1982-11-23 �1
TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 23 , 1982
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS
MRS . FRANCES WALTER—SUPERVISOR
MR. DANIEL OLSON—COUNCILMAN
DR. CHARLES EISENHART—COUNCILMAN
MR. DANIEL MORRELL—COUNCILMAN
MRS. BETTY MONAHAN—COUNCILMAN
MR. .JOSEPH BRENNAN-TOWN COUNSEL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN MORRELL
o; !
MEETI% OPENED 7 :44 P. M.
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MINUTES
RFSfII IITTf1N Nn _ 171 _ INTRODUCED BY MR. DANIEL MORRELL WHO MOVED FOR ITS
ADOPTION , SECONDED BY DR. CHARLES EISENHART :
RESOLVED, THAT THE TOWN BOARD MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 4TH AND 9TH OF 1982
BE AND HEREBY ARE APPROVED.
DULY ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES : MR. OLSON , DR. EISENHART , MR. MORRELL , MRS . MONAHAN , MRS. WALTER
NOES : f`DNE
ABSENT : NONE
RESOLUTION OF REAPPOINTMENT TO THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD
r-•-� RPCnilTTf1N NO 372 . INTRODUCED BY DR. CHARLES EISENHART WHO MOVED FOR ITS
ADOPTION , SECONDED BY MRS. FRANCES WALTER :
WHEREAS, THE TERM OF MRS . HILDA MANN , MEMBER OF THE QUEENSBURY TOWN
PLANNING BOARD HAS EXPIRED AND IT IS THE WISH OF THE TOWN BOARD TO
REAPPOINT MRS . MANN , NOW , THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, THAT THE QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD HEREBY REAPPOINTS MRS . HILDA
MANN TO THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BoAD FOR A SEVEN YEAR TERM TO EXPIRE
SEPTEMBER 30 , 1989 .
DULY ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES : MR. OLSON , DR. EISENHART , MR. MORRELL , MRS . MONAHAN , MRS. WALTER
NOES : NONE
ABSENT : NONE
RESOLUTIOJTO HOLD PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF LOCAL
LAW PROVIDING FOR THE ABOLITION AND DISCONTINUANCE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENS-
BURY POLICE DEPARTMENT
RESOLUTION NO . 373 , INTRODUCED BY DR. CHARLES EISENHART WHO MOVED FOR ITS
ADOPTION , SECOND BY MRS . BETTY MONAHAN :
WHEREAS, MUNICIPAL HOME RULE LAW 5 10 ( 1 ) ( II ) ( A ) ( 1 ) EMPOWERS THE
} TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO ABOLISH AND DISCONTINUE THE TOWN OF OUEENSBURY
POLICE DEPARTMENT BY THE ADOPTION OF A LOCAL LAW PROVIDING THEREFOR , AND
WHEREAS , SUCH A PROPOSED LOCAL LAW , A COPY OF WHICH IS ANNEXED HERETO ,
HAS BEEN PREPARED AND PRESENTED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE TOWN BOARD , AND
WHEREAS , A PUBLIC HEARING IS MANDATED BY LAW PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF THE
PROPOSED LOCAL LAW FOR ADOPTION BY THE TOWN BOARD ,
NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT
I
II RESOLVED , THAT A PUBLIC HEARING BE HELD CONCERNING THE PROPOSED LOCAL
LAW WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE ABOLITION AND THE DISCONTINUANCE OF THE TOWN
i
i
2
OF QUEENSBURY POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE ABOLITION , DISCONTINUANCE AND
TERMINATION OF ALL POSITIONS WITHIN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY POLICE DEPART-
MENT , AND THAT SAID PUBLIC HEARING BE HELD AT 7 : 30 P. M. IN THE MEETING
ROOM OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY OFFICE BUILDING, BAY AND HAVILAND ROADS ,
