Loading...
1982-05-25 TOWN BOARD MEETING MAY 25, 1982 ' MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Frances Walter-Supervisor Mr. Daniel OZson-Counci Zman Dr. Charles Eisenhart-CounciZman Mr. Daniel MorreZZ-Councilman Mrs. Betty Monahan- Councilman { Mr. Joseph Brennan-Town Counsel a PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN OLSON PRESS: G.F. Post Star, WBZA GUESTS: Mr. UdalZ, Dennis Brower, Terry CranneZZ, Earl EZZsworth, Wayne Harold Donald Betters, Mr. Holmes, Mr. Daire r TOWN OFFICIALS, Mr. Richard Roberts, Mr. Lynn, Mr. Dean, Mr. Flaherty, Mr. Naylor Mr. Missita.; Meeting Opened 7:39 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING-PROPOSED QUEENSBURY ZONING ORDINANCE NOTICE SHOWN 7:40 P.M. Supervisor Walter- We have had several public information meetings, the planning board has had also, this is our third public hearing relative to the zoning ordinance. In the past situations the Town Board and Planning Board have met after the,�ppubZie hearingsjwe have reviewed the comments and as we are today, is an incorporatiN of the comments into the zoning ordinance as it is filed in the Town Clerk's Office. _ Mr. Terry Crannell-Luzern Road-concern over 450 acre area in the Adirondack Park adjacent to Cormus, Luzerne,TuthiZZ, Clendon Brook and Fuller Road . ..reviewed the purpose and objective of the proposed Zoning ordinance. . .Section 1.03. . .1 re are serious development constraints in the subject area, poorly drained soil, sZopes in excess to 25% shallow soil depth to bed-rock, hardpan, highwater tables, wetlands and hazardous roads the area has a history of wet basements and failing septic systems. . .noted th;it A%tition that was presented at the last meeting represents 100% of the residents and 80% of the landowners in the area.. .onZzy two individuals are in favor of a lot size zoning district less than 8.5 acres, these individuals do not reside in the area and account for only 78 acres of Land. . .there is a clear public mandate not to have the minimum Lot size smaller than what there is now. . . 8. 5 acres. . .reviewed court cases in zoning. . .Place vs. hack 1962. . .voiced concern if area was deveZoped�on the school bus situation in the winter—the environmental impact statement prepared by thedirondaek_ Park gency identifies the zoning district of .the subject area as LC10A-in order for the Town Board to Legally adopt a zoning district different from that identified in the EIS several steps must be completed. . . Councilman Eisenhart- How many acres do , you own? Mr. CranneZZ- Five Acres Councilman Eisenhart- you want everyone else to have ten? Mr. CranneZZ- that is correct Mr. Dennis Brower-Clendon Brook Road-I wish to petition the Town Board to retain the present zoning at 8.5 Acres�=reasons being 1. highly rural area, concern over private i wells and septic systems 2. urge you to consider the impact that wouZd come about if changed to three acre residential. . . . .the present health and welfare of my famiZy and future residents could be effected. . . Mr. Richard Udall- Cormus Road owner of 44 acres. . .in favor of retaining the 8.5 acres. . . Supervisor Walter- the very fact that a parcel is zoned does not mean that somebody is going to run in and construct on that much property. . .that is the minimum you can deal with but it doea not mean that a house will go up on each minimum Zot. . .the planning board has tried very hard in setting up these zones to refleetthe conditions of the area. . . Mr. Alfred Holmes-Clendon Brook Road-what do you do when the Adirondack Park goes right through a parcel. . . *changes in the zoning map were made before the public hearing, denoting 10 acres in the Tuthill Area 112 Supervisor Walter- if you wanted to build'something you mould get ourpermit from the Town but you would he subject to the rules % regulations orAPA, t , Councilman Monahan- I believe that Mr. Holmes is referring to the map that shows his property split in two zones, he would have to use the Land according to how it is split in zones. . . Mr. Holmes- what is the minimum Lot size? 4. Supervisor Walter- SRZAcre Earl EZZsworth-Ridge Road-eZarification in regard to paving of roads within~subdivisions. . . I was told it was the intent of the Planning Board that the existing subdivision that were approved conceptually by the Town that this paving requirement would be grandfatherej completed by the Town where new subdivisions iaou.ld be required for the developer to to do this. . . r Supervisor Walter-that is part of the Subdivision regulations, there wiZZ be a public hearing on that soon. . .by the Planning Board. . .in answer to your question I believe it is a State Law that we are Looking at a three year grandfathering clause for previously approved subdivisions. . . ' Mark Branson-211 Bay Street- I own three parcels in the Town of Queensbury and I also make my living here. I am a property owner in the Tuthill Road area where I have a forty