Loading...
2013-12-16 - Mtg 46 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 587 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG. #46 December 16, 2013 RES. 480-505 7:00 PM LL #6-7 TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR RONALD MONTESI COUNCILMAN ANTHONY METIVIER COUNCILMAN BRIAN CLEMENTS COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER TOWN COUNSEL MARK SCHACHNER PRESS POST STAR LOOK TV TOWN OFFICIALS SENIOR PLANNER, STUART BAKER DEPUTY HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, THOMAS VANNESS WASTEWATER SUPERINTENDENT/ENGINEER, CHRIS HARRINGTON PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN ANTHONY METIVIER 1.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARING- ENGAGEMENT OF VISION ENGINEERING, LLC FOR PROVISION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY BY SOUTH QUEENSBURY FIRE CO. AND AMENDMENT TO BUDGET AND FIRE SERVICES AGREEMENT SUPERVISOR MONTESI- This is a public hearing for engagement of Vision Engineering, LLC for provision of feasibility study by the South Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company and an amendment to the budget and fire service agreement. Is there anyone to speak to this? Okay, by the way of discussion, South Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company's building is in need of some repair, maybe some renovation and some reconfiguring. We have hired Vision Engineering to do that feasibility study as to what it's going to take, it's a seventy-five hundred dollar study and that will be a change in the contract that we have with South Queensbury. If there's no one to speak on it, does the Board have any comments? COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS: I had a general one that I would like to say about several of these. I'm anticipating that the incoming Town Board is going to want to review current contracts with third party services, probably including engineering firms, which this is one, law firms, water meter suppliers and others. Understanding that the Town requires these continuing services but that the incoming board may want to make changes, I would like to suggest that we extend all expiring contracts in their current form through the first quarter of 2014, that's until the end of March, with a per-diem or per quarter payments based on the current contracts. I think that will cover the Town and it won't hamstring the new board with contracts extending throughout their entire term and give us time for in-depth review. With that said, I'll be offering some amendments and suggestions for some of the resolutions. As far as this one is concerned, I'll introduce it. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 588 COUNCILMAN BREWER- This is a contract, Brian, that we talked about previous for South Q anyways so this doesn't... COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- Yep. COUNCILMAN BREWER- I don't think anyways on this particular project. I think it's going to be a short and sweet thing for him to do, and we all knew that it was going to happen so I'll second it. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- All right, and Vision Engineering is under contract this year for services. Okay, call the vote. Closed that public hearing. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF VISION ENGINEERING, LLC FOR PROVISION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY BY SOUTH QUEENSBURY VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC. AND CORRESPONDING AMENDMENT TO BUDGET AND FIRE SERVICES AGREEMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 480,2013 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Brian Clements WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury and the South Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. (Fire Company) have entered into an Agreement for fire protection services, which Agreement sets forth a number of terms and conditions including a condition that the Fire Company will not purchase or enter into any binding contract to purchase any piece of apparatus, equipment, vehicles, real property, or make any improvements that would require the Fire Company to acquire a loan or mortgage or use money placed in a"vehicles fund" without prior approval of the Queensbury Town Board, and WHEREAS, the Fire Company wishes to engage the services of Vision Engineering, LLC for preparation of a feasibility study regarding the Fire Company's station and lot for an amount of $7,500, and WHEREAS, since such proposed expenses are not presently included in the Fire Company's 2013-2015 Agreement with the Town, on Monday, December 16t1i 2013 the Town Board held a public hearing concerning this proposal and the corresponding amendment to the Fire Company's Fire Protection Agreement, and the Town Board heard all interested persons, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 589 WHEREAS, the Town Board has determined that it is necessary and in the public interest to act on such proposal to facilitate continued provision of necessary fire protection services to the Town, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the $7,500 increase in the South Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company, Inc.'s budget for the Fire Company's engagement of the services of Vision Engineering, LLC for preparation of a feasibility study regarding the Fire Company's station and lot and the corresponding amendment to the Fire Company's Agreement with the Town of Queensbury for fire protection services for the year 2013, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to sign any necessary documentation, including an Amendment Agreement between the Town and the Fire Company substantially in the form presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to take all action necessary to provide for such $7,500 and amend the 2013 Town Budget by transferring $7,500 from Service Awards Account No.: 005-9025-8025-4980 to Contracts Account No.: 005-3410-4415-4980, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Budget Officer to take any action necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2013 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Montesi NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING- ADOPTING SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO.:6 OF 2013 TO "MDR" to "RR-3A" REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 590 SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Okay, this has to do with actually the horse farm. Is there someone that would like, who would like to speak to this? COUNCILMAN METIVIER- Come on up. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Okay. We'll explain it, but just so you have your... John you did a good job the last time so I will let you explain it. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Okay. You want me to explain. This is a public hearing and there's some zoning along Rockwell Road where some of the people who live along there would like to pursue some agricultural uses as they are defined by the Town Board. In fact, our agricultural uses are used there. This is on the east side of Rockwell Road, whereas the west side of Rockwell Road is already zoned rural residential three acres(RR-3A), which allows some agricultural uses. So, because the requests of some of the residents to rezone it and it's adjacent to property that's already zoned rural residential three acre we thought that it was reasonable because the use is local. What we're doing is not localized for any one particular property owner, it is a general area. We're talking about 14 parcels, property owners have already been surveyed. The County's been surveyed and there is no opposition to this. What we could have done is nothing but that's not what the residents wanted, so we offered that we could do a rural residential three acre. Now, does that mean that the people that live the RR-3A zoning automatically can pursue agricultural uses...no, they still have to go through site plan review. So, that's what this proposal basically is, changing some MDR (moderate density residential), which is two acre residential zoning to rural residential three acre. So, it's a discussion on that and if anybody likes to speak to it this is the opportunity to do that. So with that as a background, if you will. CRAIG JENKIN-Okay, I guess. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Can you give us your names first? MR. JENKIN-My name is Craig Jenkin. LISA HINDSON-Lisa Hindson. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- That's for the people typing up the minutes. MR. JENKIN- Okay. Yeah, I bought the property about a little less than 15 years ago. We own 28 acres right on the east side of Rockwell Road, right adjacent to another piece of property about 11 acres that already owns horses, has horses. Their property has also been changed to MDR during the comprehensive use changes back in 2007, right? And when I originally bought the property the intent was that eventually we would have horses on the property. We had checked into it at the time, and with a variance, actually not a variance but site plan review we should have been able to have those. Lisa and I were not married at the time but we were serious and this was our idea together to do it. Eventually, we built the house, had a family and we now have the opportunity, I guess from a financial standpoint, to have the ability to clear land and put a barn in. When we started investigating it we found out that it was changed to MDR in 2007. We were unaware that we weren't going to be able to have ag use on the property so we started pursing talking to the Town to see what we could do to get either a variance or change the zoning to be able to have horses on the property. As I said before, we have 28 acres, it's a very rural area, we have people that we look out our bedroom window and they have horses on their property, it's been grandfathered. You go down the road and on the west side and there's people with horses there and we just feel that it's a very rural area that keeps in line with the Town's comprehensive use plan of keeping that area as a rural area, even though it is zoned MDR. I guess we would appreciate having SUPERVISOR MONTESI-Well, you've also done the due diligence. We asked you if you would poll your neighbors and that response was pretty overwhelming in favor of changing it to RR-3, so we're comfortable with that and it's adjacent to an RR-3 zone so it's not to be considered spot zoning, so I think things are lining up. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 591 MR. JENKIN- As you said, my wife went around to all the neighbors, we gave them all the information on exactly what we were planning. MS. HINDSON-Which isn't much; I mean we have one horse that we'd like to bring to the house that we actually inherited from a cousin of mine who passed away from cancer. So, we're not going and buying a bunch of animals and bringing them in, we just have one, so that's why it all started actually. All our neighbors were wonderful by the way. SUPERVISOR MONTESI-Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this at this public hearing? Okay, thank you. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- Thanks for your work and perseverance! COUNCILMAN METIVIER- Yeah, you did a great job Lisa, thank you. SUPERVISOR MONTESI-We'll close the public hearing COUNCILMAN METIVIER-I'll introduce. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well we have to do SEQRA. FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PART 2—INDENIFICATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS 1. Impact on Land Proposed action may involve construction on, or physical alteration of, the land surface of the proposed site. (See Part 1.D.1) If"Yes", answer questions a-j. If"No", move on to Section 2. _X No Yes 2. Impact on Geological Features The proposed action may result in the modification or destruction of, or inhibit access to, any unique or unusual land forms on the site (e.g., cliffs, dunes, minerals, fossils, caves). (See Part 1. E.2g) If"Yes", answer questions a-c. If"No", move on to Section 3. X No Yes 3. Impacts on Surface Water The proposed action may affect one or more wetlands or other surface water bodies (e.g., streams, rivers, ponds or lakes). (See Part 1. D.2, E.2.h) If"Yes", answer questions a-l. If"No", move on to Section 4. X No Yes 4. Impact on groundwater The proposed action may result in new or additional use of ground water, or may have the potential to introduce contaminants to ground water or an aquifer. (See Part 1.D.2.a, D.2.c, D.2.d, D.2.p, D.2.q, D.2.t) If"Yes", answer questions a-h. If"No", move on to Section 5. X No Yes 5. Impact on Flooding The proposed action may result in development on lands subject to flooding. (See Part 1.E.2) If"Yes", answer questions a-g. If"No", move on to Section 6. X No Yes 6. Impacts on Air The proposed action may include a state regulated air emission source. (See Part 1.D.2.f., D,2,h, D.2.g) If"Yes", answer questions a-f. If"No", move on to Section 7. X No Yes REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 592 7. Impact on Plants and Animals The proposed action may result in a loss of flora or fauna. (See Part 1.E.2 m-q.) If"Yes", answer questions a-j. If"No", move on to Section 8. _X No Yes 8. Impact on Agricultural Resources The proposed action may impact agricultural resources. (See Part 1.E.3.a. and b.) If"Yes", answer questions a-h. If"No", move on to Section 9. X No Yes 9. Impact on Aesthetic Resources The land use of the proposed action are obviously different from, or are in sharp contrast to, current land use patterns between the proposed project and a scenic or aesthetic resource. (Part I.E.1.A, E.I.b, E.3.h). If"Yes", answer questions a-g. If"No", go to Section 10. X No Yes 10. Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources The proposed action may occur in or adjacent to a historic or archaeological resource. (Part 1.E.3.e, f. and g.) If"Yes", answer questions a-e. If"No", go to Section 11. X No Yes 11. Impact on Open Space and Recreation The proposed action may result in a loss of recreational opportunities or a reduction of an open space resource as designated in any adopted municipal open space plan. (See Part 1.C.2.c, E.1.c., E.2.q.) If"Yes", answer questions a-e. If"No", go to Section 12. X No Yes 12. Impact on Critical Environmental Areas The proposed action may be located within or adjacent to a critical environmental area (CEA). (See Part 1.E.3d) If"Yes", answer questions a-c. If"No", go to Section 13. X No Yes 13. Impact on Transportation The proposed action may result in a change to existing transportation systems. (See Part 1.D.2.j) If"Yes", answer questions a-g. If"No", go to Section 14. X No Yes 14. Impact on Energy The proposed action may cause an increase in the use of any form of energy. (See Part 1.D.21) If"Yes", answer questions a-e. If"No", go to Section 15. X No Yes 15. Impact on Noise, Odor, and Light The proposed action may result in an increase in noise, odors, or outdoor lighting. (See Part 1. D.2.m., n., and o.) If"Yes", answer questions a-f. If"No", go to Section 16. X No Yes 16. Impact on Human Health The proposed action may have an impact on human health from exposure to new or existing sources of contaminant. (See Part 1.D.2.q., E.I.d.f.g. and h.) If"Yes", answer questions a-m. If"No", go to Section 17. X No Yes 17. Consistency with Community Plans The proposed action is not consistent with adopted land use plans. (See Part 1.C.1, C.2. and C.3.) If"Yes", answer questions a-h. If"No", go to Section 18. X No Yes 18. Consistency with Community Character The proposed project is inconsistent with the existing community character. (See Part 1.C.2, C.3, D.2, E.3) If"Yes", answer questions a-g. If"No", proceed to Part 3. X No Yes REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 593 *FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PART II NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON FILE IN THE TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE RESOLUTION ADOPTING SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO.: 6 OF 2013 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 179 "ZONING" TO CHANGE ZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES FROM"MDR" TO "RR-3A" RESOLUTION NO.: 4819 2013 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board is considering a request to amend the zoning designations for the following certain properties along the east side of Rockwell Road in the Town of Queensbury: 290.10-1-5.1; 290.10-1-5.2; 290.10-1-6; 290-10-1-7; 290.10-1-8; 290.10-1-9; 290.10-1-10; 290.10-1-11; 290.14-1-1; 290.14-1-2; 290.14-1-3; 290.14-1-5; 290.14-1-7.1; and 290.14-1-7.2 from Moderate Density Residential (MDR)to Rural Residential 3 Acre(RR-3A), and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to consider adoption of proposed Local Law No.: 6 of 2013 to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179 by amending the official Town Zoning Law and Map to reflect such changes as set forth above, and WHEREAS, on or about December 12t1i 2013 the Warren County Planning Department considered the proposal and determined that there would be no County impact, and WHEREAS, before the Town Board may amend, supplement, change, or modify its Zoning Law and Map, it must hold a public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Town Law §265, the Municipal Home Rule Law and the Town of Queensbury Zoning Laws, and WHEREAS, the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing, heard all interested parties and closed the public hearing concerning the proposed rezoning on Monday, December 16th 2013, and WHEREAS, as SEQRA Lead Agency, the Town Board has reviewed a Full Environmental Assessment Form to analyze potential environmental impacts of the proposed rezoning, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has considered the conditions and circumstances of the area affected by the rezoning, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 594 WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: 6 of 2013 as presented at this meeting, hereinafter referred to as the"legislation," NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby determines that the proposed legislation will not have any significant adverse environmental impact and a SEQRA Negative Declaration is made, and the Town Clerk and/or Zoning Administrator are authorized and directed to file and publish a SEQRA Negative Declaration - Notice of Determination of Non-Significance with respect to the legislation, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby adopts Local Law No.: 6 of 2013 to Amend Chapter 179 "Zoning" of Queensbury Town Code to amend the Queensbury Town Zoning Law and Map to rezone certain properties along the east side of Rockwell Road as set forth in the preambles of this Resolution from Moderate Density Residential (MDR)to Rural Residential 3 Acre (RR-3A), and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to file the Local Law and the official Town Zoning Map, as amended, with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and acknowledges that the Local Law will take effect upon such filing, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to send a copy of this Resolution and a copy of the Local Law and Zoning Map to the Town Planning Board, Town Zoning Board of Appeals, Town Zoning Administrator and Warren County Planning Department in accordance with §179-15-080(D) of the Town Zoning Law, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall take effect immediately. Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Metivier NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING- ADOPTING SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO.: 7 OF 2013 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE 179 "ZONING" RELATING TO THE MAIN STREET ZONING DISTRICT REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 595 SUPERVISOR MONTESI-All right the public hearing is open and is there anyone that would like to speak to this? Mr. VanNess. MR. VANNESS- Ron, how are ya? SUPERVISOR MONTESI-Potential seat holder up here. MR. VANNESS- Good Evening, Bill VanNess, 244 Corinth Road. As I'm sure you're all aware and probably plenty of the public is aware of my opposition to the zoning of the Main Street Corridor. First off and foremost I want to say I don't oppose totally to all of it. I do oppose strongly to the two story buildings. I think over the years since this plan has been put together the economy has changed; things have changed in that Main Street Corridor. One of the reasons it was built was to... KATHLEEN SONNABEND- This is the wrong public hearing. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-What?No it's not. MS. SONNABEND- Are you talking about Main Street? COUNCILMAN METIVIER- Yeah. MR. VANNESS- Yeah. MS. SONNABEND- That's the public hearing...I apologize, I'm sorry. MR. VANNESS- Was to pick up the speed not to the point of we're doing 50 miles an hour down through there but to pick up the speed and the access to the City. Let's face it, people coming into that area are getting off from that Northway to go to their jobs in the City of Glens Falls mostly or to head to events in the City of Glens Falls, they're not there basically to do all their shopping such as they are in the Million Dollar Mile or anywhere else. To slow traffic down to that point, as I said, I live on 244 Corinth Road, which is right there on the main thorough-fare and if you come out between eight and ten in the morning to get out on Corinth Road thank god we've got some great neighbors and some great people in this area that definitely stop to let you out, but other than that you wouldn't get out onto the street. If we slow this traffic down any more on this street you're not going to get out, it's not going to happen. I've lived there all my life, born and raised there all of my life, I've seen it grow from woods to what it is today. I believe that we have some great single story buildings and business that want to come in there. I agree 100% we should control the facades that go on these buildings, they shouldn't just be steal butler buildings that are just put up and selling things out of the store. I think we need to have a nice facade on the front of them. I'm not opposed to the side and rear parking on this street, but I think we have to slow down and take a look at this. I was at the first workshop where this was discussed, of course I had bones thrown at me that I jumped in bed with the realtors, which isn't a fact, I don't agree with 100% what the realtors want to do down there. But, I do agree that this thing has been put on the fast track, a little more fast track than I think the gun ban law was in New York State. I think we need to slow down a little bit, we need to take a look at this thing a little better, we need to look at these businesses as they come in. I feel that they have to be held on their own merit, they should have the opportunity to sit here in front of this Board, or the next Board or whatever it be, explain what they want to do and explain where they want to be. I think the loss of the possibility of Davidson's, and I can use their name because I've spoken personally to Mr. Davidson about this and asked it it's all right and he said yes, I think the loss of that business there just because of the zoning and everything else was a horrible loss. I think it was a destination, I think the Davidson's run the upmost respectful business you can run in the City of Glens Falls. I think the loss of a bank that was mentioned is a loss to us. These are businesses that are going to bring jobs, employment, tax map, going to put people back on the tax rolls. There was a statement made that it took ten years to get the first tenant in the IDA Park. Well, we're not looking at an open field, the IDA Park is an open field that could wait 10 years to have REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 596 tenant come into it. We're looking now at homes and homes that are starting to deteriorate and they're deteriorating because the people aren't going to put money into them if they're going to sell them. If we wait for that 10 years I really don't want to see what we're going to be facing on these homes. Yeah, we do have some planning and zoning laws that we can enforce how bad these home deteriorate but I really don't want to see it go that route and I really think that we need...I guess all I'm asking is we put this on the back burner, adjourn it, let's work on it a little more, let's look at it a little more, and let's see what we're looking at a little harder. I think basically what I'm saying is just that it possibly be adjourned tonight to be looked at again in the future and we'll go from there. I also, If I may while I'm up here I have a letter from a person that she couldn't be here tonight. She's in an EMT class; she asked it be read in as part of the record if that's okay? COUNCILMAN BREWER- Billy, can I ask you one question before you go on? MR. VANNESS- Yeah, sure. COUNCILMAN BREWER- You're saying to wait on all the changes or just that one change with the two story? MR. VANNESS- I'd like to sit back on all of it Tim, only until we can take a look at the whole thing. I mean the workshops were great, I thought they were a great idea. This plan, let's face it, is eight years old, basically. It was put together with great concepts, great ideas when the economy was on top; the economy has changed. COUNCILMAN BREWER- Hopefully it's coming back MR. VANNESS- I'd like to say I hope it's turning around a little bit that we're starting to come back, but I don't think that's something that we can wait for at this point, for it to turn around and come back, we need to move this. You know, there is longevity in mom and pop stores, not the longevity that you have in some of these big stores but there's longevity. Let's face it; our history was built on mom and pops. Granted, a mom and pop's store isn't going to survive against the big supermarkets today as far as groceries and stuff, but there's a lot of other ones that are going to survive and their going to do a great business out there. I don't think that we should take that opportunity on a corridor such as this, away from them and giving them the opportunity to purchase this property and build something like this down there. So, I'd like to, personally I'd like to see the whole thing adjourned and that's only my suggestion. I appreciate the time of being heard. This letter comes from Kelli Anne; I have copies here that I'll leave from Kelli Anne Kennedy. Kelli Anne Kennedy 12 Spring Street Apt 2 Glens Falls, NY 12801 Town of Queensbury Town Board 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 December 16, 2013 Dear Town Board Members: I am Kelli Anne Kennedy-Miller, Firefighter with West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company No. 1 and I have been for the last 12 years. Although I am not a resident in the town of Queensbury I would like you to know that the Main Street Zoning affects me and my business with the Town. I understand that there is a public hearing tonight regarding the Main Street Zoning. The purpose of this letter is to object your current zoning restrictions on the Main Street Corridor. Currently the town board prohibits single-story buildings and parking in front of the buildings along the section of Main Street between Northway Exit 18 and the town's boundary with Glens Falls, and that the town's vision is to eventually have a corridor that is conducive to pedestrian and bicycle traffic, sidewalk sales, outdoor dining and neighborhood interaction, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 597 much the same as a downtown business district. Although the idea and dream seems picture perfect, in reality it will become a nightmare for those commuting along the corridor and especially for those responding to emergencies. The current zoning laws are too strict. By not allowing single story buildings, we are losing out on businesses that will generate tax dollars and possible jobs to the area. Our taxpayers have spent millions of dollars to widen this roadway to three lanes to move heavy traffic along this corridor. The installation of more crosswalks will have an adverse effect on the traffic flow through the corridor, especially at peak hours. Traffic would be greatly increased on Main Street and through the City of Glens Falls, causing congestion issues and endangering pedestrians and cyclists. Furthermore, by not allowing front parking in front of the buildings, you would be making it difficult for Emergency Services, such as the fire department to respond. Let's just say there is fire alarm activation or even a fire in one of these buildings, the fire trucks would block the roadway, essentially shutting down Main Street to respond to the call. Please reference the Bull Pen fire in the city over the summer; thank god that fire happened in the middle of the night and not during peak travel hours as they had to shut Route 9 (Glen Street) completely down. I believe this Zoning change needs more work, to be thought through and reviewed more carefully and should be tabled until it can be further studied. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Kelli Anne Kennedy-Miller Firefighter, West Glens Falls Vol. Fire Co. No. 1 MR. VANNESS- As I said, I don't totally agree 100% with everything she has in her letter, but that was her letter, and I told her that I would make sure that it got read in. Basically, having said that I won't hold you up anymore, I guess basically that's what I wanted to say this evening. Thank you. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- Bill, before you go, I had questions. I know that Joe DeSantis, and I wasn't able to talk to him on the phone, was concerned about this. MR. VANNESS- I spoke to Joe, I did speak to Joe personally. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- You did? MR. VANNESS- Yeah, I did get a phone call from Joe, and I spoke to Joe personally. He was livid to say the least that the way that it was going. He is a business owner down there. I asked him to be here tonight, I don't know if he'll make it or not. I asked him to be here to voice his concerns as well. He pretty much feels the same way as I do. I don't want to speak for him, but I did speak to him and he pretty much had the same concerns as I did; to ask just to wait and have it adjourned until it can be studied further. Hopefully, he will show up a little bit later, before they close the public hearing. I don't know that he will, but I asked him to be here tonight. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- I just asked because I was supposed to call him and I did, and his phone messages were full so I didn't get back to him. MR. VANNESS- I ended up getting him at the Carl R's because his phone messages were full for me as well. Okay, thank you. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Anyone else? Yes sir. Please state your name MARK BURGMAN- I'm the President of the Warren County Multiple Listing Service, and region Vice President for the New York State Association of Realtors. Tonight I'm here to speak on behalf of the 600 members of the Warren County Association of Realtors and the property owners and voters they represent. Before I get into my specific comments I just want to let you know that I have a certification in town planning, I co-opted the Town Johnsburg Land use Plan, which was the 18th town to achieve APA approval and local jurisdiction. I mention this only REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 598 from the perspective that I've got some achievements in town planning; I'm not just a guy who sells houses. I'd also like you to know I have no pending or proposed business that will be affected by the outcome of your decision, and I'm here strictly in my role of government affairs representing for the Association of Realtors. We appreciate the fact that your Planning Department took some time to meet with some of our commercial realtors, and I understand that your Planner has proposed a few modifications to the regulations as a result of those meetings. Queensbury has never had a main street, and residents have relied on the City of Glens Falls for their mixed-use commercial area, or main street. It's our opinion that you cannot just create a main street; you can't mandate a main street. A main street is more than a street, it's a lifestyle. The only entity that could possibly create a main street was Disney when they created celebration Florida, building a city from the ground up in a blank area. Your main street area has a diverse selection of commercial and residential uses; it includes long term structures that may be there for another 100 years including a church, a cemetery, single story businesses, and homes. Most importantly, it's anchored by an interstate highway and the downtown Glens Falls. Unless you can move these two areas this will always be a major traffic artery, rather than an idyllic pedestrian friendly place. A pedestrian friendly mixed business area is a great goal but it's just not achievable in this location. As I read your adopted Comprehensive Plan I found it to have a lot of inconsistencies, almost as if your consultants may have included a lot of boiler-plate or borrowed details from plans used in totally dissimilar towns. A handful of very specific points that we want to talk about, your Comprehensive Plan calls for floor area ratios up to 50% in the Main Street zone. Although the Comprehensive Plan suggests an increase in the number of stories, the zoning regulations reduce the floor area percentage to 13%. It strikes me that maybe there was a mathematical error some place. If a single story building is allowed to have a floor area of up to 50% of the land area and you stack another story or two on top of it your floor area ratio should be increasing, not decreasing, even once you allow for parking. We recommend that you stay with the 50% floor area ratio as included in your Comprehensive Plan, but we could live with the 30% ratio as has been discussed with your Planner, which was probably during a workshop. We do, however, strongly urge you to modify your Comprehensive Plan in zoning to allow single story structures. Several developers with potential projects have already walked away when faced with the cost of multi-story requirement. This leaves you with under-utilized buildings that provide a minimal public benefit and generate less tax revenue than when delivered by the projects. This also deprives long time property owners of profit from selling. Continuing this requirement could well result in legal challenges as this could be found to be a taking. We do recommend adoption of the several new uses recommended by your Planning Department. These seem to be innocuous and it sort of seems as if maybe they were overlooked when the Comprehensive Plan was done a few years ago. We also recommend that you revisit your exterior architectural requirements. This is one of those boiler plate type inconsistencies I mentioned. For instance, the zoning calls for the use of historic colors, but what history are you trying to recreate? The reps call for expensive hand crafted cornice details as in a historic Adirondack or New England town. We don't really think this Main Street will ever be Stowe, Vermont or Salem, Massachusetts. In fact, in this area your proposed regulations maybe even more restrictive than Saratoga Springs and Lake Placid. Both places that truly have historic main streets. Finally, we recommend that you remove the mandatory designs (standard wording) to allow your Planning Board to do its job on site plan review. Keeping this language would just result in more variance applications, which will cost tax payer money and continue to stymie redevelopment and growth. You haven't seen an awful lot of growth and change in this corridor in the last few years. We'd recommend that you adopt these recommended points to allow the property owners to get on with their lives and to send the rest back for further study. We believe that it probably is permissible, I defer to Mr. Schachner for sure, for you to accept just part of this recommendation this evening. Not everything has to be changed at once; you can update the zoning in phases. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Thank you. Yes sir. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 599 MIKE PARWANNA- I own some commercial property at 474 Corinth Road, commercial light industrial. I want to agree with Mr. VanNess when he said eight years ago, or however long it was, when you started this process you did a great job. I think it's still a great job, I stand in support of the zoning with the modifications that you've done, reasonable modifications that you have done to help out the realtors. I totally disagree with idea that Queensbury can't and never had a main street. Queensbury had a wonderful main street and they incorporated it and they called it Glens Falls. Queensbury can do better, Queensbury can have a nice main street,just like many other nice towns having nice architectural details is not a bad thing, it's a good thing, it improves the value of everyone's property. Having a good main street improves my property and the value of my property, and it improves the properties adjoining the properties on Main Street. I disagree with the concept that Main Street is simply a pass through into Glens Falls, it is a place where everybody sees there are commercial enterprises that people stop, I stop at them on a regular basis and I buy things. I don't just go from exit 18 to Glens Falls because there's nothing in between to shop at. If you allow a project that is not up to decent standards that is going to set the precedent for everything else that comes afterwards. If you want good buildings stick with the good planning that you have done. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Thank you. Yes, Mrs. Sonnabend. KATHLEEN SONNABEND- I agree with the last speaker. The Town has already put a lot of money into that corridor, already improving the value of the properties there. I realize that it's not going to be built out real fast, but those people....I'm sorry Kathleen Sonnabend, Cedar Court SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Thank you. MS. SONNABEND- Those properties have already appreciated in value because of the work that's been done. The street's been improved, the sidewalks have been improved, the utilities have been put underground, and if they can't sell their properties than maybe they're asking too much for it at this time. It's not going to happen overnight but I'd like to see the Town uphold its Comprehensive Land Use Plan. I don't know where all these people were when the Comprehensive Land Use Plan was developed. Yes, it was several years ago but the corridor has just recently been completed, they were working on that for a long time. I don't know why we would give up on it all at once. I support the idea of making a few adjustments here and there if it really is appropriate because it is realistic but to completely undue the planning I don't agree with it at all. I am also puzzled because Fowler Square was recently approved for exactly this kind of mixed use development along the thorough-fare, Bay Road. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan didn't allow that and yet our Planning Board encouraged the developer and the developer thought it was a great idea. So they obviously think there is a market for this stuff, so why there isn't a market for it down on Main Street where it's more appropriate, where the infrastructure can support it. Bay Road can't really support it because the sewer limitations and the road congestion, so if we're going to have a main street or downtown in Queensbury, Main Street is the best place for it. I'd like to see the Board to uphold that vision. The Town has spent a lot of money and years and a lot of hours of citizen time and input to come up with that plan. I think we've got to give it a chance. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. DOUG AUER- Good evening gentleman, Dough Auer, 16 Oakwood Drive. I've met with Bob Sears at his request I guess because of some comments that I had made at a Town Board meeting a while back relative to the Main Street thing. COUNCILMAN BREWER- Can you speak up Doug? MR. AUER- It was an interesting conversation; Bob actually made me aware of a few things that I wasn't aware of Some of what he said made sense, but basically the concept that was come up REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 600 with several years ago I think is a good one. What we're seeing here now is, I believe in effect, that folks along that corridor that have single family homes, some of who have moved out of houses and the houses are probably vacant and some of them are non-conforming structures in that they've built out already into the right of way and that was probably done 40 or 50 years ago. So the County or someone was remiss in even allowing some of those extensions. I think if you look at where the utilities are located you will see that there are rooms, front porches and all sorts of things built out into the right of way. They could have made those folks tear those things down. Somebody screwed up years ago on this thing, but that's really not the point. I think that you have a problem in that folks see the opportunity to make a lot of money on property that wouldn't have any other purpose other than commercial. I think that this is kind of driving this whole thing. There's got to be a reasonable valuation of the property. These people think that their property is worth that much because I've been told that part of the problem is they can't sell their property because they want too much for it. So, if there's a reasonable valuation, and if they think that's what it's worth, guess what, tax them on it. I guarantee you're going to find out just how quick the price is going to get adjusted. I know what my house is worth, and if I was in a hurry to sell it I'd probably sell it for 10% less, no doubt about it. What we have here I think is special interest once again muddling with something that was done years ago and it was done very well. You spent a lot of money and a lot of time on this. I'm not sure of the vaguer ties of how this is transmogrified from what was originally proposed to what we have now. My memory is a little foggy on it, I did attend those meetings at the time, but I can't honestly say with great certainty how much has changed. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Not all that much at all Doug. MR. AVER- Okay, well where were these folks then okay, give me a break. What we're hearing is the jingling of the purse then. Let's face it, we've screwed up enough things in this Town and in this County, we really have because it's become a money chase, it really has. I think some of you know what I'm referring to, okay and there will be more to come on that; John knows and I think Ron Montesi does too. Some of you folks are not briefed on this but the reality is we really need, never mind, rethink this, there was a lot of thinking went into it. What we need to do if there is something that is a little bit out of whack and it can't be ... then adjust it. The idea of multi-story buildings, which you are going to get down through there, let's face it, is more donut shops, more gas stations. Well, they just redid McDonalds so that's not going to happen, they spent a fortune on that I'm sure. Maybe a dollar value or dollar general or something like that, that's what you're going to see end up there. You can put all kinds of nice facades on it all you want but the reality is I think do what that plans calls for. There are people in this world that would want to live on Main Street. This happened down in Malta and those apartments are all rented down there. Granted they're rented by the folks at Luther Forest, that's why the shops haven't filled in there because there's nobody living above them. Most of the folks that have taken them they've rented blocks of them in anticipation. That's the other thing; don't say that this isn't going to happen because I worked in that industry, semi-conductor industry when I first got out of college. We made the first 25 millimeter wafers, they are up to 600 millimeter, they are this big now. Now this is going to have a huge impact on the local economy up here, it really is. There are people that would love to live that close to the Northway, they can pop out of bed in the morning and shoot down the Northway. What we're seeing in Luther Forest is just the snowflake on the tip of the iceberg at this point. There are facilities in that park to build three or four chip fab plants the same size as what is there now. They will put in another exit and that's already in the works, to actually go directly from the Northway into it. So, that's going to have an impact up here folks, there's no doubt in my mind about it. It's already had an impact; look at what's happened in Saratoga, you have a Price Chopper built into a facility that has apartments above it. Who would have thought that would go, but it does. It's back off the main street there but I guess Mr. Golub thought it would make sense and apparently it does. So, I think you really want not to beat this thing to death and then end up with, as they used to say, a horse that turned out to be a camel designed by a committee. I don't think you want to get into that situation, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 601 we've done that quite honestly in Queensbury enough times. Do something that our children and grandchildren are going to be proud of, and say oh boy, those folks thought very well about it. Like the way the school evolved, they bought the airport and put a little tiny building on it at the time. I don't know they had maybe twenty students or something per grade when that was first done; but look what it's turned into now. So, let's think about the next 50, 75 years. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Thank you Doug. Anyone else? Yes, sir Don. DON KREBS- Masters Common North, and I also am the Secretary of the Planning Board so I just want to make everybody aware I represent myself tonight, not the Planning Board. I was on the Planning Review Commission with John and we discussed this and what I think happened along the way is I thought we had discussed at the Planning Ordinance Review Commission the fact that you either had to have urban development if you wanted to totally wanted to change the character of a neighborhood or what I thought we approved for the Comprehensive Plan was that we would allow people to build two or three stories if that's what they chose to do. Somehow between when the Commission gave their suggestions to the Town Board somehow that became not allowed but a regulation. I really think unless you do an urban development project which would mean the Town should buy up all of those homes along Main Street, you are not going to see what you have envisioned, because people are not going to invest their money in a business that has to be 20 feet back, has to be three story facade or a two story facade, next to a residential home that there is no term on. So, you're asking me as a business man to invest my money in a project that's two stories; and maybe like Dollar General, they don't want a second story because the people on the second story could ruin their business. They could have a fire, they could leave the plumbing on and it would cause all kinds of damage to the store below so unless you have a landlord who really wants a mixed use environment I don't think you're going to get it. Particularly as one of our later people said the economy has not been positive for any kind of change. But I also want to point out that we get misinformation at these meetings. When you look at Fowler Square the sewer system was put in by the developer of and Surrey Fields and Cedar have not chosen to connect to it even though the pipes were extended to it. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Surrey Fields is connected to it. MR. KREBS- Oh, Surrey Fields is connected but Cedar Court is not connected. SUPERVISOR MONTESI-Right. MR. KREBS- Okay, so anyways I'm just saying that I think we should allow that kind of development but I think insisting on that kind of development is going to mean that were not going to see any development of any significance for many years to come. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Thank you Don. Anyone else? Yes, sir. JOHN RILEY- 56 Burnt Hills Drive. A couple of things, 20 years ago I was part of the set of meetings in the City of Albany where they were trying to correct problems that were created in the 60's with development downtown. One of the main things that during the 60's and early 70's people were trying to do is move traffic quickly, and they changed the way that the roadways were structured so that vehicles would move faster and they thought that if you moved their vehicle at 30 or 35 or 40 miles an hour you could get more traffic out of the downtown and get people home to the suburban area where they lived. The reality of that is it destroyed all of the businesses along that corridor. So there's been a little bit of talk about traffic flow, and what the later studies have shown, and Albany invested tens of millions of dollars to accomplish this is if you move traffic slower, at a steady pace it allows the vehicle operator to see what's going on and get off the road when they want to stop at a business or to slow down and travel through intersections whether it is pedestrian crossing or a junction with other roads. The way the roadway is structured right now from exit 18 all the way to the city into the heart of the city does accomplish that. It allows traffic to continue to move at a steady pace rather than 40 miles an REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 602 hour to a red light. If you think about how things back up where you do have a higher speed and then a stop light and a long intersection it backs up from there. We don't have that problem on Main Street, so the traffic concerns from a vehicle stand point I don't think exists. I think it is structured properly and can handle actually an increase in the number of vehicles that travel that corridor. I understand that in the morning there are backups and that's a larger issue on the other side of the exit heading out towards Corinth. Again, there are some other structural problems there that weren't addressed in this redevelopment plan. So, that thing to make adjustments that mess with the traffic flow, I would strongly advise you to look very closely at that and what the professionals say who have studied it. With respect to pedestrians, there are pedestrians all over the Town of Queensbury and they're in wheelchairs, they're walking, there are a number of people that leave Tribune Media at different times of the day and walk around the block, so there are pedestrians there as well. In fact, I think we don't do enough to accommodate pedestrians. I live off of Sherman Avenue and there are kids walking, people walking at all times of day, it's dangerous. It's just a matter of time before we have some more significant problems with that. Developing a corridor for pedestrians is important. When you add in a large curb cut for a small box store like a Dollar General, you take what would be a single lane wide or maybe a double lane wide entrance and you've got to double that to accommodate that traffic, aside from the type of businesses that were intended to go here in this plan when you allow that kind of business. It's not just that you have a wider curb cut, a longer stretch for pedestrians to cross, but you also have a much higher volume of cars in and out. That really has a significant impact on the overall aesthetics of the corridor. A lot of what was done here was done to improve the aesthetics of this area. It's going to take time. But, it is not Route 9 from exit 17 up into South Glens Falls. It's not this multiple mile long area that is virtually undeveloped. The development is there. The populations are on both sides of the Main Street Corridor, the businesses will come in, they'll fill in. To say that the economy has changed is true but it's very short-sighted to not look at the fact that over the last 40 years the Town of Queensbury has grown pretty steadily at about 10% per year. To assume that we're not going to continue to have that development I think would be foolish on the part of this Board. The development is coming, we've had a small slow down for a couple of years, it will turn around. It's a gorgeous place to live, people do want to come here, whether it's living downtown in a condo situation or living in a half acre lot in a 3500 square foot house over towards West Mountain, it's a very attractive place. We have great schools, all of that stuff, people will still want to live here. Where there's population businesses will grow. So to react to be reactionary at this point to those interests that say we're ... development is really short-sighted, and that's one of the things that this whole Land Use Plan tried to accomplish is let's have a broader vision of what we'd like to look at, not just today but in 10, 20, 30, 40 years. To change now, and to allow these other types of uses will have a very long impact on everything that we've been trying to do from Exit 18 all the way down into Glens Falls, a huge amount of money and effort has been invested to change the appearance, to change the way that things work and it is working. Those plans are coming to fruition; the Main Street Corridor looks good. We will have businesses; it's just a little patience on the part of the Town Board. The last point I have is, I do have a concern that our Planning Board and our Zoning Boards will grant exceptions to the rules that are in place now on a piece by piece basis. It's happened in different areas and I think it's a major concern. If you have a variance given for one business that can demonstrate a specific need it will throw the whole plan out of whack. Time after time we've seen that happen, whether it's in a small area where somebody gets to put five more houses at the end of a road that people thought was a dead end or whether it's a large project, the boards in this Town, Planning and Zoning Boards with appointed people not elected people have changed the way that things are done in the Town. Where people thought we were electing people to make these decisions it's not always that case. I have concerns on both of those areas. If you want to take a long time to look at it, that's great but to make big adjustments tonight I think would be short-sighted and foolish. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Thank you John. Yes, ma'am REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 603 PATRICIA EVANS- I own the North Country Cat Hospital. I've been on the street since 1988. I bought a converted residence in 2001 and I have a very nice business there, I keep my property up, it's a one story building and I think this Board should consider that perhaps some of the residences that are for sale could possibly be purchased by a small business person like myself and converted into a business if they don't have to go to the expenses of tearing down the existing building and putting up a two story building. I think that every business should have an opportunity and I think their plan and their vision should be heard by the committees that make the decisions. So, that's what I wanted to say. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Thank you. KATHY HAMLIN- Queensbury resident and also a land owner in Glens Falls, I'll get to that in a second. Am I understanding this woman, quickly, that she thinks that you have non- conforming structures, and non-conforming lots there? Anybody who wants to put a new use in one of those that's acceptable, correct? They don't have to tear down an existing building. COUNCILMAN BREWER- Correct... MS. HAMLIN- Thank you, I didn't think so. So, if somebody wants to do like she does in the...I actually kind of like that look along that Corridor, but I find the proposed changes to be acceptable, they're small, if there's further problems down the road that you wish to explore, especially in terms of the architectural standards or guidelines that you have, maybe that can be explored; but, for right now throwing out that baby with the bath water, the two stories and the parking behind. I think that what you've proposed is reasonable yet professional planning staff that has proposed that and what I'm concerned about is that there seems to be a push to compete your way to the bottom basically to compete your way to bring in businesses that really won't raise the condition of that Corridor to be of a certain echelon that maybe other parts of Queensbury are not at this point in time. I think we truly have enough family dollar stores and discount stores of that nature. I think something along the lines of what has been envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan is worth giving it a little more try. We've been in a really bad recession for a long time and we're just barely coming out of it. As the other gentleman said I think we really are going to see some spill-over from the tech center in Malta, and we may a have a different caliber of needs and wants and desires from residents. The other thing I wanted to say that I think it's kind of a false statement that was made, that you can't create a downtown that you have to build a celebration from the ground up. I can tell you chapter and verse of many examples throughout the entire Country where we have retrofitted suburban sprawl areas, dead strip corridors and what are called dead malls or malls on life support that have been turned around and retrofitted with new urbanism type style designs. So, I think it's very doable, give it a chance. I'm happy, I'm not an expert on that area, that Corridor or some of those problems that have been presented and they may be very real. My problem with architectural standards is though you really don't have a really consistent architecture going along that line. Maybe they could be a little burdensome in that, the look of a building isn't what's important, what's important is the form, how it addresses the street and the function. So, if you can maintain those things I think you'll have a good plan there. My other thing is that I'd really like to see consistency of that Corridor; it's a gateway into Glens Falls, so I'd really like to see you maybe formulate a committee with some Planning Board, Zoning Board members of both communities. Maybe some people from the community that are not, including real estate developers, that are not on these boards that might work together and look at how you can make some consistency in the design standards all the way down into downtown along that Corridor just to tie it together, because I'm happier with what you've proposed on the Queensbury side, and I used to be a Glens Falls Planning Board Member, with what I'm seeing developed along the other side. So, it would be nice to see some consistency in designs, which is something that was actually recommended by the smart growth committee that I was on years and years and years ago. Maybe something along those lines, because that's what it was people from Glens Falls and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 604 people from Queensbury working together on planning ideas. So, I appreciate your time. Thank you DEPUTY TOWN CLERK II, ROSE MELLON- Excuse me ma'am, can you repeat your name for the record? MS. HAMLIN- It's Kathy Hamlin, Cedar Court. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK II, MELLON- Thank you. BOB SEARS- I'm here to present a petition and give you some additional information (Presented petitions to the Town Board Members, Clerk, and Town Counsel). This is from your ward Tim. The first petition I gave the Board here is a petition signed by 31 people; they are all people who live on the Main Street Corridor. Every one of these people signed it; I did not twist their arm. I did not ask anybody who didn't sign it, in other words, it was unanimous. Put 31 people in the room, are they ever unanimous? Well, in this case they were. Basically, Ron could you read what the petition says? