Loading...
1986-03-25 r TOWN BOARD MEETING MARCH 25, 1986 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 _ PRESS: G.F. Post Star, WBZA GUESTS: Mr. Woodbury, Mr. Carusone, Mr. Carr, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Farone Mr. Mains, Mr. Morton, Mr. Adamson, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ingalls, Mr. Morrisey, Mr. & Mrs. Alexy, Mr. Greeno TOWN OFFICIALS: Mr. Naylor, Mr. Flaherty PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA MEETING OPENED 7:33 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING SUPERVISOR WALTER - We would like to go a little bit out of sink here this evening and would like the board if they would please handle resolution I. which is very near the end of your packet. Agreed to by the board. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION Number 89 of 1986 — Introduced and Seconded by Entire Town Board WHEREAS,Donald A. Chase has faithfully served the people of the Town of Queensbury as the elected Town Clerk for sixteen years, and WHEREAS,Donald A. Chase performed the duties of his position with thoroughness, enthusiasm, thoughtfulness and devotion, and WHEREAS, Donald A. Chase, in the dispatch of these duties earned the respect and admiration of the people of the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, Donald A. Chase will be missed by his colleagues and constituency alike, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, on behalf of its constituency, wishes to express to Donald A.Chase its appreciation for his years of excellent service and further extends to Donald A. Chase the very best wishes for success in his new career. Duly adopted by the following vote: r Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: None SUPERVISOR WALTER: We have a framed copy of the resolution of appreciation presented to you Mr. Chase, and good luck. 86 PUBLIC HEARING 7:36 P.M. Public Hearing on amending subdivision regulations. Notice shown. . . We have two public hearings this evening, one is to amend the subdivision regulations and one is a proposed local law relative to the same subject. Basically what the town is proposing to do is to effect a policy of standards for preserving recreation areas in the town or to ask developers who are appearing before the planning board in the town to provide monies or a piece of their land. As we come before the public the town board is determined that recreation space be provided by the subdivider on ? a basis of at least a 1000 feet of usable land for each lot on the plot d drawings or if that is not practical, that the subdivider be required to make a payment of a $1000.00, per lot. Hearing opened. . . MR. JOSEPH CARUSONE: I am here as a private citizen and in my capacity as Northern Homes developer of Bedford Close in the Town of Queensbury. While we recognize that there is certainly a need for additional recreation space in the town but certainly in a controlled way. We feel the proposed fee on the developer is certainly not the way it should proceed. You are asking for us to greatly increase the cost of each lot we sell by doing so and this is a considerable increase in expense. This is going to have to be ultimately borne by the potential home owner who is going to be looking for a new house in the Town of Queensbury. You are going to be raising cost which by raising cost you are going to be taking a percentage of the potential buyers out of the market place who are mostly young couples who would no longer be able to afford a lot and build a new house in the Town of Queensbury. This would slow building in the Town of Queensbury which would mean many of the people who are directly and indirectly involved in that industry which is finally doing well as you know after a prolonged slump would be taking people out of this industry. You are going to cause people to be certainly having to lose their jobs or to go into other industries and I think you are also asking just one very small segment of our entire society to bare the cost what I feel is the need for the entire community. You are talking about recreation areas which I assume for all the citizens for our fine community to use and if you are asking all of them to use them and take advantage of them, wouldn't it be realistic that the cost be shared by all of the citizens. There are certainly other industries in our town besides the building industry, besides the developers, and there are certainly many other citizens in this town who are paying taxes and if we find this is a social need and we find that this is something that the citizens of the Town of Queensbury sincerely desire, shouldn' t we all share in the expense. I think you are placing the burden on one very small area of our society and you will be damaging this industry which has finally recovered and finally doing well after many difficult years when I think there is certainly an alternate source for financing this program. This is basically why we are objecting to this change in the subdivision regulation. MR. MICHAEL WOODBURY-We are in the development as well Ps in the building. My basic question would be if the amount that is brought out, there is ,presently a large part of the town that has not been developed and is zoned as 5000 or 10,000 square foot lots which I presume were originally intended for lesser value homes and if you are proposing to take a 1000 sq. feet out of a 5000 sq. foot lot that is an awfully large percentage even if it is a 1000 out of 10,000. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-There is a state of prevention for making 5000 sq. —` foot lot anyway. I think the minimum is 10,000. MR. WOODBURY- Are there not some already approved at 5000. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA- There are some 5000 on States Avenue. MR. WOODBURY- There are a great number of 10,000 sq. foot though, a large portion of the area that is zoned for multi-family. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA- For 10,000 sq. feet you would have to have both municipal water and sewer which we do not have. SUPERVISOR WALTER- As far as the subdivision regulation which is what 87 we are having the public hearing on now, concerns only subdivision but the local law will then go over into other multifamily dwellings. MR. WOODBURY- Well my point was for instance we have a proposal before one of the boards where it is zoned for 10,000 sq. foot lots which are permitted with a variance from the State Health Department. You are proposing to take 10% of that land which seems to me to be an unreasonable amount of land in addition to which it would seem if there is to be a fee it should be somewhat in line with what has been adopted in a few places around the state and to the very best of our research about $250.00 a lot is the highest we found. The third point we would ask is what portion of the recreation of the budget are you looking at to fund. Some quick research we did is the Queensbury School District and the enrollment is down about 10% over the last ten years. This could lead one to believe that there are that many fewer children and that much — less recreation area needed. If you say in argument to that, that we didn't have anywhere enough to begin with, that's a possible argument, but whether you need to continue to increase the recreation area by that much when in fact the amount of people using it, is going down. SUPERVISOR WALTER- We are looking for recreation sites, Mr. Woodbury, we are not looking at only children, recreation is for senior citizens, middle aged people and also children. . . it is for all the residents of the Town. COUNCILMAN BORGOS-So we may get an idea of the impact, of the development you have in the works right now, how many units? MR. WOODBURY-156 units. . . COUNCILMAN BORGOS-Under this proposal you would have to put up $156,000.00 for recreation. . . MR. WOODBURY-Right now, there are approximately 500 lots from various people, if you count all the multi-family that is coming in the next three or four years you could be talking seven to eight hundred thousand dollars. You are asking just a specific portion of, the population to bear. . . .most of the cost will be past on to the buyer. In fact you are placing a special tax on a special area to be used by the entire town. COUNCILMAN BORGOS-Would you go as far to say, if this fee were passed, this would prohibit you from going ahead with the project? MR. WOODBURY-Unfortunately, it would change the numbers, prohibit, I would not use that word, the next project we are proposing is one we could build houses for the first time buyer. Once you add a thousand dollars to that you are beginning to work some of those people out. COUNCILMAN BORGOS-You would be required to pay this up front, how long would be to recover that? MR. WOODBURY-In the range we are talking, if we stayed at this level of activity, it might be a five year development. There is nothing to say that times are going to stay good for the development. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Are you saying that two hundred and fifty to three hundred dollars would not be objectionable, compared to a thousand? MR. WOODBURY-I am saying it is a more reasonable number. It has been my impression that the Town did not want to get land in developments _ to use as recreation because of the headache of who maintained it. If you do a condominium or townhouse where there is an association they can maintain tennis courts with their own money. In a development where there is no townhouse and just dedicate to the town an acre of land and you do this twenty five places around the town I am not sure the Town wants the natural burden of maintaining it. SUPERVISOR WALTER-That is why we have the discretionary activity to go either way. MR. WOODBURY-Is there an envisionment that you might want land? IDIOM 88 SUPERVISOR WALTER-Yes. There is going to have to be a lot of communication within the Town as to which we would be looking for in a particular development. MR. WOODBURY-In Bedford Close if they had two acres of land would that be a closed recreational area? SUPERVISOR WALTER-No. The Town is trying to establish the park system and in some areas of town small area parks. The Town of Queensbury is interested in reflecting open space, in the last few years the amount of development that we have been experiencing, we have the feeling that we have to look out for the acquisition of properties for recreation uses. . .if we can have the in lieu of payment we can purchase parcels of land in areas of town where a development is p going forward and it —� looks like we could use green areas there for a park or passive park. We will have to deal with the Planning Board, the Recreation Commission and the Town Board will work closely in the future in determining which will be in the best interest of the town. This is not an uncommon practice to do this. . .I think that the research that has been done in the Town has brought to light the fact that some charge $200 but we have seen the fee as high as $750, $800. Dollars. MR. WOODBURY-The best interest would be in lieu of payment so you could plan your pieces exactly where you wanted them and make them large enough. COUNCILMAN BORGOS-There is one part of this proposal that bothers me, according to this the location, size and type of park, playground or open space shall be determined by the Planning Board. How do you feel about that? MR. WOODBURY-I think Mrs. Walter's idea is better, that there is joint communication someplace at the town level be it the Planning Board, Recreation Dept. or the Town Board, they would have to decide where the development is going to be and what is needed in those areas. There are some areas where maybe it is not needed. COUNCILMAN BORGOS-Would you be comfortable with the Town Planning Board telling you where to put the 7 p park in your subdivision. MR. WOODBURY-No. I think you will get to a point where its in lieu of. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-In the seven years that I sat on the Planning Board there were probably three developers, subdividers, that felt some social responsibility for the land that they were developing and included a green area or a recreational area in that subdivision, it is really the exception rather than the rule. On the other hand there have been some developments, apartment complexes feel the need for a pool and tennis court or field for baseball, maybe because the density is closer. There is a responsibility, and I do not think we are trying to force it, I think we are looking at it and saying if our town continues to develop the dollars that are necessary for the new five hundred homes that are coming into the town where do we develop that we can put some of the burden of that on the people that want to develop. On the same token, as an individual I look at some lots that a few years ago in some subdivisions were selling for eight,ten or twelve thousand now are up to eighteen or twenty, I guess that developer is not too concerned about stymied growth because the market place shows that is what the market will bear. On a hundred and twenty-five thousand dollar house if you add a thousand dollars to the cost of that house or lot that argument we put forth a few years ago when the Town Board made a stand and said we will no longer pave the roads for subdevelopers, they will have to pave their own roads. The taxpayers of the town should not be obligated to do that. That added a thousand to twelve hundred dollars to the cost of each lot I am sure. That has given us a nicer system, our highway department can take care of the needs of the community and not know that Helen Drive just filled up and now we have to pave that road to get through the winter. That responsibility we transferred to the subdivider. I think in a way we are asking the subdividers to take some responsibility on in recreation too. As to the figure, I think the concept is OK but we are here to find out from you is that figure too high, too low what your thoughts are. I know for a fact that if we took four acres from Bedford Close for a park to service all the people in the area if the people that lived across the street in the mobile home park knew that at the other end of Bedford Close there was the town park we would have range war. A lot of people driving down Churchill Road or Old Lantern Road to get to a park, in that case I think the Town Board or the Planning Board or Recreation Commission has to look at if they are going to take land, where is it going to be and who is it going to hurt. MR. WOODBURY-By addressing it now there is still enough land out there as evidenced by your acquisition last year that you can acquire land which at this point is not designated for development. The paving of the roads was something that the developers realized, not only would help sell their development but it moved the developments along a little bit faster and it was a direct benefit to the people that bought the houses. The problem is not so much at the upper range but when you get — into the small developments and some of the small sites where you service the first time home owner, he has been really short changed in the last few years because the market has moved away from them. Now the hundred and twenty thousand dollar house range is filling up and I think we will be back into the eighty thousand, seventy thousand dollar market, there are at least three of us addressing that now. I think that the fee that you have proposed may be too steep in that area. This becomes more of a burden if you say that this is all monies that have to be paid up front. If this money was spread so that possibly everybody took the risk, if you proposed a 150 lot subdivision maybe it sells in two years maybe in ten, if it does not sell in ten then you do not have 150 families that need recreation, yet you have provided for them. It could be a CO type of fee, maybe some up front and some with a CO might be more acceptable. At least until some budget numbers can be worked up, that is another thing we do not have information on here, is exactly how the money is going to be used, what percentage of the current budget that is whether in fact, how much more recreation land we need and how much it will cost and how much all ready is being provided by the overall tax base. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-To answer one question, if we had purchased Round Pond, at $900,000 cost and probably another million and a half dollars in terms of development that would have taken a tremendous amount of dollars out of the tax treasury of the Town. It would have been a major recreational area just as Ridge Road will be a major recreational area but it is big dollars. MR. EDWARD CARR-Woodchuck Hill Road-President of Northern N.Y. Home Builders Association. . .According to Section 277 of Town Law this does not give blanket authority for Town Boards to impose subdivision extractions. . .what I have here is a listing from the N.Y. Home Builders Association of ways in which the proposed law does not meet Town Law. LETTERS SUBMITTED: March 21, 1986 Edward P. Carr, Jr. , President Builders Association of Northern New York RR 1, Box 1374 Lake George, New York 12845 Re: Town of Queensbury Proposed Law Dear Mr. Carr, In reviewing proposed Town of Queensbury Local Law No. 5 of 1986(site plan exactions ) and article III, section 10 of the local code (subdivision exactions), I find that there are significant legal problems that should be brought to the town's attention as soon as possible. Proposed Site Plan Exactions Proposed Local Law No. 5 would require developers of multifamily dwelling units to reserve recreational areas or post money-in-lieu-of- parks as a condition of site plan approval. The exaction would be at least 1,000 square feet of usable space per unit or, at the Planning Board's option,$1,000 per unit. The money-in-lieu fund would be used 70. to purchase or enlarge recreational lands or improvements "to serve the inhabitants of the Town's residential neighborhoods." This local law is clearly beyond the power of the town to enforce. The highest court in the state, the New York Court of Appeals, squarely held several years ago that exactions cannot be imposed on site plan approvals. In a case called Riegert Apartments Corp. V. Planning Board of the Town of Clarkstown, 57 NY2d 206 (decided October 14, 1982), the court unanimously said that "although a town may require that, before approving a plat, either land or money-in-lieu-of-land be delivered to the municipality for developing parks, no such conditions may be imposed on the approval of a site plan." y In Riegert, the Clarkstown Planning Board conditioned final site plan approval for a 40-unit multifamily development upon the developer's depositing with the town $16,800. In the courts, Clarkstown argued that it had authority to impose the exaction under section 274-a of the Town Law and also under a special law for Clarkstown enacted by home rule message in 1974 (L-1974, ch 787). The Court of Appeals was not persuaded. The court held that section 274-a of the Town Law creates a uniform state- wide rule for the approval of site plans, and this rule does to include the power to condition site plan approvals on parkland set-asides or payments of money-in-lieu. The state legislature specifically restricted these exactions to subdivision approvals. To allow a town to enforce regulations in the site plan context, the court said, would give the town "two bites at the apple;" contrary to the plain intent of the state legislature. The Town of Clarkstown also argued that it had inherent power to regulate land use. The court rejected this argument, noting that "a town and other municipalities derive no power to regulate land use other than through legislative grant." Any other approach would make nonsense of the provisions of the Town Law and balkanize the state into a confederation of towns. Although the proposed Queensbury local law purports to rest on the authority of section 10 of the Municipal Home Rule Law, that section expressly authorizes only those local laws that are "not inconsistent with any general law." Obviously, the Town Law is general law, and the Court of Appeals has said that the kind of local law being proposed by Queensbury is inconsistent with the Town Law. My conclusion is that proposed local law number 5 of 1986 is unlawful,and any developer challenging it would prevail in having it annulled. Further,be- cause the law would take some of the developer's property or money, and likewise because it is imposed unequally on multifamily developments alone, the developer would also have grounds for a civil rights action under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution and section 1983 of Title 42 of the Unites States Code. Such an action could state claims for money damages and attorneys fees. Proposed Subdivision Exactions The proposed addition of article III, section 10 of the Queensbury code would require subdividers to contribute at least 1,000 square feet of usable land or $1,000 per lot, in the case of major subdivisions. Broad discretion would be given to the Planning Board to determine the location size and type of park, playground or open space facilities to be exacted, and to assure that these lands will be maintained for recreational uses only. The money-in-lieu fund would be dedicated to the purchase or enlargement of parks, playgrounds, open spaces or improvements "which serve the town's residential neighborhoods." Unlike Queensbury's site plan proposal, this subdivision proposal generally has a statutory point of reference, section 277 of the Town Law. The outcome of litigation here is very likely depend on the particular facts of the case, rather than the general jurisdiction of the town to adopt regulation. Town Law section 277 does not give blanket authority to towns to impose subdivision exactions. The language and legislative history of the statute itself, as well as numerous Comptroller's Opinions and court opinions, establish limits that the Planning Board and the town must observe including: *every determination of the Planning Board must have a basis in the record and must not be arbitrary or capricious; for example, an exaction imposed where there is no demonstrated need for additional parkland would not withstand the scrutiny of the courts; * any parkland set aside must be located within the subdivision development itself; i * no subdivider may be required to make off-site improvements; * no subdivider can be required to convey land to the town or to any governmental agency; * money-in-lieu cannot be exacted where the developer sets aside park area under cluster zoning (1967 State Comptroller 713) : *use of the money-in-lieu fund must be strictly limited to capital expense items and not diverted to other items such as maintenance; * use of the money-in-lieu fund to acquire parkland distant from the contributing subdivisions may only be made if the town board decides that there is no other alternative, since the intent is to provide parks for the residents of the contributing subdivisions, not for the whole town. For an indication of how narrowly the Court of Appeals is reading section 277, see Kahmi v Planning Board of Town of Yorktown, 59 NY2d 385 (decided July 7, 1983). In that case, the court unanimously said that towns cannot require dedication of parkland under sections 277 since the statute only permits them to establish "conditions on ownership" of the parkland. Because the statute presents serious constitutional problems under the Fifth Amendment "taking" clause, the Court has been interpreting the section in a narrow fashion to avoid possible taking of property without just compensation. If I can be of further service in this matter, please do not hesitate to let me know. The issues posed by local development exactions obviously hold great importance for all of our members statewide. Very Truly Your, Gary H. Gutchess, Staff Counsel TOWN COUNSEL-I am very comfortable with the subdivision regulation code in terms of the format there is always a question of fee, what's reasonable but this issue was decided initially in 1966 by the court of appeals which upheld a very similar stature in the Village of Scarsdale and on that point twenty years ago the village down there was asking for $250.00 a lot. I think that the state upheld this constitutionally for its rule in the taking , it is a valid method of community planning and I would simple say that I disagree with what the writer wrote in that, what we've got here is enforceable and would be upheld should anybody want to take us on a court decision. MR. CARR-According to this County vs Town Planning Board of Yorktown 59 NY 2D 385 - decided July 7, 1983, in that case the Court unanimously said that towns could not require dedication of park lands under section 277 since the statue only permits them