1989-02-28 125
TOWN BOARD MEETING
FEBR UAR Y 28, 1989
4:30 P.M.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
STEPHEN BOR COS-SUPER VISOR
MARIL YN POTENZA-COUNCILM4AN
RONALD MONTESI-COUNCILMAN
BETTY MONAHAN-COUNCILMAN
BOARD MEMBER ABSENT
GEORGE KUROSAKA-COUNCILMAN
TOWN ATTORNEY
PA UL D USEK
TOWN OFFICIALS
PAUL NAYLOR, RICK MISSI TA, DAVE HA TIN F
PRESS: G.F. Post Star, WEND
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN POTENZA
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted the tragic accident nine days ago, asked that everyone stand
for a moment of silence in respect for all those that died in the plane crash.
PUBLIC HEARING - Proposed Local Low Sewer Rent Low
4:45 P.M.
NOTICE SHOWN
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Some of you, obviously many of you may know, a new sewer rent law
went into effect, I believe in January. There is a proposal to amend that to make a few changes
that were not caught early on in the process. One of the amendments is to add some more
parcels to those parcels that were exempted by the first law. Those parcels were proposed
to be added at the last meeting, the last regular Town Board meeting. It seems to one there
were five or six that were already, the parcels were already hooked up to the City of Glens
Falls sewer system. The total tax or total payments due from all those parcels, I believe,
I'm looking at Kathleen now, thirty-eight, thirty-nine dollars total. Many of them were four
dollars or seven dollars. So we are trying to clean up the district in that respect. There was
also another proposal to create a parcel exemption. I don't have the exact language in front
of me, unless, is it right here somewhere? The one related to the wetland areas? Dorleen
would that be in my pile of things?
TOWN CLERK DOUGHER-!t is attached to the resolution.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. Essentially what we are saying is that it came to our
attention that, of this entire parcel of so many acres was put into a sewer district. There
are some portions of that entire parcel of nine hundred or a thousand acres, that are essentially
designated Department of Environmental Conservation Wetlands. Some parcels would be under
a sever burden where by they could not actually build upon those parcels in any way, yet would
be faced with taxes on those. Obviously, at least to me as I've looked at this, if somebody
has a corner of a backyard that amounts to a couple of square feet that's a designated wetland,
that probably won't amount to much of anything in the way of taxes, would not be a major
imposition, wouldn't have a decreased effect on the value of their property. But if twenty
or thirty or fifty or eighty or a hundred percent of somebodies land is a wetland, then there
could be significant problems.
TOWN CLERK DOUGHER-Turn to Article 111, the second a, you'll find what you are looking
for.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Article Ill, the second a. Thank you. We are looking at a changing,
the formula to say that, except that in those instances in which a vacant parcel, vacant parcel
in excess of five acres lies in a vacant wetlands area as designated under the Environmental
Conservation Law, in that case, the total acreage of the parcel for purposes of calculating
the Sewer Rend due shall be reduced by the number of acres in the designated wetland. In
order to have this part impacted, the land would have to be vacant, would have to be in access
of five acres, and it would have to be in a DEC classification of an official wetland area.
When you talk about taxes or rents or charges of any sort, they come in two kinds. I don't
want to lecture along time about this but we have either a benefit tax or a sacrifice tax. Now
to most of us, paying any kind of a tax is a sacrifice. Income tax is a sacrifice tax, the sewer
tax is a benefit tax. The property is being served to benefit there for you pay a tax for that
benefit. Some of these properties can't be benefited realistically by the sewer. That is what
126
we are trying to do in looking at this legislation. Nobody has decided. We haven't talked about
this behind closed doors or anything. What we are trying to do in this legislation is come up
with something that is fair, on the basis of complaints that have come to this office since
the bills went out. We're trying to make some adjustments, still in time for this year, that
would cover some of these situations. It just seems to me at least that if a parcel is vacant
and can't be built upon, certainly it wouldn't seem fair to charge the full charge as you would
somebody that has a piece of land that can be used. But that is what we're here to talk about.
1 don't know if any other Board members have comments at this moment, but we certainly
would like to hear from the public. This is a public hearing. Anybody who would like to speak
about any part of the amendments, proposed amendments to the sewer rent law, stand up at
this point. Please raise your hand, be recognized and come forward. State your name, address
and say what you would like to say about the proposed amendments to the sewer rent law.
GAIL CONNORS, 343 Ridge Road, Queensbury-There has been a letter submitted to you to —
read regarding vacant land in the assessment. 1 wonder if you could read that now? It was
submitted by Ralph J. Celeste.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-This has just come in. 11l1 ask the clerk to read it.
TOWN CLERK DOUGHER-Dear Mr. Borgos, 1 would like to protest the new sewer assessment
on a parcel of vacant land that 1 own (Tax Map # 109-3-21. 12). Specifically, I protest and seek
relief for the formula used on the capital expense assessment of $227.08 per acre. It appears
that this rate assumes that all land is prime land. This particular parcel is land locked. It
lies behind four homes located on the top of the ridge on Ridge Road and sharply slopes off
to meet the swamp behind. This land cannot be sub-divided and not lend itself to any structure
that could easily access the sewer system. Survey attached. I request that this land be
personally viewed by a Board Member in order to determine if this parcel is fairly being assessed
at the $227.08 rate per acre and that perhaps another rate could be established for parcels
such as this. l would appreciate knowing the proper procedure I need to follow in order to
grieve this assessment if this letter and my personal appearance at the Town Board meeting
of February 28, 1989 is not deemed adequate. Thank you for your consideration and would
appreciate a response as soon as possible. Very Truly Yours, Ralph J. Celeste.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Okay, I think, normally we would just listen to all of these, but I don't
know how many comments we may come up with. Let me just make a quick response to this
and perhaps our Town Attorney would add some more. First, this isn't a sewer tax. Its officially
not a tax as 1 understand it, is that correct? This is a sewer rent.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Right.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-There is a technical difference. As 1 understand it, sewer rents are
not grievable in the normal process of going to the Board of Assessment Review at Grievance
day. This rate of $227.08 per acre, again which is not officially the subject of this public
hearing, but its all wrapped together, so I think we can talk about it. This rate was determined
through working our professional engineer on the basis of the formula that was proposed to
the comptroller's office in 1984 and 1985. When the sewer district was first established, it
was established on the basis of a one-third, one-third, one-third split. One-third of the total
charges of the Capital Improvements would be borne on the basis of acreage. One-third on
the basis of assessed evaluation, and one-third on the basis of water consumption. If you take
the total number of acres in the sewer district, divide it into the capital cost including the
interest for the capital, that is how you come out with the acreage price. It is not saying that
your acre is more valuable then anybody elses acre. it is not saying that commercial is more
valuable than residential, it is just per acre. What we are today talking about making a change,
a real fairness change, saying that this acre that may perhaps be smack in the middle of a
wetland, simply is not usable. Another acre is an acre is an acre, and that's the formula that
was proposed. That is what the attempt here was. It doesn't appear, from anything I know
of, to be any way to grieve that other than come to a meeting like this and ask the Board to
change the rent law, in some fashion. Is that correct?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yes. This rent was established by way of local law and the legal procedure
is for public hearing to be held prior to the time the law was adopted. Which a public hearing
was held on the first part of this. Of course now we are going through the some process again
at the point where the Board is looking at amending it. If any further amendments are proposed
for this law that will effect rates or in any other way effect this law, the process would be
once again to go through another public hearing and then modify the low, if the Board so chooses.
The important thing, I guess, should be noted that any modification, the low has to be uniformed
and applied equally to everybody that is effected by the law.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That is correct. Just for your information, all other things being equal,
which we would like to say, this rate per acre should drop this year. If the amount to be paid
on the bond plus interest, is so much this year, when a big chunk gets paid off, next year the
total the amount to be paid should be less. So therefore the amount per acre should be less.