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Bob, you're addressing this Board right? MR. SEARS- Okay, okay well John can you read what the petition says on top? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- The petition that Bob Sears just submitted to the Town Board says: the following petition is requested by concerned property owners along the Main Street Corridor to make specific changes to the Queensbury Main Street Zoning Code. The following changes should provide impetus for commercial mixed use development along the Main Street Corridor. 1. Increase the uses allowed in the zone. 2. Increase the floor area ratio of 30% which is the standard for other commercially zoned areas in Queensbury. 3. Allow for single story buildings which are allowed in all other commercially zoned district's in Queensbury. MR. SEARS- Thank you John. So, like I said before I went through the Main Street Corridor and ask these people their thoughts and if they felt comfortable to sign this petition. Every person I talked to signed it. There was not one nay vote. I also asked them if they were aware that this ordinance was in place when they went through the process of determining the zoning. Most of them that I asked, well, all of them that I asked said they weren't aware of it. So, there must be a miscommunication somewhere. Tim, that is your ward, I know you've been against single story buildings, but these are people signing this petition in your ward. COUNCILMAN BREWER- I didn't say that Bob. MR. SEARS- Okay. Secondly, we're not asking for malls to take place up there along that Corridor, shopping malls, as some people elect to believe that's what we're asking, and that's what the paper has alluded to. We're asking for good architecture, we're endorsing or at least asking for the architecture and endorsing the architecture that you have in the Main Street Zone, we're asking for designs that you asked for in the Main Street Zone to be in place. We're asking for relief from two to three story buildings, that's the other issue that's on the table right now. I'm trying to be brief. I want to pass out one other thing to you. Stu, Mr. Baker in your presentation that you gave to the Town Board and to the citizens at one of our previous meetings and also has been discussed periodically in support of urban lifestyle living, you refer lots of times to Ellsworth Commons in Malta. Ellsworth Commons in Malta is an example of urban lifestyle as you basically personify it. If you look of the second page (handout he presented to the Board)this is the overview of how that looks, it's 10 acres. It is planned, it was a piece of land that was raw land and they planned it out. They took that raw land and made that into an urban lifestyle type of community. It was all driven by Global Foundries, which has been discussed earlier tonight. There's 3,000 people employed at Global Foundries right now. I've walked down, may I just interrupt myself, can I ask have any of you walked around the Ellsworth Commons? Has anyone been down there and walking it? REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 605 COUNCILMAN STROUGH- I'm there every week. MR. SEARS- Are ya, good John. Anybody else? Good, good. What is your impression? COUNCILMAN METIVIER- I was saying to John earlier tonight, I didn't think any of the front buildings on the bottom floor had been leased out. He insisted that they're full. I read your comments. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-No, I said they are about 50%. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-But you have one business opened and since closed, so what is the real number? MR. SEARS- Okay, according to the real estate people who are involved down there, and they have no hidden agenda here, that has been on paper, okay, for six years, okay. I leased out 60% of a plaza on paper, because it was where people wanted to go, all right. There is less than 25% of the retail/office space leased out or on line to be leased out, less than 25% and that's been over a period of time of four years. COUNCILMAN BREWER- The last four years? MR. SEARS- Yes, okay. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- Do you know how much residential is leased out? MR. SEARS- There's 312 apartments and that is all basically, most of its leased, okay. Now, here's the situation, they're leased to Global Foundry employees, they're leased to the naval base, and they're leased to various contractors and their employees that work at Global Foundries. So, that is the motor that's generating that development. Now if you walk down in there, and you can see from the pictures, I was down there on a Tuesday, one person was walking, he was an older guy, he was about 75 or 80 years old. Now that's why there's no retail or that's why there's no...well, he's not much older than me... but that's why there's not a whole lot of retail being generated there or office space, because there isn't that much traffic going on there during the day, they're all working. Now granted the economy has been soft but not down at Global Foundries, not down in that area. Now I'm not saying that you should take this whole vision and just throw it in the waste paper basket, there's a lot of things in this vision that make a lot of sense, especially the architectural design, but when you limit it to two and three story buildings on a corridor that only has 330 feet in depth when your vision is something like this, that requires 10 acres of land to make it work and even this has problems. You should re-think this, and Tim you should re-think where your ward is, because when I walked up and down that corridor there was not one person who did not balk signing that petition. I appreciate your time, thank you very much. MARK LEVACK- Good evening Members of the Board, my name is Mark Levack; I'm a realtor in Glens Falls, life resident of the area. It should be noted that this conversation that we're having today was really born out of a meeting that was started with John Wheatley at EDC. John for some time has said how can we get the West end of town more ...ready, how can we get sewer out there, let's have a conversation. Let's put a group together, so a meeting was created and past town supervisors, town board members, planning personnel, local real estate professionals, real estate brokers all got together and we had a nice conversation and from that meeting we had a secondary meeting and the real estate group of that meeting had a common denominator, we all got together and we talked, we said why aren't sales happening out here? How are you doing, how are you making out, and it was very positive and very productive to find a common theme amongst ourselves, and that theme was the zoning is restrictive and it's not allowing for development. We began to site examples and personal cases of why we felt that was true. So, really all of this sort of snowballed to where we are today. I want to thank the Town Planning Department, and the Town Board for really meeting two of the three requirements of REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 606 this rogue real estate community had put forth. Adding more permitted uses I think was very positive and that's a step in the right direction. Increasing the floor area ratio or the density allowable is in my opinion the single greatest thing that the Town has done to date to promote development and spur activity in the Main Street Corridor. Similarly, I think the two story restriction really is quite close, at second place but really quite close. I think this is one person's opinion that you can have a very attractive Main Street Corridor, you can have a very attractive Main Street District to enhance architectural restrictions, they don't have to be too onerous they can be common sense and they can create a theme. It doesn't matter if you have a one story building, a two story building or a six story building on the street, you can create continuity through your design efforts, through your architectural enhancements. I can say that there is definitely a special interest constituency out there and that is namely every single property owner on Main Street. Steve, myself and Bob took the time to go door to door to really solicit the opinions of these property owners. These are not multi-national corporations, these are not big business, these are people that own houses that can't sell them because of this zoning. That's the special interest that we represent. COUNCILMAN BREWER- Can I ask you a question Mark? MR. LEVACK- Sure. COUNCILMAN BREWER- If this Board or a future Board were willing to consider knocking the three and two story building out could that somehow create a committee to develop some standards that would have to be met for architecture, etc.? MR. LEVACK- Absolutely. COUNCILMAN BREWER- ...replace the two and three story, I'm not saying that's what I chose... but I think there has to be some give and take. MR. LEVACK- Absolutely. COUNCILMAN BREWER- the floor ratio, certainly, was just a mistake that was done. MR. LEVACK- Right. COUNCILMAN BREWER- Everybody on this Board I think agrees that should have been changed. MR. LEVACK-No question. COUNCILMAN BREWER- The parking I think is an issue that's pretty much settled. MR. LEVACK- Yep. COUNCILMAN BREWER- But I think in my own personal opinion there has to be something that all the work that went into this Corridor study, the money for the sewer, the water, the road, the underground power that was a battle. I think there's a lot of people that would like to see that dream come true but I guess I don't know how to exactly to say it. There has to be some continuity like you said but some standards have to be set and I think these were the standards that people thought of Now that we're just coming out of the bad part of the economy why not give it a chance to work? I understand that people want to sell their homes down there... MR. LEVACK- I can answer that question most directly because it is not a realistic assumption to believe or to say that every single property owner in that district is going to have the ability to sell to someone that wants to do a two story structure. So if you base your logic on that assumption than what you're saying to those portion, is it 20, is it 30, is it 50% of the street? You're not going to be able to sell and meet zoning... REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 607 COUNCILMAN BREWER- But is it 20, 30, 40, 60, 80%that want to sell? No! Does everybody over there want to sell? MR. LEVACK- Well, I think there is... COUNCILMAN BREWER- That's a question you have to ask. MR. LEVACK- I think if you go across any street in the Town you will find more willing sellers on Main Street. COUNCILMAN BREWER- I'm sure. MR. LEVACK- Than on most other corridors, the corridor is in transition, there's no question about it. COUNCILMAN BREWER- Absolutely, no question about it. MR. LEVACK- And I think zoning is the key to promoting that transition and right now it's clear to me that this zoning is restricting that transition much more than it's promoting that transition. I think I agree with you 100%, I think it's about architectural enhancements. You can create continuity, you can create theme, you can create a look, an image, you can create something that we can all be proud of without being restrictive. COUNCILMAN BREWER- To an extent, there has to be some sort of restrictions Mark. MR. LEVACK- Well, I'm saying overly restrictive. You're not going to require people to design architectural marvels. But, with certain details that are a matter of architecture and it doesn't have to encompass one style, it can encompass several styles. You can create a look and a theme that when people drive down that road their going to say wow somebody put some thought and planning into this corridor; it has a look, it has a theme, it has continuity. I believe very strongly it doesn't matter if it's a one story building, a two story building, a three story building or a six story building you can achieve the objective. But, the reality is the nature of the parcels, the small lots; you have to in essence have to create an assemblage to put together a project. But, to those people that aren't part of that assemblage, to those people that have the one story ranch structure that want to sell to an architectural firm or accounting firm or bookkeeping firm that want to put a business in there you're saying to them they can't sell to these people because the zoning doesn't allow it. COUNCILMAN BREWER- It's not just the zoning Mark and I've heard that and heard that and heard that. It's a combination of things, its people are asking a lot of money for their property. I know personal people over there because the road's been done and now they think their house is worth probably worth three times more than reality lets them know so they hold off because they... MR. LEVACK- That pendulum is swinging. COUNCILMAN BREWER- There's a small part of that and not everybody wants to sell either. There's some people that want to stay there, so it's not just the Town restricting people from selling their homes. I have a hard time swallowing that pill but... MR. LEVACK- We can site examples of where it's happened, and we're not here because we don't believe in this, we're here because we believe very strongly of this. It is restrictive and it has prevented develop (tape inaudible) prevent, we think, good development. We're not just representing the big box store and the special interests. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Nobody said that. MR. LEVACK- We're representing the homeowner that can't sell their home because... REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 608 COUNCILMAN BREWER- (tape inaudible) I know. MR. LEVACK- I'll wrap up and be brief, but the point that I would like to make is to second what Bob had said. We went door to door and I put the petition in front of people and we asked them what they knew about the issues and were they aware of what's the debate that's going on and most were. There wasn't one person that owns these properties that was not in favor of signing this petition. It wasn't a gray area, it was an area that's very black and white, clearly these property owners, these special interests are... COUNCILMAN BREWER- You're words not mine. MR. LEVACK- Well, I'm being a little cute when I say the special interests of these property owners. Most of these people it's their life savings. They've lived there for 30 years or more. COUNCILMAN BREWER- I know that. MR. LEVACK- And they want to sell, and this is a hurdle in part. I think it's a large part. So whatever the Town can do to eliminate the two story restriction or more I think would be a positive thing for the Town of Queensbury. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-Before you get up though, answer the question about overpriced properties, what is your personal opinion on that, are these parcels (tape inaudible) overpriced? MR. LEVACK- You know, I'm working on a sale that I didn't think was going to bring the numbers that it's bringing, and I'm happy to say that it's bringing the numbers. I think it's a function of five things, the overall economy, the zoning; it's not any one particular thing that says Main Street isn't developing at a pace that we'd all like to see. It's a combination of a lot of things. Fortunately, interest rates are staying low; I do see a little more demand. I think the people are getting these numbers and they're going to start to see them getting these numbers. I can't say that these people have been overly unrealistic in their concept of what they think their properties are worth. Yes, a few and they stand out but we live in a free economy. It's supply and demand. If people want to sell they have to meet the market price. I'm a big fan of free enterprise and I think less restrictions are better, continuity is good and architectural enhancements are good. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Thanks Mark. Mr. Frier, yes. ALLEN STERN- Good evening, my name is Allen Stern. I am an architect out of Bolton Landing. I'm here also as a member of the Warren County Association of Realtors. I just wanted to speak of my experience. I've been involved in large development projects from Albany to north of here. As an executive with the development company out of Troy we recently, I'm no longer with the company but we did a wonderful job trying to recreate a main street. This is in downtown Troy, it was actually an extension of the wonderful fabric they have there. We did a student housing project, three phases, parts of the requirements were the first ground level was retail and then we had four levels of student housing above. A lot of that was in concert with RPI. The story though, it all sounded great, it looks beautiful, you can google or look on line college suites, city station college suites in Troy. The problem with the developer we had a lot of requirements and zoning regulations to meet and we did that successfully except the retail component didn't work, and for a developer on a project like that you really need about 65% occupancy before you start to break even. On a five story project with an entire ground level that is virtually vacant it's a big risk, it's a big burden, a big load for a developer to carry. I imagine and hopefully in time that will ease up, it may even be converted to more housing on the ground level. Very similar to Ellsworth Commons, its difficult the text books urban planning, ya know the new urbanism, it all sounds great but I believe Mr. Burgman, it's very difficult unless you're with Disney to create a new main street from ground up. So, I guess to take away from all of this I'd suggest having a zoning ordinance for this area for Main Street that is developer friendly, business person friendly and keep in mind too, going for a loan, if I were a veterinarian and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 609 wanted to buy that single story house I know have to consider building two levels and possibly putting apartments above there and becoming a landlord and probably never getting my money back out of that. So, I think that everyone has the same goal is to have a nice looking street as you depart the Northway and go towards Glens Falls. But someone else said that you already have a wonderful Main Street in Glens Falls, it's just a beautiful corridor that you want to develop. That's it. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Thank you Mr. Stern. MR. STERN- Thank you. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Stu, do you... SENIOR PLANNER, STUART BAKER- I'd like to just speak to one point that's now come up I think three times in the comments this evening and that's the perception that the zoning requires existing non-conforming lots and non-conforming buildings to be torn down and replaced with a multi-story building. That's not the case at all, there's absolutely nothing in the zoning code currently and nothing in the zoning code amendments as proposed that prohibits the reuse of existing structures for uses permitted in the Main Street zoning district. MR. VANNESS- If I may,just one question with what you've said there. That does say that if those buildings come down that it has to be replaced. SENIOR PLANNER, BAKER- That's correct, but it does not say the buildings must come down. MR. VANNESS- Okay. SENIOR PLANNER, BAKER- If you have a usable structure on there the zoning encourages the reuse of it. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Come on up Steve. MR. BORGOS- Thank you sir. Steve Borgos, licensed associate real estate broker with Realty USA, longtime resident. I moved here with my family into South Glens Falls actually 66+ years ago. I came here as a young man, I'm not as old as Ron but I'm older than somebody else who was here. He's got me by a little bit. I've been a full time resident of Queensbury for nearly 50 years; it will be 50 years next May. I appreciate this Board and the Planning Board and the Planning Department working with us and talking with us since about August so this hasn't been a quick yesterday kind of a deal. We sent a letter I believe early August, we met with you in August, I think we met again in September in workshop sessions. We met with the Planning Board to discuss a whole bunch of ideas. The three of us, Mark, Bob and I came with the idea of offering our time and energy to meet as part of a committee to talk about some ideas. Apparently it's hard in town government, you can't have more than two people, if you can't have a majority you can't meet, so it was decided that we probably should meet with the whole Town Board. But the idea was that we recognized that there is a serious problem, I'm personally very concerned about the perhaps lack of fairness to the owners of the people who live along that street. I'm concerned that some people may be older than I am and they might want to sell, they might want to retire; but they can't sell practically because of the private investors coming to this area have to be sure that they're going to get a return on their investment. That means they're going to have to build to the modern standards, they are going to have to follow the zoning regulations. Most of the people I deal with are going to want something with one story; they're not going to want two or three stories. I would support the idea of removing the minimum, the height requirement because the zoning district in the Town that I'm aware of that has a minimum height requirement, maximum height is fine, let people go from one to three stories. Again, the idea of private property's important I think, I'm a free market person. Some of you know I've served as Town Supervisor and on the Town Board but not everybody knows that I'm a retired Professor REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 610 of Business, having taught for 31 years full time in college at least 20 summers. I taught economics. I taught a course that I really enjoyed called retail management where we looked at location, accessibility, visibility, we looked at floor layouts and parking on all those things. I did some graduate work in Planning and investment. We are trying to help, we're trying to act as citizens and use some of our experiences to help this community. SUPERVISOR MONTESI-No charge for the water. MR. BORGOS- That's all right, I didn't get it the last time I was here. Is it still 90 cents a thousand or something? I heard the term on TV a couple of weeks ago, this "unintended consequences". I started thinking about this that term in relationship to what's happening here. Everybody agrees that we should do something there. I thought the main idea of improving that Main Street section was to get traffic through town at a higher speed not speeding but better than five miles an hour. When that project was thought of by Oliver Laakso 25 to 26 years ago we mapped regularly and we were going to have a nice corridor, nice divided highway type thing with a median of planted flowers and trees and all that. That would have had a four or five lane, probably four lane with the median that never came to fruition. It was expensive and just couldn't be done. I'm glad something finally got done. I would have preferred to see the five lane but it's still there. We never thought of going real slow. When I read the Comprehensive Land Use Plan in preparation for tonight's meeting I was surprised to see that right in the Plan that's been adopted by the Town Board it says the intended purpose of this whole Main Street plan is to slow down traffic. We just spent over 20 million dollars of taxpayers' money we thought to get cars into the City and get them out, get them into the Hospital and get them into the Civic Center, get them into Finch Pruyn, get them into downtown. Do we want to now slow them down? COUNCILMAN BREWER- Who said we did it to move them faster? MR. BORGOS- Pardon? COUNCILMAN BREWER- Go ahead, I just... MR. BORGOS- I'm sorry. One thing I don't think people recognize and I've heard a bit of it tonight and I saw a bit in the Post Star the other day, and I'm sure nobody is intentionally doing this but just to clarify things, would you describe for us roughly the boundaries of the Main Street Zone? SENIOR PLANNER, BAKER- Well, the best description actually is the map on the wall on the right hand side below the clock over there that shows the Main Street district in its entirety. MR. BORGOS- Okay, the Main Street district essentially runs from the Northway to the City of Glens Falls line on Corinth Road or Main Street. The Main Street zone also includes Luzerne Road and all the houses between Main Street and Luzerne Road. There are 40 or 50 private residential structures over there. It includes the VFW building, it includes the West Glens Falls Fire House, and the law says that businesses fronting on Main Street, the front of the building must be exactly 21 feet from the edge of the roadway. For the other buildings between Main Street and Luzerne Road it says they must be at least 20 feet back from the property line. Now that's quite a big difference, but the important part of that is, and Tim will remember a couple of years ago, some people over there wanted to build on vacant lots and they couldn't get a permit to build a private home because private homes may no longer be built between Main Street and Luzerne Road. Unless I'm wrong, it says in the law everybody must follow all of the other regulations. If someone wants to put an addition, a single family home between Main Street and Luzerne Road they have to build at least two stories. Wow, amazing, and they can't live on the bottom level, bottom levels are no longer allowed to be lived in. You can have apartment buildings over there but they have to be above the first floor. All first floors of any apartment buildings in that area must be a business use, and it's got to be one of the uses permitted. That's REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 611 the unintended consequences. I don't think people thought about that, I don't think most people know that's happening over there. Something I don't know that all the Boards know that. You are talking about 50 or 60 private residences, might have been in the family for 100 years. Interesting if they decide they will tear it down and build a new one, they can't do it. I'm concerned that the proposed changes talk about removing authority from the Planning Board. The Planning Board and Zoning Board is set up by the laws of the State of New York to provide some balance. They're intentionally comprised of people who are appointed rather than elected. Now years ago when I was Supervisor I wasn't real happy about that, so we'd say let's replace somebody because they really seem to be way out of line, we found out under the law you can't. The Town Board cannot replace somebody you've appointed unless you replace everybody on the Planning Board or everybody on the Zoning Board of Appeals. You can't pick and choose. Then the law goes further and says if you replace one or more, the only thing that you can do to replace that board it is for the Town Board itself to act as Planning Board. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Now Steve what does this have to do with Main Street Zoning? MR. BORGOS- It has to do because you've suggested in the requirements, in the changes you've suggested taking away from the Planning Board. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-No we did not. MR. BORGOS- Well, it's in the consolidated... COUNCILMAN STROUGH- What's in here is the clarification of the word shall. The word shall already exits, it's a clarification, a legal definition of the word shall. It is not taking anything away from the Planning Board. I just want to... MR. BORGOS- The language says in there or in the Consolidated Land Use Program specifically, it shall take away from the boards, the Planning Board and whatever board. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- It just clarifies it, Steve, I do not... MR. BORGOS- I'll get the section and send it to you. That concerns me that we're going to start to tamper with that because I think that Planning Boards and Zoning Board of Appeals have a good purpose. I'm very happy to see and I hope you will approve the increase of the floor area ratio to 30%. I'm delighted to see the increase of the additional uses because for instance parking lots had been left off the original plan and parking areas. When I think of this kind of a zone I can think of two places that are kind of interesting, one is Palo Alto. Anybody been to Palo Alto, California? I recall when we were out there a few years ago, we weren't on the Main Street, it was a well-traveled street, but beautiful two and three story, one story buildings mixed in, very nice. We parked along the side of the road and walked up and down, it was very enjoyable. We parked along the side of the road, we saw something that looked interesting we pulled over and parked there. There is no parking on the Main Street that you have. The only thing you can do is find a driveway that connects to some parking lot that you can't see if it's going to be developed that way. As we've talked about before, so we don't have unintended consequences we have a lot of parcels over there that are 40 and 50 feet wide. If you leave a 20 feet drive area so people can pass, even a 15 foot, you're down to 15 or 25 feet for a building, not a very wide building. COUNCILMAN BREWER- Maybe your building shouldn't be built on that side of the lot. I mean every lot in this world is not meant for a commercial building Steve. MR. BORGOS- What else can you put on it? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, the idea behind, and I'm going to get into this later Steve, but what we're talking about isn't urbanity like kind of zoning... MR. BORGOS- I understand. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 612 COUNCILMAN STROUGH- It's a new trend. It's not necessarily Main Street. The main street is called Main Street, had nothing to do with it. But we're talking about a suburban-urban kind of zoning where you have zero side setbacks, where the buildings will be allowed to be right next to one another. One of the reasons why we're doing that is because the suburban type of zoning that is being proclaimed and advocated for by some people here will say that every little parcel will require its access. There we are back to suburban zoning, back to just what we don't want and that's what you're suggesting. What we're suggesting is that the buildings with the retail offerings and multiple uses may not be residential; the upstairs could be rented professional offices. Nobody's bringing this out; I'll bring it out later though. But, and there is shared parking behind, shared parking. So the presence to the road and to the public isn't a parking strip with cars, it's the building and the products inside the building. There's just some... I'll get into this later. MR. BORGOS- Good, well as long as you've raised the issue, if we don't have parking on each particular lot how are you going to require one lot to share property with another lot? If you don't have it on the street and you don't have it where the business is where is it going to be? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- We do it now. MR. BORGOS- I'm a bit concerned with the fact that this plan talks about serving the residents who can walk there. If you eliminate the people over a period of time you're going to eliminate all of them from Main Street to Luzerne Road. That takes a big chunk, if you look at the map, it takes a big chunk realistically walk there. There are a few on the South side of Main Street but not nearly as many as on the North side. So I just ask you to look back at that again. Let me just see, expansion of buildings so forth...I want some clarification if you would on the standards. There are a lot of standards in the comprehensive land use program. They are very, very specific and I forgot to bring my packet with me tonight. Do we intend to require all of those standards or only what was finally put into the zoning code? SENIOR PLANNER, BAKER- The Comprehensive Land Use Plan is a policy document; the zoning code is the law. MR. BORGOS- Okay. One other thing, somebody mentioned that we can't make some of these changes we're talking about because it wouldn't be consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- That's New York State Law 272. MR. BORGOS- Well then I read the plan and the plan says, it recommends and it's been approved by the Town Board that there be a buffer along the Northway 1000 feet on each side of the Northway that would not permit any more residential subdivisions. Our Town zoning law says 500 feet, now how can we do something that's contrary to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan? If we can't do it, how can we do it in some areas and not in other areas, are we picking and choosing, does the law allow us to do this or are we misinterpreting the law? There are a number of inconsistencies as you go through the law. I'm just saying that maybe you can do more than you think you can.do. I would ask tonight if possible you would accept the change to the floor area ratio that you would accept the additional uses and you would allow developers, individuals to build single story buildings. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Thank you Steve. KEN WHEELER- My name is Ken Wheeler, I live at 16 Richardson Street and I'm actually in the section between Main Street and Luzerne Road. Everybody seems to be concerned and I am too about the people who own property along the Main Street Corridor, and their property values. But nobody seems to be mentioning or concerned with the people that live in the back yard of the Exit 18 Corridor. My property is within 200 feet of Main Street, I've lived there for 27 years. Steve, I've been in Queensbury for 52 so...Whatever you do along that Corridor is REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 613 going to affect the neighborhoods that are behind that Exit 18 Corridor, and there are a lot more than 30 houses and there are quite a few I believe on the South side of Main Street as well. I wish I had time to have created a petition; I probably could have gotten a lot more than 31 signatures representing the neighbors and the property owners that have lived and still do live in the back yard of the Exit 18 Corridor. So whatever you do, whatever choices you make are going to affect more than just the people that own the property along the Corridor, it's going to affect a lot of other people. The other point that somebody mentioned was there didn't seem to be a lot of foot traffic and that made me realize...I work out of my home so I'm there every day, all day, a lot of times. The amount of foot traffic that goes by my property on a daily basis has increased a hundred times in the last, well since the Exit 18 Corridor project was done. There's a bike path down Richardson Street now, it's a connector to the Feeder Canal Trail, and it gets a lot of use. There are people and pedestrians and bicyclists that use that area. So, keep in mind whatever decisions you make and whatever changes you make to your original plan will affect more people than just the people along that Corridor. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Anyone else? Yes, sir. MARVIN DOBERT- 52 Main Street and Lake View Drive. I'd like to summarize my presentation tonight by saying I'm in favor of the results that are being vocalized by the real estate agents here tonight. I would compare that to the citizens group such as Sunnyside special district, gathering together, expressing their desires to you and then coming up with a solution. I've been on the...excuse me I've lost my train of thought, let me restart. Let me just give a little history first. I was born in the area, Third Street, within walking distance of Main Street. I've conducted commerce on Main Street actively for 30 years, inactively acting as a contractor and a consultant to other projects on Main Street, very major projects. I remember when the Corinth Road was a dirt road,just to get things started. For 30 years I was in business on Main Street, the zoning has changed five times, pretty close? SENIOR PLANNER, BAKER- That's probably accurate, for major changes. MR. DOBERT- Mr. Montesi or Strough, Brewer, Mr. Clements, Mr. Metivier, how would you like to manage this project here, this building with the zoning changing five times in 30 years? It would be difficult to do long term planning wouldn't you say? You'd have to move the cars out from the front, you'd have to define whether this is a one story or two story building. Not easy for a small business to operate with this kind of mentality. What it tells me is that the Town Board, the people that are making the rules and regulations really don't know what the long term affect is going to be on this change. So, it's important that you listen to ....that came here tonight, written signatures asking real questions, one of which I was a signer. To be very frank, I was surprised to hear and see, the actual residences on the street coming out and expressing their opinion. Business owners, professional people, residential owners and others, the very significant, I feel influence on how you should conduct your ...They made a few comments but most of them had been covered here tonight so I try not to repeat. But, I'd like to tell you about an example, entering into a contract to buy 52 Main Street in the early 80's, set up a business, my daughter's and her husband, my son and law had since taken the business and moved it off of Main Street for several reasons, one of which was the difficulty in dealing with the restrictions. I subsequently encouraged my son, a Union College Graduate to move his solar business from Colorado to the area, beautiful Queensbury, nice Town, nice place to bring a family up, a young family. I kind of agreed to help him out somewhat in the management of this building if he would move his business into this building. This is real hands-on stuff that's happened, it's not theory that I think it's a good idea, or it's not the type of theory where maybe we ought to lean towards another model like that exits down in Malta or whatever. It's hands-on stuff. About two or three years ago we made an application...I'd like to clean it up; it consists of an old garage, Richardson Garage and a house next door. I thought it's set back with parking in the front. The first thing the Town did was tell us we had to move the parking off the front. We had a service entrance in the back to accommodate trucks, so we needed to take the service entrance and move REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 614 it up front to allow trucks, no can't do that. So we had to have the people park in back and walk around the street to the front. It didn't even have an entrance in the back of the building. We spent $5,000 on engineering fees, architectural fees, applications and finally just gave up. Just couldn't deal with it anymore. I'm retired, I was working on it 100% with them and I became frustrated. Real stuff okay, this is an example. I believe that the premise, if we have an argument here or discussion, or a debate, most of your arguments should be based on good premises. I think we all agree on that. I think the premise that this main street concept is flawed myself. If we ask 30 people in here what a main street concept is we'd probably get 30 different opinions. So listen to the constituents, listen to what they have to say. They're the ones that are doing commerce on the building; they're the ones that are living on the street and other issues. I'd like to say just one more thing. Many of you might have read the editorial written by the Post Star last week on this very project. I'm sure you did. I'd like to read one little part of this editorial. If this is too loud in the microphone I apologize. Fairly good description of what's transpired so far, with a few little tidbits added, one of which is "If the Town buckles now to developers impatient and allows the Corridor to fill up with little shops squatting in the back of big parking lots that will define its character for the next 50 years". In my own mind I've often thought that the Post Star is somewhat biased in their opinions and what I would like to say is that don't allow this issue to become involved in politics of this nature. Read other journals, inform yourself. Make the move, go with what the people have to say as developed and give them to you by hardworking group with the realtors. When this issue first came up I was shivering, I thought to myself here I am trying to conduct commerce on the street and there's another zoning change. But, I'm in favor of this change because it's the first time that it's been less restrictive. All the other changes have been more restrictive, and almost impossible to develop a long term plan from a businessman's standpoint. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Thank you Marv. Is there anyone else? Okay. Deputy, you want a chair? RON BALL- I'd like to touch on a subject that Steve Borgos touched on about no parking out front, there's no place to park. Now people traveling down through that Corridor looking for possibly a shop to stop at, which you're probably not going to allow any signs, right for advertisement. But, their looking for it so what they'll end up doing is probably pulling into somebody else's store to park while they walk up and down the Corridor to check out the other shops they may cater to. That's going to create a problem, but not as big of a problem as the renters. These rentals that you like to see up over the stores. Are they going to need two exits or emergency exits or some other way to get out of their buildings, say if most of our codes require two exit doors to a house, okay? Where are they going to have their stairs for these? That's a big question, and a lot of times when you rent to renter, not all renters but they don't really take care of the property like they would if it was their own, and you may find out that possibly the guy that likes to go ice fishing might come home with his ice fishing shanty on his trailer. So that could be parked out there. A lot of people like to use clothes lines, might string their laundry up out there. People like to leave their windows open, are you going to allow pets. If their doors are open a pet can sneak down there and maybe cause a problem. How about recreation, I know if anybody wanted to start a new development in the area you have to put aside so much space for recreation use. Will you have that for...because generally renters are young families; they have children so they need a place for their children to play. Are you going to set aside something for that? I really don't believe you should allow the renters; I think you should just keep it commercialized and move on from there. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Thank you. John. JOHN SALVADOR- Good evening, for the record my name is John Salvador. Before I start, I don't know if the Board is aware of it but there is an application before the Planning Board; I think it's in its preliminary stages for the conversion of Carl R's Restaurant to a convenient store with a service station in the rear. During that preliminary hearing the applicant was asked REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 615 unequivocally if they could live with the Main Street Corridor zoning and they said yes. But the convenient store up on Main Street and a service station in the rear, the pumps, that sort of thing. As I said, I am a resident of Dunham Bay area in North Queensbury, even so I have a real interest in the zoning along Main Street remaining unchanged or at least as it's being currently proposed by the planning development department, that is prohibiting single story buildings and parking in the front of buildings. There are two distinguishing zoning features of this Main Street Corridor to which I would like to address this evening. One is the running of utility conductors underground. When this concept was first proposed I said great idea, but who pays? Of course, there was a strong presumption that the public utility would bear the cost of this approach. However, we know now that there was a strong objection from National Grid; and after lengthy negotiations and even litigation with National Grid the Board decided to discontinue its litigation for fear of incurring more project costs and project delays. The Town Board resolved to eat the cost of running the utility conductors underground. Instead of establishing a public benefit district confined to the Main Street Corridor the Town Board on its own motion elected to have National Grid charge every one of its Queensbury customers a little over one cent per kilowatt hour, which ranges for a residential customer from one to two dollars per month, for how many months I really don't know. I have my utility bill here to show you there is a charge, every month I get a charge, municipal underground charge. Now I live 10 miles from Main Street and I pay for the benefit of those people to have underground utilities, which believe me make the whole area look beautiful. I mention this because there is an inseparable link between the need for underground wiring and a second living space, fronting of course on Main Street. Imagine peering out your front window at a utility pole dressed out with transformers, cross bars and only a few feet away. They don't go together. If the realtors are concerned with the difficulty of marketing Main Street properties under the present zoning code think of the difficulty of marketing a property burdened with an underground utility district tax. They don't have that tax. The benefit of the underground utilities is being paid for by everyone else in this Town. This Town Board decided that's what you're going to do. If the Board votes to give relief for the need for a habitable second story along Main Street then consideration should be given to the establishment of an underground utility district to carry its future costs. Part of you program this evening for this public hearing is adopting a SEQRA negative declaration. The second of my concerns is the fact that the new wastewater collection system on Main Street discharges into the City's combined wastewater, storm water system on its way to the Glens Falls sewage treatment plant. Somewhere in the SEQRA review you're going to have to answer the question, it's a part one question, will the proposed action generate liquid wastes?Now we know that the people on Main Street living there are generally not tied into the sewer system. That's a new sewer system and it's not necessary for them to tie in. Many of them asked you for relief not to be required to tie in. So, any development that comes on Main Street will necessarily have to tie in, and will necessarily cause an increase in flow to the Glens Falls Sewage Treatment Plant. The question, will the proposed action use any existing public wastewater treatment facilities, and of course they will use the Glens Falls Sewage Treatment Plant. Does the existing wastewater treatment plant have the capacity to service the project?Now we know that during a storm event the wastewater flowing to the Glens Falls Sewage Treatment Plan must be bypassed to either the Feeder Canal or directly to the Hudson River. The City of Glens Falls is currently under a consent order to do something about this. They have prepared here and they are regulated by the DEC and the EPA as a combined sewer overflow long term control plan; and this is their plan: because of this illegal point source discharge into the waters of the United States the Glens Falls Sewage Treatment Plant is classified as a combined sewer overflow, subject to the water quality based requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act; and right now they're not in compliance. With the average daily flow of sewage flow to the Glens Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant in recent years measures approximately 5.3 million gallons a day, the wet weather flows peaking at 20.6 million gallons. The City has been made to prepare a long term control plan, which is expected to cost 35 million dollars when completed. Now you're hanging on this system that does not meet the Clean Water Act Regulations, they're polluting the Hudson River and they REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 616 have a three phase program, they've signed a consent order; they've got a three phase program that eventually is going to cost 35 million dollars. Further on in the part two of the SEQRA regulations there are a series of questions identifying impacts on surface water that need to be answered by yourself or developers. The proposed action may involve construction within or adjoining the bed or banks of any other water body. This plan calls for that very construction. They're going to upgrade probably debottleneck certain parts of the Sewage Treatment Plant and build a series of settling tanks to contain the overflow before it goes into the river. The proposed action may create turbidity in a water body; certainly will until they correct the problem. Gentlemen there is a 48 inch diameter sewer line running to the Sherman Town Plant. Can you imagine when that gets filled with storm water and has to bypass that plant what it's going to do to that river? The proposed action may include construction of one or more outfalls or discharge of wastewater to surface water. As you continue to increase your discharge of wastewater into that combined system you are increasing the concentration of wastewater. Remember your discharge is 100% sewage, Glens Falls is not. Theirs is combined so it's diluted, but as you discharge your wastewater it's going to increase that concentration and make it more difficult to process. The proposed action may cause degradation of the receding water body, definitely will. The proposed action may affect the water quality of any water bodies within or downstream of the site of the proposed action. What about all of those communities downstream? The proposed action may require the construction of new or expansion of existing wastewater treatment facilities. I don't see how you can make a negative SEQRA declaration. The point being that the Glens Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant does not have capacity at all times sufficient to process Queensbury's wastewater to the standards required by the City's SPEDES Permit. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Thank you John. Any other? JOE DESANTIS- I own Carl R's on Exit 18. I'm here tonight because I have a serious concern about the future viability of my property based on the current zoning on the Exit 18 Corridor. Carl R's sits on the corner of Exit 18 I-87 and Main Street. One of the highest vehicular traffic areas in upstate New York. All of the appraisals done on my property over the past several years have used Wolf Road in Albany as a comparable. Any potential buyer looking at this site would be concerned with vehicular access and site as a critical component of their business model. I think the idea of a Main Street Corridor architecturally is a good one, however to achieve the effect of a downtown cityscape the buildings should be contiguous in nature, which I don't believe can be achieved starting at my particular location and maybe the Corridor as a whole. From my property east you have old Big Boom Road, then bordered by a one acre large drainage area consisting of two large drainage ponds, then it bordered by the new Big Boom Road relocation and traffic light. Heading further East is the U-Haul truck rental and storage facility followed by the new Cumberland Farms gas station, convenience store and Subway shop. On the North side there's the Sunoco gas station and deli and directly to the East is Media Drive, then there's the cemetery and Pizza Hut. From my property, the next potential downtown building, if you're going to form a cityscape, is going to be more than 500 feet away, which means a lone building will really not contribute to the desired downtown effect. In addition, allowing a potential buyer to put the location of a new building off of the front lot line is in keeping with all of the adjacent properties that exist in the immediate area. Regarding the two story requirement, I question whether a second story is appropriate above a fast food store, a gas station, a deli or a restaurant. All of which are appropriate uses on this site bordering a U.S. interstate highway with 40,000 vehicles driving by 24 hours a day. I think that many businesses are interested in the Main Street Corridor because of the high traffic volume and close proximity to the interstate, but to try to slow up traffic on Main Street or impede vehicular access by not allowing parking in the front of potential new businesses will continue to severely impact the development of this Corridor, which I think is evidence by the fact that nothing has happened in two plus years since the completion of the roadwork project. Any new development off of Exit 18 in the past two years has occurred west of the exit where the new Main Street zoning doesn't exist. This is not by accident, I think the concept and the architectural look of the Main Street Corridor is a good REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 617 idea, however, I believe the Main Street zoning needs to be more flexible accommodating to the needs of modern business models for high traffic areas, including allowing building heights to vary for one or two stories, larger setback requirements and allowing parking in both front and back to have any chance of seeing substantial development in the future. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Thank you. DON DANIELS- I'm Don Daniels and I own some property on Main Street. I found this brick on Main Street the other day. It's one of a whole bunch of bricks that were thrown on the roadway to stop development out there. So, I thought I'd get it out of the way and maybe some of the new things that happen here will get rid of a few more of the bricks. There was a few things that were mentioned that I overheard maybe some of you Board Members say about the realtors of which was mentioned earlier, 600 or so realtors in this County and there's a couple hundred more realtors from Washington County and a couple hundred more in northern Saratoga County and they're all trying to develop different things, and they could develop Main Street. Most of Queensbury, probably half of all of the development was done by the realtors, and now days people that want to develop anything they're not going to walk into your office and say where's a good property to buy. They'd go to the different realtors that are in the area, some of them that specifically deal in commercial and they ask them questions about where's a place where we could put, in Bob Sears' case, where can we put a dollar store. But, there's a lot of other chain operation restaurants, there's probably 100 of them out there that would like to move up in this area. There's a lot of chain operations, you men have all said something about different areas of the Country. If you go down to Myrtle Beach there's 500 different chain operations. I understand that every chain operation restaurant is represented on those streets, and at one time I did work in Myrtle Beach when there was just one little street there and now there's another one and another one and another one that's just loaded with all the different restaurants. There's a lot of different kinds of businesses that want to move into this area but this zoning is too restrictive for a lot of them. If they ask any of these commercial people are looking them up on the website, they say oh my god look at what we're going to have to go through. I have a lot of property out there, I have six different pieces of property contiguous property, over an acre, I could develop it and I wanted to develop it a long time ago. I wanted to make different things that I wanted to do there, but I think that Mary Dobert made a mention about the changes of zoning five different times. I've seen all those changes. I had a plan 25 years ago and then before I could even start forming it the zoning changed. A lot of different changes have happened out there. I don't think I would want to build anything and have apartments above it. No way I would ever want to put apartments above a developed business because if I put up a building and wanted to have somebody come in they don't want apartments above their store. They don't want a flood, they don't want a toilet that going to go over and drip down into their business. They don't want some tenants up there playing the music too loud if they're a law office or some kind of business down there that maybe has to be quiet where they have meetings and things and have people upstairs. It just does not mix anymore, it doesn't mix anymore. This is 2013 and in your case John 2014 is coming up and you have a whole new outlook, and I know some of the comments that you've made and I don't know how much we paid for this plan. How much did we pay for this plan? Did this Town Board come up with this plan, or wasn't it somebody in Clifton Park, an organization? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, it was Saratoga Associates. MR. DANIELS- Saratoga Associates? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- We worked with the PORC Committee and then we had various charrettes with different groups of people. MR. DANIELS- Right. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 618 COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Land owners, development, educators, regular citizens, in other words, as many different branches of the community... MR. DANIELS- But we paid for this study to be done? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Yes, we paid for the study. MR. DANIELS- Right, now these realtors that we're talking about and the brokers, I'm a broker and I'm a realtor in this county and I own my own office and I am a broker. I'm more of an independent broker; I buy my own properties and operate my own things. But the others, there was the comment about they're trying to feather their own nest. Well, everybody is going to make money on this deal, if these brokers come up with somebody there's a lawyer that's going to make money, two or three lawyers. The surveyors are going to have to survey everything. Leveling buildings are going to have to be done, putting packages together, the realtors do that. They do all that, they do the work for the Town Board and they put these things together so that you'll have a good development. Who's going to make the money at the end? At the end the town will get the taxes, the county will get the taxes and since it's commercial, and John you've been big on commercial for 10 years, I've listened to you 100 times, 135 I think you say the Town has to spend for residential and 65 for commercial. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Right, right. MR. DANIELS- Right. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- According to the Ohio University the cost of community services (COOS) is that you do, when you are working on a master plan for your community, you have to consider what different types of developments are going to cost everybody in the community. Now what you're getting at and I'm going to put this just out there in general, is that a commercial enterprise will ask for on the average about 65 cents for every dollar they put into the revenue of the town. MR. DANIELS- Lucky us. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Yes, so you actually make money on commercial. MR. DANIELS- On commercial. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- And your average residential, okay, demands a dollar five to dollar fifty for every dollar they put in. MR. DANIELS- Right. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- So your residential and your single family homes of course cost you less than your multi-family homes, which cost you more. But, you can't deny multi-family homes, but you do have to have a balance in the way that you're designing your community because you want the revenues to come in, you want the taxes to come down. The one way you can do that is promote commercial. Now, one thing that we have to keep in mind, and we're listening, the one thing we have to keep in mind is Global Foundries is huge. We're in the first sphere of influence. They're in phase IA and that's not even completed yet, they're already working on phase IB. MR. DANIELS- Right. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- They have the steel framework is up for phase II, phase III you can go inside the doors and see the conceptual, they won't let you in unless there is an open house but once they do you will see the conceptual for phase III, and phase IV is being talked about but it's coming. In other words, you ain't seen nothing yet. That Global Foundries is going to have a huge impact on this community as well in the next 10 years. Now we have to plan for REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 619 that. Keep this in mind because we have to keep the big picture in mind up here. We get requests all the time for people "please re-zone my light industrial to residential because I can make money on it right now and sell it to a developer and he wants to put up houses". But then you lost forever your light industrial component, okay, which may not be developable today but five years from now or 10 years from now it will and if you maintain your foothold and say no that's light industrial, it's near Exit 18 or whatever the case may be, it's ideal, it has the infrastructure for light industrial, light industrial is going to bring good jobs. MR. DANIELS- Lots of jobs. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- I'm not going to re-zone it because a developer or a realtor wants to make quick money on it right now. It's the best interest in the community. MR. DANIELS- But the realtors don't want to make quick money, they all live here. They live here too. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- All right. MR. DANIELS- And they put a package together for this town. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- We have them come to us though... MR. DANIELS- Tony, are you a realtor? Tony's a realtor. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Right. MR. DANIELS- And if Tony took a house that somebody called them over and said what's my house worth, Tony does a survey on it and he says well based on other properties that are sold your place is worth $150,000. Tim's idea is well if they sold it for 75 they'd sell it faster. Well, if Tony says it's worth $150,000 why would they want to sell it for 75 just so somebody can develop it? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Yeah, but what I'm saying is that sometimes what's being requested is not in the best long term interests of the community, okay. MR. DANIELS- So, you're not getting away from the champion of the commercial departments around here? COUNCILMAN STROUGH-No, I'd like to see Main Street developed commercially. MR. DANIELS- Because we want a champion here, John. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- I have a little bit vision about how Main Street should be developed and not necessarily as a main street. I would like to see some elements of urban and smart growth design go into an area that I think is very developable. But, let's not forget that we rezoned this Main Street in 2007. What happened in 2008? Yeah a nose dive. MR. DANIELS- Well, the economy fell apart. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- And we're just recovering. If you take a look, and I'm talking realtors here because this is the emerging trends in real estate and it says the real estate recovery will gain momentum in 2014. Okay, so we all suspect that things are going to get better, they've not been good. So, I'm asking for a little bit more patience here and allow us to try this urbanity light or suburban-urban type of zoning and I'll get away from the Main Street thing. But, its mixed use and I'll go into a little bit more detail. I think what we're asking for is a little bit of patience here. MR. DANIELS- Well, all those people that are out there are waiting too you know. A lot of the homes that are out there... REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 620 COUNCILMAN STROUGH- I know but the economy is just starting to improve. MR. DANIELS- And Tim could probably verify this; a lot of the homes that are out there that people are living in are renters. The people that did have them have moved out. Some of those homes are just being rented and they're never going to be fixed up. Nobody that has a rented home that they're renting out for $900, they're not going to be spending $5,000 a year to fix up that house for somebody that's renting that they figure is going to get knocked down anyway. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- All right, well let's take a look at what's being proposed tonight. SUPERVISOR MONTESI-Let's let him finish. We're all going to get a chance to have our discussion. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Yeah, but what's being proposed tonight, nobody's opposed to this. MR. DANIELS- Well, some people are. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, they would like to change the single story or double story. MR. DANIELS- I like single story because that's what all these commercial people want. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well listen, to do that you have to re-open the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. MR. DANIELS- A bank doesn't want apartments above; they don't want to be landlords. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- But, it's not that easy to do that right now. MR. DANIELS- I know. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- What we're offering is subtle small changes in the zoning that will have a positive impact we believe and we agree with the developers and the land owners. We think that some of these changes will have a positive impact. MR. DANIELS- Well, some of the changes you're proposing obviously we have agreed with a lot of those. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- But the single story, double story... MR. DANIELS- I'd like to see maybe in two months or three months we have a couple more workshops. You set them up and lets have some more... COUNCILMAN STROUGH- We may go that direction, but tonight, tonight... MR. DANIELS- Let's see how things change out. There was another comment that was made and I have to really disagree with it; but I know some agree, is shared parking. Now I've bought two different pieces of property out there because my neighbors weren't sharing too good. I would have my business open at six o'clock in the morning and my plow guy would plow at four and five o'clock so we were nice and clean. The guy next door didn't open til 10, he didn't bother plowing, his place was full of snow, all his customers came in my yard. My insurance is at risk by all those people that park in my parking lot because I'm cleaned up. Shared parking is a real problem, a real problem. So, you have to keep that when we're talking about shared parking. The City of Glens Falls has six different community parking lots; where that's shared parking that the City takes care of COUNCILMAN STROUGH- We (tape inaudible) have shared parking elsewhere and it hasn't been a problem MR. DANIELS- I know it's a problem out there with... REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 621 COUNCILMAN STROUGH-No, it hasn't been a problem. MR. DANIELS-No, but it can be if we put three or four of these things, and you've got the next door neighbor that doesn't take care of his and all his, somebody else mentioned about somebody pulling in a yard and walking three doors down and leaving their car parked there. It does create problems. Okay, I'm done. I'm going to take my brick with me. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Anyone else have a comment? KATHY HAMLIN- I know I spoke. MR. DANIELS- You don't get another chance. MS. HAMLIN- I get up at four thirty so I want to get out as quickly as you do, but just real quick and just conceptually. I've heard a lot of fallacies tonight about how what doesn't work above the store. We are obviously doing it in Glens Falls. I look around and see a lot of grey hair and underneath these highlights there's a little grey hair as well. Our thinking is the way we were raised about this. We watched Leave it to Beaver, we watched Father Knows Best. The generation that is leaving our area in droves who we want to have come back and live here, the people we need to work to support us as we retire, they grew up with friends, they grew up with how I met your mother, they grew up with people who are living in houses over stores, and living in urban environments. It's just a concept to us older people that that's just not the way we were raised, we were raised in single family homes and you went downtown where the stores were. That's not the generation that we want to have come back here and live. That's not the image that they've grown up with. So, in support of the concepts that it does work, it works elsewhere, it works elsewhere in New York State, it works elsewhere all across the Country. I don't know the details as much about that Corridor as I probably should to speak on this but as a general concept I support it. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MONTESI-Well, I think the Town Board has listened to; well I have 20 comments, 14 opposed to the second floor story, and five for the concept the way it stands. Tony, I'm going to start with you and let you brief your comments. I see this big pile of paper in front of John so... COUNCILMAN METIVIER- I know that scares me to death. COUNCILMAN BREWER- Jump right over him. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- I think we should let John go first. We'll all go take a break and he can finish up. My first question, I was told Mark Schachner that we cannot make any changes to the resolution as it was written. Is that correct? COUNCILMAN BREWER- That's not true. TOWN COUNSEL, MARK SCHACHNER-No, that's never true. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-Well, that's what I was told this evening. TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- That's never true. You always have, the draft resolutions are just that, draft resolutions. On matters like this that are subject to public hearing, substantial proposed changes if you wanted to suggest something substantially new and different than what's already been previously proposed there is an argument to suggest that the public hearing should be continued. So that for example, I'm making this up but if you said minimum height four stories, dumb example, but minimum height four stories, that would be a substantial change that no member of the public has had an opportunity to comment on and you would not be, it would not be well advised that you close the public hearing and vote on something that's so substantially different that has not been the subject of public hearing. But, a draft resolution is REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 622 just that, tweaking, refining, revising especially in connection with proposed changes that have already been the subject of discussion is never unlawful. You can do that anytime. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- So, if I wanted to make a resolution in favor of three of the four changes, the fourth being not to not allow one story buildings... TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- Meaning you would, if I'm understanding your question Tony, you're suggesting if you were to make a motion to approve the proposed revisions except for that one, is that what you're asking? COUNCILMAN METIVIER- Yes, yes, yes. TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- I think the Town Board will clearly have the right to entertain that if you wish to do so, because that obviously is something that's been discussed at great length. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- All right. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, let's make sure we understand here that the current zoning says two stories. This doesn't change that. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- That's correct. Can we not change that tonight? TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- Well, John's point is that the proposal doesn't change that. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- It clarifies what a story is. TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- Yeah, but it doesn't change it so... COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Doesn't change it... TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- So, if that's true then not requiring that would be arguably be a substantial change. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- So, if I didn't want to vote on this because I don't like the fact that you can't do one story buildings then we can't address that tonight because it's not... TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- Right, if I understand what John's saying, and I think I do, the current zoning, right, the current zoning has that requirement. SENIOR PLANNER, BAKER- That's correct. TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- Right, so I agree, meaning I agree that I think the best advice I can give you is that to change that provision is not what's been on the table thus far. SUPERVISOR MONTESI-Mark, where this is coming from, is this resolution that we have in front of us says in essence we like three of the changes that the realtors and the public have suggested, but it keeps the second floor story as is. So, if you vote yes on this resolution... TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- You're talking about the proposed resolution? SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Yeah, proposed resolution. If you vote yes on this what you're saying in essence is we're going to do three of those changes but the second floor is staying, that's it. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- That's what this proposal says. TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- But, what Tony's asking is there a way to, I think Tony's asking is there a way to make a motion to adopt the changes but change the two story requirement? REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 623 COUNCILMAN METIVIER- Yes, yes TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- I apologize if I misunderstood the original question. You're proposing then I think an amendment to our current zoning that has not thus far been proposed. COUNCILMAN BREWER- So, we'd have to re-advertise, re-open the public hearing? TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- I would think that would be most appropriate. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, in addition to that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan mentions three times, three times that they want the minimum two story. TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- Well, but that's a separate issue. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- So, if you're going to deal with that issue don't you have to re- open the Comprehensive Land Use Plan because it was so clear in its designation of multiple stories? TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- I think the answer is if it's as clear as you're saying, and I haven't looked at the Comp. Land Use Plan in quite some time that again it would be well advised to consider a Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment. My experience, for what it's worth, with our Comprehensive Land Use Plan as well as numerous ones elsewhere is that it is often but not always the case that you can find support for different things, and you can find support for contrary concepts in the same Comprehensive Land Use Plan. I don't know if that's true of this particular issue, but it's always the best advice to have them be as consistent as possible is the way I'll phrase it. Given what you've just said John, assuming that to be true certainly would be prudent to also seek to amend the Comprehensive Land Use... COUNCILMAN STROUGH- But, what I'm suggesting to Tony is that this program, this resolution offers many of the changes, ninety percent of the changes that have been asked by the realtors, the owners and the community at large, and just about everybody agrees on them, and if the object is to change the number of stories that should be dealt with separately, and that can be dealt with as the new Board, as I've already been informed the interest is there. So, you know, approving this resolution only approves the changes at what's currently there. If you want to change the number of stories than that's a whole separate issue and we can open that up at the right time. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- I just don't understand why you can make any changes if you can't make more changes? You're stating that all these other changes are fine to do but the one change that... COUNCILMAN BREWER- It's substantial in this resolution Tony. It has to be advertised. TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- Right, the point would be that, well I can try to take a stab at the process side of this because obviously we're all about the process, not wither you to do something or not; that's obviously the province of you to decide. But the process point would be you're supposed to be considering changes that have been the subject of the notice of public hearing, and that have been the subject of the public hearing. Although many people have commented on what they believe is good or bad about having one story or two story or multiple stories, if I understand correctly, the notice of public hearing didn't indicate anything on the table about changing the current requirement for more than one story, correct? COUNCILMAN BREWER- Correct. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- Mark, isn't it also true that the SEQRA also goes along with the resolution, because if things are changed in that resolution then the SEQRA may change also? REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 624 TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- The short answer is yes, Brian. I mean it depends what the change is, but yes. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- So they have to go together? TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- That's correct. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- Okay. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- All right, so in my opinion, I'm certainly in favor of three of the four of the changes that are proposed in this resolution. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well... COUNCILMAN METIVIER-Let me finish John, I won't interrupt you, don't interrupt me, okay. I don't believe two and three story buildings will necessary work here. With all the people that came forward, and all the great reasons why they came up with as to why it will not work I think we need to be able not discount, but we need to be able to look at one story buildings as well to get this Corridor moving forward. I have been down to Malta, I don't see any progress there, I think the only way, and I know this is going to come back to haunt me, the only way we can work the way you want it to work John is to buy it and build it ourselves, because otherwise I just don't think the developers are going to want to take the chance. I see what happens down in Malta and other places where it's not working and why would they want to do that here when it doesn't work down there. If there's 3,000 employees within two miles of this development and they can't get any retail on the first floor, what are we going to do? I mean who's going to come up here and do the same thing? We have such a great Planning Department; we have such a great Zoning Department, let them work with people if they want to bring in a one story. We can make it nice, it can work. I just don't think requiring two and three stories is the answer here. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- But, again that's another issue that can be brought up by itself at another time. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- I agree with that. We have to be sure that if we make these other changes tonight that we have to come back if in a year from now has proven that it just doesn't work, we need to look at it again. We cannot wait for them to come, because they're not going to. I just don't think it's going to work here. If we had more land to work with that would be one thing, we don't. I think the parking is going to be an issue. It's just everything that everybody brought up about the reasons why you don't want two and three stories with first story retail, makes perfect sense to me. SUPERVISOR MONTESI-Well, Tony I understand your concerns and I guess what I would ask you, seeing you were the first on the docket here is that the resolution as presented doesn't change that first floor? COUNCILMAN METIVIER- I understand that. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- So, if you voted yes at least we would say to the public... COUNCILMAN METIVIER- The rest of it gets done. SUPERVISOR MONTESI-We would say to the public we've given you three or four of these things... COUNCILMAN METIVIER-Right. SUPERVISOR MONTESI-We have a brand new board sitting January 1St and that Board, I know Bill VanNess is a member of that board, he stated his concerns, you've stated yours. I'm sure Mr. Clements will state his (tape inaudible) so if you wanted to change that first floor next REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 625 year, that's an option that you guys will have to fight for because it's going to be a process, as Mark has pointed out. It may be a process that we can get through, but it's a process. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-Well, I certainly am in favor of the other changes. I will vote to support it but I also have to state that I just don't think that requiring two and three stories is going to work. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Okay. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- So, we'll work on that next year. I even told John before, you know, I'm willing to ride this one out a little bit. I just don't support it one bit. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Okay. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- And I'm willing to open the book and take a new look at it. But, you know, there's going to be certain things that I think we're all going to want and how do we get there isn't such an easy answer but we'll take a look at it. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- Yeah, all right, as long as you look. SUPERVISOR MONTESI-Mr. Clements? COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- Generally, I think I pretty much agree with Tony, but I'm going to keep this short and simple. I don't think that we should go ahead and do something like this. I think that we should look at it a little bit longer. I don't think that we should go through this process a second time, so my suggestion would be that we take no action and that we leave the public hearing open for further discussion into January. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- Geez John, how do you feel? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well... COUNCILMAN BREWER- Under 100 words. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Yeah. All right, I've expressed some of my things. I mean, I've already talked about Global Foundries; it's going to have an impact in our community. I want to be ready for that impact. I want to see Queensbury develop in way that is going to pay for the infrastructure, bring in revenues and everyone knows that 2014 is going to be better than what we've had economically speaking; and real estate's involved in that. They will do better too. So, what we haven't seen because the economy's been so bad, we haven't seen any critical mass start with this suburban-urban kind of plan. I'd like to see that, I'd like to give it a chance, but you know, if you take a look at the literature and what is good community planning and what is being trended now and what is being favored by the public. Again, here is the NRA, this is the National Association of Realtors, okay. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- It's NAR. TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- Very important distinction. COUNCILMAN BREWER-NAR not NRA. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- It's NAR not the NRA. COUNCILMAN BREWER-NAR. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- What did I say? COUNCILMAN BREWER-NRA. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- All right, NAR, National Association of Realtors, Americans favorite walkable mixed use neighborhoods. Most respondents prefer smart growth REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 626 neighborhoods. Now, go look it up on the internet, smart growth neighborhood, what does it entail. It's like an opposition to the suburban sprawl that we have seen, very inefficient. People are preferring a more urban kind of living and kind of existing, where you live nearby a lot of your services. You go to the coffee shop, you go to the hairdresser, you go to professional services. Some people kept on saying residential on the upper stories, the upper stories isn't defined. You can have professional offices; you can have three stories of commercial. It doesn't say you have to have residential; it's just saying that you want multiple stories because multiple stories is going to encourage multiple uses. Successful communities have successful zoning, and we do want successful zoning. I don't think we've given this a fair chance. If you go on article after article about sprawl and the new focus on more higher density kind of walkable parts of towns, walkable urban areas. Another one, half or more of Americans now want something other than the conventional suburbia. The conventional suburbia is your little restaurant, your single story, your parking out front, every single use has an access to the street, which a lot of people say well what we're proposing is slowing down traffic. No, suburban type of planning slows down traffic because every single use, whether it's a gas station, a convenient store, a restaurant that's single story or a dollar store is going to want its own access onto Main Street. See, this concept has zero setbacks that the uses can go up and kiss one another, share the parking in back. Those people that say it doesn't work; it does work if you plan for it. Those enterprises that have night-time uses, let's say a tavern, they use a parking space from five o'clock to ten o'clock at night. Well, that's fine because the dentist, he only or she only wanted to use it from eight o'clock in the morning til four o'clock in the afternoon. So the different uses share the same parking. The less pavement you have the less storm water problems you have, the less stream and flooding you have and everything else, because you've got to look for a place for this water to go. You see nothings simple, the study and everything else and the complexities involved, you have to consider the big comprehensive picture. What we ended up with, the Main Street zone, and again, Main Street, we're not trying to create a town center, we're trying to get an urban kind of zoning, and trying to step away a bit from the suburban kind of zoning to create something that's even better; to create something where the infrastructure and the payoff of the infrastructure is quicker. To put in something where the revenue and income is better and your taxes are lower, that's what we're trying to do. But, you can go on and on, look at smart growth, look at suburban-urban or urbanity like guided zoning. And again, here is city and towns per acre town revenues are substantially higher in mixed use walkable places than drivable suburbs. Mixed use downtown development takes three years to pay back an infrastructure cost while your suburban kind of development takes 42 years. COUNCILMAN BREWER- All right, (tape inaudible) you don't need to argue tonight John. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, you can go on and on and on. I got tons of articles and the Post Star had it right on, give it a chance, but the articles and the letters that I've gotten are all in favor of the current Main Street program that we're trying to offer the public. I've often said what is it that we want to have? This is what the community said, here is what we want, we want higher revenues and lower taxes, we want to pay back our infrastructure costs quicker, we want pedestrian friendly communities, we want window shopping, we want plazas and benches and people places, we want something that's innovative, diverse and dynamic. We want shared parking, we want to give the opportunity to self-motivated entrepreneurs, we want to give something to the independently owned people that want to look, not the big box stores, but the independent people, the retail offerings and a lot of people keep on using Ellsworth Commons down in Malta, which is a great example but we're not talking about something of that magnitude, we're talking about the same concept. But if you go down to Malta, because my daughter lives down there, I'm there every week, not to look at Ellsworth Commons but I am in there, using the restaurants and the other enterprises in there. COUNCILMAN BREWER- His four minutes are up. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 627 SUPERVISOR MONTESI- John, I have to tell you, I got you your three votes. You're talking yourself out of it. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- John, where do we address the points about the houses on the back end, on Veteran's and Luzerne Road? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, see that's an interesting concept because everyone said that this suburban-urban type of zoning won't work because you don't have the depth for parking. Well, that's why you made your zoning deeper so that you would allow the structures and the parking. COUNCILMAN BREWER- Yeah, but if you acquire the property on Main Street John and you don't get the one in the back, it can't work. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-Right. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well... COUNCILMAN METIVIER- And my point was this, if somebody wants to do an alteration to their house on Luzerne Road can we really stop that from happening? COUNCILMAN BREWER- There's ways around it Tony. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-Well, is there really though? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- (tape inaudible) You know what some of the people have said, what they don't want to see Tony, and I think all of us would agree, they don't want to see suburban Route 9 type of zoning on Main Street. They want to see something more dynamic, something more modern, something that will give them the things that I just listed for you. So, how do we do that, how do we make everybody happy?Now let's keep in mind that this Main Street zoning suburban-urban type of zoning came about with a lot of community input. This is what the community wants; this is a reflection of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. That two stories and more, that's what I was saying, if you want to re-open that issue of how many stories are we going to allow or not allow you're going to have to hear from a broader segment of the public than just the realtors and the landowners along that street. I think we have to listen to everybody. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- I do too, and I think we ought to do that. COUNCILMAN BREWER- I agree, I think we should. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- And I'm willing to do that, but the Town plan has to be comprehensive and town-wide. We just can't look at it narrowly. Okay, I'll cut it short. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- I just have one question for you John. COUNCILMAN BREWER- Jesus, Brian, don't do that. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- You gave a great example of shared parking, when you said you've got a tavern and then you got a dentist... COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Yeah. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- Okay, so they share the parking because one uses it at night and one uses it during the daytime. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- And I can give you more... REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 628 COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- I know but you can't get people to say okay you're going to locate here and you're going to locate here so we can have shared parking. You can't force people to do that. COUNCILMAN BREWER-No, he's talking about... COUNCILMAN STROUGH- ...but didn't occur here in Queensbury, New York. This shared parking idea is being used nationwide. I mean it's being used all over Europe, it works. COUNCILMAN BREWER- If this thing is going to linger on into next year I don't see really any use of trying to change anything right now. It's going to be two weeks, open public hearings. The changes aren't going to happen or affect anybody in the next two weeks are they? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, it's going to make things better, right? COUNCILMAN BREWER- I would agree that they'll make better but why do it and then open it back up again? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, because they make it better. COUNCILMAN BREWER- You can open it back up and do it all over again. I think, John, what you've got to do is, I'll go along with this resolution and pass it but in exchange for the... COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, do you want me to read Robin's letter? COUNCILMAN BREWER-No, I don't want you to read nothing more. Instead of this two story thing, you open it back up, but there's got to be some kind of compensation for it. You've got to have some kind of standards to put into it, and it's going to take some time to do that. That's my opinion. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Okay, we have a resolution before us. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK II, MELLON- I have correspondence. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- And we've got a SEQRA. SUPERVISOR MONTESI-We've got correspondence, okay. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK II, MELLON- This is a letter from Ben Aronson, addressed to Bob Sears. It's an e-mail dated Friday December 13, 2013 asking that it be part of the record. It says: Glad to hear there may become common sense prevailing in the so called planned zoning/development of the main street corridor. Usually demand or basic need for facility development trigger's investor's to involve themselves in going forward on any project. With practically zero property acquisitions obviously this scenario has not taken hold at all. I can see neither demand or even need for the second story concept I very much doubt if any residential apt has a future on this busy thoroughfare This roadway was originally improved to alleviate traffic tie up's and has effectively done so. Now the proposal is to have partial residential use which will eventually lead to commercial Bus Stop's School buses Taxi pickup's with traffic backed up behind having to go around the center lane allows Even if traffic is only slightly impacted few people will clamor to live in an area of a constant flow of heavy truck traffic or listen to siren's going to and from the Glens Falls Hospital How many real downtown environment's actually exist in that close a proximity to an Interstate interchange I personally have never seen one This roadway is an access route to Glens Falls and the type of business that will prosper will be dictated by the need's of the traffic to and from there and or the need's of any type of business that will gain from the quick access to the Northway Fair Zoning for the actual need's of the community should be implemented The existing plan is out place and not needed for this particular area. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 629 Hopefully this issue will quickly move forward enough time and money have been put in to this plan. It's not going anywhere Let's get moving. Get it changed to something that will actually move forward Ben Aronson Former owner of Double "A" Provision's DEPUTY TOWN CLERK II, MELLON- I have a letter addressed to Supervisor Montesi from Tom Jarrett, dated Monday, December 16, 2013. It says: Ron, Unfortunately, I have a problem with my heating system, so I may not be able to attend tonight's public hearing on the Main Street Zoning changes. I stand by my letter to you to the Board, and in general I strongly support the theme of the Main Street zoning Standards. That includes parking only in the rear, and multistory buildings. If developers do not want to build complete second story, they could build just the shell, and the second story could be finished (inside) later by them or by a new owner/tenant. The basis of this corridor, a more urbanized setting, will not work correctly without a higher density and without the pedestrian friendly street. That means no parking in front (or side) and more than one story on each building. Good luck tonight, Tom SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Thank you. Well, gentleman you've heard the comments of the public. We can close the public hearing. If it's the consensus of the Board to accept or deal with this resolution, which as I said does not change the second store concept but keeps that in place and does make the three or four changes, then we would need to go through a SEQRA. But, what's the feeling? Will somebody make a resolution? COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- Mark, can I suggest or can I make a motion that the Board take no action? TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- Sure, you mean procedurally can you do that? Yes. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- I'd like to make a motion that the Board take no action, and leave the public hearing open for further discussion. SUPERVISOR MONTESI-Well you got to get it seconded. Is there a second to that motion? COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS-No, he just asked about closing it. COUNCILMAN BREWER-No, he did close it. Did he close the public hearing? DEPUTY TOWN CLERK II, MELLON- I didn't hear that. COUNCILMAN BREWER- Okay. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- I didn't hear... TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- I thought so, in which case you might want to make your motion to re-open. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- Suggest the Board take no action and have the public hearing re- opened for further discussion. TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- Just to cover it. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS-No seconds on it? COUNCILMAN METIVIER-No seconds. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 630 COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- Okay. SUPERVISOR MONTESI-Now is there a motion? COUNCILMAN METIVIER-Well, we have to do a SEQRA if make a motion right? TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- If you're talking about the prepared motion you'd have to do SEQRA review first. SUPERVISOR MONTESI-Right. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-Let's do the review. TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- Led the Board through the SEQRA review. Again, similar to last time you've identified not potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. SUPERVISOR MONTESI-We also have from the county... COUNCILMAN STROUGH- That's right, the County said no County impact. TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- Correct. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- And the City, we notified them and they did not reply, the same thing as no impact. I'll make a motion. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- John has made the motion to adopt this resolution. COUNCILMAN BREWER- I'll second it. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Seconded by Tim. *THE FOLLOWING LETTERS WERE SUBMITTED AND ARE ON FILE IN THE TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE: 12.16.13 In regards to the Main Street Corridor Project; Much time and money was invested to create a plan that would best fit the area. This included several meetings with public input. I believe we should not change the plan because the goal has not been immediate; but instead we should make small changes that will aid the realization of the initial intent. Rather than looking for ways to make a fast buck and a quick solution, we should be discussing creative ways to jump start the original vision. As a teacher I encourage students to take the route to a destination that may not be the quickest or the easiest. A creative answer that begins with a well thought should follow this same premise. The plan is a unique one; one that once established over time, will prove its worthiness, both aesthetically and financially. I was born on Main Street and spent much of my childhood in the area. The project builds on what is important; neighborhood. With generous sidewalks, decorative lighting, underground utilities, and a corridor lined with family homes; the persistence to see the project through is needed. I believe that the leaders of our town should do all they can to support the development of this vision. What Queensbury does not need is for this area to become like all the rest of the major corridors throughout our area. That would be a tremendous loss in money, time and creativity. Use your time and efforts to bring the Main Street idea to fruition. Thank you for your careful consideration and planning. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 631 Robin Brewer H. Thomas Jarrett, P.E. December 10, 2013 Ron Montesi, Queensbury Town Supervisor, and Town Board Members 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 Re: Main Street Zoning Dear Supervisor Montesi and Board Members, This letter pertains to the ongoing discussion regarding design requirements for the Main Street Corridor between I87 exit 18 and the City of Glens Falls. I am in full support of the current zoning concept employed for the Main Street corridor, including many of the current components of the zoning ordinance. However, zoning ordinances are not stagnant, and changes are always necessary; in that light, I support several but not all of the changes that have been discussed. My understanding of the Main Street design standards is that increased development density coupled with pedestrian and bicycle amenities will create a more urban type environment. This concept is in keeping with such state of the art planning concepts as `smart growth", sustainability', and `complete streets', which are all designed to reduce sprawl, decrease the amount of resources consumed, promote a cleaner, less stressful environment, and, as a side benefit promote better personal fitness. In response to concerns from members of the development community on the restrictions that the current standards impose, the Town is considering a number of changes to the ordinance. I am in support of some of those changes, including increased density, as long as site designs remain pedestrian and bicycle friendly, and as long as landscaping and storm water management are provided. I am also in favor of allowing more varied uses in the zone, as long as those uses conform to the zone requirements for design, namely no drive through lanes, no parking in front or on the side of the buildings, and facade designs that follow the architectural theme of the corridor (and not necessarily the corporate retail theme). In support of the current zone standards, I support mandatory multiple story buildings, but in contrast to the current proposal, I also support building heights somewhat higher than 3 stories with site plan review. Single story buildings, although convenient and less expensive for developers that cater to a suburban population, do not foster the multiple uses that would be found in an urban center; conversely, higher buildings accentuate the benefits of the urban center and reduce the overall square foot costs of living. Commercial uses on lower levels and residential uses on upper levels is a concept that has worked extremely well for centuries. Arguments against the viability of the urban type model are disingenuous; one only has to look at many small villages that remain viable with this REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 632 development style and to Saratoga Springs where the rush to build this type of development is only hampered by the availability of bulldozers. All said, I strongly urge the Town Board to support the current zoning theme with limited, carefully vetted, changes. Sincerely, H. Thomas Jarrett Queensbury Property Owner 12 East Washington Street Glens Falls, NY 12801 FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PART 2—INDENIFICATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS 1. Impact on Land Proposed action may involve construction on, or physical alteration of, the land surface of the proposed site. (See Part 1.D.1) If"Yes", answer questions a-j. If"No", move on to Section 2. _X No Yes 2. Impact on Geological Features The proposed action may result in the modification or destruction of, or inhibit access to, any unique or unusual land forms on the site (e.g., cliffs, dunes, minerals, fossils, caves). (See Part 1. E.2g) If"Yes", answer questions a-c. If"No", move on to Section 3. X No Yes 3. Impacts on Surface Water The proposed action may affect one or more wetlands or other surface water bodies (e.g., streams, rivers, ponds or lakes). (See Part 1. D.2, E.2.h) If"Yes", answer questions a-l. If"No", move on to Section 4. X No Yes 4. Impact on groundwater The proposed action may result in new or additional use of ground water, or may have the potential to introduce contaminants to ground water or an aquifer. (See Part 1.D.2.a, D.2.c, D.2.d, D.2.p, D.2.q, D.2.t) If"Yes", answer questions a-h. If"No", move on to Section 5. X No Yes 5. Impact on Flooding The proposed action may result in development on lands subject to flooding. (See Part 1.E.2) If"Yes", answer questions a-g. If"No", move on to Section 6. X No Yes 6. Impacts on Air The proposed action may include a state regulated air emission source. (See Part 1.D.2.f., D,2,h, D.2.g) If"Yes", answer questions a-f. If"No", move on to Section 7. X No Yes REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 633 7. Impact on Plants and Animals The proposed action may result in a loss of flora or fauna. (See Part 1.E.2 m-q.) If"Yes", answer questions a-j. If"No", move on to Section 8. _X No Yes 8. Impact on Agricultural Resources The proposed action may impact agricultural resources. (See Part 1.E.3.a. and b.) If"Yes", answer questions a-h. If"No", move on to Section 9. X No Yes 9. Impact on Aesthetic Resources The land use of the proposed action are obviously different from, or are in sharp contrast to, current land use patterns between the proposed project and a scenic or aesthetic resource. (Part I.E.1.A, E.I.b, E.3.h). If"Yes", answer questions a-g. If"No", go to Section 10. X No Yes 10. Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources The proposed action may occur in or adjacent to a historic or archaeological resource. (Part 1.E.3.e, f. and g.) If"Yes", answer questions a-e. If"No", go to Section 11. X No Yes 11. Impact on Open Space and Recreation The proposed action may result in a loss of recreational opportunities or a reduction of an open space resource as designated in any adopted municipal open space plan. (See Part 1.C.2.c, E.1.c., E.2.q.) If"Yes", answer questions a-e. If"No", go to Section 12. X No Yes 12. Impact on Critical Environmental Areas The proposed action may be located within or adjacent to a critical environmental area (CEA). (See Part 1.E.3d) If"Yes", answer questions a-c. If"No", go to Section 13. X No Yes 13. Impact on Transportation The proposed action may result in a change to existing transportation systems. (See Part 1.D.2.j) If"Yes", answer questions a-g. If"No", go to Section 14. X No Yes 14. Impact on Energy The proposed action may cause an increase in the use of any form of energy. (See Part 1.D.21) If"Yes", answer questions a-e. If"No", go to Section 15. X No Yes 15. Impact on Noise, Odor, and Light The proposed action may result in an increase in noise, odors, or outdoor lighting. (See Part 1. D.2.m., n., and o.) If"Yes", answer questions a-f. If"No", go to Section 16. X No Yes 16. Impact on Human Health The proposed action may have an impact on human health from exposure to new or existing sources of contaminant. (See Part 1.D.2.q., E.I.d.f.g. and h.) If"Yes", answer questions a-m. If"No", go to Section 17. X No Yes 17. Consistency with Community Plans The proposed action is not consistent with adopted land use plans. (See Part 1.C.1, C.2. and C.3.) If"Yes", answer questions a-h. If"No", go to Section 18. X No Yes 18. Consistency with Community Character The proposed project is inconsistent with the existing community character. (See Part 1.C.2, C.3, D.2, E.3) If"Yes", answer questions a-g. If"No", proceed to Part 3. X No Yes REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 634 *FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PART II NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON FILE IN THE TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE RESOLUTION ADOPTING SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO.: 7 OF 2013 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 179 "ZONING" RELATING TO THE MAIN STREET ZONING DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO.: 482, 2013 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: 7 of 2013 to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179, entitled "Zoning," to amend language and requirements related to the Main Street Zoning District (the"proposal"), and WHEREAS, before the Town Board may amend, supplement, change, or modify its Zoning Law and Map, it must hold a public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Town Law §265, the Municipal Home Rule Law and the Town of Queensbury Zoning Laws, and WHEREAS, on or about December 12t1i 2013 the Warren County Planning Department considered the proposal and determined that there would be no County impact, and WHEREAS, before the Town Board may amend, supplement, change, or modify its Zoning Law and Map, it must hold a public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Town Law §265, the Municipal Home Rule Law and the Town of Queensbury Zoning Laws, and WHEREAS, the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing, heard all interested parties and closed the public hearing concerning the proposal on Monday, December 16t1i 2013, and WHEREAS, as SEQRA Lead Agency, the Town Board has reviewed a Full Environmental Assessment Form to analyze potential environmental impacts of the proposal, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has considered the conditions and circumstances of the area REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 635 affected by the proposal, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: 7 of 2013 as presented at this meeting, hereinafter referred to as the"legislation," NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby determines that the proposed legislation will not have any significant adverse environmental impact and a SEQRA Negative Declaration is made, and the Town Clerk and/or Zoning Administrator are authorized and directed to file and publish a SEQRA Negative Declaration - Notice of Determination of Non-Significance with respect to the legislation, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby adopts Local Law No.: 7 of 2013 to Amend Chapter 179 "Zoning" of Queensbury Town Code relating to the Main Street Zoning District as presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to file the Local Law and the official Town Zoning Map, as amended, with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and acknowledges that the Local Law will take effect upon such filing, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to send a copy of this Resolution and a copy of the Local Law and Zoning Map to the Town Planning Board, Town Zoning Board of Appeals, Town Zoning Administrator and Warren County Planning Department in accordance with §179-15-080(D) of the Town Zoning Law, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 636 BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall take effect immediately. Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements NOES: None ABSENT: None **DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE** COUNCILMAN METIVIER- I'm going to say yes but absolutely with the understanding that I'm not in favor of the two and three story. But, I want to move forward with this, I think its good progress so yes. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS-I'll agree with what Tony said and say yes also. 2.0 PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR(LIMIT 4 MINUTES) JOHN SALVADOR- Spoke to the Board regarding the San Souci's holding tanks. SUPERVISOR MONTESI-Explained that on the 18th the San Souci will have holding tanks. MR. SALVADOR- . All holding tank systems are to be constructed in accordance with the DEC Waste water Treatment and Design Standards 1988. He is concerned that the San Souci is not meeting DEC Standards with regards to a SPEDES Permit. 3.0 RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ESTABLISHMENT OF TOWN OFFICE COMPLEX IMPROVEMENTS CAPITAL PROJECT FUND #203 RESOLUTION NO.: 483, 2013 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Brian Clements WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury's Facilities Manager has recommended certain improvements at the Town's Office Building Complex (Project) with such proposed Project anticipated to cost approximately $75,000, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 637 WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to accordingly establish a Capital Project Fund for the Project, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the establishment of the Town Office Complex Improvements Capital Project and establishment of the Town Office Complex Improvements Capital Project Fund #203 which will establish funding for expenses associated with this Project, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs that funding for this Project shall be by a $75,000 transfer from the General Fund's unassigned Fund Balance to the Town Office Complex Improvements Capital Project Fund #203, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby establishes initial appropriations and estimated revenues for Capital Project Fund #203 in the amount of$75,000, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to transfer $60,000 from unassigned Fund Balance to Interfund Transfer, amend the Town Budget, make any adjustments, budget amendments, transfers or prepare any documentation necessary to establish appropriations and estimated revenues, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 638 RESOLVED that the Queensbury Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to take all action necessary to establish the following accounts for such appropriations and revenues as necessary: • Revenue Acct No. —203-0000-55031 (Interfund Revenue) $75,000; and • Expense Acct No. —203-1620-2899 (Capital Construction) $75,000; • Increase Appr 001-9950-9030 Transfer to Cap Project $75,000; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Facilities Manager, Purchasing Agent and/or Town Budget Officer to take any and all action necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS TO ATTEND 2014 ANNUAL ASSOCIATION OF TOWNS CONFERENCE RESOLUTION NO.: 484, 2013 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to authorize certain municipal officials to attend the annual New York State Association of Towns Conference to be held in New York City in February, 2014, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 639 RESOLVED, in accordance with New York State Town Law §116, Subdivision 10 and subject to availability of budgetary appropriations, the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the following Town Officers and employees to attend the annual Association of Towns Conference to be held in New York City in February, 2014: Town Supervisor Deputy Supervisor Town Board Members Town Clerk Town Budget Officer Town Court Clerk Director of Building and Codes Enforcement and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to cast the vote of the Town of Queensbury at the Association General Meeting and in his absence, authorizes and directs the Deputy Supervisor to cast the Town's vote, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that all necessary and reasonable expenses incurred at the Association of Towns Conference shall be deemed proper Town charges, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that authorized attendees' family members may travel; however, travel must be at their own expense including costs for travel, meals and any additional hotel charge(s). Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SENIOR WASTEWATER MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR TO ATTEND NEW ENGLAND WATER ENVIRONMENT ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 640 RESOLUTION NO.: 485, 2013 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury's Civil Engineer/Wastewater Director has requested Town Board authorization for the Town's Senior Wastewater Maintenance Supervisor, Rod Warrington, to attend the New England Water Environment Association 2014 Annual Conference in Boston, MA from January 27th—29t1i 2014, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has authorized allocation of funds for conference expenses within the Town's budget, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the Town's Senior Wastewater Maintenance Supervisor to attend the New England Water Environment Association 2014 Annual Conference in Boston, MA from January 27th — 29t1i 2014 at an estimated cost of $1,130, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that necessary and reasonable expenses in the estimated amount of$1,130 incurred at such conference shall be deemed proper Town charges and shall be paid for from Account No.: 032-8120-4400, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Civil Engineer/Wastewater Director, Senior Wastewater Maintenance Supervisor and/or Budget Officer to take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2013 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Montesi NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BADGER METER INC. TO CONTINUE PROVIDING RADIO READ METERS AND ACCESSORIES TO TOWN WATER DEPARTMENT DURING 2014 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 641 RESOLUTION NO.: 486, 2013 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously authorized Badger Meter, Inc. to provide radio read meters and accessories to the Town Water Department, and WHEREAS, the Water Superintendent has recommended that the Town of Queensbury continue to use the Badger meter system and has therefore requested Town Board authorization to allow Badger Meter, Inc. to continue providing radio read meters and accessories to the Town Water Department during 2014 for a total sum not to exceed $85,000, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes Badger Meter, Inc. to continue providing the Town of Queensbury Water Department with radio read meters and accessories during 2014 for a total sum not to exceed $85,000, to be paid for from Account No.: 40-8340-2300, as previously approved in the 2014 budget, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Water Superintendent, Budget Officer and/or Accountant to execute any documentation and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Metivier NOES: None ABSENT: None REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 642 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT WITH RICHARD H. DINOLFO, CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT FOR PROVISION OF PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTING AND CONSULTING SERVICES RESOLUTION NO.: 487, 2013 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Brian Clements WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously authorized engagement of the services of Richard H. Dinolfo, Certified Public Accountant (Mr. Dinolfo), to provide professional accounting and consulting services to the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town's Budget Officer has recommended that the Town Board again authorize engagement of Mr. Dinolfo to provide such services to the Town through December 31St 2014 as more fully set forth in Mr. Dinolfo's proposal to the Town dated November 18th, 2013 and presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize such services, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the engagement of Richard H. Dinolfo, Certified Public Accountant for provision of professional accounting and consulting services to the Town of Queensbury, to be billed at the rate of$135 per hour of service, not to exceed $7,500, for time provided through December 31St, 2014, as generally described in Mr. Dinolfo's November 18th 2013 proposal presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to sign such proposal substantially in the form presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that payment for such services shall be from the appropriate Town accounts as may be determined by the Town Supervisor and/or Town Budget Officer, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Budget Officer to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 643 Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2013 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING ANDREW GARNER, M.D. AS 2014 TOWN HEALTH OFFICER AND AUTHORIZING HEALTH OFFICER AGREEMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 488,2013 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the term of the Town of Queensbury's Health Officer, Andrew Garner, M.D., will expire as of December 31St, 2013, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to reappoint Dr. Garner as Town Health Officer for 2014 and enter into an agreement with Dr. Garner to serve as the Town's Health Officer, and WHEREAS, a proposed agreement is presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board appoints Andrew Garner, M.D. as the Town's 2014 Health Officer, and BE IT FURTHER REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 644 RESOLVED, that the annual salary for Dr. Garner shall be $2,000, plus $100 per hour for any case work the Town assigns to him, to be paid for from the appropriate account as determined by the Town Budget Officer, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Agreement substantially in the form presented at this meeting and the Town Supervisor and/or Town Budget Officer to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2013, by the following vote: AYES:Mr. Brewer, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Strough NOES:None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF MILLER,MANNIX, SCHACHNER & RAFNER, LLC AS TOWN LEGAL COUNSEL RESOLUTION NO.: 489,2013 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury requires legal representation in a wide variety of matters to deal with the numerous legal issues that come before and involve the Town, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to engage legal counsel on a contractual basis for 2014-2015, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 645 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the engagement of Miller, Mannix, Schachner&Hafner, LLC as legal counsel for and on behalf of the Town for 2014-2015 in accordance with the Agreement for legal services presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute such Agreement in substantially the form presented at this meeting. Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: None **DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE** COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- This contract could go well over $200,000 and that binds the Board to a contract for two years, which is the entire term of the new Board. I think that our representation has been excellent, I'm not saying that at all but I think this contract should be amended to a term of three months, in other words, the first quarter of 2014. The legal fees wouldn't exceed $23, 750, which if I did the arithmetic right would come out for a quarter and the hourly rate would be $160 as set forth in the current contract. I have those amendments if anybody would like to look at them; I've got copies of them. COUNCILMAN BREWER- What is the reason for that Brian? COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- I just think it's just hamstringing the next board who won't have a chance to decide on legal representation. They may feel that this is fine but I think to what your doing is got a new board coming in; you got this contract for two years. They won't have a chance to discuss that or decide that at all. As a matter of fact, I had a conversation with John at one time who said we were going over these contracts and take a look at them, not necessarily just this one but some of the engineering contracts also. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, and given I think contracts should be looked at a regular basis. However in some things and I'm going to be the administrator for the next two years, I want some continuity and Ron, in working with Miller, Mannix, Schachner and Hafner I found very good service. I don't think too many people are going to... COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- I don't disagree with that John either... COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Offer $160 an hour and they have a scope of services and its part of what's in here and it's quite a long list and they say that they are not going to exceed $190,000 for the calendar years of 2014-2015. I don't think you are going to get much of a better deal. Given what I think is a very reasonable price, and give the excellent service that we've gotten from Miller, Mannix, Schachner and Hafner I'd like to go with them for the next two years. So, I'm not going to agree to the amendment. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 646 SUPERVISOR MONTESI- I've been very happy with the service that Miller, Mannix has given us. They've been very, very timely and as Town Supervisor every Monday morning Bob Hafner shows up and we go through Monday mornings some of the things that we're going to have deal with. I know that when I got on the Board they were re-instated in the Town and the Town went through a year of turmoil or maybe two years of turmoil. COUNCILMAN BREWER- Two years. SUPERVISOR MONTESI-Before that with a different firm. COUNCILMAN BREWER- Sure did. SUPERVISOR MONTESI-Well, there's no one to second the amendment? COUNCILMAN METIVIER-No, I do have a question though. If you wanted to shop it is this an RFP process or is this... COUNCILMAN BREWER- Yeah, I think so. That's what happened previously. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-Right, and RFP is going to take a lot longer than a three month period anyway and cost (tape inaudible) am I correct in that, do you know? TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- I don't feel it's appropriate for me to... COUNCILMAN BREWER- It is. TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- But there's not anything that requires a request for proposals nor is there anything that requires it to take more than three months, it often does take more than three months as a practical matter. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-Right, that's what I'm thinking. SUPERVISOR MONTESI-Because it's professional services. TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- It often does as a practical matter, I mean it doesn't have to. COUNCILMAN BREWER- You are going to have to interview firms, trust me . COUNCILMAN METIVIER- I'm sorry Brian, I don't support that. I think that Miller, Mannix, Schachner and Hafner have done a great job for us. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- As do I. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- Yeah, so I think... COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Brian, if you feel like you're all alone sometimes, I've been there. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS-Not just tonight. COUNCILMAN BREWER- He was there for quite awhile. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Call the vote. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF CHAZEN ENGINEERING& LAND SURVEYING, CO.,P.C. FOR PROVISION OF ENGINEERING TECHNICAL SERVICES TO QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD,PLANNING BOARD,ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR 2014 RESOLUTION NO.: 490, 2013 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 647 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 54,2013, the Queensbury Town Board authorized an Agreement with Chazen Engineering & Land Surveying Co., P.C. (Chazen) for provision of engineering technical services to the Queensbury Town Board, Queensbury Planning Board, Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals and Community Development Department through December 31St, 2013, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize the continuation of Chazen's services for the year 2014, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes engagement of Chazen Engineering & Land Surveying Co., P.C. for provision of engineering technical services to the Queensbury Town Board, Queensbury Planning Board, Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals and Community Development Department through December 31St, 2014, as set forth in Chazen's December 411i 2013 letter agreement presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to sign such letter agreement and/or any other needed documentation, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that payment for such services shall be from the appropriate Town accounts as may be determined by the Town Supervisor, Code Compliance Officer-Zoning Administrator and/or Town Budget Officer, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 648 BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Code Compliance Officer-Zoning Administrator, and/or Town Budget Officer to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Montesi NOES: Mr. Clements ABSENT: None **DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE** SUPERVISOR MONTESI- This is a Company that we've had some experience with. They sit with the Planning Board and Zoning Board. Brian, this is one that you could probably look at. I'm sure there are other companies that would do this work. I think we've been happy with Chazen. I think in the past we've had a local engineering firm, time is of the essence on this. You worked with the Zoning Board of Appeals with this Company. COUNCILMAN BREWER-More so the Planning Board I think. SUPERVISOR MONTESI-Do you like them, we're they... COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- Yeah, I was going to suggest we take no action on it until January 0 though, but move forward. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-It's one year Brian, it's not two years. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS-I know, I know, that's why I'm not pushing it as much. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER/ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CRAIG BROWN TO CARRY OVER UNUSED VACATION TIME RESOLUTION NO.: 491, 2013 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 649 WHEREAS, Town of Queensbury Code Compliance Officer/Zoning Administrator Craig Brown has accumulated 10 vacation days that he will be unable to use before December 31St, 2013 and has therefore requested Town Board approval to carry over up to 10 days of vacation time beyond December 31St, 2013, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to approve such request with the understanding that such approval shall not be considered as a precedent for approval of any future requests, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes Craig Brown to carry over up to 10 vacation days beyond December 31St, 2013, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Code Compliance Officer/Zoning Administrator and/or Town Budget Officer to take any actions necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Metivier NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT OF BIDS FOR SALE OF OBSOLETE EQUIPMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 492, 2013 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Brian Clements REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 650 WHEREAS, in accordance with New York State Town Law §64(2), the Queensbury Town Board may authorize the sale of items which are no longer needed by the Town or obsolete, and WHEREAS, the Town's Budget Officer requested that Town Departments advise of any surplus items in their respective Departments and the Town Budget Officer did receive a list of items from the Wastewater Department which are considered to be surplus, and WHEREAS, the Budget Officer advised the various Town Departments of the surplus items and did not receive any requests from the Departments for such surplus items and therefore has requested Town Board authorization to sell the surplus items by using the auction company GovDeals to dispose of such surplus property, or, if deemed unsafe and/or inoperable by the Department Manager, to be sold as scrap, and WHEREAS, the following is the list of surplus items provided by the Wastewater Department: Description 1000 Gallon Concrete Fuel Storage Tank and 175 KW Caterpillar Diesel Generator—Asset No. 3177 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the sale of the surplus items that are no longer needed by the Town or obsolete as follows: Description 1000 Gallon Concrete Fuel Storage Tank and 175 KW Caterpillar Diesel Generator—Asset No. 3177 and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 651 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and engagement of the services of auction company GovDeals to sell/dispose of the surplus items, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that all Town proceeds from the sales shall be deposited into the appropriate revenue account(s) in accordance with the Queensbury Town Code and New York State Laws, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer and/or Purchasing Agent to accept or reject any bids received online for any online auction bids, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Town Budget Officer, Purchasing Agent, Civil Engineer/Wastewater Director and/or Town Counsel to take such further actions as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM UNDESIGNATED GENERAL FUND BALANCE TO VEHICLE REPLACEMENT CAPITAL PROJECT FUND #195 RESOLUTION NO.: 493, 2013 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 652 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 338,2012, the Queensbury Town Board established the Equipment/Vehicle Replacement Capital Project Fund #195 for funding of equipment/vehicle replacements for General Fund Departments, and WHEREAS, the Town Budget Officer has requested that the Town Board authorize a transfer of $30,000 from the Town's Undesignated General Fund Balance to Equipment/Vehicle Replacement Capital Project Fund #195 for the future purchase of a vehicle for the Building and Grounds Department per 2014 State Contract pricing, and WHEREAS, the Town Board therefore wishes to authorize the Town Budget Officer to make such transfer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to transfer $30,000 from the Town's Undesignated General Fund Balance to Equipment/Vehicle Replacement Capital Project Fund #195 for the future purchase of a vehicle for the Building and Grounds Department per 2014 State Contract pricing and make any adjustments, budget amendments, transfers or prepare any documentation necessary to establish appropriations and estimated revenues and take all other actions necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 653 CORNELL COOPERATIVE EXTENSION OF WARREN COUNTY AND TOWN OF QUEENSBURY—VOLUNTEER INCOME TAX ASSISTANCE PROGRAM RESOLUTION NO.: 494,2013 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, Cornell Cooperative Extension of Warren County (CCE Warren) applied for funding which was approved by the Warren County Board of Supervisors for the purpose of operating a Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) Program, and WHEREAS, the funding contemplates that the CCE Warren will contract for salaries as part of its VITA program with individuals, and WHEREAS, CCE Warren is an approved site for the VITA Program by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and would like to provide the services required of the VITA Program for qualified individuals, and WHEREAS, CCE Warren wishes to contract with the Town of Queensbury's Land Use Planner, Laura Moore, to provide the Site Coordinator services for the VITA Program, and WHEREAS, CCE Warren has presented the Town Board with a proposed Memorandum of Agreement which sets forth the terms and conditions upon which the Town, via its liaison Laura Moore, will participate in the VITA Program, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize such Memorandum of Agreement and Laura Moore's participation in such VITA Program, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves and authorizes the Memorandum of Agreement between the Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE) of Warren County and the Town of Queensbury, and Land Use Planner Laura Moore's participation in such Program for provision of Site Coordinator services for up to 45 hours of Program coordination, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 654 BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Memorandum Agreement substantially in the form presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Land Use Planner and/or Town Budget Officer to take any further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING JEFF AURELIA SCHOLARSHIP FUND 5K ROAD RACE RESOLUTION NO. 495,2013 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Jeff Aurelia Scholarship Fund has requested authorization from the Queensbury Town Board to conduct a 5k road race to benefit the Jeff Aurelia Scholarship Fund as follows: REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 655 SPONSOR Jeff Aurelia Scholarship Fund EVENT 5k Road Race DATE Wednesday, January 1St, 2014 TIME 10:00 a.m. — 11:30 a.m. (approximately) PLACE Beginning and ending at Glens Falls High School(Letter delineating course is attached) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby acknowledges receipt of proof of insurance from the Jeff Aurelia Scholarship Fund and authorizes the Jeff Aurelia Scholarship Fund to conduct a 5k Road Race partially within the Town of Queensbury to benefit the Jeff Aurelia Scholarship Fund on Wednesday, January 1St, 2014, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby approves this event subject to the Town Highway Superintendent's approval of the race, which approval may be revoked due to concern for road conditions at any time up to the date and time of the event. Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Montesi NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HIRING OF RONALD J. DUFOUR AS FULL-TIME MOTOR EQUIPMENT OPERATOR FOR TOWN HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 656 RESOLUTION NO.: 496,2013 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury's Highway Superintendent has advised the Town Board that he would like to hire a full-time Motor Equipment Operator (MEO) in the Highway Department, and WHEREAS, the Highway Superintendent posted availability for the position, reviewed resumes and has recommended that the Town Board authorize the hiring of Ronald J. Dufour in the full-time position, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the hiring of Ronald J. Dufour as a full-time Motor Equipment Operator (MEO) in the Town's Highway Department effective on or about December 16th, 2013 subject to Mr. Dufour's successful passing of a pre-employment physical as required by Town Policy and completion of an eight (8) month probationary period, and contingent upon the Town successfully completing background checks as reasonably necessary to judge fitness for the duties for which hired and drug and/or alcohol screening, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that Mr. Dufour shall be paid at the hourly rate of pay for the MEO position as delineated in the Town's current Agreement with the Civil Service Employees Association, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 657 RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Highway Superintendent and/or Town Budget Officer to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2013 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Metivier NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT#1 WITH CREIGHTON MANNING TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO AVIATION ROAD/DIXON ROAD/FARR LANE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS, TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, WARREN COUNTY,P.I.N. 1759.06 RESOLUTION NO.: 497, 2013 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 232, 2012, the Queensbury Town Board authorized and approved the Project for the Aviation Road/Dixon Road/Farr Lane Intersection Improvements, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, P.I.N. 1759.06 (the Project), and WHEREAS, by Resolution 297, 2012, the Town Board authorized and directed that the sum of$273,702 (two-hundred seventy-three seven hundred two dollars and no cents) ($258,385 for Preliminary Engineering and $15,317 for Right-of-Way Incidentals) be made available to cover the cost of participation in the Project, with such sum of$273,702 appropriated from the Aviation Road/Dixon/Farr Lane Intersection Improvements Project Grant Fund #192, and WHEREAS, by Resolution 297, 2012, the Town Board also authorized and directed the engagement of Creighton Manning for provision of engineering and design services to complete Phases I-VI (Sections 1-7) of the Project, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 658 WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to again engage the engineering and design services of Creighton Manning to complete Preliminary Design, Right-of-Way Acquisition and Incidentals and Construction Inspection& Administration of the Project for an amount not to exceed the amount of $278,541 as delineated in Creighton Manning's November 19, 2013 Supplemental Consultant Agreement #1 presented at this meeting and as follows: Item IA, Direct Technical Salaries (estimated) $ 95,317 Item IB, Direct Technical Salaries Premium Portion of Overtime (estimated) $ 2,738 Item II, Direct Non-Salary Cost (estimated) $ 8,801 Item II, Direct Non-Salary Cost (estimated) (Sub-Contractor Cost) $ 6,000 Item III, Overhead (estimated) $112,943 Item IV, Fixed Fee (negotiated) $ 26,201 Item II, Direct Non-Salary Cost (estimated) (Sub-Consultant Cost) $ 26,541 ROW Acquisistion $23,118 ROW Incidentals $ 3,423 MAXIMUM AMOUNT PAYABLE $278,541 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the engagement of Creighton Manning for provision of engineering and design services to complete Preliminary Design, Right-of-Way Acquisition and Incidentals and Construction Inspection & Administration of the Aviation Road/Dixon Road/Farr Lane Intersection Improvements, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, P.I.N. 1759.06 (the Project) for an amount not to exceed the amount REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 659 of $278,541 as delineated in Creighton Manning's November 19, 2013 Consultant Agreement presented at this meeting and as described in the preambles of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that expenses for this project shall be paid for from the Aviation Road/Dixon/Farr Lane Intersection Improvements Project Grant Fund #192, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs any transfer of funds as may be necessary from the Town's Capital Reserve Fund#64 to Project Grant Fund#192, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Consultant Agreement substantially in the form presented at this meeting and in form acceptable to the Town Supervisor and Town Counsel, and any necessary forms or agreements related to this Project and further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Senior Planner and/or Town Budget Officer to take all action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AWARD OF BID FOR MINI-EXCAVATOR/TRACK- HOE FOR TOWN HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 498, 2013 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 660 SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, in accordance with Resolution No.: 475,2013, the Town of Queensbury's Purchasing Agent duly advertised for bids for the purchase of a mini-excavator for use by the Town Highway Department, as specified in bid specifications prepared by the Highway Superintendent and/or Purchasing Agent, and WHEREAS, on December 11th 2013, the Town Budget Officer duly received and opened all bids, and WHEREAS, the Town Highway Superintendent and Town Budget Officer have recommended that the Town Board award the bid to the lowest, responsible bidder, Milton Caterpillar, for an amount not to exceed $46,606, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby accepts and awards the bids for the purchase of a new mini-excavator/track-hoe for use by the Town Highway Department, from the lowest, responsible bidder, Milton Caterpillar for an amount not to exceed $46,606, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs that payment shall be from Highway Vehicles Account No.: 004-5130-2020, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to amend the Town Budget and take any other actions needed to transfer $46,606 from Account No.: 004-9060-8060 to Highway Vehicles Account No.: 004-5130-2020 to effectuate the purchase, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 661 BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Highway Superintendent, Purchasing Agent and/or Town Budget Officer to take any and all action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2013 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 499,2013 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr.Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, the following Budget Amendment Requests have been duly initiated and justified and are deemed compliant with Town operating procedures and accounting practices by the Town Budget Officer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town's Accounting Office to take all action necessary to amend the 2013 Town Budget as follows: From To Code Appropriation Code Appropriation $ 001-1990- 4400 Contingency 001-1110-1120 O/T 500 001-1990- 4400 Contingency 001-1220-4400 Contractual 6,000 001-1990- 1010 Contingency 001-7620-1010 Wages 4,000 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 662 001-1990- 4400 Contingency 001-8020-4711 Reimb. Engineering 10,000 001-9060- Health 8060 Insurance 001-3620-4110 Vehicle Repair 500 002-9060- Health 8060 Insurance 002-9010-8010 NYS Retirement 785 004-5110- 1010 Wages 004-5110-4820 Uniforms 500 031-8120- 4300 Electricity 031-8110-4130 Town Counsel 50 032-8110- 1010 Wages 032-8120-4800 Equipment 2,500 040-9010- Workers' Comp 8010 NYS Retirement 040-9040-8040 Premium 4,500 032-0000- Transfer To Capital 0909 Fund Balance 001-9901-9030 Fund 10,000 Increase Revenue 198-0000- Interfund 55031 Revenue 10,000 Increase Expenses 198-8120-2899 Capital Construction 10,000 Duly adopted 16th day of December, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS— WARRANT OF DECEMBER 16TH,2013 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 663 RESOLUTION NO.: 500, 2013 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve an audit of bills presented as a Warrant with a run date of December 12th 2013 and a payment date of December 17th, 2013, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Warrant with a run date of December 12th 2013 and a payment date of December 17th 2013 totaling $1,296,386.02, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Budget Officer to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Montesi NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WITHDRAWAL FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN RESERVE FUND #64 FOR INCREASE IN RUSH POND BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN PATH CAPITAL PROJECT#166 FOR SECURING OF EASEMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 501, 2013 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 664 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously established a Capital Improvement Plan Reserve Fund#64 (Fund#64) for future Town project developments, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 178,2007 the Town Board authorized establishment of the Rush Pond Bicycle/Pedestrian Path Capital Project Fund #166 to fund expenses associated with the Multi-Use Rush Pond Bicycle/Pedestrian Path (Project) and authorized funding for such Capital Project Fund #166 in the amount of$76,663, and such funds were transferred into such Fund #166 from Capital Improvement Plan Reserve Fund#64, and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 178, 2007 also authorized engagement of the services of the Laberge Group (Laberge) for design of the Project and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 202,2008, the Town Board authorized an increase in the Project costs and supplemented Capital Project Fund #166 in the amount of$20,000 to cover such increases as well as future expenses and reimbursables, bringing the total for the Capital Project Fund#166 to $96,663, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 349.2011, the Town Board authorized an increase in the Project costs and supplemented Capital Project Fund #166 in the amount of$3,700 for additional professional services of the Laberge Group due to additional wetland delineation, bringing the total for the Capital Project Fund#166 to $100,363, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 242,2013, the Town Board authorized an increase in the Project costs and supplemented Capital Project Fund #166 in the amount of $38,000 for construction of the southern part of the Rush Pond Trail (from Fox Farm Road to the bridge and walkways) and authorized and directed the $38,000 increase in the Rush Pond Bicycle/Pedestrian Path Capital Project Fund #166 bringing the total for the Capital Project Fund #166 to $138,363, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 665 WHEREAS, Councilman John Strough has advised the Town Board that the Town will need to obtain an easement on adjacent property needed in order to complete the Project, with the cost for such easement to be an amount not to exceed $25,000, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize the withdrawal and expenditure of moneys from Fund#64 in the amount of$25,000 for such easement, and WHEREAS, in accordance with New York State General Municipal Law §6(c), the Town Board is authorized to withdraw and expend funds from Fund #64 subject to permissive referendum, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board authorizes the needed easement on adjacent property related to the construction of the Rush Pond Trail for an amount not to exceed $25,000 and authorizes and directs the $25,000 increase in the Rush Pond Bicycle/Pedestrian Path Capital Project Fund#166 bringing the total for the Capital Project Fund#166 to $163,363, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs that funding for such easement shall be by a transfer from the Capital Reserve Fund #64 in the amount of$25,000 to transfer to Rush Pond Bicycle/Pedestrian Path Capital Project Fund #166, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED that the Queensbury Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to take all action necessary to increase the following accounts for such appropriations and revenues as necessary: • Revenue Acct No. — 166-0000-55031 (Interfund Revenue) $25,000; and • Expense Acct No. — 166-8020-2899 (Capital Construction) $25,000; and • Expense Acct No. —001-9950-9030-0064 (Transfer to Cap Proj) $25,000, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 666 RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to amend the Town Budget, make any adjustments, budget amendments, transfers or prepare any documentation necessary to establish such appropriations and estimated revenues, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to sign all documentation related to the obtaining and recording of such easement, and the Town Supervisor, Councilman John Strough and/or the Town Budget Officer to take any and all other actions necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this Resolution is subject to a permissive referendum in accordance with the provisions of Town Law Article 7 and the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to publish and post such notices and take such other actions as may be required by law. Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Metivier NOES: None ABSENT: None "DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE** SUPERVISOR MONTESI-Want to talk about this John? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Yeah, one of the ways that I'm trying to secure grant funding to finish up the Rush Pond Trail. As you know, we've done about a mile of a two mile trail, we have a mile yet to do. AEFTC people think that it is a fundable project and there might be some grant funding for it. Stu is making the application process with them. However, the one little thing that we have to assure that we have easements through the whole trail. One landowner in particular I would like to negotiate with them for their easement. So, I've had the easement assessed and appraised by an official appraiser and that easement comes to the tune of around $20,000 for the easement for fourteen hundred feet, which is a trail on their two parcels of property. This is giving me the opportunity because legal counsel said that before I negotiate with the landowners I should have the blessing of the Board to spend this money if I'm going to offer this kind of easement and it is based on actual appraised value. So, it's not a guess or by golly, it's an appraised value. So, once I get this easement secured then I can proceed forward with my funding for the rest of the trail. The feedback I'm getting from the public is that they absolutely love the tail, so I want to complete it for them. I need to do this so I appreciate your support there. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 667 COUNCILMAN METIVIER-What's next after this John? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, they grant funding and that will finish up the trail. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- I had a...before you say anything John, I'm going to vote yes. But, I think that just as a matter of full disclosure to the public because this project has been going on for six or seven years now and long before I got here. But, just to let the public know that up to this point and you tell me if these figures are correct so far. The cost for what is finished now is $138,363? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- That's correct. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- With this resolution it will increase that to $163,363 if you use the whole amount of money? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Right. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- Okay, that's correct? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Yes. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- Okay, thank you. So, I'll again say that I believe that you've done an outstanding job of having businesses offer some time and materials at no cost. You've involved volunteers as well as worked very hard at it yourself. So, I'm going to vote yes, but I hope that you would estimate what the total cost of this project will be when it's completed, just so the public knows. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, the estimated total cost, now keep in mind that 70, I think it was closer to 90,000 of that money was used to survey the trails, do the archeological review, wetland delineations and then I had to move the trail to accommodate some landowners, but I got their approval after I moved it, but you know what moving it means, I had to have it re-surveyed, the archeological review and all that stuff. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- I just asked for a number didn't I? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, yeah but I have to explain. So, because a lot of what went into the trail is permitting, paperwork, design. Now the rest of, probably another 100,000 is actually building and developing the trail. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- The rest of it? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Yeah, so about 200,000 to complete the trail but so what I'm asking you for is that if I can get this easement then I can get the grant funding. So, you're going to get a trail that costs the community 160 grand if I get the grant funding, right? COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- Yeah. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- A two mile trail in a beautiful wilderness that is 14 foot wide and tailored for multi (tape inaudible) use it isn't such a bad deal. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- Of course the grant funding is still people's money. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- And that doesn't include the thousand hours I've got into it and probably about the $1,000 of my own money I've got into it. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- I know. SUPERVISOR MONTESI-What was the original estimate by the engineers? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Two million dollars was the original estimate REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 668 COUNCILMAN METIVIER- So, in John's defense, I'll give him that, I'm not thrilled about this but we've got to finish this. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- I agree, but I'd like to know how much? COUNCILMAN METIVIER- It was originally going to be a two million dollar project so... COUNCILMAN STROUGH- That's what I said Brian, 200,000 but we personally will only have 150 or 160 into it if I get my grant funding. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- Just remember, they are having similar issues with the airport. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Call the vote. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HIRING OF RICHARD RODRIGUEZ AS PART-TIME COURT OFFICER RESOLUTION NO.: 502, 2013 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Brian Clements WHEREAS, there will soon be a vacancy in the part-time Town Court Officer position in the Town of Queensbury's Justice Court, and WHEREAS, the Town Justices have recommended that the Town Board hire Richard Rodriguez in such position, and WHEREAS, the Town Board concurs with such hiring recommendation, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the hiring of Richard Rodriguez as a part-time Court Officer effective on or about December 17t1i 2013 at the hourly rate of pay of$15.00 as set forth in Town Board Resolution No.: 462,2013, and subject to the Town successfully completing a background check as reasonably necessary to judge fitness for the duties for which hired and/or drug and/or alcohol screening, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 669 BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes payment in the amount of$25.89 per service to Mr. Rodriguez for service of any paper required by Town Court or any Town of Queensbury Department, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Town Justices and/or Town Budget Officer to complete any necessary forms and take any actions necessary to effectuate this Resolution. Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPOINTING CHERYL WOLFE AS PART-TIME SCHOOL TRAFFIC OFFICER RESOLUTION NO.: 503,2013 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHEREAS, a School Traffic Officer (Crossing Guard) position exists within the Town of Queensbury and the Town Board wishes to make an appointment to such position, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 670 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby appoints Cheryl Wolfe as a School Traffic Officer (Crossing Guard) on an "on-call" basis only, effective on or about December 1711' 2013 at the current rate of pay for the position, subject to the Town successfully completing a background check as reasonably necessary to judge fitness for the duties for which hired and/or drug and/or alcohol screening, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Budget Officer to complete any forms and take any actions necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF UP TO $1,370,000 IN SERIAL BONDS OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO PAY A PORTION OF THE COST OF ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND INSTALLATION OF A HIGHWAY ROUNDABOUT; AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF UP TO $1,370,000 IN BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY FOR THE SAME PURPOSE RESOLUTION NO.: 504, 2013 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to undertake improvements to the intersections of Farr Lane and Dixon Road with Aviation Road through the installation of a roundabout; and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 671 WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 232, 2012, the Queensbury Town Board authorized and approved the roundabout project for the Aviation Road/Dixon Road/Farr Lane Intersection Improvements, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, P.I.N. 1759.06 (the "Project"), and WHEREAS, the Town Board determined that the proposed Project is an Unlisted Action in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), was duly established as SEQRA Lead Agency for SEQRA review of the proposed Project and duly adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration—Determination of Non-Significance; and WHEREAS, the Town Board has determined that it is in the public interest to make the proposed improvements; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, WARREN COUNTY, NEW YORK,AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The specific object or purpose for which the obligations authorized by this Resolution are to be issued is the acquisition of certain real property and the design, engineering, construction and installation of Aviation Road/Dixon Road/Farr Lane intersection improvements consisting of a roundabout and related improvements. Such specific object or purpose is hereby authorized at a maximum estimated cost of Two Million Fifty Thousand Dollars ($2,050,000). Section 2. The plan for the financing of such maximum estimated cost is as follows: (a) use of up to Six Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars ($680,000) in currently available funds; and (b) issuance of up to of One Million Three Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($1,370,000) in serial bonds or bond anticipation notes of the Town, hereby authorized to be issued pursuant to the Local Finance Law. The proceeds of the bonds or bond anticipation notes may be used to reimburse expenditures paid by the Town from other funds or otherwise on or after the date of adoption of this Bond Resolution. The Project is eligible for funding under Title 23 U.S. Code, as amended, that calls for the apportionment of the costs of such program to be borne at the ratio of 80% Federal funds and 20% non-federal funds, and by Resolution No.: 232, 2012 the Town Board made a commitment of 100% of the non-federal share of the costs of Preliminary Engineering and Right- of-Way Incidentals. The Town Board further authorized and directed the Town Supervisor to execute all necessary Agreements, certifications or reimbursement requests for Federal Aid and/or Marchiselli Aid on behalf of the Town of Queensbury with the New York State Department of Transportation in connection with the advancement or approval of the Project and providing for the administration of the Project and the Town's first instance funding of Project costs and permanent funding of the local share of federal-aid and state-aid eligible Project costs and all Project costs within appropriations therefor that are not so eligible. To the extent that any such moneys are received, the Town may apply such funds to the payment of principal and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 672 interest on the bonds or bond anticipation notes. Pursuant to Local Finance Law Sections 107.00[d][3](1) and 107.00[d][9], no down payment from current funds is required. Section 3. The Town Board anticipates that the Town may pay certain capital expenditures in connection with the Project prior to the receipt of the proceeds of the Bonds. The Town Board hereby declares its official intent to use Bond proceeds to reimburse the Town for such Project expenditures. This section of the Resolution is adopted solely for the purpose of establishing compliance with the requirements of Section 1.150-2 of the Treasury Regulations and does not bind the Town to make any expenditure, incur any indebtedness or proceed with the acquisition, construction and installation of the Project. Section 4. Consistent with the Resolution authorizing the Project, the Town Board hereby determines that it is in the public interest to acquire and construct the Project and ratifies and affirms the determinations and authorizations contained in Resolution No.: 232, 2012 and all other Town Board Resolutions relating to the Project. Section 5. It is hereby determined that the weighted average period of probable usefulness of the specific object or purpose is 9.67 years, pursuant to Sections 11.00(a)[20] and [21] of the Local Finance Law. It is hereby further determined that the maximum maturity of the serial bonds herein authorized will exceed five (5)years. Section 6. The faith and credit of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, are hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of and interest on such obligations as they become due and payable. An annual appropriation shall be made in each year sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on such obligations becoming due and payable in such years. There shall annually be levied on all the taxable real property of the Town a fee sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on such obligations as they become due and payable. Section 7. For the purpose of paying the cost of the Project, including related preliminary and incidental costs, there are hereby authorized to be issued serial bonds of the Town up to a maximum amount of$1,370,000, the maximum maturity of which shall not exceed the 9.67 year period of probable usefulness set forth above, and which shall mature on or before the date of the expiration of the period of probable usefulness as measured from the date of the bonds or from the date of the first bond anticipation note issued in anticipation of the sale of such bonds, whichever date is earlier. The bonds may be issued in the form of a statutory installment bond. Section 8. There are hereby authorized to be issued bond anticipation notes for the specific object or purpose in an amount up to but not exceeding the $1,370,000 maximum amount of serial bonds authorized to be issued, in anticipation of the issuance and sale of the serial bonds authorized, including renewals of such bond anticipation notes. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 673 Section 9. Any bond anticipation notes shall be payable from the proceeds derived from the sale of the bonds or otherwise redeemed in the manner provided by Section 23.00 of the Local Finance Law. The faith and credit of the Town are hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of the bond anticipation notes and the interest on them. Section 10. There are no bond anticipation notes outstanding which have been previously issued in anticipation of the sale of these bonds. Neither are the bond anticipation notes hereby authorized renewal notes. These bond anticipation notes will be issued in anticipation of bonds for an assessable improvement. These notes shall mature at such time as the Town may determine and may be renewed from time to time, provided that in no event shall such notes or renewals extend more than one (1) year beyond the original date of issue except as permitted in the Local Finance Law. Section 11. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Resolution and of the Local Finance Law, and pursuant to the provisions of Sections 30.00, 50.00 and 56.00 to 60.00, inclusive, of the Local Finance Law, the power to authorize bond anticipation notes in anticipation of the issuance of the serial bonds authorized by this Resolution and the renewal of these notes, and the power to prescribe the terms, form and contents of the serial bonds and bond anticipation notes and the power to sell and deliver the serial bonds and bond anticipation notes issued in anticipation of the issuance of the bonds is hereby delegated to the Town Supervisor, the Chief Fiscal Officer of the Town. The Town Supervisor is hereby authorized to sign any serial bonds and bond anticipation notes issued in anticipation of the issuance of the serial bonds and bond anticipation notes issued pursuant to this Resolution by manual signature, and the Town Clerk is hereby authorized to affix or impress or imprint a facsimile of the seal of the Town to any of the serial bonds or bond anticipation notes and to attest such seal by manual signature. The Town Supervisor, as Chief Fiscal Officer of the Town, is authorized to execute and deliver any documents and to take such other action as may be necessary and proper to carry out the intent of the provisions of this Resolution. Section 12. The exact date of issuance of the bonds and/or notes and the exact date upon which they shall become due and payable shall be fixed and determined by the Chief Fiscal Officer, provided, however, that the maturity of the notes or renewals shall not exceed one (1) year from the date of issue except as permitted by the Local Finance Law. Section 13. The Chief Fiscal Officer shall prepare the bonds and/or notes and sell them in accordance with the provisions of the Local Finance Law including, but not limited to, the provisions of Section 169.00, if applicable, and at such sale shall determine the interest rate to be borne by such bonds and/or notes. The Town Board authorizes the Chief Fiscal Officer to establish substantially level annual debt service for the repayment of such Bonds if he believes it is in the best interests of the Town. Section 14. If issued, the notes shall be in registered form, and shall bear interest at the determined rate. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 674 Section 15. The Chief Fiscal Officer shall deliver the bonds and/or notes to the purchaser only against a certified check or other immediately available funds. The proceeds of the sale of the bonds and/or notes shall be deposited and/or invested as required by Section 165.00 of the Local Finance Law, and the power to invest the proceeds of sale is hereby delegated to the Chief Fiscal Officer and the power to invest in any instruments described in Section 165.00 is expressly granted. Section 16. To the extent that it is permitted to do so under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended to the date hereof(the "Code"), the Town hereby designates the bonds and/or notes as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" under Section 265(b)(3) of the Code. The Town hereby covenants that, to the extent permitted under the Code in effect as of the date of issuance of any bonds and/or notes, it will (i) take all actions on its part necessary to cause interest on the bonds and/or notes to be excluded from gross income for purposes of Federal income taxes and (ii) refrain from taking any action which would cause interest on the bonds and/or notes to be included in gross income for purposes of Federal income taxes. Section 17. The Town of Queensbury is a town partially within the Adirondack Park. However, State lands subject to taxation within the Town's boundaries are assessed at less than thirty percent (30%) of the total taxable assessed valuation of the Town, so permission of the State Comptroller to issue the bonds and/or notes is not required under Local Finance Law Section 104.10(3). Section 18. Miller, Mannix, Schachner & Hafner, LLC, Glens Falls, New York, is hereby designated bond counsel. Section 19. The validity of these serial bonds and bond anticipation notes may be contested only if: (1) These obligations are authorized for an object or purpose for which the Town is not authorized to expend money; or (2) The provisions of law which should be complied with at the date of publication of this Resolution are not substantially complied with, and an action, suit or proceeding contesting such validity is commenced within twenty (20) days after the date of such publication; or (3) Such obligations are authorized in violation of the provisions of the State Constitution. Section 20 This Resolution is adopted subject to Permissive Referendum if required by law. Section 21 The full text of this Resolution or a summary thereof shall be published in the Glens Falls Post Star, which has been designated as the official newspaper of the Town, together REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 675 with a notice of the Town Clerk in substantially the form provided in Section 81.00 of the Local Finance Law. Section 22. The question of the adoption of this Resolution was duly put to a vote on roll call which resulted as follows: ROLL AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer CALL NAYS: Mr. Clements ABSENT: None The Resolution was declared duly adopted by a vote of not less than two-thirds (2/3) of the full membership of the Town Board. DATED: December 16, 2013 **DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE** TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- I think we were just asked to prepare this literally today, and it's a pretty complicated piece of work. I think we did a good job, but I'm going to suggest a very minor amendment, which is at the very end. I'm going to suggest that we add a sentence, the sentence I propose would be this resolution is adopted is subject to permissive referendum if required by law; which I believe it is. I think the easiest way to do that is simply have that be a new section 20 after section 19 and then have your existing 20 be re-numbered to section 21 and your existing section 21 be re-numbered to section 22. SUPERVISOR MONTESI-Okay, so where is ... TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- I'm putting this right after section 19, which has its three sub-parts, see section 19 one two and three. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Yes. TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- I'm proposing that you insert a section 20 that would read, I can do it fast and then I can do it more slowly if people are writing. But, what I'm suggesting is "This resolution is adopted subject to permissive referendum if required by law". SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Okay. TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- Which I think we'll find it is. Then just re-number 20 to 21 and 21 to 22. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Okay, thank you. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK II, MELLON- We have an introduction and a second but I need to know if you agree with the amendment? COUNCILMAN BREWER- Amendment yes. SUPERVISOR MONTESI- Okay. Call the vote. 4.0 CORRESPONDENCE REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 676 DEPUTY TOWN CLERK II, MELLON- Supervisor's Report for Community Development/Building and Codes for November 2013 on file in Town Clerk's Office. 5.0 TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS COUNCILMAN METIVIER(WARD I)- • Great job to Deputy Highway Superintendent, Tom VanNess and his crew on their hard work during the last storm • Thanked Supervisor Montesi and Councilman Brewer for all their efforts and it's been a pleasure serving with them. They will be missed. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS (WARD II)- • Thanked fellow Town Board Members and the Republican and Conservative Party Members for appointing him to the remaining term after Ron was appointed to Supervisor. Thanked the voters of Queensbury for electing him to a full term for the next two years. It's been an honor and a pleasure to serve the people of the Town and he is committed to fulfilling his promises to the residents. • Thanked the staff and in particular our Budget Officer, Barbara Tierney, Highway Superintendent, Mike Travis, GIS Administrator, George Hilton and Darleen, Karen and Rose in the Town Clerk's Office for all their help over the last several months. • Wished Councilman Brewer the best of luck and congratulated him for his many years of service to the residents of the town. The town is a better place because of his hard work; and his commitment and devotion to his Ward and the entire town. • Wished Councilman Strough and Supervisor Montesi luck in the new positions. • Welcomed back Councilman Metivier. • Will be pleased to be working with the new Board Members, Bill VanNess and Doug Irish. Hoping to accomplish some great things for the residents of Queensbury. • Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Happy Holidays and Happy New Year to all. COUNCILMAN STROUGH (WARD III)- • Wished everyone Happy Holidays • Very grateful to have the opportunity to work with Supervisor Montesi, he has learned a lot from him. He is looking forward to working with him as Deputy Supervisor. They have been working together on the day to day matters to ensure a smooth transition. • He is looking forward to working with the new Board. The swearing in ceremony and the first meeting of the year will be held on January 1St at 10:00AM right here in the Activities Center. The Queensbury Senior Citizens will provide a cake and refreshments following the meeting. • Thanked Councilman Brewer, it's been a pleasure to work with him. He will be missed. • Thanked the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 773 for their help with cutting some pipes for the bridge. • A REMINDER FROM THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE: -Never start or idle fuel powered equipment or vehicles inside a garage or confined area. -When clearing snow please clear a path around your home. This provides 360 degree egress for you in emergency and 360 degree ingress for emergency service providers. -Check on your neighbors frequently, especially the elderly, -Be sure that the vents for furnaces and other appliances are not obstructed by snow accumulation. -Propane, electric and other fuel fired heating devices are not meant to be replaced as the primary heating system in your home. -Be sure to have working smoke and CO detectors. COUNCILMAN BREWER(WARD IV)- REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12-16-2013 MTG 446 677 • Thanked all of the present Members of the Board and past Boards that he has served on. Also thanked the Town Attorney, Planning and all the staff, they made it all very easy to be here. • Wished everyone a Merry Christmas. SUPERVISOR MONTESI • It has been a privilege to serve as Town Supervisor. • Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to everyone. RESOLUTION ADJOURNING REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO.: 505, 2013 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Brian Clements RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Regular Town Board Meeting. Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Montesi NOES: None ABSENT: None Respectfully Submitted, Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk Town of Queensbury