1986-04-29 SP 134
TOWN BOARD MEETING - SPECIAL
APRIL 29, 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 - WENU
GUESTS: Bill Morton, Dean Howland, Joseph Carusone, Irene Fitzgerald
Harry Gutheil, Robert Cederstrom, Graig Garfalo,Mr. & Mrs. Daniel Valenti,
Len James, Rick Wilson, Michael Woodbury, Dale Granger,John Caffry, Ed
Grant, Mrs. Green, Glen Gregory, Kenneth Mosher
TOWN OFFICIALS: Mr. Paul Naylor
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY: Supervisor Walter
MEETING OPENED 7:40 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE SHOWN HEARING OPENED AMEND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS-
RECREATION FEES
SUPERVISOR WALTER: Announced that Rev. Jim Perry has six boy scouts from
troop 16,Queensbury Middle School in the room this evening and these scouts
are here tonight to observe this meeting,they are working on a merit badge.
We have three public hearings tonight, which is the reason for the special
meeting, and we do have several resolutions to take care of. The Town
Board is considering recreation fees, that is fees that would be placed
on subdividers or a land dedication from that subdivider. We are looking
at this amended version of a 1000 sq. ft. per lot as dedicated land and ---
$500.00 per lot if the land were not dedicated to the Town. The jest
of these amendments to the subdividers regulations are that the Planning
Board and the town would have the discretion of either taking land or
the funds at the time the project is before the board for final review.
The second Public Hearing this evening is a Local Law and it relates to
the same fees and the same sq. footage, however it is relative to multiple
family dewelling units and we will take those separately for comments
and questions.
WILLIAM MORTON - Queensbury Association for Recreation and Environment:
wishes to go on record as strongly supporting the proposed amendments
to the Town subdivision regulations, requiring developers of subdivisions
to reserve land for recreation and open space or to make payment in lieu
of reservation of land. We believe legislative action of this kind is
needed, if the quality of life in Queensbury is to be sustained and enhanced.
We believe that such legislation is overdue. Subdivision regulations
requiring park land subdivisions or payment in lieu of is comtemplated
throughout much of New York State, particularly in rapidly growing communities
such as Queensbury. Second we wish to point out that some but not all
developers who undertake projects in Queensbury oppose the proposed amendments.
For those developers who oppose the amendments we wish merely to point
out that the developers and the land reality subdividers have major obligations
and responsibility to our community in terms of internalizing the cost
of development and past these cost onto the consumer rather than to the
public. Social cost such as increased traffic and related congestion
increase pollution, and urban sprawl and reduce open space and loss of
wild life habitant. The proposed amendment which provides for land to
be set aside for park purposes and open space in a subdivision for payment
in lieu of, offers the market mechanism through which a developer and
ultimately the consumer can more fully pay for the total cost of the development
rather then passing these cost onto society. Stated that according to
officials contacted observed no evidence of growth halted or retarded,
in fact developers welcomed the payment in lieu of provision as an alternative
to reserving land in their subdivisions for park and open space purposes.
Observations and recommendations made for when and how the payment should
be collected we interfaced the following: First the amount of land to
be held in reserve for observation: The proposed amendments require that
a minimum of 1000 sq. ft. per lot be held in reserve for park development
purposes. We believe this provision may lead to certain iniquities, for
example, a developer having 10 three acre lots will be required to reserve
proportionally less land as compared to the developer with 10 , 10,000
sq.ft. lots. The latter will be reserving 10 % of his subdivision, the
maximum allowed by state law, while the three acre lot developer having
10 lots will be reserving considerably less than 1% of the land for park
and open space purposes. For our recommendation to over come this potential
} for abuse, we recommend the following language be adopted. . .each reservation
shall be of an area equal to 10% of the total land area within the subdivision.
This is taken from Local Law #3, 1984 from the Village of Chittango.
Such a provision will remove discretion on the part of the Planning Board,
all developers will be accorded equal treatment under such a provision.
We do not believe that a payment in lieu of fee $500.00 is unreasonable,
and to this we add that it should be for each proposed dwelling unit or
building lot or which ever provides the greater amount in subdivision.
When should the fee be paid. . . we only note that without exception all
ordinances that we have examined required that the payment in lieu of
fee be paid at the time of the final plot approval.
COUNCILMAN BORGOS - You indicate some social cost we are looking at and
what you are proposing to do is quantifying them in terms of dollars and
you indicate that what you have proposed is a market mechanism, I wonder
if this is a free market mechanism or if this is some arbitrating number
which has been drawn out of the air and in no way representing a free
market. What is your opinion to that?
Where did you come up with $500.00.
WILLIAM MORTON - I would have to give some thought to that. I find that
in reviewing subdivision regulations for communities in New York State
that have these provisions $500.00 is not uncommon.
RONALD MONTESI - The enabling legislation you are quoting is two ways,
it is 10% of the land or 10% of the value of the land. Which in some
cases a subdivider has 20,000 it would be $2000.00, obviously a lot of
communities opt not to go the 10% of the value and arrived at a figure
of $500.00. I read the report from the Dept. of State also and the 20
or 30 towns I came up with an average $600.00 but it was in that range.