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY , WARREN COUNTY , NEW YORK ON DECEMBER 14 , 1982 , AND
THAT THE TOWN CLERK BE DIRECTED TO PUBLISH AND PROVIDE NOTICE OF SAID
PUBLIC HEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND AS REQUIRED BY LAW,
DULY ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES : MR. OLSON , DR. EISENHART , MRS. MONAHAN , MRS. 'WALTER
NOES : MR. .MORRELL
ABSENT : NONE
I
RESOLUTION MAKING DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
OF PROPOSED CHANGE IN ZONING
RFSfIIIITTnN Nn - X74 , INTRODUCED BY MR. DANIEL OLSON WHO MOVED FOR ITS
ADOPTION , SECONDED BY DR. CHARLES EISENHART :
WHEREAS , UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY , A CERTAIN
AREA OF THE TOWN GENERALLY BOUNDED BY FULLER ROAD ON THE NORTH , LUZERNE
ROAD ON THE SOUTH , THE CORPORATE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN THE TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY AND THE TOWN OF LAKE LUZERNE ON THE WEST AND ON THE EAST
BY A' ,LINE RUNNING GENERALLY NORTH AND SOUTH AT A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY
1 , 320 FEET TO THE WEST OF WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD AND RUNNING PARALLEL THERETO ,
IS PRESENTLY ZONED IN A CLASSIFICATION , IN PART , OF RR-5A AND , IN PART ,
IN A CLASSIFICATION OF LC-loA , AND
WHEREAS , IT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY PROPOSED THAT THE AFORESAID LANDS BE
REZONED TO CREATE A ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF RR-5A FOR ALL LANDS DESCRIBED
IN SCHEDULE '''A" ANNEXED HERETO AND THAT ALL OTHER LANDS DESCRIBED ON THE
WARREN COUNTY TAX MAP RELATIVE TO THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS MAP N0. 8 ,
SECTION 123 , LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF FULLER ROAD , TO THE WEST OF THE
EXISTING SR-lA ZONE AND NOT DESCRIBED ON SCHEDULE ' A" ANNEXED HERETO BE
REZONED TO A CLASSIFICATION OF LC-loA, AND
WHEREAS, THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSTITUTES AN ACTION UNDER THE NEW
YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (HEREINAFTER ' 'SEQR' ' ) ;
AND
WHEREAS, UNDER THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS SET FORTH IN 6NYCRR PART
617 , SAID PROPOSED REZONING IS AN UNLISTED ACTION ; AND
WHEREAS , THE TOWN BOARD HAS CAUSED TO BE PREPARED A SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT FORM PERTAINING TO THE PROPOSED REZONING ; AND
WHEREAS, THE TOWN" BOARD HAS CONSIDERED ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED TO IT
AT THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OTHERWISE ALONG WITH THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT FORM RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED REZONING ; AND
WHEREAS , IT APPEARS THAT NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WOULD
RESULT FROM THE REZONING OF THE AREA AS DESCRIBED ABOVE ,
NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT
RESOLVED , THAT IT IS HEREBY DETERMINED THAT THE REZONING OF CERTAIN
AREAS OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED ABOVE WILL
HAVE NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT .
DULY ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : -
AYES : MR. OLSON , DR. EISENHART , MR. MORRELL , MRS. MONAHAN ,
MRS . WALTER
NOES : NONE
ABSENT : NONE
SCHEDULE A
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDS OF FULLER
ROAD AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PREMISES OF MARK BRANSON (.SHOWN
ON THE QUEENSBURY TAX MAP AS LOT 21 , SECTION 123 ) , SAID POINT
BEING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PREMISES OF RICHARD A. AND
PATRICIA P. WHITE ; THENCE IN A GENERAL SOUTHERLY DIRECTION ALONG
THE EASTERLY BOUNDS OF THE LANDS OF SAID BRANSON TO THE NORTHERLY
BOUNDS OF BUSH ROAD; THENCE IN A SOUTHERLY DIRECTION , ON A LINE
BEING AN EXTENTION OF THE LAST DESCRIBED LINE , ACROSS BUSH ROAD
TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDS OF SAID ROAD , SAID POINT ALSO
BEING ON THE NORTHERLY BOUNDS OF LANDS OF DENNIS AND CYNTHIA
BROWER ( SHOWN ON THE QUEENSBURY TAX MAP AS LOT 37 . 22 , SECTION
123) ; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDS OF THE LANDS OF
BROWER TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF ; THENCE SOUTHERLY IN A
GENERALLY STRAIGHT LINE ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDS OF THE LANDS OF
SAID BROWER AND ALSO ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDS OF THE LANDS OF
JEFFREY AND WENDY INGLEE , CLARENCE J . AND CORA D. BEAMES , DONALD
AND ANNE L. BETTERS AND JOHN WESTON TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF A
PARCEL OF LAND OWNED BY SAID JOHN WESTON ( SHOWN ON THE QUEENSBURY
' TAX MAP AS LOT 42 . 2 , SECTION 123 ) , SAID POINT BEING ALSO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 12 , LUZERNE TRACT ; THENCE WESTERLY IN A
l._ STRAIGHT LINE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDS OF SAID LAND OF WESTON ,
ACROSS TUTHILL ROAD , AND CONTINUING WESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY
BOUNDS OF THE LANDS OF DONALD AND ANNE L. BETTERS TO THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY
BOUNDS OF THE LANDS OF SAID BETTERS TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER
THEREOF. THENCE NORTHERLY IN A STRAIGHT LINE THROUGH THE LANDS OF
ALBERT AND MARILYN SMITH TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDS OF
TGE LANDS OF THE MAYNARD THOMSON ESTATE ( SHOWN ON THE (QUEENSBURY
TAX MAP ON LOT 39 , SECTION 123 ) , SAID POINT BEING THE
INTERSECTION OF SAID SOUTHERLY LINE WITH AN EXTENSION SOUTH OF
THE MOST WESTERLY LINE OF THE LANDS OF MARK BRANSON ; THENCE
WESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDS OF THE LANDS OF MAYNARD
THOMSON ESTATE TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE NORTHERLY
ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDS OF SAID LANDS TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER
THEREOF; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDS OF SAID
THOMSON ESTATE TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE LANDS OF MARK
BRANSON ( SHOWN ON THE QUEENSBURY TAX MAP AS LOT 21 , SECTION 123) ;
THENCE IN A NORTHERLY AND EASTERLY DIRECTION ALONG THE WESTERLY
BOUNDS OF THE LANDS OF SAID BRANSON TO THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDS OF
FULLER ROAD; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDS OF THE
LANDS OF SAID BRANSON TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
_. RESOLUTION TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE OF TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
RF_SOlIITTIIN Nfl _ 375 , INTRODUCED BY MR. DANIEL MORRELL WHO MOVED FOR ITS
ADOPTION , SECONDED BY MRS . BETTY MONAHAN :
WHEREAS , UNDER THE PRESENT ZONING IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY , A
CERTAIN AREA OF THE TOWN GENERALLY BOUNDED BY FULLER ROAD ON THE
NORTH , LUZERNE ROAD ON THE SOUTH , THE CORPORATE BOUNDARY LINE BE-
TWEEN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AID THE TOWN OF LAKE LUZERNE ON THE
WEST AND ON THE EAST BY A LINE RUNNING GENERALLY NORTH AND SOUTH
AT A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 1 , 320 FEET TO THE MT OF WEST
MOUNTAIN ROAD AND PUNNING PARALLEL THERETO , IS PRESENTLY ZONED IN
A CLASSIFICATION , IN PART , OF RR-5-A AND , IN PART , IN A CLASSIFI-
CATION OF LC-loA, AND
WHEREAS , AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE TOWN BOARD RE-
