1983-06-14 195
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING JUNE 141 1983
TOWN :BOARD MEMBERS
MRS . FRANCES WALTER-SUPERVISOR
MR. DANIEL OLSON-COUNCILMAN
DR. CHARLES EISENHART-COUNCILMAN
MR. DANIEL MORRELL-COUNCILMAN
MRS . BETTY MONAHAN-COUNCILMAN
ABSENT : MR. WILSON MATHIAS-TOWN COUNSEL
PRESS : G. F. POST STAR
- GUESTS : ATTORNEY SCHACHNER, MR. JOSEPH DAIRE, MR. ARTHUR TURNBULL
MR. HALL, MRS . HALL
TOWN OFFICIALS : MR. PAUL NAYLOR, MR. LYNN, MR. ROBERTS
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN MONAHAN
MEETING OPENED 7 : 30 P. M.
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE TOWN BOARD MINUTES
RESOLUTION NO . 118, INTRODUCED BY MR. DANIEL MORRELL WHO MOVED
FOR ITS ADOPTION, SECONDED BY DR. CHARLES EISENHART :
RESOLVED, THAT THE TOWN BOARD MINUTES OF MAY 24TH AND 31ST . OF 1983
BE AND HEREBY ARE APPROVED.
DULY ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES : MR. OLSON, DR. EISENHART, MR. MORRELL, MRS . MONAHAN, MRS . WALTER
NOES : NONE
ABSENT : NONE
RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON LOCAL LAW TO LICENSE THE OPERATION
OF JUNKYARDS AND TO REGULATE THE OPERATION OF JUNKYARDS IN THE TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY, WARREN COUNTY, NEW YORK
RESOLUTION NO. 119, INTRODUCED BY DR. CHARLES EISENHART WHO MOVED FOR ITS
ADOPTION, SECONDED BY MR. DANIEL OLSON :
WHEREAS, THE TOWN BARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY IS CONCERNED THAT A CLEAN,
WHOLESOME, ATTRACTIVE ENVIRONMENT IS DECLARED TO BE OF IMPORTANCE TO THE
HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY. IT IS
FURTHER DECLARED THAT THE UNRESTRAINED ACCUMULATION OF JUNK MOTOR VEHICLES,
MACHINERY, SCRAP METALS, WASTE PAPERS, RAGS, USED OR SALVAGED BUILDING
MATERIALS OR OTHER DISCARDED MATERIALS IS A HAZARD TO SUCH HEALTH, SAFETY
AND WELFARE OF CITIZENS OF THE TOWN NECESSITATING THE REGULATION, RESTRAINING
AND ELIMINATION THEREOF, AND
WHEREAS, THE TOWN BOARD IS DESIROUS OF RECOGNIZING THAT THE MAINTENANCE OF
JUNKYARDS IS A USEFUL AND NECESSARY BUSINESS AND OUGHT TO BE ENCOURAGED WHEN
NOT IN (DNFLICT WITH THE EXPRESS PURPOSES AS SET FORTH ABOVE, AND NOW THERE-
FORE BE IT
RESOLVED, THAT A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED LOCAL LAW FOR THE LICENSING
OF THE OPERATION OF JUNKYARDS AND TO REGULATE THE OPERATION OF JUNKYARDS
IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY BE HELD AT 7 : 30 P.M. IN THE MEETING ROOM OF THE
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY OFFICE BUILDING, BAY & HAVILAND ROADS, IN THE TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY, WARREN COUNTY, NEW YORK ON JUNE 28, 1983 AT WHICH ALL PERSONS
INTERESTED IN THE SUBJECT MATTER THEREOF WILL BE HEARD, AND IT IS FURTHER
RESOLVED, THAT THE TOWN CLERK PUBLISH NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IN THE
OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED NEWSPAPER.
DULY ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES : MR. OLSON, DR. EISENHART, MR. MORRELL, MRS. MONAHAN, MRS . WALTER
NOES : NONE
ABSENT : NONE
196
RESOLUTION TO DESIGNATE POLLING PLACES IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
RESOLUTION N0, 120, INTRODUCED BY DR. CHARLES EISENHART WHO MOVED
FOR ITS ADOPTION, SECONDED BY MRS . BETTY MONAHAN :
WHEREAS, ARTICLE 4 SECTION 66 OF THE FLECTION LAW PROVIDES THAT THIS
BOARD SHALL DESIGNATE THE POLLING PLACES WHERE REGISTRATION OF VOTERS
AND THE ELECTION SHALL BE HELD DURING THE YEAR FOLLOWING, NOW, THEREFORE
BE IT
i
RESOLVED, THAT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS BE AND THEY HEREBY ARE DESIGNATED
AS THE RESPECTIVE POLLING PLACES IN THE DISTRICTS AS ENUMERATED
DISTRICT LOCATION
1 . SOUTH QUEENSBURY FIRE HOUSE
2. BAY RIDGE FIRE HOUSE
3• BAY RIDGE FIRE HOUSE
4• NORTH QUEENSBURY FIRE HOUSE
5. WARREN COUNTY MUNICIPAL CENTER
6. nUEENSBURY MIDDLE SCHOOL (EAST DOOR)
7. QUEENSBURY TOWN OFFICE BUILDING
8 . QUEENSBURY CENTRAL FIRE HOUSE
9 • QUEENSBURY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
10 . CEREBRAL PALSY CENTER
11 . JOHN BURKE APTS. (SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER)
12 . KENSINGTON ROAD SCHOOL ( WEST ENTRANCE)
13 . DEN WILHELM AUTO SALES
14. WEST GLENS FALLS FIRE HOUSE
15 . WEST GLENS FALLS FIRE HOUSE
16. QUEENSBURY WATER DEPT . (MAINT . BLDG. )
17 . QUEENSBURY TOWN OFFICE BUILDING
18 . WEST GLENS FALLS FIRE HOUSE
AND BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, THAT THE RENTAL FOR SUCH POLLING PLACES BE AND THE SAME HEREBY »�
IS FIXED AT THE SUM OF $40 . 00 PER ANNUM PER DISTRICT.
DULY ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES : MR. OLSON, DR. EISENHART, MR. MORRELL, MRS . MONAHAN, MRS . WALTER
NOES : NONE
ABSENT : NONE
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE BINGO LICENSE
_RESOLUTION N0. 121, INTRODUCED BY MR. DANIEL MORRELL WHO MOVED FOR ITS
ADOPTION, SECONDED BY MRS . BETTY MONAHAN :
RESOLVED, THAT BINGO LICENSE NM 17031 BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED ALLOWING
QUEENSBURY VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS POST 6196 TO HOLD BINGO OCCASIONS
FROM JUNE 28, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 13, 1983 AND BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, THAT THIS INCLUDES TWO SUNDAY BINGO DATES .
DULY ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
I
AYES : MR. OLSON, MR. MORRELL, MRS . MONAHAN, MRS . WALTER
NOES : DR. EISENHART
ABSENT : NONE - -f
F
RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS
_RESOLUTION N0 . 122, INTRODUCED BY MR. DANIEL OLSON WHO MOVED FOR ITS
ADOPTION, SECONDED BY MR. DANIEL MORRELL :
WHEREAS, IT HAS BEEN NECESSARY TO DO EMERGENCY REPAIR WORK TO THE SEWER
IN PERSHING, ASHLEY, COOLIDGE SEWER DISTRICT AND
WHEREAS, THE FUNDS WERE NOT APPROPRIATED FOR THIS EXPENSE, NOW, THEREFORE
BE IT
i
197
RESOLVED, TO TRANSFER $1150 . 00 FROM SS1-909 PAC FUND BALANCE TO
SS1-8130-440 PAC CONTRACTUAL.
DULY ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES : MR. OLSON, DR. EISENHART, MR. MORRELL, MRS. MONAHAN, MRS . WALTER .
NOES : NONE
ABSENT : NONE
+ RESOLUTION TO CREATE POSITION OF PARTS SHOP FOREMAN IN THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 123, INTRODUCED BY MR. DANIEL OLSON WHO MOVED FOR ITS
ADOPTION, SECONDED BY MR. DANIEL MORRELL :
'�--= WHEREAS, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF HIGHWAYS OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY HAS
RECOMMENDED TO THE TOWN BOARD THE CREATION OF A SALARIED FULL-TIME
MANAGEMENT POSITION HAVING THE TITLE-OF ' 'PARTS SHOP FOREMAN ' ' UPON THE
GROUNCS THAT THE CREATION OF SUCH POSITION WOULD INCREASE SIGNIFICANTLY
THE EFFICIENCY OF MANAGEMENT OF SAID DEPARTMENT AND
WHEREAS, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF HIGHWAYS HAS SUBMITTED A DESCRIPTION
OF THE MANAGEMENT DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF SAID ' ' PARTS SHOP
FOREMAN' ' IF SAID POSITION IS CREATED WHICH DESCRIPTION IS ANNEXED
HERETO AS EXHIBIT ' 'All AND
WHEREAS, ON THE BASIS OF DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT OF HIGHWAYS,
IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE CREATION OF SAID POSITION, HAVING THE DUTIES
AND RESPONSIBILITIES AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT ' 'All ANNEXED HERETO, WOULD
INCREASE THE MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCY AND IMPORVE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT NOW THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, THAT THE POSITION OF PARTS SHOP FOREMAN BE CREATED WITH SAID
POSITION TO HAVE THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT
' 'All ANNEXED HERETO.
DULY ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES : MR. OLSON, DR. EISENHART, MR. MORRELL, MRS . MONAHAN, MRS . WALTER
NOES : NONE
ABSENTT NONE
COUNCILMAN OLSON- REVIEWED THE POSITION OF PART SHOP FOREMAN . . .
HIS PLAN IS TO HAVE REPLACEMENT PARTS ON HAND AND OTHER EQUIPMENT THAT
IS NEEDED ON HAND FOR REPAIRS TO THE VEHICLES . . .TO LESSEN DOWN TIME
ON EQUIPMENT
COUNCILMAN MORRELL- THIS WILL ALSO REQUIRE CONFIDENTIALITY BETWEEN YOU
AND THE FOREMAN?
MR. NAYLOR- VERY MUCH SO .
