Top of the World PUD Resolutions qJ WYem hi-.c- A3, 1 1 1
RESOLVED , THAT THE 'T(OWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY WIL OLD
A PUBLIC HEARING IN REGARD TO ORDINANCE No . 31 UNSAFE / CO LAPSED
STRUCTURES THE NATHAN LETHBRIDGE DWELLING ON MINNESOTA A , NUE .
THE PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON DECEMBER 14 , 1982 AT : 30 P . M. AND
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED , THAT THE TOWN CLERK LEGALLY ADVERTISE T. IS PUBLIC HEAPING.
DULY ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES : MR. OLSON , DR. [ISENHART , MR. MDR' LL , MRS . MONAHAN , MRS, WALTER
NOES : NONE
ABSENT : NONE
LTR. UNSAFE STRUCTURE - BALTIS PRU 'ERTY AVIATION ROAD. - RECOMMENDED
THAT THE STRUCTURE BE REMOVED. . . ' D AREA BE CLEANED UP , SCRAP MATERIAL
BE REMOVED. . . ( ON FILE )
RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEA ING ON UNSAFE STRUCTURE
OJ ITT01: ^.••a�..3Z,:, INTROr CEO BY DR. CHARLES EISENHART WHO MOVED FOR ITS
ADOPTION , SECONDED BY MR DANIEL OLSON :
WHEREAS, THE BUILDING AND ZONING DEPT . HAS BROUGHT IT TO THE ATTENTION
OF THE QUEENSBURY TO BOARD THAT IN THEIR OPINION AN UNSAFE STRUCTURE
EXISTS ON AVIATION 'D. , OWNER OF THE PROPERTY BEING A DONNA BALTIS , NOW ,
THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED , THAT E TOWN POARD OF THE TON OF QUEENSBURY WILL HOLD A PUBLIC
HEARING IN REGARD TO ORDINANCE NO. 31 UNSAFE/COLLAPSED STRUCTURES
OWNER OF PROPERTY DONNA BALTIS , THE HEARING TO BE ON DECEMBER 14 , 1982
AT 7 :30 P. M. AND BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED , HAT THE TOWN CLERK LEGALLY ADVERTISE THIS PUBLIC HEAPING.
DULY AD''TED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES : MR. OLSON , DR. EISENHART, MR. MORRELL , MRS . MONAHAN , MRS . WALTER
NOES : NONE
ASSENT : NONE
COUNCILMAN OLSON- NOTED THAT THE LOCAL REALIkSTATE AGENT HAS NOTED THAT
HE WILL APPEAR BEFORE THE TOWN BOARD IN REGARD TO THIS PROPERTY . . .
-TOP OF THE WORLD-PUD-
-LTR. DEPT. OF HEALTH ( ON FILE ) THE DEPARTMENT IS REVIEWING PLANS
FOR SWIMMING POOL , RESTAURANT , AND WATER SYSTEM
-WARREN CO. PLANNING- ENDORSE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL ( ON FILE )
DISCUSSION HELD-
MR. DESANTIS , ATTORNEY FOR THE PROJECT-I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY OUR
UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCESS SHOULD THE TOWN BOARD GRANT ITS APPROVAL ,
FOR THE PUD. As I READ THE ORDINANCE/ THE PUD WOULD BE RECEIVING PRELIMINARY
PLAT APPROVAL AT WHICH TIME THE TOWN WOULD BE IN EFFECT, WITH ITS OWN
ORDINANCE/ REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD. THE DEVELOPER
WOULD HAVE SIX MONTHS FROM THIS EVENING/ IF WE WERE TO USE THIS DATE , WITHIN
WHICH TO HAVE A FINAL PUD PLAT FILED IN THE WARREN COUNTY CLERK ' S OFFICE.
PRIOR TO BEING ABLE TO DO THAT , THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD WOULD HAVE HAD
TO GIVE ITS APPROVAL/ IN EFFECT GIVE THE BUILDING INSPECTOR THE AUTHORITY
TO ISSUE BUILDING PERMITS AS TO/ AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ,
AND AT OUR MEETINGS WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE TOWN BOARD PHASE I
OF THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT . THE ADDITIONAL ACTION OF THE TOWN BOARD/ DUE
TO THE FACT THAT THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE PARK AGENCY WOULD BE REFERRED
TO THE PARK AGENCY ' S PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW IN ESSENTIALLY THE
SAME MANNER THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY REFERRED TO AS THE TUTHILL REZONING,
TO THE PARK AGENCY. THEY WOULD HAVE TO/ IN EFFECT) STATE THAT THIS DOES NOT
EXCEED THE APA LAND DENSITY REQUIREMENTS. THEN IT WOULD GO TO THE QUEENS
BURY PLANNING BOARD AND ALL AT THE SAME TIME THE APA IS GIVING US A CLASS
A PERMIT REVIEW . THAT PROCESS HAS ALREADY COMMEN.CEWHET<HHEEER APPLICATION IS
IN THEIR HANDS. THEIR FIFTEEN DAY PERIOD TO TELL :USAOR NOT WE HAVE SUB-
MITTED A COMPLETE APPLICATION IS NOW RUNNING AND THEY WILL SUBSEQUENT
TO THAT TIMEJDECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. BY YOUR
;®
STATUTE A PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED TO BE HELD BY THE PLANNING
BOARD PRIOR TO T. 1EIR GIVING ANY APPROVAL EVEN TO PHASE I . ESSENTIALLY
YOU ARE LOOKINAA CONCEPT AND AUTHORIZING THE PLANNING BOARD TO
COMMENCE ITS REVIEW OF PHASE I WHICH CANNOT BEGIN UNTIL THE TOWN BOARD
ESTABLISHES THE ZONE. THE ZONE DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXETS UNTIL THIS
WHOLE PROCESS IS COMPLETE AND A MAP IS FILED IN THE WARREN CO. CLERK ' S
OFFICE, THAOIS WHEN THE CHANGES REALLY TAKES PLACE. You ARE STARTING
THE ABILITY TO HAVE THE REVIEW IF YOU GIVE THE APPROVAL BUT YOU ARE
NOT CHANGING THE ZONE IN STARTING THAT REVIEW , AT LEAST THAT IS MY
UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCESS AND THE READING OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
SUPERVISOR WALTER- I HAVE A QUESTION , AS FAR AS SUBMITTING TO THE PARK
AGENCY MR. CHASE HAS IN HIS FOLDER A NOTIFICATION TO THE TOWN THAT THEY .-1
HAVE RECEIVED A PRELIMINARY APPLICATION . . .
MR. DESANTIS- WE DID NOT PREPARE THAT NOTIFICATION , PHASE I IS 46 UNITS
AND I THINK THERE IS A MIS-STEP THERE. THE APPLICATION THAT WE HAVE
FILED WITH THE APA IS FOR 170 UNITS WHICH MEETS THE DENSITY REQUIRE-
MENTS AS WE HAVE FINALLY BEEN ABLE TO. PLANEMETER IS THE` PLANNING
WORD FOR DIVIDING HOW THE ZONE CUTS ACROSS THE PROPERTY THAT WE ARE
UNDER CONTRACT TO BUY AND GIVES US THE RIGHTS TO BUILD CERTAIN NUMBERS
OF UNITS. PHASE I WOULD BE THE 46 UNITS THAT THEY ARE REFERRING TO . . .
CONCEPTUALLY THE 46 ARE A PIECE OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD BE WITHIN
THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT . WE HAVE DISCUSSED THAT AT THE PUBLIC
HEARING THEPHASING ANDI THINK THAT IS JUST A MISCOMMUNICATION FROM THE
PARK AGENCY-THAT WAS THE DATE UPON WHICH WE FILED OUR APPLICATION.
COUNCILMAN EISENHART- BUT YOUR APPLICATION IS FOR THE WHOLE THING.
MR. DESANTIS- EXACTLY , PHASE I IS PART OF OUR APPLICATION , THAT IS THE
PORTION WE HAVE TO GIVE MORE DETAIL ON BECAUSE THAT IS THE PORTION IN
WHICH THEY ACTUALLY GIVE US , THE PERMIT WILL READ SOMETHING ALONG THE
LINE OFF WE NOW APPROVE PHASE I AND THEN DESCRIBE PHASE I OF 170 UNITS
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN; SO ON AND SO FORTH AND PHASE II WILL REQUIRE AN
ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC REVIEW BY NOT ONLY THE APA BUT BY THE QUEENSBURY
PLANNING BOARD. EACH PHASE HAS ITS OWN SEPERATE REVIEW UNDER BOTH
THE PARK AGENCY RULES AND UNDER THE QUEENSBURY TOWN ZONING ORDINANCE.
IT WOULD NOT COME BACK BEFORE THE CUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD ONCE THE WHOLE PUD IS ESTABLISHED, AT LEAST THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. NO , THAT
IS NOT CORRECT-THAT IS A MISUNDERSTANDING-THEY HAVE GOTTEN PHASE I
MIXED UP. . .
COUNCILMAN OLSON- THERE WERE QUESTIONES RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING
ABOUT THE SEPTIC TANKS AND THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ON SITE COLLECTION
AS COMMONLY 'KNOWN AS A PACKAGE PLANT , HAVE YOU TAKEN ANY CONSIDERATION
INTO THAT. . . I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE THIS BOARD MAKE A RESOLUTION , ALONG
WITH THIS RESOLUTTON SOME SUPPORT AS APA LOOKS AT THIS THEY MIGHT LOOK
STRONG AND MAKE A GOOD INVESTIGATION.
Dti
MR. DESANTIS- SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING YOU TERMED A PACKAGE PLANTATHIS
PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN ,THE LAKE GEORGE BASIN AND SUCH PLANS ARE ILLEGAL
BY STATE LEGISLATION . SO , NO) WE ARE NOT CONSIDERINGNVIOLATING STATE
LAW BY CREATING A PACKAGE PLANT. WE HAVE SUBMITTED BOTH TO THE nUEENSBURY
TOWN BOARD, THE APA AND THE DEPT. OF HEALTH AND ENCON WHAT ARE ESSENTIALLY
SEPTIC SYSTEMS AVERAGE RUN OF THE MILL EVERYDAY SPETIC SYSTEMS NOT
HI-BRED SYSTEMS OF ANY SORT FOR THEIR APPROVAL. THE PHASE 1 WHICH IS THE
46 UNITS HAS SIX DISPOSAL UNITS-THOSE SIX DISPOSAL AREAS HAVE BEEN
REVIEWED BY THE GENTLEMENBIY THE NAME OF JAMES HILL WHO IS THE APA
ENGINEER WHO IS ASSIGNED TO REVIEW THIS PROJECT . MR. HILL HAS APPROVED
THOSE SIX SITES , HE HAS NOT COMMUNICATED TO US NOR HAS DEC NOR HAS THE
DEPT , OF HEALTH ANY NECESSITY FOR VARYING THOSE SUBMITTED PLANS OF
DISPOSING OF THE SEWAGE IN THIS MANNER. EACH SITE IS REVIEWED
INDEPENDENTLY BY BOTH DEC AND APA AND AS INFORMATION FOR THE TOWN
BOARD ON NOVEMBER 9TH A MEETING WAS HELD AT THE DEC OFFICES IN
WARRENSBURG AT WHICH ALL OF THE AGENCIES , DEPT. OF HEALTH , LAKE GEORGE '
PARK COMMISSION , THE APA THE DEPT . OF ENCON AS WELL AS STEVE LYNN FROM
YOUR BUILDING DEPT. AND DICK ROBERTS FROM THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD
WERE IN ATTENDANCE . AT THAT TIME THE WHOLE PROJECT WAS DISCUSSED AND
THE REQUIREMENTS WERE DISCUSSED AND, I BELIEVE
THE REPRESENTATIONS THAT I HAVE MADE HERE TONIGHT WILL BE BORNE OUT
BY BOTH MR. ROBERTS AND STEVE LYNN WHO WERE PRESENT AT THAT MEETING.
THAT THOSE SPECIFIC SIGHTS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THE APA AND THAT DEC
WAS GOING TO GET UP THERE . IT IS REGRETABLE , WE HAVE HAD COMMUNICATIONS
WITH BILL LANYY I UNDERSTAND HE IS ON VACATION , IT IS REGRETABLE THAT HE
DID NOT FIND THE TIME TO GET A COMMUNICATION TO THE TOWN BOARD THIS
EVENING.
7
COUNCILMAN OLSON— THE LAST INFORMATION I HAVE HAD WAS AT THE
PUBLIC HEARING, THE PEOPLE IN THE AREA/ I THOUGHT, HAD REASONABLE
REQUESTS—THEY WERE AFRAID OF POSSIBLE UNDERGROUND STREAMS . I TALKED
TO TWO PEOPLE WHO ARE LIFE LONG RESIDENTS OF THAT AREA SINCE YOU HAD
THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEY ALL POINTED OUT TO ME , REALLY WHAT THEY
WERE SAYING , THAT THERE WAS ROCK UP THERE.