1 2'7
That is assuming no other unexpected capital expenditures and as you know those things
usuoloccur. But all other things being equal, this portion will drop each year. I don't know
if that fully answers your comments.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mrs. Connors, as you come out of Glens Falls, are these houses
on the right or left?
MRS. CONNORS-On the right hand side.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-These would be right near where Mrs. Backon's property?
MRS. CONNORS-Yes. I want to make sure I understand you. Mr. Celeste can not hear very
well. He is hearing impaired. I realize there can't be a grievance, because this is not a tax
per say and it can only be done through the Town Board. Is there another public hearing on
that or is this it, on perhaps getting a parcel of land looked at?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-This is the only public hearing that is necessary to amend the low as its
been proposed. If the Board wants to engage in further amendments, they would have to hold
another public hearing before they could settle them in the law.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-You should know that we are working on refinements of this for next
year. This, that we have this year, is a little bit more refined then lost year. We ore looking
at other Towns and Villages to see how the some kind of concern has been addressed in other
places.
MRS. CONNORS-That is to say that this will be looked at then, a parcel of land that is really
landlocked?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The question and concern will be looked at but I don't know if that
will make any difference in this years tax.
AIRS. CONNORS-1 understand that.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Perhaps for future tax. Mrs. Backon was here and raised a familiar
concern. Others have come in, others have phoned, I've got a long list. I haven't read the
entire document yet, of other concerns. Those are all going to be looked at. I don't know
if that will have an impact on this years sewer rent, I've got to keep that straight.
A MRS. CONNORS-Yes, I understand that.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We did look at all these things when we had the original public hearing,
back, I believe was in January.
AIRS. CONNORS-1 think most of us didn't realize the impact at the time.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-There is a couple of concerns. Most of it is in my ward, so I'm really
sensitive to it. I have to come and knock on your door sometime this year and so I'm very
sensitive to it. I guess firstly, we tried to address the open space if you will, the wetlands
and try to resolve that. That is a very tough situation. There are some parcels of land that
are nine, twenty acres, five acres, that are totally within the wetland designation which means
there ability to be developed is pretty slim. It doesn't say that they can't be but they have
to go through a pretty expensive process of justifying what they want to do, to the Department
of Environmental Conservation to get a permit to do that. If you will, similar to something
that Earltown or Quaker-Ridge is trying to do, the process they are doing. The next phase
of lots to look at, we are trying to address that in an orderly way with this meeting tonight.
The next phase is that there are a group of people that have what you might call land locked
parcels, very similar to yours. It might be nice to have two acres in your back yard and know
that you have control and destiny over what goes in your back yard. But now you are being
penalized to a degree because you are being taxed on that. So that, can we look at reducing
that and looking at the parcels individually. That has to be a thought that is going through
are minds.
MRS. CONNORS-This particular parcel is a separate parcel. It is-not part of...
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-1 guess one of the things that we have to look at as the Town Board,
is go out and look, I think we do a field job, is it saleable. I mean, can you, can your children
who may not appreciate the fact that you wanted that forever wild, sell that, and is it
developable because it is now on sewer. That is a question and does that make it worth more.
Again, that is a question we have to look at.
MRS. CONNORS-That is a question I wish you could approach for this particular parcel.
128
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Lastly, there are some parcels that are on rock. The houses are
actually built on rock. In my neighborhood there is one, and the fella has gone to the extent
of getting some estimates of what it would cost to hook in. Well it is going to be very expensive,
in the range of twenty thousand dollars. He says, I want the ability to be in the sewer district,
I don't want to be written out of it, but if I'm not going to use it for the time being, is there
an exception. Again we are looking at something like that, that no way when the engineers
put the thing together, the last of their concern was, who was land locked. They were thinking
of how we are going to put the pipe in the ground, how we are going to save work. Now we
are down to the nitty gritty where Steve Borgos and Ron hlontesi and the rest of the Board
are accountable to you, the constituents, and we are going to try and work it out. I think we
have to come and look at the parcels.
MRS. CONNORS-Yes, I would like you to come and look at the parcel in question and thank
you very much for your explanation.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-1 look at this particular lot, it is really ironic that there assessed
value is one thousand dollars and yet we wont to charge him on the acreage, $467.00. That
is pretty ironic figures.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-That is two hundred dollars for an acre.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Fifty percent of total assessed evaluation. Unless of course the
assessment is low. That is always a possibility. Not too many places in O,ueensbury that you
con get two acres for a thousand bucks. But it is land locked. You own the land adjoining,
Mr. Celeste owns land adjoining that, correct?
MRS. CONNORS-His land is behind four homes.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-But he owns land between that land locked parcel and Ridge Road.
MRS. CONNORS-Yes.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-So technically it is a bock yard, it is not land locked as such. There
are two separate deeds but still the some ownership.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Do they go down to Meadow Brook Road?
MRS. CONNORS-This is on the other side.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-1 have a comment to make too. I got a phone call this afternoon
from a Mr. Anderson. I know Mrs. Monahan had talked with him. He had basically the some
concern too. He owns nine plus acres, a// designated wetland, and his estimated tax, or not
his estimated tax, but his tax was a little better than two thousand dollars. That was brought
to my attention also and that is all in the wetlands.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-The other irony of this, we are saying on one hand, we want to
see green area stay in this Town, we don't want lands to be developed, and yet we are taxing
people so that they've got to do something about it.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-We are not saying you can't develop on the wetlands area. It is
feasible to do it but...
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We are saying as Town policy, if you look what is going on in the
Planning Department through the Environmental permission and rules and regulations we are
coming up with, the policy of this Town is that we do not want development there. Yet on
the other hand we are taxing people so that they've got to do something with it. It is kind
of like, all levels of government, it doesn't seem like the right hand and the left hand work
together, and I think it is about time, maybe this is o good time, to jump in and start doing
that.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The only good thing that I see is still, as we look at these sewer rents,
they seem to be within the range that was originally predicted many years ago. So between --
three hundred and six or seven hundred dollars for the typical homeowner, which is a lot of
money but its in the range that was projected, and I think that is a saving grace.
BRIAN HARRISON, 329 Ridge Rood-1 would like to extend the invitation of inviting you all
to Ridge Road. I'm well beyond your typical range because of acreage that is in the back of
my house.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-How large is your parcel?
129
MR. HARRISON-It is 2.83 acres. If you look at your sub-division regulations, as well as the
difference that the change, the recent change in density for the area, you will discover that
in order to put a road in my property in order to get access to the back two acres, you'd have
to tear down a barn. I suppose the argument could be made that there might be some economic
motivation for someone to do that in the future, some ensuing generation or something like
that.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You think you can conform to tearing down that barn, getting
your fifty feet on the road and having the set backs your supposed to have for your residents?
MR. HARRISON-It would be real tough. To make a long story short, the land isn't land locked
by any stretch of imagination. it just can't be developed by any other legal forms that you
have already set up and passed. The sub-division regulations wouldn't permit it. I think that
— a lot of us are in the some situation. I border on Mrs. Backon but on the other side and going
up the road, we're all just single family homeowners. We applauded the passing of the new
zoning ordinance because even though I was responsible for increasing density years ago, because
it was the planning thing to do, you've now changed it and lowered the density significantly
which I guess / would applaud that. But if I were going to,try and go to the expense of putting
a road in so that I could subdivide the back two acres of my property. One might conceive
of doing that, to put apartments in, which obviously you couldn't do that, I could put a single
unit in back there or maybe two, I don't know after you'd get finished with the road. So to
make a long story short, I guess I'm asking that the Town have some discretion in this regard.
I realize this is not a typical ... proceeding, I realize that there procedure other then what
we would normally go to. But you've got a whole line of houses that run the entire length of
that road. We'd all like you to come and sit down with us, we'd like to have you walk up the
hill and back down the hill and into the swamp, and get a good idea about what in fact is there.