RESOLUTION TO APPOINT PARTS SHOP FOREMAN
RESOLUTION NO, 124, INTRODUCED BY MR. DANIEL OLSON WH.0 MOVED FOR ITS
I ADOPTION, SECONDED BY DR. CHARLES EISENHART :
i
WHEREAS, THE MANAGEMENT LEVEL POSITION OF PARTS SHOP FOREMAN HAS BEEN
CREATED BY RESOLUTION NO. 123, AND
WHREAS, HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT PALL NAYLOR HAS INDICATED A NEED TO FILL
THE POSITION, AND
WHEREAS, EVERETT VOORHIS HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED BY SUPERINTENDENT NAYLOR
TO FILL THE VACANCY, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, THE EVERETT VOORHIS BE APPOINTED TO FILL THE POSITION OF
PARTS SHOP FOREMAN FOR A SIX MONTH PROVISIONAL PERIOD IN ACCORDANCE
WITH CIVIL SERVICE REQUIREMENTS AT A SALARY OF $13, 000 . PER ANNUM
AND BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, THAT NO ADDITIONAL OVERTIME PAY IS ALLOWED AND THAT THIS
TITLE AND RATE OF COMPENSATION IS:::EFFECTIVE AS OF JUNE 131p 1983 .
I
19:
DULY ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES: MR. OLSON, DR. EISENHART, MR . MORRELL, MRS . MONAHAN, MRS . WALTER
NOES : NONE
ABSENT: NONE
I
i
SUPERVISOR WALTER- MR. VOORHIS WAS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HIGHWAY
SUPT. HE HAS BEEN WORKING IN A JOB THAT IS VERY SIMILIAR AND HAS WORKED
FOR THE TOWN FOR ABOUT EIGHT YEARS . . .
RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON A LOCAL LAW PROVIDING FOR THE
REPAIR OR REMOVAL OF UNSAFE BUILDINGS AND COLLAPSED STRUCTURES
s
RESOLUTION NO. 125, INTRODUCED BY MR. DANIEL MORRELL WHO MOVED FOR ITS
ADOPTI-ON, SECONDED BY DR. CHARLES EISENHART :
WHEREAS, THE JbWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY IS CONCERNED THAT
UNSAFE BUILDINGS POSE A THREAT TO LIFE AND PROPERTY IN THE )TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY. BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES MAY BECOME UNSAFE BY- REASON
OF DAMAGE BY FIRE, THE ELEMENTS, AGE OR GENERAL DETERIORATION .
VACANT BUILDINGS NOT PROPERLY SECURED AT DOORWAYS AND WINDOWS ALSO
SERVE AS AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE OF YOUNG CHILDREN WHO MAY BE INJURED
THEREIN, AS WELL AS A POINT OF CONGREGATION BY VAGRANTS AND TRANSIENTS .
A DILAPIDATED BUILDING MAY ALSO SERVE AS A PLACE OF RODENT INFESTATION i
THEREBY CREATING A HEALTH MENACE TO THE COMMUNITY. IT IS THE PURPOSE
OF THIS LOCAL LAW TO PROVIDE FOR THE SAFETY, HEALTH, PROTECTION AND
GENERAL WELFARE OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY BY
REQUIRING SUCH UNSAFE BUILDINGS TO BE REPAIRED OR DEMOLISHED AND RE-
MOVED, AND
f
WHEREAS, THE TOWN BOARD IS DESIROUS OF RECOGNIZING THAT UNSAFE BUILDINGS
POSE A THREAT TO LIFE AND PROPERTY IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, AND NOW,
THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, THAT A PUELIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED LOCAL LAW PROVIDING FOR THE
REPAIR OR REMOVAL OF UNSAFE BUILDINGS AND COLLAPSED STRUCTURES IN THE
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY BE HELD AT 7 : 30 P. M. IN THE MEETING ROOM OF THE {
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY OFFICE BUILDING, BAY 8 HAVILAND RDS . , IN THE TOWN
OF QUEENSBURY, WARREN COUNTY, NEW YORK ON JUNE 28, 1983 AT WHICH ALL
PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE SUBJECT MATTER THEREOF WILL BE HEARD, AND
IT IS FURTHER
RESOLVED, THAT THE TOWN CLERK PUBLISH NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IN
THE OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED NEWSPAPER.
DULY ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES : MR. OLSON, DR. EISENHART, MR. MORRELL, MRS . MONAHAN, MRS. WALTER
NOES : NONE
ABSENT: NONE
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUPERVISOR TO SIGN AGREEMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 126, INTRODUCED BY MR. DANIEL MORRELL WHO MOVED FOR
ITS ADOPTION, SECONDED BY MR. DANIEL OLSON :
WHEREAS, THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY HAS HERETOFORE CONTRACTED WITH THE
QUEENSBURY SENIOR CITIZENS CLUB, INC. AND,
I
WHEREAS, THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY DESIRES TO CONTINUE ITS SUPPORT OF
THE QUEENSBURY SENIOR CITIZENS CLUB, INC. , NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, THAT THE SUPERVISOR OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY BE AND HEREBY
IS EMPOWERED TO CONTRACT WITH THE QUEENSBURY SENIOR CITIZENS CLUB, INC .
TO PROVIDE $4, 000 . 00 FOR RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES
DURING THE IAR 1983, ACCORDING TO THE AGREEMENT, AND BE IT FURTHER
I
RESOLVED, THAT THE SUM OF $4, 000 . 00 WILL BE PAID TO THE QUEENSBURY
SENIOR CITIZENS CLUB, INC. IN ONE PAYMENT .
DULY ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : MR. OLSON, IDR. EISENHART, MR. MORRELL, MRS MONAHAN, MRS . WALTER
I
I99
NOES : NONE
ABSENT : NONE
DISCUSSION HELD ON RESOLUTION NO. 126 . . . IT WAS RECOMMENDED BY SUPERVISOR
WALTER THAT THE SUPPORT OF THE QUEENSBURY SENIOR CITIZENS BE MADE IN ONE
PAYMENT THIS YEAR DUE TO THE LAIENESS IN THE YEAR. . . .AGREED TO BY THE
ENTIRE BOARD.
COMMUNICATIONS
i
-APPLICATION FOR A TRANSIENT MOBILE HOME COURT- THE GREAT ESCAPE
CAMPING RESORT, INC . 300 SITES WHEN COMPLETED.
COUNCILMAN EISENHART- THIS HAS GONE THROUGH ALL THE BOARDS PLANNING,
ZONING?
COUNCILMAN MORRELL- THIS HAS GONE THROUGH ALL THE BOARDS .
COUNCILMAN OLSON- IF THIS IS APPROVED, HOW LONG IS IT APPROVED FOR?
TOWN CLERK- PERMANENT APPLICATION . . .ASKED IF ALL THE SITES WERE NOW
DEVELOPED?
ATTORNEY JUDGE- NOTED THAT THERE WILL BE 300 SITES BY LABOR DAY 150 OF
THE 300 WILL BE IN -OPERATION AT PRESENT 100 SITES ARE READY FOR JULY 4TH . . .
SUPERVISOR WALTER- THIS IS A PROCEDURAL MATTER IN THAT THE APPLICANT HAS
GONE THROUGH THE HOOPS SO TO SPEAK OF THE OTHER AGENCIES .. .
COUNCILMAN OLSON- DO YOU HAVE VALID PERMITS FROM ENCON?
ATTORNEY JUDGE- WE HAVE ALL THE NECESSARY PERMITS. . .NOTED THAT THERE WAS
CONCERN OVER RUN OFF. . THIS SPRING WAS A TEST BECAUSE WE PROBABLY HAD MORE
RAIN THEN EVER-AGAIN WE WERE DELIGHTED TO FIND
pp��HAT OUR ENGINEERS WERE
CORRECT THE WATER, WHAT EVER PONDING THERE WAS�n'WITHIN A COUPLE OF HUNDRED
FEET OF THE WET LAND AREA. . .NOTED IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS THERE WILL BE
24HR. SECURITY OF THE AREA. . .
COUNCILMAN OLSON- WHAT ABOUT RUN OFF OF THE SEPTIC SYSTEMS?
I
ATTORNEY JUDGE- THE SEPTIC SYSTEMS WERE APPROVED BY THE HEALTH DEPT. AND
ENCON.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE TRANSIENT MOBILE HOME COURT
RESOLUTION NO. 127, INTRODUCED BY MR. DANIEL MORRELL WHO MOVED FOR ITS
ADOPTION, SECONDED BY DR. CHARLES EISENHART :
WHEREAS, CHARLES R. WOOD OF BOX 511, LAKE GEORGE, NEW YORK 12845 HAS
SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION TO THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY FOR APPROVAL OF
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TRANSIENT MOBILE HOME COURT ON PREMISES WHICH
MR. WOOD OWNS ON ROUND POND ROAD IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, AND
WHEREAS, APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT HAS BEEN SOUGHT OUT AND APPROVED
BY THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD AND THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD AND
I
WHEREAS, IT APPEARS THAT THERE HAS BEEN FULL COMPLIANCE IN THE APPLICATION
WITH ORDINANCE NO. 12 OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, AND
WHEREAS, AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE TOWN
OF QUEENSBURY BY MR. WOOD AND THE TOWN BOARD HAS DETERMINED UNDER THE
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL
HAVE NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, AND
WHEREAS, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE PLANS AND LOCATION OF SAID TRANSIENT MOBILE ';
HOME COURT WOULD BE A PROPER AND BENEFICIAL USE OF THE PREMISES INVOLVED,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, THAT THE APPLICATION OF CHARLES WOOD FOR THE APPROVAL BY THE
TOWN BOARD OF HIS APPLICATION TO ESTABLISH A TRANSIENT MOBILE HOME COURT
ON ROUND POND ROAD IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY IN ACCORDANCE WITH !'THE
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FILED BY MR. WOOD WITH THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
BE AND THE SAME HEREBY IS APPROVED AND BE IT FURTHER I
I
zoo
RESOLVED, THAT THE TOWN CLERK BE AUTHORIZED THAT UPON COMPLIANCE WITH
ANY AND ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 12 TO ISSUE A PERMIT FOR
SAID PURPOSE TO MR. CHARLES WOOD.