acre parcel that is on gently sloping Zand-the Planning Board recommended three acre zoning in this area and I have yet to hear a rational reason why this is not suitable zonin . . .f i nal permission for site development is given b y state and Local authorities this would prevent development on steep mountainside areas re 9 ardess of the zoning size. . .reviewed the size of three acres. . . Large site zoning invites pulp and Zogying operations with very Little controZ. .I do not believe that a click of property owners should tyranize others and attempt to set standards that themselves do not qualify. . . Wayne Harold-CZendon Brook Road-next to the property that Mr. Branson is talking about it is mostly swamp Zand, is that decent Land to build houses on in three acre Zots7 I do not believe it. . . Mr. Don Betters-owner of the former Tuthill farm-reviewed the petition that was presented to the Town Board, two names do not appear on the Tax Rolls and several signers j that had small Lots -- were in favor of others having big Lots. . .Mr. CranneZZ with k much knowledge of ecology built on a very steep Lot that would only meet the three acre requirement it would not ?Zeet the five or ten-he now the Less feels stongZy that other people should have to adhere to ten acres. . .Mr. CranneZZ talked about the problems from having more roads on the mountain, I agree, but the Planning Board is capable of eontrogVng roads. . .Air. CrannelZ talked about the bad soil conditions on the mountain, I cannot say that there are not bad soil conditions°aZthough I am not sure where. . .noted that Mrs. Monahan met with himself and walked the area examined the soil it didn't look bad to me. . . I called Bill Threw who is in the excavating business and he said that with three acre tots there would be no problem with soil conditions that would be solved with ten acre Lots size. . .I contacted the U.S. Dept. of Soil Conser- vation and talked with their soil scientist he did not indicate a problem on the mountain. . . I asked if there was any clay on the mountain he said there could be a little bit. . . I feel that many of the residents of the mountain are very sincere they have a Large piece of Land themselves they would Like to protect the park Like area, they would Like no more building on the mountain, I do not feel that that would be fair. .. CZendon Cone-I own 69 acres on CZendon Brook Road we had to conform to the APA 8.5 acres when the property was split-I think that the Planning Board if there is any consideration of dropping under the ten acres or under the 8.5 acres what recourse does a landowner have, I would go along with the ten acres. . .I would like to go on record that we did buy this land. and if IYr. 'Bettere-wouZd see me after the meeting I would be glad to make him an offer on his Land rather than to see the land split, into smaller acreage. . t C Mr. William G. Cook-Luzerne Mt. Rd.-I own ten acres- noted he moved here five years ago Looked for a suitable place that would match their Life style, found ten acres in the Adirondack Park in an area that then required 8.5acres as a minimum I purchased the Land under the cover that the people around me would have the same type of Land ., that it would never effect the environment and the population would not become too great and the noise level would remain low. If the zoning were to change aZZ these things that I held as reasons for moving and Living there are diminished, I ask you to keep this area at status quo. . . Tom Barrowman-West Mountain-my wife and I are in full agreement with Mr. CranneZl we own ten acres. . . k Mike Carusone-I have Looked at this plan from a professional standpoint I would Like to say that the overall job is fantastic. . .noted that three acres is a tot of Land 113 Mr. Carusone-cont. - concern over buiZding in a swamp, the State Health Dept. does a good job of preventing building permits in swamp Zand. . .we have to be careful, in our attempt to set Large Lot sizes we often use up land faster ° then if we were to set aside.and take care of those parts of the town in other ways. . . i Nick Barber-Luzerne Mt. Road-owner of 10 acres-it is a great place to Live and anything Less than ten acre zoneswould make it a lesser place to Live. . . Mr. CranneZZ-in regard to the soil, I talked with Mr. Maineof the Warren Co. SCS he told me the soils in the area are glacial till. . . Supervisor Walter- Before you go on, if the soils are so bad why did you build up there,}yourse Z f? i Mr. Crannell- I am not saying that it is impossible to build up there I am saying that=there are severe Limitations. . .a Lot of the problems that i had i did not expect, I found when I got%-into the project. . .Mr. Threw did some excavating at my home and he told me that the soils on the mountain were bad in terms of drainage that was not an uncommon problem. . . Councilman Morrell- Regardless of the Lot size when a person applies for a building