Because what is there, cannot be developed. In her particular case, her back yard is absolutely
isolated. It has nothing to do with having two deeds. Its got nothing to do with any of that,
it means in order to get to her back yard to subdivide and use it, you've got to put a road through
which you couldn't legally put in without tearing down the house. That's where it stands with
the laws in the Town of Queensbury, and there is nothing wrong with that. I mean I don't want
you to have-substandard roads either. But we're all in that some situation. We've got a lot
of land that you can't do a damn thing with, except for what we liked to do with it. Which
is there, its green, and I go back periodically and do all the things I like to do, like pick berries
and cut down trees and what have you. But it looks nice the way it is but beyond looking nice,
you really can't do anything else with it. What this can have the effect of doing without again
the discretion of the Town Board, it can have the effect of forcing people to figure out some
way to get around to deal with this economic issue. Two-thirds of my tax bill is because of
— the land, okay, in the range of sixty-five percent, is because of this land. Now if I join with
Mrs. Backon and then buy her parcel, and then tear down my barn, and then I can go ahead
and put a road in, go back in along the top of the ridge and probably could get a few lots out
of it and maybe we can figure something economically feasible to do with the property. But
you begin to understand what a convoludet thing it is and you begin to understand that all of
which you are trying to accomplish with your zoning ordinance, it seems to fly in the face
of what you are forcing us to do here. I would appeal to you to take some discretion to do
whatever process that you must do to review this. You have an open invitation to come to
my house any time. I paid forty-five thousand dollars for it about ten years ago, my tax bill
is nine hundred bucks, just for the sewer. That is an increase of about eighty percent on what
I paid last year and two-thirds of that increase is land. I understand the mathematics and
the discretion. I mean I understand all that you went through with the wetlands. I'm appealing
to you to do, is you don't need to consider just me alone, I would like you to consider the whole
neighborhood and check us out. We really do have a ....
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Let me just ask you this. Is any portion of your backyard of that lot
of the property behind your home in DEC designated wetland? You say it goes down the hill
into the swamp, is any of that officially designated wetland?
MR. HARRISON-1 don't think that swamp in the back of the property, most of it is owned by
Albany Engineering, I don't think that is designated wetland. I'm not really sure. Whether
it is designated or not, it is a swamp.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And then it wouldn't be in access of five acres, anyway Steve.
Also we're talking about DEC and the Town eventually I think is going to designate their own
wetlands, when they get it done.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS A lot of the problems we are faced with are things that happened,
I don't want to put it off or pass the buck, but things that happened five years ago during the
course of public hearings when this formula pretty much agreed on. It was never set into law
that we can fined but it was made part of the official report sent to the State Comptroller's
Office. That office has to approve all these districts. It was subject of many public hearings
at that time and it was the subject of a public hearing again a month or two ago. So it is pretty
130
tough to back track and re-convert those at this point for this year.
MR. HARRISON-What would catch people like me by surprise would be the notion that there
would be such a drastic difference between the charge for using water and the charge for owning
land that you can't build on.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Agoin that was part of the original structure of the district. I would
tend to agree with you although people with very expensive homes, on a small piece of land
would rather not see that the rent based on assessed evaluation, they'd rather see it on acreage.
Those with less expensive properties on twenty acres would rather see on assessed evaluation
instead of on acreage. There is a lot of variations and variables to consider here.
MR. HARRISON-Sure and I think what we're talking about is a situation involving a number
of homes, owners all with the some basic problem. Wetlands aren't going to help us Betty
because ... "
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's what I was saying, that is not going to help you one bit.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-In the State of New York you have to have twelve acres before they
would consider that substantial enough to be deemed a wetland.
MR. HARRISON-The hillside is not a wetland anyway.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Brian, I think, what little bit I know about that property through
there without knowing everybodies boundary lines, but we are talking about is people owning
land that is very narrow and deep.
MR. HARRISON-Yes.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Comparatively narrow along the road and the land goes back.
MR. HARRISON-it continues to narrow as it goes back. But if you are looking with your zoning
ordinance to preserve character in your community...
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That was my whole point when I talked about the right hand and
the left hand.
MR. HARRISON-We have property which was called Caffry Hill. Caffry sold the property
to Painter. Painter then, for twenty-five years it was called, Painter's Hill. Well if you go
back there in the winter time, you'll find neighborhood kids now calling it Harrison's Hill.
I feel kind of silly that way, cause I liked Painter's Hill a lot better. But then they thought
it was ridiculous, and they told me they were embarrassed when they heard it called that,
from Caffry's Hill. We are only the fourth owner 1 think of that property since the mid eighteen
hundreds. So it is one of those things where nobody has ever done anything with it before,
and that is kind of why they bought it. Maybe what we really ought to do is have you come
up in the spring, cause we can serve you the asparagus that grows there, berries that grow
there, and the apples that grow there, and everything else that grows there, because that is
the reason we own the property. Thank you very much for your time.
OSCAR SUNDBERG-1 have property on Meadow Brook Road. My question is, your sewer line
goes by three hundred thirty-two feet of my property, is eight hundred feet deep, now is the
sewer district going to put a line eight hundred feet back on the south side of my property
so that it will service my back acreage? Or do I have to do that on my own?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The back side, that runs back from Cronin Road, is that on Meadow
Brook?
MR. SUNDBERG-I'm on Meadow Brood Road, not Cronin. It is bounded by the Halfway Brook
on the North and my father's property on the South.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-As I understand it, we will put the main sewer line down the main
road, anything in the back you would have to do yourself.
MR. SUNDBERG-But you are charging me $227.00 an acre for that.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Again that is because of that formula, that took the total number
of acres in the whole district when the district boundary was created.
MR. SUNDBERG-1 understand that. The lots down there range from one hundred fifty feet
frontage on the house that I just sold, by one hundred twenty-five deep, to seventy-five feet
wide by a hundred feet deep, a hundred twenty by a hundred fifty, and a hundred twenty by
two hundred. Now this lady that has a lot that is seventy-five feet wide and a hundred feet
131
deep, is going to pay less than a quarter of that acreage. And you are telling me that 1 have
to put in my own sewer line to cover mine. If I could put four duplexes in there, if 1 get a
sewer line out there. Otherwise I can't use it, because when I sell those two lots on the road,
I'll be bound...
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-But you are zoned for duplexes?
MR. SUNDBERG-Yes.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-So you could, if you wanted to, you could put four duplexes, and then
you'd have a sewer.
MR. S UNDBER G-I f the variance would go through.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Are you zoned for duplexes or do you have to have a variance?
MR. S UNDBER G-Have a variance to put duplexes in.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You have one now, or you have to get one?
MR. S UNDBER G-You'd have to get one.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So you are zoned for single family residences.
MR. SUNDBERG-No, its the other one, suburban residential.
SUPERVISOR B OR G OS-Suburban Residential, one acre.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-What is he zoned for David, do you know off the top of your head?
AIR. HA TIN, Director of Building & Codes-Single Family Residential, probably single family,
duplexes may be allowed through site plan or he may need a rvariance, I'm not sure, I don't
have it in front of me.
MR. SUNDBERG-The thing is, if you want to charge me for the whole nine acres, 1 think you
should service it with the sewer yet not at my expense. (change tape)
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-...you own seven acres, are you going to put the lines in for me,
they're going to tell you, if you want to build duplexes back there, you put the lines up to the
roadway.
MR. SUNDBERG-1 agree with you on that and I agree with you on the road but as long as I'm
paying tax, or what do you call it?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Sewer rent.
MR. SUNDBERG-On that back acreage, the district should put the sewer in for me, otherwise
take me out of the district.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-You have now taken that value of property, I mean there is another
argument, its not an argument, there is another way of looking at it. If that property was
wet in the spring or in the summer or certain times of the year, it never would have supported
septic tanks. With sewers now, it has become, if you will, a developable parcel of land and
its value has increased appreciatively. I mean, if there is seven acres and its across from
Regency Park and its potentially could be multi-family, gee the value of that land has increased
with the accessibility of having a sewer.
MR. SUNDBERG-Not if you can't get to it.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-That was your choice to sell the front parcel.