DULY ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES : MR. OLSON, DR. EISENHART, MR. MORRELL, MRS. MONAHAN, MRS . WALTER
NOES : NONE
j ABSENT : NONE
BID OPENING FUEL OIL DIESEL KEROSENE 1983-84
ASHTON FUEL BRIAN BEURS MABB OIL
SARATOGA SPRINGS , 'GLENS FALLS HUDSON FALLS }
WATER MAINTENANCE . 945 . 970 . 9649 •J
PINE VIEW . 945 . 970 . 9649
TOWN OFFICE . 945 . 970 . 9649
WATER FILTRATION . 945 . 961 .9549
POLICE HIGHWAY . 945 . 961 . 9549
DIESEL 1 . 005 . 971 . 9549
LANDFILL KERO 1 . 065 1 . 055 1 . 0999
DIESEL 1 . 005 . 990 . 9999
LAFAYETTE ST. . 945 . 970 . 9649
NON COLLUSIVE ATTACHED ON ALL BIDS .
i
i
BIDS TURNED OVER TO MR. FLAHERTY FOR HIS RECOMMENDATION .
LTR. COLONIAL CABLEVISION INC . ON FILE RATE INCREASE ON HBO FROM
$8 . 95 TO $9 . 50
MOBILE HOME APPLICATION OF RICHARD HERMANCE SR. TO LOCATE A MOBILE
HOME ON DAWN AVENUE-OWNER OF PROPERTY GENEVA ELMORE-MR. HERMANCE WAS
PRESENT. . . . .APPROVED BY THE ASSISTANCE BUILDING INSPECTOR MACK DEAN _sV••-
COUNCILMAN MORRELL- QUESTIONED IF THIS WAS THE PROPERTY THAT WAS
LISTED IN THE PAPER AS HAVING BACK TAXES TO BE PAID?
MR. HERMANCE- THERE IS BACK TAXES DUE ON THE PROPERTY, I AM AWAITING
THE APPROVAL ON MY APPLICATION THEN MRS . ELMORE IS GOING TO PAY THE
BACK TAXES . . .
COUNCILMAN OLSON- WHERE DO YOU HAVE THE MOBILE HOME NOW?
MR. HERMANCE- IN HOMESTEAD VILLAGE . . .
SUPERVISOR WALTER- ASKED THAT MR. HERMANCE HAVE A WRITTEN STATEMENT
FROM MRS . ELMORE THAT THE TAXES WILL BE PAID ON THE PARCEL IN QUESTION
FOR THE NEXT BOARD MEETING . . .NOTED THAT THE BOARD COULD SET A PUBLIC HEARING
BUT I DO NOT THINK THAT THIS BOARD CAN GRANT A MOBILE HOME PERMIT WITH
SOMETHING THAT IS NOT CLEAR CUT .
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE PUBLIC HEARING
I
RESOLUTION NO. 128, INTRODUCED BY DR. CHARLES EISENHART WHO MOVED
FOR ITS ADOPTION, SECONDED BY MRS . BETTY MONAHAN!. '
WHEREAS, RICHARD HERMANCE SR. HAS MADE APPLICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH
PARAGRAPH 2 (C) SECTION 4, OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
ENTITLED ORDINANCE FOR THE REGULATION OF MOBILE HOMES AND MOBILE HOME
COURTS IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, WARREN COUNTY, NEW YORK, TO LOCATE
A MOBILE HOME OUTSIDE AT PROPERTY SITUATED AT DAWN AVENUE, AND
WHEREAS, IT IS HEREBY DETERMINED THAT SAID APPLICATION COMPLIES WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SAID ORDINANCE, AND
WHEREAS, IT IS HEREBY DETERMINED THAT THE FACTS PRESENTED IN SAID
{ APPLICATION ARE SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY THIS
1 BOARD, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, THAT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED
ORDINANCE, THE TOWN BOAJ�D SHALL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON SAID
201
APPLICATION ON JUNE 28, 1983 AT 7 : 30 P.M. IN THE QUEENSBURY TCW4
OFFICE BUILDING, BAY ROAD, AND THAT THE TOWN CLERK IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED
AND DIRECTED TO GIVE PROPER NOTICE OF SAID PUBLIC HEARING IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SAID ORDINANCE .
DULY ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE
AYES : MR. OLSON, DR. EISENHART, MR. MORRELL, MRS . MONAHAN, MRS . WALTER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
LTR. -
DATE : JUNE 8, 1983
TO : QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD MEMBERS
RE : HALL MOBILE HOME
ON JUNE 1, 1983, AN INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED AT THE STEVE
HALL MOBILE HOME SITE AT BENNETT ROAD TO DETERMINE IF
CERTAIN STIPULATIONS REQUIRED BY THE TOWN BOARD HAD BEEN
MET.
AT THAT TIME, A ROW OF 5 LONG-NEEDLE PINE TREES, 5 TO 6 FEET
IN HEIGHT HAD BEEN PLANTED IN THE REQUIRED AREA.
ON JUNE 7, 1983, FURTHER INSPECTION REVEALED 7 ADDITIONAL
TREES HAD BEEN PLANTED BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL ROW OF 5 TREES
AND THE HALL MOBILE HOME . (THERE WERE ALSO 2 ADDITIONAL
HOLES, PRESUMABLY FOR MORE TREES, ALTHOUGH THISHAS NOT
VERIFIED)
ADDITIONALLY, ON JUNE 1, 1983, T-111 SIDING HAD BEEN APPLIBD
TO A PORTION OF THE HALL MOBILE HOME, THAT WHICH FACES
HUMMINGBIRD LANE.
ATTACHED ARE COPIES OF THE TOWN BOARD REQUEST OF DECEMBER 23,
1982 AND VARIOUS PHOTOS OF THE HALL MOBILE HOME SITE TAKEN
FROM HUMMINGBIRD LANE ON JUNE1 AND JUNE 7, 1983 . ( ON FILE)
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
/S/•
MACK A. DEAN
MAD:EB ASSISTANT BUILDING INSPECTOR
ATTORNEY MARK J. SCHACHNER- REPRESENTING RESIDENTS OF HUMMINGBIRD LANE
FILED WITH THE TOWN BOARD THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT)
JUNE 14, 1983
STATEMENT OF
MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES PROPERTY OWNERS
AS PROPERTY OWNERS IN MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES, WE WISH TO
ADDRESS OUR COMMENTS TO THE MEMBERS OF THE QUEENSBURY TOWN
BOARD, WHO HAVE SEEN FIT TO APPROVE A MOBILE HOME PERMIT TO
THE DETRIMENT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AS WE HAVE INDICATED TO THE : IVJWN BOARD ON NUMEROUS
OCCASIONS, THIS DISPUTE WOULD HAVE PROCEEDED IN AN ENTIRELY
DIFFERENT MANNER HAD THE APPLICATNS ACCURATELY DESCRIBED THE
PROPOSED LOCATION OF THEIR MOBILE HOME ON THEIR PERMIT
.-�- APPLICATION. THE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTED SPECIFIED
THAT THE MOBILE HOME WAS TO BE LOCATED AT THE "END OF
BENNETT ROAD" AND, THEREFORE, NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE PERMIT APPLICATION SPECIFIED THAT THE MOBILE
HOME WAS TO BE PLACED ON ' PROPERTY SITUATED AT BENNETT
ROAD' . UNAWARE THAT THE MOBILE HOME WAS ACTUALLY TO BE
PLACED ON PROPERTY SITUATED DIRECTLY AT THE END OF
HUMMINGBIRD LANE, THE RESIDENTS OF HUMMINGBIRD LANE DID NOT
ATTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING OR VOICE ANY OBJECTION . ALTHOUGH
THE TOWN BOARD PURPORTEDLY REVIEWED THE SITE, NOTED THAT IT j
WAS QUITE ISOLATED AND SAW NO REASON TO OBJECT TO THE i
PLACEMENT OF THE MOBILE HOME (SEE MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING
OF SEPTEMBER 28, 1982), THE MOBILE HOME IS READILY VISIBLE
FROM SEVERAL RESIDENCES AT THE END OF HUMMINGBIRD LANE AND
CREATES ( N. EYESORE FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, FURTHERMORE, IT
202
SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE APPLICANTS DID NOT PLACE THE MOBILE
HOME IN THE POSITION INDICATED ON THE MAP WHICH ACCOMPANIED
THE PERMIT APPLICATION .
WHEN THE INACCURACY OF THE APPLICATION AND DESCREPANCY
IN SITE PLACEMENT WERE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE TOWN
BOARD ( IN A GRIEVANCE PETITION OF DECEMBER 3, 1982 SIGNED BY
OVER FORTY RESIDENTS OF THE NIEGHBORHOOD AND BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD
REPRESENTATIVES DURING THE TOWN BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER
14, 1982), THE TOWN BOARD RESPONDED BY ATTACHING CONDITIONS
TO THE PERMIT APPROVAL. AS STATED IN THE LETTER OF DECEMBER
23, 1982 FROM THE TOWN SUPERVISOR TO THE APPLICANTS, THE
MOBILE HOME IS VISIBLE TO MANY ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS AND
THE TOWN BOARD THEREFORE REQUESTS THAT EVERGREEN TREES BE
PLANTED TO CREATE APPROPRIATE SCREENING. THE TOWN BOARD
FURTHER STATED AT THE TOWN BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 28,
1982, THAT THE CONDITIONS WERE ATTACHED ,IN ORDER TO INSURE '
THAT THE PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SEE
THE TRAILER BY SUMMERTIME, THAT IS, THAT THE MOBILE HOME
WOULD BE SCREENED FROM THE RESIDENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE APPLICANTS ' 'COMPLIANCE ' WITH THE PERMIT CONDITIONS
HAS BEEN SUPERFICIAL AND INEFFECTIVE. AS RECENT PHOTOGRAPHS
OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD INDICATE, THE MOBILE HOME REMAINS
FLAGRANTLY VISIBLE FROM THE END OF HUMMINGBIRD LANE AND
IS NOT SCREENED FROM THE RESIDENTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AT
ALL.