Whether it is a market value range, I don't know.
DEAN HOWLAND - Ridge Knolls, I had five developments in the Town of Queensbury.
We builders and developers had a wonderful interest in doing the right
thing in the Town of Queensbury and certainly what you come up with now,
developing a recreation fee, we agree, however, the way you are going
about it is wrong. First of all as a member of the Homeowners Assoc. ,
of which I was president at one time where I was a member of the legislation,
I spent many Monday nights in Albany to try to get good legislation for
development of land. This enabling legislation you are talking about
does exist, but it wasn't meant for towns the size of the Town of Queensbury,
it was meant for towns like Rutland Cty, Nasau Cty,, Suffolk Cty, in these
counties development is monumental. Somebody will come in and buy a thousand
acres, the developer is not a little developer like you have in the Town
of Queensbury. I know of one in Norfolk Huntington area, and their development
is 2600 homes. The people who finance it never saw the development.
In those areas to set aside land is a necessary thing because of a recreation
area, because it covers many many homes, but here, the largest development
I ever had was 49 homes. To set aside land for a development this size
doesn't make sense. I tried to do it a few years ago and I was turned
down by the Planning Board. They said they couldn't do it because of
the liability. I don't think Mr. Morton is correct when he says 10,000
sq. feet, I don't think there is a building lot in Queensbury 10,000 sq.
ft. Another thing, I don't think we are getting equal treatment. The
developer is paying all the penalty and the people in the community
are getting the benefits. It doesn't seem fair. It doesn't matter where
the property is located because what you are going to do there you are
going to change the scope of it anyhow, with baseball fields,etc. I really
think the upfront part of it is absolutely ridiculous. No developer or
builder would object to a reasonable fee. Maybe a $100.00 or $200.00
at the time the building permit is issued. It is a different situation
in this area then it is in the big areas and the money that comes up front
doesn't come from the developers, it comes from financier, and they don't
care about the development they are interested in the return in their
money. But here without exception, I know all the builders and developers,
they are fine people with genuine solid interest in the Town of Queensbury
and they will cooperate with you a 100 percent if you do the thing right.
JOSEPH CARUSONE - Read a prepared statement, a proposition paper representing
several of the developers. . . As developers, business people and residents
of the Town of Queensbury, we are strongly opposed to the proposed change j
in the subdivision regulations that would require a fee for recreation
and land acquisition. We are particularly disturbed that some board members
do not seem to recognize the devastating affect that a "fee in advance"
policy would have.
We all recognize that the Board has an obligation to plan for the -
future, and that putting aside certain lands for recreation, parks, vistas
and green areas is a worthwhile goal, one that we applaud. We feel, however,
that it is unjust to tax one segment of the economy to accomplish a need
that is socially advantageous to all.
We further request that the Board of the Town of Queensbury supply
the residents of Queensbury with much needed information so that we can
participate in the decision making process, as is our right.
We are requesting a broad based, long term, widely publicized master
plan for recreation and green areas, and the proposed budget to implement
this plan.
We would like to know the Board' s proposed use for its multi- million
dollar surplus. We would like to know what percent of the town is currently
undeveloped, and what percent of that is suitable for development in the
future. What is the program for lands the town currently owns? Are there
plans for the lands held by the school system, lands not being used currently?
What state and federal funds are available to turn unused school property
into recreation areas?
We respectfully submit to the Board that the proposed fee for recreation
is essentially one that will seriously slow growth in our community, much
to the detriment of both the local economy and town government.
Please consider our conservative estimate of economic impact.
We are assuming 125 new houses per year, a number much lower than
the current rate, but a number consistent with recent years' surveys.
125 houses X $120,000 per house = $15,000.000
$15,000,000 means 3% or $450,000 annually in sales tax revenue to
the town and county. It takes 15 people six weeks to complete a home,
considering all trades.
15 X 30 days X $100 per day X 125 houses = $5,625,000
in local wages
Add to these numbers the over 500 people employed in the local building
supply industry, plus road construction crews, water and power installation,
etc. , and you can begin to estimate the impact of a proposal that slows
growth in a community.
Finally, we ask the Board to define how much each taxpayer would
have to contribute to raise the same funds as anticipated annually from
the proposed fee for recreation to be charged to the developer.
We would like to see a steady planned growth in the Town of Queensbury,
one that considers the economy, the quality of life, the needs of all
residents, and future generations. We would charge the Board to develop
a plan that is far reaching, consistent with the goals of its taxpayers,
and that is fair to all segments of the Town of Queensbury.
SUPERVISOR WALTER - I think we do have the answer to most of those questions
but you eluded to a couple of things, like the recreation master plan.
We do have that and it is documented, I don't have it in the room with
me this evening.
I saw Mr. Hansen here he could produce it, that has been with us since
1982.