to establish conditions of ownership of the park land because the statue presents serious constitutional problems under the fifth amendment taking clause the court has been interpreting the section in a narrow fashion to avoid possible taking of property without just compensation. Obviously there is two sides the New York State Home Builders and Northern New York Home Builders who are not against any plan for recreation , however, having researched this and I just received this letter today so I haven't really had a chance to go over it in depth. As a town resident I would wish that the Town Board would research all the ramification of this law as a tax payer I do not wish to see the Town Board involved in long drawn out legal proceedings and consequently I would like to submit this letter in its entirety to the 92 ninutes of the meeting. TOWN COUNSEL- I would just like to point out to the Town Board that case deals specifically with the other issue that is going to be coming up tonight which is in the nature under Planning Board review of multifamily dwelling and it is my understanding what that case stands for is that under the site plan review section of the Town enabling legislation, a planning board would not be permitted to impose this kind of fee in lieu of in case apartments and condominiums, to me, being a lawyer, this is a bad decision.How can you uphold a decision which says we are going to require this be in lieu of for individuals homes within a subdivision and not permit the same type of requirement for condominium. You are still going to get people using up space. What I have tried to do and is going to come up in the section is we are trying to bring those types of developments into parity and with using the sites plan review provision for condominiums and multifamily dwelling is based on the municipal home rule law which gives town, villages and cities a great deal of power to enact both legislatures so we are not grounding the matter that isn't -- before you on a public hearing, on the enabling legislature of the Town Law so that again I recognize Mr. Carr's case . I don' t believe that it is applicable in this, at least not at this Public Hearing. MR. CARR- I would like you to accept this and put it in the minutes and interpret it because we are not attorneys. SUPERVISOR WALTER- I can understand that but I would have to tell you and for the benefit of the public who are here tonight or who hear about this meeting that we do employ or seek counsel so that when we put together these kinds of amendments to our subdivision or go ahead with a local law, our counsel in what has been drawn up in discussion with the board feels very firm as he has stated that he can stand behind what he has written and can defend it on behalf of the Town. We can certainly read a whole lot of cases but I think that Mr. Mathias already has and we have talked about this but what he has presented to the Town Board in legal language after they have told him what we would like to do , it is something that is defensible and that is what we feel comfortable very comfortable with taking it into court. We can discuss the law all evening , but I can only tell you that which ever court you are in you get a decision from that particular judge. I understand and appreciate as a resident of the town you don't like to see the town go into law suits. I also do not like to see the town go into law suits but this was not just drawn up on a whim. There has been legal research done and we would certainly have these minutes to reflect your feelings and — Lhe Northern New York Builders Assoc. and how they feel about this situation. MR. CARR-Secondly as a resident of the town, I think a few years ago we passed this blue book of zoning ordinances. As you go through that you will see the smaller lots that Mike is talking about but it also goes up to 10 and 42 acre lots. Are you to tell me that someone that decides to locate in an area of the town where they have to purchase 42 acres of property which the zoning ordinance was derived with the of the Adirondack Park Agency to keep a scenic New York State, these people are buying 42 acres of land to build a house on and now they're also supposed to be paying a $1000.00. SUPERVISOR WALTER-This deals with subdivision, not individual lots. MR. CARR-Depending on the area of town that would be subdivided it would take five 42 acre lots and have a subdivision of 10 acre lots. The area I am in the zoning has gone to 10 acre lots. There has been no mention of if you decide to say buy a 1000 acres of property and cluster your development and the rest of it is green space is that to relieve you from the recreation requirements. SUPERVISOR WALTER-The Planning Board would be reviewing all the subdivisions and according to what we put together as far as subdivision regulations are concerned they would be reviewing the lots you would have in your plot plan to see just exactly what could be used for recreation or as you said in that particular case in lieu of, it is the Planning Board that generally requires the green area. There are not too many developers that come in with them. There are some but I will tell you they are nn 5J also the ones - most developers take a plot of land and have a surveyor whack it up into the most lots and they make a subdivision out of it and it is just that way and I can see developers coming through the town and appearing before the Planning Board with these very substantial developments and essentially we could have wall to wall developments in the Town of Queensbury and that is what we are looking to not have. MR. CARR-I think that why many of the developers are here tonight who chose to live in Queensbury. We are a little bit concerned. I guess what it comes down to is we realize that the Town Board is elected but somewhere we have to think of the new people that are coming into to town because they are the future voter and as proposed just guessing at the thing with present mortgage rates if we are going to be tacking on a $1000.00 per lot for these new home owners coming in, it is going to end up ultimately costing these people $5000.00 over the course of their mortgage, because these people aren't putting up cash to buy the home and to buy the lot and everything. I guess I don't think the recreation for the whole Town of Queensbury should be payed for by those that move in after a certain date. I think the recreation for the Town of Queensbury should be payed for by the Town of Queensbury on a whole and to say to one group of the Town's economy which is developers or the builders, well we are going to use you to finance our Recreation Dept. , I can't agree with that. I think there are other methods to arrive at funding Town Recreation. Thank you. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Does anyone else wish to speak. MR. BUCK BRYANT- I am the owner of Queensbury Arms Apartments, 60 residential units, west of the Queensbury High School. In addition I have seven unit commercial building on Bay Road near Glenwood. Last summer I purchased twenty-two acres behind the apartment complex and the zoning for that is 198 units. I had no immediate plans then or now for any development but I do realize that there is a definite demand for residential rental, particularly single bedroom units. There are approximately 350 to 400 square feet in the area, at least that's what our market reports show. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-That is the wrong law, we are talking subdivision not rental apartments or multiple dwellings. MR. BRYANT-Well isn't this part of it. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-we are talking subdivision not rental, apartments or multidwelling. MR. BRYANT- I was given two this afternoon and they indicated that this came under this law. Is the second one contingent upon the first. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-No, it has nothing to do with it, one is a subdivision regulation and one is a local law, which is an entirely different thing. MR. BRYANT-Would that $1000.00 per unit apply to the second one as well. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Yes COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-It is on there but it is irrelevant to this particular hearing. MR. BRYANT-So I should mention it later on, thank you very much. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Is there anyone here who wishes to address the subdivision on the recreation land for fee in lieu of? MR. MORTON-I represent the Queensbury Association for outdoor recreation — environment. I just like to make some brief remarks about this proposal. In discussing this proposal with staff from the Dept. of State I have been led to believe in less then ten years they anticipated that nearly 75% of the community of New York State will have made in lieu of provisions of their localities. What we are talking about you might say is to pass the cost on to new home owners and the Town would be asking them to invest in recreation in open space if they want to buy a home in Queensbury. So what this involves is to ask them to invest with up front money in the community. I have also been asked to believe that this may be comparing apples and oranges but down in Long Island they are charging as much 94 as $15,000.00 per lot, course that is not up state. But I guess one thing that seems to have come clear from my discussions with people from the Dept. of State, that the community needs to set standards in the Subdivision regulations for administration of this law. Also I think it is advisable to have an open space plan and recreation plan, in other words, if a subdivision is to exist with the open space plan, or recreation plan for example a piece of say 100 acres subdivision, and 10% of that land would be dedicated for recreational use. The recreational plan calls for recreation in that particular location or if an open space plan, for example, calls for open space preservation in the particular location where the developer wants to dedicate that land then what the developers wishes for example dedicating 10% of the land to the open space to be consistent with the open space land. Now it is not consistent with the open space plan or recreation plan for that area then it is my understanding that there would be payment in lieu of. I think that it would be desirable as this evolves to have developed an open space plan and recreational plan that identifies these areas that would be desirable to have this land dedicated for if not payment in lieu of. I would like to say that the Queensbury Assoc. for outdoor recreation environment fully supports this provision . Mr. Farone .- I have been a builder in the area for the past 15 years. I purchased some land up here recently. I am familiar with park and recreation fees. I developed large subdivision in the Town of Wilton, in Saratoga Springs. I've paid as little as $50.00 a lot. I've paid as much as $200.00 a lot. The $200.00 lot fee is the most recent, it was this year in the City of Saratoga Springs on a 125 Townhouse subdivision. The way they work it down there is the $200.00 fee was paid on CO it wasn't paid up front. A $1000.00 a lot, I don't really know where you got that figure from but I think personally it is awfully high. To ask the builders and developers to put the streets before you get a building permit and come up with a $1000.00 a lot and like Mr. Woodbury said 125 /150 subdivision, by the time building and economy changes in the interim you could put them out of business. I have had a lot of experience with park recreations fees, 10% of the land has been added to at one time and they wound up with little tiny parcels all over the area and it didn't work out so they went to a fee. I don't disagree with this fee but $1000.00. The most I have ever heard around the area is in Colony $400.00 but then your land value is a lot higher down there The houses you get a $100,000.00 for up here would be $175,000.00 or $185,000.00 down there. I've been in areas where they don't charge anything COUNCILMAN MONTESI-When they do it on the certificate of occupancy, how is the mechanics, is it a big administrative problem. Mr. Farone-No, it is between the building inspector and the builder developer. I am sure when it is time for CO, the builder inspector comes down when you pick up your CO you pay the fee. If it is $200.00 and you are closing on ten houses, that is $2000.00. You know it doesn't hurt anybody that way. But to ask for it up front, you are going to put a lot of people out of business. It could hurt a lot of people also. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-A $1,000.00 is a nice round figure to put in to start with, we can go up or down. Mr. Farone- Where does he get the number from.? I would like to be the collector, I'd get out of the building business. I love your town and I am very interested in it but for myself and I would like to live here myself. I have been in three towns and I have done a lot of building and a lot of developing and I have never paid $400.00. The highest I've paid is $200.00. If this will help you out in any way, I 'am going to do a lot of developing up here and I think this figure is too high, I don't mind paying a fee. Any questions I would be glad to answer them. SUPERVISOR WALTER- Thank you very much Mr. Voroom. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak during the public hearing relative to the recreation fee and subdivisions. MR. Mains -Really, I don't feel this fee on subdividers is really the way to go and I am all for recreation but for the Town should really have a plan for setting aside recreation areas in the Town but really now days they are requesting more and more recreation. Cross country skiing,skatin.g ponds, tennis courts etc. So please don't think just for children because if you do you are approaching our problem in the wrong way. SUPERVISOR WALTER- Have you had your question answered? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- The Town of Queensbury has for years worked on a gentlemen's agreement which has been beneficial and financially advantageous to us in the Town as taxpayers and administrators in that it is with the Queensbury Central School District, we have used their facilities here, their baseball diamonds for our recreational softball league, soccer leagues etc. We use their swimming pool for summer swim lessons and with the liability cost going up, suppose that gentlemanly agreement next year was severed because the school didn't want to have that exposure any longer we'd be in a real fix. In some respects the Queensbury Central School District is the hub of Queensbury recreational activities around town now and if were looking as good planners down the road we are going to need some more recreational facilities. MR. WOODBURY- I think in answer to that the taxpayers would have to bear the liability cost and I don't think we can accept the situation. What we have is a fine recreation facility open to the people of Queensbury who are paying school taxes,for some insurance reason that facility is no longer available, I do not think the answer is to go out and find more land in which you will have to pay more insurance. . .you have to find ways to keep the recreation we have available now in use. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That is at the discretion of the School Board, I would like to point out for two summers we did not have the use of the school pool because it was down due to repairs. I would also like to point out that right now we are unable to provide playing time for as many soft ball teams that would like to play. We do not have the kind of area, between us or the school, there is no place in this town are we equipped to put on the field as many soft ball teams as have requested to be part of a league. Mr. Hansen, how many teams have we turned down? MR. HANSEN-Rec. Director- Between ten and twelve teams a year. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-This is with the present population and just adults. MR. CARUSONE-I do not think that any of us disagree with the need, we are very concerned over the fee, we think that the fees are too high. In Bedford Close we have a green area now, they are not officially designated as recreation areas we have encouraged our homeowners association to take them over, they will have no part of it. As a developer, sometime in the future we will be out of the development, will the Town be willing to take over the green areas of the developments? Not only maintain the park but take the liability? SUPERVISOR WALTER-The answer is no. We have had green area in subdivisions in which the planning board had indicated that they wanted to remain green and we have had problems with that. The developer held on to them, the developer has since past away, the green areas are now part of the estate, this is just an example. The several green areas which are lots within the subdivisions just cannot be used for anything not even a neighborhood park. We have learned by the mistakes of the past, these little house lot size parcel of green areas are almost useless, what we are looking for is a little bit more acreage, whether it is an active or passive park or green area, we would have some use out of it. We have a couple _- of acres in W.G.F. in the west end park which has turned out to be an excellent park, that is what we are looking for. MR. CARUSONE-In our area we have large green areas that is the point we are trying to make these are not just small lots, they are large green areas which the residents do not want to take over. SUPERVISOR WALTER-There is a difference between green areas and recreation lands in the recreation lands that we are looking for, that we can put tennis courts, we can have baseball fields depending on what we need. 96 I don't feel it is a fair way to go. Looking at it from the builders or home owners stand point, it seems to me that they are always getting it in the neck. First you have the highways and roads, we had to raise the fee for them, now you come along with this fee and we will have to raise it for them. Now we have many other things that is going up also that we are going to have to increase also. Niagara Mohawk has just raised their fees, the truckers are going to be charging higher prices because they can't carry as much weight as they used to, so there are a lot of other things you should be carrying into this and to me the homeowner is the one getting it in the neck, so I wish you would reconsider this and give it a good deal of thought. SUPERVISOR WALTER- Anyone else who wishes to address the board relative to subdivisions. I was going to ask the board if they had any comments to make at this time. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA- I worked on something where the developers has put —' aside 10 acres or somewhat green area for the rest of the subdivision even though he doesn't want to turn the property over to the town he wants closed recreation for his people of his own subdivision, could he do that. SUPERVISOR WALTER- He could do that. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA- Or has he going to have to cough up another $1000.00 a lot to. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Well George, perhaps that isn' t a question - the regulation were left open so that if the town found that in that particular subdivision they didn't need a green area and they wanted the fees in lieu of for a site that would be five blocks away that would take care of a little more of the population. I think that they wanted the discretion in order to make the decision. In other words why should it be the developers decision as to where the green areas in the town are, if in fact the town is a well planned town, the town is the one who is going to be doing the planning not the developers. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA- I am sitting on both sides of the fence, I am sitting on this side as elected official as status of appointed official on the zoning board but I am also sitting on the other side as representing the developer where the developer would like to take and develop a playground as a closed playground for the people in his own subdivision so as not to have these people go out and crowd other public facilities, such as swimming pools, tennis courts similar to what you would find in a multifamily development and there are many cases of this. I have seen them in Florida, down in the south quite a bit where they are closed to themselves, with a little pond or something. Would the Planning Board accept that in lieu of. I think it is something the Town has to control, because I don't know if you took 10 acres out of the middle of an area similar to Bedford Close and you open it to the whole town, like Ron says you are going to have a boarder war over there. SUPERVISOR WALTER- Well I think the Town planners would understand that would in fact happen COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA- Then I would assume that the Homeowners Assoc. would own it and they would maintain it and they would carry the insurance and everything else but it would be recreation primarily for the people for that division. Would this regulation allow this? I am asking this question because I have sat on the other side of the fence before. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- I would just like to ask Mr. Woodbury a question so we can have some numbers to play with. You are contemplating a subdivision of a 156 unit what would you be contemplating the bedroom size of those houses will be? MR. WOODBURY- Approximately 1200 square foot housing. I would guess, two to three bedrooms also are 1200. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So you would say 500 people give or take a few. Recreation is not just for children, we must get that theory out of our head. Recreation is for every age in this town and you will find as people are retiring � 1 SUPERVISOR WALTER-Asked for further comments, hearing none the public hearing was closed . . .8:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING 8:46 P.M. Notice Shown SUPERVISOR WALTER-Second public hearing which is a proposed law. This local law provides for the preservation of recreation land or monies in lieu thereof as a condition precedent to sight plan of approval. MR. BRYANT-Picking up halfway down through page one here, the land I purchased was selling for a 198 units but I have no immediate plans then or now to develop, but I do realize there is definite demand for resident rental in the Queensbury area and particular in the single bedroom department. With approximately 300 to 400 square feet and probably I would like to build some rentals there in a phased way as the demand warrants it as a private investment. Residential rentals are fast being placed beyond the reach of the man on the street. We have already seen a tremendous price increase this year in the Town of Queensbury. Just as a little bit of background here, all the rental developments are primarily tax advantage shelter operations and show little if any return on investment up front. The return is generated down the road when the properties are eventually sold. Of course the federal tax laws are changing, depreciation rates are changing they are going up to thirty years, probably. We have no investment tax credit for residential rental as does apply to some commercial things but not perhaps this year but it did last year, and the capital gain rate is going up also. I point this out to indicate the extreme thin margin that the people in the rental business operate under. New York State taxes are of course are largely contingent on real taxable income and then about two years ago the coupe-de-grace was when Cuomo passed a ten percent transfer tax on property tranfers of one million dollars or better. Ten percent right off the top to the State of New York that really hinders any profitability of residential rentals or anything similar to it and now we have a possibility of a $1000.00 per unit up front proposal for developments of this nature. All of this leads to less residential rentals because of the decrease return on investment for the owner and then of course that has to be past on to the consumer as has been pointed out here by other gentlemen in the form of higher rents. Now additional taxes or money generated for the community that this might be called, I think should be more properly supplied by increases in property taxes throughout Queensbury or by bond issues. These taxes would then be generated by the whole town rather than just from realistate developers. I think that is a more fair and equitable way of applying this. I feel that the pros method of taxation current or money generation here is highly descriminatory. Along other lines we might want to address an apparent disparity here. We