MR. DESANTIS— I CANNOT ARGUE WITH THEM OR ANYONE ELSE AM NOT AN
ENGINEER ALL WE CAN DO IS MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO EXPLORE THE ALTERNATIVES
THAT WE PUT FORTH AND Hn" . OUR ENGINEER HAS LITERALLY SEARCHED THE
SITES ON THE PROPERTY; FOUND THE BEST SOIL DESIGNATED SITES AND ALSO
DESIGNATED AN EQUAL SIZED AREA ADJACENT TO THAT SITE WHICH IS SET
ASIDE AND NOT BE BUILT UPON INCASE THE PRIMARY SITE WHICH WAS CHOSEN
FAILS, THESE SAME SITES ARE REVIEWED BY ENGINEERS BY ENCON AND APA.
THEY MAKE THEIR OWN DETERMINATIONS AS THE SUITABILITY , WE HAVE APPLIED
FOR AND ARE IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEW OF WHAT IS KNOWN AS A SPEEDIES PERMIT—
THAT IS A SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT THAT DIRECTLY EFFECTS EXACTLY WHAT YOUR
QUESTION ADDRESSES .
COUNCILMAN OLSON— I MIS—SPOKE WHEN I SAID PACKAGE PLANT.
MR. DESANTIS— I WAS JUST ADDRESSING , BECAUSE WE HAVE HEARD THAT SUGGESTION
FROM OTHER PEOPLE ALSO , BUT WE CANNOT PURSUE IT BY LAW . WE ALSO , OUR
ENINGEER INFORMS US/ WE DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THAT IS QUITE THE BEST WAY
TO GO EVEN IF WE HAD THAT ALTERNATIVE.
COUNCILMAN OLSON— THE QUESTION COMES UP THAT YOU ARE PRESENTLY TALKING
ABOUT SIX SITES.
MR. DESANTIS— SIX SITES FOR PHASE I , THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE DESIGNATED
AS PART OF THE APPLICATION WHICH . . .
COUNCILMAN OLSON— IN THE APPLICATION WHEN YOU MET WITH THESE OTHER PEOPLE
AT ENCON THEY WERE CONCERNED WITH SIX SITES-DO THEY GO INTO YOURSECOND ,
THIRD AND FOURTH PHASE AS YOU ADD ON PUTTING MORE SEPTIC SYSTEMS INT❑
THE GROUND WHAT MAY HAPPEN TO THE ORIGINAL SIX SITES AS YOU START COLLECT—
ING MORE?
MR. DESANTIS— THE ORIGINAL SIX SITES ARE NOT ADDED TO BY OTHER UNITS
COUNCILMAN OLSON- No , BUT YOUQ`STILL GOING TO HAVE MORE SITES IN THE
GROUND AS YOU INCREASE THE BUILDINGS WHICH MEANS OVER ALL THE WHOLE
ACREAGE OF LAND YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE MORE THAN SIX SITES .
MR. DESANTIS— PART OF THE REVIEW IS AS I HAVE TRIED TO DESCRIBE IT/
THE REVIEW IS REALLY TWO PARTS. IT IS A REVIEW OF THE 170 UNITS
AND THOSE GENERAL LOCATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO ALL THESE AGENCIES ,
AND THE GENERAL LOCATIONS , BY THAT I MEAN FAIRLY CLOSE APPROXIMATION
OF WHERE THE SOILS NOW TELL US THE SEWAGE DISPOSAL AREA OUGHT TO BE HAVE
BEEN GIVEN TO THESE AGENCIES. NOT TO AVOID YOUR QUESTION/ BUT NO ONE HAS
GONE OUT AND TRIED TO LOOK AT WHERE THE LAST PHASE IS GOING TO BE TO
SPECIFICALLY SITE THE DISPOSAL AREA. WHEN I MENTIONED THE SIX BECAUSE
THAT IS PHASE I AND THAT IS WHAT WILL BE BUILT AND THAT IS WHAT WE
ARE LOOKING FOR THE BUILDING PERMITS FOR, THOSE SIX AREAS HAVE BEEN
SPECIFICALLY INVESTIGATED AS WELL AS THE IMPACT OF ALL THE OTHER AREAS
THAT YOU HAVE TALKED ABOUT. EACH AREA BEFORE IT RECEIVES A PERMIT
WILL REQUIRE ANOTHER SPEEDIES PERMIT/ ANOTHER APA APPROVAL AND A REVIEW
BYTHE TOWN PLANNING BOARD. IF THOSE SITES DO NOT WORK AT THAT TIME
WE DO NOT RECEIVE A BUILDING PERMIT/ AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT/ AND I THINK
SO DO ALL THE OTHER AGENCIES.
BRIAN HARRISON—WE HAVE DUG ALMOST FIFTY TEST HOLES THAT WERE LOOKED AT
BY JIM HILL A MAN FROM THE APA AND BY THE DEPT . OF ENVIR. CONSERVATION
TO COVER THE ENTIRE SITE THAT ONE WOULD EXPECT TO BE BUILDING ON, WHICH
GIVE THEM THE INDICATION OF WHAT WAS THERE. WE ALSO , . . WE ARE ESSENTIALLY
BE—ING DIRECTED AND HAVE BEEN DIRECTED BY DEC NOT TO CONCENTRATE SEWAGE ,
NOT TO GO AN PUT BEDS TOGETHER IN ONE LOCATION BUT TO DISPURSE IN A MORE
UNIFORM MANNER , WE ARE DOING IT THE WAY THEY HAVE REQUESTED THAT WE DO IT.
THAT IS THE PROBLEM , IT IS DIFFICULT TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS THAT YOU
SHOULD NOT DO IT THAT WAY WHEN YOU ARE REGULATED SAYING THAT YOU HAVE TO
DO IT THAT WAY .
COUNCILMAN OLSON— WE HAVE DONE THINGS MANY TIMES THE WAY DEC HAS TOLD US
TOYLIKE OUR LANDFILL SITUATION , THEN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS CHANGE
IN SIX MONTHS OR A YEAR LATER , PART 360 WAS THREE PAGES NOW IT IS THREE
INCHES. THAT IS THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD, I THINK IT WAS A REASONABLE
QUESTION/ I THINK YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE LONG RANGE/ THE END OF YOUR
PROJECT . You GET SIX UNITS AND THEN YOU COME BACK AND YOU GOT SIX NOW
I NEED SIX MORE I HAVE GOT TO HAVE IT BECAUSE I GOT THESE SIX
. . . THEN YOU GOT .12 AND 12 GOES TO 24. , ,
MR. DESANTIS- THAT IS THE REASON I COME TO YOU . . .
COUNCILMAN OLSON- I THINK THAT IS THE REASON FOR SOME QUESTIONS FROM
SOME PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THAT AREA , WHO RAISED THE QUESTIONS AT THE
END OF THE PROJECT) WHAT IS THE POSSIBILITY WHAT IS THE WORST SITUATION
THAT COULD HAPPEN?
COUNCILMAN MORRELL- REFERRING TO 170 UNITS , I BELIEVE AT THE PUBLIC
HEARING IT WAS 240 , HAVE YOU REVISED YOUR NUMBERS DOWN?
BRYAN HARRISON- WE HAVE REVISED IT DOWN TO WHAT EVER DENSITY i
WAS ALLOWED IN THE TOWN. . .WE DID NOT WANT SPECIAL CONSIDERATION
SO WHAT WE DID WAS TO UTILIZE THE EXISTING ZONING ORDINANCE WHAT
YOU GOT HERE IS PRECISE LINE LAID OUT AS TO WHAT THE ZONE IS THE
TOWN HAS ZONED AND THEN THE DENSITY CALCULATION BASED ON THAT ( MAP USED)
BASED ON THAT THERE IS 176 UNITS ALLOWED THE APPLICATION IS FOR 170 ,
TO STAY WITHIN THE 176 . THAT IS TO ALLOW FOR ONE PERSON TO HANDLE
. . SOMEONE MIGHT BE OUTSIDE THE LINE , SOMEONE IN. . .THE AMOUNT IS
170 AND THAT IS WHAT THE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING BOARD. . STEVE LYNN
HAS TWO COPIES OF THIS ONE OF WHICH HE IS GOING TO REFER TO THE APA
AS PER WHAT EVER ACTION THEY WANT TO TAKE.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- HAS ANYTHING BEEN DONE IN GIVING A EASEMENT FOR
THE SCENIC OVERLOOK?
MR. BOICE- WE ARE GOING TO LEAVE IT OPEN ON A GUIDED TOUR SITUATION TO
PROTECT OUR OWN PRIVACY , WE DO NOT WANT PEOPLE JUST DRIVING UP-WE WILL
HAVE A GATE HOUSE CONTROL SYSTEM SO THAT PEOPLE CAN COME TO THE GATE
HOUSE REGISTER THERE , PARK THE CAR AT THE GATE HOUSE AND TAKE THE
!I!TTLE UP TO THE VISTA AND THAT WILL ALL BE TAKEN CARE OF , THERE WILL
BE A GUIDED TOUR UP TO THE VISTA AND ANYTHING ELSE THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- IT SOUNDS LIKE A VERY NICE IDEA .
SUPERVISOR WALTER- NOTED THAT SHE RECEIVED A LETTER REGARDING A
•TREETLIGHT- MR. NEELEY HAS REQUESTED A STREET LIGHT ON LINDEN AVENUE
COU'" ILMAN OLSON- NOTED HE HAD RECEIVED A PETITION FROM RESIDENTS
IN TH. CRANDALL PARK AREA. . .WISHING TO HAVE STREET LIGHTS INSTALLED
SUPERVIS% - WALTER- WE WILL TURN THIS OVER TO THE LIGHTING COMMITTEE. .
COUNCILMAN M. -RELL- STATED THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM ON WEEKS ROAD
THERE IS A NEED FOR LIGHTING. . .
COUNCILMAN OLSON- 'TED THAT THE COMMITTEE WILL LOOK INTO THAT AREA TOO.
SUPERVISOR WALTER- MR. SILVERNZL HAS REQUESTED A NO PARKING ZONE IN
FRONT OF THE CONVENIENT TORE ON MAIN STREET WEST, GLENS FALLS .
DISCUSSION HELD- THIS WIL BE TURNED OVER TO THE COUNTY . . .
OPEN FORUM 8 : 39 P. M.
MR . TURNBULL-EXPRESSED CONCERN 0 R THE DEATHS OF TWO ELDERLY RESIDENTS
AT THE INTERSECTION OF DIX AND CO TY LINE. . .NOTED THAT MR. DAIRE
HAS) AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS REQUESTED AT A LIGHT BE PLACED AT THAT
INTERSECTION . . .
SUPERVISOR WALTER-I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER CAN COMMENT ON THAT BECAUSE
I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THAT WAS THE CAUSE 11F THE ACCIDENT.
CLAIRE HUZAR- NOTED THAT SHE TRAVELED THAT •'OAD AND FOUND THE INTERSECj
TION HARD TO SEE. . .
COUNCILMAN MORRELL- SUGGEST THAT THIS BE REFERR. D TO THE WARREN CO .
TRAFFIC SAFETY BOARD. . .
MR. MARK CLAVIN-MANAGER JOHN BURKE APTS . - NOTED TH •T MORE STREET LIGHTS
ARE NEEDED ON BURKE DRIVE. . . NOTED NUMBER OF ACCIDEN AND VANDALISM
IS HIGH IN THIS AREA. . . REQUESTED A SPEED SURVEY ON i RKE DRIVE . . .
NEED STOP SIGNS ON BURKE DRIVE
SUPERVISOR WALTER- IN REGARD TO THE STREET SIGNS WE WILL IFST CHECK
TO SEE IF THEY LEGALLY CAN BE PLACED THERE-IF NOT WE WILL HAVE THE
CHiIEF INVESTIGATE THE NEED FOR STOP SIGNS. . .
MR. NAYLOR WAS ASKED TO LOOK AT THE STOP SLQNS ALSO. . .
SUPERV TER- WE WILL REFER THE SPEED LIMIT.
MR. ADAMSON-RE : TOP OF THE WORLD-IN THE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO
ARA) WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE CONDO AREA TO THE 300 FEET OF
SHORE FRONTAGE , WHAT ROLE DOES THE SHORE FRONTAGE PLAY IN THE PLAN. . .
MR. HARRISON-THE WAY THIS HAS BEEN APPROACHED IS NOT TO EXCEED THE
REGULATED USE OF THE SHORE LINE. . .
