The URL can be used to link to this page

1990-05-07 326 TOWN BOARD MEETING MAY 7, 1990 7:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN BORGOS-SUPER VISOR GEORGE KUROSAKA-COUNCILMAN MARILYN POTENZA-COUNCILMAN RONALD MONTESI-COUNCILMAN BETTY MONAHAN-COUNCILMAN TOWN ATTORNEY PAUL D USEK TOWN OFFICIALS Rick Missita, Paul Noylor, Kathleen Kothe, Dave Hotin PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA PUBLIC HEARING - Bob Tyrer - Glenwood Manor - Transient Merchant Market Notice Shown BOB TYRER-11m co-owner of the Glenwood Manor on Quaker and Glenwood Avenue. We're meeting here tonight to have our 7th annual Memorial Day antique show and sale at the Glenwood Manor. Also, with that, the Balloon Festival which will probably be, I'm not sure whether its September or October this year in conjunction with this show. We're here in our time because we found out that we have to hove, there have been some changes in the laws here and rulings in Queensbury that we have to have our outside solicitors coming in, that they have to pay a solicitors fee, which we're all in favor of. We agree with it 100 percent. The reason that we're here, we feel that the show that we hove for Memorial Day and also for Balloon Festival is probably one of the better assets that are happening to the Town of Queensbury and also the City of Glens Falls, such as the Chapman, the Hyde, our show, these are all cultural things that we're trying to bring into the area here, in the County of Warren, Town of Queensbury, City of Glens Falls. We're trying to get these things going with us and we have good backing behind us. What I'd like to, we hove made some changes at our place. We have straightened out our parking situation. We avoided the show lost Balloon Festival because we knew that Quaker Road was under construction and we didn't want to cause any problems. Since then we have mode a lot of changes and we feel its all for the positive and we think this is going to be a benefit to the Town of Queensbury and the adjoining areas. We would like to get the okoy to do our show this year and we do have other dealers coming in. We will forward their names to the Town of Queensbury. If there is any fee that will be applied to them, we're willing to go along with any rulings the Town of Queensbury has. I think with that, other than clearing up our parking situation, I think I'm just going to leave it up to you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Any questions? Any comments from any Board members or questions? COUNCILMAN POTENZA-1 think Bob, I think the only concern was the Board had at one point Bob, was parking and with the additional parking that you have with your building and the parking with Cool Insurance. Right? Won't there be an agreement with the Insurance Company? MR. TYRER-Whats going to happen now, before the show time, which is I believe the 26th, 27th, I will have all the fencing along Glenwood Manor where the parking is going to be with entrances and exits. There will not be random parking like it has been, that's going to be changed. We're right now in the process of putting the gravel in to help the parking situation. We're going to take care of all of that. It will all be done before the show gets under way, this 1 guarantee. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-This is the one you withdrew last year? MR. TYRER-The application has been submitted, yes. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Last year you submitted one but later withdrew it? MR. TYRER-Yes, the show at Balloon Festival, we pulled it out, we did decide not to have the show, not only a request of the Town of Queensbury but we also felt it wasn't a good thing to do. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Let me just ask the Clerk, do you have the map that's referred to here, with red and yellow markers? Just give me a quick look at it, please. I remember where it was lost year. (Clerk presented map to Supervisor) 3,27 COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mr. Tyrer, how many cars do you think you can take? MR. TYRER-How many cars? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes. MR. TYRER-Well, it will be random parking, its not necessarily going to be like a 100 cars at one point or 50 cars at one point, they will be coming and going as the day progresses. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But I mean at one point, how many cars do you think you can park? MR. TYRER-For what we con handle? �. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes. MR. TYRER-I would soy we could probably handle 150 cars to 200 cars without any question. But it will be just continuously moving. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Any other Board member with any questions? Town Attorney? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Mr. Supervisor, just to make sure there is no misunderstanding. The 25 dollar fee per merchant that is charged in this, this is something that the applicant will ultimately pay the Clerk, not the individual transient merchants. MR. TYRER-No, the dealers coming in, we have permanent dealers at the Manor, the dealers coming in, say from Schenectady or Albany or Saratoga or whatever, will pay that fee, that fee will go to the Town of Queensbury. What I would like to clarify right now, hopefully if you can give me that, is that fee going to be a one time fee? Because we do have another show in, on the Balloon Festival Weekend. ATTORNEY DUSEK-The license as it is now structured is for a year. MR. TYRER-For a year, whether there are 2 shows, 3 shows or 4 shows, it would be covered under the same? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well it would be for each transient merchant or solicitor that appears at those shows. -- MR. TYRER-Let me put it this way, if the some dealer comes to both shows, one fee? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Correct. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Bob, I wasn't sure you understood or wasn't sure I understood, the 25 dollar fee per merchant, we're going to charge it to you. It's going to be your responsibility. MR. TYRER-We're going to pay that fee to the Town of O.ueensbury, yes. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Right, okay. MR. TYRER-We understand that, we got that straightened out before we come here. The only thing that I wanted to make sure was that, that fee was going to be a one time for the year. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-For the individual merchants. MR. TYRER-Yes. If the some merchant comes twice, he only pays the some fee once. If another merchant comes, he pays that again. As long as we got that clear, yes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mr. Tyrer, except for your permanent dealers that you have at your Manor, how many outside dealers do you expect to have at your show? MR. TYRER-We're hoping for about 15 to 20. They will all be recorded and each dealer will be licensed. There will not be a non licensed dealer on the premises. We don't want the some situation that happened at the Civic Center to happen at our place so that we'll make sure that this is taken care of ahead of time. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I bring to your attention, the regulations for sales tax. I know we're running into that with Americade, we have some possibilities for faxing things bock and forth. But you should be aware that the State Tax Department is visiting this type of market. MR. TYRER-That's why we want to make sure everybody is licensed and listed and registered with the State of New York. Also when they come into the show they will have application here with the Town of Queensbury. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Many of the dealers, I have been to these shows, many of them ore local dealers that just don't happen to hove a spot ... MR. TYRER-Yes, well not only that, we're going to be bringing dealers in from out of ... and Schenectady and Albany and dealers even as for as New Jersey. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes but really they're the people that are in the trade. MR. TYRER-They're all in the trade, they're all licensed people but we know the situation with the State of New York as for as sales tax is concerned. I do have the ... galleries and we're familiar with that as for as :oles tax, that you hove to be licensed no matter what the situation is. So we're familiar wi ti, that, yes. _ SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Okay. Nothing else from the Board members? Thank you very much. Lets see if anyone from the audience has any questions or comments? DR. GEORGE WISWALL-I live at 68 Glenwood Avenue. I'm a neighbor of Bob Tyrers'. He didn't ask me to come here tonight but I come to soy that we have no objections to this permit. But while I hove the mic, I'd like to delegate to the Board that I'm very upset that we don't have some kind of speed control on Glenwood Avenue. I talked with you a year and a half ago. I was here at the Board a year ago. Fred Austin, I've talked with him and I know that it has to go through Albany. I've been just told tonight that its been turned down by Albany, at least 3 times. I can't believe that there isn't something that con be done to establish a speed limit on Glenwood Avenue. Even if it was a matter of enforcing a 55 mile speed zone. There's one motorcycle in particular that goes through there and I'll guarantee he's going 80 miles on hour. Flash. I see cars coming by Tyrer's place and they're on 2 wheels when they come across where the old railroad track used to be. You know, burning rubber. This is a tragedy waiting to happen. You know the bicycle way is on each side of Glenwood Avenue. It was widened to make a bikeway several years ago and they took down the 35 mile on hour speed zone signs. When it come time to put them back up, research showed that it never hod been legally made as a 35 mile an hour speed zone by the State of New York. So they weren't put bock up. There must be some politicion, Congressman Solomon, George Bush, somebody, that could get DOT to hove it. Why do we hove to wait until some kid gets mowed down. There'll probably going to get mowed down if its 35 mile on hour or...Woodvole Rood that runs up along the other side of our property, is 30 miles. Every dinky street around Queensbi is 30 mile on hour speed zone and here theres no signs up. I talked to the sheriff's patrol and they said, no we can't do anything unless there's speed signs up. Now this ridiculous. That's all I've got to soy. SUPERVISOR BORGOS=Just to let you know that we agree with you for that road and many other roads. DR. WISWALL-What are you doing about it? SUPERVISOR BOR COS-We hove done everything possible under the law. We have written letters. We hove talked to people on the phone. We have visited with people in person. We've have accompanied them in there inspection trips and still we get turned down. There is no avenue left for us. DR. WISWALL-I was here to discuss this with you a year ago and this is the first I found out that anything has been done. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Lets try again bringing out the point that it is so close to the bikewoy and that we now hove a housing, that group of townhouses there which are mostly retired people because the State is finally zeroing in on the fact that older drivers need some special considerations and so on and so forth. So, you know, the pulling out of that area. Perhaps we con come up with some more points that would make them look at it again. In the mean time lets ask Sheriff Lomy to really patrol that so we can pick up alot of speeders... maybe they can clock the speeds that people are going even though they're within this speed limit so we con find out what the actual speeds ore they're going through there at. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Is 35 a number that you would be agreeable to? DR. WISWALL-Well the other end of Glenwood Avenue is 35 and it should continue... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Yes but would you agree to the 35 on your side? DR. WISWALL-Yes 35. Bob Tyrer would like to have it 25. 3.;kq COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You're never going to get 25. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-30 is the lowest they've approved any other in the Town. DR. WISWALL-35 would be a good rate. SUPERVISOR BORG OS-Who t I'd recommend that we add that to our list of resolutions. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Isn't it 35, its just that its not signed? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-No, that part of the road, the research shows apparently never did get State approval. It's 55. DR. WISWALL-They don't even have 55 mile signs. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Any road that isn't marked automatically is 55. DR. WISWALL-Well l understand that but ... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We agree with you, I can't tell you ... DR. WISWALL-Well I'm back now, I've been away all winter but I'm back now, I'm going to keep after you. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-There's probably 2 dozens road in the Town of Queensbury, in some cases we ask for lower speed limits and they raise them on us. DR. WISWALL-Well they can't raise that any. SUPERVISOR BORG OS-We're still on the public hearing related to the merchant market, speed and traffic in that area is a concern. Mr. Naylor, maybe you would ... PAUL H. NAYLOR, HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT-Doc, what I'd like to soy is, if you want to stop by the office, I've got the State guy's number, call him yourself and give him you know what. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Good suggestion. MR. TYRER-The only thing I wanted to add to the Doctor's mentioning here of Glenwood Avenue, I guess it must have been 7 years ago we put a proposal in to have a light put up in front of Glenwood Avenue and it was turned down and constantly turned down over the years. Myself and Mr. Corusone across the street at the Sawhorse, he also wanted to put that light in because we found out that not only, you have a situation right now and I probably shouldn't be talking about this but I'm going to bring it up now because I think its important, we have a situation now where I think we did a beautiful job on Quaker Road. I think the County and between the County and the Town, they did a magnificent job. But whots happened to Quaker Road where it was slow traffic because it was only 2 lanes, now you hove the Indy 500. The traffic is going by at probably 2 or 3 times the speed it was going at once before. 1 think this is something where its very important. Now, we've hod 29 accidents on the corner of Quaker Road and Glenwood since I've been there for 7 years, 29 accidents recorded. Nobody has been seriously hurt, there's been no fatalities with the situation but I think its going to come up to that now that the traffic is moving at such a faster pace as it has been. Not only that with the College, the Racquet Club coming in Glenwood, we're increasing all our traffic. So I think we do have a situation that I just want to make one point that I do think we need a light at the corner of Glenwood. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-You'll be happy to know that 1 believe before mid August the light will be in. MR. TYRER-I hope so. I thought the money was allocated when the rood was put in but we have a stop street, but I think, we do have a light at LoFoyette which is important for the fire department but I think because we hove a four lane, four intersection such as Bay, such as Ridge, we need a light. — SUPERVISOR BORGOS-To the best of my knowledge, there will be a light at LoFayette. There will be a light at Glenwood. There will be no light, at least now, at Country Club. There will be no light at Everetts. There will be a light at Meodowbrook. MR. TYRER-Yes, I think they're important. Anyway, I want to thank the Board for hearing our point tonight and I just hope everything will come out favorably. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. We will take some action tonight, one way or another 3W in o minute I think. Anyone else wish to speak for or against this proposal? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING TRANSIENT MERCHANT LICENSE FOR MR. BOB TYRER, OF GLENWOOD MANOR RESOLUTION NO. 266, 1990, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenzo. WHEREAS, Mr. Bob Tyrer, of Glenwood Manor, has mode application to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury for o license to operate o transient merchant andlor solicitor market, in accordance with the provisions of Local Law no. 3 of 1985, which license, if approved, shall, pursuant to the provision of Section 54 of said Local Low, remain in effect until one (1) year from dote of issuance, will be personal to the applicant and not assignable, may thereoft(_ be renewed upon payment of the annual license fee without hearing, and may contain such like reasonable requirements as the Town Board sholl determine, and WHEREAS, o Notice of Public Hearing was given in the official newspaper of the Town of Queensbury and o public hearing was held in connection with the license application on May 7th, 1990, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has considered the following factors as required by the Local Law: 1. Adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, dividers and traffic controls; 2. Location, arrangement, appearance, and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; 3. Adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; 4. Adequocy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; 5. Adequacy, type, and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other landscaping constituting a visual and/or noise, buffer between the applicant and adjoining lands including the maximum retention of existing vegetation; and _ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury grants the application for a transient merchant license to Mr. Bob Tyrer, of Glenwood Manor, allowing him to operate a transient merchant and/or solicitor market of Glenwood Manor, subject to the following: 1. Payment of fees as required by Local Law of the Town of Queensbury; 2. A bond in the amount of $10,000.00 as required by Local Lows of the Town of Queensbury; 3. Proof of authorization to do business in New York and authorization of agent to receive service of summons or other legal process in New York, and 4. Such other requirements as provided by Local Low no. 3 of 1985. Duly adopted this 7th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None PUBLIC HEARING - LOCAL LAW-REC FEES Notice Shown 7:45 p.m. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-This is something that has been the subject of much discussion for a long period of time. There ore some proposed changes in this low. I see some people in the room at least I've hod some correspondence back and forth related to this. It's open, if any one wishes to speak for or against or ask questions about? Please state your name 331 and address. ELIZABETH VELLANTI, 60 Sweet Road, Queensbury-As you all know I'm very fond of the recreation fees, sarcastically of course. Therefore you understand why I want to ask these questions. Was the low as it was originally enacted, filed with the Secretory of State? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-1 would have to believe that it was. By my own knowledge I do not know but the Clerk nods in the affirmative so I would soy yes. MRS. VELLANTI-It was registered, filed with the Secretary of State? TOWN CLERK DOUGHER-Would you like me to get it? MRS. VELLANTI-No, that's okoy, I just want to make sure. Okay and if it was filed, what are we proposing changes in it for now? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I'll ask the Town Attorney to delineate those changes. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Bosically there's been a number of changes that have been made in the law. First of all, the format of the law has been changed because it used to be the local low covered site plan or multi family dwelling units. The subdivision regulations for the Town of Queensbury covered the subdivision, whenever a subdivision went through. So there were 2 different sets of regulations and laws operating depending upon on what type of application you hod. One of the first experiences I had personally with it was when the fees went up on the local low, I think that was about a year and a half, two years ago now, and we found the one regulation but I did not find the other one and therefore did not prepare a resolution for the Board to act upon and we missed one. So we went back. What this loco/ low does is first of all, condense all this into one local low. It does not importantly change the amount of the fees that ore currently being assessed, they stay the same. It also, another thing it does is to establish a procedure by which fees con be changed. Traditionally the only way that a fee could be changed in the subdivision regulations was to go through the Planning Board and the Town Board in double hearings, through o number of procedural steps and also go through and change it in the local law by way of public hearing as well as going through and amending and filing the new local low with the Secretary of State, which is how they did it the last time. The way its set up now is that that eliminates that particular situation. Now they still hove to hold a public hearing so they get the public input but now they con change it by resolution as opposed to going through and changing the entire low or it going through subdivision regulations. in addition to that, to make the the local law hopefully more readable and also to give, what I think turn out to be primarily benefits, certain lots were e:, mpted from the chorge of fees. Any lot or plot for which a recreation fee had already been paid, would not hove, would not be a new, now be c r-„orgeoble lot under either site plan or subdivision. Further any lot that had a principal building to start with. Like if you had a home, somebody owns a home and they had say maybe 10 acres of land and they're in a 5 acre zone, they now under this local law will get the benefit of that home being preexisting, they won't hove to pay o rec fee for that, they'll only pay a rec fee for their new lot they're actually creating. That's been clarified. The regulations by which the Board will consider to in order to assess recreation fee or take land hove been up ticked a little bit and up dated. For instances, there were several criteria the Board had to consider under the old local law and regulations and now we've added a couple more items. The master plan for the Town will be considered and the master plan for the Parks and Recreations of the Town will be considered as additional criteria. The perspective character with development and surrounding area will be considered. There might have been a couple other changes in there as well. There were a number of, essentially everything was kind of rewritten, reorganized and I'm trying not to miss anything on you because I don't want to mislead you. MRS. VELLANTI-No, in the paper it really sounded like you were just doing what you hod already done and that's what really had caused me olot of confusion because 1 couldn't understand and when it said Secretary of State of course, 1 wanted to make sure that, you know, this was originally filed. ATTORNEY DUSEK-1 don't know what the status is originally ... MRS. VELLANTI-Because you're making this retroactive to 1988 and that's where I said, why would you make it retroactive when it was already, if its already been filed. A T TOR NE Y DUSEK-The reason behind the retroactivity was to afford people the benefit of the local low. In fact if you read in the introductory clause of the very end of the legislative history and purpose, it says, this local low sholl also retroactively effect some projects that have already been approved. The rational, and this is whots important for the retroactive policy, is that this local low should generally benefit the effected subdivision multifamily and planned unit developments who hove already paid, already received approvals and should not cause any additional fees to be paid. Because of those new exemptions, anybody getting that approval since that date, should be able to take advantage of that and if they over paid "V3 a; by 500 dollars, they should get that back. So that was one of the primary reasons for putting that in. MRS. VELLANTI-This shouldn't effect anyone whose already paid for these, in other words? There isn't any change substantially in this that's going to effect people who have already paid these fees since October of 88. A T TOR NE Y D USEK-No. In fact if you're one of those individuals who had a house with the parcel that's been divided off, you in fact may be entitled to a refund. MRS. VELLANTI-I should be so fortunate. So then I would hove to assume this was filed back in 88 originally, right? A T TOR NE Y D USEK-I'll have to leave that to you. TOWN CLERK DOUGHER-1111 go get it. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-1 was here when that happened. MRS. VEL L A N TI-Becouse I was part of that, I was in the original public hearing so I know we went through all this, that's all I was wondering about. SUPERVISOR BOR GOS-You'll hove it in about 4 minutes. MRS. VELLANTI-What? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-She'll be bock in about 4 minutes. MRS. VELLANTI-Who? SUPERVISOR BOR GOS-Darleen, with the certificate. MRS. VELLANTI-Oh Darleen. So then like I said, that was my third question, it doesn't substantially change anything or impact the people that hove already paid it? They're okay? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yes. MRS. VELLANTI-You're not doing anything else...so then also, like you said, according to — what I read, it's still open as to the Town which will just decide whenever they decide to change the fees at their discretion. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Bosically everything stays pretty much the same. One of the and that just reminds me of another point it does, once again it clarifies the process a little bit. What had been going on previously is the Planning Board was primarily one of the ones that were charged with the responsibility, the Town Board has some interplay with the Planning Board on this. This all spells it out a little bit more clearly so everybody understands exactly how the process works and what the functions are. It's in black and white more now. MRS. VELLANTI-Is this a result of you being in here now? I hove a feeling this is you. ATTORNEY DUSEK-1 don't know. MRS. VELLANTI-It sounds like he's trying to, you know, make it, tie up all the loose ends and all that. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-He's a very important part of that attempt on our part. MRS. VELLANTI-That's right. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Poul, one of the comments that you made initially, I understood where you were coming from when you talked about retroactiveness in one lot subdivision. But you said someone that had paid it before wouldn't' hove to pay it again, where would that situation have existed? Where would you have hod that kind of a problem? ATTORNEY DUSEK-One example may be is if somebody comes through for subdivision approval, say they have a 100 acre subdivision and they divided it into 1 acre lots, which I don't think we have anything like that, I'm just using numbers here but you therefore get 100 lots. Now lets assume further that part of those are business use or something, they would now be forced to come through for site plan approval but because they already paid the 500 dollar fee they're not going to have to once again pay it one they come back for site plan approval. So under the old set of laws, I think there was a possibility you could conceivably say that because 333 if you came through under the site plan approval lows, you'd get caught on that. Maybe business isn't as good on example as maybe multi family dwellings would be o better example where you might 4et trapped. MRS. VEL L AN TI-Does the low require when there is on increase, if the Board decides to increase it, is there o need for a public hearing or on announcement in the paper, whenever they ore contemplating another increase? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Both. They must hove a public hearing before they con increase the fee under this local low. MRS. VELLAN TI-Was that the way it was before too? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yes. MRS. VELLANTI-Because I missed it the lost time somehow. You slipped it right by me, I didn't even know it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Actually that went on for quite some period of time with a lot of discussion about it. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thot's interesting to know, as long you raised the issue, as much as our meetings ore always the first and third Monday of the month, regular meetings, there's nobody from any of the news media here tonight. So this maybe explains why people don't know whots happening. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And if they were, they'd put in what they feel like, not what we necessarily would consider important. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Just for the record. MRS. VELLANTI-That's all 1 wonted to know. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Dorleen should be back in a minute. Anyone else? Mr. Martin, you may hove to pull the mic up a bit. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-You're the gentleman who wrote the letter. JAMES MARTIN, Form to Market Road-My wife and I wrote o letter lost May 2nd and it _ was in regards to this proposed low. My main concern is, last October we received on approval for o subdivision. We bought some property from Pam's grandfather as a result of it. it's land that's been in the family for many years and the subdivision took a 35 acre parcel and made it into 2 lots. As a result of that we hope to someday build a single family home on the lot. The lot right now, both lots are currently vacant and always have been. The problem 1 hove with the low as proposed is, its seems to be conflict with the stated purpose of the law. The low says it is attempting to assess only those lots or site plan reviews which attribute to o created demand. The problem I hove is that if that 35 acre lot had just hod o home built on it and never gone through subdivision which would have never meet it, there would never been a recreation fee charged although there would have been a home built on what was previously was o vacant lot. Now since the lot has gone through a subdivision, there's on opportunity now to charge for each lot. My argument is, as a result of the subdivision, there's o created demand of 1 lot, not 2 because you hove previous lot that already existed and like I said ... there would never been o fee charged. So 1 think there's a little bit of a conflict there that there should be maybe some sort of ...(tape changed) SUPER VISOR BOR GOS-1 don't remember why we decided that that didn't look as good as the new language. ATTORNEY DUSEK-1 think my recollection that the Board felt that the problem was with the enforcement. Once those subdivision occurred and the 2 lots existed, there was nothing to prevent anybody from coming in to build on both lots and to get a building permit from the Building Department and that lot would essentially get missed as for as recreation fees are concerned. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but the whole concept behind recreation fees or green fees as they're commonly referred to, is to keep, allow a Town to have funds to keep pace with the unusual or unpredicted demand that is created through subdivision or site plan review. You know the number of lots that exist today and you know therefore then how many housing units could be built in the Town potentially. But subdivision comes into ploy and creates on unforseen pressure, demand for recreation facilities or what hove you and hence, there's the need for recreation fee. So its only as a result of that created demand that the concept of recreation fees was developed. So its that additional lots that come into play, not the lots that exist. 334- COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Jim, in your particular case and maybe I read the letter incorrectly, there was a 35 acre parcel, 5 acres was subdivided off ... MR. MARTIN-Three. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Three acres was subdivided off which you purchased ... MR. MAR TIN-Right. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-And you intend to build your house and there was never o question about the fact that that subdivision created a 500 dollar fee. The question is, the 32 acres that are left, you're saying there is not a house on that 32 acres or there is? MR. MARTIN-There is not. See what I'm saying is that, there was a 35 acre parcel there that in the beginning counted as 1 lot and if developed under your current zoning regulations or what hove you, you know, a single family home put on that lot, there would never had been o recreation fee charged. Now the fact that it has gone through subdivision ... COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Unless there was a house on the original subdivision that your breaking off, what we did was we made on exception, we said that, if we cut this in half, there's a house on it... COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-It still doesn't do any good. MR. MARTIN-Well I'm asking for on additional exception be mode for on existing lot. Because like I said, its o lot, lot had just never gone through subdivision and somebody hod built a home on it, there would never have been a recreation fee charged. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-And there still wouldn't be under the rules. MR. MAR TIN-Correct. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Paul, I have another question. Alright, we've got 32 acres left there, supposedly that 32 acres as we stand right now is going to pay o 500 dollar fee. That 32 acres I believe is 3 acre zoning, am I right Jim? MR. MARTIN-Well, the rear portion of it is mostly 10 acre. It falls in the Adirondack Park. So you could potentially hove another 3 lots. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Alright, supposing somebody comes in the future and wants to divide this 32 acres into 3 lots, how are we ever going to pick up the fact that its already paid one 500 so I assume it would only hove to pay whatever the rate is we're charging some time down the future for 2 lots. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Right. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But how are we going to keep track of things like that? COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Well if you do that now, you'd have to do it in the beginning. ATTORNEY DUSEK-1 didn't plan that port of it. I wasn't asked to. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, I'm just thinking though, I wont to solve problems before they start. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-This is where perhaps Mr. Martin's recommendation would help. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Exoctly. Because if you do that then Betty, you might as well do it in the beginning and only charge one 500 dollar fee for that one lot that's subdivided and then the next person that comes ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And I hove no problem with that because, that's why I'm saying, how would we ever keep track of the fact that when somebody come in for the 32 acre ... — COUNCILMAN POTENZA-You're right. The only way you could keep track is that you charge them in the beginning. MR. MARTIN-If your intent is to just simply charge o fee for every time there is a home built, then maybe you should link the fee to the building permit, the building inspector. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well we can't do that ... S3S MR. MARTIN-That's why it was originally linked to subdivision or site plan review process to begin with. Its to deal with the impact of created demand not existing demand. Existing demand, not only includes those lots that already have a home on them, but the fact that those lots are in existence at the time of the zoning adoption. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-This all came up when you adopted the zoning ordinance and when I objected to the going to 2 lot subdivisions and I still think its wrong. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-It used to be 4 lots or under didn't need... COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-It used to be 4 lots and under ... meet State criterio. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That's right. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-You had to hove 5 lots or more for a subdivision and I wanted it left that way and I argued it and nobody listened to me. Now you've created a catch 22 situation for this law and the other law. Unless they correct it, I'm not going to vote for this the way its written. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We've got land that comes in for conceptual approval for 100 houses on it but the Planning Board will not look at final approval or anything, more than phases of 35. So its my understanding that the recreation fee is not paid on a conceptual at 100 lots, its paid on a, when they come in for the phasing and they're paying on the 35 lots. Am I correct on that? ATTORNEY DUSEK-I con verify that for you in a moment. Its says, final subdivision plot approval does not as used in this local low include conceptual or preliminary approval. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So its a phasing part that they pay. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Right. COUNCILMAN MO N A H A N-Which again kind of ties in with who Jim is saying on these minor subdivisions and that what we're talking about. We've got to be consistent in the way we treat this because the others are paying on the phasing, these huge ones ore paying on the phasing and thots what Jim says, in a minor one, it should be in the phasing of that, really. MR. MAR TIN-Its especially a problem in the smaller subdivision because you have a case here where the intent of the subdivision was simply a transaction of land between family members. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Lets say Pam hadn't been the granddaughter, it probably wouldn't have been sold. MR. MAR TIN-I con tell you it wouldn't have been. I'm not a developer who passes the fee onto the third party person who buys the lot, I bear the cost with myself as a cost in addition to the building the house and the septic system and all that. So I think it would be a real break, especially in the case of these smaller subdivisions for the people in the community who have lived here a// their life and would like to stay here. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Let me ask, 1 don't know how many more people want to speak about this, but let me ask our Town Attorney how difficult it would be at this point, perhaps we couldn't take any action tonight but maybe at a special meeting, how difficult it would be at this point to change this from the way its proposed into what we had originally discussed, the total minus one. ATTORNEY DUSEK-1 think it would be a matter of just adding some additional paragraph to the ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We have to be careful with total minus one though when we're talking about big subdivisions ... that's a different thing. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-11m talking about something under 4 or 5. ATTORNEY DUSEK-It could probably be done by way of addition to the definitions under assessable lots. That would be my guess. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Mr. Kurosoko is further limiting it and I think Mrs. Monahan, I here her saying the some thing. COUNCILMAN MONA HA N-Absolutely. 3J(c COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-You have to limit it to something like this, if you go to 4 lots there's no problem, once you get post 4 lots ... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-This would apply to less than 5 lots ... COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Man could have, keep his house and divide it among three, leave to three of his children and that a minor subdivision. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-So in that case, as I understand it, if there would be 4 or less, we would then soy, the number of lots created minus 1 if you were to have a subdivision of 4 or less. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, I think what George is saying if and I think what Jim is saying, if you have a 4 lot subdivision or less, you assess the recreation fee at the time the building COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-No, no, don't make on exception. MR. MARTIN-I didn't have a problem with the type of ossessment, its common in those things, that type of subdivision. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes but you, I mean now we've got o 2 lot subdivision, and yet you're saying you really should only be paying the 500 dollars. MR. MARTIN-Right, that's why I'm saying there should only be on ... of 500 dollars for the one new lot. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-This is all preface by the fact that if its vacant land. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-The simplest way is minus one on anything. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Not on your big ones. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-First of all you've covered it. If theres o home on 35 acres and you subdivide that property with a home on it into 2 lots, the parcel that is left with the home doesn't pay the fee, the way this is written. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Right. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Its only the vacant land that we're dealing with where a family fixed subdivision, there is no homestead on it, its just on empty piece of land and they divided it into 2. Let me ask you a question about that. Suppose Pam hod another sister and they took 2 vacant lots and they divided it and they gave one to Pam and one to the other her sister. Now we've created 2 lots. Would you still feel that, who would bear the burden of the 500 bucks? MR. MARTIN-It would be the new developer, the new person coming in and subdividing that original lot. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Well the grandfather gives 2 lots away, they're both vacant, one to one sister, one to the other sister. Who bears the 500 dollar burden? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That's a family matter. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-No, no, now you've created 2 lots where the original owner isn't there any longer. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-It still gets them, 1 lot or 2 lot subdivision. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Yes, but I mean this definition has to be pretty fine I think, it has to be vacant land, original owner or subdivider has to still maintain one lot. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-1 think a man ought to be able to pass his land down to his kids. MR. MARTIN-Its not a question of ownership, its a question of the fact that on that 35 acre parcel, you had one lot, now you've created 2, that's one new one. That's one new demand for recreation in terms of the lot. That's my point. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-That answers that definition. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Jim, the grandparents do have o home. X37 MR. MAR"TIN-Right. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Both of these parcels are in the some name ownership, originally? I mean the home piece and the piece across the rood? MR. MARTIN-The piece they have their house on, you mean? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes. MR. MAR TIN-I don't know about the piece they hove their home. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I'm trying to get you the exemption underneath that type of thing, you know, call it all one parcel. See what I'm trying to do? COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-You can't. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Why not? It all depends on how the deed is written. MR. MARTIN-No, it would be, the parcels were listed on the tax mops as separate parcels. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Are they 2 different tax numbers. MR. MARTIN-Yes, its 2 different parcels of land. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Lets see if any other Board members have any questions or do you hove another point you'd like to make? MR. MARTIN-The only lost point I'd like to make is that, in the subdivision process itself, it would be very beneficial, I think you'd save yourself olot of complaints, if this is introduced upfront and people ore made aware from the minute they start this. I wasn't told of a recreation fee until I received final approval and that was o blow. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Were you in the process during the time that the law was being enacted? MR. MARTIN-No, this was just lost fall, October of 89 and I wasn't told there was o 500 dollar per lot recreation fee until I already received conceptual approval and was scheduled for final. I think it should be told right up front and I think it would save olot of headaches. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Paul, isn't that a check off on the sheet now? At least with the big subdivisions? ATTORNEY DUSEK-1 don't know what the Planning Department is doing at the moment. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-1 don't believe so. You've got to read the regulations in order to see it. MR. MAR TIN-I think on effort should be made... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Okay, anyone else wish to speak about this subject? Lets talk with the Board about consensus. Anybody want to try to move with on amended version tonight? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-1 don't believe we can to be legal with the public hearing, would it? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I'm just wondering. This would be a less erroneous rendered, more erroneous change because this in the hands of less restrictive. It is in the hands of the attorney. But my question is, before the evening is over, I'm going to request o special meeting later this week, if there were to be such o change, would anybody be against waiting for a few days to get it done properly in the Regs. How does everybody feel? COUNCILMAN MONTESI-1 would like to see the change made so that you're not harming that individual with the vacant lot that gets subdivided. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Up to a certain limit or at any point? Up to 4? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Up to o certain limit because I think when you get further, you're getting into your bigger developers. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-You take up to 4, it doesn't cause any problems at all. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Mrs. Potenzo, how do you feel? COUNCILMAN POTENZA-1 hove a little bit of o problem, I'd like to do some background work on it. Because one of the concerns was, that the 4 lot subdivision was becoming a concern in this Town because the Planning Deportment hod some control over developers coming in over 4 units. It was under 4 units, that they were being concerned about and they were having on impact on the Town because a developer was going 4, 4, 4 throughout the Town, kind of beating the system. So I have no problem with Pam and Jim's concern but I would like it phrased so that it doesn't impact, its clear to the developer what we're looking for. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Maybe something like the original owner would hove to retain control of the other lots. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Either that or with family members. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Well, I know, you could sell it to my brother and then my brother is going to turn around and sell it to somebody else. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-There's nothing you con do about that, there's nothing you con do. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-If you wanted to, you could beat the system by building that house and then coming in later and having that 3 acres subdivided through the 35. MR. MARTIN-Its really not o question of ownership, its just a question of the created demand for recreation. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Its o question of impact. That's right. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I think you're hearing some sympathetic voices. Now I'm going to ask the Attorney again, would you consider this to be of less impact if we were to odd this other exemption and when would you feel comfortable in doing such? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well, I think, first of a// if you're going to change the local low, you always run that problem with the public hearing, and I guess the cautious side of me says you'd be better to hove another public hearing before ... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-1 was afraid you'd say that ... ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well because the impact is not only, you've got to remember, the impact is not only the fact that somebody is getting a benefit from it, but there's also a detriment — side of it in as much as less money is being raised in recreation revenues. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Money is not important in this case. ATTORNEY DUSEK-1 know, but I'm just saying ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But he's talking about the legality of the public hearing. ATTORNEY DUSEK-But when you're weighing the need for the public hearing, I think that's one of the elements that you have to consider. I think that you'd probably be better off with another public hearing. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-1 agree with you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-How does the rest of the group feel? COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Disappointed but ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-1 think if you're going to do any changes, you should have another public hearing. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Okay, as long as this is fresh in our minds, is this something you could revise so that at our special meeting later this week, we could set the public hearing for the next ... ATTORNEY DUSEK-1 can try, I think, the Supervisor knows, we discussed my schedule today and its very busy this week. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Yes, your schedule is tough. My concern is, we talked about the retroactivit I'm concerned about a few projects that are hanging there since lost, well October of 88, deciding whether to pay a 1,000 dollars or 500 dollars and some people haven't progressed post that point and I l;i ,ri of would like to see that wrapped up. Well lets see, maybe it wont 339 be a big c4onge in language, maybe it's something that could be accomplished. ATTORNEY DUSEK-If I can work it into a definition, it might be something we could do a little faster. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Paul, I have one more question and I thought I had put some written comments into you, maybe I didn't. But that is, land that we con take for recreation that you've got listed like, I wish our pages were numbered here, but under section 7, you've got them listed for one thing on 3, the location of the reserved land. I think we also, maybe we already have that authority and don't have to put it into writing but do we have the authority to except land that has a particular ecological, environmental or historical value so that we can protect some sites that we need to in this Town and do it under this in lieu of? I thought 1 had given you some written comments on that. ATTORNEY DUSEK-1 think there's language in there that already kind of covers those aspects of it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You do? Okay. I just want to make sure, if we ever use that for a reason sometime because there maybe, you know, this is a very historic. Town. This wouldn't be any possibility but lets just say, if blind rock were in the middle of a proposed subdivision, I'd want to be able to take that in lieu of a recreation fee. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We've had our eyes on that now, its been identified and we've spoken to the owners. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes, but you know, I mean there's other things. There's the Indian digs and there's ... SUPERVISOR BOR GOS-A nyone else? Okay, am I hearing a consensus from the Board then, that you don't want to take any action this evening? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think we're close but not quite ... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Mrs. Vellonti, the Town Clerk has done the research, to tell you that the original law setting the recreation fees was filed with the Secretary of State on May 19th, 1986. The most recent amendment was filed on December 2nd, 1988. We have both of the receipts here and the filing certificates. (shown to Mrs. Vellonti) Okay, so that public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:20 p.m. OPEN FORUM ELEANOR BACKON, 331 Ridge Street-Would like a decision on my request exempting from the sewer hook up for a portion of my property. (presented a letter from Dickinson's surveyors and engineers stating the impossibility of the hook up) SUPERVISOR BORGOS read letter into the record. Dear Mrs. Backon, as proposed, it is not possible to sewer your parcel, tax mop number 109-3-21.6 and be in strict compliance with the Town of Queensbury's Sewer Ordinances for setbacks. Should you need anything further, please do no hesitate to call me. (letter on file) TOWN BOARD held discussion regarding the best procedure to handle this particular situation under this legislation. Board agreed that a standard form should be drawn up to consider this type of a variance and once completed the Town would then send Mrs. Backon one and in the mean time Mrs. Backon, submit a written letter of intent, requesting the exemption from the sewer hook up. Councilman Montesi noted to the Board that he and Mr. Hatin visited the particular parcel and feel, in their opinion, that there are some alternatives open to Mrs. Backon. Board agreed that further information is needed including input from the Town's engineer before a proper decision can be made. PAUL H. NA YLOR-Questioned the lights at Glenwood Avenue and Quaker? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that D.P.W. Supt. Fred Austin stated that there would be a traffic light at Glenwood Avenue and Quaker. DEPUTY HIGHWAY SUPT. MiSSITA-The loops and trips were only put in on LaFayette and Meodowbrook nothing has been done on Glenwood. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- We'll talk to him again. Reviewed the status of street lighting on Quaker Road... �4D COUNCILMAN M 0 N TESI-A sked for the support of the Queensbury Supervisor's on the Warren County Board for lighting on Quaker Rood...noting that the road come under budget... . Recommended that the Qsby. Supervisor's (Warren Co.) be invited to a Board Meeting to express our concerns.. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-/ am on the DPW Committee, it has been brought to that group the problem is getting enough votes. MR. PLINEY TUCKER-Who pays for the lights on Quaker Road... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We do...The Central Qsby. Lighting Dist. MR. PLINEY TUCKER-The lights around Aviation Mall... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The Town pays of the electricity for those. MR. PLINEY TUCKER-The Corinth Rood...counted pot holes..between Sherman Island Road and the Town Line, 85... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-1 will send another note to Mr. Austin, in more detail.. MR. PLINEY TUCKER-Question is the Supv. had contact the Mayor about the garbage on Veterans Field? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-No the Mayor has been out of Town... COUNCILMAN MONA HA N-Complimented Paul, Rick and their crews for the conditions of Queensbury's roads, they are superb compared to a awful lot 'of areas I hove driven through... MR. DAVID HA TIN-DIRECTOR OF BLDG. AND CODES-Noted that there will be on informational meeting on the proposed sprinklers, the meeting will be held this Wednesday at 7:00 p.m., invited the Board to attend. COUNCILMAN PO TEN ZA-Requested that some follow up be done on a possible Noise Ordinance...thre, weeks ago our Planning Board approved a Subd. for the Queensbury Industrial Park and also site plan approval for an expansion of the ...corp. thanks to the cooperation of all the parties we will have the opportunity to welcome into this community a company that will comply ... will recycle all of our newspapers and make a substantial contribution to our economic — tax base, although there has been some comments made by members of this Board criticizing . the Queensbury Economic Dev. Corp. I would like to thank personally Jim LoPon our Attorney, Fred Champagne the President of QEDC and the Members of the Board who represent our Business Community for the endless effort set for AVI to this Town. With the Northeast loosing well over 500,000 jobs in the last two years this surely is a sign of very positive growth and a healthy position for the Town. TOWN ATTORNEY DUSEK-Noted that we do have a sample noise ordinance that may help. COUNCILMAN MON TESI-R e viewed the status of the Cronin Rood Bridge... DISCUSSION HELD IN REGARD TO HOWARD JOHNSON SEWER LINE HOOKUP Russell Scudder-presented the Board with a proposal for hookup... after the presentation by Mr. Scudder the Board took the following action... RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE SUPERVISOR TO ENTER INTO LICENSING AGREEMENT WITH HOWARD JOHNSON MOTOR LODGE RESOLUTION NO. 267, 1990, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenzo: RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to enter into a Licensing Agreement with Howard Johnson Motor Lodge such that while they are working on Town property (Old Quaker Hill Road) and that necessary insurance shall be carried and the pipe when installed shall be turned over to the Town of Queensbury free of charge once it is established without any restrictions. Duly adopted this 7th day of May, 1990 by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MINUTES RESOLUTION NO. 268, 1990, Introduced by Mr. R ono ld Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosoko: RESOL VED, that the Town Board Minutes of March 19, 1990 be and hereby is approved. Duly adopted this 7th day of May, 1990 by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: Mrs. Potenzo, Mrs. Monahan RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MINUTES RESOLUTION NO. 269, 1990, Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenzo who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: RESOLVED, that the Town Board Minutes of April 9th and 16, 1990 be and hereby are approved. Duly adopted this 7th day of May, 1990 by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: Mr. Kurosoko RESOL UTION TO APPROVE MINUTES RESOLUTION NO. 270, 1990, Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenzo, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan: RESOL VED, that the Town Board Minutes of April 19th, 1990 be and hereby are approved. Duly adopted this 7th day of May, 1990 by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: Mr. Kurosoko, Mr. Montesi RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF PROPERTY PURCHASE RESOLUTION NO. 271, 1990, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering purchasing property owned by Tremper C. Ronderson located off Meodowbrook Rood, in the Town of Queensbury, as shown on the Town of Queensbury Tax Map as number 59-1-6, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified to act a 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 of the Town of Queensbury, 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 RESOL VED, that the Town Board finds that the proposed responses inserted in Part II of the said environmental assessment form ore satisfactory and approved, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to complete and execute Port III 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 Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file the some in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the Deportment of Environmental Conservation. Duly adopted this 7th day of May, 1990 by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent:None SUPERVISOR BORGOS-This is the first step in the Town acquiring 9 acres of land olong Halfway Brook, along Meodowbrook Rood, to keep it safe for recreation, and fishing...price of the property $15,000. RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT WITH TREMPER C. RANDERSON AND RETAINING LEON STEVES TO SURVEY THE SUBJECT PARCEL - RESOLUTION NO. 272, 1990, Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenzo who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan: WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is desirous of purchasing certain property owned by Tremper C. Ronderson, located off Meodowbrook Rood, as shown on the Town of Queensbury Tax Map as number 59-1-6, for purposes of creating a public recreation area, and WHEREAS, the purchase price of said property sholl be $15,000.00, and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the Town to enter into a Contract of Sale with Mr. Ronderson, and WHEREAS, a copy of the aforementioned Contract has been presented to this meeting and, WHEREAS, the Town Attorney, Paul B. Dusek, has reviewed and approved of said Contact, with the recommendation that a survey be done by the Town Surveyor, Leon Steves, to determine the ownership of the right-of-woy running from Meodowbrook Rood to said property, and WHEREAS, Leon Steves has estimated that said survey will cost $2,500.00, and WHEREAS, the Town Board is desirous of retaining Leon Steves to perform the survey, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby approves the Contract of Sole with Tremper C. Ronderson, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, pursuant to Town Low, Section 64 (6), the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized to execute and sign said Contract, and 3q3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Leon Steves shall be retained to survey the Ronderson property, at a cost not to exceed $3,000.00. Duly adopted this 7th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS IN H40, AMENDING BUDGET, AND AUTHORIZING 1NTERFUND LOAN RESOLUTION NO. 273, 1990, Introduced by Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Montesi. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is the governing board of the Central Queensbury Quaker Rood Sewer District, and has obtained the approval of the Office of the New York State Office of State Audit and Control, for on increase of$2.4 million in expenditures for the construction of said sewer district, and has generally complied with the necessary procedures to authorize the issuance of bonds or other financial obligations, and WHEREAS, the said Town Board is desirous of amending the budget of the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED, that the appropriations in H40 (Quaker Road Sewer Capital Project Construction Fund) ore hereby increased by $2.4 million with the source of funding to be from a State sponsored loan program known as the Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund or, in the alternative, from the sale of serial bonds, or both, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the 1990 budget of H40 (Quaker Rood Sewer Capital Project Construction Fund) is hereby amended accordingly, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that until the aforementioned funding is in place and in addition to bond anticipation notes and any interfund loans previously authorized, the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to temporarily advance cash from the General Fund to H40 (Quaker Road Sewer Capitol Project Construction fund) in the amount of $35,000.00 and to keep or arrange with the Director of Accounting Services to keep suitable records of the temporary advance, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any money temporarily advanced to H40 (Quaker Road Sewer Capital Project Construction Fund) pursuant to this resolution, shall be repaid to the General Fund as soon as possible, but in no event, later than the close of the current fiscal year, together with on amount reasonably estimated by the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury to be the additional amount that would hove been earned on the investment of said moneys, had said moneys remained in the General Fund. Duly adopted this 7th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos -- Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING APPLICATION OF FREDERICK HATHAWAY FOR TRANSIENT MERCHANT/SOLICITORS MARKET LICENSE RESOLUTION NO. 274, 1990, Introduced by Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Montesi. -34J WHEREAS, Mr. Frederick Hathaway, of Southwest Traders, has made application to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury for a Transient Merchants Solicitor Market License, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of holding a public hearing on said application as is required by Local Law No. 3, of 1985, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby states that a public hearing shall be held on May 21, 1990 at 7:30 p.m., in the Queensbury Activities Center, Bay at Hovilond Roads, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that at such public hearing all persons interested in the subject matter of the license sholl be heard, and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED, that notice of said public hearing sholl be given to the applicant and owners of property within 500 feet of the applicant's property by regular moil and that a notice of said public hearing shall likewise be published in the official newspaper of the Town a minimum of seven (7) days prior to the time of the hearing, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the said notice of hearing shall contain the name of the applicant, the tax map number, a general description of the property, the date and place of the hearing, the fact that all persons interested in the subject of a license will be heard, the nature of the action by the Board, i.e., transient merchant license, and the length of time the license will be in effect, and the said notice sholl be otherwise in a form to be approved by the Town A t torne y. Duly adopted this 7th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos None: None Absent: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PROOF OF CLAIM RESOLUTION NO. 275, 1990, Introduced by Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenza. WHEREAS, two (2) proof of c!oim forms for the Town of Queensbury's current, outstanding and future claims against Mutual Fire, Marine and Inland Insurance Company have been prepared, and WHEREAS, the aforesaid claim forms hove been approved by Paul B. Dusek, Town Attorney for the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the said claim forms have been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the two (2) proof of claim forms for the Town of Queensbury's outstanding, current and future claims again. t Mutual Fire, Marine and Inland Insurance Company ore hereby approved by this Board, c:nd BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized to execute said claim forms. Duly adopted this 7th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF TWO (2) TWENTY FIVE (25) FOOT BRONZE FINISH FLAGPOLES FOR STATE POLICE SATELLITE BUILDING GROUNDS RESOLUTION NO. 276, 1990, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenza. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of purchasing two (2) twenty-five (25) foot bronze finish flagpoles, complete with ground socket and lightning spike, revolving double pulley truck, halyard, flag snaps and cleat for installation at the State Police Satellite Building grounds, and WHEREAS, C.W. Whalen & Sons has indicated it would provide such flagpoles for on amount not to exceed $2,200.00, plus freight costs, and WHEREAS, the said flagpoles ore to be paid for from the State Police Satellite Building Fund, Account No. H-45-14-5-1628-300, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the purchase of two (2) twenty-five (25) foot bronze finish flagpoles, complete with ground socket and lightning spike, revolving double pully truck, halyard, flag snaps and cleat from C.W. Whalen & Sons, at a cost not to exceed $2,200.00, for installation at the State Police Satellite building grounds, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said flagpoles shall be paid from the State Police Satellite Building Fund, Account No. H-45-14-5-1628-300. Duly adopted this 7th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WITHDRAWAL OF BID AND AWARD OF BID ON GENERATOR BUILDING RESOLUTION NO. 277, 1990, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Betty Monahan. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury authorized and directed the advertising and solicitation of bids for the purchase of a metal building package for use by the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, and WHEREAS, several bidders submitted bids and set forth the cost of furnishing such a metal building package, including Plank Construction Co., Inc., and WHEREAS, Plank Construction Co., Inc., by letter dated April 23, 1990, has requested permission to withdraw its bid, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has : 1) considered the reasons offered by Plank Construction Co., Inc., for permission to withdraw its bid, 2) considered the provisions of the notice and bidding documents which provide that bids may not be withdrawn by bidders except by consent of the Town Board, 3) considered the bid proposal by Plank Construction Co., Inc., and the terms and provisions set forth therein, as well as the specifications and requirements of the bidding documents, and 4) the possibility of on award of the bid to Plank Construction Co., Inc., and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has also considered all of the other — bids that have been submitted in connection with the furnishing of the aforesaid metal building package, and notes that Machnick Builders Ltd., has submitted the next lowest bid after Plank Construction Co., Inc., in the amount of $22, 177.00, and WHEREAS, Thomas K. Flaherty, Superintendent of Water for the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, has recommended that the bid be awarded to Machnick Builders Ltd., and WHEREAS, the Town Attorney for the Town of Queensbury has advised that the Town Board does hove the legal right to reject any and all bids and allow the withdrawal of the bid by Plank Construction Co., Inc., while accepting one of the other bids offered, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that after considering the matters as set forth above, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the withdrawal of the bid submitted by Plank Construction Co., Inc., and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby awards the contract for the furnishing of the pre-engineered metal emergency generator building package to Mochni Builders, Ltd., at on amount not to exceed $22,177.00, and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED, that the cost of the metal building shall be paid for from Account No. : W12759951.90, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor of the Town Queensbury is hereby authorized to take such other further action and furnish and execute such other further documents as may be required to complete the purchase of the aforesaid pre-engineered metal building, the foundation upon which it is to be installed, and the installation and erection of the aforesaid pre-engineered metal building, provided that if a further contract is necessary for the erection or installation of the metal building or if bids ore needed to be obtained, the matter shall be referred back to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 7th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING AND TO DESIGNATE THE TOWN AS LEAD AGENC REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE ARTICLE 8 TO BE DESIGNATEC AS SECTION 8.030 (GENERAL EXEMPTION FROM ALL ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR PROPERTY CONSTITUTING LESS THAN ONE HUNDRED (100)ACRES TO BE PURCHASED BY THE TOWN OF QUEENSBUR Y) RESOLUTION NO. 278, 1990, Introduced by Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Montesi. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is presently considering an amendment, supplement, change and/or modification to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance which was adopted on October 1, 1988, and more specifically considering a revision of Article 8, by adding Section 8.030 shown as follows: Section 8.030 GENERAL EXEMPTION FROM ALL ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR PROPERTY CONSTITUTING LESS THAN ONE HUNDRED (100) ACRES TO BE PURCHASED BY THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY. Notwithstanding all other provisions of this Ordinance, of/ property constituting less than one hundred (100) acres for which the Town of Queensbury is under a valid, executed contract to purchase shall be exempt from all provisions of this Ordinance, including Subdivision Regulations. Such exemption shall expire if said contract is terminated prior to closing of title. This exemption shall not apply to those transactions which result in Seller's remaining adjacent property being violation of the relevant area and/or setback requirements of Section 4.020 of this Ordinance. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury may, from time to time, pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law of the State of New York, amend, supplement, change, modify or repeal the Zoning Ordinance by Ordinance, and WHEREAS, in order to so amend, supplement, change, modify or repeal the Ordinance, it is necessary to hold a public hearing prior to adopting the said proposed amendment, and 347 WHEREAS, it would appear necessary to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act in connection with conducting an environmental review of the proposed action which consists of adopting the proposed amendment, and WHEREAS, it would appear that the action about to be undertaken by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is on unlisted action, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates that it would desire to be the lead agency in connection with any reviews necessary pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall hold a public hearing, at which time all parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, upon and in reference to the proposed amendment, supplement, change and/or modification to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance which was adopted on October 1, 1988, and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED, that said public hearing shall be held on May 21, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Boy Road, Queensbury, New York, and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed to given 10 days notice of said public hearing by publishing a notice in a form to be approved by the Town Attorney for purposes of publication in on official newspaper of the Town and by posting on the Town bulletin board outside the Clerk's Office said notice, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Planner of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed to give written notice of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, a copy of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement and a copy of this resolution -- in accordance with the written notice previously described to be in a form approved by the Town Attorney, to be delivered 10 days prior to the following: Warren County, by service upon the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, and such other communities or agencies that it is necessary to give,written notice to pursuant to Section 264 of the Town Law of the State of New York, the zoning regulations of the Town of Queensbury and the Laws of the State of New York, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Planner of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of said proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, a copy of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement and a copy of this resolution and refer said documents and said copy to the Warren County Planning Agency and the Town of Queensbury Planning Board for their review in accordance with the laws of the State of New York and Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, and that copies of the Ordinance, this resolution and copies of the notices be given to said agencies unless said agencies already have copies of the some, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Planner of the Town of Queensbury is also hereby directed to give a copy of the proposed amendment, a copy of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement and a copy of this resolution to the Adirondack Park Agency in accordance with the lows, rules and regulations of the State of New York and the Adirondack Park Agency. Duly adopted this 7th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosako, Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CONCERNING 3�g QUAKER RIDGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT RESOLUTION NO. 279, 1990, Introduced by Betty.Monahan who, moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Montesi. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, by previous resolution, authorized and approved two (2) separate stipulations of settlement concerning on action brought by the New York State Deportment of Environmental Conservation, and on.oction brought by the Southern Adirondack Audobon Society, Inc., The Queensbury Association, and several other individuals and groups, and WHEREAS, on amendment to the settlement agreements has been presented to the said Town Board, and WHEREAS, the Town Attorney for the Town of Queensbury has reviewed the amendment to the settlement agreement with the Town Board, and has recommended approval of the some, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves of the amendments to both the settlement agreement between the New York State Deportment of Environmental Conservation, and the settlement agreement with Southern Adirondack Audubon Society, Inc., et al., and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the Town Attorney to execute the amendment to settlement agreements on behalf of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 7th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosoka, Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXTENSION TO EARL TOWN, PROJECT DEVELOPER OF QUAKER RIDGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT RESOLUTION NO. 280, 1990, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenza. WHEREAS, Earltown, as Project Development of Quaker Ridge, submitted o Planned Unit Development application dated March 6, 1987 to the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury established the said Town Board as lead agency for the Planned Unit Development Quaker Ridge Project, conducted on environmental review pursuont to SEQRA and subsequently adopted legislption approving and authorizing a Planned Unit Development for the Quaker Ridge Project on or about October 17, 1988 (Resolution No. 443 and Resolution No. 444 of 1989), and WHEREAS, in November 1988, subsequent to the approval of the Planned Unit Development, o CPLR Article 78 Proceeding was commenced against the Town of Queensbury and Eorltown, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury, Eorltown, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State Attorney General's Office and other parties to the litigation hove authorized and signed stipulations and settlements regarding the Quaker Ridge Project, and WHEREAS, within said stipulations, time frames exist for submittal by Eorltown of additional reports and documentation to the appropriate lead agency and involved agencies, and WHEREAS, these sequence of events do not coincide with the Planned Unit Development extension time frame, and WHEREAS, Eorltown Corporation has requested on extension of time in which to start development of the Planned Unit Development and the Town Board may, pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, Article 15, Planned Unit Development, grant on extension of the dote to commence development, 349 NOW, THLREFORE BE IT RESOL VED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury does hereby grant an extension to October 7, 1991 to Eorltown, Developer of Quaker Ridge, to commence construction of the Quaker Ridge Planned Unit Development. Duly adopted this 7th day of May, 7990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WRITTEN RESPONSE TO REPORT OF EXAMINATION OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY BY THE OFFICE OF STATE COMPTROLLER RESOLUTION NO. 281, 1990, Introduced by Marilyn Po ten zo who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Kurosoko. WHEREAS, the Office of State Comptroller of the State of New York has previously filed on or about January 2, 1990, with the Town of Queensbury, a report of examination of the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, X35 of the General Municipal Law provide that a written response may be prepared with respect to each finding a recommendation of the Office of State Comptroller, and WHEREAS, the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury has prepared a written response and the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has reviewed the some and is desirous of adopting, approving, and filing a response as allowed by low, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the written response to the report of examination of the Town of Queensbury by the Office of State Comptroller, a copy of the some being presented at this meeting, and the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to file the response with the Office of State Comptroller and to file the some with the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury as a public record for inspection by all interested persons. Duly adopted this 7th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE OF SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL ORDINANCE RESOLUTION NO. 282, 1990, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Kurosoko- WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is, by operation of Law, the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury and, as such, is authorized under Section 5.035 of the Sanitary Sewage Disposal Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury to issue variances to such Ordinance, and WHEREAS, Anne M. Parrott has applied to the Local Board of Health of the Town of Queensbury for a variance from certain standards of the Sewage Disposal Ordinance set forth in Section 3.050-5, such standard providing as follows: "Horizontal separation distances from wastewater sources, as provided for in Appendix A, Table 1, must be met. The separation distance required for holding tanks shall be the some as required for septic tonks," APPENDIX A TABLE I - HORIZONTAL SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM WASTEWATER SOURCES WASTEWATER SUCTION TO STREAM DWELLING WELL OR LAKE GEORGE SOURCES LINE(a) WATER PROPERTY AND TRIBS. COURSE(c) LINE n n u u n rr Seepage Pit " " " 750' 100' rr n n n n n and WHEREAS, Anne M. Parrott has indicated a desire to place a seepage pit 75' from a well and 90' from o water course rather than placing it at the mandated 750' and 100' respectively, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED, that the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on May 21, 1990 at 7:30 p.m., at the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, to consider the application for a variance of Anne M. Parrott to place a seepage pit 75' from a well and 90' from a water course on property situated off of Big Bay Road, Queensbury, New York, and bearing tax map no. : Section 144, Block 7, Lots 36 & 37, and, at that time, all persons interested in the subject thereof will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury be and is hereby directed and authorized, when in receipt of a list of neighbors within 500 feet of the subject property, to publish and provide Notice of Said Public Hearing as may be required by law, and authorized to mail copies of said Public Hearing as may be required by low, and authorized to mail copies of said Public Hearing Notice to the adjoining neighbors. Duly adopted this 7th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE OF SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL ORDINANCE RESOLUTION NO. 283, 1990, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Kurosoka. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is, by operation of Low, the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury, and as such, is authorized under Section 5.035 of the Sanitary Sewage Disposal Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, to issue variances to such Ordinance, and WHEREAS, the Susse Chalet has app lied to the Local Board of Health of the Town of Queensbury for a variance from certain standards of the Sewage Disposal Ordinance set forth in Section 3.030(B), such standard providing as follows: "No component of a leaching facility shall be located under driveways, roads, parking areas, or areas subject to heavy loading", and WHEREAS, the Susse Chalet has indicated a desire to place a component of a leaching facility under a paved parking area, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED, that the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on May 21 at 7:30 p.m., at the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, to consider the application for a variance of the Susse Chalet, to place a component of a leaching facility under a paved parking area on property situated off the west side of Big Boom Rood, Queensbury, New York, and bearing tax map no. of Section 135, Block 2, Lots 3. 7 and 3.2, and at that time all persons interested in the subject thereof, will be heard, and `35� BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury be and is hereby directed and authorized when in receipt of a list of neighbors within 500 feet of the subject property, to publish and provide Notice of said Public Hearing as may be required by law, and authorized to mail copies of said Public Hearing Notice to the adjoining neighbors. Duly adopted this 7th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE OF SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL ORDINANCE RESOLUTION NO. 284, 1990, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Kurosoko. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is, by operation of Law, the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury, and as such, is authorized under Section 5.025 of the Sanitary Sewage Disposal Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, to issue variances to such Ordinance, and WHEREAS, Anthony Russo has applied to the Local Board of Health of the Town of Queensbury for a variance from certain standards of the Sewage Disposal Ordinance set forth in Section 3.030(B), such standard providing as follows: "No component of a leaching facility sholl be located under driveways, roads, parking areas, or areas subject to heavy loading", and WHEREAS, Anthony Russo has indicated a desire to place a component of a leaching facility under a paved parking area, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED, that the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on May 21, 1990 at 7:30 p.m., at the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, to consider the application for a variance of Anthony Russo, to place a component of a leaching facility under a paved parking area on property situated on Route 9, Queensbury, New York, and bearing tax mop no.'s of Section 33, Block 1, Lot 9, and Section 33, Block 2, Lot 1.2, and at that time all persons interested in the subject thereof, will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury be and is hereby directed and authorized when in receipt of a list of neighbors within 500 feet of the subject property, to publish and provide Notice of said Public Hearing as may be required by law, and authorized to mail copies of said Public Hearing Notice to the adjoining neighbors. Duly adopted this 7th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None -- RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH BUSINESS DATA SERVICE RESOLUTION NO. 285, 1990, Introduced by Marilyn Potenzo who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Montesi. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of contracting with Business Data Service, of 27 Pinehurst Drive, Clifton Pork, New York, for purposes of developing on automated data base for the Department of Building and Codes, in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, a proposed Agreement with Business Data Service has been presented at this meeting, oqd WHEREAS, the Director of Building and Codes, Mr. David Hotin, has requested that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury approve and authorize this Contract, and WHEREAS, the Town Attorney for the Town of Queensbury has reviewed the Agreement and prepared on Addendum thereto, and has indicated that the Agreement is in acceptable legal form with the said Addendum attached, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the proposed Agreement presented to this meeting and hereby further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury to sign the some on behalf of the Town, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the amounts due under this Agreement shall be paid for from Account No. A2158010-203 (Computer Software), and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the amounts to be paid pursuant to the authorization of this Resolution shall not exceed $4,985.00 Duly adopted this 7th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None TOWN ATTORNEY noted the target dates; target start date, May 28th, 1990 and the target end date being September 28th, 1990. RESOLUTION TO INSTALL STREET LIGHTS RESOLUTION NO. 286, 1990, Introduced by George Kurosoko who moved for its adoption, — seconded by Ronald Montesi. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury may, from time to time, provide for the lighting of certain intersections of streets and highways in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Town Low Section 64 (79) and Highway Low Section 327, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury may contract for the lighting of said intersections when the Town Board deems it necessary it necessary for the safety or convenience of the public, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the following street lights be installed. 1) One (1)Sodium 150 Street Light - Corner of L UZER NE ROAD and PINE STREET - N.M. Pole #24 and N. Y.T. Pole #21; 2) One (7) Sodium 150 Street Light - Corner of RIDGE ROAD and BOULDER WOOD DRIVE - N.M. Pole # 7951 and N.Y.T. Pole #174; 3) One (1) Sodium 150 Street Light - Corner of UPPER SHERMAN AVENUE and OAK TREE CIRCLE - N.M. Pole #57 and N. Y.T. Pole #47-5; 4) One (7) Sodium 150 Street Light - Corner of UPPER SHERMAN AVENUE and ARBUTU. DRIVE - N.M. Pole #60 and N. Y.T. Pole #49-5; 5) One (1)Sodium 750 Street Light - Corner of UPPER SHERMAN AVENUE and L UPINE L A NE - N.M. Pole #63 and N. Y.T. Pole #5 l; 6) One (7)Sodium 750 Street Light - Corner of UPPER SHERMAN AVENUE and WIN TER GREEA LANE - N.M. Pole #65 and N. Y.T. Pole #52-5; and 7) One (7) Sodium 150 Street Light - Corner of UPPER SHERMAN AVENUE and HER ESFORD X53 L A NE - N.M. Pole #68 and N. Y.T. #54, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to make a// necessary arrangements for the purchase and installation of said lights, including the arranging for the competitive bidding for the purchase of said lights and installation thereof, if necessary, and enter into any contract upon such terms and at such time or period not to exceed ten (10) years, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if competitive bidding is not necessary, the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury shall make all arrangements through Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that payment for said lights shall be paid from the Street Lighting & Utilities Account, No.: A 3455182430. Duly adopted this 7th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosako, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REFUND OF ESCROW AMOUNTS PAID BY WEST MOUNTAIN VILLAGES FOR SEWER FEASIBILITY STUDY RESOLUTION NO. 287, 1990, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Kurosoka. WHEREAS, West Mountain Villages, Inc. has previously presented and received approval for — a Planned Unit Development, to be known as West Mountain Villages Development, and WHEREAS, West Mountain Villages, Inc. and the Town previously entered into an Agreement whereby a sewer feasibility study would be completed by Rist Frost Associates, P.C. and paid for by West Mountain Villages, Inc., pursuant to the establishment of on escrow fund, and WHEREAS, the parties are desirous of terminating further work on the sewer feasibility study at this time and authorizing a refund of any monies paid into the escrow account by West Mountain Villages, Inc., with the exception of any amounts currently due or to be due in the future to Rist Frost Associates, P.C., and WHEREAS, a proposed Agreement authorizing the withdrawal of monies from the escrow account and termination of the services of Rist Frost Associates, P.C. has been presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, a letter from Rist Frost Associates indicating the amount due has also been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its approval of the Agreement and hereby further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury to execute the Agreement on behalf of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, to arrange for the final payment of any bills that may be owed to the Rist Frost Associates, P.C. and to arrange for the complete refund of any monies due West Mountain Villages, Inc., and to take such other and further action as may be necessary to complete the terms of the Agreement reached between the parties. Duly adopted this 7th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosako, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None _5S4� Absent: None RESOLUTION REQUESTING LOWER SPEED LIMIT RESOLUTION NO. 288, 1990, Introduced by Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Montesi. RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor and the Town Clerk to request a lowering of speed limit on Glenwood Avenue between Bay Road and Quaker Road to a speed limit of 35 mph and the Board further authorizes and empowers the Supervisor and Town Clerk to sign any forms that are necessary and proceed with due diligence in acquiring the lower speed limit, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby directs that the Town Supervisor when filing the request make note of these two particular aspects of the road: 1. This road is near the Warren County Bike Path; 2. There is a complex of housing where many retired citizens live off Glenwood Avenue. Duly adopted this 7th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosako, Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None TOWN ATTORNEY spoke to Town Board regarding homeowner's situation on Wincomo Drive. After discussion, Board agreed that the Town Attorney relay to the attorney for the home owner, that the Town Board will not grant the offering of a permanent easement but will allow a license of some sort. COMMUNICATIONS Town Clerk - Monthly report - on file — Building & Codes - Monthly report - on file BID OPENING - Planning Department - 4x4 Utility Passenger Type Vehicle MALTBIE'S CHEVROLET, INC. 1991 Chevrolet S-10 $15,794.00 Route 9 Non-Collusive attached Lake George, New York (special offer - if ordered by May 14th 12845 the Town will receive a $1,000.00 rebate) RESOL UTION TO ACCEPT BID RESOLUTION NO. 289, 1990, 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 one (1) new 1990 Vehicle, Compact Size 4x4 utility passenger type vehicle (two door), and WHEREAS, the firm of Maltbie's Chevrolet, Inc., Route 9, Lake George, New York 12845, was the only bidder with a bid of $15,794.00 less $1,000.00 if delivered by July 9, 1990, for furnishing of said vehicle, namely one (1) 1991 Chevrolet S-10, Series Model CT 10516, complete as per specification, 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) new 1991 Chevrolet S-10, Model CT 10516, complete as per specifications to Maltbie's Chevrolet, Inc., and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the vehicle will be paid for from Account No. A2258020.202. 3S5- Duly adopted this 7th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosako, Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None ATTORNEY DUSEK-Noted to the Town Board that Clough/Harbour Associates offered to speak to the Board regarding the Landfill closure but that it was not mandatory. Board agreed that a written report would be acceptable. TOWN BOARD discussed Roy Irish and the Easy Street Water District. Board did not agree with Mr. Irish's request of 2,000.00 dollars for on amendment to the first report and create • second report. Board agreed that Councilman Montesi would contact Mr. Irish and request • lower figure. SUPERVISOR BORGOS spoke to the Town Board regarding the lease agreement for the property at 81 Glenwood Avenue, for the Town's Court Facilities. Town Board agreed to the following resolution. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING LEASE AGREEMENT SUBJECT TO PERMISSIVE REFERENDUM RESOLUTION NO. 290, 1990, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenza. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of leasing from Glenwood Properties a certain office building and real property located at 81 Glenwood Avenue, Queensbury, New York, to be used for a Courtroom Facility and offices for the Justice Court of the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, a proposed Lease, exhibits and Addendum thereto has been drafted and agreed to by Glenwood Properties and has also been reviewed by the Town Attorney for the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, said Lease sets forth the terms and conditions, including the amounts to be paid pursuant to the terms of said Lease, and WHEREAS, the said Lease also sets forth an option to purchase the property to be leased and.an adjoining parcel, and WHEREAS, the Town Attorney for the Town of Queensbury has reviewed the Lease and Addendum and Exhibits and has rendered on opinion concerning the Lease to the Town Board, and WHEREAS, Section 220 of the Town Low of the State of New York provides the authority by which the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury may lease the aforementioned property, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury subject to the permissive referendum requirement of the Town Law of the State of New York hereby approves of the proposed Lease and hereby agrees to the terms of payment set forth therein, and further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the agreement, oddendums, and counterparts thereof, and place the seal of the Town of Queensbury on the some and to sign any other memorandums of the lease or other documents necessary or desired or allowed to be filed and to take such other actions that may be allowed or provided for pursuant to the terms of the lease and to generally act on behalf of and represent the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury in the construction to occur as part of the lease and all other matters provided for under the lease including the furnishing of any notices or other written reports required or permitted thereunder, and finally to direct and arrange for the movement of the court facilities and offices to the building and property to be leased at such times as he in his good discretion shall deem appropriate, and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby determines that all payments to be made pursuant to the terms of the Lease shall be paid for from the Miscellaneous Contractual Account, No.: A-0351110440, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor shall give a copy of the aforesaid lease, when complete, to the Town Clerk to be filed with this resolution made available to the general public, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall be subject to a permissive referendum in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 220 of the Town Law of the State of New York, and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED, that a copy of this Resolution shall be posted and published by the Town Clerk in accordance with Article 7 of the Town Law and shall serve notice of the opportunity for a permissive referendum on this subject. Duly adopted this 7th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosako, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 291, 1990, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenzo. RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby enter into Executive Session to discuss Personnel and Land Acquisition after the Audit of Bills. Duly adopted this 7th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosako, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS RESOLUTION NO. 292, 1990, Introduced by Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenzo. RESOLVED, that the Audit of Bills appearing on abstract May 7th, numbering 90-1238, 90-1912 through 90-2219 and totalling $213,017.54 be and is hereby approved. Duly adopted this 7th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosako, Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None No further action was taken. On motion, the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK TOWN OF QUEENSBUR Y