MR. SUNDBERG-If I've got to pay the two hundred on all of it, I'm going to sell the front lots
off, and not bother about the back, and then it won't be accessible any more. Its got to have
a sewer in there to be worth anything and its not worth $227.00 an acre to keep it just because
it is land. It was alright when we were only paying six hundred dollars a year tax on it. But
you since you've gone to this new system, one acre lots and all, you've raised the taxes up.
It is getting so that you can't afford to keep it. Its been in the family since 1937. If you are
not going to service it then I don't think we should be in the sewer district. Its just another
thing for you to look at.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We certainly will.
13,E
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-1 think you're zoned RR5.
MR. SUNDBERG-What does that mean?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Multi-family residential, five thousand square feet.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-It shows about seven or eight houses on Cronin Road and it does
go up Meadow Brook Road, maybe to your old house, or where your Dad keeps, where you've
got the Hutmobile.
MR. SUNDBERG-Yes, but I'm above that. I'm up next to the Brook.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Okay, then you are single family residential.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-There is a lot of brook there. I think you are going to find that,
if he applies to, for any kind of subdivision, the lots are going to restrict on that. I doubt if
you are going to get one per acre, when you look at the constraints.
MR. SUNDBERG-No, you can't get one per acre. I'll be lucky if I can get six houses in there,
if I could get the sewer to run...
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-This is the kind of information we need to make some decisions. I'm
sure we'll hear some more before the day is over.
MR. SUNDBERG-Okay thank you. I do want to make that clear now, if that goes in, 1 have
to put it in myself?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-As things stand right now, I don't see that that is going to change.
Individuals who own property have to run the line from their home or other dwelling out to
the main road.
MR. SUNDBERG-Okay thank you.
MICHAEL SHANNON-1 don't reside in the Town of Queensbury, however I am the property
manager out of Latham, New York for Regency Park Apartments. The reason I'm here, I think
we understand the various assessments now based upon the acreage and the assessed value
of the property. Where we are taking real exception would be with the usage rates. i think
there was some over sight here the time that this particular system was drawn up in regard
to the usage for apartments in comparison to a typical single family residential dwelling.
The way that you are currently set up, it appears to me, if I understand it properly, there is
a flat fifty dollar charge for each household, for the first seventy-five thousand gallons of
usage.
SUPERVISOR BORCOS-That is on the operation and maintenance side.
MR. SHANNON-Also on the recovery.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Yes, fifty and fifty.
MR. SHANNON-So basically if a single family home, again if I understand this properly, does
not exceed seventy-five thousand gallons in usage, then he pays a hundred dollars.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Correct.
MR. SHANNON-Okay. The problem that we are finding here, with the apartments, is that
you have us down at a commercial rate not the residential rate. What that does is right from
the very beginning per thousand gallons of usage, forget about flat rate, there is none, we're
looking at $2.53 per thousand for the capital improvement and then $2. 18 per thousand for
the operation and maintenance. That is a total of $4.71 per thousand.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Mike, if we said, / guess what I'm saying, we said you are one water
customer, Regency Park, when you say we have you as a commercial, we pretty much designated,
there is only one water meter, that's what we're reading there?
MR. SHANNON-Well there are several meters. Each building as two as a matter of fact.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-So there is a way of subdividing it down.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-But we have no way of knowing which...
MR. SHANNON-There is a way to break it down by building. The thing is every building is
multiple ,',amily housing. Okay, the only exception to that at all is the office building and club
133
house. Which basically services one men's room, one woman's room.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-But your residents don't receive any bills from us for water.
MR. SHANNON-They do not. We receive the bills but in return obviously we have to reflect
that in additional rent.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-In. the town house, and we went through this discussion a week ago,
that's properly residential, is that correct?
TOWN ATTORNEY-That is my understanding.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Each homeowner in a town house, condominium situation would be
billed individually.
MR. SHANNON-Yes, they would have their own meter. Our problem is this, based on your
fifty dollar rate, okay, right now a residential customer in their home, if they don't see the
seventy-five thousand, and most will not, some will, but most will not, they will pay what works
out to sixty-seven cents a thousand, if they use all seventy-five, we're going to be paying $2.53.
Then again they'll pay sixty-seven cents on the operational and maintenance, we'll be paying
$2. 78. What this means to the residents in our apartment community is an astronomical increase.
We are talking about...
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I have a note here, it says about twenty or twenty-five dollars a month.
Is that correct? This note was given to me this afternoon.
MR. SHANNON-It could mean that much of an increase in rent if everything were passed along,
that is correct. The problem that we have, as we are looking at it, is the residential customer
single family home, again, not exceeding seventy-five thousand, .would pay a hundred dollars
in usage. We're talking about the average apartment, and we have two hundred ninety-six
of those, would be paying $353.25 based on the some scenario. Better than three times as
much.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-You would be happy and satisfied if your apartment was considered
residential rather than commercial.
MR. SHANNON-We certainly would be heading in the right direction. But in all truth, it goes
beyond that too, to some degree. We have found, if you take a look at our water bills, which
is what you are going to base the sewer charges on anyway, we average, if you take all 296
units, we average just under forty thousand gallons per apartment. That is close to twelve
million gallons that Regency Park will have used. Now, the average home obviously is going
to be higher. Our average apartment is occupied by somewhere in the neighborhood of two
point one individuals. The average home is probably in Queensbury, I don't know, three and
a half.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Three.
MR. SHANNON-1 would imagine somewhere in there. Plus they'll be pumping a lot of water
on their lawn and this type of thing if they don't have their own well points. There is definitely
a difference here.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Mike, two things. You don't wash your car out of your apartments,
that is one. You don't water your lawns. How about washer and dryers in the apartments?
MR. SHANNON-We do have washer and dryers, coin operated.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Individual apartments?
MR. SHANNON-Not in the individual apartments. No.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-That is why you are down to forty thousand per family.
MR. SHANNON-Thats right. Its actually, I think it will work out to around thirty-nine six,
thirty-nine seven, something like that.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-When we sent you the sewer bill, we sent you a sewer bill that said,
a third based on value, a third based on water flow, twelve million gallons, and we said in essence
we are going to charge you right from the beginning, whatever the water flow rate...
MR. SHANNON-The commercial rate.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I'm not looking for a compromise, I'm looking for an administratively,
134
a way to do this. What if you went on that, every meter that you have there, you considered
that, well that wouldn't work either...
MR. SHANNON-Well again, each meter. Let me try and explain it this way. Each building,
we have two different phases to the property and each building in phase one was a little different
then in phase two. But you have between twenty-three and twenty-four apartments, excuse
me, between twenty-two and twenty-four apartments in one building and twenty-four in phase
two. Now, what I have found is that, you have a meter on each side of each building. In other
words there are two entry ways into the building and there is a meter on each side. Okay,
so basically we have eleven buildings so we have twenty-two meters plus there is a meter for
the clubhouse as well. Which again is not all used. Any meter that is there, is for multifamily
housing use. So it really doesn't have to be broken down, you know it is going to the apartments.
That is all that is in the building.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Okay, even though this hearing was called to discuss specific
amendments, and you are not talking about a specific amendment that was part of this, I'm
certainly happy to listen to this.
}
MR. SHANNON-Well, I do have that also. Just very briefly, I don't have to elaborate on it.
We have actually three different tax bills on that property. One of which is on the eighteen
acre and that is in the rear of our property which was designated way back in the seventies
for future development. In fact we had our own sewer treatment plant there, which we recently
just de-activated. That had a capacity for double what its being used for. That acreage right
now, I tried to get the papers pulled out of the old files, they were still looking for them when
i had to leave to come up here, but 1 believe if you take a look at that, almost all of the eighteen
acres, from the time Regency Park was built until somewhere around the late seventies, the
State came in and designated it wetland because of the creek along there. So I have the some
concern in that regard as the other people.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-What is the zoning on that? Is that residential or is that something
else?