permit are certain soil tests required before the permit is issued? Mack Dean- Soil tests are required for septic systems. . . Councilman Morrell- that means that if a person owned a 100 acres and it was solid rock chances are that he would not be allowed a building permit. . . so Lot size is not really that important-than it is whether or not that lot is suitable for building purposes. . . Mr. Adamson- asked if the items Listed as_item'nod:8, on:the pass out sheet was the same as Listed on the second sheet. . .numbers were not the same Mr. Chase- that was a typographical error in numbering. . . No. 8 on the pass� out is the same as the second sheet. . . Glen Gregory- Luzerne Rd. - re: Mounta ,,the voters have spoken they want the 8.5 j or 10 acres. .. Earl EZZsworth-in a subdivision where it will be zoned 30,000 sq. ft. iif the subdivision contains Lots of less than that, what is the time stipulation before you would need a variance. . . Supervisor Walter- I believe it will be three years. . . Earl Ellsworth- Is this for the developer or for anyeindividuaZ who would own the Lots? If the developer sells the Lot tbithin three years to an individuaZ,then four of five years down the road that individual wants to build,,lu;tilF,19 be able to? Supervisor Walter- yes Councilman .Monahan- the only time it wouldn't bej if he owned two adjacent Lots, they would have to put them together forming one Lot. . . Earl Ellsworth- is there a variance procedure? Supervisor Walter- you would be free to come before the planning and zoning boards for a variance. . . Mr. Carusone-questioned the amount of Land that a duplex has--�to be placed on. . .too much. . . Supervisor Walter- you are referring td--the fact that a duplex requires double of what � i is required for a sigdZe cuelling. . .in land. . . Mr. Carusone- duplexes are usually built on single lots as an economy measure. . . Councilman Monahan- would you mix single family and duplexes? Mr. Carusone- yes Supervisor Walter- asked for further comments, hearing none the public hearing was closed. 9:01 P.M. *tapes.,„on the public hearing are available for public inspection also transcript , RESOLUIONS RESOLUTION-TO APPROVE MINUTES 114 RESOLUTION NO. 224_ Introduced by Dr. Eisenhart who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Morrell: RESOLVED, that the Town Board minutes of May 11, 1982 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 Supervisor WaZter- re Cable T. V. received one letter stating that he did not feet a fee raise was in order. . . Councilman MorreZZ-noted that if business was increased then rates would hot have to be raised. ..do not want to rubber stamp raises. . . RESOLUTION TO AMEND COLONIAL CABLEVISION AGREEMENT SOL . 1 NHS. Introduced by Mr. Olson who moved for its adoption, seconded by , Eisenhart: WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury and Colonial CaHevision, Inc. have heretofore entered into an agreement to supply cab:Ze television to the residents of the Town, dated Deptember 4, 1970, as amended, and WHEREAS, Colonial Cablevision, Inc. has applied to the Tom of Queensbury to amend said agreement and a public hearing, after proper notice and publication, having been held on May 11, 1982, and it appearing that said agreement should be amended NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that an increase in the basic rate to $8. 75, ani increase of $.50 per month be approved. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Olson, Dr. Eisenhart, Mra. mmahan, Mrs. Walter Noes Mr. Morrell Absent: None RESOLUTION REQUESTING FEASIBILITY STUDY TO REVIEW SPEED LIMIT ON DIXON ROAD �2 ' ,T-T(m Nair Introduced by Mr. Morrell who moved for its adoption, seconded by Olson: WHEREAS, numerous compZaints have been received from the residents of Dixon Road concerned over the existing speed Limit and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board requests the Department of Transportation to conduct a feasibility study regarding the possibility of Lowering the speed Limit on Dixon Road from the Aviation Road south to Old Forge Road, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk be authorized to send the proper forms to the Department of Transportation requesting the feasibility study for Dixon Road. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Olson, Dr. Eisenhart, Mr. MorreZZ, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter _ I Noes: None Absent: None Discussion on speed Limit was held before vote and it was agreed upon by CouneiLman Morrell and Olson that the area should be from Aviation Rd. to Old Forge Rd. on Dixon Road. . . Discussion held on the acceptance of a portion of Brickoven and an 'extension of Triphammer. . .Supervisor Walter noted that any roads coming before the Tmvn Board be given to the Board a week in advance of the meeting. . . Letters from Mr. Naylor and Mr. Flaherty accepting the extension of Tripha?",Pf and a portion of Brickoven. . . 