QUESTING THE REZONING OF A CERTAIN PORTION OF SAID PREMISES TO
REDUCE THE AREA PRESENTLY ZONED AS RR-5A AND TO CHANGE THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF A PORTION OF SAID AREA TO A NEW CLASSIFICATION
OF LC-l0A AND TO REZONE A PORTION OF SAID LANDS FROM AN EXISTING
CLASSIFICATION OF -LC-l0A TO A NEW CLASSIFICATION OF RR-5A, AND
WHEREAS , IT IS SPECIFICALLY PROPOSED THAT THE AFORESAID LANDS BE
REZONED TO CREATE A ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF RR-5A FOR ALL LANDS
DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE ' ' A' ' ANNEXED HERETO AND THAT ALL OTHER LANDS
DESCRIBED ON THE WARREN COUNTY TAX MAP RELATIVE TO THE TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY AS MAP N0. 8 , SECTION 123 , LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF
{ FULLER ROAD , TO THE WEST OF THE EXISTING SR-iA ZONE AND NOT DESCRIBED
ON SCHEDULE ' ' A' ' , BE REZONED TO A CLASSIFICATION OF LC-1oA AND
WHEREAS , THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD HAS RECOMMENDED THE
REZONING AS DESCRIBED ABOVE , AND
WHEREAS , UPON SAID RECOMMENDATION OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING
BOARD, THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES IN ZONING CLASSIFICATION SET
FORTH ABOVE WERE REFERRED TO THE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FOR
RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THE SAID PROPOSED ZONING RECLASSIFICATIONS
AND
WHEREAS , THE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING BOARD HAS CONCURRED IN THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD AND HAS
RECOMMENDED THE REZONING TO THE NEW CLASSIFICATIONS SET FORTH ABOVE ,
AND
WHEREAS , PURSUANT TO A RESOLUTION DULY ADOPTED BY THE TOWN BOARD ,
A PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE THE TOWN BOARD ON NMEMBER 9 , 1982 ,
TO CONSIDER THE AFORESAID RECOMMENDATIONS RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED
ZONING RECLASSIFICATIONS , AND
WHEREAS, AT SAID PUBLIC HEARING ALL PERSONS WISHING TO BE HEARD
CONCERNING SUCH MATTERS WERE DULY HEARD BY THE TOWN BOARD, AND
WHEREAS , NOTICE OF SAID PUBLIC HEARING WAS PUBLISHED AND PROVIDED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND AS REQUIRED BY LAW ,
i
NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT
RESOLVED, THAT THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONING ORDINANCE BE AMENDED
BE REZONING TO A ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF RR-5A ALL LANDS DESCRIBED
IN SCHEDULE ' ' A' ' ANNEXED HERETO , AND BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED , THAT ALL OTHER LANDS DESCRIBED ON THE CURRENT WARREN
COUNTY TAX MAP RELATIVE TO THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS MAP N C. 8 ,
SECTION 123 , LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF FULLER ROAD , TO THE WEST OF
THE EXISTING SR-lA AND NOT DESCRIBED ON SCHEDULE ' ' A" ' ANNEXED HERETO ,
BE REZONED TO A CLASSIFICATION OF LC-10A , AND BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED , THAT THE TOWN CLERK BE DIRECTED TO CAUSE NOTICE OF
THESE AMENDMENTS TO THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONING ORDINANCE TO
REZONE THE AREAS DESCRIBED ABOVE TO BE PUBLISHED AS REQUIRED BY
THE PROVISIONS OF TOWN LAW § 264 AND THAT THE TOWN CLERK BE REQUIRED
AND DIRECTED TO TAKE ALL OTHER ACTION REQUIRED BY LAW TO CAUSE SAID
AMENDMENTS Tn BECOME EFFECTIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS
OF TOWN LAW § 264 , AND BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED , THAT THE ZONING MAP OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY BE AMENDED
TO SHOW THE REZONING OF THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED PREMISES AND THAT THE
ZONING MAP , AS AMENDED, BE FILED AND MAINTAINED IN THE OFFICE OF THE
TOWN CLERK AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
DULY ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES : MR. OLSON , DR. EISENHART , MR . MORRELL , MRS . MONAHAN , MRS . WALTER
NOES : NONE
ABSENT : NONE
(SCHEDULE A IS TO BE FOUND ON PAGE 2 )
SUPERVISOR WALTER- THE REQUEST FOR A WATER DIST. CREATION BY MR. SAWN
HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY MR. SAWN , IN SPEAKING TO THE PEOPLE IN THE PROPOSED
AREA HE FOUND THAT A GREAT MANY OF THEM WERE RECEIVING WATER FROM OTHER
SOURCES . . .
