The URL can be used to link to this page

2005-01-10 ORG MTG1 734 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING MTG. #1 QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD RES. 1-43 JANUARY 10, 2005 TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT Budget Officer Jennifer Switzer Executive Director of Community Development Marilyn Ryba Town Counsel Bob Hafner Town Counsel Mark Schachner PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY SUPERVISOR STEC 1.0 CORRESPONDENCE 1.1 Ltr. Town Supervisor To: Town Board From: Daniel G. Stec, Town Supervisor th RE: January 10, 2005 I Daniel G. Stec, do hereby make the following appointments for the year 2005: Executive Assistant to Supervisor: Lori O’Shaughnessy Deputy Town Supervisor Tim Brewer 1.2 Ltr. Town Court Supervisor & Town Board Members 742 Bay Road Queensbury, New York 12804 Gentlemen: This letter is to request the following reappointments for the calendar year 2005: 735 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 Karen Stockwell-Court Clerk Carol Finamore-Court Clerk Kerrie Lewis-Hatin-Court Clerk Yvonne Lashway-Deputy Court Clerk (full – time) James Gerrard-Court Officer Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. We look forward to working with you in the year 2005. Respectfully yours, Robert P. McNally Town Justice Michael J. Muller Town Justice 2.0 OPEN FORUM (Resolutions only) Dr. Mark Hoffman-Fox Hollow Lane Question regarding the agreement with the Queensbury Land Conservancy I am curious as to what the nature of the agreement is, what services are provided and what money is involved? Supervisor Stec-It is eight thousand dollars which is a similar amount to what we have done in years past. The agreement is the same as what we have done in years past. It is basically to help fund their activities for the preservation of open space acquisition of land, general operations that sort of thing. Dr. Hoffman-So, in the past have they used the eight thousand dollars to purchase land. Supervisor Stec-I am not sure whether or not that have actually used it for purchases or not, I am not prepared to answer that question. Dr. Hoffman-I would be interested in, I would like to get a sense as to whether the Land Conservancy is going to take a pro active stance in terms of actually identifying properties that may be valuable for preservation to the community, whether they are more taking a passive approach of just making themselves available in case somebody wants to donate property? I am not sure what the answer to that is. Supervisor Stec-Thank you. Any further questions…none 3.0 RESOLUTIONS 736 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 RESOLUTION SETTING 2005 TOWN BOARD MEETING SCHEDULE RESOLUTION NO.: 1, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to establish its 2005 meeting schedule, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, in accordance with New York State Town Law §62, the Queensbury Town Board hereby establishes its 2005 meeting schedule as follows: strd 1. Regular meetings shall occur on the 1 and 3 Mondays of each month at 7:00 o’clock p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, with the exception that the Town Board’s regular meeting dates shall be changed as set forth below for the following months: thth A. January – 10 and 24 thth B. February – 7 and 28 thth C. September – 12 and 26. At regular meetings, public hearings will be held, Resolutions and motions will be proposed and/or adopted, miscellaneous matters will be discussed and the general public will be provided with an open forum session. 2. The Town Board shall schedule other special meetings for any purpose established by Town Board Resolution and/or in accordance with the New York State Town Law. The Town shall notify the media of the special meeting accordingly as required by the New York State Open Meetings Law. 737 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 3. If the Town Board decides to alter its meeting schedule, it will do so by Town Board Resolution and will notify the public and media by appropriate public notice. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None Discussion held: Councilman Boor-Noted that there are a couple dates that may have to be changed in the future. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING RULES OF PROCEDURE RESOLUTION NO.: 2, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to designate Robert’s Rules of Order as its official rules of procedure, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, in accordance with the authority granted by New York State Town Law §63, the Queensbury Town Board hereby designates Robert's Rules of Order as its official rules of procedure for the year 2005 except when these Rules are not in agreement with Town Law. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: None 738 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER RESOLUTION NO.: 3, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, New York State Town Law §64, Subdivision 11 requires the Town Board to designate an official newspaper for the Town, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby designates The Post-Star as the Town of Queensbury’s official newspaper. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, M.r. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MILEAGE ALLOWANCE RESOLUTION NO.: 4, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, New York State Town Law §116 requires the Town Board to establish a mileage allowance for the use of Town employees’ personal automobiles in the performance of employees’ duties when a Town Fleet Management vehicle is unavailable, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, in accordance with New York State Town Law §116, the Queensbury ¢ Town Board hereby establishes the amount of 40.5 per mile to be allowed for the actual and necessary use of Town employees’ personal automobiles in the performance of employees’ duties. 739 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BANKING TRANSACTIONS AND INTERNET-BASED BANKING SERVICES RESOLUTION NO.: 5, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, New York State Town Law Paragraph 64, Subdivision 1, requires the Town Board to annually designate its Depositories for Town Funds, and WHEREAS, in accordance with New York State General Municipal Law §5-a and §10 and Town Law §64, it is the duty of the governing boards of local government to adopt a system of internal controls for the documentation and reporting of all transfers or disbursements of funds accomplished by electronic or wire transfer, and WHEREAS, in accordance with prudent business and cash management practices the Queensbury Town Board wishes to formally specify the authorities under which business may be transacted with these Depositories, and WHEREAS, the Town previously received agreements providing for Internet- based banking services entitled: 1. Internet Banking and Bill Paying Service Agreement; 2. ACH Agreement; and 3. Wire Transfer Agreement (Governmental); and such Agreements have been reviewed and are in form acceptable to the Budget Officer and Town Counsel, 740 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the following actions: 1. The following individuals, in their official capacities, are authorized to transact the financial and banking business of the Town of Queensbury in accordance with all applicable laws and organization documents, and the specific authorities granted by this Resolution: Daniel G. Stec, Supervisor Tim Brewer, Deputy Supervisor Jennifer Switzer, Budget Officer 2. Each of the following banks has applied and consented to serve as Depository of Town funds and has executed a Third Party Custodian Agreement satisfactory to the Town Budget Officer/Accountant and Town Counsel and are hereby designated as approved Depositories: Evergreen Bank, NA Glens Falls National Bank and Trust Company J.P. Morgan Chase 3. The Town Supervisor and Budget Officer, or either one of them, is/are hereby authorized to open a bank account or accounts from time to time with authorized banks and their affiliates for and in the name of the Town of Queensbury with such title or titles as he/she may designate, and to execute depository contracts that comply with Town Policy and operating procedures. 4. The maximum FDIC insured amount which may be kept on deposit at each Bank at any time is $100,000. The amount over and above FDIC insurance of $100,000 which may be kept on deposit at each bank is limited the value of approved collateral, calculated in accordance with Regulations of the New York State Comptroller, pledged to secure Town deposits and deposited with the designated Third Party Custodian. 5. The Town Supervisor and Deputy Town Supervisor and their successors and any other person authorized by statute, regulation or Court Order of behalf of the these authorized persons, is/are hereby authorized to sign, by hand or by facsimile (including, but not limited to, electronically generated) signatures(s), checks, drafts, acceptances and other instruments. Two signatures shall be required on any checks, drafts, acceptances and other instruments. 741 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 6. The Town Supervisor and Town Budget Officer are authorized singly, within the Town’s operational procedures, to initiate Automated Clearing House debits without signature; initiate payment by use of Depository Transfer Checks without a signature; or give instructions, by means other than the signing of an item, with respect to any account transaction, including the payment transfer or withdrawal by wire, computer or other electronic means. 7. The Town Supervisor and Town Budget Officer are hereby authorized without further action of the Town Board to execute bank forms establishing procedures for call-back verifications and written confirmations in connection with payment orders, thereby designating one or more individuals, whether or not such individuals be designated as “Authorized Persons”, for the purpose of the verification of payment orders and issuance of written confirmations. 8. The Town Clerk and/or Deputy Town Clerk(s) is/are hereby authorized and directed to certify to Authorized Bank Depositories under the seal of the Town of Queensbury the effect of this Resolution, the names of the officials, authorized persons and other representative of the Town of Queensbury and any changes from time to time of these officials, authorized persons and representatives, and specimens of their respective signatures. and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs that: 1. Glens Falls National Bank and Trust Company (Bank) is designated to provide the computer-based financial accommodations indicated in this Resolution. 2. This Resolution shall continue to have effect until express written notice of its rescission or modification has been received and recorded by the Bank. Any and all prior Resolutions adopted by the Town Board and certified to the Bank as governing the operation of the Town’s accounts are in full force and effect until the Bank receives and acknowledges an express written notice of its revocation, modification or replacement. Any revocation, modification or replacement of a Resolution must be accompanied by documentation, satisfactory to the Bank, establishing the authority for the changes. 742 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 3. The signature of an Agent named on this Resolution is conclusive evidence of his authority to act on behalf of the Town. Any Agent, so long as he acts in a representative capacity as Agent of the Town, is authorized to make any and all other contracts agreements, stipulations and orders which he may deem advisable for the effective exercise of the powers indicated above, from time to time with the Bank, subject to any restrictions on this Resolution or otherwise agreed to in writing. 4. All computer-banking transactions, if any, by or on behalf of the Town prior to the adoption of this Resolution are hereby ratified, approved and confirmed. 5. The Town agrees to the terms and conditions of the Cash Management Internet Banking Services Agreement – Governmental and the ACH Agreement Governmental Customer Agreement for Electronic Payment Services and the Wire Transfer Agreement (Governmental) and authorizes any Agent named above to execute such Agreements and deliver them to the Bank. The Town authorizes the Bank, at any time, to charge the Town for all checks, drafts or other orders for the payment of money that are drawn on the Bank so long as they contain the required number of signatures for this purpose. 6. The Town acknowledges and agrees that the Bank may rely on alternative signature and verification codes to or obtained from the Agents named in this Resolution. The term “alternative signature and verification codes” includes, but is not limited to, ID numbers and personal identification numbers (PIN) to be used by the Agents to access Internet banking services. The Bank shall have no responsibility or liability for unauthorized use of alternative signature and verification codes unless otherwise agreed to in writing. and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town of Queensbury’s Accounting Office to adopt a system of internal controls for the documentation and reporting of all transfers or disbursements of funds accomplished by electronic or wire transfer, and BE IT FURTHER, 743 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Budget Officer to take any and all action necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TOWN SUPERVISOR TO FILE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT IN TOWN CLERK’S OFFICE RESOLUTION NO.: 6, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, New York State General Municipal Law §30 requires the Town Supervisor to file the Town’s Annual Financial Report in the Town Clerk’s Office on or before April 30, 2005 in lieu of filing a separate financial report with the Town Clerk by th February 28, 2005 as required by New York State Town Law §29, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, in accordance with New York State General Municipal Law §30, the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to file a copy of the Annual Financial Report to the State Comptroller with the Town Clerk’s Office on or before April 30, 2005. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None 744 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF POSTAGE FOR WATER AND HIGHWAY DEPARTMENTS RESOLUTION NO.: 7, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, at times it is necessary for the Town of Queensbury Water and Highway Departments to purchase their own postage for small mailings rather than using the postage machine at the Town Office Building, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the Town’s Water and Highway Departments to purchase stamps and replenish their supplies as needed. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION RE-APPOINTING REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS AND RECORDS ACCESS OFFICER RESOLUTION NO.: 8, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, in accordance with New York State Public Health Law §4121(3)(a), the Queensbury Town Board wishes to re-appoint Darleen M. Dougher as Registrar of Vital Statistics and Records Access Officer, 745 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby re-appoints Darleen M. Dougher as Registrar of Vital Statistics and Records Access Officer to serve at the pleasure of the Board, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that immediately upon Ms. Dougher’s acceptance of appointment, she shall appoint a Deputy to act in her place and stead in case of absence or inability and the Deputy shall accept this appointment in writing. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPOINTING JUSTICE CLERKS AND DEPUTY COURT CLERK RESOLUTION NO.: 9, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS , in accordance with New York State Town Law §20, Subdivision 1(A) and New York State Uniform Justice Court Act §109, the Town Board has the authority to appoint Town Justice Court Clerks and Deputy Court Clerks, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby appoints Karen Stockwell, Carol Finamore and Kerrie Hatin as Town Justice Court Clerks and Yvonne Lashway as full-time Deputy Court Clerk, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Justice Court to notify the New York State Administrative Board of the Judicial Conference of these appointments. 746 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING LORI O’SHAUGHNESSY AS TOWN PURCHASING AGENT RESOLUTION NO 10, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the 2005 Town Budget has a regular stipend of $4,224 for the position of Purchasing Agent, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to reappoint Lori O’Shaughnessy to the part- time position of Purchasing Agent for the year 2005 in addition to her full-time position as Executive Assistant to the Town Supervisor, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby reappoints Lori st O’Shaughnessy as Town of Queensbury Purchasing Agent effective January 1, 2005 and authorizes and directs that Ms. O’Shaughnessy be paid the $4,224 stipend for such position for 2005 in addition to her annual salary for the Executive Assistant to the Town Supervisor position, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Budget Officer to complete any documentation and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None 747 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 ABSENT: None RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING MICHAEL TRAVIS AS DEPUTY TOWN HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT RESOLUTION NO.: 11, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, Town Highway Superintendent Richard Missita has recommended that Michael Travis be re-appointed as Deputy Highway Superintendent for the year 2005, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby re-appoints Michael Travis as Deputy Highway Superintendent for the year 2005. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING DIANA TALLON AS CONFIDENTIAL SECRETARY TO TOWN HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT RESOLUTION NO.: 12, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, Town Highway Superintendent Richard Missita has recommended that Diana Tallon be re-appointed as Confidential Secretary to the Highway Superintendent for the year 2005, 748 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby re-appoints Diana Tallon as Confidential Secretary to the Town Highway Superintendent for the year 2005. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPOINTMENT OF TOWN PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS RESOLUTION NO.: 13, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to authorize the Town Planning Board’s appointment of officers for 2005, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the appointment of Craig MacEwan as Chairman, Robert Vollaro for Vice Chairman and Chris Hunsinger for Secretary of the Town’s Planning Board for 2005. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner NOES : None ABSENT: None 749 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 RESOLUTION TO APPOINT TOWN HISTORIAN RESOLUTION NO.: 14, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to re-appoint Marilyn VanDyke, Ed.D. as its Town Historian for the year 2005, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby re-appoints Marilyn VanDyke, Ed.D. as Town Historian for the Town of Queensbury for the year 2005. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPOINTING MEMBERS TO TOWN HISTORIAN’S ADVISORY BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 15, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury previously established the Town Historian’s Advisory Board in accordance with the Queensbury Town Code, and WHEREAS, the one-year terms for the Advisory Board members recently expired and the Town Board wishes to appoint members for the year 2005, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 750 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby appoints the following members to the Town of Queensbury Historian’s Advisory Board until their terms expire on st December 31, 2005: John Austin; Douglas Baertschi; David Bannon; Maureen Monahan-Chase; John Strough; and June Krause. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mr. Strough RESOLUTION APPOINTING GRETCHAN STEFFAN, CURRENT ALTERNATE MEMBER OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD, AS REGULAR MEMBER RESOLUTION NO. 16, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury previously established the Town’s Planning Board in accordance with applicable New York State law, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 112.2004, the Town Board appointed Gretchen Steffan as an alternate member of the Planning Board, and WHEREAS, a regular member vacancy exists on the Planning Board and the Town Board wishes to appoint Gretchen Steffan to serve as a regular member, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby appoints current alternate member Gretchen Steffan to serve as a regular member of the Queensbury Planning Board until her term expires on December 31, 2011. 751 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPOINTING GEORGE GOETZ AS ALTERNATE MEMBER ON QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 17, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury previously established the Town’s Planning Board in accordance with applicable New York State law, and WHEREAS, a vacancy for an alternate member position exists on the Planning Board, and WHEREAS, the Town Board interviewed candidates and wishes to appoint George Goetz as such alternate member, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby appoints George Goetz to serve as an alternate member of the Queensbury Planning Board until such term expires on December 31, 2011. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS ON TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION NO.: 18, 2005 752 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board has received the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals’ recommendation for its year 2005 officers, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to authorize the Zoning Board of Appeals’ appointment of officers for 2005, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the appointment of J. Paul Hayes as Chairman, Charles Abbate as Vice Chairman and Charles McNulty as Secretary of the Town’s Zoning Board of Appeals for 2005. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Turner NOES : Mr. Boor ABSENT: None Discussion held before vote: Councilman Boor-I am going to be voting no on this and it is in regards to the Chairman. It is vitally important for everybody in the audience to understand that this is not a character-based decision. I think everybody on that board does a wonderful job however the individual who has been chosen by that Board to act as the Chairman has been a long standing member of it. Over his career he has become more prominent in the real estate development and building trade. I think in as much as this board as it exists today and a previous board has received written comments suggesting that perhaps it is inappropriate and that a bias might exist and also having had several instances where I have been approached by people in the public and had conversations and a couple of telephone calls, it is clear to me that there is at least a perception of impropriety. I will just give a few examples because I know we want to get to the final item here tonight. When you sit in this position you come in contact with a lot of individuals and as Queensbury gets developed and as land becomes more scarce, developers compete for parcels. Because of the individual that has been nominated for Chairmanship is a prominent well known developer I am not sure that the public can always feel comfortable that when he rules on another developers application that there isn’t a bias involved. Probably even more importantly would be the fact that for any of you that attend these meetings regularly will know the cast of characters and I do not mean that in a funny way, but when people come before the Zoning , Planning and Town Boards with projects they typically are accompanied with either an attorney, an architect a surveyor or an engineer. By in large those individuals represent just about every developer in town, we see the same faces every time, most of the time I should say. So, I am not sure that as Chairman there wouldn’t be a, bias when someone who is used as a sub-contractor brings forth a project and asked for a determination. I do not think the public should ever have to be concerned that there would be a conflict and for this reason I am going to vote no but I must emphasis the individual who has been nominated is a great guy, it is not a character issue but when you are elected to office and when you are appointed by elected officials I truly do believe that there is a 753 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 higher authority and a higher standard and anything that we can do that would eliminate even the perception of conflict we must act in that manner, so I will be voting no on this. Supervisor Stec-Thank you Roger, your comments are appreciated and so is the heads up from a few days ago. Councilman Strough-I am aware that the appointment of Mr. Hayes, Paul AKA Jamie to the ZBA Chairman seemed to be improper and I too, may have had the same impression, however, I attend many if not most of the ZBA Meetings, I attend these meetings because I need to account for the attendance of my students for seeking extra credit by attending but more importantly because I as a Town Board Member get a better feel for the issues facing the ZBA in our community. Mr. Hayes has been at least for the past year the Vice Chairman and I was in attendance at several meetings when Mr. Hayes was the acting Chair. I found Mr. Hayes to be able to hang up his hat as a developer. He was able to put on his Chairman’s hat he was able to steer a balanced meeting. I never noticed a developer bias and even in fact saw a Chairman capable of asking the tough questions and occasionally voting no because he felt what the applicant was asking was not in the communities best interest. Also, of importance to me is the fact that the majority of ZBA Board voted for Mr. Hayes to be the ZBA Chair and I did talk to some of them and they felt that they just wanted to recycle the Chair and give more people the opportunity. Lou Stone has been the Chair and I think Lou Stone has done an excellent job on the Chair of the ZBA, however I am going to give my approval to Mr. Hayes and I think he will do a good job as Chairman of the ZBA. Supervisor Stec-John you hit the nail on the head too, I think you and Roger both are very capably describe the issue. I did serve on the Zoning Board before coming to the Town Board with both Chairman Stone and Jamie Hayes and I agree with everything you said about both of them. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND AMERICAN LEGION POST 1797 RESOLUTION NO. 19, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury wishes to enter into an Agreement with American Legion Post 1797, and WHEREAS, a proposed Agreement has been presented at this meeting and is in form approved by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 754 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Agreement between the Town and American Legion Post 1797 for the year 2005 and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Agreement with funding to be paid for from the appropriate Town account. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT : None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND BIG BROTHERS/BIG SISTERS RESOLUTION NO. 20. 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury wishes to enter into an agreement with Big Brothers/Big Sisters for the year 2005, and WHEREAS, a proposed Agreement has been presented at this meeting and is in form approved by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the Agreement between the Town and Big Brothers/Big Sisters and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Agreement, with funding to be paid for from the appropriate Town account. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: None 755 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND CARITAS, INC. RESOLUTION NO. 21, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury wishes to enter into an agreement with Caritas, Inc., for the year 2005, and WHEREAS, a proposed Agreement has been presented at this meeting and is in form approved by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the Agreement between the Town and Caritas, Inc., and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Agreement, with funding to be paid for from the appropriate Town account. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND GLENS FALLS ANIMAL HOSPITAL RESOLUTION NO. 22, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, in the past the Town of Queensbury has contracted with the Glens Falls Animal Hospital (Animal Hospital) for the Animal Hospital’s board of animals and as 756 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 necessary, euthanasia and cremation services and the Town has paid for services provided by the Animal Hospital in accordance with the schedule of fees established by the Animal Hospital, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury wishes to enter into a written agreement with the Animal Hospital for the Animal Hospital’s boarding of animals and as necessary, euthanasia and cremation services, and WHEREAS, a proposed Agreement for the year 2005 has been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves and authorizes the 2005 Agreement between the Town and Glens Falls Animal Hospital providing for the Glens Falls Animal Hospital’s boarding of animals and as necessary, euthanasia and cremation services, as presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Agreement on behalf of the Town of Queensbury, and the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Animal Control Officer to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2004, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND GLENS FALLS AREA YOUTH CENTER RESOLUTION NO.: 23, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough 757 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board believes it is appropriate and beneficial to the Town to provide services and benefits such as career counseling and dinners to economically disadvantaged youths residing in the Town of Queensbury and therefore wishes to enter into an agreement with the Glens Falls Area Youth Center for the provision of these services and benefits, and WHEREAS, a proposed agreement for the year 2005 has been presented at this meeting and is in form approved by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the Agreement between the Town and the Glens Falls Area Youth Center and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Agreement with funding for the Agreement to be paid for from the appropriate Town account. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND GREATER GLENS FALLS SENIOR CITIZENS, INC. RESOLUTION NO.: 24, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board believes it is appropriate and beneficial to provide social and recreational activities and programs to Town of Queensbury senior citizens and therefore wishes to contract with the Greater Glens Falls Senior Citizens, Inc. for senior citizen recreational and social activities and programs, and WHEREAS, a proposed agreement between the Town and the Greater Glens Falls Senior Citizens, Inc. has been presented at this meeting and is in form approved by Town Counsel, and 758 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 WHEREAS, this agreement is permitted and authorized by New York State General Municipal Law §95A, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the Agreement between the Town and the Greater Glens Falls Senior Citizens, Inc. and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Agreement with funding to be paid from the appropriate Town account. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT: None AGENDA NUMBER 3.25 ENTITLED RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT WITH LAKE GEORGE VILLAGE FOR “THE CONNECTION” WAS PULLED FOR FURTHER INFORMATION RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND LITERACY VOLUNTEERS RESOLUTION NO.: 25, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board believes it is appropriate and beneficial to the Town to provide remedial reading services to Town of Queensbury adult residents with reading difficulties and therefore wishes to enter into an agreement with Literacy Volunteers for the provision of these services, and WHEREAS, a proposed agreement for the year 2005 between the Town of Queensbury and Literacy Volunteers has been presented at this meeting and is in form approved by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the Agreement between the Town and Literacy Volunteers and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Agreement with funding for the Agreement to be paid for from the appropriate Town account. 759 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mr. Stec Discussion held before vote: Councilman Stec-I will disclose that I am a member of the Board of Director for Literacy Volunteers and therefore I disclose a potential conflict of interest and abstain on this vote tonight. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION FOR LAKE SUNNYSIDE FOR TREATMENT OF MILFOIL RESOLUTION NO.: 26, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 307.2000, the Queensbury Town Board authorized an Agreement with the Protective Association for Lake Sunnyside (Association) concerning the treatment of milfoil occurring in Sunnyside Lake, and WHEREAS, the Association and Town Board remain concerned about the serious environmental damage from milfoil occurring in the public waters of Lake Sunnyside, and wish to enter into an Agreement to provide for the continuation of efforts in improving the water quality and recreational activities in Lake Sunnyside, and WHEREAS, such an Agreement would provide that the Town pay the Association $5,000 toward the Association’s engagement of a registered New York State pesticide applicator to treat Lake Sunnyside with aquatic herbicide treatment and the Association would pay all remaining costs, and WHEREAS, a proposed Agreement has been presented at this meeting and is in form approved by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the Agreement between the Town of Queensbury and Protective Association of Lake Sunnyside for the 760 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 Treatment of Milfoil substantially in the form presented at this meeting and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Agreement, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to arrange for payment of $5,000 to the Protection Association of Lake Sunnyside from the appropriate account, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Budget Officer to take such other and further actions as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 10day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND QUEENSBURY LAND CONSERVANCY, INC. RESOLUTION NO. 27, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury wishes to enter into an Agreement with the Queensbury Land Conservancy for the purpose of helping to preserve open space in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, a proposed Agreement has been presented at this meeting and is in form approved by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 761 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the Agreement between the Town and the Queensbury Land Conservancy and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Agreement with funding to be paid for from the appropriate Town account. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND QUEENSBURY LITTLE LEAGUE, INC. RESOLUTION NO. 28, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury wishes to enter into an Agreement with the Queensbury Little League, Inc., and WHEREAS, a proposed Agreement for the year 2005 has been presented at this meeting and is in form approved by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the Agreement between the Town and the Queensbury Little League, Inc., and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Agreement with funding to be paid for from the appropriate Town account. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner NOES : None ABSENT: None Discussion held before vote: Councilman Brewer-Questioned if the contract was left the way it was previously? Supervisor Stec-Yes. 762 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND QUEENSBURY SENIOR CITIZENS, INC. RESOLUTION NO.: 29, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board believes it appropriate and beneficial to provide social and recreational activities and programs to Town of Queensbury senior citizens and therefore wishes to contract with the Queensbury Senior Citizens, Inc. for these types of activities and programs, and WHEREAS, a proposed Agreement between the Town of Queensbury and Queensbury Senior Citizens, Inc. has been presented at this meeting and is in form approved by Town Counsel, and WHEREAS, this Agreement is permitted and authorized by New York State General Municipal Law §95A, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Agreement between the Town and Queensbury Senior Citizens, Inc. and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Agreement with funding for the Agreement to be paid for from the appropriate Town account. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRACT WITH WARREN COUNTY YOUTH COURT RESOLUTION NO.: 30, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor 763 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury wishes to contract with Warren County for the development and enhancement of its Youth Court Program for the year 2005, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of an Agreement between the Town and the Warren County Youth Court in form acceptable to the Town Supervisor and Town Counsel where the Town will pay Warren County an amount not to exceed $15,000 for the year 2005, and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Agreement with funding for the Agreement to be paid for from the appropriate Town account. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BADGER METER INC. TO CONTINUE PROVIDING RADIO READ METERS AND ACCESSORIES TO WATER DEPARTMENT DURING 2005 RESOLUTION NO.: 31, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town Board previously authorized Badger Meter, Inc. to provide radio read meters and accessories to the Town Water Department during 2004, and WHEREAS, the Water Superintendent has recommended that the Town of Queensbury continue to use the Badger meter system and has therefore requested Town Board authorization to allow Badger Meter, Inc. to continue providing radio read meters and accessories to the Town Water Department during 2005 for a total sum not to exceed $125,000, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 764 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes Badger Meter, Inc. to continue providing the Town of Queensbury Water Department with radio read meters and accessories during 2005 for a total sum not to exceed $125,000 to be paid for from Account No.: 40-8340-2300, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Water Superintendent, Budget Officer and/or Town Supervisor to execute any documentation and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None Discussion held before vote: Councilman Boor-Questioned how many more needed to be done? Supervisor Stec-We are about half way through, we are ahead of schedule. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING LIGHT MOTOR EQUIPMENT OPERATOR POSITION AT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO. 32, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, upon the recommendation of the Town of Queensbury’s Recreation Commission, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to establish the full-time position of Light Motor Equipment Operator (LMEO) in the Town’s Parks and Recreation Department, and WHEREAS, the Warren County Department of Personnel and Civil Service has reviewed the proposed job duties for the position, and WHEREAS, the LMEO position was budgeted in the Parks and Recreation Department budget and adopted as part of the 2005 Town of Queensbury budget, and 765 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 WHEREAS, the new position shall be an hourly position to be included in the Town’s Civil Service Employee Association (CSEA) Bargaining Unit, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby establishes the full-time hourly position of Light Motor Equipment Operator in the Town’s Parks and Recreation Department, such position to be included in the Town’s Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. (CSEA) Bargaining Unit, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further establishes the position at a salary to be determined at a later date consistent with the CSEA Agreement, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Director of Parks and Recreation to begin the process of filling this newly-created position and authorizes and directs the Parks and Recreation Director, Town Supervisor, Town Counsel and/or Budget Officer to complete and file any documentation needed to establish this position and take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PROMOTION OF RODNEY WARRINGTON FROM MAINTENANCE MAN I TO WORKING FOREMAN IN TOWN WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO. 33, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer 766 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury’s Deputy Wastewater Director has advised that there is a promotion available in the Working Foreman position in the Wastewater Department and current Maintenance Man I, Rodney Warrington, has completed and passed the training programs for the Working Foreman position and has the required job experience, and therefore the Deputy Wastewater Director has recommended the promotion of Rodney Warrington from Maintenance Man I to Working Foreman, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize the requested promotion, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the promotion of Rodney Warrington from Maintenance Man I to the CSEA non-competitive position of Working Foreman on a provisional basis until such time as Mr. Warrington meets all Civil Service requirements for the position, and BE IT FURTHER, st RESOLVED, that Mr. Warrington’s promotion shall be effective January 1, 2005 and Mr. Warrington shall be paid at the rate of pay specified in the Town’s CSEA Union Agreement for the Working Foreman position for the year 2005, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Deputy Wastewater Director and/or Budget Officer to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON NICKOLE WEATHERWAX’S APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE PERMIT TO LOCATE MOBILE HOME OUTSIDE OF MOBILE HOME COURT 767 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 RESOLUTION NO.: 34, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr.Theodore Turner WHEREAS, in accordance with Queensbury Town Code §113-12, the Queensbury Town Board is authorized to issue permits for mobile homes to be located outside of mobile home courts under certain circumstances, and WHEREAS, in 1999, Nickole Weatherwax purchased a doublewide mobile home to replace the mobile home existing on property located at 62 Ellsworth Lane, however, a permit allowing such mobile home replacement outside of a mobile home court was never recorded in the Town’s Department of Building and Codes, and WHEREAS, Ms. Weatherwax wishes to maintain her mobile home existing on the property since 1999 and therefore she has filed an application for a "Mobile Home Outside of a Mobile Home Court" Revocable Permit to seek formal Town Board approval for replacement of the formerly existing mobile home with the newer, double-wide mobile home, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to conduct a public hearing regarding this permit application, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall hold a public hearing on th January 24, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, to consider Nickole Weatherwax’s application for a "Mobile Home Outside of a Mobile Home Court" Revocable Permit concerning property situated at 62 Ellsworth Lane, Town of Queensbury and at that time all interested persons will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to publish and post a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing as required by law. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough NOES : None 768 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR PRODUCTION OF TOWN NEWSLETTER RESOLUTION NO.: 35, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Purchasing Agent solicited and received quotations for production of the Town Newsletter on a quarterly basis for 2005, and WHEREAS, Sharon Borgos has offered to produce the Reports for an amount not to exceed $1,125 for each of the four (4), approximately four (4) page newsletters, and $600 for a four (4) page insert for a total amount not to exceed $5,100 as delineated in Ms. th Borgos’ January 7, 2005 proposal presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, the Purchasing Agent has recommended engagement of the low bidder, , Sharon Borgos for such services, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes engagement of Sharon Borgos to print four (4) Town newsletters during 2005 for an amount not to exceed , $1,125 per newsletter, and $600 for a four (4) page insert not to exceed the total amount of th $5,100 as delineated in Ms. Borgos’ January 7, 2005 proposal presented at this meetingto be paid from Publicity Account No.: 01-6410-4532, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board can cancel the contract with Sharon Borgos at any time as long as such cancellation occurs prior to the Town’s direction is given to proceed with any specific newsletter, and BE IT FURTHER, 769 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to sign any documentation, including any agreement in form acceptable to Town Counsel, and the Town Supervisor, Purchasing Agent and/or Budget Officer to take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION SETTING HEARING ON RONALD JECKEL’S APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE/WAIVER REQUEST FROM SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION REQUIREMENT SET FORTH IN TOWN CODE CHAPTER 136 – SEWERS AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL RESOLUTION NO.: 36, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board is authorized by Town Code Chapter 136 § to issue variances from 136-44 “Connection to sewers required” which requires Town property owners situated within a sewer district and located within 250’ of a public sanitary sewer of the sewer district to connect to the public sewer facilities within one (1) year from the date of notice, and WHEREAS, Ronald Jeckel has applied to the Local Board of Health for a § variance/waiver from 136-44 as Mr. Jeckel would like a one-year extension of time from th the date of his notice, September 8, 2004, in which to connect his property located at 1011 State Route 9 to the Town’s Route 9 Sewer District, as Mr. Jeckel is negotiating with potential tenants/buyers of the property, and one of the buyers would only occupy one of the buildings on the property for a one year period, and the second party would then remove the two buildings and construct an appropriate sewer connection on the property, as more fully set delineated in Mr. Jeckel’s application and letter presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 770 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury will hold th a hearing on January 24, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, to consider Ronald Jeckel’s sewer connection variance/waiver application concerning property located at 1011 State Route 9, Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 296.13-1-23), and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to send the Notice of Hearing presented at this meeting to Mr. Jeckel as required by law. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS – TH, ABSTRACT OF JANUARY 62005 RESOLUTION NO.: 37, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve the audit of bills th presented as the Abstract with a run date of January 6, 2005 and a payment date of January th 11, 2005, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Abstract with a thth run date of January 6, 2005 and payment date of January 11, 2005 numbering 24-611300 through 25-012400 and totaling $333,053.41, and BE IT FURTHER, 771 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Budget Officer and/or Town Supervisor to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2004 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 38, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the attached Budget Amendment Requests have been duly initiated and justified and are deemed compliant with Town operating procedures and accounting practices by the Town Budget Officer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer’s Office to take all action necessary to transfer funds and amend the 2004 Town Budget as follows: BUILDING & GROUNDS FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 001-5132-2001 001-5132-4060 250. (Misc. Equipment) (Contracted Services) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 134-8020-2899 134-8020-4400 88. (Capital Construction) (Misc. Contractual) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 001-1990-4400 001-8010-4110 1,450. (Contingency) (Zoning Veh. R&M) 772 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 WASTEWATER FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 032-8120-4800 032-8120-1570-0002 275. (Equip. Repair-Serv.) (Maint. II OT) and Supplies th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPOINTMENT OF FRANCES COLVIN ASFULL-TIME CLEANER RESOLUTION NO. : 39, 2005 INTRODUCED BY Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY : Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 465,2004, the Queensbury Town Board authorized the hiring of Ms. Frances Colvin as a part-time Cleaner, and WHEREAS, the Town’s Facilities Manager advised the Town Board that the Cleaner’s work load had increased and therefore the Facilities Manager requested Town Board authorization to change the part-time Cleaner position to a full-time position and the Town Board authorized such change, and WHEREAS, the Facilities Manager advertised for the full-time position, reviewed resumes, interviewed interested candidates and has made a hiring recommendation to the Town Board and the Town Board wishes to authorize such hiring, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the hiring of st Frances Colvin as full-time Cleaner, a CSEA competitive position, effective January 1, 773 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 2005 subject to satisfactory completion of the probation period expected to end on or th about June 11, 2005, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that Ms. Colvin shall be paid at the rate of pay delineated for the position in the Town’s Agreement with CSEA to be paid from the appropriate payroll account, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Facilities Manager and/or Budget Officer to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PROMOTION OF KEITH SHEERER FROM HEAVY EQUIPMENT OPERATOR TO WORKING FOREMAN IN TOWN SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO. 40, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury’s Solid Waste Facilities Manager has recommended that the Town Board authorize the promotion of Heavy Equipment Operator, Keith Sheerer, to Working Foreman in the Town’s Solid Waste Department, as Mr. Sheerer has met the qualifications and has the required job experience for the position, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize the requested promotion, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 774 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the promotion of Keith Sheerer from Heavy Equipment Operator to Working Foreman effective st January 1, 2005 at the rate of pay specified in the Town’s CSEA Union Agreement for the position, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Solid Waste Facilities Manager and/or Budget Officer to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PROMOTION OF RICHARD PARIS FROM MOTOR EQUIPMENT OPERATOR (MEO) TO HEAVY EQUIPMENT OPERATOR (HEO) IN SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO. 41, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury’s Solid Waste Facilities Manager has recommended that the Town Board authorize the promotion of Motor Equipment Operator (MEO), Richard Paris, to Heavy Equipment Operator (HEO), in the Town’s Solid Waste Department, as Mr. Paris has met the qualifications and has the required job experience for the position, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize the requested promotion, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the promotion of Richard Paris from Motor Equipment Operator (MEO) to Heavy Equipment 775 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 st Operator (HEO) effective January 1, 2005 at the rate of pay specified in the Town’s CSEA Union Agreement for the position, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Solid Waste Facilities Manager and/or Budget Officer to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None ORDER SETTING PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT OF QUEENSBURY CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT FACILITIES RESOLUTION NO. 42, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board duly established the Town of Queensbury Consolidated Water District (District) in accordance with New York Town Law, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to improve the District’s water transmission facilities by replacing a water main on Bay Road and installing a water main connector at § Country Club Road and Wincrest Drive in accordance with Town Law 202-b, and WHEREAS, C. T. Male Associates, P.C., professional engineers, have prepared a Map and Plan concerning the proposed water transmission system improvements together with an estimate of the cost of such improvements, and WHEREAS, the Map and Plan was duly filed in the Queensbury Town Clerk's Office and made available for public inspection, and 776 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 WHEREAS, the Town Board was duly designated lead agency for SEQRA review of the project and determined that the project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration was made, and WHEREAS, although the Town of Queensbury is a town partially within the Adirondack Park the District does not contain State lands assessed at more than thirty percent (30%) of the total taxable assessed valuation of the District, so permission of the State Comptroller to the proposed expenditure is not required under Town Law §202-b(5), NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The proposed improvements are: A. replacement of existing water main with approximately 4,190 LF of 12-inch pipe along the east side of Bay Road from just north of Cronin Road to the Adirondack Community College property; and B. installation of approximately 210 LF of 8-inch pipe to connect the 8-inch water main on Country Club Road with the 6-inch main on Wincrest Drive. 2. The maximum amount proposed to be expended for such improvements is $575,000. 3. The cost of the improvements will be paid from the current funds in the Capital Reserve Fund of the District; therefore, the annual cost of the District for debt service and operation and maintenance costs to the typical property and the typical one- or two-family home will not be increased [and may decrease as a result of the project]. 4. The proposed improvements shall be constructed and installed as specifically delineated in the Map and Plan and in full accordance with the Town of Queensbury's specifications, ordinances or local laws, and any State laws or regulations, and in accordance with approved plans and specifications and under competent engineering supervision. 5. The Town Board shall meet and hold a public hearing at the Queensbury th Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, January 24, 2005 to hear all persons interested in the improvement of the District facilities described above and to take such other and further action as may be required or authorized by law. 777 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 6. The Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to duly publish and post this Order not less than ten (10) days nor more than twenty (20) days before the public hearing date, as required by Town Law §202-b. th Duly adopted this 10 day of January, 2005 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: None Supervisor Stec-Recognized the Members of the Glens Falls Common Council, thank you very much for attending this evening and Warren County Supervisor Mike Barody from Queensbury… 4.0 PUBLIC HEARING 4.1 Proposed Local law A Local Law to Amend Chapter 179 “Zoning” Of Queensbury Town Code To Convert All Land Conservation-Ten Acres (LC-10) To Land Conservation-Forty Two Acres Zones (LC-42) NOTICE SHOWN Supervisor Stec-Opened the Public Hearing Tonights intent is for us to receive public comment on this and the next point I want to make is we will not be taking any action on this tonight. With that I will have Marilyn Ryba present a brief presentation regarding the background and maybe some frequently asked questions or anticipated questions that we have to hopefully head off. After she is finished with that we will begin receiving public input and with a large crowd what I thought we would do is go for about one pass through the audience of about five minutes and then break briefly to check what correspondence has been received and then following that if people need a second time at the microphone to go ahead and finish a thought or present another point or question another point that will be fine. So, with that the public hearing is open and I will ask Marilyn …noted Supervisor Bill Kenny from Glens Falls I was told is in the audience, I am sorry, I did not see you hiding behind Dick Merrill. With that Marilyn I will ask that you go ahead and make a presentation. Executive Director of Community Development Marilyn Ryba-This proposal is a Town Board initiated proposal for a rezoning of Land Conservation ten acres properties to Land Conservation forty two acre. Whenever there is a rezoning there are a number of requirements and questions that are asked, or I should say whenever there is a proposed rezoning. One is that there be an environmental assessment form prepared that has been done. The other is that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and any officially adopted amendments to that Comprehensive Land Use Plan be reviewed, the other is that information that there be referrals to the Warren County Planning Board as well as the Municipal Town of Queensbury Planning Board. There are also some referrals that in this case we are required to adjoining municipalities bordering the Town of Queensbury. I will then start with some of the questions and a brief project description. All lands that are currently zoned LC-10A effect approximately four hundred parcels totaling eight thousand four hundred and eighty six acres. There is really only one language change and that is just to delete a reference to LC-10A in the current Zoning Ordinance. All uses that are currently allowed will remain the same and then the other change is a change in the tables to show dimensional bulk change of the ten acres to forty-two acre. That is essentially what is being proposed. To start with the questions number one what need is being met by the proposed change in zone or new zone? The zone change proposed will 778 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 protect land for open space, New York State Natural Heritage Areas and to maintain the rural character of the community. Question two; What existing zones if any can meet the stated need? The