Loading...
1990-02-26 193 TOWN BOARD MEETING FEBR UAR Y 26, 1990 7:40 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN BOR GOS-SUPER VISOR GEORGE KUROSAKA-COUNCILMAN MARIL YN POTENZA-COUNCILMAN) RONALD MONTESI-COUNCILMAN BETTY MONAHAN-COUNCILMAN TOWN ATTORNEY PAUL D USEK TOWN OFFICIALS — PAUL NAYLOR, RICK MISSITA, LEE YORK, KATHLEEN KATHE PRESS: Channel 8, G.F. Post Star PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN MONAHAN SUPERVISOR BORGOS noted that the West Mountain Villages, Inc. PLanned Unit Development was approved during tonight's previous meeting held at 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING - Proposed Local Law regarding establishment of Moratorium 7:42 P.M. NOTICE SHOWN SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The last time, one of the last times we met, we talked about attempts of the Town Board to try to have a compromise solution to keep everybody happy in the West Glens Falls section along Corinth Road so that those people who look for rezoning out there, can get that rezoning as soon as possible. Those people, particularly those on Stephanie Lane who want some type of protection for their investment can also be satisfied. Through mostly, through Mr. Kurosaka's suggestion, we came up with the possibility of a moratorium on certain uses specifically in that zone, specifically in that part of Town, not Town wide. We've advertised for people to come to this public hearing to express their points of view related to that. The last time we met most people thought that was a good idea and we have to now officially conduct a public hearing. So if anyone would like to speak at this time for or against or ask questions about the proposed moratorium, please step forward to the microphone, please state your name and address and we'll see where we go from there. Just raise your hand please - and we'll recognize you. WILSON MATHIAS-My name is Wilson Mathias. I'm a lawyer. I have offices at 525 Bay Road. I'm here on behalf of Peckham Materials Corporation, an asphalt producer. I've got a question really for the Board in terms of the types of activities that are being prohibited durina the period of Moratorium. Specifically my clients are concerned about what exactly it means by an enclosed Batch Plant. I've reviewed the Zoning Ordinance and I know that asphalt and cement plants are permitted only in Heavy Industrial zones. However, Light Industry, there is a provision that permits Batch Plants. Now as I understand the term Batch Plant to mean, it's any type of portable plant that could be brought in to a particular site and produce, the Batch Plant produces cement, there are also Batch Plants that produce bituminous concrete or asphalt. My question is, because of that the term Batch Plant as I see it, isn't defined within the Zoning Ordinance, does that term envision both production of cement and asphalt or does it only deal with cement products? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-It's a pleasure turning that one over to our Attorney. ATTORNEY DUSEK-It would be my opinion as Attorney for the Town and advising the Town Board that as I look at the Article dealing with Light Industrial uses under the Zoning Ordinance which I'm trying to locate now. MR. MATHIAS-It's page 56 in my copy. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Okay, I just wanted to check the exact terminology. The terminology _ used is enclosed Batch Plant. That is the exact some terminology that we have used in the Local Law. Enclosed Batch Plant is defined under the Ordinance, under Enclosed Batch Plant as opposed to Batch Plant, and it means a building which houses machinery which mixes materials to produce concrete, all such processes including the conveying of material shall be inside said building. In my opinion that, that refers to a building, would not refer to a portable or a temporary machine that would perhaps make asphalt. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-It also says concrete, it doesn't say Portland cement concrete. 194 So it applies to asphalt concrete too. ATTORNEY DUSEEK-Right. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Wilson this only applies to this one zone. It doesn't apply to the Light Industrial zones for the whole Town. MR. MATHIAS-Right, I wanted to get a clarification to determine that this moratorium effected both cement manufacturers and also asphalt manufacturers. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-1 would say so because concrete, it says asphalt concrete or Portland cement. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I think that is the advice of our counsel. MR. MATHIAS-1 have one other quick question too in terms of clarification and it deals with the Local Law itself. That's on page 5 of it with respect to the effective date. Just a question about it. As I read it, it says its going to become effective whenever you comply with the provisions defined as they're set forth in the Municipal Home Rule Law or upon rezoning of the area, whichever is later. Is that the intent so that, so that, would it be earlier instead of later? That was my question. ATTORNEY DUSEK-The reason I drafted this provision the way 1 did was to make sure that there would not be a window during which applications could be placed for the construction of uses that the Board intended to have the moratorium against. So the anticipated or the way that this is anticipated to work is that a local law would be filed immediately and it would not take effect until such time as the area is rezoned. Because there would not be a need for it until that time. So I think that the filing under the /Municipal Home Pule Law and the timing there should not interfere with, that clause should not be operable if this thing works the way it should. The effective date will be the day the Board rezones the property. MR. MATHIAS-Up until that point the moratorium isn't in effect? A T TOR NE Y D USEK-That's correct. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Right now that land is zoned residential. MR. MA THIA S-Right. If someone wanted to put in a Batch Plant ... SUPERVISOR BORG OS-They couldn't right now. _ AIR. MATHIAS-Well they could apply for an area, for a use variance. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-They could get a variance. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Yes, could as a matter of right. MR. MATHIAS-Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. Anyone else? Any member of the Town Board wish to add anything? Yes, name and address please? JOHN CROSS, 77 Stephanie Lane-Of course I'm in favor of the moratorium. I'm not quite sure how long it will be dragged out. But we're very concerned about the different uses because there are so many uses in the Light Industrial. I think it would be advantageous to the Board to clean up some of the different uses, take it out of there. I think it would benefit all dealings with future light industrial, I think it would benefit them to have some of the least desirable things taken out of it. I think it'd make the land more valuable even for them. I just wanted to go on record as saying that 1 hope we can resolve this. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORG OS-Thank you. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-John I think I spent clot of time talking to you because I knew your concerns as a resident and for your neighbors on Stephanie Lane. I really feel strongly that what we're trying to do with this moratorium is a balance and a compromise, a fair compromise to both. There are certainly some fine residential areas on and off Corinth Road that need to be protected. The Light Industrial uses should be and has to be some place in our community for some of those uses that might be deemed undesirable in close proximity to residences but certainly there should be an area for someone in the Batch Plant business to be able to look to our community for some, you know, where they could build. I'm not in any way in favor of doing it in your neighborhood but what I'm saying is that this is a nice balance where this moratorium will give us a chance at least to look at the three things up front that bother 195 the Town Board and residents mostly and that was Batch Plants, Junk Yards and Gravel Extraction. Obviously Gravel Extraction can only take place if there is gravel there to be mined or that kind of mineral resource there. There maybe some other things that we want to look at in that particular zone because it is, its close proximity to the residents. On the other hand, at least the people that requested the rezoning have an opportunity to know that our moratorium is working towards a solution for all concerned. MR. CROSS-So how long will that take, Ron, I mean, what do you do from here? I mean if you pass the moratorium, I mean, do you have other meetings discussing what to take out or? COUNCILMAN MONTESI-1 think the biggest thing that we have is that the Town of Oueensbury has a Planning staff, Planner, Town Planner and we would immediately look to our Planning Department to give us the guidance that we need to say things that we want to eliminate from this zone, if there are 2, 3, or 4 of them, what impact it will have on us. I don't think we're looking at more than 60 to 90 days. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-1 think we said 6 months. MR. CROSS-Will we be able to put our suggestions into them also like we're doing with you? COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Oh, certainly and I think all of that would be in the form of a public forum in any event at some point before any decisions were made. MR. CROSS-Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes sir. MIKE BAIRD, 435 Corinth Road-I'd just like to clear the air. I assume that you've made a resolution on this that apparently we haven't heard yet tonight? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We have prepared resolutions which would take action. MR. BAIRD-Okay. I feel that, you know, I think everybody is together here for once and we're all assuming. I would like to know... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We came here having discussed this several times. We came here tonight for a formal public hearing that's required by law and we have prepared resolutions in front of us that can be introduced and voted upon by the Board with the assumption that people were going to say generally, yes it's a good idea and the Board would go along with that. If for some reason there's a public outcry tonight against the moratorium and the Board changes it's mind, these resolutions probably won't be passed. MR. BAIRD-Okay, what I'm understanding is that, this could be the night that everybody possibly gets along and agrees with everything. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-1'm hoping so... MR. BAIRD-I missed the last meeting Steve, so I just, you know, wanted to know what was, exactly done, you can't read the paper and find out anything... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-No comment. MR. BAIRD-I just wanted to catch up on that. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. Anyone else wish to add anything? PLINEY TUCKER, Queensbury-Do I understand that the moratorium that they're talking about is just for this piece of property? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That's correct. Just for this certain number of parcels that has been discussed many times, had been discussed many times on the Corinth Road in West Glens Falls. MR. TUCKER-Then do I understand it correctly, you are just going to change the zoning in this particular piece? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That would be part of the intent. I guess that would be the only place, the only place we could do it right away, is that correct? ATTORNEY DUSEK-The first phase is whether or not the Board would want to implement the moratorium. The rezoning legislation is not before the Board tonight to give us time 196 to file a moratorium. The rezoning legislation would rezone that parcel which consists of several parcels on both, some are on one side of Corinth Road, the other are on the other side between Sanders Road I believe and VanDusen, I think it was in that area. So all of those parcels which there's got to be twenty or so parcels, maybe more, would ultimately be the subject of the rezoning. They are in fact the subject of the moratorium tonight. MR. TUCKER-So it just covers that chunk. Why I'm asking you this, at the end of Pinewood Road, Stephanie Lane on the Luzerne Road's side, there's 42 acres there. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Its on the other side of the road. MR. TUCKER-Yes, it's zoned Light Industrial and the Batch Plant, Gravel Extraction, Junk Yard will be just as much of a problem in that area that's close to these people as the one that you're talking about now. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-At the moment and of course all those uses would be subject to site plan review. It may be that during this moratorium process we will decide to create a new type of zone. It's entirely possible. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Or change the uses. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Or change the use. In any event the residents will be protected. MR. TUCKER-1 hate to use the word, but the previous Board used to have a word, spot zoning and it appears that thats what is happening here. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-1 think we're doing everything possible so that that does not happen. We're taking precautions. I look at our Attorney now, I believe we're not doing that. MR. TUCKER-What, explain to me what is the reason that you don't want to zone all Light Industrial or put a moratorium on it and change all Light Industrial? What is the reason? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I'll let legal counsel, on the advise of myself, I'Il let legal counsel discuss that because he's done a great deal of research. ATTORNEY DUSEK-First of all it's my opinion that the action that the Board is about to take is not spot zoning and for a very good reason. Spot zoning typically deals with only one parcel or very small group of parcels. This is a relatively large segment of Town which has been studied by both the Town Board and the Planning Department as well as petitions have been filed by members of the public concerning this parcel. The Board has tried to put together what they feel is a reasonable plan for that area so that I think everything opposes the position that it might be spot zoning. As far as why it is zoned the way it is or why certain parcels are left out at this point, I think that, what I have heard anyway during past Board meetings that there are some possibilities of other parcels that might eventually be added or this configuration of property might in some fashion be changed after further study. But at the moment this is the group of parcels that have come before the Board, this is the group of parcels that have made it through the process this for and to go back and start to add in more parcels now or change that configuration would mean starting the process all over again. MR. TUCKER-1 can understand that part but we had some conversations here a minute ago about leaving windows open. Now the 42 acres that are on Luzerne Road is already Light Industrial, right. If there is no moratorium on that, the windows open. Am I correct? ATTORNEY DUSEK-1 think the goal had been of the Board is not to create a new situation and by changing Residential to Industrial would create a new situation where a window, sort of speak, would be open that these uses that are not desired in that area would come in. So that is what the Board is addressing, a particular area that is being rezoned. I think what the area you're referring to, if it's already been Light Industrial, nothing is changing with regard to that. That area is not being put in any danger of anything happening different than what could have happened already. The area however the Board is rezoning from Residential to Light Industrial, that is an area that is now being exposed to a new source of development that had not been previously exposed to as Residential. MR. TUCKER-Excuse me sir, I want to clarify something for you. Prior to October 1988, this land that you're zoning Light Industry was Light Industry. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-!t was commercial, it wasn't Light Industry. It was Highway Commercial. MR. TUCKER-Three hundred feet from Corinth Road was commercial beyond that was Highway Commercial because Mr. Ball had his sand pit there. 