COMMUNICATIONS
-LTR. BIZ DEPT . RE : ORDINANCE N0. 31 UNSAFE/COLLAPSED STRUCTURES
NATHAN LETHBRIDGE DWELLING , MINNESOTA AVENUE. . . ( ON FILE ) RECOMMENDED
THAT THE STRUCTURE BE REMOVED. . . MR. DEAN- SPOKE TO THE BOARD IN
REGARD TO THIS STRUCTURE . . . COUNCILMAN MORRELL- HAVE THE TAXES BEEN `..
PAID ON THIS PROPERTY? MR. DEAN-I BELIEVE SO.
RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING UNSAFE STRUCTURE
RESOLUTTO NO . 376 INTRODUCED U BY 1R. 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 TOWN BOARD THAT IN THeTR OPINION AN UNSAFE STRUCTURE
EXISTS ON MINNESOTA AVENUE , THE PROPERTY BEING OWNED BY MR. NATHAN LETH
BRIDGE AND
WHEREAS , DR. DIER , HEALTH OFFICER HAS INVESTIGATED THE SITUATION AND
HAS ADVISED THE OWNER OF THE PROBLEMS AND
WHEREAS , NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN CONDITION HAS OCCURRED , NOW THEREFORE
BE IT
1J
RESOLVED , THAT THE ,MWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY WILL HOLD
A PUBLIC HEARING IN REGARD TO ORDINANCE NO . 31 UNSAFE / COLLAPSED
STRUCTURES THE NATHAN LETHBRIDGE DWELLING ON MINNESOTA AVENUE .
THE PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON DECEMBER 14 , 1982 AT 7 : 30 P . M. AND
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, THAT THE TOWN CLERK LEGALLY ADVERTISE THIS PUBLIC HEARING.
DULY ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES : MR. OLSON , DR. EISENHART , MR. MORRELL , MRS . MONAHAN , MRS. WALTER
NOES : NONE
-- ABSENT : NONE
LTR. UNSAFE STRUCTURE - BALTIS PROPERTY AVIATION ROAD. - RECOMMENDED
L THAT THE STRUCTURE BE REMOVED. . . AND AREA BE CLEANED UP , SCRAP MATERIAL
BE REMOVED. . . ( ON FILE )
RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON UNSAFE STRUCTURE
RF_ni IITTnni nun R77 . INTRODUCED 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 TOWN BOARD THAT IN THEIR OPINION AN UNSAFE STRUCTURE
EXISTS ON AVIATION RD. , OWNER OF THE PROPERTY BEING A DONNA BALTIS , NOW ,
THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED , THAT THE TOWN BOARD OF THE Tom OF QUEENSBURY WILL HOLD A PUBLIC
HEARING IN REGARD TO ORDINANCE N0. 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 , THAT THE TOWN CLERK LEGALLY ADVERTISE THIS PUBLIC HEARING.