Dunhams Bay wetlands and Rush Pond Areas are the areas currently in LC-42A, Parkland Recreation 42-Acres is the only other zone that could meet the forty- two acre developing density. However the PR zone does not allow as many activities or uses as does the Land Conservation 42 Acre Zone. Uses allowed in the LC-42 acre zone includes single family residences, bed and breakfast, commercial boat sales, service storage, camp grounds, game preserves, hunting and fishing cabins, kennels, nurseries, and sawmill chipping or pallet mills and sportsmen club or firing range. How does the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones? LC-42A Zoning would provide greater protection from influences of development in the surrounding residential zones. Zones adjacent to the LC-42A Zone are areas to the south and west, RC-3A which is Recreation Commercial three acre at West Mountain. RR-3A which is Rural Residential Three acre, RR-5A which is Rural Residential Five acres and SR-1A which is Suburban Residential one acre. To the south and east which would be the Big Cedar Swamp area adjacent zones are Light Industrial LI, HC intensive; Highway Commercial intensive, SR-1A which is the Suburban Residential 1 acre and SFR-1A which is Single Family Residential 1 acre. To the north and east is SR-1A and NC-1A which is Neighborhood Commercial 1 acre, RR-3A and RR-5A. To the north and west which would be the Top of the World area there is a Planned Unit Development at Top of the World RR-3A and RR-5A and another category SR-15 which I believe is Suburban Residential fifteen, that is fifteen thousand square feet vs. acres. What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone. Areas proposed to be changed from the LC-10A to LC-42A consist primarily of large tracks of mountainous, and forested area with steep slopes the Big Cedar Swamp is an extensive wetland. Question 5; How will the proposed zone affect public facilities? There is a sewer district within a portion of the LC-10 zone near the Big Cedar Swamp and that is it for public facilities. Question 6; Why is the current zone classification not appropriate for the property in question? Uses will remain the same the density requirement will be less intensive thereby allowing greater amounts of open space lands. Question 7; What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change? There will be further protection of New York State Natural Heritage areas as identified on the attached long EAF and that is fairly extensive and if required we can go through it. How is the proposed compatible with relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Master Plan? The 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan contains several references there is a recommendation to change existing zoning for Glens Falls owned watershed property to a watershed protection zone. A change to LC-42A Zoning is one way to implement this recommendation to some degree. This Comprehensive Land Use Plan also recommends that properties within the Big Cedar Swamp be designated a preservation zone a change to LC-42A zone is one way to accomplish greater preservation efforts and there are also relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan that were attached. The Town of Queensbury’s Open Space Plan vision and map also contains goals and recommended actions. The areas for the proposed zone change were envisioned by the community as areas for potential nature preserves or activities consistent with mountain terrain and those references were also attached. Question 9; How are the wider interest of the community being served by this proposal? Benefits to the public include greater amounts of open space thereby maintaining or increasing the rural character of the community in addition to further protection of New York State Natural Heritage Areas. These are the questions that the Town Board needs to consider and answer before any zone change is made. I did list what the uses are for LC-10 and those apply to LC-42 as well they will not change. Set backs are also exactly the same so it essentially just the acres that change. In terms of I have quite a few items here, there are a number of support letters which I presume will be read into the record later, we also have Warren County referral th that was, Planning Board referral that was received on November 15 we also have our Planning Board recommendation that was received at this time it was required to go to the Adirondack Park Agency. We did receive a letter from them but they have not voted on any formal resolution at this point. We did also receive a response from the Department of Environmental Conservation Natural Heritage Program and essentially that states that there will not be an adverse impact because of the zone change. In terms of some of the purpose of zoning I thought I would go through that, the purpose of the LC-10, LC-42 is to encompass areas where the land has serious physical limitations to development or unique characteristics that warrant restricting development to very low densities. So, that provides the purpose for having this zoning to begin with. Some of 779 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 the frequently asked questions that we have heard, one question was, would this zone change affect my right to sell my property? No, it will not do that. The second is will I be allowed to build on lots that are already less than forty-two acres? If you have existing parcels that are less than forty two acres, yes, provided that the land is developable and it could be a number of environmental constraints then yes you would be allowed that, in other words the properties would be grandfathered. Question was asked, would I need variances? Well, because the set backs are the same for LC-10 or LC-42 as long as you have met your set backs if you were building a garage or putting on an addition or something like that then you would not need one because of, as a result of this zone change. If you wanted to subdivide the property, that would be something that would require a variance if you had less than forty two acres and then the required tests must be applied before any decision could be made, yes or no on that. Another question, will my assessment change? Assessments are based on use, assessment don’t change until a use changes? The other question concerns value of property, people wanted to know will the value of my property change? That is something that really needs to be asked of an appraiser. There are a number of items that affect value of property things such as the development capability, steep slopes, wetlands would be included there whether or not there was any road frontage and then any number of other factors such as view shed timber value and the use that would be allowed or use that would be desired. The next question, split parcels. A split parcel is something that one land owner owns a parcel of land that may be zoned Rural Residential 5 acre and the rest ten acre. Whatever zone Rural Residential 5 acre it would not impact your zoning, those are two separate zones. Then the question is would a site plan application be required to build. Site plans are not something for a single, required for single family residential, just a building permit, however some of the uses are allowed in the zoning require site plans anyway for things such as a camp ground for boat storage that would be required. I think that is all I have unless you wanted me to get into any of the letters or referrals or recommendations that were made by our referring agencies. Supervisor Stec-We will have, Darleen has copies of letters, I think most if not all the letters of referral, if she misses any when we get to that portion if you want to add them. Marilyn, the last thing I would ask is maybe, do you want to comment at all about the maps that you put around the room here? Executive Director Ryba-I am going to have to get up because I cannot see them all from here. This map over here just shows a combination of steep slope areas and wetland areas, so the dark pink shows lands greater than twenty five percent slope and the light pink area show lands between fifteen and twenty five percent slope. We use those categories because anything fifteen percent or above is typically not considered adequate for septic, on site septic disposal. The, that color right there, those are APA mapped wetlands and then this blue line is area outside of the Adirondack Park Agency and so the dark ones are New York State DEC mapped wetlands and then these light green are National Wetland Inventory mapped wetlands which don’t always but often concerns with Army Corp. of Engineers wetlands which depending on whether or not you wanted to fill the areas, may or may not require a permit from the Army Corp. This map just shows open space protected lands currently in the Town. This is the Dunhams Bay Wetland which is owned by New York State. These lands over here these are City of Glens Falls watershed properties, the purple color are public or private nature preserves the dark green are town park preserves and then the light green is other public lands. Over here we have a map that shows properties by acreage so that all of the light brown part of lands are those that are less than ten acres the light green are lands that are twenty to forty-two acres the dark brown is land ten to twenty acres and then the dark green shows lands that are forty-two acres or more in size. Then this map right here just shows all of the LC-10A property statistics the number of properties the number of acres involved and then lands that are, it is another breakdown but not as detailed as this one of acreage. Supervisor Stec-Thank you Marilyn. Ok. The public hearing is open and hopefully you have found Marilyn’s update informative and with that we will just start taking public comment, we would just ask you to raise your hand and I will call on you, we will ask for your name and address for the record and then again this first pass because there are so many people here we will try to go to about five minutes approximately five minutes to 780 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 let anyone that wants to get a comment on the record and leave can and then we will do the letters and we will announce who we have letters from and they will be made part of the record and then after that we will go back if there is anyone that wants you know to finish the thought or bring up another thought. So, with that, Dick Merrill I see you have your hand up first and the floor is yours Sir. Mr. Dick Merrill-I just like, Dick Merrill, 6 Sunset Trail North Queensbury, I would like to follow up just a little bit on what Marilyn has stated concerning the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. According to the State Land Use Regulations should be in accordance with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The current was adopted by the Town, the Town Board in 1998. That was the result of nearly four years of effort by citizens in the community. There are some changes that have occurred since then but the objectives remain unchanged I believe. I was privileged to serve as Chairman of that Committee for about three years. Our starting point in putting together the plan was to develop a vision. The very first statement in the vision was planned development with concern for the protection of natural resources, rural character and visual quality of the town, Marilyn has referred to that already. There is great concern over hillside development that was expressed in some of the public meetings that we held it was an issue that we discussed at some length. We also prepared a set of goals and one of them was to pursue regional cooperation, specifically to promote open communication with surrounding communities and for that reason I am very pleased that we have so many representatives here from the City of Glens Falls, so we welcome our friends from the City we share a common objective here really to protect our natural resources. I think tonight we have an opportunity to start the New Year off with a spirit of cooperation for the benefit of both of our communities. Just turning quickly to the issues in the recommendations in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. One of the issues that was identified specifically for the water shed property it was pointed out that it was an important natural resource because of its role in protecting the drinking water supply for Glens Falls the maintenance of open space and the protection of the visual amenity of West Glens Falls. When we prepared the plan and it is in the plan that the statement that the Glens Falls Officials had expressed their intent to continue ownership of the watershed lands as a backup water supply even if a secure water is found from another source. Since the plan was adopted in 1998 there have been some changes specifically Glens Falls has built their own water filtration plant and the recommendation at the time this was 1998 in the comp plan was to change the existing zoning for all of the Glens Falls owned watershed to a watershed protection zone. It was pointed out this would allow timber management activity, recreational use, and Glens Falls Officials at that time expressed agreement of this treatment of the properties. The intent was to preserve and bank, essentially bank this land for the future. That is really where we are tonight, what is the best way to protect the land not only at the watershed property but other mountainous properties. I believe that the uniform low-density zoning which is proposed tonight is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and meets the broad objectives behind that plan. So, I hope that we can move forward in spirit of cooperation for the best way to preserve our mountain top lands. Thank you. Supervisor Stec-Thank you Mr. Merrill. Yes, Sir. Mr. Keith Harris-I am Keith Harris I live on Bay Road and I am just wondering if the Town was going to notify people that own property in Queensbury about this or you just had to pick it up in the paper or how you were going to go about this? Supervisor Stec-The Town followed the same procedure that we follow under New York Law for all of our rezoning or all these sorts of actions that we set a public hearing and it was noticed in the paper properly and I do know apparently a lot of people got wind that we were thinking about doing this, this evening, but we followed the same procedure that we always followed. Mr. Harris-If you were a resident and taxpayer and you did not agree with this do you have any rights at all or you just, is this going to be you know a cut dry deal with you know no say at all or? 781 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 Supervisor Stec-Well the rights and the say is the public hearing process that we are in right now and we are going to be receiving public comment and as I said earlier we will make a decision not at this evening but following a recommendation from the Adirondack Park Agency. That is why we cannot act on this tonight so we will not be acting on it tonight, but this is the public process so this is the rights and the say so. Mr. Harris-It is just, it seems kind of unfair that if you like if you had I have got a couple of kids might have a few grandkids or something, I cannot really see going to forty two acres if, I got several acres in the Town of Queensbury and it is already zoned I thought 1998 everybody was happy. I do not know what the goal is here whether it is just you know squeeze people down to you know, if you are already zoned ten acres, obviously if it is a rock ledge you are not going to build on it so. I have some decent property that you could build on, by you doing this piece is like a hundred and fifty some acres that will just totally you know limit it. Councilman Strough-Whereabouts is you property? Mr. Harris-I have got some on Bay Road, some on Ridge Road, several pieces are affected and if there is anything that we can do to have a say without getting this thing just kind of cut and dry with, I just do not think it is right, you know. I do not know what the Town is after here, if they want forty two acres then they, every time that I grieve assessment or whatever the taxes they say well you can build this amount of houses it is worth this and now I don’t know, this guy over here says it says it has nothing to do with the taxes. I do not know. Something does not seem fair here, not even a little bit about it, but, you know, I am right next to Top of the World they got a nice development there they are doing a fine job and I see that they are not involved on this. I guess we do not have a right to change their zoning. I have no problem with what they are doing up there but they border me several hundred feet and I see that apparently they must have met with someone before this meeting or something because they are not involved. Supervisor Stec-Their land is not zoned ten acre, they do not have the same, their land is not zoned what we are considering tonight, that is why they are not affected. Mr. Harris-So, they are eliminated, well, maybe I would like the zoning that they got. Can you tell me how I could? Supervisor Stec-There is a process Keith, there is a process for that too. Mr. Harris-Is there, all right. Supervisor Stec-Real similar to the one we are going through right now. Mr. Harris-Without paying a hundred thousand dollars to a lawyer and going through eleven more years of lawsuits with the town or? You people don’t understand that you are talking eight thousand acres here and it is going to totally, I mean it is not going to devastate me it is just, if I want to get a few lots in eight or ten years I have to come to a variance and a variance with a bunch of people that you know, some of the people that come from I do not want to pick no body out but when they come from the Cities and they come up here and say oh you are going to build you know, they come from the Cities up here not to see any building they you go to build and they are like. You guys know what I went through up on Bay Road I get a building permit and then all of a sudden I got to get three or four more permits that I wished the Town had told me right up front that I needed three permits, one from Warren County and the State and DEC that is fine I got them all. Did what we had to do, but, it doesn’t seem like the landowner has you know, many rights especially with the taxes that we are paying. It is not like we are not paying a good tax right now you are going to rezone the property. So, they are probably going to have to if they do put this thing through they are probably going to have to reassess everybody. …They probably won’t but thanks for your time. Supervisor Stec-Thank you Mr. Harris. Anyone else this evening. Yes, Sir. 782 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 Mr. Ralph Macchio-My name is Ralph Macchio the address is Dix Hills Long Island, N.Y. First and foremost I would like to officially opposed the upgrading. I am a property owner in the LC-10 area and I just want to officially oppose this up zoning. In line with that I have seen, I have heard you say that there are a lot of letters that have come thorough recommending that this be done. What would be of question to a lot of us here is on the letters you received it would be nice to know how many people have, are one of the four hundred lot owners that are being up zoned. It would be nice to hear from people who are being affected by this up-zone as to why they would want it. When I think if this up-zone from ten acres to forty two it is kind of overwhelming from the stand point that if you looked at the Town in its entirety you know I do not know how many places get up-zoned to this degree ever. This is probably one of the largest up-zones I think this town has probably ever seen in terms of quantity. Now, I could well understand the needs for wanting open space and I could well understand people who do not have to pay or sacrifice for this open space readily wanting it. However, you know, it is quite a substantial increase and a burden to those of us who have for decades paid the taxes enjoyed the property, the property has been there for