THEREFORE, WE TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PUBLICLY PROTEST
THE MANNER IN WHICH THE TOWN BOARD HAS RESPONDED TO OUR
PROBLEM. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TOWN BOARD HAS FAILED TO
RESPOND TO THE NEEDS OF ITS CONSTITUENTS AND HAS TRAMPLED ON
THE RIGHTS OF MANY TO CREATE PRIVILEGES FOR FEW. AS THE
TOWN BOARD HAS INDICATED THAT IT WILL REVOKE THE MOBILE HOME
PERMIT IN THE EVENT THAT THE IMPOSED CONDITIONS ARE NOT MET,
?, WE HEREBY RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THIS MOBILE HOME PERMIT
' BE REVOKED. '
ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-WHAT I HAVE GIVEN TO EACH MEMBER OF THE TOWN
;BIOARD,, INCLUDING MR. CHASESIS A COPY OF A STAJVENT WHICH I WOULD
LIKE TO BRIEFLY SUMMERIZE ON BEHALF OF SEVERALKTHE AREA RESIDENTS
NEAR THE HALL MOBILE HOME, ALONG WITH SOMEwTHE DOCUMENTATION. MUCH OF
WHICH YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN SOME OF WHICH IN FACT YOU HAVE GENERATED.
WITH RESPECT SPECIFICALLY TO THE CONDITIONS WHICH I GATHER YOU ARE
ABOUT TO CONSIDER� IT IS OUR CONTENTION THAT ANY ALLEGED COMPLIANCE
WITH THE CONDITIONS REALLY MAKES A SHAM AND A MOCKERY OF THE REASON
FOR WHICH YOU HAVE IMPOSED THESE CONDITIONS . I HAVE A FEELING THAT
THIS MATTER SHOULD NOT HAVE NEVER INVOLVED IN A DISPUTE AS SERIOUS
AS IT NOW INVOLVES HAD IT ONLY BECOME DISPUTEDBECAUSE THERE WAS MATERIAL
MISREPRESENTATION MADE IN THE ORIGINAL PERMIT APPLICATION . I KNOW THAT
MY CLIENTS HAVE MADE STATEMENTS TO YOU TO THAT EFFECT, THAT I WILL NOT
BOTHER REHASHING EACH AND EVERIDETAIL OF, ABOUT THOSE MISREPRESENTATIONS.
ALL I WILL DO IS SUMMERIZE THEM TO SAYjTHAT I THINK YOU ARE ALL AWARE
THAT IF THE INITIAL MOBILE HOME APPLICATION HAD SPECIFIED THAT TRAILER
WAS TO BE PLACED AT THE END OF HUMMINGBIRD LANE� WHICH IN FACT IS WHERE
IT IS PLACED_,_THEN IT WOULD HAVE SEEN MANY AREA RESIDENTS COME FORWARD
TO PROTEST SUCH PLACEMENT . AS I BELIEVEIYOU ARE AWARE THERE WAS A PETITION
GIVEN TO THE TOWN BOARD WITH OVER FORTY SIGNITURES OF AREA RESIDENTS
PERTAINING TO PLACEMENT OF MOBILE HOME . WHAT I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO
ADDRESS MORE SPECIFICALLYj( IS COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITION AS A TOWN
BOARD YOU HAVE GONE ON RECORD TELLING THE AREA RESIDENTS THAT THE REASON
FOR IMPOSITION OF THESE CONDITIONS IS TO SCREEN THE TRAILER FROM THE
VIEW OF THE RESIDENTS . IN TOWN BOARD MEETINGS OF DECEMBER 14TH� AS
WELL AS INDICATEDS THATEAPPROPRIAT nk K NING ISS TOBBERPLACEDEBETTWEENETHERMOBILE `rte
HOME AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUCH THAT MY CLIENTS.THE RESIDENTS OF HUMMINGBIRD
LANE, WOULD NOT BE VISUALLY IMPAIRED BY THIS MOBILE HOME . I WISH TO
REPRESENT AT.-.THIS TIMES THAT MY CLIENTS TELL ME AND I HAVE SEEN WITH
MY OWN EYESjTHAT THE MOBILE HOME IS STILL COMPLETELY VISIBLE FROM
HUMMINGBIRD LANE . IT STILL CREATES AN EYE SORE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
AND WHETHER OR NOT THERE HAS BEEN STRICT LETTER COMPLIANCE TO THE
CONDITIONS OR NOT CLEARLY. THERE IS NO COMPLIANCE WITH THE SPIRIT IN
WHICH THE CONDITIONS WERE IMPOSED. I GOT SEVERL .PHOTOGRAPHS, I BELIEVE
YOU MAY HAVE SEVERAL PHOTOGRAPHS AS WELL. TAKEN BY SOME OF THE BUILDING
AND ZONING PEOPLE WHICH SHOWS WHAT THE STATUS OF THE MOBILE HOME IS TODAY .
(SHOWED THE PHOTOS TO THE TOWN BOARD) I RECEIVED A LETTER FROM MRS .
203
WALTER INDICATING THAT EACH OF YOU WOULD MAKE SITE INSPECTIONS AND
WE ARE CURIOUS, WE KNOW SOME OF YOU HAVE BEEN THERE, BUT WE ARE
CURIOUS IF EACH OF YOUPIN FACT) HAD INDIVIDUALLY MADE A SITE INSPECTION
AND WHAT THE RESULT . OF THAT INSPECTION WOULD BE. THE IMPORTANT THING.
AT THIS TIME IS THAT WE WOULD DEMAND THAT THE TOWN BOARD LIVE UP TO THE
PROMISE MADE TO THE RESIDENTS OF HUMMINGBIRD LANE, WHICH ARE AHE
CONSTITUENTSIAND REVOKE THE MOBILE HOME PERMIT, BECAUSE THERE HAS NOT
-B OMPLIANCE WITH THE SPIRIT IN WHICH THE CONDITIONS WERE IMPOSED.
THAT IS THAT THE MOBILE HOME WAS SUSPOSED TO BE SCREENED FROM THE
HUMMINGBIRD LANE RESIDENTS AND IT IS NOT.
j
COUNCILMAN EISENHART- I WENT UP THERE TODAY, THERE ARE TREES IN, THEY
DO NOT COMPLETELY CUT OFF THE VIEW BUT THE TREES) SIX OR EIGHT OF THEM-
. . . THEN THE SIDING HAS BEEN PLACED ON MOST OF THE SIDE OF THE TRAILER-
THERE IS ONLY ONE HOUSE WHICH ANYONE. CAN SEE A SIDE OF THE TRAILER THAT
-' WOULD LOOK LIKE A TRAILER SIDE, THAT IS THE LAST ONE ON THE LEFT.
ATTORNEY SCHACHNER- CERTAINLY TREES HAVE BEEN PLANTED, BY NO MEANS AM
�- I CONTENDING THAT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN, ALL I AM CONTENDING IS THAT YOU
AND THE TOWN BOARD WENT ON RECORD AS SAYING THAT THE REASON FOR PLANTING
THE TREES IS TO COMPLETELY HIDE THE HALL MOBILE HOME .
COUNCILMAN EISENHART- NO TO SCREEN IT.
ATTORNEY SCHACHNER- WELL, THERE ARE TOWN BOARD MINUTES WHICH YOU HAVE
IN FRONT OF YOU OF DECEMBER 28TH AT WHICH TIME YOU WILL BEE SPECIFICALLY
QUOTED LANGUAGE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE REASON FOR IMPOSING THE CONDITIONS
IS TO COMPLETELY HIDE, OR RATHER THE WAY IT IS PHRASED) BELIEVE IS SO THE
RESIDENTS COULD NOT BE ABLE TO SEE THE HALL MOBILE HOME BY SUMMERTIME.
IN THE TOWN BOARD MINUTES OF DECEMBER 28, 1982 STARTING WITH MR. URCH ' S
COMMENTS ON WETHER OR NOT THE TOWN BOARD WAS GOING ON RECORDOTHAT BY
SUMMER WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SEE THE TRAILER AND YOU WILL NOTE THE
RESPONSE THERE FROM SUPERVISOR WALTER TO THAT EFFECT. THAT IS ALL WE
ARE ALLEGING TODAY THAT YOU HAVE BEEN SOMEWHAT RESPONSIVE TO THE NEEDS
OF THE PEOPLE BY INDICATING THAT CONDITIONS SHOULD BE IMPOSED ON THE
PERMIT APPROVAL, THAT THE PURPOSE OF THESE CONDITIONS IS SO, THAT THESE
AREA RESIDENTS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SEE THE MOBILE HOME BY SUMMERTIME .
THAT IS ALL WE DEMAND AND IF WE CANNOT GET i#HAT WE DEMAND) THAT THE
PERMIT BE REVOKED. AS SOON AS THERE IS SOME APPROPRIATE SCREENING
WHEREBY RESIDENTS OF HUMMINGBIRD LANE ARE NOT ABLE TO SEE THIS MOBILE
HOME, IT IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE TO US . SIMPLY STATED� IT IS OUR CONTENTION
THAT THIS ALLEGED COMPLIANCE MAKES A MOCKERY .` AND A SHAM OF THE REASON
THAT YOU HAVE IMPOSED THESE CONDITIONS . ' TREES HAVE BEEN PLANTED AND
SIDING HAS BEEN BEGUN,) IT IS OUR CONTENTION THAT SIDING IS NOT THE MAJOR
ISSUE ONLY BECAUSE WHILE WE ARE ALL FOR SIDING) THAT STILL DOES NOT HIDE
THE MOBILE HOME . WE ARE PARTICULARLY CONCERNED WITH IS THE EVERGREEN
SCREENING WHICH SEEMS AS A POTENTIALLY APPROPRIATE RESPONSE TO THE
PROBLEM) THE ONLY PROBLEM BEING SO AAR THAT IT DOES NOT COMPLETELY
SCREEN THE MOBILE HOME . I HAVE BEEN THERE MYSELF AND FRANKLYj I WOULD
BELIEVE THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE RESIDENCE FROM WHICH THE MOBILE HOME
IS VISIBLE .
COUNCILMAN EISENHART- AS FAR AS I CAN TELL FROM THE REPORT OF OUR BUILDING
DEPT. AND WHAT I SAW UP THERE TODAY� THE HALL'S HAVE MET THE SPECIFIC
REQUIREMENTS WE GAVE THEM IN THAT LETTER AND EVEN THOUGH I HAVE TO
ADMIT YOU CAN STILL SEE THAT THERE IS A BUILDING THROUGH THE EVERGREEN
TREES, EVERGREENS STILL HAVE BEEN PLANTED AND THE TRAILER HAS BEEN
PARTffAL,L.�' BEEN SIDED, YOU ARE NOT LOOKING AT TRAILER SIDING.,YOU ARE
LOOKING AT WOODEN SIDING, WHICH MAY BE BETTER.