DULY ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES : MR. OLSON , DR. EISENHART, MR. MORRELL , MRS . MONAHAN , MRS . WALTER
NOES : NONE
ABSENT : NONE
COUNCILMAN OLSON- NOTED THAT THE LOCAL REA4STATE 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 PRELIMINAR
PLAT APPROVAL AT WHICH TIME THE TOWN WOULD BE IN EFFECT, WITH ITS OWN
ORDINANCEIREFERRING THE MATTER TO THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD. THE DEVELOPER
WOULD HAVE SIX MONTHS FROM THIS EVENINGjIF 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 APPROVALJIN 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 T01IN 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 COMMENC9?REfHHrF_-MAPPLICATION IS
Ii IN THEIR HANDS. THEI.B FIFTEEN DAY PERIOD TO TELL=USAOR NOT WE HAVE SUB-
MITTED A COMPLETE APPLICATION IS NOW RUNNING AND THEY WILL SUBSEQUENT
TO THAT TIME DECIDE NHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. BY YOUR
,V
STATUTE A PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED TO BE HELD BY THE PLANNING
BOARD PRIOR TO gqTHEIR GIVING ANY APPROVAL EVEN TO PHASE I . ESSENTIALLY
YOU ARE LOOKINGAA 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 EX STS UNTIL THIS
WHOLE PROCESS IS COMPLETE AND A MAP IS FILED IN THE WARREN CO. CLERK 'S
OFFICE, THA- IS 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
HAVE RECEIVED A PRELIMINARY APPLICATION . . . i
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 ACROtl$ 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
HEARINGjTHE PHASINGJAND I THINK THAT IS JUST A MISCOMMUNICATION FROM THE
PARK AGENCY-,THAT WAS THE DATE UPON WHICH WE FILED OUR APPLICATION.
COUNCILMAN EISENHART- BUT YOIR 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 OFD 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 nUEENSBURY 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 U P . . .
COUNCILMAN OLSON- THERE WERE QUESTIONE5 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 RESOLUTION SOME SUPPORT AS APA LOOKS AT THIS THEY MIGHT LOOK
STRONG AND MAKE A GOOD INVESTIGATION .
vo
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 , NOIWE 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 I WHICH IS THE
46 UNITS HAS SIX DISPOSAL UNITS-THOSE SIX DISPOSAL AREAS HAVE BEEN
REVIEWED BY THE GENTLEMEN _RY 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 PLANSOF
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 I '
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 TONIGIST 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 LANYj 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 AREAjI 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 EL:SEj I AM NOT AN
ENGINEER ALL WE CAN DO IS MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO EXPLORE THE ALTERNATIVES
THAT WE PUT FORTH AND HAVF„ 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 I+ASE THE PRIMARY SITE WHICH WAS CHOSEN
�LL ! 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 DIRECT!-Y" 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 USjWE 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 SITESrDO THEY GO INTO YOURSECOND ,
THIRD AND FOURTH PHASE AS YOU ADD ON PUTTING MORE SEPTIC SYSTEMS INTO
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
I
CCUNCILMAN OLSON- NO , BUT YO ASTILL 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 ITJ
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 QUESTIONjBUT 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 FORITHOSE 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
i
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 PROBUEM , 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
QUESTIONJI THINK YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE LONG RANGEjTHE END OF YOUR
PROJECT. YOU GET SIX UNITS AND THEN YOU COME BACK AND YOU GOT SIX NOW
8
I NEED SIX MORE I HAVE GOT TO HAVE IT BECAUSE I GOT THESE SIX
. . . THEN YQU. 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
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
51-41TTLE 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
STREETLIGHT- MR. NEELEY HAS REQUESTED A STREET LIGHT ON LINDEN AVENUE
COUNCILMAN OLSON- NOTED HE HAD RECEIVED A PETITION FROM RESIDENTS
IN THE CRANDALL PARK AREA. . .WISHING TO HAVE STREET LIGHTS INSTALLED y
SUPERVISOR WALTER- WE WILL TURN THIS OVER TO THE LIGHTING COMMITTEE. .
COUNCILMAN MORRELL- STATED THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM ON WEEKS ROAD
THERE IS A NEED FOR LIGHTING. . .
