Round Pond for ducks and there was a tremendous duck population
on the pond. I think that this has been discontinued if the lack of ducks this summer is any indication
because there just weren't the number of-population of ducks that there has been in the previous years.
.�. Regarding swimming there I have spoken with a number of people who have been swimming at the Country
Club this year, lifeguards included, and they know of no, there has been no evidence or indication of
the problem of swimmers itch this year. The ducks aren't there. I don't think you'll find that swimmers
itch, the swimmers itch is not something that's related to swimmers contaminating the water it's a cycle
between the duck population and the snail population and when you don't have the ducks there the incidence
of swimmers itch decreases accordingly.
Mr. Montesi - Bill I think we both agree, all of us that the population of swimmers will probably be
limited vis a vis the way they do it at Moreau State Park. The size of the parking lot determines how
many families are going to swim in that particular body and certainly we're going to, if it is a park,
we're going to provide safe clean water and if it means that 100 or 200 families can swim there, whatever
it is, the number, it's certainly not unlimited and it certainly has its restrictions. But that is
not a negative I think it's realistically looking at what we as a town, a pool has some limitations,
so I think we both agree on that and it will be a safe place to swim if it's a town facility. But it
will be safe because it will have limitations.
Mrs. Monahan - Harry, what's the average daily attendance at Gurney Lane this past summer?
Mr. Hansen - 600 to 1200.
Supervisor Borgos - Anyone else wish to have questions before we summarize?
Mr. Rahill - My name is Bernard Rahill, I believe I've already been entered. Perhaps there is some
misunderstanding. I thought that Mr. Morton told you that I was going to make a presentation as well
as he, along with the other people and I really don't want you to be delayed for another hour with conversation
questions about all the political aspects of development and the problems involved. I know I spoke
with you about three weeks ago concerning the fact that we had agreed that this be a non-adversarial
relationship among us and it really hasn't worked out that way much
Supervisor Borgos - I really don't think it's really been too bad.
Mr. Rahill - ...to my chagrin but I would like to say a few things if I may. This is not aimed at
You to your detriment. Could I use the podium please?
Supervisor Borgos - Sir, you may use whichever microphone suits your fancy.
Mr. Rahill - I hope that it will help developing framework.
280 33
Supervisor Borgos - Sir, we had agreed to a representative from your organization and one from ours
at the podium but we're more than happy to extend to you the privilege of any microphone in the room.
Mr. Rahill - Well leave it at that then if that was your understanding because the truth is the most
important thing. Thank you.
4
Supervisor Borgos - Thank you. We're sorry we were interrupted by a fire call before. Is there anyone
else who wishes, Mr. Harris?
Mr. Phil Harris - Queensbury. Just a couple statements. Mrs. Monahan mentioned that they had made
an offer of $950,000.00 and it was sold to Pasarelli. According to the newspapers we knew that, negotiated
was by our, statements by our discredited attorney, William Mathias at that time, that they were negotiating
along with the Twicwood Assn. for Round Pond but according to that time there was still no offer made
in the, Pasarelli made the nffer that was offered to the Town.
Mrs. Monahan - I want to tell you, Phil, the way it happened. In the last few weeks of negotiations
I can probably go to the Town office and get out bills from Wilson Mathias, bills from Accounting firms,
etc. that will back that up. You can either accept my word or not but that is the way it was.
Mr. Harris - I'm just going by what was in the papers.
Mrs. Monahan - Well, if you go by what was in the paper I can't answer for that.
Mr. Harris - One of the things again, Moreau Lake, Minerva Lake, all these fine lakes like Round Pond,
small lakes are restricted to the number of people that can go in them, the first hundred probably would
be a good estimate, that gets there first to be in the lake so I think that concern should be behind
us. Ron Montesi mentioned that certainly we would have controlled access to the lake but we need a
vote on Round Pond, not on Rush Pond or Sunnyside or anything else. In fact if Round Pond referendum
is defeated we probably we won't have a chance of getting Rush Pond or the Lake Sunnyside or the watershed
property. I think this is a precedent that we have right at this particular time, a very important
one on recreational property. I know myself that if this passes I'm going to be working to get a park
on Lake Sunnyside. Thank you.