MR. NAYLOR- ANNOUNCED THAT THE P TAIN SAND FOR WINTER USE
BEHIND THE HIG BUILDING DURING WORKING HOURS . . .
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SKETCH ( PUD) PLAT UPON PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW
RFSDIILTJ01y Ni 1_78_, INTRODUCED BY MR. DANIEL MORRELL WHO MOVED FOR ITS
ADOPTION , SECONDED BY DR. CHARLES EISENHART :
WHEREAS, RALPH BOICE AND TOP O 'THE WORLD HAVE SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 15 OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PRELIMINARY
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ( PUD) PLAT APPROVAL OF A PROJECT TO DEVELOP
APPROXIMATELY 1300 ACRES OF LAND SITUATE IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
LOCATED TO THE SOUTH AND EAST OF ROUTE 9L , WEST OF BAY ROAD AND IN THE
IMMEDIATE AND GENERAL VICINITY OF LOCKAHRT ROAD, AND
WHEREAS , THE PROPOSED PROJECT FOR WHICH PRELIMINARY ( PUD) PLAT
APPROVAL IS SOUGHT CONSISTS OF , AMONG OTHER THINGS , THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF 170 TIME-SHARE CONDOMINIUM UNITS
WITH ADDITIONAL RESORT FACILITIES INCLUDING A GOLF COURSE , RIDING
STABLE , CORSS=COUNTRY SKI TRAILS , SWIMMING POOLS , A COMMUNITY CENTER
WITH RESTAURANT FACILITIES , TENNIS COURTS AND OTHER RECREATIONAL
COMPLEX FACILITIES , AND
WHEREAS , IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 15. 043( B ) OF
THE QUEENSBURY ZONING ORDINANCE , THE TOWN BOARD, PURUUANT TO A
RESOLUTION DULY ADOPTED BY THE TOWN BOARD, HELD A PUBLIC HEARING
ON OCTOBER 26 , 1982 , CONCERNING THE PRELIMINARY ( PUD ) PLAT REVIEW
APPLICATION , AND
i
WHEREAS, AT SAID PUBLIC HEARING, ALL PERSONS WISHING TO BE HEARD
CONCERNING THESE MATTERS WERE DULY HEARD BY THE TOWN BOARD , AND
WHEREAS , IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 15 . 043 ( B ) ,
THE PRELIMINARY ( PUD) PLAT WAS FORWARDED TO THE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
BOARD, THE NEW YORK STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT , AND THE NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT , AND
WHEREAS , THE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING BOARD HAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF
THE PRELIMINARY ( PUD) PLAT SUBMITTED , AND
WHEREAS , THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND THE NEW YORK
STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION HAVE ADVISED THE TOWN
BOARD THAT THE RESPECTIVE PERMIT PROCESSES ARE UNDER CONSIDERATION , AND
WHEREAS , NO NEGATIVE COMMENT CONCERNING THE PRELIMINARY ( PUD ) PLAT
HAS BEEN FORTHCOMING FROM THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
OR THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION , AND
WHEREAS , NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE TOWN BOARD ON
OCTOBER 26 , 1982 WAS PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW , AND
WHEREAS , DUE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE PRELIMINARY ( PUD) PLAT
APPLICATION ,
}
NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT
RESOLVED, THAT THE PRELIMINARY SKETCH ( PUD) PLAT SUBMITTED BY RALPH
BOICE AND TOP O ' THE WORLD BE AND THE SAME IS HEREBY APPROVED AND
ACCEPTED, AND BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED , THAT THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS THAT SHALL BE REQUIRED
TO ACCOMPANY AN APPLICATION FOR FINAL APPROVAL SHALL BE THOSE REQUIRED
BY ARTICLE 3 , SECTION 5 AND ARTICLE 6 , SECTION 4 OF THE TOWN OF
nUEENSBURY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS , AND BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, THAT THE AREA OF THE ( PUD) PLAT BE NOTED ON THE TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY ;ZIDNING MAP MAINTAINED IN THE OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
10
AS PROVIDED BY 6 5 . 043 ( D) OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONING
ORDINANCE.
DULY ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES : MR. OLSON , DR. EISENHART, MR. MORRELL , MRS . MONAHAN , MRS . WALTER
NOES : NONE
ABSENT : NONE
SUPERVISOR WALTER- WE NEED TO HAVE FINAL APPROVAL IN SIX MONTHS BUT
THE FACT THAT THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT OF SOME SIZE AND MAGNITUDE WE
UNDERSTAND THAT WE WILL NOT HAVE THE FINAL PLAT BECAUSE THEY ARE JUST 1
PUTTING THE FIRST PHASE BUT THAT WE ARE REQUIRING THE FIRST PHASE
TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN THE SIX MONTHS AND DOES THE BOARD AGREE THAT ,
THAT WOULD BE A STIPULATION
( AGREED UPON BY THE BOARD)
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- SUPPOSE THEY DO THE FIRST PHASE AND THEN DECIDE TO
SELL THE REST OF IT, DOES THAT PUD STILL GO WITH THE REST OF THE LAND?
ATTORNEY JOSEPH BRENNAN- IT IS A PERMANENT PUD UNTIL YOU GET TO THE POINT
WHERE IT IS NOT BEING PURSUED AND THEN UNDER THE TERMS OF THE ORDINANCE
THE TOWN BOARD MAY BY RESOLUTION NOTE THAT THE PUD WOULD NOT BE EFFECTIVE
AS TO THE BALANCE AND THAT THE AREA WOULD REVERT BACK TO THE PRIOR ZONING
DISTRICT OR DISTRICTS IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY WAS LOCATED BEFORE A PUD
APPROVAL. THE ONLY THING I WOULD SUGGEST TO THE BOARD IS THAT , IS THERE
ANY INDICATION OF INTENT AS TO THE SUBSEQUENT SUBMISSIONS AS TO PHASES
SO THAT THE FILING OF A FINAL PLAT FOR SUBDEQUENT PHASES IS NOT LEFT
OPEN ENDED.
MR. DESANTIS- As I THINK COULD BE EASILY UNDERSTOOD WITH A PROJECT THIS
SIZE WE DO NOT HAVE A SPECIFIC OUTSIDE TIME LIMIT, HOWEVER WE HAVE MADE
THIS REPRESENTATION TO BOTH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE PARK AGENCY THAT
OUR PLAN RIGHT NOW IS THAT THE PROJECT WOULD BE BUILT OUT WITHIN FIVE
TO EIGHT YEARS-WE DO NOT ENVISION HAVING SOONER THAN FIVE YEARS-WE DO.
NOT ENVISION IT TAKING LONGER THAN EIGHT YEARS, THE '1.70 UNITS .
I AM SORRY THAT WE CANNOT BE ANY MORE SPECIFIC THAN THAT BUT . . .
ATTORNEY JOSEPH BRENNAN- How ABOUT JUST TO THE SECOND PHASE?
MR. DESANTIS- THE FIRST PHASE AS THE SUPERVISOR JUST SAIDJWE DO NOT
FILE WITHIN SIX MONTHS WERE ARE.:BACK TO SQUARE ONE .
COUNCILMAN OLSON- I AM ASKING ABOUT CONSTRUCTION FINISHED.
MR. DESANTIS- WELL THERE IS ANOTHER TIME LIMIT THAT STARTS THE MINUTE
WE FILE THAT MAPS IN WHICH WE HAVE AT THAT POINT IN TIME WE WOULD GET
A BUILDING PERMIT AND THERE IS A TIME LIMIT ON THE BUILDING PERMIT . WE
WOULD ANTICIPATE SUBJECT TO THE SAME LIMITATIONS. I CAN SAY THAT IT
IS OUR INTENT IF WE CAN COMPLETE THE REVIEW AND REGULATORY PROCESS,
TO BE IN CONSTRUCTION CERTAINLY BY NEXT SUMMER.
COUNCILMAN EISENHART- PHASE I
MR. DESANTIS- RIGHT I DO NOT KNOW EXACTLY , IT WOULD PROBABLY BE ANOTHER
YEAR BEFORE ALL 46 WOULD BE BUILT TO USE A ROUGH ESTIMATION . I WOULD
SAY IN THREE YEARS SAFELY YOU WOULD BE INTO PHASE II , MORE LIKELY
TWO YEARS FROM NOW. YOU ARE TALKING SIX MONTHS BEFORE THE REVIEW
PROCESS IS EVEN COMPtv OF NECESSITY) SO WHEN I SAY TWO YEARS I AM TALKT_NG
EIGHTEEN MONTHS FROM WE CAN FIRST BUILD, TO START PHASE II . I THINK
THAT CAN GIVE THEIBIOARD SOME IDEA OF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT) WE ARE j
NOT TALKING FIFTEEN OR TWENTY YEARSJBUT MORE SPECIFIC THAN THAT I DO
NOT THINK IT IS POSSIBLE FOR US TO STATE .
COUNCILMAN OLSON- THE REQUEST IS TO GRANT THIS APPROVAL FOR 170 UNITS
THE OVERALL PLOT , THE WHOLE ACREAGE OF LAND WE ARE DISCUSSING.
SUPERVISOR WALTER- THAT IS WHAT WE WOULD BE APPROVING
COUNCILMAN OLSON- THAT IS WHAT THIS IS TO APPROVE TONIGHT , BUT THE
REQUEST REALLY HAS BEEN TO BUILD A SECTION OF THIS 46 UNITS-I THINK YOUR
QUESTION BETTY IS , BECAUSE THEY ARE GRANTING A PLOT PLAN) A PUD IN THE
AREA FOR THE 46 UNITS?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-NO , I JUST WANTED SOME PROTECTION FOR THE TOWN IN
THE FUTURE IN CASE THEY FIND OUT THAT THE MARKET IS NOT TNFAG AND THIS
THINK COMES TO A DEAD STOP. I WANT SOME PROTECTION SO WE DO NOT
HAVE AN OPEN ENDED PUD UP THERE .
ATTORNEY JOSPEH BRENNAN- WHAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED/ IS FOR APPROVAL FOR
170 UNITS-IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO MODIFY THAT FLAN TO SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
OF THIS BOARD OF SOMETHING LESS/ THAT IS THE APPLICANTS PREROGATIVE, BUT
THE BOARD DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE AN APPLICATION BEFORE IT FOR
APPROVAL OF 170 AN ENTIRE PROJECT AND SAY WE ARE GOING TO APPROVE 46
OF THIS . WHAT THE PROTECTION IS. THAT UNLESS YOU EXTEND THE TIME PROVIDED
FOR IN THE ORDINANCE , THEORETICALLY THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION WHICH
REQUIRES A FINAL PUD PLAT OR AN AGREED UPON FIRST STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT
FINAL PUD PLAT WITHIN SIX MONTHS THEN THE PUD WILL EFFECTIVELY TERMINATE
AND THE AREA WILL REVERT BACKJTHEREBY NULLIFYING THE PUD IN ITS ENTIRETY ,
SO I THINK YOU DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPECIFY SIX MONTHS CLEARLY AS TO
FIRST PHASESTHAT BEING THE INTENTION OF THE APPLICANT . I DO NOT THINK
YOU DO HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO EXTEND UNLESS YOU WANT TO CONSENT TO DO ITJI'
SPECIFIC TIME PERIODS FOR FILTNG SECOND AND THIRD , FOURTH AND FIFTM
STAGES-IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FIVE ANTICIPATED PHASES OF DEVELOPMENT.
You CAN SPECIFY THE TIME LIMITATION FOR FILING THAT PUD FINAL PLAT AS TO
EACH OF THOSE PHASES, IF THAT IS YOUR DESIRE.
COUNCILMAN EISENHART- I D04JT WANT TO.
COUNCILMAN OLSON- IT CAN BE HANDLED LEGALLY WHEN THAT SITUATION ARISES .
ATTORNEY JOSPEH BRENNAN- BASICALLY) IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO A SPECIFIC
TIME LIMITATIONJYOU ARE SPECIFYING THAT IT IS SIX MONTHS FOR THE FIRST
PHASE AND EFFECTIVELY YOU ARE SAYING TO THE APPLICANT IS. WHEN YOU WANT
TO GO TO THE SECOND PHASE/ YOU COME BACK TO US AND WE WILL ES(9ENTIALLY
SEE WHETHER OR NOT WE AGREE TO EXTEND THE TIME. BECAUSE THERE IS NO
SPECIFIC PROVISION HERE THAT SAYS, IF SOMEONE DOES IT IN PHASES/ THEY GET
SIX MONTHS FOR THE FIRST PHASE AND SIX MONTHS THEREAFTER FOR THE SECOND
PHASE, IT DOES NOT READ THAT WAY AT ALL. I THINK WHAT MR. DESANTIS IS
LOOKING FOR IF I UNDERSTAND HIM CORRECTLY IS/ HE WOULD LIKE SOME STIPULATION
OR AGREEMENT WITH THE BOARD AS TO A TIME LIMITATION WHICH THE ORDINANCE
AFFORDS YOU THE RIGHT TO DO IF YOU SO DESIRE/ FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME AS
TO THE SUBSEQUENT PHASES AND I THINK HE IS SAYING ALL PHASES AT A PARTICU-
LAR TIME WITHOUTSPECIFYING THE REQUIREMENT FOR SECOND, THIRD , FOURTH AND
FIFTH STAGES.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS1HAT WE COULD REQUIRE THAT THE
FINAL STAGING BE DONE BY A YEAR FROM NOW.