ATTORNEY SCHACHNER- WE DO NOT HAVE ANY SPECIFIC PROBLEMS WITH THE SIDING
THE SIDING ONLY HAD TO BE COMMENCED BY JUNE 1ST. THE SIDING HAS CERTAINLY
BEEN COMMENCED BY JUNE 15T . THE REAL PROBLEM IS TWO FOLDjONEjTHE BROADER
PROBLEM WOULD BE SIMPLY THAT YOU AS A TOWN BOARD HAVE ADDRESSED THE NEEDS
OF THEE CONSTITUENTS BY INDICATING THAT BY SUMMERTIME WE WILL NOT BE ABLE
TO SEE THE MOBILE HOME AND BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION THEY STILL CAN SEE THE
MOBILE HOME .
COUNCILMAN EISENHART- YOU CAN SEE THE WOODEN BUILDING. . .
ATTORNEY SCHACHNER- THE FACT IS THAT YOU HAVE ADMITTED THAT YOU CAN SEE
THE MOBILE HOME FROM SEVERAL PLACES . IF AS A TOWN BOARD YOU WANTED TO
PLAY THE GAME OF WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN STRICT COMPLIANCE OR NOTE I
MIGHT FURTHER ADD THAT I BELIEVE THE LETTER FROM MR. LYNN OR MR. DEAN
INDICATES THAT THE TREES MEASURE BETWEEN FIVE AND SIX FEET IN HEIGHT . I
BELIEVE IF YOU WANT TO HAVE STRICT COMPLIANCE, YOU WILL NOTICE THAT
THE CONDITIONS CALL FOR SIX FOOT HIGH EVERGREENS . I HAVE NOT INTRUDED
i
�0 4
ON THE HALL ' S PROPERTY AND MEASURED THE EVERGREENS MYSELF BUT BEING
FIVE FOOT ELEVEN I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE ARE CERTAINLY NOT ALL SIX
FOOT HIGH EVERGREENS. I CONSIDER THAT A NON-CRUCIAL ISSUE THE PRECISE
NUMBER OF INCHES) NOR DO I CONSIDER THAT THE TOWN BOARD YOU SHOULD
CONSIDER IT AS A CRUCIAL ISSUE- I THINK THAT YOU ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF
THE TOWN CONSTITUENTS IN A PROPER MANNER BY SAYING THAT THE MOBILE HOME
SHOULD BE SCREENED SUCH THAT RESIDENTS OF HUMMINGBIRD LANE WOULD NOT BE
ABLE TO LOOK AT THE MOBILE HOME . THE SITUATION NOW IS THAT SEVERAL
RESIDENTS LOOK AT IT LITERALLY OUT OF THEIR LIVING ROOM PICTURE WINDOW,
OTHER$LOOK AT IT IN A DIFFERENT PARTS OF THEIR PROPERTY AND LOOK AT IT
AT DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THEIR LANDjNOT NECESSARILY WITHIN THEIR RESIDENCES .
WE CERTAINLY AGREE THAT SOME ATTEMPT OF COMPLIANCE HAS BEEN MADE WE ARE
NOT DETRACTING FROM THAT NECESSARILY] WE ARE ONLY SAYING THAT THE REASON
FOR WHICH YOU IMPOSED THE CONDITIONS HAS SIMi12Y-. NOT BEEN MET AND
FURTHERMORE I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THE FACTUAL MATTER THAT SEVERAL
OF THE AREA RESIDENTS DID WITNESS THE ATTEMPTED COMPLIANCE AND THE
j ENTIRE AMOUNT OF EFFORT PUT FORTH-.IN COMPLYINGjI AM REFERRING TO THE
i EVERGREEN SCREENING I AM NOT REFERRING TO THE SIDING-WAS APPROXIMATELY
FIFTEEN MINUTES OF TRANSPLANTING TREES WITHOUT THEIR ROOTS IN A MANNER
SUCH THAT IT IS LIKELY THE TREES WILL NOT SURVIVE. AGAIN THAT IS LOOKING
AT THE FUTURE AND I DO NOT KNOW THAT WE NECESSARILY HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT
ISSUE-WE CANNOT SPECULATE NECESSARILY THE SURVIVAL OF TREES OR LACK THEREOF .
I THINK WHAT IS IMPORTANT AS YOU YOURSELF HAS JUST MENTIONED SIR, SIMpLyi,
YOU CAN STILL SEE THE MOBILE HOME FROM MANY MANY AREAS ON HUMMINGBIRD LANE .
AS A TOWN BOARD, I THINK YOU RESPONDED TO THE NEEDS OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS
BY SAYING) BY SUMMER WE WILL IMPOSE THESE CONDITIONS SUCH THAT BY SUMMERTIME
THE PEOPLE ON HUMMINGBIRD LANE WILL NOT BE ANNOYED BY THIS EYE-SORE .
COUNCILMAN OLSON- I WAS THERE LAST WEEK, ONE TIME IN MAY AND ONE TIME
THE WEEK BEFORE THAT AT THAT TIME PART OF THE SIDING, THE SIDING WAS
STARTED ON THE ONE SIDE FACING HUMMINGBIRD, THERE WAS NOTHING ON THE END.
THE LAST TIME I WAS THERE THERE WAS NOTHING ON THE END BUT THE TREES
WERE THERE AND I DOUBT THAT THEY WERE SIX FOOT . I DROVE UP TO THE
RIGHT OF WAY I THOUGHT THEY WERE FOUR TO FIVE FEET MYSELF.
ATTORNEY SCHACHNER- WELL, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE TOWN BOARD HAS TO
BASE'' YOUR DECISION ON WHAT-EVER YOU MADE THAT SIGHT INSPECTION AND I
GATHER THAT TWO MEMBERS AGREE THAT CERTAINLY THE MOBILE HOME IS
VISIBLE FROM HUMMINGBIRD LANE AND FURTHERMORE I BELIEVE THAT MR. LYNN 'S
LETTER INDICATED THAT TREES, IF YOU WANT TO PLAY THE STRICT COMPLIANCE
GAME, MR. LYNN 'S LETTER INDICATE S, THAT THE PERMIT CONDITIONS HAVE NOT
BEEN STRICTLY COMPLIED WITH IN THE SENSE THAT THE TREES ARE NOT OF THE
REQUIRED HEIGHT . FURTHERMORE I WOULD AGAIN POINT OUT MYSELF AND MY CLIENT
THAT THE IMPORTANT FACTOR HERE IS THE TOWN BOARD PROMISE TO ITS
CONSTITUENTS THAT THE MOBILE HOME WOULD NOT BE VISIBLE TO THE RESIDENTS
OF HUMMINGBIRD LANE. IT WAS A PERFECTLY REASONABLE REQUEST- I BELIEVE
THAT THE TOWN BOARD RESPONDED WITH A REASONABLE ONE AS WELL . ANY APPROPRIATE
SCREENING THAT CAN BE UNDERTAKEN TO SHELTER OR COMPLETELY HIDE THAT MO EILE
HOME WILL BE ACCEPTABLE TO MY CLIENTS .
SUPERVISOR WALTER- THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ASK?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MRS . HALL. . .WHAT KIND OF PINE
TREES DID YOU A L CE THERE?
P
MR. HALL- I DO NOT KNOW. . . SCOTH-WHITE PINE. . .
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- THERE IS QUITE A DIFFERENCE ON HOW THEY ARE GOING
TO GROW WHETHER OR NOT THEY WILL BE SCREENING IN THE FUTURE . . .
MR. HALL- I CAN GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT, BUT I KNOW THAT THEY ARE
EVERGREENS
I
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- YES, THERE IS NO DOUBT OF THAT. . . BUT OUR NATIVE
WHITE PINE ARE VERY POOR TO SCREEN WITH BECAUSE AS THEY GROW' IN
HEIGHT� THE BASE OF THEM GETS VERY SPARCE .
ATTORNEY SCHACHNER- IF I MAY ADDRESS THAT QUESTION AS WELL WITHOUT
BEING A HORTICULTURAL EXPERT MYSELF, I DO HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE
THAT THE PINES TRANSPLANTED HAVE BEEN WHITE PINE AND THAT MAY IN FACT
BE ONE OF THE REASONS THAT THEY ARE NOT PROVIDING THE SCREENING AS
THE OTHER TYPE OF PINES PROVIDE. AGAIN I THINK THAT THE FACT THAT THE
APPLICANT IS NOT AWARE OF WHAT TYPE OF TREE WAS TRANSPLANTED.05HOWS THAT
THE APPLICANT IS ATTEMPTING TO MAKE A SHAM OF THE CONDITIONS .
I� MR. HALL I OBJECT TO THAT.
i
205
SUPERVISOR WALTER- I DO NOT WANT TO GET INTO A DEBATE, YOU MAY RESPOND
MRS . HALL) WHEN MR. SCHACHNER RELINQUISHES THE FLOOR.
ATTORNEY SCHACHNER- SIMPLY STATED,, I TAKE MHAT AS ANOTHER INDICATION OF
THE FACT THAT i MENTIONED4 THAT THE CONDITIONS, WHILE OBVIOUSLY SOME ATTEMPT
IS BEING MADE TO COMPLY, WE MAINTAIN THAT THE ATTEMPT IS INADEQUATE WE
WOULD THEREFORE DEMAND THAT THE PERMIT- BE REVOKED AT THIS TIME . ,
i
I
COUNCILMAN MORRELL- MR. SCHACHNER YOU HAVE A COPY OF A LETTER THAT I HAVE
HERE DATED 12-23-82 THAT WAS SENT TO MRS. HALL INDICATING THAT FIVE SIX
FOOT HIGH EVERGREENS OF YOUR CHOICE BE INSTALLED TO CREATE SCREENING
- ALONG YOUR PROPERTY BORDERING HUMMINGBIRD LANE-WERE THE RESIDENTS OF
' HUMMINGBIRD LANE AWARE OF THIS LETTER?