115 RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT DEED OF REAL PROPERTY FOR TOWN HIGHWAY PURPOSES, BEING PROTIONS OF TRIPHAMMER ROAD AND BRICKOVEN ROAD. RESOLUTION NO. 227, Introduced by Dr. Eisenhart who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Monahan: WHEREAS, Northern Homes, Inc. has executed and offered a deed for two Town roadways not Less than fifty (50) feet in width, being portions of Triphammer Road and Brickoven Road as shown on a map of Section 3, Bedford Close, dated May 15, 1978, made by Coulter & McCormick, Zicensed Land surveyors, Glens Falls, New York, filed in the Warren County .CZerk's Office on August 14, 1978, as more particularly described, respectively in schedule "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS Paul Naylor, Su p erintendent of the Town o f �eensb , has advised that he recommends that this Board accept this Land for highway purposes into the Town highway system; and WHEREAS, Thomas K. Flaherty, Mater Superintendent of the Town of Queensbury, has advised that he has inspected the water Line installations in the proposed roadways, that he has found said installations to have been made in accordance with the requirements of the Town of Queensbury and that he recommends that this Board accept this Land for highway purposes into the Town highway system; and WHEREAS, the form of the deed has been approved by Joseph R. Brennan, Esquire, Counsel to the Board, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the aforementioned deed being the scene is hereby accepted and approved and that the Town Clerk be hereby authorized and directed to cause said deed to be recorded in the Warren 'County Clerk's Office after which, said deed shaZZ be properZy filed in the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, and be it further RESOLVED, that these two new roads are hereby added to the official inventory of Town highways, respectively described as follows Road No. 373 Description easterly running to Brickoven Rd. Name, Extension of Triphammer Mileage .06; and Road No. 384 Description beginning at Triphammer running northeasterly Name Brickoven Road W Zeage .07. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes Mr. Olson, Dr. Eisenhart, Mr. Morrell, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None I ? Absent: None OPEN FORUM 9:23 P.M. Mr. Joseph Daire- So. Queensbury-sorry = to see that Mrs. Walter gave ,up her job asw budget officer for the County, great Loss for Queensbury. . .gZad to see Mr. Naylor back on the job. .. Mr. Naylor- noted that he had received a call from a Town resident stating that people are stealing signs, (speed Limit) thf# will be checked into. . . Supervisor Walter and Councilman Monahan spoke about the cost to the taxpayers of replacing stolen signs. . .very expensive. . . Mr. Fisher- asked when the street signs will be placed in Ridge Knolls? Mr. Nay Zor- the signs are on order and will be placed as soon as they arrive. Glen Gregory-requested that the Town take action as soon as possible on Fire Code—% Councilman Eisenhart-we are in the process of working on this. . . Open forum closed 9:33 P.M. 116 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AUDIT OF BILLS RESOLUTION NO. 228. Introduced by Dr. Eisenhart who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Olson: If RESOLVED, that Audit of Bills as listed on Abstract No. 82-5D and numbered 904 and totaling $2,986.00 be and hereby is approved. Duly adopted by the f6ZZowing vote: Ayes: Mr. Olson, Dr. Eisenhart, Mr. Morrell, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: None Recess Opened 9:44 P.M. Discussion held by Town Board regarding Proposed Zoning Ordinance 1. Discussion on Section 9.070 No nonconforming use arises from prior rental, lease, sale or use of berths for boats at waterfront facility in residential zones. Supervisor Walter- I do not want anything in here that we cannot enforce. . . asked if the Board had w- consensus to remove section 9.070 . . . removed. . . 2. Discussion held in regard to the 10 acres around Tuthill and Cozws Roads Councilman Monahan- I would like to see it say the ten acres and I think it is the will of the majority of the people up there. . .Councilman Eisenhart-I think we have to put it in ten acres if they want to push the matter farther they can go for a change in zoning. . .Councilman Morrell- if the lot is not suitable'to build on it makes no difference what size it is. . .Supervisor Walter, with APA we cannot go under three or over ten in this area. . .Councilman MoZZ '- now I would be willing to go to five. . .Councilman Monahan, I would not be willing to broadbrush that whole area, if you feel you have to take out some area that would be one thing but to broadbrush that whole thing, then you are opening the Town up to roads and everthing else. . .in the first : pZace, in the Cormus Road areahno one wants the lower acreage the on1y ..onea:that,`want it is the two people