Supervisor Borgos - Anyone else as we near the conclusion. 1 think I feel that wind'down mood. Mr.
Helm?
Mr. Max Helm - I'd like to ask one question, before I ask the question - the Country Club pumps out
of Round Pond to water the course and they pump out of wells to put the water back into Round Pond.
Let's say the referendum is successful and the Town winds up owning the property. Is there a way that
the Town can then restrict the amount of water that comes out of the lake because if the wells fail,
and the dry season"I think is August, if that's the case, if that were the scenario, the Country Club
would probably continue to water their golf course and there might not be a hell of alot of water left
in one end of the pond and it may be that you wouldn't have any water for people to swim in if the lake
shrinks toward the middle.
Supervisor Borgos - That's a good legal question that deals with raparian rights and other things but
it would be a very interesting question. You might have to restrict golfing. '
Mrs. Monahan - Do you know what your rights are under the Country Club deed? Are they given rights
to pump out of that lake?
Mr. Helm I don't knout who would give that right.
Mrs. Monahan - Well, whoever owned the lake originally I would think.
Mr. Helm - Well if we don't have a right we've been doing it a long time.
Mrs. Monahan - I think you've raised a good legal question and I just wondered if you had any background.
Mr. Helm - No, I don't have any background. I could quote you on that five year bond but I can't do
anything about water. I think it's something that perhaps somebody should look into. You may have
a park where you intended to swim and not have any water.
Supervisor Borgos -`Anyone else before we ask Mr. Morton - Mr. Rahill again.
Mr. Rahill - I think that it's important that I do make a comment in view of the fact that it is a question
involving the politics of development and politics of parks. As a graduate student of political science
in 1968 1 first began to analyze the usurpation of inherent democratic rights in New York State's communities
by four groups - business interests, lawyers, real estate interests and local government - all working
together in tandem behind closed doors away from the view of people. The four groups controlled power
and steered urban and suburban development and growth for their own personal benefit and without any
view to providing a legacy of indoor and outdoor recreation facilities within the short distance of
the homes of the taxpayers living in the community. When the founding fathers agreed to the words "we
hold this truth to be self evident that all men are created equal with certian inalienable rights among
which are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." They were expressing a moral will
for the people. It was based on Rousseau's Social Contract which states that all men have a right to
choose moral rulers rather than kings or despots because there is a communal common good in which all
people share. When the people hold these truths to be self-evident they are expressing their moral
will. In other words, all of the people in this community know these facts. Trust the ministry of
the rulers and know what the government is doing. It carries out the moral will for the common good
of the majority of the people in the Country. This concept of the popular sovereignty for the good
of community was also addressed by a world famous Catholic theologian in the 17th century. He was a
lawyer and he established the legal intent and procedures for eminent domain. His name was Hugo ...
who wrote that when it is the popular will of the people that land be used for the benefit of the community
the owner must be justly compensated. He was criticized for being too objective. We obey the rules
of our family, our schools, our employers and our government because we accept this as a moral will
that aims to achieve the common good in an orderly and well planned society in which all participate
or least have the opportunity to participate directly. This is our credo. If we do not participate
in the moral will of the community...(end of tape). ... rational for our position and prove that the
rulers do not have a moral basis for power. A small group of citizens gathered and protested that they
had as much right to vote as landowners did. The U.S. Constitution was amended to give all male citizens
the right to vote. A small group of New Englanders believed that the preamble to the Constitution was
a sham because black people did not have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They
established the underground railroad and eventually won the support of a tall bearded Republican. His
name, of course, was Abraham Lincoln who wrote, "No man has a right to rule another without that others
consent". He summarized Rousseau's Social Contract in one sentence. Small groups of women organized
in the 19th century and fought a long time for women's suffrage. Small groups of ... veterans organized
to win pensions for Congress. A small group of concerned citizens in the West who saw all of the best
land being bought by the railroads, mining companies, ranchers organized and influenced Theodore Roosevelt
to set aside vast tracts ... for United States for National Parks. Theodore Roosevelt is lauded as
a great Republican President. He is also recognized as the first conservationist. The Queensbury Association
is a small group of people in this Town who want to protect the community from the destruction of nature
by urban development. They want to protect their community from turiiing into an over populated City
where housing values go down amid oversupply and great demand and that's going to happen if we have
88 condominiums sitting on Round Pond. They want to prevent having stripped hills and soil erosion
amid cluttered developments and no adequate park space, amid an end to beautiful country roads and preservation
of open space and amid water pollution and poorly planned areas where there isn't enough park space.
