Loading...
1987-03-24 so TOWN BOARD MEETING MARCH 24, 1987 TOWN BOARD MEMBERS Mrs. Frances Walter-Supervisor Mr. George Kurosaka, Councilman Mr. Stephen Borgos, Councilman Mr. Ronald Montesi, Councilman Mrs. Betty Monahan, Councilman Mr. Wilson Mathias-Town Counsel 1 7:30 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN BORGOS PRESS: Glens Falls Post Star TOWN OFFICIALS: Stuart Mesinger, Ralph VanDusen, Paul Naylor, Rick Missita GUESTS: Joan Dobert, Walter Medwig, John Caffry, Mrs. Arsberger, JoAnn Bulova, Edward Rabideau, Linda White, Glen Gregory, June Burke,Margaret Burrell , Dave Kenny, George Polangi, Michael O'Connor. PUBLIC HEARING-Proposed Local Law regarding use of Temporary Toilet Facilities 7:30 P.M. Notice Shown SUPERVISOR WALTER-Our first Public Hearing this evening is a Local Law pertaining to the use of temporary toilet facilities in the Town of Queensbury. To make it a little clearer we are prohibiting the establishment of one or more temporary toilet facilities on lands in the Town of Queensbury. The intent of the law is to keep these toilet facilities from becoming permanent fixtures. Asked for public comment hearing none, kept public hearing open till later. SECOND PUBLIC HEARING-Proposed Rezoning 7:35 P.M. Notice Shown SUPERVISOR WALTER-Stated that the second public hearing is regarding the proposed rezoning of an area in the Town of Queensbury at Potter Road, West Mountain Road, Peggy Ann and Dixon. Our Town Planner is here this evening and I would ask him to make a short presentation during the public hearing. STUART MESINGER-Referred to a drawing of the regional areas. The property we are talking about is bounded by Potter Road on the North, West Mountain Road on the West, Peggy Ann Road on the South and Dixon Road on the North again. The existing zoning of the property is shown by red lines, the existing zoning is SR20 which is suburban residential 20, which means essentially a house every half acre and also allows Duplexes on 3/4 acre lots and multi-family dwelling as well. SFR 10 south of the Reservoir that's a house every quarter lot, SFR20 is single family houses north of the Reservoir by the brook is again essentially 112 acre lots zoning and the land east of the power line and north of the Reservoir Brook the current zoning is UR10 which is essentially a high density residential zoning, allowing apartment buildings etc. The Town Board asked me to look at the zoning of this property and look at the natural resources, characteristics of it, traffic and so on and come up with a recommendation for rezoning it, I have this and the soils in this area are rated as severe limitations for development and particularly in areas that are watersheds because they perk too fast. They are fine if you have an individual septic system and you are on town water, however in the areas _ that are used as watersheds there is a problem (SCS provided the technical information) { indicating that our densities are way too high to provide watershed protection. i The second problem that we have is traffic, the Planning Board last evening had a study provided by a developer by subdivision south of Peggy Ann Road...as you may or may not know the Planning Board has over the winter approved something like 500 dwelling units on Peggy Ann Road in one form or another. The Planning Board asked for an extensive traffic analysis of what all this development was going to do to the road network here and up along Dixon and particular Peggy Ann Road. The findings of that study were that . the development south of Peggy Ann Road you are approaching a condition very close to intersection failure that you are using up about 85% of the available capacity of the roads and intersection. 81 If north of the road was developed as it is presently zoned there is no question that you would be getting in this situation of gridlock and I think for those people who live north of Potter Road who already are condescended, it has gotten very crowded there, it is not hard to see the development of the land south of Potter Road to the densities similar to those already developed north of it going to create a similar real traffic problem getting on to Dixon. The third consideration involves open space, this is a resource for the Town that when the Planning Board and the Town Board zoned this property their understanding was that it would not be developed. Why they zoned it this way given that understanding I am unsure but that was the understanding. Since that time there has been a proposal by the city who owns most of this land to sell off part of it and this has not thought to be something that was going to happen when it was zoned and prompted this concern. The proposal that I have recommended to the Town Board is essentially to rezone _ the bulk of the land to RR3A, which is rural residential 3 acre, essentially a house every three acres. Referring to the drawing showed the public all those areas retaining their existing zoning and the rest of the land rezoned to RR3A and that is the proposal the Public Hearing is on. SUPERVISOR WALTER-The Town Board will entertain comments from the public. JOAN DOBERT-89 Grant Avenue...We also have property in Queensbury. I am representing the Southern Adirondack Audubon Society. First of all I wish to commend the Board on the action they have taken with the designating Rush Pond as an environmental sensitive area. I think that that effort will be appreciated in years and years to come by the community. I am speaking on behalf of Southern Adirondack, we feel good that you are addressing this situation of the Watershed, however we feel that it doesn't go far enough we would like to see it designated as conservation and I am not exactly sure of the terminologies, but it is a stricter acreage than the RR3, basically that's what the Southern Adirondack is recommending. WALTER MEDWIG-Laural Lane, Queensbury, As is evident in the discussion tonight Queensbury is changing pretty rapidly. We've got a number of proposals that are on the planning table at this stage, Highland Park Proposal which will dramatically have an impact on the agricultural lands, Earltown development that will have a major impact on the Quaker Road and the wetlands contained there. We've got the potential development at Round Pond, Rush Pond which is a development on plans surrounding that area and now we have the watershed property. I agree with what Mrs. Dobert has just said, addressing the issue taking a step to try to protect — that area and again I think it is a good first step toward a more positive solution to the area. I should point out that I am speaking on behalf of the Queensbury Association this evening and we have discussed the issue and again it is our feeling that we would like to see brought back again and the development of the area reduced even further than the three acres that you have provided. We are not only concerned about this parcel but other