MR. SHANNON-Well originally it was multifamily. But the thing is, being a wetland right
now, I don't think ....
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-But in respect to the provisions of this proposed amendment.
MR. SHANNON-1 understand that. I'll have to check on that myself.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-There is another concern Mike, that you may want to look a little
bit deeper, is that, property was bought by Regency Park from Mr. Rogers whose subdivision
is on Meadow Drive, Meadow Brook. I live on the backside of him, prior to ... in there, but
when he sold that, the reason why all of that nice wooden area behind Regency Park exists
is that I think there is a restrictive conversant on keeping that a multifamily separate from
the single family residential on the other side of the hill. You may find there is some restrictions
in there, actually further your argument about its not ability to develop.
MR. SHANNON-We will have our attorney look into that for us.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I think there is a restrictive covenant that went with the deed from
Mr. Rogers. He owned the subdivision too, to develop.
MR. SHANNON-1 really think that the wetland provision alone though, if I'm correct on that,
and I'm almost certain on that, is going to lend that land...very difficult to develop anyway.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. Who will be next. Question is, what would you like us
to do. I think you would like us to include your land as part of, that vacant land as part of
that which would be excluded from the sewer charge. Is that correct?
MR. SHANNON-Yes.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-One hundred dollars an apartment...
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-He'd like the commercial nature of that property be changed to
residential because of its use.
MR. SHANNON-Just to address that particular question, okay. When you say the hundred
dollar per residential, again that is certainly heading in the right direction. But I would like
some thought given to the fact that the average apartment dweller does not use the some
amount of water as the average single family home owner.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-On the other hand, there are some single family homes, that are
lived in by a little old lady, who never does her washing... 135
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Or a little old man. Older, older.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-If we are going to stuff like that, we're going to be looking at
every single resident in this town...
MR. SHANNON-It could easily be viewed just by seeing what the average single family home
water bill has been compared to our apartments. That is all.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. Who will be next. We are here to listen.
JOHN R USSO-I reside outside of Queensbury. I own property off of Sanford Street, back off
of Windy Hill Ridge Development. A small part of that expands into Queensbury. I have a
map here, may I show it to you?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Sure.
AIR. R USSO-(Presented map, pointed out lot)
SUPERVISOR BORCOS-Do you have a home here?
MR. R USSO-No I don't, this is a vacant lot.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Just a vacant lot. How wide is this?
MR. R USSO-Fifty feet.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Whot is the acreage here?
MR. RUSSO-... in Glens Falls and 1.8 in Queensbury. ...it is land locked, there is no way the
sewer can come in...we are serviced from Glens Falls sewer.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Anything here would be served by the Glens Falls Sewer district. You
are another one of these on the line situations.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Windy Hill is that sewered by the City?
MR. R USSO-Yes, by Glens Falls.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That is a section we haven't looked at before. We've looked at Meadow
Brook and Fort Amherst. Could we have a copy of this?
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-He could never hook in back here. The only way he could do is
here and this land in the Town of Queensbury sits behind these building and lots that are already
built on.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-1 would like to ask the Town Clerk to make a copy of this for our records.
But we see your situation sir.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-That is one of the easier ones.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-You would like that parcel to be exempted.
MR. R USSO-1 pay taxes on the property, I pay school tax but the sewer there is no way, no
practical way the sewer line from Queensbury would get there, and we are serviced by Glens
Falls. I would like to be excluded from the sewer tax on this.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. Every time we look at a different parcel, we see something
new. There aren't two that are the same. Anyone else? Last call for the public hearing related
to the proposed amendments to the sewer rent law. Seeing no other hands, does the Board
have anything to say? I would recommend that where as we normally would entertain a
resolution a little bit later in this meeting, to approve the amendments, either pass it not pass
it, I propose that we not act at this meeting because of so many details that have come to
us. I would expect that in the next several there certainly or early next week, we are going
to have a special Town Board meeting, based on the amount of work that is piled up in the
office. At that time, perhaps we can discussed.more and take some action.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I would suggest Steve perhaps, because this is going to take a lot
of time, that perhaps we should have a workshop, just devoted to this one subject and not try
to push it in with a lot of other things. I think there are a lot of things that we need to look
at in this area of Town. That's what makes Queensbury what it is, no piece of property is like
136
any other piece of property.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-My only concern with that is that we sent the bills out. We have to
have the revenue in by the end of March in order to avoid the penalties. So we have to have
some type of decision prior to that time. As we look toward ....
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-When in March?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The end of March. So we sent them out in February, they are due
by the end of March without penalty. After that there will be a penalty. As we look towards
next year, and as we're working with Paul and a couple of specialist in this area, to a new low,
then we can spend more time.
1
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That is when I'm talking about, when we really have to look at —
this in depth.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-1 think even for this year we have to make some decisions. I'd like
to make those within a week, to give people adequate time to know how much they will owe.
But certainly after that, it will take a full workshop. '
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I'm assuming because I'm looking at one here that says the due
date is 2-28-89 and the gentleman paid it 2-23-89, so I'm assuming any changes would be that
they are going to get a rebate, if their property is the type of property that these changes
affect.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-It is my understanding that if people already paid their bill and the
property is impacted favorably, there will be a refund. But people actually have until the
end of March to pay this without penalty.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Steve can I suggest too? We solved a very, what could have been
a very serious, very easily by meeting and going up to the Dixon Heights Development, over
a road problem. It may be conducive to perhaps meet and hop in one of the vans and look at
some of these problems, the Ridge Street problem, Windy Hill, the map was self explanatory,
but it probably would take maybe a half an hour, forty-five minutes in a car, looking at the
problem rather two or three hours discussing something, we haven't seen.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-1 have a Town vehicle large enough to take the media with us. We
can do that. Let me just check the calendar and we'll call everybody and make an announcement
when we have such a meeting. But we'll do it fairly soon. Okay we'll call that public hearing
to a close.
Close Public Hearing
PUBLIC HEARING - Amendment Ordinance No. 28
5:20 P.M.
NOTICE SHOWN "
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Without going into all the legal nitty gritty of this one. This is the
public hearing related to the installation of four-way stop at the intersection of Fort Amherst
Road and North Road. For the last year and a half or two years, I'm sure all the members
of the Town Board have received letters addressed to all of us from residents of Fort Amherst
Road attempting to get a four-way stop in place. About a year ago this Town Board did act
as best as we thought we could at that time to place legislation that would enable us to put
one stop sign headed westerly at the intersection. It was our impression at that time that
the road was half in the City of Glens Falls and half in the Town of Queensbury and therefore
we didn't have the ability to put in another stop sign. We've checked again very carefully,
very recently have found essentially 98, 99 percent of the intersection is in indeed in the Town
of Queensbury. I was out there myself this afternoon with Mr. Naylor and we saw the surveyor's
spikes that are in the ground now designating the line between the City and the Town. My
agreement with the City of Glens Falls, the Town now has the authority to install on City
property if the Town Board so desires, a stop sign which would create that as a four-way stop
intersection. 1 suppose we could talk for a long time and you're certainly welcome to if you
wish, about the value of putting the signs there. I personally am satisfied that that value is
there for a number of reasons. This is a public hearing, you are welcome to speak in short —
form or at length if you wish, either for or against. I'll just indicate that at least for myself
I am decided already, I certainly am in favor of the stop sign. As for as I'm concern this is
a formality. But we certainly will listen to everyone and we'll start anywhere you'd like.
PLINEY TUCKER, Queensbury-I'm going to be the devil's advocate on this thing. To clear
the air, I love children. I've got children of my own. I've got grandchildren. 1 was a kid once,
a long time ago. But I believe this subject came up, three or four months ago. A lot of publicity
in the paper. The chief of police in Glens Falls said to create a four-way stop at this intersection
137
was illegal. I believe our own Highway Superintendent at that time, said that the State of
New York will not allow four-way stops unless there is a certain amount of traffic goes through
these intersections in a, I believe it was an hour. I believe the figure we're talking with was
four to six hundred.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-1 think the numbers I've seen are three thousand per day, i believe.
