Loading...
1986-10-03 SP 282 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 3, 1986 TOWN BOARD MEMBERS Mrs. Frances Walter - Supervisor Mr. George Kurosaka - Councilman Mr. Stephen Borgos - Councilman Mrs. Betty Monahan - Councilman Mr. Ronald Montesi - Councilman, Absent Mr. Wilson Mathias - Town Counsel PRESS: Glens Falls Post Star GUEST: Mr. Michael O'Connor, Mr. McCormick, Mr. Boutelle, Mr. Buckley, Mr. Steves, Mr. Scudder, Mrs. Valenti, Mr. Frank Walter. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY: Supervisor Walter MEETING OPENED 3:37 P.M. SUPERVISOR WALTER - Noted that the Town Budget will be turned over to the Board at the proper time and second the Public Hearing is relative to proposed changes in subdivision regulations, Article 3, Section 4 of the Subdivision regulations..Article 3, Section 1, and in several articles...Article 3, Section IA, 3A, change No. of copies from 2 to 10—Article 3, Section 2B, 4B, 5B, to change the No. of copies from 2 to 10 and in Article 3, Section 2B Article 3 Section 4 B, Article 3, Section 5 B, change number of copies from to 5 to 10. We are adding additional language in our Article 3, Section 2A language added...shall be prepared by a licensed professional engineer. In Article 3, Section 4 A, the language added...shall be prepared by a licensed professional engineer. Article 3, Section 5A shall be prepared by a licensed professional engineer and the following language will be added to Article 3 Section 2A and 4A and quoting in addition to the fee listed on the schedule of fees, the Planning Board may charge a fee to developers of projects requiring legal and technical review provided that the fee charged, reflects the actual cost of the legal and technical assistance to the Planning Board. TOWN CLERK - Noted that the Public Hearing had been advertised. SUPERVISOR WALTER - As to why we are at the situation we are at today, as everyone realizes Queensbury is fast developing and a need for uniform applications presenting basic technical information is needed up front. As we sit here today large scale developments have eaten up the best land for development in the Town of O,ueensbury and looking to the future, lands to be developed will be less desirable than those already developed and then we will be looking at the marginal lands to be developed in the Town, as legislatures we are trying to offer protection to the present land owner and the taxpayer. From past experience as projects are developed in the Town the Town Board finds out about problems generally several years down the road, problems such as drainage, the lowering of water tables in well water areas. Basically some of these problems have been caused by the increased housing density as a result of the development of the raw land in this town. Earlier this year the Town Board addressed the water problem by a passage of local law No. 4, 1986 which requires developers if they are within two thousand feet of an existing water supply to be a part of that water supply. As we are facing increasing density, subdivisions are now backing onto each other. No longer can drainage be addressed with a drainage pipe that runs onto the adjacent woods near by, more sophisticated, technical information is necessary for the Planning Board in the very first instance for them to formulate --1) an opinion on the concept of whether that project should be able to locate in that particular area of town. This Town Board has brought forth the requirements to help us grow in a quality environment by bringing this to a Public Hearing to amend those subdivision regulations and j to make each application basically uniform. MIKE O'CONNOR - Attorney office of Little and O'Connor - I am here to speak on the behalf of others and on behalf of myself individually. SUPERVISOR WALTER - Asked Mr. O'Connor if he was speaking for the residents of the Town of nlueensbury or for people who do business in the Town. MIKE O'CONNOR - I believe that I am speaking for both people who do business and who are 283 residents. I am speaking on behalf of the firm of Van Dusen and Steves and I believe that Mr. Steves is a resident. I am speaking on behalf of Coulter & McCormick and I believe Mr. McCormick is a resident. I myself am a taxpayer here. We have a basic concern with what is being proposed and I will speak from three different positions. The overall tone of the proposal as we understand it, is to allow only plans prepared by an engineer to be submitted to the various Boards, although this is subject to explanation by the Board as to intent, and maybe further definition by the Board within the regulations and rules that they offer. It also doesn't say what type of engineer is to make this presentation, this is a concern whether we are talking about a chemical engineer or what, aeronautic engineer or any type of engineer. We are talking here as I see it as licensed professional engineer and we have a gentlemen here who is very familiar with the state rules land regulations of licensing of engineers and surveyors who will speak on our behalf also. He will get into that distinction a little bit more with the broadness of which you proposed here. I am not sure is that the intent of the board to accept plans only prepared by a licensed engineer, it is not clear from here. SUPERVISOR WALTER - What we are looking for in Article 3 Section 1, for sketch plan, is information is information that clearly must be provided by someone other than a lay person. MIKE O'CONNOR - Are you excluding from the preparation those plans prepared by a licensed surveyor? SUPERVISOR WALTER - Article 3 Section IA No. 4 says... a map of a surveyor including a lay out of the proposed subdivision prepared by a licensed professional land surveyor to a scale of one inch equals 40 feet or one inch equals 50 feet. We are looking for a land surveyor to be a part of that application. MIKE O'CONNOR - In the first part of it you say that the sketch shall be prepared by the licensed professional engineer and likewise back in the beginning language, we are talking about application, you are saying applications shall be prepared by a licensed professional engineer. SUPERVISOR WALTER - Yes, that is what it says. MIKE O'CONNOR - So you are saying you must have a licensed professional engineer on each application. SUPERVISOR WALTER - I can clarify as to why that language appears as it does—because itoo many times before the Planning Board are applications where engineering is necessary and does not come into play until the very end of the project. The Town Board is saying that those kinds of information such as no. 7 & 8 particularly no. 7, sketch drainage plan, should be prepared by someone other than yourself or me. MIKE O'CONNOR - I am not talking about a layman, I am talking specifically about a licensed land surveyor.We have strong objection to what is on file because of its vagueness. SUPERVISOR WALTER - Noted that when someone comes into represent a client they are making a lot of money and stated that a lot of time has been spent at meetings trying to solve these problems that arise in neighborhoods after developments have gone in and we don't all make that much. We are looking out for a responsibility that we have to the people who live here. MIKE O'CONNOR - I would take objection to that comment in any manner which it infers with the people that I represent are responsible for any past problems of this town. I think that we are working today under a completely different set of rules and regulations as opposed to the one or two page subdivision regulations that we used to work under which was what was then the nor and was applicable to everybody, when the subdivisions were presented that maybe have become town problems. The set of rules and regulation we now have for subdivisions have more safe guards built into them and I don't think you are running into this current problem with the current subdivision as you have had in the past. SUPERVISOR WALTER - That is your opinion Mr. O'Connor. MIKE O'CONNOR - I want to make it part of the records Mrs. Walter. You are aware are �1 you not, of the definitions of the practice of land surveying in the practice of engineering that are within the education law? SUPERVISOR WALTER - Yes we are. We considered that in making these determinations. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA - I think I may be able to submit something later on. MIKE O'CONNOR - I've got to address Mr. Kurosaka, what's before us because what is there is objectionable, if there is some amendments, maybe we are wasting a lot of time 284 and if there are some proposed amendments the group will be glad to listen to them and then maybe go forward. SUPERVISOR WALTER - I think we need to take the comments on what we have currently on file. Mr. Kurosaka has indicated that he has an amendment that would be further on down the line and we are not too sure that will either seconded or approved by the majority of the board, so we must take comments now on what we have put out for public hearing. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA - Asked what the objection was? MIKE O'CONNOR - The objection is that you are apparently writing your own education law or your own professional licensing law for the Town of Queensbury as opposed to what the State of New York has for the State of New York. The State of New York says that the practice of land surveying includes the application of rules and regulations of the courts with local requirements incidental to subdivisions for correct determination. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA - Asked, incidental? MIKE O'CONNOR - Yes, we have some regulations which will define what is incidental. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-There are exemptions through the Education Dept. which covers that. MIKE O'CONNOR-My first question is, when you use the word licensed professional engineer in the text of your proposed law are you including those licensed land surveyors, who have an exemption certificate from the State Education Dept. to act as licensed professional engineers, with regard to subdivisions within the guidelines of that exception which has been granted by that Department of Education? SUPERVISOR WALTER-No, Mr. O'Connor we are not. We are aware of what the State Education Law says, we feel that with the current situation in the Town of Queensbury that we are looking for additional expertise in the area of projects coming before the Planning Board we in no way wish to circumvent the State Education Law that allows land surveyors to do minor engineering, they still can continue to do minor engineering in the Town of Queensbury. We are saying that in the applications that are presented before the Planning Board this is the criteria we would like to see. MIKE O'CONNOR-I do not know if you answered by question? First you said no you are not going to accept it then you said yes you are not allow them to do the presentation if it is minor engineering, where do we get the definition of minor engineering? Are we going with what the State Education Dept. has set forth? COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA - Have you got a copy of the exemption Mike, I think that might answer the question. MIKE O'CONNOR - Yes... read from the copy of the exemption he had regarding Mr. Leon M. Steves having re-applied for exemption under Section 7208...paragraph N...Why this exception he is licensed to do the work that is necessary for subdivision except for bridges, pumping stations, lift stations or sewer disposal or treatment plants. If that is acceptable would he still be qualified to make application and present a subdivision that did not include one of these four items? SUPERVISOR WALTER - The answer is...the language that we have prepared for amendments. says shall be prepared by a licensed professional engineer and that the exemption from the State Department of Education would stand for Mr. Steves on any other project that come before the Planning Board which will need the criteria of what we have set forth. MIKE O'CONNOR - I don't understand your answer, I guess. Can he submit a subdivision? SUPERVISOR WALTER - No, he may not in the Town of Queensbury with this new language and what we are saying by a licensed professional engineer in the language is that the Town of Queensbury is now developing to a point where subdivisions are back to back to each other and we need a sophistication of engineering to take care of these problems. Are you to say that Mr. Steves can handle all engineering problems that appear in any of the subdivision applicati currently before the Planning Board? MIKE O'CONNOR - I am saying as licensed by the State of New York to handle all the problems except for these four circumstances. SUPERVISOR WALTER - The Town of Queensbury says we have a need for a sophistication where we are looking for more expertise. We are asking the land surveyor to be part of the application and to do what he does best...that is to survey, laying out boundaries of the proposed 2V5 subdivision, the subdivision boundaries, doing the topographic features, doing work that he does with the USGS baton and those kinds of things we feel are extremely necessary to be a part of the application. But other parts of the application which we feel need more expertise and engineering because of the density we are getting today. 1 MIKE O'CONNOR - The density of Rueensbury is no different than of any other town and I will go to Clifton Park, or some other areas that have become bedroom towns, much more than the Town of Rueensbury and they haven't tried to do this, they haven't tried to put people out of business. They haven't tried to put rules and regulations out for the sake of regulations. I don't see the justification for it. I am arguing from a position where we take strong objection to it the statements that you need more sophistication does not support the need for the type of legislation that you have got proposed here. I would like to step aside if I might with the permission of my clients, to speak on behalf of the open end of this of the expense that you are going to pass on to individual sub-dividers. I think that if the town is going to come to a point, and I have no objection to it, where it is going to seek professional advise and have professional review from the town's point of view as opposed to what is submitted by the sub-dividers, that is fine, that is something that should be at town expense in general though and not just passed on to the sub-dividers of the moment. The sub-dividers of the moment seem to be getting charged with everything coming through the door. I object to the fact that you are going to now increase or pass on directly, professional fees to the new home owners of the town where you haven't in the past. I think this should be and as you spoke, part of your motivation here to benefit not only the new subdivision but the adjoining or old subdivisions that are going to be affected by what happens with the vacant part of lands that are adjoining them. I think it should be town wide charge. I also would object as a taxpayer to it being open ended. I think you ought to hire professionals. You ought to hire them on an annual basis it shouldn't be opened ended going. I am sure that there are people out there that are available and would be willing to take on those positions. But the way this particular law is written as far as I can understand it as a laymen or a lawyer, it is open ended and that the bill would be passed on to the individual sub-dividers. I don't think that is something that we need. I see through a lot of what is here on the table as a smoke screen to slow down development I think we've got a zoning ordinance if you've got a problem with the expansion that is taking place that, that is the place to address it, as opposed to simply putting out regulations for regulations sake and making it so expensive that no one wants to do business in the Town of Rueensbury. The professionals that are coming in may pay it, but they are just going to pass it on to the people. ANDREW MCCORMICK - 62 McCormick Drive - I am one of those older surveyors with the exemption and it is where I have used the exemption from time to time and most of the work we do might involve that but there are those times when, as many professionals do, they know their limits of their expertise and at that point they take additional consulting help which I think most of all the developers at my office have done. Mr. O'Connor has covered most of that. Mainly I would like to introduce a gentleman who for I think for your benefit and the other surveyors that are here can explain in great detail, if need be, the education law as it affects engineers and surveyors. SUPERVISOR WALTER - I would like to limit the comments to the residents in the Town of Rueensbury. If your guest is here and if the Board wishes to ask him any questions relative to the Education Law they are free to do that. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA - I am an engineer and I have passed the same board and I don't know if we can pass the thing unless we know if we are violating the law. There are very few with exemptions. COUNCILMAN BORGOS - I would like to hear what he has to say. MIKE O'CONNOR - Asked as a point of order if residents can't have others speak on their k behalf? SUPERVISOR WALTER - As Supervisor of the Town of Rueensbury and running this meeting I determine what the rules are going to be and this rule has been in effect since before we i abolished the police department, and that has been on budgets or every other public hearing. I i { We entertain those people who are residents of the Town of Rueensbury, that is to limit other groups from other communities and across the State wide to come into our Town and tell us how we ought to run it. MIKE O'CONNOR - I probably have some sympathy with your feeling, if they come in not at the request of the local residents but this also pertains to me, as a taxpayer of the Town of Rueensbury. I ask them to come forward to speak on my behalf and you are going to limit what they are going to say... SUPERVISOR WALTER - Mr. O'Connor I said this gentleman may respond to questions of the board relative to what is contained in the State Education Law. 286 MIKE O'CONNOR - Mrs. Walter I would like to object on the record for that. I do not believe that this is a public hearing on which the citizens of the Town of Queensbury can participate. SUPERVISOR WALTER - One other rule I failed to mention is that other people who have been here for public hearings realize, I try to acknowledge everyone in the room first before I let someone speak again so I would tell you now that at the end of the meeting after I have heard from everyone else who wishes to speak I will call on you again. MR. BOUTELLE - Delmar, New York, and have been in the surveying business for many years. I am a graduate engineer. I am not a professional engineer but I am a surveyor with a license and an exemption. I served on the licensing board for engineers and surveyors in the State of New York for ten years. I was chairman for ten years while many of these rules which created a problem in the law which were rewritten in 1972, were redefined and eventually put into what we call the commissioner regulations. They are description of what the law was intended to mean at the time, the words, minor engineering were put into the law. ,.J COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA - Asked what a professional engineer was? Basically there is no definite category for civil, chemical, or anything, we are all professional engineers in the State of New York. It is professional ethics whether you do what you do or not, if it is something that is not in your field and someone puts you into disciplinary action, the board will take action against you. MR. BOUTELLE- With a professional license as an engineer you can practice in any field in which you have competence if it is demonstrated that you do not then you have a chance of -having your license revoked. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-What is the intent of the land surveyor exemption for the older land surveyors in the area? MR. BOUTELLE-Simply stated the intent of the exemption 728N in the Education Law was to permit upon application by.a land surveyor the right to do engineering work in a subdivision the definition just put to you by Mr. O'Connor was what was in the law, that created some ambiguity and it was redefined, put in the commissioners regulations about four years ago. I have that copy here and would be pleased to leave it with you. There are two parts to the scope of the practice of exempt persons that apply to a land surveyor A. the term engineering project as used in Subdivision M. of Section 72 of the Education Law that is the part that gives the engineer the right to do land surveying. Shall not include the survey of land for the purpose of establishing any real property boundaries within a subdivision, and engineer is excluded from subdivision work he must be part of the project when the initial plans are submitted to the Board, it should be professional engineer and land surveyor. SUPERVISOR WALTER-You are saying a professional engineer and land surveyor should be a part of the project, that is what our language says. We must have a land surveyor do some work and we are having the plans submitted by a professional engineer. MR. BOUTELLE-You are excluding the land surveyor from the initial process. SUPERVISOR WALTER-He is a part of the application for a sketch plan for a minor and major subdivision. We are not excluding land surveyor we are asking him to take a major role in this application. MR. BOUTELLE-My opinion for what it is worth, both should be in this rule, both take their equal part I am talking only about the licensed land surveyor that does not have an exemption, I am talking about the licensed land surveyor who is permitted to subdivide land he is the only person who can subdivide land and file a map in the county clerk's office. The exempt land surveyor, I do not think that there should be any question he should be permitted to submit all the things that are necessary for the preparation of final subdivision plans. The B. of 68.9 the term minor engineering and this is the commissioners regulation, as used in a Subdivision B. of Section 7208 of the Education Law shall include and not be limited to the following projects: 1. the design of water supply systems, sewage disposal systems, storm drainage systems for individual lots or lots in subdivisions 2. the design of public water distribution systems for subdivisions where the project is within an existing water district approved by the appropriate Federal State or Local Agency. If the project does not involve source developmen treatment, storage and some other things that you would expect, which are solely of sophisticated engineering problems. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA - What are the problems? MR. BOUTELLE - That is source development treatment, storage transmission maintenance, pumping or pressure reduction, those should not be with the exempt engineer. 287 COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA - I am the only engineer on this board and I know what you are talking about, they don't. ' MR. BOUTELLE - The second part of that would be the water mains as determined by the appropriate state or local agency do not require highly specialized and complex design. That is not what is considered minor engineering. Then it goes on to say the design of public sanitary sewage collection for facilities where the project does not include special complex designs, but not limited to those related to extreme soil conditions requiring special beddings,special man holes, for instances over 20 feet in depth, major stream or highway crossings or puddling in the project then sub item is when the existing sewer district...then went on to read when it is not in the existing sewer district, then a comprehensive study area by the local agency, he may not be involved in large designs. Old designs for water supply and sanitary sewer collection -- facilities of minor nature shall be submitted for review of approval to the appropriate federal and state agencies. That basically is what minor engineering work is in a subdivision. Its saying that, that land surveyor can design the subdivision and he should be involved in the design from the onset which is where the familiar work is done. COUNCILMAN BORGOS - The first question is what are the qualifications of those who do have this particular exemption? Can you give us roughly in terms of years of experience or education? MR. BOUTELLE - No I cannot, once they are licensed by the State of New York that's all been done by the state board. COUNCILMAN BORGOS - Do they use any criteria for establishing? MR. BOUTELLE - Absolutely. COUNCILMAN BORGOS - Can you tell us what some of the criteria is? MR. BOUTELLE - The Engineering Board has four functions...they prepare the examination, they look at applications for admittance to the examination, they give the examination, and they recommend policy to the State Education Department. In these applications you look at a persons background in educational value and experience. Engineering and land surveying are now identical with exception with one part of it. It takes eight years to get an engineers license, four years of college, four years of experience. It takes eight years for a land surveyor two years of college, six years of experience, only high school education and some of those are around. He has to have eight years experience before he can even apply for examination process. COUNCILMAN BORGOS - So in order to get the exemption certificate he or she must pass the licensing exam? MR. BOUTELLE - No, to get the exemption certificate they already have to be licensed and practicing engineering in a land surveying business. COUNCILMAN BORGOS - The certification, the exemption certificate that certifies that they are able to do this in the State of New York, am I correct in assuming that this certifies that they are capable of handling subdivisions as we are discussing subdivisions, the 150 lot the 200 lot subdivisions? MR. BOUTELLE - I would assume so. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - On the side of a mountain and in very sensitive areas like wetlands, double A streams etc? SUPERVISOR WALTER - That is not spelled out in the Commissioners regulations. COUNCILMAN BORGOS - Can you think of another community near here or any where in the State of New York that's proposing the kind of amendment we are proposing here? MR. BOUTELLE - No, I don't know of another town that has this exclusion of a land surveyor. SUPERVISOR WALTER - Relative to subdivisions but other towns have listed those people who may submit. Isn't that right? MR. BOUTELLE - I don't know. SUPERVISOR WALTER - They do. MR. BOUTELLE - Mr. Kurosaka made the comment and I would like to address that to. That 288 the engineer only applies his ability to that in which he is competent, land surveyor is not going to be doing what Mrs. Monahan suggested over here, it is a sophisticated problem in drainage or anything else he'd loose his license immediately if he tried to get involved that complicated, he would instantly get involved with an engineer. If you sense that as a board, you must certainly go in that direction, but to leave him out of your present regulations is contrary to the law. SUPERVISOR WALTER - It is in the present regulation, I really want to make that clear, he has a very major role in the preparation of the sketch plans for both minor and major subdivisions. Do you have a copy of what we are dealing with? MR. BOUTELLE - I only read a part of it. SUPERVISOR WALTER - It really gives him a great deal to do as part of the preparation and I want to emphasize that in no way are we trying to exclude surveyors, because they are part of the criteria that we are spelling out, and which we also have in another local law for another kind of development. Thanked Mr. Buetelle for his comments. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA - Asked how many guys out there were land surveyors and how many got the exemption? Three of you well, I have worked with these three gentlemen and as an engineer and my feeling with the three of them is when they got in beyond their head would call somebody. SUPERVISOR WALTER - Yes, but what we are dealing with here is not with individuals. We can be bombarded with any kind of unethical people tomorrow. The point of the matter is that the Town Planning Board is saying we will take care of looking after the development in this town but you must give us some tools, and what we are trying to put forth here is a criteria for a uniform application that will go before the Planning Board, having all parts addressed the names and address of the applicants, the location map showing the property with 500 feet a very detailed area for the surveyor. It says in here a map of survey including by a licensed professional land surveyor. He has got to put all sorts of things on this on this map. We are looking for environmental assessment describing the potential environment in the town. We are looking at additional exhibits the developer may feel necessary to describe. A sketch drainage plan and a sketch landscape plan and that is an area where we are feeling we need to have additional expertise. Asked for further comments? RAYMOND BUCKLEY - Resident of the Town Of Rueensbury and an engineer and land surveyor...I object to the form of this regulation not in requiring a land surveyor and an engineer to be involved early on in the large projects but simply in that definition of what an engineer is. I feel that when the education department grants that exemption to allow the surveyor to ---� act as an engineer who had been in practice prior to 1972 and qualified, I think that handles the problem. I don't think there has ever been a case of a very large subdivision without an engineer involved, I don't think it would happen in that the State Agencies also review these and they don't allow it to happen. If there is a large project which involves public water or public sewer then they wouldn't accept that with a survey alone. I think the whole thing is covered and I think at the same time you are proposing this, in another section are giving the town the authority to impose on a developer the cost of engineering provided at the request of the town. SUPERVISOR WALTER - No, I want to set this straight, that is not what we are doing. In addition to the fee listed on the schedule of fees the Planning Board may charge a fee to the developers of projects requiring legal and technical review provided that the fee charge reflects the actual cost of the legal and technical assistance. What we are merely saying here is that we have in the past, this is not so-inething new, have had an engineer, Mr. Scudder and Mr. Morris have been reviewing projects for the board and they are looking into see whether all of the necessary engineering information has been included and if it poses a problem for the town. What we are saying, we would like to be recouped for those fees and I will tell you why, because on some projects what we have is some very detailed engineering reports and plans and someone will take a look at that as been charged by the town an engineer and he will just see that everything is there. We have had some pretty bad projects come in before the Planning Board. The Town Board had picked upon several of them just as they have looked in the file relative to whether we should take land or we are looking for the dollars from that developer for recreation fees. That is one of the times we have gotten involved. We have found that i there is engineering needed and we feel at that point that we have to have a thorough review —J by the engineer. The Town Board is going to receive the 1987 budget and in there I have projected fees that's recouping from the developer $12000.00 from next year. We are not undertaking a big full scale engineering review of any new projects. We are merely doing what we have done in the past but we are saying those of you who are not giving us very much are probably going to be charged on the other end for a review. MR. BUCKLEY - I did not say that I was opposed to that. I feel that it has been done in the past, there is definitely value to it, it should continue to be done and if it is necessary to recover 0n^ 40 that cost that is fine. I am just pointing out that you are doing more than one thing to address this same sort of situation which I don't feel really exist on any broad scale and that is a surveyor submitting plans and not having proper designs. I don't feel that under the regulations that kind of thing will go through the Planning Board and get approved under todays standards and I think that the ordinance as you have written it requiring both the surveyor and the engineer to be involved initially is fine. I think that simply you should recognize the exemption as the State has, I think the developer should receive some estimate of what those cost would be ahead of time. In other words he should be aware of about how much is going to be spent. I realize that it can't be pinned down too well but I don't want to see it too opened. SUPERVISOR WALTER - Again why this language appears... there was discussion on what we are going to do because we currently have a new planner on, new staff, his time exclusively has been dealing with the agendas and with the projects. We have a lot of other things we `— want to do but we are finding that is what we need. That cost is reflected in the new budget and what we thought about and arrived at that, that is going to be fairer to the developers in the town, was to take our schedule of fees for development and push them way up there just to cover on the outside all the cost that we incur for development and one of the things we are trying to do in government is to put a lot of the charges on the people who use the services. That's why little old ladies can keep their houses so if the person who is using the services is able to pay for it. It was decided by the board in planning this language that perhaps the best way o handle it would y be to encourage the best plans from the developer and if he doesn't that review is probably going to cost him more money. But we didn't want to penalize the developers in the town, which are numerous, that put in the best kind of plan. MR. BUCKLEY - We shouldn't get that as a shock after its happened through. SUPERVISOR WALTER - If you are envisioning great big thousands of dollars cost for the amount of activity we have on our agendas right now, 12,000.00 is like a drop in the bucket. I am not going to be specifically under estimating, we sat down and we looked at what was costing us and really we can't get back everything that it is costing. It was suggested at the Public Hearing was to keep track of the charges, that in itself is an expense and another administrative cost to keep track of the hours and when a guy goes over a certain amount of dollars then he gets called off. We came to what we thought was the best solution. MR. BUCKLEY - A question for George, as I understand it the people who have that exemption obtained in 1972, no further exemptions ever will be granted is it a one shot deal. Have there ever been any surveyors come in with that exemption that was not one of these three people right here. I don't know anybody from out of town that have come in with it. It is not used that much. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA - No it isn't as a matter of fact I don't recollect any of them using it very much. MR. BUCKLEY - Its primarily on two or three lot developments. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA - Its up to 10 lots. LEON STEVES - 290 Bay Road, Rueensbury, land surveyor, since 1959 had exemption since 1952. Since John VanDusen retired in 1984, who handled all the application before the board at that time, I took over and I know I have the right to use my exemption, I have not. There hasn't been a plan, subdivision of mine in Rueensbury that has not had an engineer stamp approval review on board. In addition you are asking for an engineering project or subdivision to be completely engineered on a sketch plan. I think that is unreasonable and unrealistic. We first have to come to the board to see if we are in agreement with them that the project is proposed is in agreement with the code and more importantly in agreement with the board members not the code. We quite often in discussion with them iron these differences out before we go to the expense of hiring an engineer to design something that wouldn't be used the first `-- time around anyways and that's why we do what we do. Now as far as drainage is concerned we have addressed that, as far at the sewage, we have addressed that . When we bring a plan before you we know that it can be done. We do this because we go to the soil distribution first, otherwise there is no sense doing the project, it is a waste of our time and your time. SUPERVISOR WALTER - Well Mr. Steves I disagree with you on some of what you said. I don't think that in some of the files I have looked through that any sketch plan should have been given on the sketch sheet, pardon the pun, information that has been supplied to the board. I am a planner, that's my education, and I don't understand how a Planning Board member can make a decision as to whether that project that is the best possible project for the area with something on the back of a brown paper bag. I think the Town of Queensbury, has gotten to a point where it is extremely important that the Planning Board have in front of them all the information they need to make a good decision as to whether that project should go on that property. Interesting items you brought up today, as far as what Rueensbury is doing, we are 290 probably five or ten years behind the times of those towns that are further south of us that have seen the increased density of their towns and what we are merely trying to do is head off some of those problems. I think you are wrong when you say the Planning Board has the information they need and that any developer shouldn't go to any expense. I think you can walk up to our Planning office, we have made that available to you, and find out whether your project fits within the code, whether it meets the density requirement. But I do think that in order for the Planning Board to make a decision they should have a map in front of them that is one inch to forty or one inch to fifty, that it is two foot interval of contours and that it clearly states all these kinds of things we are asking for. It gives them the full picture. That shouldn't be done preliminary or final, but it isn't being done. LEON STEVES - Yes it is, a sketch plan no, but it is being done in preliminary stages. I don't know what you are after Mrs. Walter. SUPERVISOR WALTER - Well it isn't myself, the Town Board feels that we should have all people coming before the Planning Board supplying the same kind of information. LEON STEVES - You are trying to exclude me from practicing my profession as an exempt surveyor and I cannot agree. SUPERVISOR WALTER - I see that you are very much a part of this application and I don't see why you feel we are excluding you. LEON STEVES - You are tampering with the Education law. The Education Law of 1972 has given me the exempt rights to practice that portion of engineering known as land surveying which deals with the engineering necessary to do subdivisions. George Kurosaka can well explain that and address that. We do not use anyone exclusively but we do use engineers often. I don't think you can show me a project that I have done that does not have an engineer in it. SUPERVISOR WALTER - OK, what we are saying is, we want to have these people, a team. This is modified, I really wanted to have the landscape architect, the surveyor and the engineer to present themselves as a developers team. LEON STEVES - The board could have accomplished that with me and I am speaking for myself by asking to do that upfront but with what you are telling me that you are going to change the law that governs what I can do, I cannot live with that. I have to object to it. MRS. VALENTI - 60 Sweet Road, I am a citizen and also own and operate with my husband, Valenti Builders Inc...I am here basically to object to the passing on of the engineering legal fees, basically because I don't want to pay anymore fees. I just would like to ask you, I can understand where you are coming from because I have been to enough Planning Boards to see sketch plans done with pencil and paper and a couple of rulers thrown together and I have also witnessed in the past of couple of years, one subdivision which shall remain nameless, but just recently got preliminary approval and in that instance I would say that in all probability your engineer was looking over their shoulder and giving them a hard time every step of the way as well as the Planning Board who is pretty thorough and I just have a real simple question... usually a man works for the guy who butters his bread, who pays the bill, right now you have an engineer and a lawyer who the town hires to look out for your interest, isn't there any problem with the fact that if suddenly the developer is paying the tab for this man, engineer and attorney there is going to be just a little bit of a conflict. I don't honestly think Mike O'Connor could given you as hard of a time as he has if you were paying his bill today and he is representing a group of surveyors. In reference to that subdivision that I was talking about for two years this engineer is obviously been giving them a hard time. I really wonder if they wouldn't maybe if they wouldn't back off a little bit if they knew that the engineering tab was getting very high because of the fact.they were having these drainage problems, sewer problems and what not and that is the only thing I really wanted to ask you. I find there is a conflict there. I would much rather see the town say yes this man works for me and he's protecting our interest. But I really find the problem is when I am paying his tab, whether he can be as strong in his convictions about what he is overseeing if he knows I've got to pay his end to and I really think you shouldn't penalize like you said, the people who do, do the work ahead of time. I think it would be more logical to have a ceiling on it and say we will allow you a thousand dollars worth of engineering, after that you pay the freight. I know what my professional fees ran me and I feel I have been very consciousness in giving the Planning Board what they need and I really feel on your end you should be taking care of your business in paying your end of it so to speak. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA - Not every project is going to require this fee, it is only those projects that require a closer look at. MR. SCUDDER - Resident of the Town of Rueensbury... I have two or three observations that I would like to make, I wonder if it was permissible under your rules to address questions to 291 Mr. Boutelle? Mr. Boutelle, I want to ask you if your interpretation of the statue that you quoted and the regulations quoted from suggestions that land surveyors may do engineering of a minor nature or minor engineering or engineering of minor projects, if that is restricted to subdivisions as defined in the law? MR. BOUTELLE-We are not saying realty subdivisions... MR. SCUDDER-What is a subdivision as you understand it? COUNCILMAN BORGOS-I object to this, it is like a court room testimony... MR. SCUDDER- I would like to make an observation and respond to something Mr. Buckley said, it has been my experience in being asked to consult to the Town and the Town Planning Board that the degree of input required from the Town's side has a lot to do with the Quality of the project that is submitted. If the project is well done the review is simple and the cost is low. SUPERVISOR WALTER-I did try to make that point myself. MR. SCUDDER - If an engineering designer or an engineer is not in on the ground floor of a project so to speak he is faced with the problem with trying to accommodate himself to a prepared layout. I think a sketch plan is an extremely important part of the process of moving up a project through review and approval and the microscopic dimensions of a project are determined at that point. I have seen sketch plans come in that are so sketchy that the Planning Board had hardly anything to criticize and without naming any names, a land surveyor has said, well tell me what you want I'll go back and redesign the project and submit it that way. That's not what design is all about. Finally I would like to make a remark about the implications of computers and computer software program that are readily available to anybody