are looking at a thousand dollars per house or lot with almost unlimited living capacity in it with a small unit, a single bedroom unit say, single occupancy of say 400 or 500 square feet that when according to this regulation would be assessed the same rate of a $1000.00. I feel that might be looked at as a chain in the residential rental rate here and be based on square footage rather than per unit. Also there might be a change in there for developers of apartment complexes in as much as it has already been pointed out to those complex apartment and owners and developers do already supply recreation facilities in the way of swimming pools playgrounds, etc. I also feel that something in the nature of building say a 100 or 200 rental units that we could look at this from the point of phase development which I understand the Town of Queensbury is more interested in seeing the tremendous number of units go in at once. It would be more convenient for someone like myself who would build on the bases of demand to make the thing viable, so if we were to look at something, say a hundred rentals to go in immediately that would be a $100,000.00 up front, that is quite a chunk of change. Where as if this were phased in over a period of years say more fairly administrated, when the certificate of occupancy is issued, it might be a better way of approaching something of this nature, then the increased rents which have to be increased to support something like this, as the cost do go to the consumers,whether they be for sale units or for rent units, they go on to the consumer who pays the bill in a more timely fashion. Summing up if the intent of this regulation and the one that preceded it is to stop the development of residential and residential rental units or increase the amount of 98 and locate those facilities throughout the Town. MR. CARUSONE-We are looking for clarification, would it be the intent of the Town, if the developer designs large green areas in a development would you discourage us from doing that. . . SUPERVISOR WALTER-I would never want to discourage you from doing that. MR. CARUSONE-If we did that the land would still not be taken over as recreation area. SUPERVISOR WALTER-This would be something that would go before the Planning Board, there would be some communication within the Town, if in fact it would be a good place to have lands for recreation it would have to be for the Town's recreation and not for the people in that particular subdivision. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I would assume the green area that you are referring to really is an inducement for people to buy lots in that area, because they like the looks of having green areas. I would think the property would belong to the homeowners association to control it and keep it in the condition that they wanted it. MR. CARUSONE-They are reluctant to take over the land because of liability. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Would you be more comfortable with a sliding scale, with perhaps the areas with -big lots and expensive houses would pay one fee and the area where you are trying to put up a basic house and on a smaller lot would be paying a different fee? They may both have the same number of people that would require recreation. . . MR. WOODBURY-There is a basis for discussion there, that is for sure. MR. FRANK DESANTIS-Resident of Butternut Hill-I am in favor of the concept however I have heard it stated by several individuals that the cost is being passed on to the new owner, I think that is the intent of the law, however the language that is used in the proposal the law is not truly passed on to the owner. By making the developer pay the fee up front I and I have heard a proposal by several individuals, at least part of the fee be made payable at a later date at the time of the CO, I think that is a fine idea. We have heard of the impact on the larger subdivisions brought up of 150-160 units I think it would be fair to say it effects more on the fellow who wants to put up 5-10-20 lots subdivisions who has to come up with twenty thousand dollars up front and pay it at that time not knowing he has his lots sold, not knowing how long it is going to take him to be sold, effectively you are taking that fellow out of the business at that time. I think it would be fairer to have some fee at that time when you can fund what your plans are and then have him at the time of CO before he can close and pass it on to the buyer directly. What you are doing in the first instance is passing it on to the developer and it maybe the smaller developer who is even less able to handle the up front costs due to his financial circumstances than the larger developers who are more than adequately represented this evening. This would apply not only to the proposed local law but also the subdivision regulations. . . MR. CARUSONE-Primarily development in Queensbury has been done by people who are living and working here and making their living in the Queensbury area. Mr. Woodbury and the Carusone family are good examples, when you make it an up front costs you are encouraging outside developers coming in. It could reach a point where some of us could no longer afford a developer but the land is still desirable and the development could still take place. I think because we have the best interests in Queensbury at heart because we are people who live here and lived here all our lives, you are going to miss that if outside developers come in and develop where people have no interest other than the investment they can get out. We may at times seem difficult to deal with but you have not seen anything yet if the developer from out of states they will come in and make life miserable as they can, we still have in interest here. If you drive people like us out of the development business who have a local long term family interest I think your problems are nothing compared at what they will be. rentals charged then I feel it will do that but if the intended is to supply Queensbury with more recreational areas then I feel it should be done with increases in broadly administrated realistate taxes or by bond issues, both of these are far less discriminatory in the proposed plan. SUPERVISOR WALTER- Does anyone else wish to speak relative to the local law and recreation fees. Mr. Carusone and Mr. Woodbury would you care to say ditto to that. MR. WOODBURY-I would say ditto is ok SUPERVISOR WALTER- I would have to say one thing in the discussion of how to put together these subdivision on local law, the Town is looking for the least amount of administration in order to collect the fee so if it is stated that we were looking at before approval of the dollars you can see that its great to get a check in one scoop and you do not have to do very much book work in keeping track of that. Needless to say that in the discussion of the board that may be modified, but no way do we want to take on more administrative procedures that would really defeat the purpose. We would certainly be running up the expenditures iii the building department while we were putting aside recreation money, so what ever we decide to do in the long run based on some of your comments here it is still going to be the least path to administrative cost. Does any else want to make any comments relative to the recreation fees. MR. CARR- I would like to reiterate on the letter I did submit before and ask Mr. Montesi to review it as not being a lawyer and admittedly so as I understand the fees collected, the town will have to show that those fees are being used in the immediate neighborhood, possibly I am interpreting this wrong but if you are looking for relieving yourselves of administration with this law you might be in for a whole new act there. If you are collecting funds in West Glens Falls, my interpretation that you are going to have to show that they were being used in that neighborhood and it could constitute an accounting nightmare. The other things that I think, the consensus, correct me if I am wrong, I gather that it is the opinion of the Town Board that this is being enacted to pay for recreational facilities that are lacking in the Town now. It would seem that you are asking anyone who is yet to come into the Town of Queensbury to pay for something that is now lacking. My last comment is that as Mr. Morton had said before, he is requesting new people into the Town to put up front money, I guess I have to put it before the Town Board and everyone in this room how much up front money do we have to put up to move into Queensbury? Is it an attitude that we are here now, and to hell with everyone else or are we still a growing community receptive to new people. SUPERVISOR WALTER- I do have to say though that those of us, Mrs. Monahan I, don't know whether any of the other members of the board has been a life long resident of Queensbury, Queensbury has changed. What we may have done twenty years ago, because Queensbury was as it was, we can no longer do twenty years from now, because Queensbury will be something else and it is our responsibility to look out for the future. The Town Board makes the decisions on a day to day policies and procedures but I think we are charged with the responsibility to what happens to Queensbury in the future and we are concerned about the open spaces to be used for recreation and there is certainly is concern. The public hearings we have this evening and there are three of them and they are all related to development in the Town and I don't think speaking for the whole board here and maybe I shouldn't be, but we certainly are not against development. We all understand that is the way it works. We want to make sure that the Town develops properly, so that Queensbury is still a good place to live twenty-five or fifty years down the road. I don' t think we are directly looking at a particular group, although maybe it seems like that except with additional development in the Town it is putting a strain on what already. is and what other people who have been here and they have already paid for and this is why the ideas and direction of the board has tried to put together these amendments and also a local law to bring it before the public this evening. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We have heard other people say in the Town isn' t it too bad the boards before us didn't recognize what was going to happen in the town and pick up on land in Lake George while it could be done. I think that this Town Board feels its responsibilities to the future generation very much and if we don't, in the very next few years, we can't put this off twenty-five years down the line. In the very next few years if we don't pick up some of the really good open space, it's going to be too late and I think we all have a responsibility.I think unless we are in union with the developers that if we don' t keep Queensbury a good looking place, if we don't keep a good place to live because of what we are offering we may see this town turn around. If we have just wall to wall developments and we won't have people moving in for resale of houses and so on, we will see people moving out so we will have empty houses and this is one other thing that this board is trying very hard to prevent. In this instance I think we are working in conjunction with the developers. ' MR. WOODBURY- I have no question about that but if that is the case it may require another public hearing. SUPERVISOR WALTER- If it is changed substantially, yes, if it is changed not too substantially no, it is very subjective and I would say that all of the Town Board members do not agree to figures in both the local law and the subdivision regulation this evening. I think I can be candid in saying that if we had a public hearing relative to these figures and the public was able to respond to these figures we could in discussion lower the figures if the board chose to do so and not have another public hearing. Had we gone with fifty dollars a lot and it was determined that it should be a lot more than the law says we cannot present the public with fifty dollars and make it a lot more. We can make it a lot less and people are generally pleased with that aspect of that and we have the leeway to do that but its been this board and the past board if a local law or if the regulation or any kind of amendments changed substantial we generally go back to the public and let them know what we are dealing with the second or third time. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I do want to say this the Town Boards in the past didn't know if this money was going to be used for recreation or what We have through the years set aside funds and it has been ear marked strictly for recreation and we have not tampered with it. We are not like some of the levels of government if you need it for something else like the social security or something like that. What we have put in for recreation, those funds have stayed and used only for recreation. We have sold land wet lands to the State of New York, we purposely earmarked that money for recreation so it has been the policy of this board to try get recreation funds and to use them strictly for that. SUPERVISOR WALTER- Any kind of funds like this or with the sale of land where with a resolution the Town Board says it must go for recreation it goes into a capital account and the funds are segregated from the general funds. MR. MORTON-I would just like to make a suggestion, I know that Supervisor Walter has already concluded that these funds could be used for passive recreation as well as active recreation, I would like to suggest that they be used for acquiring open space lands which could be used for a open space plan. For example, it might be a scenic easement, something along those lines, scenic vista that should be included as open space and funds could be used to acquire conservation easement for example along a stream, or looking over from a road or something of that nature, they call it passive recreation. Does the law as it is presently drafted provide for that kind of provision. SUPERVISOR WALTER- Yes it does, the purchase of land is suitable for renewal, large playgrounds or open space.Is there anyone else who wishes to speak during this public hearing relative to local law that relates to multidwelling. UNKNOWN-Does the Town realize that they own property on the Hudson River? SUPERVISOR WALTER-Yes. . .As soon as the snow goes out we will be walking that property. . . (Town Board and Recreation Commission) MR. GLEN GREGORY-Luzerne Road-noted that Mr. Lester Baird gave drawings YK to the Town' oid a' proposed park on the River Property. . .noted that he felt if fees and taxes continued to go up he would have to move from the Town. . . SUPERVISOR WALTER-As the fiscal Officer for the Town of Queensbury your taxes have not been going up, they have gone down you now pay 94C per thousand for town taxes it was $1.53 last year and $2.07 the year before. Asked for further input. . .hearing none the public hearing was closed 9:14 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING 9:14 P.M. NOTICE SHOWN A proposed Local Law Establishing Water District Connection Regulations SUPERVISOR WALTER-the intent of this law is to require the connection of residential major subdivisions and multi family dwelling units within 2000 feet of an existing water district in order to permit the planned and orderly extension of municipal water and provide for economical and efficient municipal water distribution to the residents of the Town of Queensbury. We are requiring that new subdivisions of residential major, anything five lots or more or multiple family dwelling units, connect to the municipal water supply. The reason for the local law is the areas in the western section of the Town of Queensbury where there has been substantial development and where we have had water problems. We have had people who have bought into a subdivision only on wells and several years later petitioned the Town Board for public water. We had to bring civil defense equipment to those people because the wells and water table in a particular area where they bought houses were not substantial enough to carry them for more than one or two years. The Town has planned its extensions to the water district, it is our purpose to get public water to as many people as we can we have a plant that has the capability of producing and transmitting to a lot more people in the Town. We would like to minimize those people's problems that buy in subdivisions and also be able to plan our construction. Asked for public input. . . COUNCILMAN BORGOS-It is my understanding that if the property being developed is within 2000 feet of the district and then the developer would pay the cost of the improvements from the district line, is that correct? So if, we have to extend it for 2000 feet to get to the end of the district so then the builder will pick up the cost from that point on? SUPERVISOR WALTER-We just had a particular case in front of the Planning Board where a subdivider was abutting a water district and wished to have water at a location further down and other people also were interested in public water we are going forward. I think we have the resolution this evening, retaining an engineer to do the map, plan and report on the district. We made deal with that subdivider in order that he not bear the full cost, we would create a district and he would substantially help with the district costs and it would not be prohibited. The State Comptroller is the decision maker on the establishment of a water or sewer district. Asked for further comments. . .hearing none the public hearing was closed 9:16 P.M. OPEN FORUM 9:16 P.M. MR. CARL KREBS-Cleverdale-Requested that the Town Board look into a situation at Cleverdale that had come before the Zoning Board—noted that new houses on the Lake must conform to sewer regulations in placing a septic system. . .the problem in question is when an existing system is left and a new dwelling is placed on a lot is there any checking of the sewage system to see if it is failing or large enough to hold the usage of a larger dwelling. . .noted that the residents in the area are worried about this situation. . . Any new house on a lot should have a good check of the sewage system even if it was an existing system. . .asked that the zoning laws be changed to reflect this. . . SUPERVISOR WALTER-We will look into the facts of the situation. . .we also concerned about Lake George. . . if the present laws are not doing what they are supposed to do the Town Board has the authority to change the laws. . . MR. JIM INGALLS-Cleverdale-Requested that the wording of the law be changed to read an adequately operating sewage system not an existing system. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-. . .the original intent was if you have a home in the lake areas and you were going to remodel and put a bigger house up we originally put in the ordinance you had to bring the septic system up to date, that was prohibitive cost wise. . .reviewed the history of the septic ordinance. . . MR. CHARLES ADAMSON-Asked if Queensbury was making an effort in solving Lake George's problems? Three areas require action 1. milfoil 2. sewering 3. pollution control 1. Milfoil-Warren Co. is pressing for approval to use chemicals to treat milfoil. . .the failure of Mr. Williams, Commissioner of DEC to commit himself to action right away. . .I believe DEC is responsible for the deterioration of Lake George. . .The Town needs to make it clear to Mr. Williams than anything less than action this spring is unacceptable. 2. Sewering-The efforts of the Lake George Association to change the Lake George Law has come to a stand still, the town has not lifted a finger in support of the LGA 's efforts so far. 3. Pollution control we need to find and eliminate and reduce any and all pollution . . .the town needs a systematic survey this year to find the sources of urban run-off and septic pollution . . . The ZBA and the Building Inspector should deal more directly with septic system, not wait until they fail. . . SUPERVISOR. WALTER-I cannot support the Lake George legislation, this is one of the reasons why the Lake George Association Legislation relative to the change in the Lake George Law was not successful several years ago. The Lake George Association went ahead without consulting with the local municipalities took their own people who did their own research and went on their way without the support of the local government. The sewer is a lot larger than the Town of Queensbury. Queensbury has in its budget monies to retain an engineer to study the situation or to prepare a map plan report for a district, but the town is not going to retain an engineer until we can send an engineer in a particular direction and until the Lake George law is changed. We are not going to be able to do that and the fact that Fran Walter, the Supervisor here has not done anything is totally ridiculous. The problem here is not with the local governments in what they are trying to do, to address the problem, we felt that with the way Encon could look at the situation with the report that Mr. Russell James come up with that we would probably have a permit sometime in the beginning of June. We have met our responsibilities as far as milfoil. It was Mr. Williams statement who is the commissioner of Encon who does have to permit this activity in the lake because the towns do not have ownership of the lake and so therefore we are beholding to this gentlemen to make the ultimate decisions. So what are we going to do about milfoil, we are not going to do anything. We are going to be extremely supportive of the efforts on the part of all the communities around the lake. The county is committed to funds for this particular project and that is more than the State of New York or Encon would do, that is more than Lake George wanted to do, that is more than the Park Commission can do. The counties have taken the bull by the horn, the counties have suggested an inspector to inspect the septic system to see where there is any kind of problem. As to whether the county has the authority to have a person go on peoples property and do those kind of things and then it has been discussed with the County attorney as to how we can proceed in that manner. What we are doing is monitoring what is being done by a larger government but being a part of that larger government and trying to make something happen but I don't think we have shirked our responsibility. I think the State Agencies have. I have talked with Mr. Leombruno about it, the Supervisor of Bolton, and Mr. Tessier and we are all in concert in our agreement that the LGA has gone off many times without talking with the local political entities to see what is best for the municipalities. I said I would do my best to have the Lake George Law changed and I have talked with Ron Stafford with just that kind of thing. I will tell you what is wrong with it. This law is so specific that its placing standard in it. Do you know what happens when the standards change, when research is done, and you find that the standard have been written in the law? Just like the Lake George law was changed in 1977 or'78 relative to the Warren County sewer district. Now its been since that sewer district has been on the down hill that there has been efforts to have the law changed. This is extremely difficult because Encon was one of the people unhappy with the law the way it was drafted from the Lake George Association and I agreed with Encon, you cannot put standards in the law. Queensbury has got to work with our neighbors. I think these things are county matters. MR. DONALD MORRISSEY-(Regarding the situation on Cleverdale) noted in his area there seems to be a problem with cars parking on both sides of the road, requested that the Town look into a no parking zone on Cleverdale Road. . .voiced concern over emergency vehicles traveling this congested area. . . SUPERVISOR WALTER-We will have the Highway Supt. look at the situation and report to the Board and also at times we also request the input of the Sheriff's Dept. . . .we will then set a public hearing on a proposed local law for no-parking on Cleverdale Road. . .we would like to hear from the residents of the area in writing that they would like such a local law proposed. . . MR. FRED ALEXY-Cleverdale-(Regarding the new structure on Cleverdale) historically in the past five years he rents the property which is adjacent to his house as a summer residence to numerous people who occupy the building at the same time. What he is doing is increasing the size of the building, our concern is that if the septic system as it exists now, which is probably inadequate to take care of the summer time surge, what is going to happen to it when he triples the size of the building. MRS. JANE