I think we can save everybody time and effort because I've read the some thing you've read
and I've heard the some thing you've heard, I asked our Town Attorney to do a little bit of
research, spoke with him earlier this afternoon and I think he has an answer for us.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-My approach was first of all, look at the law, the vehicle and traffic law.
I can give you the section, 1660. Actually authorizes the Town to install traffic signs at that
type of intersection. Now, that is where I first found the authority. But I also heard the some
thing that you are mentioning, that various people were saying, well it is illegal and there
-- is certain problems with it, you can't use it for speed control, you've got to have a certain
amount of traffic going through before you turn into a stop sign. Well one of the things I did
was call DOT, and ask them if there is anything that prevents the Town from doing this. They
said no, they didn't think so. So I continue to pursued it, and with the help of Paul Naylor's
office, we found where that came from. There is a DOt or Department of Transportation
handbook that gives certain criteria for which communities can judge whether or not to put
in a stop sign at different intersections. Their recommendation is that the stop sign should
not be installed as a traffic control device sort to speak, for speeding purposes. But I noted
immediately that the word should was in there. I also noted the fact that this is in a handbook,
which is recommendations by DOT, but certainly not the low. The law itself clearly gives
the Town the power. DOT sets forth standards, which are persuasive and should be looked
at but they're not the sole governing rule. So it is my opinion to this Town Board that I could
find nothing that prohibits this stop sign absolutely under the law. That they do have discretion
here and that they do have the power if they so choose to put a stop sign at that intersection.
MR. TUCKER-There won't be any liability on the part of the Town? This is your legal opinion?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Liability for who t?
MR. TUCKER-Well I mean, if the stop sign isn't legal and somebody don't stop, how should
I put this, a sharpy lawyer gets a hold of it, those guys are around, that we're not going to
be hung out to dry. That was my concern.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-The bad thing about the way things are today, is that I can't guarantee
that we'll never be sued on this. One way or another. We can be sued if we don't put it up,
we can be sued if we do put it up. Because anybody can sue anybody at any time. Now whether
or not they are going to win is a different case. A lot of it though is due to a particular case,
the fact of time, etcetera. At this moment, as I view it, I can not see the Town being liable
just putting a stop sign up. I can see the other side, if you could argue the facts stronger
perhaps then this side. But even that side I can't see under these circumstances. But I find
no, I just don't see anything. But can I guarantee you that we won't be sued? No. There is
always that possibility.
MR. TUCKER-1 know being sued, but are we going to lose? That is what I'm interested in.
A T TOR NE Y D USEK-1 don't think so.
MR. TUCKER-1 know you people know this, there is a lot of intersections similar to this one.
I building at the present time in Hidden Hills, we have two there. That is becoming crossroads
between Dixon Road and Sherman Avenue, people using it. My question on the thing is, is
this. You people will do this anywhere in the Town?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-1 don't know what the rest of the Board feels, but anytime someone
has the request, we'll certainly will look at it. I was thinking the other day as I drove across
Western Avenue in Glens Falls as I drove across, Crandall Street, Glens Falls, almost every
block you've got a stop sign, four-way stop. It takes me a little longer, but there is no problem
with it. I certainly wouldn't like to see them on every cross roads in the Town of Queensbury.
MR. TUCKER-1 know it is a terrible thing, this little girl was killed there at Fort Amherst.
There was a stop sign. The man ran through the stop sign. We had a case with Betty and
Sunnyside Road up there, with the red light. But people do not obey these things. Things are
still going to happen. That red light hanging up there on Bay Road and Sunnyside Rood, ain't
going to stop a sole if they don't put their foot on the break. Its the same way with these stop
signs.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That wasn't really the some kind of thing, Pliney, somebody turned
right on red and somebody else side swiped them. I think that is a case where maybe we want
to look and see if we can get a sign there, no right on red, as you come south. It is pretty
138
dangerous doing that, I discovered.
MR. TUCKER-As long as there isn't any liability, as far as the Town is concerned. I wouldn't
be here talking if I hadn't been here at the other meeting before this all happened. Thank
you.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-One of the reasons for putting a four-way there, to also is because
the other street adjacent to it, parallel to it, has the four-way stop and everybody now is trying
to use Fort Amherst as kind of a speed way to avoid the other street. So you have that problem
which the people in Fort Amherst knew they we're going to have when the four-way stops went
up on the other side.
JANE WILSHERE-1 live on the Glens Falls side of Fort Amherst Road. 1 want to thank the
Board for approving the stop sign, the four-way stop sign. We've been trying to get it for about
a year and a half. I'd also like the Board to become aware of the fact that there is no 30 mile
an hour speed limit sign from the Bay side, Queensbury side coming from Bay Road to Fort
Amherst. We'd like the Board to consider putting up some kind of weight limit sign on a
residential street that is now, I know the the stop sign will help a lot of the public safety type
things, but I think that there are a lot of over tonnage trucks, Queensbury and Glens Falls,
Coors, Pepsi, those kind of tractor trailers, Red Star Express, using that street that was not
meant to be used for heavy traffic. I myself and family would really appreciate it if you could
look into that. Also that an area that was originally made as a residential area, is used as
a cut through, so that we have really developed an awful lot of traffic. Thank you very much.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. I will say that Mr. Naylor and 1, and I'm not sure if Mr.
Missito was at the meeting with Department of Transportation people and the State Police,
several months ago and they are currently conducting a survey of the entire Town. Most of
the Town will go to, Paul correct me, 30 miles an hour. Almost all of the Town will be 30
miles an hour on the residential streets. I don't believe that sign posting will be necessary
then. Mr. Naylor might want to speak about that. By the way- we welcome him back from
some major surgery a few weeks ago. He looks better then ever and younger.
PAUL NAYLOR, Superintendent of Highway-Your right, we haven't heard back from them.
Secondly, as you seen what we had today down there, so its going to be a little sticky. Do
you know what I mean? I don't want to give no lawyers no edge that they don't have to work
for and I'll leave it at that.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We now know exactly where the boundary is, where the boundary line
is on paper, between the City of Glens Falls and the Town of Queensbury.
MR. NAYLOR-We have no control of the City side. So that speed limit, may not be any good.
SUPERVISOR BORCOS-That is correct but we're all neighbors and friends.
MR. NAYLOR-Okay. So that side may not be done by a resolution. So if that speed limit
is no good, it means they could go 55 miles an hour down through there.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-What is the speed limit in the City? Is it 30?
MRS. WILSHERE-Yes, 30. It is posted on the Glens Falls side, but there is no postage on the
either side.
MR. NAYLOR-We haven't done our side. What they've got there is just one at North Road,
just that intersection is good, from there on its all ours.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We can check our records to see if its been designated for 30 miles
an hour and if the ground ever unfreezes, maybe we could put one up. I do expect based on
what the Department of Transportation, State Police said, I think you're going to see all the
developed sections in Town, 30 miles an hour.
MR. NA YL OR-We're hoping.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But I don't know if that is going to solve the problem, Steve, because
what is happening in the Town of Queensbury, that a good many streets that should be residential
streets have become collector roads and that is a traffic management type of thing that this
Town has got to deal with I think in designation of roads. I think the Planning Department
is probably working on that. I know its come up for the Advisory Board of the new master
plan. This is a serious problem in this Town.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-1 was just looking at my watch and twenty-four hours ago I was driving
on a road many miles from here, and I got quite a lesson in planning. I am certainly on the
side of those who favor controlling traffic and putting traffic in the right place the right way
139
because where I was, it wasn't controlled, it was a mess.
MR. NAYLOR-The biggest problem we're going to have down there now is enforcement.
cop is going to do the arresting. Which
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-We have put a tonnage limit on Garrison Road.
MR. NA YL OR-Its a local law. That's no big deal, you can pass that if you want.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-When we did do that...