It identifies what the town priorities are and where we are going so if
anyone else wants to make any commments that this is random, and we don't
exactly know what we are doing with recreation, I would like to correct
that thought, because we do know where we are going and we have done some
planning in that area. The other questions, I don't want to address right
now, I am sure that we have most of the answers to, including what percentage
in the town is not developed yet and what is undeveloped, because we did
that also in 1982 when we were looking at our zoning maps. These changes
have been made since Mr. Brandt has been Supervisor, although they tried
to get some advance planning before that and we weren't able to do it.
We are planning ahead and that is one of the reason the Town Board wanted
to bring forward the idea of those newer people into the area who are
putting more of a burden on the recreation system to have a part of paying
for it. Please leave a copy of that proposition with the Town Clerk,
then we can address those questions and get an answer to your people.
IRENE FITZGERALD - Fitzgerald Realty of Glens Falls. . . I am in favor of
recreation but I am against the fees being put upon new construction and
subdivision. If a fee should be paid then why shouldn't all the homeowners,
new and old pay for it. It would be fair this way. I feel the developers
and buyers of new homes should not bare the brunt of it. I feel that
this will really hurt the builders and it will hurt people wanting to
come here to live because already their taxes are high. I just feel that
this is very important to the people who come into our office and talk
to us about building homes. I don't-think we should put that blunt on
them and I don't think the builders should have it. Stated that everybody
should share the blunt of it.
SUPERVISOR WALTER - Stated that the Town tax rate in the Town of Queensbury
is 94� a thousand.
HARRY GUTHEIL - Real Estate Broker, South Glens Falls, New York. . .submitted
copies of a letter to the Town Clerk. . . Dear Members: Queensbury has been
extremely successful in attracting people to invest in homes in many of
its subdivisions. Many of these homes are of excellent design and quality
of which the Town and its residents can be proud. Recreation programs
also are of much benefit to both residents and nonresidents. I certainly
support ,expenditures where appropriate in Town budgets for such.
I appreciate the efforts you as a Board and Committees have
put forth to show concerns o£ land use and planning for this and future
generations, and would like you to consider:
Do you want to start changing policies and concepts on
raising Town General Fund revenues on a fee basis?.
Will the proposal impact a different base of those affected
equally? For instance, a $500 fee added to a $200,000
house and lot would have a different impact added to a
$60,000 house and lot. So, is it fair and equitable?
Would such a proposal survive or even be considered during
mediocre or lean housing start years?
During times when Boards are helping industry with (a)
IDA Funds, (b) In lieu of Tax Payments, (c) other incentives,
will you be loading more burden on the residential portion
of your tax base?
Have you studied the rapid change in the price of building
lots recently in Queensbury?
In closing, let me say this. The "method" of raising the revenues
is my biggest objection. You see, there are basically two theories of
taxation. They are the "benefit received theory" and the " ability to
pay theory." As you are aware, raising revenues on an ad valorem basis
( according to value) at the town level has been widely accepted in our
state. By doing so, you can overcome the objections of pre-financing
a portion of future recreation needs by developers, which affects their
cash flows.
I encourage the support of recreation programs which may include
substantial land purchases in the future, but spread the cost of it through
your Town General tax base. I do not feel that doing it on a fee bases
can be fair. Also to address Mr. Morton' s comment on the land basis,
that would merely encourage your developers if they had to pay a percentage
or give a percentage of land, to have smaller and smaller lot size.
130
COUNCILMAN MONTESI - Questioned what Mr. Gutheil was eluding to when
he spoke of studying the rapid change in the price of building lots in
Queensbury?
HARRY GUTHEIL - The cost of a lot for a home builder has gone up dramatically
in the last twenty-four months, part of it is possibly from the subdivision
regulations the cost of paving, underground wiring, I have seen lots go
from $14,000 to $20,000 to $22,000, which is a dramatic increase without
any slow down in development.The key thing is that this Board has a responsibility
to try and maintain that even your low and moderate income people can
build. You've got a responsibility to see that the lots don't become
to excessive in cost or they are going to be forced into rental situations
or mobile homes.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI - The subdivider doesn't have the flexibility in our
town because of our subdivision regulations to build smaller lots. If
a parcel of land is zoned for SR 3 or SR 20 that is what he has to do
with in there, he doesn't have the option to split those lots to 5000
sq. footage.
HARRY GUTHEIL - No, but he has the option to go 30,000 or 50,000 sq.
ft. and if he knows he is going get 10% of that extra 20,000, he is going
to come up with more lots. The percentage basis, I don't think is fair
and again the fee basis spread it out over your town general tax basis.
Are you going to be receptive to taxing or raising revenue policies on
a fee basis for other portions of your budget in the future? You are
opening the door for another one of your committees to come in and say,
gee, we are going have to raise a couple of million bucks over the next
ten years, how about another fee or this type of proposal. Its something
new, a new way of raising considerable amount of revenues other than on
an advalorem basis. Your utilities won't have to support that, your industries
won't have to support it, your commercials won't have to support it and
there is a real nice economy here with your housing industries.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - Stated that we do have these in the Town of Queensbury
and referred to what Mr. Gutheil said about the cost of lots in the Town
of Queensbury; Prime example of where lots have gone up dramatically in
cost have not been because of any additional work the developers had to
do, or any additional demands made by the Town of Queensbury, they have
gone up because of supply in demand. The developer has reaped the profit.