ATTORNEY JOSEPH BRENNAN-YES , IF YOU DID THAT OPEN ENC./ YES YOU COULD ,
YOU COULD REQUIRE THE SUBMISSION OF THE FINAL PLAT WITHIN WHATEVER
PERIOD OF TIME THAT YOU AGREE TO WHETHER ITS FIVE YEARS , EIGHT YEARS
OR WHAT EVER/ YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT .
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-DO WE NEED TO DO THIS IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE TOWN OR
DO YOU FEEL THE PROTECTION IS ALREADY THERE?
ATTORNEY JOSEPH BRENNAN- You ARE NOT AGREEING TO AN EXTENSION OF ANY
SPECIFIC PERIOD OF TIME IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO SOMETHING.
COUNCILMAN EISENHART- SO ALL WE HAVE DONE IS SET IT UP !#JD WHEN IT GOES
ON, YOU HAVE TO AGREE TO ANY EXTENSION BEYOND THE SIX MONTHS .
ATTORNEY JOSEPH BRENNAN- I WOULD THINK THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD WANT
SOMETHING AGREED TO AN EXTENSION .
MR. D-{EEAqANTIS- I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS JUST READ ON THE RECORD BY MR. BRENNAN
WASAWHE HAD DISCUSSED CONCERNING THE AGREED UPON FIRST STAGE,
ATTORNEY JOSEPH BRENNAN- SIX MONTHS
MR. DESANTIS- IS THE LANGUAGE IN 15 . 043 SUBD. E.; IF THE FINAL PUD PLAT,
WHICH IS WHAT COUNCILMAN MOYNIHAN IS REFERING TO, OR AN AGREED UPON FIRST
STAGE IS NOT SUBMITTED WITHIN SIX MONTHS
ATTORNEY JOSEPH BRENNAN- THAT IS CORRECT
MR. DESANTIS- I THOUGHT WE WERE TRYING TO DEFINE THE AGREED UPON FIRST
STAGE
IL
ATTORNEY JOSEPH BRENNAN—I DO NOT THINK THERE IS ANY DISAGREEMENT AT ALL ,
WHAT MRS. MONAHAN 'S QUESTION IS , IS IN FACT) IF YOU WERE TO SUBMIT
THE FIRST STAGE WITHIN SIX MONTHS, WHAT WOULD OCCURJIF IN FACT) ITS THEN
TEN YEARS AFTER THAT BEFORE THE PROPOSED SECOND STAGE IS SUBMITTED , WHAT
IS THE EFFECT OF THAT AND HER QUESTION IS, DO YOU PLACE A TIME LIMITATION)
YOU GO SIX MONTHS FOR THE FIRST STAGE) DO YOU THEN PLACE A TIME LIMITATION
EITHER FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE ENTIRE PROJECT OR DO YOU PLACE A TIME
LIMITATION FOR EACH OF THE ANTICIPATED PHASES OF THE PROJECT WHEN THAT
FINAL PUD PLAT MUST BE SUBMITTED AS TO EACH PHASEJOR DO YOU JUST LEAVE
IT OPEN ANDSAYJ YOU MUST SUBMIT THE FINAL PHASE BY SUGH AND SUCH A DATE.
COUNCILMAN EISENHART— IF IT DOES NOT GO ON1 WE CAN STOP IT ANY TIME. ,
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN— THAT IS WHAT I AM TRYING TO FIND OUT.
ATTORNEY JOSEPH BRENNAN—THAT IS REALLY AN IMPOSSIBLE QUESTION TO ANS—
WER , YOU WOULD BE DEALING UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES1IS REALLY
IN M( OPINIONJAS TO WHAT WOULD BE REASONABLE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME^
I AM CERTAIN WE CAN TAKE THE EXTREME. IF YOU WENT TWENTY YEARS BEFORE
YOU GOT TO THE SECOND STAGE, IN ALL LIKELYHOOD THAT IS GOING TO BE
DEEMED UNREASONABLE , BUT U. YOU ASKED TO QUOTE A SPECIFIC TIME LIMITATION
ON WHAT WOULD BE CONSTRUED AS BEING A REASONABLE PERIIOD OF TIME BEYOND
THE FIRST PHASEJYOUR ESTIMATE OF THAT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY AS GOOD AS MINE
WOULD BE.
MR. HARRISON— WE ARE GOING TO SUBMIT A PHASING PLAN FOR THE ENTIRE
DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE 170TH UNIT. .
ATTORNEY JOSEPH BRENNAN— YOU ARE PLANNING THAT) WHEN YOU SUBMIT WITHIN
SIX MONTHS) YOU WILL PROJECT THE ENTIRE PHASE AND LOOK FOR PERIODS OF TIME
PER PHASE THROUGH TO COMPLETIONNBEFORE YOU GET FINAL APPROVAL .
MR. HARRISON— I AM CERTAIN WE CAN ADDRESS THE SECOND PHASE WITH A DEGREE
OF CERTAINTY.
ATTORNEY JOSEPH BRENNAN—IF THAT IS THE CIRCUMSTANCE) WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING
MRS, IIdONAHAN , I THINK YOU ARE ADEQUATELY PROTECTED.
RESOLUTION TO ' PPROVE AUDIT OF BILLS
a M' • INTRODUCED BY DR. CHARLES EISENHART WHO MOVED
FOR ITS ADOPTION , SE •NDED BY MR. DANIEL MORRELL :
RESOLVED , THAT AUDIT OF 3 . S AS LISTED ON ABSTRACT No . 82-11D AND
NUMBERED 2136-2137 AND TOTAL G $3 ,532 . 65 BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED.
DULY ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOT
AYES : MR. OLSON , DR. EISENHART , MR. ORRELL , MRS , MONAHAN , MRS . WALTER
NOES : NONE
ABSENT : NONE
ON MOTION THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED ,
DONALD A. CHASE ,
TOWN CLERK
} j, (ram, ?( 1�r3
I HAVE WRITTEN TO MR. YASKO AND MR. HARRISON THANKING HEM FOR THEIR
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE TOWN. . .
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
RESOLUTION NO . 55 , INTRODUCED BY MRS. BETTY MO •HAN WHO MOVED FOR ITS
ADOPTION , SECONDED BY DR. CHARLES EISENHART :
WHEREAS, MR. C. MATTHEW YASKO HAS SERVED ON THE QUEENSBURY RECREATION
COMMISSION FOR MANY YEARS AND
WHEREAS , MR. C. MATTHEW YASKO HAS GIVEN 0 THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
MANY YEARS OF DEVOTED SERVICE AND UNTO to EXPERTISE WHICH HAS
ENHANCED OUR COMMUNITY AND YOUTH DEVE •PMENT AND
WHEREAS , MR. BRYAN HARRISON HAS SERV D ON THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING
.{ OARD AND
WHEREAS, MR. BRYAN HARRISON HAS VEN FREELY OF HIS EXPERTISE TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF OUR GROWING TOWN , NOW , THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED , THAT THE TOWN BOARD FISHES TO EXPRESS TO BOTH THESE DEDICATED
INDIVIDUALS THEIR HEART FELT HANKS FOR THEIR MANY HOURS OF VOLUNTEER
LABOR TOWARD THE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR TOWN.
DULY ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOW G VOTE :
AYES : MR. OLSON , DR. SENHART , MR. MORRELL , MRS . MONAHAN , MRS . WALTER
NOES : NONE
ABSENT : NONE
COMMUNICATIONS
LTR. THOMAS FLAHER Y— RE : TOTAL INSTRUMENTATION MAINTENANCE CONTRACT
WITHOLDING RECOMMrNDATION FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION . . . . ON FILE
LTR. STEPHEN LY RE : REQUEST FOR NEW STAFF VEHICLE ON FILE
SUPERVISOR WAL ' R ANNOUNCED THAT THE VEHICLE NOW USED BYTHE BUILDING
AND ZONING DE' . WAS INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT AND IS NO LONGER ABLE
TO BE USED NOTED THAT THERE IS MONEY IN THE BUDGET FOR A VEHICLE
BUT NOT A FO R WHEEL DRIVE. . .
COUNCILMAN ' ISENHART— I WOULD NEED MORE DISCUSSION TO GO TO AN EIGHT
CYLINDER F'iUR WHEEL DRIVE CAR. . .
DISUSSIO.. HELD : MR. DEAN NOTED WHERE THE VEHICLE WOULD BE USED AND
WHAT TY' E OF WORK WAS EXPECTED OF IT—NOTED THAT THEY NOW CARRY SHOVELS
FOR PE"C TESTS AND RAIN GEAR . . . SPOKE ON THE UNDEVELOPED ROADS THAT
THEY WAVE TO TRAVEL. , .
COUN ILMAN OLSON IS IT VERY OFTEN WHEN BOTH OF YOU ARE OUT OF THE OFFICE?
MR. MACK DEAN— NOT OFTEN — COUNCIMAN MONAHAN— QUESTIONED THE MAINTENANCE
AN* RUNNING EXPENSE OF A DIESEL" COUNCILMAN EISENHART— ASKED FOR SOME
R' CORDS TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A DEFINITE NEED FOR A FOUR—WHEELDRIVE
EHICLE . . . SUPERVISOR WALTER— WE WILL TAKE THIS UNDER CONSIDERATION . . .
-QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD APPROVED PUD IN GENERAL CONCEPT FOR DEVELOP—
MENT OF THE TOP 0' THE WORLD AS PRESENTED. ON FILE
—SUPERVISOR WALTER, WE HAVE RECEIVED CONTRACTS FROM 'E CITY RE :
BUS SYSTEM REQUESTED THAT THE BOARD REVIEW THE 'SNTRACTS
DISCUSSION HELD IN REGARD TO PUBLIC INFORMAT ! ' MEETING FOR THE
BUS SYSTEM THE INFORMATION MEETING WILL = HELD 3-15-83 AT
7 : 30 P. M. SHOWING THE ROUTES ETC. T BUS SYSTEM WILL TAKE . .
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN ASKED MR. TURNB IF HIS GROUP HAD EXPRESSED ANY
INTEREST MR. TURNBULL REQU- TED AT THE HEARING THAT MAPS BE HANDED
OUT OF THE ROUTES SO PEOPLE 'N SEE THEM BETTER. . .
COUNCILMAN OLSON— DISQ 'LIFIED HIMSELF FROM THE TOWN BOARD AND THEN
APPROACHED THE BOAR. AS A CITIZEN. . . HE THEN REQUESTED A ONE YEAR
VARIANCE TO LEAV IS GAS TANKS IN THE GROUND. . NOTED HE HAS SOME INTERESTED
PARTIES IN THE 'ROPERTY WHO DO .WISH TO UTILIZE THE TANKS ( LOCATION LWR.
WARREN ST. )
FIRE MA' -AL BODENWEISER— APPROACHED THE BOARD NOTING THAT HE W,PSHED TO
SEE THE TANKS REMOVED , HE SPOKE TO THE TOWN BOARD ON OTHER VIOLATIONS
(evil 1�, 147n
SUPERVISOR WALTER- ASKED FOR FURTHER INPUT ON THE PUBLIC HEARING ,
NO ONE SPOKE THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED 8 :40 P . M.f
TOWN CLERK- DOES THE TOWN BOARD HAVE AN UP-TODATE DRAFT OF THE TRANSIENT
MERCHANTS ORDINANCE? MY COPY STILL RELATES TO IT AS AN ORDINANCE ,
WE HAD THE WRONG MATERIAL IN MY OFFICE TO REALLY ADVERTISE , WE NEVER
HAD THE PROPER DRAFT ON THE LOCAL LAW , ONE WAY TO AVOID A PUBLIC HEARING
ON REPEALING THE ORDINANCES WAS TO, AS I ASKED FOR IN THE WORKSHOPS; A
SECTION IN THE LOCAL LAW REPEALING THE TWO ORDINANCES. REVIEWED
SEVERAL ORDINANCES THAT WERE REPEALED WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS. . . ORDINANCE
22 REPLACED BY ORDINANCE 25. . . 1977 LOCAL LAW #2 REPLACED ORDINANCE 42
. . . ORDINANCE 36 REPLACED BY LOCAL LAW IN 1979 IN EACH CASE NO PUBLIC
HEARING WAS HELD
UPERVISOR WALTER- INTRODUCED MR. RALPH BOICE AND MR. FRANK DESANTIS
TOP O!= THE WORLD PROJECT-
MR. DESANTIS-ON MARCH 3 , 1983 THE PLANNING BOARD GAVE ITS FINAL APPROVAL
ON PHASE I AND FINAL CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT AS A WHOLEJAS
A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT , THIS MATTER NOW COMES BACK BEFORE THE TOWN
BOARD TO DETERMINE WHAT APPROVAL THIS BOARD WILL GIVE , WE ARE HERE TONIGHT
TO ASK THE TOWN BOARD TO GIVE US CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF THE PUD PLAT.