thousand of years I do not think you could say that the people that own it now were bad stewards of that property. It is in fine condition and probably going forward it would still be in fine condition. Ten acre if you were to average it out over the town is a substantial zoning in and of itself. I would just like to think that the Town reconsider this zoning because it is a horrendous burden on those of us that appreciate this land and want to keep it the way it is and someday enjoy the use of it. Fifty, Forty-two acre zoning but by the time you get done with streams and ponds and slopes will easily in a mountainous area become fifty and sixty acre zoning. So, what you are really doing by imposing this forty-two acre zoning is rendering that land practically useless to the owners. Thank you. Supervisor Stec-Thank you, Sir. Anyone-Yes Ms. Carol LaGrasse-Hi my name is Carol LaGrasse I am President of the Property Rights Foundation of America Our group is a nationwide , grassroots, non-profit educational organization dedicated to the defense of private property rights, which is headquartered in nearby Stony Creek. People from Maine to Florida to Alaska to Hawaii are involved actively in the work of the Property Rights Foundation of America. In addition citizens who are property owners in the Town of Queensbury are active in the Property Rights Foundation. Tonight I would like to share a few points with the Town Board. First is Radical, dead end zoning. The forty-two acre zoning that the APA law has imposed on about forty five percent of the private land in the Adirondacks is a source of personal hardship, economic distress on an individual and regional level, and a great injustice. At the time of the enactment in 1973, the forty-two acre zoning was the most radical in the nation and it remains one of the most extreme zoning schemes in the nation. From my thirty-three years of close observation of the APA law from the days of its original passage, I have seen that the forty-two acre zoning puts a stranglehold on land, putting it indefinitely in limbo. And exactly as Mr. Macchio said it is not just forty-two acres with the Whitneys couldn’t get three hundred acres. I am sure it will be much more than forty-two acres required per house. It was an outrage that the powerful national groups, environmental groups, the governor and the legislators from all over the state foisted the APA law on the disenfranchised property owners in the Adirondacks. What a shame it would be if one of the worst features of the APA law would be foisted on neighbors by neighbors in the Town of Queensbury. The unconstitutional taking of private property accomplished by the forty-two acre zoning also has never been adequately litigated. There is a simple preservation solution. A logical solution exists to meet the concerns that individuals who want to preserve these properties but who are not the landowners. This solution requires no injustice to the property owners. The solution is for the individuals who want to save the properties in question to make offers to buy them. The most ambitious plan that the individuals could embrace would be to purchase all of the lands. Now assume if there is around eight thousand eight hundred acres as I was told that them might average $15,000 per acre just for discussion purposes, I think it is high but someone told me it was low. And that three hundred individuals would like to participate in a private corporation to buy this land. They would have to raise about a hundred thirty two million or an average of about four hundred and thirty thousand dollars each. Now, these investors could have a range of generosity and private contribution could be sought from wealthy groups like the Open Space institute or the 783 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 Nature Conservancy. The individual planning board members who believe that the land is worth saving so much that other individual should be deprived of their money should generously contribute and should also enjoy then a great sense of satisfaction. The property owners are specifically, excuse me when property owners are specifically affected by town rezoning they have a particular right established in New York State statute for the requirement of a defined supermajority of the town board. The requirement under Section 265 of the Town Law is that: “…any such amendment shall require the approval of at least three-fourth of the members of the town board in the event such an amendment is the subject of a written protest, presented to the Town Board and signed by the owners of twenty percent or more of the area of land including such as proposed change.” That question about this was asked and no one answered the question from the person testifying. This means that if property owners of twenty percent of the land in the proposed forty-two acre zone presents such a petition, if more than one Town Board Member fails to vote for the measure, it will not pass. There is another issue; foreclosing the future of housing for low-income works. It is purported that this land is un-developable mostly steep slopes and wetlands and all, I doubt it. Every piece of land I know as a Civil Engineer has got lots of good build able places on it, unless it is under the mud. Each radical zoning scheme forecloses the ability of low-income works to have affordable places to live while earning a living. Efficiently accomplishing its unjust purpose the forty-two acre zoning in the Adirondacks makes it impossible to divide off parcels for houses, whether for well to do newcomers or for local young couples starting families. The resulting pressure on the existing housing stock raises prices. As a result, there are currently not enough places for workers in the tourism industry. Some summer workers, including young women, sleep in their cars, in places such a public campgrounds, moving from campground to campground. Workers also sleep in old buses even in the cold season, as long they can stand it. During their presentation in Chestertown in 2003 to the Adirondack Park Agency about the Town of Queensbury’s successful open space planning and tourism outreach, one of the Queensbury planners made a revealing comment. The town’s successful efforts to increase tourism have a downside. The planner said this very town said that the low paid workers who are needed to serve the tourist industry are finding that as a result of the higher cost of housing, it is becoming increasingly difficult to live near to their jobs. “Lake Placid has been pricing its self, pricing its workforce out of the community.” The planner said about the world famous village in the high peaks.” “We are looking at the same problem. People have to commute fifteen to twenty miles” This planner conveyed the concern that already low paid workers are having difficulty affording housing in Queensbury, and that it is only getting worse. In summary, the forty-two acre re-zoning represents radical preservation and injustice to property owners and dooms the future of property. The proposal is vulnerable to litigation. A simple, fair solution exists that would respect private property owners and place the cost of preservation at the doorstep of those that feel that it is essential. New York Sate law recognizes the need to protect property owners from unwanted rezoning with a special petition and town board vote format. And, according to one Queensbury Town Planner, low income workers already are suffering from a shortage of affordable housing in Queensbury, just as they are under the radical zoning of the same nature imposed by the APA. Radical zoning will only worsen the pressure on working people. Thank you very much. Supervisor Stec-Ma’am we did not catch your last name. Ms. Carol LaGrasse-My name is LaGrasse Supervisor Stec-Thank you Carol. Anyone else this evening, please? Yes, Sir. Mr. Peter Smith-My name is Peter Smith I have one of those dark green chunks of property on the side of Bay Road. I have paid on it for fifty years. Now, I had planned on dividing it up with my three children to let them have a piece of Queensbury so they can build a house on it. You take that away from me it is a petty sore subject. Now, I look at Queensbury Zoning and say if ten acres did not work what in the world do you think forty-two acres is going to work like. I am against the zoning changes lot stock and barrel. That is what I have to say. Supervisor Stec-Thank you Sir. Anyone else please? 784 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 Mr. Edward Carr Jr. –Mr. Edward Carr Jr. from 8 Carr Lane. First I want to say as proposed and as outlined by Marilyn this zoning change does not affect me. I have previously subdivided my property I have one boundary line adjustment I want to make but its not going to be affected. I am here because I do not think it is right for my neighbors. I look back this afternoon on what has happened since I purchased the property that I own in 1979. At that time it was designated by Queensbury as R4 which I believe had a ten thousand square foot requirement for the building lot. Now, your predecessors were not stupid, they knew you could not build on every ten thousand square feet. However what they did know was these large parcels people wanted to divide off for their children or they weren’t per se developing the property they are willing the property. They let these people give smaller chunks to their children, mainly. If you go up and down the road you will see that most of the properties that are left are ones that have been in families for quite a few years. In the barely or mid 70’s the APA decided that they knew better than the Town of Queensbury and they upped the zoning to eight and a half acres in this area. People thought that was restrictive. The APA also gave people the right to cluster properties so you would be able to take a hundred acre parcel and only build on a small portion of it and not ruin the vistas and develop the entire parcel of property. We went from that, we went to the early 80’s with Queensbury’s first approved plan and I believe that was RR-15 thousand, RR-3Acres and RR-5Acre. We keep getting more and more restrictive every time. Mid 70’s or Mid 80’s again they, Queensbury upped it a little bit more and then in the 90’s we went up to ten acres zoning. All this time the people that own the property are losing something. Your property is assessed at so called market value, generally speaking the assessor is going to look at the highest possible use, which is what they figure it can be broken down to and the extremes you can develop the property. Most of the people along there haven’t developed to the extremes. No, they may have a fifty-acre parcel with one house. But, right now you are taking the rights from them. The negotiations that the Town Board has conducted lately Mr. Stec you have been very strong about it being financially centered. Well, maybe you better start looking at the finances of some of these people that you are taking the rights from. We are having a lot of people in other areas of the Town some of these are people that have decided to live in filled in wetlands. Now, those people in filled in the wetlands for their house are saying lets not let anyone else develop in Queensbury. I do not say this too often but yes, I did move here from New Jersey. I do not want another New Jersey up here but I do not want to see you take from my fellow neighbors. I think if you are going to pursue the avenues that you are looking at here I think you also have to pursue compensating people for what you are taking from them, you have to pursue with the assessment department some type of land conservation grants that you are going to get a credit toward your taxes for the larger portion of property that you are providing park land for everyone else in the Town. Thank you. Supervisor Stec-Thank you Mr. Carr. Ms. Catherine Fisher-Hi, my name is Catherine Fisher I live at 91 Nicole Drive This is the first meeting that I have been to, I have been watching this in the papers and I am a little upset because of the amount of inequity that is going on here. Recently it was allowed by several major builders to rip up to develop large tracks along West Mountain Road, down Potter these parcels of land are now being developed and how can you equitably say yes to something like this and change the zoning so that the people moving forward will not have the option to do that. I am not saying that the development is right but certainly stopping people from doing what they want with their land within reason is wrong. There is enough land out there in the conservancy, I am sorry I cannot say the word, that I think that if it is governed wisely rezoning is not a necessary evil in this town. I think it is going to be impacting a lot, in a lot of ways. One in the real estate market absolutely, the Town of Queensbury is anticipating an extensive amount of growth over the next ten years in families and students they are building onto their schools. You are going to take away tax money that you could be earning if these parcels were allowed to be utilitized in various ways. By making a parcel a minimum of forty- two acres you really are chopping of the hand that could feed you. I think down the road over the long term with the student bodies of your school system and the future leaders of this township are involved I think it could do irritable damage. Certainly if I had foreseen this I who just moved here a year and a half ago as a matter of fact, you knocked 785 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 on my door right after I moved in, I would have thought of moving somewhere else. I do not like to say that because I think Queensbury is a wonderful town and I think it has tremendous potential. But, I think this is a travesty to the people that have lived there, the families that have owned the lands for generations who are trying to keep them in trust for their families ongoing and I think it is a very big mistake and personally I would like to see this go to a public referendum not a decision coming down from the APA. Thank you. Supervisor Stec-In the back there Sir, with the hand up? Yes, Ma’am Mrs. Betty Monahan-Betty Monahan, Town of Queensbury 120 Sunnyside Road No place, either in the resolution setting the public hearing or the SEQRA document, have I found the purpose of this rezoning. The purpose stated in the resolution applies presently to both ten acres and forty-two acre parcels. There is no justification given that the proposed rezoning of each and every parcel has a community benefit. Unfortunately, the town has given the public very little information about this proposed rezoning. All of the publicity has centered on the watershed property owned by the City of Glens Falls. How many people realize that property in all four wards is involved – four hundred parcels ranging in size from .01Acres to over six hundred acres. The SEQRA FEA says the potential build-out under the present zoning is eight hundred and forty eight single- family residences which would be reduced to two hundred and two single-family residences under the proposed rezoning. We will discuss those figures later. If it is being intimated that the purpose of this rezoning is to reduce dwellings, are we treading close to exclusionary zoning, since no proof have been given that forty-two acres would protect the community/land better than the ten acres? In fact, is just the opposite true? The percentage of permeable area required in a ten acres or forty-two acre is exactly the same ninety five percent. For purposes of comparison, I’m going to use raw figures as though every acre of land would pass the test to be counted for density, and I ‘m going to reduce forty-two acres to forty acres so we are not dealing in decimals. If a forty acres plot that is divided into four ten acre lots, each lot would be allowed one half acre non-permeable area, not contiguous to each other because of set-backs, making a total of two acres non- permeable area. A forty-acre lot would, also, be allowed a total of two acres non- permeable area, but all that area could be contiguous. Which areas do you think would stand out more a half an acre or two acres? Also, forty-two acres allows clustering. It’s hard to tell about the ten acres as the table on page 18083 in the zoning manual is incorrect re ten acres. Also, think of the size structure that could be put on a two-acre non-permeable area versus one half-acre lot. Also, the ease of controlling storm water run off on one half acre versus two acres areas. Now, let’s look at the SEQRA Assessment form that has been filed. Page 2 Description of Action No use changes are proposed. No dimensional changes are proposed. So only a density change is being proposed. Has the town proved its case that it is necessary to put the burden of reducing density on only these four hundred parcels and their owners? Site Description Why isn’t the agriculture box checked when in 2 it is given as acreage evaluation? Why isn’t industrial or commercial checked Warren County Airport? Why aren’t under other the landfills mentioned? How closely have these parcels have been evaluated? How was the depth to bedrock of eight five feet established? When this proposed rezoning covers such a wide area of town can one figure be used? The same comments refers to the answer about the depth of the water table seventy-six feet. Answers to questions on page 4 say there is a marsh and swamp in some of these areas. Page 5 Site Description continued. Re hazardous waste sites – Has the Ciba-Geigy hazardous waste site in Queensbury Landfill been declassified? Dan could you answer that now for me please? Supervisor Stec-I do not believe that it has. Mrs. Monahan-You what? Supervisor Stec-I do not know I do not believe it has. Mrs. Monahan-It was checked that we have no hazardous landfill sites in that area. 1A on Page 5 Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor: The Town as project sponsor, has answered 8,486 acres. I am sure the City of Glens Falls and the other owners of these four hundred parcels would be interested to know the town’s 786 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 position. Perhaps, they can send the town their tax bills for payment. And, I doubt if by control SEQRA is trying to elicit the information that the town can make zoning regulations or tax the property. Page 9 Zoning and Planning Information What is the maximum potential development of the site permitted by present zoning? For single- family residences, the town’s answer is 848. By the town’s own answers on page 3, A2 part of the 8,486acres is composed of wetland-455.9A water surface two hundred and twenty six acres, Roads etc. thirty five point one three acres therefore, approximately seven hundred and twenty one acres would have to be deducted from the density calculation. Then, there is approximately one hundred acres owned by Queensbury Landfill and the town in the Jenkinsville area, plus one hundred and eight acres for the Finch Pruyn landfill. There are also two other pieces of property listed for Queensbury landfill where the acreage is listed as zero and I noticed that in several places in those property tax map numbers that the acreage was zero. The County of Warren owns several pieces of Quaker Ridge and County Line Roads totaling over four hundred acres, which I assume is the airport. This is about six hundred and eight acres that should be deducted, so now the build able acreage for density is about seven thousand one hundred and fifty seven acres. According to the town’s regulations, slopes over fifteen percent cannot be included in the density calculations. A-3-5 of the SEQRA documents says sixty percent of the eight thousand four hundred and ninety six acres is fifteen percent greater. If we take sixty percent of the seven thousand one hundred and fifty six acres over another four thousand acres would need to be deducted. Some of this land may be in more than one category so this is only an approximation. And there are some small lots within this zone that already have houses on them. But, using raw, rough figures the number of units permitted would be under three hundred with the present