HARRY GUTHEIL - If the $500.00 is a direct cost to every lot it obviously
is going to change the cost of the lot.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - State that the other solution is for the developer
to come in and phase in his developments, he doesn't have to come and
apply for a 155 in advance to be approved but what he is doing is trying
to get all his lots approved so he will have the benefit of not having
to comply with any more strict regulations down the road. He has the
option of only having only what he is going to sell this year approved,
and that is all he would be asked to come up front for. So he does have
some options out there.
HARRY GUTHEIL - Then the Board has the option of coming in with something
perhaps that is retroactive. My biggest objection is the way the Town
in trying to raise the revenue.
ROBERT CEDERSTROM - Realty U.S.A. . . Asked how many building permits were
issued in the Town last year - lets say there was 173 building permits
in Queensbury, that is not a lot of building permits when you consider
the amount of people in Queensbury. Also if you consider a 173 building
permits, how much recreation area do you need for those permits? Stated
that with this number of building units the Town is not looking at a whole
lot of real growth.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - Stated that 215 permits were given last year for
new dwelling units of all types and so far this year there has been 285
plot plan units, application for approval as of January.
SUPERVISOR WALTER - Stated that it wouldn't really bother most people
on the Town Board if there weren't a whole lot more of growth and for
those builders that have been to my office and told me what they have
done for Queensbury tax base, my response to them—yes, you have increased
our tax base and you have increased our school budget and you have increased
our social problems so that all that tax assessment really isn't what
it is cracked up to be. What I have told the fellows who are building
all these housing units, bring me some good businesses because that's
what the Town of Queensbury needs at this point.
ROBERT CEDERSTROM - Are you saying in fact that maybe the growth of residential
housing should stop their growth pattern?
SUPERVISOR WALTER - No, I am saying that they are in it because it is
lucrative business and they are making money at it, which they should
be, but we have to look at the other side. All these houses that you
are convincing us that we have got to have over the years, we have a lot
of people in this town who have lived here for a long time, who are extremely
upset at the rate the community is growing as fast as it is. We hear
comments from those people also, what are you doing, what's happening
to Queensbury, look at the traffic jams.
ROBERT CEDERSTROM - Stated that the real problem is that the developers
cannot take on another added up front cost. Referred to Mr. Gutheil's
statement that there has been huge cost put onto the builder in the last
few years because of the developmental cost that has been added to the
builder and taken away from the Town of Queensbury. If you are going
to have a fee, you should wait till the building permit is issued before
you require the fee.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - Stated that people who made the statement about growth
being good for the town, to realize Town taxes you are not hurting but
where you are going to hurt is the school system because when we just
have a bedroom community the amount of children that are going to descend
on the school, you are never going to pay enough taxes to send those children
to school. It is not a good tax base as far as the school is concerned.
CRAIG GARFALO - Glen Lake Road - Stated that after building a new house
a couple of years ago, a lot of changes have taken place since then.
Building expenses are costing more and if the builder has to absorb a
$500.00 up front fee that has to be passed onto the consumer. Also how
much land should be allotted to a certain area for recreation, "I wouldn't
want a recreation area right next to me", it would be kind of irritating.
You ask if I am singling myself out, am I part of the public? Stated
that there are many many recreation areas around the area now for people,
will people who move into a subdivision going to want a park where people
are going to congregate and even disrupt the neighborhood atmosphere when
there is plenty of nice open space in the Adirondacks for the residents
to use?
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA - Stated that the Town Clerk analyzed the assessed
valuation of town to raise a $100,000 , the town tax rate would go up
51� a thousand, and with a 94.^, town tax rate,taxes would go up 54 1/4
percent.
DANIEL VALENTI - Stated that we do have progress compared with the boarded
up places on Rte 9 in 1982 and agreed that we have to control the growth
but it can't be just one way, it has got to be both ways working together.
The way it sits right now, I am going to have to sell and if I am forced
to sell this project to survive,I am going to sell to the biggest development
that is going to come into town. He will put up a 150, 200 units just
like that. You' ll see a shock in the traffic, and in the growth in this
town. He told the Planning Board that he was going to control the growth
of the project to 20 units a year and I am keeping my word. I am not
opposed to some kind of a fee.
SUPERVISOR WALTER - Asked what kind of a fee would a developer like himself
be looking at?
140
DANIEL VALENTI - Stated that the main thing that would hurt a developer
like himself right now is the up front money. The up front money is not
only going to hurt him but the bigger guys because the banks won't finance
it. Also stated that it takes time to recoup the funds.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - Do you have to ask for approval for all the units
at one time or could you ask for a lesser amount and still have something
to work on?