in the Tuthill Road area. . .Councilman _ Olson, I would like to see a compromise between the ten and the three acres. . . Councilman Monahan, you want to broadbrush the whole thing without considering the terrain;;, steepness, the water, you have got wet lands and everthing up there. . . Supervisor WaZter, I think we would be looking to change the area that the Planning Board had looked at for three acres. . .Councilman Monahan, but that went over to . Fuller Road and if you ever have to have the Town put in a road, noted it would be costZy. . .Supervisor Walter-what we are trying to get across is that we are not restricting so it is absolutely outl�af site to ten acres but the very fact that five acres, which in my opinion.,isn't really pushing development and secondly we just passed a sanitary ordinance which is going to really restrict where septic systems are going to go and be required, all of this is not going to lend itself for that area to start growing up. . .Councilman Monahan- rather than broadbrush that five acres I would rather break out some of this that looks like the most suitable for deveZopmentj give it a whirZ,and see if it is any problem, then if there isn't then we can go ahead.. . Councilman-Eisenhart, lets change the section along TutiZZ Hill Road originall1 three acres and change it to five acres and the section along Cormus, originally three make it ten. . . Supery or W .� asked if Councilman Monahan will go along with this, Councilman Mona�.han,no� 'beviff a consensus leaving the one area designated by the Planning Boardgthree acres in the Cormus Road will remain now at ten the other area will be compromised at five. . . 3.°-_Discussion.held in regard to the suggestion of Mr. Mike Carusone to change the amount of Land that is requiredfor a duplex. . .Supervisor Walter the recommendation of the Planning Board was to use double the lot size. . .Councilman Olson suggested one and a half times. . .Supervisor WaZter-the board has a problem in the SRZ zone because a lot of it lies along the halfway brook area . .Mr. Roberts noted that we do have set back requirers from streams and a new sanitary code. . . Supervisor Walter., ."it is the consensus of the Board to change SR20%and 30 to one and a half times for a duplex and SR1A will be left ct doub Ze. . . 4. Discussion held on changing SR1 to SR30 da shown on the zoning map described as the property starting at the APA BZue line easterly boundary of the Town westerly to Meadow brook Road then westerly along Haviland Road, half the length of the road northeasterly to Blue Line bounding the UB5 section. . . 117 RESOLUTION TO DETERMINE THAT ADOPTION OF NEW ZONING ORDINANCE AND REPEAL OF ,PRIOR EXISTING ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY IS AN EXCr4UDPD ,A,CT�-M NOT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE VIII OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW R.snr, ETON NO. 229 Introduced by Dr. Eisenhart who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Olson: WHEREAS, the development and preparation of a new zoning ordinance of the Town of j Queensbury has been a continuous, on-going project for many years,: and { WHEREAS, substantial time, work and money had been expended on the new zoning ordinance project prior to the enactment of Article VIII of the Environmental Conservation Law of the State of New York, 'and WHEREAS, prior to September 1, 1977, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 252, 912 of the Laws of 1977, Michel R. Brandt, the then Supervisor and Chief Fiscal Officer of the Town of Queensbury, certified that substantial work, time and money had been expended on the development and preparation of a new zoning ordinance for the Town of Queensbury; thaws, in accordance with lam, deeming said project to have been approved and therefore not subject to the provisions of Article VIII of the ErtvironmentaZ Conservation Law, and WHEREAS, the new -proposed zoning ordinance of the Town of Queensbury has been finalized and presented to the Town Board for consideration, and WHEREAS, a public hearing concerning the adoption of the proposed new zoning ordinance and the repeal of the existing ordinance and all amendments thereto has been held as required by law, and WHEREAS, all other requirements of law for consideration for adoption of the new zoning ordinance and the repeal of the existing zoning ordinance and all amendments thereto have been fulfilled and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury find that substantial work, time and money had been expended on the preparation and the development of the new zoning ordinance for the Town of Queenebury prior to June 1, 1977 and that MicheZ R. Brandt, as the then Supervisor and Chief Fiscal Officer of the Town of Queensbury certified, prior to September 1, 1977 that substantial work, time and money had been expended on the preparation of the new zoning ordinance for the Town of Queensbury and