Loading...
2010-03-15 MTG#11 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 655 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG #11 March 15, 2010 RES. 134-148 7:00 P.M. L.L. 1-4 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN ANTHONY METIVIER COUNCILMAN RONALD MONTESI COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER TOWN COUNSEL ROBERT HAFNER MICHAEL HILL TOWN OFFICIALS WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, MIKE SHAW BRUCE OSTRANDER, WATER SUPERINTENDENT ASSESSOR, TERI ROSS SENIOR PLANNER, STUART BAKER PRESS TV 8 POST STAR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN ANTHONY METIVIER DEPUTY SUPERVISOR BREWER OPENED MEETING COUNCILMAN BREWER- Supervisor Stec will be here shortly 1.0PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARING- WATER TRANSMISSION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS IN BROADACRES, CARLTON DRIVE AND LYNNFIELD DRIVE PROJECT AREAS WITHING THE QUEENSBURY CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: MARCH 5, 2010 EBCOUNCILMAN BREWER- This is for improvements as Rose said. Bruce if you would like to come up and please explain what we are about to do. BRUCE OSTRANDER, WATER SUPERINTENDENT AND JIM EDWARDS, C.T. MALE ASSOCIATE DESIGN ENGINEERS WATER SUPERINTENDENT, OSTRANDER- This project we call the Broadacres project. It is actually in three different areas and the purpose is to actually finish what we started years ago and have been chasing replacing all of our asbestos cement pipe that is in the Queensbury water district. We feel this project is a little larger but at the end of this project we will have no more asbestos cement in the Queensbury water district at all. So, this project is in three different areas, primarily in Broadacres with Hughes Court, Queensbury Place and Bentley Place. Part of it on Carlton Drive, up across from the Mall with also some work done on Aviation Road to clear up some work that was done in the late sixties, early seventies; and then further up Aviation Road in the Moorwood, Crestwood, Lynnwood area. Again, replacing asbestos cement pipe and some of the older tuberculated, unlined cast iron pipe in those areas; it is a fairly large project. There is about thirteen thousand feet of pipe and the Engineer’s estimate was approximately 1.9 million. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 656 COUNCILMAN BREWER- This will go out to bid in the next couple of days WATER SUPERINTENDENT, OSTRANDER- Go out to bid. We do not see having to bond this. We are going to use fund balance to pay for this project. So, there will be no effect on the tax rate whatsoever. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Carlton Drive… you’ve been up in June Drive, in that area in the past and replaced a lot. Will this finish that neighborhood? WATER SUPERINTENDENT, OSTRANDER- It will finish that neighborhood yes. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- And Broadacres you are just going to come in from Dixon and do Hughes Court WATER SUPERINTENDENT, OSTRANDER- Hughes Court, Bentley Place and Queensbury Place and there is a little bit of Pershing that has some older cast iron. We want to replace the older cast iron where it might be a dead end and we could have water quality problems. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- What kind of delay or inconvenience will some of our residents incur when you are on Hughes Court or Carlton? What we can expect in terms of concerns. MR. EDWARD, C.T. MALE- Most of the existing water main is near the edge of the pavement. We are trying to keep the new main right about where the pavement edges and the curbing edges so at the worst it should be one lane of traffic closed during work hours from neighborhood street. So we can at least keep one lane of traffic open during construction. Most times it will be off the pavement actually on most streets. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Okay, an interruption of service into a home? MR. EDWARDS- Should be minimized. We are going to put all the new stuff in first, test the mains, tap the mains and when the mains are all ready for service, switch over to the new mains from the old. So it should be a minimal disruption. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- So the laterals will be in place. MR. EDWARDS- Yes, that is correct. Replacing all the curb stops as well and the copper to the property lines is part of this project. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- Do these roads get repaved or just patched over MR. EDWARDS- Just patched where the water main disturbance limits were. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- And that’s part of the cost MR. EDWARDS- Yes COUNCILMAN BREWER- I think if you look Tony, over in the west end of town they did a similar job by Cumberland Farms. The pavement that they have to put back down is really minimal. MR. EDWARDS- In terms of width yeah, it’s the same depth as the pavement is out there today but the widths usually are between three and six feet, in that neighborhood. COUNCILMAN BREWER- Any questions John? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- No COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Bruce, what did you call it a “perculated duct”? REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 657 WATER SUPERINTENDENT, OSTRANDER- Tuberculation COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Yeah, what is that? WATER SUPERINTENDENT, OSTRANDER- That’s actually where you can get iron build up or corrosion within the pipe and it will actually take maybe a six inch pipe and could possibly even cut it down to maybe a four inch pipe. So, it restricts your volume and your pressures. It also has a negative effect on your c-factors, meaning your pipe’s not as smooth so that it’s inefficient hydraulically. Actually, I sent one but I anticipated that question so I didn’t know if you wanted to see what happened in West Glens Falls (presented Board with a picture of corroded pipe). COUNCILMAN BREWER- You set Ron, Tony? COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Yes COUNCILMAN METIVIER- Yes COUNCILMAN BREWER- Okay with that I will open the public hearing. If there is anyone from the public that would like to comment or question on this particular project? Okay, no takers, we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WATER TRANSMISSION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS IN BROADACRES, CARLTON DRIVE AND LYNNFIELD DRIVE PROJECT AREAS WITHIN THE QUEENSBURY CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO.: 134, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board duly established the Town of Queensbury Consolidated Water District (the "District") in accordance with New York Town Law, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to improve the District’s water transmission facilities by replacing water mains onCarlton Drive to Aviation Road area, Broadacres in the Hughes Court area, Lynnfield Drive, Moorwood Drive, Crestwood Drive, Pinewood Avenue, Sunset Drive, Westmore Avenue and a small section of Buena Vista Drive, all in accordance with Town Law §202-b, and WHEREAS, C.T. Male Associates, P.C., professional engineers, have prepared an Engineer’s Report (the “Map and Plan”) concerning the proposed water transmission system improvements together with an estimate of the cost of such improvements, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 658 WHEREAS, the Map and Plan was duly filed in the Queensbury Town Clerk's Office and made available for public inspection, 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), st WHEREAS, on March 1, 2010, subsequent to the filing of the Map, Plan and Report with the Town Clerk, the Town Board adopted an Order (Public Hearing Order) reciting (a) the proposed improvements; (b) the maximum amount proposed to be expended for the improvements; (c) the fact that a Map, Plan and Report describing the improvements is on file in the Town Clerk’s Office; and (d) the time and place of a public hearing on the proposed Water District improvements, and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed Water District improvements was th duly held on Monday, March 15, 2010 and the Town Board has considered the evidence given together with other information, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize the proposed Water District improvements in accordance with Town Law §202-b, and WHEREAS, the Town has the funds to pay for the proposed Water District improvements in a Capital Reserve Fund previously established, and WHEREAS, any expenditure from such Capital Reserve Fund is subject to permissive referendum, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby determines that these actions are Type II actions under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and therefore are exempt from SEQRA review, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that it is the determination of the Queensbury Town Board that: 1.The Notice of Public Hearing was published and posted as required by law and is otherwise sufficient; REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 659 2.It is in the public interest to replace certain water mains in the Queensbury Consolidated Water District as described in the Map, Plan and Report on file with the Queensbury Town Clerk, such improvements generally being the: (a) replacement of existing asbestos cement (ACP) and cast iron water mains with class 52 (heavy wall) ductile iron pipe (DIP) and appurtenances as allowed by Queensbury Water Department Design & Construction Standards; and (b) replacement of service laterals to individual property lines with ¾” (or the same size that currently exists) copper pipe; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and approves the improvements to the Queensbury Consolidated Water District as set forth above and in the previously described Map, Plan and Report and construction of the improvements may proceed and service provided subject to the following: 1. the obtaining of any necessary permits or approvals from the New York State Department of Health; and 2. the obtaining of any necessary permits or approvals from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; 3.a permissive referendum in the manner provided in New York State Town Law Article 7; 4.the preparation of definite plans, specifications, a careful estimate of the expense and a proposed contract for the execution of the work and adoption thereof by the Town Board; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes the expenditure for the improvements as set forth above and in the Map, Plan and Report, in an amount not to exceed $1,943,754.00, shall be paid for from the Water District’s Capital Reserve Fund subject to a permissive referendum in the manner provided in New York State Town Law Article 7, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 660 RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to publish and post such notices and take such other actions as may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Stec PUBLIC HEARING- LOCAL LAW NO.: 1 OF 2010 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 136, ARTICLE XXIV ENTITLED “ESTABLISHMENT OF SEWER RENTS” TO INCREASE CHARGES FOR CENTRAL QUEENSBURY/QUAKER ROAD SEWER DISTRICT AND HILAND PARK SEWER DISTRICT NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: MARCH 5, 2010 COUNCILMAN BREWER- This public hearing is going to increase the rate slightly. I think I saw… zero to thirteen thousand gallons of water usage the fee goes from twenty five to thirty dollars quarterly. Three fifty a unit to four fifty per thousand in consumption after thirteen thousand. Mike any other changes? Non-residential use from five seventy five to six MIKE SHAW, WASTEWATER DIRECTOR- Correct, and with slight change in Hiland Park or the flat rates going from twenty five dollars per thirteen thousand gallons, so thirty dollars for the first thirteen thousand gallons. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- And this was part of the consolidation too right that we did Mike WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, SHAW- Our consolidation plan is going to run a little bit behind Ron. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Okay WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, SHAW- The State Statute has changed on how you consolidate districts. A little longer process, but we plan on working on it the next two months and those two districts will be consolidated COUNCILMAN MONTESI- And the fees will be the same so it will be easy WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, SHAW- This will put the fees both on the same page. The Central Queensbury/Quaker Road Sewer District the last couple of years we’ve been dipping into our fund balance to even the books each year so we aren’t raising enough O&M money so we need to raise rates. It’s about a forty eight dollar raise for a resident using eighty thousand gallons a year. COUNCILMAN BREWER- In total, what do you expect to raise in dollars annually or haven’t you figured that out WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, SHAW- Well, that’s certainly a moving target because it depends a lot on water use. We expect to raise another seventy five thousand dollars a year. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 661 COUNCILMAN BREWER- John, any questions? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- No COUNCILMAN BREWER- Okay, with that we can open this public hearing, if there is anyone from the public that would like to comment or ask any questions. This is easy anybody can do this. We’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO. 1 OF 2010 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 136, ARTICLE XXIV ENTITLED "ESTABLISHMENT OF SEWER RENTS" TO INCREASE CHARGES FOR CENTRAL QUEENSBURY/QUAKER ROAD SEWER DISTRICT AND HILAND PARK SEWER DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO.: 135, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: 1 of 2010 to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 136, Article XXIV entitled “Establishment of Sewer Rents," which Local Law would modify the sewer rent rates in the Central Queensbury/Quaker Road Sewer District and Hiland Park Sewer District, and WHEREAS, this legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State Municipal Home Rule Law §10, Town Law Article 16 and General Municipal Law Article 14-F, and th WHEREAS, the Town Board duly held a public hearing on Monday, March 15, 2010 and heard all interested persons, and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Local Law 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 enacts Local Law No.: 1 of 2010 to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 136, Article XXIV entitled “Establishment of Sewer Rents," which Local Law would modify the sewer rent rates in the Central REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 662 Queensbury/Quaker Road Sewer District and Hiland Park Sewer District, as presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to file the Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and acknowledges that the Local Law will take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Metivier NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Stec LOCAL LAW NO.: 1 OF 2010 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND CHAPTER 136, ARTICLE XXIV OF QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE ENTITLED "ESTABLISHMENT OF SEWER RENTS" BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Queensbury Town Code Article XXIV, entitled “Establishment of Sewer Rates,” Section 136-137 is hereby amended as follows: §136-137. Charges established. There is hereby established and imposed a scale of sewer rents for services rendered by the sewer system to the real property within the limits of the following sewer districts as set forth below: A. Charges pursuant to §136-135 hereof for the Central Queensbury/Quaker Road Sewer District: (1)For residential properties: For zero to 13,000 gallons of metered water usage, the charge shall be $30 quarterly for each residential unit, plus REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 663 $4.50 per thousand gallons of water consumption in excess of 13,000 gallons per quarter as indicated by the current water meter readings, billed on a quarterly basis. (2)For nonresidential properties: $6.00 per thousand gallons of water consumption, as indicated by the current water meter readings, billed on a quarterly basis. B. Charges pursuant to §136-135 hereof for the Queensbury Technical Park Sewer District: (1)For all occupied properties: $3.50 per thousand gallons of water consumption, as indicated by the current water meter readings, billed on a quarterly basis. C. Charges pursuant to §136-135 hereof for the Hiland Park Sewer District: (1)For residential properties: For zero to 13,000 gallons of metered water usage, the charge shall be $30 quarterly for each residential unit, plus $4.50 per thousand gallons of water consumption in excess of 13,000 gallons per quarter as indicated by the current water meter readings, billed on a quarterly basis. (2)For nonresidential properties: $6.00 per thousand gallons of water consumption, as indicated by the current water meter readings, billed on a quarterly basis. D. Charges pursuant to §136-135 hereof for the Pershing-Ashley-Coolidge Sewer District: (1) For all occupied properties: $3.50 per thousand gallons of water consumption, as indicated by the current water meter readings, billed on a quarterly basis. E. Charges pursuant to §136-135 hereof for the South Queensbury- Queensbury Avenue Sewer District: (1) For all occupied properties and contracted customers to the South Queensbury-Queensbury Avenue Sewer District: $4 per thousand gallons of water consumption, as indicated by the current water meter readings, billed on a quarterly basis. F. Charges pursuant to §136-135 hereof for the Route 9 Sewer District: REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 664 (1) For all occupied properties: $4 per thousand gallons of water consumption, as indicated by the current water meter readings, billed on a quarterly basis. SECTION 2. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph or provision of this Local Law shall not invalidate any other clause, sentence, paragraph or part thereof. SECTION 3. All Local Laws or ordinances or parts of Local Laws or ordinances in conflict with any part of this Local Law are hereby repealed. SECTION 4. This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing in the Office of the New York Secretary of State. PUBLIC HEARING- AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES (“PILOT” AGREEMENT) FOR JOHN BURKE APARTMENTS NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: MARCH 5, 2010 COUNCILMAN BREWER- Bob or Mike if you’d like to explain this for the public’s knowledge TOWN COUNSEL, MIKE HILL- I think as everybody knows John Burke Apartments is a two hundred and twenty seven unit apartment complex serving lower income residents of the Town and their families. The rents are subsidized and the Town has been approached by Liberty Affordable Housing with a proposal whereby Liberty would purchase the apartment complex and make extensive renovations and repairs to the apartments. Most of them would be interior renovations with some exterior repairs and improvements as well. In order to obtain the financing required to do the purchase of the apartments and all of the improvements, which are estimated to total about six and a half million dollars, the improvements alone. In order to get the financing for all of that Liberty needs to demonstrate to the New York State Housing Finance Agency that it has what’s called a “Pilot” program in place with the Town. The word “Pilot” stands for “payment in lieu of taxes”. It’s just as the name implies, it’s an agreement with the Town to pay to the Town fixed amounts annually instead of being subjected to tax bills which fluctuate. The Pilot enables the owners and investors who will be purchasing the property to know what their tax liability will be and enables them to plan with the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the New York State Housing Finance Agency. As it is, the Pilot Agreement will provide at least as much tax revenue as John Burke Apartment is now paying under the normal taxation process. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Mike, the one question I wanted to ask was not so much the dollar amount but there is an increase factor that is based on something with the feds. TOWN COUNSEL, HILL- That’s correct Ron. There is provision for an annual adjustment; it’s based on what is called the operating cost adjustment factor. That is a percentage that is collected annually by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Its intent, as we understand it, is to reflect increases to inflation and other factors. There is a provision built into the Pilot Agreement whereby the amount that would be paid to the Town every year would be adjusted, increased based on this operating cost adjustment REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 665 factor. The amount that’s being paid under the Pilot doesn’t remain static, it will, as time goes by, increase due to the operating cost adjustment factor. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Maybe you can share with the public, the School and the County, there is a percentage breakdown, we have talked to the school and I guess they’ve agreed, and also the Town doesn’t have a tax so at this point it’s not a meaningful issue. All of the special use districts, this corporation will be paying, sewer, fire, library, etc. COUNCILMAN BREWER- In full TOWN COUNSEL, HILL- That’s correct. All of those will continue to be paid under the normal process. The Pilot covers only the School District taxes, county taxes and any town wide general or highway tax, if such a tax is ever enacted in the future. The payment would be made would be divided between and among, well, initially it will be only the school district and the county, because the Town has no tax, as you know. But, if the Town ever comes in with a general tax or highway tax the money that’s paid gets divided, will be divided and a portion among the School District, the County, and the Town according to their relative tax rates for any year in question. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Again, just to point out, if the highway tax, if we do go to a highway tax, in the near future, that’s a district tax, and that wouldn’t be effected by this Pilot Agreement TOWN COUNSEL, HILL- That’s correct John, if it comes in as a special district tax rather than a general tax that would be reflected as such and would be paid as such. It would only be a Town general tax that would come in under the Pilot provision. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- And also we just got a load of information. For me, I just got home around five o’clock so I just got it and we got a new ten page draft agreement. We’ve got the letter from the School, and the School is the institution most impacted by this Pilot Agreement. I think that is pretty much the truth. TOWN COUNSEL, HILL- That’s correct because they get the most revenue COUNCILMAN STROUGH- I don’t think they’ve reviewed the draft agreement that I have before me because when I was reading Martin Auffredou, who’s the attorney for the School, he’s reviewing this previous agreement TOWN COUNSEL, HILL- That’s correct, his letter is based on the previous COUNCILMAN STROUGH- So the School hasn’t really had a chance to review this draft agreement. They did have some concerns, I mean, it’s tough for me in about a half hours time to try and absorb a ten page contract and a four page letter from the School addressing that it has some concerns. So as a result, I have some concerns. COUNCILMAN BREWER- What I thought of is of late this afternoon; the School was okay with everything except for the duration of the agreement TOWN COUNSEL, HILL- I think that’s what we received Tim was feedback from Liberty Affordable Housing, their attorneys. They have reviewed Martin Auffredou’s letter on behalf of the School District and they’ve indicated that Liberty is agreeable to modifying the proposed tax exemption agreement to take all of the School Districts concerns into account with the exception of the duration of the agreement. I think there’s still a bit of a difference there between Liberty’s Attorneys and what they’re reading from the School District’s Attorney. But, other than that Liberty is agreeable to amending the exemption agreement to be consistent with and address the concerns that the School District has raised. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Alright, but the school in fact, has not reviewed this newest draft? TOWN COUNSEL, HILL- They have not, no REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 666 COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Mike, let me just ask you one other question, does it matter? Who has the final say? COUNCILMAN BREWER- We do TOWN COUNSEL HILL- Well, this is a circumstance where the Town has the sole authority with respect to the agreement SUPERVISOR STEC ENTERED MEETING COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Actually, asking the School and County to look at this is a courtesy TOWN COUNSEL, HILL- That’s correct, they don’t have a vote on this. They won’t be voting on it, it’s the Town COUNCILMAN BREWER- Whatever monies, we have a formula, whatever monies we receive will be, they will get their fair share TOWN COUNSEL, HILL- The agreement itself is between the Town and essentially, Liberty Affordable Housing and the entity that it will create to run the project. So, the county and the school district are not parties to the agreement. The agreement doesn’t go into the detail of spelling out the way that the payments will be apportioned. Under the law, we have a responsibility to apportion those fairly between and among the Town, the County and the School District COUNCILMAN BREWER- Anything else John COUNCILMAN STROUGH- No, but that’s troublesome to me COUNCILMAN BREWER- Okay, with that we will open the public hearing. If there is anyone in the public that would like to comment or address any questions, I will let you address them to the Supervisor JOHN DESANTO, SUPERINTENT FOR BUSINESS AT THE QUEENSBURY SCHOOL DISTRICT AND CHRISTOPER OGDEN, MEMBER OF QUEENSBURY SCHOOL BOARD- MR. DESANTO- We want to thank Liberty and their partners for involving the School District on informing us on what they will be doing and what they propose. As mentioned, the School District does not really have any say in the matter. Again, we thank you for letting us be involved in these discussions as an equal partner. The district does have the most at stake from a revenue standpoint. The School District is pleased about the renovations proposed. It benefits the students in our district and it benefits their families. The escalated clause in the agreement, we do like seeing that but we are very pleased with that. Our School Attorney did outline a number of concerns from not the latest agreement from the agreement before. A lot of that some do diligence concerns just to make sure language is not vague and language is tying up and items are clarified. So, we do want you to take our School Attorney’s suggestions into account. If there is a revised agreement we would like to see what the revised agreement states and give us another opportunity to comment on the agreement. As mentioned, a primary concern is the length of the agreement. We feel thirty years or thirty plus years, depending on when the agreement starts, if it starts after the completion of the certificate of substantial completion that could be thirty two, thirty three years or so. If the School District was doing a similar renovation or refurbishment project, we would have debt over the useful life over the project, which is between fifteen and twenty years. So, when we see thirty years that seems excessive, it seems a lot to us. That is our primary concern, because twenty years from now, twenty five years from now when there is additional refurbishment or renovations required, then what are you going to do another Pilot. You’d be locked in; you’re locked in for thirty years. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 667 COUNCILMAN MONTESI- I’m not sure but is the agreement, the thirty year is based on the funding, the mortgage, it’s a thirty year mortgage, right? TOWN COUNSEL, HILL- Correct COUNCILMAN MONTESI- That’s kind of inflexible what the Feds want to see is are you covering the Pilot and the length of your mortgage TOWN COUNSEL, HILL- There is a least a couple of elements of financing here. There is financing to do the purchase of the property and there’s the six and a half million dollar financing for the renovations and repairs. The New York State Housing Finance Agency will be providing the six and a half million dollars for the renovations and repairs. Based on conversations with their personnel, they are requiring a thirty year term as a condition of providing that financing. The New York State Mortgage Authority is requiring that term as a condition of (the thirty year term) as a condition of providing mortgage insurance. So, that’s were the thirty year period is coming from. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Yeah, I just wanted to clarify that TOWN COUNSEL, HILL- It’s thirty years plus, I think they allow for a one year construction period for the renovations. So, the agreement reflects something over thirty years, thirty one years or so. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Now is that one year mandatory, is that a criteria TOWN COUNSEL, HILL- I don’t know if that’s set in stone John. Nobody at HFA indicated that to us. So, there is some, it seems like there’s some degree of flexibility but it should be noted that the term of the term of the exemption agreement is set to end upon the earlier of the expiration of the financing or the thirty first anniversary of the issuance of the completion certificate. So, it’s the earlier of the two that’s the trigger for the end of the exemption agreement. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Because I see it’s listed as one of many, I guess due diligent concerns, on behalf of school, that thirty year Pilot Agreement be independently confirmed that the HFA does in fact require thirty years. We are discussing now that it may be thirty one or thirty two, and in fact you could maybe mandate it that it be thirty if in fact, thirty’s the minimum. All they want is some kind of confirmation of what’s going on. All of this was piled on us an hour or so ago. What the School is asking for, I think is another moment of time to have the opportunity to review the new draft and get a response to their due diligent items. I think it’s only fair that we grant the School that. COUNCILMAN BREWER- Were they not in the loop with any of this Mike? MR. DESANTO- We’ve been in the loop, it’s just this latest revised agreement, our School Attorney has not seen that or the District has not seen that. We do want to be kept informed of any changes to the agreement and have the opportunity to continue to comment on the agreement or changes to the agreement. TOWN COUNSEL, HILL- I don’t think, based on the input that we received from the attorney for Liberty Affordable Homes; I don’t think they would have any problem with further involving the School District. They’ve indicated that, as I’ve mentioned in the email this afternoon, they’ve indicated that they are fine with making all of the revisions outlined in the School Districts letter with the sole exception of the one dealing with the term. There I think we’re talking about trying to focus in on exactly what the length of the term will be. Liberty has indicated, thus far, that there is a need for some flexibility with respect to that based on what they’re hearing from HFA and the mortgage authority. Certainly we can continue to work on that and try to refine that and see if the duration can be specified. Again, I think its worth noting that the agreement as it stands right now calls for the termination of the Pilot Agreement upon the earlier of the expiration of the financing or the thirty first of anniversary of the issuance of completion. So, it’s the earlier of the two rather than the later. It doesn’t look like Liberty is trying to unduly extend the term of the Pilot Agreement REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 668 COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Mike, have you seen the new revised TOWN COUNSEL, HILL- Proposed tax exemption agreement? COUNCILMAN MONTESI- The new one, whatever TOWN COUNSEL, HILL- Yes COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Is there substantial changes in that TOWN COUNSEL, HILL- Yes, very substantial changes. We requested substantial changes to protect the Town’s interest and also to protect the School District’s interest. Those changes, we’ve gotten an indication that Liberty is agreeable to those changes, so now with the benefit of the letter from Martin Auffredou Liberty’s indicating that they’re agreeable to all of that. The only thing that they have a question about is specifying the end of the term of the Pilot Agreement that’s all. My sense is that it can probably be worked through with further discussion with Liberty, HFA, and with Mr. Auffredou on behalf of the School District. SUPERVISOR STEC- Mike, if I could jump in here. As is the norm for a lot of our agreements, the resolved that authorizes my signature says substantially in the form presented at this meeting, the standard language in there allows for a little bit of the minor adjustments that we might be talking about tonight, would all this fall under that you’d say? TOWN COUNSEL, HILL- I think so. I think I might suggest that we make a very slight further revisions to that to be explicit and say “together with revisions as approved by Counsel and the Town Supervisor” or words to that effect. I think that would certainly provide the necessary latitude to make further revisions. COUNCILMAN BREWER- Does this effect them going for their funding? I thought I read somewhere that they have to essentially apply tomorrow. Does that prevent them from doing that? TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- They’re here and they can speak to that COUNCILMAN BREWER- Well it’s just a question I want to throw out there for the applicant SUPERVISOR STEC- Well, we’ll have them up here in a minute Tim. Does the School have anything else, you can come back MR. DESANTO- Again, we realize we have no final say in the matter SUPERVISOR STEC- Historically, we try to work, if nothing else, so that you’re not surprised. MR. DESANTO- We do want to thank you for involving the School District and for hearing our comments on this matter SUPERVISOR STEC- Absolutely MR. OGDEN- When might John and Martin get a copy of that revised agreement? TOWN COUNSEL, HILL- I think as soon as the details are worked out, sometime within the coming week or ten days or so, some where in that time frame I would expect, think COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Will the School’s concerns be addressed, at what point in time TOWN COUNSEL, HILL- We address the School’s concern as the new draft is developed REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 669 COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Based on the old agreement TOWN COUNSEL, HILL- Well based on the agreement that you received a copy of today, the latest and most updated agreement you received this afternoon that would be updated to reflect the School District’s concerns COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, is there any part of tonight’s resolution that allows room for the School’s concerns to be addressed? TOWN COUNSEL, HILL- I think if we incorporate, perhaps, just a slight change, as I mentioned earlier to say, “together with revisions as approved by Counsel and Town Supervisor” COUNCILMAN STROUGH- It didn’t include the School SUPERVISOR STEC- Well, it doesn’t already COUNCILMAN BREWER- We have the approve the changes John, not the School SUPERVISOR STEC- It’s our agreement COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well SUPERVISOR STEC- It’s our agreement COUNCILMAN BREWER- Right, so we can’t wait for the School to make, I mean they make suggestions certainly, but it doesn’t necessarily mean the agreement’s not valid if they don’t agree with it COUNCILMAN STROUGH- I feel sympathetic to the School. I had all I could do to reach a ten page contract and if anybody knows, reading a ten page legal contract is not easy reading. Actually, it’s eleven pages if you count the signing page, but in all do diligence, we should allow the school to have an opportunity to be able to respond to the newest draft, so that everybody, because they are the party that’s most impacted by this Pilot Agreement. Now it’s easy for us just to say la le la, but I think in all do diligence to the School and the community we should give them time, ample time to address this SUPERVISOR STEC- Do you have anything else? I’d like to get the applicant up here to tell us their urgency. Don’t go to far though. Thank you both ATTORNEY O’CONNOR- Thank you, Mr. Supervisor, Members of the Board. I’m Mike O’Connor, I’m local counsel. I’m not the finance counsel; John Brennan is actually the finance counsel. With me is Art Loomis and John Haick who are with the entities that are going to put this project together. Just one comment SUPERVISOR STEC- Mike, could you just speak into the microphone. I can tell people are straining to hear you. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR- One comment I’d make is that Liberty has agreed to consider and make the changes as suggested by the School Attorney as they are applicable to the agreement that’s on the table now, except for the terms as to the term of the agreement. The language for the term of the agreement is the same as was presented before and is not being changed. I think Mike has captured it right. It’s the shorter of thirty one years from the commencement of the term or the termination of the financing. SUPERVISOR STEC- One of the issues I remember seeing, we are all agreeable. The School had suggested a single annual payment as opposed to quarterly payments. I think the notes I saw from our Attorneys were we were talking about a date in March. TOWN COUNSEL, HILL- That was previously incorporated based on the workshop meeting discussion that we had. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 670 ATTORNEY O’CONNOR- I think that’s already in here as some of the other things are SUPERVISOR STEC- I just wanted to make sure that the School was aware ATTORNEY O’CONNOR- There was some things in there like can they get copies of the annual notice showing what the Fed is increasing our rent by and things of that nature. They were not substantial items other than the term that they spoke of, because we have been trying to do this in a cooperative basis with everybody, having full knowledge of what each other is doing. SUPERVISOR STEC- I saw the emails today but perhaps if you could just affirm what the email said, that in fact with the exception of wanting to stick to the original term language that you were agreeable to the other as applicable to all the other suggestions that the School had in their Attorney’s letter. ART LOOMIS- Yeah, I’m Art Loomis, by the way, when the email came across today I called John Brennan who I apologize, he’s not here but he was called out of town, and he confirmed to me that the changes are all something we can make except for the term of the agreement. The OCAF rate has been published in the Federal Register. We can distribute a copy of the Federal Register when the rate is published so that’s not a big deal. There was a question earlier about the construction time, if we’re locked in on the twelve months. We are, the contract with the contractor will call for a twelve month construction period. It’s all scheduled out. There will be damages for him if he doesn’t complete that in the twelve month period. You will also all know how we’re progressing because as each building is finished we’ll be asking for a certificate of occupancy, and at the end a certificate of completion for the whole entire project COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Is it mandated by law that you have to have that one year construction time added to the thirty year Pilot program. MR. LOOMIS- No, but its part of our financing that we’ve worked with when we talked to the contractor and he developed a scope of work with us. We asked him how long will it take you to complete the job and he said twelve months. So all of our schedules and budgets and everything have been based upon that twelve months. He’s going to be held accountable to be able to do it COUNCILMAN STROUGH- So not that it’s any major consolation but it could be just a thirty year Pilot Agreement rather than a thirty one year Pilot Agreement. MR. LOOMIS- The permanent financing, which is the thirty year bonds, they don’t begin until the construction is completed COUNCILMAN STROUGH- So that’s when the Pilot program would begin? MR. LOOMIS- No, it begins in the one year of the rehab and then the thirty years of the bonds. That’s how we can COUNCILMAN STROUGH- So, thirty one years is not required but thirty years is because that’s the term, and that’s by law? MR. LOOMIS- I don’t know if its COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, I think these are some of the concerns that I thought we should just give the school an opportunity to respond to. Would there be any problem with us dealing with this at our next regularly scheduled meeting. MR. LOOMIS- Yes COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Well, yes there is a time sensitive situation MR. LOOMIS- it is very time sensitive. We have, since we have been meeting with you, knew this was going to be a public meeting today and the vote would be today so HFA is REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 671 scheduling with their credit committee tomorrow and their going to be reaching out to me in the morning to see the results of the vote tonight. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- And you realize too that we just got this MR. LOOMIS- Yes, and would I would like to suggest, what Mr. Hill has suggested that it be approved subject to the revisions being made to his satisfaction and the School’s satisfaction COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Can we add that to the resolution “to the School’s satisfaction” too? SUPERVISOR STEC- No COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Absolutely not COUNCILMAN BREWER- No, it’s our agreement John. We said we would take comment and concerns from the School. The School doesn’t have any standing in approving it COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Listen we can put anything we want in there. If you don’t want it in there Tim SUPERVISOR STEC- Alright, I’m not hearing that there’s consensus for that though TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- But we do, can I just make it clear, we do have consensus that the concerns that were raised by the School District’s Attorney, which was in the four page letter that you are talking about. They are acceptable and will be incorporated except for the term of the contact SUPERVISOR STEC- So those will be Mike’s TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- Right, and that you said that on the record so we have our agreements SUPERVISOR STEC- So those would be Mike’s and my marching orders is that we would be, in a form acceptable to us and entering argument is for both of us that we make sure that the School’s concerns that they publicly said that they are fine with except for one we would make sure that they worked out. So, we’ve gotten the School’s input on all those COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, that was the School’s concerns based on the old agreement, they haven’t read the new one COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Mike, did you say the one thing the term is a concern for the School, but when you opened this discussion, you said that this Pilot would not render less taxes than the School is already getting SUPERVISOR STEC- Correct TOWN COUNSEL, HILL- That’s correct COUNCILMAN MONTESI- So what’s the big deal TONW COUNSEL, HILL- Well, it’s probably is worth pointing out that under the present assessment process for John Burke Apartments they are assessed under Real Property Tax Law 581A and they receive a certain tax treatment as result of that. Upon the expiration of the Pilot, assuming that same provision is still in effect then they would presumably fall under that and would revert to that basis for their assessment. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- But, I’m saying the one year that John and the School is concerned about, the construction year, they’re not going to take any less money that year then they would normally REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 672 TOWN COUNSEL, HILL- No, that’s correct ATTORNEY O’CONNOR- Actually, it’s increased by a few thousand dollars. If you remember our discussion in your workshop, it’s seventy five thousand, eight hundred, something of that nature, and mathematically it was seventy two thousand before that was divided up between the County and the School. So that takes effect immediately. SUPERVISOR STEC- Do you have anything else to add at this point. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR- Not unless you have questions for us SUPERVISOR STEC- Well, don’t go to far we might have more questions COUNCILMAN MONTESI- I do have one thing SUPERVISOR STEC- Apparently, you have another question COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Art and John had invited the Board to look at the old apartment and look at the model of the new one. I did take the time to go up there last week and it’s very impressive what they are doing to the interiors and some of the buildings, I guess the office has the new siding on it and that’s quite impressive too. It ought to be an addition to our community for low income housing ATTORNEY O’CONNOR- It will be a project that you can be proud of SUPERVISOR STEC- I do see a great social value in the physical improvement that you are looking to do there, certainly. Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this public hearing? ATTORNEY O’CONNOR- Thank you SUPERVISOR STEC- You’re welcome. Anybody at all? I will close this public hearing and entertain a motion to approve by Councilman Montesi, seconded by Councilman Brewer. Any other discussion? COUNCILMAN BREWER- Do we have to make that amendment SUPERVISOR STEC- I was going to say, Rose, the language that you suggested we amend Mike regarding the approval form subject to substantially in the form presenting at this meeting TOWN COUNSEL, HILL- Together with COUNCILMAN BREWER-Where are you putting it? SUPERVISOR STEC- Page three, second resolved I assume, Mike? TOWN COUNSEL, HILL- Second resolved, next to the last line beginning with the words “presented at this meeting comma together with such further revisions as may be approved by Town Counsel and the Town Supervisor” SUPERVISOR STEC- And then continuing on in furtherance of Liberty’s plan TOWN COUNSEL, HILL- Yes SUPERVISOR STEC- Okay. Ron are you fine with that amendment? COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Yes SUPERVISOR STEC- Tim are you fine seconding that amendment? COUNCILMAN BREWER- Yep, yes REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 673 SUPERVISOR STEC- Okay, any other discussion COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Just that I think that the time table could have been altered to accommodate the School and I think a reasonable effort could have been made to do so. SUPERVISOR STEC- Let’s go ahead and vote RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES (“PILOT” AGREEMENT) FOR JOHN BURKE APARTMENTS RESOLUTION NO.: 136. 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, Liberty Affordable Housing, Inc. (Liberty), a not-for-profit corporation, proposes to form a housing development fund company to purchase and renovate the John Burke Apartments in Queensbury, all in accordance with Article XI of the New York State Private Housing Finance Law (PHFL), and WHEREAS, John Burke Apartments is a 227-unit apartment community providing housing for low-income residents of the Town, with rents subsidized by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, and WHEREAS, there is a need within the Town for adequate rental housing for low- income persons and families, and WHEREAS, John Burke Apartments was constructed approximately 40 years ago and is in need of substantial repairs and renovations, and WHEREAS, in order to obtain financing of over $6 million from the New York State Housing Finance Agency for planned renovations to John Burke Apartments, Liberty must obtain Town Board approval of a proposed agreement for periodic payments in lieu of taxes (“PILOT” payments) on John Burke Apartments by the proposed housing development fund company, and WHEREAS, Liberty has provided the Town with a proposed Agreement for payments in lieu of taxes on John Burke Apartments by the housing development fund company, and WHEREAS, the proposed Agreement has been reviewed by Town Counsel, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 674 WHEREAS, the Town will not be providing any funds or financing to the housing development fund company for the purchase, repairs, renovations or operation of John Burke Apartments, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has considered Liberty’s proposal for acquiring and renovating John Burke Apartments and believes the project would benefit the residents of John Burke Apartments and would be a benefit to the Town, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 129.2010, the Town Board authorized the Town Supervisor to consent to the formation of a redevelopment company as previously proposed by Liberty, and to sign any required document evidencing such consent, for the purpose of enabling a redevelopment company to acquire and renovate John Burke Apartments, in accordance with Article V of the New York State Private Housing Finance Law, and WHEREAS, Liberty will form a housing development fund company, which does not require any approval from the Town, rather than a redevelopment company as Liberty initially proposed, and th WHEREAS, on Monday, March 15, 2010, the Town Board duly held a public hearing and heard all interested persons concerning the draft Agreement proposed by Liberty for periodic payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT payments) on John Burke Apartments by the housing development fund company, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby determines that it is in the best interests of the Town and its residents to promote the development and maintenance of adequate, safe and sanitary rental housing accommodations for low-income persons and families living within the Town, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of and authorizes the Town Supervisor to sign the Agreement provided by Liberty Affordable Housing, Inc. for periodic payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT payments) on John Burke Apartments, substantially in the form presented at this meeting, together with such further revisions as may be approved by the Town Supervisor and Town Counsel, in furtherance of Liberty’s plan to acquire and renovate John Burke Apartments, and BE IT FURTHER REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 675 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby rescinds those portions of Resolution No.: 129.2010 authorizing the Town Supervisor to consent to the formation of a redevelopment company as previously proposed by Liberty Affordable Housing, Inc., and authorizing him to sign any required document evidencing such consent, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Clerk, Town Supervisor, and/or Town Counsel to take such other actions as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi NOES: Mr. Strough ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING- LOCAL LAW NO.: 2 OF 2010 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE BY REPEALING EXISTING CHAPTER A183 “SUBDIVISION OF LAND” AND REPLACING IT WITH NEW CHAPTER A183 “SUBDIVISION OF LAND” NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: MARCH 5, 2010 SUPERVISOR STEC- I’m going to let Stu hit some of the high points. He wants to talk a little bit about the process of what we’ve got here. Just, the big picture was, last year when we were working on our zoning regulations we tried at the time to also incorporate into that review by APA the subdivision of land regulations. APA had enough questions or concerns about our changes where they suggested that it might be an easier review if we pulled out subdivision of land separately and did that on its own process, which is what we did and what brings us to tonight. SENIOR PLANNER, STUART BAKER- Yes, certainly, specifically the APA concerns dealt with the provisions that we had proposed in the draft zoning code regarding the conservation subdivisions, also known as clustering. What we did is we took that section out of the proposed zoning which was ultimately adopted in April of last year and we incorporated that language into the revisions that are proposed for adoption this evening in the subdivision code. As many may recall, in 2004 the Town Board began a process of revising the major land use codes in the Town and it began with the revisions of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which were adopted. The first step in implementing the Comprehensive Land Use Plan was the adoption of the zoning revisions, which were done approximately a year ago. This evening the Town Board is considering adoption of the revised subdivision regs, that’s the next step in implementing the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The APA has reviewed these changes; we received notice today that at their meeting last week they approved these revisions. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Brian Grisi and the other staff at APA for their assistance in this process. At this point the draft revisions to the subdivisions regs are ready for this Boards review and possible adoption. I should act that the Town Board already done, they required environmental review, for this adoption of these new subdivision regs. The APA required that that be done, the SEQRA process prior to their review of the process. So, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 676 this Board has already done and reviewed and approved the negative declaration on SEQRA for the subdivision regs. SUPERVISOR STEC- Thank you Stu. So with that said, it’s been a long road getting to this point and like you said the APA reviewed this favorably and actually in a quick manner. We appreciate that. Warren County Planning Board has also reviewed this and determined no County impact. With that said, I will open the public hearing. If there’s any members that would like to comment on this public hearing ATTORNEY, MATT FULLER- May I approach I have a letter for the record. SUPERVISOR STEC- Yeah, sure. It’s not a court; you don’t have to ask to approach ATTORNEY FULLER- I’ll be quick, really just a couple practical things that I wanted to throw out there to the Board. Nothing, like I said, to earth shattering. 183-7 gave the Planning Board the option to require a short EAF on a sketch plan. This may not sound like a big deal but just as a practical matter, my thought is, that if the Town Board is going to adopt the regulation maybe they should say that they should or should not require it. My only thought on that is again on a practical matter. If you get to the Planning Board and a Planning Board Member, or you get the majority that says on a simple sketch review that we’re going to table this thing for want of an EAF COUNCILMAN BREWER- There’s no need for approval on a sketch anyway is there Matt? ATTORNEY FULLER- Well if you get tabled to ask for it. That would be my concern, I’d get to the Planning Board for a sketch review and I’m off, when you’re at the Planning Board you are already beyond the deadline to submit for the next month. So, I would be submitting for the next month for the month after on a simple sketch review. It was just a note you had changed it, the suggested change that I saw said that the Planning Board may require an EAF COUNCILMAN BREWER- For a sketch? ATTORNEY FULLER- Yeah and my thought was either require it or don’t. What you don’t want is either, granted with the Board you have now I doubt there will be an issue, but if it swung a different direction, a Planning Board Member didn’t like a certain application, that got a few to go with them, could say, yeah we are going to ask this to be tabled for an EAF SUPERVISOR STEC- Are you suggesting that you are critical of our process? ATTORNEY FULLER- I’m absolutely not critical of your process Dan. SUPERVISOR STEC- I didn’t think so ATTORNEY FULLER- It works fine. It’s just a practical matter. You don’t want to get delayed for need EAF and really what’s required of your sketch review anyway, it’s got all the information that’s on the EAF. I attached one COUNCILMAN BREWER- I’m kind of agreeing with you. The sketch, it’s not binding ATTORNEY FULLER- I agree, it’s in your regs. I just noted it looking for things we can get tabled SUPERVISOR STEC- Certainly, if it becomes a problem in the future in practice it’s something that can easily be changed in the future. ATTORNEY FULLER- It’s too late by then, for us who are there. That’s alright COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Matt, what if we said, not “may” but “would” or “will” require REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 677 ATTORNEY FULLER- Yeah, either way, then you’re not dealing with whether or not to make the call, to whether or not you’re going to submit that thing COUNCILMAN MONTESI- As you said, most of the information on an EAF is already there. COUNCILMAN BREWER- So lets say “may not” because COUNCILMAN MONTESI- No, say “we would” require ATTORNEY FULLER- I can tell you what I’m going to do COUNCILMAN BREWER- EAF on a sketch plan? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, because the project that may be being proposed near, in, adjacent or even in Queensbury, on a wetland COUNCILMAN BREWER- But a sketch plan is to get those issues out so when they file a preliminary or whatever COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, the EAF for everybody to know is an environmental assessment, okay SUPERVISOR STEC- I actually like the language the way it is ATTORNEY FULLER- One comment on that John, yes, but what you’re talking about is not even addressed in that part because it says a short EAF. It doesn’t say a long or short, it just says short COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, even short form it asks what percentage of the land ATTORNEY FULLER- Isn’t it critical environmental area COUNCILMAN STROUGH- No, no what percentage of land has deep slopes, what percentage of land may be in ATTORNEY FULLER- No it doesn’t COUNCILMAN STROUGH- What part of the project may ATTORNEY FULLER- I have it to you, the EAF is on the back of my letter. Anyway, for further thought, the short EAF really doesn’t give you anything. You’re talking about the long EAF, that’s an entirely different discussion COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Right ATTORNEY FULLER- On the public hearings, one thing I know actually the thing that came to mind SUPERVISOR STEC- If I could interrupt, I would just suggest that if an applicant had any doubt in their mind which way this might go it would behoove them to include that in their submission, especially if it’s not a big deal. ATTORNEY FULLER- Duly noted, if you leave it that way that’s what I’m going to do COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Matt, as you pointed out, the short form EAF is really not much, so making it mandatory might be a way to solving SUPERVISOR STEC- I’d just assume leave it to their discretion, we can always revisit. Next REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 678 ATTORNEY FULLER- Another comment I had is on public hearings and actually it arose, kind of an article I know that Mr. Schachner had written some time ago. It’s something that I have noticed to with Planning Boards. Your public hearing requirements and things like that get triggered when the application’s complete. That’s not how the Planning Board works. I think it’s generally staff that takes care of scheduling public hearings and things before the applications ever deemed complete. My thought on that is, make the regulation line up with what the Planning Board is actually doing. Don’t get called out on a procedural error somewhere down the road by somebody, an opponent to a project that says you did something wrong. TAPE BROKE … I agree and when I see these things my approach, I guess, is to make it comply with what the Planning Board is actually doing. Let them have a public hearing as early on as they want; from the applicant’s standpoint I don’t care, that’s what I want to know. I want to know early on so if I’ve go to deal with any comments they’re out in the open. My thought on that again, don’t tripped up on a procedural error. Allow the Planning Board to do exactly what’s its doing. In A183-15, reviewing easements, covenants and restrictions, my thought was on that from a practical standpoint, anybody who’s dealt with particularly National Grid or any of the utilities, the exact extent of those easements aren’t known until you get out in the field. So, if you are going to ask us to submit easements and things like that, which is how the reg. is now drafted, and it’s black letter, you’re going to have to submit those documents, you can’t I think I would endeavor to try to get those easements National Grid or any of the big utilities before the subdivision plat is actually approved, their not going to talk to ya, they don’t have time. So, I saw that and I said jeez, I really don’t want to get held up in a subdivision process because I can’t get those easements. It makes no sense to me. 183-17, something that comes up from time to time, I know that I’ve had to ask for it, is an extension of time to file the plat. That comes out of the Town law, I know that there’s a deadline that if you have a plat that’s aging and it’s not filed within so many days you have to go back to the Planning Board. Queensbury again has been pretty good about extending those things. If you get one that isn’t, you may in a boat. My thought would be to allow the Zoning Administrator to grant one or two extensions of six months or a year or whatever the Town Board came up with that number, again so they don’t have to apply to the Planning Board. You’ve got to meet the deadline, you’ve got to get on for next month and you are into a process there. Whereas if you allowed one or two extensions if by then the applicant couldn’t get their plat filed then something else is wrong, it doesn’t make you come back to the Planning Board. I think that’s reasonable. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Matt, you’re talking about a competed application of the completed, approved subdivision ATTORNEY FULLER- Fully approved plat COUNCILMAN BREWER- You get a year don’t ya? ATTORNEY FULLER- Ya, they age out. I forget what the time frame was, six month from your COUNCILMAN BREWER- From your approval, isn’t it a year COUNCILMAN METIVIER- I thought it was a year COUNCILMAN BREWER- From your approval date I think it’s one year ATTORNEY FULLER- Yeah, from your approval, I’m sorry Tim, you’re right. But in the meantime you’re getting easements approved with National Grid, they’ve been pretty good COUNCILMAN BREWER- So to file a plat you may be delayed? ATTORNEY FULLER- Yeah, Department of Health COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Isn’t State law that that power resides with the Planning Board if you have an established Planning Board REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 679 ATTORNEY FULLER- I shouldn’t say that, under the Town law as drafted yes, but as you’ve done in other areas in this law you have the ability to supersede and you did it, I know it. I read that part and didn’t have a comment on that. So, you have the ability to change that, that time frame. COUNCILMAN BREWER- I don’t see an issue with that really, that’s a valid point ATTORNEY FULLER- I caught it in there and it seemed like a good idea. Again, just a practical thought. One substantive thing that hit me is under 183-17, Queensbury impacts applicants but you exclude wetlands and things like that from calculating your density. Certainly, the planning reason behind doing, the one thing that struck me, are the major power lines. National Grid owns quite a few power line easements, rights of way; they actually own the property, the right of way cutting through our Town here. You can apply to them to get permission to use the land underneath that. There are various hoops you’ve got to jump through to get that permission but it is doable, you can get it. So, I saw in there a flat out exception for any of the land that’s under those power lines. If you get permission to use that land, I guess I just question why from a planning perspective COUNCILMAN STROUGH- But if you were in that very unusual situation that you just mentioned describing somebody that had a National Grid right of way through the property that they’re proposing to develop they could request variance from the Planning Board on that. ATTORNEY FULLER- That’s okay if that’s what the records going to be COUNCILMAN STROUGH- That’s what the idea behind variances are, in unusual situations, and I think you will have to agree most people who are doing subdivisions don’t have a major National Grid right of way through them, the proposed development property. There is a variance process available for some of these concerns you are bringing up ATTORNEY FULLER- There is John. I guess the one comment I would have on that is, just from a town standpoint, you probably want to be careful with opening up that list under 183-17 to the variance process because there’s other things on there, wetlands and things. What I’m hearing is that I can apply for variances for some of those things COUNCILMAN STROUH- No, I have no power over that. Anybody can request a variance SENIOR PLANNER, BAKER- Just for clarification, I believe Matt is referring to section A183-26, not A183-17. ATTORNEY FULLER- Oh, I’m sorry, typo, I copied it over. Thank you, that’s it thanks SUPERVISOR STEC- Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this particular public hearing? MICHAEL O’CONNOR- Good evening, Mike O’Connor again. I have a couple of comments they’re not specific to any particular project or whatever, but I just think that they are potential problems and I think the idea was when you redid the zoning ordinance was to try and make things simple for everybody so they would understand their rights and be able to make an application that would be treated uniformly. I think my major problem is 183-8D. I think you just create a vicious circle there because you say that a project or application is not complete until you either have a negative declaration under SEQRA or you filed a complete draft environmental impact statement. My understanding is the first thing you are suppose to do with an application is do the SEQRA which includes giving notice to other involved agencies, particularly if you have coordinated review, and you are suppose to send to them a complete application when you make that notice. I think the cart and the horse gets into a circle and I’m not sure what’s you’re doing if you don’t have a complete application until you get your SEQRA determination. The language needs to be addressed or needs to be changed in some manner so that you REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 680 don’t wait until after you’ve made your SEQRA determination before you can circulate it to the other involved agencies that are doing a coordinated review. I think it’s a language issue and I think it just needs to be looked at. The other couple questions I’ve got is 183- 13(2). You’re asking for in that elevation showing at a two foot contour and extending at least a hundred feet off site. Sometimes you can’t get access to actually do that work off site. You should have some recognition of that, although, maybe it falls within the overall general ability of the Planning Board to waive it if you ran into that. They can waive any of the rules and regulations. I think sometimes that’s a problem, particularly around lake properties. The other issue that are more substantive, I notice on 138 COUNCILMAN MONTESI- What’s the number Mike COUNCILMAN STROUGH- One eighty three ATTORNEY O’CONNOR- No, okay on 183-22(d), in there you are talking about when requested by a subdivider or in cases when the Board finds due to the size of the parcel, etc, the Town Board may waive the requirement that the plat plans show park areas, recreation areas. I’m wondering if you can move that to the Planning Board so that you don’t have to go through the Planning Board process and then come to the Town Board for the waiver. In fact, I would almost like to see you make it at the discretion of the developer if the developer can do either A or B. I don’t think you want, at least my experience with you has been in the past, you don’t want a bunch of small, small parks. That’s what you might very well be running into if you don’t take the recreation fees. I think you take five hundred dollars per lot, something like that. Is that what it’s at this point? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- You mean the paragraph that starts Mike with “when requested by the subdivider or in cases where the Board finds that due to the size, shape, topography or location of the subdivision land for park, playground or other recreational purposes cannot be properly located therein, the Town Board may waive the requirement that the plat show land for purposes” ATTORNEY O’CONNOR- Yes COUNCILMAN STROUGH- So you’re saying ATTORNEY O’CONNOR- Make it the Town Planning Board COUNCILMAN STROUGH- The Planning Board ATTORNEY O’CONNOR- If you can do that delegation COUNCILMAN BREWER- I don’t think the Planning Board can accept land for recreation though. It has to be a Town Board function doesn’t it? ATTORNEY O’CONNOR- Okay, but can they accept the payment in lieu of? Again, you have a language issue COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Well, you know Mike the original concept, you’re right, we didn’t want to have a bunch vest pocket parks all over the Town. There may be some instances where the Recreation Commission says to the Town Board, by the way we really would like to see those five acres in this particular subdivision because we do feel we have a need. It hasn’t been an issue, I would think, a long time ago when I was on the Planning Board, or on the Town Board we accepted seventy six acres from the bottom of Hiland and that may be the last time we accepted land, I think we take the money in most cases ATTORNEY O’CONNOR- Off of Harold Square we gave some land along the stream that comes from the back of that and we were trying to create a corridor for that whole stream. I think you got it from at least two developers COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Yeah, but I mean REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 681 ATTORNEY O’CONNOR- I’m not saying, I’m not saying there isn’t a discretionary decision but can you shift it to the Town Board. So you don’t go back and forth between boards. COUNCILMAN BREWER- You mean the Planning Board ATTORNEY O’CONNOR- The Planning Board, yes COUNCILMAN BREWER- I don’t think the Town Planning Board can accept land though ATTORNEY HILL- I don’t have the statute with us but I believe the function is, by statute is the function of the Town Board ATTORNEY HAFNER- If the question of who can accept the land it’s the Town Board COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Is there a delay in the process when you submit a proposal and that issue comes up with the Recreation ATTORNEY O’CONNOR- I truthfully haven’t experienced it because most people say they are going to pay the five hundred dollar recreation fee and nobody says anything. They just say when you get your building permit you owe five hundred dollars per unit. COUNCILMAN BREWER- So, why are you bringing this up? ATTORNEY O’CONNOR- Again, you are trying to … things, somebody could do that. Somebody could say that the staff doesn’t have the authority to accept the five hundred dollars because the Town Board hasn’t said that they will take the money in lieu of the land COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Yes, it may be something to do within the Town Board jurisdiction. We could certainly review that at a later date Mike. We are going to be reviewing, and I think Dan’s going to point this eventually, but if you’ve got something really substantial fine, and you may have some, and I’m not saying that you don’t have some very interesting points of view, but we are going to review, like we were last October, these kind of things in the planning. I’m making a list and I certainly think we will review what you’re asking us to review SUPERVISOR STEC- It is a living document subject to change ATTORNEY O’CONNOR- It’s been killed many times. Section 183-26, density, I don’t know why all the sudden we are excluding all lands in excess of twenty percent. I think we’ve been excluding lands in excess of twenty five percent and it’s worked COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well… fifteen percent ATTORNEY O’CONNOR- It depended. It depended if it was clustered it was fifteen, if it was a regular conventional subdivision it was twenty five. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- But, during the PORC Committee I could remember this discussion taking place and taking place at some length. The overwhelming, unanimous consent was the twenty percent. Although, there were some people that wanted to go with fifteen percent. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR- I think that that’s overkill. I think that we’ve lived with twenty five percent for ninety percent of the subdivisions in the past. I think that we could still do that. We’ve not done any harm that I’m aware of. The other thing, and we get into this vicious circle again, you’re excluding the areas set aside for park land which is your recreation land, I think. It’s kind of double dipping. You may be requiring a certain amount of the land be set aside for park land but then you’re excluding it from the density calculation. It’s an activity within the subdivision bounds. It shouldn’t be double dipped. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 682 COUNCILMAN STROUGH- And I agreed with you on that. As a matter of fact, I thought we deleted that Mike, and I’m surprised to see it there, to be honest with you. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR- You deleted it in the provisions for cluster subdivision but you did not delete it in provisions for standard subdivisions COUNCILMAN STROUGH- That’s something that we should talk about COUNCILMAN BREWER- number five ATTORNEY O’CONNOR- That’s 183-3-26(a)(5). In another area where you double dipped is where you have wetlands or lands of that nature. The idea here is to require, particularly in cluster subdivisions, you require fifty percent of the perimeter of the parcel to be an open land. If a part of that is wetlands, say you had ten acres, I think they actually have examples in the ordinance, if you had fifty acres of wetlands and fifty acres of solid land, you have to leave fifty acres in open land. But you can only count twenty five acres of the wetland against the open land requirement. In that instance you basically have got seventy five percent of that subdivision in open lands. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Mike, first of all, theoretically with the exception of Queensbury, can you develop on wetlands? That was undevelopable before ATTORNEY O’CONNOR- Okay, I’m not saying COUNCILMAN STROUGH- I’m just trying to explain ATTORNEY O’CONNOR- The idea of the open space requirement was to have open space. What difference COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, that developers use as a criteria for clustering. Now let’s keep this in mind, if you want to go the traditional single family housing development and not cluster, go ahead. If you are going to cluster, if you are going to put these houses side by side, that’s fine with us but in a conservation mode. We don’t want people using the wetland that they weren’t going to develop anyways, or couldn’t develop theoretically anyways to be part of their open space because it was normally going to be open space. What did we gain from allowing the clustering? The theory to allowing clustering is you’re gaining ATTORNEY O’CONNOR- You also do the same thing with slopes COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, that’s one thing you do, and the subdivision procedures, you take a look at the parcel of land that’s going to be developed and what’s the first thing that you try to identify? What probably shouldn’t be developed, whether its deep slope or wetlands or whether its aesthetically pleasing or publically used or whatever criteria you use. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR- I don’t think you and I are going to agree, so that’s fair to say. I think its double dipping. I don’t object to you saying you got to have fifty percent as open space, I think all of your wetland, all of your sloped land should qualify. The last comment I make is a follow up on what Matt Fuller said. The portion of the regulations it says you discount right of ways. He spoke of the major right of ways, but I have problems where you have somebody that has a driveway right of way through the property. Do you then discount that driveway right of way from the square footage and what not? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Yes, if your neighbor has a right of way through your property is that developable? ATTORNEY O’CONNOR- No, but again you are talking about the square footage. If that is not paved and is still impermeable and what not, what difference does it make as REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 683 far as, I would think that a lot of this is the visual impact. What difference would that make? You have a potential problem with that COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, how many pieces of property are we talking about that have significant right of ways. Probably not many ATTORNEY O’CONNOR- Almost every piece of property on the lake COUNCILMAN STROUGH- But again, did they have something significant ATTORNEY O’CONNOR- No. John almost every piece of property on the lakes. We don’t have town roads around the lakes COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, that’s not a good example to use Mike because those ten thousand square foot lots that want to put nine thousand square foot houses on them COUNCILMAN BREWER- That’s why he’s looking for more land COUNCILMAN STROUGH- You know what I’m saying. You know where I’m going to go with this one don’t you ATTORNEY O’CONNOR- John, maybe somebody should have done something different in 1925 when they developed them. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Yeah, you’re right. Now we’ve got a ATTORNEY O’CONNOR- You are trying to re-write, some of these things are great if you have a flat piece of land, undeveloped and everybody goes out and says what’s the highest and best use and what’s the best way to do it. But, these get applied to what’s in existence. You really have to take that into consideration. Those are my comments, thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC- Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this public hearing? Seeing none I will close this public hearing and as I mentioned, it is a living document, subject to change. Some of the suggestions we heard tonight may prove to be very valuable and we may incorporate them in the future. ** Letter submitted to the Town Board from Attorney Matthew Fuller regarding Resolution 137, 2010 and will be on file in the Town Clerk’s Office. RESOLUTION ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO. 2 OF 2010 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE BY REPEALING EXISTING CHAPTER A183 “SUBDIVISION OF LAND” AND REPLACING IT WITH NEW CHAPTER A183 “SUBDIVISION OF LAND” RESOLUTION NO.: 137, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 426,2004, the Queensbury Town Board established and appointed members to the Planning Ordinance Review Committee (PORC), which Committee’s task was to review the Town’s Zoning Ordinance and Map, Subdivision Regulations and Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 684 th WHEREAS, on May 19, 2005, the PORC adopted a Resolution recommending the hiring of Saratoga Associates Landscape Architects, Architects, Engineers, and Planners, P.C. (Saratoga Associates) to provide professional planning services to the Town, such services to include the updating of the 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Town Zoning Code, and Town Subdivision Regulations, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 394.2005, the Town Board authorized engagement of Saratoga Associates to prepare an update to the Town’s Zoning Code and Map, Subdivision Regulations and Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and WHEREAS, Saratoga Associates drafted comprehensive revisions to the Town’s Subdivision Code (Chapter A183 of the Town Code), and WHEREAS, on May 17, 2007 the PORC adopted a Resolution forwarding the draft Subdivision Code revisions to the Town Board for its review and consideration, and WHEREAS, the Town Board made additional changes to the draft Subdivision Code revisions and caused the draft revisions to be put into the form of proposed Local Law No. 2 of 2010, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: 2 of 2010 to repeal current Queensbury Town Code Chapter A183 entitled “Subdivision of Land,” and replace it with a new Chapter A183 “Subdivision of Land,” and WHEREAS, in accordance with General Municipal Law §239-m, the Town must first refer the proposed revised Subdivision Code and obtain a recommendation from the Warren County Planning Board before enacting the legislation, and th WHEREAS, on or about March 10, 2010 the Warren County Planning Board considered the proposed Local Law and determined that there would be no County impact, and WHEREAS, the Town must also obtain approval of the Adirondack Park Agency for the proposed revised Zoning Code prior to adoption, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury amendments comply with and are a furtherance of approval standards contained in §807 of the Adirondack Park Agency Act and 9 NYCRR Part 582 of Agency regulations, and th WHEREAS, on or about March 12, 2010 the Adirondack Park Agency considered the proposed Local Law and approved its adoption by the Town, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 685 WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 120,2010, the Town Board determined that this action would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, declared a Negative Declaration under SEQRA and authorized the filing of a SEQRA Negative Declaration Notice of Determination of Non-Significance, and th WHEREAS, the Town Board duly held a public hearing on Monday, March 15, 2010 and heard all interested persons, and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Local Law 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 enacts Local Law No.: 2 of 2010 to repeal current Queensbury Town Chapter A183 entitled "Subdivision of Land" and replace it with a new Chapter A183 “Subdivision of Land” as presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to send a copy of this Resolution and a copy of the Local Law to the Town Planning Board, Town Zoning Board of Appeals, Zoning Administrator, County Planning Board and Adirondack Park Agency in accordance with §179-15-080(D) of the Town Zoning Law; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to file the Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and acknowledges that the Local Law will take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT: None **DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE: SUPERVISOR STEC- I would like to thank both Mike Hill and Stu Baker for all the work they have done on this. The Board’s heard this before but for those who may be keeping score at home on the things that are on our to do list, Stu is going to in the near future be getting the sign regs. back out to everyone for one final look. I think the Board thinks that we mostly reviewed it when we were going through zoning but we’ll get it REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 686 again to look at. If we need to tweak it again we will. Hopefully this spring we’ll wrap up the sign regs and then all we need to do is our six month zoning review, which will probably actually be better named the twelve month zoning review. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- accolades to APA at least working well with us on this. I know that they get beat up pretty bad sometimes on it but this was a relatively seamless process. SENIOR PLANNER, BAKER- The APA review of the subdivision regs. did go very smoothly, yes. Again, I would like to give a lot of credit to Brian Grisi and the other staff at APA for that fact. LOCAL LAW NO.: 2 OF 2010 A LOCAL LAW REPEALING AND REPLACING TOWN OF QUEENSBURY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS BE IT ENACTED BY THE QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Authority – This Local Law is adopted pursuant to New York Municipal Home Rule Law. Section 2. Amendment of Subdivision Regulations – Chapter A183 of the Queensbury Town Code, entitled “Subdivision of Land” and known as the “Town of Queensbury Subdivision Regulations” is hereby repealed in its entirety and replaced by the attached amended Subdivision Regulations. Section 3. Severability – The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph or provision of this Local Law shall not invalidate any other clause, sentence, paragraph or part thereof. Section 4.Repealer – All Local Laws or Ordinances or parts of Local Laws or Ordinances in conflict with any part of this Local Law are hereby repealed. As stated in Section 2, this Local Law is specifically intended to supersede the provisions of the current Town of Queensbury Subdivision Regulations. Section 5.Effective Date – This Local Law shall take effect upon filing in the office of the New York State Secretary of State or as otherwise provided by law. PUBLIC HEARING- LOCAL LAW NO.: 3 OF 2010 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 179 “ZONING” §179-3-040(b)(2)(a)(1) PUBLIC HEARING- SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AMENDING ZONING LAW TO CHANGE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY ON GLENWOOD AVENUE AND WOODVALE ROAD FROM MODERATE REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 687 DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) TO OFFICE (O) AND ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO.: 4 OF 2010 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 179 “ZONING” NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: MARCH 5, 2010 SUPERVISOR STEC- I’ll open the public hearings simultaneously for both of these since I think that they are both very similar, at least dealing with the office subject. This was brought to our attention, well actually, the first one was a requested rezoning that Attorney Fuller brought to our attention in a workshop three or four weeks ago regarding property on Glenwood, the Wiswall property. All this property that we are talking about was formerly zoned or currently zoned MDR, which is moderate density residential and it was suggested that we rezone that to office. In the workshop it was the recollection of a few Board Members that, in fact, had been our intent at the time that we had done the zoning was that we believed that we were changing that to office zoning. I think that this could be characterized as we inadvertently did not include this portion of town when we rezoned it to MDR. It was zoned MDR in error as opposed to office. The other public hearing is on a very specific, basically one sentence in the Code. Again, that I think most Board Members would submit that it was an oversight when we, those of you will probably recall the debate on setback on Bay Road from several years ago for residential uses, then it was the professional office zone, and the Town Board in the process reached a new compromise distance of three hundred feet and we used the phrase “arterial roads”. In the discussion at the time certainly centered around Bay Road and West Mountain Road, however, it was pointed out again in the same workshop by Attorney Fuller that in choosing to use the word “arterial road”, there’s a list of arterial roads elsewhere in the Code that captured other roads that I don’t think a majority of us felt was our intent at the time. I think, although there will likely be some disagreement on this point, I think that most of the Board would look at both of these as clean up or correction to what was enacted last April. With that said, those are the nature of the two public hearings that we’ve got in front of us. I’ll have the public hearing on both of them and depending on where we go; perhaps I will reverse the order if the Board feels that is the correct thing to do, if we act on these reverse the order if more appropriate but we will open them both and then we will take comment and then we will consider closing them in perhaps a different order at the time. I will open the pubic hearing and entertain from the public that wants to address either one of those two pubic hearings. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Before the public speaks I wil1. SUPERVISOR STEC- Go ahead John COUNCILMAN STROUGH- First of all, I think the resolution as stated is misleading because they way it stated it is suggesting that only properties on Glenwood Property and Woodvale Road are being considered for change. That’s not true. Just as many of these properties are on County Club Road and on Bay Road. I don’t know why they didn’t mention that other properties on Bay Road and Country Club Road were included in this but I think it’s important because what’s going be offered here is a change in the definition of our office zone. I am adamantly opposed to what’s being proposed here. Now, let me give you a little of the office zone. First of all, and I help write it, first of all, it was a zone meant for the development of professional offices. Now we’ve expanded it to allow related commercial uses. It was not meant to be property used up by multi- family, however some developers have come in and asked for changes and they were granted changes. I did not, I opposed ever single one of those. I’ve adamantly felt that commercial property in Queensbury has to be preserved for commercial development. Residential development, as many of you know, because I’ve pounded this in many times, cost everybody money. It’s the impetus for raising taxes. If you allow your town to develop in a balanced, sensible manner, if you allow it to go all residential you will face the tax burdens that come with it. The average house for every dollar it pays in for tax requires between a dollar five and a dollar fifty in services. That’s a losing proposition. Now I realize you need residential housing. Commercial uses on the average only use on the average only use about thirty five cents of the dollar they pay towards taxes. So sixty five cents out of the dollar or sixty five percent of the taxes that they pay go to lowering REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 688 residential burden, residential tax burden. With Luther Forest being developed with Nano Technology and the jobs, the numbers vary from four thousand to ten thousand jobs. Queensbury is in the first sphere of influence there. Our light industrial, our commercial development needs to be preserved. Let me give you a little history on this. Because the demands from the community we tried to eliminate most of the residential development that would be occurring within an office zone. The setback was a thousand feet. The first thousand feet from an arterial had to be for commercial development, after that you could do residential. Now, this pretty much guaranteed that most of your and I’m talking about your being the community, because we’ve got to look at this in a holistic manner, your commercial zoning would not be used up, would not be eaten by high density residential development. Then, a discussion occurred amongst the PORC Committee and the consensus among the PORC Committee and the community that spoke highly in favor of preserving commercial zoning or commercial development, unanimous with the exception of some of the developers. Now, then it was proposed to change that again by a request by a certain land owner, developer. Okay, now the discussion was, alright how about six hundred feet, no they wanted to go to three hundred feet. So, only the first three hundred feet of office zone would be mandated to be developed as commercial. The rest of it could go to multi-family. I know that we have to have a certain segment, a certain portion of our town wide development be apartments. But it’s interesting that we just were just developing a Pilot, or approved a Pilot for some apartments. Now if you take a look at the assessment of the average apartment, and we did for the purposes of this Pilot program, and were looking at twenty eight five per unit, thirty thousand per unit, I even went up and looked up the most expensive apartments in Town and they were assessed at forty three five per unit, how much did the rest of us that has single family homes are picking up that burden? Now, I realize that we have to do some of that. I will also argue that Queensbury has done its fair share of that. I will also argue that to make office zone so you can develop that in a multi-family manner instead of developing a commercial is a sin, it’s a mistake, it’s an example of poor community planning. You may be looking at a highway district tax if this kind of poor planning is allowed to proceed. Now, that’s a little bit of the history of what’s going on here. Now what’s being proposed here is the further reduction of office zoning. Yeah, if you didn’t think it would get worse, it’s going to get worse today. I tried to argue with everybody. I had coffee with Ron, I had a cup of coffee with Tim and I don’t know Tim’s position on this but he seemed to think what I was offering would be satisfactory to everybody and would probably be the best thing for the community. I saw this coming, I knew it was coming. So, here’s what I offered, I said in order to protect office zone for basically commercial development we could allow senior housing to be an accepted use, take away the setback. So, it would come down to this, your office zone would include, commercial uses like offices but also commercial uses like banks and other commercial uses are allowed in the commercial zones; but again, commercial. Your multi-family would not be allowed in the commercial zone. We’ve got plenty of residential property all over town where multi-family can locate if you want more of it. I don’t think most of us want that. What they’re proposing here is to take away the provision that says three hundred foot setback. That was bad enough and we have a list of arterials in town. Glenwood is listed as an arterial, of course, and so are a bunch of others listed as arterials. What this proposition would allow, multi-family development on Country Club Road, on Glenwood, on Bay Road and anywhere else professional office might be located. There’s a health facility that wants to expand on Corinth Road, they are in a light industrial zone. If they want to expand they are a non conforming use. We’re all sympathetic to that, we don’t want to put any encumbrances on a good use, and that health facility certainly is. It was offered to put health facilities into light industrial. I don’t think you want to do that because their not compatible uses. However, can we take that parcel and if you have a rational basis to do it wouldn’t necessarily be spot zoning, could you take that parcel, which is a rather parcel, and zone that office. That seems like a good fit. Our Zoning Administrator said now wait a minute, that wouldn’t be a good fit because the way you’re defining professional office allows high density residential development and that wouldn’t be compatible. I said yes, that’s another … reason why we should take out high density residential development from our office zone. The reasons could go on forever but I think the community at large stands behind me on this because I’ve talked to numerous people, I’ve talked to business people, I’ve talked to everybody. They agree with me, you should not allow multi-family high density residential development to eat away, to erode your commercial zone like office zoning is. What this proposal does, like I said I started off by telling you first of all it’s REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 689 inaccurate, it’s not telling the people that we’re talking about properties on Country Club Road, we’re talking about other properties on Bay Road. It’s not just Glenwood and Woodvale. Furthermore, here’s another thing, here we are, we’re considering office zoning for this whole section, you’ve got Country Club Road, Woodvale, Glenwood Avenue, Bay Road, a whole huge section going to office zone. That’s not such a bad idea. If you’re going to develop that commercially especially along Glenwood, that’s all offices. I think that’s a good fit and to allow senior housing, to allow the Landing to expand between Woodvale and Glenwood that’s a good fit. I can live with that. But to allow multi-family along any of those areas, there’s no guarantee senior housing is going to go along Glenwood or Woodvale or Country Club or that end of Bay Road, there’s no guarantee. Those property owners according to what their going to do here, and I already talked so I know what the vote is, it’s going to be four to one, what their offering here is to allow multi-family development in this area. What I’m saying, if I open this map up and showed you all the residential development in this Town where those multi-families could go, I think you’d agree with me, office zone is not one place where they should go. Now, I did every effort I could, I always do my homework, I do my research, I have no interest in this, what I’m advocating is what I think is the best thing for the community. I’ll probably have more to say later, that’s just to get warmed up. COUNCILMAN BREWER- Can I just add one thing Dan? A Couple little things SUPERVISOR STEC- Go ahead COUNCILMAN BREWER- Just to straighten things out and I’m not saying you’re misleading people or anything John. Originally, the professional office zone that was created, you weren’t here, it was MR5 and that is the most dense COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Um COUNCILMAN BREWER- Let me finish, I let you finish. It is the most dense area of the Town that could be developed, it was along Bay was the most of the MR5. We changed it to include professional offices for the simple area that you want density where there is sewer. I think a proposed development that created all this arguing back and forth and changing the setbacks and zones was a project across the street. Two other members that aren’t on this Board anymore and yourself changed it to a thousand feet to stop a development, as I remember it. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Multi-family COUNCILMAN BREWER- Let me, doesn’t matter, that was in the zone, it was an allowed use. What was done was changed the setbacks so you could stop that development. I didn’t think it was fair at the time, there was an application in, you changed the law to stop it. Okay, it’s done; now you’re out numbered, we want to fix a problem that we had on this map previously, we all agreed, you’re the one who brought the map in and said there was an error, so we are going to fix it. Let me look at my notes, the Pilot you talked about previously, that’s already existing and that’s low income housing so I don’t know what that has to do with COUNCILMAN STROUGH- I’m talking about the average value of an apartment in town COUNCILMAN BREWER- But John, that’s low income housing COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, I even looked up high income housing COUNCILMAN BREWER- It’s specifically built and designed for that COUNCILMAN STROUGH- I gave them the figures for all of them Tim COUNCILMAN BREWER- Okay, well I don’t want to argue point, I’m just laying out some of the facts REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 690 COUNCILMAN STROUGH- If you want to look at the past that was all farm land. But, I thought we were looking forward COUNCILMAN BREWER- Okay COUNCILMAN STROUGH- I thought we were considering the Town’s future COUNCILMAN BREWER- Right, well COUNCILMAN STROUGH- If you want sustainable economic development COUNCILMAN BREWER- I understand that argument John COUNCILMAN STROUGH- You’ve got to develop this Town right or we’re going to be having a highway district tax before you know it COUNCILMAN BREWER- Right, okay that’s all I wanted to say SUPERVISOR STEC- Mr. Fuller, I assume you want to address these public hearings or one of them ATTORNEY FULLER- I would enjoy that. Tim, first I would like to thank you. Lets not tap dance around what this is. These comments are aimed at one property in particular and it’s right across the street. That’s where this is. The whole comment about what we’re doing here tonight. One comment was we’re changing office zoning to residential, no we’re not. It’s already allowed, it’s already allowed in that zone. All we’re asking on the map change is to fix the map that even Mr. Shaw had an original copy of the zoning map when we had that workshop. It clearly showed that area down by Glenwood and Woodvale as office, clear as day, it was on that map. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- But, Matt for the sake of clarity, if you don’t mind ATTORNEY FULLER- I don’t want to argue with you, I just want to give a comment COUNCILMAN STROUGH- It’s two acres per residence now. What you’re going to change it to is something like sixty units per five acres. So yeah, it’s residential for residential but lets talk about density. You’re talking about a substantial change. ATTORNEY FULLER- Can I continue SUPERVISOR STEC- Yes, continue COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Okay, yeah ATTORNEY FULLER- Okay, thanks. So, that’s the request on the map and the three hundred foot setback, again you got talking into history and I’ll certainly accept the invitation to talk about the history. I laid it out once before, back when we were talking about a thousand feet, six hundred feet, five hundred feet, three hundred feet, and again I’ve submitted a letter for the record on this and because I think given the discussions that are going on that some of this is targeted at some specific property owners and I think that they have rights and that’s what that record is intended to preserve. The comment about what happened across the street and what the office zone was suppose to do. I think when you paint a picture of not what the words in that office zone say but what you want them to say but, what you want them to say you mischaracterize exactly what that professional office was. I’ll lay it out here again, this was the prior code and I gave you the current code, it’s not much different, and the professional office, which was the prior zoning before last year the primary objective for the Bay Road Corridor is to create a professional office identity mixed with some high density, multi-family residential uses. Clear as day, that was the office zone and it’s carried over now. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- No, it has not been that way REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 691 ATTORNEY FULLER- Can I continue COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Yeah, but be accurate will ya SUPERVISOR STEC- Please continue, you have the floor ATTORNEY FULLER- Thank you. The current office districts are located along arterials, adjoining residential areas where compatibility with residential uses is important. The office district can function as a transition zone protecting residential zones from far more intensive commercial uses while providing convenient professional services to residential neighborhoods. Office and residential facilities should be sited and built to demonstrate compatibility with adjoining uses and to minimize any negative impacts on adjoining land uses. That’s the current zoning. So, you look at the schedule of uses, which I have right here COUNCILMAN STROUGH- The current zoning doesn’t say multi-family ATTORNEY FULLER- The current zoning, in the office zone, apartment house condos are allowed COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Allowed ATTORNEY FULLER- Business services COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Reading the description doesn’t say multi-family ATTORNEY FULLER- Health related facilities, multi-family house condo, office, large, small, professional offices, single family dwelling, other uses allowed. MDR right now you’re dealing with multi-family dwellings permitted. That’s in your MDR that you’re talking about right now Mr. Strough, if you pull out that section of the code. From a practical standpoint, I brought this up before and again I’ve laid out the history behind that, the non-conforming uses that you’ve got right now. You’ve got a bunch of them right across the street in Schermerhorn’s holdings, right across the street, within that three hundred foot setback, three or four buildings COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Six hundred ATTORNEY FULLER- You’re looking at the aerials, three hundred feet off that road COUNCILMAN STROUGH- If you look at it, six hundred foot setback ATTORNEY FULLER- Three hundred feet from that road is what you’re dealing with with the arterials. Those are non-conforming. The senior housing that you’re talking about down near Glenwood that’s already there, professional office, I know there’s an insurance agent down there, there’s an office that’s down there that ended up in this MDR, now we’re looking at the map again that are non-conforming uses. Before you try to do a thing with those offices you want to put something new on the back deck, you’re dealing with a use variance. So again, that’s a practical request. The impact to the office to residential, we’ve had comments before the tax base and the impact of that, before it was the School. The School’s being overrun with population, I remember it clear as day as last time. I supplied information then and I’ve included it now. The enrollment’s declining, everybody knows it is, it continues to decline. That red herring is gone, haven’t even heard it in this latest round. I put the information in here again because I wanted to preserve it for the record. But, that conversation about the impact we’re having on the School has completely been abandoned. Turning to the property that we’re dealing with, in particular, right across the street, again let’s face it, it’s the aim of a lot of the comments. The water and the sewer, we’re sitting in a building that benefits from it. I know the development Surrey Fields across the road benefited from the preliminary work that was done for that project. It’s worth mentioning that that entire project is not multi- family residential. It actually meets with the intent of what you have drafted with the three hundred foot setbacks when the project was originally envisioned and before it was shut down with a thousand foot setback that was adopted, literally weeks after the REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 692 majority switched on the Town Board. The sewer system was brought up, up the road here to the intersection, nine hundred thousand dollar cost that benefited multi-family senior project just down Bay here. It certainly benefited the property across the street. That was split, so four hundred and fifty thousand was spent by the property owners across the street. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- And the Town Hall ATTORNEY FULLER- And the Town, yeah right, and the Town brought the sewer there. Again, Surrey Fields has been allowed to tie into that. From a simple fairness standpoint, the applicant should be allowed, and we’re just talking about going forward to the Planning Board. This isn’t approved plan across the street. We need to get to the Planning Board and deal with that process. Nothing’s set in stone here, there’s nobody that’s been granted an approval we’re trying to get to the Planning Board and we were ready to get there before. Actually, going back to the discussion around three hundred feet. It’s one of two things, either those arterials were listed as an error or they were slipped in intentionally and nobody caught it. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Neither ATTORNEY FULLER- Neither one of them is acceptable COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Neither. Well, you’re right but ATTORNEY FULLER- Three hundred feet along Bay and I think along West Mountain was always the intent, I was in the workshops myself, it was always the discussion. Three hundred foot setback along all the arterials was never part of the conversation and it was never the intent. One of the comments, and again, it’s using the map and things for the benefit of argument here, everywhere the office zone is located in the Town, there’s two spots, where are all these other properties that are supposedly benefited and going to be allowed for residential use to run rough shot over the Town; its two areas that we’re looking at here. If you look at where the types of units that you’re looking at are even allowed even under your current zoning, look at the land stock that’s in those zones, the neighborhood residential. There’s not a lot of land stock left there. You’re talking about one of the few areas that’s it’s even an allowed use, office and I think the other one I saw was a neighborhood residential. The actual impact here without trying to strike fear into people is not as great as it seems when you actually take a look at the map that you’re impacting. I guess that’s it unless anybody has questions COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Yeah, I do. Let me first of all, Matt, read the accurate description right out of the code book right here, “Office: the office district encompasses areas where professional offices are encouraged. These are located along arterials, adjoining residential areas where compatibility with residential use is important. The Town desires to see a development of high quality offices where structures and facilities are constructed with particular attention to detail, including but not limited to architectural lighting, landscaping signs, streetscape, public amenities, pedestrian connections. The office district can function as a transition zone protecting residential zone from more intensive commercial uses while providing convenient professional services to residential neighborhoods. Office and residential facilities should be sited and built to demonstrate compatibility with adjoining uses and to minimize any negative impacts on adjoining land uses. Uses allowed: the use is allowed in the district are set forth in table on of this chapter. In addition, number one, no residential uses shall be allowed within three hundred feet of arterial roads. Now there’s a list of arterial roads in our book and I think there’s about thirty arterial roads. What you want to do is eliminate all of them because that’s the way the Town Codes written. What you want to do is eliminate all of them with the exception of Bay Road and West Mountain Road. Now it looks like you’re trying to tailor your code to meet certain land owners deeds. The public has to know that Matt, you’re the one that brought these proposals forward, that for the most part you do represent developers. Of course, I don’t blame you and I don’t hold anything against you for trying to posit a kind of information that would favor developers. But, I’ts not in the best interest of the community, nor do you have the best interest of this community in mind when you get up here. I just want to point that out. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 693 Now, when you’re talking about apartments and school needs and what have you, let’s just point out future needs. Let’s take a look at the future because you are trying to get us to look backwards and we should be looking forwards. Each apartment contributes on the average, the ITE standards, one point one pupil per unit. There will ultimately be an impact if you allow high density residential development. The other thing you said, well residential before, residential now, there two different birds. Right now it’s zoned one house for every two acres. With the office zoning, with what these guys want to do, you are going to be able to put apartments galore in there. Just to set this record straight. ATTORNEY FULLER- Just as we were sitting here, I did pull out that list of local arterials. You’re right, there’s some sixteen, twenty one, and nine, forty something roads on here COUNCILMAN STROUGH- About thirty, I said about thirty, okay. ATTORNEY FULLER- And you know how many you’re talking about impacting? Four COUNCILMAN STROUGH- No, you’re talking about all, now wait a minute, four right now Matt ATTORNEY FULLER- No COUNCILMAN STROUGH- No, no, no, Matt, Matt, you’re not counting ATTORNEY FULLER- I’m counting Country Club Road, Glenwood COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Did you count Corinth Road because we’re thinking about rezoning a piece over there office. Did you count that? Did you count what we may do on Dix Avenue, what we might do on Quaker Road? ATTORNEY FULLER- I’m not asking you what you might do COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Yeah, well you do have to look forward. We, as a Board, have to look into all possibilities of what might happen and what might happen if you want to see commercial development and the way you are changing office zone and allowing high residential development to develop I don’t think is the best interest of this community. I’m going to vote accordingly SUPERVISOR STEC- How about I open it to more public comment. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to comment on this public hearing? Mr. Bruno DAVID BRUNO- I don’t have a lot to say but there’s a lot of tension here obviously and I see that but to me the bottom line is Queensbury is in economic trouble when it comes to providing solid jobs for its citizens and if we continue to erode the economic base of this Town we are going to pay the price down the road. If we continue to build more and more high density apartments, you are just taking away the economic viability of this Town. If you’re trying to fix a problem Tim and say that the problem is economic development I disagree COUNCILMAN BREWER- Did I say that MR. BRUNO- Yeah, you said you’re trying to fix a problem COUNCILMAN BREWER- On the map that was incorrect MR. BRUNO- And the problem on the map is doing away with viable economic developable land. We need to have good economic base in this Town. If you continue to erode it we’re going to pay the price down the road. The citizens won’t be able to afford the tax burden that you will be putting upon them. The middle class in the Country is being squeezed to death as it is by taxes from the Federal Government on down and you need to preserve this property. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 694 SUPERVISOR STEC- Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to comment on this public hearing, anyone? Alright, I will close this public hearing; actually I will close both public hearings. I think John fairly pointed out in an email, he suggested that it might be more appropriate, and I didn’t look at it that way but having read his email, I think he’s right that it’s probably more appropriate to consider the second one, one point six first, which is regarding the arterials because that will have an impact potentially on how we view the other one because those are currently listed on those. I agree in that, although, I don’t think any of us really had seen it that way. With that said, do we need to walk through a SEQRA? ATTORNEY HILL- We do SUPERVISOR STEC- Why don’t we, let’s do one point six first Stuart or Mike STUART BAKER, SENIOR PLANNER- I will go through part two of the SEQRA Long Environmental Assessment Form with the Board, keeping in mind the … for Resolution 1.6 the proposed action being discussed is dealing with the change in the three hundred foot setback SUPERVISOR STEC- I Think everyone’s’ going to need to speak up, all five Board Members so that we get that on the record, so there is no confusion in the future. PART 2- SEQRA FORM LONG FORM 1.Will the Proposed action result in any physical change to the project site? NO 2.Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological, formations, etc.) NO 3.Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? (under Articles 12, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) NO 4.Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? NO 5.Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? NO 6.Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? NO 7.Will proposed action affect air quality? NO 8.Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? NO 9.Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? NO 10.Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? NO 11.Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? NO 12.Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? NO 13.Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? NO 14.Will proposed action impact he exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14(g)? NO 15.Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? NO REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 695 16.Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? NO 17.Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? NO 18.Will proposed action affect public health and safety? NO 19.Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? NO 20.Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? NO SUPERVISOR STEC- I’d like to add for the record, unless any Board Members object, I did not hear on any instance more than one yes on any of those. I presume that four no’s on all others COUNCILMAN STROUGH- To make it clear, you did hear one yes SUPERVISOR STEC- On several, yes, but not more than one COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Just for the future SUPERVISOR STEC- So, we have a resolution with a negative SEQRA declaration ** Letter submitted to the Town Board from Attorney Matthew Fuller regarding Resolution 138, 2010 and will be on file in the Town Clerk’s Office. RESOLUTION ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO.: 3 OF 2010 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 179 “ZONING” §179-3-040(B)(2)(a)[1] RESOLUTION NO.: 138, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier th WHEREAS, at its February 8, 2010 Workshop Meeting, the Queensbury Town Board discussed changing Queensbury Town Code §179-3-040(B)(2)(a)[1] to specify that residential development in office zoning districts should not be within three-hundred feet (300’) of Bay Road and West Mountain Road instead of all arterial roads, and WHEREAS, the Town Board instructed the Senior Planner to draft the necessary zoning language to effect such proposed change, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has caused the draft revisions to be put into the form of proposed Local Law No. 3 of 2010, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 696 WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: 3 of , 2010 to Amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179 “Zoning” §179-3-040(B)(2)(a)[1] and WHEREAS, in accordance with General Municipal Law §239-m, before enacting the legislation the Town must first refer the proposed revised Zoning Code and obtain a recommendation from the Warren County Planning Board, and WHEREAS, the Town Board is duly qualified to act as lead agency and accepts lead agency status for compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) which requires environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type I action under SEQRA in accordance with §179-15-060 of the Town Zoning Law, and th WHEREAS, on or about March 10, 2010 the Warren County Planning Board considered the proposed Local Law and determined that there would be no County impact, and th WHEREAS, the Town Board duly held a public hearing on Monday, March 15, 2010 and heard all interested persons, and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Local Law has been presented at this meeting and is in form approved by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board, after considering the proposed action, reviewing the Full Environmental Assessment Form and thoroughly analyzing the action for potential environmental concerns, determines that the legislative amendment will not have any significant effect on the environment, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to complete the Full Environmental Assessment Form by checking the box indicating that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 697 RESOLVED, that the Town Board approves of a SEQRA Negative Declaration or determination that no Environmental Impact Statement is necessary and authorizes and directs the Town Clerk's Office to file any necessary documents in accordance with the provisions of the SEQRA regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby enacts Local Law No.: 3 of 2010 to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179 entitled “Zoning,” §179-3- 040(B)(2)(a)[1], as presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to send a copy of this Resolution and a copy of the Local Law to the Town Planning Board, Town Zoning Board of Appeals, Zoning Administrator, County Planning Board and Adirondack Park Agency in accordance with §179-15-080(D) of the Town Zoning Law; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to file the Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and acknowledges that the Local Law will take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Brewer NOES: Mr. Strough ABSENT: None LOCAL LAW NO.: 3 OF 2010 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND CHAPTER 179 “ZONING” OF QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE TO REVISE §179-3-040 BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS FOLLOWS: REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 698 § SECTION 1. Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179, “Zoning,” 179-3-040 entitled "Purpose and establishment of zoning districts," Section (B)(2)(a)[1] is hereby amended as follows: § 179-3-040. Purpose and establishment of zoning districts. B. Commercial Districts. (2) Office. The Office District encompasses areas where professional offices are encouraged. These are located along arterials adjoining residential areas where compatibility with residential uses is important. The Town desires to see development of high-quality offices where structures and facilities are constructed with particular attention to detail, including but not limited to architecture, lighting, landscaping, signs, streetscape, public amenities, and pedestrian connections. The Office District can function as a transition zone protecting residential zones from more intensive commercial uses, while providing convenient professional services to residential neighborhoods. Office and residential facilities should be sited and built to demonstrate compatibility with adjoining uses and to minimize any negative impacts on adjoining land uses. (a) Uses allowed. The uses allowed in this district are set forth on Table 1 of this chapter. Editor's Note: Table 1 is included at the end of this chapter. In addition: [1] No residential uses shall be allowed within 300 feet of Bay Road and West Mountain Road. [2] Both commercial and residential uses are allowed beyond 300 feet back from Bay Road and West Mountain Road.. [3] Large offices are prohibited uses in the Gurney Lane Office District. SECTION 2. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph or provision of this Local Law shall not invalidate any other clause, sentence, paragraph or part thereof. SECTION 3. All Local Laws or ordinances or parts of Local Laws or ordinances in conflict with any part of this Local Law are hereby repealed. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 699 SECTION 4. This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing in the Office of the New York Secretary of State as provided in New York Municipal Home Rule Law §27. PART 2- SEQRA FORM LONG FORM 1.Will the Proposed action result in any physical change to the project site? NO 2.Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological, formations, etc.) NO 3.Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? (under Articles 12, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) NO 4.Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? NO 5.Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? NO 6.Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? NO 7.Will proposed action affect air quality? NO 8.Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? NO 9.Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? NO 10.Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? NO 11.Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? NO 12.Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? NO 13.Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? NO 14.Will proposed action impact he exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14(g)? NO 15.Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? NO 16.Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? NO 17.Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? NO 18.Will proposed action affect public health and safety? NO 19.Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? NO 20.Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? NO SUPERVISOR STEC- So we have a resolution with a negative SEQRA and I’ll ask the Clerk again, as the public hearing before to please note in the record, when you do the REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 700 minutes that none of those questions was more than one yes uttered by Town Board Members. So, all the rest were no. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- To make clear, there was one yes uttered ** Letter submitted to the Town Board from Attorney Matthew Fuller regarding Resolution 139, 2010 and will be on file in the Town Clerk’s Office. RESOLUTION ADOPTING SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AMENDING ZONING LAW TO CHANGE CLASSIFICATION OF PARCELS ON GLENWOOD AVENUE AND WOODVALE ROAD FROM MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) TO OFFICE (O) AND ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO.: 4 OF 2010 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 179 “ZONING” RESOLUTION NO.: 139, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board is considering amending the Town Zoning Law and Map to rezone seventy-one parcels of property on Glenwood Avenue and Woodvale Road from Moderate Density Residential (MDR) to Office (O), and WHEREAS, before the Town Board may amend, supplement, change, or modify its Zoning Law and Map, it must hold a public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Town Law §265, the Municipal Home Rule Law and the Town of Queensbury Zoning Laws, and WHEREAS, the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing and heard all th interested parties concerning the proposed rezoning on Monday, March 15, 2010, and th WHEREAS, on or about March 10, 2010, the Warren County Planning Board considered the proposed rezoning and determined that there would be no County impact, and WHEREAS, as SEQRA Lead Agency, the Town Board has reviewed a Full Environmental Assessment Form to analyze potential environmental impacts of the proposed rezoning, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has considered the conditions and circumstances of the area affected by the rezoning, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 701 WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: 4 of 2010 to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179 by amending the official Town Zoning Map to reflect a change of zone for 71 parcels of property on Glenwood Avenue and Woodvale Road from Moderate Density Residential (MDR) to Office (O), as presented at this meeting, hereinafter referred to as the “legislation,” NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby determines that the proposed rezoning will not have any significant adverse environmental impact and a SEQRA Negative Declaration is made, and the Town Clerk and/or Senior Planner and/or Town Counsel are authorized and directed to file and publish a SEQRA Negative Declaration - Notice of Determination of Non-Significance with respect to the Project, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby amends the Town of Queensbury Zoning Law and Map to rezone seventy-one parcels of property on Glenwood Avenue and Woodvale Road from Moderate Density Residential (MDR)) to Office (O), such properties bearing Tax Map ParcelNo.’s: 296.15-1-18 296.74-1-5 296.74-1-30 296.15-1-19 296.74-1-6 296.74-1-31 296.15-1-20 296.74-1-7 296.74-1-32 296.15-1-22 296.74-1-8 296.74-1-33 296.15-1-23 296.74-1-9 296.74-1-34 296.15-1-24 296.74-1-10 296.74-1-35 296.15-1-25 296.74-1-11 296.74-1-36 296.15-1-26.1 296.74-1-12 296.74-1-37 296.15-1-26.2 296.74-1-13 296.74-1-38 296.15-1-26.3 296.74-1-14 296.74-1-39 296.15-1-27 296.74-1-15 296.74-1-40 296.19-1-12 296.74-1-16 296.74-1-41 296.19-1-13 296.74-1-17 296.74-1-42 296.19-1-14.1 296.74-1-18 296.74-1-43 296.19-1-14.2 296.74-1-19 296.74-1-44 296.19-1-18 296.74-1-20 296.74-1-45 296.19-1-19 296.74-1-21 296.74-1-46 296.19-1-20 296.74-1-22 296.82-1-1 296.19-1-22 296.74-1-23 296.82-1-2 296.19-1-23 296.74-1-24 296.82-1-3 296.19-1-24 296.74-1-25 296.82-1-4 296.74-1-1 296.74-1-26 296.74-1-2 296.74-1-27 296.74-1-3 296.74-1-28 296.74-1-4 296.74-1-29 and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 702 RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby adopts Local Law No.: 4 of 2010 to amend the Queensbury Town Code by amending the official Town Zoning Map to reflect a change of zone for the 71 parcels of property listed above on Glenwood Avenue and Woodvale Road from Moderate Density Residential (MDR) to Office (O), as presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to file the Local Law and the official Town Zoning Map, as amended, with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and acknowledges that the Local Law will take effect upon such filing, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to send a copy of this Resolution and a copy of the Local Law and Zoning Map to the Town Planning Board, Town Zoning Board of Appeals and Zoning Administrator in accordance with §179-15-080(D) of the Town Zoning Law; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall take effect immediately. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: Mr. Strough ABSENT: None LOCAL LAW NO.: 4 OF 2010 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND CHAPTER 179 “ZONING” OF QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE TO AMEND OFFICIAL TOWN ZONING MAP BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179, “Zoning,” is hereby amended by amending the official Town Zoning Map to reflect a change of zone for 71 parcels of property on Glenwood Avenue and Woodvale Road from Moderate Density Residential (MDR) to Office (O), such properties bearing Tax Map Parcel numbers as follows: REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 703 296.15-1-18 296.74-1-5 296.74-1-30 296.15-1-19 296.74-1-6 296.74-1-31 296.15-1-20 296.74-1-7 296.74-1-32 296.15-1-22 296.74-1-8 296.74-1-33 296.15-1-23 296.74-1-9 296.74-1-34 296.15-1-24 296.74-1-10 296.74-1-35 296.15-1-25 296.74-1-11 296.74-1-36 296.15-1-26.1 296.74-1-12 296.74-1-37 296.15-1-26.2 296.74-1-13 296.74-1-38 296.15-1-26.3 296.74-1-14 296.74-1-39 296.15-1-27 296.74-1-15 296.74-1-40 296.19-1-12 296.74-1-16 296.74-1-41 296.19-1-13 296.74-1-17 296.74-1-42 296.19-1-14.1 296.74-1-18 296.74-1-43 296.19-1-14.2 296.74-1-19 296.74-1-44 296.19-1-18 296.74-1-20 296.74-1-45 296.19-1-19 296.74-1-21 296.74-1-46 296.19-1-20 296.74-1-22 296.82-1-1 296.19-1-22 296.74-1-23 296.82-1-2 296.19-1-23 296.74-1-24 296.82-1-3 296.19-1-24 296.74-1-25 296.82-1-4 296.74-1-1 296.74-1-26 296.74-1-2 296.74-1-27 296.74-1-3 296.74-1-28 296.74-1-4 296.74-1-29 SECTION 2. The map appended to this Local Law is hereby adopted as the official Town Zoning Map of the Town of Queensbury and supersedes the previously adopted Town Zoning Map. SECTION 3. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph or provision of this Local Law shall not invalidate any other clause, sentence, paragraph or part thereof. SECTION 4. All Local Laws or ordinances or parts of Local Laws or ordinances in conflict with any part of this Local Law are hereby repealed. SECTION 5. This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing in the Office of the New York Secretary of State as provided in New York Municipal Home Rule Law §27. 2.0PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR (LIMIT- 4 MINUTES) PLINEY TUCKER- ? Questioned Supervisor Stec regarding the accident involving the Honey-Do truck. ? Questioned Resolution 3.1- Authorizing Transfer of Recreation Development Rights to Adirondack Community College. Supervisor Stec explained that in the past there was a PUD that was approved by the Town in which the developer was going to donate 12.38 to the Town’s Parks and Recreation Department for future use. They’ve since been approached by Adirondack Community College about whether or not they would be willing to transfer those acres to the College rather than to the Town. The Recreation Commission has reviewed it and has REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 704 expressed that they don’t have an issue with that. In order for the Town to allow that transfer to go instead of to the Town to ACC for future recreation use they need a Town Board Resolution. There is no cost to the Town. ? Questioned Resolution 3.6- Authorizing West Glens Falls Fire Company, Inc. to Refinance Fire Station. Supervisor Stec- The West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company has been given the opportunity to refinance their outstanding mortgage on their building. They can get a better rate the next five years on their outstanding balance. This is going to save them a few hundred dollars a month. If a fire company or rescue squad wants new debt, including refinancing of existing debt, they need a resolution from the Town Board. This is not reopening their contract; this is literally a resolution that allows them to take advantage of savings they can get at about a percentage point less on their rate. TONYA BRUNO- ? Read a letter into record regarding a complaint made to the Supervisor’s Office regarding the chickens she is keeping on her property. She acknowledged a letter that she received from Craig Brown that the keeping of poultry in the rural residential five acre zoning district is only allowed with an approved site plan reviewed by the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. Since there is no record of the approved site plan review for this use on her property she is in violation of the Local Law. She stated that she will be responding to Mr. Brown’s letter. TAMMY SULLIVAN- ? Questioned the status of the drainage repairs on Homer Avenue affecting her property as well as the surrounding properties. Town Counsel, Mike Hill, informed Ms. Sullivan that they are currently working further correspondence with Time Warner Cable and Tire Warehouse concerning a proposal for the replacement of the drainage pipe. Supervisor Stec stated that if they are unable to gain voluntary compliance with other property owners involved it is possible they will have to look into district formation. He also stated that they are committed to make sure this gets done this year. JOHN SALVADOR- ? Questioned Councilman Strough regarding a highway district tax. Councilman Strough explained that if a situation arises where our surplus cannot balance the books, we are going to have to tax. Supervisor Stec further explained that if in the future because of where we are in our budget and fund balances we need to raise a tax it could be a highway tax or a general town tax. ? Spoke regarding a foil he submitted concerning the Homer Avenue drainage issue. Questioned the boundaries of the district that may be formed to resolve the drainage problems. ? Read in the newspaper where the County has plans to update their solid waste management policy. 