zoning. The same recalculation would have to be done for question 5. Conclusion: The Planning Board has recommended that this proposed rezoning go to the PORC committee for study and evaluation. I would urge that you follow this recommendation. This proposed rezoning covers about one sixth of the town, and it’ s obvious it needs more study and public input. Do some of these lots belong in this zone in the first place? Some of them are so small you would need a variance to sneeze. This needs a lot by lot evaluation and build out conclusions. If this rezoning is approved, the next largest zone where single- family housing would be permitted is five acres. From five acres to forty-two acres is quite a gap. It is reasonable? Page 7 Neighborhood 2 of the Master Plan re Hillside Development: “Current zoning generally limits the number of structures that can be put in hillside areas. In this neighborhood, mountain areas are primarily zoned for five and ten acre lots, with the exception of the Top O’World PUD and should stay that way.” I have not had time to evaluate the consistency of all the lots of this rezoning with the master Plan. Supervisor Stec-Thank you Mrs. Monahan Yes, Sir. Mr. Roland Nortman-My name is Roland Nortman I live at 86 Buckbee Road I am one of the lucky people because I own a piece of property where it is zoned five acres, but is scares me because what you have done if you pass this law would be moving the blue line closer to my property. It is a piece of property that has been my wife’s family for a short length of time since 1840. It borders the watershed property. The road is a road by use because my wife’s grandmother gave it to the town. But, where do you stop when you go from ten to forty two the next step, logical step would be go from five to forty two or increase the density on that lot. That scares me. The person behind me is a great neighbor he has a hundred and some odd acres, it really affects him. He does not plan to build on it. The water shed is right next to my wife’s cousins property and I see what goes on there. Your father’s property off of Supervisor Stec-Butler Pond Mr. Nortman-Yea. What happened there, somebody wanted to buy it and it was fifteen acres, it is inside the blue line. They could not build the piece of property, they could not build on that property. So, his father could not sell it at that time. I am scared I am against this proposal because it really affects a lot of people. You could have forty acres and you couldn’t build on it, so. Thank you. Supervisor Stec-Thank you Sir. Yes, Sir. 787 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 Attorney Jim. LaPann-Good evening my name is Jim LaPann I am the City Attorney for the City of Glens Falls and I am here to speak on behalf of the City. I am only one of the spokes people here the Mayor and the Common Council Members are here as many of our residents that are interested. The City of Glens Falls has carefully reviewed the proposal PZ-6 –2004 which contains the Town of Queensbury proposed change in the zoning of all parcels in the LC10 zone to LC42. The City of Glens Falls strongly opposes this proposal. The zone that the Town is proposing to change is scattered throughout all part of the town. The zoning treats all these very different areas the same and we do not think that they should be treated the same. I would like to go over and look at the map here. We have the north or the southeast corner we have this section that is LC10 that is the Big Cedar Swamp. We have swamp land now that is going to be treated the same under the zoning as we have mountains as we have area near Lake George, as we have area inside the Adirondack Park. This section here LC-10 over in the southeastern corner is surrounded by Light Industrial Zone. It is very different from the lake that is here west of West Mountain Road or in the Adirondack Park, near Lake George but yet under this zoning it is being treated the same. The same thing here with this parcel in the northeast section of the town where it is straddling the blue line partly in the Adirondack Park partly out. Then here against Fort Ann. This section up here is a totally different area and when I was reviewing the file in the Town there were letters in support of the proposed zoning from the Lake George Commission the Adirondack Park Agency the Lake George Association the Fund for Lake George. That is fine, I am not trying to discount their support for the zoning but they are certainly not talking about this section of the Town down here that is along West Mountain Road that is LC-10 they certainly, the Lake George Park all those entities that I just named they are not commenting on the Big Cedar Swamp. But, yet you would pass this law that would affect all of those parcel altogether. This area here is very interesting in the west southwest corner of the Town it is very interesting and very diverse. Right in the middle here of this section inside the LC-10A is a Rural Residential Five Acres zone. Now, the Town Board the same Town Board that is proposing to change the property one foot over the line into forty two acre zoning the same group said this side of the line five acre zoning ok. But, there is nowhere in any of the proposals or the statements or the record that I have seen that has been supported. What is the difference between this side of the line and that side of the line why is five acre zoning ok here and this ten-acre zoning is not ok here. There has been no explanation for it. I do not understand it. I do not understand why is the difference between five and ten not enough. Why does it have to go five, to forty-two, again I do not understand that. This is an area that is all one acre zoning right here inside the park, immediately adjoining this area. I could make those same steps back and forth from the one-acre zoning to the forty-two proposed. Five acre all over here a lot of development right here right along West Mountain Road. Some area in the park some area outside of the park. Again, all the different areas and they are all being treated the same. The broad brush it is not, zoning really can’t be a one size fits all deal. Zoning has to be particular to that part and those parts near Lake George they are different than there is on the mountain and the swamp and Mud Pond. Recently the Town of Queensbury did put into affect a very important group the Planning Ordinance Review Committee and when the Planning Board looked at this proposed law that you, we are talking about here they did not recommend. I have not had a chance to see the minutes of the meeting but I have taken a look on the web site there the summary of it. It states that the Planning Board did not recommend the passage of this but instead recommended that the law be sent to the Planning Ordinance Review Committee. Now, my understanding from reading the minutes, I did not attend the organizational meeting of that the first meeting but those are really the key persons from the Planning Board and the Zoning Board that are put together on that review committee and your own Planning Board says wait a minute don’t pass this, give it to those guys to look at. In the minutes there of the September meeting of this group, over and over and over again the members stated the Comprehensive Land Use Plan the Master Plan that is number one. Before you can appoint before you can do a law you have to figure out what you want to happen and when you figure out what you want to happen then you put the law into affect. It was well understood and agreed on at that meeting that the Comprehensive Land the Master Plan was very important and it had to be the focus. My reading of the minutes is that Supervisor Stec indicated that in the year 2005 there would be a total re-working as a matter of fact I will read from it. “That we will be finishing a new Comprehensive Land 788 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 Use Plan which is something that I can see us doing in 2005. Will it be March or will it be September I do not know but sometime in the next twelve months we are going to be fully into a rework of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.” Lets look at where we are in the Land Use Plan. You had the, Mr. Merrill talked a little bit about the original Land Use Plan in 1998 in which it indicated that they recommended for this area both for the areas owned by the City and not owned by the City that the creation of a watershed zone because the map shows a broad area and it states that they would preclude development on properties. This is in 1998. This law that you are recommending here does not preclude development. It also, this section of the Master Plan states that in the event that this area was no longer needed as a municipal water supply future planning efforts would then have the ability to consider appropriate uses for this large portion of Queensbury. It is not at this point in time that we don’t have a water shed in the City of Glens Falls we do but there has been a significant change as Mr. Merrill stated. We have a state of the art water filtration system and plant in effect went to great lengths to have excellent water in the City and we no longer need total pristine land to get pristine water. We have a great filter system. But, how much development is enough? There has not been a study done of it that I am aware of. Further look at the towns plans are that the open space vision for the Town of Queensbury which was and its adjoining document the action plan th for that both of these documents were adopted by the Queensbury Town Board July 7 2003 just a year and a half ago. In that document talking a little bit, talking about the water shed it says discussion between the City, Town and other interested parties should continue to focus not only on water supply needs and watershed protection but also on determining future land use management and public access options for these valuable areas. Councilman Boor-What document are you reading from? Atrtorney LaPann-I am reading from page 14 of the Open Space Vision for the Town of Queensbury adopted July 7, 2003. Now, to date I am not aware of any discussions between, although a year and a half ago this town adopted this plan, said this is what we are going to do, this is how we are going to do it. But, it has not been done, there has not been any discussions with the City. The next sentence says the Town along with the Queensbury Land Conservancy Inc.should explore the possibility of securing some type of joint ownership interest in these lands with the City to allow for expanded public access and to help secure the long-term conservation of these natural resources. That has not been done either. But, a year an a half ago the Town said lets do this, this is the thing to do. This is what we are going to do. The Action Plan adopted by the Town Board July th 7 2003 says as far as the City of Glens Falls watershed lands the strategy is to determine opportunities to continue to provide these open spaces for current and future generations in the form of a master plan. That is the strategy that you adopted. The tasks that you stated were work with the City of Glens Falls on a Master Plan for these lands. Now, in December of this year the Mayor of Glens Falls sent a letter to the Town asking the Town to work with the City and I will read it into the record here. It is dated December 22, 2004 it is from Mayor Robert A. Regan It is to Daniel G. Stec Dear Supervisor Stec, I have reviewed the relevant portions of the Town of Queensbury 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan adopted 12-21-98 and Open Space Vision for the Town of Queensbury adopted 7-7-2003, and the Open Space Vision Appendix Action Plan adopted 7-7-2003 as they pertain to the land owned by the City of Glens Falls. These documents consistently set forth a long term planning vision for the Town of Queensbury that includes discussions, meetings, and working with the City of Glens Falls. This work includes discussions of a joint comprehensive watershed and land use management plan and the development of a Master Plan for the thousands of acres of land that the City owns within the Town. Through this letter, as Mayor of the City of Glens Falls, I formally ask the Town of Queensbury to follow through on the Town’s stated plans and meet with the City of Glens Falls to develop a Master Plan for all of the City’s watershed areas. The areas that need to be discussed include the areas that the Town has, or is seeking to change in zoning from PR-10 to PR-42 and LC-10 to LC-42. Now that having been stated and now in the record that the Town has stated that you intent to plan that is your action to work with the City on a Master Plan a year and a half ago. The Mayor has asked you to do it. Your own Planning Board has said do not pass this law send it to the Planning Ordinance Review Committee, and the Planning Ordinance Review Committee has stated that we need a new Master Plan and the Town Supervisor 789 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 has said we are going to have a new Master Plan. So, my recommendation and the position of the City is do what you say you’re going to do develop the Master Plan and to work with the City of Glens Falls and when you have the Master Plan then pass the ordinance because that is the way it should be done. Thank you. Attorney Matt Fuller-Mr. Supervisor, Members of the Town Board for the record Matt Fuller from the Law Firm Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker. Firth in Glens Falls for the Glens Falls Water Sewer Board I have been working with Jim very closely on this and the Mayor and had just a couple of points that I wanted to add. I had some detailed comments but Mrs. Monahan so successfully argues the SEQRA arguments. One thing I wanted to clear up is this justification of the forty-two acre designation in the APA zone. I think it needs to be clear both to the Town Board and to the members of the public reviewing this that the APA designation is not a minimum use, or minimum density. There is no forty-two acre minimum density in the Adirondack Park Act what it is, is an average of forty-two point seven acres over a given area usually a square mile. So, in any given area you can have lots that are five acres and you have can lots that are eighty acres. Indeed if you read the APA Act regulations the enactment language there the regulations there and the citizens guide from the APA they will all tell you that same thing. That it is an average of forty-two point seven acres not a minimum of forty-two acres and the reason that they did that is to encourage clustering. That is something that people have commented on tonight and I would encourage you to look at that as well. Because what you have done if you enact a ten to forty-two acre zone again not just in the APA within the blue line but also outside of the blue line is you have actually imposed a regulation that is more restrictive than the Adirondack Park Act. Because, you will essentially remove that average from the APA. It will no longer be an average because you have no clustering relief that would allow somebody with eighty acres to preserve sixty acres and have four or five units on twenty acres. That is something that I would seriously encourage you to do. The second is Mrs. LaGrasse commented on the super majority provisions of Town Law she said two eighty-five but it is two sixty-five and I would like to submit for the record on behalf of the City of Glens Falls a Notice of Protest pursuant to Town Law Section Two Sixty Five. And it reads as follows: Please take Notice that the Undersigned being the owners of real property constituting twenty percent or more of the land included in the proposed zoning change from Land Conservation ten acres to Land Conservation forty two acres in the Town of Queensbury do here by file this Notice of Protest with the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury in accordance with Town Law Section 2651 as per staff notes regarding the proposed amendment the proposed amendment impacts eight thousand four hundred and eighty six acres in the Town of Queensbury. The City of Glens Falls is the owner of two thousand three hundred and seventy one point forty six acres making it a twenty seven point nine four six percent stake holder in the LC zone. I would like to file that with the Clerk. Signed by the Mayor Supervisor Stec-We have some experience with those, already from another matter I am referring to. Attorney Matt Fuller-With that I will defer to Jim and Mrs. Monahan comments. Supervisor Stec-Yes, Sir. Mr. Jim West-I am Jim West I have been a resident of Queensbury since 1965 and have been in Indian Lake for the last four years coming back this summer and really can’t wait to come back. I have also seen some of the affects of the APA zoning and what it does to these little hamlets. It is not progressive, I mean it is negative things prevails up there but that is not why I am here, I am here for the Joshua’s Rock Corp. We own eighty-seven acres adjacent to Route 9L and are you familiar with the property? Councilman Boor-What was the name of.. Supervisor Stec-What was the name of the corporation? Mr. West-Joshua’s Rock Corporation That currently is ten acre zoning and we are a family corporation that the stock is actually blood lined. So, you have to inherit it and so 790 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 far we do not pay any dividends we have to pay into it to keep it the way it is. Keeping this family in control is pretty difficult. But, because we also own across the street two thousand feet of lakefront along with sixteen acres of undeveloped timber lot another four acres that we have developed. But if you look at it, it is not it is a throw back to the fifty’s. My point is this, if you, if this zoning goes through and there isn’t the perception in the family owners, people that are paying money into this thing, if there is a perception that they never will be able to build they will want to bail and sell the whole thing. So, again I think what Dick Merrill said we certainly would like to work with you guys anyway we could. We did this with the Mountainside Library as Dick knows and it has been a problem but we have been working our way thorough it. I am sure that we can do the same thing here. Thank you. Supervisor Stec-Thank you Sir. Ms. Cathy Gomes- 91 Tuthill Road in Queensbury I own sixty-three acres of land in the southwest side of Queensbury in RR-5 and LC-10 zoning. I came here tonight without a really strong opinion one-way or the other for or against this project. But, I do have some other comments that I think needs to be considered very carefully when you are considering doing this. We have heard tonight that the reason for this is to maintain the rural character of this property of these areas. That much of it is mountainous, forested land with steep slopes and we want to maintain that open space and maintain the vistas of our town. I agree with that part of it one hundred percent. In fact since I moved here eight years ago I have been fighting in front of the Zoning Board and Planning Board multiple times in order to maintain that in my own neighborhood. Mr. Strough knows this because he has been at some of those meetings. Quite honestly there is a disconnect in my view between what this Board is trying to do with increasing the zoning and with what your own Planning Board and Zoning Boards do in enacting the zoning. In order for Zoning to be workable for it to have any impact you need to have careful and thoughtful enforcement of the zoning and we do have that in this town right now in my opinion. Some of the Zoning Meetings that I have been at quite honestly in my opinion have been nothing short of buffoonery. There is a total inconsistency one person who is in front of the board is denied a variance of three percent and the next person is granted a variance of forty nine percent. There is no rhyme or reason to it, it makes no sense. I live on one of those pieces of property that is forested that is mountainous. I do not see how you can look at changing the zoning when you are not enforcing what you already have. When on Tuthill Road and on the