CONDITIONAL UPON ALL RECEIPT OF ALL THE NECESSARY PERMITS AS SET FORTH
BY THE PLANNING BOARD ON MARCH 3RD. ON APRIL 7TH 1983„ THE PARK AGENCY
GAVE US A CLASS A REGIONAL APPROVAL , WE ARE NOW AWAITING RECEIPT OF THE
HARD COPY BY THE OPERATION DIRECTOR. . . IN REGARD TO THE DEPT . OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION, ALL PERMIT APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED-THE PERIOD FOR
PUBLIC COMMENT ENDED ON MARCH 25 , NO FURTHER COMMENT WAS RECEIVED--WE HAVE
BEEN INFORMED THAT ENCON DOES NOT INTEND TO CONDUCT ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING.
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH IS IN THE PROCESS AND IS AWAITING RECEIPT OF SOME
FURTHER WELL TESTS WHICH ARE BEING CONDUCTED RIGHT NOW . . . IF THE TOWN
BOARD GIVES US CONDITIONAL APPROVAL) WE THEN HAVE ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY
DAYS TO COME BACK BEFORE THE TOWN BOARD FOR FINAL APPROVAL . . . IF AT THAT
TIME THE BOARD GIVES FINAL APPROVAL WE WILL HAVE THIRTY DAYS TO FILE THE
FINAL MAP WITH THE COUNTY CLERK) THAT WOULD BE THE FINAL ACT IN THE CREATION
OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT .
( DISCUSSION WAS HELD ON THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL STEP IN THE ORDINANCE )
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- HOW WILL THE WATER BE MONITORED AT THE SITE?
MR. DESANTIS- THE APA DRAFT PERMIT DOES CONTAIN IN IT A REQUIREMENT
THAT THERE BE GROUND WATER MONITORING SYSTEMS , FIVE DOWN SLOPE WELLS-
THE SITE OF THE WELLS HAS NOT BEgvAGREED UPON) TODATE THERE HAS BEEN
NO BACKGROUND INFORMATION TO COMPARE FUTURE RESULTS AGAINST. . . IT DOES
CALL FOR QUARTERLY TESTING. . .
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- THIS HAS TO BE SET UP BEFORE THE END OF THE ONE HUNDRED
AND EIGHTY DAYS?
MR. DESANTIS-THIS HAS TO BE FINALIZED BEFORE THE APA WILL ISSUE A PERMIT.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- WHAT KIND OF A SEPTIC SYSTEM DID YOU END UP WITH?
MR. DESANITS- SEVEN INDIVIDUAL SYSTEMS. . .
SUPERVISOR WALTER- THANKED MR. DESANTIS AND MR. BOICE FOR APPEARING
HERE THIS EVENING. . .
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MINUTES
RESOLUTION NO . 7i, INTRODUCED BY OR. CHARLES EISENHART WHO MOVED FOR ITS
ADOPT N , SECONDED BY MR. DANIEL MORRELL :
RESOLVED, T T THE TOWN BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 22 , 1983 BE AND HEREBY
ARE APPROVED.
DULY ADOPTED BY THE OLLOWING VOTE :
'NOES : MR. OLSON , DR. EISENHART , MR. MORRELL , MRS . MONAHAN , MRS . WALTER
NOES : NONE
ABSENT : NONE
Lou Cr-) % a , i A(6
WHEREAS , THIS TOWN BOARD HAS CONDUCTED A PUBLIC HEARING IN ' ANECTION
WITH SAID APPLICATION AND HAS HEARD ALL PERSONS DESIRING ■ BE HEARD
IN FAVOR OF OR AGAINST SAID APPLICATION , AND
WHEREAS , IT IS HEREBY DETERMINED THAT THE FACT RESENTED IN SAID
APPLICATION AND AT SAID PUBLIC HEARING ARE . FICIENT TO AUTHORIZE
THE ISSUANCE OF THE PERMIT REQUESTED BY • D APPLICATION , THEREFORE
BE IT
RESOLVED , THAT PURSUANT TO THE P".VISIONS OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED
ORDINANCE, PERMISSION IS HEREB GIVEN TO WESLEY J . EGGLESTION TO LOCATE
A MOBILE HOME AT PROPERTY S UATED AT DEAN DRIVE AND THAT THE BUILDING _
INSPECTOR IS HEREBY AUTHO' ZED AND DIRECTED TO ISSUE SUCH PERMIT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RMS AND CONDITIONS OF SAID ORDINANCE .
DULY ADOPTED BY T " FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES : MR. O ON , DR. EISENHART , MR . MORRELL , MRS . MONAHAN , MRS . WALTER
NOES : ► liNE
AB - T : NONE
( DISCUSSION HELD IN REGARD TO TOP OF THE WORLD—COUNCILMAN MORRELL , SECONDED
-...*
BY COUNCILMAN EISENHART AGREED TO THE FOLLOWING : RESOLUTION CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL FOR THE TOP OF THE WORLD CONTINGENT UPON ITS APPROVAL OF OTHER
APPLICABLE AGENCIES WITH THE PROVISIONS TO THE TOWN BOARD OF OTHER DOCUMENTS
WHICH WE MAY DEEM NECESSARY RESOLUTION FORTHCOMING FROM TOWN COUNSEL
TO BE FOUND ON PAGE . 1;',. .
( RESOLUTION NO. 82 )
DULY ADOPTED BY TI-rE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES : MR. OLSON , DR. EISENHART , MR. MORRELL , MRS . MONAHAN , MRS . WALTER
NOES : NONE
ABSENT : NONE
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUPERVISOR TO SIGN BUS AGREEMENTS—GREATER
GLENS FALLS TRANSIT SYSTEM
RESOLUTION NO . 83 , INTRODUCED BY MRS . BETTY MONAHAN WHO MOVED FOR ITS
ADOPTION , SECONDED BY MR. DANIEL MORRELL :
RESOLUTION TO BE FORTHCOMING FROM TOWN COUSEL TO BE FOUND dN PAGE 139
DULY ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES : MR. OLSON , DR. EISENHART , MR. MORRELL , , 'S . MONAHAN , MRS . WALTER
NOES : NONE
ABSENT : NONE
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN— THE TARGET DA FOR HAVING THE BUSSES IN SERVICE IS
JULY 1ST.
SUPERVISOR WALTER— THE TOWN S COST OF THE CAPITAL EXPENSES IS $14 ,393 . 00
PAID THIRTY DAYS AFTER R ' IPT OF THE BUSSES . . . THE OPERATING BUDGET
IS $ 16 , 704 . 00 TO BE PAI % ON THE 1ST. OF MAY.
COUNCILMAN OLSON— W ' THERE ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO THE EXTENSION
OF THE ROUTE TO T WARREN CO. MUNICIPAL CENTER?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN— THE IDEA RIGHT NOW IS TO GET THE ROUTES THAT HAVE
BEEN TALKED ABUT IN PLACE AND OPERATING AND THEN START TO WORK FOR ANY
ADJUSTMENTS . . .
T PUBLIC HEARING TO
RESOLUTI' TOAABOLISH ORDINANCE 16 AND 35 OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
: 0 Ih ► I INTRODUCED BY DR. CHARLES EISENHART WHO MOVED
FOR ITS ADOPTION , SECONDED BY MRS . BETTY MONAHAN
RESOLUTION FORTHCOMING FROM TOWN COUNSEL TO BE FOUND ON PAGE l*q .
RESOLUTION GIVING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL TO TOP O ' THE WORLD PROJECT
RESOLUTION NO . 82, INTRODUCED BY MR. DANIEL MORRELL WHO MOVED FOR ITS
ADOPTION, SECONDED BY DR . CHARLES EISENHART :
WHEREAS, SECTION 15 . 04(C) OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONING ORDINANCE
PROVIDES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL BY THE TOWN BOARD
OF AN APPLICATION FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND
WHEREAS, SUCH APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY RALPH BOICE BY HIS ATTORNEY,
FRANK V. DESANTIS, FOR CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF THE TOP 0' THE WORLD
PROJECT IS NOW PENDING FOR THE TOWN BOARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
AFORESAID SECTION, AND
WHEREAS, THE PLANNING BOARD FOR THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY GAVE ITS
FINAL APPROVAL OF PHASE I AND FINAL CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF THE
ENTIRE PROJECT, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, THAT THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY HEREBY
ISSUE ITS CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PHASE I OF THE TOP 0' THE WORLD
DEVELOPMENT SUCH CONDITION BEING APPROVAL AND COMPLIANCE WITH ALL
CONDITIONS BY ANY AND ALL PERMIT ISSUING AGENCIES HAVING AUTHORITY
AND SUCH OTHER CONDITIONS THAT THE TOWN BOARD DEEMS REASONABLE AND
NECESSARY .
DULY ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES : MR. OLSON, DR. EISENHART, MR. MORRELL, MRS . MON AHAN, MRS . WALTER
NOES : NONE
ABSENT : NONE
Marra 6)--?, f?y
112
Supervisor Walter- The Town Board will take no action on the proposed amendments
to Ordinance No. 10...tabled to review comments made at the public hearing...
4 RESOLUTION GIVING FINAL APPROVAL FOR PHASE I TOP O' THE WORLD PUD
PLAT
RESOLUTION NO. 77, Introduced by Dr. Charles Eisenhart who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr. Daniel Morrell:
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury gave conditional approval to Phase I of Top 0' The
World Pud development by Resolution on April 12, 1983, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15.044 (c) of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, the Queensbury
Planning Board granted an extension to file a final plat until April 7, 1984, and
WHEREAS, the Project Sponsors, Ralph A. Boice, Top 0' The World Development Co.,
Inc., and Top 0' The World owners Association, Inc. (hereinafter called sponsors) have
complied with the conditions imposed by the Town Board's Resolution of April 12, 1983
and further by letter dated March 23, 1984, (Copy attached as exhibit 1), Representing
and guaranteeing that the sponsors will fully comply with the obligations contained in
the following permits and approvals, copies of which are on file with the Queensbury
Building Department, namely:
1. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation State Pollutant discharge
elimination system permit No. NY-0131792;
2. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Water Supply Permit
No. 7329, D.E.C. No. 50•-82-0287;
3. Adirondack Park Agency Decisional order dated June 1, 1983, project No. 82-240A;
4.. All of the pertinent provisions of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, including
but not limited to Article 15, and
WHEREAS, the project sponsor has filed with the Town of Queensbury Building Department,
a survey map dated September 20, 1982, made by Coulter and McCormack, LS, for Top
0' The World, Inc. and amended March 21, 1984 to delineate the open space to be reserved
as common property pursuant to Section 15.035 of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,
and
WHEREAS, the Sponsors have agreed to file with the Town of Queensbury all final Convenants,
by-laws and other documents creating homeowner associations and any and all offering
plans or documents prepared for submission to the Attorney General's Office pursuant
to Section 352-E of the General Business Law, and further that the Sponsors have agreed
to comply with the performance guarantees set forth in paragraph 5 of the Adirondack
Park Agency order dated June 1, 1983, Project No. 82-240A,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury
hereby approves the final PUD Nat of the Project sponsors with reference to Phase I
of the project, construction of which shall be jointly monitored by the Queensbury Building
Department, as required, and the Adirondack Park Agency under its Phase I order of
June 1, 1983, and be it further
RESOLVED, that prior to new construction a performance Bond naming the Town of
Queensbury and the Adirondack Park Agency as joint obligees, and complying with the
performance guarantees set forth in paragraph 5 of the Adirondack Park Agency order
dated June 1, 1983, Project No. 82-240A, shall be submitted to the Town of Queensbury
for its approval of form and content.
Duly adopted by the following vote: ..J
Ayes: Mr. Olson, Dr.'Eisenhart, Mr. Morrell, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
Noes: None
Absent: None
Councilman Morrell-Should the amount of the performance bond be stated in the resolution?
Supervisor Walter-That was set forth in the re .olution dated June 1, 1983 APA order...