AIR. NA YL OR-You shipped them to the next street.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I don't mean to say that the complaints stopped, I heard less from
the people their about trucks going through. So maybe we did shift them.
MR. NA YL OR-You just moved them on down. Remember when we set Garrison Road and
I said you are just going to keep pushing them down, and that is just what its doing.
You just put it to another street. Then it will go to Webster.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Well they won't go to Webster because that is such a tough street
to get around with that light at the end.
MR. NAYLOR-I think they're going to start going there if its the only way to get out. You
can't get out if you come the other way, they'll run you down.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We'll build a bridge from Bay to Glen. Anyone else that would like
to speak in favor or against?
BILL HUBERT-I live at 625 Glen Street which is at the corner of Fort Amherst and Glen.
On February 20th, a meeting of residents of Fort Amherst Road met and we passed a resolution
asking that Fort Amherst, this resolution is, whereas Fort Amherst Road is not only been serving
as a thru way for passenger vehicles but also for trucks and heavy equipment, that this further
increase is creating an increasing hazard, is hereby resolved respectfully request the Town
of Queensbury to pass a resolution to install a sign at the corner of Fort Amherst and Bay
Roads, weight limit five tons. Now this further to the some because we were just talking about
the fact that Garrison is already posted this way and of course this we feel would be an addition
to help stop the heavy and constantly increasing traffic situation on the street. I did also want
to just simply point out what Mr. Tucker had said that in relationship to this unfortunate accident
which occurred. Several eye witnesses to the accident have stated that Mr. Leland, he was
the driver of the car that came out of North Road, and he did in fact stop at the stop sign,
and in fact the police changed the charge which was originally was failure to stop, to failure
to yield. He simply didn't see the other vehicle coming. I just think that, since the other thing
was a matter of public record, that the public record should also have this put into it. So I
basically, what our feeling is, is that since the street is no longer going to be designated as
a thru way, which is part of the ordinance, and that a stop sign be installed at the corners
of North Road and Fort Amherst and in addition we should look towards reducing the weight
limit. We also had at our meeting, Sergeant Tim Benware, who did discuss very specifically
aspects of law enforcement, speed enforcement and so forth on' the street. He said that it
is his opinion that there is a six hundred foot cross jurisdiction between Glens Falls and the
Town of Queensbury that actually police enforcement was possible by both police agencies
really along the entirety of the street. So l would think that if we can get the street posted
to the 30 mile an hour speed limit, and I would certainly like to know that it is indeed a 30
mile an hour speed limit because on the Glens Falls end of the street it is posted at 30 miles
an hour. So it would be a real irony that if the street had a 30 mile an hour speed limit one
way and 55 mile an hour speed limit at the other end. I certainly think that would a discrepancy
we'd want to correct immediately. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR BOR COS-Thank you very much. We'll check on the speed limit tomorrow I think.
It is not a difficult thing to do. I want to emphasis through out all of this, even last year, we
did what we could do, and this year, the Mayor of the City of Glens Falls and I have met and
have spoken about this many, many times. The Mayor has been extremely supportive of the
four-way stop, has been very much in favor of it and has done everything possible to cooperate
with the Town in this. Just so that you know how he stands on this. I won't speak for him,
I'll just tell you what he has said to me.
MARY ARTHUR BEBEE-1 just thought somebody from the Queensbury side of the street should
stand up too. I live at number 2 Fort Amherst Road which is in Queensbury. I would just like
to add to all the things that have been said there, a point of clarification. One of the reasons
that we're requesting that there be a weight limit on the road, is that there are a lot of sewer
pipes that are presently go underneath the center part of the street. Also storm drains, which
we understand are not designed to bear the weight of heavy truck traffic and will be essentially
140
destroyed or damaged in that process, so it is really important that that consideration be given
some extra thought. Thank you very much.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. I don't know if Mr. Naylor wants to make two speeches
in one evening but do you want to give your weight limit speech.
MR. NAYLOR-Well what we can do, is in the Town, I think it is going to be a local law. Which
is no big deal. But the City side, we have no control of, which is coming from Glen Street.
(SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Drew diagram on chalk board showing the City of Glens Falls and
the Town of Queensbury lines of property) What I've just drawn is the approximate location
of the Town and City line.
MR. NAYLOR-(Refers to diagram) This is the City, this is the Town, so do you see how much
we are talking, in the City? The signs have to be here and one has to be here for the weight —
limit signs. Now we can do this side from the Town but we can't do this side.
MR. HUBERT-That wouldn't make any difference because there is no way a truck can get
into the City without going through Queensbury. '
MR. NAYLOR- All right this is Bay. He can come back.
MR. HUBERT-...He is in violation all the way.
MR. NAYLOR-Yes but are you going to jump out there and stop him? Why I tell you this is
because down there on Meadow Brook Road, a few years back the Town did, they passed the
weight limit law. Sheriff doesn't have time to go down there every five minutes. A gentleman
called me up, said he jumped out in front of a truck driver. The truck driver got out scared,
asked him what was going on. He said, didn't you see that sign down there? He said well
you dumb bell, I ought to beat your head right up and down the road and he almost did. So
the guy ran back in the house and called me for help. 1 said, I'm not going down, you better
call the sheriff. So its tough to enforce. But if the Board wants to put it up and you
unders toed...
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I've got a better alternative Paul, when you see somebody violating
a law like that, you call up motor vehicle, find out whose carrying their liability insurance
and inform the insurance company what they're doing.
MR. NAYL OR-You get involved. You are right.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's the way to do it, get the insurance company involved.
MR. NAYLOR-Its tough to get involved. You've got to get involved, the sheriff said that
Saturday night. Get involved.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Anyone else wish to speak either for or against? Any Board members?
If not we'll call that public hearing to a close and we do have resolution prepared. I'll ask the
clerk to read that at this point.
Close Public Hearing
6:04 P.M.
RESOLUTION TO AMEND ORDINANCE NUMBER 28
RESOLUTION NO. 132, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Marilyn Potenza.
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has received requests to amend certain
provisions contained in Ordinance Number 28 of the Town of Queensbury to eliminate Fort
Amherst as a through highway and to provide a stop intersection at the intersection of Fort
Amherst Road and North Road, and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to Ordinance Number 28 have been prepared and are
annexed hereto, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Safety of the City of Glens Falls, by resolution no. 10, dated
February 6, 1989, has granted permission to place a stop sign at said intersection on City
property, and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is worthy of consideration for legislative action, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 730 of the Town Law of the State of New York, a public hearing
14 .E
on the proposed amendment to Ordinance Number 28 was held on the 28th day of February,
1989, at 4:30 P.M.,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves and adopts the
proposed amended Ordinance Number 28 to read as follows:
AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NUMBER 28
SECTION 1.
Ordinance Number 28 of the Town of Queensbury, establishing through highways and
stop in in the Town of Queensbury, County of Warren, and State of New York, is
hereby amended to: 1) delete Fort Amherst Road from Route 9 to Bay Road as a throughway,
and 2) add as a stop intersection the intersection of Fort Amherst Road and North Road, and
stop signs shall be erected on Fort Amherst Roads at its entrance to said intersection from
east and west on North Road at its entrance to said intersection from north and south.
SECTION 2.
All other provisions of Ordinance Number 28, as presently existing, shall remain the
some and the said ordinance included herein by reference, except that all ordinances or parts
thereof of the Town of Queensbury inconsistent with the provisions of this amendment to the
ordinance are hereby repealed, provided however, that such repeal shall only be to the extent
of such inconsistency and in all other respects this amendment to the ordinance shall be in
addition to the other ordinances regulating and governing the subject matter covered by this
ordinance.
SECTION 3.
This amendment shall take effect 10 days after its publication, posting, and compliance
with Section 1683 (a) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 1989, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Asked Town Clerk how soon publication can occur?
TOWN CLERK DOUGHER-By Saturday, hopefully.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Questioned if there would be any problem because of frost with the
posting of signs.
MR. NA YL OR-One way or another we'll get them posted.