that, therefore, be it further RESOLVED, that the proposed new zoning ordinance be deemed to have been approved prior to September 1, 1977,in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 252, 5512 of the Lanus of 1977 and that, therefore, said new zoning ordinance-,is not subject to the"provisions of Article VIII 'of the Environmental Conservation Law. Duty adopted by the following vote: Ayes Mr. Olson, Dr. Eisenhart, Mr. Morrell, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION TO ADOPT NEW ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND TO REPEAL THE PRIOR EXISTING ZONING ORDINANCE OF TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND ALL AMENDMENTS THERETO ( L TION NO, 230. by Mrs. Frances Walter who moved for its adoption, seconded r. DanieZ Olson: WHEREAS, a proposed new zoning ordinance of the Town of Queensbury has been prepared and presented to the Town Board for consideration, a copy of which is annexed hereto, and WHEREAS, a new zoning map of the entire Town of Queensbury entitled "Town Zoning Map of i the Town of Queensbury" dated August, 1981, revised as of May 25, 1982, prepared by the Warren County' Planning Department, has been prepared and presented for adoption and is incorporated in the proposed new zoning ordinance, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board has recommended the adoption of said proposed new zoning ordinance and the repeal of the existing zoning ordinance of the Town of Queensbury and all amendments thereto, and WHEREAS, on May 11, 1982, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury duty adopted Resolution No. 222 scheduling a public hearing concerning the possible adoption of the proposed new zoning ordinance and the repeal of the existing ordinance and all amendments thereto, and 11: E WHEREAS, proof of publication of the said NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING and all other notices required by the provisions of Town Law Section 264 has been presented to the Town Board by the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the public hearing was held by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury concerning the adoption of the proposed new zoning ordinance for the entire Town of Queensbury and the repeal of the existing zoning ordinance and all amendments thereto, Ordinance No. 21, on May 25,1982, at 7:30 p.m. in the meeting room of the Tin office Building. Bay and Haviland Roads, in accordance with the terms of the publication of notice and all other notices required by the provisions of Town Law Section 264, at which all persons interested in the subject thereof concerning the same were heard, and WHEREAS, all other requirements of law for consideration of the adoption of the proposed new zoning ordinance and the repeat of the existing zoning ordinance of the Town of Queensbury and all amendments thereto have been fulfilled, and WHEREAS, the adoption of the proposed new zoning ordinance and the repeal of the existing zoning ordinance and all amendments thereto is in the best interest of the Town,. of Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the proposed new zoning ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, accopy of which is annexed hereto, and the--aforemention map incorporated therein be adopted, effective as of the date provided by law, and be it further RESOLVED, that the prior zoning ordinance of the Town of Queensbury and all amendments thereto, Ordinance No. 21 be and the same is hereby repeated, effective as of the date the new zoning ordinance takes effect pursuant to the provisions of law, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk be and he hereby is directed to take all necessary action to cause publication of the new zoning ordinance or a summary thereof as may be authorized by law and any other notices required by law, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk enter the new zoning ordinance in the minutes of the Town of Queensbury and that he maintain-!a file for the aforesaid zoning map adopted in connection with the zoning ordinance as is required by law. Duty adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Olson, Dr. Eisenhart, Mr. MorreZZ, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: None During the vote on resolution no. 230, 1982 Councilman Monahan wanted it noted that she strongly objects to broadbrushing the area of West Mountain into Five Acres. . . Supervisor Walter and Councilman Olson thanked the Planning Board nwnbers and the Building & Zoning Dept. for their work on this project. . . RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION s TIO1V NO 231, Introduced by Mrs. Frances Walter who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. D&Tiel Olson: RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby moves into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Duty adopted by the foUmi,ng 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