DANIEL VALENTI - That's a good point. . .Stated that when he made his first
approval the project was quite large 248 units. . .I asked for 12 units
and let me see what I can do, let me see what I am going to put in this
town and see that I am going to put up a good product. Then there was
delays with the lawyers, with the town, with the DEC and I have started
my second building and I can't do a thing because I am waiting for that
approval. So you see you need almost a year to a year and a half to get
the paper work done and when a developer gets a project approved it is
up to the developer to complete that project up to the phase it has been
approved. The State looks after it to make sure that the developer provides
the services for the people.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - Responded that she wondered if it wouldn't be easier
for the developer to ask for a lesser amount of units to be approved at
once.
DANIEL VALENTI - That is the answer to your question, I need 44 units
to give me the time because of the way the bureaucracy works to get the
next phase approved. Asked what he was supposed to do with his fifteen
employees, the bank loans, subconstractors, and other commitments in the
meantime.
STEPHEN BORGOS - Clarified Mr. Kurosaka statement - If we wanted to raise
$1005000, 51�, per thousand assessed valuation. The average home in the
Town of Queensbury single family resident is assessed at approximately
$20,000. The impact on the average home owner in the Town of Queensbury
would be approximately $10.00 a year. The Town tax at approximately 90G
per thousand represents a little bit less than 2% of the total tax burden .'
including the school tax, county tax and the whole bit. So even if we
should increase the town tax by 50% we are only increasing the total
tax by 1%. As growth continues that number would be smaller and smaller
to raise a $100,000.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - Stated that Town tax has stayed the same but some
of the special district tax have increase.
ELIZABETH VALENTI - Stated that she was fundamentally opposed to the recreation
fee because of waiting for approval on their project and the timing for
this recreation fee is very bad. Stated that she had checked with surrounding
communities and found that when they passed their recreation fee, they
said that no one was in the process of getting their approvals at the
time, which made it very easy. Also stated that Saratoga's $400.00 recreation
fee is based on a formula, determined by their property value at $7000.00
per acre. Stated that upfront money is undoubtedly impossible. Stated
that her main concern is that if there is to be a fee there should be
some consideration made for the people who are in the process in getting
their developments approved right now.
LEN JAMES - 10 Grant Avenue, Glens Falls - President of the Adirondack
Regional Chamber of Commerce. . .Stated that the Chamber of Commerce is
in agreement of most of the objections already made regarding the recreation
fee and particularly the fact that the elected representatives of any
municipalities perceive what the general services required by their constituents
are. If recreation areas are to be enjoyed by all the people then they
should be paid for by all the people. The Chamber wishes to have the
Board reconsider the question of recreation fees.
RICK WILSON - 6 Grouse Circle - Mortgage Counselor with Home and City
Bank. . .Who are putting a branch office on the corner of Bay and Quaker.
Stated that when a new person moves in then they are the ones that will
be taxed, or a new business as per say. From a mortgage point of view,
people are almost to the limit right now, if you add a $500.00 up front
tax, this tax is obviously going to be passed on with interest to the
consumer.
MICHAEL WOODBURY - Stated that two of the most important issues deal with
industry and there are two sides to the industry question. . .In his surveys,
he didn't see any vast pockets of unlived in homes and if an industry
is to move any amount of people into our area one of the first things
they are going look for is there existing houses and what is the growth
within the community. If we adopt a policy of slow growth or no growth
_ in housing I think it severely impacts your ability to attract industries.
Stated that he spoke with the two school superintendents within the last
two weeks discussing the developments we have. . .they were delighted with
the prospect of more kids as the Queensbury School system is down at this
point something like 10% from five years ago and that was not at its maximum.Stated
that not only does housing create a tax base but it creates kids and the
kids create money every single day. Money received from kids going to
school every day far surpasses the expense that those kids cost. Stated
that most builders in the town have enjoyed good years but if you look
at their history over the past ten years, there are not too many developers
or builders who have made to what seemed to come across as a killing.
Stated that he thought is was unfair for Board members to address that
point when they don't know exactly what the upfront cost are. In the
normal course of government it would be assumed that the committee would
report to board policy. The Recreation Committee was either charged with
or discussed the recreation fee and it came out somewhere 0 to $200.00
as their thoughts as what might develop enough money to establish a budget.
SUPERVISOR WALTER - Stated that the master plan takes in at least ten
years and I think it would be ridiculous to put a budget on something
ten years hence, because one of the chief priorities is to acquire land
and there is no way you can put a budget together for acquiring land,
as talked about before, how land has escalated in Queensbury and the budget
would be outdated. I think we have an idea of where we are going with
our projects. We do certainly have in our minds and the Recreation Commission
is aware of the projects we have on going what we are looking at and we
are continually developing figures in what we will need in the next few
years but not on the whole master plan.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - Reviewed the estimated cost such as tennis courts,
basketball courts, baseball fields swimming pools.
DALE GRANGER - 43 West Notre Dame Street, Glens Falls - Recreation
Committee member, also a developer - does agree that there should be some
kind of recreation fee but disagrees with the up front amount given.
Stated that the he has done some checking on towns about the same size
of ours regarding their recreation fees and found them to be considerably
lower than what have been presented to the developers in Queensbury.