ALEXY-Spoke to the Board regarding the new structure on Cleverdale, I do not believe that this structure will be a one family dwelling. . . MR. CARR-Asked that the Town Board check into the regulating of the No-Parking on Assembly Point. . . SUPERVISOR WALTER-Friday I wrote to Sheriff Tripp and asked him why are his deputies ignoring the Queensbury Local Law for no-parking. . .I have not had a response. . . MR. AL GREENO-Corinth Road-Spoke to the Board about West Side Auto-concerned over the condition of the existing junk yard under the name of West Side Auto. . .noted that the fence did not appear to meet the ordinance, also sections of the fencing are down. . .he does not keep his stuff inside the junk yard, how can we expect anything different in the future. With him leaving Glens Falls and coming up there and building a new building and there is now a trailer on the property, I have not heard anything about the trailer. . .we have enough trailers up there without putting up another one. Why isn't this ordinance being enforced, why was a permit for a new building given to West Side Auto when he is not living up to the regulations of existing laws. . . SUPERVISOR WALTER-If there is on file the fact that this town by it's representatives have given approval to the junk yard it would be very difficult to revoke the permit until the next time around. . .now that you have pointed it out we can find out how they got the permit the last time based on the inspection. Each year the junk yards are reinspected L before they get their permit renewed. . . COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-I have been doing some investigation on this. . . I spoke to Mr. Britton about the junk yard. . .regarding the fence it also says natural features, like dense woods swamps can be used in place of fences. . . .as soon as it clears we will walk the property. . . UNKNOWN-Questioned if a junk yard will devaluate their assessment? SUPERVISOR WALTER-Noted that any questions regarding assessment should be answered by the assessors office. . . COUNCILMAN BORGOS-Noted that grievance day is forthcoming. . . I C COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Asked permission to continue his investigation of �.0'Cest Side Auto. . . SUPERVISOR WALTER-Agreed that Mr. Kurosaka should pursue the matter. .Asked for further input, hearing none the open forum was closed. . . RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS RESOLUTION NO. 90, Introduced by Mr. Stephen Borgos who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: RESOLVED, to transfer $18,035.00 from A3320909 Fund Balance to A2359955900 Interfund transfer Capital Reserve, Recreation for purchase of land. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent:None RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION REGULATION INCREASING THE TIME REQUIREMENTS FOR FILING APPLICATION MATERIAL WITH THE PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 91, Introduced by Mr. Stephen Borgos who moved for its adoption, seconded Mrs. Betty Monahan: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined the need to revise and modernize the regulations concerning the subdivision regulations and particularly the areas regarding the time for filing application material and supporting documents with the Planning Board, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has recognized the importance of the need for an orderly and timely review of application materials prior to Planning Board hearings or action, and WHEREAS, the proposed amended regulations above captioned have been prepared, a copy of which are annexed hereto, and WHEREAS, the proposed amended regulations are worthy of consideration for legislative action, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that a public hearing be held concerning the proposed adoption of said local law and that said public hearing be held at 7:30 P.M. in the meeting room of the Town of Queensbury Office Building, Bay & Haviland Roads in the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York on the 8th day of April, 1986 at which time all persons interested in the subject thereof will be heard, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk be hereby directed and authorized to publish and provide notice of said public hearing as may be required by law. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent:None SUPERVISOR WALTER-This has to do with the filing of application material, where ever it says ten days in the subdivision regulations increasing it to 21 days. This gives ample time for a developer to file the material for it to be placed on the agenda and to give the Planning Board Members additional time to take a look at the projects. This has been requested by the majority of the members of the Planning Board. . . RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE TWO STREET LIGHTS IN QUEENSBURY LIGHTING DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 92, Introduced by Mr. Stephen Borgos who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: WHEREAS, there exists two street lights on Route 9 adjacent to the King Hendrick Motel and WHEREAS, it would be in the best interests of the Town to incorporate these street lights into the Queensbury Lighting District, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby incorporate into the Queensbury Lighting District the two northernmost street lights in front of the King Hendricks Motel and be it further RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be sent to Niagara Mohawk Corporation. DISCUSSION HELD-COUNCILMAN MONTESI-At the King Hendrick there are three street lights paid for by the Motel facing their property. . .the motel would like the two northern lights on Route 9 turned over the road. . .the motel would continue to pay for the third light. . . COUNCILMAN BORGOS-Do you feel there is a need for both lights there. . . COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Yes, the first one you come to going North would light the driveways going in. . .The second one handles the second driveway where their office is. . .that light does nothing for the motel, it does nothing for the driveway. . .route nine is a main throughfare and we have an obligation . . .COUNCILMAN BORGOS-I wonder if the lighting problem in on the state road does the state have the responsibility. . . SUPERVISOR WALTER-The state does not pay for any of these services. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Requested Councilman Monahan to also look into the situation as that is her district. RESOLUTION #92 TABLED (for further information) RESOLUTION TO RETAIN ENGINEER RESOLUTION NO. 93, Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos: WHEREAS, Queensbury Town Board is interested in extending the Sherman Avenue Water District and WHEREAS, Charles H. Scudder, P.E. has proposed to perform engineering services consisting of a map, plan and report for the aforesaid extension at a fee not to exceed $3,000.00,and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to pursue the formation of a water district, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board will retain the engineering services of Charles H Scudder, P.E. for an amount not exceeding $3,000.00 in the preparation of a map, plans, and report for said district, and be it further RESOLVED, in accordance with Section 209-b of Town Law the foregoing resolution is subject to permissive referendum in accordance with Article 7 of Town Law. The following vote was taken: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter 25t— NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO APPOINT PLANNING BOARD MEMBER RESOLUTION NO. 94, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Frances Walter WHEREAS, a vacancy exists on the Queensbury Planning Board and WHEREAS, theQue.ensbury Town Board wishes to fill this current vacancy NOW, THEREFORE BE IT r RESOLVED,that the Queensbury Town Board hereby appoints Frank V. DeSantis of Butternut Hill, Queensbury to fill the unexpired term on the Queensbury Planning Board, term to expire September 30, 1991. The following vote was taken: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON LOCAL LAW REGULATING PARKING ON PORTION OF GLENWOOD AVENUE RESOLUTION NO. 95, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos WHEREAS, a proposed Local Law to establish No-Parking regulations on a portion of Glenwood Avenue and designated on the Town of Queensbury Tax Map in Section 61 and 62, Block 1, has been prepared and WHEREAS, the proposed Local Law is worthy of consideration for legislative action, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that a public hearing be held concerning the proposed adoption of a Local Law and that said public hearing be held at 7:30 p.m. in the Meeting Room of the Town of Queensbury Office Building, Bay and Haviland Roads, Queensbury, New York on the 22nd day of April., 1986 at which time all persons will be heard both in favor of and opposed to said Local Law, and it is further RESOLVED,that the Town Clerk be hereby directed and authorized to publish and provide notice of said public hearing as may be required by law. The following vote was taken: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter NOES: None ABSENT: None DISCUSSION HELD f COUNCILMAN BORGOS-recommended that the Local Law state that the no parking regulation will run on both sides of Glenwood Avenue from Bay to Quaker(exact footage measurement will be provided by the Highway Department) . RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING LEAD AGENCY AND ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGHFICANCE OF ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES RESOLUTION NO. 96, Introduced by Mr. GEORGE KUROSAKA, who moved its r� adoption seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: 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 undertaken by local governments, and WHEREAS, the Town Board proposes to enact certain changes in the Town Ordinance Permitting individual mobile homes in the States Avenue and Howard Street, Leo Street, Eisenhower Avenue and Dawn Road after a public meeting on March 11, 1986 after hearing testimony and public comment on the pro;proposed changes, and after reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form prepared in connection with the review of the proposed change, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified as lead agency with respect to the zoning ordinance changes proposed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is hereby designated lead agency for purposes of SEQRA compliance in the adoption of the zoning ordinance amendment permitting individual mobile homes in the States Avenues and Howard street, Leo Street, Eisenhower Avenue and Dawn Road, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury adopt the annexed notice of determination of non-significance, and that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Region 5 offices of the D.E.C. AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter NOES: NONE ABSENT: None SEQRA Negative Declaration Notice of Determination of Non-Significance This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment. 1. Title of Action: Amendment to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance authorizing individual mobile homes as a use as of right in certain urban residential 5,000 sq. feet and suburban residential 20,000 sq. ft. 2. SEQRA Status: Unlisted action. 3. Description of Action: Permit the sitting of individual mobile homes in certain areas without administrative body review. The general areas proposed are as follows: Re-zone - Single Mobile Home Sites Portion Queensbury Tax Map Section 120 - Howard Street, Leo Street, Eisenhower Avenue and Dawn Road Portion Queensbury Tax Map Section 127 & 128 - South of Luzerne Road known as States Avenues. Detailed maps of the areas affected were made available for inspection at the Town Clerk's Office from February 26, 1986 to March 11, 1986 during normal business hours. 