COUNCILMAN OLSON- NOTED THAT THE COMMITTEE WILL LOOK INTO THAT AREA TOO.
SUPERVISOR WALTER- MR. SILVERNEL HAS REQUESTED A NO PARKING ZONE IN
FRONT OF THE CONVENIENT STORE ON MAIN STREET WEST , GLENS FALLS .
DISCUSSION HELD- THIS WILL BE TURNED OVER TO THE COUNTY . . .
OPEN FORUM 8 : 39 P. M.
MR. TURNBULL-EXPRESSED CONCERN OVER THE DEATHS OF TWO ELDERLY RESIDENTS
AT THE INTERSECTION OF DIX AND COUNTY LINE. . .NOTED THAT MR . DAIRE
HADI AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS REQUESTED THAT A LIGHT BE PLACED AT THAT
INTERSECTION . . .
SUPERVISOR WALTER-I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER I CAN COMMENT ON THAT BECAUSE
I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THAT WAS THE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT.
CLAIRE HUZAR- NOTED THAT SHE TRAVELED THAT ROAD AND FOUND THE INTERSEC-i
TION HARD TO SEE. . . i
COUNCILMAN MORRELL- SUGGEST THAT THIS BE REFERRED TO THE WARREN CO.
TRAFFIC SAFETY BOARD. . .
MR. MARK CLAVIN-MANAGER JOHN BURKE APTS . - NOTED THAT MORE STREET LIGHTS
ARE NEEDED ON BURKE DRIVE . . . NOTED NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS AND VANDALISM
IS HIGH IN THIS AREA. . . REQUESTED A SPEED SURVEY ON BURKE DRIVE. . .
NEED STOP SIGNS ON BURKE DRIVE
SUPERVISOR WALTER- IN REGARD TO THE STREET SIGNS WE WILL FIFET CHECK
TO SEE IF THEY LEGALLY CAN BE PLACED THERE-IF NOT `WE WILL HAVE THE
CH•`IEF INVESTIGATE THE NEED FOR STOP SIGNS. . .
MR. NAYLOR WAS ASKED TO LOOK AT THE STOP SLGINS ALSO. . .
9
SUPERVISOR WALTER- WE WILL REFER THE SPEED LIMIT.
MR. ADAMSON-RE : TOP OF THE WORLD-IN THE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO
APA, 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 PUBLIC MAY OBTAIN SAND FOR WINTER USE
BEHIND THE HIGHWAY BUILDING DURING WORKING HOURS . . .
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SKETCH ( PUD ) PLAT UPON PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW
I
-- RR1;nII -La E aza . INTRODUCED BY MR. DANIEL MORRELL WHO MOVED FOR I-TS
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 , PURUSANT 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
1 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 FNVIRONMENT.AL 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 ,
f I
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
OUEENSBURY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS , AND BE IT FURTHER
I
RESOLVED , THAT THE AREA OF THE ( PUD) PLAT BE NOTED ON THE TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY ;ZbNING MAP MAINTAINED IN THE OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
10
AS PROVIDED BY S 5 . 043 ( D) OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONING
ORDINANCE.
DULY ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES : MR. OLSON , DR. TISENHART, 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
PUTTING THE FIRST PHASEJBUT 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 , ISi 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 LIMITIHOWEVER 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 AU-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 COMPLE� OF NECESSITYjSO WHEN I SAY TWO YEARS I AM TALKING
EIGHTEEN MONTHS FROMW �E CAN FIRST BUILD, TO START PHASE II . I THINK
THAT CAN GIVE THEIB[OARD SOME IDEA OF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WE ARE
NOT TALKING FIFTEEN OR TWENTY YEARS) BUT 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 1.70 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?