who has the price to purchase them. Everybody has a computer who is in the land surveying business these days and there are software programs available for all matter of engineering functions, hydraulics, rainfall and run off computations, water distribution, all sorts of elements of highway design and many many other engineering disciplines and the computer lends itself to the practice of people buying the software programs and holding themselves out as competent to making to make engineering determinations in those fields where they have no particular training or experience. I think tad about my going out purchasing a set of McKinneys and starting practicing law. I think that point needs to be made. Finally the law is the law, we respect the law, nobody, that I know of on our side of the table, is trying to diminish or limit the rights of anybody who is practicing under the education law. MR. FRANK WALTER - Resident of Queensbury - I just have a couple of very brief observations. I think a little much is being made of the matter of the exempt land surveyor. It does apply to just a relative few individuals and as a matter of general practice I don't think it has any real effect on the subdivision business on the matter on which they practice. I think the two things I see in these proposed regulations, I would have to endorse and agree with, is the board is trying to encourage a team approach to projects and I think this is good and should be encouraged. The team approach involving the land surveyor and engineer may very well involve a landscape architect, we haven't heard too much about landscaping architecture but they may very well be included, legal counsel, perhaps soil experts, there could be any number of people involved as a team on a project. I think that what is to be avoided is that one discipline getting ahold of a project and running with it early on and setting perimeters and having the other people trying to adopt their practice to what was previously set. That brings me up to the matter of the sketch plans, I think that, that team should be involved early on even in the preparation of the sketch plan. The perimeters that are set, directions that are given in the development of a sketch plan carry through the project and they are extremely important. The sketch in the preliminary stages of a project are much more important than the phase where the project is flushed out and detailed. Those early phases are planning and should involve all the disciplines in a coordinate fashion. I think that this is the direction the board is going and the sort of thing they are trying to encourage and I endorse that approach. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA - We have a sort of a gentlemens agreement. They don't do engineering I don't land surveying. { SUPERVISOR WALTER - Asked George what he was going to do when he gets unethical guys -- that are settling in this area from other places that you don't know, how are we going to control that. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA - They will have to have the exemption. There aren't that many of them around. SUPERVISOR WALTER - Those would probably be the fellows who are about to retire to this area. Asked if the board wanted to put forth some kind of amendment? 292 COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA - Yes, where it says prepared by a Licensed land surveyor I would like to put or a licensed professional land surveyor with the proper N.Y. State Engineering exemption. If we don't put it in we are circumventing the New York State Education Law. I don't think it is legal. We are only talking three individuals here and I have worked with them. They are very honorable, very professional. COUNCILMAN BORGOS It is interesting that George and I did not confer this before we got here. I would propose something the same, I think I would say an engineer licensed professional land surveyor with the proper N.Y. State Education Department exemption or other person or persons licensed or authorized by the N.Y. State to perform such activities. There may be somebody else out there who's licensed that we are not aware of and if they were to come in certainly wouldn't have to go back through the whole idea of amending our whole regulations. SUPERVISOR WALTER - Well I could go along with that, I would want to offer that with an amendment with a second and a vote on it today because I think I could go with that if we -- � put in the criteria somewhere, where an engineer would be involved early on. I am looking at what is before our Planning Board and we are looking at mammoth kinds of subdivisions and 1 really do not wish to see us have nothing less than the best experts looking at drainage. Particularly we have a problem with drainage in the sandy section of our town which is west of the Northway and where most of the best land has already been developed and now we are going to be going off the Ridge Road and off other places where the soil conditions are terrible and they have to have added special attention. So at some point of that early sketch plan that we had which shall be prepared but I personally don't care who brings the application into the office. I do like to see the fact that, that drainage plan is going to be covered by an engineer. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - I might mention to some of the people who weren't on board at the time that we did have quite a severe problem here from some plans that were submitted to this town by a road that didn't stay where it was supposed to, running down West Mountain into peoples back yards. These are the things we are saying... lets make sure they don't happen again and make sure we put into place some mechanism so they don't happen. That is only one of the examples that has happened in the past. It is quite hard for the Town to correct. COUNCILMAN BORGOS - I think from what appears we may have crossed at least one hurdle and that is the inclusion of the people with special State exemption. At least in a portion of this, so we are not trying to go against the State Education Law at this point. SUPERVISOR WALTER - I don't think it was the intent ever to go against the State Education Law but merely point out that the Town of Queensbury is really concerned about the environment and that we do want to have a project, the size of the ones we are having, have the best possible attention so that the possible problems are addressed early on and as Betty indicated you haven't been here long enough, or you would know that we have been in court on several subdivisions which did not stand up to what they looked like on paper. COUNCILMAN BORGOS - I have been here long enough and I have followed most of this and I have been on the properties involved. I am sure it wasn't our intent to violate the State Education Law, it apparently came out to look like that so perhaps we have solved that problem. I agree at some point in those difficult situations an engineer should get in and perhaps talk with our new Planner and with the Board and perhaps with the surveyors and engineers we could all get together to agree at what that point that should be. Maybe sit down at a workshop or two and get that in, because it is very important, we obviously should have the best. There are times perhaps you don't need to pay for things that Mr. Steves talked about, that may be rejected on the first night so why pay $10,000.00 extra only to have it rejected. SUPERVISOR WALTER - The questions he referred to can be answered in a conference, it doesn't have to take the time of the Planning Board. Our Planning Board meetings go on till .� 1:00 o'clock in the morning. COUNCILMAN BORGOS - But if the Planning Board is not a party to that conference then walking in, in front of that board means those people haven't heard that conference and you are going to have the same questions all over again. SUPERVISOR WALTER - But he mentioned having them meet the Zoning and what ever, those kinds of things, you know you do not have to just bring in a sketch plan and have it put up on a board and have those kind of things addressed at a public meeting. We are trying to say get all these things down, we are making an assertive effort to get the information out to the Planning Board members well ahead, so if they have any questions, they can call either our new Planner or the engineer who signed the project for any kind of information that they want so the meetings will be a little more streamlined and they will have this information ^r`^q 4100 ahead of time and they won't have to grip it out or even have project tabled to come back for something that really should have been in front of them in the first place. It is all spelled out so everybody has to do the same thing and nobody is really getting a little bit heavy handed with any particular individual. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN - I think that is one reason why we have had Planning Board meetings so long and I have been to many Planning Board meetings because people come before the board for either for consultation or sketch plan or what ever you want to call it without enough information just as, if you talk to our Highway Superintendent, his time is wasted by being called on to roads before they are ready for him and called back several times when one call should be sufficient for the whole thing. These are the things we are finding are happening and perhaps with better engineering in there we can stop some of this. I would like to say that I would like to qualify that licensed professional engineer after that with a degree in civil engineering so that we don't have all the types of engineers coming in here that don't quite belong doing this type of work. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA - The education law doesn't separate anybody by degrees. SUPERVISOR WALTER - But we can. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA - You can't because they are licensed engineers that never went to college. SUPERVISOR WALTER - We are not defining professional, we are saying that we want a professional civil engineer, and that is not defining engineer. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA - She said degree in civil engineering, she didn't say licensed. MR. O'CONNOR - Mrs. Walter maybe to avoid all the controversy as to which professional that you would have and accept the suggestion that was made to you by the fellow who was chairman of Board of Review, as I understand it, for engineers and land surveyor and simple go forth with your ordinance as to what you want to submit and allow their own professional discipline, their own professional integrity govern whether or not they will be making a submittal. If the town finds itself in a circumstance where it thinks that it shouldn't be there are other ways to address it then to try to put something here that really won't fit the circumstance. I use the aeronautical engineer, simply trying to think of the different fields. There are also marine engineers, there all kinds of engineer. There is an example of being a little bit ridiculous by trying locally improve upon what the Education Law has been set forth by the Board of Education and by the Review Boards that govern the Education Law. You've heard only one comment and I won't necessarily go back to them as to the difference your preliminary approval and your sketch plan approval. I was involved with your adoption of the subdivision regulations and at that time if you go back to the many public hearings and the many workshops that were had, sometimes with developers as well as with professionals who were making the presentations. The thought was as Mr. Steves has indicated, the sketch plan was simply a sketch plan, a preliminary shot to the Board as to what we would like to do with that. We can all read the Zoning Ordinance and find out whether or not we can have single family, two family or multifamily in a particular zone and I don't think he simplified his presentation as a sketch plan. He meant to simplify it to that degree. Whether you want one road, two roads, whether you want to hook onto adjoining subdivision by interior road, those type things are ideas that are passed back and forth between the developers. That was my understanding with the purpose of what the intent of a sketch plan was. When you then went from a sketch plan which gave you really no standing is where you then got into the defined topographical map, showing the contours of the land, showing all the engineering or the details of the particular parcel. I really haven't addressed that but I thought it was well addressed when the original subdivision plans or subdivision regulations were adopted within the last couple of years, if I remember right. I don't know and really personally think they should be still be given an opportunity to come in and say this is what we would like to do with our parcel of land. I agree that there are some perimeters that should be set forth with the brown bag and the hand written detail on the back should be eliminated but there is a step above that which would certainly let the board let make intelligent idea determination. It sounds like something that would go in that area, have you considered the wet area that we are aware of or whatever, here is two Planning Board members who would like to assign it. When you get your preliminary plans together maybe you want to consult with them outside of the board and then have that come back with your detailed plans. SUPERVISOR WALTER- These are sketch plans that we are looking at to make uniform so we are really in the sketch plan we are just setting forth the criteria to protect. You brought forth your folder and you said here is the names and addresses of all the applicants and it was very easy. Our planner was just new to review, to see that everything was there. You gave us the idea. MR. O'CONNOR - I am not against that, ok, I think though and you've got to understand that many times you are talking about a contractor who is purchasing a land who really doesn't 294 have ownership of that particular parcel of land yet. Who wants to get a feeling, a sense of feeling as to the direction he is going to go. He doesn't, and I don't think it necessarily fair to require him to get a topographical map of that particular parcel 2 ft. measurements. SUPERVISOR WALTER - He should have that if he is considering his plan. MR. O'CONNOR - Then you would be a different developer than maybe 90% of people out there. SUPERVISOR WALTER - Well, that's true because they are trying to get a lot of return on their money. I understand that is what it is all about but on the other hand we have got to have some criteria that will really protect. Everybody wants to move into Queensbury. MR.O'CONNOR - All I am trying to do is distinguish, not trying to write the particular regulations, there ought to be a beginning point and I thought we had it when we did adopt the rules and regulations. The beginning point was a sketch plan review and it very purposely the amount of detail information that was required of the developer was limited at that point to let everybody get their feet wet and they had no standing when they walked out with sketch plan review and that was the understanding of everybody. SUPERVISOR WALTER - And that has not worked well for us. MR. O'CONNOR - Well then maybe we are back to a situation as we are with a lot of our law. We've got good rules and regulations on the book but they aren't properly enforced and administered. Maybe we have to go back and look at it internally how we do it. Rubber stamps are great things, I put rubber stamps on fifty percent on the letters that go out of my office, the latest one is a mortgage commitment when I tell people what they need to give me so that they start getting me the information so I can do what I got to do down the road. Maybe on the consent or the sketch plan review, it should say sketch plan review only, we have no standing until you get preliminary review. We are not trying to make life difficult for you. We found that with the rule that you proposed, you are making life difficult for us, and I say us in the sense of the surveyors that I am representing. Particularly where you did acknowledge to me that you would not accept a plan by a surveyor, maybe we have gone beyond that, even if it didn't include one of those foreign areas that were not excluded under minor engineering. I think we can all work together, I think these surveyors will be glad to get together with you, with your engineering, consultants to see that things come forward in an orderly manner and something is not going to be detrimental to the town in any manner. Their name is on the subdivision maps that get passed around to everyone of the homeowners that are in that subdivision. They - ' don't want to have problem there, they don't want that type reputation. I think that anyone of these fellows in the room here, what they have submitted have been with engineering help where there has been engineering problems. COUNCILMAN BORGOS - I have heard comments form the audience about the open end of the fees, I have been opposed to the open ended nature of it on paper. I understand that Frank is speaking historically and hasn't been a lot of money but for everyones protection I think we should have some kind of limit and we have to work out the language beyond which the town would not be authorized to spend that would then be charged to somebody else. We can work that out to. MR. FRANK WALTER - I don't wish to labor the issue. I would like to speak to that matter of sketch plan and preliminary plan preparations and approvals. The materials that I have often seen presented to the Planning Board are very sketchy, the brown paper bag which we like to call them, I think it does a dis-service to the client, it does a dis-service to the Planning Board to ask the Planning Board to make judgment on some of this stuff that is brought in. I think sketch plans should