ATTORNEY SCHACHNER- I WILL ANSWER THAT QUESTION AS STRAIGHT FORWARD AND
HONESTLYjTHAT THE TOWN BOARD SENT AN ADDITIONAL AND SEPERATE LETTER TO
THE RESIDENTS OF HUMMINGBIRD LANE, tNOT A COPY OF THIS LETTER, WHICH
-PHRASED THE SAME CONDITIONS IN A MUCH MORE . . . FASHION . . . THE LETTER TO
--ONE OF MY CLIENTS STATING I AM PARAPySING HERE NOT QUOTING C WILL
SHOW THE LETTER IF YOU WOULD LIKE) TO ADDRESS YOUR NEEDS WE ARE IMPOSING
CONDITIONS UPON THIS PERMIT THAT THE HALLS MUST PROVIDE APPROPRIATE
EVERGREEN SCREENING . IT DID NOT SAY NOW MANY TREES . MY POINT IS
-EXACTLY THAT THERE IS A LOT OF DISCRETSONN HERE, THERE IS A LOT OF
-DI,SCRETION:. OF THE TOWN BOARD AND THE WAY YOU PHARSE EVERGREENS OF YOUR
CHOICEJI HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH ANY KIND OF EVERGREEN THAT GOES UP AS LONG
AS IT WILL DO THE JOB. WHAT I MEAN BY) DO THE JOB.JIS LIVE UP TO THE
REPRESENTATION THAT YOU HAVE MADE TO YOUR CONSTITUENTS) THAT THEY WILL NOT
BE ABLE TO SEE THE MOBILE HOME-OBVIOUSLY IF YOU PLANT ENOUGH WHITE PINES
TALL ENOUGH AND DENSE ENOUGH, WHITE PINE WOULD DO THE JOB ALSO. IF
YOU WANT TO PLAY THE STRICT COMPLIANCE GAME I MAINTAIN THAT THERE UAS?!QQT
BEEN STRICT COMPLIANCE SIMPLY DUE BECAUSE T�E HEIGHT IS INAPPROPRIATE,
AS I BELIEVE ONE OF THE TOWN BOARD MEMBERS IS AWARE . HOWEVER I THINK IT>
IS MOST IMPORTANT THAT YOU SIMPLY IMPOSE THE POSITION BASED ON THE SPIRIT
IN WHICH YOU INTENDED - IT, THAT BEINGjTO RENDER THE MOBILE HOME INVISIBLE
IF YOU WILL FROM HUMMINGBIRD LANE .
I
COUNCILMAN MORRELL- THE LETTER THAT I HAVE HEREjTHE HALL'S HAVE COMPLIED. . .
p ACCORDING TO THE REQUEST OF OUR LETTER I WOULD SAY THAT THEY HAVE COMPLIED.
I
ATTORNEY SCHACHNER- I WOULD MAKE SEVERAL COMMENTS ON THAT, MY FIRST j
COMMENT WOULD BE THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE MINUTES OF THE TOWN BOARD MEETING
OF DECEMBER 28TH) YOU WILL SEE THAT THE TOWN BOARD INDICATION WAS THAT
THE REASON FORKIIMPOSING THIS CONDITION IS "WE DO NOT WANT THE PEOPLE
IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO SEE THE TRAILER BECAUSE THEY HAD OBJECTIONS TO
SEENING THE TRAILER, SO LETS NOT LET IT BE SEEN. FURTHER TOWN BOARD
STATEMENT "THAT IS WHAT THIS BOARDS BY MAKING'�THESE STIPULATIONS. HAS SAID
TO MRS . HALL. WE HAVE ASKED YOU TO PUT THESE IN SO THE RESIDENTS SO THAT THE
MOBILE HOMEjWOULD BE SCREENED FROM THE RESIDENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. "
THAT IS THE FIRST PART OF MY RESPONSE. THE SECOND RELATIVE TO THE ACTUAL
LETTER. . .ALLOWING THE MOBILE HOME TO BE VISIBLE TO ANY ADJOINING PROPERTY
OWNERS . . WE THEREFORE REQUEST ETC . IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE TOWN BOARD
MAKES THAT REQUEST TO REMEDY THE PROBLEM MENTIONED I5 THE FIRST SENTENCE.
COUNCILMAN EISENHART- NOT TO BEFIT IS NOT CLEAR AT ALL, I THINK THAT THERE
-WAS AN ATTEMPT TO CUT OFF THE SIGHT OF THE TRAILER AT LEAST IN MY RECOLLECTION}
WOODEN SIDING IS NOT THE SIGHT OF THE TRAILER. . .WHEN YOU PUT SIDING ON
IT CEASES TO BE WHAT I WOULD NORMALLY THINK OF AS A TRAILER. I REALIZE
THAT FIVE OR SIX EVERGREENS IS NOT GOING TO COMPLElB_Y SHUT OFF ANY VIEW
BUT IT WILL BREAK UP THE VIEW SO THAT IF YOU DRIVE DOWN THE STREET] AND I
DID SO THIS MORNING) YOU LOOK OVER THERE AND THERE IS A WOODEN BUILDING
DOWN THERE UNTIL YOU GET CLEAR DOWN TO THE END AND OVER ON THE LEFT SIDE
AND THEN YOU CAN SEE PAST WHERE THE SIDING HAS BEEN PUT ONjIT HAS NOT GONE
` ALL THE WAY DOWN THE SIDE.
ATTORNEY SCHACHNER- I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, I HAVE TWO
COMMENTS TO MAKEJTHE FIRST, AS I AM SURE YOU ARE WELL AWARE BY OUR TOWN
-0 RDINANCE) ONCE A MOBILE HOME ALWAYS A MOBILE HOME-I THINK YOU ARE ALL AWARE
OF THAT. BEING THAT YOU SIDE IT AND ALL KINDS OF OTHER THINGS IT IS' '
STILL A MOBILE HOME, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF MY C.LIENTSjYOUR CONSTITUENTSf
THEY DO NOT FEEL THAT SIDING ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH-AS A TOWN BOARD IT SEEMS
CLEAR THAT YOU THINK THAT TWO ASPECTS MUSH BE CREATED) ONE BEING THE EVERGREENS
TO SEAL i THE VISIBILITY OF THE MOBILE HOME AND THE FURTHER REQUIREMENT
ABOUT THE SIDING. AGAIN, IF I COULD ADDRESS YOUR COMMENTSjYOU SAID IT
SEEMS TO YOU THAT AS FAR AS THAT LETTERjTHERE HAS BEEN STRICT COMPLIANCE..-
I WOULD AGAIN POINT OUTFIT SEEM CLEAR TO ME THAT IF YOU WANT TO POINT TO
STRICT COMPLIANCE OR THE LACK THERE OFjTHERE IS NOT STRICT COMPLIANCE
206
BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE SIX FOOT HIGH EVERGREENS . GIVEN THAT THE TOWN
BOARD WENT SO FAR AS TO REQUIRE A HEIGHT REQUIREMENT, IT SEEMS CLEAR
ITIS THE LEAST THE APPLICANT COULD DOjWOULD BE,jMEET THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT .
COUNCILMAN MORRELL- THAT PART I AGREE
ATTORNEY SCHACHNER- I BELIEVE GENERALLY SPEAKING YOU EIT-HEg COMPLY OR YOU
I DON 'T. . .
COUNCILMAN MORRELL- THERE ARE EVERGREEN AND YOU CAN HAVE SKINNY
I EVERGREENS
ATTORNEY SCHACHNER- THIS RELATES TO HEIGHT I BELIEVE I
t
1
COUNCILMAN MORRELL- THEY CAN HAVE THE HEIGHT ONE CAN BE VERY THICK
ONE COULD BE SCRAWNY.
1 3
ATTORNEY SCHACHNER- I THINKjIF I CAN FOLLOW YOUR REASONINGjI THINK
YOU ARE SAYING IT IS NOT SO IMPORTANT TO MEASURE THE NUMBER OF INCHES
AS TO SEE WHAT THE ACTUAL GOAL IS FURTHERED. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
COUNCILMAN MORRELL- YES
AMRNEY SCHACHNER- ALL I AM SAYING IS VISIBILITY IS THE GOAL OR
INVISIBILITY IS THE GOAL, I THINK WE ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT A PRECISE
NUMBER OF INCHES IS NOT THE ESSENTIAL ISSUES THE CENTRAL ISSUE IS
WHETHER YOU AS A TOWN BOARD HAVE LIVED UP TO YOUR PROMISE TO YOUR
CONSTITUENTS TO MAKE IT SO THEY CANNOT SEE THIS MOBILE HOME THIS
SUMMER. I WAS ONLY COMMENTING ON THE SPECIFIC NUMBER OF INCHES IN
ADDRESSING YOUR COMMENTS THAT IT SEEMS TO YOUjVIEWING IT MOST STRICTLY
THERE HAS BEEN COMPLIANCE-WHAT I AM SAYING IF YOU WANT TO VIEW IT
MOST STRICTLYjTHERE HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIANCE SIMPLY ON THE LACK OF
HEIGHT OF THE TREES . I DO NOT PERFER TO ANALYSE IT THAT WAY MY OWN
-PREFE-RENCE IS TO SIMPLY SAY) YOU HAVE SAID. TO MY ,CLIENTSjWE WILL
ENABLE IT SO THAT YOU WON ' T SEE THE MOBILE HOME AND THEY STILL CAN
1 I THINK THAT IS MUCH MORE SIMPLISTIC BUT IN THIS CASE A MUCH MORE
PROPER WAY OF ANALYZING THE PROBLEM.
I
SUPERVISOR WALTER- THANK YOU FOR APPEARINGJI UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN
IN THE AREAjI DO NOT KNOW IF THIS BOARD WILL MAKE ANY DETERMINATION
THIS EVENINGjWE ARE WITHOUT BENEFIT OF OUR COUNSEL.
ATTORNEY SCHACHNER- YOU HAVE GONE ON RECORD NOW AS SAYINGjTHAT IN FACT,
THIS MATTER WILL BE FURTHER INVESTIGATED BY ADVICE OF TOWN COUNSEL AND
THERE WILL BE SOME FUTURE DETERMINATION MADE?
COUNCILMAN OLSON- I THINK IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT WE HAVE A MEETING TWO
WEEKS FROM TONIGHT-WE SHOULD HAVE TIME TO TALK TO THE ATTORNEY WHEN
HE GETS BACK.