Stated that first house family needs a place to go and thought they belonged
in the Town of Queensbury and we should provide a place for them. Stated
that if a $500.00 up front fee was imposed there was no way housing could
be provided. The people who would be buying these houses would not be
able to afford that extra $500.00 fee. Stated that he did not see what
the problem was in getting the fee at the time of C.O. rather than up
front at the time of occupancy. Also pointed out that he does care what
developers are allowed in the Town of Queensbury. Stated that the local
contractors now building in the Town of Queensbury are very very good
and should be considered. Stated that he thought all people should share
in the cost of recreation.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - Noted that the State legislation specifically stated
that the fee was to be placed on the subdivider, C.O. may not be the subdivider.
It was really done as a mechanism for community planning.
DALE GRANGER - Stated that he also talked to the people in the State Dept.
and quoted them as saying it could be done on a C. 0. Suggested that
it might be a point the attorney would look into.
1.42
JOHN CAFFRY - Tee Hill Road - Stated that most people are willing to pay
a little bit extra for things they buy if that is the cost of environmental
protection. Noted that if a $10,000 lot was bought a $500.00 fee is only
2 1/2 % of that which isn't very high at all. On a $100,000 house, $500.00
is only 1/2 of 1% so I don't think $500.00 is excessive. Also stated that
as new people come in they generate new demands. Noted that with out
of town developers moving on how would a fee be collected at the time
of payment after the lot has been sold three or four times down the road
how do you collect from the original subdivider. Questioned the authority
in the law to collect the fee later. If developers use clustering they
are exempt from the fee if that is true then the fee could help cause
a shift to clustering which would then trade open space without additional
cost to anybody. If that isn't in the ordinance it might be added and
might be good planning concept. Stated that the last thing low income
people need is a tax increase. Hopes that the Town Board would speak
out for the people in the community, and pass the ordinance as presented.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - Stated that clustering does not mean that they do
not have to come up with the fee.
UNKNOWN - Dyer Realtor - Noted that 65% of the people who buy homes in
the Town of Queensbury are people who already reside in the Town,they
are buying up.
JEFFERY KELLEY - 6 Meadowbrook Road - Stated that he was for recreation
in the town and believed that the money should be arrived at from the
general tax base, and is not in favor of any fee. Believes that certain
people in the town have been sought out and it makes the developer look
like a bad guy. Stated that he hoped the Town Board would do as the majority
of the people in the town would wish.
EDWARD CARR - Woodchuck Hill Road - Spoke at the first meeting on this
proposed fee and wants to go on record as opposing it again and stated
that it is not a fair way to raise taxes. Noted that only two people
at both public meetings spoke in favor of it. Stated that public officials
have been quoted by the paper as saying the people should get out to the
public hearing and state their feelings, if you base your actions on what's
going on at these hearing, then the fee should be dropped. . .
suggested a user fee.
EDWARD GRANT - Developer Grant Acres - Noted that most everything had
been said but stated that a bare lot does not require recreation money,
does not require it until after the home is built and the family is there.
Up front is not the time to collect it.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - Noted that the reason for the up front fee is because
that is the way the New York State Enabling Law is written. Because the
recreation needs to be here when the people move in. Stated that recreation
is not something you do overnight. Also noted that it has come to the
point that if a developer should be building along a brook, the Town should
buy the strip of land adjacent to the brook to protect it and these are
some of the reasons why up front monies are needed and are some of the
uses that could be done with this money.
RONALD MONTESI - Noted that he had sincerely listened to two meetings
now and stated that the Town Board is trying with not only two public
hearings on this but went from $1000 to $500.00 and it is obviously something
we will discuss in detail before we vote on it. Also stated that a few
years ago when the town shifted the burden of paving new roads for new
developments onto the developer, as the board felt it was unfair to burden
all the people with more taxes when it was the subdivider who was reaping
the benefit. Stated that the arguments at that time were the same as
they are now, and they were the only ones who were opposed to it and
being a public hearing we are listening to the input.
GEORGE KUROSAKA - Noted that he was not against the recreation fee but
the size of it. Also stated that he would go along with the Recreation
Commission recommendation of $200.00 per lot but would be willing to go
higher if it could be split in two pieces.
w 91
STEPHEN BORGOS - Stated that he was pleased that so many people attended
the public hearing. Noted that he felt that everyone is in favor of recreation
and green areas. Also noted that the only disagreements regarding the
method of raising the recreation fee, stated that he was opposed to the
concept of collecting anything under this method, mostly because of the
precedent of the concept he would personally vote against it right now.
SUPERVISOR WALTER - Stated that without even polling the board this evening
they would not take any action after this public hearing but as Supervisor
she would call this question at our regular meeting, May 13, 1986. Stated
that she hoped there would be a resolution on the floor either to accept
or reject on the basis of this public hearing with any changes the Town
Board wishes to make after hearing your comments. . . asked if there were
any further comments in regard to this public hearing - hearing none the
public hearing was closed. 9:20 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING 9:21 P.M. NOTICE SHOWN - PROPOSED LOCAL LAW LAND/FEE FOR
RECREATION
SUPERVISOR WALTER - Presented a proposed Local Law which is really a mirror
of the same kinds of information of the same 1000 sq. foot per dwelling
unit for the developer and $00.00 in lieu of payment. The Local Law
provides for the reservationAland for recreation or money in lieu there
of as a condition precedent to site plan approval, same as was talked
about in the first public hearing and this specifically addresses multifamily
dwellings. Asked for input. . .