OPEN FORUM
6:07 P.M.
MR. TUCKER-Request an update on the Harris case.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Judge Dier heard the case. It was a non-jury trial. He ruled in favor
of Mr. Harris. He found that the structure that is there is legal and acceptable under the
ordinance, that there was no violation to the zoning ordinance. He also found that the use,
that the premises are being put to is also permissible under the zoning ordinance.
MR. TUCKER-Where do you go from here?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-The Town has the opportunity if they so desire to appeal the case. The
® Town Board in fact at this point, it is my understanding, is considering whether or not to do
that. No decision has been made at this point.
MR. TUCKER-That will be a matter of public record, if the Board does decide?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yes. The Board would pass some sort of resolution to continue the law
suit. A Notice of Appeal has been filed just to preserve rights.
142
MR. TUCKER-Who is going to Japan and why?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Mrs. Potenza is going and the idea is, we hope to encourage some
business relations which could either be increased export from this area or could be some
investment in areas in the Town which could include our Technical Park.
MR. TUCKER-What is it going to cost?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The maximum proposed cost for Mrs. Potenza is fifteen hundred dollars.
MR. TUCKER-Questioned Mr. George Kurosaka's well being.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-1 spoke with him about a week ago and he says he feels pretty good.
It will be several more months at least before he gets back here.
RESOL UTIONS
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MINUTES
k
RESOLUTION NO. 133, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Ronald Montesi.
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the minutes
of January 24th, February 14th and 16th, 1989.
Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 1989, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka
Abstain: Mrs. Monahan (Not present February 14th, meeting)
RESOL UTION TO ACCEPT RESIGNATION
RESOLUTION NO. 134, Introduced by Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Ronald Montesi.
WHEREAS, Mrs. Joyce Eggleston is now serving on the Zoning Board of Appeals, and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Eggleston has submitted her resignation from the Board of Assessment Review,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, to accept Mrs. Eggleston's resignation from the Board of Assessment Review,
effective February 12, 1989, and BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury extends sincere appreciation
for the dedication of Mrs. Eggleston while a member of the Board of Assessment Review.
Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 1989, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka
RESOLUTION REGARDING PETTY CASH FUND
RESOLUTION NO. 135, Introduced by Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Marilyn Potenza.
WHEREAS, the Department of Building and Codes for the Town of Queensbury presently has
in existence a petty cash fund for use by the Department of Building and Codes for the payment
in advance of audit, of properly itemized and verified or certified bills for materials, supplies,
or services furnished to the Town of Queensbury for the conduct of its affairs, and
WHEREAS, the Director of Building and Codes has requested an increase in the amount of
said petty cash fund from $100.00 to $200.00, and
WHEREAS, such petty cash funds are provided for under §64 of the Town Law, 143
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the petty cash fund of the Department of Building and Codes be increased
from the present amount of $100.00 to an amount of $200.00, for payment, in advance of audit,
of properly itemized and verified or certified bills for materials, supplies, or services furnished
to the Town for the conduct of its affairs and upon terms calling for payment to the vendor
upon the delivery of any such materials or supplies or the rendering of any such services.
Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 1989, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka
RESOLUTION APPROVING AND ACCEPTING EASEMENT OF,THEODORE P. ZOLI, JR.
RESOLUTION NO. 136, Introduced Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Marilyn Potenza.
WHEREAS, there exists in the Town of Queensbury, the Central Queensbury Quaker Road
Sewer District, and
WHEREAS, it is necessary in furtherance of the development of said Central Queensbury Quaker
Road Sewer District, to acquire easements and right-of-ways for purposes of installing and
maintaining sewer pipe for said sewer district, and
WHEREAS, a proposed right-of-way and easement has been offered by Theodore P. Zoli, Jr.,
with an addendum requiring agreement and execution by the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, on behalf of the said sewer district,
has reviewed said proposed easement and addendum thereto,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, on behalf of the Central
Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District, hereby approves and accepts said easement and
addendum to the some, offered by Theodore P. Zoli, Jr., and hereby authorizes the Town
Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury to execute the some on behalf of the Town of Queensbury,
and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town Attorney shall arrange for the filing of said right-of-way and
easement upon execution by the Town Supervisor.
Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 1989, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Noted that these type of easements are never usually presented to the
Town Board. They're simply obtained from the individuals that filed. In this particular case
it is necessary to present it to the Town Board because Mr. Zoli has attached an addendum
to the easement which requires an agreement by the Town, therefore the Town Board, therefore
the signature of the Supervisor. There are basically three conditions on that addendum. One
is that the Town will not interrupt the ingress and eggress, so that they will be able to ingress
and egress over the top of the sewer line. The second one being that they could put pavement
on it. The third being that we'll provide a six inch service which gives the ability to connect
to the pipe where it passes in front of grantor's property. This is something to be installed,
it is not yet, the pipe is in but the connector is not.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Has this been run by the engineer on the sewer project?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-That is how I investigated it. Yes.
144
COMM UNICATIONS
BID OPENING - Water Department, Brass and Copper
COPPER
F.W. Webb Co. $9,964.00
Non-Collusive
Vellano Brothers, Inc. $9,627.20
Non-Collusive
L & C Municipal Sales $10, 736.40
Non-Collusive
R amsco $70,645.60
Non-Collusive
BRASS
Vellano Brothers, Inc. $10,761.81
Non-Collusive
F.W. Webb Co. $11,364. 92
Non-Collusive
L & C Municipal Sales $11,494.00
Non-Collusive
Ramsco $10,863.89
Non-Collusive
L tr. of recommendation from Water Dept. on file
RESOL UTION TO ACCEPT BID
RESOLUTION NO. 137, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Betty Monahan.
WHEREAS, the Director of Purchasing for the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York,
duly advertised for bids for service connection materials, brass and copper, pursuant to Town
of Queensbury Water Department Specifications, and
WHEREAS, the firm of Vellano Bros. submitted the lowest bid for the service connection
materials, brass and copper, copies of the tabulation sheets being attached hereto,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, hereby
awards the contract for service connection materials, brass and copper, to Vellano Bros., per
Town of Queensbury Water Department specifications.
Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 1989, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosako
BID OPENING - Highway Department, Tow Type Sweeper
Adirondack Highway Materials $7, 105.50 for one model
$6,754.87 for two
Non-Collusive
L tr of recommendation from Highway Dept. on file
RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT BID
RESOLUTION NO. 138, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded
145
by Ronald Montesi.
WHEREAS, the Director of Purchasing for the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York,
duly advertised for bids for one (1) tow type sweeper, pursuant to Town of Queensbury Highway
Department Specifications, and
WHEREAS, the firm of Adirondack Highway Materials submitted the lowest bid for the one
(1) tow type sweeper, a copy of the tabulation sheet being attached hereto,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, hereby
awards the contract for one (1) tow type sweeper to Adirondack Highway Materials, per Town
of Queensbury Highway Department specifications.
Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 1989, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosako
MR. HATIN-Request the Town Board to consider scheduling the public hearing for the fee
schedule in the Building Department. Noted his concern with getting the fee schedule instituted
before the busy season.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-1 still have concerns that I would like to take the time to investigate
further with the Town Attorney.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Reported on the Association of Towns meeting, attended by Dave
Hatin, Lee York, Councilwomen Potenza, myself, Paul Dusek Town Attorney, Caroline Mitchell,
Deputy Clerk, J. Dave Little ....the biggest issue that came before the Town Board was solid
waste and trash burning...water and sewer discussion were held regarding funding there were
also seminars on planning and the impact fees...each of us got a great deal out of the sessions.
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION
RESOLUTION NO. 139, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza:
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into executive
session to discuss : 1. performance of professional services by a specific firm, Kestner
Engineering 2. personnel related to the selection of a new employee to review resume's 3.
personnel related to para-legal selection and 4. personnel related to Recreation Commission.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosoka
On motion the meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED,
Miss Darleen M. Dougher
Town Clerk-Town of Queensbury