watershed areas owned by the city, are those same areas subject to development? At times it appears that we are attacking each issue that comes up to the table and try to anticipate what comes up, I get the feeling that we are not doing well. If something comes up then we get in gear and I think not only is this watershed been an important one for the Town but also look at all the watershed areas and take a strong step at this point in time, you have made a good first step, but I would like to see you go back and take it one more step. If I understand taxing the property, I assume the a ty of Glens Falls has been given a relative tax break on the tax on the property, that is over the years, it has not been taxed to the same level that the area northlk$eggy Ann Road has been taxed...not as prime development area, therefore in effect the Town of Queensbury and the taxpayer have been subsidizing the City of Glens Falls until the City decides it is the time to sell. I think that there is an iniquity there of the town taxpayers having underwritten the cost of that property which is now prime commercial real estate and if the town has underwritten that, I think it merits the Town to take a very strong step because we as taxpayers have underwritten the cost of that property which is a basic equity in selling it. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-The Assessor tells me that the value of that property has been _ assessed and taxed the full value, there hasn't been any been any consessions because it is city property and your point is well taken except that it is zoned for development. Had it been subdivided then it would be developable land of record ready to sell and be built. It is raw land, prime developable land that has been taxed as undevelopable land, bearing in mind where it is and its potential for development. It has not been taxed as subdivision and there really hasn't been any concessions or any underwriting of it only because no one has developed it. WALTER MEDWIG-So in the last ten years they have paid their fair share. f�2 COUNCILMAN MONTESI-They have paid their fair share as any other parcel of land that has not had any improvements on it. WALTER MEDWIG-Let me just state again that I would hope that the Town will take this back to the drawing board and take a stronger step on the development of the property. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Stated that our Planner has been instructed to study other watershed property and develop a plan similar to this for all watersheds. JOHN CAFFRY-Lockhart Mt. Road-When talking about rezoning a piece of land you have to look at what its best use is and what exist there at the time and what can or should be done with it. What we have now is a very large piece of undeveloped ? land that has a stream on it, reservoir, existing roads and trails, attractive forrest in it, and we have to consider then what the best use of this land is, and I think the highest and best use of this land is as open space, considering -1 it is such a large track and it does have these nice features on it. There would be a very great benefit to both the city and the town if the land could be put to use for joint recreation area. There are laws on the books to allow joint recreation areas like that and it would be used by residents of both just like Crandall park. It could have trails on it for hiking, cross country skiing, maybe some fishing in the brook and I would hope that the Town Board would explore this situation with the City Council. The land comes down pretty close to Crandall Park, perhaps it could be tied in with Crandall Park with just a short walk in between, maybe a bike path also so people could get to downtown Glens Falls without braving the traffic of the Aviation Road. These are some of the uses this land can be put to and we have to consider how best to achieve that and I think the best thing that can be done is zone it very strictly to preserve the open space values, and the potential for recreation so I urge you to zone it for land conservation. Asked Town Planner, Stuart Mesinger how many acres are involved inside your green line. STUART MESINGER-Over 500. MR. ARBERGER-1 West Mt. Road and Bronk Dr.-Six years ago when I was buying the house I live in, one of the selling points that Mr. Taylor happened to mention to me, whether it was true or not, said that particular area would remain a watershed --- for a hundred years and we never had to worry about it because it had to be there for ecology and everything else. I happen to like the woods behind me which doesn't mean anything but there is an awful lot of wild life in there and my thought about it is to leave it just the way it is without a bunch of houses on it. JOANN BULOVA-Buena Vista St.- We bought four years ago and we always felt that this land would be forever wild also. My concern is long term planning, I feel at this point Queensbury is just building, building and building without any real planning. I would like to see a better bike path put in and a lot of my neighbors feel the same way. I think it should either be five to ten acres zoning if it has to be residential or perhaps make it a conservation area which is what I would like to see. EDWIN ROBITAILLE-41 Brayton Ave.- My property abuts the watershed property. We've owned our house approximately two and a half years and we were under the impression when we bought the house that property would be forever wild. I would like to applaud the Board and the Town Planner's proposal to go from SR8 to RR3A but also encourage the Board to look at the LC10 or the LC 42, conservation and support the Board for any action it takes to preserve that land. LINDA WHITE-Peggy Ann Road- We also bought recently in the past two and one half years on Peggy Ann Road with the hopes that we like the wooded setting and the wooded area and I believe that green space is a real asset to Queensbury and we lose these green areas and open space that really give the Town an airy feeling, we're going to lose them forever. I hope we can all work together to come up with some other plan for rezoning this area as well as others in the town and go for conservation planning. GLEN GREGORY-Luzerne Road- West Glens Falls, I would like to see this area stay as is because it is a good wild life refuge in fact in the winter time the deer come off the mountain to browse in that area. JOHN CAFFRY-I noted that there was a large chunk that has been left out of the rezoning proposal and I don't think that that land is any different than the rest of the land and I would urge that the Board put that piece which abuts the Helen Drive Area and Aviation Road into the rezoning area along with the rest of it. Noted that the residents of this area, that he had talked with, said they would like to be included in the rezoning. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I have a letter from a constituent, Jerry Bilodeau, 251 Sherman Avenue and it refers to the fact that if we were to go to RR3 one of the uses of this zoning is farms and he has some concerns that perhaps 3 acre parcel of land could be used as our ordinance. SUPERVISOR WALTER-The Town Board asked the Town Planner to take a good look at this property and give some good reasons why this should be rezoned. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I would like to refer this zoning back to the Planning Board before we make our final decision after some public input. They just didn't have the chance to look at it as thoroughly as they would like. Noted the reason why the city is selling watershed property...they have a transmission line that comes underneath the Aviation Road, and their pump station is along Aviation Road...one of those lines is deteriorating so they hate to spend about a million dollars to update this line.' They have deemed this property as watershed property as access inventory and one of the options the city does have is to utilize the fine quality of water we have in Queensbury and instead of spending a million bucks they have the optfon to use Queensbury Water. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-The Proposal is from the Water and Sewer Commission to the City Common Council to declare the surplus property, it has not been declared yet, it has been tabled. SUPERVISOR WALTER-The Planner and I did take this suggestion down to the Mayor several weeks ago and told him what we consider doing in going to Public Hearing and he indicated that he would get some comments back to us. We have not heard from the city yet. We will not be making any decision tonight because the purpose of the Public Hearing is to gather the comments from the public and the Town Board feelings and then consider those remarks in making a final decision. JUNE BURKE-140 Dixon Road, When the Planner picked RR3A...why that one, what went into the decision for that particular zoning? STUART MESINGER-Primarily the answer to that question has to do with the soil characteristics of how watersheds are zoned in other places and when you zone land you try and base the zoning on the natural characteristics of the land. How able is it to support development and this particular zoning is most in line with this lands ability to provide septic disposal without degrading the water quality. It is much more in line with the kind of densities that these roads can handle. I am very mindful of the comments the public has made regarding land conservation zoning and I along with the Board plan to take them into account. MARGARET BURRELL-Lynnfield Drive, We can't preserve the world of course but we do have an opportunity now to through wise rezoning for conservation purposes to preserve our little corner of the world. COUNICLMAN BORGOS-We are faced with a challenge and we are taking a step in the right direction. Even though the City of Glens Falls isn't the private person as we normally think of individuals, they are certainly not public as being part of the Town of Queensbury cause when they look at their land and see it zoned a particular way, they have every right in their mind to say well it is zoned that way, we can sell it. What has bothered me is, I guess, we didn't know that it was zoned that way, I have always looked at that as forever wild. I am quite concerned about the section that has been left out of here, the section on the corner of Potter and going back to Helen Drive, I don't really want to see that left in one/half acre lots, if it must be developed I personnally would like to _ see it made one acre lots, so we have a transition zone between a fairly high density going into what may be a three acre or more restricted density. We are faced with the difficulty of legally and ethically restricting that land to such a degree that it may unconstitional, that's a concern. I would be happy to see the whole thing just left forever the way it is, if we can do that fair and legal, I certainly would move in that direction. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-If we do become very restrictive on that land, I think in all fairness, we ought to say to the city that we really believe this land that you 84 own and is in our community should stay forever wild and we believe strongly enough that we will subsidize that. I mean we ought to give them a tax concession. WALTER MEDWIG-I think the suggestion from Mr. Montesi about a tax break is a good one...I also see the possibility of the city saying we are going to sell it and the Town of Queensbury says no...we are not going to let you sell it because we are going to rezone it a certain way and we are going to develop friction...and an atagonizing relationship...again about the water issue, whether there are grounds for discussion on Queensbury water, reduction in tax rates and my question is...could the Town of Queensbury get a group together empowered to talk about all possible options, whereby the city would be happy with some of those possibilities, like the water arrangement, the tax arrangement and the towns people would also be happy. SUPERVISOR WALTER-I have talked with the Mayor and the last Mayor about those -- kinds of things. We have offered to sell the city water on many occasions. This particular reservoir is one that they use quite often in fact they have been using it more often then they used to. That is their water supply and until they make a determination that they want to buy water from another community, that is their decision and they have every right to stand by that. As far as it being recreational area, that I have suggested to Mayor Bartholomew and also buy water, we can have that as an recreational area. The city is selling this as Mr. Montesi pointed out because they wish to reap the monetary income from it but it is also a liability to them and those of us who have taken telephone calls from the people who live in Potter Road for the ATV's and motorcycles, its just been a pain to the people in the city there and that is another reason why they feel its far enough away from their water reservoir that they can sell it and its their contention that it really doesn't affect the quality of their water. There was a decision of the Water and Sewer Board brought before the Common Council and it was tabled by the Common Council and no decision has been made. There are some of the councilman from the city who do not feel they wish to sell this property, however, even their thinking of selling that property when in fact other people stated that when they bought their homes they thought it was going to stay that way for a hundred years, the people who are part of the rezoning of the Town of Queensbury also must have had those same ideas because they should have zoned that differently but they didn't and probably because what's the difference if it is always going to remain watershed property. It was quite a surprise to all of us that they even wish to get rid of their land. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Commented when all the hearings were held regarding the rezoning of the town to the master plan no neighbors in this area ever came out to protect this area or thought anything would be developed there in the future. DAVE KENNY-Rte.9, the one solution I would talk to Glens Falls about is only selling 100 acres and rezone the rest conservation and limit it to 30 lots and give them a tax rate on conservation 42. COUNCILMAN BORGOS-I think it is impossible for us to say publicly all those possible things we are thinking about, I think some of this should be left for legal closed negotiations so that we can have a little bit ofApoker game. It is the opinion of everyone here including the Board to support relatively low density but exactly how that is going to be done, I don't think any of us should commit to at this moment. I think we are heading in the right direction coming back to public hearing again as a proposal, with some kind of agreement on both sides. GEORGE POLUNCI-Lady Slipper Lane-what effect is developing this property going to have on Glens Falls water? When I bought my property a year ago, I had my lawyer advise me that there was a law on the books that says you couldn't put your septic system so many feet of a water supply. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-200 feet SUPERVISOR WALTER-In this zoning that Mr. Mesinger has recommended to the Board t and we have this Public Hearing on tonight, that would be taken care of under that other law, that has been considered and there wouldn't be any infringement on that law. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-There is another thing Stuart discussed with us...Conservation overlay strip zone. They take about 400 feet aside a stream and zone it as highly critical area, and we investigate that on any stream of any size in Queensbury. g5 SUPERVISOR WALTER-Asked for further input, hearing none the Second Public Hearing closed - No decision taken. We will go back to the Public Hearing on Temporary Toilet Facilities left open...asked for public input, hearing none the First Public closed. 8:30 P.M. OPEN FORUM MICHAEL O'CONNOR-I am here tonight speaking on behalf of the Glen Lake Association with regard to the present reassessment of properties and the particular impact that it has upon the Glen Lake properties. We had a meeting with about 200 residents in attendance including Councilman Monahan who gave us some information from the Town. It became apparent from that meeting there are many gross iniquities in the present or the first set of notices that went out. The problem that we have is as I understand it a computer program was put to work particular with regard to Lakefront properties. The input in the program is just not sound...it doesn't compare with anything as to what the market values of those properties are. Most of the property owners have been in to see the assessor but the problems that have been caused by these notices sent out are so great that he cannot do a fair appraisal of each property between now and the deadline of May 1, if he is going to put the reassessment program into affect this current tax year. Our proposal and request to Mrs. Monahan at that meeting was, could the reassessment be put off until a fair 4nbquitable appraisal of those properties could be made and be made effective next year. I know of no requirement by statue or a case of law that says this reappraisal has to go into effect May 1, 1987. I truly think an injustice has been done to the public around the lake. If those assessments are corrected to properly reflect the market values of those properties there is going to be a trickling affect and the tax rate could change. The taxpayers of the town can request serious consideration be given by the Assessors office and not put this in effect May 1, 1987 but hold it off till May 1, 1987. COUNCILMAN BORGOS- My question is that when it was decided to have the reevaluation take place this year was it the Town Boards decision when this would take effect this year. SUPERVISOR WALTER-It was the Board's decision two and one half years ago. COUNCILMAN BORGOS-If the Town Board did it, can the Town Board undo it? TOWN COUNSEL-The Town Board doesn't have the authority, legally you can't direct the Assessor to do anything. What the Town Board did was enter into a contract two and a half years ago with an appraisal firm to do the commercial appraisals and at the same time the Town Board also determined that it was going to be necessary to hire additional town personnel to help in the appraisal of the residential properties. Clearly it is within the "Town Board's providence to eliminate those positions that were created, but in terms of setting the figures that's really within the Assessors power. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Said that it was Mr. O'Connor's contention that it can't be done within our house or within the providence of our employees. I will have to review that. MICHAEL O'CONNOR-Noted that the Assessor's Office has realized and admitted openly that the computer program that they used isn't working on Glen Lake, and Lake George. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-My contention from listening to all the people in the town, many of the house values were relatively accurate within reason. The value put in the computer on the lake front houses was relatively high and needs to be adjusted. I think that the uniqueness that is happening on Lake George and Glen Lake, is that there were some figures that were used for property values in terms to make these assessments go out of whack. Harold is trying to address that now. MICHAEL O'CONNOR-Agreed that a good deal of the iniquities is the front footage formula that was used with the unit pricing that was given but this was my initial impression of what the total problem was. They have also aired the fact that they are using four footage construction cost for what are cottages and using the same square footage for construction for building a house in Twicwood or on Wincrest. This is a whole area that has been done an injustice and have been put at an expense because of this injustice. SUPERVISOR WALTER-You said that all the people you are representing have been in to see the Assessor. .36 MICHAEL O'CONNOR-Yes, and all they have been told is that they are going to get new assessments based upon new formulas. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Noted that it isn't all of Glen Lake...said she knew someone who came in because there was wrong data on her assessment but was sure that when she goes to sell her camp knowing what she paid for it, she will get every bit of what her assessment is. I think what we will be looking at and it will impact on everyone else is the areas in question and how the formulas were plugged in. We have all the data, the houses do not have to be reassessed unless there is a problem with the data that was collected in which case that will be corrected and if a new formula is put in as far as the values that should bring the assessments around. With the computers in use today there is no reason to put off an assessment for a year or two years to go out and have everyone's house reassessed. The Town Board is concerned and we have said that as soon as Mr. LaRose ends up his interviews we want to hear what he has heard from the people. MICHAEL O'CONNOR-One last consideration I would ask the Board to make is to consider the hours the Town is going to have to spend if it in fact it goes ahead with the assessment that are completely erroneous. BETTY MONAHAN-I do know that the problem is more sophisticated than what Ron has indicated, I realize that a lot of people who have a summer place have been assessed as though they are year round places. MICHAEL O'CONNOR-I think you are going to see a couple hundred complaints from our area alone. OPEN FORUM CLOSED RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MINUTES RESOLUTION NO. 90, Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos i RESOLVED, that the Town Board Minutes of February 24th and March 10th, 1987 be and hereby are approved. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION NO. 50 of 1987 RESOLUTION NO. 91, Introduced by Mr. Stephen Borgos who moved for its adoption seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka. WHEREAS, the expiration date of Edward Grant's appointment to the Board of Assessment Review was incorrectly stated as 1992, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, to amend Resolution No. 50 to have the stated expiration date 1989. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION TO SIGN NO PARKING AREA RESOLUTION NO. 92, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos. c� WHEREAS S, the Queensbury Central Fire Company has requested a signed no parking zone on Foster Avenue and WHEREAS, the New York State V&T Law already prohibits parking in front of and across from fire station, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board direct the Highway Superintendent to post legal "no parking" signs across from the Foster Avenue Fire Station in an area described: 40' West of Niagara Mohawk pole #2 and 20" East of same marker, in a timely manner. --- Duly adopted by the following vote Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent:None COUNCILMAN BORGOS-Noted the state law requires that you not park with 75 feet of a Fire Department on either side of the street but the Fire Company is not insisting on the 75' but is reducing the distance to 60' which will enable the trucks to turn properly. RESOLUTION TO RETAIN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RESOLUTION NO. 93, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos WHEREAS, the Town Board is in need of professional services at Gurney Lane Park Area, and WHEREAS, the scope of those services include property line survey, preparation of a survey map, setting of corners, and contour mapping, aerial photography and other tasks to be performed in a limited time period, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board contract with Coulter & McCormack for these professional survey services for an upset fee of $ 10,000.00 Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: None DISCUSSION RESOLUTION TO ENGAGE SERVICES FOR LITIGATION APPRAISALS RESOLUTION NO. 94, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is one of the respondents in various Article 7 Proceedings involving the real property taxes assessed against the Regency Park Apartment Complex and the Grand Union Shopping Plaza, and WHEREAS, the rules of the Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Department require the preparation and filing of real property appraisals in accordance with the Court Rules of such Department, and WHEREAS, Northeastern Appraisal Associated, Inc., of Buffalo, New York has been active in the preparation of real estate appraisals and the provisions of expert testimony in Tax Assessment Litigation throughout the State of New York, and IS8 WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury requires court appraisal services for litigation pending over the Regency Park Apartment Complex and the Grand Union Shopping Plaza, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the retention of Northeastern Appraisal Associates, Inc., for the provision of a completed appraisal for the years 1980-1986 for Regency Park at a price not to exceed $5750.00 and for Grand Union at a price not to exceed $3000.00, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized to execute any written agreements to effectuate this resolution. Duly adopted by the following vote: -- Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: None DISCUSSION COUNCILMAN BORGOS-Asked why this firm? TOWN COUNSEL-Mr. LaRose recommended that we interview the Northeastern Appraisal Associates, and they furnished us with copies of some court appraisals they had done in the past and I felt their credentials were quite impressive. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE HIGHLAND PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION A TYPE 1 ACTION WHICH MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND REQUIRING THAT A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT BE PREPARED. RESOLUTION NO.95, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos: WHEREAS, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law established the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and WHEREAS, such act requires environmental review of certain actions requiring approval by local governments, and WHEREAS, the Hiland Park Corporation has applied to the Queensbury Town Board to redistrict 713 acres of land with frontage on Haviland, Meadowbrook and Rockwell Roads to a Planned Unit Development district to allow construction of approximately 1,157 dwelling units of various types, a sports complex, a restaurant, a commercial area, a technical park ad a golf course, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board on February 24 determined that the proposal was a Type I action under SEQR and designated itself lead agency for review of the Hiland Park Planned Unit Development application and so notified all involved state and local agencies of such designation, and WHEREAS, no involved state or local agency has objected to the designation of the Queensbury Town Board as lead agency, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Planner and the Queensbury Planning Board have studied the environmental assessment form prepared by the project applicant and the project —° submission maps and documents, and have recommended to Board that an environmental impact statement be required, and WHEREAS, the members of the Town Board have studied the environmental