Ili SUPERVISOR WALTER- WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS INTREPRETATION . . .
I ATTORNEY SCHACHNER- I AGREE THAT YOU SHOULD SPEAK WITH YOUR ATTORNEY-
I JUST WANTED IT CLEAR FOR THE RECORD THAT YOU ARE GOING TO CONSIDER
THIS MATTER BY SEEKING COUNSEL AND THAT THERE WILL BE SOME FURTHER
DETERMINATION WITH RESPECT TO THIS DECISION MADE .
C SUPERVISOR WALTER- WHAT EVER YOU SAID, YES .
C
MRS . HALL- IF YOU READ THE PAPER THIS MORNINGJYOU REALIZE THAT I
CONSIDER MYSELF VERY LUCKY TO BE ALIVE. I HAVE BEEN IN THE HABIT
OF BITINGt- MY TONGUE AND I DID THAT LAST FALL AND THERE WAS QUITE �
A PAUSE ON ONE OF YOUR TAPES AND WHAT I MEANT TO SAY THEN, AND WHAT
I INTEND TO SAY NOWjIS THAT] IF WE WERE LIVING IN BIBLE TIMES THE
PENALTY FOR FALS6Ij ACCUSATIONS OF YOUR NEIGHBOR IS DEATHjSO I
GUESS IT IS A GOOD THING THAT WE ARE NOT LIVING IN BIBLE TIMES .
ONE OF YOUR TOWN OFFICIALS TOLD ME THAT IF IT CAME DOWN TO THE
NITTY - GRITTY HE WOULD SAY THAT SOMEONE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT
TOLD HIM THAT NO ONE SAW THIS IN THE PAPER, SAY NOTHING ABOUT FALSE
REPRESENTATION) NOBODY EVEN SAW IT. I THINK YOUR RECORDS OF THE
MINUTES OF LAST FALL CONTAIN MY ANSWER TO THAT POINT . WE LIVE
ON BENNETT ROAD WE DO NOT LIVE AT THE END OF HUMMINGBIRD LANE.
I DO NOT KNOW IF THE PAPER THAT YOU WERE HANDED TONIGHT GIVES
MY ADVICE TO MRS. WALTERjTHAT WE SHOULD PROBABLY HAVE A LEGAL
DEFINITION OF NOjaEjNGABLE TO SEE THE TRAILER-IT SEEMS TO BE THE
POINT THAT'S .NUMBER ONE TONIGHT . THE REASON THAT WE DO NOT KNOW
WHAT THE TREES AREjIS THAT THEY WERE GIVEN TO US . I DO NOT THINK
i
j 207
YOU ARE RUNNING BY THE SAME TIME CLOCK THAT WE RUN BY BECAUSE IT
TOOK TWO DAYS TO PLANT THE TREES, THE FIRST TREES . IT DEPENDS
ON IF YOU ARE MEASURING FROM THE UPHILL SIDE OR THE DOWNHILL SIDE
WHETHER THEY ARE SIX FEET . I THINK THAT THERE ARE SIX OF THEM
THAT ARE SIX FEET, AND THE ROOTS WERE PLANTED, SOME TREES, SOME
EVERGREEN TREES ONLY HAVE ONE ROOT. I THINK THAT IS ALL I WANT
TO SAY TONIGHT.
COUNCILMAN OLSON- CAN I ASK YOU, I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED TO BEGIN
WITH WHEN YOU WERE TALKING AND I DID NOT QUITE UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU
WERE SAYING WHEN YOU SAID A TOWN OFFICIAL WOULD SAY SOMETHING, WERE E
YOU IMPLYING THAT THEY WOULD NOT SAY THE TRUTHjIS THAT WHAT YOU MEANT.
THAT YOU LIVE AT THE END OF BENNETT ROAD OR YOU DON'T LIVE AT THE
END OF BENNETT ROADjI AM REALLY CONFUSED ON THAT ISSUE .
MRS. HALL- LAST FALL QUITE A POINT WAS MADE THAT THE ADVERTISING IN
THE PAPER WAS FALSE REPRESENTATION-THAT IF PEOPLE HAD SEEN THAT AN
APPLICATION WAS BEING MADE FOR A TRAILER AT THE END OF HUMMINGBIRD
LANE THAT EVERYONE WOULD HAVE ATTENDED. MY POINT AT THAT TIME WAS
THAT IT WAS NOT FALSE REPRESENTATIONjTHAT MY STREET ADDRESS AND MY
POST OFFICE ADDRESS FOR THE LAST TWELVE OR THIRTEEN. !YEARS HAVE BEEN
BENNETT ROAD.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- ASKED HOW MANY TREES HAVE BEEN PLANTED?
MR. HALL- NINE TREES
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- THEY LOOK TO MBE LIKE THEY ARE IN STAGGERED ROWS?
MRS . HALL- WE ASKED MACK DEAN TO COME UP AND SHOW US WHERE HE THOUGHT
THE TOWN BOARD MEANT FOR THEM TO BE PLANTED BECAUSE I FELT FROM SOMETHING
THAT WAS SAID LAST FALLjIT WAS YOUR INTENTION TO HAVE THEM ALONG THE
PROPERTY LINE AND WE JUST KNEW IF THEY WERE PLANTED THERE THEY WOULD NOT
COVER ANYTHING. ;SO THEY ARE PLANTED IN A TYPE OF STAGGERED ROW THAT
MACK SUGGESTED OR THAT WE TOLD MACK WHAT WE INTENDED TO DO.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- HOW ARE THESE STAGGERED?
MR. HALL-FIVE IN ONE ROW FOUR IN THE OTHER. . .
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- YOU CAN TELL THAT THESE ARE WHITE PINE) THEY HAVE f
FIVE NEEDLES COMING OUT OF ONE SECTION AND THAT IS HOW YOU CAN TELL
YOUR WHITE PINE.
MRS . HALL- WELL FOR SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT KNOW THE-:DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
BIRCHES AND BEECHES, YOU "KNOW THAT THEY ARE ',EVERGREENJTHAT IS ALL THAT
WAS SPECIFIED IN THE LETTER dOK3AND THEY WERE GIVEN TO US BY A VERY KIND
NEIGHBOR.
SUPERVISOR WALTER- THANK YOU VERY MUCH .
-TABLED AMENDMENT TO THE QUEENSBURY ZONING ORDINANCE
COUNCILMAN EISENHART-STEEVE THIS
SSEEMEETS THE PARK AGENCIES ARGUMENTS?
MR. LYNN- THE DEFINITY�N�J64PRECT THE AP/' CONCERNS, THE BUFFER
ZONE REMAINS THE SAME AND THE POSITION ON THE TYPE TWO SITE PLAN
REVIEW IN SECTION 10 . 051 REMAINS THE SAME. . THROUGH OUR COUNSEL
AND THROUGH THE WARREN CO. PLANNING DEPT. THEY REFERRED IT TO THE
DEPT . OF STATE THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO INCLUDE TYPE TWO SITE
PLAN REVIEW FOR REFERRALS TO THE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD.
COUNCILMAN EISENHART- WE HAVE ELIMINATED THE FIFTY FOOT BUFFER ZONE
FOR FARMS?
MR. LYNN- THAT IS THE PROPSAL . . .
COUNCILMAN OLSON- THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT LAST WEEK, IF A FARM IS A FARM
OR LAND IS BOUGHT AND TURNED INTO A FARM WHAT ABOUT THE ADJOINING
PROPERTY OWNERS? I AM TALKING ABOUT FARMS THAT HAVE STARTED RECENTLY
NOT PRE-EXISTING FARMS THAT STARTED BEFORE THERE WAS ANY ZONING.
MR. ROBERTS- I THINK THAT IS GENERALLY TRUE 'AND YET IT STILL. . . SORT OF
A DEATH PENALTYp A POOR PRECEDENT . .NOTED THAT CLASS A S B FARMS WOULD
COME FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW AND AT THAT TIME THE BOARDS COULD REQUIRE
A BUFFER ZONE. . .
I
208
COUNCILMAN OLSON- WOULD THE BUFFER ZONE GO ALL THE WAY AROUND THE
PROPERTY OR JUST NEXT TO ADJOINING HOUSES . . .
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- WHEN YOU BROAD BRUSH A REQUIREMENT, YOU START OFF
TRYING TO PROTECT A::CERTAIN SEGMENT THEN BY BROAD BRUSHING IT YOU
PROTECT MORE THAN YOU MEANT TO AND YOU HAVE REALLY DONE DETRIMENT
IN THE LONG RUN.
COUNCILMAN EISENHART- THE SITE PLAN REVIEW LETS YOU REVIEW EACH CASE . . .
I� COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- NOTED NOT ALL FARMS ARE FOR ANIMALSINOTED TRUCK FARMS
RESOLUTION TO AMEND QUEENSBURY ZONING ORDINANCE
? R GLUTTON NO . 12q . INTRODUCED BY DR. CHARLES EISENHART WHO MOVED
FOR ITS ADOPTION, SECONDED BY MRS . FRANCES WALTER :
WHEREAS, THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD PRESENTED THE TOWN BOARD WITH
SEVERAL AMENDMENTS TO THE QUEENSBURY ZONING ORDINANCE AND
WHEREAS, THE QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD SET A PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 24, 1983
AT 7 : 30 P. M. ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND
WHEREAS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD AT THE SPECIFIED TIME AND PLACE AND
ALL INTERESTED PARTIES WERE HEARD ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE
QUEENSBURY ZONING ORDINANCE AND
WHEREAS, CERTAIN AMENDMENTS WERE TABLEDUNTIL WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE WAS
RECEIVED FROM APA, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, THAT THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS BE ADDED TO THE QUEENSBURY
ZONING ORDINANCE :
I
i
,I
I
i
i
F
i
I
1
Section 2. 020 DEFINITIONS
1. "Accessory Use Structure" means any building or structure
209
affixed to land or a portion of a main structure or any
movable structures in excess of 100 square feet that is
located within a required shoreline setback, and are
incidental and subordinate to and associated with a per-
mitted principal use.