be done in some meaningful detail and I mean that part of that would include decent contours. We seem to gloss over some of this, well you know you can just throw the road down and you can do this or that and later on pick up the toad bill. Properly done the subdivision layout and the roads and the utilities should be done in conjunction with the topography and in conjunction with the lay of the land so that information should be obtained and presented up front as part of the sketch plan, not brought in later on to kind of pattern the thing up and the cost is not that great. The developer should be prepared to pay that cost. That's the cost of doing business. That's his investment. The investment he has to make in that project and he is the guy who is looking for a return. He has to make an investment and part of the investment is the up-front cost. I think the sketch plans should be done in detail and it is necessary for a proper project. SUPERVISOR WALTER - Asked for further comments. Hearing None-The Public Hearing was closed 5:10 P.M. 295 RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION TO RETAIN CONSULTING ENGINEER RESOLUTION NO.252, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is interested in extending the Queensbury Water District, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT i RESOLVED, that the Town Board will retain the engineering services of Charles H. Scudder, P.E. for an amount not exceeding $2,400.00 in the preparation of a map, plan and report for said Queensbury Water District extension. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: Mr. Montesi SUPERVISOR WALTER-This is an extension of the Queensbury Water Dist. we have had a request from the owners of the property Mr. & Mrs. Thorton, there are plans for a new development on that property and it falls within our local law so that they must have public water. The developer will take on the expenses of creating a water district and constructing it we must have this within a district, this will not be charged to anyone but the developer. (Resolution amended to reflect that this is an extension of the Queensbury Water Dist.-agreed to by Mrs. Monahan and Mr. Kurosaka) RESOLUTION TO REAPPOINT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBER I RESOLUTION NO. 253, who moved for its adoption by Mrs. Betty Monahan seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos. WHEREAS, the term of Jeffrey Kelley has expired and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board desires to reappoint Mr. Kelley to a five year term on the Zoning Board of Appeals, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby reappoints Jeffrey Kelley of Queensbury to a five year term on the Zoning Board of Appeals, due to expire September 14, 1991. Duly adopted by the following vote. Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: Mr. Montesi. RESOLUTION TO REAPPOINT MEMBER QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 254, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: WHEREAS, the term of Victor Macri expired on October 1, 1986, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board desires to reappoint Mr. Macri to a seven year term on the Queensbury Planning Board, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby reappoints Mr. Victor Macri of Queensbury 296 to a seven year term on the Queensbury Planning Board, due to expire on October 1, 1993. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: Mr. Montesi RESOLUTION TO RESCIND AND REAPPOINT-BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW RESOLUTION 255, Introduced by Mr. Stephen Borgos who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: WHEREAS, Chapter 193 of the Laws of 1986 requires terms of Office for Members of Board of Assessment Review must begin on October 1 and end on September 30, ...� NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, to rescind Resolutions 72 and 73 of 1986 as of this date, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby appoints Mrs. Marilyn Potenza of Queensbury to a five year term on the Board of Assessment Review, effective October 1, 1986 and expiring on September 30, 1991, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby appoints C. Powel South of Queensbury to a four year term on the Board of Assessment Review, term to expire September 30, 1990. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: Mr. Montesi I RESOLUTION OF APPOINTMENT RESOLUTION NO. 256, Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos: BE IT RESOLVED, that, effective immediately, Victor Lefebvre be and hereby is appointed Acting Building Inspector and Enforcement Officer of the Town of Queensbury with respect to all Queensbury Ordinances, with the authority to issue building permits, investigate violations, issue appearance tickets and pursue such enforcement procedures as authorized by law. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent:Mr. Montesi SUPERVISOR WALTER-Our Code Enforcement Officer Mack Dean is currently recuperating in Albany Medical Center after some heart surgery, and was the opinion of our attorney that although we have building inspectors we should resolve that the building inspector be appointed as Acting Enforcement Officer to handle the duties of that department, in the absence of Mr. Dean. The only other action tonight would be to take action on the subdivision regulations...it was agreed to by the entire Town Board to take under consideration the statements that were made..no action at this time... COMMUNICATIONS -Ltr.- on file-Leslie Rymkewicz-resigned from the Board of Assessment Review (A resolution of appreciation with be forthcoming at the next Town Board Meeting) Mr. Stephen Borgos- Having served with Les for over 11 years, he is a very dedicated person who has given above and beyond the compensation of Fifty Dollars per year for all those years, s1 n rs G✓C a very knowledgeable person, we will be very hard pressed to replace him. -The Town Clerk-Darleen M. Dougher turned the Tentative Budget for 1987 over to the Town Board Members. SUPERVISOR WALTER-The Town Clerk by law has turned over the Tentative Budget for 1987 the Budget Officer had to file this by the 30th and our Clerk had five days to turn it over to the Board. We now begin the in-depth budget process, we will begin a schedule of workshops with the Department heads we will then have a hearing on the Preliminary Budget, that will be held on November 6th at 7:30 P.M.(Thursday). The final budget we have until November j 20th to adopt I would hope that we would be ready to adopt on November the 18th. The appropriations in this particular budget is up by million dollars, the Town Board Rueensbury's budget is now eight million eight hundred and forty five thousand one hundred and forty five dollars. That is approximately a million dollars in appropriations over last year. We are looking at four hundred thousand dollars more to be raised in taxes on a town wide basis. We have received additional monies in revenue but not enough to keep up with the one million dollars. There are no surprises in the budget I would say that the additional expenses are due in part to hundred and fifty thousand dollars that we have lost in Revenue Sharing Funds cut by the Federal Government. We need to pick those up particularly in the Highway Dept. where in conversation with our Highway Supt. and the number of new developments and roads that he must maintain years in the future we have got to keep up with the paving schedule adding another truck and several men to the Department for plowing routes and maintenance we have also added a Department of Planning added Personnel on other Departments in the Town where necessary. My budget is a very conservative budget, I am going to say review it very carefully I am sure you will want to make some changes all of the personnel services are in the Budget at 5% above 1986, that is what I asked the Department Heads to file,telling them that the Town Board wanted to look at each position in the Town that was not under a Union Contract to make adjustments as they say fit. I am leaving that up to you to make the necessary changes. Any dollars that you add will be more dollars to the budget and more dollars that we would have to raise by taxes. On the good side although we have only had two payments on sales tax that we will have a good sales tax year, perhaps some of the dollars that we have to raise will be returned to the taxpayers next year, by adding the excess sales tax. This is the first time you have seen the budget off the computer it is a little different from last year because the computer is different in setting it up, we will try to get you budgets from last year to compare the two. It was difficult to cut over, next year it will be easier. The girls did a super job, they did work overtime and did have a lot of aborted runs and we did make the deadline. On motion the Meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Miss Darleen Dougher Town Clerk-Rueensbury 1 t