assessment form prepared by the project applicant and the project submission maps and documents, now THEREFORE be it resolved, that the Queensbury Town Board finds that the Hiland Park Planned Unit Development proposal may have significant impacts on the environment, including but not limited to impacts on water supply and consumption, sewage conveyance and disposal , traffic congestion and improvements, open space preservation, recreational amenities, surface water quality and municipal services and finances, and be it 89 FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby determines that a draft environmental impact statement shall be prepared by the applicant to address all potential impacts of the project, including but not limited to those identified above, and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby determines that a draft environmental impact statement shall be prepared by the applicant to address all potential impacts of the project, including but not limited to those identified above, and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution shall be forwarded to those agencies listed in the distribution list annexed hereto, and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be come effective March 26 unless any involved state or local agency objects in writing to the designation of the Queensbury Town Board as lead agency by that date. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION TO APPROVE LOCAL LAW REGULATING THE USE OF TEMPORARY TOILET FACILITIES RESOLUTION NO. 96, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury proposed a Local Law to regulate the use of temporary toilet facilities in the Town of Queensbury and WHEREAS, the Town Board set a public hearing on March 10, 1987 at 7:30 P. M. on such proposal, and WHEREAS, the public hearing was held at the specified time and place and all interested parties were heard on the proposed local law, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Local Law entitled a LOCAL LAW REGULATING THE USE OF TEMPORARY TOILET, FACILITIES is hereby approved and said Local Law becomes effective upon filing with the Secretary of State. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: None LOCAL LAW NO. 2 A LOCAL LAW REGULATING THE USE OF TEMPORARY TOILET FACILITIES SECTION 1. Legislative Intent. It is the purpose of this Local Law to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the Town of Queensbury by regulating the use of temporary toilet facilities to provide for the maintenance of such facilities and to control the areas in which such facilities may be located in order to protect the community from health hazards, disease, any adverse environmental affects, or impair the enjoyment, use or value of property. SECTION 2. Authority. This local law is enacted pursuant to the provisions of Section 10 of the Municipal Home Rule Law of the State of New York. SECTION 3. Definitions. "Temporary Toilet Facility" means any self-contained moveable and/or non-permanently affixed to permanent plumbing facility for human waste disposal including but not limited to chemical toilets, urinals and water closets. 90 SECTION 4. Prohibitions, No person shall cause theplacement and/or establishment of or allow the continued placement and/or establishment of one or more temporary toilet facilities on lands within the Town of Queensbury. SECTION 5. Exception. This local law shall not apply to temporary toilet facilities: 1. Provided for employees engaged in construction 2. Temporary festivals and/or celebrations that last less than five days. SECTION 6. Regulations. All temporary toilet facilities within the Town of Queensbury shall be maintained it sanitary and serviceable condition. Upon completion of the use of such facilities, temporary toilet facilities and the sewage remaining there from shall be removed and the area shall be cleaned and disinfected. SECTION 7. Penalty. A failure to comply with the provisions of this local law shall be deemed a violation and the violator shall be subject to a fine not to exceed $200.00 per day and each day such violation continues shall be deemed a separate and distinct violation. SECTION 8, Invalidity. If any court of competent jurisdiction shall adjudge and determine that a portion of this local law is invalid, such judgment shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this local law. SECTION 9. Effective Date. This local law shall take effect immediately. COMMUNICATIONS Ltr. - Oriental Temple, Troy, New York regarding a request to conduct a circus...on file Ltr - Highland Park, Gary Bowen, regarding water district—on file DISCUSSION SUPERVISOR WALTER-We sent out letters to several engineers for proposals in creating a water district, in Hiland Park, they came in late this afternoon and I just distributed them to the Board and asked Town Board if they wanted take them under consideration this evening? COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Noted there was a vast difference in the fee and the one with the lower fee has a more restrictive outline as what he will provide with the service. SUPERVISOR WALTER-This indicates a review, it does not indicate the formation of a water district and we need to ask him if that would make a change in his fee. Each of the engineers were told that they would be required to utilize base work that was already provided in the formation of the water lines in the planned PUD. The comments coming back from the engineers who proposed are: one said it was going to be a lot more then putting together a water district because of the impact it had on the rest of the water system, the other comment was, I will certainly review it and there will be a fee for that but also it has a greater impact on the Queensbury system then just the formation of the water district. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-They are saying they can review the data that Hiland Park has proposed for their water district and prepare a map of record. They are also forewarning us that potentially 400,000 gallons a day of water use may have an impact greater than just Hiland, they are suggesting some further studies. This doesn't mean one stops and the one can't continue. SUPERVISOR WALTER-There are three proposals that are well worth looking into,but that they could begin to formulate the district and not wait for them to be done concurrently. If everybody is in agreement this evening to go with this engineer this evening then so am I, but stated that the proposals should be looked at in total. COUNCILMAN BORGOS-Would this be charged to our existing water district or only a portion to the developer? 91 SUPERVISOR WALTER-Absolutely, any formation of the district would be against the district itself, any of the extended work would be picked up by the Town. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Suggested retaining Kestner Engineering for the fee outlined in the letters...a multi proposal 1) establish the water district of Hiland Park, 2) to begin the necessary study for the town as to the distribution of getting water to Hiland Park. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Stated that in a separate resolution the Town Board would retain Kestner to do a map plan and report for the purpose of the formation of a water district, for an upset fee of $1500. TOWN COUNSEL-Noted that that resolution is subject to permissive referendum because it is a charge that would be borne by people in the district under Article 12A. SUPERVISOR WALTER-In the past even under Article 12A we have had to retain an — engineer to get some kind of cost for the system and then get back to talk to the developer to see if he is going to underwrite. Are you saying we should get the cost up front? TOWN COUNSEL-I am saying under the law if we are engaging somebody under Article 12A to prepare a map plan and report that resolution is subject to... ATTORNEY LEMERY-Representing Hiland Park, the map has been provided to the town and the engineers report that relates to that report is part of the Environmental Impact Statement filed. RESOLUTION TO RETAIN ENGINEERING FOR WATER DISTRICT FORMATION RESOLUTION NO.97, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos. WHEREAS, the Town wishes to extend water service to the proposed Hiland Park Planned Unit Development, and WHEREAS, a map, plan and report are a necessary step in the formation of a water district, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the firm of Kestner Engineers, P.C., Troy, New York be retained for engineering services in connection with the formation of a proposed water district for a fee not to exceed $1,500.00 Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: None DISCUSSION SUPERVISOR WALTER-Referred to letters from Kestner Engineers, they felt there was so much activity going on in the town that there was in fact perhaps portions of the existing transmission and feeder systems which potentially serve Hiland Park do not have the necessary two way feeds and main size to guarantee adequate uninterrupted service to the proposed development east of Rte. 9. He said he would propose to do that kind of work in relation to the district, to let the Board know what kind of impact this project will have and with this information we will be able to use in dealing with other projects. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Recommended to accept both of Mr. Kestner's proposals. JOHN LEMERY-Asked if it would be appropriate to let him know at this point whether a resolution might be offered to create the district so the lawyers can get going? SUPERVISOR WALTER-I have no idea. We have to find out when they can start and when they can complete their review and give us an approval. The engineers report says May 15, 1987. 92 RESOLUTION TO RETAIN ENGINEERING SERVICES RESOLUTION NO.98, Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is experiencing unprecedented growth, and WHEREAS, the increased development has an impact on the water service provided by the existing facilities, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to analyze the situation for future planning for possible expansion, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the firm of Kestner Engineers, P.C. be retained for engineering services for a review of the Transmission and Major Feeder Facilities in the Queensbury Water District for a fee not exceeding $7,700. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: None Ltr. - Gary Bowen, regarding Hiland Park...on file. DISCUSSION ATTORNEY LEMERY-Asked if it were possible to have workshop session with the Town Board relating to D.E.I.S.? SUPERVISOR WALTER-We have had some dates put forward to us by our Town Attorney. Are you aware of where the Town is perceiving the dates? Stated that she had asked Stuart Mesinger for the benefit of the Board to formulate a time schedule and asked if he were aware of that time schedule? ATTORNEY LEMERY-Thats why we would like to have a discussion drawn up relative to Stuart's timetable as opposed to the time schedule we think we should have. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Asked where they differed? ATTORNEY LEMERY-I think we would like to see the SEQRA process completed and the PUD designation and all the issues resolved by your last meeting in May and I am not sure that can be reached under some of the time frames listed but I think it can be reached if the time frame we've taken a look at is possible. That would allow for the golf course to start construction the first of June. SUPERVISOR WALTER-As far as the PUD we are going to have that reviewed by an engineering firm from out of the area. We have currently sent out proposals to about six firms and we have asked for those proposals to come back on April 9, then you have to give the firm enough time to review. ATTORNEY LEMERY-Noted that is why he would like a workshop session to set time frame. SUPERVISOR WALTER-We will consider a workshop. I want to be cooperative but I also have to have enough time where I feel comfortable with making decisions on the project. ATTORNEY LEMERY-Asked to have the workshop on Friday. COUNCILMAN BORGOS-I would rather see a special meeting, then we could take action. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Noted that they would get back to Mr. Lemery in regard to a date. Ltr. - Ralph VanDusen, request to attend American Water Works...on file. RESOLUTION TO ATTEND SEMINAR 93 RESOLUTION NO.99, Introduced by Stephen Borgos who moved for its adoption seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi. RESOLVED, that permission is hereby granted to Mr. Ralph VanDusen, Deputy Water Superintendent to attend the Annual Spring Meeting of the American Water Works Association on Tuesday, April 28, 1987 to May 1, 1987 in Garden City, Long Island, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorize payment of all necessary and reasonable and necessary expenses involved. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: None BID OPENING 'BID" CONTRACT NO. 2, QUAKER AND BAY ROAD SANITARY SEVER Anjo Construction Non-Collusive att. $1,746,524.10 P.O. Box 244 5% B.B. Latham, N.Y.12110 F. G. Compagni Const. Non-Collusive att. $2,149,000.00 182 Port Watson St. 5% B.B. Cortland, N.Y. 13045 John DiGiulio, Inc. Non-Collusive att. $1 ,855,839.00 60 Delaware Ave. 5% B.B. Albany, N.Y. 12202 j Firstrhyme Constr. Non-Collusive att. $1,799,226.00 3517 Genesee St. 5% B.B. Buffalo, N.Y.14225 John Kubricky & Sons Non-Collusive att. $2,369,412.15 237 Bay Street 5% B.B.Glens Falls, N.Y. 12801 Schultz Constr. Inc. Non-Collusive att. $1,557,300.00 Round Lake Road 5% B. B. Ballston Spa, N.Y. 12019 Joseph R. Wunderlich Non-Collusive att. $1,582,895.50 P.O. Box 245 5% B.B. Latham, N.Y. 12110 F. J. Zeronda Non-Collusive att. $1,735,510.00 454 Second Street 5% B.B. Albany, N.Y. 12206 LTR. - Kestner Engineers recommending low bid on Sanitary Sewer...on file. RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT BID RESOLUTION NO.100, Introduced by Mr. Stephen Borgos who moved for its adoption seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka. 