3.0RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF RECREATION DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS TO ADIRONDACK COMMUNITY COLLEGE RESOLUTION NO.: 140, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 705 WHEREAS, The Michaels Group is the developer of the Waverly Place Subdivision which is part of the Hiland Park Planned Unit Development (PUD), and WHEREAS, development of the PUD included considerations of open space and lands for parks and recreation, and WHEREAS, a 12.38 acre parcel located on Meadowbrook Road was identified in the subdivision plans as a parcel to be donated to the Town of Queensbury Parks and Recreation Department upon final approval of future development areas, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has not identified any immediate use for this property, and WHEREAS, the Town is not inclined to accept dedication of the property to the Town at this time, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Commission of Parks and Recreation, at its meeting nd of March 2, 2010, voted in favor of the transfer of this property to Adirondack Community College (ACC), and WHEREAS, ACC is part of the State University of New York and operates as a public two-year community college, and WHEREAS, ACC has agreed to accept the property if the Town of Queensbury declines to do so, and WHEREAS, by allowing ACC to become steward of this property, the Town would have no financial responsibility or liability for this property, and WHEREAS, use of the property by ACC is consistent with the Town’s desired goal of maintaining open space and recreational land in the Town boundary, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board does not wish to accept a deed to the 12.38 acre parcel located on Meadowbrook Road adjacent to the Waverly Place subdivision and the Town Board will support the application of The Michaels Group and/or ACC to modify the approval of the Waverly Place Subdivision to remove the notation on the maps of the subdivision that the 12.38 acre parcel will be donated to the Town of Queensbury Parks and Recreation Department, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 706 BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board supports the determination of The Michaels Group to donate this land to the Adirondack Community College to further the purposes of Adirondack Community College, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Director of Parks and Recreation and/or Town Counsel to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mr. Strough (trustee for Adirondack Community College) RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING AND ACCEPTING REQUIRED AUDIT RELATING TO QUEENSBURY TOWN COURT RECORDS RESOLUTION NO.: 141, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 27,2010, the Queensbury Town Board engaged the auditing services of Cusack & Company, CPA’s to provide auditing services to the Town of Queensbury for the year ending December 31, 2009, such services including the auditing of the Town’s Financial Statements and Departments, and WHEREAS, the New York State Uniform Justice Court Act §2019-a and Town Law §123 set forth annual reporting, accounting and audit requirements for Town Courts, and WHEREAS, in accordance with such laws, the Town Board reviewed the audit reports pertaining to the Queensbury Town Court, as well as the Town Justices’ response to REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 707 such audit, and the Town Board wishes to acknowledge and accept the audit as having fulfilled the Town Board’s responsibility to audit the Town Justices’ records, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury hereby acknowledges and accepts the audit of the Queensbury Town Justice Court’s records as required by New York State Uniform Justice Court Act §2019-a and Town Law §123 as delineated in the preambles of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED,that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Budget Officer to provide a copy of such audit and a certified copy of this Resolution to: Director of Internal Audit, New York State Office of Court Administration, 98 Niver Street, Cohoes, NY 12047, and the Town Supervisor and/or Town Budget Officer to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING APRIL 2010 AS “PARENTS WHO HOST, LOSE THE MOST MONTH 2010” RESOLUTION NO.: 142, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, adults who provide alcohol to those below the legal drinking age of 21 are placing those youth at risk for health, safety and legal problems, and WHEREAS, alcohol kills 6.5 times more young people than ALL other illicit drugs combined and usage among teens often accompanies traffic fatalities and other high risk REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 708 behaviors such as unsafe sexual activity, tobacco and other drug use and contributes to illegal activity such as vandalism and theft, and WHEREAS, alcohol use by young people is dangerous, not only because of the risks associated with acute impairment, but also because of the threat to their long-term development and well-being, and WHEREAS, it is illegal to give or allow teens other than your own, to drink alcohol in your home, even with their parents’ permission, and WHEREAS, anyone found guilty of providing alcohol to youth can face up to a $1,000 fine and six (6) months in jail, in addition to any civil action that can be brought as a result of damages or injury related to the offense, and WHEREAS, any citizens who are aware of underage drinking at teen house parties are responsible to report such activity to their local law enforcement agency by calling their local law enforcement agency, and WHEREAS, adults have the authority and responsibility to our youth to provide them with alternative opportunities by creating alcohol free activities, and WHEREAS, New York Parents for Drug Free Youth, through the Parents Who Host, Lose the Most Campaign provides the educational materials to raise community awareness regarding this illegal and unhealthy practice, and WHEREAS, parents and the community must take responsibility to give teens the clear messages that there is no safe way to drink alcohol, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury encourages residents to refuse to provide alcoholic beverages to underage youth and to take the necessary steps to discourage the illegal and unhealthy practice, including the reporting of underage drinking by calling your local police, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board not only discourages the use of alcohol by those below the legal age of consumption but also exhorts all residents of the Town of Queensbury to refuse to provide alcoholic beverages to those underage youth and will continue to take the necessary steps to discourage this illegal and unhealthy activity, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 709 RESOLVED, that the Town Board further hereby proclaims the month of April 2010 to be, “Parents Who Hose, Lose the Most Month 2010,” and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to post a certified copy of this Resolution on the Town’s bulletin board and mail a certified Jennifer Holden c/o Council for Prevention of Alcohol and copy of this Resolution to Substance Abuse, 10 LaCrosse Street Hudson Falls, New York 12839 , and the Town Supervisor and/or Town Clerk to take such other and further actions as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING COMMENCEMENT OF SUPREME COURT ACTION TO RECOVER PAST DUE FUNDS FROM EASTSIDE USED AUTO PARTS RESOLUTION NO.: 143, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, Eastside Used Auto Parts is authorized to remove scrap metal from the Town of Queensbury’s transfer stations and pays the Town for such collection of scrap metal, and WHEREAS, Eastside Used Auto Parts has a seriously delinquent account due the Town in the amount of $11,736.71 related to such scrap metal removal, and WHEREAS, attempts to collect payment from Eastside Used Auto Parts have been unsuccessful, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to commence a Court action in an attempt to collect such debt, together with interest and collection costs, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 710 WHEREAS, the Supreme Court is the sole Court with jurisdiction over this matter, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the commencement of a Warren County Supreme Court action to collect on the Town’s past due account of Eastside Used Auto Parts as referenced in the preambles of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town’s Budget Officer to arrange for payment of any Court and/or litigation costs related to this matter from the account(s) deemed to be appropriate by the Budget Officer, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs Town Counsel to file any necessary documentation to commence such proceeding and the Town Supervisor, Town Counsel, Town Landfill Equipment Operator and/or Town Budget Officer to take any and all action necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2009 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 144, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the following 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 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 711 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town’s Accounting Office to take all action necessary to amend the 2009 Town Budget as follows: From To Code Appropriation Code Appropriation $ 001-1110-4400 Misc. Contractual 001-1010-4400 Misc. Contractual 2,570 001-1330-4400 Misc. Contractual 001-1315-4400 Misc. Contractual 200 001-7020-4400 Misc. Contractual 001-6989-2899 Capital Construction 8,504 th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: None **DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE: SUPERVISOR STEC- As is the norm and has been for decades, the Town routinely amends its budget and until the books are closed in 2009 which will be coming up here in the next few weeks we will still make a few minor adjustments to the 2009 budget. This is in fact, happening and there is three relatively minor lines and they are all essentially from miscellaneous contractual into another miscellaneous contractual. I’ll point out to the Board that the largest one for $8,500 happens to be the cable conduit that we wanted to run in the water trench down there to facilitate future use (from Main Street down Richardson Street). COUNCILMAN BREWER- Let it be known that once a company opts to purchase that area that money will come back to the Town. That’s anticipated probably in the next two years. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WEST GLENS FALLS VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC. TO REFINANCE FIRE STATION RESOLUTION NO.: 145, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury and the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. (Fire Company) have entered into an Agreement for fire protection services, which Agreement sets forth a number of terms and conditions including a condition that the Fire Company will not purchase or enter into any binding contract to purchase any piece of apparatus, equipment, vehicles, real property, or make any improvements that would require the Fire Company to acquire a loan or mortgage or use money placed in a “vehicles fund” without prior approval of the Queensbury Town Board, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 712 th WHEREAS, by email dated March 9, 2010 from the Fire Company’s President to the Town Supervisor (a copy of which has been presented at this meeting), the Fire Company advised that it has an opportunity to refinance its Fire Station at a lower interest rate, and WHEREAS, the Fire Company’s current mortgage has a balance of $979,440.50 4.85% at with a term of 22 months remaining with an approximate monthly payment of $9164.43, and upon the end of such term, the mortgage terms are to be renegotiated for the remaining 12 year life of the loan, and new WHEREAS, the proposed mortgage financing is for a term of 60 months at 3.85%$8673.55 an interest rate of with an approximate monthly payment of , after which term the mortgage terms are to be renegotiated, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has determined that it is necessary, financially beneficial and in the public interest to authorize such refinancing, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the mortgage refinancing of West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. as generally set forth in the preambles of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, and/or Town Budget Officer to take any action necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2010 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS – WARRANT OF TH MARCH 16, 2010 RESOLUTION NO.: 146, 2010 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 713 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve an audit of bills thth presented as a Warrant with a run date of March 10, 2010 and payment date of March 16, 2010, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Warrant with thth the run date of March 10, 2010 and payment date of March 16, 2010 totaling $2,320,228.41, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Budget Officer to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW NO. __ OF 2010 TO MODIFY, RESTATE AND REAFFIRM QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 179 “ZONING” SECTION 179-4-110 ENTITLED “UNDERGROUND UTILITIES OVERLAY DISTRICT” RESOLUTION NO.: 147, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board (Town) wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: __ of 2010 to amend, restate and reaffirm in its entirety Queensbury Town REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 714 Code Chapter 179, “Zoning,” §179-4-110 entitled “Underground Utilities Overlay District,” originally enacted by Local Law 6 of 2004 and thereafter amended by Local Law 1 of 2005, and WHEREAS, the Town wishes to alter the bounds of the Underground Utility Overlay District relative to certain portions of adjacent roadways that intersect with the corridors of the Underground Utility Overlay District, and WHEREAS, the Town wishes to clarify when new aboveground facilities can be constructed within the Underground Utilities Overlay District, and WHEREAS, this legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State Municipal Home Rule Law §10 and Town Law Article 16, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to set a public hearing concerning adoption of this Local Law, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall meet and hold a public hearing at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, th April 19, 2010 to hear all interested persons and take any necessary action provided by law concerning proposed Local Law No.: __ of 2010, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish and post a Notice of Public Hearing concerning proposed Local Law No. __ of 2010 in the manner provided by law, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to send the Notice of Public Hearing to all communities or agencies that it is necessary to give written notice to in accordance with New York State Town Law §265, the Town’s Zoning Regulations and the Laws of the State of New York, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board directs the Community Development Department to forward the proposed Local Law to the Warren County Planning Board for REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 715 its review and comment in accordance with New York State General Municipal Law §239- M. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT: None 4.0CORRESPONDENCE DEPUTY TOWN CLERK MELLON- The Supervisor’s report for Community Development/Building and Codes, for the month of January, is on file in the Town Clerk’s Office. 5.0TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS COUNCILMAN BREWER- Congratulations to the cast of “Hello Dolly”, performed at Queensbury High School last weekend. They did an awesome job. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- ? Also congratulated all the Queensbury High students involved with the play. ? Spoke regarding recent articles in the Chronicle and U.S. News and World Report talking about Queensbury real estate. The Queensbury area is one of the ten best housing markets in the next decade. Home prices in the area will increase more than 4.7% a year over the next ten years according to Moody’s economy. The average home price is about $178,950.00. This article looks at long term investments. A house in Queensbury is one of the best investments in the nation. ? Reviewed the flyer he distributed to residents when he was running for Ward III Councilman. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- ? Congratulated the Queensbury Hockey Team who came in number two in the State. ? On March 18, 2010 will meet with Steve Lovering, Director of Parks and Recreation, concerning Hovey Pond, Gurney Lane Recreation Area, the Meadowbrook Preserve, Jenkinsville maintenance building. They also discussed an online credit card payment system. COUNCILMAN ANTHONY METIVIER- ? Went to the ribbon cutting ceremony for NBT Bank on Quaker Road Last week. Soon Queensbury will be welcoming Adirondack Trust as well as another facility for Glens Falls National Bank. SUPERVISOR STEC- ? The Town’s website: www.queensbury.net ? Thanked TV8 and the sponsors for televising the board meetings. We are one of two communities in Warren County that televises our regular business meetings. ? Within the next several days people will be receiving their census documents. It’s required by law that you complete and return them. For every one percent increase in participation there is an eighty to ninety million dollar savings nationwide. So, if you want to save the federal government some money don’t forget to fill out and mail in your census forms. RESOLUTION ADJOURNING REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2010 MTG #11 716 RESOLUTION NO.: 148, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Regular Town Board Meeting. Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: None Respectfully Submitted, Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk Town of Queensbury