DANIEL VALENTI - 60 Sweet Road, Glens Falls - Noted that he felt he was
getting hit with both barrels tonight. With a development on the board,
it is multiple-dwelling, the fee is now going to hit me and I am going
to have to pay my share, stated that his development are already providing
recreation for the 248 units in there and those people are paying for
it. If anything we try to make less of a burden on the town but I know
at the workshops it wasn't looked at that way. Asked if this action on
recreation fees would be made retroactive is it going to be under consideration,
what phase is the proposal before the town, conceptual approval or final
approval but some of us are in the middle of approval.
TOWN COUNSEL - Stated that no one on the Town Board has suggested these
fees for this regulation be retroactive. Also stated that at one workshop
there was a discussion that anything in the planning process since January
1, in terms of giving some general advice to the Town Board, it is my
opinion that the Town Board could not impose this kind of regulation retroactively
and any developer subdivider having obtained preliminary approval from
the Queensbury Planning Board prior to the effect date of any enactment
of this Local Law or subdivision regulation would be in effect grandfathered.
Noted again this my opinion as he was not the attorney for the Planning
Board. Stated that once a developer got to the point of approval for
his development after all his legal fees and planning fees the Board would
not be permitted to impose new and different regulations on him.
ELIZABETH VALENTI - 60 Sweet Road - Introduced her first tenants in Bay
Bridge which is the project we are arguing about this evening and they
closed 3:00 P.M. this afternoon and they are here this evening to say
no to the recreation fee.
MRS. GREEN - Stated that they are very happy as senior citizens to own
their own home where they will have their own recreation in a maintenance
free development.
JOHN CAFFRY - Stated that he supported this law for the same reasons he
-» had stated before.
HARRY GUTHEIL - Asked why the Board wouldn't put these cost on the advalorem
bases, or was there some serious reasons why they don't want to do that.
SUPERVISOR WALTER - Noted that in the consideration that the recreation
demands on the town are a lot more than they were many years ago, its
because of the new development in the town, more people, more houses,
why should the people who have lived here for fifty years or senior citizens
144
have to pay for that new demand when in fact a way of acquiring money
for additional sites as land becomes less available can be borne by those
people who are in fact adding to the burden of the populous.
Stated that any kind of programing will be coming from the general tax
base. We are looking at in lieu of or the land is just that, we are looking
to acquire more land or more capital expenditures not the everyday program
and I don't want you to think that is what we are doing, is subsidizing
what ever recreation plans we have. It is merely for the acquisition
of land and for capital construction.
HARRY GUTHEIL - Noted that some municipalities depending on their financial
situation may even bond for their equipment and capital expenditure such
as land.
SUPERVISOR WALTER - Stated that she did not like the idea of bonding everything,
and the very fact that the State of New York allows us to have a capital
funds now is a much better way to do it, because we can put a certain
amount of dollars aside for whatever our purpose and we can be accumulating
that and gaining interest while that money is invested. It is a lot less
expensive for the people who live in our town then go out and bond equipment,
land and everything. That is the way government used to run because it
was easy to go to the taxpayers and just tell them we need this, that
and the other thing and dig deeper into your pockets.. Also stated that
there is no question that a recreation fee or this in lieu of fee or
land, is hitting a certain people but so is the fee we used up at the
landfill.
HARRY GUTHEIL - Stated that he thought capital expenditures should be
spread out over the life expectancy of the project. * Also noted that it
is not everybody who can afford to pay for everything up front or cash
in advance.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - Stated that most of the members sitting on the Board
attend many seminars regarding planning and noted that this was a valid
process in planning.
HARRY GUTHEIL - Noted that he does not live in Queensbury but he might
someday and that he is here at this meeting because he believes in protecting
property, and his concern regarding real property values.
GEORGE KUROSAKA - Stated that he didn't think anyone minded spending $10.20
a year for something that cost a million bucks, which we are talking about
something here the size of Round Pond.
SUPERVISOR WALTER - asked for further input - hearing none the public
hearing was closed. 9:40 P. M. No Action will be taken at this evenings
meeting. . .
PUBLIC HEARING: 9:41 P.M. NOTICE SHOWN AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE-REGULATIONS
FOR INDIVIDUAL MOBILE HOMES
SUPERVISOR WALTER - Amend the Zoning Ordinance - regulations for individual
Mobile Homes and this would be for mobile homes sited outside of mobile
home parks. Asked for comments. . .
GLEN GREGORY - West Glens Falls - Asked what the regulations were on mobile
home parks?