'T WHEREAS, Quentin T. Kestner, P.E., of Kestner Engineers did recommend that we advertise for bids for Contract 2 - Quaker and Bay Road Sanitary Sewer and WHEREAS, eight bids were submitted and received and opened at the specified time and place by the Director of Purchasing/Town Clerk Darleen Dougher and WHEREAS, Mr. Kestner, has recommended the bid be awarded to Schultz Constr., Inc. Ballston Spa, N.Y. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT 94 RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby accepts the bid of Schultz Construction Inc. in the amount of $1,557,300.00 and be it further RESOLVED, that the financing for such work will be financed through bonds. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: None COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-referred to a letter from Mrs. Phillips requesting street -.--' lights to be put on the power pole between 61 and 63 Haviland Avenue Extension. I have already looked at this and there is a pole right between the two lots and there is no number on it and this is where she would like the light put. SUPERVISOR WALTER-referred this to the Lighting Committee. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AUDIT OF BILLS RESOLUTION NO. 101, Introduced by Mr. Stephen Borgos who moved for its adoption seonded by Mr. George Kurosaka. RESOLVED, that Audit of Bills as appears on Abstract and numbered 1345, March24, 1987 and totaling $3386.00 be and hereby is approved. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes:None Absent:None COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Betty and I have been working with the Union Employees on a type of school that would allow employees that are laborers to move up to what is called heavy equipment operators not only in the Highway Department but Water, '^ Dept. and Cemetery and Landfill. Noted that this required 42 hours of classroom work. The cost of this school tenatively runs $900.00 for twelve employees. Maximum of 12 and minimum of 10 and the union feels that they will have this number of people who will be interested, and the whole cost may be paid by CETA State Union. Details can be worked out with Department Heads. SUPERVISOR WALTER-We have a proclamation to proclaim April as Forrest Fire Prevention Month...read a write up on a major fire that injured over fifty people and consumed over fifteen homes and over 1000 acres of land in the Town of Queensbury occuring on Saturday, April 28, 1962. Noted that this is the 25Th Anniversary of this great fire and these facts and figures were put together by Councilman Borgos. Copies of this information are available for the media. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Referring to Mr. Ted Bigelow said that Hidden Hills was still in session and asked if he wanted to comment? TED BIGELOW-No. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Asked when they were accepting roads again? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We have never accepted them in those conditions. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Asked what kind of guidance is the Town Board giving Woodburys specifically to get it up to grade? SUPERVISOR WALTER-The road is in no condition to be accepted. COUNCILMAN BORGOS-Agreed that there was a lot to be done but recalled that Town Counsel read from the rules and regulations that we may accept a road if it isn't completely done. Noted that a check had been presented to guaranty that the road will be finished properly, so we are not saying accept road and let it go. SUPERVISOR WALTER-once you accept a road it is our road. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We will be setting a precedent if we accept this road the way it is. COUNCILMAN BORGOS-This is a particular case because of the delays that came up, and the road is according to the rules Wilson read to us. SUPERVISOR WALTER-The delays that came up are not the Town delays. TED BIGELOW-I agree that the road is not acceptable. Last fall when this situation arose that our subdivision was approved and we gave the town$38,000.00 for the town rec. fee, we couldn't get the road prepared and paved in time because of the plant closings. At that time we got together with the Department Heads of the town and asked to have something done so we could sell the lots and we were told yes you can go this route and that's the way we proceeded. Noted that there was a lack of cooperation between the department heads and the town Board. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Maybe you asked the wrong people, you should have asked the Town Board as it is the Town Board's decision. TED BIGELOW-If we knew we couldn't go through that process, we probably wouldn't have spent the time and the money and efforts to try to get the subdivision approved in the fall. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Stated that the Supervisor does not contact the developer to find out if the roads are ready for acceptance, it is the responsibility of the developer to contact the Town Board or the Supervisor. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Our Planning Board has hired an engineer to do the drainage and if there is shrubs, tree etc. along the sides of the road that represent the road being finished, we need to know that these things are done. TED BIGELOW-We decided that we were not going to submit the road until it was paved. I only ask that the board make some kind of determination or clarify their regulations at what times and which cases this escrow procedure can be used. I think the developers in the town have a right to know that to make a good business decision. RESOLUTION TO CONDUCT CIRCUS RESOLUTION NO.102, Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, the Oriental Temple A.A.O.N.M.S. have requested permission to conduct a circus as follows: SPONSOR: Oriental Temple A.A.O.N.M.S. CIRCUS; Oriental Shrine Circus PLACE: Corner of Luzerne Rd. and Veterans Road DATE: May 7, 1987 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to issue a permit to the aforesaid sponsor subject to the following conditions: A. Receipt of proof of Insurance 1. The Insurance Company must be licensed in the State of New York 2. The Town of Queensbury must be named as an additional insured B. Inspections and approval must be made by the Queensbury Fire Marshal and the Chief of the West Glens Falls Fire Company C. There must be adequate parking and access for emergency Vehicles Duly adopted by the following vote: 96 Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: None On motion the meeting was adjourned RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED DARLEEN DOUGHER, TOWN CLERK a i 1