2. "Landscaping" means the act of changing or enhancing the
natural features, a plot, buffer zone, public open space
or other area or portion of a lot (often as a beautifying
features of a building or land use) so as to make said
area more attractive, to add visual screening and/or to
provide .safety features to assist in protecting life and
j
property. This may be accomplished by adding lawns, trees,
shrubs, etc. , or through the sculpturing of the terrain,
i.e. earth berms, ponds, walkways, retaining walls, rock
outcrops, etc. and/or installing lights, light poles, flag
poles, fences, and traffic malls for the direction of traffic.
This does not include any man made object that exceeds the
'`- maximum height requirement for a structure in the zone
district in which it is located. Landscaping is subject to
approval by the Town of nueensbury Planning Board where
site plan review is required and subject to review by the
Adirondack Park Agency where a project is classified as a
Class A or Class B Regional Project.
3. "Structure" means any object constructed, installed or
permanently placed on land to facilitate land use and
development or subdivision of land, including buildings,
sheds, single family dwellings, mobile homes, signs,
service station pumps, drive-in or drive through islands
with or without canopies, all above ground tanks, and any
fixtures, additions and alterations thereto.
4. "Setback" means the horizontal separation distance from
the property line or in the case of shoreline property
from the mean high water mark to the building line of
the structure. (.see Definition No. "Building Line")
B) The following recommended amendments remain as originally
proposed.
1. Section 7.079 "Buffer Zones" . .exempt farms from this
provision.
New Section 7. 079 to read
Where any commercial use or industrial use as defined
in this ordinance with the exception of farm operations,
abuts any residential use at the lot line or on the same
street, that said commercial or industrial use shall
provide at least a 50 foot buffer zone from the adjoining
lot line of the residential use.
2. Section 10. 051 a) delete Type II Site Plan only from
this section
New Section 10. 051 a) to read:
a) Any variance application, site plan review type I or
zoning change application within the following thresholds
l` shall be referred to the Warren County Planning Board for
their review and comment:
1) Within 500 ' of the Town boundary.
2) Within 500' of an existing or proposed County
or State
- park or recreation area;
- right-of-way, parkway, thruway, road or highway;
- stream or drainage channel or easement;
- public building or institution.
DULY ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
i
AYES : MR. OLSON, DR. EISENHART, MR. MORRELL, MRS . MONAHAN, MRS . WALTER
NOES : NONE
ABSENT :NONE
210
LTR. ENCON
STATE OF NEW YORK DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION
JUNE 101p 1983
DEAR MR. CHASE :
I HAVE REVIEWED THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 34 OF
THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, A COPY OF WHICH IS ENCLOSED, RELATING TO
SPEED IN AN UNNAMED COVE UPON WHICH FISCHERS MARINA IS SITUATED.
I HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE LAKE GEORGE PARK COMMISSION
FOR THEIR REVIEW IN THEIR ROLE AS A POLICY ADIVISORY GROUP TO MY
OFFICE ON MATTERS RELATING TO LAKE GEORGE. THE PARK COMMISSION
HAS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS ORDINANCE NOT BE APPROVED FOR THE
FOLLOWING REASONS :
1 . THE COMMISSION HAS EXPRESSED THEIR CONCERN WITH THE
INSTITUTION OF RESTRICTIONS WHICH CREATE UNNECESSARY
DEVIATIONS FROM NORMAL ' ' RULES OF THE ROAD' ' ON LAKE GEORGE
IN AN EFFORT TO PROVIDE UNIFORMITY FOR THE BOATING PUBLIC.
2 , LOCAL SPEED ZONES HAVE HISTORICALLY PRESENTED PROB.LEMS,
ONCE AN ORDINANCE IS PASSED, THERE: IS AN OHLIGATION TO
PROVIDE MARKERS IDENTIFYING THE AREA WHICH INVOLVES
EXPENSES BOTH FOR INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE,
3, THE PASSAGE OF THIS ORDINANCE WOULD REQUIRE AN ENFORCEMENT
EFFORT WHICH WOULD FURTHER EXTEND THE OBLIGATIONS OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL ON THE LAKE. PROBLEMS ARISE WHEN
j INDIVIDUALS EXPECT AN ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM WHICH CANNOT
BE ADEQUATELY DELIVERED. IN CHECKING WITH THE LAKE
GEORGE BOAT PATROL, THE COMMISSION DID NOT FIND DOCUMEN-
TATION OF PROBLEMS OR COMPLAINTS REGARDING SPEED IN THIS AREA.
I
4. IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO MITIGATE PROBLEMS WITH NAVIGATION _
IN THIS AREA IN A MANNER WHICH. IS LESS EXPENSIVE AND MORE
CONVENIENT TO THE BOATING PUBLIC. AS YOU KNOWO SECTION
45 2 . OF THE NAVIGATION LAW PRESENTLY CONTAINS SPEED
RESTRICTIONS OF FIVE MILES PER HOUR WITHIN 100 FEET OF
THE SHORELINE, DOCKS, RAFTS AND ANCHORED VESSELS. IF
CHRONIC VIOLATIONS OF THIS LAW ARE OCCURING, WE SHOULD
IDENTIFY THE VIOLATORS, ADVISE THEM OF THIS LAW AND TAKE
ACTION IF THE WARNINGS ARE NOT EFFECTIVE,
IF THE TOWN WISHES TO PROVIDE MY OFFICE WITH ADDITIONAL
SUBSTANTIATION OF THE NEED FOR THE SPEED LIMIT REGULATION YOU
HAVE PROPOSED, I WOULD BE PLEASED TO CONSIDER THOSE ARGUMENTS
FURTHER.
T
SINCERELY,
/S/
HENRY 6. WILLIAMS
COUNCILMAN EISENHART- REQUESTED THAT MR . FISCH:ER BE GIVEN A COPY OF THIS
COMMUNICATION.
LTR. BAY RIDGE FIRE CO. - ON FILE - ADDING MEMBERS JAMES POTTER AND
j FRANCIS MARTINDALE
COUNCILMAN EISENHART- ANNOUNCED THAT HE IS MEETING WITH THE FINANCE
OFFICER OF EACH OF THE FIRE AND EMERGENCY SQUADS TO GO THROUGH. THEIR J
RECORDS ,
REPORTS ON FILE-TOWN CLERK - BUILDING & ZONING
LTR. PAUL NAYLOR- OPEN HOUSE AND AUCTION ON JUNE 25, 1983
ON FILE
COUNCILMAN OLSON- NOTED THAT HE HAD SEVERAL CALLS FROM RESIDENTS THAT
WERE UPSET AT THE CLOSING OF THE LIBRARY ON FRIDAY NIGHT AND SATURDAYS
DURING THE SUMMER. . .ASKED THAT THE LIBRARY COMMITTEE MEET !WITH THE
LIBRARY REPRESENTATIVES TO DISCUSS THIS PROBLEM. ..
OPEN FORUM 9 : 02 P.M.
y JOSEPH. DAIRE-GLAD TO SEE THAT THE TOWN HIGHWAY DEPT. IS HAVING AN OPEN
HOUSE . . . REQUESTED THAT THE TOWN BOARD PASS AN ORDINANCE NOT ALLOWING
TWO PEOPLE ON BIKE,
I
211
MR. TURNBULL—PRESIDENT OF THE QUEENSBURY SENIOR CITIZENS CLUB—
THANKED THE TOWN BOARD FOR THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE CLUB BEING DONE
IN ONE PAYMENT NOT TWO DUE TO THE LATNESS OF THE YEAR. . . RE : THE
UNSAFE STRUCTURE LOCAL LAW IT IS LONG OVERDUE . . .ASKED MR. NAYLOR IF
THE INDIVIDUAL THAT WAS APPOINTED THIS EVENING WAS HE A SALARY PERSONNEL
BEFORE THIS?
MR. NAYLOR— NO
SUPERVISOR WALTER— LET ME QUAILIFY THAT IT IS AN ADVANCEMENT ON ONE HAND
BUT HE MADE MORE MONEY LAST YEAR. . .
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AUDIT OF BILLS
RFS01UTION Nn i �n� INTRODUCED BY MRS . BETTY MONAHAN WHO MOVED FOR ITS
ADOPTION, SECONDED BY MR. DANIEL MORRELL :
t
`-- RESOLVED, THAT AUDIT OF BILLS ON ABSTRACT NO. 83-6B AND NUMBERED
844 THROUGH 1028 AND TOTALING $115, 156 . 15 BE AND HEREBY IS
APPROVED, AND BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, THAT AUDIT NUMBER 933 WAS PULLED FROM THE ABSTRACT .
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,
DONALD A. CHASE, TOWN CLERK
RESOLUTION REGARDING BALTIS PROPERTY
RESOLUTION NO. 57, INTRODUCED BY MRS . F MNCES WALTER WHO MOVED FOR ITS
ADOPTION, SECONDED BY DR. CHARLES EISENHART :
WHEREAS, IT HAS COME TO THE ATTENTION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE TOWN BOARD
OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY UPON WHICH WAS SITUATE
FORMERLY THE AVIATION DINER HAS RECENTLY SUFFERED FIRE DAMAGE AND HAS
BECOME A POTENTIAL HAZARD AND ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE, AND
I
WHEREAS, THE OWNERS OF THE SAID PROPERTY HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED TO TAKE
APPROPRIATE STEPS, TO REPAIR AND/OR SECURE THE PREMISES IN ORDER TO
ALLEVIATE THE POTENTIAL HAZARD, AND
WHEREAS, THE TOWN FIRE PROTECTION OFFICER HAS REQUESTED PERMISSION
TO COMMENCE TOWN COURT PROCEEDINGS TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH
APPLICABLE FIRE AND SAFETY ORDINANCES, AND
WHEREAS, THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY DEEMS IT NECESSARY
TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION, THEREFORE BE IT
! RESOLVED, THAT UNLESS SUCH POTENTIAL DANGER AND HAZARDS ARE ALLEVIATED
IMMEDIATELY, APPROPRIATE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS ARE HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO
�--- ALLEVIATE THE PROBLEM.
DULY ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES : MR. OLSON, DR. EISENHART, MR. MORRELL, MRS . MONAHAN, MRS . WALTER
NOES : NONE
ABSENT : NONE
1
I
212
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 j
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 . MONAHAN, MRS . WALTER
NOES : NONE
ABSENT : NONE
I
i
l
b