4. Reasons Supporting Determination: Based upon the documents submitted in connection with the application for re-zoning including an environmental assessment form for the proposed zone changes, the evidence and public comments submitted at the March 11, 1986 meeting on the proposed action, and upon the knowledge of the members of the Town of Queensbury Board, no significant environmental effects were identified. The single unit mobile home area was provided to revise and modernize the Queensbury Ordinance No. 12. In the past, individual mobile home owners were required to prove hardship in order to obtain a permit from the Town Board. The permit was personal to the applicant, therefore creating a problem when transfer to the mobile home was considered. ' The proposed zone would permit individual mobile homes as a of right; the only requirement imposed would be the need to obtain a building permit. Density would not be increased. The areas affected have numerous existing mobile homes, and the proposed change would not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. By establishing reasonable criteria for the issuance of a building permit it is believed that future housing will be upgraded. 5. For Further Information: Contact Person: Frances J. Walter Town Supervisor Town of Queensbury Bay & Haviland Rds. Queensbury, N.Y. 12801 (518) 792-5832 6. The Town of Queensbury maintains a file of its proceedings and determination and the supporting reasons therein which file is available for public inspection TOWN COUNSEL-Wilson Mathias. . .There are really two steps that you have to do in terms of applying to the provisions of 99, (1) you have to establish yourself as an agency which the resolution does, (2) you need in writing compare a negative declaration in otherwords a statement that your opinion after taking a hard look at the proceedings, as Mrs. Walter probably detailed some of the provisions under the homes test but you need to specify what the proposed action. Take a look at it in terms what kinds of impact that it might have, should you enact it, (3) if make some kind of reason elaboration of why you determine why there is no environmental significance in the action. Briefly, what this simply does, is identify the fact that we are talking about the permission really resulting of certain areas of the states avenues, Dawn, Eisenhower, Leo Street area, which are also reference to the maps that were filed in the Town Clerks office. We detailed the area without having to give a legal description of it through reference which I think is permissable. Whether there is a permit per individual mobile homes, and now what has been placed here is a reason for making such a determination. That this doesn't have an environmental impact primarily, in that the area is zoned for residential without permitting any increase in the density of the types of uses authorized here. With being no change in that area, further in the process you are going to adopt some criteria presumably based on the same criteria for the mobile home parks which will regulate the mobile home as they come on so that any kind of questions of impossible impact with respect to character in the neighborhood or assessment. Or any that will depreciate the value or anything like that are really going to be controlled on an individual basis so that to me that it is a very legal defensible position based on all the factors. You can say that this particular zoning change does not have an environmental impact. You have talked about several different questions here and I thought it would be a good idea to deal with each one of them separately. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING LEAD AGENCY AND ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES RESOLUTION NO. 97, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi 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 undertaken by local governments, and WHEREAS, the Town Board proposes to enact certain changes in the Town Ordinance permitting mobile home parks and mobile home subdivisions in certain zones north of Route 149 after a public meeting on March 11, 1986 after hearing testimony and public comment on the proposed changes, and after reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form prepared in connection with the review of the proposed change, and v WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified as lead agency with respect to the zoning ordinance changes proposed. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is hereby designated lead agency for purposes of SEQRA compliance in the adoption of the zoning ordinance amendment permitting mobile home parks and mobile home subdivision in certain zones north of Route 149, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury adopt the annexed notice of determination of non-significance, and that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Region 5 offices of the D.E.C. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent:None SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment. I. Title of Action: Amendments to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance authorizing individual mobile home parks and mobile home subdivisions within certain suburban residential 20,000 sq. ft. and 30,000 square feet zones. 2. SEQRA Status: Unlisted action. 3. Description of Action: To allow, after site plan review, mobile home parks and subdivisions in certain zones north of Route 149. The general area proposed is as follows: Portion Queensbury Tax Map Section 30 - North of Route 149, South of Adirondack Park Boundary Line Detailed maps of the areas affected were made available for inspection at the Town Clerk's Office from February 26, 1986 to March 11, 1986 during normal business hours. 4. Reasons Supporting Determination: Based upon the documents submitted in connection with the application for re-zoning including an environmental assessment forms for the proposed zone changes, the evidence and public comments submitted at the March 11, 1986 meeting can the proposed action, and upon the knowledge of the members of the Town of Queensbury Board, no significant environmental effects were identified. The addition of mobile home parks and mobile home subdivisions as permissible uses after appropriate administrative body review was made in recognition of the need to provide the opportunity for a wider variety of housing types within the Town. The public hearing adduced numerous negative comments regarding this use in the Clendon Brook area. There were little or no negative comments regarding the Route 149 area. Further, this area adjoins an existing mobile home park which has been developed in a well planned manner and which adds to the tax base without adversely affecting the neighborhood quality. Although density would be increased, the requirements for mobile home parks will permit reviewing bodies to impose regulations to avoid undue environmental impacts. Finally, the SEQRA review process would continue to apply on a site specific basis. 5. For Further Information: Contact Person: Frances J. Walter Town Supervisor Town of Queensbury Bay & Haviland Roads Queensbury, N.Y. 12801 (518) 792-5832 6. The Town of Queensbury maintains a file of its proceedings and determination and the supporting reasons therein, which file is available for public inspection. RESOLUTION APPOINTING DIRECTOR OF PURCHASING RESOLUTION NO. 98, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section 20, Subdivision 3 (E) Darleen M. Dougher is hereby appointed Director of Purchasing, term to expire on December Y 31, 1986 and be it further RESOLVED, that the salary for such position is as listed in Resolution 23, of 1986. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent:None SUPERVISOR WALTER-The Town held three public hearings this evening the first one was to amend the subdivision regulations relative to recreation fees and a related proposed local law relative to recreation fees, does the Board wish to take any action as the result of those pub,l.ic hearing? DISCUSSION: Councilman Monahan-It is my feeling that w-sif�ced-to do more work on them. . .It was agreed upon by the Board Members that a workshop will be held . . .Councilman Borgos, invited those developers that spoke at the hearing to come to the workshop session for further input. . . RESOLUTION TO APPROVE LOCAL LAW ESTABLISHING WATER DISTRICT CONNECTION -- REGULATIONS RESOLUTION NO. 99, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury wishes to establish Water District connection regulations, and WHEREAS, a public hearing duly published in accordance with the law by the Town Clerk was held on March 25th 1986 at 7:30 P.M. at the Queensbury Town Office Building at which time all persons were heard both in favor of and opposed to said law, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that a local law entitled "A LOCAL LAW ESTABLISHING WATER DISTRICT CONNECTION REGULATIONS" is hereby approved and said local law becomes effective upon filing with the Secretary of State of New York. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent:None LOCAL LAW NUMBER 4, 1986 A LOCAL LAW ESTABLISHING WATER DISTRICT CONNECTION REGULATIONS SECTION 1. Legislative Intent. Is it the purpose of this section to require the connection of residential major subdivisions and multiple family dwelling units within 2000 feet of an existing water district in order to permit the planned and orderly extension of municipal water and to provide for economical and efficient municipal water distribution to the residents of the Town of Queensbury. 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. The term "subdivider" shall have the same meaning set forth in Section 2.24 of the town of Queensbury Subdivision Regulations. The term "major subdivision" shall have the same meaning set forth in Section 2.23 of the Town of Queensbury Subdivision Regulations. ' the term "multiple family dwelling" shall have the same meaning set forth in Section 2.020 (a) (73) of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 4. Requirements. The subdivider of a residential major subdivision or developer of multiple family dwelling units situated within 2000 feet of an existing water district shall be required to connect to the water district as a condition precedent to subdivision or site plan approval by the Town Planning 'Board. SECTION 5. Regulations. a. All water supply materials proposed for connection with the existing water district shall comply with the current standards and specifications of the American Water Works Association. b. Plans and specifications for water supply facilities shall be prepared by a licensed professional engineer, bear his seal, and be submitted to the New York State Department of Health and the Queensbury Planning Board for review and approval. C. All work performed in the connections to the Town of Queensbury municipal water district shall be inspected by the Queensbury Water Superintendent or his designated representative, and written approval shall be provided to the subdivider. SECTION 6. Costs. The cost of connecting to the existing water district shall be borne by the developer. SECTION 7. Penalties. Any person convicted of a violation of this local law shall be deemed to have committed a violation and shall be subject to a fine not exceeding $250.00 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 15 days. 112 Failure to comply with this section shall constitute grounds for denial of subdivision or site plan approval by the Town Planning Board. SECTION 8. This local law shall take effect immediately. COMMUNICATIONS -Mobile Home Application of Craig and Barbara Meade of Sunnyside North to occupy a mobile home on the first left of Rockwell Road 1969 mobile home existing on lot, owner of property Paul and Betty Lampson. . . DISCUSSION: Town Counsel-If you enact the criteria and adopt the amendment to the zoning ordinance, this unit will be grandfathered and there would be no need for an application. . .Councilman Kurosaka- questioned the applications, do you have a time problem. . .Mr. Meade-we can wait. . . It is the consensus of the Board that we will take no action on this application. . . Ltr.-Town Clerk-announced the appointment of Mrs. Jean Purnei as Deputy Town Clerk and Deputy Registrar of Vital Statistics. . .on file Ltr.-Recreation Commission-The Recreation Commission Meeting Dates will now be the second mondays of each month. . .on file RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIAL AUDIT OF BILLS RESOLUTION NO. 100, Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan: RESOLVED, that Audit of Bills as appears on Abstract 3-25-1986 and numbered 846 through 890 and totaling $16,102.66 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 , ON MOTION THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DARLEEN DOUGHER, TOWN CLERK �s