9'7 COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-You mean Light Industry behind it? MR. TUCKER-Yes. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-1 don't think it was Light Industrial, I looked at it a few weeks ago. MR. TUCKER-Yes it was. LEE YORK, Senior Planner-Yes, behind it. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-It was? North of, 300 feet north of Corinth Road? MRS. YORK-Along Corinth Road on both sides there was about 300 feet back from the road, it was Highway Commercial. Behind that it was Light Industrial to the north. MR. TUCKER-Just on the north side of the Corinth Road ... MRS. YORK-Right. MR. TUCKER...was Light Industry, on the south side it was Residential. COUNCILMAN K UR OSAKA-Pliney, I think one that answers your question, we're asking for the moratorium for about 6 months so we can study all the Light Industrial zones in Town. We want to solve an immediate problem in the 4th ward in that one zone that we're changing. We didn't want to change the make up of other existing Light Industrial Zones. MR. TUCKER-Maybe there isn't anybody looking to put in a Batch Plant or anything else but tomorrow morning it appears to me that they could walk into the Building Department down here and put in an application, now wait a minute George, I see you shaking your head, put in an application for a Batch Plant on that 42 acres that is on the Luzerne Road, and it'll be as big a problem for these people as the ones that they're trying to do away with. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-That 42 acres don't abut up to that property does it? MR. TUCKER-No but it's right across the road. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-1 here what you are saying but what we're doing tonight won't hurt these residents any. You're saying we should expand it and include something else and that will take another set of public hearings to do that. So you're saying make it, you would propose to make the moratorium more wide spread. MR. TUCKER-I've been attending most of these meetings and I was under the impression that the night the moratorium was brought up that it was to be a moratorium for all Light Industry throughout the Town. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-No, I'm sure we corrected that the last, that concern. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-It was originally proposed zone wide but on advice of our Attorney it was just this one. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I think originally Pliney, you're right. I think we we're faced with a situation that said we couldn't discriminate one particular zone. On further research I believe that our Attorney said, if you are considering rezoning this particular parcel and potentially rezoning it Light Industrial ]A, in other words, there might be a new classification that has less uses in it, that you can be discriminatory in, just put the moratorium on this particular zone that you're looking at. To answer one of your other questions, there was some other people that came in somewhere along this process, a lady that said half of her property was residential, half of, those people have not filed any zoning applications or any rezoning applications here. So what the Town Board and the Planning Department is going to address is the very specific rezoning that came in that included Coneco, Web Graphics, that included the North Country Sign, that across the road, that whole group of properties that we're originally were asked to rezone. That's what we're addressing. I think it was fortunate that the Attorney find an area that we could, in a way be discriminatory this area because there are other Light Industrial zones in Town that a Batch Plant really would fit and would not be a detriment to the neighborhood and it's something that we probably need in our community. So to do it for the Town wide was a difficult decision. To do it and treat this particular area, concerns of both parties seemed like a good solution. Talking about your 42 acres, that's another expansion of an idea and those people that own the 42 acres came in and said we want our's rezoned, we would have onsider that. MR. TUCKER-What would be the zoning process? 198 COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Same that we've gone through. MR. TUCKER-Would there be site review and all that stuff on that 42 acres on Luzerne Road? COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Yes, they'd have to go through Site Plan Review and everything else that's permitted, different types of uses. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Only it would be a little more difficult because the owner of that property doesn't want us, probably would not want to see any restrictions on it. I'm only summizing so who would request for that rezone, the owner or the neighbor? MR. TUCKER-What I'm asking you, would the public have any input? COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Yes. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Oh sure. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Wait a minute Pliney, are you asking if it came up for rezoning or are you asking if they went to the Planning Board and asked to be allowed to put a Batch Plant there? MR. TUCKER-Whatever is allowed in Light Industry. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Okay, if it were allowable use it would go directly to the Planning Board. The Planning Board will hold a public hearing on it. On the other hand if its permissible use within that area, you have a pretty hard ... MR. TUCKER-It's awful hard to deny it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Turn it down, yes. I think I agree with you, we need to look very carefully at all of the Light Industrial zones in this Town and really think out all of those uses what we think of when we think of a Light Industrial, the ones that were putting the moratorium on in this one particular area, I agree with you, there are uses that you have to wonder whether or not they fit in Light Industrial in any zone. MR. TUCKER-You all know about the Batch Plant in Big Boom Road. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Sure do. MR. TUCKER-And I mean it's in a Light Industrial area... COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-I know all about that, I got enough phone calls on that. MR. TUCKER-But there's a Residential area right across the road and it's a disaster. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-That was a Zoning Board decision, unfortunately. MR. TUCKER-One more question. There are junk yards in this zoning that you're doing. If they should change hands or someone else buys one, buy it from the previous owner, are they allowed to continue in operation? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-They're allowed to continue, yes. Preexisting ... MR. TUCKER-What if one goes out of business? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-If it's out of business or, Paul, tell me if I'm right on this... COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Eighteen months. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-If it's out of business for 18 months they can't reopen the junk yard, right? ATTORNEY DUSEK-That's correct, there is a nonconforming, there's a loss of a nonconforming use provision in our ordinance. MR. TUCKER-That's 18 months? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes, and also if and our new ordinance 1 believe we no longer have the right to a certain percentage expansion for nonconforming use, is that true? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Lee might be more familiar with that than I am. 199 COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-The old ordinance they were allowed a certain percentage automatically thdt they could expand. I'm not sure if that's true anymore. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You can't ...yea, that's what I thought, that we had taken that out. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Paul, if a junk yard is in a Light Industrial zone and is an allowable use and it closes for 18 months, it has a, all junk yards of a permitting process through the Town Board before they're allowed to open or to qualify yearly. ATTORNEY DUSEK-That's correct. There is an ordinance that controls. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Right but if its an allowable zone than the 18 months have no bearing, right? ATTORNEY DUSEK-That's correct. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But if its a nonconforming use... MR. TUCKER-It's 18 months and they can be sold as long as they stay in business. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Once they're sold they still, they have to come back through, it's a yearly permitting process and the Town Board has certain things it looks at. Does it have, one that comes to mind greatly is, there's an 8 foot secure fence around the perimeter of the junk yard, that's one of the criteria I think in the permitting process. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-That there would be no junk cars in front of the fence. MR. TUCKER-Okay, that's all 1 wanted to know. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak about this subject. If not, any Town Board member, one last shot at this? Hearing none, we'll close that hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:05 P.M. RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON SIGNIFICANCE OF A LOCAL LAW ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM RESOLUTION NO. 128 of 1990, Introduced by George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Mon tesi. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering adopting a Local Law establishing a moratorium relative to certain site plan applications, permits, approvals, and allowed uses within a specific light industrial zone of the Town of Queensbury, a copy of which is presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified to act as lead agency with respect to compliance with SEQRA which requires environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is an unlisted action pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board, after considering the action proposed herein, reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form, reviewing the criteria contained in Section 617. 11, -- and thoroughly analyzing the project with respect to potential environmental concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby finds that the proposed responses inserted in Part II of the said Environmental Assessment Form are satisfactory and approved, and lino BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that 'the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to complete and execute Part 111 of the said Environmental Assessment Form and to check the box thereon indicating that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the annexed Negative Declaration is hereby approved and the Towns (Clerk) is hereby authorized and directed to file the some in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION ENACTING LOCAL LAW NUMBER 1 OF 1990 RESOLUTION NO. 129 of 1990, Introduced by George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption, seconded by Betty Monahan. WHEREAS, on February 14, 1990, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury adopted a resolution to set a public hearing on a proposed local law titled, "A Local Law Establishing a Moratorium Relative to Certain Site Plan Applications, Permits, Approvals, and Allowed Uses within a Specific Light Industrial Zone of the Town of Queensbury", and WHEREAS, Lee York, Senior Planner, prepared an environmental assessment form with respect to the proposed action and the Town Board has considered the same and determines that the proposed local law will not have a significant effect on the environment, and WHEREAS, on February 26, 1990, a public hearing on the proposed, amended Local Law was duly conducted, and WHEREAS, a draft of said Local Law is presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby enacts Local Law Number 1 of 1990, a copy of the same being presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is hereby directed to file the said local law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law. Duly adopted this 26th day of hfeFch, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA questioned whether this is the time, now that the moratorium is in effect to bring back to the floor the discussion of the rezoning and to pass that? ATTORNEY DUSEK-My recommendation is no because the moratorium although adopted by the Board is not in effect according to its provisions, must be filed with the Secretary of State. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN questioned Mrs. York whether there were other interested parties that would like to be considered incorporated into this zone? MRS. YORK-Yes, 2 parties, a Mrs. Carpenter and Mrs. Saunders whose petitions were recently reviewed by the Planning Board and down the road, the application should be before the Town Board. 20 COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Will this present a problem at a future time after the proper public hearings and everything? ATTORNEY DUSEK-No, because it would be all part of a common plan. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE 8:15 P.M. NOTICE SHOWN SUPERVISOR BOR GOS-/s there anyone here that wishes to speak about that? I'm looking to see if I have on prepared resolutions on that. TOWN CLERK DOUGHER-No. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-This is the one dealing with the overlay zone to a 75 foot set back from Bay Road. 1'11 call to your attention before we get rolling on this that a number of us were just really made aware of the fact that some of these roads have 75 foot set backs as of October 1st of 1988. For instance the Corinth Road in West Glens Falls otherwise known as Main Street. A number of people have indicated their dissatisfaction with that and have asked that we take a look at that in the future, we can't at the present time. But some people have pointed out that property there may be 150 feet deep, if you eliminate the use of the first 75 feet and then have a buffer zone of 50 feet in the back, you've used up a 125, that leaves a 25 foot wide building. Now, realistically they are not usable for commercial use so I thought we could take a look at that in the weeks ahead and see how many properties are impacted that by that. We might want to change that particular strip so the property would still be usable. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-The only thing Steve, when we look at we've also got to look at probably in the future, Main Street is going to have to be widen and you don't want some commercial buildings right out there to the edge either. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Right so maybe there's a compromise though between zero and the seventy-five that will let people gain some usage in their property. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-It was 50 or what was it? MRS. YORK-1 believe it was 50 previously. In the travel corridor overlay zone for Corinth Road and all the other roads exclusive of the Bay Road corridor that is under consideration tonight, it's allowable to have your parking areas or septic system or anything underground in that 75 feet. It would not have to be maintained as green space so it would be usable space for a commercial developer. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-But depending on the depth of a particular lot. MRS. YORK-Right. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-You may or may not realistically be able to put a building there. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-On the other hand we've got to realize there are alot of small lots in this Town that you're going to have to combine lots together in order to... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-And the people I spoke with talked about that but they said the depth isn't there regardless to how much front footage you got. You got nothing usable so we may have to look at that. In any event, the main purpose of this particular public hearing barring that confusion, was to talk about the 75 foot set back restriction on Bay Road all the way from, actually from Haviland Road up to 149 because it already was in place I believe up to from the City line to Haviland. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak about that? RICHARD KILMARTIN-1 live in Lake George, well actually off Bay Road. I own quite a bit of property on Bay Road. I've been tied up, this Town has got me tied right up so I can't sell my property. Now if you put a 75 foot setback then you're going to make it so that a house has got to be 75, any building has got to be 75 back. Suppose I sell a lot that doesn't, that's only a 150 feet deep, that's legally 150 feet deep, like you say. You're restricting the builder on it and I don't agree with the 75 foot setback unless you make it a commercial setback, -- a Highway Commercial use. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mrs. York, the zoning there is what, in that particular area? MR. K IL MA R TIN-R R 3 right there where I'm ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So that's 3 acres and you can't sell a lot that's less than 3 acres there. 20 MR. KILMAR TIN-If it's already deeded that way you can, yea. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Preexisting lot. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well it all depends upon the ownership is, if you got neutral ownership you can't. It all depends upon what the ownership is. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Is the lot you have in mind next to other property that you personally own? MR. KILMAR TIN-Yes it is. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Than you can't. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Are both lots in the same name? MR. K IL MAR TIN-Yes they are but they were purchased at two separate, different times. SUPERVISOR BOR COS-There may be a wrinkle in the law that ... COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Are you taxed separately? MR. K IL MA R TIN-A bsolutely. SUPERVISOR BOR GOS-I'll look at our Attorney again, as I recall, there's a wrinkle in the law, if parcels are in the same ownership, is it only if both parcels are undersized or if only one is? ATTORNEY DUSEK-There's a provision in the Zoning Ordinance which basically indicates that any nonconforming lot of record as of October 1st, 1988, so if you have one lot that is conforming and one lot that isn't conforming for instance or two lots that are nonconforming that are side by side, they become joined on October 1st, 7988, provided that they're in the same ownership. MR. K IL M A R TIN-They become joined? COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Yes. MR. KILMAR TIN-Then why aren't they all taxed and deeded as one piece than? ATTORNEY DUSEK-An application can be made to the Assessor to join them under the tax rolls. MR. K IL MAR TIN-Cause I got a lot there, I'm going to tell you, my school and land taxes when I purchased it were less than 5 dollars a year. Now I'm going back a few years. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-You sure are... SUPERVISOR BOR COS-Before 1988. MR. KILMARTIN-But that's beside the point. It's just a little over a half an acre. It's 180 by 150 feet. Now I've got another 20 acre piece there, low and behold, I shouldn't say this, but taxes on the 20 acre are minimum beside that piece, the small lot. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It sounds like it would be to your advantage to have them joined for the tax rolls. MR. KILMARTIN-Absolutely. But I'm planning something further on this anyway. But 1 still think that if you're going to make a 75 foot setback, personally I think Bay Road should be all Highway Commercial anyhow. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-All the way up to 149? MR. KIL MAR TIN-Absolutely. I've had a 700 chances to sell that, sell my property there on -° Bay Road but because it's not Highway Commercial, I can't sell. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Even if it were Highway Commercial, the setback is necessary to keep what we're saying is, that the rural character of Queensbury, we don't want blacktop right up to the edge of the road and that's half of the basis of this 75 foot setback out on this area, to keep that look of this Town that people have requested over and over again in all the neighborhood meetings and this is one of the few areas in Town which this can be done in and that's one of the main objectives of it. 203 MR. KILMARTIN11 understand what you're saying but there are so many places that are built right on the road ... there's a barn right on the edge of the road, just up around the bend up here. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-1 realize that but we can't go backwards but that doesn't mean we should be compounding errors that are already here. MR. KILMARTIN-1 don't say you should be compounding errors or go backwards but I don't think you need a 75 foot setback. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And also the point, if Bay Road ever has to be widened you're going to need that setback for widening it also. That becomes a real major corridor that road some day will have to be widened. MR. KILMARTIN-A major corridor, what do you think they did with Bay Road when they rebuilt it from here down? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's what I'm saying. MR. KILMARTIN-They made a thruway out of it. Well that's my opinion but I'm not really happy with it. SUPERVISOR BORG OS-Thank you for coming in. Anyone else wishes to speak? WILSON MATHIAS-1 think the concept of preserving open space that the setback is certainly a wonderful way to do that. 1 think that one of the problems that I can see as always it was advised if you did this there was a concept, now lets take a look at it. I don't, I'm here, often times I show up in front of you people, say not in my backyard and now you're going to do something in my backyard. I think clot of the residences that currently exist on Bay Road in this area are certainly prime candidates to be converted from residential use to office type use. Obviously the building that I operate out of is one of those but even I think that that concept was addressed when the Board basically said, hey this is the use that ought to be permitted in that zone as opposed to having to obtain a variance. I think that was good. The problem that I see with the setback requirement is that you're going to be creating a whole bunch of nonconforming structures that don't meet that 75 foot setback. 1 would say that at least the ones between, the residents that exist between Haviland and Aviation Road, there isn't anybody setback 75 feet. Anyone then coming in, to convert to a nonresidential use which is clearly the highest and best use, is going to be faced with the problem of obtaining • variance if they want to put an addition to it, in that manner. So I think that, again, as • concept I think it is a good idea and hopefully the Board will take into consideration to the number of parcels that are going to be rendered nonconforming as a result of this. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Wilson, I think we all agree that Quaker Road and Route 9 were developed very badly as strip development. When the new Master Plan was done, that's one thing that we tried to stop in this Town was strip development. What you're proposing would make strip development on Bay Road and that's why you'll find in the Master Plan there are also commercial subdivisions envisioned would come along on Bay Road in the open spaces that are there. They definitely are going to have to be back in off the road as we're trying to internalize a regular, a subdivision. We actually did ask Mrs. York to make a count of the number of parcels that might be effected, the smaller parcels and I remember you did that and this has been checked out and it stills seems by for the best choice if we're going to keep the type of Town that we want and have the Town looking like what the people have asked for it to look. It still seems the wisest thing to put this overlay corridor in. There will be some people, yes, that will have a little problem with it. I don't think it's going to be that extreme frankly. I mean like you, you've already got your foot print established and so on and so forth. MR. MATHIAS-1'm not concerned really, we're there, I don't think there's a problem with that. I think it's more along, there is an awful lot of other residences, I think there's alot. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And alot who want to stay residents, they don't want the pressure put onto them to have become commercial because this where they want to have a residence. —So we're kind of protecting them from pressure also. MR. MATHIAS-Well, I guess, I don't, yea, that maybe Betty. That wasn't the case in the people that sold to me but ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes, I realize that. You were kind of a unique case there, if you remember. 204 MR. MATHIAS-But I don't think I'm the only one. I think there are other residences that are going to be impacted by it, as this gentleman says and I think it's going to make a tough thing. ' COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well when you make any change people are impacted. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? If not, any comment from the Board members? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-1 just want to say that, really what I've said before, this was a thing that was very seriously thought out, alot of research went into it. It was done trying to meet the desires of the people in this Town that would keep Queensbury as much as possible a rural Town. We've all certainly seen the disasters from strip development that's happened in this Town and this is trying to prevent this in one of the areas of our Town that's very scenic, has scenic overlays in it and alot of open space in it. This is an effort to plan rather than to react. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. I've checked and there is no prepared resolution to this. What is the next process? ATTORNEY DUSEK-The next process is the Planning Board will consider this tomorrow night to render a report on it to the Board and hopefully if that is accomplished this will be back before the Board on Monday for a resolution. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. Does the Planning Board need anything formal from us? ATTORNEY DUSEK-No. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Good. If there are no other comments, we'll close that public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:30 P.M. SIGN ORDINANCE PRESENTATION SUPERVISOR BORGOS noted a request from two attorneys to discuss the problems that they perceive in our regulations and to make a proposed solution. JOHN ZAPPER-I'm an Attorney with Lemery and Reid in Glens Falls. I'm herewith my partner, John Reid, to briefly discuss the concept in the sign ordinance where the signs are treated differently for strip malls. The sentence in the ordinance reads, 'Wall signs for each occupant of a shopping center shall be coordinated as to material, shape, lettering, coloring and or decorative elements'. There has been some problems with this that a number of our clients have run into, namely, as this has been interpreted by the Zoning Administrator in Town. This discourages national franchises or someone that wants to stand out. We're proposing that all signs should be coordinated as to size, shape and placement but not prevent different logos of national franchises and colors. We're here tonight to ask you to consider this and put it on an agenda for a public hearing in the hopes that you'll pass this as an amendment to the zoning ordinance. (presented photographs) JOHN LEMER Y-Noted that the language in the ordinance is impossible to enforce without a selective and arbitrary enforcement. We feel it's impossible for the Zoning Administrator to administrator because of the language in the statue being difficult to interpret, needing clearer language. It's not being uniformly applied. Town Board held discussion and agreed that it would be advantageous to schedule a workshop. OPEN FORUM 8:50 P.M. LISA FULLER, 13 Reservoir Drive-Spoke to the Town Board on the necessity of constructing sidewalks on Dixon Road in the Kensington School District. Would like to request the Town Board to consider putting in sidewalks, making a safe passage for the children. (presented pictures) PAM MICHAEL HA YES, Linden Avenue-Spoke to the Town Board regarding the safety program derived by the Kensington Road Elementary School. JUNE BERKE, 140 Dixon Road-Noted traffic increase on Dixon Road and the need for sidewalks and the lowering of the speed limit. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We have no control over speed limit. We write a letter to the County 205 which goes onto the State and most generally the State does not grant our requests. We agree there is a problem. Noted that the Greater Glens Falls Transit System runs through that area. We're on thaf Board, we made a special recommendation to set up a special bus run to go through Hidden Hills and through that area on the way to and from school. The average was 2 people. Recommend that you convince the Glens Falls City School System to send a bus, a school bus to pick up children, up to a certain age or certain grade. A very inexpensive solution compared to building sidewalks, compared to maintaining sidewalks. Sidewalks would have to be in all probability a special district, could be built on the Town roads to be paid by the residents of those areas. Discussion held and Board agreed there is a concern and the best recommendation was to get the Glens Falls City School System to supply a school bus. Supervisor Borgos offered `a write a letter to the Glens Falls City School Board of Education expressing and encouraging 7e need to supply a school bus and will request a meeting with Dr. Showalter. Suggest that 7e parents get together, go to the next School Board meeting and ask for buses and that will support our request. MR. TUCKER-Questioned update on lights at northway. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-They are up and covered. At some time when the State determines its appropriate, the State will remove the covers. Noted that the poles are in at the intersection of Bay and Haviland, we're waiting for the rest of the parts and hopefully it will be up soon. AIR. TUCKER-Questioned the status for the proposal on the usage of plastic pipes. ATTORNEY DUSEK-It's before the Town Board for their consideration tonight. OPEN FORUM CLOSED 8:45 P.M. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Would like to discuss the sewer repair on Garrison Road. I've received a communication from Mr. Kestner who said that, although he hasn't been able to come up and look at the tape yet, he understands there's a substantial leak and makes a recommendation that we make another video, find exactly the location of the leak and repair it immediately. He believes also that the contractor is no longer liable under the terms of the contract. I would like to recommend to the Board and ask our Town Attorney to do whatever we have :), to get the leak fixed. T TOR NE Y DUSEK-This would be a contract under either 5 or 7 and it's a repair, so that you could go ahead and do it with a Board Resolution. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Would like to see it for Monday. Noted that there is one remaining component with regards to the State Police Building that has not gone out to bid and would like to ask our Town Attorney, do we need a formal resolution of the Board to go to bid for the gasoline tank? ATTORNEY DUSEK-You would need a formal resolution to go out to bid. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Would like to see this prepared also for Monday. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MINUTES RESOLUTION NO. 130 of 1990, Introduced by George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenza. RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approve the Town Board Minutes of January 30, 1990. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: yes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION HIRING RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. AS ENGINEER FOR THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY 206 RESOLUTION NO. 131 of 1990, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Kurosaka. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury desires to employ an engineering firm to give such professional services as may from time to time be required by the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, pursuant to X20 of the Town Law of the State of New York, the Town Board is given the authority to employ an engineer if the office of Town Engineer is not established, and WHEREAS, Rist-Frost Associates, P.C., has offered to render said professional services at rates provided to the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposal for professional engineering services is presented to this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Rist-Frost Associates, P.C., is hereby employed as engineer for the Town of Queensbury to give such professional service and advice as may be required from time to time, by the Town Supervisor, the Town Planner or the Town Attorney and provided that the Town Board may employ such other engineers for such projects and at such times as it deems appropriate, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized to sign the proposal for professional engineering services presented to this meeting, and forward for processing any and all bills for services rendered, upon the receipt of properly completed vouchers, and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED, that the expenditures shall be paid for from the Town Engineer Account. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION REGARDING RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. AND TIMBERLAND CONSULTANTS RESOLUTION NO. 132 of 1990, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Kurosaka. WHEREAS, Rist-Frost Associates, P.C., is currently under contract with the Town of Queensbury to perform engineering services, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the aforesaid agreement, Rist-Frost Associates, P.C., was allowed to continue providing engineering and surveying services for the Timberland Consultants project consisting of a 20 lot subdivision north of Route 149 as it had been providing services for this project prior to commencement of work for the Town of Queensbury on February 3, 1989, and WHEREAS, the aforesaid project has changed ownership and Rist-Frost Associates, P.C., desires clarification as to their ability to continue work, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, after consultation with the Town Attorney, hereby finds that Rist-Frost Associates, P.C., may continue work and representation in connection with the previously described project, however noting that Rist-Frost Associates, P.C., shall not represent or provide engineering services to the Town of Queensbury or any agency or department thereof in connection with the Town's review of the aforementioned project. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: 207 Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT RESIGNATION RESOLUTION NO. 133 of 1990, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Montesi. 'HEREAS, Mr. Nicholas Caimano has been serving a term on the Board of Assessment Review ice March 8, 1988, said term to expire on September 30, 1992, and WHEREAS, Mr. Caimano has submitted to the Supervisor's Office a letter of resigning from the Board of Assessment Review, effective January 19, 1990, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, to accept the resignation of Mr. Nicholas Caimano from the Board of Assessment Review, with regret, and sincere thanks for the time and effort donated by Mr. Caimano to the Town of Queensbury and the Board of Assessment Review. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PAYMENT TO SCHULTZ CONSTRUCTION, INC. RESOLUTION NO. 134 of 1990, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Borgos. NEREAS, Schultz Construction, Inc., has constructed a lateral in the Central Queensbury aaker Road Sewer District, pursuant to a request made by Water Superintendent, Thomas �- Flaherty, and WHEREAS, Schultz Construction Inc., has presented a bill in the original amount of $3,456.84 for said work, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby ratifies, approves, and authorizes said construction of the sewer lateral by Schultz Construction, Inc., and hereby authorizes payment for said work from Account No. : H40 2358150 440. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION RETAINING THE SERVICES OF NORTHEASTERN APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. RESOLUTION NO. 135 of 1990, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, ,conded by George Kurosaka. -T-vHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of retaining the services of Northeastern Appraisal Associates, Inc., to appraise and report the market value of certain property owned by Lois Binley, tax map no.: 9-1-27, such property being subject to tax certiorari proceedings, and WHEREAS, Northeastern Appraisal Associates, Inc., indicated that it would provide such appraisal work for an amount not to exceed $1,500.00, said fee to include one (1) day of court or pre-hearing time, 2n8 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby retains the services of Northeastern Appraisal Associates, Inc., for the purposes above-stated, at an amount not to exceed $1,500.00, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the bill for services shall be paid from Account No.: A095 1355 474 . Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TOWN CLERK TO SUBMIT PETITIONS FOR CHANGE OF ZONE TO PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY RESOLUTION NO. 136 of 1990, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded Betty Monahan. WHEREAS, the Town Board has previously approved a form entitled "Petition For a Change of Zone" for rezoning matters, and has directed that the same be used for re-zoning requests, and WHEREAS, the Town Attorney has recommended that any and all applications for rezoning must first go to the Planning Department and Planning Board for recommendations regarding the same, and WHEREAS, following such recommendations, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury will then review the Zoning Applications and take such other action as it shall deem necessary and proper, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs that the following application be submitted to the Planning Board for the Town of Queensbury for report and recommendation: Adirondack Industrial Park, Inc. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT REVALUATION OF REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS RESOLUTION NO. 137 of 1990, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Kurosaka. WHEREAS, by Town Board Resolution No. 187, dated March 23, 1989, the Town Board resolved to support the work and efforts of the Queensbury Town Assessor to undertake and update the revaluation of real property assessment so that the same would be completed and in effect by May 1, 1991, so that the Town Board could implement an equitable roll resulting from such updated revaluation effort on or before May 1, 1991, and WHEREAS, Ms. Helen Thomson, Town Assessor, has requested that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury amend said resolution to read that the revaluation work be completed and in effect by May 1, 1992, rather than 1991, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby amends resolution 187 of 1989 to read that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury supports the work and efforts 2`1 9 of Ms. Helen Thomson, Town Assessor, to undertake and update the revaluation so that the some is completed and in effect by May 7, 1992, and that the Town Board will implement an equitable roll resulting from such updated revaluation effort on or before May 1, 1992, and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED, that personnel will be hired by the Town as needed (on a temporary basis) in order to complete the project as scheduled, and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED, that the costs incurred for the updating of the revaluation shall be paid for from - the Assessor's Revaluation Budget Account. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 7990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None SUPERVISOR BORGOS noted the major reason for .delaying the revaluation is the fact that the County is in the process of drawing new tax maps which are approximately 2 years behind schedule. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF CONTRACT WITH QUEENSBURY SENIOR CITIZENS, INC. RESOLUTION NO. 138 of 1990, Introduced by Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Kurosaka. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has deemed it appropriate and beneficial to the Town that social and recreational activities and programs be provided for senior citizens residing in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has determined that a contract should be entered into with the Queensbury Senior Citizens, Inc., to provide said recreational and social activities and programs, and WHEREAS, a proposed contract between the Town of Queensbury and the Queensbury Senior Citizens, Inc., for 1990 calendar year has been prepared, a copy of which is annexed hereto, and the form thereof has been approved by Paul B. Dusek, Town Attorney for the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, it would appear to be in the best interest of the Town of Queensbury that said contract be approved in its present from and that the programs and activities described therein be provided to senior citizens of the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, this contract is permitted and authorized by Section 95A of the General Municipal Law of the State of New York, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury be. and hereby is authorized on behalf of the Town of Queensbury to execute said agreement, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that upon execution thereof by the Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury and the authorized officer of the Queensbury Senior Citizens, Inc., said contract be in full force and effect under the terms and conditions specified therein, with an original copy of this agreement to be on file with the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None 210 RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE OUT OF STATE CONFERENCE RESOLUTION NO. 139 of 1990, Introduced by Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, >econded by George Kurosaka. WHEREAS, the Senior Planner for the Town of Queensbury has requested that the Town Board 3f the Town of Queensbury authorize and grant permission for her and Planner John Goralski to attend the following conference at Town expense: American Planning Association 1990 National Planning Conference April 21-25, Denver, Colorado NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby finds that attendance at the aforesaid National Planning Conference by the Senior Planner and Planner for the Town of Queensbury will be beneficial in terms of education, experience and informative, and likewise the benefit conveyed to the Senior Planner and Planner will in turn be beneficial to the Town of Queensbury, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Senior Planner and Planner for the Town of Queensbury are hereby authorized to attend the aforesaid National Planning Conference at Town expense, with such expenses to be paid for from account number A2258020409. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Monahan Noes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Borgos Absent: None (MOTION DEFEATED) DISCUSSION held by Town Board members. Decision was made that one member from the Planning Department be allowed to attend the conference. RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE OUT OF STATE CONFERENCE RESOLUTION NO. 140 of 1990, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Kurosaka. WHEREAS, the Senior Planner for the Town of Queensbury has requested that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury authorize and grant permission for her to attend the following conference at Town expense: American Planning Association 1990 National Planning Conference April 21-25, Denver, Colorado NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby finds that the attendance at the aforesaid National Planning Conference by the Senior Planner for the Town of Queensbury will be beneficial in terms of education, experience and informative, and likewise the benefit conveyed to the Senior Planner will in turn be beneficial to the Town of Queensbury, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Senior Planner for the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized to attend the aforesaid National Planning Conference at Town expense, with such expenses to be paid for from account number A2258020409. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: -- Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None 21 RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON LAND ACQUISITION FOR THE QUEENSBURY CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 141 of 1990, Introduced by Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenza. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of purchasing certain parcels of land on behalf of the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, said parcels being generally described as: A) a parcel owned by George G. Lehmann and Jane L. Lehmann, adjacent to West Mountain Road and adjacent to the West Mountain Road Water Tank located on Town of Queensbury Consolidated Water District property, and - B) a parcel owned by the Champlain District of the Wesleyan Church, adjacent to Corinth Road and adjacent to the northerly boundary of property currently owned by the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, and WHEREAS, specific descriptions of the properties to be acquired, the terms of purchase, and purchase price thereof, are set forth in the contracts referred to above and presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, the maximum amount proposed to be expended for said purchase of property shall not exceed the sum of $27,000.00, and WHEREAS, the expense occasioned by the purchase of said property will be assessed, levied, and collected from several lots and parcels within the said Queensbury Consolidated Water District, in proportion as nearly may be to the benefit which each lot or parcel of land in said district will derive therefrom, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDERED, that a meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury be held in the Queensbury Activities Center, Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, New York on the 19th day of March, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., to consider the aforesaid purchase of property for the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, and to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof concerning the same, as may be required by law, and BE IT FURTHER ORDERED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury give notice of such hearing by publishing in the official newspaper of the Town of Queensbury, a certified copy of this resolution and by posting a certified copy of this resolution on the sign board maintained by the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, not less than ten (10) or more than twenty (20) days before such hearing. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None COMMUNICATIONS L trs from State Department of Transportation regarding speed limit requests. Peggy Ann Road - Denied- on file West Mountain Road - Denied - on file DISCUSSION held regarding Old Glen Lake Road, an abandoned road of the Town. Attorney noted that he hopes to have it prepared for the Board on the 5th or 19th of March. TOWN ATTORNEY spoke regarding the proposed local law authorizing the use of certain plumbing materials in building construction and presented to the Board members the proposed local law. Questioned if it was acceptable to the Board and if so, I'll send it to the Codes people. TOWN BOARD accepted the proposed local law and agreed for Attorney to send to Code Publishers.. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION 21 (43 RESOLUTION NO. 142 of 1990. Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald,Mon tesi. RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby move into Executive Session to discuss Real Property Acquisition and Personnel immediately following the approval of Audit of Bills. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AUDIT OF BILLS RESOLUTION NO. 143 of 1990, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Montesi. RESOLVED, that the Abstract appearing on March 26th, 1990, and numbering 90-650 thru 90-681, 90-683 thru 90-705, 90-707 thru 90-709, 90-710 thru 90-758, 90-802 thru 90-1004 and totaling $273,517.45 be and is hereby approved. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None No action was taken. On motion, the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK TOWN OF QUEENSBUR Y