I
11
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-N0 , I JUST WANTED SOME PROTECTION FOR THE TOWN IN
THE FUTURE IN CASE THEY FIND OUT THAT THE MARKET IS NOT THPRF AND THIS
THINK COMES TO A DEAD STOP. I WANT SOME PROTECTION SO WE DG NOT
HAVE AN OPEN ENDED PUD UP THERE.
ATTORNEY JOSPEH BRENNAN- WHAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED IS FOR APPROVAL FOR
170 UNITS-SIP THE APPLICANT WANTS TO MODIFY THAT PLAN TO SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
OF THIS BOARD OF SOMETHING LESSiTHAT 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 BACK) THEREBY NULLIFYING THE PUD IN ITS ENTIRETY ,
SO I THINK YOU DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPECIFY SIX MONTHS CLEARLY AS TO
FIRST PHASE THAT BEING THE INTENTION OF THE APPLICANT. I DO NOT THINK
YOU DO HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO EXTEND UNLESS YOU WANT TO CONSENT TO DO ITIN
SPECIFIC TIME PERIODS FOR FILING SECOND AND THIRD , FOURTH AND FIFTH
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 DO NTT 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 LIMITATIONIYOU 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(§ENTIALLY
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 ISJHE WOULD LIKE SOME STIPULATION
OR AGREEMENT WITH THE BOARD AS TO A TIME LIMITATION WHICH THE ORDINANCE
f 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 WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE REQUIREMENT FOR SECOND, THIRD , FOURTH AND
FIFTH STAGES.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS THAT WE COULD REQUIRE THAT THE
FINAL STAGING BE DONE BY A YEAR FROM NOW.
ATTORNEY JOSEPH BRENNAN-YES , IF YOU DID THAT OPEN ENDjYES 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 EVERjYOU 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 AND WHEN IT GOES
ONIYOU 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 .
I MR. DEEqq ANTIS- I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS JUST READ ON THE RECORD BY MR. BRENNAN
WASAWHHE 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 TOjOR 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
i
I
12
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 OCCUR) IF IN FACT ITS THEN
TEN YEARS AFTER THAT BEFORE THE PROPOSED SECOND STAGE IS SUBMITTED , WHAT
IS THE EFFECT OF THAT AND HER QUESTION ISM DO YOU PLACE A TIME LIMITATION
YOU GO SIX MONTHS FOR THE FIRST STAGEjDO 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 OPENIAND SAY) YOU MUST SUBMIT THE FINAL PHASE BY SUCH AND SUCH A DATE.
COUNCILMAN EISENHART- IF IT DOES NOT GO ONjWE 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 CIRCUMSTANCESJIS REALLY
IN M( OPINION AS 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 I� YOU ASKED TO QUOTE A SPECIFIC TIME LIMITATION
ON WHAT WOULD BE CONSTRUED AS BEING A REASONABLE PEIRI)OD OF TIME BEYOND
THE FIRST PHASE) YOUR 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 THATJWHEN YOU SUBMIT WITHIN
SIX MONTHS) YOU WILL PROJECT THE ENTIRE PHASE AND LOOK FOR PERIODS OF TIME
PER PHASE THROUGH TO COMPLETION) BEFORE 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 CIRCUMSTANCEJWITH THAT UNDERSTANDING
MRS. 114ONAHAN' I THINK YOU ARE ADEQUATELY PROTECTED.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AUDIT OF BILLS
RFSni iirrnni nin »- INTRODUCED BY DR. CHARLES EISENHART WHO MOVED
FOR ITS ADOPTION , SECONDED BY MR. DANIEL MORRELL :
RESOLVED , THAT AUDIT OF SILLS AS LISTED ON ABSTRACT NO . 82- IID AND
NUMBERED 2136-2137 AND TOTALING $3 , 532 . 65 BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED.
DULY ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES : MR. OLSON , DR. EISENHART , MR. MORRELL , MRS. MONAHAN , MRS . WALTER
NOES : NONE
ABSENT : NONE
ON MOTION THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED ,
DONALD A. CHASE ,
TOWN CLERK
i
i