And we don't have enough park space because you said 17,000 acres, I haven't seen it and .I don't think
most of the people in Queensbury are even aware that it exists. We haven't had a public relations program
to communicate to the people. When development takes place in a community there must be a. collective
benefit in services to all the members of the community. Politicians focus on first necessities, roads,
electricity, zoning, taxes, assessments, sewers, garbage and traffic vice. They work with developers,
contractors, businessmen and lawyers. All of these people have more business and profit on their minds,
but certainly not suitable open space for parks for the people. The people of Queensbury are very fortunate
to have a group that cares enough to help save the community from haphazard development and a deprivation
of human rights. We have a councilman who said in the newspaper yesterday in an announcement that small
groups should not be able to tell the rest of the people what to do. He was referring to the Queensbury
Association and his name is on the list of members of the Queensbury Association. I think that's where
we're at at the present time. Because of the Queensbury Association's efforts the people of Queensbury
have this unique opportunity to develop a park on Round Pond (Paradise Lake) for common good of the
community. It is the moral will of this community, if they can have it. And now the right to express
that moral will, will be used. If the Town of Queensbury can have the highest dollar value of building
permits of any town between Albany and the Canadian border it can have the moral will to have a freshwater
park for childrens enjoyment. If the Town of Queensbury can have a billion dollar tax base that is
rising, then it can have the moral will to provide a freshwater park for family enjoyment and recreation.
These are political facts of development which have taken place over many years and when people are
callous about development and just think of developing businesses and residences without thinking of
the welfare of the community they are not serving the moral will. If the Town of Queensbury can have
four multimillion dollar planned unit developments from the completed Top 0' the World to Hiland Park
to Earltown to West Mountain, then the people of Queensbury must have a freshwater park for families
and children at Round Pond. If the Town of Queensbury can three manufacturers discount centers and
the Aviation Mall all within four miles of each other, then the people must have 50 acres on a fresh
water park to get away from all of this at Round Pond. If the Town of Queensury can have four supermarkets
within two square miles, then the people have the right to express their moral will in a referendum
for a park at Round Pond. And if the Town of Queensbury can have four golf courses within four square
miles of each other then we must will to provide a freshwater park for families and children. This
is my position as a political scientist. I know that I'm right, I know that there's nothing wrong with
my position. I know that I am absolutely on the mark on this issue and I think that you have to make
a decision. I'm going to pray for each and every one of you for the next ten days and I hope that you
will change your mind and make sure that this community does also because, based on political fact,
this is what the community needs.
282 35
F ,Supervisor Borgos - Is there, anyone who wishes another statement or a question before we reach Mr. Morton's
summary? Yes maam. Please state your name and address for the record.
Mary Flanagan 5 Bayberry Court. I have two questions and it concerns the litigation aspect. This
property is now in the process of litigation. If, in fact, Mr. Pasarelli is successful and I assume
he's the plaintiff in the case, does that mean that the land will be used according to the old zoning,
that it would be possible for him to have 85 building lots and 88 condominiums. Is this what would
be the outcome.
Town Attorney Paul Dusek - That's what he's trying to accomplish. Whether that's the outcome or not
I wouldn't know. -
Ms. Flanagan - I'm asking, if he wins is this what -?
Mr. Dusek - If he wins and he wants to do what he proposed, yes.
Ms. Flanagan - Then what you,have voted on here tonight, the new zoning ordinances will not apply to `J
his property if he is successful, in this lawsuit.
Supervisor Borgos - If he's successful in having the Court determine that he properly filed his subdivision
plans prior to the time of the moratorium, that's correct. We don't believe that to be the case.
Ms. Flanagan - Good. That's my first question. The next question is, in that case since this is in
Court and it's in litigation, how would, if the referendum is successful, how would an eminent domain
proceeding by the Town affect the status of this law suit?