dirt road behind it Bear Town Road excuse me you have residents who have been allowed to build on slopes well in excess of twenty five percent, you have residents who have been allowed to clear cut property, you have residents who have been allowed to dynamite the face and the top off of the mountain. How you can sit here and say forty-two acre zoning is going to fix things when you are allowing those abuses to occur I do not understand where the connection is. Councilman Strough-Some of that is in the Town of Luzerne. Ms. Gomes-But the road is in Queensbury. You allowed them to build the road. Councilman Strough-I didn’t. Ms. Gomes-Well, Queensbury did. So, Councilman Strough-Nor would I have. Ms. Gomes-You can see what has been done to that mountain from Granville and probably farther. I am sure you can see it from the ski resorts in Vermont it is a disgrace it is an absolute disgrace. Forty-two acre zoning isn’t going to fix that. What is going to fix that is careful, thoughtful enforcement of the zoning that you already have. We do not have that now. So, before you decide to change the zoning and impact people who obviously feel very strongly about the value of their property and having the zoning change I suggest you first look carefully at your own policies and procedures within your planning and zoning board and decide to have some enforcement that makes sense. Thank you. 791 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 Supervisor Stec-Thank you. Anyone else? Sorry, Mr. Carte. Mr. Kelly Carte-Mr. Chariman, Members, My name is Kelly Carte I live at 659 West Mountain Road I own about one hundred and forty acres that is in LC10A some of it fronting on the infamous Fuller Road. A lot of the other, a lot of the points that I was thinking of here at the very beginning have been made by other people I would just go on record as been adamantly opposed to this. It seems like other people have said that the worthy goal of trying to keep the rural character of the town as being taking precedent over the equity of taking peoples property or taking the value of people’s property by changing this zoning and it is not really necessary in my opinion to do this. If you go up Fuller Road or any of the rest of them in the section of the Town that I am familiar with there are many ten acre lots there that have been built on in the past few years, and none of them give the appearance of any kind of over development of the Town. You can rarely see the houses that go in on these pieces of property. That is the reason why people buy these things is to be able to have some privacy. I have no real intention of developing my land but there is no doubt about it that changing the zoning to forty two acres from ten is going to be seriously devaluing the property that I own because I could develop it and evidenced by these other ten acre parcels on Fuller Road and other areas it could be developed quite easily to be very spacious, very giving a very good appearance to the town without resorting to the forty two acres zoning. As we have mentioned one time the problem I have or the thing that I think is impacting this is the allowance of clustering in situations like this. We discussed this once before in regards to the property on West Mountain Road that is being developed by Western Reserves a corporation owned by the now Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals and instead of as the last lady just said, instead of following the zoning as it applies to this area and following the zoning as it is written they were allowed to cluster on thirty three acres of land twenty five houses right down on West Mountain Road along West Mountain Road leaving the land in the back as the green space. Now, I would submit if they had been, by the way the zoning on the land was one acre zoning. Had they been required to do what the people that just built on the end of Potter Road is also one acre zoning and they put a road in and they have some nice lots there one acre lots and they are going to have a nice spacious subdivision. Had they been required to do this the appearance, the visual appearance of this would have been maintaining or working toward maintaining what the town wants which is a more spacious character a more rural character. Allowing clustering so that they can more easily afford to do the subdivision and have a shorter road and put everything right down on the road where everybody sees it, it gives an appearance of just another crowded subdivision here with the land in the back. What good is I think there are probably about twenty three or twenty four acres in the back that is being undeveloped what good is that to anybody in the town of what benefit is it to anyone. It is private land no one in the town can access that land on one in the town could even see that land so what benefit is clustering this type of thing where you have tens or hundreds of acres of in excess able land privately owned and allowing the houses, the number of houses that could be built on this property down clustered on half acre, one acre or whatever where everybody will see this. It just does not make any sense to me. If you had just removed the clustering aspect on this and kept the land in ten acre zone it would not be profitable for people to develop land that way putting in a road with four hundred foot minimum frontage required for every piece of parcel in practicality you probably couldn’t even do it that way you would have to have considerably more than that for each parcel. You would have houses so far apart that you would be able to see one or two houses at a time. It would have maintained the open character of the town that you are looking for without taking the value of people’s property here. You are asking four hundred landowners here to provide the spacious character of the town for everyone else in the town. I also as one of the first people commenting made, I would like to know how many of these people that have letters in support of this actually own any property in the town here. I think that if they do not own property that their opinion on this is worth very little. Thank you. Ms. Kathy Sonnabend-I apologize for not being here for the whole meeting so I am not sure of everything that has transpired before I arrived. I submitted a letter to each of the members of the Town Board and I would like to go over. I am a property owner although I am not an owner that is affected by this rezoning directly. Queensbury derives a significant portion of its economic value and quality of life to its natural setting. Tourism 792 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 is a large contributor to the local and regional economy, and it is our beautiful mountains, forests and lakes that attract those visitors. Protecting these vistas is vital, and the proposed re-zoning to forty-two acres may be the first step toward this objective. However my support is conditional to the following: The Town Board should follow the recommendation of the Planning Board that the Planning Ordinance Review Committee review the re-zoning proposal. It falls under their mandate to review and update our Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Code, and hopefully this committee will ensure that the proposal is carefully considered rather than rushed into. I agree with some of the comments that I heard tonight that this really should be part of our over all updating of our Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Code. All affected property owners should have sufficient notice and opportunity to comment. I have prepared these comments for the last meeting when we thought this was going to be discussed and hopefully by this time all property owners are aware of this. There are times when public good may over ride individual property owner’s rights but the circumstances should be carefully considered. We need to be sure that all the land proposed to be included in the re-zoning properly belongs in this proposal. This rezoning, if adopted, cannot be used as an excuse to increase density elsewhere in Queensbury. Much of the land covered by the re-zoning would not have been subdivided and developed anyway under the current zoning for the following reasons: With respect to the Glens Falls watershed, Glens Falls voters are required by city law to approve any transfer or sale of this property. New York State Law severely limits development of watershed property even more so after 9/11 and Glens Falls and Queensbury back up each other’s water systems, probably requiring Queensbury’s agreement for any development. The true value of the watershed property is not in development opportunities, but in protecting the water supply for Glens Falls residents. Secondly many the private property owners already don’t want to see subdivision development of the land around them. Now maybe based on comments tonight that is an inaccurate statement but I do know that some property owners that would like it to maintain its forested nature. Also building on the steeper grades would require waivers from the existing Zoning Code. This addresses what Cathy Gomes was just speaking about. Too many times we see our existing code not even enforced so even changing the rezoning does not guarantee that it is going to do what we want it to do unless we are really following our zoning code going forward. At the Town Board workshop meeting on December 20, it was indicated that the build out study will finally th be released in early 2005. The June 30 draft of that study projected a substantial increase in population based on existing zoning and development on grades of less than 15%. Much of the land included in the proposed re-zoning should have been excluded from that study already due to the steeper grades, but if the re-zoning does eliminate some of the study’s projected increase, it is a good result that we do not want undone elsewhere in Queensbury. We still face growth that challenges the ability of our existing school campus to accommodate. We don’t want to become another Clifton Park. So, again we do not want this rezoning if adopted to be used as a good excuse to increase the density elsewhere in the future in Queensbury. There is much more we can do to protect the natural beauty and long-term economic viability of Queensbury. We can purchase conservation easements. We can foster mutual respect and cooperation with surrounding municipalities. And of course this includes Glens Falls. We can adopt a conservation planning approach to development in the town, as is being studied by the Planning Ordinance Review Committee, which I understand some members would be preferred to be called the Committee for Planning for future growth. Unfortunately, this committee review will take many months if not years to complete properly. A temporary building moratorium on subdivision development would certainly give that Committee and the Town Community Development Staff a big assist in getting this done before there is little undeveloped land left to affect. This temporary planning moratorium does not have to threaten people’s jobs in the construction industry, we have such a back load of construction already in the works in Queensbury and it would not have to affect individual property owners either. It would be a moratorium that would only apply to subdivision development for six months. Thank you. Supervisor Stec-Anyone else in the audience please? Yes, Sir. Mr. Tod Beadnell-Tod Beadnell, Blood Pond Road, Lake George Supervisor Stec-I am sorry Sir? 793 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 Mr. Tod Beadnell-Tod Beadness, Blood Pond Road, Lake George My issue is a fact of fairness. We are a property owner probably the least developable piece of property in all of Warren County it is the face of French of Mountain that you see from Route 9 and Blood Pond or in the Northway. My issue again is fairness. If you would like to reduce the density of a certain group of property owners one of which I am included in our family four hundred percent if you would like to do it fairly do it to all property owners in the Town of Queensbury. I am against this zoning law because it is not fair it does not affect all the property owners of Queensbury. Again, I am in favor of open space though if you actually do something good for the Town go ahead and affect all property owners. Reduce them all four hundred percent or none of them. Thank you very much. Supervisor Stec-Thank you, Sir. Mr. Stranahan-How are you Mr. Stec? Supervisor Stec-Good, how are you doing Mr. Stranahan. Mr. Stranahan-I would just like to just say that I am in favor of what Mr. Beadnell said that I think that we have a need in this town for green space and we should protect it you people should work on the slopes and do your jobs but as far as this law goes I think it verges on infringement totally on the people who own the land. I think infringes totally on us we own hundred of acres in the town and it totally infringes on us and you should be working on something like donating a little bit more money to the green space people and maybe buy an acre of land. Ok. That is about what I would like to say about it, I thank all my neighbors for coming and I think it is a good thing that they are here and I think we should do a little more donating to that green space and buy a little more land instead of just taking it from people. Supervisor Stec-Good to see you tonight, thanks Mr. Stranahan. Anyone else first time through? Yes, Dr. Hoffman. Dr. Mark Hoffman-My name is Mark Hoffman from Fox Hollow Lane I am speaking to night on behalf of Citizens for Queensbury Our steering committee met and discussed this issue last thursday night and we had a variety of concerns and opinions on it. I would say in general we favor reduction of density in environmentally sensitive areas. When carefully done with appropriate planning and review of the specific properties and the issues involved that are specific to those properties it may be a benefit to the town as a whole. We did have several concerns however; first has become evident tonight it is really necessary to look in detail at all of the properties involved to determine whether they all should be subject to this wide spread rezoning, some properties may be in- appropriate. Second, we are concerned that a passage of a law such as this will be used as an excuse for failing to act to preserve open space in the Town as a whole. Some of, many of the properties involved are already un-developable. The number of potential units of housing which would be reduced by this will not be sufficient to significantly impact on the over all population issue in the Town of Queensbury in terms of over development. With the exception of the watershed property between Peggy Ann and Potter which is already been rezoned I believe. Many of these properties are along the outskirts of the Town and are not within walking distance of the major population centers. One of our main concerns has been to make sure that people who live in these densely populated population centers have access within walking distance to park land type areas. So, I am not sure that a rezoning of this sort would really address that issue either. We hope that and believe that the Town Board will support the Planning Ordinance Review Committee to look at the over all issue of density in the Town and make carefully planned recommendations in that regard. We are particularly interested for example in the area surrounding Rush Pond many of which are currently zoned one acre and which will have a major impact not only on the overall population density in the Town but on some environmentally sensitive areas in that area. We feel that this rezoning with regard to the City’s watershed is probably over all a good thing, however it is not a substitute for a conservation easement with the town, with the City of Glens Falls. I think only a cooperative spirit between the Town and the City would accomplish that which will provide the passive recreation needs of both communities and also ensure the 794 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 safety of the water supply of Glens Falls. On a personal note I would say as a taxpayer in the City of Glens Falls where my business is as well as someone who drinks Glens Falls water on a regular basis I feel that the City of Glens Falls should not be spending a lot of time and energy against this type of rezoning. I feel it is in the interest of the City and it is in my interest as a taxpayer in the City of Glens Falls to make sure that the drinking water in Glens Falls is permanently protected. I understand that there is a filtration plant present but I feel that it is important to have multiple layers of protection to the water and also as a resident of Queensbury it is possible that we may need that water as a backup as well. So, I listened to Mr. LaPann’s arguments and I agree with his concerns about the process involved however I did not really hear anything of a substantive nature that would make me feel that these that the City watershed properties are not appropriate for forty-two acre zoning. Supervisor Stec-Thank you Dr. Hoffman. Anyone else here this evening want to comment on this public hearing? Yes, Sir. Mr. Scott Spellburg-My name is Scott Spellburg I live up off from Bay Road I was here for the open space act Supervisor Stec-We didn’t hear your last name Sir. Mr. Spellburg-Spellburg I was here for the open space act and at that time then it was only a handful of landowners that were in question and I asked you then like I will ask you now when you notify somebody don’t do it in the old style public way of putting in that little half inch square into the newspaper and expecting somebody to find it. Now you have got four hundred people involved, four hundred and ten, four hundred and twenty. I do not really think any of these people are for this, I could be wrong but I am pretty sure most of my neighbors here and I are really not for this. So, out of these four hundred people I suggest that you take the ,time to notify them, it is not a great loss of dollars of accounting to do this. As I put an investment in the Town of Queensbury years ago, ten years on this property and ten years on another property, within a stroke of a pen and a little line in a newspaper I could have missed by investment. You guys could have wiped out my investment and I not even knowing about it. If it wasn’t for my neighbors I probably wouldn’t know about it. But, these people that are writing letters in here and saying yea I am all for it I am sure they are, they are also in the areas that have been zoned half acre, acre zoning, you have used that land up until it looks like a zoo and now all of a sudden you want to save everybody else’s property for somebody else to look at or play on. I agree with everybody having a conservation space and there are areas that you should not be building on but you have to take a little more consideration in what you are doing at forty two zoning, ten acres zoning was more than enough in most places now you have gone to a forty two acre zoning and you never even gave it any thought what kind of land you are even zoning with the exception of slope and elevation charts, that really doesn’t fit the description. I just want to make sure everybody knows that I am strongly opposed and if you are going to do something that has such a small amount of people involved how you can’t at least send them a letter and say hey, I would like to change your land and drop it seventy five percent of its value would you want to attend the meeting. I am pretty sure everybody involved would. That is all I got to really say. Thanks. Supervisor Stec-Anyone else this evening? Ok. At this point Darleen why don’t we just go through and however you want to handle the letter, you did receive several. Town Clerk Darleen Dougher: Ltrs. Filed in Town Clerk’s Office Letters of Support – Queensbury School, Lake George Waterkeeper, Lake George Association, Lake George Park Commission, The Fund for Lake George, The Lake George Watershed Conference, The Lake George Land Conservancy and the Adirondack Park Agency was mentioned before Letters of Opposition - Lake George RV Park, Christopher