Unknown- questioned if there would be any more public hearings on the Top 0' The World 113
Development?
Councilman Monahan- this only deals with phase one...
Supery or Walter- Mr. Harris is now present, we have closed the public hearing on the
Mobile ' ome, he had problems with his vehicle on the way to the hearing, I would like
to, even Al ough we are not at a public hearing, would like to give him some opportunity
to corn me. or answer any questions from the board. One of the questions that we had
was, do yo own the land or not?
Mr. Harris- I .o not.
Councilman Ei• -nhart- Are you living there?
•
Mr. Harris- yes.
Councilman Eisen :rt- How did you happen to move in without a permit?
Mr. Harris-1 applied or one, I made out the paper work earlier...I did not get it all turned
in, but 1 did apply fo one.
Councilman Monahan- f you do not own the land, under what kind of an arrangement
are you there?
Mr. Harris-Lease.
Councilman Monahan- For 'ow long?
Mr. Harris- One year.
Councilman Monahan-Has you septic been approved?
Mr. Harris- No, It has not been i spected.
Councilman Monahan- What is yo water supply?
Mr. Harris- Driven well.
Councilman Monahan- On this piece if property?
Mr. Harris-Yes.
Councilman Olson- Was it last fall that •u were going to apply for a permit?
Mr. Harris-Yes
Counciman Monahan- Mr. Dean, are mobile omes supposed to have skirts?
Mr. Dean-no inspection has been made of the obile home.
Councilman Monahan-The mobile home does not ook level...
Mr. Harris-It is level, 1 just moved it in not long a: I, I have not had a chance to skirt
it...
Councilman Eisenhart-Where did you get the name of he Street?
Mr. Harris-I guess from Mr. Barry Converse.
Councilman Monahan- It is our understanding that, that is not an approved Town Road
that it is on...
Mr. Harris- I guess that is correct, it is a private road.
I
Councilman Olson- I personally do not know how we can addre-• ourselves to this application
when it is not on a Town Road. You only have a one year lease, e permit is a permanent
permit...
Mr. Harris-I do not know anything ubout those particulars, all I know that my Sister
lives there on the adjoining property, I like the neighborhood, I know the people, I know
what they have been through I am just trying to get a permit to live there and bring up
my family.
211
TOWN BOARD MEETING
JULY 8, 1986.
7:33 P. M.
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS
Mrs. Frances Walter - Supervisor
Mr. George Kurosaka - Councilman
Mr. Stephen Borgos - Councilman
Mr. Ronald Montesi - Councilman
Mrs. Betty Monahan - Councilman
---- PRESS: Glens Falls Post Star, WBZA
GUESTS: Peter Cornell
TOWN OFFICIALS: Mr. Paul Naylor
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY: Supervisor Walter
MEETING OPENED: 7:33 P.M.
4. SUPERVISOR WALTER - Stated that the first order of business was the presentation
relative to the Top 0' World plans and development in the Town of Queensbury
and since the approval of PUD by the Town Board there has been some changes made
and now there are new owners. We would like to have the Town Board filled in
on what is happening up there and will then take any action that needs to be taken.
Addressed Mr. Oliver, Coodinator for the Galisi Group to introduce who is going
to represent the Top 0' World.
MR. OLIVER - Introduced Peter Cornell, Senior Vice President of the Top O'World
project.
PETER CORNELL - Senior Vice President and Area Representative - The purpose of
this is to bring the Town Board up to the point of where we are since we took
possession of this project on or about the first of the year. We have proceeded
with the basic plan set forth by the original owners. In doing a project like
this from time to time you come up against some restraints with the actual physical
construction which means that we have had to move buildings as well as the previous
owners had to do. For the purpose of this Board to understand exactly what is
going on Mr. Richard Eats, our engineer has prepared a plan which indicates the
original profile and plan of the buildings as well as the new plan.
RICHARD EATS - Environmental Design, presently involved with the developers of
the Top 0' World. Essentially what we have done is put a composite map together
to show the Board what the Galisi Group has done over the past two or three months,
also showed the Board the overlay conditions which were in existence when the
Galisi Group took over. The point I want to make is that these units shown
on the map are units already constructed either in total or framed, already in
the ground, and some are different than the original plan. He showed the Board
the actual locations their survey crews made of the sites so they would know exactly
where the units are on the improved plan. The overlay shows revised phase I site
plan, also units that have been split or moved because of various field conditions
encountered on site. Noted that some of the footings in place are different then
those originally approved and what is in the field because of water lines running
through that location and because of a ledge problem there also. We had our a ae-14.;0►l
crew go out and locate the buildings as approved, we found out that some conditions
were very severe building conditions because the unit was hanging over the edge
of a slope. This is very difficult to build under normal conditions so we suggested
tying the buildings together not essentially changing the overall plans but combining
them to make a more realistic plan. The other changes in these buildings are
' because of a very severe wet area again almost impossible to build on. We would
like to see building zones placed around the buildings as staked in the field
that are not constructed yet, this would give us some flexibility in locating
these buildings that are not constructed yet. Then when our foundations are in
we would like to submit to either your board or the planning board plans of that
foundation so that you will know exactly where that building will be.
COUNCILMAN BORGOS - Asked if the maximum movement of a building would be about
twenty-five feet?
212
RICHARD EATS - Yes. The intent is not to change the overall planning, just minor
adjustments, the design is still intact.
SUPERVISOR WALTER - Asked what happened when a building is moved and a buyer already
has a unit and the building going up next to him is not what he preceived.
when he was in the sales office or it restricts him from doing what he wants to
do or what he want to see.
RICHARD EATS - The units are shown to the buyer as a whole concept and as part
of that concept we may because of certain building restraints have to move a specific
building already detailed out in the planning and if it is a drastic change, what
is usually dictated by the Attorney General's Office is that we offer the purchaser
the right of decision of relocation or the right to back out of the contract.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI - Noted that this is the largest single development under PUD
and felt very comfortable with what the planners have come back with. Asked if
the changes have altered any of the density of the development? That is a considerate„)
and constraint that the DEC and APA have put pressure on the Board to watch.
The other question is the septic systems, has anything been done to make things
better or is there going to be some problems ?
PETER CORNELL - Regarding the density there is no change. On the septic issue
we looked at it prior to purchase and had some reservations so we asked our engineers
to come up with alternative plans as far as waste disposal. We know that it has
to go through the appropriate channels but if we can come up with a better alternative
system that is better for the project and better for the community at large, we
hope to have the appropriate support. We think a central disposal system, central
collection system would be more appropriate for projects such as this.
RICHARD EATS - Alternative septic systems are in the analysis stage at this time
to find out exactly where a central facility could be located.
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA - Asked if the group was planning a package plan, rather than
have individual tanks there will be one large tank and leach into the ground.
MR. DENNIS MACELROY - No, larger leach fields there will be clustered tanks for
the solids and the fluids will be collected and pumped over the mountian to the
East side to the central collections, the disposal site.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI - Asked if they foresee any substantial changes in Phase
I other than this these, that may require them coming back to the Zoning Board
or Planning Board of Appeals, because these are the lead agencies and they are
trying to address things as the changes are made so things can continue through
each phase.
PETER CORNELL - From past experience in developing, most municipalities give an
envelope system which is illustrated on the drawing or give a latitude as far
as the number of feet to move a building without having to go through the whole
process, by merely notifying the Building Department of the adjusted location.
When it gets beyond the extenuating circumstances which is a certain number of
feet then we have to come back because there is something drastically wrong with
the plan.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI - Noted that he had been referring to the concept of condominiums
located on the mountain in that kind of setting which does not show much commercial
development, asked if that concept changed.
PETER CORNELL - The only problem we have had is the sporadic spread of swimming
pools throughout the project. What we would like to see is the swimming pools
located in one central area. We will come back with a proposal for that type
of arrangement. Noted that in dealing with the volume of water, it would be the
same just centrally located. Introduced Paul Mattarazzo, the Project Director
who is on site at all times and invited the entire board or anyone who wishes
to visit the site to do so.
SUPERVISOR WALTER - Thanked Mr. Cornell.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MINUTES
RESOLUTION NO. 177, n ed by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption
seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos:
G10
DATE : August 10, 1986
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to issue a p- ..it
to the aforesaid sponsor subject to the following conditions:
A. Receipt of proof of Insurance.
1. The Insurance Company must be licensed in the State of ew York
1 2. The Town of Queensbury must be named as an additio.al insured
B. Inspections and approval must be made by the Queen .ury Fire Marshal and
the Chief of Queensbury Central Fire Dept.
C. There must be adequate parking and access fo emergency vehicles
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mr. . Monahan, Mrs. Walter
Noes: None
Absent: None
DISCUSSION HELD - Regarding the Fire :rshal, Fire Chief, license to do business
with the State of New York and the i. -urance involved in the district this is
being held.
RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT PLACEMENT '4F BUOYS IN GLEN LAKE
RESOLUTION NO.182, Introduced •y Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption
seconded by Mr. Stephen Bor: .s:
WHEREAS, the homeowners a Glen Lake, situated in the Town of Queensbury, Warren
County, New York have a :enuine concern about identifying rock shoals in the lake,
L. and
WHEREAS, the Glen L. e Association wishes to have buoys placed in the lake denoting
these hazards, and
WHEREAS, the Qu- -nsbury Town Board requests the New York State Bureau of Marine
and Recreation. Vehicles to cooperate with the Glen Lake Association in the siting
and placing o buoys in Glen Lake for the purpose of boating safety.
Duly adopt-d by the following vote:
Ayes: M . Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
Noes: one
Ab=•nt: None
:UPERVISOR WALTER - This is at the request of Mr. Ogden, President of the Glen
Lake Association who has had contact with Bureau of Marine or Recreational Vehicles
and they wish to have some kind of support for their request.
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACTUAL STAGING OF PHASE I, TOP OF THE WORLD, PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT.
RESOLUTION NO. 183. Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption
seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos:
WHEREAS, by resolution number 77 of 1984 the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury
granted final approval for "Phase I Top O'the World" Planned Unit Development
Plat, and
WHEREAS, at the time of such approval the Town was not provided with a "to scale"
layout detailing the location of the 46 residential units authorized by such resolution,
216
and
WHEREAS, Lake George Ventures, Inc. , has acquired ownership of all of the real
property within Phase I of the Top of the World Development, and
WHEREAS, Lake George Ventures, Inc. , has appeared before the Town Board of the
Town of Queensbury and presented testimony, expert opinion, and "as-built" plans
showing the location of structures currently constructed or in construction together
with the exact description of the area in which the remaining authorized structures
shall be built, and
WHEREAS, the Building and Zoning Department has approved and issued building permits
for the structures shown on said "as-built" plans, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board finds in accordance with Section 15.060 of the PUD provisions
of the zoning ordinance that the "as built" plans evidence compliance with the
requirements for the ratio between residential and non-residential structures,
and
WHEREAS, the "as-built" plans conform in spirit and interest with the conditions
and requirements heretofore set by the Town Board,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the actual
staging of Phase I of the Top Or the World Planned Unit Development as described
in the presented "as-built" plans with the following conditions:
1. Lake George Ventures, Inc. , shall provide the Town Building and Zoning
Department with an actual survey showing the footings of all structures within
the quadrants or envelopes hereby approved:
2. Lake George Ventures, Inc. , shall comply with all conditions and requirements
of the Adirondack Park Agency:
3. Lake George Ventures, Inc. , shall submit to the Town for its approval
a Performance Bond as specified in Resolution Number 77 of 1984 or an assignment
of the existing Performance bond heretofore approved by the Town.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
Noes: None
Absent: None
SUPERVISOR WALTER - Asked Mr. Roberts as Chairman of the Planning Board for his
commments.
RICHARD ROBERTS - Stated that he felt very comfortable with the development.
SUPERVISOR WALTER - Addressed Mr. Cornell that everything was in order and the
Board would see him for phase II.
COMMUNICATIONS
- Ltr, Lake Geor:• Opera Festival requesting fireworks display on the grounds
of the Queensbury igh School on the evening of August 2, 1986 - on file.
COUNCILMAN BORGOS - Re. ested that cleanup of the area must be completed by 10:00
A.M. inculding all unexp •ded shells.
DISCUSSION HELD - To incorpora - those conditions for approval of the Fire Marshal,
the Fire Chief, the fact that the leanup would be completed before 10:00 A. M.
the following day, and also the insu •nce to do business in the State of New York.
RESOLUTION TO CONDUCT FIREWORKS
RESOLUTION NO. 184, Introduced by Mr. Ronald .ntesi who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr.George Kurosaka:
6 .jam 13 , � 1
Road but our property stops at about 500 so we are 500 feet from the pond and 70 feet
above it, so I don't see much trouble.