Mr. Dusek - I think if the Town was successful in the eminent domain, then the lawsuit itself will ultimately
fall because there would be nothing left to litigate. However, I think it would come into play as far
as the appraised value of the premises is concerned.
Ms. Flanagan - Okay, I'm not quite sure I understand.
Mr. Montesi - If you could only put 34 houses in now and he could put 85 before. what Paul said is that
if we go eminent domain it's a moot question. We're going to take the land. The only question is would
85 houses on 85 lots be worth more than 27 houses on three acre lots. Whatever comes out more is what
he's going to get.
Ms. Flanagan - Okay. Thank you for clarifying those things.
�
Supervisor Borgos - Mr. Eddy, step to the microphone please. We've been here four hours. That's not
too bad.
Mr. Bob Eddy - Westland. There's one question that really comes up from that last question and that
is in connection with that 500 feet of area from there. I don't see how he could possibly put in that
number of houses ...
Supervisor Borgos - You raise a very good issue that hasn't been discussed an awful lot tonight. There
is a 500 foot area, an environmental sensitivity that's subject to very, very special and stringent
regulations. That would effectively reduce at least most of the development near the pond or substantially
increase all type of control for storm water run-off for septic systems and whatever. It's a tremendous
protection that the Board built in more than a year ago. That has not been addressed in great detail
tonight. That protection is there and that would obviously be a restriction on the development.
Mrs. Monahan - Steve I don't think that anybody here really knows how that subdivision is layed out,
either one of them. You don't determine the number of units you can have just by dividing your allowable
density into your gross acres. There're other things that have to be subtracted too so I think we're
going to Have a hard time answering that question really.
Supervisor Borgos - I think so. Does anyone else wish to speak before Mr. Morton summarizes?
Mr. Morton - I'll be very brief, the hour is getting late. I think what we have here before the voters
of Queensbury is a unique opportunity for the voters to make up for a missed opportunity and there may
be just of glimmer of hope that given Mr. Pasarelli's past history of being amenable - to negotiation
that after this evening he may reconsider and before the referendum indicate publicly that he would
be willing to reconsider and negotiate. A long shot, but just maybe. And finally, I strongly encourage
the voters of Queensbury to vote in the referendum on September 27th and I encourage the voters to vote
"yes". Thank you.
Supervisor Borgos - Before I forget, Mr. Krogmann I'd like to see you at the end just for a second please.
And, before I summarize, as Chairman of the meeting I want to thank everyone who came here. We started
with approximately 150 people, it was warm and we dropped down to the 40 or so that are here now. I
do want to thank our guest from out-of-town for spending his evening with us instead of watching the
Olympics.
I'd like to say in a very brief summary, and I've just made some notes as we sat here, if we didn't
care, none of us would be here. We all do care. Alot of information has been passed around this evening.
All open and an example of free and open expression that we have in this nation and this town. There
have been many ideas and comments. From the Twicwood residents who might still be here and I see most
of them have left, I ask them would they rather have four or five fine homes with manicured yards in
their backyard or would they rather have open trails with parties and litter? Mr. Morton indicated
that TV today is not very good and I agree. tie indicated that family is a good concept and an idea
to be preserved and I agree. He spoke of fathers and sons. I would state that as parents and children
but I agree with the concept; of families sharing in nature. I also like water, woods and animals.
All of the above are possible without the particular purchase of Round Pond. Yes, Round Pond ownership
�-- by the Town would be nice but it is not essential and it is not a question of money alone. It certainly
doesn't merit taking the land of another. That's the real issue. People have said if I want land,
they said to me today even, if I want the land around Round Pond but don't want to take that land by
eminent domain, how do I vote? The only answer is to vote "no" because the proposition includes eminent .
domain. But you must vote. If you don't want this land taken by eminent domain you must vote and you
must vote "no" or those who go to the poles and vote "yes" will win. In closing I ask you please vote
"no" on Tuesday, September- 27th but above all, please vote. Thank you all very much. Ready for a motion
to adjourn.
Motion to adjourn by Councilman Potenza, and seconded by Councilman Montesi.
Respectfully Submitted,
Darleen A Dougher
Town cierk
i
I
I
Lam.
n
1
A