G. & Kathryn M. Crandall, John Whalen, South Bay Realty, also on file the letters from Kathleen W. Sonnabend and City of Glens Falls 795 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 Supervisor Stec-Although you are not going to read them they are all part of the official public hearing record, for those of you that are concerned. Town Clerk-Dougher-They are all part of the record. Unknown-Could I just ask one question? Supervisor Stec-We are going to go back to, any other letters then, and Marilyn did we miss any letters or correspondence that you think is relevant that Darleen doesn’t have? Executive Director Ryba-No Supervisor Stec-At this point we will go back the second time through for anyone that wants to add anything else or ask any other questions and Mr. Merrill we will start with you. Mr. Richard Merrill-When we opened up this evening we pointed out that any change in the zoning should be compatible to the Comprehensive Lane Use Plan. There has been a lot of excellent comments tonight I listened very carefully and what have come through very clear to me is the existing Comprehensive Lane Use Plan does not address the issues that we are looking at tonight. In my mind very premature to consider any rezoning at this point in time because the existing plan does not consider these issues and the detail that is necessary to support rezoning. Very clearly and I have been saying this for several years the plan needs to be redone, it needs to be reissued. As part of that community involvement is very important and neighborhood meetings to get the sense of each neighborhood. There are different issues to be faced each neighborhood is different and unique and that is one of the things and strengths of Queensbury is its uniqueness each part of town does have its own character and that needs to be addressed in the plan. That is why I have come around after listening to all the excellent comments tonight a blanket rezone will not work. You need to redo the Comprehensive Land Use Plan that is a multi year process it is not something that is done over night as I said the former one took four years and it certainly has a lot of inadequacies. So, the process would be to meet with neighborhoods to get the individual inputs to find out what works best for each area. Most importantly on the watershed plan to work with the City and I think here is an opportunity to work together, City and Town to come up with something that is good for all of us. So, again I think this is premature to consider you need to redo the Comprehensive Land Use Plan so you have a sound basis on which to base a rezoning. So, thank you. Supervisor Stec-Thank you Dick. Anyone else, Sir did you want to? Please come to the mic. Sir I am sorry for the inconvenience. Mr. Jim West-I one question when you were, the organizations that you read off I am not aware of all what they, I certainly know the APA but how about the Lake George Waterkeeper, do you know is there anyway you can have a little summary of what each one … Councilman Boor-You can pick them up at the Clerk’s Office. Supervisor Stec-All those letters are part of the public record if you want to grab them. Mr. West-Do they say what they, who they are? Supervisor Stec-The name, yes and the contact information is all on the letterhead. Councilman Boor-We could read them but Supervisor Stec-There are a lot of them it would take, they are all lengthy. Mr. Matt Fuller-Again for the record Matt Fuller I just had a couple of quick follow up points in response to a couple of comments. In one note do dispel another myth on this is the minimum lot size now if you would enact the zoning change for a subdivision would 796 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 be eighty two acres, eighty four acres not forty two acres. As I was sitting back there I counted after the zoning change sixteen out of four hundred parcels could be subdivided, five of which are owned by the City of Glens Falls. If you enacted the zoning change to forty-two acres you would up the non-conforming lots to three hundred and seventy two out of four hundred lots in a zone. I think that is worthy of study alone as people have correctly pointed out a lot of that property is different in different areas of the town. Now, the fact that you have three hundred and seventy two out of four hundred non- conforming lots speaks highly to the fact that maybe looking at some alternatives is in order. One substantive comment that the Doctor just raised is that the property owners particularly the City haven’t raised any good reasons why the property should not be rezoned to forty-two acres and I am sure Ms. LaGrasse will comment on this as well. It is not for property owners to prove why property should not be rezoned, it is for the Town to prove why it should be rezoned. The Town’s justification so far that I have heard is to be in conformance with the APA forty-two acre zone which I alluded to earlier is incorrect. To protect the City’s watershed property which save for a possible phone call in August has certainly not been conducted. The last justification that I have seen that it is in conformance with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the Open Space Vision for the Town which Jim LaPann alluded to earlier is clearly not the case because particularly with regard to the City’s watershed property, both of those plans say that a Master Plan will be created between the Town and the City on those properties. I think as far as have we discussed the Town’s justification for this possible zoning change I think we have and I think it should definitely be noted that it is not for property owners to prove why rezoning should not take place it is the opposite. Thank you. Supervisor Stec-Anyone else want to comment this evening? Ok. Board Members any comment here. As I said before we were not going to take action on this tonight and we will certainly be considering everyone’s comments and does have a process to continue to go through and beyond the Planning Ordinance Review Committee, I am taking a look at it, it is also a requirement that it be reviewed by the APA so the Town cannot take actions even if it wanted to this evening. All right with that I will close the public hearing and we will not be taking any action on this tonight and I do not anticipate any action on this for sometime. We will close the public hearing to forward the comments along to the APA and thank everyone certainly for your input and believe me it did not fall on deaf ears the Town certainly understands both sides of this issue, the Town Board does and believe me we will be talking to people I am sure informally on the street and allow this to continue to go through its process. In the mean time and I think actually Doctor Hoffman I think you hit the nail on the head I could not have said it much better myself, you essentially said with respect to the City’s watershed property that these other discussions should move along in parallel and not in lieu of, as my words not your but that is essentially what I was hearing tonight. I did get a phone call from Jim Martin who wants to have a conversation and we will as a courtesy to the City I will certainly be talking with Mr. Martin to hear what he wants to run past the town. It will certainly in lieu of and or it will be in parallel and in addition to what we are doing and not in lieu of and I want to make sure that, that is clear for the record for the City’s Attorneys that are present. (Five Minute Break) Supervisor Stec-Before we move into Open Forum just wanted to thank our sponsor TV8 working with Glens Falls National Bank for sponsoring the televising of our Town Board Meetings. Noted Town’s webside www.queensbury.net 5.0 OPEN FORUM Mr. Robert Williams-55 Country Club Road spoke to the Board regarding neighbor’s children riding motorcycles around their own home no mufflers and no helmets..what can be done? Councilman Strough-Noted this is not the only part of town where we have had this problem…it is also in the watershed property…the noise is the problem the parents 797 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 allowing the kids to take the mufflers off…look into a way to keep the mufflers on the bikes… Councilman Brewer-It is a problem with enforcement..the only avenue I have found in my own particular residence is you have to call the Sheriff, if they are riding on their own property there is not a lot that they can do. Councilman Boor-I believe that the law requires that they be insured,…I do not know how far you want to go with the law enforcement aspect but as Mr. Brewer pointed out the Warren County Sheriff is the only individual that has the authority to act on this… Mr. Williams-Suggested a noise ordinance. Mrs. Betty Monahan-Unless it has been rescinded we have an ordinance on the books for ATV’s how close they could ride to neighbors property and the mufflers… It would be nice if the Town could find a place where the kids could ride their bikes… Mr. Pliney Tucker-41 Division Road Re: Glen Lake Road The Great Escape wants the Town and County to pay for upgrades? Supervisor Stec-The Great Escape is on the hook for numerous road improvements as they build their hotel and ring road and pedestrian overpass and they have been going through the Planning Board in that process, they did come to the Town Board there are some things in their opinion that are above and beyond what they were on the hook for that DOT is requiring so they have been looking for help….we are willing to consider it if the County was willing to participate in these improvements, a right hand turn lane coming off the Glen Lake Road, improvements to the off ramp on Exit 20 coming northbound … Mr. Tucker-This would not be needed if it weren’t for the expansion of the park? Supervisor Stec-Correct..we were trying to get permission to hound DOT to put a light there… Councilman Boor-They said it wasn’t necessary.. now it is because of what the Great Escape is proposing. Councilman Strough-When we were doing the Great Escape GEIS I said there needed to be an additional lane between Exit 20 and Gurney Lane, no one bought that at the time but now DOT is now saying the same thing. Mr. Tucker-Your problems with South Queensbury Fire Dept. hold long before you will get that done so it is, no longer in the newspaper? Supervisor Stec-Noted that there was a meeting with the new leadership of South Queensbury last week it went very well, we do have a plan… Mr.Tucker-Re: Private Garbage collection in the town, where did you get the information? Supervisor Stec-That was from the State Comptrollers Office Councilman Brewer-The concept is not mandatory it is completely voluntary the State came to Dan’s Office I sat in on the meeting, the Town would put out to bid for any or all contractors to haul garbage away for the residents in the Town the economy of scale is basically how it works. If a garbage collector can go into a neighborhood and collect everybody’s garbage it is a better benefit for the neighborhood it is a better benefit for the hauler, he can pickup more in a shorter period of time so therefore it saves money for everybody. Noted there is no intention of closing the transfer stations… Supervisor Stec-This actually got started it came to the town thorough the comptrollers office but it started with the Warren County Solid Waste Committee a couple of years 798 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 ago and the comptrollers office was involved in that study and that was to do with the burn plant….a draft letter went back to the Comptrollers Office saying that the math looks good to us and we would like to have a workshop from that they are to send us back what we got in draft form from them in a final form I have not received that yet. Once that is received then the Town Board and the Comptrollers Office and Jennifer will sit down with Counsel and start asking questions..on the surface it looks good so far. Noted if it was bid together with the City we might get a better price… Mr. Tucker-Noted he did not see a reason to raise the fees at the transfer stations… Supervisor Stec-We were losing money..the fees had not been changed in ten years. Mr. Lou Stone-Questioned if that could be explained more, would it be a tax? Supervisor Stec-The Comptrollers Office told us it could be a couple of ways, a bill, or on the tax bill… Ms. Karen Angleson-1 Greenwood Lane I would like to support the Citizens for Queensbury Steering Committee urging that the Town Board adopt a temporary moratorium on residential subdivisions. I think that came out tonight loud and clear that we need to give the PORC Committee time to seriously evaluate and revise the Town’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. It seems like almost everyone that talked tonight brought that forth. A time period needs to be set that is reasonable to allow the town to go forward in a sensible direction. I believe neighboring towns have done this one of them being Clifton Park and they have found a temporary moratorium of a year to eighteen months to be beneficial. We have not seen the final build out study from the school we have seen a draft and we have not seen a final one and its impact on the town and we need to be careful as a Town not to continue to approve the multiple requests for variances that are coming before the Planning and Zoning Board by subdivision developers without careful review. Please let us do a good job of keeping Queensbury a beautiful place to live. Supervisor Stec-Thank you, Karen, anyone else like to address the Board this evening? Dr. Hoffman. Dr. Mark Hoffman-Mark Hoffman Fox Hollow Lane Just a quick follow up on the public hearing listening to the justification for the rezoning I may have missed it but I did not hear the words protect the City’s water supply. I would think that would certainly should be toward the top of the list as a reason why you should go with the lower zoning density not only for their benefit but for ours since we might in some circumstances become dependent on that water as well. Supervisor Stec-I agree with you it is a water quality issue both in the Glens Falls watershed and the Lake George watershed. I have seen the map I do not see it here that very north west corner up near the northern end of Butler Pond is actually in the Lake George drainage basin. Dr. Hoffman-On a separate issue the subject of property rights came up tonight and I just wanted to remind the Town that the Town also has some property rights I am thinking specifically of the property that the Town owns at Indian Ridge. I was just up there I do not spend a lot of time up on the ridge there since the development went in but I did notice that some of the properties that border up to the towns property are sort of extending their back yards into that area. My wife is convinced that they are cutting wood I am not sure that is correct or not but sure I can tell you I have seen posts coming up showing invisible dog fences, what appears to me to be well into the towns property. Maybe someone should take a look at that. One last item: I mentioned early about the Land Conservancy and also my comments on the rezoning the importance on the areas around Rush Pond, many of which are zoned one acre. If you take a look at the map you will see in the western part of town there are really only two swaths of undeveloped property one if the City’s watershed and the other is the Rush Pond area extending westward toward West Mountain Road. That is not a hypothetical issue that is a definite area that is under intense development pressure, much of it is zoned at a fairly high 799 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 density and it will disappear in the near future unless the Town takes action. A temporary moratorium would be one approach while the PORC committee takes a look at it. Conservation zoning at some point may be helpful I also would question whether we should look at attempting to purchase some conservation easements at some point sooner rather than later. I understand for example the Finch Pruyn Property is about to sell off for development in the very near future. Councilman Brewer-What property is that? Dr. Hoffman-It is toward the western part of the Rush Pond area. Supervisor Stec-Noted he had contacted Finch Pruyn then noted they had an approved subdivision a couple decades ago … Councilman Strough-Noted it was for forty-four units which I do not think would fly in todays standards… Supervisor Stec-Anyone else this evening? Thank you everyone. We did have a very lengthily public hearing this evening and I am sure everyone is kind of spent from that but I thought it was a very good process. I would like to indirectly thank the private individuals that I know that were responsible for helping us contract and reach out to the public we appreciate the help that we get from those avenues when we get it. Just briefly, I do want as a recap of last year and going forward this year. Thank the Town Board I think we had a very productive year. We fought many good fights on many fronts and I think that the Town is a better town for the efforts that the Board put in and staff. We did have our service awards recognition night Friday for Town Employees and we had a very good turn out from those employees but for those are at home that did not hear my remarks then. The Town is very fortunate to be blessed with the quality of employees that we have both from Department Head Staff right down to the temporary recreation help that we get in the summer months, the kids in high school. We have got a lot of people that have put their heart and sole into making the town a good place to live that have worked here a lot longer than the five of us have worked here and many of them will be here a lot longer than all of us will be here. So, we did recognize them and we do thank them both the long ten years ones that we recognized but certainly every town employee has really, we made them hustle in 2004 I think it is fair to say that we kept everyone very busy. I do not think I would get any arguments from the Department Heads about that. From a recreation standpoint the Town has got a lot more to offer now than it did a year ago. Certainly from a budgeting and financial perspective the town continues to be extremely healthy. The local Comptrollers Office that come and regularly inspect our processes and audit out books and the independent auditor that has audited all our books which is a first time in a few years that has been done have all continued to give us a very clean bill of health and very high marks on our procedures. The Clerk’s Office is always on the ball and has dealt with the public on a very professional manner and I could go on and on the Planning Staff was certainly under fire on a lot of fronts last year. I am trying to make everyone happy which I haven’t come across a receipt yet on how to make a cake without breaking eggs but if there is one I am sure that they have got it somewhere in the files down in the Planning Department. But, they have had their hands full and they have done a great job for us. I think that the Town is very fortunate position in just about every front that I can think to name and so I want on behalf of the Board certainly point that out to the Town and thank the Town’s Employees in the process of doing that. We had a very good year and I think that the Board is looking forward to a very good year, this year. I think we started it off tonight with a very solid meeting. So, I think the Town Board Members should be happy with what we have accomplished so far in this term and I look forward to working with everyone this coming year and the rest of the term. RESOLUTION ADJOURING TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO. 43, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION 800 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1-10-2005 MTG. 1 SECONDED BY Mr. Theodore Turner RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns is Organizational Meeting for 2005. Duly adopted this 10, day of January, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: None Respectfully submitted, Miss Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk-Queensbury