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-You are ly well above it and unless you encroach on the
500 feet, then it will be in the En ' nmental Impact Statement anyway.
SUPERVISOR WALTE sked for further comments, none were heard, I will leave this Public
Hearing oten.
THIRD PUBLIC HEARING-AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 15 PUD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SHOWN
SUPERVISOR WALTER-This Public Hearing is an amendment to Article 15, which is a Planned
Unit Development Article...This is the second Public Hearing we have had on this particular
article. The Town Board has made some changes in the wording and felt that they were sufficient '
to have another Public Hearing. Asked for public comment?
BILL RALSTON-Krolick and DeGraff, Albany, New York...We represent Lake George Venture,
Inc. the owner of the Top of the World Resort Community, which is an existing planned unit
development in the Town of Queensbury. There are two areas of concern in reviewing the
proposed amendments, which I outlined in a letter this morning to Mrs. Walter. The first
being the applicability of the new Ordinance to existing PUD's. I understand that the Top
of the World is the only approved planned unit development in the Town of Queensbury at
this time so I speak specifically about that. We feel and confirmed by Wilson Mathias, Town
Counsel in a telephone conversation with me, that the substitutes provisions of the amendment
of the new Ordinance with requirements of new PUDS, should not be applicable in subsequent
site plan approval for subsequent phases at the Top of The World, because the original resolution
which approved that PUD, granted the developer certain rights to build certain amenities
and one specific one we know is not consistent with the proposed amendment, in the amount
of commercial space allowed in a new PUD. For example...there was a restaurant approved
as part of the original ordinance of approximately 10 to 11 thousand square feet which would
be deemed commercial space within the PUD, your new amendment only allows 2400 square
feet per 100 units which would essentially restrict them to 2400 square feet. I don't know
if the amendment is silent as to its appicability with respect to existing PUD and I want to I
know what the Town Boards' intent is, in regard to that issue? There is a second aspect of
the amendment we would also like to address which is also outlined in the letter...this is the J
lack of any provisions for changes to a final site plan approval. The way it is set up you go
through the preliminary site plan approval process, then your building permit is issued which
is the point where the developer goes out into the field and actually starts the construction
and various conditions could mandate changes in location of buildings, drainage and roads...
the amendment is silent to what happens if the developer needs to make changes in his final
plan. This situation occurred in the construction of Phase I at the Top of the World and was
the reason we came before the Board in July 1986 for approval of changes in the final site
plan that was mandated by site conditions. Dennis Mr. McElroy, the engineer at the Top
of the World, is here and asked if he would give specific details from the engineering stand
point as to the type of changes that would be required.
SUPERVISOR WALTER-Noted that the first issue is whether the amendment is binding on
PUD already underway and if that was answered negative then you wouldn't be concerned
about the next one. Because what we are requiring now in the new PUD amendment is a great
deal more up front work where perhaps getting into a site location you wouldn't be finding
these things you would have known about these long before.
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Referred to Article 15, Section .085 which says, prepared detail
final site plan submitted to the Planning Board approval, except if there is more than 12
months left in the time of the Planning Board report on preliminary site plan and the Planning
Board finds it changed significantly, the Planning Board may require resubmittal, it doesn't
say anything about a Public Hearing. The Public Hearing usually goes with the preliminary, --
and the final approval, just to clean up the details.
BILL RALSTON-I refer to that Section...if the final site plan is not completed in the twelve
months according to the preliminary site plan approval, it requires the developer to go back
to the preliminary site plan approval. Our concern is when final approval is granted and the
building permit issued, the developer goes down on the site and finds field conditions that
require a change in the final approval...it is my understanding that that Section would not
be appropriate.
DENNIS MCELROY-Environmental Design Partnership, I think Bill's letter clearly states
the condition we ran across during Phase I. Once final approval is obtained the contractor
or developer then gets into the construction phase of the project, and he recognizes at that
point there might be certain site conditions that warrant changes of locations of buildings,
as we ran across before in phase I, possibly changes of road locations, that type of thing which
through field investigation that you go across to develop the preliminary site plan, you really
don't have that type of information you need to make you aware of the changes that would
occur. As Bill has pointed out in Article 15 as it exist, really doesn't address the conditions
of changes. When we came to you in July, we were dealing with changes related to Phase
I, there really wasn't a vehicle, except to come back to the Town Board at that time and
the new Article 15 doesn't seem to address that issue and as you say...if the new Ordinance
doesn't apply to the Top of the World, well then maybe we don't have to deal with that issue
but other developers within PUDs that come along will have to face that situation and the
proposed Article 15 really doesn't address that, at this time.
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-We might be able to set this up as a procedure of the Planning
Board.
BILL BENTON-Lake George Ventures, as a developer we have developed in many other areas
and have come upon PUDs and have used them, what Dennis has brought out and for your
consideration is, if condition one is answered one way for us and it solves our problem, but
I still think we would like to make a general comment that in our experience, what we have
found is that the idea of the change is important. As a developer looking into an area if we
went through the entire process and got final approval and then we went to put this into action...we
are going to run into changes all the time, it is the nature of the beast...then to have to come
back an administrative vehicle might be burdensome to both parties, it would be looked at
one way by the developer as not being the most favorable condition. Some vehicle has to
be set up to allow that developer as he actually starts to execute his final approved plan,
site conditions, as they come up can be addressed and minor changes made, it does not exclude
the fact that there is going to be a major change where you might require more in-depth
but there has to be a cut off point and some other vehicle should be looked at to take care
the site conditions.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Most of the things you are addressing tonight regarding the Top
of The World don't come close to bordering on a zoning change and noted that only if it were
changing the zoning would it have to go back to the Planning Board.
BILL BENTON-Referred to their Vermont operations which has all three classifications, residential,
office and commercial and here again if it is a major change in the initial intent then it should
come back and be reviewed but the daily executing of the final approved plan you are going
to run into things that have to be changed that have to be addressed on the site.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Noted that what they really want is to be able to address the Planning
Board and not start over.
BILL BENTON-Yes that is right and that way it makes life easier for everyone.
SUPERVISOR WALTER-Asked for further input?
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-No one answered whether it is applicable to the Top of the World
or not.
TOWN COUNSEL-It is clear that it is not applicable to them. My comments are to the substance
of the nature and that is what Mr. Ralston's letter addresses. They are approved for a certain
number of units and a certain type of use and that is not going to be affected by this provision.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Asked if some type of wording could be put in to cover minor changes
going back to the Planning Board and not at Public Hearing.
TOWN COUNSEL-The intent of this drafts is...to me, there is tension between what the
developer wants, and not to characterize the Top Of The World, but there are two sides here
and one says give us some flexibility because we are building this thing and we want to move
things around, the Town Board on the other hand says look we gave approval based on your
statement that you were going to build these units and place them in these locations and
clearly, if there is a real change between those two things you've got a legislative act that
doesn't mean much. One of the changes in this new ordinance from the old one is the detail
requirements of information that the developer has to submit to the town with a lot more
information and by providing that information and having it you reduce the possibility of
some of these unforeseen site conditions that are going to have an impact on the changes.
There has got to be a relationship between what information has been given and what exist
on the ground. We can provide a legislative scheme that sets up the envelope kind of approval
we had, when we dealt with the Top of The World and that could be provided for any developer.
This isn't included basically because I felt the information and the process that was already
18
required makes it a lot less likely that these type of changes were going to occur.
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Some of them are unavoidable...I think that the envelope method
used for the Top of The World is the most sensible. Noted that he agreed with Counsel to
leave the Ordinance as it is.
DENNIS MCELROY-We recognize that in our approach when we prepare the preliminary
site plan as required by Article 15, we will be submitting the new one and the information
that is required in Section 15.083...there are five items of information that are required for
submittal of the preliminary plan...our plans will include that information. We are prepared
to submit those to the Planning Commission at the end of January or February. We have included
on our site plans the envelope for the building zoned which we used to take care of the changes
in phase I so we have taken in that step. The proposed step and I suppose in the review of
the preliminary site plan, the Planning Commission would approve that idea for the most
part, take care of those changes that might occur during construction...that envelope concept.
That procedure isn't necessarily addressed...we used in Phase I, we will use it on Phase II.
I would have to reinforce the fact that those changes that occur are going tb come up regardless
of the conditional detail you have asked for in this Article 15. That is not going to solve all
the problems or avoid the changes that are going to come up in construction...you might hit
ledge in an area and you have to move the building slightly about ten feet, but even that ten
feet will change under that original Article 15.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Asked how many feet was presented on the original Envelope rule?
DENNIS MCELROY-I believe it was fifty feet outside the building blueprints.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Disagreed with the fifty feet and objected to giving a blank check.
BILL BENTON- You still have to establish some sort of envelope system, the size of the house...and
fifty foot one way or the other is not a lot.
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Fifty is considerable...if you have a forty foot building and
you move it out of fifty feet, you are moving it out of its foundation.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-For the public's information, the envelope system we are talking
about still needs the approval of the Planning Board.
DENNIS MCELROY-I understand that would be approved on the preliminary site plan approval,
and on the final site plan approval, the envelope would be approved and the movement could
occur within that zone so that when you are in construction...if that movement within that
zone is necessary, that can happen without getting any further approval. Asked for one point
of clarification referring to the parts of substantive parts of Article 15, when we go to site
plan approval to the Planning Commission, should we be adhering to the requirements of new
Article 15, so I can supply that to Stuart when we submit?
STUART MESINGER-Yes, with that type of information, I would assume it would be gathered
from the SGS mapping.
8:15 P. M.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED-regarding PUD
SUPERVISOR WALTER-Reopened Hearing on Over 65 Exemption-Asked for input, no one
spoke, the Public Hearing was Closed.
...Reopened Hearing •n Rush Pond Designation as Critical Area, asked for input, no one spoke,
Public Hearing Closed. /
OLD BUSINESS \ ��
SUPERVISOR WALTER-Noted the - was some old busine s regding the Town Board acting
as Board of Health relative to a sew.:e variance to Jerome Bonnabea�x and we are waiting 1
for further information from this appli : t, he by telephone today, indicated that he was
unable to have a meeting with the concern:d individuals and therefore he had nothing to present
to the Board this evening.
OPEN FORUM
PAUL DAVIDSON-Pickle Hill Road, Questioned the u - of a garage accross the street being
used as a mechanical garage, machine shop and developi into a junk yard, how can be be
allowed to expand these operations under the provisions of e Zoning Ordinance?
f c ' 13 , n 239
RESOLUTION - TOP OF THE WORLD SEWAGE - WORKS CORPORATION-SEWER RATES
RESOLUTION NO. 385, Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr, Ronald Montesi:
WHEREAS, within the Top of the World Planned Unit Development a Sewage-Works Corporation
has been formed in accordance with the Transportation Corporations Law of the State
'of New York for the purposes of providing wastewater treatment facilities for the
residents within the Top of the World Planned Unit Development. and,
WHEREAS, Section 121 of the Transportation Corporations Law requires that the Town
of Queensbury and the Sewage-Works Corporation agree as to the reasonable and adequate
rates for the collection, treatment and disposal of sewage within the Planned Unit
\_-_- Development known as Top of the World, and
WHEREAS, Top of the World has requested a sewer rents fee of $80 a quarter (based
\.__ on water usage of 9,000 gallons per quarter plus $2.00 per 1,000 gallons over
9,000 gallons per quarter - sewage discharge to be based on water meter rates)
as and for the fair and reasonable cost for the collection, treatment and disposal
of sewage within the Top of the World Planned Unit Development,
NOW, THEREFORE BE 11.
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby sets a public hearing
on the proposed rate request for sewage rates within the Top of the World Planned
Unit Development which public hearing shall be held on September 28, 1988 at 7:30
P.M. at the Town office Building, Town of Queensbury, Bay at Haviland Road, Warren
County, New York at which time all persons residing within the Top of the World
Planned Unit Development or the agents therefore may be heard on the subject matter
of the rates requested, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk shall post a copy of this notice and publish the
same in accordance with Town Law.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Monahan
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CERTIFICATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION
RESOLUTION NO. 386, Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption.
seconded by Stephen Borgos:
WHEREAS, Russell Brown Electrical Contractors, Inc., pursuant to contract, has
been performing electrical construction in the Activities Center and Town Office
Building for the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, Russell Brown Electrical Contractors, Inc., has requested that the Town
and the engineer presently reviewing the project, Rist-Frost Associates, P.C. issue
a certificate of substantial completion in connection with said electrical construction
of the Activities Center and Town Office Building for the Town of Queensbury, and
`._, WHEREAS, Rist-Frost Associates, P.C. has advised that the electrical construction
of the Queensbury Center has reached a point where such certificate of substantial
completion may be executed by the Town, subject to completion of items of work
outlined in a letter dated August 19, 1988 by Rist-Frost Associates, P.C. to Russell
Brown Electrical Contractors, Inc.,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the issuance
of a certificate of substantial completion to Russell Brown Electrical Contractors,
Inc., subject to completion of items of work outlined in a letter dated August
19, 1988 by Rist-Frost Associates, P.C. to Russell Brown Electrical Contractors.