SUPERVISOR WALTER - Read the mobile home regulations. .
a) Compliance with parts 1220-1223 of the New York State
Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code;
b) Compliance with the minimum lot size, minimum yard -�
setbacks, minimum percent of lot to be permeable,
and maximum height requirements for the zones within
which the mobile home is located;
c) No certificate of occupancy shall be issued unless
145
such mobile home is manufactured on or after 1974
and/or the Zoning Administrator finds such mobile
home to be safe and habitable;
d) Permitted residential mobile homes existing outside
of mobile home parks on the effective date of this
amendment shall be deemed to be nonconforming uses
and shall comply with Article 9 of this ordinance.
e) No mobile home outside of a mobile home park and not
located within a mobile home zone shall be allowed
unless a use variance under Article 10 of this ordinance
is obtained.
GLEN GREGORY - Referred to article B - lot size, asked what those minimums
were?
TOWN COUNSEL - Answered that they were exactly in those zones in a UR5
or SR 20 is the same as if you were going to build a house there, you
have to meet the same requirements. Like any other kind of permanent
structure.
KENNETH MOSHER - Howard Street - Asked if one had to have a foundation
under a trailer?
TOWN COUNSEL - Answered - not as he read it - Uniform building and fire
code at the present time require some kind of stabilized base upon which
to put the trailer. Stated that a copy of the building codes could be
obtained from the Building and Zoning Dept.
SUPERVISOR WALTER - Asked if there was any other comments - hearing none
the public hearing was closed, 9:47 P.M.
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE
RESOLUTION NO.121 Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos:
WHEREAS, ab initio the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury determined
the need for a change of zoning regulations for the siting of individual
mobile homes within certain areas of the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, the Warren County Planning Board by tabling this matter at its
April 1986 meeting is deemed to have recommend disapproval of said re-zoning,
and
WHEREAS, no adverse public comment on the issue was received at a duly
advertised public hearing held on March 11, 1986 and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has made a determination that the re-zoning will
have not significant environmental impact because it does not increase
the density within the zones authorized but rather permits an alternative
housing use already predominant in the proposed areas, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board finds that individual mobile homes within the
areas described in Schedule A are consistent with the purposes and goals
set forth in the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended
146
to re-zone the areas described in schedule A UR-5-IMH and SR-20-IMH, thereby
authorizing all uses permitted under Sections 4.020-d (3) Urban Residential
Individual Mobile Home - UR-5-IMH and 4.020-e (2) Suburban Residential
20,000 square feet individual mobile home - SR-20 IMH, as set forth in
Schedule B attached, of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance in such
area, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the zoning map for the Town of Queensbury
is hereby amended to provide for the rezoning of such lands described
in Schedule A in accordance with the provisions set forth in Schedule
B, and be it further
RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Warren County
Planning Board in accordance with Section 239-M of the General Municipal
Law, and be it further
RESOLVED, that this amendment shall be effective upon completion of all
requirements of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
Noes: None
Absent: None
TOWN COUNSEL - Stated that what was happening in the UR-5 area, the States
Avenue and whats happening in the Eisenhower area is that mobile homes
will be permitted simply by coming in and filing a building permit application
showing that they meet the regulations.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - Asked if a trailer that is already there, could be
sold to another party.
TOWN COUNSEL - Yes
RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON LOCAL LAW REGULATING PARKING ON CLEVERDALE
ROAD
RESOLUTION NO.122, 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 Cleverdale
Road and designated on the Town of Queensbury Tax Map in Section 10 and
14 has been prepared and
WHEREAS, the proposed Local Law is worthy of consideration for legislative
action,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that 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 27th day of May, 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.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
Noes: None
Absent: None
RESOLUTION TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE
RESOLUTION NO. 123, Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos:
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to amend the Queensbury Zoning
Ordinance to include regulations applying to mobile sited outside of mobile
home parks and
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board set a public hearing on April 29, 1986
at 7:30 P.M. on the proposed amendment to the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,
and
WHEREAS, the public hearing was held at the specified time and place and
all interested parties were heard on the proposed amendment to the Queensbury
Zoning ordinance, NOW THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the following regulations be added to the Queensbury Zoning
ordinances.
Section 7.090 Mobile Homes Sited Outside of Mobile Home Parks
The following regulations apply to mobile homes sited outside of
a mobile home park:
a) Compliance with parts 1220-1223 of the New York State
Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code;
b) Compliance with the minimum lot size, minimum yard
setback, minimum percent of lot to be permeable, and maximum
height requirements for the zone within which the mobile
home is located;
c) No certificate of occupancy shall be issued unless
such mobile home is manufactured on or after 1974 and/or
the Zoning Administrator finds such mobile home to be
safe and habitable;
d) Permitted residential mobile homes existing outside
of mobile home parks on the effective date of this amendment
shall be deemed to be nonconforming uses and shall comply
with Article 9 of this ordinance;
e) No mobile home outside of a mobile home park and not
located within a mobile home zone shall be allowed unless
a use variance under Article 10 of this ordinance is obtained.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION
RESOLUTION NO. 124 Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its
adoption seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka:
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby moves into executive session to discuss
land negotiations.
'— 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