Inc., such substantial completion certificate to indicate that the date of substantial
-6:d, '#i
Q_Ai.icigg
more specifically set forth in said agreement, the same being incorporated herein, and to be
• retained by the Town Clerk as a part of the minutes of this meeting.
Section 2. Said water district extension shall be bounded and described as se forth in Schedule
"A" annexed hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 3. This resolution is subject to a permissive referendum as provided by Section
209-e of the Town Law.
Section 4. If after the expiration of the time for filing a petition requesting that this matter
be submitted to a referendum of eligible voters within the proposed extended district, no such
petition is timely filed with the Town Clerk, she shall file a certificate stating such fact in the
Office of the Warren County Clerk.
I
Section 5. The approval of the extension of the Queensbury Water District is condition
upon Town Board of the Town of Queensbury and the aforesaid developers entering into an agreement
revising and amending the previous agreement entered into between the parties such that the
payment of the capital contribution costs for the Water Plant and Appurtenances is completely
paid upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the parties.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. l3orgos
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka
SCHEDULE A.
All that certain parcel for land situate in the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York,
located westerly of the easterly line of Bay Road, in said town, and which parcel is bounded and
described as follows: ,
i
BEGINNING at a point in the westerly/bounds of Bay Road at a distance of 685.5 feet northerly
of the centerline of Blind Rock Roadf'and which point of beginning is the southeast corner of
lands of Gerald V. and Delores W. West; running thence from the place of beginning, in a westerly
1 direction for a distance of 200 feet, more or less, to the southwest corner of said lands of West;
thence in a. northerly direction f9'r a distance of 100 feet, more or less, to the northwest corner
of said lands of West; thence it a westerly direction, along the division line between Lot 39 of
the First Division of the Queensbury Patent on the South and Lot 40 of said patent on the North,
and along the southerly line,bf lands of Arthur E. and Gertrude E. Thornton, and the northerly
line of lands of Continentaj'Insurance Company, for a distance of 964.4 feet more or less, to
an iron pipe marking the southwest corner of said lands of Thornton, thence in a northerly direction,
along the westerly line of said lands of Thornton, and the easterly line of lands of Glens Falls
Real Estate Company,;for a distance of 770 feet, more or less, to the southwest corner of lands
of Charles R. Barber; thence in an easterly direction, along the southerly line of said lands of
Barber, and the southerly line of lands of Ilarry C. Prutsman, et al. and along the northerly line
of said lands of T • rnton, for a distance of 1527 feet, more or less, to the westerly line of Bay
Road, thence in southwesterly direction, along said westerly line for a distance of 175 feet,
more or less; t nce easterly , crossing Bay Road, to the southwest corner of lands now or formerly
of Ellen J. Ili is; thence southerly, along the easterly line of Bay Road for a distance of 345
feet, more o less, to the easterly extension of the southerly line of said lands of West; thence
westerly, c ossing Bay Road, to the place of beginning, and containing approximately 18 acres,
more or 1 ss.
Town torney, Paul Dusek-Requested the #5 in resolution number 404 be added..
Agreed to by the Town Board.
PUBLIC HEARING
TOP OF THE WORLD SEWER RATES
Town Clerk-Noted that. the public hearing on the Top of the World Sewer Rates was advertised
properly and was posted on the official bulletin board.
Supervisor Borgos-Opened the Public Hearing, asked for comments from the public...
• Let me explain briefly to the public what the situation is related to the Top of the World Utility
Company Sewage Works Corp. is there anyone here representing that group? Dennis would you
come forward and identify yourself and say a few words on why this is needed? We went through
this last year and it kind of died and we are back again.
Dennis McElroy-from the firm of Environmental Design-We are the engineers for the Lake George
Ventures, the developers of Top of the World PUD. The waste water disposal within the Top
of the World PUD is handled as a private utility company which also combines the water supply.
Tonight we are proposing a resolution for establishment of the rates for the sewer works, again
this is a private entity within the district of the PUD, the rates are as the law is written. Within
New York State the Town Board has to pass judgement on the rates that are established for that
even though it is a private corporation.
Supervisor Borgos-I was made aware of this for the first time last year, I think all of us were,
we didn't realize that the law does require us to do this, this would impact only on the residents
of Top of the World, is that right?
Dennis McElroy-That is correct.
Supervisor Borgos-The only ones that would be expected to pay it.
Dennis McElroy-That is correct, there will eventually be 170 residential units and the sports complex
building which would be part of their facilities....
Councilman Montesi-What does this translate so that 9000 thousand gallons of water per quarter,
36,000 gallons per year that is, just so that people have an understanding of what the sewer rate
will be up there, thi:; is a ?ublic forum. We have charged, and this is a comparison in our sewer
district, we have charged $50.00 one third of the sewer cost of your sewer bill $50.00 for up
to 75,000 gallons and anything over that is a pretty substantial fee.
Dennis McElroy-For your water use?
Councilman Montesi-Water in water out sower, you know the sewer cost. Our sower cost in the
Town of Queensbury is based a third on water flow a third on assessed valuation and a third on
the size of the lot. The third that is based on the water flow we have set 75,000 gallons as a
$50.00 fee. That is only one third of the total cost of ....
Supervisor Borgos-That is not quite yet finished, that will soon be a subject of a public hearing.
Councilman Montesi-What I am getting at is that my sewer bill at my house on 100,000 dollar
value is about $450.00 what is a 220,000 dollars, and that is getting capital back, you guys have
already put the sewer in here
Dennis McElroy-That is correct.
Councilman Montesi-What's a 200,000 dollar condo on the Top of the World looking at for a yearly
sewer tax?
•
Dennis McElroy-$320.00 provided that they do not exceed the base rate, but that is unlikely in
consideration of the usage that those units will see.
Councilman Montesi-For 36,000 gallons of flow a year you are looking at $300.00
Dennis McElroy-$320.00 that is correct. It is strictly based on usage, not on any assessed value.
Supervisor Borgos-Just for the record, since there does not appear to be anyone else here, and
you are representing the owners, did you properly publish this.
Town Clerk-Darleen Dougher-This was advertised and posted properly.
Dennis McElroy-Lake George Ventures had made this aware through the home owners association
as well.
Supervisor Borgos-Any further questions?
ooq
Councilman Monahan-Dennis, which location of the sports complex?
Dennis McElroy-It is right in the location as you may remember of the old log building.
Councilman Monahan-I was wondering if that was still there?
Dennis McElroy-No, that was removed and a new building put in, it is approximately the same
size.
Supervisor Borgos-Thank you sir, is there anyone else that wishes to speak about this subject?
If not we will stop the public responses ...
•
N. W. Bodenweiser.-Fire Marshal-In relation to the fact that this is a sewer and water district....
Supervisor Borgos-This is just regarding the rates to be charged in relation to the sewers.
N. W. Iodenweiser-My concern was does this have any effect on the water, in the fact that the
water district, we do not cover any part of the water district in this resolution correct, strictly
•
Supervisor Borgos-That is correct, strictly to sewer rates.
N. W. Bodenweiser-That is all I wanted to know.
Councilman Montesi-The only mention in the sewer bill was that they use them as a guide they
use water meter in as sewer is water out, water in water out.
Supervisor Borgos-Closed the public hearing.
RESOLUTION OF TOWN BOARD AGREEING TO PROPOSED SEWER RATES TO BE SET BY
zit( THE TOP OF THE WORLD SEWAGE - WORKS CORPORATION
RESOLUTION NO. 405, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Betty Monahan:
4
WHEREAS, within the Top of the World Planned Unit Development a Sewage-Works Corporation
has been formed in accordance with the Transportation Corporations Law of the State of New
York for the purposes of providing waste-water treatment facilities for the residents within
the Top of the World Planned Unit Development, and,
WHEREAS, Section 121 of the Transportation Corporations Law requires that the Town Board
of the Town of Queensbury and the Top of the World Sewage-Works Corporation agree as to the
reasonable and adequate rates for the collection, treatment and disposal of sewage within the
Planned Unit Development known as Top of the World, and,
WHEREAS, Top of urn World has requested a sewer rate fee of $80 a quarter (based on water
usage of 9,000 gallons per quarter) plus $2.00 per 1,000 gallons over 9,000 gallons per quarter
(sewage discharge to be based on water meter reading) and
WHEREAS, in the previous resolution the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury set a public
hearing on the proposed rate request and directed that the Town Clerk publish a copy of the
notice in accordance with the Town Law, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the 28th day for September 1988,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby finds, based on the information
presented at the public hearing, that a sewer rate of $80.00 a quarter (based on water usage
of 9,000 gallons per quarter) plus $2.00 per 1,000 gallons over 9,000 gallons per quarter (sewerage
discharge to be based on water meter reading) is a fair and reasonable cost for the collection,
treatment, and disposal of sewerage within the Top of the World Planned Unit Development,
•
and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed
to execute on behalf of the Town of Queensbury, a written agreement with the Top of the World
Sewage-Works Corporation which indicates that the Top of
the World Sewage-Works Corporation and the Town of Queensbury agree that a sewer
9
rate is to be $80.00 per quarter (based on water usage of 9,000 gallons per quarter) plus $2.00
per 1,000 gallons over 9,000 gallons per quarter (sewerage discharge to be based on water meter
reading).
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
•
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka
OPEN FORUM
Supervisor Borgos-Noted that he had spoke to Councilman Kurosaka and he said he wo d be
here for this meeting but at this point I do not see him, I understand he was around y••terday
or the election, I have no explanation for why he is not here.
Co. cilman Montesi-Mr. Tucker, I have asked the Town Clerk to make a copy of he comments
rega .ing providing other municipalities with water for you.
Counci • an Potenza-I have a request about street lighting at 34 Holden A -nue from Mrs. Close
and will • •ss that to the lighting committee...
Supervisor B. :os-Mr. Montesi will be pleased to accept this request :nd investigate it and let
us know his rec•mmendation.
Paul Dusek-Town • ttorney-Perhaps this would be the opportun' y to address the comment that
Mr. Tucker had mad. at the last meeting. There has been a r-quest as to the status of Mr. Kurosaka
and his ability to keel is position in light of the illness whi• I indicated that at the time, I
tried to do some quick -search and I could not find what I eeded. I have since done the research
and perhaps I could repo to the Board. I think in genet: terms although I have several sections
of the law that I can refer to and sight I do not think I ill go into them unless the Board desires,
I think generally speaking t` •ugh it would appear tha an illness such as being suffered by Mr.
Kurosaka is not sufficient gr. nds to cause a remov• unded the law from the position as Councilman,
at least at this point in time i would be my opinio that he properly holds his seat even though
he is not able to attend the mee ings. The prim: ily reason is because he is not just carelessly
or frequently missing meetings b rather he h: a good reason for missing those meetings at
this point in time. There are a coule of oth: • questions I guess kind of relate to that, there
is a procedure for removal of Town a fficia . however the procedure looks towards things such _
as misconduct, mal-administration, m -f•asance those type of things which I think under the
circumstances would not be provable. ,,ie other aspect of the question at least in my mind,
there is a question if a vacancy shoul. ar :e how is it resolved, on the Town Board, it would be
resolved by Town Board Members A•.ointr ig a new member to the Board. But at this point,
generally speaking my opinion wo
• be that there are not sufficient ground to remove Mr. Kurosaka.
Pliney Tucker-Ward 4 Queensbuf•y-I would justsgs I set there and heard the report I would just
like to clear the air. I do not believe I came herwith a gun in my hand wanting to eliminate
George, my reasoning for questioning the Board was that the man had been ill and seriously ill
and there had been no comments made by anyone in'•authority what the situation was.
Supervisor 13orgos-We knew there was no malice in youi:heart, there had been an extensive article
in the newspaper several weeks ago, who had interviewed,•Mr. Kurosaka's family and had comments
about his illness and the probable duration of the illness and that type of thing.
Pliney Tucker-I missed that. My reasoning behind it was thaa,,before the Ward System went into
effect what is now Ward I did not actually have anyone from twat area on the Board and what
brought about the Ward System which helped it a great deal was'that situation. My reasoning
was and concern was; and people had commented to me, was what George's status was.
Supervisor/Borgos-When I spoke with him Monday he said he was fee • g quite well he did expect
to have po under go some surgery in the near future. He did expect to a here tonight. I am surprised
and disappointed that he is not.
Councilman Potenza-I would like to congratulate the Citizens of Queensbu for their turn out ----v
that they had in the election yesterday, and how pleased I am with the resul •.